Miller Misrepresents Behe Again
by MikeGeneKen Miller's presentation has been archived.
The presentation began with an invitation for a "blessing." Rev. George Murphy led the prayer, saying, "we pray that we would be guided to have your wisdom and your insight so we can consider these issues with humility, but also with the knowledge that you want us to see the truth."
Ken Miller then took the stage, thanking Rev. Murphy for the "wonderful prayer which I was very pleased to join in."
I'd like to draw your attention to his commentary 28 minutes into the talk.
Miller presents a cartoon equating the teaching of intelligent design with things like phrenology, astrology, and alchemy. He then says:
Nobody really wants these things in the science classroom. And y'know what? Until the Dover trial, I would have thought that too. But a funny thing happened at the Dover trial.
Notice how Miller has set things up. He first says that nobody really WANTS things like astrology taught in the science classroom. But he has since changed his mind because of the Dover trial, meaning that someone at the trial must have WANTed something like astrology taught in the science classroom, right? Really? Just who could he be talking about?
Miller, who has a history of misrepresenting Michael Behe, will once again misrepresent Behe.
Miller says to his audience, "Dr. Behe admitted his definition of theory was so broad it would have also included astrology."
At this point, Miller is relying the NewScientist.com report that I have critically analyzed before. I trust that most readers will find my approach to this issue to be more sophisticated than the one Miller advocates and that Michael Behe's point is vindicated.
But let's get to the really troubing point. Miller goes out of his way to emphasize this point to this audience:
I should point out that this was not an accidental statement by Dr. Behe. He said it in his deposition. Then he said it in trial. The attorney asked him again, "Are you sure you really mean that?" and he went on and said yes and thought astrology had made some very fundamental contributions to science.
When I first watched this, Miller left me with the impression that Behe was somehow advocating for astrology. Remember he began this all by implying someone WANTS to have astrology taught in the schools. And here he makes it look like Behe twice, independently came out arguing for astrology. But when "he said it in trial," he did so because the lawyer went back to the deposition and asked questions. When he "said it in his deposition," it was again part of an answer to a question the lawyers carefully crafted. In other words, Miller makes it look like Behe wants astrology taught and came out swinging for it as a theory not once, but twice. Miller does not provide the context that Behe provided, nor the context of being questioned by a lawyer. According to Miller, Behe just "said it."
It gets much worse. Miller has Behe being asked, "Are you sure?" Well, here are the transcripts from that moment. Use the "Find" function and type in "Are you sure." Result? Nothing. Is Miller poised to enter the world of ParaSpinning? Yes. For pay close attention to the invented answer that Miller will now put in Behe's mouth: "and he went on and said yes and thought astrology had made some very fundamental contributions to science."
I can't find this statement in the transcript. Remember, Behe was supposedly "went on" to say this during the trial in response to the question from the lawyer.
So here's my problem. The critics on this blog have made it very clear that they insist on a black-and-white world where think they stand on the moral high ground as they constantly accuse IDists of lying. Information Project Director of the NCSE tells us he interprets misquotes as lies. But it sure looks to me like Dr. Ken Miller seriously misquoted Michael Behe in front of a large academic audience.
It surely looks to me that the man who joined in with a prayer that asks God to guide us to the truth was playing very loosely with the facts while telling a slippery story designed to frighten his audience and slime Behe. Miller's account seems to have more in common with an urban legend* that is told around the campsite fire late at night than it does with an academic presentation. Can someone tell me why my impression is false?
*The legend has already begun to take off - here.
[HT to RogerRabbit for first noticing this example of misrepresentation.]
January 5th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
I quoted a section from David C. Lindberg's "The Beginnings of Western Science" on my blog a while ago that dealt with astrology. Lindberg is, of course, a historian of science and his book is used quite often in introductory courses on the topic. After you read it, notice that everything Behe says about astrology agrees with what Lindberg says. Behe said,
Also not that the objections to astrology at the time were mostly for philosophical/religious reasons, not empirical reasons. This is something that Miller, in his presentation, explicitly pointed out that we shouldn't do.
Comment by macht — January 5, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
"Also not that …" = "Also note that …"
Comment by macht — January 5, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Mike, you are really reaching with some of your comments. I pulled this one out as an example. Behe, after saying that astrology would fit the definition of scientific theory under his definition, was asked a second time:
That question is fundamentally the same as asking "Are you sure?" He is being asked to confirm for the court what he just said. Complaining that Behe is being misrepresented there is quite a stretch.
Comment by TP — January 5, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
TP,
If you read my blog, I used this to argue that Miller was poised to ParaSpin. Would you like to address what follows?
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Then what was the point of writing the following?
It looks to me like you were doing a bit of paraspinning yourself by leaving the implication that this exchange didn't actually happen.
As for Miller's comments, I would agree that Behe did not say that astrology had made fundamental contributions to science. He did say something to the effect that astronomy and astrology were closely linked in the early days of astrology (paraphrasing).
I also agree that Behe did not advocate astrology. But he did offer a definition of scientific theory that would have made astrology just as much of a scientific theory as ID. He confirmed this multiple times in questioning. But I agree that this is different than advocating astrology. You are just opening the door for it.
Comment by TP — January 5, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
"You are just opening the door for it."
Is that a problem?
Comment by macht — January 5, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Opening the door for teaching astrology in science class? I would hope that would be a problem for most people.
Comment by TP — January 5, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
TP:
It showed we were about to enter the land of paraphrase (remember, Miller was telling a story where just prior, he said "Behe said""¦"Behe said.")
No, I actually took the time to transcribe Miller's actual comments "“ I didn't paraphrase. You can't paraspin without first paraphrasing.
Sure. See Macht's comment (and blog) above.
I discussed this here.
I have long noted that I do not think there is an ID theory. But tell me, do you think students can learn/hear about scientific hypotheses in the classroom? Or are only theories (the NAS version of theory, that is) allowed?
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
"I would hope that would be a problem for most people."
Why should it be a problem if the "door is open" for the teaching of astrology in science class? By "door is open" I assume you mean "not banned outright before at least looking at the strength of the theory."
Comment by macht — January 5, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
I don't know how on earth you would choose which hypotheses to present. There are many. I suppose if a hypothesis is supported by experimental evidence, then that's probably OK. But again, there are probably a dozen or more hypotheses for every theory. Is there really time present all of that in a science class?
Primarily because it isn't science. If someone wishes to demonstrate the scientific validity of astrology, then they should be making predictions, doing experiments, and proposing falsification tests. The scientific validity must be demonstrated. After this gets hashed out in the scientific community and survives the challenges, then it could be presented as science.
Comment by TP — January 5, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
TP:
That can be the teacher's job. They read about a hypothesis in Science News, for example, and decide to have the class explore it. Or consider the fact that there is no Theory of Abiogenesis. Can teachers teach various hypotheses about the OOL in the science classroom?
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
You seem to be misunderstanding what Behe is saying (and indeed what most people mean when they say something is "scientific"). At the point in question in the transcript (where he is talking about astrology), he isn't saying anything about the validity (i.e., whether it is true, whether there is good evidence for it, whether it has been tested, etc) of either astrology (or ID). He's talking about whether it qualifies as science or not (whether it is "good science" or "bad science" or "science that is no longer accepted" is a different question). So the only way Behe has "opened the door" is that he hasn't banned outright the idea of astrology from having a shot at being called "good science." A "closed door" would mean that no matter how much evidence and arguments there are in favor of astrology, it still couldn't be taught in science class because, well, … the door is closed.
Newtonian physics, for example, is "science that is no longer accepted." (This, of course, doesn't stop teachers from teaching it in school - but that's a different topic.) It's still scientific, though, as are all the scientific theories that are no longer accepted. I believe it is in this sense that Behe was saying that astrology is a scientific theory.
Comment by macht — January 5, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
I understand exactly what he was saying. In context, and if you read the entire exchange, he said that he has had to redefine the definition of scientific theory in order to admit ID (and thus astrology). He admitted that his definition of theory is more like the standard definition of hypothesis.
I don't think OOL ideas should be covered at all in a high school classroom. There are a lot of ideas out there, but insufficient evidence to strongly favor a particular one.
Comment by TP — January 5, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Behe never said that he has had to redefine the definition of scientific theory. In fact, he's using the term "scientific theory" in a way that many scientists use the term (e.g., "string theory"). What he said is that his definition of theory is "broader" than that of the NAS. And the reason he does this is "to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community." And he's absolutely correct about that point.
Comment by macht — January 5, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Perhaps Behe thinks that 'astrological forces' are the intelligent designer -molding the first living watchamthingys into existence and then intervening at regular intervals (eyes, immune system, knee joints?)- doesn't sound that much more ridiculous than regular ID, does it?
Think about it. This determines the 'designer' to be at least somewhat natural in causation, and removes any any of religious motivations from the playing field.
Astrological Design -because reading your Horoscope is more exciting than doing actual science.
Comment by BoZ3MaN — January 5, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Boz,
Is that all you have to add to this discussion? That Behe "thinks astrological forces are the intelligent designer" You must be another critic who can't get past the paraspinning and misrepresentations. Okay… but couldn't you possibly offer anything more?
Comment by Dane Parker — January 5, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
TP:
Wow. I don't see any problem with teaching OOL hypotheses in high school. You mean after almost 60 years of global scientific research into this problem, we still don't have anything appropriate for the classroom?
As an aside, do you think this type of funding strategy would have an effect on the nature of OOL research? -
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
I would tend to agree with macht here. I think Behe's just pointing out the broadened sense of a theory.
Comment by Dane Parker — January 5, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Keep in mind that there is no One True Definition of "˜theory' in science. In addition to the NAS version of the definition, the scientific literature is full of instances where "theory" is synonymous with "approach," "hypothesis," "model," and "argument."
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Dane,
Here's the relevant transcript:
Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?
A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.
Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.
A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.
Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?
A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
A Partly — it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
TP:
He had to "redefine" it? Can you tell us who originally defined it? When did they define it?
Is that why you are opposed to teaching scientific hypotheses in the classroom? Because if we teach a scientific hypothesis in the classroom, it opens the door to astrology?
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
I have always believed OOL research to be interesting, but never capable of providing a definitive solution to OOL. In my opinion, even if life did originate completely naturally, we will never know how it happened. We may only have some general ideas about how it might have happened based on our understanding of the chemistry involved, and I don't think this is appropriate for a high school science classroom.
This is very, very different from the Theory of Evolution. We have a very good understanding of the mechanism there. That's one thing that has always annoyed me about this debate, and you saw it in Dover. You see it in the commentaries from the Right. You see claims like "The Theory of Evolution tries to tell us how life originated". The people trying to push ID into the classrooms tend not to understand the difference between OOL and ToE.
Comment by TP — January 5, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Looks like somebody's not too happy with the new theory on the block. Just because Astrological Design (AD) is a fledgling scientific endeavor and just happens to explain more about the origin of life than ID doesn't mean you have to denigrate it at every opportunity.
AD is here to stay and is set to touchdown at a School Board near you soon!
***
The Astrological Research Society Enterprise (ARSE) is currently looking for Senior Fellows. Please stay tuned for contact details and further information.
***
Comment by BoZ3MaN — January 5, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
He uses the term as it is used in a colloquial sense in order to call ID a theory. You do see that a lot in science: "I have a theory about X". But what they really mean is "I have a hypothesis about X". But when we say the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Gravity, this has a very specific meaning as used by the scientific community.
Not specifically astrology, but junk science and pseudoscience of all stripes. Science can be hard enough for kids to understand. Imagine if we started wasting time in science classes on such "˜hypotheses' as astrology, or the hypothesis that disease is caused by demon possession. How about the hypothesis that the earth is flat? How about the hypothesis that the earth is the center of the universe? You should get the picture. Science class, especially at the high school level, should be restricted to ideas that have proven themselves through extensive testing, and not just someone's pet "˜theory'.
Comment by TP — January 5, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
TP:
Good points (although I do think it appropriate for students to discuss OOL hypotheses). As an ID evolutionist, my views come into the greatest conflict with mainstream opinion about the OOL.
There is indeed a difference between the OOL and ToE. But some of the confusion comes from the scientific community. The term "˜chemical evolution' is still out there. And many use the success of the ToE as a promissory note for the OOL, giving the impression that evidence for the ToE somehow extrapolates to the OOL, making it more plausible.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 11:15 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
It's often more than just "I have a theory about X." Did you read my blog where I spent a few minutes on PubMed?
It's not really convincing to argue that they "really mean" something else when so many don't seem to have any problem using the term "˜theory' in way that is very different from some "official" version that is unsourced.
Sure, and I read this as THEORY OF EVOLUTION and not THEORY of evolution. It's a package deal, where we are communicating the sum total of a consensus view after a long investigation (although if you ask people to define the Theory of Evolution, you tend to get many different definitions "“ but that's another topic).
Look at it this way. If you say the term "˜theory' has a very specific meaning as used by the scientific community, then you need to support this claim in a scientific manner.
1. Provide evidence that the scientific community uses the term "˜theory' only in a specific manner.
2. Provide the source that originally defined the specific meaning.
3. Provide the evidence that the scientific community hashed out this proposed definition and then reached a consensus.
As I said before, I have long denied the existence of any "ID theory", so I have no vested interest in this debate. All I see are people, on both sides, playing politics with words.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
MikeGene: "There is indeed a difference between the OOL and ToE."
I agree.
But why is it that when someone puts forward a design argument, very often the first question from neo-Darwinists is "Who designed the designer?"…yet when the same neo-Darwinists put forward ToE and they face the analogous question "How did the first living thing arise?", this question is peremptorily brushed to one side with declarations of the difference between OOL and ToE?
Comment by Omar — January 5, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Boz:
Nice try, but me thinks the FSM has cornered this market.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Omar,
Good point. Just as one can focus on the ToE without bothering about abiogenesis, one can focus on design without worrying about where the designer came from.
Comment by MikeGene — January 5, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
TP,
*suckup* Please give me your snail mail so that I can send you a $20 check for brightening my day. */suckup*
Comment by skiddum — January 5, 2006 @ 11:53 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Omar said:
Any design argument, by implication, requires an explanation of the alleged designer. All the fields of practice or study (Forensics, Archeology, SETI etc.) that the ID crew so love to invoke in support, all have something to say, however flimsy, regarding the motives, methods and other properties of the supposed perpetrator/s of whatever act/object is being investigated.
ID can attack abiogenesis if it wants, and so often does in conflating it with ToE, but the results should be the same as in Dover, for similar reasons. The ID brigade seems to love to make it sound like the OoL is some huge problem for accepted science, when the reality is that their alternative -Godidit- is just not scientific at all.
Comment by BoZ3MaN — January 6, 2006 @ 12:23 am
January 6th, 2006 at 12:39 am
Because the problem here is different. Any design inference you use to determine that life is designed is also going to say that the designer, who will be a more complex entity without a doubt, was also designed. The Theory of Evolution is a theory of descent with modification. It operates the same if life originated naturally or not. A design inference can be turned on the designer to determine if there is an infinite regress. If so, there is a problem with the inference.
Comment by TP — January 6, 2006 @ 12:39 am
January 6th, 2006 at 12:42 am
If you are referring to my comments about OOL, don't get me wrong. I believe that life originated naturally. There will just never be a way to conclusively demonstrate this, nor how it happened (if it did). That's one reason I never debate abiogenesis with anyone. If someone wishes to believe that life had a divine origin, I don't have a problem with that opinion.
Comment by TP — January 6, 2006 @ 12:42 am
January 6th, 2006 at 12:48 am
The scientific community is capable of misusing the word just like anyone else. But when someone says about evolution "it's just a theory", or when they compare the Theory of Evolution to the "Theory" of Intelligent Design, they are misusing the word.
Here are some definitions that I think explain the differences pretty well:
Under these definitions, we would say that the Theory of Evolution is a true scientific theory, and ID is a hypothesis. The two should not be confused. Ideas around OOL are hypotheses.
Comment by TP — January 6, 2006 @ 12:48 am
January 6th, 2006 at 1:14 am
TP:
Are you saying the word was being misused in those articles I found?
I would agree that when someone says about evolution "it's just a theory," this is misuse. The "it's just a" implies the theory is tantamount to someone's speculation. Neither should one hold up the "Theory of Intelligent Design" with the "Theory of Evolution," as this clearly implies that are roughly equivalent.
I understand the definitions, TP. That's the main reason I have always refrained from describing my views as some theory. But a search through PubMed shows that the nice, clean definition of "˜theory' you provide is simply not embraced by a large part of the scientific community. That's a fact about our world. You don't settle the issue like a philosopher, employing idealistic definitions (especially when no one can tell me who first came up with this definition). You settle the issue like a scientist and determine how scientists actually use the term "˜theory' out there in the real world.
Comment by MikeGene — January 6, 2006 @ 1:14 am
January 6th, 2006 at 2:30 am
Gotta love the ID guys
They have an idea - ID - that has no coherent definition, has no testable hypotheses, makes no predictions, does no research so produces no results, has no evidence beyond personal incredulity, can't be falsified…
but they sure can whip those evil atheist scientists when it comes to nitpicking semantic points!
Comment by tika — January 6, 2006 @ 2:30 am
January 6th, 2006 at 2:44 am
Hi Mike,
"The term "˜chemical evolution' is still out there. And many use the success of the ToE as a promissory note for the OOL, giving the impression that evidence for the ToE somehow extrapolates to the OOL, making it more plausible."
Don't forget the fact that many textbooks on evolutionary biology discusses the origin of life, withouth making it clear that it has nothing to do with evolution. For example, Colin Patterson's Evolution, which AFAIK is suitable for high school, has a chapter on abiogenesis, saying something along the lines of "This book wouldn't be complete without a short survey of the origin of life."
Also, TP forgot to answer your question about OoL funding.
Comment by Krauze — January 6, 2006 @ 2:44 am
January 6th, 2006 at 7:06 am
tika,
"They have an idea - ID - that has no coherent definition, has no testable hypotheses, makes no predictions, does no research so produces no results, has no evidence beyond personal incredulity, can't be falsified"¦."
Okay, let's suppose I grant this about ID. Now, let's play with the various Darwinian types of Evolution. What is the "COHERENT definition" of "fitness" What are the "TESTABLE hypotheses" of Common Descent? What are the specific "PREDICTIONS" which Evolution makes? What "RESEARCH" has Evolution produced which does not amount to more than scientifically-worded "just-so stories" What "EVIDENCE" supports Common Descent other than "personal credulity" regarding how it MIGHT have happened?
If you're going to play the game, tika, try playing fair.
Comment by Douglas — January 6, 2006 @ 7:06 am
January 6th, 2006 at 9:09 am
TP sez:
The people trying to push ID into the classrooms tend not to understand the difference between OOL and ToE.
Actually they understand that if life did not arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process (unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented)) then there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely to blind watchmaker-type processes.
Boz sez:
Any design argument, by implication, requires an explanation of the alleged designer.
That is false. REality demonstrates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer is by studying the design.
ID is about first detecting and then understanding the design.
It is totally unreasonable and illogical to say NDE can remain separate from abiogenesis but ID cannot remain separate from the designer.
How does knowing the Wright brothers help us understand airplanes? How does knowing them help us predict what they would have designed next?
A good article on ID:
Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions
Comment by Joe G — January 6, 2006 @ 9:09 am
January 6th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
There are many claims made by evolutionists that do not fall under the above definition. That includes just about everything they claim except for minor variations.
IOW if the schools just taught what was described under the above definition we most likely wouldn't be having this debate.
Comment by Joe G — January 6, 2006 @ 9:14 am
January 6th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Who designed the designer
It should also be noted that both intelligence and design are natural…
Comment by Joe G — January 6, 2006 @ 9:40 am
January 6th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Tika:
You are the only one who has brought up "evil atheist scientists."
As for nitpicking semantic points, we must remember that many ID critics are awfully quick to turn a misquote into a lie. So tell me Tika, did Miller misquote Behe?
Comment by MikeGene — January 6, 2006 @ 10:05 am
January 6th, 2006 at 11:31 am
This is exactly the point I am trying to make. My impression from reading the trial transcripts is that this is what Behe attempted to do.
It wasn't clear to me what he was asking. As for as OOL funding, I think it is a legitimate area of inquiry. I have no more problems funding OOL research than I would have had funding Origin of Lightning research when some folks still attributed that to the gods. This is what science is all about. It doesn't matter that some people think it is a waste of money to fund such research. That is the nature of a lot of research. We don't know whether we will find the answers until we look. But, as I have said, I think all this sort of research can end up suggesting is "It could have happened this way". Short of someone inventing a time machine, we will never know for certain.
Perhaps some scientific illiterates might think this. However, since the mechanisms would be completely different (chemical reactions versus descent with copying errors) then there is no reason to relate the two (outside of ignorance, willful or otherwise). As I have suggested before, Newton's ideas on gravity were not predicated on him being able to explain where matter came from. Matter exists, and the Theory of Gravity explains interactions between matter. Likewise, life exists, and the Theory of Evolution explains how life changes over the generations. I suspect there is a very good reason that Mike Gene calls himself an ID evolutionist and Mike Behe accepts common descent. Despite your protests to the contrary, the evidence for evolution is very strong, and they understand that.
Again, just because you are unfamiliar with the evidence, don't assume everyone else is. Ask Mike Gene why he considers himself to be an ID evolutionist. Based on your posts, I believe that you simply do not understand what evidence there actually is, and you don't understand what statements like "an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers" actually mean.
That in no way answers my comments. My problem with any kind of design inference is that if you use the inference on the designer, it is going to conclude that he is designed. That's why "who designed the designer?" is a legitimate question. I can't help that you don't want to address it, or would rather hand wave it away. The fact is that if you have an inference that suggests the designer was designed, then it seems to me that you have a problem with the inference. This isn't much different than "˜turtles all the way down'.
Specific predictions? There are quite a few, starting with Darwin. He predicted that there had to be some way for variation to accumulate from generation to generation. He didn't know what the mechanism was, but for his theory to work there had to be one. A hundred years later and the prediction was verified with the discovery of DNA and mutations. Darwin also predicted that candidate ancestors for man would be found in Africa. That's where the majority have been found. Whale transitionals were predicted before they were found, in the strata that they were predicted to be found in. ID would have no reason at all to suspect that these creatures had existed, but the ToE predicted them, and subsequently found them. Shall I go on? I can make lots of specific predictions regarding DNA of creatures that we believe had recent common ancestors. Evolution deniers can only accommodate the findings with "a common designer might have done it that way". Evolution predicts that we will never find whales in the Cambrian. What does Creationism or evolution deniers (I won't say "ID" here, since many ID advocates accept common descent) have to say about that? There is no reason under these paradigms that whales might not be found anywhere in the geological strata. Evolution makes many very specific predictions about what we will and won't find in various strata.
Comment by TP — January 6, 2006 @ 11:31 am
January 6th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Joe G: There are many claims made by evolutionists that do not fall under the above definition. That includes just about everything they claim except for minor variations.
TP opines:
Again, just because you are unfamiliar with the evidence, don't assume everyone else is.
Fortunately for me I am very familiar with the evidence.
TP:
Ask Mike Gene why he considers himself to be an ID evolutionist.
LoL
TP:
Based on your posts, I believe that you simply do not understand what evidence there actually is, and you don't understand what statements like "an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers" actually mean.
No one cares what you believe- perhaps you do. However I do understand what a theory is.
Joe G: Who designed the designer
It should also be noted that both intelligence and design are natural"¦
TP:
That in no way answers my comments.
Did you read the link or did you ignore it?
TP:
My problem with any kind of design inference is that if you use the inference on the designer, it is going to conclude that he is designed. That's why "who designed the designer?" is a legitimate question.
So ifsince we determined Stonehenge was designed that means we have to ask "who designed the designers of Stonehenge?" That doesn't make sense. Why can't we just rely on what we know about what unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes can/ can't do versus what we know that intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes can/ can't do?
TP:
I can't help that you don't want to address it, or would rather hand wave it away.
I just understand that it is irrelevant to whether or not something was designed and can we come to understand that design.
If you applied your "logic" to the anti-ID position it would be obvious that either both are rejected from science or both must be accepted.
Comment by Joe G — January 6, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
So you are just feigning ignorance? This is your typical vacuous reply. Adults are discussing the issues now. If you don't have anything to say, it really isn't necessary for you to respond. If you wish to say something, then think over what you want to say, and use the space to say something worth responding to.
Devastating rebuttal. Simply devastating. Again, Joe, let the grownups here discuss the scientific issues. "LoL" somewhere other than in a response to me. If you can come up with something better than "LoL", or "I know what I am talking about", get back to me. I would rather spend my time engaging someone capable of participating in a scientific discussion.
As I was saying"¦.
I read it. Did you? Why do you think I said that it didn't address my objection (which you seem not to understand)?
It doesn't make sense because you don't understand the problem. Let's try again. Let's presume you have a design inference that you say suggests that life is designed. I want to know how good this inference actually is. I want to test it. So, I apply it to the designer. Conclusion: Designer also designed. My conclusion: That design inference is useless. Now do you get it? I don't have to care about the nature of the designer. I am trying to test your inference method by applying it to the designer. Since it suggests an infinite regress, it is worthless. The Stonehenge reference is inappropriate, since the methods you used to determine that Stonehenge is designed would not tell you that the designers of Stonehenge were designed.
Comment by TP — January 6, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Joe G: Fortunately for me I am very familiar with the evidence.
TP :
So you are just feigning ignorance?
You know what you can do with your false accusations. I will put my knowledge of the theory of evolution up against yours any day.
TP sez:
Let's presume you have a design inference that you say suggests that life is designed. I want to know how good this inference actually is. I want to test it. So, I apply it to the designer.
That's a stupid way to test something. How can you apply it to the designer unless you can observe and study the designer?
It is obvious that any and all criticisms you have of me are based on ignorance coupled with stupidity.
BTW if grownups are discussing something then you had better sit down and keep it shut.
Comment by Joe G — January 6, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Another article refuting TP's nonsense
I missed this gem:
TP:
The Stonehenge reference is inappropriate, since the methods you used to determine that Stonehenge is designed would not tell you that the designers of Stonehenge were designed.
The same methods that are used to determine life was designed would not tell us the designer of life was designed. IOW it looks like TP's "logic" is inappropriate.
Comment by Joe G — January 6, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Challenge accepted. Where do you want to do it? I would like to start off with the evidence indicating human/chimpanzee common descent. Deal? But I hope you have learned a great deal since the last time you tried to discuss human/chimp common ancestry. Your ignorance got exposed in a hurry.
Because we know that the designer was obviously capable of design on a grand, grand scale. Show me any design inference, just 1, that is not going to conclude that a being capable of throwing together a universe and subsequently life is not designed. I mean, are you kidding me? Life is designed, because, you know, it is really complex and stuff and we aren't sure how it got started. But the designer who designed the life? Ah, probably not complex enough to be designed.
You see how long it takes Joe to lose his cool? Telling me now to "˜sit down and keep it shut'? You see, Joe, when you make statements like this, people are going to have a very, very hard time believing you when you claim you never threatened anyone. You certainly seem to have the temperament for such behavior.
Let's see about that. Give me an inference used to determine that we are here by design, and let's assume that at a minimum this designer is at least as complex as us.
What's that sound? Crickets"¦..
Comment by TP — January 6, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
TP,
"Specific predictions? There are quite a few, starting with Darwin."
Evolution predicted Darwin? Wow, it's more flexible and all-encompassing than I thought.
"He predicted that there had to be some way for variation to accumulate from generation to generation."
I feel strangely compelled to quote the unofficial ID motto (coined by someone else, and nominated by myself): "Well, duh…". Hey, I could have predicted something like that, way back in Bible days, by noting CHILDREN. I simply wouldn't have extrapolated to the degree that Darwin did.
"He didn't know what the mechanism was, but for his theory to work there had to be one."
He didn't know what the mechanism was. Really? Why is it, then, that so many ID Critics assail ID for not suggesting a "mechanism", and acting as though this is some fatal flaw for the theory?
"A hundred years later and the prediction was verified with the discovery of DNA and mutations."
Prior to that, everyone suspected that children came from delivery pelicans, I'm sure.
"Darwin also predicted that candidate ancestors for man would be found in Africa."
Looking around, he noticed that the animals closest in appearance to humans were apes, and then his piercing intellect noticed that apes lived in Africa. Quite the scientist, Darwin.
"That's where the majority have been found."
There have been NO human/ape transitionals, or common ancestors, found. All that have been found are either human, or ape, skulls or skeletons. Or should we digress into a discussion of Neanderthal Man?
"Whale transitionals were predicted before they were found, in the strata that they were predicted to be found in."
There have been NO whale transitionals found. Highly debatable, suspect and incomplete, finds have been trumpeted as transitionals, but I've seen what passes for transitionals, and they don't.
"ID would have no reason at all to suspect that these creatures had existed, but the ToE predicted them, and subsequently found them."
Cases of "believing is seeing", I'd say.
"Shall I go on?"
No need. I see where you're going, and I've already been there and found nothing to compel me to stay.
"I can make lots of specific predictions regarding DNA of creatures that we believe had recent common ancestors. Evolution deniers can only accommodate the findings with 'a common designer might have done it that way'."
No, IDists would say that a common designer will often use COMMON DESIGNS, and that similar structures will have similar DNA. Pretty simple.
"Evolution predicts that we will never find whales in the Cambrian."
Really? Suppose a whale was found in the Cambrian. Would that REALLY falsify Evolution? Or might Evolution just exhale a bit, then proclaim, "Hey, who knew whales had evolved so early? Isn't Evolution amazing?"
"What does Creationism or evolution deniers (I won't say 'ID' here, since many ID advocates accept common descent) have to say about that?"
Creationism would say that there are NO "transitionals" between kinds, at all. Creationism would say that there are NO "whale transitionals", and would say that all living creatures were created fully formed, and that this is what the fossil record would reflect. Lo and behold, that is what the fossil record reflects.
"There is no reason under these paradigms that whales might not be found anywhere in the geological strata."
It seems to me I was reading somewhere that "geological strata" are often subjectively determined, and that this determination often is made based on the prevailing paradigm of Evolution.
"Evolution makes many very specific predictions about what we will and won't find in various strata."
I have also read that there are various other reasonable explanations for such things, and that these explanation are consistent with Creationism. Something to the effect of considering the mobility, size, shape, and location of a species.
Comment by Douglas — January 6, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
"explanationS"
Comment by Douglas — January 6, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Umm, no. Not children. Some way of modifying children until after a number of generations they are no longer the same species. Just producing children generation after generation will not accomplish this. There had to be some mechanism of variation. This mechanism that Darwin speculated on over 100 years before it was discovered was mutations to DNA.
Well, we certainly know more about genetics than we did in Darwin's time. Do you think you can come up with a mechanism in say, the next 100 years or so?
That strawman is yours.
That's where you are wrong. I will prove it to you. Tell me what a human/ape transitional should look like, and then tell me what strata they would be expected to be found it (if the Theory of Evolution is true). Once you do this, you will see that what you describe has been found, in the strata they should have been found in.
Second, since you are so sure of yourself, look at the following and tell me which are human and which are ape, and how you made that determination:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...
Also note that the Creationists can't make up their minds which are humans and which are apes. Be sure to write them with your conclusions!
If you like. Were you under the impression that we believe that Neanderthal is a transitional. He is believed to be an offshoot, or a branch. Based on DNA samples that have been gathered, it is known that he is not man's direct ancestor. If you would like to discuss it more, we can. But a much more compelling candidate (one of then) is Australopithecus.
Again, 2 questions before we start discussing them. What should they look like, and where should we find them if such transitionals do exist? Don't you find it a bit ironic that the characteristics and strata locations of the fossils were described before they were ever discovered? That's why this is a fulfilled prediction.
That's probably because nobody has ever actually forced you to confront the evidence. If you choose to engage me, I will.
But you can't possibly comprehend what a designer capable of designing a universe would do. He could do it any way he wanted. To suggest you have an idea of how he might have done it is the height of arrogance.
You really don't appreciate what you are saying. Whales in the Cambrian? No evolutionist would proclaim "who knew whales had evolved so early". You are talking about whales before any mammals ever evolved. Finding a whale in the Cambrian would be turn the Theory of Evolution on its head. It simply would not be explainable.
If you are under the impression that transitionals are not "˜fully formed', then we have a lot of work to do here.
It seems to me that unless you have some support for this, I will reject as probably due to poor memory on your part.
Show me. I will show you how fast I will demolish this model based on "mobility, size, shape, and location". I will show you many reasons that this model can't work.
Your move. The main thing I want you to do is to describe what a transitional should look like if evolution is true.
Comment by TP — January 6, 2006 @ 9:07 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Joe G said:
It's true. The 'purposeful' design that ID invokes requires that the designer had to have the foresight to know how the design would function when assembled. This immediately tells you that the design was 'purposeful' and that the designer had a purpose for the design in mind. Therefore, a characteristic of the alleged ID designer/s is that he/she/it/they had the foresight to construct a purposeful arrangement of parts in oder to achieve a predetermined function.
Well you half seem to be agreeing with me here (in that you can infer something about an alleged designer by studying the design in question). But, in any event, go ahead; study the design and return with something solid about the designer.
Whoopee! Now that's deep. I detect limited understanding on your part.
It's inconsequential for your argument that NDE is considered separate from abiogenesis because there is nothing to stop you from attacking abiogenesis at the same time.
Furthermore, ID is intrinsically linked to the alleged designer because the designer is a fundamental part of the hypothesis.
From
"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which seeks to determine if some objects in the natural world were designed through recognizing and detecting the types of information known to be produced by the intelligent agents when they act. "
Above you will note the invoking of " the intelligent agents ".
Knowing how they developed and tested the invention powered flight helps because it may help in accelerating the development and testing of new inventions. I'm not sure of the intention behind your next question, but: knowing about how the proceeded in designing their aircraft may help in the design of new products and inventions.
ID is a collection of negative arguments against ToE. The individual arguments are indeed falsifiable and have duly been falsified. The ID hypothesis remains and is ultimately untestable and unfalsifiable due to the fact that it invokes the supernatural.
Comment by BoZ3MaN — January 6, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
TP,
I only have time for a brief comment or two. Here they are:
"Well, we certainly know more about genetics than we did in Darwin's time. Do you think you can come up with a mechanism in say, the next 100 years or so?"
I expect I won't be around at the end of 100 years, and I'm no biologist, so, no, I don't think I can. Sorry. But Darwin didn't, either, yet his theory took hold and prospered for MANY YEARS before DNA was discovered. Shall we discard ID because of your lack of confidence in its ability to follow in Darwin's footsteps over many, many decades?
Oh, and about that information from "Talk.origins" about human and ape skulls: you've got to be kidding. I've seen that before, and had that presented to me for the exact same reason you presented it to me - as though all human and ape differences can be reduced to something someone would see from one or two perspectives of a tremendously coarse feature (a skull) (coarse in comparison to the REAL differences such as the brain, and some other items). Do apes have hair? They do? Well, there you go - proof that apes and humans share a common ancestor.
Comment by Douglas — January 6, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
You are going to have to do a lot better than that. You assert that transitionals don't exist. I will prove to you that they do, just as soon as you can tell me what they should look like. My guess is that you can't (or won't) do this, as you know I will show you what you say doesn't exist. But give me a hypothetical example of a human transitional, and let's go from there. Also give me some characteristics of a whale transitional if they evolved from land animals, and we can discuss that.
Also should of interest to you that there is disagreement between various Creationists about which are apes and which are humans. Now, why should that be if everything falls clearly into 1 category or another. It's if some of these skulls have characteristics of both, so this confuses the Creationist. Hmmm……
Comment by TP — January 6, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Oh, forgot to address this:
I am not suggesting that you discard ID. But if you want it to gain scientific acceptance, you better get around to doing some experiments, making some predictions, proposing some falsifications, etc. For example, regarding the situation with Darwin; if it had been discovered that DNA replicates faithfully and the error rate is either zero or very low, then the Theory of Evolution would have been falsified. There would have been no mechanism that would have allowed great transformations. Instead, Darwin's prediction of a mechanism, with the characteristics that he predicted, was fulfilled.
Comment by TP — January 6, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
TP,
"You are going to have to do a lot better than that. You assert that transitionals don't exist."
Correct.
"I will prove to you that they do, just as soon as you can tell me what they should look like."
Is THAT how Evolutionary logic works? It's all about "looks" isn't it? You Evolutionists are so vain. Seriously, I have a point here - that is, you are assuming that appearances should be sufficient to distinguish "transitionals". Well, TP, in the case of humans and apes, the differences might involve things OTHER THAN the way the SKULL looks. Not only that, but you are trying to prove ape/human transitionals by asking NON-PROFESSIONALS to judge between a variety of similar-looking SKULLS - as though varying opinion FROM NON-PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE GIVEN ONLY ONE SIDE VIEW OF THE SKULLS would count for anything either way. It's just plain ridiculous, yet it is apparently the best Evolutionists can do, or so I've experienced, several times.
"My guess is that you can't (or won't) do this, as you know I will show you what you say doesn't exist. But give me a hypothetical example of a human transitional, and let's go from there."
I do not know enough about both ape and human anatomy to give a solid description. Do you have any solid evidence of a supposed "transitional" with clearly transitional big toes? Better yet, how about fossilized remains showing big toes in a state of having evolved from opposable to non-opposable? Maybe "semi-opposable". How about skeletons with clearly intermediate walking ability (between that of a human and an ape) and AT THE SAME TIME clearly intermediate arm strength andarm length AND clearly intermediate big toe opposability? These should ALL be fairly easily quantifiable, and detectable, I would think. Does that help?
"Also give me some characteristics of a whale transitional if they evolved from land animals, and we can discuss that."
I've been down that road, too, and it's a dead-end. All supposed "whale transitionals" consisted almost exclusively of questionable and debatable bones, and what I would consider poor interpretation. If I remember correctly, one of the most widely held "whale transitionals" looked suspiciously like a crocodile or alligator (or aquatic dinosaur) skeleton, and its "transitionalness" rested solely in imaginative stories and suppositions regarding it.
"Also [it] should [be] of interest to you that there is disagreement between various Creationists about which are apes and which are humans."
Not at all. That's completely irrelevant to scientifically concluding that there ARE human/ape transitionals. And, it's hardly a scientific "test", in any case.
"Now, why should that be if everything falls clearly into 1 category or another."
My question and answer regarding "hair" should have answered this for you already.
"It's [as] if some of these skulls have characteristics of both, so this confuses the Creationist. Hmmm"¦."
Exactly. "Some characteristics of both". Guess what? Unless those looking at those skulls can see them IN THEIR ENTIRETY, and unless they are EXPERTS IN ANALYZING, SPECIFICALLY, SKULLS, the exercise proves nothing more than that those looking at them cannot see the skulls in their entirety or that they are not experts in analyzing, specifically, skulls. Zowie. How about a tooth? Let's look at some teeth, and see if we can't tell, JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM, whether they are human or pig teeth. Uh-oh…looks like some PROFESSIONALS, WHO WERE EVOLUTIONISTS, mistook PIGS' TEETH for HUMAN TEETH (what was that fiasco, anyway - "Java Man" "Piltdown Man" Something else?). I guess mere PARTIAL APPEARANCE can be deceiving.
Now, this raises a very important point, TP: What would be the EVIDENCE that such SEEMING transitionals (supposing they exist) were actually TRANSITIONAL, rather than FORMED THAT WAY ORIGINALLY? You can't TEST the theory; you can't TEST whether they are actually transitional. Evolutionists, it seems to me, merely point to the seeming similarity and consult themselves and say, "Well, we cannot abide a Creator, so there cannot have been a Creation, so all we're left with is Common Descent from simpler forms, so it MUST have happened by Evolution, and here's the evidence". But it's NOT EVIDENCE, even supposing the similarities are there. At least, it's not SCIENTIFIC evidence. It could just as well be explained by saying, "They were all created, fully formed. They just seem more similar than most." Evolutionists have no LIVING transitionals, and cannot provide scientific tests whereby it could be determined that one creature was "transitional" between two or more others.
The Theory of Common Descent is not scientific, regardless.
Comment by Douglas — January 6, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
I think Douglas likes being in the Big Tent.
I wonder if there's enough room in the Big Tent for Astrological Design?
Can I come in, please?
Comment by BoZ3MaN — January 6, 2006 @ 10:44 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? You don't know enough to decide whether or not one would be classified as a human, ape, or something in between, but you confidently assert that transitionals don't exist. Doesn't the fact that you are making proclamations on things you don't know anything about seem a bit silly to you?
A mistake and a fraud, neither of which were widely accepted, and both of which were corrected by evolutionists. Is this the best you've got, Douglas? Do you want to discuss the many Creationist frauds? Do you want to discuss the recent perjury by the Creationists in Dover? That's not a fraud that happened 50 years ago.
So you say that this can't be falsified, but you originally asserted that there was no such thing as a transitional. So, how do you know? How could you even tell? You just admitted that you can't. But professionals actually can. Do you think an ape skull looks anything like a human skull?
It only seems that way because as is painfully clear from your posts here, you don't know anything about evolution or evolutionary theory. You have decided a priori that the there can be no evidence, so you dismiss it with a hand wave and refuse to actually address it.
That's just comical, Douglas. All living creatures are transitionals. Do you believe poodles evolved from wolves? Do you realize that there are dogs that are transitional between the two? We have observed speciation on numerous occasions. To suggest that there are no living transitionals indicates a profound ignorance on your part with respect to evolutionary theory.
Comment by TP — January 6, 2006 @ 11:24 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
TP:
a) I like "all living creatures are transitionals." Though I'd substitute "organisms" for "creatures." Plants hybridize quite readily.
b) Having just lost my Giant Mutant Mountain Poodle (of whom we were all overly-fond), I'll certainly take issue. Poodles are dogs. All dogs are dogs. Are wolves dogs?
c) I have met some wolves. And I've met more than a few "transitionals." There's a whole shelter hereabouts that deals exclusively with wolf-dogs. They're unadoptable, greater than 50% abandonment rate.
d) Let's talk ignorance. Do you believe a Malamute or German Shepherd is "closer to" wolf than a teacup poodle? A Border Collie? A Jack Russell or Corgie? An Afghan or a Pekinese? How about your average, everyday Heinz-57 [how does THAT happen??!!].
Please give your citations for all this observed speciation. I'd be interested to see it.
Comment by Joy — January 6, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
January 7th, 2006 at 12:25 am
TP,
"It only seems that way because as is painfully clear from your posts here, you don't know anything about evolution or evolutionary theory."
Okay…wait for it…there it was.
Comment by Douglas — January 7, 2006 @ 12:25 am
January 7th, 2006 at 12:41 am
Hear that a lot, do you? I am not surprised. Your posts demonstrate that you don't know anything about evolutionary theory, and yet you have shown no hesitation in criticizing it. I don't really understand that mentality at all.
Joy, I will get to your post shortly.
Comment by TP — January 7, 2006 @ 12:41 am
January 7th, 2006 at 1:02 am
A mistake and a fraud, neither of which were widely accepted….
That's incorrect. One was used as one of the fraudulent "scientific facts" that shaped the Darwinian worldview of many young proto-Nazis, odd isn't it, how Haeckel's frauds and other excrement seemed to combine to raise up a metaphoric Beast of Naturalism for a time.
(H. Heine. The Works of Heinrich Heine. vol. V
(London:William Heinemann. 1892) :207-9)
(C.G. Jung. "Wotan" Civilization in Transition
Collected Works. vol. 10 (Princeton: University Press, 1918) :13) (Emphasis added)
The Christian worldview exchanged for the Darwinian:
(From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany
By Richard Weikart :11)
The beastly metaphor literalized:
(Who's Who in Nazi Germany
By Robert Wistrich
New York, Bonanza Books, 1984. :134f)
Not that any form of truth matters to those with the urge to merge. They tend to be impervious to empirical facts, historical facts, as well as basic logic.
….and both of which were corrected by evolutionists.
One was corrected through the scientific detection of intelligent design as compared to other natural processes, naturally enough.
Note the mythological narratives of Naturalism that were propped up with them at the time, though:(Ancestor Hunting: The Significance of the Piltdown Skull
By George Grant MacCurdy
American Anthropologist, New Series,
Vol. 15, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1913), pp. 248-256)
See also:
(Man Had Reason Before He Spoke
The New York Times; Dec 20, 1912, pg. 6)
(Science and Discovery; WHY THE APE-LIKE PROGENITOR OF MAN MUST HAVE WALKED INSTEAD OF CLIMBING TREES
Current Opinion (1913-1925). New York: Nov 1913. Vol. VOL. LV., Iss. No. 5)
And so on. These little creation myths combined into the Darwinian creation myth is just the science of things, you know. Note the little amount of evidence actually necessary for these grand narratives, yet when they can actually be tested instead of safely tucked away in the mists of mysticism lurking in millions of years they turn out to be false. Maybe there should be more of such testing, it would be quite interesting to see what grand mythological narrative of naturalism could be written for a bone fragment of verifiable origins these days.
Comment by mynym — January 7, 2006 @ 1:02 am
January 7th, 2006 at 1:07 am
TP,
"Hear that a lot, do you? I am not surprised."
Not really. But it is a commonly used attack by Evolutionists, when their arguments have been shown to be just smoke and vapor.
Comment by Douglas — January 7, 2006 @ 1:07 am
January 7th, 2006 at