Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for Evolution) - Vestigial Structures

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified to everyone. There is no evidence against Intelligent Design. Characteristics of science:
    Message 1 of 28 , May 27, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified to everyone. There is no
      evidence against Intelligent Design.

      Characteristics of science:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/nature_06 To ask someone
      to accept ideas purely on faith, even when these ideas are expressed by
      *experts*, is unscientific.

      Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/31840

      Jonathan Wells:
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/what_is_intelligent_design007961.html

      1 ID restricts itself to a simple question: does the evidence point to
      design in nature?

      2 ID does not deny the reality of variation and natural selection; it just
      denies that those phenomena can accomplish all that Darwinists claim they
      can accomplish.

      3 ID does not maintain that all species were created in their present
      form; indeed, some ID advocates have no quarrel with the idea that all
      living things are descended from a common ancestor. ID challenges only the
      sufficiency of unguided natural processes and the Darwinian claim that
      design in living things is an illusion rather than a reality.

      Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified by *insiders* and
      *outsiders* to the old Theory of Evolution.

      1 Please find some evidence that design in nature is nothing but an
      illusion. Which methodologies are used to conclude that *vestigial
      structures* are predicted by the old Theory of Evolution? Which
      methodologies are used to identify homologous characters of organism that
      have lost all or most of their original function in a species through
      evolution. Which methodologies are used to distinguish designed body parts
      from non-designed body parts?

      2 Please find some evidence that the phenomena of variation and natural
      selection can accomplish the change in a population over time from one
      *branch on the family tree* to another *branch on the family tree*.

      As far as we know none of the individual male and female apes were the
      direct ancestors of male and female humans. As far as we know chimpanzees
      have always had a baculum if it was a male or have always had an os
      clitoridis if it was a female. As far as we know it is not possible for
      the descendants of the common ancestors of all humans to inherit body parts
      that did not exist in their ancestors.

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 In fact, none
      of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any
      other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on
      the family tree.

      http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Phylogenetic+trees When extinct
      species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as it is unlikely
      that they are direct ancestors of any extant species.

      3 Please find some evidence that unguided natural processes can produce
      design in living things. As far as we know only preexisting DNA digital
      code information in a zygote is capable of producing the survival, growth,
      and proliferation of an individual in a population of its own kind or
      *branch on the family tree*.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David
      ... David Williams: You can no more make ID into a real science with rhetoric, than you can make meadow muffins into tasty pastry by adding sugar and
      Message 2 of 28 , May 27, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
        >
        > Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified to everyone. There is no
        > evidence against Intelligent Design.
        >
        > Characteristics of science:
        > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/nature_06 To ask someone
        > to accept ideas purely on faith, even when these ideas are expressed by
        > *experts*, is unscientific.
        >
        > Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/31840
        >
        > Jonathan Wells:
        > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/what_is_intelligent_design007961.html
        >
        > 1 ID restricts itself to a simple question: does the evidence point to
        > design in nature?
        >
        > 2 ID does not deny the reality of variation and natural selection; it just
        > denies that those phenomena can accomplish all that Darwinists claim they
        > can accomplish.
        >
        > 3 ID does not maintain that all species were created in their present
        > form; indeed, some ID advocates have no quarrel with the idea that all
        > living things are descended from a common ancestor. ID challenges only the
        > sufficiency of unguided natural processes and the Darwinian claim that
        > design in living things is an illusion rather than a reality.
        >
        > Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified by *insiders* and
        > *outsiders* to the old Theory of Evolution.
        >
        > 1 Please find some evidence that design in nature is nothing but an
        > illusion. Which methodologies are used to conclude that *vestigial
        > structures* are predicted by the old Theory of Evolution? Which
        > methodologies are used to identify homologous characters of organism that
        > have lost all or most of their original function in a species through
        > evolution. Which methodologies are used to distinguish designed body parts
        > from non-designed body parts?
        >
        > 2 Please find some evidence that the phenomena of variation and natural
        > selection can accomplish the change in a population over time from one
        > *branch on the family tree* to another *branch on the family tree*.
        >
        > As far as we know none of the individual male and female apes were the
        > direct ancestors of male and female humans. As far as we know chimpanzees
        > have always had a baculum if it was a male or have always had an os
        > clitoridis if it was a female. As far as we know it is not possible for
        > the descendants of the common ancestors of all humans to inherit body parts
        > that did not exist in their ancestors.
        >
        > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 In fact, none
        > of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any
        > other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on
        > the family tree.
        >
        > http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Phylogenetic+trees When extinct
        > species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as it is unlikely
        > that they are direct ancestors of any extant species.
        >
        > 3 Please find some evidence that unguided natural processes can produce
        > design in living things. As far as we know only preexisting DNA digital
        > code information in a zygote is capable of producing the survival, growth,
        > and proliferation of an individual in a population of its own kind or
        > *branch on the family tree*.
        >
        >

        David Williams: You can no more make ID into a real science with rhetoric, than you can make meadow muffins into tasty pastry by adding sugar and cinnamon.
      • stewart8724
        Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified to everyone. There is no evidence against Intelligent Design. Stewart: There is no evidence FOR intelligent
        Message 3 of 28 , May 28, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified to everyone. There is no
          evidence against Intelligent Design.

          Stewart: There is no evidence FOR intelligent design, so there need be none to contradict what doesn't exist yet.

          Characteristics of science:
          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/nature_06 To ask someone
          to accept ideas purely on faith, even when these ideas are expressed by
          *experts*, is unscientific.

          Stewart: To ask someone to accept ideas purely on faith is religion. It is therefore impossible to be an expert on something which requires only unquestioning obedience to doctrine, so of course it is unscientific.


          1 ID restricts itself to a simple question: does the evidence point to
          design in nature?

          Stewart: ID also restricts itself to the Bible as the principle source of information. If IDists were to broaden their frame of reference to include information incompatible with Biblical doctrine, they would be forced to re-assess their opinions.


          2 ID does not deny the reality of variation and natural selection; it just
          denies that those phenomena can accomplish all that Darwinists claim they
          can accomplish.

          Stewart: Yes, that is why their position is so laughable. This is tantamount to saying that you accept the principles of evolution have been proven, but still refuse to believe it happens.


          3 ID does not maintain that all species were created in their present
          form; indeed, some ID advocates have no quarrel with the idea that all
          living things are descended from a common ancestor. ID challenges only the
          sufficiency of unguided natural processes and the Darwinian claim that
          design in living things is an illusion rather than a reality.

          Stewart: So `some' IDists accept that life evolved while still having been created by God, sort of like theistic evolutionists? Why then have you been expressing such confusion at Glaudys' position on the subject? There is no Darwinian claim that design is illusory, only that the appearance of design is natural. The question of what is responsible for the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. You say God did it and I say not, none of that changes the fact of evolution in living things.

          Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified by *insiders* and
          *outsiders* to the old Theory of Evolution.

          Stewart: The truth may be simple but that doesn't mean it is acceptable to all, as you have often demonstrated.

          1 Please find some evidence that design in nature is nothing but an
          illusion.

          Stewart: Please find evidence that the tooth fairy is nothing but an illusion.

          Which methodologies are used to conclude that *vestigial
          structures* are predicted by the old Theory of Evolution?

          Stewart: They were not predicted by THE theory of evolution, they are evidence which lead to and support the theory of evolution.

          Which methodologies are used to identify homologous characters of organism that
          have lost all or most of their original function in a species through
          evolution.
          Stewart: Observations in existing species compared to their extinct forebears or existing relatives.

          Which methodologies are used to distinguish designed body parts
          from non-designed body parts?

          Stewart: There are no methodologies to do this as there is no reason beyond the religious to determine that any part of them are intentionally designed.


          2 Please find some evidence that the phenomena of variation and natural
          selection can accomplish the change in a population over time from one
          *branch on the family tree* to another *branch on the family tree*.

          Stewart: You have been informed on numerous occasions of many such examples in nature. That you decide as a religious duty or just for bloody mindedness to reject this evidence is not a reason to consider the evidence invalid.


          As far as we know none of the individual male and female apes were the
          direct ancestors of male and female humans. As far as we know chimpanzees
          have always had a baculum if it was a male or have always had an os
          clitoridis if it was a female. As far as we know it is not possible for
          the descendants of the common ancestors of all humans to inherit body parts
          that did not exist in their ancestors.

          Stewart: As far as we know evolution has never suggested that humans are the descendants of chimpanzees. As far as we know humans inherited all their characteristics from their ancestors, as did chimpanzees. As far as we know the ancestors of humans were also the ancestors of chimpanzees.

          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 In fact, none
          of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any
          other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on
          the family tree.

          Stewart: Clearly whales did not evolve from hippos in the same way that chimpanzees did not evolve from humans. In both cases however there is a clear familial link.

          http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Phylogenetic+trees When extinct
          species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as it is unlikely
          that they are direct ancestors of any extant species.

          Stewart: This is usually the case, how does that help your creation (exclusive of evolution) theory?


          3 Please find some evidence that unguided natural processes can produce
          design in living things. As far as we know only preexisting DNA digital
          code information in a zygote is capable of producing the survival, growth,
          and proliferation of an individual in a population of its own kind or
          *branch on the family tree*.

          Stewart: No, in the interest of high scientific standards YOU must find evidence that there `is' intelligence at work. The idea that there is intelligent design is subjective unless you can show it to be actual, measurable and identifiable.



          ...

          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
          >
          > Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified to everyone. There is no
          > evidence against Intelligent Design.
          >
          > Characteristics of science:
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/nature_06 To ask someone
          > to accept ideas purely on faith, even when these ideas are expressed by
          > *experts*, is unscientific.
          >
          > Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/31840
          >
          > Jonathan Wells:
          > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/what_is_intelligent_design007961.html
          >
          > 1 ID restricts itself to a simple question: does the evidence point to
          > design in nature?
          >
          > 2 ID does not deny the reality of variation and natural selection; it just
          > denies that those phenomena can accomplish all that Darwinists claim they
          > can accomplish.
          >
          > 3 ID does not maintain that all species were created in their present
          > form; indeed, some ID advocates have no quarrel with the idea that all
          > living things are descended from a common ancestor. ID challenges only the
          > sufficiency of unguided natural processes and the Darwinian claim that
          > design in living things is an illusion rather than a reality.
          >
          > Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified by *insiders* and
          > *outsiders* to the old Theory of Evolution.
          >
          > 1 Please find some evidence that design in nature is nothing but an
          > illusion. Which methodologies are used to conclude that *vestigial
          > structures* are predicted by the old Theory of Evolution? Which
          > methodologies are used to identify homologous characters of organism that
          > have lost all or most of their original function in a species through
          > evolution. Which methodologies are used to distinguish designed body parts
          > from non-designed body parts?
          >
          > 2 Please find some evidence that the phenomena of variation and natural
          > selection can accomplish the change in a population over time from one
          > *branch on the family tree* to another *branch on the family tree*.
          >
          > As far as we know none of the individual male and female apes were the
          > direct ancestors of male and female humans. As far as we know chimpanzees
          > have always had a baculum if it was a male or have always had an os
          > clitoridis if it was a female. As far as we know it is not possible for
          > the descendants of the common ancestors of all humans to inherit body parts
          > that did not exist in their ancestors.
          >
          > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 In fact, none
          > of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any
          > other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on
          > the family tree.
          >
          > http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Phylogenetic+trees When extinct
          > species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as it is unlikely
          > that they are direct ancestors of any extant species.
          >
          > 3 Please find some evidence that unguided natural processes can produce
          > design in living things. As far as we know only preexisting DNA digital
          > code information in a zygote is capable of producing the survival, growth,
          > and proliferation of an individual in a population of its own kind or
          > *branch on the family tree*.
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • stewart8724
          ... Stewart: The difference is that Darwin s theory didn t so much lay not on the fringes of science as it crashed headlong into the established cultural
          Message 4 of 28 , May 28, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > David Williams: "[ID] has been around for decades now, and it is still a fringe interest."
            >
            > Likewise, while Darwin's theory of descent with modification (or evolution) was widely accepted by scientists within a decade of his publishing "The Origin of Species," his theory of natural selection was largely a fringe interest in science until the modern synthesis (or Neo-Darwinism) married natural selection to Mendelian genetics. That occurred some 70 years after "The Origin of Species" was published. The modern science of intelligent design has been around for some two decades. Perhaps in another five decades it will join Darwin's theory of natural selection as a theory that moved from the fringe of science to the mainstream. Time will tell.
            >
            > http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=d7
            >
            > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_14
            >
            > Jim in Missouri
            >

            Stewart: The difference is that Darwin's theory didn't so much lay not on the fringes of science as it crashed headlong into the established cultural status quo, chiefly the religious establishments. Evolution as a scientific premise never had scientific objections, the only hurdles it had to overcome were the culturally accepted and deeply ingrained religious beliefs.
            Given another eight thousand years, ID will still not be in a position to offer anything scientifically or culturally relevant. Idists are to all intents and purposes the last of the `hold outs', they represent an ever decreasing number of culturally stagnant groups desperately attempting to consolidate an isolated position. You are becoming extinct.
          • JamesG
            Stewart: ID also restricts itself to the Bible as the principle source of information. Actually, the science of intelligent design obtains no information
            Message 5 of 28 , May 28, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Stewart: "ID also restricts itself to the Bible as the principle source of information."

              Actually, the science of intelligent design obtains no information from the Bible. Like every other science, it obtains its data from nature and the lab. It is precisely because ID has no stake in Scripture that so many creationists are either lukewarm towards it or actually oppose it. I can't think of any other statement you could have made that so clearly demonstrates that you know next to nothing about ID.

              Charles (quoting design theorist Jonathan Wells): "ID does not deny the reality of variation and natural selection; it just denies that those phenomena can accomplish all that Darwinists claim they can accomplish."
              Stewart: "Yes, that is why their position is so laughable. This is tantamount to saying that you accept the principles of evolution have been proven, but still refuse to believe it happens."

              Perhaps your replies wouldn't be so laughable if you'd stop and think once in awhile. Here, for instance, it should be blatantly obvious to any thinking person that there is no inconsistency whatsoever between accepting that variation and natural selection operate in nature and rejecting the proposition that variation and natural selection can do all the creative things Darwinians claim they can do (such as begin with a terrestrial tetrapod and end up - for now, at least - with modern whales).

              Stewart: "There is no Darwinian claim that design is illusory, only that the appearance of design is natural."

              Design without a designer is illusory design. It is the mere appearance of design, not actual design. Darwinians repeatedly stress that design in living things is illusory, not actual. For instance, Sir Francis Crick once said that "[b]iologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed, but evolved." If something looks designed but wasn't designed, then the apparent design is illusory.

              Charles: "Please find some evidence that design in nature is nothing but an illusion."
              Stewart: "Please find evidence that the tooth fairy is nothing but an illusion."

              Please provide some evidence that you're capable of logical thinking. Here, for instance, it's howlingly illogical for you to think (as you evidently do) that your response to Charles actually does something to undermine the idea that there's real design in nature.

              Stewart: "The idea that there is intelligent design is subjective unless you can show it to be actual, measurable and identifiable."

              If you'd like to learn how actual design (as opposed to illusory design) is "measurable and identifiable," you could delve into the design literature. You might begin with Dembski's writings, as he has done most of the heavy lifting with respect to developing the scientific methods for detecting actual design. Alternatively, you could cling to your desire to protect your opinions of ID from any actual knowledge of it gleaned from the writings of design theorists.

              Stewart: "...Darwin's theory didn't so much lay not on the fringes of science as it crashed headlong into the established cultural status quo, chiefly the religious establishments."

              Pretty much the opposite is what actually happened. Darwin's theory of natural selection, which controverted traditional teleological views of life's evolution, was quickly and widely accepted by cultural elites (with some religious exceptions), but it found little acceptance in scientific circles until the development of the Modern Synthesis (or neo-Darwinism), which occurred some seven decades after he published "On the Origin of Species." Whereas Darwin's theory of natural selection had long been something of a fringe idea among scientists, with the advent of the Modern Synthesis, it became part of the scientific mainstream. It was Darwin's theory of descent with modification that won quick and widespread scientific acceptance, not his theory of natural selection. The following is relevant:

              http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/how_was_darwins_theory_accepte048791.html

              Stewart: "Evolution as a scientific premise never had scientific objections..."

              "Evolution" is too vague a term to extract much meaning from what you say here, but in one rather significant sense, you're quite wrong. From the very beginning, Darwin's theory of natural selection encountered scientific objections, as pointed out in the essay linked above. It still does, especially among scientists in the ID community.

              Jim in Missouri
            • Charles Palm
              Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified by *insiders* and *outsiders* to the old Theory of Evolution. 1 Please find some evidence that design in
              Message 6 of 28 , May 28, 2013
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Charles P: The truth is simple and can be verified by *insiders* and
                *outsiders* to the old Theory of Evolution.

                1 Please find some evidence that design in nature is nothing but an
                illusion. Which methodologies are used to conclude that *vestigial
                structures* are predicted by the old Theory of Evolution? Which
                methodologies are used to identify homologous characters of organism that
                have lost all or most of their original function in a species through
                evolution. Which methodologies are used to distinguish designed body parts
                from non-designed body parts?

                2 Please find some evidence that the phenomena of variation and natural
                selection can accomplish the change in a population over time from one
                *branch on the family tree* to another *branch on the family tree*.

                As far as we know none of the individual male and female apes were the
                direct ancestors of male and female humans. As far as we know chimpanzees
                have always had a baculum if it was a male or have always had an os
                clitoridis if it was a female. As far as we know it is not possible for
                the descendants of the common ancestors of all humans to inherit body parts
                that did not exist in their ancestors.

                http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 In fact, none
                of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any
                other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on
                the family tree.

                http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Phylogenetic+trees When extinct
                species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as it is unlikely
                that they are direct ancestors of any extant species.

                3 Please find some evidence that unguided natural processes can produce
                design in living things. As far as we know only preexisting DNA digital
                code information in a zygote is capable of producing the survival, growth,
                and proliferation of an individual in a population of its own kind or
                *branch on the family tree*.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • stewart8724
                Stewart: ID also restricts itself to the Bible as the principle source of information. Actually, the science of intelligent design obtains no information
                Message 7 of 28 , May 29, 2013
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Stewart: "ID also restricts itself to the Bible as the principle source of information."

                  Actually, the science of intelligent design obtains no information from the Bible. Like every other science, it obtains its data from nature and the lab. It is precisely because ID has no stake in Scripture that so many creationists are either lukewarm towards it or actually oppose it. I can't think of any other statement you could have made that so clearly demonstrates that you know next to nothing about ID.

                  Stewart: It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that the ID creationist movement is anything other than a religiously motivated and wholly unscientific construct. If you can't see that then you're blind, otherwise you're trying to con us. You have had an extended exchange with Glaudys on the incompatibility between evolutionary theory and religious adherence, an exchange I didn't involve myself in because it was outwith my interest. How you can claim that ID has nothing to do with religion and is based solely on scientific inquiry, when at the same time your only significant objection to the concept is that it doesn't acknowledge a creator, is testament to your lack of objectivity and of reason.

                  Charles (quoting design theorist Jonathan Wells): "ID does not deny the reality of variation and natural selection; it just denies that those phenomena can accomplish all that Darwinists claim they can accomplish."

                  Stewart: "Yes, that is why their position is so laughable. This is tantamount to saying that you accept the principles of evolution have been proven, but still refuse to believe it happens."

                  Perhaps your replies wouldn't be so laughable if you'd stop and think once in awhile. Here, for instance, it should be blatantly obvious to any thinking person that there is no inconsistency whatsoever between accepting that variation and natural selection operate in nature and rejecting the proposition that variation and natural selection can do all the creative things Darwinians claim they can do (such as begin with a terrestrial tetrapod and end up - for now, at least - with modern whales).

                  Stewart: Perhaps you would find my replies less laughable if you displayed half as much understanding as you demand from others. You accept that evolution happens but insist that it must be limited. You offer no reason to explain why those limits should be imposed though. You claim that an unfettered intelligence is responsible for the creation of life and therefore of the level evolution you accept, and yet maintain that this supreme creature must be confined to the limits of your imagination.


                  Stewart: "There is no Darwinian claim that design is illusory, only that the appearance of design is natural."

                  Design without a designer is illusory design. It is the mere appearance of design, not actual design. Darwinians repeatedly stress that design in living things is illusory, not actual. For instance, Sir Francis Crick once said that "[b]iologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed, but evolved." If something looks designed but wasn't designed, then the apparent design is illusory.

                  Stewart: Wrong, design without a designer does not mean design without an intelligent designer. Design is a concept apparent to us as is art, try defining it
                  Apparent design in nature is just that, it is apparent only to those who recognise it. In order to operate, a thing has to have recognisable design features without them necessarily having been knowingly designed. This is not a scientific issue it is a philosophical one. You have claimed that ID is confined to scientific study so please stop quoting this ridiculous `no design without a designer' nonsense.


                  Charles: "Please find some evidence that design in nature is nothing but an illusion."
                  Stewart: "Please find evidence that the tooth fairy is nothing but an illusion."

                  Please provide some evidence that you're capable of logical thinking. Here, for instance, it's howlingly illogical for you to think (as you evidently do) that your response to Charles actually does something to undermine the idea that there's real design in nature.

                  Stewart: My reply illustrates (if you're willing to think) that there is no possibility of disproving something that does not exist. My reply mirrors the unfair demand set by Charles' question, so it does something to undermine the tactics of ID creationism by illustrating their dishonest methods.

                  Stewart: "The idea that there is intelligent design is subjective unless you can show it to be actual, measurable and identifiable."

                  If you'd like to learn how actual design (as opposed to illusory design) is "measurable and identifiable," you could delve into the design literature. You might begin with Dembski's writings, as he has done most of the heavy lifting with respect to developing the scientific methods for detecting actual design. Alternatively, you could cling to your desire to protect your opinions of ID from any actual knowledge of it gleaned from the writings of design theorists.

                  Stewart: I'm sure you can explain the paradox that arises when on one hand you claim 'There is no design without a designer' and then lecture me on the differences between real design and perceived design. The writings of design theorists are predictable and meaningless to anyone who trusts in proper scientific enquiry, so I am as likely to delve into them as I am in delving into David Beckham's autobiography.

                  Stewart: "...Darwin's theory didn't so much lay not on the fringes of science as it crashed headlong into the established cultural status quo, chiefly the religious establishments."

                  Pretty much the opposite is what actually happened. Darwin's theory of natural selection, which controverted traditional teleological views of life's evolution, was quickly and widely accepted by cultural elites (with some religious exceptions), but it found little acceptance in scientific circles until the development of the Modern Synthesis (or neo-Darwinism), which occurred some seven decades after he published "On the Origin of Species." Whereas Darwin's theory of natural selection had long been something of a fringe idea among scientists, with the advent of the Modern Synthesis, it became part of the scientific mainstream. It was Darwin's theory of descent with modification that won quick and widespread scientific acceptance, not his theory of natural selection. The following is relevant:

                  Stewart: Rubbish! Who are these `cultural elites' that so readily espoused this revolutionary idea? "With some religious exceptions"?!! Gimme a break, you are truly deluded if you think that it was mainly scientists and "some" religious people who were the core of opposition to evolution. Darwin was vilified in the popular press with the main bone of contention being the suggestion that humans were related to apes. The fact that evolutionary theory clashed with the Biblical account of man being created by God was culturally unacceptable to most people of the time. Most of the world has grown up since then, when will you join us?

                  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/how_was_darwins_theory_accepte048791.html

                  Stewart: "Evolution as a scientific premise never had scientific objections..."

                  "Evolution" is too vague a term to extract much meaning from what you say here, but in one rather significant sense, you're quite wrong. From the very beginning, Darwin's theory of natural selection encountered scientific objections, as pointed out in the essay linked above. It still does, especially among scientists in the ID community.

                  Jim in Missouri

                  Stewart: Oh well, if those scientists in the ID community are an example of the scientific objections which plagued the early years of evolutionary theory, my statement must be entirely wrong. Here was I thinking all the objections raised were on religious grounds.
                  At the time of the release of Darwin's book, almost everyone (including scientists) was religious to some extent. Of course there were scientists who contradicted what was suggested just as there are doctors today in USA who will claim that a national health service would be a bad thing. Some are motivated by prejudice and some by personal reward, but the theory has stood the test of time to become THE most dependable of scientific principles. All the objections you have were levelled at it before along with many others. They have all been dealt with to the satisfaction of science and religious institutions alike. In all the time since the creationist movement changed their title to ID, no new evidence of any kind has been offered that would put evolutionary theory in the slightest doubt.



                  ...

                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Stewart: "ID also restricts itself to the Bible as the principle source of information."
                  >
                  > Actually, the science of intelligent design obtains no information from the Bible. Like every other science, it obtains its data from nature and the lab. It is precisely because ID has no stake in Scripture that so many creationists are either lukewarm towards it or actually oppose it. I can't think of any other statement you could have made that so clearly demonstrates that you know next to nothing about ID.
                  >
                  > Charles (quoting design theorist Jonathan Wells): "ID does not deny the reality of variation and natural selection; it just denies that those phenomena can accomplish all that Darwinists claim they can accomplish."
                  > Stewart: "Yes, that is why their position is so laughable. This is tantamount to saying that you accept the principles of evolution have been proven, but still refuse to believe it happens."
                  >
                  > Perhaps your replies wouldn't be so laughable if you'd stop and think once in awhile. Here, for instance, it should be blatantly obvious to any thinking person that there is no inconsistency whatsoever between accepting that variation and natural selection operate in nature and rejecting the proposition that variation and natural selection can do all the creative things Darwinians claim they can do (such as begin with a terrestrial tetrapod and end up - for now, at least - with modern whales).
                  >
                  > Stewart: "There is no Darwinian claim that design is illusory, only that the appearance of design is natural."
                  >
                  > Design without a designer is illusory design. It is the mere appearance of design, not actual design. Darwinians repeatedly stress that design in living things is illusory, not actual. For instance, Sir Francis Crick once said that "[b]iologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed, but evolved." If something looks designed but wasn't designed, then the apparent design is illusory.
                  >
                  > Charles: "Please find some evidence that design in nature is nothing but an illusion."
                  > Stewart: "Please find evidence that the tooth fairy is nothing but an illusion."
                  >
                  > Please provide some evidence that you're capable of logical thinking. Here, for instance, it's howlingly illogical for you to think (as you evidently do) that your response to Charles actually does something to undermine the idea that there's real design in nature.
                  >
                  > Stewart: "The idea that there is intelligent design is subjective unless you can show it to be actual, measurable and identifiable."
                  >
                  > If you'd like to learn how actual design (as opposed to illusory design) is "measurable and identifiable," you could delve into the design literature. You might begin with Dembski's writings, as he has done most of the heavy lifting with respect to developing the scientific methods for detecting actual design. Alternatively, you could cling to your desire to protect your opinions of ID from any actual knowledge of it gleaned from the writings of design theorists.
                  >
                  > Stewart: "...Darwin's theory didn't so much lay not on the fringes of science as it crashed headlong into the established cultural status quo, chiefly the religious establishments."
                  >
                  > Pretty much the opposite is what actually happened. Darwin's theory of natural selection, which controverted traditional teleological views of life's evolution, was quickly and widely accepted by cultural elites (with some religious exceptions), but it found little acceptance in scientific circles until the development of the Modern Synthesis (or neo-Darwinism), which occurred some seven decades after he published "On the Origin of Species." Whereas Darwin's theory of natural selection had long been something of a fringe idea among scientists, with the advent of the Modern Synthesis, it became part of the scientific mainstream. It was Darwin's theory of descent with modification that won quick and widespread scientific acceptance, not his theory of natural selection. The following is relevant:
                  >
                  > http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/how_was_darwins_theory_accepte048791.html
                  >
                  > Stewart: "Evolution as a scientific premise never had scientific objections..."
                  >
                  > "Evolution" is too vague a term to extract much meaning from what you say here, but in one rather significant sense, you're quite wrong. From the very beginning, Darwin's theory of natural selection encountered scientific objections, as pointed out in the essay linked above. It still does, especially among scientists in the ID community.
                  >
                  > Jim in Missouri
                  >
                • JamesG
                  Stewart: It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that the ID creationist movement is anything other than a religiously motivated and wholly unscientific
                  Message 8 of 28 , May 29, 2013
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Stewart: "It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that the ID creationist movement is anything other than a religiously motivated and wholly unscientific construct."

                    Even if this were true (and it's not), it would nonetheless be false that intelligent design "restricts itself to the Bible as the principle source of information," which was your original claim.

                    Stewart: "If you can't see that then you're blind, otherwise you're trying to con us."

                    If you can't see that the motivations of scientists are utterly irrelevant to the scientific legitimacy of their science, then you're not thinking clearly. I have no doubt that many proponents of Darwinian theory are motivated by their atheism (the theory is, after all, exceptionally friendly to atheism), but it hardly follows that Darwinian theory must lack scientific legitimacy on that account. Your claim cuts both ways: If ID must be deemed to be unscientific because many design proponents are motivated by their theism, then by the same token Darwinian theory must be counted as unscientific because many of its proponents are motivated by their atheism.

                    Stewart: "How you can claim that ID has nothing to do with religion and is based solely on scientific inquiry, when at the same time your only significant objection to the concept is that it doesn't acknowledge a creator, is testament to your lack of objectivity and of reason."

                    Here you fail to distinguish between the science of intelligent design, which indeed has nothing to do with religion, and the theistic implications that might be drawn from ID theory. There's no "con" job going on here: I have repeatedly said that theists can and do identify the designer implicated by design in nature with the God they worship. But that is something they do on the basis of their theology, not on the basis of the science of intelligent design. The mere fact that ID theory has apologetic value for theists no more turns ID into theism than the fact that Darwinian theory has apologetic value for atheists turns that theory into atheism. Until you distinguish between the science of intelligent design and its theistic implications, you will continue to commingle the two and speak incoherently and falsely (as did Judge Jones) about ID.

                    Stewart: "You accept that evolution happens but insist that it must be limited. You offer no reason to explain why those limits should be imposed though."

                    I think I would faint dead away if I ever caught you in the act of accurately representing what I've said. Here, for instance, I have never insisted that evolution must be limited. What I have actually said is that the accomplishments that have been credibly attributed to Darwinian evolution are quite unimpressive, being limited to such things as adaptively changing the size of finches' beaks, giving bacteria resistance to antibiotics, giving insects resistance to insecticides, and the like. Proponents of Darwinian theory have never shown that the undirected mechanisms of Darwinian evolution (principally, random genetic mutations and natural selection) are capable of constructing novel biological forms, systems, structures, and processes. They have, for example, spun stories about Darwinian evolution beginning with a light-sensitive spot and ending up with eyes capable of color vision, but they have no evidence showing that undirected Darwinian mechanisms actually accomplished that marvelous feat of creative engineering, or even that those mechanisms were capable of accomplishing that creative feat. My issue with the macroevolutionary claims of Darwinians is that I've yet to see any of them offer any evidence-based reasons for thinking that all of life's diverse and complex forms, systems, structures, and processes can be fully explained by the undirected process of Darwinian evolution. When I ask for such evidence, I'm referred to such things as Kettlewell's and Majerus's peppered moth research and asked to accept that because Darwinian evolution adequately accounts for adaptive industrial melanism in the moths, then Darwinian evolution also adequately accounts for how peppered moths came into being in the first place. And so it's not a matter of my thinking that Darwinian evolution "must be limited," rather it's a matter of Darwinian theory's proponents failing to show - with evidence, not stories and extrapolations - that Darwinian evolution creates without limits.

                    Stewart: "You claim that an unfettered intelligence is responsible for the creation of life and therefore of the level evolution you accept, and yet maintain that this supreme creature must be confined to the limits of your imagination."

                    Actually, I've never imposed any limits on God's creativity, but I do think that if God were involved in making life what it is, we should be able to find evidence of actual design in living things. As I've often said, my belief that life is God's handiwork is one reason why I'm attracted to intelligent design (which implicates a purposeful designer), but not to Darwinian theory (which has no need of a purposeful designer).

                    Stewart: "Wrong, design without a designer does not mean design without an intelligent designer."

                    Huh? Evidently this makes sense to you, but it makes no sense to me.

                    Stewart: "Design is a concept apparent to us as is art, try defining it."

                    That's already been done. A design is a plan executed by an intending intelligence to purposefully achieve a goal (or goals). That's why design stands as a quite distinct explanatory mode from chance and necessity. Design entails intelligent agency; chance and necessity do not. You make it sound as if someone who says that something (a computer, for instance) was designed is speaking in a mysterious and inscrutable way.

                    Charles: "Please find some evidence that design in nature is nothing but an illusion."
                    Stewart: "Please find evidence that the tooth fairy is nothing but an illusion."
                    Me: "Please provide some evidence that you're capable of logical thinking. Here, for instance, it's howlingly illogical for you to think (as you evidently do) that your response to Charles actually does something to undermine the idea that there's real design in nature."
                    Stewart: "My reply illustrates (if you're willing to think) that there is no possibility of disproving something that does not exist."

                    I see. In that case you're wallowing in the logical fallacy of begging the question, as you simply take it as a given that design "does not exist" in nature.

                    Stewart: "My reply mirrors the unfair demand set by Charles' question, so it does something to undermine the tactics of ID creationism by illustrating their dishonest methods."

                    Charles asked you to provide evidence that design in nature is merely an illusion. What's dishonest about that? You could meet Charles' request by providing evidence showing that a biological structure (say, the bacterial flagellum) that design theorists attribute to design was actually constructed by undirected material mechanisms (such as those invoked by Darwinian theory). But I doubt that Charles would be satisfied by the just-so stories that Darwinians concoct to explain the origin of the flagellum (or the origin of other complex biological forms, systems, structures, and processes). He's given you the harder task of providing evidence that the flagellum came into being via undirected Darwinian means - evidence that would show its apparent design to be an illusion.

                    Stewart: "The writings of design theorists are predictable and meaningless to anyone who trusts in proper scientific enquiry, so I am as likely to delve into them as I am in delving into David Beckham's autobiography."

                    Well, it's helpful for OriginsTalk readers to know that when you write about ID, you're writing from a position of ignorance.

                    Stewart: "Gimme a break, you are truly deluded if you think that it was mainly scientists and 'some' religious people who were the core of opposition to evolution."

                    Apparently the distinction between Darwin's theory of descent with modification (which was quickly accepted by both cultural elites and scientists) and his theory of natural selection (which was quickly accepted in cultural realms and applied to social issues, but found little acceptance among scientists for some seven decades) is too nuanced for you to grasp, so there's not much point in pursuing this topic. You want to use that blunderbuss term "evolution," which scatters meaning far and wide. But I haven't been talking about cultural and scientific acceptance of "evolution." I've been talking about the pace and breadth of acceptance of Darwin's doctrine of natural selection in the worlds of culture and science.

                    Jim in Missouri
                  • Joe Martin
                    From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: May-27-13 5:44 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                    Message 9 of 28 , May 29, 2013
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                      Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                      Sent: May-27-13 5:44 PM
                      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                      Evolution) - Vestigial Structures






                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: David
                      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:14 PM
                      Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                      Evolution) - Vestigial Structures

                      David Williams: Creationist brains appear to have lost the ability to reason
                      scientifically. That is why they write so much twaddle.

                      LA> That comment looks absurd when we find that various evolutionists have
                      admitted at various times and
                      in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their
                      evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public
                      debates on the scientific questions! For example a noted evolutonary
                      Biologist wrote the following;

                      ----------------------------

                      "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
                      winners in public debates



                      JM> Your side called them "debating games"... conventional science called
                      them SHOWS, so BOTH sides refute your claim of any relevance of the
                      "debating games" tactic. Trot out the REAL science of creation... if you
                      dare... if you CAN!





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Laurie Appleton
                      ... From: Joe Martin To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:41 AM Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design
                      Message 10 of 28 , May 29, 2013
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Joe Martin
                        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:41 AM
                        Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for Evolution) - Vestigial Structures




                        From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                        Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                        Sent: May-27-13 5:44 PM
                        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                        Evolution) - Vestigial Structures

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: David
                        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:14 PM
                        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                        Evolution) - Vestigial Structures

                        David Williams: Creationist brains appear to have lost the ability to reason
                        scientifically. That is why they write so much twaddle.



                        LA> That comment looks absurd when we find that various evolutionists have
                        admitted at various times and
                        in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their
                        evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public
                        debates on the scientific questions! For example a noted evolutonary
                        Biologist wrote the following;

                        ----------------------------

                        "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
                        winners in public debates



                        JM> Your side called them "debating games"... conventional science called
                        them SHOWS, so BOTH sides refute your claim of any relevance of the
                        "debating games" tactic. Trot out the REAL science of creation... if you
                        dare... if you CAN!


                        LA> Your statements are quite irrelevant and meaningless. Whether some people called them "games" or others called them "shows" does not alter the fact that evolutionists themselves admitted that they were regularly rounted on the scientific questions.


                        Laurie.

                        "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
                        to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
                        creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
                        (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
                        ..

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • stewart8724
                        Stewart: It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that the ID creationist movement is anything other than a religiously motivated and wholly unscientific
                        Message 11 of 28 , May 30, 2013
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Stewart: "It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that the ID creationist movement is anything other than a religiously motivated and wholly unscientific construct."

                          Even if this were true (and it's not), it would nonetheless be false that intelligent design "restricts itself to the Bible as the principle source of information," which was your original claim.

                          Stewart: Remove the implications of Biblical text and what is left to support the creationist claims?
                          Creationist claims are without doubt based on that Bible, that makes it the source of their most trusted information. Their faith in the Bible is so complete that any information that threatens Biblical text is regarded as false, even if it is scientifically sound. There are plenty of examples on this site of how creationists will deliberately misconstrue scientific claims in order to discredit them in their own mind.


                          If you can't see that the motivations of scientists are utterly irrelevant to the scientific legitimacy of their science, then you're not thinking clearly. I have no doubt that many proponents of Darwinian theory are motivated by their atheism (the theory is, after all, exceptionally friendly to atheism), but it hardly follows that Darwinian theory must lack scientific legitimacy on that account. Your claim cuts both ways: If ID must be deemed to be unscientific because many design proponents are motivated by their theism, then by the same token Darwinian theory must be counted as unscientific because many of its proponents are motivated by their atheism.

                          Stewart: This is another example of the twisted logic employed by creationists. No one is motivated by atheism. Atheism is the absence of belief as I have stated before, no one is motivated by a lack of faith in something. Scientists are motivated by curiosity and they are limited to what they can prove. Whether a scientist is theist or atheist makes no difference to the conclusions he can confidently report as a result of his studies.
                          Creation science begins with the `knowledge' that there is a creator and then progresses in an attempt to prove its existence. ID creationists are not just motivated by theism, their religious stance defines the direction and purpose of their studies. Herein lies the difference between real science and creation science.

                          Stewart: "How you can claim that ID has nothing to do with religion and is based solely on scientific inquiry, when at the same time your only significant objection to the concept is that it doesn't acknowledge a creator, is testament to your lack of objectivity and of reason."

                          Here you fail to distinguish between the science of intelligent design, which indeed has nothing to do with religion, and the theistic implications that might be drawn from ID theory. There's no "con" job going on here: I have repeatedly said that theists can and do identify the designer implicated by design in nature with the God they worship. But that is something they do on the basis of their theology, not on the basis of the science of intelligent design. The mere fact that ID theory has apologetic value for theists no more turns ID into theism than the fact that Darwinian theory has apologetic value for atheists turns that theory into atheism. Until you distinguish between the science of intelligent design and its theistic implications, you will continue to commingle the two and speak incoherently and falsely (as did Judge Jones) about ID.

                          Stewart: And yet you have previously said that you believe science should allow for the inclusion of philosophical inferences which may be taken from studies such as IDs `detection of intelligence'.
                          What possible reason would there be for changing the very core of scientific reliability other than to bestow an undeserved legitimacy to a religious notion by calling it science.
                          I speak of ID as I find it. If a judge in a trial (one who the creationist community had great faith in) sees it that same way, as do most other rational people in the world. Then maybe that is how ID reveals itself. It walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's an airy fairy pile of bollocks.


                          I think I would faint dead away if I ever caught you in the act of accurately representing what I've said. Here, for instance, I have never insisted that evolution must be limited. What I have actually said is that the accomplishments that have been credibly attributed to Darwinian evolution are quite unimpressive, being limited to such things as adaptively changing the size of finches' beaks, giving bacteria resistance to antibiotics, giving insects resistance to insecticides, and the like. Proponents of Darwinian theory have never shown that the undirected mechanisms of Darwinian evolution (principally, random genetic mutations and natural selection) are capable of constructing novel biological forms, systems, structures, and processes. They have, for example, spun stories about Darwinian evolution beginning with a light-sensitive spot and ending up with eyes capable of color vision, but they have no evidence showing that undirected Darwinian mechanisms actually accomplished that marvelous feat of creative engineering, or even that those mechanisms were capable of accomplishing that creative feat. My issue with the macroevolutionary claims of Darwinians is that I've yet to see any of them offer any evidence-based reasons for thinking that all of life's diverse and complex forms, systems, structures, and processes can be fully explained by the undirected process of Darwinian evolution. When I ask for such evidence, I'm referred to such things as Kettlewell's and Majerus's peppered moth research and asked to accept that because Darwinian evolution adequately accounts for adaptive industrial melanism in the moths, then Darwinian evolution also adequately accounts for how peppered moths came into being in the first place. And so it's not a matter of my thinking that Darwinian evolution "must be limited," rather it's a matter of Darwinian theory's proponents failing to show - with evidence, not stories and extrapolations - that Darwinian evolution creates without limits.

                          Stewart: So I haven't misrepresented what you said at all then? You say that all those evolutionary changes that science can observe and record and have documented histories on, are uncontested.
                          They are uncontested and unimpressive and have no bearing on and no implications for the explanation of the appearance and sudden disappearance of closely related species throughout history. There is fossil evidence that leads to conclusion (a), this is supported by geological determinations of the age of the Earth and the various strata. It is further corroborated by DNA evidence and zoological studies and anthropological studies. All branches of science rely on the practical certainty of this information but you and other creationists decide that all this amounts to worthless unreliable `stories' because there is no actual documentation of the events as they occurred. You of course have a much more believable explanation as to how the formation of species took place?


                          Actually, I've never imposed any limits on God's creativity, but I do think that if God were involved in making life what it is, we should be able to find evidence of actual design in living things. As I've often said, my belief that life is God's handiwork is one reason why I'm attracted to intelligent design (which implicates a purposeful designer), but not to Darwinian theory (which has no need of a purposeful designer).

                          Stewart: And that is why your opinion means nothing. Whether it be your opinion of how God ought to conduct his business or your opinion of what is a reasonable scientific explanation. Both are the result of an overblown sense of your own importance and the certainty that if you believe it, it must be true. You see in my opinion if God were responsible for creating life, there would be no need for evidence of design. There would be no need to eat or sleep or have any moving parts. The God I would imagine would create birds who's beaks didn't have to change in order for them to live. Of course my opinion is as important as yours so let's stick to what science can show. It cannot show that apparent design in living things is the result of an intelligent creator.

                          Stewart: "Wrong, design without a designer does not mean design without an intelligent designer."

                          Huh? Evidently this makes sense to you, but it makes no sense to me.

                          Stewart: There's a shock.

                          Stewart: "Design is a concept apparent to us as is art, try defining it."

                          That's already been done. A design is a plan executed by an intending intelligence to purposefully achieve a goal (or goals). That's why design stands as a quite distinct explanatory mode from chance and necessity. Design entails intelligent agency; chance and necessity do not. You make it sound as if someone who says that something (a computer, for instance) was designed is speaking in a mysterious and inscrutable way.

                          Stewart: Don't tell me that there is a difference between the complexity of a computer and the arrangement of three stones lying at the end of my path, and hope to convince me that you've explained some grand concept.
                          Tell me how you distinguish between natural things that have been designed and natural things that have not.
                          Please bear in mind that by natural I mean nothing designed specifically by animals. Don't use hypothetical examples either, give me an example of real things- one designed and the other not.


                          Stewart: "My reply illustrates (if you're willing to think) that there is no possibility of disproving something that does not exist."

                          I see. In that case you're wallowing in the logical fallacy of begging the question, as you simply take it as a given that design "does not exist" in nature.

                          Stewart: No, I accept that there is apparent design in living things as there is in snowflakes or solar systems or cloud formations. I question the arrogant assumption that these designs should be considered to be evidence of anything more than our tendency to see patterns in the most random of events. You can't claim that you have detected an example of intelligence without subjecting your conclusions to scrutiny. To ask others to prove your claim wrong without first identifying properly what your claim is (what you have identified), is ridiculous.

                          Stewart: "My reply mirrors the unfair demand set by Charles' question, so it does something to undermine the tactics of ID creationism by illustrating their dishonest methods."

                          Charles asked you to provide evidence that design in nature is merely an illusion. What's dishonest about that? You could meet Charles' request by providing evidence showing that a biological structure (say, the bacterial flagellum) that design theorists attribute to design was actually constructed by undirected material mechanisms (such as those invoked by Darwinian theory). But I doubt that Charles would be satisfied by the just-so stories that Darwinians concoct to explain the origin of the flagellum (or the origin of other complex biological forms, systems, structures, and processes). He's given you the harder task of providing evidence that the flagellum came into being via undirected Darwinian means - evidence that would show its apparent design to be an illusion.

                          Stewart: Ah the flagellum. Suppose I told Charles of the design characteristics of our old friend the flagellum? What do I compare those characteristics to in order to illustrate the difference between something made by God and something that happened without God noticing?
                          There is no control environment in which to test IDs claims, therefore their claims are irrelevant in a scientific context because they are impossible to prove or disprove.

                          Stewart: "The writings of design theorists are predictable and meaningless to anyone who trusts in proper scientific enquiry, so I am as likely to delve into them as I am in delving into David Beckham's autobiography."

                          Well, it's helpful for OriginsTalk readers to know that when you write about ID, you're writing from a position of ignorance.

                          Stewart: I'm not ignorant of their findings , I'm dubious of their conclusions and of their methods. You could content yourself with snide comments or you could make a serious attempt to convince me that there is merit in IDs stories. I doubt there will be enough power in either to have any marked effect on me.

                          Stewart: "Gimme a break, you are truly deluded if you think that it was mainly scientists and 'some' religious people who were the core of opposition to evolution."

                          Apparently the distinction between Darwin's theory of descent with modification (which was quickly accepted by both cultural elites and scientists) and his theory of natural selection (which was quickly accepted in cultural realms and applied to social issues, but found little acceptance among scientists for some seven decades) is too nuanced for you to grasp, so there's not much point in pursuing this topic. You want to use that blunderbuss term "evolution," which scatters meaning far and wide. But I haven't been talking about cultural and scientific acceptance of "evolution." I've been talking about the pace and breadth of acceptance of Darwin's doctrine of natural selection in the worlds of culture and science.

                          Jim in Missouri

                          Stewart: Well even a dafty like me is capable of disseminating biological evolution from political, economic, and social evolution. I have been discussing biological evolution. I had assumed that you understood this to be the case but possibly I should have clarified it as I know your pedantic tendencies.
                          So we agree that as regards biological evolution as in `Origin of species' there were no valid scientific objections to the concept when the book was published.



                          ...

                          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Stewart: "It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that the ID creationist movement is anything other than a religiously motivated and wholly unscientific construct."
                          >
                          > Even if this were true (and it's not), it would nonetheless be false that intelligent design "restricts itself to the Bible as the principle source of information," which was your original claim.
                          >
                          > Stewart: "If you can't see that then you're blind, otherwise you're trying to con us."
                          >
                          > If you can't see that the motivations of scientists are utterly irrelevant to the scientific legitimacy of their science, then you're not thinking clearly. I have no doubt that many proponents of Darwinian theory are motivated by their atheism (the theory is, after all, exceptionally friendly to atheism), but it hardly follows that Darwinian theory must lack scientific legitimacy on that account. Your claim cuts both ways: If ID must be deemed to be unscientific because many design proponents are motivated by their theism, then by the same token Darwinian theory must be counted as unscientific because many of its proponents are motivated by their atheism.
                          >
                          > Stewart: "How you can claim that ID has nothing to do with religion and is based solely on scientific inquiry, when at the same time your only significant objection to the concept is that it doesn't acknowledge a creator, is testament to your lack of objectivity and of reason."
                          >
                          > Here you fail to distinguish between the science of intelligent design, which indeed has nothing to do with religion, and the theistic implications that might be drawn from ID theory. There's no "con" job going on here: I have repeatedly said that theists can and do identify the designer implicated by design in nature with the God they worship. But that is something they do on the basis of their theology, not on the basis of the science of intelligent design. The mere fact that ID theory has apologetic value for theists no more turns ID into theism than the fact that Darwinian theory has apologetic value for atheists turns that theory into atheism. Until you distinguish between the science of intelligent design and its theistic implications, you will continue to commingle the two and speak incoherently and falsely (as did Judge Jones) about ID.
                          >
                          > Stewart: "You accept that evolution happens but insist that it must be limited. You offer no reason to explain why those limits should be imposed though."
                          >
                          > I think I would faint dead away if I ever caught you in the act of accurately representing what I've said. Here, for instance, I have never insisted that evolution must be limited. What I have actually said is that the accomplishments that have been credibly attributed to Darwinian evolution are quite unimpressive, being limited to such things as adaptively changing the size of finches' beaks, giving bacteria resistance to antibiotics, giving insects resistance to insecticides, and the like. Proponents of Darwinian theory have never shown that the undirected mechanisms of Darwinian evolution (principally, random genetic mutations and natural selection) are capable of constructing novel biological forms, systems, structures, and processes. They have, for example, spun stories about Darwinian evolution beginning with a light-sensitive spot and ending up with eyes capable of color vision, but they have no evidence showing that undirected Darwinian mechanisms actually accomplished that marvelous feat of creative engineering, or even that those mechanisms were capable of accomplishing that creative feat. My issue with the macroevolutionary claims of Darwinians is that I've yet to see any of them offer any evidence-based reasons for thinking that all of life's diverse and complex forms, systems, structures, and processes can be fully explained by the undirected process of Darwinian evolution. When I ask for such evidence, I'm referred to such things as Kettlewell's and Majerus's peppered moth research and asked to accept that because Darwinian evolution adequately accounts for adaptive industrial melanism in the moths, then Darwinian evolution also adequately accounts for how peppered moths came into being in the first place. And so it's not a matter of my thinking that Darwinian evolution "must be limited," rather it's a matter of Darwinian theory's proponents failing to show - with evidence, not stories and extrapolations - that Darwinian evolution creates without limits.
                          >
                          > Stewart: "You claim that an unfettered intelligence is responsible for the creation of life and therefore of the level evolution you accept, and yet maintain that this supreme creature must be confined to the limits of your imagination."
                          >
                          > Actually, I've never imposed any limits on God's creativity, but I do think that if God were involved in making life what it is, we should be able to find evidence of actual design in living things. As I've often said, my belief that life is God's handiwork is one reason why I'm attracted to intelligent design (which implicates a purposeful designer), but not to Darwinian theory (which has no need of a purposeful designer).
                          >
                          > Stewart: "Wrong, design without a designer does not mean design without an intelligent designer."
                          >
                          > Huh? Evidently this makes sense to you, but it makes no sense to me.
                          >
                          > Stewart: "Design is a concept apparent to us as is art, try defining it."
                          >
                          > That's already been done. A design is a plan executed by an intending intelligence to purposefully achieve a goal (or goals). That's why design stands as a quite distinct explanatory mode from chance and necessity. Design entails intelligent agency; chance and necessity do not. You make it sound as if someone who says that something (a computer, for instance) was designed is speaking in a mysterious and inscrutable way.
                          >
                          > Charles: "Please find some evidence that design in nature is nothing but an illusion."
                          > Stewart: "Please find evidence that the tooth fairy is nothing but an illusion."
                          > Me: "Please provide some evidence that you're capable of logical thinking. Here, for instance, it's howlingly illogical for you to think (as you evidently do) that your response to Charles actually does something to undermine the idea that there's real design in nature."
                          > Stewart: "My reply illustrates (if you're willing to think) that there is no possibility of disproving something that does not exist."
                          >
                          > I see. In that case you're wallowing in the logical fallacy of begging the question, as you simply take it as a given that design "does not exist" in nature.
                          >
                          > Stewart: "My reply mirrors the unfair demand set by Charles' question, so it does something to undermine the tactics of ID creationism by illustrating their dishonest methods."
                          >
                          > Charles asked you to provide evidence that design in nature is merely an illusion. What's dishonest about that? You could meet Charles' request by providing evidence showing that a biological structure (say, the bacterial flagellum) that design theorists attribute to design was actually constructed by undirected material mechanisms (such as those invoked by Darwinian theory). But I doubt that Charles would be satisfied by the just-so stories that Darwinians concoct to explain the origin of the flagellum (or the origin of other complex biological forms, systems, structures, and processes). He's given you the harder task of providing evidence that the flagellum came into being via undirected Darwinian means - evidence that would show its apparent design to be an illusion.
                          >
                          > Stewart: "The writings of design theorists are predictable and meaningless to anyone who trusts in proper scientific enquiry, so I am as likely to delve into them as I am in delving into David Beckham's autobiography."
                          >
                          > Well, it's helpful for OriginsTalk readers to know that when you write about ID, you're writing from a position of ignorance.
                          >
                          > Stewart: "Gimme a break, you are truly deluded if you think that it was mainly scientists and 'some' religious people who were the core of opposition to evolution."
                          >
                          > Apparently the distinction between Darwin's theory of descent with modification (which was quickly accepted by both cultural elites and scientists) and his theory of natural selection (which was quickly accepted in cultural realms and applied to social issues, but found little acceptance among scientists for some seven decades) is too nuanced for you to grasp, so there's not much point in pursuing this topic. You want to use that blunderbuss term "evolution," which scatters meaning far and wide. But I haven't been talking about cultural and scientific acceptance of "evolution." I've been talking about the pace and breadth of acceptance of Darwin's doctrine of natural selection in the worlds of culture and science.
                          >
                          > Jim in Missouri
                          >
                        • Joe Martin
                          From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: May-29-13 6:37 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                          Message 12 of 28 , May 31, 2013
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                            Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                            Sent: May-29-13 6:37 PM
                            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                            Evolution) - Vestigial Structures






                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Joe Martin
                            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:41 AM
                            Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                            Evolution) - Vestigial Structures

                            From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                            [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
                            On
                            Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                            Sent: May-27-13 5:44 PM
                            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                            Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                            Evolution) - Vestigial Structures

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: David
                            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                            <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:14 PM
                            Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                            Evolution) - Vestigial Structures

                            David Williams: Creationist brains appear to have lost the ability to reason
                            scientifically. That is why they write so much twaddle.

                            LA> That comment looks absurd when we find that various evolutionists have
                            admitted at various times and
                            in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their
                            evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public
                            debates on the scientific questions! For example a noted evolutonary
                            Biologist wrote the following;

                            ----------------------------

                            "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
                            winners in public debates

                            JM> Your side called them "debating games"... conventional science called
                            them SHOWS, so BOTH sides refute your claim of any relevance of the
                            "debating games" tactic. Trot out the REAL science of creation... if you
                            dare... if you CAN!

                            LA> Your statements are quite irrelevant and meaningless. Whether some
                            people called them "games" or others called them "shows" does not alter the
                            fact that evolutionists themselves admitted that they were regularly rounted
                            on the scientific questions.

                            JM> Really, Laurie? Show me... show me the creation science hypotheses that
                            overturned conventional scientific theories in ANY of these scientific
                            "debates" Any debate in any of the 10 years they occurred. Please provide
                            details on what creation science hypothesis over turned which conventional
                            science hypothesis and on what date.



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Laurie Appleton
                            ... From: Joe Martin To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 3:10 AM Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design
                            Message 13 of 28 , May 31, 2013
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Joe Martin
                              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 3:10 AM
                              Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for Evolution) - Vestigial Structures




                              JM> Your side called them "debating games"... conventional science called
                              them SHOWS, so BOTH sides refute your claim of any relevance of the
                              "debating games" tactic. Trot out the REAL science of creation... if you
                              dare... if you CAN!

                              LA> Your statements are quite irrelevant and meaningless. Whether some
                              people called them "games" or others called them "shows" does not alter the
                              fact that evolutionists themselves admitted that they were regularly rounted
                              on the scientific questions.

                              JM> Really, Laurie? Show me... show me the creation science hypotheses that
                              overturned conventional scientific theories in ANY of these scientific
                              "debates" Any debate in any of the 10 years they occurred. Please provide
                              details on what creation science hypothesis over turned which conventional
                              science hypothesis and on what date.


                              LA> Your question is fully answered by the admissions of evolutionists themselves that I have already provided. i.e. that the Creation scientists "regularly routed" their evolutionary opponents on the scientific questions. Here yet again is one example;

                              -----------------------------------
                              "Creationists travel all over the United States,
                              visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
                              biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
                              creationists nearly always win."

                              "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
                              converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
                              have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
                              awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
                              Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
                              onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
                              topics."

                              "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
                              relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
                              geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
                              the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
                              intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
                              their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
                              than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
                              bewildered state of incoherence."

                              (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
                              (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
                              debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)

                              ====================

                              LA> So what is it about the above that you cannot understand?



                              Laurie.

                              "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
                              (Niles Eldredge, leading evolutionist, 1995)

                              ..


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Joe Martin
                              From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: May-31-13 4:27 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jun 1, 2013
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                                Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                                Sent: May-31-13 4:27 PM
                                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                                Evolution) - Vestigial Structures






                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Joe Martin
                                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 3:10 AM
                                Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                                Evolution) - Vestigial Structures

                                JM> Your side called them "debating games"... conventional science called
                                them SHOWS, so BOTH sides refute your claim of any relevance of the
                                "debating games" tactic. Trot out the REAL science of creation... if you
                                dare... if you CAN!

                                LA> Your statements are quite irrelevant and meaningless. Whether some
                                people called them "games" or others called them "shows" does not alter the
                                fact that evolutionists themselves admitted that they were regularly rounted
                                on the scientific questions.

                                JM> Really, Laurie? Show me... show me the creation science hypotheses that
                                overturned conventional scientific theories in ANY of these scientific
                                "debates" Any debate in any of the 10 years they occurred. Please provide
                                details on what creation science hypothesis over turned which conventional
                                science hypothesis and on what date.

                                LA> Your question is fully answered by the admissions of evolutionists
                                themselves that I have already provided. i.e. that the Creation scientists
                                "regularly routed" their evolutionary opponents on the scientific questions.
                                Here yet again is one example;

                                -----------------------------------
                                "Creationists travel all over the United States,
                                visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
                                biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
                                creationists nearly always win."

                                "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
                                converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
                                have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
                                awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
                                Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
                                onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
                                topics."

                                "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
                                relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
                                geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
                                the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
                                intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
                                their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
                                than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
                                bewildered state of incoherence."

                                (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
                                (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
                                debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)

                                ====================

                                LA> So what is it about the above that you cannot understand?

                                JM> I cannot understand why you insist on continuing to Quote Eldredge out
                                of context on this snippet for 25 years and claim it somehow supports the
                                validity of creation "science" (sic) here is the original and comments
                                after:

                                "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
                                separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
                                United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
                                religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
                                scientific
                                notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
                                of
                                the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
                                societies
                                have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
                                how they came to be, and why.

                                But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
                                comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
                                creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
                                as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
                                grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
                                as
                                Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
                                supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
                                prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
                                ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
                                trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
                                journalist H.
                                L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
                                wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
                                religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
                                curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

                                The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
                                general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
                                conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
                                Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
                                local control of
                                tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
                                attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
                                Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
                                American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
                                anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
                                religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
                                overt political
                                action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
                                hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
                                is
                                once more on the political scene.

                                Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
                                Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
                                and
                                staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
                                creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
                                already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
                                been
                                showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
                                Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
                                soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
                                scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
                                points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
                                Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
                                educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
                                homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
                                who
                                are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
                                too
                                evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
                                are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
                                because
                                of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
                                evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
                                evolution.

                                The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
                                collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
                                unresolved,
                                intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
                                he
                                sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
                                and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
                                Thomas
                                Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
                                England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
                                theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
                                Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
                                religion.


                                Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
                                upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
                                never
                                claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the other hand, are
                                belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
                                time-honored-but
                                utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
                                communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
                                are
                                pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

                                (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
                                Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)

                                JM> The snippet Laurie uses only appears to support his notion when the
                                context is removed. Laurie claims my "question is fully answered by the
                                admissions of evolutionists themselves" which, of course, it does not and
                                merely raises the question of why is it necessary for him to butcher
                                Eldredge's words to give the appearance that these "debates" in some way
                                give validity to creation "science" when in the full context E. points out,
                                quite clearly that the creationist agenda is Political not scientific... AND
                                nowhere in his snippet does he answer the original argument posed to him:

                                Really, Laurie? Show me... show me the creation science hypotheses that
                                overturned conventional scientific theories in ANY of these scientific
                                "debates" Any debate in any of the 10 years they occurred. Please provide
                                details on what creation science hypothesis over turned which conventional
                                science hypothesis and on what date.

                                WHY IS THAT LAURIE?





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Laurie Appleton
                                ... From: Joe Martin To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 1:49 AM Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jun 2, 2013
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Joe Martin
                                  To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 1:49 AM
                                  Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for Evolution) - Vestigial Structures





                                  JM> Really, Laurie? Show me... show me the creation science hypotheses that
                                  overturned conventional scientific theories in ANY of these scientific
                                  "debates" Any debate in any of the 10 years they occurred. Please provide
                                  details on what creation science hypothesis over turned which conventional
                                  science hypothesis and on what date.

                                  LA> Your question is fully answered by the admissions of evolutionists
                                  themselves that I have already provided. i.e. that the Creation scientists
                                  "regularly routed" their evolutionary opponents on the scientific questions.
                                  Here yet again is one example;

                                  -----------------------------------
                                  "Creationists travel all over the United States,
                                  visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
                                  biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
                                  creationists nearly always win."

                                  "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
                                  converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
                                  have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
                                  awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
                                  Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
                                  onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
                                  topics."

                                  "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
                                  relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
                                  geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
                                  the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
                                  intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
                                  their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
                                  than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
                                  bewildered state of incoherence."

                                  (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
                                  (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
                                  debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)

                                  ====================

                                  LA> So what is it about the above that you cannot understand?

                                  JM> I cannot understand why you insist on continuing to Quote Eldredge out
                                  of context on this snippet for 25 years and claim it somehow supports the
                                  validity of creation "science"



                                  LA> You cannot be serious in your claim that the above is "out of context". Therefore I conclude that your arguments have nothing to do with science as such at all. So I ask you to put foreward what must be your "REAL" problem and why you seem so desperate to reject the conclusions of even your top authorities.



                                  Laurie.

                                  "The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla." J.T. Bonner, eminent evolutionist, 1961)

                                  ..


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Joe Martin
                                  From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: June-02-13 6:57 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Jun 3, 2013
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                                    Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                                    Sent: June-02-13 6:57 PM
                                    To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                                    Evolution) - Vestigial Structures






                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Joe Martin
                                    To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 1:49 AM
                                    Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence Against Intelligent Design (and for
                                    Evolution) - Vestigial Structures

                                    JM> Really, Laurie? Show me... show me the creation science hypotheses that
                                    overturned conventional scientific theories in ANY of these scientific
                                    "debates" Any debate in any of the 10 years they occurred. Please provide
                                    details on what creation science hypothesis over turned which conventional
                                    science hypothesis and on what date.

                                    LA> Your question is fully answered by the admissions of evolutionists
                                    themselves that I have already provided. i.e. that the Creation scientists
                                    "regularly routed" their evolutionary opponents on the scientific questions.
                                    Here yet again is one example;

                                    -----------------------------------
                                    "Creationists travel all over the United States,
                                    visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
                                    biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
                                    creationists nearly always win."

                                    "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
                                    converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
                                    have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
                                    awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
                                    Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
                                    onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
                                    topics."

                                    "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
                                    relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
                                    geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
                                    the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
                                    intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
                                    their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
                                    than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
                                    bewildered state of incoherence."

                                    (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
                                    (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
                                    debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)

                                    ====================

                                    LA> So what is it about the above that you cannot understand?

                                    JM> I cannot understand why you insist on continuing to Quote Eldredge out
                                    of context on this snippet for 25 years and claim it somehow supports the
                                    validity of creation "science"

                                    LA> You cannot be serious in your claim that the above is "out of context".
                                    Therefore I conclude that your arguments have nothing to do with science as
                                    such at all. So I ask you to put foreward what must be your "REAL" problem
                                    and why you seem so desperate to reject the conclusions of even your top
                                    authorities.

                                    JM> I am quite serious and you deleting the original which SHOWS your
                                    snippet is out of context just punctuates my comment about it being out of
                                    context. Here is what you deleted to make you erroneous conclusion above:

                                    "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
                                    separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
                                    United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
                                    religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
                                    scientific
                                    notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
                                    of
                                    the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
                                    societies
                                    have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
                                    how they came to be, and why.

                                    But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
                                    comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
                                    creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
                                    as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
                                    grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
                                    as
                                    Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
                                    supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
                                    prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
                                    ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
                                    trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
                                    journalist H.
                                    L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
                                    wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
                                    religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
                                    curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

                                    The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
                                    general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
                                    conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
                                    Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
                                    local control of
                                    tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
                                    attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
                                    Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
                                    American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
                                    anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
                                    religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
                                    overt political
                                    action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
                                    hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
                                    is
                                    once more on the political scene.

                                    Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
                                    Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
                                    and
                                    staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
                                    creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
                                    already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
                                    been
                                    showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
                                    Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
                                    soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
                                    scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
                                    points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
                                    Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
                                    educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
                                    homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
                                    who
                                    are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
                                    too
                                    evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
                                    are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
                                    because
                                    of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
                                    evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
                                    evolution.

                                    The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
                                    collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
                                    unresolved,
                                    intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
                                    he
                                    sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
                                    and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
                                    Thomas
                                    Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
                                    England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
                                    theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
                                    Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
                                    religion.


                                    Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
                                    upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
                                    never
                                    claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the other hand, are
                                    belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
                                    time-honored-but
                                    utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
                                    communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
                                    are
                                    pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

                                    (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
                                    Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)

                                    JM> The snippet Laurie uses only appears to support his notion when the
                                    context is removed. Laurie claims my "question is fully answered by the
                                    admissions of evolutionists themselves" which, of course, it does not and
                                    merely raises the question of why is it necessary for him to butcher
                                    Eldredge's words to give the appearance that these "debates" in some way
                                    give validity to creation "science" when in the full context E. points out,
                                    quite clearly that the creationist agenda is Political not scientific... AND
                                    nowhere in his snippet does he answer the original argument posed to him:

                                    Really, Laurie? Show me... show me the creation science hypotheses that
                                    overturned conventional scientific theories in ANY of these scientific
                                    "debates" Any debate in any of the 10 years they occurred. Please provide
                                    details on what creation science hypothesis over turned which conventional
                                    science hypothesis and on what date.

                                    You have STILL to address the argument above on the creation science
                                    hypotheses that
                                    overturned conventional scientific theories in ANY of these scientific
                                    "debates". Are you going to address this or just continue to delete it and
                                    claim debate "victories" as the validity for YEC science when it has been
                                    shown the snippet you use is Out Of Context?



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.