I am not well-versed in science or scientific terms, but I do like me some logic. And I’ll admit that I only occasionally bury my head in this stuff . . . and why? Because every time I am lured to the siren song of Evolutionists I get close to the rocks, examine their claims in depth and realize “hey, they’re just jerking me around” …

OMG I think my irony filter must be broken. Thank you Ned for embodying yet again why there’s no such thing as intelligent design.

Sorry buddy but you left yourself wide open to that one.

YAY! Evolution thread!!!! (crowd rolls eyes..)

Ned,

Since we’ve now moved to the arguments about Macro evolution, you are now getting in to one of my favorite topics. In fact, my blog is usually listed in the top three of a google search for “creationist stupidity”. This makes me happy.

Sorry if some of us aren’t as convinced that apes begat humans as we are that apples fall “down.”

Just because you can’t watch an ape-like ancestor turn in to a human like you can watch an apple fall to the ground, don’t think that the evidence doesn’t exist. First I would suggest reading about the ever shrinking “gaps” in the “god of the gaps” argument by perusing the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. And if you’re interested to learn more about the abundant evidence for human evolution versus the creation-excuse me-”Intelligent Design” argument, I would suggest Creationism and Human Evolution.

Here’s the fundamental problem with your argument Ned-

Certain examples of evolution have been observed and certain are highly likely, but that doesn’t mean that all or any purported example of evolution is reasonable.

Nor does science state that “any purported example of evolution is reasonable”. In fact, if you would examine the difference between the facts and the theories of evolution, you would see that the theories concerning the mechanics of evolution are constantly challenged, destroyed, resupported, destroyed again, new ones potentially discovered, destroyed again, and so on and so forth. Stephen Gould is famous in the scietific realm for his ideas behind Punctuated Equilibria . The idea behind Punctuated Equilibria shattered the long held view of gradual natural selection, meaning things evolve slowly in predictable ways over relatively predictable time periods. Gould argued the idea that there were time preiods where there was abrubt evolutionary change due to various environmental, geological and biological factors. This was hotly disputed within the scientific community, and still is to a degree.

The statement that science is at all “rigid” when it comes theories and hypotheses is completely false.

And again, there is NO SCIENCE involved in either ID or creationism.

Ned Williams:

“You’re wrong because it doesn’t make sense to me” is not a valid argument.

I knew the implications of writing that sentence, SB. I’m just a simple country lawyer and I can spot specious arguments by “scientists” whose passionate anti-supernaturalism belies their purported dispassionate commitment to science.

dc,
You can call me “ned.”

Thanks, Ned Williams; but I don’t want to.

“I’m just a simple country lawyer and I can spot specious arguments by “scientists” whose passionate anti-supernaturalism belies their purported dispassionate commitment to science.”

Ned Williams;

Once again you demonstrate your abilities as a mentalist; reading from afar the minds of the scientists.

“Sorry if some of us aren’t as convinced that apes begat humans as we are that apples fall “down.”

That isn’t what evolution says. It says apes and humans had a common ancestor. It’s the difference between saying someone is your parents and saying someone is your fourth cousin.

As Gould liked to say, evolution isn’t a ladder, it’s a bush. Species don’t proceed from one to another on a set path of advancement. They twist, and branch, and sometimes end.

I have a response to this post in these comments that I wrote two days ago that still says “Your comment is awaiting moderation”.

No swear words or nasty stuff, just a full response to Ned.

What’s up mods? Can you guys push it through?

Tman,
No “moderating going on” (not by me, at least) . . . I’ll look into it and publish your “full response” asap.

Thanks Ned!

You’re welcome, Tman.

I’ve already stated this, but my point was that the “facts” supporting “apples fall down” are MUCH more definitive than the “facts” supporting apes evolved into humans, and Gould had to waste a lot of arguing to try and bolster the latter “facts.”

Also, I didn’t say that scientists (who accept macro-evolution) don’t disagree about how macro-evolution happens. Indeed, y’all had to come up with some plausible explanation for speciation . . . and though PE certainly fits the facts better than the theory that held sway (with little support) for more than a century, it’s still not compelling, in my humble opinion.

the “facts” supporting “apples fall down” are MUCH more definitive than the “facts” supporting apes evolved into humans, and Gould had to waste a lot of arguing to try and bolster the latter “facts.”

As Les has stated above, apes didn’t just “evolve” in to humans. Humans are part of the same ancestral heritage as apes, meaning we both come from the common primate-like ancestor.

If you are arguing that the facts aren’t as compelling, then you appear to have avoided actually examining these facts. There are abundant sets of fossils that convincingly display the genetic lineage of modern homosapiens. If you can’t see why this is evidence is so compelling, then I’m disappointed in your ability to truly examine the evidence at hand.

Also, I didn’t say that scientists (who accept macro-evolution)

Any scientist who studies biology in any way not only “accepts” macro evolution, but indeed their entire field of knowledge is predicated on the understanding that evolution is a fact.

and though PE certainly fits the facts better than the theory that held sway (with little support) for more than a century, it’s still not compelling, in my humble opinion

You keep ignoring all the evidence I’ve presented. I haven’t seen you attempt to dispute any of the “29 Evidences For Macro-Evolution” I presented above.

Also, you have failed to show how either ID or Creationism brings A SINGLE PIECE OF FACTUAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to answer any of the questions about how animals became what they are today.

Your side has repeatedly been laughed out of courtrooms across the country now going on almost a complete century since the Scopes trial. By any sense of logic, one should stop beating the drum that the evidence doesn’t exist. If you are going to argue against the proof of evolution, than argue the facts.

Don’t argue from your own personal ignorance. It doesn’t prove anything.

There is a great Penn and Teller Bull Sh*t Episode that deals with ID in a mich more humorous manner than this debate has so farm in case anyone is interested.

Tman,
I’ve read that 29 Evidences page before . . . Bait and switch (”We promise these evidences will knock your socks off . . . Slam dunk . . . blahblahblah”–see above in post). I guess this is where I need to call “foul” for the condescending/dismissive rim shots (and democommie thought I required “Mentalist”–whatever that is, abilities to know that purportedly dispassionate scientists were passionately anti-Supernaturalists). I will try to find time to do your homework assignment, but there are plenty of scientists who reach different conclusions about this than you do, Tman, and I’m not pancaked by the fact that some judge(s) in some courtroom(s) laughed at a given proposition.

Re. ID, I’ve made my argument in the comments at the linked post. But do we “evidence” of PE?

Bait and switch?

What are you talking about? What is baited or switched?

“there are plenty of scientists who reach different conclusions about this than you do, Tman”

There are? Really? You sure it’s that many? There isn’t a great debate among the scientists that study biology. How do you think we make antibiotics?

Behe and Dembinksi have been demolished, and the list of “scientists” who don’t believe that evolution is the only current explanation for the origin of our species is getting a lot smaller.

I’m not pancaked by the fact that some judge(s) in some courtroom(s) laughed at a given proposition.

It wasn’t “some judge” in “some courtroom”. It was “every judge” in “every courthouse of law”, for the last almost century. School boards aren’t courtrooms.

ID, I’ve made my argument in the comments at the linked post. But do we “evidence” of PE?

Your argument in the other thread didn’t have any evidence either. It was basically “intelligent design has to be the reason because every part works in such complex and specified ways”. But when I asked you to list these ways, nothing.
For instance Behe attempts to use the Bacterium Flagellum as an example and he’s been spanked by people who study, well, Bacterium Flagellum. And none of it is evidence because it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny the way the facts that support evolution do.

We do have evidence of PE, by the way. But again, that is a theory about the mechanics of the fact of evolution.

I tried.

Good luck Ned.

Ned Williams:

I know you got a day job, but your last comment was made at 10:41 PM, so you could’ve Wiki’d this yourownself:

“Mentalism is an ancient performing art in which its practitioners, known as mentalists, use mental acuity, principles of stage magic, hypnosis and/or suggestion to present the illusion of mind reading, psychokinesis, precognition, clairvoyance or mind control.”

I mean, maybe all of those scientists are card-carrying members of the “I hate Ned Williams’ GOD” society, but other than that or some similar statement of their beleifs (or lack of same) considering the supernatural your characterization of them is purely speculative, much like Creationism and ID non-science nonsense.

I used to go to a church that required all members to tithe. So, I never joined. I still went to most sunday service, did a lot of bad singing with the choir and a fair amount of volunteering. My minister (or my almost minister, I guess) sorta wished I would join (we’ve been friends for over 30 years) but she understood my unwillingness to tithe.

She really believed in tithing but she knew that culling the flock for that one reason alone would shrink both the numbers of congregants and the weekly take. She also believes in evolution so she’s probably considered, by many evangelical and fundamentalists, to be an apostatate anyway. She is quite a wonderful lady, nonetheless.

Tman, with whom I frequently disagree, lays out a trail of evidence that is not too hard to follow. Of course it requires a belief in the tangible and various hypotheses (backed by an amazing amount of factual data). Are you one of those biblical literalist, Ned Williams?

Yes. Just like any literature, where the author implies a literal interpretation, I interpret it literally. Yes, before turning my blackberry off for the night I checked my gmail account, saw someone had commented on this thread, and tried to respond to Tman’s comment so as to keep the thread active. Scoff if you will, but I have a very full life, and chasing down (again) links sprinkled through a comment by an intellectually adversarial stranger on a blog wasn’t at the top of my priorities yesterday.

Tman,
The whole point of the post was “bait and switch.” The “facts” aren’t quite as slam-dunky for “Tman evolved from an ape” as they are for “apples fall down.” According to Gould (and you and Les) “Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. . . . And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.” Convenient that you get to presume the “fact” and worry about the details (aka, supporting “facts”) later.

And that’s the rub. Evolutionists have a case they need to make and they have a lot vested in the system. Oh, yes, there is debate on the fringes (as you seemed to think I didn’t know or seemed to think was “proof” of how dispassionately in pursuit of the truth all scientists are), but your premise is “there IS a natural explanation to this.” And believe you me, there are a LOT of mysteries that get glossed over by you and yours . . . because we all know that there is a naturalist explanation to how we got here.

But that’s fine, Tman. Believe what you want. I’ll do the same. I’ll try to keep an open mind and consider the evidence, and when the evidence is compelling, I hope I will change my “belief.” And I’ll try to look past the patronizing attitudes and zealous, religious fervor of those who purport to confidently sit atop the overwhelming evidence for what is true about Origins.

Good luck to you as well.

Ned,

I’ll say this one last thing. Without our understanding of evolution, modern medicine would be in the dark ages. The reason people like myself get so animated and agitated when people attempt to categorize evolution as some sort of faith-based religion is because thinking like this is a big strain on our already overburdened education system. And our knowledge base is suffering as a result.

Yes, I am accusing creationists and ID’ers of dumbing down science. If it was up to me I wouldn’t allow people who don’t believe in evolution to use medecine that is made using the basic theories behind evolution to develop it with.

Doonesbury (whom I normally can’t stand) lays it out in this strip here.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051218.gif

Ned Williams:

You are just the embodiment of the energizer bunny.

I did not put a link in the comment where I said you were a mentalist, so you didn’t have to chase it down. I did use a word, the meaning of which, you did not know. Rather than look it up (which you could do in about 10-15 seconds online or in a paper dictionary, you chose to display your ignorance and apathy about that ignorance of the term. I know you’re not so busy that it keeps you from tirelessly pushing your sociopolitical agenda here, but I guess we all have our priorities.

I know that, considering your scheduling demands, that my suggesting you check out this link:

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/laura.html

is probably not going to result in your actually reading it. I would cut’n'paste to spare you the difficulty in going there, it but it’s a long piece because it includes all of the actual scriptural quotes that were used to formulate the “Letter to Dr. Laura”. I find it to be quite humurous but, then again, I think the bible is an interesting moral tale that frequently reflects the times and particular biases of it’s scribes.

However, you being a biblical literalist I’m sure you could answer the letter writer’s questions.

Thank you, Ned Williams, for this:

“And I’ll try to look past the patronizing attitudes and zealous, religious fervor of those who purport to confidently sit atop the overwhelming evidence for what is true about Origins.”

I believe that is exactly the same thing that most folks who believe in the science of evolution say about those who believe in faith based Creation Nonscience and Intelligent Design. The only real difference is that they don’t consider those they argue with to be doomed to hell for their obdurate lunacy.

Whatever happened on that homeschooling thread a few posts back, Ned Williams. I think you took your ball and went home. I don’t know that a lot of other folks who read this blog are tired of reading my comments–despite your assertion–and your erudite (if a tad sarcastic, and sanctimonious) replies; but, I know you are.

I don’t believe that people who believe in Evolution are doomed to Hell. Ironically, Tman asserted above that he thinks I and others who are unconvinced about Evolution should be doomed to lives without the benefit of medicines (that he thinks are all derived from the belief that mankind evolved from proteins or something or other).

Re. mentalist, that wouldn’t have been difficult to look up, but I wasn’t interested in taking the time to research a sarcastic slight from dc. There’s a point where interaction online is a waste of time . . . life involves choices, right dc?

dc,
I looked back at those questions in your last comment at “Braisted on homeschooling” and they weren’t worth answering.

Tman asserted above that he thinks I and others who are unconvinced about Evolution should be doomed to lives without the benefit of medicines (that he thinks are all derived from the belief that mankind evolved from proteins or something or other).

That’s not exactly what I said, but I do wonder if you realize that without evolution, there would be no such thing as anti-biotics, for example.

So for someone as intelligent as you are, I find it grossly irresponsible for you to deny the science that help provide you with the medecines that save your life.

Ned Williams:

“I don’t believe that people who believe in Evolution are doomed to Hell. Ironically, Tman asserted above that he thinks I and others who are unconvinced about Evolution should be doomed to lives without the benefit of medicines (that he thinks are all derived from the belief that mankind evolved from proteins or something or other).”

Hmmm. So it’s okay for those of us who don’t take the word of GOD, the bible, literally, to go to heaven (if we believe in it)? Is that what you’re saying, Ned Williams? TMan doesn’t need my help to defend his comments, but you (as is customary) misrepresent or simply misquote people who have said something previously.

“Re. mentalist, that wouldn’t have been difficult to look up, but I wasn’t interested in taking the time to research a sarcastic slight from dc. There’s a point where interaction online is a waste of time . . . life involves choices, right dc?”

Oh, goodness me. Ned Williams you are just the arbiter of what’s proper and needful. Why on earth would anyone
ever disagree with a genius attorney who always has the answer for everything? My opinion is that when I see your “waste of time” response from you that it’s just your way of saying, “I don’t know how to answer that without hurting myself, when I twist my logic like a pretzel.” I never said it was difficult to look up the word, “mentalist”. You said you were too busy. It is amusing for me to read all of your protestations about being too busy to do anything that you don’t want to do.

Hey, Ned Williams, did you check out that link to the “Dr. Laura” letter. Umm, I’ll bet you’re too busy.

yep.

whoa - this is tons more interesting than chinese food…

go demo go!

Claudia:

Hi, howyadoon?

Ned Williams:

Thanks for proving my point.

Tman,
You asserted (in support of your agitation) that, ” . . . thinking like this is a big strain on our already overburdened education system.”

How so?

And in hunting down that sentence, I realized that you’re consistently fallaciously conflating Macro- and Micro-Evolution or Macro-Evolution and Natural Selection.

You asserted (in support of your agitation) that, ” . . . thinking like this is a big strain on our already overburdened education system.”

Because it wastes the time of the teachers and the students when parents who are ignorant about the science of evolution want to interfere with science classes by forcing schools to teach that there is some type of scientific alternative to evolution when there isn’t one.

And I’m STILL waiting for you to produce the evidence for creationism or “intelligent design”.

I realized that you’re consistently fallaciously conflating Macro- and Micro-Evolution or Macro-Evolution and Natural Selection.

No, I don’t think I am. Macro and micro evolution are essentially the same thing. They both use natural selection as the mechanism for determining which genetic mutations are advantageous for the organisms continued survival.

I think the problem here is that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. And frankly, I’m not sure if you are ever going to figure it out. Until you remove your biblical blinders, you are not going to truly understand the basics about evolution.

But I’m sure next time you get very sick and need antibiotics you will have no trouble in taking advantage of the medicines that are available due to our understanding of evolution.

This makes you a hypocrite. But don’t worry, you’re not alone unfortunately.

“Hypocrite”? Yeah, right.

I’ll remember that definition for future discussions. And I’ll remember it when mulling over accusations from folks like you that Conservatives are vindictive, or petty or moralistic, or “mean.” You can just enjoy the warm feeling of letting all of us “deniers” benefit from all the good things you and yours have done for us.

Yes, macro and micro are “essentially the same thing” . . . except for speciation. Minor issue. I ar a stoopid Biblicull lidderullist and I kan spot that disstenction.

Gimme a break about wasting time and resources. Who? Where? How many school boards? I’d say you need to find a better rationale for your overzealousness.

Which brings me to an important point. Sean off-handedly remarked that a parent’s desire to avoid Evolution was not a compelling reason to support homeschooling.

Oops, hit submit prematurely.

. . . Sean is certainly free to hold that opinion, and I’m free to teach my children that there are a lot of unknowns about Origins, and all those unknown gaps needn’t be filled with Naturalistic hypotheses.

Testing, testing; 1,2,3

Tman:

I don’t know if this is the link you cited for the 29 Proofs of Macro Evolution (that title sounds kinda scary, like the “Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion”)

(link left out to see if it was causing the spam filter to trash my comments)

but, if it is: Holy Schnikeys! Man, that is some serious reading with all them charts with the wigglies and stuff.

This website:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/genesis2.htm

presents a much more easily read account of the origin of, well, just about everything.

I can see where folks that are busy, busy, busy would not have the time to waste reading all that science crap (forget the body of the piece, look at the bibliography, ai-yi-yi! Answer me this. How come the sciencepriests can’t just say something like the (obviously) christian writer at that other website does.

You know, something like.

There used to be nothing, then there was a huge ’splosion and stuff smashed into other stuff and became planets and stuff and then random events happened and we wound up with the stars and our sun and the planets and this earth (including “Area 51″ out there near Roswell, NM) and everything living on it from aardvarks to zebras plus all the fishes in the sea and the teeny tiny invisible things that help us and kill us. The end. ?

I mean it would make it a lot easier if it was just the word of GOD against a bunch of atheists. GOD always wins anyway, but it would be a lot more obvious if they stopped using all those numbers and words that are hard to read and understand. Don’t you think so.

I’d ask Ned Williams about this, but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t want to talk to me.

This last sentence of Ned Williams, btw, is a doozy.

“And in hunting down that sentence, I realized that you’re consistently fallaciously conflating Macro- and Micro-Evolution or Macro-Evolution and Natural Selection.”

I’m not sure I’d know what he meant, even if I knew what he said.

Good night dear democommie!

Now that the argument between “All fact, no faith evolutionary science” and “All faith, no fact ID/Creationism” has been decided in favor of the latter by Ned Williams, will he move on to other questions such as, “how many angels may dance on teh head of a pin”. That particular question will be even easier for Ned Williams to answer as even most atheist scientists (all those who support evolution in contrast to ID/Creationism) will readily admit to having done no empirical or theoretical testing of the thesis.

[…] Nearly as funny, this April Fool’s joke in support of creationism. […]