Open Letter to Emeryroolz: Evolution, Science and Reality

Emeryroolz, MG, and anyone else on the opposite side of the fence should take note that BenTheGreen's stance is not strictly ID, but that of a devout Catholic espousing ID. ID doesn't specifically mention God, god, or what have you.

Living things HAVE been proven to change and adapt to changes in their environment.

To change or perhaps broaden the conversation somewhat, I am wondering if, while we are taking about the scientific merit of ID (which I am still hoping someone will explain), we might also include in the discussion the scientific merit of ET. Because as regards the latter, I think we need to make a distinction between the observed microevolution that occurs within a species -- such as Darwin observed in the finches on the Galapagos Islands -- and the hypothesis of macroevolution in which one species is transubstantiated into another by a purely natural process.

Microevolution (or "decent with modification" as Darwin called it) says quite reasonably: If there is a struggle for existence, and if individuals vary in terms of their traits, then certain individuals will have traits that make them more successful at surviving and reproducing than other individuals. And if some of these variations are inherited, then traits that promote success will become more common in future generations because individuals possessing them will leave more offspring.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, says: If we breed dogs long enough we can get horses.

(Only one of these is based on clear scientific evidence. Can you guess which one?)

At this point, without advancing any position, I would like to point out that many people who have a religious belief in creation also have a scientific belief in microevolution -- whether they be pure creationists who think that life as we know it is the result of an unspecified intelligently guided process, or Biblical creationists who believe more or less in the Genesis story. (I don't know if ID theorists believe in creation or not. Anyone?)

Wikipedia isn´t exactly a source complied by experts, but their treatment of ID is exceedingly fair, in my opinion - pros, cons, and origins.

I make this point, Emeryroolz, because there seems to be in your writing an unstated assumption that religion and science are not just in a state of tension but fundamentally irreconcilable; yet many of the great scientists themselves professed a religion of one kind or another (be it Christianity or Pythagorean mysticism). It would be a discredit to their genius to write that off as a quirk.

Also, the fact that the universe is contingent is really, really obvious evidence for ID, and also for creation (of any sort). You don't need a monotheistic religion to tell you that the universe is contingent; even the ancient pagans knew as much.

Since I'm too lazy to look up proof in the bible, I'll let this guy do it for me.

Edward Babinski's arguments are invalid because he deduces a scientific conclusion from a non-scientific text. In short, the Bible is for instructing us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

It was this RELIGIOUS belief that lead to Galileo's trail for HERESY.

Before you buy into the authorized version of a "lonely champion of the enlightenment being oppressed by a blind, despotic Church," let's consider some facts.

Fact number one: Copernicus' "De Revolutionibus," published after the author's death in 1543, was not put on the Index until 1616, after Galileo started misinterpreting it.

Fact number two: The Vatican's chief theologian, Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine, was a professed Copernican, and he said at one point that if Copernicanism were verified, "it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary, and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false which had been proven." (qtd. in Galileo's Mistake) This was nothing new; over a thousand years ealier, St. Augustine had said: "Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn." (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 19)

Fact number three: Galileo could not account for the apparent lack of stellar parallax, and without this his theory could be reasonably doubted as an exact description of physical reality. (This was later was discovered by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel in 1838.)

Fact number four: In May of 1611, Galileo travels to Rome where he is honored for his astronomical discoveries at a banquet by the mathematicians at Collegio Romano.

And, finally,

Fact number five: Thus encouraged, Galileo in 1615 published his "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina," in which he argued that not only had the Copernican thesis been conclusively demonstrated, but that the new scientific method had shown its clear superiority over Scripture as a guide to the universe.

I would suggest (though I am not entirely convinced of it myself) that the trial of 1633 was not about Copernicism per se but instead about Galileo's misunderstanding about the nature of science. Galileo said in The Assayer: "For this reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question." Galileo was not proposing the Copernican system as a new model to understand the movements of the heavens, which is what Copernicus did; rather he was saying that this system was exactly descriptive of reality (which it wasn't, not exactly anyways, but the corrections came later). Galileo is saying that empirical evidence, or "that which sense-experience sets before our eyes," is definite and unchallengeable, that it is known without uncertainty.

To be fair, though Galileo was wrong about the nature of science, it is precisely this Enlightenment idea of trusting your senses first and foremost, before all else, that gave rise to the boon in science we still enjoy today. The argument may need a bit of rewording - a picture of Galileo misunderstanding science when science as we know it today was just beginning to wake up isn't quite accurate, since the Church didn't have this kind of science yet either.

That is of course obviously wrong, and the whole history of science testifies against it. Scientific models of nature are not pre-existing truths but human constructs. They are mappings of the phenomena. To say we have come to the end of these mappings is to say there will never be another scientific revolution in which the accepted model is overturned and a new one is created. Sure, you can think that if you want. Until the next genius comes along and proves you wrong.

Wade Rowland makes the following comments in his book "Galileo's Mistake":

The interesting question that arises out of this historical fact is why did the Church formally and vehemently reject Copernicanism, even though it harbored strong suspicions of its validity? To ask that question is to begin to realize that Galileo's dispute with the Church was not about Copernicanism per se. In other words, it was not about whether the Earth moves. What, then, was it about?

The dispute was over two conflicting views of the nature of truth and reality and about the roles religion and science ought to play in defining the world we live in. Of far more fundamental concern to the Church than the details of the Copernican hypothesis was Galileo's belief in the reality of number, his conviction that the Universe was essentially a mathematical entity, in some literal way composed of numbers . . . .

For the Church, a mathematical, mechanistic interpretation of nature could never be more than a model, an intellectual artifact. Between theory and reality there would always be a gap that could not be bridged by human reason.

Roeland's argument, as a whole, isn't entirely convincing (it actually accounts for several facts, except one which lies right at the heart of the matter). But at least he takes into consideration some of the historical facts that the usual Galileo myth overlooks and can't explain; like the following quote of Galileo from The Assayer:

Philosophy is written in this grand book the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze; but the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and to read the alphabet in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth.

These silly scientists; they think their particular mode of knowledge is the only one.

Thanks for contributing, Ben. And here are the questions someone needs to answer in a rebuttal or argument for either side:

1. Whether or nt ID is a fully scientific theory based on current definitions of science,

2. Whether or not it should be considered for teaching, whether or not it fits the current definitions of science, and

3. What the hell is science?

An Open Letter to Yo Momma

Rules, schmules! I'm emeryroolz, and I makes my OWN roolz.

Now, I’m not going to bother rehashing everything I said in my last post. I think I demonstrated pretty clearly why I, and most of the non-religious world, think ID is a bunch of hooey. And I’ll admit that I’m not a scientist, unless you count “pimp science,” though I am interested in it and read about it every now and again. Oh, and I work with scientists every day.

With that said, let me tell you where you're wrong:

I very much believe that ID has scientific merit

One criteria for determining "scientific merit" is "Do the hypotheses rest on sufficient evidence, and are they clearly stated, and are they testable." So, a "theory" with no testable predictions, no experiments, no observational analysis, no peer-reviewed scientific papers... that's a theory with scientific merit? No-ah-ah. It might be an interesting thought or an idea, but it ain't a scientific theory.

The best and most obvious example of their similarity is the "black box," or the explanation used when all other explanations have failed. In ID, it's a Designer (not Jesus. Shame on Emery for thinking that the only possible reason to disagree with ET would come from religious dogma). For ET, it's Chance.

First, for the record, I have no shame. Second, who do you think this "Designer" is? Who do you think the ID-iots think the "Designer" is? It's god. Or super-intelligent aliens (which, if true, means Scientology is the one true religion… ugh) . Saying "We don't know WHO the designer is, wink wink" is disingenuous. And "Chance" is not exactly what scientists cling to. It's adaptation to environment, the necessity for survival. Living things HAVE been proven to change and adapt to changes in their environment. You know, things like natural forces, as opposed to SUPERnatural forces.

That's not a black box. It's an explanation based on available evidence and backed up by observation, analysis, and experimentation.

And as stupid as any one person may find the Black Box of the opposing position, the bottom line is this:
they aren't different. In operation, at least. Not at all.

Evolutionary Theory - evidence, observation, peer-reviewed scientific papers, experiments…
Intelligent Design - Um... Michael Behe's book?

The only relevant reason for hating ID is this: ID's Black Box has a different name and a different shape.*
Now I recognize that there are many significant if ultimately irrelevant) reasons for hating ID, the largest being that it has been heavily pushed and promoted by Creation Theorists, the very same who have often ridiculed and decried the scientific establishment and are now clamoring for re-entry. That, however, as irritating as it may be, isn't sufficient reason for throwing out the theory - only factual or structural problems are reason enough.

How is ID's use by the religious nuts in this country irrelevant? Their goal is to stifle knowledge and promote religious doctrine. Their means to that end is to supplant the teaching of evolution is schools with the teaching of intelligent design. You can say that scientist try the same thing when they marginalize ID, but what the hell is the evidence for ID? The facts behind it? The data behind it? If it was a theory worthy of merit, it would stand on it's own, and it would not be so easily dismissible. If only factual or structural problems are enough to dismiss it, I think we've got plenty of those: ID has no facts to support it, and it's structure appears to be based solely on statistical probability analyses and a half-baked theory of "irreducible complexity."

Behe, it should be noted, is not a Christian, and says so very bluntly in the introduction to his book, Darwin's Black Box.

Roman Catholics aren't Christians?

That was it. That was his entire quarrel. "I don't like Evolution's explanation for this event, and I'd like to propose that something else made it."

So, provide some proof. Do some experiments. Offer some evidence from the fossil record. Do something, ANYTHING!!!

As of your Galileo argument:
Your point about scientific intolerance is well-taken. A few things: I believe the geo-centric theories were Ptolomy’s, weren’t they? Also, it’s incorrect to say that the bible says (or implies) nothing about geo-centrism. Since I’m too lazy to look up proof in the bible, I’ll let this guy do it for me. It was this RELIGIOUS belief that lead to Galileo’s trail for HERESY. Do you really think that if Galileo had come up with a theory that refuted Ptolomy and Aristotle but fit the scriptures better, they would have tried and persecuted him? To say that the church gave a rat’s ass about science is farcical.

To compare the church’s persecution of Galileo to modern science’s refusal to accept ID is ludicrous. If ID had anything but smoke and mirrors and religious hope behind it, it would certainly gain traction in the scientific community. And for the record, nobody is putting ID-iots on trial for their crack-pot ideas. However, the (religious) people of Kansas are putting evolution on trial as we speak.

“It's the legitimate ID theorists you should be paying attention to, the ones who have a serious scientific problem wth the current scientific explanation. Why should they not be allowed to speak?”

Because they have nothing to speak about yet. Again, no research, no data, no evidence, nothing. Why should we waste school time for American kids, who are already light years behind most of the rest of the world in science, on a bunch of religious nonsense? And say what you want about ID NOT being tied to religion. The ONLY reason it's being forced on us now is because RELIGIOUS people want it, because it's compatible with THEIR religion. Evidence and facts be damned!

Intelligent Design - Response to MG and Emeryroolz

(Before we begin, view the Rules below. They will be periodically updated as circumstances warrant.)

(This post is a complation of two. I'm trying to keep it short.)

First off, a mark of shame for MG:

MG's quote below is a good example of the misunderstanding I was describing in my previous post about science:

There's no a or b or c. OK? There's one scientific method. (By the by, street cred - engineering degree from the University of Michigan). What Intelligent Design (as Creationism was cleverly renamed in the last 20 years by way of a contest) is lacking is evidence.

My original quote was this:

a) science, as it is explained in textbooks,
b) science, as it is practiced in universities,
c) science, as it is practiced by evolutionary biologists who do not wish
to compete with a contending theory,
d) science, as it is practiced by Intelligent Design theorists,
e) science, as it is practiced by Creationists,
f) science, as it is practiced by damn good scientists.

Careful readers will note that I'm not making the claim that there are several scientific methods. My claim is only that the actual practice of science differs greatly from the textbook definition of the scientific method, and, in fact, that this disparity is centirues-old.

(A brief scolding to MG for the misread.)

I'm running out of time, so I'm out - but next time, I'll explain why Intelligent Design is not Creationism, and, in fact, never has been, though they did latch onto it with all the force of a barnacle at sea.

(The next time:)

I very much believe that ID has scientific merit, and I'll gladly argue that point. But not now; right now, the point I'm trying to make is about how science works, not about how good or bad a theory ID is. I'll argue that later; right now, it's just going to get me off topic.

Here is the point I'm arguing and am perfectly able to give a plenitude of evidence for:

"As regards nuts and bolts of the daily practice of science, Intelligent Design (ID) and Evolutionary Theory (ET) both operate in exactly the same way, and therefore neither is an inherently better theory than the other."

Put another way, IE and ET are like twins separated at birth: we're much more used to ET, but upon meeting the other we find that they do everything the same.

The best and most obvious example of their similarity is the "black box," or the explanation used when all other explanations have failed. In ID, it's a Designer (not Jesus. Shame on Emery for thinking that the only possible reason to disagree with ET would come from religious dogma). For ET, it's Chance.

Take, for example, the complexity found in the boichemistry of a single cell. Both ID and ET have an explanation:
ID - Designer
ET - Chance

A brief word: it might e said that equating "Chance" with "Designer" is fundamentally absurd. "Designer," after all, is only invoked when all other explanations have failed, and so it is not an "explanation" in the scientific sense. "Designer," so it is argued, really means "We don't understand what is going on." And therefore "Designer" isn't a scientific explanation.

That's wrong, of course. To ETheorists, "Designer" means "we don't get it," but ID theorists really do believe it...Designer=Designer (not Jesus). And, ironically enough, ID theorists think that "Chance" for most ETheorists means "we don't get it." ETheorists really do believe in Chance, however. It's not a stopgap for their lack of understanding any more than Designer is for ID. But in each case it's the Black Box, the explanation beyond which any further explanation is impossible. And as stupid as any one person may find the Black Box of the opposing position, the bottom line is this:

they aren't different. In operation, at least. Not at all. (Challenge - show me why one is superior to the other, and argue from strictly Naturalistic grounds.)

So, for ID theorists, Black Box = Designer.
For ETheorists, Black Box = Chance.

And my quarrel with scientists, amateur or professional, that write off ID as religious dogma in order to destroy it? Their animosity isn't scientific in the least. The only relevant reason for hating ID is this: ID's Black Box has a different name and a different shape.*

Now I recognize that there are many significant if ultimately irrelevant) reasons for hating ID, the largest being that it has been heavily pushed and promoted by Creation Theorists, the very same who have often ridiculed and decried the scientific establishment and are now clamoring for re-entry. That, however, as irritating as it may be, isn't sufficient reason for throwing out the theory - only factual or structural problems are reason enough. And the evidence strongly indicates that most scientists haven't been nearly open-minded enough to refute it on those grounds.

As an example, I'll cite my alma mater, Hillsdale College. Hillsdale is arguably the most Christian secular college in the world. If you attend, chances are you fit into one of three religious categories ("Protestant, Catholic, Other" - from the student survey conducted for freshman each year). So when the school decided to hold a week-long seminar on ID, most students thought itw ould get a fighting chance.

It didn't. ID theorists at the convention included Michael Behe, Ph.D; William Dembski, Ph.D., and a host of others. (Stephen Gould was invited, but declined to come, though he'd been to the college before). Behe, it should be noted, is not a Christian, and says so very bluntly in the introduction to his book, Darwin's Black Box. (Even with his outright statements to the effect of "I don't believe in god," any Google search of his name will bring up people claiming he is a Creationist. Shame. They apparently skipped the first page of his book.) Behe's quarrel with ETheory was this, and only this: he doesnt like the way that "Chance" has been used as a Black Box to explain the complexity of the microbiology of the cell. He thinks more explanation is needed.

That was it. That was his entire quarrel. "I don't like Evolution's explanation for this event, and I'd like to propose that something else made it."

No one listened. Our biology professors, otherwise brilliant men, ridiculed ID as Creationism in disguise. No amount of denying this would convince them; nothing was going to convince them, a fact made all the more painfully evident when the professors "refuted" their opponents by pointing out how stupid Creationism was. And if the ID crowd had indeed been Creationist (some of them were, but not the speakers), the argument would have held weight.

It wasn't science. It was dogma defending itself as science ("our Black Box is best!"). The attitude that so graced our professors was roughly the same as the Catholic Church's attitude in Galileo's time, defending science against new and dangerous theories.

Come to think of it, this analogy is great. Consider this: the stereotype of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages (squishing science with faith and dogma) is, for lack of a better word, wrong (another of our historical prejudices carried over from the otherwise brilliant Enlightenment). The stereotypical version of the story goes like this:

Galileo observes, Galileo makes theories, Galileo finds theories in conflict with the Bible, and the Church excommunicates Galileo.

The real version goes like this:

Galileo observes, Galileo makes theories, Galileo finds theories in conflict with Aristotle, the Church promotes him, then changes its mind, then demans that he recant and admit once again that Aristotle was right.

Aristotle's theories, realize, were the prevailing scientific dogma of the Middle Ages. And they aren't anywhere in the Bible. The stereotype of a powerful Church crushing science with faith is wrong; they were actually defending the science of their day, the science that had been around for centuries, and one small amateur scientist challenged it because he didn't like the way it explained some things, like the motion of the planets. And he was right.

The point should be obvious. Many ID theorists stand to ET in the same relation as Galileo did to the Catholic Church. (Obviously there are some holes in the analogy...but hey, it's an analogy, and not meant to do anything but illustrate.)

This is the situation as I see it. Screw all the dumbasses who aren't challenging ET because of a search for truth but because of anger or a vendetta or dogma, and screw the ETheorists who do the same. I don't care about them, and neither should you. It's the legitimate ID theorists you should be paying attention to, the ones who have a serious scientific problem wth the current scientific explanation. Why should they not be allowed to speak?

I anxiously await your reply.

*(ID has, believe it or not, very strict rules to determine when something is probably designed. The rules are based on how much "information" is encoded in a given system. The definition of "information" is dense enough to require its own course in mathematics, which Dembski is currently teaching - the course, not just plain mathematics.)

Open Letter to Whoever the Hell is Reading this Post:

(Hell with it. I've got to spend the money sometime. May as well be now.)

First off, a few scoldings:

MG and Emeryrooz - bad form. All posts must be in "Open Letter" form, and must be funny (the Amy Grant reference was nice, though). Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

Second, we had probably establish a few more ground rules:

1) Any and all blanket statements, excepting this one, are exceedingly bad unless followed up with appropriate disclaimers. Any blanket statements not so followed will be subject to intense ridicule, or until my time runs out.

2) No challenges allowed (e.g., MG's "give me one piece of evidence that contradicts evolution. And I'll tell you what, if you do, I guarantee you a nobel prize. "). Chances are, if I followed up MG's challenge with something like, say, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, I still wouldn't get a Nobel Prize, because Behe's arguments don't confirm to MG's standard of evidence. I seriously doubt that anything I throw at MG would confirm to his standard of evidence, and our disagreement about standards probably goes way, way back to how we each think science works, which means that our disagreement on standards is probably essential and can thus not be debated.

In short, no challenges that cannot efficiently and quickly be met by a certain set of regulations. Anything else is mental masturbation.

3) All posts must contain, in their title, a quick explanation of what the debate in question is (i.e., Intelligent Design - Open letter to....etc.). Makes things a little easier.

(Bjorn? Are you even here?)

Oh, and feel free to invite others - I imagine this would get pretty boring with just the four of us.

Why ID is Bullplop

I've read about intelligent design. And here's the gist of it:
"There are some things that we don't fully understand. Therefore, there can be only one explanation: MAGIC."

This is what we want to base our scientific education on?

If you look at Darwin's theories, there's nothing that really says that evolution is incompatible with belief in god. Maybe god directs evolution. Who knows? Nobody! And nobody CAN know. So, if evolution is not necessarily incompatible with belief in god, why do we need so-called intelligent design?

Because religious-types want to re-assert the dominance of god over science, just as they've tried to squelch any scientific discovery that challenged their fervent and blind belief in whatever religion their parent raised them in. You see, religious folks tend to claim to have absolute faith in their religion. But in reality they realize that their beliefs are as tenuous and unstable as a house of cards. And if you start poking at a house of cards, eventually it collapses. So, when the finger of science and fact and observation starts poking at the religious house of cards, religious folks do whatever they can to chop that finger off.

In regards to the "evidence" for intelligent design:

About the appendix: Studies HAVE in fact been done on this subject. By scientists, even. And they have found no significant correlation.

To learn more about this research, visit your local library, or just be lazy like me and go here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1783053&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9578295&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=725525&dopt=Abstract

Here's what the neo-creationists would have you believe about the appendix:

Thinking Biblically about the appendix

Let’s assume that modern science knew of no function for the appendix. Would that show it was a useless left-over from our past evolution from the animals? Not at all. There would be at least two other possibilities, when our thinking is based upon the Bible:
1. It had a created function in people originally, but as a result of the Curse (consequent upon Adam’s sin) on all creation, humanity has degenerated. Thus, our body has lost some functions which it once had. Evolution requires a gain in information—new structures, new functions.
2. It has a created function, but we don’t know what it is yet.

So, basically, here are your choices:
The appendix is a vestige of a once-vital organ, similar to the same organ in animals that still have a cellulose-rich diet. The ancillary fact that the appendix still retains a minor function in the lymphatic system explains the slight elevation in cancer risk among those who have had their appendix removed.
or
A magic man who lives in the sky shriveled our once mighty appendixes (appendices?) to punish us for eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge (don't even get me started on the implications of this cautionary tale). Personally, I can think of a lot of things god could have shriveled that would have been far worse punishment. Well, one thing in particular anyway.

To get to some of Wazoo's points:

"Does it mean that, if it weren't for ID theory, this information would never have been discovered? Probably, unless all Evolutionary Biologists decided to remove their appendices and they all got cancer."

I can see your point, that challenges (no matter how stupid) can help to increase knowledge and understanding. But might we not be better off if scientists spent their time on new discoveries and new research, rather than fending off creationists' attempts to grasp at any last straw they can? Also, I believe medical doctors were the first to raise the question of the function of the appendix and the possible complications with its removal, not creationists.

As to this point:

"Is ID a credible scientific theory? Yes. It´s not Creationism, not by a longshot. And if that´s the claim you´re making, you probably need to read someone besides Richard Dawkins. Hell, some of the ID guys even have Ph.Ds."

This is absolutely incorrect. What evidence exists for "intelligent design," or, as I like to call it, "Because Jesus Made It That Way?"

This website features some arguments from "Because Jesus Made It That Way" advocates and evolutionary scientists. It's fun to see the "Because we don't understand something, the only explanation must be MAGIC" people get shot down by the science folks.

To separate BJMITW from creationism is impossible, because BJMITW is in reality the last gasp of creationism, a desperate hail mary (pun probably intended) shot at the buzzer to try to cling to the last vestige (like an appendix, I guess) of a system of stories and legends from 2000 years ago that just aren't adequate to explain the world.

Science 101

My only question to you Wazoo, is where do you find your crack where you live?

Introduction to the Scientific Method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

There's no a or b or c. OK? There's one scientific method. (By the by, street cred - engineering degree from the University of Michigan). What Intelligent Design (as Creationism was cleverly renamed in the last 20 years by way of a contest) is lacking is evidence. Any evidence at all. Do you think that at some point a group of evil secularists came around with a plan to undermine the bible? We all know the story. Darwin was down on the Galapagos Islands, saw some weird animals and was hit with the inspiration of survival of the fittest. Observation and hypothesis. Admittedly, I'm not deeply schooled in evolutionary biology, but as it turns out, every bit of evidence they've found since then has fit the theory.

They didn't come up with the theory first. They developed the theory based on the available evidence, and as of today, nothing (not a single thing) has come along to disprove the theory. And they're looking. That's another difference between evolution science and ID. They are looking at every bit of evidence that pops up and seeing if it fits. ID explains away anything that doesn't fit (dinosaur bones) with a lazy excuse (God put them there to fool us).

And hey, ponder this - there might be a higher power, and he may have designed DNA a billion years ago, or for that matter, maybe it was 5000 years ago and hid the dinosaur bones in the ground. But if that's the case, he did it so perfectly to make us think that evolution is true that he left absolutely no clue to his existence. In my opinion that makes a strong case for ID people studying evolution. Even assuming a God, he MUST have wanted us to consider evolution. Do you want to disappoint him?

Again - give me one piece of evidence that contradicts evolution. And I'll tell you what, if you do, I guarantee you a nobel prize. Evidence does not include, "well it's really hard to understand." Can you explain how a DVD works? I can't. Does that make gods of the engineers at Sony? How do you think Augustus Caesar would have reacted to seeing a jet plane or a video game console or a digital camera. He might have considered you a god if you busted your iPod all up in his grill. There's no telling how Caesar might have reacted to Amy Grant. But we're not gods; we're just more advanced than he is, and give him 2000 years, and he'll be bustin' System of a Down like any good pagan. Give us another 2000 years and maybe we'll have the whole DNA thing, origin of the universe, and all the rest of it figured out too.

To summarize: Evolution = some evidence. Intelligent Design = romantic but no evidence. People are trying to disprove evolution to try to win a nobel prize, but no one has been able to yet. We're really smart because as a species we've been alive for a long time, and we'll continue getting smarter up until Bush destroys the world. If there is a God, he believes in evolution too. Christian rock is awful. I'd say that's about it...

Open Letter to MG, EmeryRoolz, and Everyone Else who Doesn´t Understand Science

(I needed some kind of marginally offensive title to get this party started.)

The following two articles on Delusions of Grandeur should get us off to a good start.

Intelligent Design is for Sissies

I´m hoping to god that my pathetic HTML works, and that the above link will in actuality take you to mgrant8.blogspot.com. If not, my apologies, I don´t really have time to check (at the moment, I´m typing this from Copan, Honduras). Just type in the address and scroll down to read "Faith Based Science" and "Scopes Episode II: Revenge of the Moron."

Done? Excellent. Then let´s begin.

Open Letter to MG, EmeryRoolz, and Everyone Else who Doesn´t Understand Science:

Dear Sirs,

It has recently come to my attention that you are all quite distressed at the recent happenings in Kansas, where, in addition to a fine corn crop, or whatever else they grow for miles around, a great many Creationists have embraced Intelligent Design theory as an alternative to Evolution.

You don´t have to worry. That is, essentially, what this letter is for: reassuring you. In fact, if you have any qualms at all, it´s probably out of ignorance. And, given that you´re obviously worried, I´ll see what I can do to set you straight.

First off, I´d like to make a few distinctions for us to consider:

a) science, as it is explained in textbooks,
b) science, as it is practiced in universities,
c) science, as it is practiced by evolutionary biologists who do not wish to compete with a contending theory,
d) science, as it is practiced by Intelligent Design theorists,
e) science, as it is practiced by Creationists,
f) science, as it is practiced by damn good scientists.

We´re all well familiar with A, having taken high school biology at one point. Historically, this type of science runs into a severe problem - it doesn´t exist. C and E are nearly identical. At times, E and D are identical. Ideally, B and F would be identical as well, but unfortunately for the scientific world, F doesn´t usually exist either.

Ideally, science (the A version) works something like this:
Man makes observations. Man makes hypothesis. Man tests hypothesis. After more testing and observation, man makes theory. Theory becomes gradually more refined, much like a fine wine becoming greater with age.

Historically, science happens something a little more like this:
Man firmly believes something. All observations are made through this filter of belief. All data collected is determined "relevant" based on how it fits with the prevailing belief. Man bolsters theory with data that tells him what he already knows and wants to believe.

Obviously, we need more women scientists. But before I´m accused of being cynical, let me assure you that I´m not. Science has advanced in this way, more or less, to our present state of knowledge. It works, no matter how flawed the process may appear to be. And the process isn´t flawed, and this is why.

Let´s say you want to go out into the world and make observations. If you didn´t have some kind of a filter to tell you what knowledge was relevant and what was not, I bet you´d never get anywhere. The most well-known example occurs daily in every lustful young man, trolling for booty as night falls:

Gotta find myself some hot women. A young woman will walk by, and the observation will begin. He could look anywhere - her personality, her laugh, her kneecap, her brain. But we all know that none of those are relevant. And so the screening proceeds, based on a few key features that, were it not for the filter that tells the young man exactly where to look, would be entirely invisible to him.

Maybe not entirely.

Point is, this is how science works. And it´s not a point that can really be argued. All proponents of the MG/Emery system of interpretation have is, essentially, the high school textbook, and any examples stemming from the last sixty years of Evolutionary Theory. And if you look at nothing but Evolutionary interpretations of the natural world, you´ll be hard-pressed to find something that doesn´t fit. But chances are, you won´t even be looking. In fact, if you´re a serious convert, chances are you´ll actively work to squelch opposing evidence, without any realization that you´re doing so. Hell, we could interchange "Evolutionary Biologists" with "Creationists" and use the exact same description.

Now before I´m inundated with angry letters that point out that the average Evolutionary Biologist knows a good deal more about science thatn the average Creationist, let me say that I agree...sort of. I´m not claiming they have equal scientific knowledge. But on average, their knowledge of the historical process of science is about the same. Which brings me back to my point a paragraph ago - this can´t really be argued. This is the process that just about (and I only put in that disclaimer because my knowledge isn´t exhaustive) every change in worldview has taken, whether scientific, religious, cultural, or whatever. Historically, there isn´t another story, and certainly not one that bears much resemblance to the story told in textbooks. That is, unless your history only spans some hundred years, in which case all you will know is the prevailing theory and how it has been refined. And in that case, it´ll probably seem true.

(Speaking of history, make sure you read the end for a great defense of the Scopes Trial, and why it´s probably better to do research that spans beyond Hollywood before making a conclusion.)

And now, a true story:

Vestigial organs, for those of us...uh, you...that were asleep in class, are those organs that have, so far as we know, no specific purpose in the body, the appendix being the prime example (and the brain in most men or women, depending on what sex you are). For that reason, Evolutionary Biologists don´t study it much - there´s no reason to, since, according to their explanation of the natural world, not a lot of great information can come from it. Intelligent Design theorists, however, don´t have that restriction, and have therefore began study of the appendix. The best way to see if it´s important, of course, is to see what happens to people who don´t have it. And as it turns out, their risk for acquiring cancer is significantly, significantly greater, so much so that a strong correlation was drawn between removing the appendix and the later acquisition of (I think...) cervical cancer.

Does it mean ID is true? No way. Does it mean Evolution couldn´t possibly have an explanation for the correlation? Not at all. Does it mean that, if it weren´t for ID theory, this information would never have been discovered? Probably, unless all Evolutionary Biologists decided to remove their appendices and they all got cancer.

Point is, this is why restricting scientific teaching to Evolution is a bad idea. It squelches the scientific process.

Again, so we´re clear - it´s science that will suffer if Evolution reigns alone, not religion.

Should Evolution be taught? Hell yes. Should any other credible scientific theories be taught? As many as possible. The greater the competition, the greater the discoveries and the more information is gathered.

Is Creationism a credible scientific theory? In the sense that it depends on holy texts before scientific observation, no. In the sense that it works exactly like any other worldview, scientific or no (beliefs, then observation), yes.

Is ID a credible scientific theory? Yes. It´s not Creationism, not by a longshot. And if that´s the claim you´re making, you probably need to read someone besides Richard Dawkins. Hell, some of the ID guys even have Ph.Ds.

(Richard doesn´t.)

Time is short. Will finish later.

Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Dawkins, marvelling at his own stark intelligence

"Mental masturbation: the act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality." - UrbanDictionary.com

Dear Mr. Dawkins,

I'd like to spend the next few minutes patiently explaining why you're an idiot.

Excuse me a moment... (takes five)

My apologies, I had to grab a bite to eat. I've noticed that in that little space of time you've garnered up all your defenses of an Atheistic Worldview and various attacks on religion, presumably under the impression that anyone who thinks you're an idiot could only be a religious nut. Don't trouble yourself; I'm not, and decidedly so - I've lost more than one future wife over that very fact. It seems many women have, for better or worse, a greater loyalty to God than to man.

But that's neither here nor there. What irks me in particular, sir, is your confidence, particularly where you shouldn't have any at all - I'm thinking specifically of historical knowledge, where "historical" may be replaced with "knowledge," and "knowledge" with "of recorded history, insofar as human beings have been the active recorders." History that you might learn were you to major in, say, history.

To sum up, you don't know jack. But I will be happy to make your acquaintance.

On the 28th of April, 2005, you spoke the following:

"...an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.

My American friends tell me that you are slipping towards a theocratic Dark Age."

Well, Mr. Dawkins, I'd like you to meet the Dark Age. Don't be afraid of holding out your hand in greeting; though Mr. D.A. doesn't speak English, he does fluently speak three other languages (Latin and Occitan are the only two I can recall), which puts his linguistic agility considerably above yours. You'll find that he also knows the reason for his nickname (his real name is, in this case, High Middle Age), that being that he has lost the tradition of classical learning that once thrived in ancient Rome. He's done his best to find it again, even going so far as having whole speeches of Cicero memorized and analyzed. He knows Quintillian, Horace, Juvenal, Ovid, a great deal about astronomy, physics (mostly for the purposes of war), chemistry (again, for the purposes of war), architecture, geography - including a knowledge of the earth's spherical shape, and his hygeine leaves nothing to be desired.

To be honest, he was quite flattered that you compared a group of scholars to himself. I didn't tell him that that wasn't your meaning, that in fact you were insulting a group of scholars because of the sheer scope of their ignorance. He might get mad, and he knows a good deal more about beating people up than you do. You'd be well-advised to refrain from making analogies using portions of history that you don't even marginally understand.

I have a few more introductions to make, but I'm running short on time, so I must make this quick.

I quote:
"It's often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn't see it happen, there is no direct evidence for it.."

Mr. Dawkins, I'd like you to meet the group of people that disagree with you and that also make this argument...wait, they...oh, I'm sorry, that's right. They don't exist. You'd be well-advised to refrain from attaching dumbass arguments to your opponents under the assumption that they're...well, dumbasses.

I quote:
"For a long time it seemed clear to just about everybody that the beauty and elegance of the world seemed to be prima facie evidence for a divine creator. But the philosopher David Hume already realized three centuries ago that this was a bad argument. It leads to an infinite regression."

Mr. Dawkins, I'd like you to meet all philosophers that precede Hume and Hume's time-period, the less-so-than-it-assumes-about-itself Age of Enlightenment. I don't have to make your acquaintance with the latter; I'm sure you've already met, or if not, would get along quite well, since you both have the same irksome habit of drawing vast and impertinent conclusions about your opponents with little to no actual knowledge about the way they think. As for your acquaintance with the former, you will quickly discover that each one of them - from Plato to Maimonides - has a different argument for or against the existence of God, and they are all a tad pissed that you've grouped them together into a straw man to be knocked over by Hume. Most of them can put up a good fight against Hume (although a select few can kick his ass), and none of them use an infinite regression.

(Really, for the love of god...how the hell can you summarize all of philosophy prior to Hume that concerned Origins as a "bad argument" and not feel even a twinge of scholarly guilt? It's guys like you that take Philosophy 101 and go out and make the two Matrix sequels. Get a real job.)

I quote:
"There is just no evidence for the existence of God."

I'm glad someone's finally catalogued all the available evidence.

I quote:
"People brought up to believe in faith and private revelation cannot be persuaded by evidence to change their minds. No wonder religious zealots throughout history have resorted to torture and execution, to crusades and jihads, to holy wars and purges and pogroms, to the Inquisition and the burning of witches."

Mr. Dawkins, I'd like to introduce you to the following groups of people, in no particular order:

-that enormous crowd of infant children over there, saved by Roman Christians who couldn't bear to see unwanted infants dying in the woods, thrown out by their pagan countrymen;

-that crowd of Holocaust survivors who were smuggled out of Germany by Christians;

-the small group of Middle Age Irish children who have been saved from a lifetime of slavery in a foreign land;

-the skinny scarred-up group of...oh, I'm sorry, those are religious zealots. Most of them have been eaten by lions;

-every Roman woman who was affoarded a greater status in her household (although I suppose "babymaker" leaves a lot of room for improvement) because of the arrival of Christianity;

-every one of the millions of hungry fed by the tithes of the Hebrews (it's way before Hume, so you may have to look it up);

-hell, every one of the millions fed today by organizations that are run under a religious auspice (World Vision, Compassion, etc.);

-Mr. T.

You'll note that all of these people, with one possible exception (not the martyrs...but nice try), have been impacted in a positive way by religion. In most cases, it's saved their lives. You'd be well-advised to remember that history is a messy business, and that nothing is so cut-and-dry - especially where religion is concerned - as to warrant a a caricature (eeeeevil religion!) that can't be legitimately supported (holy crap! it's done some good, too?). That's the troubling thing about blanket characterizations: most of them, while having a basis of some kind, aren't actually, in the technical sense of the word, true.

You'd be well-advised to stick to talking about things about which you know a great deal. That leaves, at the very least, evolution open to you. But it also closes off religion completely. Please, if it isn't too much trouble, refrain from making impossible statements about subjects that I've spent a great deal of time studying and trying to understand. I just might have to call you an idiot.

(I guess I already did.)

Shut the hell up.

The Rules of the Game

Read this first, and carefully, before posting, posting a comment, or reading anything else.

This blog is for people who enjoy, for one sick reason or another, arguing with other people who completely and utterly disagree. As it is pretty normal for people to be offended by others who disagree with them, it's necessary to lay down a few ground rules.

1) Making fun of people is completely and utterly acceptable, and encouraged, so long as it is within the bounds of good taste (makes me laugh) and is relevant. Stereotypes are encouraged, so long as the accuser can back up the stereotype with a grain of truth.

2) Poor scholarship is not permitted, and will be tastelessly ridiculed until the culprit recants, repents, or leaves. "Poor Scholarship" is hereby to be defined by the following parameters:

a) it contains a blanket statement that is hardly verifiable (all Texans are loud and obnoxious);
b) it is based on a misreading or misunderstanding of an accessible text (if the "accessible text" is a blog, this is a three-time unpardonable offense);
c) it is backed up by a challenge to prove someone otherwise.

On that note,
3) Challenges are unacceptable unless they can conceivably be met, and specific parameters must be given for the challenge to be met. If, for example, I challenge someone to prove to me that God exists, and deny anything he gives me as acceptable evidence because I myself am unwilling to accept anything byut a physical sign, I've given a pretty bad challenge. If I challenge someone to give me physical evidence of God's existence and specify just wat kind of physical evidence I'm looking for, then we're getting somewhere. In short, specify how the challenge might be met.

4) Anyone who misrepresents a people group, idea, political movement, or any other entity that comprises more than a few people, and who does so out of no other reason than ignorance, must be corrected by someone that knows better (though in some situations "who knows better" can be debated). If the mistake is made several times, the culprit will be branded a bad scholar.

5) As regards the lampooning of a well-known proponent of an opponent's position, the only acceptable targets are those whom the opponent in question has deemed acceptable (i.e., do not lampoon Michelle Malkin for twenty minutes only to hear your opponent say that he does not, in fact, believe a word she says, though he may find her hot). If your opponent hasn't mentioned the name, do not assume he is in agreement or part of the same circle of friends. Anyone who violates this rule will automatically be branded a bad scholar.

6) Anyone who has been branded a bad scholar three times will be put on the official "Dumbass" list, and ridiculed anytime we don't have anything else to debate about.

7) No blanket statements. Always, always, always specify who you are specifically referring to (not "all Republicans," but "those who are trying to elect DeLay").

8) There's no shame in admitting that you don't know something. That also doesn't mean your opponent has automatically won.

9) The Moderator is never to be challenged except in matters of fact. I am the Moderator, and I am fair. If you don´t like it, kiss my ass.

10) No assertions allowed without a subsequent citation.

11) Try not to bullshit.

Enjoy.