Intelligent Design: Atheists to the Rescue

[rug]

Nov 29, 2011
Howard Kainz

During the 1980s, two books—Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, and The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen—unwittingly gave rise to the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. Books by scientists—Michael Denton, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and others—pointed out various deficiencies in the theory of evolution: millions of gaps in the asserted “tree of evolution,” the impossibility of producing certain types of “irreducible complexity” by chance interactions, the failure of algorithms used by evolutionists to explain certain evolutionary developments, etc.

Critics of ID, on the other hand, especially prominent militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, have been ridiculing ID theorists for years as unscientific, and extolling “natural selection” as a kind of “blind watchmaker” accomplishing something that just “seems” like design through random developments over billions of years.

Surprisingly, two recent books by atheist philosophers of science have joined with ID theorists in the criticism of neo-Darwinism.

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, in What Darwin Got Wrong come at neo-Darwinism from a number of directions. Initially, they draw a comparison with B.F. Skinner’s psychological theory of “operant conditioning,” which attempted to explain changes in human behavior by patterns of stimulus and response. Limitations of that theory have eventually been revealed: it did not take into account internal mechanisms in organisms subjected to external stimuli; and the intention of researchers or subjects affected the results of experiments. Skinner’s behaviorism can be corrected by taking these aspects into account. But no such correction is possible in neo-Darwinism, which has no interest in “the internal organization of creatures . . . (genotypic and ontogenetic structures)” and recognizes no “intentions” in evolutionary processes.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/11/intelligent-design-atheists-to-the-rescue

[DCKit]

1. If you're like me and terminally cynical, you'll look to what they're trying to accomplish.

I think they're just trying to sell more books by jumping on the bandwagon.

For example, if outside influences are not to be taken into account, why did MRSA wait until we'd developed super antibiotics before it gained an immunity to them? That shit should have wiped us off the face of the earth thousands of years ago by this reasoning.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Sorry, any article not correctly identifying Behe is dishonest.

"Books by scientists—" no sorry, Behe is a theologian working for the Discovery Institute masquerading as a scientist. His nonsense regarding irreducible complexity is laughable stale shit debunked long ago.

Behe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

[rug]

4. Whatever else you call him he's a professor of biochemistry with a PhD from Penn.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. He is a paid wanker for the Discovery Institute.

And:

"Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,<3><4><5> and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

I can slowly put all the known nonsense about Behe in front of you here, or you could bother to do some checking yourself. Citing Behe or 'What Darwin Got Wrong" without a CLUE ought to be a punishable offense.

[rug]

8. I see. He's No True Scientist.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. He is a paid wanker for the Discovery Institute.

And his claims regarding irreducible complexity have been publicly repudiated by his own university:

"Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,<3><4><5> and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design."

Behe is engaged in the promulgation of pseudo science to promote his theological views. His claims do not stand up to peer review. He has to take refuge at the 'Discovery Institute', a fact that seems to not interest you much, although it should.

[rug]

13. Saying it twice does not add any veracity.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. No it makes me wonder if you understand who the players are.

And just how failed ID is.

[rug]

17. I know exactly who the players are.

Rest assured, I'm looking at the entire issue without any dogma whatsoever.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. "I'm looking at the entire issue without any dogma whatsoever."

Series?

ID is not science. The fact that you are presenting it as science and its proponents as scientists is all dogma no bark.

[rug]

23. There's plenty of dogma to go around.

[Sal316]

31. LMAO! +1,000

Seems that these credentials...

He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He got his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry.

....make him more of a scientist than Dawkins' make him a theologian.

[beam me up scottie]

36. "Behe...tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism"

From your link:

Behe, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates William A. Dembski and David Berlinski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.<45> Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms "Darwinism". In the book, Coulter thanks Behe, Dembski and Berlinski for their assistance with this section.<46>

:rofl:

[Sal316]

38. So he's not a "True Scientist"?

allllllllrightythen.

[beam me up scottie]

39. To anti-science right wing christian conservatives, he's a whore with a degree.

And his whackjob beliefs are why his peers have to always use this disclaimer:

While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific

[NMMNG]

44. Essentially he's like Paul Cameron

People with an agenda will trot him out, but they still use a disclaimer in case somebody calls them on it.

[beam me up scottie]

45. ugh.

I forgot about that one.

[skepticscott]

46. I can see you're clueless

about the difference between a "true scientist" and real science. Sure, Behe has published some perfectly legitimate, if undistinguished stuff in biochemistry. But what he claims about evolution and ID is pure bunk, as has been demonstrated innumerable times, including in Kitzmiller (where Behe himself admitted that he hadn't even read a lot of the critiques of his own writings on ID).

[Sal316]

83. Educate me, o wise one

I mean, I guess graduating from the Navy Nuclear Power Program as a Nuclear Chemist, having 15+ years in industry as an R&D chemist in energetic materials, and 3 US Patents (2 approved, 1 in the cycle) means I'm "clueless".

:sarcasm:

And just in case you missed it, go up a few posts and you'll see this gem from Warren:

Behe is a theologian working for the Discovery Institute masquerading as a scientist.

Hence "No True Scientist".

QED

[darkstar3]

94. It's funny you play on the NTS fallacy while invoking an argument from authority.

As for your attempts to legitimize Behe's bullshit, you would do well to realize that just because someone has done thorough and methodical scientific work doesn't mean that everything they do falls under that category. Just look at the idiots grasping at straws regarding global warming for an example of that phenomenon.

[Sal316]

97. Keep on shufflin' PZ

No, what's funny, or pretty sad really, is that there are those who throw out the argument from authority whenever someone just might know more about a given subject then they do.

That's the Meyers Shuffle.

You see, I don't pretend to know more about molecular biology than either Meyers or Dawkins. But I will tell you this, I sure as heck know more about theology than they do.

Merely stating one's credentials isn't an argument from authority. That's where those who like to throw that terminology around display their misunderstanding.

You see, I was responding to the unbridled arrogance of one who said I'm "clueless" when it comes to science. After nearly 20 years as a scientist, that sort of statement is simply laughable and can easily be dismissed as petulance from someone who doesn't know any better.

Earlier someone said that Behe wasn't a scientist. In fact, the actual words were "Behe is a theologian working for the Discovery Institute masquerading as a scientist".

Well, his credentials speak differently. Note that has nothing to do with the quality of his work. He's a scientist, a rather poor one, but a scientist none the less.

The subtle shift to the quality of Behe's work in the OP, as questionable as it may be, is a rather cute way of denying the fact that he's actually a scientist so you can dismiss his work out of hand.

Which is engaging in the fallacy known as 'poisoning the well'.

[beam me up scottie]

98. "But I will tell you this, I sure as heck know more about theology than they do."

Maybe PZ should rename the Courtier's Reply after you.

The Courtier's Reply
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: December 24, 2006 10:16 AM, by PZ Myers


There's a common refrain in the criticisms of Dawkins' The God Delusion that I've taken to categorizing with my own private title—it's so common, to the point of near-unanimous universality, that I've decided to share it with you all, along with a little backstory that will help you to understand the name.

The Courtier's Reply. It refers to the aftermath of a fable.

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

;)

[Sal316]

106. Keep on shufflin'

Calling "Courtier's reply" is simply a way of ducking the fact that one doesn't know what they're talking about.

Oh, and they don't. It's documented. In their own books. Arguments for church fathers (re:Aquinas) that are made up out of whole cloth and have never been advanced by the Church father they attribute it to.

[beam me up scottie]

107. The Courtier's Reply was written about critics like you.

The fact that the point sailed right over your head proves it.

[Sal316]

110. Thanks for proving my point..

...that those who invoke Courtier's have no clue what they're talking about.

[beam me up scottie]

111. Keep digging.

:rofl:

[darkstar3]

99. Yeah, cause I'M shufflin'.

You were called out for supporting Behe's bullshit, and you trotted out your supposed credentials, and Behe's, as if they were somehow in support of the bullshit.

Behe's work was always the focus, and is the entire reason why his credentials (when you and others trot them out) are laughed down. He's made an ass of himself, and no one who does respectable, peer-reviewed work in the field takes him seriously.

And BTW: There is an objective standard for who is and is not a scientist, and credentials have very little to do with it. Your attempts at claiming others are engaging in a fallacy here are just as laughable as your claim that you "know more theology," as if theology had any objective standards...

[Sal316]

104. I don't support Behe's bs. It's crap science.

So maybe when you can quit making up utter bullshit we can converse about this.

Until then, enjoy your fallacy-laden "logic".

[darkstar3]

108. Really? Because your contributions all over the thread strongly suggest otherwise.

[Sal316]

109. No, they don't.

I've not endorsed his work in creationism and, more than once, I've called him a poor scientist and that his work was crap in this very thread.

I'm not sure how that equates an endorsement but, hey, it's your lie, tell it like you own it. It just testifies to a level of intellectual dishonesty that's rather surprising.

[darkstar3]

112. Oh really?

Here are your posts in this thread:

31
33
38
83
84
97
104
106
109
110

It wasn't until 97, after I called you on your bullshit, that you bothered to say that Behe's work was poor, and that only because you were backpeddling your nonsense regarding your little NTS game. Even after doing so, you continue to defend the ID viewpoint and Behe's work in the subthread above with BMUS. All those posts where you gleefully tried to accuse atheists on this board of hypocrisy and fallacy could only have been meant for one of two things:

1. To support Behe and his idiocy (in a fallacious manner, btw).
2. To stir the pot.

[Sal316]

114. Are you a farmer?

Because you're awfully proficient at spreading bullshit.

If you can't show where I specifically endorsed Behe's work or even ID, makes you and your statements fraudulent.

Nice try, tho.

[darkstar3]

115. That pole you're stirring with,

you know where you can stick it, right?

[Sal316]

118. I'll take that as a "no", then.

When all else fails, default to ad hom.

[trotsky]

119. Isn't that what you did in #114?

Is OK for you to do? Because you do it for Jesus?

[skepticscott]

100. No, you're clueless in spite of all that.

The concept that you apparently still need to be educated about is a very simple one, though. The likelihood that a scientific proposition is true is determined by the strength of the evidence supporting it, and scientific credentials and degrees are not evidence in support of ANY scientific proposition. Even the most decorated, qualified and brilliant scientist has to back up his claims with objective, verifiable evidence, or they are worthless.

Clear now? If not, maybe you should go apply for some more patents to strengthen your argument.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Nice.

Who would Jesus bomb?

[laconicsax]

116. He's a theologian, so presumably, he knows. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

117. And Dawkins needs to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin before debunking IDiots.

Amazing.

[Sal316]

105. *self delete*

[laconicsax]

113. No, go ahead. Say what you were going to.

No doubt it was a thrilling bit of sophisticated theology that conveniently justifies making munitions for a living.

[rrneck]

41. Well, I've never heard of the guy

but letters behind your name don't make you honest. But they can make you a spectacular liar about your area of expertise.

[beam me up scottie]

37. He's a paid schill for the ACSI, too.

Behe received $20,000 for testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns.
The case was filed by Association of Christian Schools International, which argued that the University of California was being discriminatory by not recognizing science classes that use creationist books.

The 2005 filing claimed that University of California's rejection of several of their courses was illegal "viewpoint discrimination and content regulation prohibited by the Free Speech Clause."

In 2007, Behe's expert witness report claimed that the Christian textbooks, including Biology for Christian Schools, are excellent works for high school students. He defended that view in a deposition.

In August 2008, Judge S. James Otero rejected Behe's claims, saying that Behe "submitted a declaration concluding that the BJU text mentions standard scientific content. ... However, Professor Behe 'did not consider how much detail or depth' the texts gave to this standard content."

Otero ruled in favor of the University of California's decision to reject courses using these books.

[patrice]

3. I don't understand why they'd HAVE to be "intentions". Why not just super-super ordinate, macro,

events that have acquired effect from traits, and sets of traits, shared at >50% of events in sub-orders?

[patrice]

5. Intention can be ascribed to such things, but it isn't necessary to the phenomena themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Oh and "What Darwin Got Wrong" is a joke.

What do you get when authors who know nothing about genetics and evolution write about genetics and evolution?

This is what makes Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini's ideas so embarrassingly bad. They seem to know next to nothing about genetics, and so when they discover something that has been taken for granted by scientists for almost a century, they act surprised and see it as a death-stroke for Darwinism. It's rather like reading about the saltationist/biometrician wars of the early 1900s, when Mendel was first rediscovered and some people argued that the binary nature of the 'sports' described in analyses of inheritance meant the incremental changes described by Darwin were impossible. The 'problems' were nonexistent, and were a product merely of our rudimentary understanding of genetics — it was resolved by eventually understanding that most characters of an organism were the product of many genes working together, and that some mutations do cause graded shifts in the phenotype.

Here, for instance, is one of their astonishing revelations about the nature of inheritance:

Darwinists say that evolution is explained by the selection of phenotypic traits by environmental filters. But the effects of endogenous structure can wreak havoc with this theory. Consider the following case: traits t1 and t2 are endogenously linked in such a way that if a creature has one, it has both. Now the core of natural selection is the claim that phenotypic traits are selected for their adaptivity, that is, for their effect on fitness. But it is perfectly possible that one of two linked traits is adaptive but the other isn't; having one of them affects fitness but having the other one doesn't. So one is selected for and the other "free-rides" on it.

That is so trivially true that it is a good point to make if you are addressing somebody who is biologically naive, and I think it is a valuable concept to emphasize to the public. But this is Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini chastising biologists with this awesome fact as if we've been neglecting it. It's baffling. Linkage is a core concept in genetics; Alfred Sturtevant and Thomas Morgan worked it out in about 1913, and it's still current. The genographic project, which is trying to map out the history of human populations, uses haplotype data — clusters of alleles tend to stay clumped together, only occasionally broken up by recombination, so their arrangements can be used as markers for geneology. The default assumption is that these sets of alleles are not the product of selection, but of chance and history!


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/fodor_and_piattelli-palmarini.php

Google on.

[rug]

9. It's always nice to get an objective view.

PZ Myers has never been accused of partisanship.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. PZ Meyers is an actual reputable biologist.

who's university has not had to publicly disavow his published works in the field, unlike, for example, Michael Behe. he certainly is outspoken in his contempt for theocratically impaired pseudo science such as 'What Darwin Got Wrong'.

[rug]

14. And he's an actual biochemist.

I must say, these ad hominem attacks on the man are not very scientific.

[AmericaIsGreat]

12. William Demsbki is a scientist now?

Fancy that. When exactly did that happen?

Anyway, showing errors in Darwin's theory doesn't support ID. I mean, it says in the article that Jerry and Massimo's arguments "almost seem like ID arguments." So, because they "almost seem like ID arguments", that allows the article to claim that they are coming to the rescue of ID proponents? Wtf?

[rug]

15. Actually, a mathematician.

He holds a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago and a second doctorate in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

[AmericaIsGreat]

18. Right

I'm fairly familiar with Dembski and have watched some of his lectures. His argument is based on the mathematical improbability of progressive, biological complexity. There's a fairly well-known video in which he tells us the mathematical probability of this organism or this structure developing. I know how this will sound but all I can say is that the guy is either trolling us or incredibly inept at biological evolution, as the way he presents his quantification implies that all structures and organisms started from scratch each time. As for mathematical probabilities: the easy rebuttal is the example of a deck of cards. Lay them out and we can figure out a mathematical probability of landing that particular sequence. Shuffle them and do it again and we can figure out the probability of landing the first sequence and the second one after it. What's the point? Nothing. We show that the chances of landing these sequences are even SMALLER than some that have been associated with evolution and yet they occurred.

Ultimately, I'm comfortable knowing that scientists around the world will poke holes in Darwin's theory if they have the evidence to do it and the scientific community will not hesitate in revamping the theory if needed. At this point, ID is still not science.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. You do realize that arguments from authority are useless right?

Fuck the books or their publishers, when has ID proponents published papers related to ID in peer-review? Until they do that, ID is not, and never will be, scientific.

[rug]

24. To a degree.

And you realize arguments ad hominem and argumements ad populum are unmitigated bullshit, don't you.

[Humanist_Activist]

25. Considering I didn't use either, your mention of them is inapplicable..

There is no "to a degree" here, unless it can be and they are willing to do peer review, ID advocates aren't practicing science but rather propaganda. Have they published any original research in the past 20 years or so they been around? And no, publishing books and claiming they are research doesn't count, particularly when they rehash easily debunked arguments.

[rug]

27. Of course there's "to a degrre" here.

I can either consider what persons holding earned doctrates have to say

or

I can dismiss them outright because an internet poster named Humanist_Activist says I should.

:dilemma:

[deacon_sephiroth]

29. to a degree

You certainly CAN consider whatever you like. I daresay you CAN consider what anyone on the street has to say about the matter and it might be a damn sight better than the publications of these educated frauds, but you should consider it to the same degree that they consider the scientific process to have merit.

That is, you should consider it as sensationalist tactics that purposefully and repeatedly sidestep the scrutiny of the entire scientific community because they know all too well the outcome they would face, and are instead interested in making money by lying to a gullible public.

In fact to THAT degree I suppose even I have considered what they have to say. Also, would it make H_A's thought more valid or worthy to you if he said he had a doctorate? If so, both my folks have them, and I'm quite sure they'd agree with me on this one, I can ring them if you like, and we can put this to rest under the weight of their mighty degrees.

[rug]

34. Yes, get them on the line, please.

Thank you, I'll wait.

[deacon_sephiroth]

55. they agree with me, and further point out that the tactics you are

using to try and make an argument for these inexcusable charlatans are, much like the tactics used by the people themselves, beneath you.

[Humanist_Activist]

48. I didn't say you should do anything, I pointed out facts about the ID movement and their tactics...

particularly in avoiding scrutiny of their ideas in peer-review. If you don't want to face facts, then at least be honest and say so.

[trotsky]

56. Like post #9, yes.

Ad homs are lame.

[rug]

64. #57 is closer.

[trotsky]

65. Glad you admit you launched an ad hom!

We can argue about degrees of it later. This is a huge breakthrough for you.

[rug]

66. Not at all.

So tell me. Is this too a lame ad hom: "This is a huge breakthrough for you."

[trotsky]

67. No, you did indeed admit it.

By claiming that a post of mine was "closer" to being an ad hom, you admit that you believe yours was too, just not as much. Again, congratulations! I think we've made outstanding progress for today. Very proud of you.

[rug]

69. And this?

"I think we've made outstanding progress for today. Very proud of you."

Keep going, you're on a roll.

[trotsky]

71. What can I say?

I've learned well watching a true master at work!

[Sal316]

33. OOO...the Meyers shuffle!

[Humanist_Activist]

49. I don't understand this reference, but I find it ironic that even here, creationist cretins...

have a foothold. Anti-reality is all they are, debasing science with ignorance.

[trotsky]

57. What it comes down to is fear and hatred of atheists, I guess.

When given the choice between defending science or defending a fellow believer, no matter how foul, we see which one will win out even with many so-called "liberal" believers.

[Humanist_Activist]

77. That I don't get, why discredit yourself in this way?

That's all it can be characterized as, all it shows is the utter contempt many religious people have for facts.

[Sal316]

84. Considering I'm not a creationist...

...and I don't know a DUer who is, I'm not sure what your point is. Well, aside from using unfounded allegations to stuff your strawman, that is.

[trotsky]

88. I don't believe that claim was made.

Having a foothold means that there are individuals here who would evidently rather leap in and mock atheists and/or scientists than mock the ridiculous ideas of creationists or their attempts to sabotage science education, whom by default those individuals end up defending.

[Humanist_Activist]

96. I didn't say you were...

I will point out, however, that any gaps or inconsistencies in the Theory of Evolution pale in comparison to the gaps we have in the Cosmological model, Theory of Gravity, and Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, its quite remarkable that the theory as Darwin put it has held up as well as it did. He knew nothing of genetics, only rudimentary knowledge of heredity, genetic drift, huge gaps in the fossil record, etc. Yet, with every new discovery in biology, the basics of the theory are validated and strengthened, the facts of evolution are indisputable, its how we interpret those facts that can be subject to debate.

[darkstar3]

103. Really? So you don't believe that the universe was created in some fashion by God?

I don't buy it.

[Odin2005]

51. And Dobson is a psychologist, that doesn't make HIM any less an idiot.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. "What Darwin Got Wrong" was widely derided by philosophers

For instance:

The basic problem, according to Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, is that the distinction between free-riders and what they ride on is “invisible to natural selection.” Thus stated, their objection is obscure because it relies on an unfortunate metaphor, introduced by Darwin. In explaining natural selection, the Origin frequently resorts to personification: “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest” (emphasis added). When they talk of distinctions that are “invisible” to selection, they continue this personification, treating selection as if it were an observer able to choose among finely graded possibilities. Central to their case is the thesis that Darwinian evolutionary theory must suppose that natural selection can make the same finely graded discriminations available to a human (or divine?) observer.
...
We suggest that the question deserves a shrug. Serious evolutionary biology is concerned with comparative causal claims among interestingly different alternatives. Is it the black coloration rather than the larval resilience or the nighttime lethargy? Good question. Is it the coloration rather than coloration-and-being-smaller-than-Manhattan? Silly question. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini create the idea that natural selection is a fine-grained discriminatory enterprise that distinguishes among all the properties philosophers can discover (or invent?) precisely so they can demolish it. The authors’ error is to note correctly that there is some indeterminacy and then to conclude that indeterminacy is total: that there can be no matter of fact with respect to causal efficacy as between any of a set of correlated properties. Evolutionary theory, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini say, contains, at its core, a causal notion—selection-for—that picks out the properties that cause increased reproductive success. They then declare that there is no fact of the matter about what causes increase reproductive success when the candidate properties are correlated with others. But correlation is omnipresent, so evolutionary biology totters.

This critique makes no contact with the practice of evolutionary biology, where the focus is on the causal processes (for example, camouflage) that lead to reproductive success, the salient properties (say, melanism) that play a role in them, and whether other causal processes (say, stillness at night) might have been at work.
...
We admire the work that both Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini have produced over many decades. We regret that two such distinguished authors have decided to publish a book so cavalier in its treatment of a serious science, so full of apparently scholarly discussions that rest on mistakes and confusions—and so predictably ripe for making mischief.

http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2/block_kitcher.php

If you’re scratching your head at this point, you’d be in the good company of just about anyone who has reviewed the book, biologists and philosophers alike. Biologists have long known about the problem posed by the possibility that selection may not act on a given trait, but on a correlated one. In the example above, selection to capture flies really means selection to capture anything that behaves sufficiently like a fly, regardless of its nutritional value. This is why hypotheses about natural selection are usually tested by means of functional analyses rooted in physiology, genetics and developmental biology, and why observations of selection in the field are whenever possible coupled with manipulative experiments that make it possible to distinguish between, say, flies and ‘dark spots moving in front of your tongue’ kinds of objects.

Philosophers of science have long dealt with the intensionality problem that Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini pretend to have discovered out of the blue. The answer lies in distinguishing between selection for and selection of. In the case of the frogs, we can say that there is selection for capturing flies, but as a byproduct, there is also selection of the propensity to catch whatever small dark objects come within the frog’s field of view which look sufficiently like flies. Incidentally, this difference is why, contrary to popular belief, natural selection is not an optimizing process – why it makes mistakes and is inefficient, yielding whatever outcome is good enough for survival and reproduction.

Yet another way to understand how strange Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s argument is, is to realize that if they were right and only law-like hypotheses supporting counterfactuals were to be given the status of science, then all the historical sciences would go done the drain, not just evolutionary biology. This flies in the face of all post-positivist scholarship in the philosophy of science.

By the end of the book, the reader will likely ask, What do Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini purport to replace the theory of natural selection with? Apparently forgetting Bacon’s injunction that every criticism (pars destruens) should be coupled with a positive argument (pars construens), Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini do not bother to provide us with any plausible alternative narrative. That’s probably why the book is so slim.

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue81/What_Darwin_Got_Wrong_by_Jerry_Fodor_and_Massimo_Piattelli-Palmarini

There is, according to Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, one question that 'Darwin didn't ask ... namely, why certain imaginable phenotypes simply didn't occur.' Why, they want to know, 'aren't there pigs with wings?' The theory of natural selection cannot answer this, because 'Nobody thinks that if there aren't any pigs with wings it's because the winged pigs were selected against in their prehistoric days with wingless ones.' Rather 'pigs don't have wings because there is no place on pigs to put them'.

This gets to the root of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini's misunderstanding. Selection can only work on variation that already exists. And not all variation that can exist does exist. Variations are variations upon an existing phenotype (and hence an existing genotype). The existing genotype can only mutate in certain ways. To say that 'there is no place on pigs to put wings' is to say that there are constraints on porcine variation.

This is why Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini are wrong to suggest that adaptationism relies entirely on external factors. It is through constraints on possible variation that the theory of natural selection takes internal factors into account. It is also why recent discoveries in evo devo are not an argument against Darwinism. They reveal not the impossibility of natural selection, but the complexity of controls upon possible variation.

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are no creationists, but 'outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists'. That, however, only makes worse the incoherence of their understanding of Darwinism. There is much that Darwin got wrong, from his views of racial struggle to his occasional espousal of Lamarckism. There is nothing in this book, however, to suggest a fundamental flaw in his central argument about evolution by natural selection.

http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/malik_03_10.html

[beam me up scottie]

22. Why are you posting creationism "theories" from right wing conservative christian "think tanks"?

From Media Matters: Conservative Transparency

Institute on Religion and Public Life

501(c)(3) nonprofit
Employer Identification Number: 52-1628303


The Institute on Religion and Public Life, and its publication First Things, is a neoconservative organization that supports the ideals of the Christian Right. IRPL seeks to instill a higher degree of morality into society, specifically morality as defined by the Catholic Church, and to fight the encroachment of liberalism.

Seriously?

In your haste to smear atheists you didn't bother to read the article or check the source.

[rug]

26. Are you saying only sources you approve may be posted?

Give me the list of your approved sources and why I should pay any attention to it.

Did you read the article or are you trying to dismiss it out of hand by scoffing at the publication?

As long as you're on a policing kick, I suggest you edit "your haste to smear atheists". Questioning motives is definitely not approved.

While we're on the topic, do you deny that Bradley Monton is an atheist?

"Bradley Monton, in Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, in contrast to Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, is not so much concerned with deficiencies in neo-Darwinism, but rather in pointing out unfairness and invalid criticisms of arguments by proponents of ID. Monton maintains he is looking for the truth, wherever it leads."

Or are you also suggesting that he's a wanker or not a true atheist?

Maybe you can just discuss content instead of trying to be a self-anointed internet cop.

[beam me up scottie]

28. I didn't say you're not allowed to post crap from the religious right. In fact I applaud your choice

I won't debate *cough*intelligent*cough* design with you since it's a personal religious belief, just like flat earth theory, geocentricity, Noah's ark and talking snakes. You can believe anything you want, this is America.

But you're more than welcome to debate the merits of your faith based theory with others in this forum, I quite enjoy learning about christian mythology.

:popcorn:

Proceed.

[rug]

30. I'll be glad to after I remove the assumptions, misstatements, snark and opinion from your post.

Done.

Wait, there's nothing left there to discuss.

[beam me up scottie]

32. I read the article before I posted. It's bullshit and doesn't merit rational discourse.

It is interesting to see how far you'll go to get material to support your bias, though.

Fascinating.

[rug]

35. That explains your irrational comments.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

43. It's amazing is it not?

This is one of the few places on DU where rabid right-wing sources are considered legitimate.

[beam me up scottie]

47. We've been told we don't deserve protection under the Constitution because we're not a true minority

Right here in this forum.

Wish I could say I was surprised to read it.

[Major Nikon]

40. I don't think that's what gave rise to the movement

The movement goes back at least to the 70's if not well before. The movement started as creationism (which is somewhat different than ID), which was little more than bible verses repackaged in a format suitable for classroom instruction. Creationism taught in public schools was shot down by federal court in the 70's, well before the two books you mentioned were published. The fundies scratched their heads, got out their bottle of white out, and replaced all references to god and Jesus with "creator" or some other term to make the whole thing appear more secular. Again this was shot down in federal court in 1982. This time the court defined what qualified as "science". The fundies got out their white out again, made some more changes, and threw in some real science and some pseudo-science, created a false controversy to attack Darwin evolution theory to make ID look better and resubmitted. It again failed court muster in 2005.

[Jim__]

42. It's been a while since I read "What Darwin Got Wrong."

The first thing to know is that the book was not arguing against the Theory of Evolution. It argued that the Theory of Natural Selection (TNS) could not be the main driving force behind evolution.

I do remember that, in general, the book was making 2 arguments. It did a fairly good job of supporting them; but, I was curious as to how reviewers responded to them. I read a large number of online reviews, and none of them addressed the basic arguments that the book made.

The first argument is that the TNS involves an incorrect inference in which: 1) creatures with adaptive traits are selected, and 2) creatures are selected for their adaptive traits; and that 2 is inferred from 1 - an incorrect inference. The second argument is that TNS is more of a historical explanation than a scientific theory.

These 2 arguments are backed by details of individual claims of TNS. Most of the reviews I read attacked the usage of the individual claims, not stating that the book got these claims wrong, but that the claims were not that relevant. You might make that argument on any individual claim, however, in view of the larger argument the book was making, the reviews were completely off the mark.

The book did convince me that the process of evolution was more complex than I had previously believed. I think there are details of the process that remain to be worked out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. See #21 - philosophers destroyed their point #1

I'm not sure what they used to bolster their claim that "TNS is more of a historical explanation than a scientific theory". I'm not sure what you mean by a 'historical explanation'. An explanation of what happened in the past? (In which case, that can also be a scientific theory). Or an explanation that used to be used? Or something else?

[Jim__]

73. I've seen post #21.

Take the case in your first citation, the peppered moth - from the review:

Consider the famous case of industrially induced melanism in the peppered moth. Supposedly, in landscapes where pollution has destroyed the lichens on the trunks of trees, melanic (black) variants of the moth are better camouflaged when they rest on tree trunks than their lighter, speckled relatives. With improved camouflage, birds and other predators are less likely to pick the moths off the tree trunks. In polluted environments, then, melanic moths are more likely to survive, and hence to leave descendants in later generations. So far, so familiar.

The essential argument made in the review is that black moths are better camouflaged than speckled moths in this environment. Our vision tells us this - we don't really need a scientific theory. The fact that black moths have a survival advantage in this environment is attested to by history. Do we call the theory that tells us that these moths turned black and thus had a survival advantage in this environment a scientific theory? Or is this a historical narrative? Scientific theories should do more than confirm what we have already observed.

From pages 20 - 21 of the book:

It's common ground that distribution of phenotypic traits in populations change over time. Having said this much, however, it must be emphasized that such shifting equilibria do not explain the distribution of phenotypes; rather they are among the phenomena that theories of evolution are supposed to explain. These days biologists have good reasons to believe that selection among randomly generated minor variants of phenotypic traits falls radically short of explaining the appearance of new forms of life. Assuming that evolution occurs over very, very long periods does not help if, as we believe, endogenous factors and multilevel genetic regulations play an essential role in determining the phenotypic options among which environmental variables can choose. Contrary to traditional opinion, it needs to be emphasized that natural selection among traits generated at random cannot by itself be the basic principle of evolution. Rather there must be strong, often decisive, endogenous constraints and hosts of regulations on the phenotypic options that exogenous selection operates on. We think of natural selection as tuning the piano, not as composing the melodies. That's our story, and we think it's the story modern biology tells when it's properly construed. We'll stick to it throughout what follows.

[skepticscott]

74. If this is your response

The essential argument made in the review is that black moths are better camouflaged than speckled moths in this environment. Our vision tells us this - we don't really need a scientific theory. The fact that black moths have a survival advantage in this environment is attested to by history. Do we call the theory that tells us that these moths turned black and thus had a survival advantage in this environment a scientific theory? Or is this a historical narrative? Scientific theories should do more than confirm what we have already observed.

It's a rather silly one. First of all, simply seeing dark moths on dark colored objects does not tell you how the moths that way. Many creatures, such as a flatfish lying on the ocean bed can change their coloration to be better camouflaged. You need more than vision to determine whether the individual moths alter their color at will or whether it was altered by some other process. And "scientific theories should do more than confirm what we have already observed" ...duh. They should also generate testable predictions that can be checked against reality, which evolutionary theory does. Why would anyone take this statement seriously as a critique of natural selection?

[Jim__]

75. Did you miss my citation from the book?

The gist of my response was the citation from the book - and no, I'm not critiquing natural selection.

I cited a paragraph from the book that I believe is relevant to the case of the peppered moth. It would be nice to be able to respond by citing the precise part of the book that the review is critiquing at this point, but the book only mentions the peppered moth in a parenthetical aside (at least that is the only reference in the index of the book).

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. The excerpt from the book doesn't explain anything

It's common ground that distribution of phenotypic traits in populations change over time. Having said this much, however, it must be emphasized that such shifting equilibria do not explain the distribution of phenotypes; rather they are among the phenomena that theories of evolution are supposed to explain. These days biologists have good reasons to believe that selection among randomly generated minor variants of phenotypic traits falls radically short of explaining the appearance of new forms of life. Assuming that evolution occurs over very, very long periods does not help if, as we believe, endogenous factors and multilevel genetic regulations play an essential role in determining the phenotypic options among which environmental variables can choose. Contrary to traditional opinion, it needs to be emphasized that natural selection among traits generated at random cannot by itself be the basic principle of evolution. Rather there must be strong, often decisive, endogenous constraints and hosts of regulations on the phenotypic options that exogenous selection operates on. We think of natural selection as tuning the piano, not as composing the melodies. That's our story, and we think it's the story modern biology tells when it's properly construed. We'll stick to it throughout what follows.

It claims that biologists do not pay attention to 'endogenous factors'. But, as one of the review pointed out, of course they do - they know very well that pigs won't grow wings in a short time, because the rest of the pig - ie 'endogenous factors' - is not suitable for just sticking wings on. The 2 authors (who are not biologists themselves) claim biologists 'have good reasons' to think that natural variation is not enough to produce new species - but the biologists deny that, and the excerpt gives no reason to believe the authors.

Both biologists and philosophers of science heavily criticised the book as inadequate, with basic errors in argument, and ignorance of biology - the latter understandable because the authors aren't biologists (but they could have tried collaborating with a biologist), but the former inexcusable for a philosopher.

[Jim__]

80. The excerpt from the book addresses, in part, the excerpt from the review by Block and Kitcher.

It doesn't address the excerpt directly, of course, because the review is discussing the case of the peppered moth which is not discussed in the book.

When discussing a book, it is best to discuss the book directly and not reviews of the book. In that spirit, let's take a look at what you say about that very brief excerpt from the book (see post #73 for the excerpt):

It claims that biologists do not pay attention to 'endogenous factors'. But, as one of the review pointed out, of course they do - they know very well that pigs won't grow wings in a short time, because the rest of the pig - ie 'endogenous factors' - is not suitable for just sticking wings on. The 2 authors (who are not biologists themselves) claim biologists 'have good reasons' to think that natural variation is not enough to produce new species - but the biologists deny that, and the excerpt gives no reason to believe the authors.

It claims that biologists do not pay attention to 'endogenous factors'.

Really? Where does it say that? The paragraph doesn't say that at all. Could you cite where the book says that?

The 2 authors (who are not biologists themselves) claim biologists 'have good reasons' to think that natural variation is not enough to produce new species ...

That's not actually what they say: ... biologists have good reasons to believe that selection among randomly generated minor variants of phenotypic traits falls radically short of explaining the appearance of new forms of life.

Do you see the difference between what they actually say and your claim about what they say? That's why it is preferable to discuss the book itself. When we are discussing reviews, we are discussing someone elses interpretation of the book - in the excerpt from Block and Kitcher, it's their extrapolation of a case based on their interpretation of the book - an interpretation that Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini have already called a misreading. When we discuss the book, we can refer to page and paragraph or at least to specific arguments and while we may still disagree, we at least have a solid basis for discussion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. It implies that biologists do not take 'endogenous factors' into account

"Assuming that evolution occurs over very, very long periods does not help if, as we believe, endogenous factors and multilevel genetic regulations play an essential role in determining the phenotypic options among which environmental variables can choose."

The authors say 'we believe' - implying that the evolutionary biologists they are arguing against do not believe.

Do you see the difference between what they actually say and your claim about what they say?

No, not really. I shortened "randomly generated minor variants of phenotypic traits " to "natural variation".

[Jim__]

85. No, it doesn't imply that at all.

You might read it that way if you haven't read any of the book; but if you've even read the introduction, you can't make that inference. First, they are not limiting the discussion of the Theory of Natural Selection to biology. They explicitly state that the Theory of Natural Selection is being used in: philosophy of mind, natural language semantics, the theory of syntax, judgement and decision making, pragmatics and psycholinguistics. Second, they also state that many biologists have assured them that they're not "that kind" of adaptationist any more; i.e. they explicitly state that at least some biologists do take endogenous factors into account. This is on page xvi of the introduction. The book itself goes into far more detail with respect to this issue.

If you don't see the difference between: randomly generated minor variants of phenotypic traits and natural variation, then you should probably read pages 32 through 35 of the book. These pages reference current research papers in biology, and the gist of what they are saying is that while genetic mutations are random, regulatory cell processes determine whether or not these random mutations can manifest in phenotypic traits. Chapter 2 of the book, The Biological Argument, is on these regulatory processes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. And by not limiting it to biology, they step away from Darwin

Darwin did not have anything to do with "philosophy of mind, natural language semantics, the theory of syntax, judgement and decision making, pragmatics and psycholinguistics". That others may have tried to argue that natural selection applies in psychological fields is irrelevant when trying to argue that "Darwin can't have been right about the mechanisms of evolution" (from their 'Terms of Engagement'). And, also from there, they say neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory "hold that, to a first approximation, the generator in question is random and the filter is exogenous". Not only does evolutionary theory clearly take into account the interaction of any mutation with the rest of the organism (ie endogenous factors) in determining the likelihood of reproduction, there's a major branch of opinion, exemplified by Dawkins' 'Selfish Gene', that holds that selection should be examined at the gene level, with the rest of the organism just another part of the environment in which genes succeed or not. All biologists have always taken endogenous factors into account.

"regulatory cell processes determine whether or not these random mutations can manifest in phenotypic traits"

Oh, never! Wow, what a startling thing to say. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious. Yes, it's well known there are mutations that have no discernible effect on the phenotype; such mutations are now used to estimate the time of divergence of species, for instance. And since everything happens in cells, cell processes obviously have a bearing on whether a mutation can affect a phenotype. If they think selection of variations in the phenotype cannot produce new species, then they have to be arguing that variations in the genotype cannot either.

I don't have the book, just what Google Books provides as a preview (and no, I am not about to waste a day trying to locate a copy somewhere, which would probably involve ordering it and waiting for a few weeks, or buying a widely-panned book). So I'm going from what I can see, and what reviewers and you say is in the book. So far, you don't seem to have quoted anything to hurt the reviewers' arguments.

[Jim__]

89. Their argument is against the Theory of Natural Selection as the primary driver of evolution.

They cite other fields that are using the theory as justification for making their arguments now. They are arguing against the theory as put out by Darwin, and, they cite ongoing research of mathematical models on optimal natural selection as evidence that there are still biologists using this theory today.

Oh, never! Wow, what a startling thing to say. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious. Yes, it's well known there are mutations that have no discernible effect on the phenotype; such mutations are now used to estimate the time of divergence of species, for instance. And since everything happens in cells, cell processes obviously have a bearing on whether a mutation can affect a phenotype. If they think selection of variations in the phenotype cannot produce new species, then they have to be arguing that variations in the genotype cannot either.

Once again, you are demonstrating an ignorance of what the book actually says, and in this case a part of the book that has already been quoted:

... Contrary to traditional opinion, it needs to be emphasized that natural selection among traits generated at random cannot by itself be the basic principle of evolution. Rather there must be strong, often decisive, endogenous constraints and hosts of regulations on the phenotypic options that exogenous selection operates on. We think of natural selection as tuning the piano, not as composing the melodies. ...

They are saying that natural selection among traits generated at random cannot by itself be the basic principle of evolution. They are contending that Darwin's understanding of natural selection, an understanding that is current with some biologists today, is that it is precisely natural selection among traits generated at random that is the basic principle of evolution.

Whether or not you read the book makes no difference to be. However, as to: you don't seem to have quoted anything to hurt the reviewers' arguments, in post #80, I did state: in the excerpt from Block and Kitcher, it's their extrapolation of a case based on their interpretation of the book - an interpretation that Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini have already called a misreading.. You may not be impressed that the authors of the book say that the reviewers are misreading the book; I take it as a strong indication that the reviewers got it wrong.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. Not sure this will get anywhere; you say "the authors are right", but don't give reasons

I say "the reviewers are right", and link to the reviews. Saying the reviewers got it wrong, without further explanation, won't seem to help. A link to why the authors say the reviewers are wrong would have been worthwhile.

[Jim__]

92. I didn't say the authors are right.

I repeated part of an already given quote as to what the authors are explicitly saying with respect to natural selection:

They are saying that natural selection among traits generated at random cannot by itself be the basic principle of evolution. They are contending that Darwin's understanding of natural selection, an understanding that is current with some biologists today, is that it is precisely natural selection among traits generated at random that is the basic principle of evolution.

That's in rebuttal to your claim that you made in post #86 about they're just stating the obvious.

My statement in post #42 was that the authors did a good job of supporting their arguments. I also said I wanted to see how the reviewers responded. My assessment was that the reviews I read attacked parts of the arguments - but not in a convincing way.

You say the reviewers are right. I say the authors stated that Block and Kitcher misread the book. Yes, a link would be nice. But I'm taking their reply from pages 181-182 of the book (Picador - updated edition). They added a chapter 10 to the book in which they reply to critics. Kitcher and Block claim that the book says there is no fact of the matter about which of the correlated traits causes increased reproductive success. The authors refer them to Chapter 7 which is largely about how you can determine that exact fact of the matter. I guess you can say that I'm saying the authors are right about what statements they actually made. I haven't stated any opinion about the ultimate correctness of the argument that is being made by the book.

[Odin2005]

50. I read Fodor's book and it's one giant straw-man argument.

[rug]

52. Hey! I had the same reaction to The God Delusion.

How about that!

:fistbump:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

[laconicsax]

54. And a non-sequitur from rug. n/t

[trotsky]

58. You expected more?

C'mon, you've been around here long enough to know better.

[rug]

60. Sorry if I went too fast for you.

I'll try to slow down.

[edhopper]

61. Except it's not

as demonstrated over, and over, and over and over again.

[Angry Dragon]

53. If Intelligent Design exists then there should be a blue print

laying around so we can see where it is leading...........

[trotsky]

59. Unrec for posting right-wing garbage on DU. n/t

[laconicsax]

68. Isn't it interesting how readily it's embraced here?

[Silent3]

62. Back in 2000 my fundy sister confidently predicted...

...that ID would supplant evolution in 20 years. I even subjected myself to reading one of William Dembski's books from cover to cover for her.

ID is going to have to work a lot harder to catch up over the next eight years than this. :)

[MarkCharles]

63. Dembski's probabalistic arguments have been thoroughly debunked by

dozens of evolution scientists.

He is, for some reason, having a hard time reconciling his fundamentalist religious beliefs with commonly observed evidence of evolution in the biological world.

[Silent3]

72. I think "irreducible complexity" is an intriguing idea...

...if someone would actually develop it into something more than the sorry excuse that it is now. Not that I know how that could be done, however. You'd have to find a way to remove the factor of an often too-feeble human imagination to grasp possible intermediate steps in processes which merely seem irreducibly complex.

[Humanist_Activist]

76. I think the problem with "irreducible complexity" is that it is an argument from ignorance...

just because our knowledge in a particular area is incomplete doesn't mean we will NEVER know or find the intermediate steps involved.

[trotsky]

79. And you nailed it right there.

"I just can't see how there could be a functional eye without all the parts we have in ours today, so therefore GAWD."

That is what passes for scientific argumentation in the "intelligent" "design" circles.

[Humanist_Activist]

95. Its particularly funny when they use the eye...

Considering that the eye has evolved independently at least 50 to 100 times in animals, and all the so called intermediate steps are present today in living species. From light sensitive Protists and other single celled organisms, eye spots on Flatworms, pit eyes on other species of worms and various other animals, pinhole eyes on the Nautilus, to the development of lenses through splitting and thickening of the protective layers of the eye, to where we have animals with extremely acute eyes such as the Squid and Octopus and in the Eagles. It was always a bad example.

What they fail to take into account is that evolution doesn't have a direction, when eye spots first evolved, a camera eye wasn't the "plan" rather it was simply so the animal can survive just a little better than its kin without the eye spots. Whether it was to know day from night, or to detect when something was near from its shadow, that was enough to have a better chance at survival.

[Silent3]

81. Developing the idea would mean factoring ignorance out...

...but I guess the people supposedly doing that "research" are apparently too ignorant to manage it. :)

[laconicsax]

87. Evolution predicts irreducibly complex systems.

Herman Muller wrote about it almost 100 years ago. He called it "interlocking complexity."

[MarkCharles]

91. True and any intelligent microbiologist would know how this works in the

evolution related to immunology.

[deacon_sephiroth]

93. It's a damn good try and might give one pause, but only pause

Daniel Dennett was talking about William Lane Craig, but what he said applies to this and so many of the "arguments" put forth by modern apologists. Some thing are mind boggling, and counter intuitive, but you can't use your gut feelings and every day common sense on some of the findings of advanced sciences, you can't use mind bogglingness as your litmus test for fact. Irreducible Complexity is one example in biology, but you find such things, dutifully pointed out in quantum mechanics, cosmology, and plenty of places that apologists have found fun thought experiments that are very difficult to wrap your head around IF you are ignorant of the topic or field. Or for that matter you can be versed in the field and still some concepts, some facts, some math, some evidence is difficult to push past your base gut instincts, but the truth is in the science... always.

The REAL experts in the fields, the REAL knowledgeable individuals DO understand and they DO agree and they are NEVER in agreement with these pseudo-intellectual wolves in scientist's clothing out to make a buck from the holy rollers.

I'm sorry but "I don't understand this therefor it must not be true." does not work. That is not a declaration of the factual nature of the topic but a declaration from the speaker of their ignorance, OFTEN PURPOSEFUL.

Some of the people listening to the apologists and nodding their heads in agreement should be ASHAMED of themselves. Someone with a degree (which in some poster's world is instant and irrevocable credibility) tells you something you've likely never even heard of, tells you half the story, tells you it's too hard to understand and tells you that you don't understand it, then encourages you to give up, and default to make-believe because it's easy and fun and will make you feel comfortable and safe again, free from the uncertainty of thought and the difficulty of complex concepts... well fuck him/her!

How dare these people masquerade as scientists while spewing such unproductive venom into the population. How dare they preach the death of thought and progress and advocate giving up and calling it magic, who gave them degrees in the first place, how did they ever get that far with such a pathetic attitude? Disgraceful, and it makes me sick....

so sick..... so fucking sick.... that I completely go off on tangents in reply to a short comment by Silent3...

not sure that was called for, but there it is.