Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hey, the static Universe in collision is real, man.

Do you think if I write a sequel I could make the best seller list?

I suspect the only obstacle to you making millions this way is that you have a conscience.

 

[Civilized Worm]

The sad thing is that I actually think the ID people have a point. It's one I don't agree with, but they can do better arguing for it than this.

And what point would that be then? That we all came about by magic?

It actually makes sense from a theological point of view that Evolution is real. A hundred years ago people would have said that was impossible, but think about it: If God created the universe then why wouldn't He simply let it develop in its own way without interference and engineering? This includes the development of life on Earth. It's the ultimate act of nurturing love to allow His creation its own independant existance to change and grow in its own way.

Doesn't really gel with the whole "making man in his own image" stuff though does it? If humans were what he want why waste billions of years with dinosaurs and stuff?

 

[Mr. Scott]

I would only question the 'perennial' part. I'd say they are 'daily' liars.

My "Living Webster's" lists "perpetual" as a synonym for "perennial," perhaps a better word.

So, my response to the title, "Why are Darwinists afraid to debate us?" is, "Why are Creationists perpetual liars?"

I think that many evolutionists are hesitant (afraid, if you prefer) to debate creationists because any honest person would naturally be hesitant to debate a perpetual liar, especially for an audience of like-minded liars and their deluded hordes. Evolutionists play fair, because they honestly seek truth. Creationists don't play fair because they simply want to maintain, to their death, their childish fairy tales.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

ID people don't necessarily disbelieve that evolution occurs. They only claim that there are aspects of the natural world that could not come to be through the process of evolution.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

The point that ID people can validly make is that there are instances of mechanistic processes in nature that are hard (they would claim impossible) to explain by evolution. Of course, this is true. There’s just so many of them. The sensible counterargument isn’t “but evolution can explain everything!” it’s either “true, but postulating an Intelligent Designer gives no method or reason to continue research” or “So why does my back hurt? What’s this appendix thing for? Why does prostate stimulation feel (soooooooo) good?”

 

[Jeff Corey]

ID people don't necessarily disbelieve that evolution occurs. They only claim that there are aspects of the natural world that could not come to be through the process of evolution.

Like what? That G-d specifically designed each creature and each especially nice piece of shrubbery?
Specific the aspects that these creationists you speak of claim could not come to be through the process of evolution. Hemorrhoids?
Nod, nod, itch, itch.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl, have you read that book yet? If so, how is it?

My reading list is rather backlogged already.... but I might have to add it anyway.

Not yet, it's on my list though. Here's an excerpt and comments from Red State Rabble.

The name of the book is explained:

"When I said I thought it would be kind of good to learn more about evolution, some other kids started calling me Monkey Girl. 'Cause they said God made them, but that I must've come from chimps... " -- 14-year-old from Dover, PA

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Well they are careful never to mention G-d specifically. Austere ID theory says it could be aliens or whatever.

They point out things like the Flagellum and Bombardier beetle which exhibit what they call "irreducible complexity", which is a system of discreet elements that work together in a way that could not possibly have come from natural selection. The concept is fine. In fact it shows that they understand evolution, because they understand its limits. The mechanism of the flagellum has been more deeply investigated and it does not seem to be a good candidate for an irreducibly complex system. I have yet to hear of a good explanation of how the bombardier beetle's defense organ might have evolved(not that I doubt that one day we will have one).

Go easy people, I'm just explaining their thought process. I don't go for it either. I just don't think that the discussion need be so one sided that we can't try to understand a competing theory.

 

[Mercutio]

Well they are careful never to mention G-d specifically. Austere ID theory says it could be aliens or whatever.

I wish the Dover panda trial would have gotten one to admit that it could just as easily have been Satan. ID and Creationism might then be uncomfortable bedfellows....

 

[Wowbagger]

In fact it shows that they understand evolution, because they understand its limits.

But, it is not a limit in the theory they are finding, it is a limit in themselves. A good scientist knows he or she has limits to their knowledge and talent, and always points out areas for further study in their work.
The ID folks do not: They are the ones arrogant enough to think their limits equate to limits in the theory.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

At the risk of derailing the thread:

To the extent you're implying that all Bush appointees must be one or the other, I think that's inaccurate. It is possible to be nominated because you're a well-qualified candidate with a generally conservative judicial philosophy without blindly following the demands of the religious right or being a patronage appointment.

That's not based on any faith (pardon the pun) in the Bush administration. Even if you assume that the Bush administration is out to appoint the most extreme theocratic judges possible, they do still have to get those nominees through the Senate. Qualifications do matter: see Myers, Harriet. In a moderate state like Pennsylvania, you just aren't going to find many Roy Moore clones to begin with, and you'd have a hard time getting them confirmed.

I think it's more general, and less meaningful, than that. I would define "activist judge" as "judge who makes a decision I disagree with." I think the term has become that bad. Nobody seems to have a good working definition of it, and nobody seems willing to stand up and say "yes, I'm an activist judge, what's wrong with that?" It's become a label you hang on judges with whom you disagree. Conservatives started the trend, but now liberals are getting into the act, too, decrying conservative judges as "activist."

Basically, just about everyone is against "activist judges," so it becomes a meaningless conversation. I compare it to "political correctness." Rarely do I see anyone defend "PC"; instead the argument becomes whether something is or is not PC. The term itself has become fairly useless.

I think we can safely say the evidence is piling up on how Bush chooses his appointees. Perhaps he wasn't quite as blatant about it in the early years.

According to Talkreason.org:

Judge John E. Jones III is a churchgoer, a lifelong Republican, appointed to his Federal position by President George W. Bush. As a New York Times piece recently noted:

His supporters include Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and his mentor is Tom Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania and homeland security secretary.

Wiki adds

Jones was the chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board from 1995 to 2002, a period marked by some controversy. He was part of a failed attempt to privatize state stores, and he banned Bad Frog Beer after determining that its label (a frog giving the finger) was in bad taste

So Jones wasn't just a great candidate, he was a great candidate with the right political philosophy and a few connections. However, I agree with you some of these appointees have great credentials and integrity. In fact, I found a fantastic speech Jones gave after the trial and it's worthy of a new thread on activist judges. His comments were as important as the trial ruling. But you'll have to wait for me to compose the OP.

Link to new thread on activists judges.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I suspect the only obstacle to you making millions this way is that you have a conscience.

I'm working on overcoming that obstacle.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Where has an ID proponent stated (not just a silly strawman) that there are no areas for further study in what they do?

It looks like their looking very closely at "junk" DNA, for example.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Regards the OP: To say that DI is disengenous is like saying Tai Chi is a slimy wriggly little eel - it's axiomatic.

The Darwin vs. Design conference was little more than a chance for DI hacks to bloviate and sell their books. It was organized by the SMU Christian legal (or lawer) society and wasn't associated with the university, but science professors did not agree with university facilities being assocated with non sense like ID and rightfully spoke up about it. It's not like the science departments at SMU have been afraid to speak up about (Un)Intelligent Desgin previously.

The claims of censorship and "being afriad to debate" are an example of the one thing DI is good at - propaganda. And just because some scientists would rather not waste their time with DI hacks it doesn't mean scientists in the scholastic, government or public sector aren't willing to get down and dirty. I know of four, Joe Meert PhD, Paul Lucas MD, Glenn Morton and Gary Hurd PhD by name, as well as several others by UserID who participate in debate with C/IDers over the Internet as they realize that written debate is the most productive use of their time.

Additionally Douglas Theobald, who produced the magnificent "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" is still associated with Talk Origins last I checked.

So the answers to Tai Chi's thread title and the DI press release are: that's a BS twisting of the facts and No, they aren't and some are actively engaged in debate on a daily basis respectively.

 

[cafink]

Where has an ID proponent stated (not just a silly strawman) that there are no areas for further study in what they do?

Wherever he claims some feature of an organism to be "irreducibly complex." He mistakes his inability to understand how that feature might have come about through evolution for the inability of that feature to have come about through evolution. He proclaims the problem to be impossible and further study on the subject to be futile.

This proclamation betrays a closed-mindedness and short-sightedness unbecoming a scientist.

 

[Czarcasm]

Where has an ID proponent stated (not just a silly strawman) that there are no areas for further study in what they do?

It looks like their looking very closely at "junk" DNA, for example.

Does adding a "wink" emoticon to almost all of your posts indicate that you do not wish us to take any of your statements seriously?

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

How would ID based research into junk DNA differ from the approach a mainstream biochemist would take? I'd love to see more research into that area. I don't care who does it or why. If some proponent of ID made real discoveries about unacknowledged roles for "junk" DNA, I hope it could get published in any respectable journal, so long as the methods and results were presented in the usual fashion. When someone makes discoveries in the laboratory, they are certainly entitled to their own interpretation, and there should be a forum for other interpretations of their data as well.

 

[CFLarsen]

Where has an ID proponent stated (not just a silly strawman) that there are no areas for further study in what they do?

When they point to God as the Intelligent Designer.

 

[H3LL]

Just to summarise T'ai Chi's total contribution to his "itneresting" thread with the only other link being total garbage.

If anyone is in any doubt as to why the ID proponents are not worth the time to "debate" it may help.

TC brings nothing of any value to the topic and never has.

An itneresting article

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3979&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News

Why would you like to censor them?

Here's some

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science

What are your detailed scientific critique of them all?

I don't have problem with any of them.

I'm embarassed at some of the highly emotional responses I receive...

I'm stating basically the title of the article, that the ID proponents, the authors of the article, feel, based on evidence, that Darwinists are afraid to debate them.

What of this is so confusing for you?

So it confuses you. Nothing wrong with admitting that.

Now if you could just manage to focus on the article content and cease pretending that bickering about several words in a title makes any difference.

When you can't talk about the actual article, talk about the person who posted a link to the article, or even things like silly English stuff, nitpicking about what that person typed in a title.

Seems to be proper skepticism soi far.

Ditto here. No response, more being afraid lto debate ike the article mentioned?

Where has an ID proponent stated (not just a silly strawman) that there are no areas for further study in what they do?

It looks like their looking very closely at "junk" DNA, for example.

For TC, assuming for a moment, in some bizarre, wacky TC world where lies and deceit constitute proper scientific evidence, that ID is actually correct.

What possible, practical use does it have?

Hint: Something in medicine would be great, as ID is attempting to replace a method that produces results.

.

 

[tsig]

I'm stating basically the title of the article, that the ID proponents, the authors of the article, feel, based on evidence, that Darwinists are afraid to debate them.

What of this is so confusing for you?

Nothing is so confusing as arrogance.