Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!

[Hollie]

7. How to defend Charles Darwin from the blistering attack employed in the OP?

So far, none has been able to....
The whiners simply attack the messenger....they seem unable to deal with the message.

Can you imagine?? It's left to me to provide a defense....
....but, a good offense is the best defense!


So....let's try the 'Artifact Hypothesis.'


a. OK...so the transitional forms that should be there in the geological record, i.e., showing that life began as simple and became complex, are missing. "Perhaps they were microscopic, similar to modern marine larvae....too small to have been reliably fossilized." This from developmental biologist Eric Davidson, California Institute of Technology.

Davidson has even posited that the intermediate forms only existed in the larval stage.




b. Maybe the ancestors of Cambrian animals were not preserved because they lacked hard parts such as shells and exoskeletons.
"Molecular evidencefor deep Precambrian divergences among metazoan phyla,"
GAWray,JSLevinton, LHShapiro- Science, 1996 - sciencemag.org

Get it: why expect to find remains of soft-bodied ancestors?




OK?
So....perhaps Darwin's missing fossils were either too small to be seen.....or lacked hard parts, so as to be preservable.


Did you notice that neither of these scientists claimed that the fossils proving Darwin's theory were present.

So....how about it....the 'Artifact Hypothesis'.....Is that a plausible defense of Darwin?

So, how does anyone defend fundie zealots from themselves? Well, you can't.

The "quotes" dumped into the above post by the fundie zealot are "quote-mines" that PC stole from Stephen Meyer of the Disco' Tute. Meyer carelessly hacked apart comments from a real scientist.

There's a good read here which just how dishonest and corrupt the fundie Christians have become in further of their lies and falsehoods surrounding the industry of fraudulent fundie Christians.


Stephen Meyer workin in the quote mines - The Panda s Thumb

You imbecile....you're efforts should be to show the information is incorrect...not who provided them.

Obviously they are totally correct, as are all of my post.

That's why I have been able to reduce you to no more than lying.

The problem of course is that your dishonest "quote mines" are edited, purged and out of context.

I've shown repeatedly that your fraudulent "quotes" are a laughable joke of creationist nonsense.

Your efforts should show that you're not a dishonest spammer. But alas, you are a dishonest spammer.

You're lying again.....I'm never dishonest.


Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.

False.

You're a pointless "quote-miner"

 

[Hollie]

Stumper Questions for Creationists

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

• Coherence of many different dating methods.
• Chronological distribution of fossils.
• Spatial distribution of living things.
• Relationships between living things.

 

[DriftingSand]

DS, you make the baby Jesus cry because of your pride.

Just love Jesus, lean on Him, follow His lead for your life.

And believe His Word. Can't follow Him if you don't know what He's saying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stumper Questions for Creationists

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

• Coherence of many different dating methods.
• Chronological distribution of fossils.
• Spatial distribution of living things.
• Relationships between living things.

You're lying again.....


Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.


Why are you so afraid to address the topic?

 

[hadit]

Based on the inept responses, either the dop

Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
   
   Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it.
   
   The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.

When you cut and paste your response, be sure to cite Harun Yahya as your source.

"....the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement ..."

You can run but you can't hide:
There is nothing .....not a single thing.....in the OP about Intelligent Design.


As I asked earlier....could you indicate that you understood the OP that seems to have gotten under your skin?

I'm writing soon, again.

I seem to have really gotten under your skin... and your hack, charlatan heroes.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons.
   1. Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example:
      • Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).
      • Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).
      • Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used.
      • Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.
      • Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.
   2. The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review:
      • Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists.
      • Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).
      • Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.
   3. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
      
      This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are "true believers" of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too.

Why are you running from the subject?

Since there is nothing in the OP that pertains to Intelligent Design, how about a critique of either the Burgess Shale, or the Chengjiang fauna, both of which destroy any cachet Darwin's theory might have.

I'm sure you agree.

I think most ardent Darwinists do not really understand the underlying assumptions and science that went into creating the theory, they are merely repeating what they were taught in school and are not really curious about how life really came about. Kind of like a voter who pays no attention to politics until a week before an election, then votes for the good looking one.

I think most of you folks using the "Darwinism" term tend to make a lot of pointless comments about evolutionary science which you see as a threat to your fundamentalist religious views.

Thank you for making my point for me. There is nothing heretical in being skeptical about Darwinism. Note that is not the same as claiming that animals never adapt to survive.

 

[hadit]

Meyer and Berlinski are charlatans. They front for an organization of charlatans: the Disco'tute.

Neither have the credentials to offer a comprehensive dissertation in the fields of the biological sciences.

They are as much fundamentalist hacks as you are.

1. "Meyer and Berlinski are charlatans. They front for an organization of charlatans"

Point out anything they've said that is incorrect.

Of course...it is possible you don't know what the word 'charlatan' means. You seem to believe (I almost said 'think') that it means they don't agree with you.



2. What specific in the OP caused you to become so irate?
How about you show that you understood the OP.....



3. And this is why I look forward to your posts...the frequency with which you put your foot in your mouth....

...you clearly didn't understand the OP, yet you wrote "Neither have the credentials to offer a comprehensive dissertation in the fields of the biological sciences."

Write soon.

Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
   
   Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it.
   
   The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.

When you cut and paste your response, be sure to cite Harun Yahya as your source.

"....the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement ..."

You can run but you can't hide:
There is nothing .....not a single thing.....in the OP about Intelligent Design.


As I asked earlier....could you indicate that you understood the OP that seems to have gotten under your skin?

I think therein lies the problem. Darwinists are so heavily invested in their belief that they automatically leap to counter any critique of Darwinism with an attack on "anti-science", "fundamentalist", "ignorant" Creationism and/or ID. The reality is, however, that Darwinism as taught today in schools does face serious challenges and things have come to light that cast significant doubt on its ability to explain life as we see it. Questioning Darwinism and pointing out its weaknesses is not, however, an automatic support for Creationism. That's just a smoke screen. It seems, moreover, that the least learned are the strongest adherents to the faith, and react the strongest when confronted with things that Darwinism cannot explain. A truer statement would be "When we completely reject even the remotest possibility that life is intelligently designed, Darwinism is the best theory that we can come up with, but we have to admit that there are things it cannot account for".

Christian fundamentalism is not a serious challenge to science. No one has to "come up" with Darwinism (BTW, "Darwinism" is an immediate clue you spend a lot of time on christian fundamentalist websites), as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Science and discovery gets us there.

Classical Darwinism as taught in schools today (you probably learned it) is a particular form of belief in the evolutionary model, one that cannot account for many things. Skepticism is healthy.

 

[Hollie]

Stumper Questions for Creationists

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

• Coherence of many different dating methods.
• Chronological distribution of fossils.
• Spatial distribution of living things.
• Relationships between living things.

You're lying again.....


Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.


Why are you so afraid to address the topic?

Address your fraudulent "quote-mining".


Why are you so afraid to address your frauds?


You do know that Stephen Meyer is a hack, has no formal training in biology, right? Yet you "quote-mine" his nonsensical works.

 

[Hollie]

1. "Meyer and Berlinski are charlatans. They front for an organization of charlatans"

Point out anything they've said that is incorrect.

Of course...it is possible you don't know what the word 'charlatan' means. You seem to believe (I almost said 'think') that it means they don't agree with you.



2. What specific in the OP caused you to become so irate?
How about you show that you understood the OP.....



3. And this is why I look forward to your posts...the frequency with which you put your foot in your mouth....

...you clearly didn't understand the OP, yet you wrote "Neither have the credentials to offer a comprehensive dissertation in the fields of the biological sciences."

Write soon.

Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
   
   Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it.
   
   The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.

When you cut and paste your response, be sure to cite Harun Yahya as your source.

"....the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement ..."

You can run but you can't hide:
There is nothing .....not a single thing.....in the OP about Intelligent Design.


As I asked earlier....could you indicate that you understood the OP that seems to have gotten under your skin?

I think therein lies the problem. Darwinists are so heavily invested in their belief that they automatically leap to counter any critique of Darwinism with an attack on "anti-science", "fundamentalist", "ignorant" Creationism and/or ID. The reality is, however, that Darwinism as taught today in schools does face serious challenges and things have come to light that cast significant doubt on its ability to explain life as we see it. Questioning Darwinism and pointing out its weaknesses is not, however, an automatic support for Creationism. That's just a smoke screen. It seems, moreover, that the least learned are the strongest adherents to the faith, and react the strongest when confronted with things that Darwinism cannot explain. A truer statement would be "When we completely reject even the remotest possibility that life is intelligently designed, Darwinism is the best theory that we can come up with, but we have to admit that there are things it cannot account for".

Christian fundamentalism is not a serious challenge to science. No one has to "come up" with Darwinism (BTW, "Darwinism" is an immediate clue you spend a lot of time on christian fundamentalist websites), as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Science and discovery gets us there.

Classical Darwinism as taught in schools today (you probably learned it) is a particular form of belief in the evolutionary model, one that cannot account for many things. Skepticism is healthy.

Typical religious fundamentalists will use terms such as "Darwinism" and "belief in the evolutionary model".

There's no belief required for the various science disciplines that support evolution.

Belief is only required for religious dogma.

 

[Hollie]

Based on the inept responses, either the dop

"....the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement ..."

You can run but you can't hide:
There is nothing .....not a single thing.....in the OP about Intelligent Design.


As I asked earlier....could you indicate that you understood the OP that seems to have gotten under your skin?

I'm writing soon, again.

I seem to have really gotten under your skin... and your hack, charlatan heroes.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons.
   1. Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example:
      • Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).
      • Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).
      • Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used.
      • Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.
      • Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.
   2. The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review:
      • Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists.
      • Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).
      • Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.
   3. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
      
      This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are "true believers" of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too.

Why are you running from the subject?

Since there is nothing in the OP that pertains to Intelligent Design, how about a critique of either the Burgess Shale, or the Chengjiang fauna, both of which destroy any cachet Darwin's theory might have.

I'm sure you agree.

I think most ardent Darwinists do not really understand the underlying assumptions and science that went into creating the theory, they are merely repeating what they were taught in school and are not really curious about how life really came about. Kind of like a voter who pays no attention to politics until a week before an election, then votes for the good looking one.

I think most of you folks using the "Darwinism" term tend to make a lot of pointless comments about evolutionary science which you see as a threat to your fundamentalist religious views.

Thank you for making my point for me. There is nothing heretical in being skeptical about Darwinism. Note that is not the same as claiming that animals never adapt to survive.

Thank you for proving my point: you have no point.

You do know this planet is more than 6,000 years old, right? While it may be heretical to accept that, you can have "faith" that the Christian Taliban wont be allowed to burn you at the stake.

 

[hadit]

Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
   
   Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it.
   
   The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.

When you cut and paste your response, be sure to cite Harun Yahya as your source.

"....the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement ..."

You can run but you can't hide:
There is nothing .....not a single thing.....in the OP about Intelligent Design.


As I asked earlier....could you indicate that you understood the OP that seems to have gotten under your skin?

I think therein lies the problem. Darwinists are so heavily invested in their belief that they automatically leap to counter any critique of Darwinism with an attack on "anti-science", "fundamentalist", "ignorant" Creationism and/or ID. The reality is, however, that Darwinism as taught today in schools does face serious challenges and things have come to light that cast significant doubt on its ability to explain life as we see it. Questioning Darwinism and pointing out its weaknesses is not, however, an automatic support for Creationism. That's just a smoke screen. It seems, moreover, that the least learned are the strongest adherents to the faith, and react the strongest when confronted with things that Darwinism cannot explain. A truer statement would be "When we completely reject even the remotest possibility that life is intelligently designed, Darwinism is the best theory that we can come up with, but we have to admit that there are things it cannot account for".

Christian fundamentalism is not a serious challenge to science. No one has to "come up" with Darwinism (BTW, "Darwinism" is an immediate clue you spend a lot of time on christian fundamentalist websites), as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Science and discovery gets us there.

Classical Darwinism as taught in schools today (you probably learned it) is a particular form of belief in the evolutionary model, one that cannot account for many things. Skepticism is healthy.

Typical religious fundamentalists will use terms such as "Darwinism" and "belief in the evolutionary model".

There's no belief required for the various science disciplines that support evolution.

Belief is only required for religious dogma.

Again, a non-scientific response that bolsters my point, that many, if not most, adherents to the Darwinian model don't really understand it and its flaws.

 

[hadit]

Based on the inept responses, either the dop

I'm writing soon, again.

I seem to have really gotten under your skin... and your hack, charlatan heroes.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons.
   1. Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example:
      • Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).
      • Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).
      • Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used.
      • Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.
      • Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.
   2. The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review:
      • Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists.
      • Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).
      • Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.
   3. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
      
      This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are "true believers" of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too.

Why are you running from the subject?

Since there is nothing in the OP that pertains to Intelligent Design, how about a critique of either the Burgess Shale, or the Chengjiang fauna, both of which destroy any cachet Darwin's theory might have.

I'm sure you agree.

I think most ardent Darwinists do not really understand the underlying assumptions and science that went into creating the theory, they are merely repeating what they were taught in school and are not really curious about how life really came about. Kind of like a voter who pays no attention to politics until a week before an election, then votes for the good looking one.

I think most of you folks using the "Darwinism" term tend to make a lot of pointless comments about evolutionary science which you see as a threat to your fundamentalist religious views.

Thank you for making my point for me. There is nothing heretical in being skeptical about Darwinism. Note that is not the same as claiming that animals never adapt to survive.

Thank you for proving my point: you have no point.

You do know this planet is more than 6,000 years old, right? While it may be heretical to accept that, you can have "faith" that the Christian Taliban wont be allowed to burn you at the stake.

You're still doing it. What did I ever say about the age of the earth? Your responses are exactly what I predicted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hollie caught PC quote mining #115 that demonstrated PC has no idea about she is mewling.

 

[Hollie]

"....the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement ..."

You can run but you can't hide:
There is nothing .....not a single thing.....in the OP about Intelligent Design.


As I asked earlier....could you indicate that you understood the OP that seems to have gotten under your skin?

I think therein lies the problem. Darwinists are so heavily invested in their belief that they automatically leap to counter any critique of Darwinism with an attack on "anti-science", "fundamentalist", "ignorant" Creationism and/or ID. The reality is, however, that Darwinism as taught today in schools does face serious challenges and things have come to light that cast significant doubt on its ability to explain life as we see it. Questioning Darwinism and pointing out its weaknesses is not, however, an automatic support for Creationism. That's just a smoke screen. It seems, moreover, that the least learned are the strongest adherents to the faith, and react the strongest when confronted with things that Darwinism cannot explain. A truer statement would be "When we completely reject even the remotest possibility that life is intelligently designed, Darwinism is the best theory that we can come up with, but we have to admit that there are things it cannot account for".

Christian fundamentalism is not a serious challenge to science. No one has to "come up" with Darwinism (BTW, "Darwinism" is an immediate clue you spend a lot of time on christian fundamentalist websites), as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Science and discovery gets us there.

Classical Darwinism as taught in schools today (you probably learned it) is a particular form of belief in the evolutionary model, one that cannot account for many things. Skepticism is healthy.

Typical religious fundamentalists will use terms such as "Darwinism" and "belief in the evolutionary model".

There's no belief required for the various science disciplines that support evolution.

Belief is only required for religious dogma.

Again, a non-scientific response that bolsters my point, that many, if not most, adherents to the Darwinian model don't really understand it and its flaws.

Bolstering your religious view by attacking science is a staple of fundamentalist Christians. It's more a case of fundamentalist Christians attacking the science they don't understand.

 

[Hollie]

Based on the inept responses, either the dop
Why are you running from the subject?

Since there is nothing in the OP that pertains to Intelligent Design, how about a critique of either the Burgess Shale, or the Chengjiang fauna, both of which destroy any cachet Darwin's theory might have.

I'm sure you agree.

I think most ardent Darwinists do not really understand the underlying assumptions and science that went into creating the theory, they are merely repeating what they were taught in school and are not really curious about how life really came about. Kind of like a voter who pays no attention to politics until a week before an election, then votes for the good looking one.

I think most of you folks using the "Darwinism" term tend to make a lot of pointless comments about evolutionary science which you see as a threat to your fundamentalist religious views.

Thank you for making my point for me. There is nothing heretical in being skeptical about Darwinism. Note that is not the same as claiming that animals never adapt to survive.

Thank you for proving my point: you have no point.

You do know this planet is more than 6,000 years old, right? While it may be heretical to accept that, you can have "faith" that the Christian Taliban wont be allowed to burn you at the stake.

You're still doing it. What did I ever say about the age of the earth? Your responses are exactly what I predicted.

Well actually, you didn't say much of anything except to use a number of slogan and cliches' that are staples of fundamentalist Christian madrassahs.

 

[hadit]

I think therein lies the problem. Darwinists are so heavily invested in their belief that they automatically leap to counter any critique of Darwinism with an attack on "anti-science", "fundamentalist", "ignorant" Creationism and/or ID. The reality is, however, that Darwinism as taught today in schools does face serious challenges and things have come to light that cast significant doubt on its ability to explain life as we see it. Questioning Darwinism and pointing out its weaknesses is not, however, an automatic support for Creationism. That's just a smoke screen. It seems, moreover, that the least learned are the strongest adherents to the faith, and react the strongest when confronted with things that Darwinism cannot explain. A truer statement would be "When we completely reject even the remotest possibility that life is intelligently designed, Darwinism is the best theory that we can come up with, but we have to admit that there are things it cannot account for".

Christian fundamentalism is not a serious challenge to science. No one has to "come up" with Darwinism (BTW, "Darwinism" is an immediate clue you spend a lot of time on christian fundamentalist websites), as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Science and discovery gets us there.

Classical Darwinism as taught in schools today (you probably learned it) is a particular form of belief in the evolutionary model, one that cannot account for many things. Skepticism is healthy.

Typical religious fundamentalists will use terms such as "Darwinism" and "belief in the evolutionary model".

There's no belief required for the various science disciplines that support evolution.

Belief is only required for religious dogma.

Again, a non-scientific response that bolsters my point, that many, if not most, adherents to the Darwinian model don't really understand it and its flaws.

Bolstering your religious view by attacking science is a staple of fundamentalist Christians. It's more a case of fundamentalist Christians attacking the science they don't understand.

Note that I have not mentioned religious belief. That is your construct. Nor have I attacked science. Again, your construct. What I have done is stated that classic Darwinism has some flaws and that there are some things that cast serious doubt upon it. Your responses indicate to me that your stance is more religious in nature than you might care to admit.

 

[hadit]

I think most ardent Darwinists do not really understand the underlying assumptions and science that went into creating the theory, they are merely repeating what they were taught in school and are not really curious about how life really came about. Kind of like a voter who pays no attention to politics until a week before an election, then votes for the good looking one.

I think most of you folks using the "Darwinism" term tend to make a lot of pointless comments about evolutionary science which you see as a threat to your fundamentalist religious views.

Thank you for making my point for me. There is nothing heretical in being skeptical about Darwinism. Note that is not the same as claiming that animals never adapt to survive.

Thank you for proving my point: you have no point.

You do know this planet is more than 6,000 years old, right? While it may be heretical to accept that, you can have "faith" that the Christian Taliban wont be allowed to burn you at the stake.

You're still doing it. What did I ever say about the age of the earth? Your responses are exactly what I predicted.

Well actually, you didn't say much of anything except to use a number of slogan and cliches' that are staples of fundamentalist Christian madrassahs.

You do note, don't you, that your language "fundamentalist Christian madrassahs", does not indicate a scholarly approach to the question of how life originated?

 

[Hollie]

Christian fundamentalism is not a serious challenge to science. No one has to "come up" with Darwinism (BTW, "Darwinism" is an immediate clue you spend a lot of time on christian fundamentalist websites), as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Science and discovery gets us there.

Classical Darwinism as taught in schools today (you probably learned it) is a particular form of belief in the evolutionary model, one that cannot account for many things. Skepticism is healthy.

Typical religious fundamentalists will use terms such as "Darwinism" and "belief in the evolutionary model".

There's no belief required for the various science disciplines that support evolution.

Belief is only required for religious dogma.

Again, a non-scientific response that bolsters my point, that many, if not most, adherents to the Darwinian model don't really understand it and its flaws.

Bolstering your religious view by attacking science is a staple of fundamentalist Christians. It's more a case of fundamentalist Christians attacking the science they don't understand.

Note that I have not mentioned religious belief. That is your construct. Nor have I attacked science. Again, your construct. What I have done is stated that classic Darwinism has some flaws and that there are some things that cast serious doubt upon it. Your responses indicate to me that your stance is more religious in nature than you might care to admit.

I noted that the terms you use are typical of fundamentalist Christian ministries. As with your use of slogans such as "Darwinism" that indicates to me that it is your stance that is religious in nature.

 

[hadit]

Classical Darwinism as taught in schools today (you probably learned it) is a particular form of belief in the evolutionary model, one that cannot account for many things. Skepticism is healthy.

Typical religious fundamentalists will use terms such as "Darwinism" and "belief in the evolutionary model".

There's no belief required for the various science disciplines that support evolution.

Belief is only required for religious dogma.

Again, a non-scientific response that bolsters my point, that many, if not most, adherents to the Darwinian model don't really understand it and its flaws.

Bolstering your religious view by attacking science is a staple of fundamentalist Christians. It's more a case of fundamentalist Christians attacking the science they don't understand.

Note that I have not mentioned religious belief. That is your construct. Nor have I attacked science. Again, your construct. What I have done is stated that classic Darwinism has some flaws and that there are some things that cast serious doubt upon it. Your responses indicate to me that your stance is more religious in nature than you might care to admit.

I noted that the terms you use are typical of fundamentalist Christian ministries. As with your use of slogans such as "Darwinism" that indicates to me that it is your stance that is religious in nature.

From Wikipedia:

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

What's wrong with that term? It's accurate.

 

[Hollie]

I think most of you folks using the "Darwinism" term tend to make a lot of pointless comments about evolutionary science which you see as a threat to your fundamentalist religious views.

Thank you for making my point for me. There is nothing heretical in being skeptical about Darwinism. Note that is not the same as claiming that animals never adapt to survive.

Thank you for proving my point: you have no point.

You do know this planet is more than 6,000 years old, right? While it may be heretical to accept that, you can have "faith" that the Christian Taliban wont be allowed to burn you at the stake.

You're still doing it. What did I ever say about the age of the earth? Your responses are exactly what I predicted.

Well actually, you didn't say much of anything except to use a number of slogan and cliches' that are staples of fundamentalist Christian madrassahs.

You do note, don't you, that your language "fundamentalist Christian madrassahs", does not indicate a scholarly approach to the question of how life originated?

Your comments are typical coming from religious extremists.

Evolution does not address how life originated. That's a truly basic precept but a mistake typically made by religious extremists.

 

[Hollie]

Typical religious fundamentalists will use terms such as "Darwinism" and "belief in the evolutionary model".

There's no belief required for the various science disciplines that support evolution.

Belief is only required for religious dogma.

Again, a non-scientific response that bolsters my point, that many, if not most, adherents to the Darwinian model don't really understand it and its flaws.

Bolstering your religious view by attacking science is a staple of fundamentalist Christians. It's more a case of fundamentalist Christians attacking the science they don't understand.

Note that I have not mentioned religious belief. That is your construct. Nor have I attacked science. Again, your construct. What I have done is stated that classic Darwinism has some flaws and that there are some things that cast serious doubt upon it. Your responses indicate to me that your stance is more religious in nature than you might care to admit.

I noted that the terms you use are typical of fundamentalist Christian ministries. As with your use of slogans such as "Darwinism" that indicates to me that it is your stance that is religious in nature.

From Wikipedia:

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

What's wrong with that term? It's accurate.

You get your science from wiki?

Can you also cut and paste a definition of "religious extremist"?