Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Have you even read the paper? Perhaps you should.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have, and our staff have discussed it. The scientist here agree with Mark Caroll:

“So, as usual… Dembski is a liar. At this point, there’s just no way to excuse him. I don’t consider him to be a particularly competent mathematician - but ignorance and incompetence are no longer an adequate explanation of his rubbish. He’s had the locking error pointed out to him numerous times; he’s had the difference explained to him, demonstrated to him, proven to him numerous times - but he still keeps harping on the incorrect version of the experiment, because it’s an easier target.”
 
StAnastasia said:
It’s too bad “Intelligent Design” biologists publish nothing at all in mainstream science journal for anyone to criticize. Could that be because they simply have no ideas to publish?
Click to expand...
Most of the very best evolutionary criticism in the world comes from ID scientists. Some of the more honest evolutionists actually appreciate that important work to help keep them honest. As for why ID theorists don’t get published, you might enjoy this podcast:

You might find this enjoyable:
How to Publish a Scientific Comment

This is an interesting item regarding a world-famous ID scientist who couldn’t get a letter published in a journal that produced an article attacking his ideas. (The same author had an interview with him deleted from the liberal news site bloggingheads.)

evolutionnews.org/2009/09/reducible_versus_irreducible_s.html

Here’s a podcast with the same scientist offering more details.

idthefuture.com/2009/09/scientific_journals_haunted_by.html
 
A pattern has emerged, as if marching orders have been issued. Regarding the dreaded ID, the orders are: attack on sight. Very lengthy posts are fired first, followed by a barrage of “insistence” arguments. For an idea that has not one shred of… anything, it gets the attention I’ve just mentioned all the time. Why? It’s stealth Creationism don’t you know?

I think Intelligent Design is a far better, and more obvious, idea than evolution. The nanomachinery of the cell is more sophisticated than our current advanced technology. Specified complexity requires a designer. The machines in the cell require design.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I think Intelligent Design is a far better, and more obvious, idea than evolution. The nanomachinery of the cell is more sophisticated than our current advanced technology. Specified complexity requires a designer. The machines in the cell require design.Peace,Ed
Click to expand...
If ID is far better, why is it not discussed by professional scientists?
 
StAnastasia said:
If ID is far better, why is it not discussed by professional scientists?
Click to expand...
As reggieM has shown, it must be denied access. It must be labeled lies. It cannot be allowed an intelligent foot in the door, because, who knows, if scientists realized that a living cell was indeed specified complexity and connect such a thing with intelligent activity, they might think of the word that no scientist is allowed to think. Hint: it begins with a G.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
As reggieM has shown, it must be denied access. It must be labeled lies. It cannot be allowed an intelligent foot in the door, because, who knows, if scientists realized that a living cell was indeed specified complexity and connect such a thing with intelligent activity, they might think of the word that no scientist is allowed to think. Hint: it begins with a G.
Peace,Ed
Click to expand...
No, ID is not denied access, any more than numerology, astrology, or alchemy are denied access.

However, even if you were correct, what would be to prevent ID enthusiasts from opening their own labs, founding their own universities and “biology” departments, creating their own journals and institutes and international conferences? Then they wouldn’t need to feel like they are standing on the outside of the establishment. Why doesn’t ID do this?

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
No, ID is not denied access, any more than numerology, astrology, or alchemy are denied access.

However, even if you were correct, what would be to prevent ID enthusiasts from opening their own labs, founding their own universities and “biology” departments, creating their own journals and institutes and international conferences? Then they wouldn’t need to feel like they are standing on the outside of the establishment. Why doesn’t ID do this?
Click to expand...
ID did try publishing its own journal, PCID. Unfortunately there appears to have been nothing worth publishing since November 2005.

rossum
 
StAnastasia said:
Yes, I have, and our staff have discussed it. The scientist here agree with Mark Caroll:

“So, as usual… Dembski is a liar. At this point, there’s just no way to excuse him. I don’t consider him to be a particularly competent mathematician - but ignorance and incompetence are no longer an adequate explanation of his rubbish. He’s had the locking error pointed out to him numerous times; he’s had the difference explained to him, demonstrated to him, proven to him numerous times - but he still keeps harping on the incorrect version of the experiment, because it’s an easier target.”
Click to expand...
Dawkins’ WEASEL: Proximity Search With or Without Locking?
 
buffalo said:
Dawkins’ WEASEL: Proximity Search With or Without Locking?
Click to expand...
Dr Dembski is extrapolating from incomplete information. Dawkins’ book only gives the best match every tenth generation. Hence Dembski is extrapolating from a 0.2% sample of the population, and a highly biased sample at that, since only the best (not average) in the generation is represented.

As Dembski correctly points out, the video from 1987 shows clearly that the program does not latch. My own testing showed that latching does improve the performance a bit, but that the program worked perfectly well without latching.

On his blog (so no link, but see post #11 in buffalo’s link above) Wesley Elsberry says that he wrote to Dawkins in 2000 about this and that Dawkins said that there was no latching in either the program or the description of the program.

I find it interesting that after many attempts to correct him, Dembski continues to misrepresent Dawkins’ program. And it is not as if it is a particularly complex program either - Dawkins described it is sufficient detail in a paragraph and that paragraph did not mention latching.

rossum
 
rossum said:
ID did try publishing its own journal, PCID. Unfortunately there appears to have been nothing worth publishing since November 2005.rossum
Click to expand...
But the Discovery Institute has its own laboratory in Seattle. They’ve got beakers, microscopes, bunsen burners, test tubes. With all this equipment how can they have discovered nothing worth publishing in four years? Why has it taken so long to disprove “evilution”?

Most astonishing of all, they have white lab coats. That should count for something, should force a discovery ot two. Rossum are you telling me that lab coats aren’t efficacious in making “Intelligent Design” into a science?

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Rossum are you telling me that lab coats aren’t efficacious in making “Intelligent Design” into a science?
Click to expand...
Not all Lab Coats. Only designed Lab Coats will work; evolved Lab Coats are useless. Unfortunately the ID side has not yet been able to induce the designer to design a Lab Coat for them, so for the moment they are stuck at square one.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Not all Lab Coats. Only designed Lab Coats will work; evolved Lab Coats are useless. Unfortunately the ID side has not yet been able to induce the designer to design a Lab Coat for them, so for the moment they are stuck at square one.

rossum
Click to expand...
What does an evolved lab coat look like?
 
buffalo said:
The Original WEASEL(s)
Click to expand...
Dembski is going to have to do better than this. An anonymous Internet poster, “Oxfordensis”, sends in versions of the Weasel program, written in Pascal, and Dembski says:Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.
That is not a correct argument; I say that Dr Dembski owes me $1,000,000 and unless he or his associates can show conclusively that he does not owe me the money then he has to pay up.

Further discussion in the thread indicates that these are almost certainly not the originals as only one position is mutated each generation, which appears not to have been the case with Dawkins’ original. Neither am I sure that the original was in Pascal, IIRC it was in Apple Basic.

It is not as if Weasel is anything more than a throwaway example of how cumulative selection outperforms random selection. It was not, and was never intended to be, an actual simulation of evolution. Dr Dembski appears to be tilting at windmills here.

rossum
 
Roman_Army said:
**I do not think evolutionary theory is a “hoax.” I think it is what it is. It’s a theory. It has not been proven to be right and neither has it been proven to be wrong. It is up to the individual to decide what to think of it. I can see how both evolutionary theory and special creation theory are both legitimate interpretations of the facts. The difficulty is that macro-evolution has never been observed. So, the jury is still out. I think the Scientific community should allow debate in the class rooms. I think they are being very intolerant, persecuting people who have legitimate disagreements, and being very narrow minded about this. Since when does a theory become a hard undeniable fact? I don’t get that.
**
Click to expand...
A theory in science does not mean “theory”. Oh and school kids that don’t even know the basics of the subject are not fit to debate it. That’s why they are at school, to learn, if they want to debate it get a PHD and do it in the academic arena.
 
Roman_Army said:
**I do not think evolutionary theory is a “hoax.” I think it is what it is. It’s a theory… So, the jury is still out. I think the Scientific community should allow debate in the class rooms. I think they are being very intolerant, persecuting people who have legitimate disagreements, and being very narrow minded about this. Since when does a theory become a hard undeniable fact? I don’t get that.
**
Click to expand...
RomanArmy, you need to study some science. Theories never become facts. And scientists thrive on dissent – every graduate student is vying to prove her or his professors wrong, as it would make a career.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top