scumble

The real question is whether it's sensible to demand an explanation for everything.
I personally don't suffer from this problem. If studying Phyiscs has taught me anything, it's that humans are unable to say why the universe is the way it is.
The hypothesis of God is just ridiculously hopeful. Might be comforting to some, but I can't see it doing me any good.

Doctor X

Well it is a bit of the old "god of the gaps."

Whenever we point to something we do not understand--like why Alanis Morrisette does not hire a singer for her band--someone yells, "SEE!! You do not KNOW a god is not behind it!!"

The other problem is the assumption that "if I cannot explain it, no one can explain it."

The eye is complex--and if Oolon already has a lengthy discussion on it I will leave it to him!--but that does not mean it cannot be explained.

However, to combat it one has to have a inquisitive mind that wishes to have things explained. I joked to River on another thread that I do not "like" relativity because I would "like" to travel faster than the speed of light and . . . I do not know . . . find Ripley's Pleasure Planet or something.

Oddly enough, physics, does not "care" what I like or dislike!

Anyways, years ago when I took physics--or it took me, actually--the prof teaching relativity started by explaining how weird the world WOULD be WITHOUT it.

It started to make sense.

Similarly, evolution, natural selection, the connection between skirt length and the stock market, these all make sense if one is willing to look into it. If someone starts with a "that must be wrong because it makes no sense to me" then one will stay confused.

--J.D.

Oolon Colluphid

[singing] One piece at a time, sweet Darwin... [/singing]

From the first link:
I’m sure they do exist logically, in that they are not logically impossible. Question is, is there any evidence that they do actually exist.
This could easily be construed as theistic science, and specifically for biology, theistic evolution. That is, that god set up the rules of the world, and that random mutation and non-random survival was one of these. Few here would make much fuss about theistic evolution, other than to point out that it is unverifiable and so not science, and superfluous.
Ahem. What designer? Give evidence of its mere existence, then we can discuss what it might or migt not have got up to.
Well if it’s “unclear” to those who believe this, why should those of us who don’t take any notice of the claims? And, there you go you see: unverifiable. Any awkward question we ask can be replied to with a “don’t know”. Which gets us precisely nowhere.
Hogwash, old chap. Please be more specific, and I’ll show you why, specifically, that it is pigbath.
Might this be because alternate theories have already been discussed... and rejected as inadequate or plain wrong....?
So again I ask: such as? What are we to deduce about a designer so prone to ridiculous blunders?
Such as?
Erm, so saying that god is not a scientific answer is not being scientific? Excuse me, but surely scientists ought to know what a scientific answer is?

It isn’t ducking the question, it’s saying that you’re asking the wrong person. You’d get a plumber to fix your computer, would you? The plumber has the wrong tools. And the tools of scientific enquiry are unsuited to tackling the unverifiable, the intangible, the irrefutable.

More to follow, maybe. And no, I ain’t getting into an email discussion. Been there, done that, don’t have the time. So it’s here, or nowhere.

TTFN, Oolon

Division By Zero

Given the numerous personal attacks against "Natural Selectionists" (whatever that is) in the first article alone- calling them baboons and Neanderthals for not accepting the obvious truth of your unsupported assertions- I have to be skeptical of your interest in constructive feedback.

Oolon Colluphid

And some more:
Ah, so if I disagree, it’s not because I have evidence-based reasons to think otherwise, it’s because I’m dishonest and / or irrational. Thanks. Good way to convince those who disagree with you. Not.
Then you’ll have no trouble in offering some of it for our education and edification then, will you?
Sure. But then, we know of no evidence from that source, for now at least...
Sure. But I get the impression that you don’t actually know what they mean by it. You do know for instance, don’t you, that these other dimensions are coiled up inside atoms, yeah? And the MWI of QM means that the myriad other universes are inaccessible to us, of course.
Cosmic design? You mean things like the fundamental constants? Try the Science and Skepticism board. And I’m not sure how this evidence, whatever it may be, can be greater than that indicating a spheroid Earth... or descent with modification, for that matter.
... the way influenza tends to mutate? Vancomycin-resistant Staph a? The way Yellowstone is bulging so ominously? Plasmodium falciparum and chloroquinine resistance?
Oh. Is that all. Well, it’s not on the level of those I listed, but I do agree about the spread of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience. Hmmm. Homeopathy, perhaps? ESP? Feng Shui? Creationism?
But I at least have yet to see any evidence for a designer. All the old Paleyist examples have long ago given way to a more demonstrable mechanism.
:boohoo: Not that old gripe again Try instead, “can’t be bothered to examine yet again that which has already been refuted”. “They just don’t listen to me! It’s the truth, I tell you!”
So let’s see some, pal, let’s see some.
Hmmm. Moronic. Name-calling now, is it?
Let me be clear. Natural selection has absolutely fuck all to do with the Cosmos at large (Lee Smolin notwithstanding ). It’s biology.
Rather than all the belittling ranting, perhaps you could offer some evidence as to why these ideas are so silly.

You see, if you want to convince anyone except yourself, you’ll have to show us the money, not just rant about it. Here’s why. Suppose I say, what we have here is a completely ludicrous Designer hypothesis of complete silliness, devoid of any sanity, evidence, rhyme or rationale. Actually, that is my take on it. But are we any further forward for me saying that? No.

The difference so far is that I can back up my assertions. But ‘twas you who came here to try out these ideas. So, back them up. Please.

You asked us to let you know where you are wrong. But so far, all you’ve done is rant. So, put up or shut up.

TTFN, Oolon

Secular Pinoy

I also received a PM from him too, but it's about my posts on the bible and winged insects. Why can't he defend himself publicly, and shame us skeptics with his intellect and superior grasp of science and the bible.

Oolon Colluphid

I rather like this line:
Oh, no... I am very happy to link the designs of nature to a designer. I see them as (potentially) closely entwined. And revealing.

But let’s see if aberdeen comes back first.

Cheers, Oolon

PS: Does it sound too much like I’m itching to post something? Heeheehee

DMB

I don't post much in this forum, because as a lowly Mathematics graduate I feel very much overshadowed by the knowledgeable professionals of the biological sciences who regularly appear here.

I moved to say, however, that aberdeen's three articles linked to in the OP are the biggest pile of steaming horse excrement I have witnessed in a long time. If he were shouting them out from a soapbox at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park, they wouldn't be too out of place.

They do not represent a serious attempt to produce a critique of any form of science; instead we get an emotional polemic, creatively throwing as many insults as can be fitted in per line at those with whom he disagrees.

It is clear even to me that the gentleman(?) has a rather shaky perception of science. I leave it to the experts to demonstrate his misunderstandings.

I would, however, like to ask him one thing: suppose for a moment that you could prove the existence of a "Designer", what difference would that make to the techniques and the progress of science?

Coragyps

An appropriate post from "Randy" from another board:

--------------------------------
So Fred again says that evolution is a fairy tale. Hmm. What are some things we might find in fairy tales?
Fairytales often have talking animals like perhaps a talking snake? Does evolution say that a snake could talk? Or is that a claim from Biblical literalists like Fred?

How about Sons of God mating with daughters of men to produce giants in the earth? Is that a claim of science or is it found in the Bible? Sounds like a fairytale to me.

How about a person changing into something like stone or maybe a pillar of salt? I don’t remember reading about this happening in a science textbook but you find similar themes in many fairytales.

How about people living to great ages? Does evolution say that people used to live 6 or even 9 hundred years or is that fairy tale found somewhere else?

How about someone surviving in the belly of a whale or was it a great fish? I remember seeing something like that in some Disney movie on a fairytale and reading about Jonah in the Bible but I don’t think you’ll find it in a biology text.

How about someone stopping the sun? I don't think any science text says that such a thing could happen but it could happen in a fairytale.

How about representatives of all the animals on earth going to one place two by two to get on a boat for a yearlong ride with a 600 year old man and his family and then repopulating the entire earth? That sure sounds like a fairy tale to me.

So just try to keep straight who is really pushing the fairytales around here.

Of course Fred knows full well that evolution could be falsified. He just can't deal with the facts that evolution has not been falsified and is continually strengthened by new research while young earth creationism has been falsified for about 200 years. What makes it worse for him and other YECs is that the original falsifiers of the young earth myth started out sharing it. However, they were honest scientists and realized that their data didn't fit their myth. YECs have taken a big step backwards in deciding to accept the myth and reject the data.
-------------------------

ScumDog

Darnit Oolon, look what you did. You scared him away.