Mageth

If a ball rolls down the stairs, you have to come to the conclusion that something or someone set it into motion. What if there was no one except you, home? What conclusion would you come to?

Maybe I'd walk over to the foot of the stairs and holler, "God! Quit rollin' balls down the stairs! You're scarin' the hell out of me!" (And it'd be a real miracle in my house, because there are no stairs!)

Or maybe I'd pull a Bender and pray that God would exorcise the demons!

Or maybe I'd investigate to see what the real cause was. You know, look for evidence and form a theory or theories to explain the phenomenon (what science does) instead of just playing the supernatural explanation card right off the bat in spite of evidence to the contrary (aka creationism).

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

pseudobug

Criminey! I just noticed that this was FCC's first post. Are we being too rough on FCC? We might scare her off.

On second thought, nah. Fire away at her. I haven't seen such a target-rich creationist argument in quite a while.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

RufusAtticus

FCC, if you feel that they're being mean to you let one of the moderators know.

Thanx.

Rufus
E/C moderator

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

scigirl

Ok, I'm feeling a bit guilty now (stupid Catholic upbringing!).

Feisty Chick,

Understand that we are ripping on the creationist rhetoric, not you personally. We have heard some of these same arguments time and again: people confusing evolution with the big bang, people thinking that a hole in evolutionary theory means that their creation story is true.

If you have any questions about evolution theory, feel free to ask. You will be blessed (hee hee) with explanations and web sites from knowledgeable people who either study evolution as a career, or as a hobby.

Again, if you did come to preach (and thus get rotten fruit thrown at you), than head to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=47&SUBMIT=Go" target="_blank">rants and raves</a>. If you want to stick around, feel free to introduce yourself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">here</a>, and tell us about yourself. Also, you may want to click <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000368&p=" target="_blank">here</a> to see the credentials of the E/C regulars. For instance, did you realize you were appealing to people with PhD's in evolutionary biology to 'accept creationism?' It would be like me reading one chapter of the bible, than calling up catholic priests and saying, "Have you guys read this stuff, how can you believe it?" Knowing your audience is always important, IMHO.

scigirl

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by scigirl:
<strong>Again, if you did come to preach (and thus get rotten fruit thrown at you)</strong>

Or fluffy lions. With sharp teeth.

<strong>then head to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=47&SUBMIT=Go" target="_blank">rants and raves</a>. </strong>

Lookin' forward to it.

FeistyCreationChick

Yikes! Guess I should have just posted a simple "hello" message first, eh? Sorry, folks. Didn't mean to get you all worked up.

I posted a very "general" message on Creationism. I'm sorry. I didn't realize how many people frequented this lovely cyber facility. I didn't expect quite so many replies right away (and at once!), and I most certainly did not mean to "preach" at anyone.

Okay, so let's start over. I'm Feisty, and it's a pleasure to meet you. A little history on me so that I'm not misunderstood...

I was raised with Christianity shoved down my throat. I never bought into it because it just didn't seam feasible or even CLOSE to believable for me. Well, it's been ten years since I've been MADE to go to church (I'm 28, and yes, my parents made me go to church three times a week til I was 18) and out of nowhere, I just thought, "Hey, what DO I believe? Do I believe that there really is a God like my parents said? Or do I believe in evolution and Godlessness?". I wanted to find out, so I bought a bunch of books and scoured the internet for information.

That brings us to now. Obviously you've discovered which belief I chose to trust in. If I wasn't clear enough, please let me know. I guess what I'm looking for are what are the kinds of questions that well-educated "Infidels" ask, and where their beliefs come from. I'm also always looking for more information on both sides.

Again, let me reiterate that I do not consider myself a member of any religious affiliation. And PLEASE don't call me a Christian, because I don't like being associated with a name that society and religion itself have tarnished so badly that it could never recover.

Okay. Now I would like to join in these conversations. I promise not to be as "broad" as I was before. Nor do I intend on typing this long of a message each time. "Intend" being the key word. I promise not to "preach" or degrade, belittle, or just be downright mean to anyone. I promise to be respectful and not to copy and paste a bunch of Bible verses. I hope that you all will extend me the same courtesy.

Alrighty?

Feisty

Lizard

Welcome, Feisty Chick --

I guess maybe I'm missing something about these YEC/ID arguments for "design" or "creation," but I don't see how they make a case for "intelligent design." Thanks for the ball-rolling-downstairs anecdote. I'll add it to the collection of others I've heard:

• If you were walking through a forest and saw an oil painting hanging on a tree, and there were no footprints or other indications that a human being had ever been there before, what would you think? [Kent Hovind, aka "Dr. Dino," in a recent radio debate with Massimo Pigliucci]

• What if you were walking along a beach and saw some message written in the sand? Would you think it got there naturally, or would you assume a "designer" created it? [Various IDers]

• What leads you to conclude Mt. Rushmore was "designed" and not a product of natural causes? [William Dembski]

• If a police detective came upon a body with a bullet hole in it, if he were constrained by "philosophical naturalism," he would be forced to ask, "Now, I wonder what natural cause is behind this person's death." [Woody Cozad, Kansas City right-wing radio host and ID promoter, in "Triumph of Design and the Demise of Darwinism," an ID video]

• What if you were walking along and suddenly looked up and saw a giant flashing Budweiser sign in the sky? Would you assume it was the product of natural causes, or would you assume it was the product of design? [Nelson Alonso, ARN]

• What if you saw a bunch of tree limbs piled up to form a dam in a small stream? Would you assume it got there as a result of natural processes, or that it was the result of design? [Can't remember who; somebody on ARN]

First of all, what's the point of posing hypothetical questions that are preposterous?

• An oil painting hanging on a tree in a forest? How would you determine no human had ever been there before? Ask the tree?

• So you see a message written in sand. You conclude it was written by a human being because we know sand doesn't arrange itself into letters. But more importantly, we know that the message is written in human language and resembles other messages human beings have written.

• Mt. Rushmore? Chalk up another one for "design." Human design. People make sculptures that look like people, and we know how they do it. So what?

• I doubt any sane person, let alone a detective, would look at a bullet-riddled body and conclude "natural causes" no matter how committed he was to philosophical naturalism. He'd have to be an imbecile. So a human being shot this human being with a gun, or more properly, bullets from a gun. Or perhaps it was a chimpanzee. But that would be kind of hard without an opposable thumb.

• If I looked up and saw a giant flashing Budweiser sign in the sky, I would assume I was in front of a bar, which I assume is where Nelson was when he thought up this one. Has anyone *ever* seen a Budweiser sign that wasn't the product of design? Human design. So what?

• Ah, now the tree limbs piled into a dam are a little more difficult. However, once again, the reason we conclude design is that we know that certain animals called beavers gnaw trees, fell them, then build dams across streams. Beavers are the "designers."

• The mysteriously rolling ball is a cute innovation. However, has it *ever* happened that someone could not find a natural cause for a ball rolling around in his house? Perhaps if there were poltergeists. But if not, then what? God rolling a ball around just to drive you nuts? Uri Geller now working with large objects? I have no idea what this example is supposed to illustrate.

But to be serious for a moment... The Hovind or Alonso or Dembski-type YEC/ID "arguments" above are specious. The reason we conclude design in those cases is that we know how the creators of those designs operate. As a parallel to "intelligent design," they don't work. Nobody knows who/what the "intelligent designer" is or how "it" operates. That is, no IDer will say it's God, but that's what it is. However, that doesn't really solve the problem, because we can't know how God operates.

This is the main sticky wicket for ID. They can't identify the Designer as God (and have no doubts, it *is* the conservative Christian God), or they can't sneak ID into public school science classes. But if you can't name the Designer or say how It is supposed to work, then you can't develop a testable hypothesis, which means you can't do science.

However, that doesn't seem to be much of a concern of ID promoters. It's getting the message out to their religious constituency and convincing school boards that they focus on. Convincing those audiences is a heck of a lot easier than convincing scientists, who demand evidence.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Lizard ]

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Lizard ]</p>

scigirl

Yeah the wolves were a bit hungry (myself included) Many people come here to preach at us, Feisty, and so few of them really know what evolution really means. Wait until you meet Randman!

Nice to meet you too, from one feisty chick to another!

Sigh. Sorry to hear that. Many people here experienced the same.

But plenty of people believe in God and in evolution. My boss, for example (he's a biologist). These religious people have decided that the Bible was not meant to be a science text, and therefore have no problems reconciling the two.

Good for you. But be wary of stuff you read on the internet (yes even this site ). I would trust textbooks written by scientists, and web sites that don't ask you for money every time you click somewhere (like Answers in Genesis).

You see, scientific beliefs don't just "come about." They are extracted from studying, evaluating, and re-evaluating nature. And from critiquing each other's ideas.

Religious beliefs, on the other hand, come from personal inspirations that cannot be replicated or re-tested.

The Bible hasn't changed in thousands of years, science textbooks have changed a lot. This is why I trust the latter as being a better representation of our knowledge than the former.

No problem.

No problem.

Again, no problem!! I promise not to quote Bible verses. I may provide links though!

Trust me, if you stick around, you will hear more than you want to about biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, and astronomy. But hopefully you will have some fun too, and maybe even learn something! Good luck,

scigirl

lpetrich

Actually, beavers build dams by instinct. Which they do by piling sticks and mud onto wherever they hear rushing water. As can be demonstrated by playing the sound of rushing water away from some actually rushing water.

But I have this picture of William Dembski coming across a beaver dam, looking all goggle-eyed, and saying "What specified complexity!" And marveling at the intellectual skills of certain little furry buck-toothed specifiers of complexity.

I had started a whole thread here on whether spiders intelligently design their webs. That thread reported on some artificial-life simulation of a web-building spider, which followed some simple rules to build its web. These rules had a lot of parameters, whose values were improved by doing a computerized version of evolution by natural selection. But William Dembski might nevertheless marvel at those tiny 8-legged specifiers of complexity.

Autonemesis

Oooo, I like that idea. Maybe it's like the #1337 channel on IRC. Our universe must be the equivalent of a Microsoft IIS server that's been rooted and defaced by a 14 year old out of a dilapitated flat in Minsk.