Entry 1536, on 2013-05-27 at 15:13:05 (Rating 4, Comments)
Continuing my series of "random fact" blog entries, I thought I would move on to another potentially controversial subject: evolution. If you follow this blog you will know the previous subject was environmentalism and that could reasonably be said to involve controversy because it is a basically political subject and one which is prone to extreme views on both sides.
But really evolution is not the same sort of thing at all. There should be no controversy because evolution is a fact and is entirely scientific. The only controversy is one manufactured by deluded nutters. But even if it is totally unjustified there is still a controversy, so let's move on to the facts...
First of all, a fact about that controversy: The result of recent surveys (from 2011) showed that just 50.9% of Americans believe evolution. In the 18 to 44 year old age group 56% believed it, in the older group under 50%, and amongst college graduates 63%.
Analysis: If I remember correctly this is the first time that surveys have shown that a majority of Americans believe evolution, so at least that is a positive point. This is supported by the fact that more young people believe it, which indicates the trend is likely to continue. No doubt this greater level of education leading to greater belief in the facts of science is what is worrying creationists and leading them to wanting to have their myths taught in school.
The last statistic - that 63% of college graduates believe evolution - is nice because it confirms the idea that the more educated a person is the more likely they are to believe in science. But it is still a surprisingly low number. It is hard to believe that a (presumably) intelligent person can complete a college (university) course without being convinced by the evidence. Of course there are many courses which have no scientific content so I guess this lack of knowledge might not be so surprising for graduates in the area of the arts and commerce, for example.
Fact: 99.8% of all species which have ever existed have become extinct.
Analysis: I have heard slightly different numbers for this statistic but they are always above 99% so it is safe to say the number is very high. I do agree that the definition of species is somewhat uncertain but this makes no difference to the basic idea (as I will explain below).
Evolution predicts that the forms of life gradually change over vast periods of time. The change happens through differential survival so extinction is really the most important outcome of evolutionary change. If the variety of life came about by a more directed mechanism, such as creation or intelligent design, we would expect little or no extinction. Why would an intelligent agent create species which are so poorly designed that only one fifth of one percent of them survive?
And the difficulty in defining a species is also a natural consequence of evolution. Because populations are constantly splitting, merging, and changing as a result of environmental and genetic factors species are never stable. Again a designer would be expected to create "types" of life in distinct groups. What we see is totally contrary to this idea.
Fact: RNA has a single helix and can contain information just like DNA can, but it can also act as an enzyme. Therefore a simplified model of early life is possible, involving one molecule (RNA) instead of two (DNA and protein). Because DNA is a better information transfer mechanism it would have out-competed RNA once it became established.
Analysis: There is no doubt that the chemistry of life is incredibly complex and many people have difficulty understanding how it could have arisen without intelligent intervention. But when the details of these mechanism are examined closely it can generally be seen how a much simpler function could have served as an intermediate stage to the complexity we see now.
The "RNA world" hypothesis isn't universally accepted but it does illustrate one way that the current complexity could have arisen. The current mechanism in "advanced" life involves DNA, RNA, and proteins and is perhaps too complex. But if DNA evolved after RNA it starts making sense that the complexity we see now could have started with something much simpler. It also explains why it is now perhaps unnecessarily complex.
Fact: Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, other primates have 24 pairs. If there was a common ancestor (as evolution states) the chromosomes must have fused at some point because humans couldn't survive the loss of a whole chromosome. Telomeres are structures which appear at the end of most chromosomes but are present in the center of human chromosome 2 (but are not in other species). This clearly shows a fusion corresponding to chimp chromosome 13.
Analysis: Despite creationists' ridiculous attempts to suggest the contrary, this is fairly strong evidence for a common ancestor. If an intelligent designer created two species why would one have almost identical DNA to another and why would there be clear signs that one branch had similar chromosomes to the other but slightly rearranged? Wouldn't the *intelligent* designer get it right the first time and not need to make changes "on the fly"?
The facts indicate evolution is true. Of course there is also a chance that there is a different mechanism involved but one which is virtually indistinguishable from evolution. But that sort of theory is just intellectually dishonest. The Catholic Church accepts evolution but says it is guided by God. Why would they even suggest anything so idiotic? If a god is guiding evolution he's sure doing a bad job.
A 99.8% failure rate is about what we would expect from a natural process with a high random component, but it certainly isn't what we expect if there is intelligent guidance going on.
The reality is clear to anyone who actually bothers to look at the facts and then applies an honest appraisal process to those facts. I could have thrown out all of the other facts in this file (those I included here are just a sample) and replaced them with one word: evolution. It's a fact.
Comment 1 by Richard Coulbeck on 2013-06-03 at 12:00:20:
LOL - Ok Owen - I think you have made your position pretty clear, huh. For those reading, OK I am perhaps one of the deluded nutters who has 'doubts' that macro-evolution (not natural selection - that's fine btw) really does have the sound grounding in science that is claimed. BTW - this has nothing at all to do with any philosophical beliefs, so don't even go there, this is strictly a science discussion. However, my response here (as usual) is not so much about the details of the particular topic, which would take far too long, but about specific issues with the weak or downright false arguments you have employed to make your claims. Specifically:
1 - "The only controversy is raised by deluded nutters". While I personally perhaps couldn't deflect that claim with any authority, this is demonstrably false. There are literally hundreds of highly qualified scientists from universities all over the world that are prepared to publicly admit they are 'Darwin Doubters' and to call them all deluded nutters is not reasonable. See http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207 for a quick list of a few.
2 - "The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to believe in Science"? - This is simply nonsense. Firstly, it is not a question of either believing Science OR doubting darwin - The list above all 'believe in Science' as I do. They contend that Science is not actually proving Darwin as some believe. You are again attempting to dismiss the scientific rigour that many of the above has applied to the question. Secondly, the majority argument itself says nothing about the truth of this or any matter. Two hundred years ago, SCIENCE told people that life such as fly maggots originated from thin air or from rotting meat, and the 'more educated people' would have believed that in accordance with their 'education'. Scientific truth is not a majority rules game, so this is a non valid piece of trivia alone.
3 - Various claims about what an Intelligent Designer should have done better. This of course is another interesting piece of conjecture on your part, and that is entirely your right, but readers should not not confuse this with an actual argument. Should such a Designer exist with the power needed to create the universe and all forms of life within it, then of course its a pretty arrogant and presumptive stance to take, to suggest that you (as just one of the mere creations) know better about it. To state that 'it' made mistakes, in the process used that results in the 'design' (or apparent design as our friend MR Dawkins puts it) we ALL literally stand in awe of today - suggests you are claiming a rather 'god-like' perspective yourself Owen. LOL. Of course that's not an argument for a designer, I am just pointing out the non validity of this approach to the claim that evolution is fact.
4 - "Again a designer would be expected to create "types" of life in distinct groups. What we see is totally contrary to this idea" - Really, is it? Yes - evolution demands the continual line from the most simple life to ALL complex life forms on the planet, but the lack of fossil evidence to support this is one of the most startling things that results in many doubting it - we should be overwhelmed with this evidence, but are not. Actually an 'honest appraisal' of the facts, shows creatures do indeed exist in 'distinct types', with little natural explanation (other than 'theoretical') for this.
5 - There is a difference between making an assertion (Evolution is a fact) and justifying the claim. You (like Dawkins) are great at repeatedly, animatedly and loudly making the 'assertion', as if it is unquestionable by all but nutters, but that approach alone does not actually make the case.
The only 2 'facts' you presented are weak at best. The attempt to suggest the 'RNA World' hypothesis as a reasonable 'origin of life from non life argument' simply does not grasps the cosmic level of the statistical hurdles involved, and the use of similar 'DNA' in chimps, does nothing to actually deny a 'design' explanation either. It's equivalent to using the same piece of code in a software program - that doesn't suddenly mean there was obviously no programmer. It doesn't mean there was either of course, but the question of where the complex information comes from in for example the code used to create your blog article (almost infinitely less complex than the simplest sustainable life form) is indeed a difficult one to ponder.
Finally - something I totally agree with... :-)
5 - 'Theistic Evolution', the idea that a designer somehow 'used evolution', is nonsense and an embarrassment. This is simply an attempt by some people to 'baptise' evolution, due to their lack of knowledge about it. Obviously, evolution is 'by design' - lol) a theory that allows for the origin of all life forms by completely naturalistic process - it explicitly denies any possibility of 'design' and I agree with you - cannot be married to a designer with any intellectual honesty.
Cheers,
Rich.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2013-06-04 at 09:43:13:
Richard, I think you are the only person who write responses as long as the original blog post! You are very thorough I concede, it's unfortunate you are also wrong!
I think you are being a bit deceptive when you claim your doubt is because of science, I really think your rejection of evolution is because of your religion. You follow the standard creationist line that microevolution happens but not macroevolution. Can you tell me: what is the difference apart form a matter of time? Surely you don;t believe in a young Earth? You are a sensible person in most parts of your life but on this subject you are a deluded nutter. Sorry, but it's true.
1. In fact there is no real scientific debate about evolution. Even the scientists who dispute it in some way don't really do so scientifically. Show me the scientific papers which dispute evolution in any serious way, the only debate is around the details. The scientists who do dispute it tend to work in areas outside of biology and hold those ideas as personal beliefs rather than serious science. And yes, I'm sorry, but even those who do good science (Francis Collins for example) are deluded nutters when they start talking about religion!
2. The numbers clearly show that the more educated a person is the more likely they are to accept science and reject religion. Do you dispute this well known statistic? And you can't accept science and religion at the same time. Some people seem to but they have "partitioned" their lives into two areas and the logical and superstitious parts are kept apart. When one part of your life relies on logic and evidence and the other on faith and superstition they can never be compatible.
3. If we can never hope to understand how a designer might work then we can never really study design because anything goes. This is the typical intellectual dishonesty we get from creationism. If there is good evidence of orderly sensible design then that shows a designer, but if that evidence is lacking then we just don't understand the designer. Having a theory which can never be disproved is not science.
4. You deny the fossil evidence? Really? Please go and look at the list of transitional fossils on Wikipedia then get back to me on that one. And remember that only a tiny fraction of living things ever fossilise. Denying the fossil evidence is utterly ridiculous.
5. Evolution is a fact by any reasonable standard. If the fossil evidence, molecular DNA evidence, experimental evidence, and just plain common sense aren't enough I don't think anything ever will be.
5. You think a god using evolution is an embarrassment but you're not embarrassed to reject evolution completely? You creationists really are a laugh!
Comment 3 by Richard Coulbeck on 2013-06-04 at 11:36:32:
Hi Owen. Your response was precisely as expected. :-) As I said before, my reponse was less about debating evolution and more about the techniques you used to argue for it. Similarly, I only intend to clarify your typical mis-representations of my post.
1 - Firstly - I have no problem at all with being labelled a nutter, but please don't call me a liar. I stated explicitly my reasons for 'doubting' evolution, have nothing to do with religion, and I absolutely mean it. Of course I can be entirely wrong about evolution, (as you can), but you simply cannot claim to know my reasons for doubting it better than I. It is of course, a rather convenient way for you to dismiss my views, and I get that. But seriously, you have no right to state I am being 'deceptive'. We are both seeking to understand the truth on this topic, and I have no motivations one way or the other to hold onto religion, or a God - if scientific evidence REALLY dismissed it without any doubt. Sure - you think it already does - I currently see the exact opposite in the physical world (realm of science) that I observe.
2 - You make statements like 'follow the standard creationist line' all the time and again it's a tactic of rhetoric not of real argument - You do it to equate any doubting of the darwin 'dogma' with 'creationism'. The latter is a very broad term with many definitions, and some of these are I agree, at the more 'unscientific' end of that spectrum. However - one doesn't even HAVE to believe in creationism to have doubts the explanatory power of scientific evidence for evolution provided to date. A scientific theory can be doubted on the strength (or lack of it) of its evidence alone. In any forensic examination of a past event (say a crime) - I don't have to identify the 'guilty party', to validly express doubts about evidence pointing to an innocent party that has nothing to do with the truth of the 'crime'.
To answer your question though - What's the difference between micro-evolution and macro evolution? Micro-evolution (Natural Selection producing variation within species) was all Darwin actually saw in his various trips and documented in his books (Finch beaks, Peppered Moths etc), and is completely accepted science - and no one has any issue with it. Macro-evolution (the idea that all species formed this way) is currently ONLY 'inferred' from all the evidence for micro-evolution - and based more on the naturalist requirement that without an 'alternative', it's the only choice you have, than any real conclusive evidence for it. Darwin doubters opinions are simply that all the apparent 'evidence' provided for 'macro-evolution' is filtered in this way, AND that new discoveries in genetics and information theory etc (which Darwin knew nothing about) have brought to light some very real additional problems with the view.
A young earth?! As explained fully above - this is irrelevelant to the current topic, and another purely distractive, dismissive technique on your part. However (for the record) am happy to answer and say, no I am not committed to a 'young earth', and once again (is it getting thru yet?) don't even have to be to doubt evolution. Try and keep to topic in your own blog Owen. ;-)
As to your numbered points:
1 - The list I provided dismisses this point as just your own view.
2 - Did you read my post? Of course I don't dispute that statistic. I showed clearly why it has nothing about the actual truth about any claim that is taught. Probably 100% of people educated that Pluto was a planet, believed that nonsense 30 years ago! That is a joke of course, to illustrate the point about 'education', not Pluto - which hasn't changed a bit. I feel a need to clarify before you try to rebuff this with another irrelevancy. LOL.
2a - Actually, the only reason you can't accept science and 'religion' is an arbitrary and purely philisophical (i.e non scientific as it's untestable) definition of science to exclude even the inferrence of the supernatural by those committed to that philisophical view. I prefer to be more open and let the evidence lead where it will myself. But once again Owen - this is an irrelevant distraction you have felt the need to add to what was supposed to be just a scienctific discussion JUST about doubting evolution. Other readers will note that I did ask for this in my first post, knowing the likely result!
3 - Typical response that misses my valid point, that from any reasonable perspective, things look VERY well designed, ( I used the word AWE which is fair and I think even Attenborough would be fine with it). The only reasons for any claim of 'bad design' are made up based on presumption of purpose. Good design is intimately linked to purpose - What makes a great TV design, makes a lousy toaster design, and it is bold to claim to fully understand some deeper purpose when things do seem to work so incredibly well already.
4 - Yep - happy to agree with hundreds of experts like Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He states: "There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record."
Superficial similarities do not absolutely imply genetic relationship. Archaeopteryx was thought to be a transition between reptile and bird because of its teeth and the claws on its wings. The fact is some fossil birds had teeth, and some didn't. Some reptiles have teeth, and some don't. Some mammals have teeth, and some don't. As far as claws on its wings, there are birds living today that have claws on their wings. Nevertheless, they are obviously birds, and no one disputes this. Fossils are simply not conclusive, unless you are closed minded and have no other choice open to you.
5 - Again (imo) it is possible and reasonable to dismiss Theistic Evolution as an option not for any scientific reasons but simply because it commits the logical fallacy of asking to add a 'God', when evolution 'by it's strict definition' denies needing any non natural cause. IF God did do something - by simple definition it wasn't 'evolution', and I think you must even agree with that statement?
Cheers
Rich.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2013-06-04 at 14:15:10:
I didn't say you were lying, just that you were being a bit deceptive. Sorry if you found that insulting, it wasn't really meant to be. In my experience there are only two reasons that people reject evolution: they are either ignorant, or self-deceived through religious beliefs. I presume you're not ignorant, but to avoid further offence I will accept your claim that you belong to a third group.
Why do you keep talking about Darwin and Darwinism? We are talking about the modern theory of evolution here, which is far beyond Darwin's initial theory. Sorry to have to say this but using the word "Darwinism" is a common creationist trick!
So you agree the Earth is old and that micro-evolution is seen over short time periods. Can you tell me what stops macro-evolution from happening over longer periods? It's exactly the same process, after all.
1. The list you provided is nonsensical. It's full of fake entries, unqualified people, and obsolete information. It's propaganda, pure and simple, and another example of how dishonest creationism (not you, the belief system itself) is.
2. So you think people are being told lies in their education? You're really going with the conspiracy theory? Why would scientists want to do that?
2a. I disagree. There is nothing wrong with including the supernatural in science as long as it can be tested and doesn't demand special privileges (faith) which other ideas don't enjoy.
3. So if this designer is so great how do you explain the greater than 99% failure rate of species. How do you explain the atrocious design of various organs, the duplication of function, the disease, etc? The designer either doesn't exist or he's really, really bad!
4. Did you actually do what I asked and have a look at the list of transitional fossils instead of just looking for one odd opinion which agrees with you out of thousands which don't?
What is "conclusive" is a difficult thing to evaluate. Most scientists do think that the fossil evidence is conclusive, but even if it wasn't it certainly is in conjunction with the molecular genetic evidence which strongly supports it.
5. No I disagree actually. Evolution is selection based on variation. If an intelligence was the selective force (instead of natural selection) then I think it is still evolution.
Comment 5 by OJB on 2013-06-04 at 14:25:08:
Regarding Colin Patterson. Maybe you should read this. More creationist dishonesty. You know, I have gone through a lot of creationist propaganda and this mis-quoting is incredibly common. They are either very careless in how they use quotes or deliberately deceptive.
Comment 6 by Richard Coulbeck on 2013-06-04 at 16:17:58:
Hi Owen - Thanks, but it takes far more than that to 'insult' me - I wasn't insulted at all. I merely asked you not to make that public 'mistake', which I think is reasonable. Actually, I don't think a third category is required either eh. If I hold a doubt of the 'modern theory of evolution' (btw not meaning to use the term 'Darwinism' for any 'trick purpose' here - happy to use whatever descriptive you like), for a reason other than 'nutty religious beliefs' (as I claim), and am proven wrong - THEN I am very happy to wear the 'ignorant' label as per your option 1. Not even sure what the third category is to be honest - but it was nice of you to offer one! :-) LOL
1 - Assertion only on your part - with no sound basis for your claim provided. Did you read the explanatory text posted above that list - no dishonesty there, the general criteria (most PhD min or well recognised and plenty of names in Biology, Biochemistry, Chemistry, and other relevant fields to support my claim, yes along with other fields too. And remember they simply add their names to the list of scientific professionals who believe the theory 'needs further scientific scrutiny' before they are fully convinced. Point is - it's not the situation you described at all.
2 - You know that's not the point (or the claim) I made at all. Stop the silly distractions.
2a - I agree entirely with the way you have put that, with clarification. 'Supernatural' put simply is by definition not 'directly' testable. It requires indirect 'inference' based on the testable, reproducible 'natural' evidence - indeed - a valid scientific technique used in fields like anthropology (is that arrow head made by intelligence or natural causes), studies of the center or the earth, forensic science, or SETI etc.
3 - Yet again - I thought I had already made it pretty clear this blog is just about you defending your original scientific post claims. You just might be starting to look silly now - trying to continue a philosophical side-track. My first post on that particular topic i.e. 'What an apparent designer should or shouldn't do' was mentioned ONLY because YOU were the one who (inappropriately imo) tried to use that as an argument FOR evolution. You and I should both agree that it holds no such force in that argument, and true - as you have stated in your reply - it holds no force FOR a design or creator argument either. Remember tho (as explained earlier) - I'm NOT the one trying to argue here for any such thing - I am merely asking you to use sound and appropriate arguments for your evolutionary claims as opposed to the actual ones you posted. :-)
4 - Glad we agree that 'what is conclusive is indeed difficult to evaluate'. Shame I had to drag that out of you though - why not put that in originally? Put simply, the hundreds of adequately qualified doubters of the 'modern theory of evolution' agree with you on that, and hold that the arguments made using fossil and genetic evidence are circular and based on a pre-supposition that evolution must already be the mechanism. You are one making the claim remember - If you can demonstrate 'conclusively' how any evidence justifies the FULL scope of evolutionary claims, you would be a) the first scientist to do so, and b) rich and famous!
But of course we'd have to dismiss anything you (or I) came up with, purely because we don't have the right letters after our name, right?! No of course not. Don't forget too all the literally thousands of evolution scientists who have been trying desperately for well over 100 years to find evidence, that if it were really the mechanism, should be childs play to find, even when most forms don't fossilize.
5 - Interesting (dare I use the word 'deceptive'), switch on the use of the word evolution there Owen. You may be happy to still call it 'evolution', and sure, in one sense the term is a simple 'description of change over time' but in terms of the generally accepted definition of 'modern evolution' (the Noun, not Verb) i.e. "the completely non intelligent processes of Natural Selection acting on variations caused by Genetic Mutation resulting in the change from the simplest living organism to the most 'complex' organisms on earth" - you are very much going against it's major proponents, who quite rightly would label any intelligent 'interference' as... uh oh - ID! ;-)
Finally regarding Patterson - I am both happy to accept that a) Patterson agrees with the different perspective on context offered by Theunissen, and that b) everyone MUST read that article to get the full context of his statement of belief. Of course Patterson if not a 'creationist' himself will seek to distance himself from any quote used by 'them', and that some in that camp may have (knowingly or by mistake) even mis-used it. But I think the article is still very telling. My question is, when Patterson states in this article that there IS really NO way to tell if a particular fossil has a genetic link to any 'living species' we see today - how can it still somehow acquire the label 'transitional' with any degree of certainty, and thus be used as 'transitional evidence'? That is the point of his original quote which still remains, whether he 'personally likes that idea' or not. So while I agree with you that it is not fair to mis-quote someone, it is perfectly fair to use his quote to ask reasonably inferred questions about what their quoted statement actually means, that they didn't specifically articulate.
Cheers, Rich.
Comment 7 by OJB on 2013-06-04 at 16:32:59:
Before I respond to comment 6 I would like to show you the result of some research on the first 10 people on your list. Clearly it was a bad idea just parroting this list (from a creationist site) without checking first because it makes your assertion look utterly ridiculous...
1. Michael Behe. He is a Christian (Catholic). He helped create a semi-scientific theory which has been examined and rejected. Also, he accepts that evolution is basically right (I can provide a quote). Also, his ID ideas are not scientific and have not been published in scientific journals.
2. Robert W. Faid. He's a Christian. He also has no advanced training in biology. His thoughts on the subject are treated as a joke.
3. Michael Denton. Despite his denials most critics think he is a theist. He has rejected creationism. He clearly thinks evolution is true but suggests it is guided by a designer.
4. Francis Hitching. Hitching has no biological expertise. he believes many weird things. He has no credibility at all.
5. Mae-Wan Ho. Doesn't deny evolution is true but suggests natural selection is less important than generally accepted. Her ideas aren't widely accepted.
6. Soren Lovtrup. Thinks evolution is true but denies the standard mechanism. Has provided no real empirical evidence for his alternative theory (macromutations).
7. Milton. He isn't a scientist. He's a journalist and writer on controversial subjects. He has no credibility at all.
8. Rodney Stark. He isn't a biologist. He is a Christian. He has done no research on the subject and published no papers.
9. Gordon Rattray Taylor. He is an author, not a scientist. Critics of his book point out that he clearly doesn't understand evolution.
10. Andrew Bocarsly. Could find no references to him disagreeing with evolution.
This list has no credibility. It is another example of the dishonesty of creationism (criticising the idea here, not you).
Comment 8 by OJB on 2013-06-04 at 17:12:43:
1. The list is a joke. See my commentary on the first 10 above.
2. I'm honestly not sure what you are saying. Either evolutionists know their theory is wrong but teach it anyway (a conspiracy) or they are so incredibly ignorant that they still think it's true. Neither of these seem likely.
2a. So you are saying the supernatural can be tested? OK, it belongs in science then. Too bad there's no evidence for it.
3. You said things look very designed, I pointed out that simply isn't true. Why would I look silly? Can you defend the apparent lack of good design or not, or is that not even a topic we are supposed to be covering?
4. There are few, if any, adequately qualified doubters, as my analysis of your list shows. I'm sure if I kept looking I might find a few but that means little. I could do the same for anything. The fact is this: there is practically no scientific debate over the essential elements of evolution.
It's just ignorant to claim there is no evidence. You work at a university, right? Go and find some biologists and ask them. When you understand it and are prepared to accept it without any religious bias it is totally overwhelming.
5. I believe some of the claims of ID were examined by experts and found lacking. Every example of irreducible complexity was found to be untrue. The theory is basically dead. Even Behe hasn't done much on it recently. Only nutty creationists stil take it seriously, for religious reasons.
The Patterson quote was distorted and misrepresented deliberately by creationists. If there is so much disagreement with evolution why do the creationists have to constantly misrepresent the truth? (as in this case and the list). I guess it's because they know they're wrong.
Comment 9 by Richard Coulbeck on 2013-06-04 at 17:33:20:
LOL - Nice (but desperate) try - 10 down only 470 to go! Presumably you would go thru them all making ad-hominem irrelevant dismissals for them all. The list did state this was in no particular order, and obviously the particular site chose them first. BTW you make this simple mistake so often Owen and its intellectually dishonest - the source of the list (a creationist site) is totally irrelevant to the truth claim that the list is demonstrating - which is there ARE hundreds of PhD qualified scientists who were actually prepared to publically go on record and state they are not yet fully convinced by the current evidence, such that you are in fact premature to claim 'universally accepted fact' status for the theory as you did in your post. Nothing more, nothing less. Point me to the pro-evolution site that was honest enough to publish the same list and I'll be happy to quote it instead, as if that changes a thing for you! #sigh #notrocketscience
Some of these scientists are Christians (well that settles it - we can't trust anything they write then can we because of their philosophical belief (which by the way they may tell you has come about because of their scientific research, rather than the other way around) - yet you specifically asked earlier 'why would scientists want to lie'? Same qn applies. You can simply assert a claim they are ALL deluded all you like, if it makes you feel better, but you certainly cannot call them ALL any more or less dishonest than all pro-evolution scientists, who in precisely the same way also have a philosophical world view.
Cheers,
Rich.
Comment 10 by Richard Coulbeck on 2013-06-04 at 18:05:55:
I (as I am sure others) can see the continuing strength and rigour of your 'scientific arguments' here in Comment 8 Owen. I'll thus finish in this blog post simply by trying to clarify for you point 2 just once more, though I personally think you might just know exactly what my point was and are just avoiding the truth of it. Likewise - no offence intended if indeed you simply are not grasping it! LOL :-)
Your original evidence was: The more educated a person is the more they believe Evolution is true. Your conclusion: Evolution must therefore be true (it was the topic of your post after all). My response: Evidence - Fine, no problem with that. Your Conclusion - Flawed. My Reasoning: Exactly the same claim holds for scientific information that was honestly thought to be true at the time but since proven to be false, anything from the source of life to a flat earth, to Pluto being a planet (that being a somewhat humorous example offered just for fun). MY Conclusion: 'Education' (or the number of people that believe a truth claim as a result of education) does not change it's REAL truth status one bit. I am not saying either of the rather odd conclusions you suggest in comment 8. Hope that clarifies it for you.
As for the 'bad design' thread you seem insistent on pursuing - yeah that's for another post - but I am happy to TRY to consider specific examples of what you define as bad design if you blog 'em seperately sometime. Remember tho - this is somewhat of a red-herring akin to asking you to reject evolution on the basis that there are different (but related) questions you absolutely can only speculate about on your side, such as how the Universe came into being in the first place, or how life started from non-life - both essential to getting the evolutionary engine started in the first place. I don't harp on about that - and don't demand that evolution is rejected on that basis, though they are also interesting questions. I simply asked for better evidence than you have so far provided (anyone who thinks so is clever, anyone who doesn't is a nutter) for your claim that it's 'fact'.
As for the rest of you comments - I think I can leave it to the other readers (if there are any) to draw their own conclusions. I would love to see some others responding - whatever their view - come on folks - be brave - it's all good fun!
Cheers Owen, with genuine respect, that I don't expect or need in return. Knew what I was in for all along! LOL Rich.
Comment 11 by OJB on 2013-06-04 at 19:30:23:
In reply to your comment no 9....
I have got other things to do with my time apart from researching creationist propaganda you know! I showed the first 10 are highly suspect, that indicates the rest might be doubtful as well. How many more do I need to do?
The source is not irrelevant. You had said several times that your motivation is not religious yet you source your information from creationist Christian web sites. I think it is relevant, and I think it is you who is intellectually dishonest.
Well we really don't know how many PhD scientists are against evolution. In the top 10 there were none! The problem is this is just propaganda, not a genuine attempt to establish the truth. How could I show you a site with experts who have a scientific disagreement with evolution? As far as I know, there are none. Evolution is a fact.
I don't think Christians are necessarily always wrong about evolution, but it does show a bias and considering your denial of religious bias I thought it was relevant.
I don't think all those people are lying, or if they are, they are lying to themselves. That's what faith is all about: convincing yourself something which is obviously wrong is true.
Comment 12 by OJB on 2013-06-04 at 19:43:55:
And in reply to comment 10...
I didn't say that educated people supporting evolution proves it is true, what I did mean is that more educated people and more intelligent people are more likely to believe evolution. Conversely more ignorant and stupid (harsh work I know) people don't. You can reach whatever conclusion you wish from that.
By the way, your Pluto analogy is a poor one. That was just a matter of a change in definition, not a misunderstanding of any underlying truth.
Let me ask you one thing though: if you wanted to get an opinion on the truth or otherwise of some technical point, would you ask a well educated expert or a person with no knowledge or experience? That's right: the expert can still be wrong but they have a much better chance of being right than anyone else!
You're right, we've covered enough here. Let's leave the bad design, origin of life, and origin of the universe arguments for some other time.
I know that there are a number of people who read this blog but few are brave enough to comment. Probably quite sensible on their part! :)
Comment 13 by Anonymous on 2013-06-05 at 08:21:56:
You should just give up OJB nothing can change a creationists mind once they have decided to believe whatever BS they like.
Comment 14 by Richard on 2013-06-05 at 10:55:26:
Sigh - The brave 'anonymous', has made the same mistake, making nonsensical broad assertions without any way to back up the claim. Also made the mistake of not reading the original post (or remembering it) - Owen claimed and I agreed that education does in fact help change creationists minds. Also you forgot that this is not a post about 'creationism'. It's only about Owens single claim that evolution is 'fact'. Shame you cannot seem to grasp that distinction, as also fully explained earlier.
Also - Owen re not reading carefully: Pluto = joke, remember? Also - the list stated plainly they were in no particular order - there isn't a 'top ten' at all - that's a plainly dishonest response folks. And btw you didn't 'show' they were highly suspect at all - you merely typed your personal opinion on the matter in your post (as usual). As for the relevance of the 'source', sorry again you totally missed the point (or are pretending to)? I am not biased - I do not dismiss information on any pro-evolution site, simply on the basis that it's 'on a pro evolution' site?!! I will discuss, question or even dismiss it if I think the 'evidence' provided doesn't not hold water, as you have the right to do with the sites containing the alternative information. You are demonstrating clearly above (to your shame) that you are not similarly unbiased when you even make reference to the source in that way. Of course this information in on 'creationists' sites - where else do you expect to find it?! Again #notrocketscience!
The clearest demonstration of that very bias, is your statement: "How could I show you a site with experts who have a scientific disagreement with evolution? As far as I know, there are none". Wow.
For my part, this entire thread has been about calling into question radical claims that Owen has made about evolution being undisputed fact, i.e. that everyone 'clever' believes this, (can you see that this is NOT the same topic as whether it REALLY is fact). It can't be obviously, because all the 'clever' people 200 hundred years ago would have completely denied it - yet it's truth status of course has not changed one bit. Of course I have no problem with people disgreeing with me on either of these topics. ALso - in this post I was not meaning to 'just advance religion or creationism' - I think an honest reading of the thread will show this too - perhaps some other completely naturalistic process than evolution is true? It's Owen alone who has consistently brought up those distractions, in spite of my clear request not to do so in my first post! Now I wonder why that is?!
Anyway - That will do. Cheers, Rich.
Comment 15 by OJB on 2013-06-05 at 12:45:49:
I think "anonymous" has a point. With most creationists there is no reasonable way that their ideas can be refuted. If you can look at the fossil and molecular evidence and casually dismiss it as you do then I really believe you have decided what you want to believe and can never admit you're wrong.
The list was clearly in a priority order since the two leading proponents of ID were near the top. You really need to look past the creationist propaganda and see what's really happening. Even if it wasn't, 10 taken at random is still a reasonable sample.
None of what I said was personal opinion, it was all from expert commentary. I guess there was an element of their opinion in some of the comments: for example that Faid's ideas are a joke, but with justification I think!
If the information on creationist sites was actually true I would expect to see it in many places. But it isn't. It's all lies and misinformation. The source is important. If you are a creationist you *must* reject evolution no matter what the facts are. A scientists just follows the facts, they have no need to believe any particular dogma. In fact, if a scientist showed evolution was false surely it would be worth a Nobel Prize!
There are no scientists (or almost none because there will always be a few with crazy ideas and maybe even mental issues) with expertise in relevant fields who disagree with the basics of evolution. The fact that the list you showed is so obviously false supports this.
Saying that one of the most important observations about the real world is a fact is not radical. Denying the clear truth *is* radical. You have a religious bias which prevents him from seeing the truth. You have allowed yourself to be deceived by creationist lies and refuse to concede this even when it is clearly apparent.
I don't care if there is a designer (or creator) or not so I have no built-in bias. If there was a designer it would be the most amazing and fascinating discovery of all time, but despite years of searching the designer refuses to be found. The obvious conclusion is that he doesn't exist.
Comment 16 by Richard on 2013-06-05 at 17:03:06:
I really did want to leave this alone, but I hope other readers can see that there is really no excuse for some of these comments. I've given up repeatedly encouraging actual arguments over mere unsupported assertions, so will have to ignore almost all of the last comment above, but this typical claim that a creationist must reject evo' no matter what the facts are, whereas a scientist is just 'following the facts, having no need to believe any particular dogma' is simply desperate nonsense and must be addressed.
Why on earth would anyone feel the need to reject TRUE facts in order to remain a creationist (or a theist) if it were TRULY proven to be false?! I get that you and many others think it already is (fine). BUT - (to quote you) 'I don't care if there is a designer (or creator) or not' either, and most 'creationists' hold that view. I would hope reasoned thinkers are capable of grasping that (in the vast majority, but not all cases - on both sides) it's the interpretation of the very same evidence that has simply lead to two different conclusions about the world we all live in. IF your claim about philosophical bias is true, then athiests cannot escape the same charge. But then I am NOT the one making that downright rude or ridiculous claim that it's only ONE side can be either immune from (or full of) philosophical bias, in the way they interpret evidence.
Finally - My whole last paragraph in Comment 14 was devoted to explaining carefully exactly what 'radical claim' I was disputing, and you still missed it?! I did not say that your claim that 'evolution is fact' was radical at all. I have no problem with your right to make that claim. Never did. I stated clearly that the different claim that it was 'undisputed fact' was radical, and then showed why. You have then disputed that only by trying (and failing) to dismiss the entire list as (and I am being pretty kind here) 'unworthy of dissent'. :-) Your reason why they are unworthy? - obviously they must be - because they doubt evolution?! That is a classic circular argument that most reasonable folk will see is no real argument at all.
And speaking of circles, we are obviously now in one since most of this was there in my first posts - so I really will let you have the last word now Owen (it's your blog) - and let the other readers do their own critical thinking on this thread. Cheers - it's still been fun, and hope you agree. Rich.
Comment 17 by OJB on 2013-06-05 at 21:11:01:
You know that no facts about the real world can ever be proved 100% (see my blog entry "Some Philosophical Thoughts" of 2013-03-07) so there is always an opportunity for someone sufficiently determined to reject them. Actually even my use of the word "facts" is incorrect technically because outside of logic and maths there are no facts.
However sometimes the evidence becomes so strong that calling something a fact is a reasonable approximation. But even then the fact isn't 100% proved and by carefully picking out outdated, irrelevant, and unproved evidence; misquoting experts; and simply making stuff up; a case can be made supporting anything. If you want a somewhat facetious example have a look at my blog entry "The Earth is Flat" from 2007-07-02.
If you are a Christian then clearly you must care if there is a designer (god). Actually you must believe in one or reject your emotional attachment to your religion of choice.
Every atheist I know doesn't say there is no god, we simply say there is currently insufficient evidence to believe there is one. That is not an intense emotional commitment like people have to their religions so we are actually less biased (I suspect no one is 100% free of bias).
I don't think I claimed anything as simple as there is no dispute about evolution. What I said is that there is no major dissent amongst the vast majority of relevant experts about the basics of evolution. Look back and you will see that's the sort of qualified statement I made.
I gave the reasons why I rejected each of the people I looked at on the list. There was nothing circular about it.
You really should examine your motivations and honestly ask yourself if you have been blinded by your religious beliefs, and have a look at the quality of your information sources. And if you really want to know the truth go and ask a biologist, like I suggested!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE