Ask, and ye shall receive!
During recent discussions, it was suggested that Darwin’s Doubt raised unanswerable questions for the theory of evolution. Discuss.
324 thoughts on “Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt and the Cambrian Explosion”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Still, some better-educated IDers have quietly moved away from ID. David Heddle used to be on the Discovery CSC backchannel (and, without giving away anything specific, told a bit about it), and Darrel Falk, once of Biologos, was also at least dabbling in ID, before turning away from it.
Not something most scientists are very good at doing, either. But it could be that we should do it, and possibly that is part of what makes us respond to Murray, phoodoo, and Robert.
Yes, and I think we’re sort of trying for that, as well. But we don’t have a simple story–we have a complex and interesting story that someone like Robert doesn’t follow–we just get science and not eternal life by following the evidence, and if they’ve already discounted anything that “atheists” and “their religious lackeys” say, rhetoric won’t do much good.
I really do think that ID has had its best days, with mostly true believers hanging on for dear life. ID doesn’t have a story, it just has a Designer, and it doesn’t do anything to speak of (doing a little bit of evolutionary science to try to discredit evolution, certainly no ID science). Ken Ham is more interesting, and YECs are the primary force acting out there now, I believe.
But ID remains a rhetorical force in terms of bafflegab and polished scripts for how to get from the evidence to a Designer, and all creationists are prone to using said rhetoric. It’s scientific nonsense, of course, yet for believers and would-be believers it’s a wonderful alternative to “materialism”–and, as importantly, it’s an excuse to ignore all of the evidence for evolution, because ID calculations supposedly make evolution impossible.
Glen Davidson
its not physical laws but how they are expressed. for example people lived hundreds of years, bible says, but now 70. These details can change.
I can see elements on buried stratas of rock being distorted by how they were collected and pressurized, leading to why they turned to stone, and how the speed of it changed things.
again i’m ignorant of chemistry/elements and only offer suggestions as to why its not done finished that dating things by these rates can’t be questioned.
Allan Miller,
Its off thread and not my fault.
The creationist sees great powerful flows collecting/depositing sediment.
So hugh chunks of earth would be laid down and under pressure from overlying later chunks of sediment/water pressure be turned to stone. Within in the creatures caught up.
It would, could only be, that local areas were lifted and deposited. No mixing from other areas. its predictable to find the original creature types as they lived the days before the flood. so then just add a very diverse and segregated biology world back then.
not the mix of today. it was more glorious in its complexity and diversity and more segregated. Even in whole group types.
There is mechanisms for the great flows sweeping the planet.
The source for sediment was seabed and land.
In fact we would say the seas were carved out to the present great depths.
Before the flood it was a universal shallow seas.
it works.
The goal is to persuade enough/most of the people to the right conclusions on origin matters.
If you can’t persuade ID/YEC then its because you don’t have a good case.
We are the invaders and must strive for audience and all matter of problems in proving our case.
Your side is the entrenched establishment with castles.
We are climbing the castles after doing well in the landscape.
Here we are.
These forums are skirmishing fronts of armies of thought.
the battle is on and war settles things.
As a creationist i welcome these forums.
I would never offensively ban people from the conversation under any lame pretext.
Origin contentions are a contact sport.
stay on topic, don’t be malicious, and rumble.
creationists expect to prevail and think we are quick smart about these things.
We are the agents of change in science these days.
We are the great threat.
ID is famous, based on just a few cats work, and YEC is very popular despite limited resources.
I think i defend yEC/ID very well here.
The guy who is wrong should be persuaded. nOt the guy who is right.
argument should work on intelligent people.
A poster here on , SANDWALK, had a video about having to argue for new ideas against a entrenched establishment.
tough, nasty, but in the end prevailed by persuasion..
Monkey see, monkey do.
Its fun too. sharpens the wits.
Who’s? One of the most notable observations I’ve made from seeing you on various evolution arguments over the years, Robert, is that you haven’t learned a single thing about science in all that time.
Robert Byers,
It’s not off thread, and is my ‘fault’ – I mentioned the Flood specifically as it is your alternative hypothesis to the one Meyer himself accepts – that the fossil strata really do represent an historic series, millions of years of accumulation of changing forms with the Cambrian ‘explosion’ at its base. Meyer’s book is a problem for YEC in that he accepts the conventional account of the fossil strata as a depositional series separated by many years. Your account. … well, it’s just weird. You just don’t appreciate the incredible detail of geology, palaeontology and physics and its complete lack of congruence with a single cataclysm. You don’t know what you don’t know, and don’t listen when people tell you.
Your prognostications about subjects you know nothing about remind me of something I wrote as a child. When mildly criticised, as a 6-year-old, for the repetitiousness of my daily ‘Diary’, I wrote: “yesterday I went up the lane and I saw a tiger”. The adults smirked, but I continued to insist it was the case. I remember being convinced that they couldn’t possibly know it was untrue. Tigers exist, and I could have seen one.
Some people put an enormous amount of work into “Flood geology”. It really beggars belief that they can’t even decide where the boundary of this cataclysm is in the strata: they just know it’s there somewhere
So Byers knows little science and doesnt seem to be able to learn, but Kurt Wise has a phd in geology from Harvard with SJ Gould as one of his mentors and hes still a YEC. What this tells you is that no amount of evidence will ever persuade certain religous people. Maybe arguing with Byers is worthwhile because of the lurkers-on-the-fence but theres no sense in getting frustrated and nasty with him because he doesnt see the light.
I still think it might be productive or least interesting to pick one very narrow self-contained topic and argue it extremely thoroughly…down to the basic elements of logic. Force him ( or any YEC) into a postion where they have to claim that 1+1=3 to keep their position alive.
RodW,
There was no nastiness intended, though I understand that reading. It was simply an observation, written without irritation – he really doesn’t know what he doesn’t know! One can for example point out the very precise species-level stratification, often narrowed to a couple of centimetres of strata, and the response is just some vague notion of ‘segregation’, which makes sense to Robert, but not to me, because it does not account for layering – there is no obvious way in which these organisms could stratify in life, from top to bottom of the tens-of-kilometres-thick column, as if living in a block of flats, and then simply be petrified in place by heavy rain. Particularly in a shallow ocean.
Of course I’m not going to get through, and don’t expect to. Observing dogged denialism in action has a point, too.
Absolutely. This isn’t news! Todd Wood is a very knowledgeable chap, and still a YEC. Really … I’m just chewing the fat. I’m not on a mission. This very site exists at the interface of the scientific viewpoint and the religious one. People read it because, presumably, they are interested in that angle, for whatever reason. It’s been done to death, and can get boring, but I don’t know what people are expecting to find here beyond what there is. There is no killer argument that will persuade the determined. When you confront the evidence but decide that ‘segregation’, ‘different physics’, ‘different biology’, a quart-in-a-pint-pot view of the sediment load, etc, are satisfactory explanations, you are effectively arguing that 1+1=3.
Can you describe what exactly you mean by design? What is a “design” that can produce biodiversity exactly?
If you pretend to defend YEC, perhaps you could also describe what “god” is?
Beause when you say the words “desing” and “god” I have no idea of what you are talking about. Unlike “evolution”. You probably have an idea of what that word means.
I think it is more a matter of being unwilling to learn.
That said, I do not have any problem with Byers. He is reasonably polite. He presents his position without acrimony, without insults.
I see his posts as sometimes mildly entertaining. But they don’t bother me. It is not up to me to tell him what to believe. And he is not telling me what to believe either. He is just telling us what he believes.
Which makes it more interesting that he was banned from UD.
This is what always happens with extremists. Many years ago I knew a Christian guy who thought it would be a good idea for the US to have a theocratic governent. I pointed out to him that after that goverment he wanted had gotten rid of all the atheists, it would take care of the Muslims and Hindus and Jews. Then they would take care of all the Christians who arent the right kind of Christians: Mormons, Catholics, Presbyterians etc. I told him that if we ever had this religious gov’t then sooner or later he’d be following me on the chopping block. I guess this is what happened to Robert
RodW,
The reason for expulsion was given as misogyny and racism. This does not, of course, mean that this was actually the reason.
I think the word blatant might apply. One of UD’s stars is Ann Gauger, so it would be embarrassing to say that women are no good at science.
This is an easy task. Our buddy Joe G, in a recent anti-climate change rant over at Intelligent Reasoning, has made the claim that Frequency = Wavelength. When it is pointed out that this is not true and is the equivalent of claiming that 2 = 3 because 2 x 3 = 6, he resorts to one of his patented retorts and claims that the person disagreeing with him is an ignorant a-hole (pardon the language)
Joe is one of those folks who fling poo against the wall to see if any of it sticks. Frequency and wavelength are related by a simple function, so knowing one, you know the other. I refuse to visit his site to see why he thought it important for them to be equal.
i don’t know who you are but its not science that you complain I haven’t learned.
Its not consenting to certain conclusions in certain subjects touching on origin matters.
Science is not a thing. not a noun. its a verb. its a methodology.
My understanding of the methodology is not related to cenisent on conclusions by some judge.
I could say that about my opponents and be just as wrong!
Allan Miller,
This YEC sees the boundary at the k-t line. above the line is later post flood deposition.
its the fossil types that is the clue.
Ready when you are! lets raise the stakes!
Robert Byers,
Perhaps RodW would like to OP a thread on the topic. In case he does, I have set permissions accordingly.
Was he banned? Maybe from one or more threads, but I see him commenting today on a “News” thread there. So no general ban is in effect.
Joe Felsenstein,
They issued a general amnesty more recently.
If someone does post such an OP, are you willing to invest the time to understand the evidence that is presented, like the rest of us non-experts? Unless you commit to learning some new things, the stakes will remain at zero.
Robert Byers,
And yet there is no distinction between the general stratified sedimentary pattern above and below this boundary, nor likewise the zoning of species to strata. The depositional and species-stratifying processes above and below appear to be the same. I wonder what ad hoc hand-waving you will invoke to explain this (lack of) anomaly?
The so-called general amnesty at UD only lasted a couple of days. Several or more non-IDiots have been banned since then. The bans are not announced as they sometimes have been in the past. Arrington is currently on a trip somewhere and when he gets back there will likely be more bans.
He was banned after a particularly nasty antisemitic comment. No way they could let it go.
For those who have no problem with Byers, Some problems with Robert Byers.
His opinions are monstrous. Being semiliterate does not make him any sweeter.
ID doesn’t do new ideas very often. It doesn’t do science. It is a tent full of people with fascist politics however. The few who haven’t (and yes I mean a very few) should have run out of that tent a long time ago in the name of decency. Unlike many mere creationists who are actually fairly decent, ID supporters don’t tend to be live and let live folk.
If I remember correctly, he was banned from UD for his opinionson female subservience to men.
I am not generally a fan of banning people, but I have mixed feelings about this one. But it does appear that Robert has been more thoughtful about his comments of late, so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt
Apparently the unanswerable questions are unaskable.
From my recollection, Dave Hooke is correct: Byers was banned due to his antisemitism. They can’t have that at UD — not when O’Leary is cross-posting Rabbi Boteach once a month. It’s a Big Tent, remember? Now that all the formerly banned have to let back in, I imagine it will take a long time before he says something so odious that they are forced to ban him again.
What doubt? Just Google “Robert Byers Mexicans evolution”, “Robert Byers blacks evolution” etc. Plenty more of his racist, homophobic, woman hating utterances. His theology and politics are shameful. FWIW, his last post pre-ban was both antisemitic and extremely sexist.
Most of the people who post at UD have Bible supported homophobic and misogynistic views. Also, they support the theocratic aims of the Wedge document, with the possible exception of the one or two who are completely in their own little world.
My point is not to single out Byers but to just remind people who start being nice about people such as him that these are fascist extremists not just souls misguided about science.
This is about the only genuinely important thing to remember about the Intelligent Design Movement.
anything you want. Lets rumble!
No more silly posing. lets persuade each other and someone should admit to being persuaded.
Enough is enough.
The k-t line is not a creationist boundary.
its a line in the strata based on several identifying points.
The big one, I think, is fossil types. below the line are dinos etc and above only mammals.
They wax eloquent about iridium being on this line and the ‘evidence” for a impact that suddenly killed dinos etc
I understand much above the k-t line is volcanic or lesser depths of sedimentary rock. so one can tell also by this. Thats important for YEC as we must explain the rock layers above the k-t line without the great flood. not all yEC see the k-t line as the flood line.
Therefore below the line is all from the year long flood actions. above from later events.
In fact the k-t line concept is a favorite thing to have come along for creationism.
it presses home a sudden end to fauna/flora types. Not slow evolution but instant extinction. Then a new fauna/flora dominance suddenly appears.
Can you describe what exactly you mean by design? What is a “design” that can produce biodiversity exactly?
Can you also describe what “god” is? Can you describe what “creation” is exactly, how it happens?
How do you know that? How do you know you are not missing fossils? How do living organisms “suddenly appear”?
Hey. not one to complain bUT I’m not the thread issue.
False,malicious, accusations are being made against me here.
I don’t answer these things as its absurd to answer accusations not based on even plausible fact.
I print under my own name and proud of all i write and desire to be quoterd, quoted, quoted. My writing style is terrible but not the ideas.
possibly sincere misunderstanding happens but, hmmmm, more likely hostile opponents.
Sceptical zone is fair to me and other creationists and I’m not punished or censored. Just give a warning for unacceptable ideas everybody.
UD is a great intellectual forum just like TSZ.
I’m sure they welcome all but one must be careful how one speaks.
Just ask for another chance. All forum/blog hosts are super sensitive as same forum/blog is MORE of a reflection on them then guest posters.
So mistakes are made now and then.
I have been banned at yEC or iD or , mostly, evolutionists forums/blogs for years now. Always wrong but I accept one can’t change the desire to control conclusions that expressed.
I suggest people here try to reach the UD bosses and get back in.
they want good traffic and are sharp enough to handle opponents.
If you have been malicious then apologize. don’t if you are innocent.
Everyone gets their feelings hurt and indeed there is error on all sides.
I’m a easy going person and want peace with all and never hurt anyone but still i get nailed for crimes against humanity.
I know its tough to stay on forums/blogs if your on the opposite side.
I can’t get on the PJ Meyers and Coyne blogs for absurd reasons.
I would clobber them and maybe they smell this.
Origin matters are the cutting intellectual edge of modern science.
A revolution is going on here and the stakes are high about who prevails intellectually.
These forums/blogs may be a future sorce for histories on this revolution regardless of who wins. The internet is changing things.
Robert Byers,
If you place the surface of Flood deposits at that point, you are making an examinable claim relating to the strata. Below the line, there is considerable stratification, both of sediment and of species. Above the line … well, again, there is considerable stratification of sediment and species. It seems ad hoc to propose one cause below (a catastrophic flood, the species of that moment actually living in a stratified manner and petrified in place) and another above (I’d only be guessing what you might propose here). The lower you go in any sedimentary series, the less like modern organisms are those found. There are no zebras, giraffes, lions, rabbits, ravens or doves anywhere near the K-T (and certainly not below it). No evidence whatsoever of a pre-ark community of modern species, nor a post-ark diaspora. There are not even any grasses until about a third of the way up the column beyond the K-T.
Dinosaurs are also found above the line. They were not killed off in an instant. And there are about 5 events in the supposedly ‘pre-flood’ strata with very similar characteristics to the K-T: more mass extinctions, according to the conventional view. So, again, you propose this arbitrarily differential explanation for equivalent phenomena: the K-T is the boundary of the Flood, but all the very similar discontinuities below are just … [insert hand-waving here].
No, the door is open wide: Can you describe what exactly you mean by design? What is a “design” that can produce biodiversity exactly? Can you also describe what “god” is? Can you describe what “creation” is exactly, how it happens? How do you know you are not missing fossils? How do living organisms “suddenly appear”?
Suppose you now clear the air and give your actual views in your own words regarding Mexicans, Jews, Blacks and women. What has the Bible taught you about race?
Prevail should be past tense. No one gives a shit what flat earth creationists think, except that engaging them passes some time.
Alan, I’m noot quite sure what you mean by this
You can now start your own thread if you like. Just look for the “New” button near the top of your screen and click New->Post.
Agreed. That’s one of the reasons I don’t comment here as much as I used to. I understand that Liddle’s rules are to always presume the other person is arguing in good faith, but I simply don’t believe that. For the most part — though not universally — the most prolific commentators at Uncommon Descent are intellectually dishonest. What I mean by that is simply this: when I took them seriously enough to raise serious questions about their views, I was met with total silence — and the very same things are said again, and again, and the criticisms go unacknowledged. The script would go something like this:
UD participant: “p!”
Me: “that’s interesting, but have you considered q? If q, then not-p”
UD participant: [silence]
then, a few days or weeks later:
UD participant: “p!”
Me: “that’s interesting, but have you considered q? If q, then not-p”
UD participant: [silence]
and after a few iterations:
UD participant: “why doesn’t anyone take us seriously? what are they so afraid of? and why do they have to be so rude when they talk about us?”
Mind you, this didn’t happen only when I was presenting my own views as an alternative to theirs — this happened when I raised questions about what they themselves believed.
Examples: I would press Kairosfocus on his interpretation (I would say “abuse”) of Plato; stress the importance of testing the inference to the best explanation and not just leaving the abductive leap hanging in mid-air; argue that Bohmian mechanics is not compatible with a consciousness-first ontology; stress that Talbott’s philosophy of life is incompatible with intelligent design; and underscore that complexity theory entails an ontology of “matter” that transcends the limits of seventeenth-century “materialism”.
Every single one of these points would fall on deaf ears, and eventually I concluded that they simply were not interested in genuine dialogue, despite what they say. No doubt there are some creationists who do argue in good faith, but I cannot say that of the majority of UD participants, and certainly not the most prolific contributors.
KN, as I’ve said before, team members and fans care most about winning–much less about Marquis of Queensberry rules–or even soundness of arguments. From an evolutionary standpoint, groups generally do much better if they get away with what they can–or even resort to bullying.
As I’m sure you know, the same sort of tactic can be occasionally seen from the other side–right here on this board. It’s an unsettling fact of internet life.
That’s why I find the contributions of people like Learned Hand at UD so refreshing.
Allan Miller,
All a creationist says about below the k-t line is that segregated flows did all the deposition in hugh sediment movements.
So its not other extinctions being shown below the line but merely other evidences of deposition with results later claimed to be extinctions.
Its just error compounded.
Above the line its quickly fossils types very alike to ours today. Just more diverse and rich.
In other words below the line all deposition was from a single year and above the all from a few centuries or so after the flood. Just less as only certain areas hit.
not including the minor ice age fossils etc.
You are accepting that its proven the strata was laid in great lengths of time and so you see fauna/flora differences based on evolution.
It follows that lower levels have few creatures as they would easily just be the pickings from less diverse areas during the flood year.
Indeed most fossils are sea fossils I understand. As creationis would predict.
No offensive but these are off thread questions galore like crazy.
Just make specific threads!!
Robert Byers,
Sorry Robert, you’re just not getting it. I’m not surprised, but I am getting bored.
Who has ever bullied an ID proponent here?
It seems to me they define bullying as
A) Not accepting uncritically everything ID proponents say
B) Asking for supporting evidence to be produced for specific claims.
I often wonder how they can keep a straight face when saying (at UD) they don’t come over here because of the atmosphere. UD is far, far worse with bully JoeG being a obnoxious irritant every other comment.
You, me, O’Magain, keiths, Dave, Glen–lots of us. You basically HAVE to at some point, I think. Or at least it’s very hard to resist.
Hmm. What do you mean by bullying then?
Making fun of people can be a form of bullying, but it’s difficult not to make fun of crank science.