Biological Evolution- What is being debated

In an earlier post I showed that ID is not anti-evolution. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/

So is ID is not anti-evolution then what is being debated?

Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

  1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
  2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
  3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
  4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
  5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
  6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. see Coyne- https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/natural-selection-and-evolution-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/

The debate isn’t as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.

(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don’t seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don’t appear to understand the issue. The TE’s I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE’s are closet IDists.)

Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were.

With Creation vs. “Evolution #6” the 4 main debating points are clear:

1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)

2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).

3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from “simpler” bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)

4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.

With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.

IDists understand that if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).

What does the data say? Well there isn’t any data that demonstrates bacteria can “evolve” into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.

Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything:

 

If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don’t know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don’t truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).

Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.

One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a “black box” and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What’s more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.

In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn’t understand evolution.- Mike Gene

However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity…

1,113 thoughts on “Biological Evolution- What is being debated

  1. Frankie:
    I will gladly meet you and Richie in that parking lot, adapa. Just let me know when

    Last time you said that you gave a bogus address thirty miles away. Why should anyone think you’re not as cowardly now?

  2. Frankie,

    There is a huge difference between frozen and liquid H2O/ Only morons would claim they are the same and stick to it.”

    And there is a huge difference between H2O at 0C, 4C, 40C and 100C in physical properties. But, H2O still equals H2O. Frequency and Wavelength, on the other hand….

  3. If on thread i see that its ALL ABOUT the origin of biology complexity and diversity.
    Evolution being a proposed mechanism for the origin of same.
    God being another option.
    God plus mechanisms coded within biology being another option.
    Then lots of mixing and matching.

  4. Neil Rickert:
    Moved several posts to guano.

    You didn’t move enough posts to guano. Moderators should remove all off-topic comments from this thread- including any of mine (and yes starting with Alan Fox’s initial entry which is nothing but hubris)

  5. Frankie,
    Who is debating what you claim is being debated in the OP? Where are they doing it?

  6. Who is debating this, OM? Anyone who is interested in science should be. But mostly IDists, Creationists and evolutionists. It is what is being debated.

    The question is why didn’t you know that? If you didn’t know what is being debated why all the attacks on ID?

  7. Frankie: Anyone who is interested in science should be.

    There are lots of people interested in science. But I don’t see many people debating this.

    Frankie: But mostly IDists, Creationists and evolutionists.

    Where are these debates happening? And what is there to debate? IDists and Creationists think god did it and evolutionists do not. What’s to debate?

    Frankie: It is what is being debated.

    Except it’s not. Unless you mean it’s being debated on blogs like this?

    Frankie: The question is why didn’t you know that?

    I do know that. What I’m asking is it being debated other then on blogs? Is there an actual debate in the academic community? Can you point to evidence of that?

    Frankie: If you didn’t know what is being debated why all the attacks on ID?

    You can’t attack something that makes no claims. And that’s kind of my point.

  8. ID makes claims and unlike your position ID makes testable claims. But go ahead and tell us how to test the claim that vision systems evolved via bl;ind and mindless processes. If you can’t or refuse to then we don’t have anything to discuss (I already posted how to test and potentially falsify the claims of ID).

    And if academia doesn’t understand what is being debated then that reflects poorly on them.

  9. Rumrat posted the following and it applies to evolutionists:

    A sycophantic, jealoux, (probably socially and sexually) frustrated and frothy entity who’s primary method of argumentation seems to amount to nothing more than caricature, mockery, insult, ridicule and blind assertion copulated with the fallacious declaration of incredulity.

    A beast entirely unafraid of being constantly wrong about absolutely everything, as long as it has an “outlet” for it’s feeling of disgust towards “that ridiculous” other thing it is so unfathomably and irrationally convinced is obviously false.

    Thanks, rumrat

  10. Frankie: And if academia doesn’t understand what is being debated then that reflects poorly on them.

    Given that it’s the only game in town you can either play for real or waste your time “debating” on blogs like. It’s clear what your ability level allows.

  11. Frankie: I already posted how to test and potentially falsify the claims of ID

    Ever thought it might be more productive to test those claims rather then posting about how to test those claims?

  12. “Given that it’s the only game in town you can either play for real or waste your time “debating” on blogs like. It’s clear what your ability level allows.”

    Intelligent Design creationism at this point consists of 2 blogs where about a dozen below-average people with various personality disorders yammer about.

  13. ID’s claims have been tested, OM. OTOH no one knows how to test evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    Evolution by design can be and is modelled by genetic algorithms and yet no one knows how to model evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    And if academia is ignorant of what is being debated then obviously they are not the only game in town. They aren’t even in the right playing field

  14. I have a challenge for those who want me banned:

    A debate on the merits of ID vs evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- see Coyne’s description

    For example my opponent will have to say how to test the claim that vision systems evolved by means of those blind and mindless processes and I will have to say how we determined vision systems were intelligently designed.

    If I lose or cannot support ID I will leave. If you lose or cannot support your position, you leave

  15. Frankie: And if academia is ignorant of what is being debated then obviously they are not the only game in town.

    Show em how it’s done Joe!

  16. Well, that didn’t take long to devolve into name calling…

    Here’s the main problem as I see it: special pleading against certain implications of some areas of knowledge that conflict with religion/superstition.

    Joe doesn’t complain about “blind watchmaker thermodynamics”. Joe doesn’t complain about “blind watchmaker gravity”. Joe doesn’t complain about “blind watchmaker fluid dynamics”. And yet there’s no fundamental difference in any of those areas of science.

    The fact is, the entire enterprise of science and the study of how things work in this world and universe relies upon the perspective of parsimony. If an explanation…say for predicting the motion of planets…allows for an accurate model for where planets will be at a given time, then most folks are perfectly happy accepting it as a reasonable model (and thus a reasonable understanding) of how that system works. Oddly, most folk have no problem accepting that such an explanation implies that there is no divine influence on the movement of planets; that the system is a product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes. And we happily teach “blind watchmaker planetary motion” with little to no complaints. So why should evolution be any different?

    I personally reject the special pleading of creationists who feel their god(s) is being pushed aside in the teachings and studies of evolution. Tough. Get a better god. Preferably one that can exist in reality.

  17. Robin: Joe doesn’t complain about “blind watchmaker thermodynamics”. Joe doesn’t complain about “blind watchmaker gravity”. Joe doesn’t complain about “blind watchmaker fluid dynamics”. And yet there’s no fundamental difference in any of those areas of science.

    Wait, the laws that govern nature are evidence for ID.

    The fact is, the entire enterprise of science and the study of how things work in this world and universe relies upon the perspective of parsimony.

    And thousands or millions of just-so mutations is not parsimonious.

    Oddly, most folk have no problem accepting that such an explanation implies that there is no divine influence on the movement of planets; that the system is a product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes.

    Nonsense- see Newton’s Principia and “The Privileged Planet”. There is no way to test the claim that the system is a product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless material processes. All you are doing is saying the system arose via sheer dumb luck.

    The special pleading is all yours, Robin.

  18. No Richie, the judges will be the posters here. But that doesn’t matter as no one can say how to test the claim that vision systems evolved via blind and mindless processes. So no one will take up the challenge.

  19. Frankie: Wait, the laws that govern nature are evidence for ID.

    No they are not. That is simply begging the question.

    The laws man has modeled that govern nature are simply evidence that nature is consistent. Nothing more, nothing less. Assuming that the laws imply something beyond simply the observation that we can model them adds nothing to any understanding of them or the universe.

    And thousands or millions of just-so mutations is not parsimonious.

    This not only does not respond to what I wrote, it makes no sense in general.

    Let me try to make this as simple as possible: parsimony can only be attributed to the explanations and models humans come up with. Phenomena in nature (such as mutations) have nothing to do with parsimony.

    Nonsense- see Newton’s Principia and “The Privileged Planet”.

    I’ll simply note that Principia is inaccurate in many areas, not least of which is that Newton thought the perfection of the motion of the planets reflected the perfection of some god. Given that we now know a great deal about Newton’s inaccuracies at various scales, it seems odd to hold up Principia as a rebuttal.

    As for “The privileged Planet”, well…hardly a reason to consider a non-science, not particularly popular pulp book as indicative of much. I particularly like Professor Jefferys’ quote on the subject:

    “the little that is new in this book isn’t interesting, and what is old is just old-hat creationism in a new, modern-looking astronomical costume.”

    There is no way to test the claim that the system is a product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless material processes. All you are doing is saying the system arose via sheer dumb luck.

    As noted, all scientific explanations imply all systems are a product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes. There’s no reason to include any concept of intelligence, purpose, guidance, or immaterial properties if the system models work fine without such. So “intelligent falling” is a non-starter. Ditto “angel-guided orbital mechanics” and “demon induced wave mechanics” and “intelligently designed life”. None of those are necessary, useful, or parsimonious concepts.

    The special pleading is all yours, Robin.

    I would say that what is accepted as actual science and what passes for actual knowledge around the world speaks for itself. But thank you for continuing to prove my point Joe – your continued focused pleading on evolution as opposed to…say…Boyle’s Law renders your complaint ineffectual.

  20. Robin: No they are not.

    Yes, they are. That case has been made ad nauseum. And all you position has to say about them is – “They just are (the way they are)”- Hawking

    Let me try to make this as simple as possible: parsimony can only be attributed to the explanations and models humans come up with.

    And the accepted model humans have come up with for evolution is evolution via blind and mindless processes- differential accumulations and cullings of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes. And in another thread rumrat said they have to be the “right” mutations.

    I’ll simply note that Principia is inaccurate in many areas,

    I will simply note, again, that your position’s sheer dumb luck isn’t scientific. And sheer dumb luck is all you have to explain how the solar system came to be the way it is.

    As for “The privileged Planet”, well…hardly a reason to consider a non-science, not particularly popular pulp book as indicative of much.

    What utter nonsense. It is based on the peer-reviewed work of one of the authors and is fully referenced. And your source isn’t a credible authority.

    As noted, all scientific explanations imply all systems are a product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes.

    As noted you aren’t in any position to make that claim. Sure that is the starting point but the claim has to be testable. If it isn’t testable it isn’t science. Artifacts are not the product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes. You lose.

  21. Mung: Too bad you can’t move an entire thread to Guano, lol.

    Oh, wait …

    If they moved all of the of-topic comments to guano the thread would be pretty much emptied.

  22. Frankie: Yes, they are. That case has been made ad nauseum. And all you position has to say about them is – “They just are (the way they are)”- Hawking

    Hmmm…let’s see…a well-respected, accredited, academic icon and brilliant physicist’s perspective on the universe and its laws vs a not well-educated, non-scientific, theisitically-biased, Internet arguer’s opinion? Hmmm…which carries more weight and is more credible…?

    Why oh why oh why doesn’t the scientific community go with Joe’s opinion on science…?

    And the accepted model humans have come up with for evolution is evolution via blind and mindless processes- differential accumulations and cullings of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes. And in another thread rumrat said they have to be the “right” mutations.

    Yes…and…?

    That’s science Joe. That you don’t like it isn’t exactly relevant.

    I will simply note, again, that your position’s sheer dumb luck isn’t scientific. And sheer dumb luck is all you have to explain how the solar system came to be the way it is.

    ‘Fraid you’re wrong here Joe. No one (well…no one rational) is proposing that luck, dumb or otherwise, had anything to do with how the solar system came to be the way it is. “Luck” implies fortuitousness or beating some odds; there’s nothing fortunate about our solar system’s existence; what would that even mean? And there’s nothing to imply our solar system beat some odds; there are billions upon billions upon billions of solar systems in the universe, so it’s not like ours can be considered unique.

    What utter nonsense. It is based on the peer-reviewed work of one of the authors and is fully referenced. And your source isn’t a credible authority.

    LOL! No it isn’t. And my source is an accredited and decorated professor of Astronomy at the University of Texas in Austin. But of course, your opinion on what constitutes a “credible source” is a lovely testimony to the validity of your argument; the moment you start whining that acclaimed scientists such as Hawking and Jefferys are not “credible sources”, you’ve lost the argument.

    As noted you aren’t in any position to make that claim. Sure that is the starting point but the claim has to be testable. If it isn’t testable it isn’t science. Artifacts are not the product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes. You lose.

    It’s not a claim Joe; it’s the underlying foundation of science and all of our explanations of how the universe works. We don’t assume electrons are pushed around by “intelligent” entities for some “purpose” in copper wires; we model the movement of electrons based on concepts of unintelligent “conductivity”. There’s no reason to introduce concepts like “purpose”, “intelligence”, “immaterial”, “guidance” in systems that exhibit no evidence of such phenomena.

  23. Frankie: And sheer dumb luck is all you have to explain how the solar system came to be the way it is.

    Whereas you, of course, can simply say “it was designed”.

    If that’s what makes you happy….

  24. Robin,

    Robin: Hmmm…let’s see…a well-respected, accredited, academic icon and brilliant physicist’s perspective on the universe and its laws vs a not well-educated, non-scientific, theisitically-biased, Internet arguer’s opinion?

    What are you talking about? It isn’t my argument and Hawking’s isn’t science. Plenty of scientists have made the case the laws of physics is evidence for ID. “The Privileged Planet” did. Authors in the “Nature of Nature” did. As did authors “Signs of Intelligence”- all scientists.

    Just cuz Hawking sed it it must be true no matter how ridiculous it sounds. Pathetic

    Why oh why oh why doesn’t the scientific community go with Joe’s opinion on science…?

    Now what are you blathering on about?

    And the accepted model humans have come up with for evolution is evolution via blind and mindless processes- differential accumulations and cullings of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes. And in another thread rumrat said they have to be the “right” mutations.

    Yes…and…?

    Umm that was in response to what you said. Try to follow along. The model isn’t parsimonious as it require thousands or millions of just-so mutations.

    That’s science Joe.

    It is untestable nonsense, Robin

    <

    blockquote>No one (well…no one rational) is proposing that luck, dumb or otherwise, had anything to do with the solar system came to be the way it is.

    Without Intelligent Design that is all you have

    there’s nothing fortunate about our solar system’s existence

    The earth is very fortunate. And ten case was made in “The Privileged Planet”

    What utter nonsense. It is based on the peer-reviewed work of one of the authors and is fully referenced. And your source isn’t a credible authority.

    No it isn’t.

    Yes it is. You wouldn’t know as you have never read it.

    And my source is an accredited and decorated professor of Astronomy at the University of Texas in Austin.

    And he was shot down by a scientist- try reading it this time:

    Jeffreys gets spanked

    As noted you aren’t in any position to make that claim. Sure that is the starting point but the claim has to be testable. If it isn’t testable it isn’t science. Artifacts are not the product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes. You lose.

    It’s not a claim Joe

    Yes, it is. Way to ignore what I post and prattle on.

    There’s no reason to introduce concepts like “purpose”, “intelligence”, “immaterial”, “guidance” in systems that exhibit no evidence of such phenomena.

    No shit. However there are plenty of systems that do exhibit evidence of intelligence, guidance and purpose.

    Science requires claims to be testable and you cannot test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced living organisms nor the solar system. You can assume it all you want but it isn’t science unless you can actually test the claim.

  25. Robin: LOL! You’re funny Joe!

    Read the article, Robin. What are you afraid of? Respond to that article, Robin, if you dare.

  26. Robin: LOL! You’re funny Joe!

    I have seen many rants against ID (Intelligent Design), but I cannot recall one as comprehensively bad and unthinking as William H Jefferys’s review of The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, posted on the misleadingly named National Center for Science Education (NCSE). David Heddle

    I dare you to take him on…

  27. Robin: And there’s nothing to imply our solar system beat some odds; there are billions upon billions upon billions of solar systems in the universe, so it’s not like ours can be considered unique.

    Except for the fact that no other discovered solar system is like ours.

  28. REW:
    Were you guys actually threatening to fight each other in a parking lot earlier???

    The story:

    Once upon a time an anonymous troll came to my blog and started spouting off. The anonymous troll didn’t like the way I responded to its spewage and decided to call me out. It asked where I could be found.

    After pondering it I posted an arbitrary address because wtf? Of course all of my detractors instantly went to google maps/ earth to find where that was. Clueless people. But anyway one of them, again these are people who were not even in the discussion, found a parking lot that may fit that relative address. And then the mob had at it- as if they would freely give up their addresses to an anonymous troll.

    But anyway I say it was fate as the parking lot is the proverbial place to have at it. So now when the drooling mob brings it up- ie that I live some 35 miles away and I am a coward for not posting my actual address- I tell them that I am willing to meet them there. Obviously they want to make this personal and I would rather just get it over with rather than continue to waste the bandwidth.

    The moderators seem OK with letting the personal attacks continue so what better way to stop it?

  29. Frankie:
    Robin,

    What are you talking about? It isn’t my argument and Hawking’s isn’t science.

    You’re the one tossing it out here, so it’s your claim for the purposes of this discussion.

    And Hawking’s argument is far more scientific than anything you’ve provided. “The Privileged Planet”? Please!

    Plenty of scientists have made the case the laws of physics is evidence for ID.

    Such is simply question begging, pure and simple.

    “The Privileged Planet” did. Authors in the “Nature of Nature” did. As did authors “Signs of Intelligence”- all scientists.

    …none of it scientific work, simply speculations published in the theistic print.

    Just cuz Hawking sed it it must be true no matter how ridiculous it sounds. Pathetic

    No, but given his credentials and intelligence, he’s a heck of lot more credible than you, or Dembski, or Gonzalez…

    Now what are you blathering on about?

    I’m mocking you, Joe. It’s that simple. Why doesn’t the scientific community take things like ID or privileged planet seriously? Because they are scientifically vacuous and logically fallacious.

    Umm that was in response to what you said. Try to follow along. The model isn’t parsimonious as it require thousands or millions of just-so mutations.

    Once again Joe, the number of mutations are irrelevant to parsimony. You seem not to understand this.

    It is untestable nonsense, Robin

    Sorry Joe, but your uneducated opinion is not relevant to the status of evolution as science. That’s the point Joe.

    Without Intelligent Design that is all you have

    Sorry Joe, but rational people don’t use the word “luck” that way.

    The earth is very fortunate. And ten case was made in “The Privileged Planet”

    Begging the question; “fortunate” compared to what? Oh…riiight…Gonzalez et al have nothing to compare the Earth to. So, the Earth is “fortunate” is simply their biased opinion. ASSF!

    <

    blockquote>What utter nonsense. It is based on the peer-reviewed work of one of the authors and is fully referenced. And your source isn’t a credible authority.

    Yes it is. You wouldn’t know as you have never read it.

    Sigh – as if one has to read an entire work to analyze the references… You’re not thinking your arguments through very well Joe.

    Having checked, it is not based on any peer-reviewed scientific work, Joe. None whatsoever. But do feel free to post a link to the scientific journal this “peer-reviewed work” was published in.

    …yawn…

    And he was shot down by a scientist- try reading it this time:

    Dr. Heddle is not a scientist Joe (and never was really). Do try to do a little due diligence. He was an associate professor of physics, but didn’t do any research. He was also the Chair of mathematics, but again, did no research. Getting a PhD doesn’t make one a scientist.

    But let’s say that we raise Heddle’s credentials to “scientist”…what then? Does that someone make his critique of Jefferys’ valid or authoritative? No. The fact is,, Heddle’s critique is just plain silly and wrong. No where does Heddle actually address Jeffreys point: that the anthropic and selection effect are not properly taken into account. So his rebuttal simply fails.

    Yes, it is. Way to ignore what I post and prattle on.

    Oh good grief Joe…read for context. Things like “unguided”, “purposelessness”, “unintelligent” and “immaterial” are not claims of evolutionary theory; they are the foundations of scientific understanding.

    No shit. However there are plenty of systems that do exhibit evidence of intelligence, guidance and purpose.

    Begging the question…

    But hey…publish your findings and win a Nobel. Funny how no one in your boat seems to want to do that…

    Science requires claims to be testable and you cannot test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced living organisms nor the solar system. You can assume it all you want but it isn’t science unless you can actually test the claim.

    Once again Joe, there’s no such claim. The only thing anyone in science has to test in the model of a given phenomenon. That such models do not include things like “intelligence”, “guidance”, “immaterial substance”, “purpose” or similar is simply a function of the phenomenon we are dealing with and not a claim of the theories in science.

    But again…hey…if you can show that the Rayleigh scattering theory is incomplete without the inclusion of “purposeful scattering” or similar, you will likely win some major recognition for your claim. But when you keep insisting that only evolutionary theory suffers from this incompleteness, but can’t seem to show how “intelligent design” helps the model out, well, the scientific community will continue to see you and your ilk as fringe religious whiners.

  30. Mung: Haha. That one does return a result.

    A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos

    Here we have the Adams fallacy, where the puddle wakes up and is amazed that its container is such an absolutely precise fit. ANY universe is going to have its own precise set of constants, permitting whatever that set allows. Being amazed that our universe is so exactly suitable for what it contains is rather silly.

    Within our universe, solar systems seem to be pretty normal. Ours may be a bit unusual in not being a double star system, but not very. It is kind of too bad that our system is in a sparsely populated neighborhood, since interstellar distances around here are daunting. There is evidence that when our sun was born, it occurred in a busy nursery, since dispersed. We’re a bit late on the scene.

  31. Frankie: I have seen many rants against ID (Intelligent Design), but I cannot recall one as comprehensively bad and unthinking as William H Jefferys’s review of The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, posted on the misleadingly named National Center for Science Education (NCSE). David Heddle

    I dare you to take him on…

    Heddle’s argument (and his position for that matter) as already been “trashed” (by your measures anyway). There’s nothing left for me to “take on”. He is of no consequence at this point.

Leave a Reply