Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Dec 17, 2013 in Creationism, Evolution, featured, Science | 5 comments

A Detailed Process

To all creationists and ID Proponents,

Let me explain something to you.  I know you don’t get this, so I will be very clear.  Every single time you ask the question, “Well how did X appear?” or ‘How did evolution make Y?” you are really doing three things.

First, you are crafting an argument from ignorance.  If any biologist or scientist (or me for that matter) cannot answer your question (for example, how did new body plans appear in the Cambrian), that does not mean that evolution has failed as a theory and that creationism/ID is correct.  ”Don’t know” means “don’t know”. We also don’t know how gravity is created, but I don’t see you demanding that we teach the controversy on that..

Second, you are setting yourself up for a charge of hypocrisy.  If you plan on using this tactic to discredit evolution, then you must be prepared to have the same question asked of your chosen notion on how the diversity of life came about. If you can’t answer to that same level of detail that you require of science, then your own notion is equivalent to the science notion and you must totally reject both of them.  Otherwise, you are just being biased and not really requiring that information.

Three, will your opinion change if a response is given to you?  Ask yourself if a peer-reviewed paper is given to you that answers the question you asked, will you really totally reject your chosen notion? If you don’t, then why are you asking this question?  Or, will you, as has been my experience over the last 3 decades, move the goal post or argue that it really doesn’t explain the point you were making.

You creationists really should read what happened when Michael Behe tried this very tactic in a court. To be blunt, he had his ass handed to him.  My favorite comment of Dr. Behe’s

Well, these books do seem to have the titles that you said, and I’m sure they have the chapters in them that you mentioned as well, but again I am quite skeptical, although I haven’t read them, that in fact they present detailed rigorous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection.

In other words, he hasn’t even read the books, but he is confident that they don’t answer his question.

In my experience, these types of questions are purely designed (see what I did there) to be “gotcha” questions.  Ha ha, you can’t answer this insanely minute bit of detail, therefore your entire evolutionary theory is wrong.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.  You can’t accept that, but it’s true. Let me explain.  Evolution, as a theory and as a fact, is so well established, the ability to answer some minutia or not has exactly zero bearing on the theory. In effect, what you are saying, is that we cannot pin down the exact distance of the closest approach of an asteroid 250 years in the future, then Newton’s Laws of Motion (and gravitation) are wrong.

In conclusion, keep playing your little gotcha games.  You aren’t fooling anyone who wasn’t already on your side.  I’m sure it makes you feel better to use these types of questions.  Scientists, however, will continue to ignore you.  People all over the world in hundreds of industries will continue to use evolutionary theory.  And you will continue to show yourself to be ignorant of modern science.

Have a nice day

_________________________
To all my readers, feel free to use this whenever  creationist plays the “gotcha” game. Just link back here please. It won’t change their mind, but it will significantly reduce the amount of effort required to deal with them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Pieret/100000023960330 John Pieret

    although I haven’t read them, that in fact they present detailed rigorous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection.

    In other words, he hasn’t even read the books, but he is confident that they don’t answer his question.

    Well, in a sense, he has a right to be confident. What he means by “detailed rigorous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection” is a step-by-exact-step of the evolution of the immune system, naming the particular species, or even animal, that each step evolved in. Otherwise (he maintains), God The Designer was free to “poof” that step and, therefore, evolution can’t explain it. It’s a little like saying you can’t explain star formation unless you can trace the exact velocity and vector of each hydrogen atom as it travels into the collapsing gas nebula.

    As the inestimable TomS keeps pointing out, the really dishonest part is that they don’t hold themselves to anything close to the same standard of evidence. They don’t try in the least to explain how, when, where or how the Designer did anything at all, much less in such detail. The reason is obvious … they are just striving, as mightily as they can, to hold some gap in our knowledge open where their God can hide.

  • L Zoltan

    Did you really intended this to creationists and ID proponents? They don’t get it.

    I think they know that scientitsts don’t know how did evolution make Y. But if don’t know how don’t know if it can what makes evolution a fact?

    “If any biologist or scientist (or me for that matter) cannot answer your question (for example, how did new body plans appear in the Cambrian), that does not mean that evolution has failed as a theory and that creationism/ID is correct.”

    Who is claiming that? It certainly would be a powerful argument, but I think any other powerful argument would be accepted. Are there any?

    “We also don’t know how gravity is created, but I don’t see you demanding that we teach the controversy on that..”

    Is there a controversy about that? Does anybody care?

    “Second, you are setting yourself up for a charge of hypocrisy. If you plan on using this tactic to discredit evolution, then you must be prepared to have the same question asked of your chosen notion on how the diversity of life came about. ”

    hmmmmm I don’t think the two are the same thing. You don’t need to know who, how when designed the design to know tell is a design. But if you are claiming that the design it’s not caused by intelligence, but by supposed darwinian, unguided random whatever processes a little more details would be nice to have.

    “Three, will your opinion change if a response is given to you? Ask yourself if a peer-reviewed paper is given to you that answers the question you asked, will you really totally reject your chosen notion? ”

    Does peer reviewed mean that is 100% proof?Can you provide a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates darwinian mechanisms can account for diversity of life? I will do what you ask me to do if you can.

    “In other words, he hasn’t even read the books, but he is confident that they don’t answer his question.”

    Have you read the books? Do they present detailed rigurous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection.? I wonder if the judge has read them.

    “Evolution, as a theory and as a fact, is so well established, the ability to answer some minutia or not has exactly zero bearing on the theory.” Lots of books written claim that but hardly provide reasonable arguments that supposed mechanisms can do the job.

    “You aren’t fooling anyone who wasn’t already on your side.” are you sure? Behe (and other scientists as well) was on the other side until he read a book showing that evidence of darwinian mechanisms power are weak. He than read the literature and surpised to see that the evidence were lacking.

    Evolutionist :
    “”We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”" Franklin M. Harold

    “Scientists, however, will continue to ignore you.”

    You certainly aren’t ingnoring them.
    There are scientists who do ignore them, perhaps because the lack of solid arguments.

    But there are scientists who don’t ignore them because they think they have good arguments and supposed to be the best thay have but when inspected is found to be not much.

    Take irreducible complexity , many claimed it’s not scientific because it’s not falsifyble. But scientists claimed to have falsified it, but actually they failed.

    Meyer’s book it’s about showing that darwinian mechanisms cannot account for the information and the complexity of life. Most of it’s reviewers (ignorers) avoided the challenge and it’s obvious why. I would have expected them shout we’ve got this we’ve got that, can do this ….

    The only one who attempted to address the chalenge was Ch Marshall. Of course Meyer has shown in articles and in personal debate with him that his arguments don’t stand.

    • SmilodonsRetreat

      This is a classic “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. If scientists don’t debate creationists, then they obviously have something to hide. If they do, then there is obviously a controversy.

      Really, this isn’t for creationists, it’s for scientists to use when creationists pull this crap. There is no evidence for any form of creationism and that’s all there is to it.

  • L Zoltan

    Funny thing about ignoring IDIOTS:

    This is a classic politically motivated tactic of Darwin defenders. You write a scientific paper attempting to respond to specific ID arguments, but then refuse to cite ID literature for fear of validating that there are legitimate scientific controversies at stake. But if there’s “no controversy” over Darwinism, why is there a need to refute the arguments of critics in a prestigious journal like PNAS? Paul Nelson calls this “debating the controversy that doesn’t exist.” – See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/peer-reviewed_s_1067421.html#sthash.5dOL8Mhv.dpuf

    • Christine Janis

      “You write a scientific paper attempting to respond to specific ID
      arguments, but then refuse to cite ID literature for fear of validating
      that there are legitimate scientific controversies at stake.”

      Probably because the authors of this paper in PNAS are totally unaware of the grey literature of ID home journal publications. This is like the accusation about Mike Lee and colleagues publishing about the Cambrian radiations and ignoring Stephen Meyer’s contributions; when in fact if you look at the details of Lee et al’s paper in Current Biology you can see that it was submitted before the publication of Darwin’s Doubt.

      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/does_lightning-078321.html

      The ID/DI has an inflated sense of self-importance. Virtually nobody in real science has any clue about what they are burbling about to themselves and their devotees.