Pharyngula::You call it what?

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Saturday, September 24, 2005

You call it what?

PZ Myers • 22 Comments

Man, this is so damning: it's a transcript that describes the history of revisions of the book "Of Pandas and People". See if you can tell the difference.

First, an early edition:

Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

Next, the revised and final version:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

I guess "intelligent design" and "creation" are just interchangeable terms for exactly the same thing. It's good to see that settled.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2992/c3CxmBOc/

Comments:

#41528: — 09/24 at 12:11 PM
ID explained.

#41530: — 09/24 at 01:14 PM
Rather telling also that they expunged the word "theory". Couldn't be going around pointing out that evolution is "just a theory" and then describe your own dogma such could they... The second version is much more "definitive"...

#41533: Arun — 09/24 at 02:28 PM
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

But this is falsifiable! (At least, I think it is, e.g,, a feathered dinosaur falsifies this version of Intelligent Design.) The common Behe-Dembski theme is that as long as there is something with a less than complete explanation from evolution, the door to intelligent design remains open, is it not? The reason for not trying to say anything about the Designer also, is in part, because that opens the door to falsification.

#41540: Zeno — 09/24 at 03:54 PM
No doubt Elsberry will be accused of "quote mining", because now the authors of P&P disavow their words. But creationists like to quote out of context, whereas the quote concerning ID is from the book's actual definition. Too bad the talking points from the Design Institute didn't arrive in time!

#41545: — 09/24 at 07:24 PM
Fins, feathers, and fur? What about flagella, blood clots, and... a third thing? I bet even some avowed IDers might be surprised to see their "theory" credited with such macro structures.

#41547: — 09/24 at 08:30 PM
I think that might be my favorite creationist quote ever. I wish I had total TV coverage of the Dover trial. It's going to be awesome.

#41550: — 09/24 at 09:31 PM
Well crap! Arun beat me to my comment! Oh, well, might as well post anyway.

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

Here I've been saying that ID is no theory at all. It's simply argument from (pigheaded) ignorance, and has no predictive value.

Now they've gone and showed me how it's falsifiable.

Even better, given the definition above and the abundance of transitional fossils (remember the "pigheaded" ignorance?), it's not just falsifiable.

IT'S FALSE!

#41552: — 09/25 at 01:28 AM
Yes, that old draft really was a superb transitional fossil to find on a legal search, documenting the evolution of creationism into intelligent design.

#41553: Alon Levy — 09/25 at 01:53 AM
Fins, feathers, and fur? What about flagella, blood clots, and... a third thing? I bet even some avowed IDers might be surprised to see their "theory" credited with such macro structures.

Creationists still claim the eye is irreducibly complex, even though Darwinian evolution predicted exactly how it could have evolved.

Trackback: God And Man In Pennsylvania Tracked on: The Education Wonks (72.9.234.70) at 2005 09 24 21:53:35
If we set aside, for the time being, possible issues of constitutionality, why on earth is intelligent design being taught in the science classrooms? Traditionally, our public schools' science curriculum has emphasized teaching pupils the use of ...

#41556: — 09/25 at 05:12 AM
The witless, er, witness needs more practice in equivocation. He sure stammered around alot.

#41560: — 09/25 at 07:18 AM
Question: Is there a place online that has a list of the the ID clainms, along with refutations? I'm looking for comprehensiveness, ease of naviagtion, accessibilty, etc. An encyclopeadic repository of responses to all the ID claims. I checked online, follwed this site's blogroll, but have not found this fabled place. Does it exist? If not why not?

#41561: — 09/25 at 07:32 AM
Lila, have you tried the TalkDesign site yet? It also links to TalkOrigins and TalkReason (ID arguments being essentially the same old creationist left-overs warmed up and served to the next generation). You might also want to check out The Wedge document and Lenny Flank's collection of past creationist encounters.

#41562: — 09/25 at 07:41 AM
Thanks SEF. I'll check it out.

Wonder why Pharyngula's blogroll does not link to TalkDesign? Odd...

#41563: — 09/25 at 07:43 AM
Speaking of talkorigins.org (also an excellent place to browse for refutations of ID arguments) one of the documents at that site is the Index to Creationist Claims at

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

It has a list of common Creationist (including ID) claims along with brief refuations and links and references for more in-depth information.

#41564: PZ Myers — 09/25 at 08:04 AM
The reason it's not there is structural. My blogroll is automated -- it's rendered from the OPML file in my newsreader, so it's entirely rss based. TalkDesign doesn't provide an rss/xml/rdf link, so it doesn't appear here.

If you wanna be on my blogroll, you gotta play the elitist technical game. All the weblog software out there -- blogger, moveabletype, expression engine, etc. -- all automatically generate a syndication file, but some of the more highly customized web pages do not.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#41565: — 09/25 at 08:59 AM
Gotcha.

Still... If I had a hard time finding talkorigins.org list of refutations on my own, just by searching Google, I can imagine that may others have the same problem. I'm surprised that an easily accessible, comprehensive list in layman language is not more prominent on the web. I'm worried we're not doing a great job promoting of the scientific view to regular people (Pharyngula is great, but too esoteric for most folks).

#41577: jay denari — 09/25 at 12:56 PM
Thought you'd love this letter from the 9/24 Telegram & Gazette in Worcester, MA. He's obviously been smoking something b/c none of this makes any sense. ...

The tables have turned on evolution

by ROBERT S. MUTO, West Brookfield

The tables have been turned on evolution. Its two strongest arguments against creation: 1) no science and 2) faith-based are now being used against itself. Every fossil ever collected shows evidence for instantaneous appearance (not billions of years of development). Transitional species fossils (e.g., reptobirds, fishfrogs) have never been found. Science now considers the seven members of the ape-man progression (Ramapithecus to Neanderthal) to be either entirely ape or entirely human.

Piltdown was exposed as a hoax long ago. And besides, every real scientist knows that matter does not come from non-matter. It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. And that’s the issue, for if God did create, then the penalty for sin is real and every person is accountable to a holy creator.

The Bible details six, 24-hour days of creation, no death prior to sin and a savior, Jesus Christ, who conquers sin. To be saved from sin requires faith in the savior, a faith which acknowledges his death as the only means of life. Evolution is not science but a faith which attempts to conceal its accountability.

#41582: jay denari — 09/25 at 01:39 PM
PS: Here's my response. Let's see when/if it gets published...

The letter from Robert Muto on Sept. 24 shows woeful ignorance of the nuances science has to deal with, but I only have space to address some of it.

His statement about "the ape-man progression" is completely untrue; no respectable scientists say those species are either human OR ape. Those species are ANCESTORS of today's humans and/or apes, having some traits that have been passed down to both humans and apes.

"(E)very real scientist knows that matter does not come from non-matter." That's true. Scientists have never said that it did. Evolution theorizes that some simple forms of matter gradually become more complex over eons, small changes happening occasionally while other forms stayed simple.

If you believe matter doesn't come from non-matter, how can you promote a concept of special creation? How is that anything but matter from non-matter?

"Every fossil ever collected shows evidence for instantaneous appearance…" Mr. Muto, that could be said about ANY object of any kind anywhere if you take it out of context. The whole point of evolutionary science is to take those isolated fossils and GIVE them a context, to show how they're probably connected to each other based on the fossils themselves.

The process enables people to ask intelligent questions and find reasonable answers -- and correct those answers if later finds suggest better answers. Those are things an assumption of special creation makes impossible; the concept of creation as you envision it eliminates the possibility of any rational exploration of life at all.

I for one would much rather find my own answers and trust those who look for answers than have them spoon-fed to me by those who would suppress curiosity.

#41583: — 09/25 at 01:42 PM
Lila asked for a site with an easily accessible comprehensive list of resources refuting the various ID Creationist claims. Try Infidels: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=92385

RBH

#41634: coturnix — 09/26 at 06:44 AM
Annalee has been touched by his noodly appendage:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/25793/

#41648: just john — 09/26 at 08:04 AM
I had what I thought was a brilliant notion last night, and formulated it into a question I've posted in talk.origins and the HuffPo and a couple other newsgroups. So far, there's been no response. (To be fair, it was just a few hours ago.)

So, ID fans, what did you believe beforehand?

Here's a question for you proponents of Intelligent Design: Since ID claims to be a NEW movement -- only a couple years old -- how about telling us what made you convert to it, and what you believed beforehand?

This is a legit question to ask, and I'm sure you guys are just bursting with inspirational stories about how you saw the light, right?

(My apologies for plugging it here, too. But I really wanna know! After all, ID fans aren't afraid of questions, are they?)

#41722: — 09/26 at 04:26 PM
"Pharyngula is great, but too esoteric for most folks"

Perhaps the discussions are, but the cussing is down-to-earth.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: Juan Cole on EvolveTV

Previous entry: Preaching to the converted

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Saturday, September 24, 2005

You call it what?

Info