Aliens demand answers

Cameron at overwhelming evidence blogged on 3rd Oct, 2006

Design Inference

You are alone in your house when suddenly you are surrounded by creatures who announce that they are from another planet. You aren't sure that you are awake--this could be a dream, but it feels very real.

Next you are aboard a spaceship, flying through the solar system. The aliens tell you that they have checked in on earth life periodically since it first started. They tell you that one day they abducted a lifeform from earth and changed it. They then returned it to earth.

Your alien captors give you a chance to guess what it was they changed. If you guess wrong, you will be killed. If you guess correctly, you will be returned to earth.

They give you two options. They say that one was designed by them, the other resulted from the Darwinian mechanism:

a) they changed a bacteria by adding a flagellum

b) they changed a beak on a finch on a Gallapagos island, which Darwin later attributed to natural selection.

Which do you choose? Which do you think was more likely to have been designed, and which is more likely to have resulted from the Darwinian mechanism?

If one thing is more likely to have been designed than another thing, that is a design inference.

The point of this post, as Cameron later describes is "that even the anti-ID crowd will have to admit that some things are more likely to be designed than others. But that is a concession that it is possible to infer design. How would they answer the question, "why is thing A more likely to be designed than thing B?" I'm not sure why he wants to make this point. Of course design can be inferred. Archaeologists do it all the time. The real thrust in his post is not really what he is arguing as much as the "wedge" he is trying to insert into peoples minds. While not saying outright that the choice between the flagellum and the beak is a real one, that is nonetheless the impression one easily comes out with. The alien scenario is, of course, just a hypothetical example he has provided and it is extremely easy to turn it into a pro-evolution one. Just change the options given above into

a) they created the mammalian blood-clotting system
b) they created centaurs (they even show you a living example on their ship)

Which do you choose?

Atheism - the road to destruction?

William Dembski over at uncommondescent.com blogged on Oct 29th, 2006

In evolutionary terms, is religion so bad?
by William Dembski on October 27th, 2006 · 29 Comments

In this piece, Dembski asks: "On strict evolutionary grounds, isn’t religion an adaptation that offers humans survival and reproductive advantages?" I think that might be true. I can see how, for example, the bonds created when people share the same religion could offer advantages (I can, like Dawkins, also see the opposite where religion might be a destructive force [although i wouldn't express myself as strongly as Dawkins does]). But then Dembski goes on with a lengthy quote from a Chuck Colson who claims that Russias on-going crisis (including an AIDS epidemic, alcohol and drug abuse, high abortion rates, suicide, environmental degradation and loss of hope in the future) is mainly due to ... atheism. "Seventy-four years of official atheism robbed the Russian people of this source of hope. This, more than a ruined economy and environmental degradation, is what has put Russia on the road to extinction.", Colson claims. Is this true?

The Great Depression of the 1930's saw a sharp rise in both homicide and suicide, environmental degradation (the so called dust bowl years) and a loss of hope (largely regained from Roosevelt's New Deal). All this happened without a concurrent drop in faith. The onus of proof for mainly blaming atheism as the biggest source of “bad things” in Russia would thus seem to fall on Colbert (or Dembski, as he seemingly supports Colbert's conclusions). Unfortunately (and predictably?), none is provided, which only leaves us to consider the some unfounded ramblings - and why should any serious consideration be given to that?

Sheer-dumb-luck

Joseph over at uncommondescent.com commented on Oct 28, 2006

Intelligent design requires evidence: Ah, but what can be considered evidence?
by O'Leary on October 28th, 2006 - revisited!

In comment #16 in this thread, Joseph remarked:

And I truly think that once people realize the materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck, they will see that the data is best explained by ID. Sheer-dumb-luck is a science stopper whereas ID offers many investigative possibilities.

Joseph, just like O'Leary seems to be fond of strawmen. Given that the materialistic alternative to ID is NOT sheer-dumb-luck Joseph has told an obvious falsehood. But does ID offer many investigative possibilities? Oh, Yes!! In fact, an infinite amount of them. And there is no way to say, after an investigation, which is the best explanation, given that ID's central tenet is that living things are best explained by an intelligent designer whose nature is not specified. Any investigation will support at least some form of designer in some sort of way.

Never question Darwinism?

O'Leary over at uncommondescent.com blogged on Oct 28th, 2006

Intelligent design requires evidence: Ah, but what can be considered evidence?
by O'Leary on October 28th, 2006 · 32 Comments

(Bullet points have been added to make referring to individual points below easier - Hawks)

...

...

1. If materialism is assumed to be true and Darwinism is the creation story of materialism, then Darwinism is the best available explanation for the history of life.

2. So Darwinism is treated as true.

3. I am NOT saying that that follows logically.

4. Materialism could be true but its orthodox creation story could be untrue at the same time. Some other materialist story could better account for the evidence, for example.

5. However, most people do not think that way. (I am describing a course of mental events here, not a logical argument.)

6. Because Darwinism is treated as true, questioning it is irrational or malign.

7. If you are a scientist, it is no defence to say that you have uncovered evidence against Darwinism. That makes you a heretic.

8. Don’t try claiming that you do science better without Darwinism. If you don’t believe it, you shouldn’t be doing science at all, right?

9. The purpose of science is to uncover the evidence for materialism, and you may as well deny Genesis in a God-fearing chapel as deny Darwinism at the Smithsonian.

...

...

One has to wonder what went on in O'Leary mind as she wrote her comments above. She builds and attacks this strawman where Darwinism is the only possible acceptable materialistic theory for the diversity of life we have today. O'Leary, it is neither irrational nor malign to question ANY scientific theory. It's simply good science. The only people who think otherwise are people uneducated in science + the some creationists (O'Leary being one of them). The only good thing she says is in #3 and #5 where she claims that the supposed materialistic arguments are not logical - they're not. Neither is O'Leary argument and the only illogical mental events she exposes are those of her own. Heck, she even makes a strawman out of ID by claiming later in her post: "It will be useless for making any general point against the materialist paradigm. ID-friendly evidence will merely be shelved as a problem to be solved or reinterpreted along materialist lines, no matter how flimsy.". O'Leary, ID makes it very clear that it does not say anything about the nature of the designer, so by claiming that since science only deals with materialism, ID-friendly evidence will automatically be rejected is simply bogus.

Nobel laureate rejects Darwinism

scordova over at uncommondescent.com blogged on Oct 24th, 2006

[anecdote 2004] Nobel Laureate given standing ovation after slamming Darwinism during a graduation ceremony

by scordova on October 24th, 2006 · 23 Comments

In preparing a letter to the editor of UVa magazine, I was researching the case of 1996 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Richard Smalley. I was astonished to discover that he delivered an anti-Darwinian speech during a graduation ceremony and apparently received a standing ovation. I also thought it an appropriate time to remember this extraordinary scientist.

Here is the account of Smalley’s speech:
Tuskegee University 2004

Smalley mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creationism, Darwin versus the Bible’s “Genesis.” The burden of proof, he said, is on those who don’t believe that “‘Genesis’ was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.

Smalley also commented here:

Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that [biological] evolution could not have occurred.”

–Richard Smalley, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate-Chemistry, 1996

...

...

Just like Smalley, scordova himself has rejected Darwinism and the intent of this message most likely goes along the lines of: "If a prominent scientist (a Nobel laureate with a background in chemistry and physics) has rejected Darwinism, why shouldn't other scientists and non-scientists do the same?" This is a very popular sort of argument and it is, of course, fallacious. It is nothing but an appeal to authority. To see this, just look at the "The burden of proof, he said, is on those who don’t believe that “‘Genesis’ was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved. " quote from above. Now, I can interpret this statement in two ways: 1) Smalley claims that science has to prove biblical creation wrong (which is impossible given that his God is supposedly omnipotent). 2) Science has to prove evolution (which is true, in a sense) and that if that fails, biblical creation is the default alternative (which is wrong). Whichever way you look at it, Smalley's reason for preferring biblical creation over evolution is not a scientific one (it might, of course, be true that Smalley had other reasons for choosing biblical creation, but none was presented by scordova). And if Smalley's reasons for choosing biblical creation are not scientific, then it matters not one iota what his scientific credentials were.

Sidenote: scordova also implies that Smalley got his standing ovation because his speech was anti-Darwinian, something I can see no evidence of. Smalley certainly seems to have mentioned God more than once, but he also seems to have been talking about a lot of other things.