1. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #172624 by raghu_mani on April 29, 2008 at 7:44 pm

1754. Comment #172568 by TheTruthID

I would like to be forgiven for my conduct., but this is out of my control.

I think most people have overlooked what you said earlier and are trying to answer your questions to the best of their abilities. As for the couple of people who still seem to bear a grudge, I hope you will acknowledge that they are the exception rather than the rule on this board.

Finally, in my apology letter, I did not use the word problems. I stated that I had indirect frustrations in regards to the Evolution-ID debate, which are more philosophical in nature.

I guess people on this message board can answer your scientific questions but I'd submit that this isn't exactly the best place for philisophical issues (unless you are talking philosophy of science). If you wish to find a Christian view of the evolution-ID debate (from a pro-evolution perspective) you can check out books by Ken Miller, Simon Conway-Morris and Francis Collins. There is also a very interesting set of talks about the whole issue online - the videos at the following links feature Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller and Michael Behe (who is pro-ID).

http://www.hallcenter.ku.edu/video/commons.shtml

They are all quite enjoyable - whether you agree with them or not and offer various interesting perspectives on these issues.

- RM

2. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171840 by raghu_mani on April 28, 2008 at 11:08 pm

1638. Comment #171789 by TheTruthID

Earlier, I believe you stated that there is only one definition of Evolution and the Creationists were the ones who came up with Microevolution and Macroevolution. Why is it that in all the books, papers, video, Etc. I've read or viewed, in regards to Evolution, mention and define these two separate evolutionary terms?

It isn't that the terms don't exist. Frankly I haven't got the slightest clue as to who came up with them. It's just that there is an artificial distinction made between them by creationists. For evolutionists, it is just a question of degree (macro-evolution is exactly the same as micro-evolution - except that it has been going for much much longer). For creationists macro-evolution is some basically impossible process and distinct from micro evolution which can be seen on a day to day basis.

So you end up with one group of scientists who use the term micro and macro just to differentiate based on time scale and another bunch of scientists who don't like the terms because of the artificial distinction imposed on them by creationists.

We see micro-evolution going on all the time. We even see what some people regard as macro-evolution (like the formation of new species). However, if you wish to see dramatic changes, the timescales involved are too huge to study in a lab. For that we go to more indirect means ... which brings me to an earlier comment of yours.

Colors change, sizes change, but to add an appendage?

Adding an appendage may not be as unlikely a development as you think. It might seem to you as if an entirely new set of genes is needed for each extra appendage but that isn't exactly the case. There is a huge amount of re-use in the genomes of various species. The same gene can be used over and over again in multiple different contexts. I'm no biologist (unlike some on this board) but I do take a keen interest in the subject. I am currently reading a book called "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll. As luck would have it the place where I'm at right now is talking of limb development.

Just to give you an example out of the book. One gene - distal-less - is expressed in limb formation in all sorts of animals from arthropods to vertebrates. That same gene is also expressed in the 'book lungs' and spinnerets of spiders and in the 'eye spots' on the wings of butterflies. So, when you are generating a new appendage, you are not exactly building it up from scratch. You are using a lot of what you've already got.

- RM

3. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171698 by raghu_mani on April 28, 2008 at 5:31 pm

1626. Comment #171648 by TheTruthID

This is where I have trouble with the 12 Dice explanation. I know this is layman's language. I hope you get the essence of my thoughts.

I don't have time to go into details but here's the thing. Don't take the 12 dice video literally. It is merely an illustration of how powerful the combination of random variation plus non-random selection can be. Genes work quite differently. The whole point is to illustrate how powerful the general concept is.

Here is another example that illustrates the power of this concept. Antennas designed using evolutionary methods that actually work better than human designed ones.

http://www.aoas.org/article.php?story=2005011409024914

- RM

4. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171149 by raghu_mani on April 28, 2008 at 10:37 am

1410. Comment #170485 by TheTruthID

Evolutionary Theorists (please correct if I'm wrong with the title) claim that ID proponents strategy is to merely attempt to poke holes and show weaknesses in Evolution. This is absolutely true. We have nothing else. Many times things become accepted, through the process of elimination.

Two responses to this.

1. How do you know you have eliminated everything else? Remember, for the vast majority of our existence here on earth (as a species) we knew very little of how things worked. We didn't have a clue as to what caused lightning, how the planets moved etc etc. Would it have been correct to say that these things required God's personal intervention to happen? There is a name for such reasoning - it's called "the God of the gaps" and it is fundamentally illogical. It isn't just me, the atheist, saying this. Ask any theologian and they'll tell you the same thing.

2. There is plenty of possible evidence which, if found, would disprove evolution. No one - creationist or otherwise - has found any yet. The best they've been able to do is to point out things that evolution cannot yet explain. That isn't something that is unique to evolution. All science has gaps/holes and the prospect of plugging these holes is what motivates people to take up research in science as a career.

One word regarding your treatment here. You've been rude and some people here have been rude to you but at least we've been talking. You weren't banned and all your earlier posts are there for everyone to see. Try the following experiment - go to a pro-ID board like uncommondescent.org and post pro-evolution messages there. Try telling them, in a sober, polite fashion, that they are wrong. I can assure you that within 24 hours at the most, you will be banned and your posts deleted. Then you will get an idea as to who is trying to expel whom.

After seeing the movie "Expelled", I realize any discussion between the two parties is futile.

I wouldn't go as far as that. One thing that you don't get from Expelled is that there are plenty of religious scientists who believe in evolution. Check out books by Ken Miller, Simon Conway-Morris and Francis Collins. All of them are prominent scientists who accept both evolution as well as the Christian faith. An honest documentary would have interviewed these people and found out how they reconciled evolution and their faith. Each of them has written a book about this - check them out on amazon.

- RM

5. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168752 by raghu_mani on April 25, 2008 at 10:32 am

Comment #168628 by seeker_of_truth

Would you then limit this scrutiny/opposite consequence search to those who hold and support the same theory alone?

No one is limiting scrutiny. Let the ID people look at the evidence. Let them propose a scientific theory and get it past peer review. Then let them ask that ID be taught in schools and they'll have a case. These people have no intention of doing any research - they just want a shortcut into schools. That is what I am objecting to.

So ID concedes change but with defined limits.

Here is a good avenue for research. Try and precisely define these limits and come up with evidence that these definitions hold up. Publish this stuff in peer-reviewed journals. Then go to school boards. Remember there are areas of science with far more published papers than ID which are still considered to be too immature to be taught in schools. Why does ID get an exception to this rule?

- RM

6. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168558 by raghu_mani on April 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

1222. Comment #168422 by seeker_of_truth


All four of my children were presented both evolutionary theory and ID theory as part of their overall science curriculum. Three of them score average to slightly above average in science but my 16 yr. old daughter has garnered the attention of the science department at her high-school. They tell me she is gifted beyond any student they have had in many years.

Antidotal, yes, but personally I know better than to ignore the dozens of factors pointing to low science scores and zero in on one just because it fits my personal bias. I'm not saying my kids score better as a result of being taught ID, but it did not seem to put them at a disadvantage.

Let me try and spell this out for you. Science has certain ground rules. People on this board have gone over them in some detail multiple times over. All that ID consists of is trying to poke holes in evolution and assuming that if they can successfully do that, ID becomes true. Sorry but science does not work that way. A theory has to be naturalistic, have predictive power and should be falsifiable - ID satisfies none of these requirements (BTW, none of the 'predictions' you listed count as predictions in the scientific sense of the word).

So you spend half the time teaching evolution and the other half trying to poke holes in it - and most of these 'holes' are either the sort of gaps that can be found in any science or outright lies. How is the average student going to benefit from that? As it is, there is precious little time being spent on biology in school. Of this time only a small fraction is spent on evolution. You propose halving this fraction and spending the remaining half on non-science. This not only dilutes the curriculum but confuses stiudents on what science is and how it works. Exceptionally bright students will get through but the average student's science education will be damaged.

I have a challenge for you - please name me one book on the science of ID that does not mention evolution or mentions it only in passing. I doubt if you will be able to find one - because if they don't take up space mentioning the 'shortcomings' of evolution, ID is reduced to three words - 'God did it'.

- RM

7. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168062 by raghu_mani on April 24, 2008 at 1:44 pm

1136. Comment #167984 by TheTruthID

Exactly. The proven scientific evidence of the complexity of life leaves without a doubt that there had to be a designer.

No it does not. There is no scientific way you can reach that conclusion. There is plenty of evidence that the theory of evolution has the power to produce all the complexity we see in the world today. No single piece is definitive but taken together they are.

Regarding a ultimate God-type designer, science is neutral to something like this since it is not a proposition that science can test or falsify in any way. Even if it were proved beyond all doubt that evolution could produce every bit of complexity in the world, you could still maintain that evolution was the method that God chose to use - which, by the way, is what a lot of religious scientists do. They have no problem accepting evolution as well as a God who was behind it all.

I personally cannot believe in a God because positing a God immediately begs the question of who created that God. At this point religious people resort to answers that amount to little more than sophistry to me. I have no problem in remaining ignorant about this question but am not going to accept an answer arrived at through dubious logic.

- RM

8. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167977 by raghu_mani on April 24, 2008 at 1:04 pm

1089. Comment #167902 by TheTruthID

Got any proof for Macro-evolution? Please don't send me to another useless website with every other word validating the lousy irresponsible methods you call science. "May be", "Though to be", "Might", "If", "What if".

Still hoping you are not a troll but that hope is fading - but will try to be civil.

Let me give you an analogy - let's say you are the prosecuting attorney in a criminal trial. Any single piece of evidence that you have isn't going to do the job. The fact that the accused had a motive, suggests that he 'might' have committed the crime, the fact that he was seen near the crime scene suggests that he 'might' have committed the crime, the fact that his fingerprints are on the weapon suggests that he 'might' have committed the crime. Each of the above facts, when taken by themselves, leaves room for doubt but taken together constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is essentially how all of science works. It isn't just evolution. Every scientific theory in the world was proved this way.

- RM

9. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167874 by raghu_mani on April 24, 2008 at 11:51 am

Comment #167842 by seeker_of_truth

So ID predicts to find a continual loss of genetic information within the [approximate] same speciation tree that naturalists predict will show an increase of information and one is a prediction and the other is not?

No - it does not predict anything of the sort. What if it turns out that genetic information can (please note the word 'can') increase during evolution would that falsify ID? I don't see why it would. If it turns out that genetic information cannot increase during evolution then it would falsify evolution. That is the key difference between one prediction and the other.

- RM

10. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167843 by raghu_mani on April 24, 2008 at 11:23 am

Comment #167827 by TheTruthID

In regards to your agriculture analogy, does not intelligence come into play?

Not necessarily. Take a look at the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leafcutter_ant

- RM

11. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167784 by raghu_mani on April 24, 2008 at 10:29 am

Comment #167763 by seeker_of_truth

I believe the debate on this is whether a given species in question is gaining or losing genetic information as it evolves. Micro vs. Macro evolution if you will. Now that genome testing is possible on fossil material, it may be possible to resolve this once and for all. However, in the meantime [20 plus years?], I see no reason why it can not be debated in places where some believe it should not be allowed.

I am not sure what this has to do with any of the ID 'predictions' that you listed - which is what I was responding to in my last post. My point was to show that each and every single one of the 'predictions' that you listed are not predictions in the scientific sense of the word. They are little more than theological attempts to guess God's intentions and as such, they shouldn't be taught in science class. I have no problem with their being taught as a specific religious belief - but that is not what the ID people want.

Whether or not a species can gain genetic information as it evolves is a completely different issue. Evolution would predict that it does. If it turns out not to be the case the theory of evolution as it stands today, is in serious trouble.

That said, you've yet to show me any real scientific prediction made by ID. The question is - would falsifying the prediction falsify the theory? If it doesn't pass that test, it is not a prediction in the scientific sense.

- RM

12. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167728 by raghu_mani on April 24, 2008 at 9:37 am

998. Comment #167617 by seeker_of_truth

I believe the short list for the predictive aspects of ID are;

1) That it will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. Design is tested by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core."

The problem is that 'specified complexity' is such a nebulous term and there seems to be no way of accurately defining irreducible complexity. In fact, 'irreducible complexity' seems to be code for 'we have no clue how it could have evolved.' Every supposed irreducibly complex structure has been found to be reducible - from the bacterial flagellum to the blood clotting cascade. Now, the moment functional subsets of these have been found, the ID types move the goalposts and say that these smaller components are now irreducibly complex.

Sub list also includes;
2) Rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record.

I am afraid you have no understanding of what 'prediction' means in science. If theory A makes prediction P and P turns out to be false, then it should imply that theory A is false. Prediction and falsifiability are two sides of the same coin. Let us apply that standard to your prediction - what if there was a slow appearance of complexity in the fossil record - why would that disprove a designer? The designer could have just as easily chosen to go slow.

3) Re-usage of similar parts in different organisms.

Once again you misunderstand what prediction means. What if parts were not re-used? Does that mean no designer? Re-use of similar parts is a prediction made by evolution and if we don't see such re-use, evolution has been dealt a pretty severe blow. If there is a designer at work either scenario is equally possible - you can build on what you've got or you can wipe the slate clean and start from scratch.

4) Function for biological structures.

Actually there are a lot of biological structures that seem to have no function at all or function a lot less well than they could. Of course I cannot definitely say that a particular structure has no function - you could always argue that we'll find the function in future. However what if at some point in time, we established that a certain biological structure had no function at all. Why would that disprove a designer? The designer could have chosen to throw a bunch of superfluous bits in.

At the end of the day all your 'predictions' seem to be little more than attempts to guess God's intentions. That kind of stuff belongs in religion, not science - and even in religion wouldn't presuming you can read God's mind be considered sacrilegious?

- RM

13. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167280 by raghu_mani on April 23, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Comment #167235 by Diacanu

Funny that, huh?

Imagine us, not wanting moronic theocrats smearing feces all over science, and regressing us into the dark ages.

It isn't just us. It works the same way for ID message boards as well - a lot worse actually. All someone with pro-evolution views has to do is merely show up and you get first flamed, then banned. At least all we do is curse a bit :-).

- RM

14. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167232 by raghu_mani on April 23, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Comment #167224 by TheTruthID

How do you guys feel about Dawkins pretty much admitting to a creator in the movie, Expelled? Wasn't it great? Or do you think he got caught off guard, flustered and had a brain fart?

A lot can be accomplished with Michael Moore-style editing. Cut out the context and you can make it appear as if the person is supporting something when he actually isn't. Your Crick quotes are an example of that. Richard's interview in Expelled is another. Richard has explained what he was trying to achieve in the following article

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2480,Gods-and-earthlings,Richard-Dawkins

Read it.

- RM

15. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167228 by raghu_mani on April 23, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Comment #167219 by TheTruthID

I still don't understand. If you are so confident of your evolution THEORY, why allow me to rile you up so much. Think about it. It might be that I'm getting through to some of you and it frightens you.

Go troll on any message board on any subject on the internet and you'll find people getting riled up at you. Don't flatter yourself and think you've made some wonderful arguments. It has all been said before and answered in excruciating detail on the talk.origins archive. Spend some time reading it.

People on this message board are currently undecided as to whether you are a troll or someone genuinely misguided asking sincere questions. Hence the mixed response.

- RM

16. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167214 by raghu_mani on April 23, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Comment #167203 by TheTruthID

If all of you equate that the proof of micro-evolution is proof of all evolution then you are all more uneducated and misinformed then I gave you credit for. Wow!

Macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution going on for much longer. What you call micro-evolution can be seen in the lab. To get evidence for evolution on larger time scales, we have to use more indirect means but it is there. Somebody has already posted this link but I'll do it again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It isn't easy going. As they say - this is rocket science. The talk origins FAQ does make this quite understandable if you put a little effort in. Pretty much every argument against evolution has been answered in detail. However, if you are not going to try and inform yourself and then call other people uneducated then you are being a hypocrite.

- RM

17. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167195 by raghu_mani on April 23, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Comment #167169 by TheTruthID

So you are a doctor. That makes you right? I should believe you vs. the more highly respected honored scientists whom have come to a different conclusion? I don't think so.

Except that your quotes are mostly out of context and the 'respected honored scientists' had no problems with evolution. I've already shown (post #774) that your Crick quote means something other than you think it does. Crick was by no means sympathetic to anything like ID and had no problems accepting evolution. If you wish to do some research on your quotes please go to

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

Chances are that you'll find many of your quotes in there along with proper context - which essentially show that most of your respected scientists had no issues with evolution at all. The one guy who probably did really have issues with evolution is Smalley - but he was an evangelical Christian and he had religious issues with evolution not scientific ones and I am not aware of any scientific objections that he made to it.

Remember, saying 'I don't believe' is not enough. You have to show evidence. Einstein didn't believe in Quantum theory. That didn't cause physicists to abandon it. None of Einstein's objections stood up and Quantum theory is still accepted. Remember, proof or disproof by noted authority is not accepted in science. Regardless of how noted you are, you have to present evidence. No one has yet shown any evidence that contradicts evolution and there is a mountain of evidence for evolution. We can't be going through every little detail on this discussion forum. A lot of the details are available online and we can point you to it. Unfortunately all of this is complicated stuff and you're going to have to do a little bit of work to follow the arguments and evidence. Do it with an open mind and you'll see it.

- RM

18. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167113 by raghu_mani on April 23, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Comment #167107 by TheTruthID

So yes, an opinion of a Nobel Prize winning scientist whom has formed his conclusion of ID through his or her years of experience is a validation of my opinion.

Except that it wasn't Crick's opinion. Please look at my post #774 to see the actual context of the Crick quote you are bandying about.

Crick was a militant atheist and he was always making crazy speculations. One of his speculations was 'Directed Panspermia' - and your quote is from his book about that speculation. He admits in that book that what he is writing about is little more than speculation not any hard scientific conclusion that he has reached. It is by no means an endorsement of ID.

Perhaps it would be useful for you to read whole books instead of spewing out of context quotations.

- RM

19. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167106 by raghu_mani on April 23, 2008 at 4:10 pm

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. "

This is actually the context of TheTruthID's quote mine. A simple rhetorical device and the ID types take the first part and ignore the second. He isn't suggesting some kind of miracle and accepts that there are good reasons to assume that life could have arisen through 'ordinary chemical reactions'.

- RM

20. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167098 by raghu_mani on April 23, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Comment #167081 by TheTruthID

Crick also stated it is difficult enough for biologists to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much.

Quote mining will get you nowhere. Tons of quotes are taken out of context by ID/creationist types - the most famous one being one from Darwin that seemed to imply that he didn't belive the eye could have evolved (needless to say that wasn't what he believed). There is little doubt that Crick was fully on board with evolution by natural selection.

However, if quote mining is the game you want to play, here is a good one and it is in Crick's own handwriting too

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/thats_a_nice_quote.php

- RM