In God We Teach - documentary excerpt

[Guest 2smart4u]

If only you knew just how little sense the idea of an "intelligent designer" makes: http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2011/06/evolution.html

Either there's no "designer", or there is a stupid/malicious/apathetic one. Those are the only possibilities once you actually gain an understanding of biology.

So in your Godless world, blind evolution created an eye? By magic, all the necessary parts came together by chance without any intelligence guiding the process? Without knowing what sight actually was or what was even needed, the necessary parts were identified and assembled without any conscious thought? And being an atheist, you find that as a plausable explanation? You probably voted for Obama too.

[Guest Guest]

So in your Godless world, blind evolution created an eye? By magic, all the necessary parts came together by chance without any intelligence guiding the process? Without knowing what sight actually was or what was even needed, the necessary parts were identified and assembled without any conscious thought? And being an atheist, you find that as a plausable explanation? You probably voted for Obama too.

Actually, I did vote for Obama and I'm planning to do it again. He's doing a good job under extremely difficult circumstances that we wouldn't be in if it wasn't for Bush giving away the surplus.

You still refuse to answer how God is possible. You can't answer it because your own argument makes the existence of God impossible.

And again you don't understand evolution. The necessary parts of the eye did not come together by chance. The "necessary parts" were not identified or assembled. The eye evolved. Chance was a small part of the process. Through the process of mutation, one change piled on another until the eye evolved as we know it today. It wouldn't require any conscious thought, any more than it requires conscious thought for someone's numbers to come up in the lottery. Given millions of tickets in the pot, one of them is likely to win sooner or later. That's the process of evolution by mutation. If you don't understand it, study the leading books on evolution, or consult these sites:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

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

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye

http://darwiniana.org/eyes.htm

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp

http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=14756332

[Guest Guest]

Here are additional links on the evolution of the eye.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LXgoQwAACAAJ&dq=Evolution+of+the+eye&hl=en&ei=CP4cTpufKcHq0gH5z-XIBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0

[Guest Melanie]

So in your Godless world, blind evolution created an eye? By magic, all the necessary parts came together by chance without any intelligence guiding the process? Without knowing what sight actually was or what was even needed, the necessary parts were identified and assembled without any conscious thought? And being an atheist, you find that as a plausable explanation? You probably voted for Obama too.

I hate to break it to you but there are people who do careful research before expressing their opinions. When someone points out a reliable source, they check it out and either change their minds or give a reason why the new information doesn't change their minds. Saying the same thing over and over just shows that you're not a thoughtful person, especially when you don't support it with anything but your own say-so. That is what they taught us all in school but apparently you weren't listening.

[Guest Gadfly]

So in your Godless world, blind evolution created an eye? By magic, all the necessary parts came together by chance without any intelligence guiding the process? Without knowing what sight actually was or what was even needed, the necessary parts were identified and assembled without any conscious thought? And being an atheist, you find that as a plausable explanation? You probably voted for Obama too.

You are like a thoughtless parrot repeating things your pastor told you. "Only atheists reject ID!" Nonsense! I am a Christian and I reject it. So does Ken Miller-a devout Catholic-as you have been told repeatedly. "Blind evolution can't create anything!" Nonsense again! Evolution has a negative selection process known as Natural Selection-you may have heard of it. Creatures that are more able to survive tend to be the ones that survive to propagate their genes. Evolution doesn't have a goal such as the eye in mind because there is no mind, it simply happens as natural selection occurs. It appears intelligent precisely because of the negative selection method of natural selection-it is the exact same method that AIs use with no actual intelligence involved. That is why evolution often goes down a failed path repeatedly-because in cannot understand that it has done this before.

Theistic evolution is a valid philosophy, and one that I personally hold to. But your faith is weak so you have to try and pretend that science can "prove" God. That would make the entire thing pointless, but your constant lies, distortions, and malicious attacks prove EXACTLY what kind of Christian you are. Stop making my faith look bad, you hypocritical, faithless backslider.

[Guest Guest]

Evolution guided by the hand of God, "Intelligent Design" makes far more sense considering the complexities of the human body and all life in general.

No it doesn't. Leaving completely aside the fact that scientists, not atheists, are the ones who reject intelligent design, the objections to evolution, unguided by any conscious force, are being dismantled with the progressive accumulation of evidence. Proponents of intelligent design have thrown many arguments on the table, claiming that evolution could not explain how various things could come to be without a conscious designer. One by one, those claims have been disproved.

Of course, none of that makes a bit of difference to the proponents of intelligent design, who are motivated by a desire to have their religious beliefs confirmed. They continue to make exactly the same arguments, even after the argument has been disproved in case after case after case.

The reasonable conclusion to draw is that proponents of intelligent design are not being objective in their presentation or their arguments, and therefore are not worthy of belief.

Besides, what kind of intelligent designer do you propose? If you propose an all-knowing designer, why would he need to have species evolve? Why would children be born attached at the hip, the chest or the head? Why would babies be born with half a brain or the brain outside the head? Why would babies be born with various other birth defects, so that they would never be able to walk? None of that looks like an all-knowing designer created life and then guided its evolution. It looks like exactly what it is: a natural process that sometimes goes awry, resulting occasionally in birth defects that range of minor to severe. That is exactly what you would expect to see from an unguided natural process, and that is exactly what you do see. You would not expect to see that from an all-knowing designer unless that designer was a sadist. If you want to believe in a sadistic god, that's up to you but reasonable people won't do that, if they think about it carefully.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Actually, I did vote for Obama and I'm planning to do it again. He's doing a good job under extremely difficult circumstances that we wouldn't be in if it wasn't for Bush giving away the surplus.

You still refuse to answer how God is possible. You can't answer it because your own argument makes the existence of God impossible.

And again you don't understand evolution. The necessary parts of the eye did not come together by chance. The "necessary parts" were not identified or assembled. The eye evolved. Chance was a small part of the process. Through the process of mutation, one change piled on another until the eye evolved as we know it today. It wouldn't require any conscious thought, any more than it requires conscious thought for someone's numbers to come up in the lottery. Given millions of tickets in the pot, one of them is likely to win sooner or later. That's the process of evolution by mutation. If you don't understand it, study the leading books on evolution, or consult these sites:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

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

There is no proof that the eye evolved through blind evolution, there are only theories as to how it may have happened. That a light sensitive patch evolved into an eye is pure speculation. I can't speak for God and don't suppose to understand the hows and whys of all the life forms on earth. If you want to believe that all life on earth began with pond scum, that's fine. I'll go with ID.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No it doesn't. Leaving completely aside the fact that scientists, not atheists, are the ones who reject intelligent design, the objections to evolution, unguided by any conscious force, are being dismantled with the progressive accumulation of evidence. Proponents of intelligent design have thrown many arguments on the table, claiming that evolution could not explain how various things could come to be without a conscious designer. One by one, those claims have been disproved.

Of course, none of that makes a bit of difference to the proponents of intelligent design, who are motivated by a desire to have their religious beliefs confirmed. They continue to make exactly the same arguments, even after the argument has been disproved in case after case after case.

The reasonable conclusion to draw is that proponents of intelligent design are not being objective in their presentation or their arguments, and therefore are not worthy of belief.

Besides, what kind of intelligent designer do you propose? If you propose an all-knowing designer, why would he need to have species evolve? Why would children be born attached at the hip, the chest or the head? Why would babies be born with half a brain or the brain outside the head? Why would babies be born with various other birth defects, so that they would never be able to walk? None of that looks like an all-knowing designer created life and then guided its evolution. It looks like exactly what it is: a natural process that sometimes goes awry, resulting occasionally in birth defects that range of minor to severe. That is exactly what you would expect to see from an unguided natural process, and that is exactly what you do see. You would not expect to see that from an all-knowing designer unless that designer was a sadist. If you want to believe in a sadistic god, that's up to you but reasonable people won't do that, if they think about it carefully.

You conveniently leave out one thing, blind evolution is SPECULATION, which can't be proved any more than ID can be proved. That a "light sensitive patch" evolved into an eye is SPECULATION. Whateven any scientist (and BTW, most scientists are atheists) may say about it, it's still speculation on their part. So we'll agree to disagree, you go with pond scum and I'll go with ID.

[Guest Guest]

Actually, I did vote for Obama and I'm planning to do it again. He's doing a good job under extremely difficult circumstances that we wouldn't be in if it wasn't for Bush giving away the surplus.

You still refuse to answer how God is possible. You can't answer it because your own argument makes the existence of God impossible.

And again you don't understand evolution. The necessary parts of the eye did not come together by chance. The "necessary parts" were not identified or assembled. The eye evolved. Chance was a small part of the process. Through the process of mutation, one change piled on another until the eye evolved as we know it today. It wouldn't require any conscious thought, any more than it requires conscious thought for someone's numbers to come up in the lottery. Given millions of tickets in the pot, one of them is likely to win sooner or later. That's the process of evolution by mutation. If you don't understand it, study the leading books on evolution, or consult these sites:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

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

There is no proof that the eye evolved through blind evolution, there are only theories as to how it may have happened. That a light sensitive patch evolved into an eye is pure speculation. I can't speak for God and don't suppose to understand the hows and whys of all the life forms on earth. If you want to believe that all life on earth began with pond scum, that's fine. I'll go with ID.

You don't understand what a theory is. It's an organized explanation for a body of data and/or set of phenomena. A theory is based on evidence. The evolution of the eye is a theory in the sense that we can track the evolution of the eye through the history of species as they appear to have emerged. Then we can look at the increasing complexity of species and, lo and behold, we see exactly the same thing.

Now maybe you don't think that is proof, but that only shows your bias toward your preferred non-explanation of a designer for which you haven't a shred of evidence, and whose existence you have been asked to explain in light of your claims about irreducible complexity - and sure enough, you can't explain it. Because it doesn't make sense and there isn't any reason to think that it happened that way.

Getting back to the question of proof, you accept evolutionary theory, apparently, because the evidence supporting it is so strong that you cannot reasonably deny it. Quite an amazing admission coming from you but we'll take it. But you didn't see evolution occur, so how do you know? Well, you add together the information, including the fossil record, the DNA record and the theory's uncanny predictive accuracy, and you realize that it is the only reasonable explanation for the data. It's overwhelming evidence, coupled with no evidence for anything else. It's like if you have a child who likes cookies and you put some cookies in the cookie jar and tell the child not to touch them. You go in the other room and then you hear a crash. You come back in and see the child next to the broken cookie jar looking guilty the way only a five-year-old can; and no one else is in sight. You didn't see the child go for the cookies but come on. The same thing with the evolution of the eye.

If you had any evidence for the existence of a god, that would change things but you don't. So you can guess all you want about something you know nothing about but that's all you're doing. You're guessing. That does not in any sense delegitimize evolutionary theory, from scratch, without a designer. In other words, your saying the same thing over and over may talk you into believing it but it won't be persuasive to any person who is thinking and reasoning.

So while you may or may not claim to speak for God, you are dismissing the only explanation that is supported by any evidence. And you're doing it with a sneering contempt that suggests you think you know vastly more than the world's scientists, who agree that the theory is correct, when exactly the opposite is true.

[Guest Guest]

You conveniently leave out one thing, blind evolution is SPECULATION, which can't be proved any more than ID can be proved. That a "light sensitive patch" evolved into an eye is SPECULATION. Whateven any scientist (and BTW, most scientists are atheists) may say about it, it's still speculation on their part. So we'll agree to disagree, you go with pond scum and I'll go with ID.

I left it out because it's not true.

If most of the world's scientists are atheists, what does that tell you? It tells a reasonable and objective person that as people delve deeper and deeper into science, they realize increasingly that there is no evidence for a god. But hey, you're smarter than the rest of us, so what do you think makes them think that? Are they stupid? Do they not understand how things work? Did the chemicals go to their brains? Are scientists born with a sinful and god-denying nature? And why didn't you admit the fact that scientists are responsible for evolutionary theory, in the first place? Your sneering contempt for science with the dismissive term "pond scum" only further confirms that you're not really thinking about these issues. You're "going with" what you decided to believe a long time ago and refuse to change your mind, despite the mountain of evidence arrayed against your belief-of-choice. (Think about that idea: belief of choice.)

You can put your fingers in your ears, your hands over your eyes and yell "LA LA LA! I'm not listening" all you want but the world's scientists overwhelmingly disagree with you because the evidence proves that the eye evolved without any evidence of a designer. You have absolutely no idea about the volume and complexity of work that scientists have done to confirm the theory. See, for example: Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True and Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is. The science continues to advance. Just this year, Oxford University Press is publishing Ivan Schwab's book Evolution's Witness: How the Eye Evolved.

The science grows increasingly more detailed and complex, while the guesswork about one god or another - a point you also ignore and cannot explain - does nothing to contribute to any advance in our knowledge.

[Guest Guest]

You conveniently leave out one thing, blind evolution is SPECULATION, which can't be proved any more than ID can be proved. That a "light sensitive patch" evolved into an eye is SPECULATION. Whateven any scientist (and BTW, most scientists are atheists) may say about it, it's still speculation on their part. So we'll agree to disagree, you go with pond scum and I'll go with ID.

The comparison you're trying to sneak in below the radar between scientists and you is ludicrous. You're not even close to being right.

Scientists are extremely conservative about their claims. They subject their writings to intense scrutiny by their peers and go out of their way to include all indicia of doubt in their findings. So when they develop a theory of the evolution of the eye, that theory is based on a vast body of evidence.

In stark contrast to that, you are completely reckless about what you write. You just say stuff and expect people to accept it as true. You refuse to acknowledge, much less address, fatal blows to your arguments. You state your own rank speculations as fact. You are correct to use that word "speculation" but not in reference to the evolution of the eye. You are not even an amateur in the matter; you are completely ignorant of science's methods and procedures, and of the data that support the current theories of evolutionary biology. All you're doing is repeating the same ignorant nonsense that people who do not understand science hear everyday in the street. Meanwhile, real scientists are spending lifetimes doing real work that improves the quality of our lives.

I cannot say this strongly enough, and I mean it sincerely. You are a complete moron. It is a pity that you haven't caught on after all these years.

[Guest 2smart4u]

The comparison you're trying to sneak in below the radar between scientists and you is ludicrous. You're not even close to being right.

Scientists are extremely conservative about their claims. They subject their writings to intense scrutiny by their peers and go out of their way to include all indicia of doubt in their findings. So when they develop a theory of the evolution of the eye, that theory is based on a vast body of evidence.

In stark contrast to that, you are completely reckless about what you write. You just say stuff and expect people to accept it as true. You refuse to acknowledge, much less address, fatal blows to your arguments. You state your own rank speculations as fact. You are correct to use that word "speculation" but not in reference to the evolution of the eye. You are not even an amateur in the matter; you are completely ignorant of science's methods and procedures, and of the data that support the current theories of evolutionary biology. All you're doing is repeating the same ignorant nonsense that people who do not understand science hear everyday in the street. Meanwhile, real scientists are spending lifetimes doing real work that improves the quality of our lives.

I cannot say this strongly enough, and I mean it sincerely. You are a complete moron. It is a pity that you haven't caught on after all these years.

Yada, yada, yada. Bottom line is this; there has never been evidence of a "light sensitive patch". What scientists do agree on is if blind evolution is valid then a light sensitive patch is the most likely starting point. There is no fossil record of a light sensitive patch, nor is there any fossil record of any intermediate stage of development. Blind evolution is a theory, nothing more than speculation. ID is also a theory, nothing more than speculation. Calling names does not advance a light sensitive patch from speculation to fact, so until you can offer ANY evidence, I'll speculate that evolution has been guided by the hand of God.

Calling names does not advance a light sensitive patch from speculation to fact

[Guest 2smart4u]

No it doesn't. Leaving completely aside the fact that scientists, not atheists, are the ones who reject intelligent design, the objections to evolution, unguided by any conscious force, are being dismantled with the progressive accumulation of evidence. Proponents of intelligent design have thrown many arguments on the table, claiming that evolution could not explain how various things could come to be without a conscious designer. One by one, those claims have been disproved.

Of course, none of that makes a bit of difference to the proponents of intelligent design, who are motivated by a desire to have their religious beliefs confirmed. They continue to make exactly the same arguments, even after the argument has been disproved in case after case after case.

The reasonable conclusion to draw is that proponents of intelligent design are not being objective in their presentation or their arguments, and therefore are not worthy of belief.

Besides, what kind of intelligent designer do you propose? If you propose an all-knowing designer, why would he need to have species evolve? Why would children be born attached at the hip, the chest or the head? Why would babies be born with half a brain or the brain outside the head? Why would babies be born with various other birth defects, so that they would never be able to walk? None of that looks like an all-knowing designer created life and then guided its evolution. It looks like exactly what it is: a natural process that sometimes goes awry, resulting occasionally in birth defects that range of minor to severe. That is exactly what you would expect to see from an unguided natural process, and that is exactly what you do see. You would not expect to see that from an all-knowing designer unless that designer was a sadist. If you want to believe in a sadistic god, that's up to you but reasonable people won't do that, if they think about it carefully.

I'm assuming you just landed on this planet? Birth defects are caused by drugs and chemicals introduced into the fetus through the mother, evolution has nothing to do with it.

[Guest Guest]

The comparison you're trying to sneak in below the radar between scientists and you is ludicrous. You're not even close to being right.

Scientists are extremely conservative about their claims. They subject their writings to intense scrutiny by their peers and go out of their way to include all indicia of doubt in their findings. So when they develop a theory of the evolution of the eye, that theory is based on a vast body of evidence.

In stark contrast to that, you are completely reckless about what you write. You just say stuff and expect people to accept it as true. You refuse to acknowledge, much less address, fatal blows to your arguments. You state your own rank speculations as fact. You are correct to use that word "speculation" but not in reference to the evolution of the eye. You are not even an amateur in the matter; you are completely ignorant of science's methods and procedures, and of the data that support the current theories of evolutionary biology. All you're doing is repeating the same ignorant nonsense that people who do not understand science hear everyday in the street. Meanwhile, real scientists are spending lifetimes doing real work that improves the quality of our lives.

I cannot say this strongly enough, and I mean it sincerely. You are a complete moron. It is a pity that you haven't caught on after all these years.

What people like 2dim don't understand is that if we did things their way, we'd still be washing our clothes on washboards. They think they're for science but they're not. They don't even understand it, yet they presume to criticize it. Meanwhile, they take all the advantages we derive from it and then make fun of it as though scientists were ignorant and he's the educated one.

Ridiculous.

[Guest 2mart4u]

What people like 2dim don't understand is that if we did things their way, we'd still be washing our clothes on washboards. They think they're for science but they're not. They don't even understand it, yet they presume to criticize it. Meanwhile, they take all the advantages we derive from it and then make fun of it as though scientists were ignorant and he's the educated one.

Ridiculous.

"if we did things their way" ?? Who is "their" and what is "their way" ?? Are you trying to say washboards evolved into washing machines??

[Guest Guest]

Yada, yada, yada. Bottom line is this; there has never been evidence of a "light sensitive patch". What scientists do agree on is if blind evolution is valid then a light sensitive patch is the most likely starting point. There is no fossil record of a light sensitive patch, nor is there any fossil record of any intermediate stage of development. Blind evolution is a theory, nothing more than speculation. ID is also a theory, nothing more than speculation. Calling names does not advance a light sensitive patch from speculation to fact, so until you can offer ANY evidence, I'll speculate that evolution has been guided by the hand of God.

Page One

You are most amusing, and as usual, you are dead wrong. Anyone who knows how to do basic research on the Internet can find hundreds, perhaps thousands of links to reliable scientific papers and books on primitive light sensors, sometimes called light receptors. Because of space limits on posts with links, I'll do this in steps, if KOTW doesn't mind.

Let's start with basics. Most life forms require light to survive, so if evolutionary theory is correct, you would expect to see light sensing mechanisms at the most basic level, the cell. Sure enough, we do. Primitive cellular light-sensing mechanisms have been clearly identified, and more of them continue to be discovered. In vertebrates, light reception and processing has been linked to a specific protein. (See Briggs and Spudich, eds., Handbook of Photosensory Receptors.)

Then, as complexity increases from cell to organism, we see extra-cellular light-sensing mechanisms. These Blue/UV-A receptors have been identified in organisms as simple as bacteria. (See Hunter, The Purple Phototropic Bacteria.)

We know when many of these features appeared over the course of evolutionary history.

[Guest Guest]

Yada, yada, yada. Bottom line is this; there has never been evidence of a "light sensitive patch".

Page Two: Plants and photosynthesis

What do you think photosynthesis is? If you stopped to think about it, even for a second, you might realize that plants demonstrate the ability to sense and respond to light. And if you read even a little bit about how it works, you would realize that plants have light-sensing mechanisms that assist in the process of photosynthesis. Ever notice that green-leafed plants turn toward the sun? Obviously, they have light-sensing mechanisms that produce that response. This isn’t guesswork. Scientists know how it works and have described the process in detail. They have even learned why plants flower, a study called photoperiodism. See Whitelam, Light and Plant Development.

Don’t you ever get tired of proving to everyone how ignorant you are? Don’t you think you should read up on subjects before you claim to be an expert on them? Doesn’t it ever dawn on you that if you’re saying it, it’s probably nonsense? How many times do you have to get shot down before you become embarrassed and stop making a fool of yourself?

There's more.

[Guest Guest]

, yada, yada. Bottom line is this; there has never been evidence of a "light sensitive patch". What scientists do agree on is if blind evolution is valid then a light sensitive patch is the most likely starting point. There is no fossil record of a light sensitive patch, nor is there any fossil record of any intermediate stage of development.

Page three: Simple animals

The nematode, a microscopic worm found in fresh water, has a pigmented area in the neck region that scientists classify as a light receptor.

Flatworms have simple light receptors called eye cups. The eye cup is a collection of light-sensitive cells, which form a cup-shaped depression on the animal’s skin.

The earthworm has light receptors all over its body. They do not register images but merely detect the presence of light.

Fly larvae, which are sightless, have primitive light-sensing structures called Bolwig organs, which allow them to avoid light and burrow.

Simple colored eyespots, called stigmata, are seen in a variety of simple organisms. These simple eyespots are readily identified with a microscope, a standard part of college and graduate-level training in biology.

[Guest Guest]

. . . I'll speculate . . .

Page four: Insects

You can speculate but the scientists are not. They have proved beyond a doubt that simple light-sensing mechanisms are responsible for sight. These light receptors are seen in the cell and in primitive organisms, both plant and animal.

Light receptors have been identified in insects. They range in descending order of complexity from compound eyes to ocelli, stemmata and simple dermal light receptors.

Have you ever turned on an outside light in summertime and watched the bugs gather around the light. This is called phototaxis, a primitive attraction to light. Cockroaches, which avoid light (negative phototaxis), have light receptors all over their bodies. These simple dermal light receptors bear virtually no resemblance to what we know as an eye, except for the feature of sensing light.

So no, calling names doesn't change anything. Facts are facts. You're an idiot whether anyone points it out to you or not.

[Guest Guest]

Blind evolution is a theory, nothing more than speculation. ID is also a theory, nothing more than speculation.

Epilogue: Stupid on steroids.

And no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you that a theory does not mean a guess, you continue to insist on a pre-scientific misunderstanding of science. According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

Thus, evolution is both theory and fact.

So is gravity, both theory and fact.

You admit that so-called “intelligent design” is pure speculation. At least you got one thing right.

And you still haven’t answered any of the questions you’ve been asked. If an irreducibly complex object cannot exist without having been created, then how do you explain the existence of your imaginary god? You can’t.

If a conscious and omnipotent being created the universe and everything in it, then how do you explain senseless suffering, such as children born conjoined at the head, or children born with the brain outside the head? You can’t because it doesn’t make sense. Only a sadist would do that. So you define God as a sadist. You had better hope there isn’t one of the kind you imagine, because judgment day might not work out the way you imagine.

More to follow.

[Guest Guest]

I'm assuming you just landed on this planet? Birth defects are caused by drugs and chemicals introduced into the fetus through the mother, evolution has nothing to do with it.

That's your problem: you assume things instead of thinking about them and examining the evidence.

As if you weren't already wrong about enough things in one day, now you write this. Birth defects are caused by genetic mutations, as well as by drugs and chemicals ingested during or before pregnancy. Genetic causes account for approximately 25-30 percent of birth defects in children who survive until birth. However, genetic wastage accounts for the termination of approximately one-third to one-half of all pregnancies. In those cases, there is a defect in the genes and/or chromosomes. In other words, if you believe in a god, then your god is by far the most notorious abortionist ever, and he has been doing it since the first human appeared on Earth.

How do you explain that?

[Guest Guest]

"if we did things their way" ?? Who is "their" and what is "their way" ?? Are you trying to say washboards evolved into washing machines??

"Who" is morons like you. Your way is to decide in advance what you want to believe and then cling to it regardless of the evidence. You're willing to say anything so you don't have to change your mind, no matter how stupid it is and no matter how much evidence is arrayed against it.

If scientists had thought like that - well, they wouldn't have been scientists. They would have been morons, like you. They wouldn't have discovered anything, and we would still be using washboards.

In a sense, washboards did evolve into washing machines: not the physical objects but the idea. There is an evolutionary progression in the progress of ideas, including scientific ideas. In science, ideas are tested. The good ideas stand the test of time and are replicated in the scientific universe, the same underlying process that drives evolution of species. Bad ideas that don't work are discarded and not used again, like genes that do convey a survival disadvantage. The problem with you is that you don't care what works. All you care about is what you decided to believe in an ignorant state. So you replicate bad ideas, which have taken over your personal population of ideas. Because you do things that way, your thinking cannot evolve, and therefore you'll probably continue to be a moron until the day you die.

[Guest Guest]

Page One

You are most amusing, and as usual, you are dead wrong. Anyone who knows how to do basic research on the Internet can find hundreds, perhaps thousands of links to reliable scientific papers and books on primitive light sensors, sometimes called light receptors. Because of space limits on posts with links, I'll do this in steps, if KOTW doesn't mind.

Let's start with basics. Most life forms require light to survive, so if evolutionary theory is correct, you would expect to see light sensing mechanisms at the most basic level, the cell. Sure enough, we do. Primitive cellular light-sensing mechanisms have been clearly identified, and more of them continue to be discovered. In vertebrates, light reception and processing has been linked to a specific protein. (See Briggs and Spudich, eds., Handbook of Photosensory Receptors.)

Then, as complexity increases from cell to organism, we see extra-cellular light-sensing mechanisms. These Blue/UV-A receptors have been identified in organisms as simple as bacteria. (See Hunter, The Purple Phototropic Bacteria.)

We know when many of these features appeared over the course of evolutionary history.

Interesting and informative. If you think about it, it has to be true. We don't think about the importance of light because it's just there but without light, we wouldn't be here. Living things have to be able to sense light, because if they couldn't, they couldn't survive. So naturally, over time, the mechanisms for sensing and responding to light became more complex. Organisms do not reproduce perfectly. There are variations. Some of those variations will work better, others will work worse. The ones that work better will survive and be reproduced. Eventually, if they convey enough of an advantage, they will take over the population, or at least become robust and multiply. As that happens, light sensing mechanisms become increasingly complex. It makes perfect sense, and not only did it happen; it had to happen that way.

It wasn't designed. It's just how dynamic systems such as life forms evolve. You don't need a designer to explain it, and if you hypothesize a designer, you're just kicking the can down the road to something that's not just hard to explain but impossible.

[Guest Guest]

Yada, yada, yada. Bottom line is this; there has never been evidence of a "light sensitive patch". What scientists do agree on is if blind evolution is valid then a light sensitive patch is the most likely starting point. There is no fossil record of a light sensitive patch, nor is there any fossil record of any intermediate stage of development. Blind evolution is a theory, nothing more than speculation. ID is also a theory, nothing more than speculation. Calling names does not advance a light sensitive patch from speculation to fact, so until you can offer ANY evidence, I'll speculate that evolution has been guided by the hand of God.

Calling names does not advance a light sensitive patch from speculation to fact

OK, so now the evidence you asked for has been supplied, in profusion: the cell, bacteria, simple animals like the microscopic nematode, plants and insects. All of them have light sensing mechanisms, also known as light receptors. You've been given the explanation. Because light is so basic to life, virtually any living organism will be able to sense it and respond to it. There's plenty more information, enough to keep you busy for a lifetime, if that's not enough for you but if you are being honest (which would be a first, I admit), that's plenty.

So now what do you say? Your claim that "there has never been evidence of a 'light sensitive patch'" is proved wrong, dead wrong. There is evidence of it all over the evolutionary pathway of living organisms, from the cell to us. Your claim is so contrary to basic science that most laypeople who know even a little about science would laugh at you for it. Show us that you're willing to take new information and use it go grow.

[Guest Guest]

Are you trying to say washboards evolved into washing machines??

No, but you raise an interesting point, apparently without realizing it. Isaac Newton said "If I have seen further than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Stephen Hawking has a book out called On the Shoulders of Giants, discussing how science is progressive, and both evolutionary and revolutionary. Scientific knowledge provides a foundation for more knowledge. That is the evolutionary part of scientific advancement. It is why our technologies are increasingly complex.

The washboard provided no science that led to the development of the washing machine but it did keep people imagining how their lives would be easier if they had something to perform the functions of the washboard. So the washboard provided a little motivation to pursue the technologies that led to the washing machine. But if the washboard had never been invented, people would have been using rocks, so the motivation would have been the same, if not greater. So no, the washboard did not make a significant contribution to knowledge that led to the development of the washing machine, but other inventions did. You seem to be trying to make a juvenile comeback about evolution but in the process you've overlooked how evolution also operates in social systems such as science.