h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'if something was true 2000 years ago then it must be true, period''

Consult an Engineer and ask them what Pi is...

"No, they do not demonstrate anything of the sort, they merely labour a tired and factually incorrect argument. I haven't read the book, but the example the ID zealots usually use is the eye. We know how the eye evolved. It was a flap of brain tissue that gradually descended, thinned out, and became specialised.

That's why the mammalian eye is wired the wrong way round, with the blood vessels and nerves on the 'outside' of the retina. If this isn't damning evidence against the actions of an 'intelligent' designer, then I don't know what is. "
The only time I remember the eye being mentioned in the book was when it was stated that some evolutionists make the argument you just made - not that the eye is an example of irreducible complexity. The most harped-on example of irreducible complexity was (I thought) in the field of molecular biology, which is one of my own least favorite subjects in science.

We don't know how the eye evolved since there is no evidence for what you just said. Fossils don't preserve eyes, they preserve bones.

I am no paleontologist. If I am mistaken in my assertion that fossils preserve bones, not eyes, please correct me.

"My understanding was that agnosticism means "no positive belief in God" while atheism means "positive belief that there is no God". It seemed to me that agnosticism was more logical than atheism if you're scientific-minded because, as has been pointed out thus far, science cannot prove a negative.

Science cannot prove a negative but it doesn't need to. It only has to disprove the tenets and predictions of theory, which it has done. To add to the body of evidence, it could also put forward workable alternative theories and attempt to verify them. Which it has also done.

In the same way science cannot prove that there are no little green men on Mars, but it can look for all the clues you would expect a race of little green men to leave behind. It has, and there aren't any.

IMO it would be profoundly unscientific to sit on the fence when there is just so much evidence against the existence of a god.

"Consult an Engineer and ask them what Pi is..."

Are you implying that the actual value of PI has changed?

"Science cannot prove a negative but it doesn't need to. It only has to disprove the tenets and predictions of theory, which it has done."
I disagree with you about which theory's tenets and predictions have been disproven. Many of the predictions of Darwin about future discoveries that would vindicate his theory have in fact been discovered to directly contradict it. For example, the Cambrian Explosion.

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

"In the same way science cannot prove that there are no little green men on Mars, but it can look for all the clues you would expect a race of little green men to leave behind. It has, and there aren't any.

IMO it would be profoundly unscientific to sit on the fence when there is just so much evidence against the existence of a god."
Thus far, I haven't seen it, though someone mentioned Richard Dawkins and I asked for a summary.

Yes; in the bible the figure given for pi was quite inacurate compaired to how many DPs we have the figure now.

Fossilisation can preserve soft tissue in the same way it can presserve the shape of bone, its just less likely and hence less common. Fossel records are not the only method of judgeing evolution either of a species or of particular biological structures. For example, some creatures have retained more ancient physiologys due to non urgent/imperitive evolutionary pressures acting apon them... Though I'm not an experct on such stuff too 'big' specimins, I delt mainly with DNA when I was looking at such things, and though not an organ/tissue per sai, looking briefly as part of my research at evolutionary relationships in a couple of bits of a particular gene coding for a protein involved in the immune response...

"We don't know how the eye evolved since there is no evidence for what you just said. Fossils don't preserve eyes, they preserve bones."

We don't know anything in science, scientists simply create theories and then attempt to disprove them therefore testing their validity. A good way of understanding scientific theory is that electricity is only a theory but if you press the lightswitch...

I've read the intelligent design "arguments" and they are utter and complete hogwosh which is why no one except those who want to believe them pay them attention. Like 9/11 conspiracy theorists, creationists can put-up arguments that can seem to hold water when related to people with no expertise in evolutionary theory but which collapse when put up against those with scientific knowledge. Scientists pursue evolutionary theory not because they believe in it as an article of faith, they pursue it because they are building on the work of previous scientists, testing their theories, testing alternatives. They've arrived at this because it's where the evidence points. This is work that has been arrived at by use of the scientific method. Faith-based creationism is just that, an article of faith, it has no evidence for the theory whatsoever. It's not science and never will be. For creationists to espouse their beliefs (they don't deserve the label "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word) and then to presume to pick holes in the arguments of proper scientists using "logic" is simply laughable.

Sorry, but if you want to espouse the case for creationism then take it to the scientists and see how long you last.

"I am no paleontologist. If I am mistaken in my assertion that fossils preserve bones, not eyes, please correct me.".

Constantly harking back to the fossil record, the gaps therein, and conveniently ignoring all the other fields of study is also an ID trick. You don't need to find fossilised eyes to learn how they evolved. You can look at fossilised skulls, for example. You can look at the genes that 'code' for eyes and trace them backwards, comparing with other species that have eyes. We can compare our eyes and evolutionary history with species that possess very different eyes, such as insects, birds and cephalopods.

Like all ID arguments, it relies on the premise that science is basically stupid.

Oooh I do enjoy a good discussion about religion! Here are my objections to the God/religion thing:

1. Organised religion is the biggest killer on this planet, not AIDS or cancer;

2. I object to people, mainly Christians, telling me what my beliefs should be (if Jehovahs come to the door I tell them I'm a Catholic and that usually makes them go away anyway );

3. I object to the hypocrisy and corruption of religious organisations; the congregation is starving but as long as the priests have enough wine to go round that's okay

"Yes; in the bible the figure given for pi was quite inacurate compaired to how many DPs we have the figure now."
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

There are no fossilized transitional forms with eye-flaps like you're talking about ... any that were transitional would have been eliminated by natural selection since eyes are a disadvantage until they actually work. But the eyes argument for the intelligent design folks has largely been given up since the molecular biology one is much more clear-cut.

"The only time I remember the eye being mentioned in the book was when it was stated that some evolutionists make the argument you just made - not that the eye is an example of irreducible complexity. The most harped-on example of irreducible complexity was (I thought) in the field of molecular biology, which is one of my own least favorite subjects in science.

We don't know how the eye evolved since there is no evidence for what you just said. Fossils don't preserve eyes, they preserve bones."

This is a typically-poor argument. Presented with compelling evidence that the eye cannot have been created intelligently (ie that there are flaws in the design which an intelligent designer would not have implemented) you simply swat it away without explaining it. You then refer to the fact that fossils don't preserve eyes (ie we *can't know for sure*) and use this sliver of doubt to insinuate that evolutionary evidence-based theory must be in question whilst your own evidence-free faith-based belief has some sort of scientific basis. It doesn't and never will. End of.

"Constantly harking back to the fossil record, the gaps therein, and conveniently ignoring all the other fields of study is also an ID trick. You don't need to find fossilised eyes to learn how they evolved. You can look at fossilised skulls, for example. You can look at the genes that 'code' for eyes and trace them backwards, comparing with other species that have eyes. We can compare our eyes and evolutionary history with species that possess very different eyes, such as insects, birds and cephalopods."
The book I mentioned doesn't actually spend all that much time on fossils - the fossils argument is old, and the book's arguments are considerably newer and are in those other fields you mention.

"Like all ID arguments, it relies on the premise that science is basically stupid."
In some ways, it is. Science is very limited in it's scope. Basically, everything science can deal conclusively with has to be repeatable in my opinion. As for myself, I don't buy into anything before recorded history as purely scientific.

"In some ways, it is. Science is very limited in it's scope. Basically, everything science can deal conclusively with has to be repeatable in my opinion. As for myself, I don't buy into anything before recorded history as purely scientific."

No, this is nonsense. Science is limitless in scope, pretty much. What is true is that there are many fields where science is completely unsure because there is little evidence to work with and/or little scientific concensus. However, what it does know and where it does work it always bases any theory on evidence and then, to test the theory, attempts to disprove it *using further evidence and further experimentation*. This is about as far from stupid as you can get.

Basing not merely theory but belief on nothing other than faith or gut-feeling, on the other hand...

Neo: Could you perhaps give us an example of something you consider irreducible complexity? Then we can have a look at that. Regarding the eye, we don´t know how it evolved. However there are several possible ways, which contradict the typical ID position of "There´s no way the eye could have evolved"

Regarding God existing out of time, that honestly just seems like a bad excuse.

"Presented with compelling evidence that the eye cannot have been created intelligently (ie that there are flaws in the design which an intelligent designer would not have implemented) you simply swat it away without explaining it. You then refer to the fact that fossils don't preserve eyes (ie we *can't know for sure*) and use this sliver of doubt to insinuate that evolutionary evidence-based theory must be in question whilst your own evidence-free faith-based belief has some sort of scientific basis. It doesn't and never will."
To make the old, worn-out eye argument, you have to design a better eye. Assuming you are correct, however, you are left with unintelligent design since as I've said, eyes are a disadvantage until they actually work, so any creatures with eyes (or any new feature like them) would be eliminated by natural selection before the new feature had time to develop into being an advantage. A creature with a half-finished eye is not more fit than a blind creature with bigger teeth and a sense of smell. Gradual changes like Darwin proposes only work if each and every change is an immediate advantage. In many systems, if they were created by means of gradual changes, these would not all be immediately advantageous.

However, really, the case for irreducible complexity does not rely on the eye argument. A much better example is the cell.

Snails have quite primitive eyes. Are you saying they are in fact a disadvantage to them?

"To make the old, worn-out eye argument, you have to design a better eye. Assuming you are correct, however, you are left with unintelligent design laugh since as I've said, eyes are a disadvantage until they actually work, so any creatures with eyes (or any new feature like them) would be eliminated by natural selection before the new feature had time to develop into being an advantage. A creature with a half-finished eye is not more fit than a blind creature with bigger teeth and a sense of smell. Gradual changes like Darwin proposes only work if each and every change is an immediate advantage. In many systems, if they were created by means of gradual changes, these would not all be immediately advantageous."

Why would a half-finished eye be a disadvantage? There are all sorts of creatures with extremely-primitive eyes that can do little except detect light and yet they have an inate advantage over completely-blind creatures. Even if a creature developed a useless minor appendage that eventually became an eye why would this necessarily be a disadvantage. All humans come with an appendix, an "organ" that is more dangerous to us than useful (another argument against intelligent design that fits into evolutionary theory) but it hasn't seriously disadvantaged us as a species because our other advantages massively outweigh it.

Here's a challenge for you: look up a Professor at a University with an expertise in evolutionary theory, email him with your arguments about the eye that you seem to think hold such weight, let us know the reply. In short, if you're going to challenge acknowledged experts in this field with your half-baked arguments then put your money where your mouth is.

Have you actually read Darwin, NeoPathFinder?