I usually don’t participate in these things, but I’ve been on an anti-creationism/ID tear lately, and the folks at National Center for Science Education (NCSE) are friends of mine, and really, maybe this’ll help someone who Googles ID to get the real scoop:
A bunch of skeptical blogs are Google bombing the phrase Intelligent Design, so that people who type those two words in Google are redirected to the NCSE web page about it. They’re also encouraging others to do it, so what the heck. If you have a blog, or a website, give it a shot. This might prove to be fun.
August 8th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
I’m in the dark. What’s Google bombing?
August 8th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
The linked article has a link that defines it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bombing
August 8th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
…And the Google Bomb continues at my blog. (Which admittedly isn’t that interesting, but if we can get the top result for Intelligent Design, I’ll be glad to say I helped.)
August 9th, 2005 at 12:06 am
Go for it, the more people that can be redirected away from Pro-ID sites the better.
Anything that stops the US from being scammed into abandoning science must be supported to the maximum extent.
August 9th, 2005 at 1:06 am
Thanks Josh, the lightbulb has come on in my brain.
Now I’ve googlebombed on my blog too. This isn’t a huge issue in Australia, but I’m glad to help a good cause.
August 9th, 2005 at 1:18 am
Is this really ethical?
Is it not akin to forum wars
ID seems more an American thing so we Brits get confused as to what you are all on about. Now when we try and find out, our source of information Google has been hijacked.
What ever you think about ID (Whatever that is), you could be showing a technique that works to those that would want to disseminate racism, hatred or porn.
Are you ready to let that gienie further out of the bottle?
August 9th, 2005 at 2:37 am
For as much as I hate ID, I can’t say I support the practice of Google bombing for any cause. Why don’t you guys go out and egg Bruce Chapman’s house. Get some fresh air. =P
August 9th, 2005 at 4:31 am
It has been my experience that nonsensical, foolish things dont usually stick around to long, people loose interest and they fade away. And throughout history disingenuous people, afraid of being proved wrong with the truth, have allways made efforts to hide the truth whether it be political, scientific, religious, etc.
So lets see…..as best we can tell ID has been around for about 6,000 years, evolution about 120 or so and presently it is quickly loosing support in the public arena. Anti-ID people are ‘google bombing’ to keep people away from reputable ID sites that present facts. Hmmmmmm……I ask, what are they afraid of and what are they trying to hide?
August 9th, 2005 at 4:53 am
You want a bet. Front page of this Saturday’s Age was a report of an attempt by Campus Crusade for Christ to lobby politicans, religious leaders and Scienmtists to get the ID propaganda DVD “Unlocking
the Mystery of Life” to every Australian high school for inclusion in the
Science Curriculum.
Yes, you read that right, not “for private study”, not “for inclusion in
the philosophy/religion curriculum” but the SCIENCE CURRICULUM.
ID is set to become an issue in Austalian scence education Real Soon Now.
August 9th, 2005 at 5:08 am
David, what we are afraid of is people becoming indoctrinated inot what is nothing but re-wrapped creationism, which in turn causes them to set up a mental block against anything and everything that tells the truth about how evolution works.
On the contrary to what you believe, evolution has been around 150 years, and it is creationism that is rapidl losing support, wholly because it’s lack of evidence.
“reputable ID sites that present the facts”? Au contraire! These so-called “reputable sites” have been shown time and time again, to be basically wrong, in both their presentation of evolution and their understanding of basic science. Yet, still, they remain online, bleating their nonsense, because they stubbornly ignore the science that destroyes their cause. This is the antithesis of science, whose self-correcting nature is a major cornerstone.
The Anti-ID people aren’t trying to hide anything – in fact, whenever I check out their sites, they often provided links to the Pro-ID sites. It is the Pro-ID sites themselves that have something to hide. They often try to hide the fact they really have no case by using a lot of arguement fallacies, including ad hominems, quote minings, straw men, non sequiters etc.
Some good sites I would suggest you check out: http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies
http://www.kent-hovind.com
August 9th, 2005 at 5:12 am
Oh (explitive deleted) Sorry bout the triple posts. You can delete the first and last if you want BA.
August 9th, 2005 at 5:13 am
What is google-bombing anyway (LAST POST FOR NOW, REALLY SORRY)
August 9th, 2005 at 5:17 am
Regardless of your point of view, no one should be “bombing Google”, or whatever the euphemism is for sabotage or vandalism. Let the Web be free of this kind of thing. It only encourages people to use such tactics for all kinds of evil. It further encourages those who would regulate our free access to information -all kinds of information – whether you agree with it or not. And finally, it gives those on the opposite side from yours bullets to shoot you with. Stop it and stop encouraging others to do so. Shame!
August 9th, 2005 at 5:23 am
Bombs Away! ^_^
August 9th, 2005 at 5:24 am
Google Bombing is not vandalism, nor is it sabotage. Go look it up on wikipedia.
August 9th, 2005 at 5:30 am
If anyone’s ever tried to dig up legitimate scientific information about anything relating to evolution or ID you’ll know the pain of trying to sift through a million crappy anti-science young earth creationist websites.
I recently tried to look up some quick info on hominid skull morphology and measurement ratios and wound up wasting three fruitless hours trying to sift through the creationist sites, and never found what I was looking for.
As much as I wish science and those who work on it or support it could take the high road and just let the data speak for itself, such aloof detachment is failing us. The fundamentalist creationists are waging a propganda war, and they’re winning.
Sorry, I know that’s three whiney posts in a row, but this is something I feel strongly about.
August 9th, 2005 at 5:32 am
The creationists are *already* google bombing with clustered links to sites like AiG, the Discovery Institute, and others. They have been for quite some time now.
August 9th, 2005 at 6:23 am
I may have only a little game comic place that is not at all related to anything scientific, but I still reach 1200 readers every time I update, 800-900 between them. I can easily join the Google Bomb. I’m in!
August 9th, 2005 at 7:35 am
David wrote “So lets see…..as best we can tell ID has been around for about 6,000 years”
Probably a lot longer given that egyptian and other early civilaztions had their own tales of creation. Which is pretty interesting since it means that creationism predates the time of creation according to young earth creationists.
=D
August 9th, 2005 at 8:24 am
wellington…um..how far back do you think recorded history goes? Roughly 6000 years. which means that’s a pretty accurate timline to put on ID…which is roughly the timeline creationists have anyway…which nullifies your argument totally….just saying.
August 9th, 2005 at 8:46 am
Google-bombing ID? We’re in sad shape when our scientists throw borderline unethical tantrums on the internet. The line where I am sympathetic with those trying to get creationism out of schools has just been crossed. Sorry, BA, I’m not on your side anymore.
August 9th, 2005 at 9:03 am
Samara, your afraid of people being indoctrinated in ID???!!! Hmmmmmm……………..Lets see again.
ID has been the predominant public belief of our beginings for 6,000+ years. Nothing has lasted that long.
It is now against the law to teach ID in school. Evolution is taught to our children in school all throughout thier formidable years and into higher education.
But polls show something like 70% of the population believe ID over evolution.
There is no evidence of evolution. If you have evidence and want to make a quick $250,000 then go to drdino.com. Dr Kent Hovind will pay anyone with irrefutable evidence of evolution $250k. For over 10 years noone has taken the challenge.
The big bang theory and evolution defy most of the laws of physics, thermodynamics and statistical probablities. But we force our children to learn it and nothing else anyway.
Contrary to all this, I can turn on the television anytime I want and see something about how we ‘evolved’ from apes. Whether it be a passing comment or a 2 hour long documentary. But it is very rare, few and far between that I see anything on ID.
ID people dont try and silence evolutionists, they just want equal time. But evolutionists do everything they can to silence IDer’s. From outlawing them to google bombing them.
Why? Because thier afraid of indoctrinating people in ID???!!! LOLOLOL Please.
August 9th, 2005 at 9:17 am
i see, so now creationism is OK in schools because of google bombing, the very tactic IDers use anyway?
good rationalization there rand… way to keep scientific thought the forefront of discussion.
taks
August 9th, 2005 at 9:20 am
*shrug* You’re trying to say that your reasons are completely valid and logical while behaving like unethical children. That is what I am saying.
August 9th, 2005 at 9:21 am
Scott… um.. how to say this….I know, Ill make a list:
1) It was a joke, not an argument
2) So it follows, logically, that you sir are a retard
(ps..
3) The origin of Egyptian civilization has been traced back to settlements around 6000 BC and there is certainly evidence of religion/mythology stuff going on during the stone age elsewhere. Assuming that they didn’t invent creation myths at the exact same time they discovred writing it is safe to say that tales of creation existed earlier.)
August 9th, 2005 at 9:36 am
Normally, I stay out of these debates. I haven’t met a creationist yet who based her/his opinion on the evidence, and you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
But this paragraph from David caught my eye:
“The big bang theory and evolution defy most of the laws of physics, thermodynamics and statistical probablities. But we force our children to learn it and nothing else anyway.”
David, I am a statistician with a background in physics. Please explain HOW the big bang theory and evolution break the laws of physics and probability.
If you really do have evidence for this, consider this request as a chance to practice your Nobel acceptance speech.
August 9th, 2005 at 9:36 am
“ID has been the predominant public belief of our beginings for 6,000+ years.”
Funny, it was only a few years ago when I first heard of ID (it is almost unknown outside the United States). Do you believe in the Flat Earth, too? It was also a very long-lived belief.
“There is no evidence of evolution.”
This phrase is either extremely funny, or terribly sad.
“ID people dont try and silence evolutionists, they just want equal time.”
Of course they want. Because then they can propagate their beliefs. Should Flat Earthers have similar amount of time as astronomers or geologists have?
August 9th, 2005 at 9:47 am
I don’t see how something like this is unethical. Every time I create a link to some place, I help it rise a little bit in the Google results page. I have links to Hoagland, Sibrel, Lieder, and a hundred other antiscientific web pages, all of which get some tiny boost from having me link to them.
So if I change that link to go to some place that refutes them, that’s pretty much the same thing, and it actually does some good.
August 9th, 2005 at 9:48 am
I think a few of you like Rand don’t understand what a google bomb is… It’s 100% legal.
Basically, if you link to a website saying “this is about intelligent design”, Google will record it. The more pages links to that place, the higher the page will be in the google searches.
It’s not a bad thing to link to some page you believe says something important. It’s even recommended.
August 9th, 2005 at 10:12 am
I never claimed it was not legal. I simply stated that it did not mesh well with what my heart tells me is ok and not ok to do. If you want to do this thing, go ahead. Fine. Nothing I can do will stop you. Just know that you lose the support of guys like me who were leaning one way or another. Were.
August 9th, 2005 at 10:12 am
“There is no evidence of evolution. If you have evidence and want to make a quick $250,000 then go to drdino.com. Dr Kent Hovind will pay anyone with irrefutable evidence of evolution $250k. For over 10 years noone has taken the challenge.”
One need only look as far as pesticide resistant bugs and plants, and penicillin resistant bacteria to see evolution over the last 50 years.
Viruses mutate and persist. That’s evolution too.
There are moths (can’t remember the specific species) in the UK that were once mostly white… as soot, from industrialization started to cover many things, the white moths were selected for elimination and a dark/black strain became predominant as the white strain was more easily picked off by predators. As the UK cleaned up its act, the white strain is making a comeback. That’s evolution too.
I suspect what the good doctor wants is to see an ape-man or a fish-horse or some such thing, but evolution doesn’t indicate chimera-type creatures, so no evidence of evolution would be good enough to suit him.
But you could also say that an “invisible pink unicorn DESIGNED these things, have faith.” Since that position is untestable, it’s difficult to argue against.
August 9th, 2005 at 10:22 am
There is only 1 reason necessary to explain why ID should NOT be taught in public schools.
The purpose of a public school is to teach knowledge and critical thinking. ID is not knowledge as it is not based on fact. Nor is it critical thinking because its premise requires faith, not an examination of evidence. ID is RELIGION and therefore does not belong in a public school because religion is a private matter.
Teach all the ID you want in your own private schools. I’m all for that. I’ll think it’s sad, but it’s your school, your money, and your children’s futures.
But when it comes from tax dollars, it should be available to everyone, and ID is a Christian, faith-based idea that is neither fair nor reasonable to foist upon the children of non-Christian taxpayers who either have their own religion or no religion.
Separation of church and state: it’s the foundation of a free country. Even countries that are not disestablished often won’t teach religion in schools (Canada, UK), and the idea that ID should be taught there is laughable in those countries.
August 9th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Evolving Squid says
“One need only look as far as pesticide resistant bugs and plants, and penicillin resistant bacteria to see evolution over the last 50 years.
Viruses mutate and persist. That’s evolution too.
There are moths (can’t remember the specific species) in the UK that were once mostly white… as soot, from industrialization started to cover many things, the white moths were selected for elimination and a dark/black strain became predominant as the white strain was more easily picked off by predators. As the UK cleaned up its act, the white strain is making a comeback. That’s evolution too.”
That is all true, but the pesticide resistant bugs and plants are still bugs and plants. The virus that mutates is still a virus. The white and dark moths are still moths. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest any of these examples started to evolve into a monkey, or a horse, or a giraffe.
Lets not confuse evolution with a creature adapting to its enviornment. In the winter time I am white as a ghost. But in the summer time when I spend more time outdoors I get very tan. Did my body evolve or adapt to my enviornment? What happens when winter rolls around again, do I evolve backwards?
I live around sea level. What happens if I move way up into the mountains where the air is much thinnner. My body adapts by becoming more efficient at oxygen absorption. My bodily functions change due to the decrease in atmospheric pressure (ie, blood pressure, heart rate, metabolism, etc). And then my body adapts again if I move back to sea level.
I am not trying to be silly. To say these changes are evolution and not adaption to one’s enviornment is a denial of logic, reason and common sense.
August 9th, 2005 at 10:43 am
So.. your DNA changes in the summer?
August 9th, 2005 at 10:46 am
What is faith? Here are some definitons.
Meriam-Webster: 1: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. 2: something that is believed especially with strong conviction
Cambridge Dictionary: 1: great trust or confidence in something or someone
Encarta: 1: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. 2: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
Since there is no proof of evolution (hence the term ‘theory of evolution’), then by denfinition evolution is a religion. Why is this religion being taught in public schools?
August 9th, 2005 at 10:46 am
This is a worthy cause I think is worth lending a helping hand on. Once again, great posting BA.
August 9th, 2005 at 10:53 am
bombs away
August 9th, 2005 at 10:57 am
No, my DNA doesnt change in the in the summer. It also doesnt change if my body develops a resistance to pain killers and stronger ones have to be prescribed. My body doesnt evovle, it adapts. Just like in the above examples given.
August 9th, 2005 at 11:40 am
David said “ID has been the predominant public belief of our beginings for 6,000+ years. ”
ID in its present form has only been around since the 1980s as a result of court loses of “creationism” and then “creation science”. It’s very convenient of you to lump all ancient Man’s beliefs in with Philip Johnson’s.
David said ” Lets not confuse evolution with a creature adapting to its enviornment….”
First, adaptation is one component of evolution.
Second, individuals do not evolve…populations do. Your argument is a strawman.
August 9th, 2005 at 11:59 am
David, those changes I described are DNA changes in the species. They’re not adapting by producing a bit of extra melanin to help an individual fight off the effects of increased UV exposure…
The viruses are mutating into different viruses.
The mosquitoes that are more resistant to DDT survived to reproduce, their young, blasted with more DDT underwent the same selection. Over time, mosquitoes that were basically immune to DDT evolved. They’re different now, after many generations. Their DNA is slightly different now as a species, producing traits for DDT resistance. No individual creature adapted, the whole population adapted together.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_theory_of_natural_selection__part_1_13.asp
The moths went the same way.
August 9th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
I think the main issue here is that Intelligent Design does not follow the scientific method and therefore should not be taught in science lessons. This is the same reason that we don’t teach art appreciation or Shakespeare’s tragedies in science lessons. They aren’t science too. That is why they get their own special place in the curriculum.
Evolution happens in small steps and takes many, many generations to happen. Small things like viruses or moths have short life-spans, so we see them change relatively quickly. We, on the other hand, take about 25 years per generation so evolution happens extremely slowly for us. If only we could hang around for a couple of million years you would ‘see’ evolution with big organsims too. Of course, we can do this by looking at fossils to see how we (and everything else) has changed over the previous few million (billion) years. This is the closest thing we have to a time machine.
Finally, monetary prizes for ‘absolute proof’ are utterly pointless and the inability of anyone to win them means nothing. Scientists can’t give absolute proof – that is what religions of all flavours claim to do – and a scientific proof is (almost) never good enough for the people offering these kinds of prizes. The problem is that a scientific argument uses logic whereas they don’t. One example I saw, was a gentleman offering a substantial prize (by my standards) for anyone who could prove to him that the Earth goes around the Sun. There is no chance of changing his mind because, for all his claims of counter scientific arguments, it just boils down to the fact that he believes that it doesn’t.
August 9th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
David,
Hovind has not been able to provide any evidence for anything he has proposed. His challenge has been met but he will not accept it.
There are unlimited numbers of transitional fossil species–we have the fossils. Evolution is a historical science. We got the evidence from numerous branches of science from genetics, morphology, geology, oceanography, botany, phylogeny, micro-biology, on and on and on.
Bats are mammals with wings and they represent 25 % of the mammal species–how did they evolve wings? How is it that there are lareg fruit bats, bats that eat insects, bats that eat fish and frogs, bats that eat nectar and pollen, etc..? How about retiles that evolved flying from a similar morpholgy of bats into pteradons (different species that ate fish, insects, reptiles, etc.). The same arm and hand morphology that reptiles evolved wings and feathers (used for decoration and enthothermy) into birds, the same morpholgy that birds evolved flippers like the peguins, just like the four-legged mammals which evolved into the whles and dolphins with their morpholgy of legs and hands evolving into flippers and flukes. All of these are in the fossil record with transitional fossils.
How do you explain dinosaurs and every year we find more and more different species of dinosaur evolving from @ 225 to 65 million years ago?
How can you explain that we have in the recent fossil record of the past 200,000 years of three separate and distinct species of Homo co-existing all at the same time: Homo Erectus also known as Cro Magnon man, Neanderthals, and Homo sapiens (us) ? The other two species have gone extinct from 25,000 to 40,000 years ago. We are the end line of our species evolution. We got the fossils!
And, have you investigated the evolution of Equus? Equus and cetcean evolution is quite well documented in the fossil record: go to http://virtualhorse.freewebpage.org/evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html
Evolution just happens. Try this: http://www.evolutionhappens.net/
Your two creators are your biological parents–you are their special creation.
Read “Climbing Mount Improbable” by Richard Dawkins.
I have read Hovind’s books–religion! No evidence to support them. Anti-scientific. For example:
The moon is spiraling away from Earth @ 2.5 to 3.0 cm per year since its formation from the impact of a planetoid 1/3 Mars mass with the Earth about 4.3 billion years ago. The debris from that impact reformed into our moon and left overs impacted the Earth. There are several meters, about 15 meters, of impact brecia covering the lunar surface and compacted. Twelve Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon from 1969 through 1972 (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17).
Dr Hovind does not accept any of this.
August 9th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
David said:
“There is not a shred of evidence to suggest any of these examples started to evolve into a monkey, or a horse, or a giraffe.”
This is so wrong it’s hard to know where to start. Talk-origins would be a good place. NCSE’s site would be another (www.ncseweb.org). Given what you’ve said in the past, David, I suspect you have looked at these sites and dismissed what they say. That’s too bad, because that means you have closed to your eyes to real way to see the Universe: through evidence, through facts– through science. However, I think most people aren’t afraid to keep their eyes open, and are unafraid to travel wherever the evidence takes us.
August 9th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
David said >
“formidable years” ?
We’re still laughing at that here in the teacher’s lounge.
Yes, they are indeed the “formidable years.”
You need to stop propagating lies. It is not against the law to teach ID in public schools. You shouldn’t teach it as science (and should rightfully get dragged over the coals for doing so), but you could teach it in an apporpairate class such as philospophy or comparative religion.
August 9th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Sorry for typos,etc. Typing with one hand due to cast.
August 9th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
David,
You said “But it is very rare, few and far between that I see anything on ID.” This is patently untrue as most Televangelists rant against evolution all the time. But if you mean scientific shows with evidence of I.D. – there cant’ be any because there is no proof. Without scientific proof of a designer no object could be attributed to his/her work. Why would you infer the power of a supernatural being when the observed power of natural selection is all that is needed? You make a point of saying the Creation story – call a spade a spade – has been believed for 6000 years – WHOSE creation? You want us all to believe the anciet Egyption myths? or the Mayan? And this would be akin to saying to a seven-year-old that since you have believed in Santa Clause for Six and a half years you must have been right, even though your reasoning skills have now led you to realize the truth is more rational. It took much hard work and many years to compile enough evidence in many fields to develop a hypothesis that became the theory of Evolution – It was only about 150 years ago that enough was know to put the puzzle together into a coherent picture, and to overcome the entrenched (if lazy) belief in a 7 day world creator.
August 9th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Some definitons of faith (among others).
Encarta: 1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. 2. religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it.
Merriam-Webster: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Some definitions of religion (among others):
Encarta: personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.
Oxford: a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
Columbia Encyclopedia: a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe.
I cannot prove to you concretetly there is a creator, this is true. Noone can prove concretely evolution is true (that is why it is called the ‘THEORY of evolution’). Science has not proved evolution and it has not disproved a creator. With the lack of concrete proof, both beliefs are taken on faith. That is a fact whether evolutionists will admit it or not.
By definition, faith in evolution is a religion. Why is the religion of evoltuion being taught in school?
I am now bieng told I am being blocked because they consider my posts as spam. My business here is finished anyway. In the end the truth will be revealed. For me, when SINCERELY analyzing ALL the evidence for both sides (creation vs evolution) it takes a greater leap of faith to believe and/or put my trust in evolution.
August 9th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Hey- I need some more content…
What do I do? Just link to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp ?
August 9th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
People can help by doing more than just Google Bombing. Any linking helps. It works best though if instead of “click here” or a raw URL that one choose to use relevant text or a title instead. (The grammar police and activists for those with visual disabilites also prefer avoiding “click here” as well.)
But still Google bombing is legit. Indeed Google seems to accept it.
August 9th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
rand, evolution stands on it’s own, based on evidence, not faith. if a google bomb discussion is what pushes you to believing in ID as a result, then i question your motives as well as scientific understanding in the first place. my guess is you just wanted a reason to side with ID anyway. too bad beut in the end, only you will suffer as a result. furthermore, nobody is acting like an “unethical child”, science is simply tired of taking a back seat on google.
finally, you [i]really[/i] need to go look up what a “google bomb” is, as you apparently think it is something different. just getting all your friends to put a link to your site qualifies. exactly how is that unethical?
taks
August 9th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Rand,
Google bombing is just a bit of mischief of the no harm, no foul variety. And if you’re willing to discard all of the observational evidence supporting the theory of natural selection over google bombing ID – well, I would just say that your decision tree is lacking a certain bit of, shall we say, rigor.
August 9th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
OK Plognark, I looked it up as you suggested. Wikipedia describes Google bombing as an outgrowth of Spamdexing, which it defines as, “…search engine spamming…the practice of deliberately and dishonestly modifying HTML pages to increase the chance of them being placed close to the beginning of search engine results, or to influence the category to which the page is assigned in a dishonest manner.”
Perhaps sabotage and vandalism was a little strong, but I see nothing valiant nor courageous in these efforts to deliberately mislead web searches. It is immature at best and probably disingenuous.
No one is going to change the mind of a close-minded individual through this forum or letters to the editor or any similar method. Sinking to the level of the ID baloney-spreaders is not helpful in advancing scientific awareness.
August 9th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Googlebombing is looking for satellite images of bomb craters in Google Maps.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.498583,-115.872374&spn=0.004603,0.007981&t=k&hl=en
August 9th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Googlebombing is looking for satellite images of bomb craters in Google Maps.
http://tinyurl.com/a3qjo
August 9th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Double post not my fault! I got a big script error spew page after the first posting! I thought maybe it was the weird URL so I TinyURLed it.
August 9th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Seems to me that there is some confusion here in the “definition of terms” department between “evolution” and “natural selection”.
August 9th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
Oh, BTW, I’m seeing quotes from a “David”, but I don’t see his posts/comments anywhere. Did I miss something?
August 9th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
I suppose being a bit flippant can turn some folks upside down. I won’t let a sizzling blog title disturb my pedantic nature since the content is not without merit.
August 9th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
I don’t see this as misleading at all. For a while, if you typed “Nancy Lieder” into google, my site came up first. Is that misleading? I don’t think so; in fact, it led peopel to the real info about her.
If people type ID into google, I’d like to see them get to a site with facts, not garbage.
August 9th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
KEEP GOOGLE BOMBING! I just ran a search on Intelligent Design, and while it definitely brought up some skeptical sites, it also brought up a fair share of creationist sites! May the Flying Invisible Pink Spaghetti Unicorn spread his/her noodly appendage/unshod hooves over our work!
August 9th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
The horror! A Google search that gave you sites you didn’t agree with… as well as those you do…!
August 9th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
Intelligent Design
If you want the skinny on ID, aka Intelligent Design, then head on over to the National Center for Science Education. via the Bad Astronomer…
August 10th, 2005 at 12:17 am
We are go for google bomb
http://www.scotsons-shack.com/nonI-ID.htm
August 10th, 2005 at 2:34 am
“I suspect what the good doctor wants is to see an ape-man or a fish-horse or some such thing”
“May the Flying Invisible Pink Spaghetti Unicorn spread his/her noodly appendage/unshod hooves over our work!”
lol, brilliant.
I suspect part of this unethical/ethical debate is due to the fact that the term ‘Google Bombing’ sounds considerably more extreme than it actually is. As with all things, people should consider ALL the facts before commenting
August 10th, 2005 at 3:52 am
“May the Flying Invisible Pink Spaghetti Unicorn spread his/her noodly appendage/unshod hooves over our work!�
Ok, since you have united those two faiths, I shall label you unitarian. I, however dont like that, so I guess I am a protestant. I also know for a fact that there is no ketchup involved in the anatomy of FSM, and to celebrate that we must avoid tomato-based condiments to any and all pasta with meat.
August 10th, 2005 at 6:03 am
I’m still amazed that people seem to think google bombing is different than, say, taking out a big ad in a newspaper or stapling ads to telephone poles or spreading flyers to people on the street.
Nothing is being “vandalized” here. Google is not being hacked, no one is being censored or having their content illegally hacked and/or edited.
It’s the internet equivalent of running an ad campaign.
Google is just a search engine. All they do is look for links on a given topic and what people associate it with. If more and more people link to sites related to ID that debunk it, how is that unethical? Are we doing something dishonest here? No. Are we preventing the creationists form having their say in any way? No.
People have a warped perception of what this is and how Phil is requesting we go about doing it.
If we were linking ID to, say, cheddar cheese, for no apparent reason other than to be a nuisance I could buy the claims that this is somehow unethical, but we’re linking it to information on ID. It’s not being dishonestly linked to an unrelated piece of information, it’s being linked to a scientific perspective on the topic so more people can be exposed to what’s *really* going on.
Sheesh.
And while I’m ranting: David, your posts, and Kent Hovind, are a joke. I see you’re still spreading the same lies and misconceptions you can’t let go of. No big shocker there.
August 10th, 2005 at 8:32 am
”Wikipedia describes Google bombing as an outgrowth of Spamdexing”
No it does not.
I qualifies ‘link spam’ aka Googlebombing as one of the tools used by spamdexers. In that sense, yes, Googlebombing is ‘bad’.
However, the real meat of the article was that if a google bomb does not ring true in the web community, it will be a real damp squib, because the links only last for a finite time. So unless your site of choice strikes a chord with a constituancy, it will sink back to its original ranking, as no-one will make ‘real’ links to it.
The point is, Googlebombing does NOT attack ‘enemy’ websites, it aides a single ‘allied’ site.
And in this particular case (from reading the temper of comments here) the message is not ‘Victory at all costs!’ but ‘Pin your colours to the mast!’
August 10th, 2005 at 10:20 am
I added my drop to the bucket…
August 10th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Plognark: David’s posts are a joke? This is coming from somebody in a lineup of comments dealing with anthropomorphized pasta…
There is a lot of “condemnation before consideration” going on here.
August 10th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
George W. Bush: (Un)Intelligent Design?
[updated 8/10/05] So I was watching the news, or something like that, and I see that our one and only president (ugh), George W. Bush, made some comments endorsing intelligent design as something that should be taught in our schools.
August 10th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Neb, the difference between FSMism (may we be forever touched by his noodly appendage!) and creationism is that we REALIZE FSM is a joke. Creationists haven’t realized their science is one yet.
“Condemnation before Consideration”? My good Neb, there are whole SITES devoted to analyzing creationism. And you know what? ALL of them reject it as scientifically immpossible. Believe me, Creationism has been considered from every angle and it has failed to hold up under the scrutiny. Our good BA himself has a chapter in his book devoted to debunking the astronomical part of Creationism. We are condemning it because it represents how people continually shove their heads into a certain part of their body when it comes to defending their beliefs – they simply won’t acceot the book they place so much trust in is wrong.
They are like the Black Knight – even as science incredulousy lops of limb after limb, they continue to make ridiculous attempts at an attack, as they become reduced to a bloody torso
August 10th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
As it stands, couldn’t ID be considered pareidolia? Squint so hard looking for something that you want to see that your brain finds a way to see it?
Is there a word that describes pareidolia of a concept rather than of visual stimuli?
Neglecting the usual christian connotations of the term “Intelligent Design”… from a Gaianist-type approach, it really doesn’t take much of a leap for textbook Evolution, unaltered, to become Intelligent Design. Funny how the walls go up when you add “6,000 years” to the formula. I guess everything is a matter of how you squint.
August 10th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Actually… with respect to the comment that an individual does not genetically evolve… this is not quite strictly true.
The mammalian immune system exploits a process of selective self-signaling pressure to respond to invading pathogens. Both the T-cell receptor gene and the Immunoglobulin cluster genes are subjected to random mutations in so-called hypervariable regions. Many B-cells and T-cells display unique Antibody or TCR on their surfaces and the genes coding for these proteins are mechanically and permanently altered from the original germ line genes. When the immune system encounters a new pathogen, hormone signaling between cells causes B-cells and T-cells that randomly recognize the invader (via Ig or TCR) to proliferate. As these activated B- and T-cells divide, they further mutate their Ig or TCR randomly and those daughter cells that more strongly recognize the pathogen receive a hormone signal to continue proliferating while those that recognize more weakly apoptose (undergo cell suicide). During the process of fighting off an infection, B-cells and T-cells undergo a selective pressure to alter their genomes to more strongly recognize the invader. The initial recognition of the invader is based solely on the probability that, out of the multiple billions of B-cells and T-cells residing latent in a mammal’s blood stream, one or two just happen to bind to the invader purely on chance -the selective evolution happens from there.
Therefore, the immune system of a mammal does undergo genetic evolution as a result of fighting an illness. Keep in mind that this evolution is not heritable because it is not to germ cells.
This phenomena is extensively used in biotech applications to produce unique antibodies that are applied commercially in everything. Anybody heard of a Western Blot?
August 10th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
I don’t really object to discussion of ID in science classes; what I object to is teaching a lie. I would have no objection to ID being discussed in high school biology classes if I could be assured that they would tell the truth, namely,
“Within the biological community, “Intelligent Design” is considered to be a fringe theory at best, and for the most part is not taken seriously by practicing scientists. Many scientists consider it not even to be a valid scientific theory, because in contrast to Natural Selection, ID does not generate strong predictions that can be used to test the theory.”
A big part of the Creationism/ID public relations campaign is clearly to create a false public impression that evolutionary theory is “in trouble,” that it is losing support among scientists. Part of this public relations campaign is clearly to generate a large web presence for ID to create the illusion that it is actually a field of scientific study. The unfortunately named “Google bombing” is merely a method of insuring that sites offering the scientific perspective on ID are up there in the Google rankings along with the pseudoscientific ID sites.
August 10th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
The only problem with that is that by metioning it in a science class gives the impression that, while a fringe theory, it is at least considered possible by scientists (which it is not)
August 10th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
David Said:
> Anti-ID people are ‘google bombing’ to keep people away from reputable ID sites that present facts.
Isn’t “reputable ID sites” an oxy-moron?
They’re not Google-bombing to keep people away from good information on ID, they’re Google-bombing to give good information on ID a more prominent position in searches.
Oh, I see, you and I have a different definition of “good information on ID”.
David Said:
> Since there is no proof of evolution (hence the term ‘theory of evolution’),
Right here you’re making a fundamental mistake of misunderstanding. A scientific theory is not an unprovable conjecture, or guess, as you imply. A theory is an explanation, based on evidence and tested through predictions based on the theory, critical analysis of the data collection process, and duplicating results. By your definition, the “Germ Theory” of disease is unprovable.
> …then by denfinition evolution is a religion. Why is this religion being taught in public schools
Hence, this statement is flat out wrong. Evolution is an explanation derived from interpreting the evidence – the fossil record, common morphologies, breeding patterns, study of animal husbandry and agriculture, laboratory breeding, and the study of genetics.
And that’s without delving into the definition of “religion”.
> Lets not confuse evolution with a creature adapting to its enviornment.
Yes, let us not. You seem to think any change experienced by an individual is evolution. No. Your examples are all flawed because they are not examples of evolution.
> That is all true, but the pesticide resistant bugs and plants are still bugs and plants. The virus that mutates is still a virus. The white and dark moths are still moths. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest any of these examples started to evolve into a monkey, or a horse, or a giraffe.
Your caught up in the “Macroevolution vs. Microevolution” or “kinds” argument. Your examples are bogus again, this time through exaggeration. Nobody, scientists included, expect a moth to become a monkey in an observable human life span. But the fossil record and genetics tie together and both provide evidence of descent from common ancestors. The processes that work on the small scale (within species) are the same processes that drive species differentiation and development of new species, through the power of time.
August 10th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
I’m Catholic & I’m not against Evolution at all…as far as the German Cardinal spouting off..well, Cardinals are not infallible only when they become Pope and then only in matters of faith alone!
Actually, the belief that the world was created only 6,000 years ago and that God does not use evolution is a bit too much….how and why should we put God into a box built by us? These folks do not think of this.
At any rate, Astronomers tell us that the observable Universe is about 15 Billion Light Years and that it is a spherical in nature….
Here is a quote, taken from the Timothy Ferris book
“Galaxies”
“He showed me a little thing,
the quatity of a hazel-nut,
in the palm of my hand:
and it was as round as a ball.
I looked thereupon with the eye
of my understanding, and thought;
What may this be? and it was
answered generally thus:
It is all that is made”
St. Juliana
St. Juliana was a Christian mystic.
In her vision she was of course
talking to God.
August 11th, 2005 at 4:51 am
Neb: I know David from another message board (or at least I’m almost positive that I do) and I am, unfortunately, all too familiar with his posting style and with Hovind as well. I’m not just pouncing on him to be mean.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:32 am
Will we be seeing any more of this “David’? Or has he gone of to knock down other imaginary Goliaths?
August 11th, 2005 at 9:16 am
“The only problem with that is that by metioning it in a science class gives the impression that, while a fringe theory, it is at least considered possible by scientists (which it is not)”
Well, as a scientist, I certainly consider it possible that some intelligent entity created life in some way that perfectly simulates the outcome of evolution. For that matter, I consider it possible that the entire universe, including our memories, was created yesterday in such a way that it appears to be billions of years old. But since neither of these options offers any kind of observational or experimental tests, they are not distinguishable from evolution–they merely offer another layer of complexity that adds nothing to the predictive power of the theory of evolution. The notion may be philosophically interesting, but it is scientifically worthless.
One can certainly imagine variants of the ID theory that would be testable–i.e. “Some entity created life in a way that produces results that are almost, but not quite, identical to what you would expect from evolution.” If the people pushing ID were really scientists, we’d see a lot of activity in this area. Scientists want theories that can be tested and potentially disproved. But with a very few exceptions, the people pushing ID are religious zealots rather than scientists, so they don’t dare to risk putting ID to test. So instead of trying to come up with ways to test their own theory, they snipe (generally rather clumsily and dishonestly) at evolution.
August 11th, 2005 at 9:51 am
I have been reading a lot of the comments about the ID/creationism stuff in my goof-off time at work the last few days, and I have found it all pretty interesting. I have always been interested in astronomy, paleontology, geology, etc. and have never found anything in science which contradicts my religious beliefs. To the contrary, science enhances and informs my faith. I have been exposed to a lot of creationist mumbo- jumbo before, (which I belived at the time) and when I knew enough to realize I had been duped I was more than a little upset. People who distort facts like this are nothing but snake- oil salesmen and should never be allowed to get their views accepted in public schools. They are disguising a narrow social and political agenda as science.
BTW, I think this is the most well-done and informative website out there!
August 12th, 2005 at 9:58 am
“Nothing I can do will stop you. Just know that you lose the support of guys like me who were leaning one way or another. Were.”
Yep. I was on the fence about this whole I.D. vs. Evolution thing..damn…lets see, warmed over creationism with no scientific basis, or well established scientific theory with lots of well established facts…
oh wait, you evolution guys GOOGLE BOMB??? looks like I.D. FOR ME!!! screw the dinosaurs!!
August 13th, 2005 at 12:34 am
How about another dilemma: whether to continue to throw about terms you don’t understand, or to get ahold of some accurate definitions of Intelligent Design and Creationism?
August 13th, 2005 at 12:37 am
A challenge to you all: Define Intelligent Design.
Just give a definition, if possible without reference to Creationism.
August 13th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Oh! Oh ! I know! I know!
Intelligent Design (ID; n):
1) A wholly incorrect idea based on preconceived religious beliefs that evolution must be wrong, despite the vast amount of evidence that evolution is one of the most powerful scientific ideas in the history of mankind. The people behind the ID movement therefore desperately cling to any idea, no matter how obviously wrong, and no matter how much it’s been shown to be wrong, and trumpet it mercilessly and repeatedly.
2) A movement whose sole purpose is to “wedge” specific and monolithic religious beliefs into the classroom, despite the fact that it’s grossly and completely wrong.
3) An offshoot idea from a religious sect that believes in literal Biblical interpretation.
4) A movement many of whose most vocal proponents are known to use deceptive and misleading tactics, stopping just shy of fraud. Usually.
5) Warmed-over creationism.
Oh, nuts! I blew it there in #5. I guess I didn’t play by the rules.
Of course, neither do they. But this isn’t a serious debate, and it’s okay for me to joke here. But when it comes to the real thing, this is a very serious a matter of truth (the real world) versus falsehood (ID). And I won’t stand for it.
August 13th, 2005 at 10:55 am
I’ll play:
(Wikipedia) Intelligent design (ID) is the assertion that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that the initial life on earth, and perhaps some of its present details, was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents; additionally, or alternately, it may include the idea that different empirical evidence supports a similar conclusion regarding the universe itself.
My personal definition is: ID is the belief that a speculative hypothesis can be elevated to the status of tested scientific theory through the application of political pressure and the exploitation of ignarance.
August 13th, 2005 at 10:56 am
…though I usually spell it ‘Ignorance’.
August 14th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
For my money Evolution is clearly the intelligent choice for how the Earth got populated as it is. Intelligent Design (ID) is theory that lacks its own intelligent design — a not so intelligent design theory.
August 15th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Intelligent Design is not a theory. One of the fundamental ways it fails to be a theory is that it is not an explanation. A theory is a comprehensive explanation of events – explanations that are subjected to scrutiny and tested by collecting data, analysing that data, evaluating not just the data itself but the manner in which it was collected and evaluated (publish and peer review), and then duplicating the results. But the key word here is explanation. Intelligent Design lacks the key ingredient. “It was designed,” is not an explanation, it is a declaration. It provides no explanation of who designed it or why it was designed. It provides no explanation of the design goals, the design limitations (e.g. budget, constricting natural laws, conflicting design goals, etc), how design choices were made, how the final design accomplishes the design goals, what alternative designs were considered, why this design solution was selected. It is a non-answer.
IDers would have us think the designer is not important (at least at this point). In one sense, they are correct – first establish design, then worry about the designer. But the problem is that design requires a designer, and there’s only one designer out there that fits the bill. True, if we’re just looking at life on Earth, we can argue that some previous ET society conjured up Earth life as a research project or something, but that just begs the question of their origin. And Earth life is really only the starting point for the ID goal to address the cosmological questions, such as the anthropic principle. Given questions over universal constants and the formation of the laws of the universe, there’s really only one designer that fits the bill – a designer outside of the universe, present before the formation of the universe in order to establish those universal laws and constants. Gee, who could fit the bill?
What about Irreducible Complexity (IC)? IC is Behe’s pet project, the assertion that some elements of biology are too complex to have originated without help, some steps in the development chain too large to have been jumped by the natural processes we know about (mutation and natural selection). One can ignore the philosophical motivations behind the questions and treat IC scientifically, evaluate it on scientific terms. When doing so, it becomes evident that Behe has some serious flaws.
The biggest error for IC is it suffers from a fundamental flaw of assuming that all components necessary for every step in the evolutionary path are currently around in (or at least recognizable as) their unaltered form. Behe is a biochemist, so it makes sense that he discusses biochemical pathways and the development of things like blood clotting, bacterial flagella and cilia, and protein transport in a cell. IC states that these complex biochemical pathways have many components, without any one the whole system would be utterly non-functional. Thus they couldn’t have evolved piecemeal, because each component is worthless without the others. That argument is just wrong.
It is true the current biochemical pathways are complex, and maybe it’s true that all the current components are required for it to function at all, but what is missing is the possibility that the current process did not develope in a linear manner. Like a scaffolding used to construct a building that is removed without a trace once the building is complete, these currently complex pathways could have been formed by other, simpler components that have now disappeared. That simpler pathway may not have functioned as well, but well-enough to bridge the gaps. The current complexity developed originally as unnecessary redundancies that enhanced the process without being required, and then later became necessary as the original mode disappeared.
Here is a review where biochemist David Ussery addresses Behe’s claims head-on. He also points at numerous articles in PubMed that study the origins of biochemical pathways that Behe claims cannot be explained. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html
Another review of Behe’s book, discussing this point. http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html
TalkOrigins faq on Behe and IC
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
More links about IC and Behe
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to demonstrate IC. He states that a mousetrap has several parts that are necessary, without any one the whole item fails to function. Well, someone took the mousetrap and demonstrated that it can be broken down into an evolutionary path that starts from one component and evolves into the modern snap-mousetrap that is “irreducibly complex”. This simple demonstration puts Behe’s own analogy to the test, and demonstrates exactly the process of development discussed above, where components that begin as slight improvements and serve one function then change to serve another function, and then disappear as new components replace them more effectively.
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
In short, if IC is evaluated on scientific merits, it fails. Therefore, IC is NOT a justification for ID.
August 15th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
One question: Since determining the ‘creator(s)’ is/are “intelligent”, wouldn’t that be a testable hypothesis? And, if so, what are the tests the IDers offer? I’ve read a bit on the subject (ID) because I find it an interesting socio-cultural-political phenomenon and, as a concerned citizen, I also see it as a threat to our scientific/rational culture. But, the Iders generally start from the proposition that the Creator(s) have to be intelligent because of the complexity of creation. However, we know that non-intelligent organisms (bees, ants, etc) can create complex, purposeful structures, ones that are as “unnatural” as Behe’s mousetrap. We just don’t normally think of them as unnatrual, because of out anthropomorphc view of the universe and what qualifies as natural and unnatural behavior.
But, I defy you to find a beehive that just ‘happened.’ So, since the IDers think that the Creator is intelligent, what is the test they used to determine this?
I realize this is academic, since ID is not science, but faith; however, it is still amusing to poke at them. In my opinion, of course.
August 15th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
*quote*…IC states that these complex biochemical pathways have many components, without any one the whole system would be utterly non-functional. Thus they couldn’t have evolved piecemeal, because each component is worthless without the others….
*end quote*
As a biochemist, I’ll offer another reason why this is wrong. The statement that the whole biochemical system does not function without any one component is patently false. First, one of the major tools used by modern molecular biologists is gene knockout; which is to say that the scientist deletes a gene and looks to see if it affects the growth of the organism. It is a fact that some genes can be knocked out without any deleterious effect; Prp, the protein implicated in prion disease, can be knocked out without either killing or causing any obvious negative health effect. Second, the accepted map of central metabolism is a huge spiderweb of chemical pathways -if you’ve ever taken a class about it, you’ll get shudders remembering it. Some of these pathways are used to synthesize extraordinarily important compounds, like amino acids -which are assembled into proteins-. It is a fact that many higher organisms lack certain pathways for synthesis of these kinds of chemicals de novo (from scrap). You need to acquire these building blocks through your diet because you can’t make them yourself. As a result, you have to rely on some other organism to make them for you. I am to understand that the necessary gene groups still exist as genome relics in some cases, but are inactive due to single point mutations that make them unreadable. These are both examples of ways that pieces of biochemistry can be removed without the whole system collapsing.
The problem I have with the whole argument of “knock something out and everything falls apart, therefore Irreducibly Complex” is that life never seems to work on those absolutes. Living systems have an enormous number of back-up, shunt and plain-out inefficiently quirky features; transposons, for instance. This kind of gene often serves no other purpose but to copy itself out of one spot in the genome and copy itself back into another. That’s all it does, and yet the human genome contains lots of them. It’s the biochemical equivalent of a kid making photocopies of his butt on the office copying machine… it serves no purpose, but it happens. Are they essential to our life-form? No, not a bit. And yet our DNA replication machinery dutifully preserves them.
Given, there are critical biochemical components that you can’t knock out, but you can’t say all or nothing. You can’t knock out the whole ribosome, but you can knock out pieces of it. At some point, in order to preserve the Irreducible Complexity argument, you have to have a set definition of “this is life, plus nothing, minus nothing,” and you don’t even get that between individual organisms of the same species. There are bacteria that randomly pick up pieces of DNA from their environment and use them… which is how antibiotic resistance can get passed from one “species” of bacteria to another. On a rigid definition of species, that’s like me sprouting a third arm and then passing that characteristic over to a goat. There is always some form of “Yeah, but…”
Well, I guess my whole point here is that biochemistry is deliberately imperfect and changable.
August 16th, 2005 at 6:29 am
As far as I’m concerned, ID makes a large number of predictions (I have to hold my hands up at this point and say that some of these were adapted from letters to New Scientist magazine).
1) The designer would not create species that kill one another on a large scale for reasons other than food. That is, of course, unless he was an evil alien from the original series of Star Trek.
2) A designer will prevent extinctions of species, as all species are His/Her/Its design.
3) Any designer would either create every intelligent creature with an innate knowledge of it (e.g. name, facial features, position on homosexuality and abortion), or alternatively would allow no individual knowledge of the designer. (Why tell some people about yourself and not others?)
4) A designer that created the squid’s eye without a blindspot would do the same thing for every other species, including humans. Why create a fully functioning eye and then not use such a great idea again?
5) Assuming the designer was benevolent (find me one IDer who thinks otherwise), there will be no such things as parasites and infectious diseases. If anyone responds that they are necessary to cull species, surely an intelligent designer would make a way for members of a species to die quickly and painlessly whenever a species population becomes too high.
Are there any experimentalists out there who could test these predictions? I’m sure plenty of ID advocates would give you funding to complete your research.
August 16th, 2005 at 9:19 am
David said:
“Some definitions of religion (among others):
…[deletia]…
Oxford: a pursuit or interest followed with devotion. ”
Incorrect. I have, in front of me right now, the Oxford Dictionary of English, second edition, published in 2003, ISBN 0-19-8613474
Page 1487
religion noun [mass noun] the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
further down, as a [count noun] in the second meaning with that sense, it has what you have quoted, but gives an example of that use:
consumerism is the new religion
Thus, it’s quite reasonable and very fair to say that the meaning you quoted does not apply to science, and you have selectively trimmed the dictionary entry to suit your own needs.
August 16th, 2005 at 9:47 am
To add to my previous post, I stumbled upon this just now: http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#animalchlorophyll
Its a pretty exhaustive list of evidence, in case David is still lurking…
August 16th, 2005 at 11:24 am
Viggen Said:
> *quote*…IC states that these complex biochemical pathways have many components, without any one the whole system would be utterly non-functional. Thus they couldn’t have evolved piecemeal, because each component is worthless without the others….
*end quote*
> As a biochemist, I’ll offer another reason why this is wrong. The statement that the whole biochemical system does not function without any one component is patently false.
Just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that ID relies on the entire human biochemical processes as one complete, in toto system that if any component were removed would fail. Behe’s claims relate to particular biochemical pathways within the overall structure. Example: blood clotting, formation of flagella and cilia, the “complement system” of the vertebrate immune system, etc. Each pathway or structure is considered independently.
August 17th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
> Just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that ID relies on the entire human biochemical processes as one complete, in toto system that if any component were removed would fail.
I understand this. However, “pathways” are an artificial mnemonic for us lowly human biochemists to keep track of what interacts with what in a profoundly complicated system in order to track some given outcome. Some pathways are so interconnected that they would not yield to some definition as “irreducible” except by adding artificial divisions to disconnect them from one another. To the point, in one of the examples you have listed, pieces can be knocked out of the Complement cascade while preserving its _full_ effectiveness.
In my own statement before, Prp fills no known point in any central metabolic pathway, but can be activated by misfolded exogenous Prp to generate an abnormal “pathway” where Prp misfolds other Prp molecules and aggregates into fibers that destroy brain cells and cause prion disease. This pathway has the same sort of functionality as, say, blood clotting. A “pathway” with a single endogenous member by Behe’s definition apparently has the irreducible purpose of causing horrible human death over a prolonged period. Transposons, on the other hand, often encode a single protein that effects cell signaling to cause the cell’s own machinery (machinery used here to mean lots of pathways temporarily moved into parallel to form a new pathway which is actually indistinguishable from their normal operation) to copy out the transposon and copy it back in to the genome elsewhere. If you mutate the transposon, it won’t necessarily site jump, but it will continue to be propagated along with all the rest of the natural DNA and its presence or absense do not effect the ultimate functioning of any of the biochemical pathways that it hijacks, whether it functions or not. Both of these examples relate to my original assertion without involving the sum total of human biochemical processes.
I do see and agree with your original point, Irishman, please don’t think I’m not. I’m simply trying to add my own additional point from inside the profession. I believe that irreducible complexity would not stand up well to peer review because you can think up too many possible exceptions or perversions.
August 17th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Forget Intelligent Design.
The Real Threat is Intelligent Falling!
http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
August 19th, 2005 at 11:14 am
Viggen, you make some good additional points.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Why not link to a neutral article about Intelligent Design instead?
August 20th, 2005 at 9:42 am
These days pinging og blogs are also on the go
http://www.exploreuniverse.com
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:50 am
“There are moths (can’t remember the specific species) in the UK that were once mostly white… as soot, from industrialization started to cover many things, the white moths were selected for elimination and a dark/black strain became predominant as the white strain was more easily picked off by predators.”
The moth in question is the Pepper Moth (Biston betularia), as studied by the late Bernard Kettlewell.
HTH.
September 17th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
If Intelligent Design is so bad it will fail on its own. ID people believe that they are informed, so why not debate, you know facts not attacks, prove them wrong. Stop acting like idiots. Refusing them a voice or informing them you will never convert them to your way of thinking. Don’t attack the person just the information that is presented or you will never bring bring anyone to your side.