The Counter to the ID Wedge Strategy

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan Ah yes, and topping it off with some kind of limp, immature insult of sorts.

I have to say, of all the comments I've gotten, yours has to be the weakest, most unstructured and really most pathetic, all rolled into one. That's actually quite an accomplishment, given the... field of contenders.

If you decide to comment again, could you at least try to make an effort to bring a cogent and relevant argument to the table? And not just a myriad of fallacies, errors and nonsense?

[lasciencefan]

you fool claiming that IDist are starting to contradict each other darwinists have been doing that ages no 2 darwinists agree on how they think evolution occured

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan You're mistaking arguing over details to actual contradictions. Could you show me two "darwinists" contradicting each other? Or rather, could you show me how ALL of them are supposedly contradicting each other? I'd like some sources, please.

As for ID'ers, did you know that Michael Behe actually accepts common ancestry? How does that line up with what, say, Philip Johnson believes?

Actually, can you even tell me what it is they really think happened? Specifically?

[lasciencefan]

@Gnug215 i shouldnt need to show you 2 darwinists contradicting each other you know that the current concensus teaches that life arose purely by random chance a massive point of conjecture and that natural selection and random mutation are alone responsible for the diversity of life and all life ..you should know that is only a theory and that there are countless scientists who do not believe evoluton is guided by natural selection and random mutation and that life arose by pure random chance

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan Yes, you should, actually, because if two such "darwinists" contradict each other, we should be able to understand why, and determine how to resolve such a dispute - with science and evidence. Now do you have any such examples of "darwinists" that contradict each other fundamentally in the way the present the theory of evolution?

As for the rest of your message, well, you're just repeating yourself, with a lame argument from authority. Please offer something valuable instead.

[lasciencefan]

@Gnug215 of course evolutionists disagree all the time you know that there are countless people who believe that theistic evolution explains for the complexity of life and that others believe that natural selection and random mutation and pure chance are responsible i should not need to point this out , Stanley N. Salthe an athiest evolutionary biologist stated, that evolutionary biologists were being unfair in suppressing competing ideas. that "They deserve to be prodded,

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan Again with the totally misunderstood notion of theistic evolution. This is hilarious.

Plus, now you seem to be coupling your failed argument from authority with an argument from popularity. Seriously?

[lasciencefan]

@Gnug215 you should know that there are countless scientists who do not accept the current concensus that natural selection and random mutation are alone responsible for the diversity of life or that life arose purely by chance as is taught

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan Countless? Sure, if you can't count to 1,000. If you count only "relevant" scientists (and you should), it's estimated that there are less than 0.1% of scientists that don't accept the theory of evolution. That means 99.9% of them do. Now, since you seem to champion an argument from authority, is that authority enough for you?

Incidentally, what exactly is it you find so random about "selection"? And what do you suggest as an alternative that would account for our observations?

[lasciencefan]

@Gnug215 there are countless scientists who do not accept the current definition of evolution dissentfromdarwin is signed by more than 1000 right but then there is the PSSI physicians and surgeons who dissent from darwinism and the truth is that there are so many other scientists and teachers who do dissent from darwin just they are not allowed to as they will lose their jobs as shown in expelled no intelligence allowed and you know that the eneral public definately dissents from darwinism

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan Ok, now you're just repeating yourself. Now, reaad carefully. First of all, I never talked about Dissent from Darwin in my video. I have told you before, but you ignored that. I then corrected you on the 20,000 number that you brought up, and you ignored that and now you're using a new number. Then you're talking about physicians and surgeons, which are NOT biologists. AND you seem to think public opinion matters.

Seriously?

[lasciencefan]

@Gnug215 of course public opinion matters id hate to see you in government seriously you sound like hitller, there is a wealth of evidence against neodarwinism and also a lot of peer revieved work on ID if you look for it , start with evolutionnewsDOTorg there is a list of recent peer reviewed articles on the faults of neodarwinism and peer reviewed evidence in support of ID ,

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan ... Wow, it only took you a couple of days to bring up Hitler. If I told you that the public opinion was that the Earth was flat, would you say that this was true? No? Didn't think so. Stop reading things into what I'm saying.

Please, show me the evidence against neodarwinism? And peer reviewed work on ID? I want you to find a good example for me from a peer review - something that is NOT from the DI, who have clearly admitted their bias.

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan A large part of the public in the US disagrees with darwinism, but a large part of them are also very religious. Coincidence? This isn't much of a problem in all other western countries. Are you going to tell me the highly religious public of the US matters more than the public of all the other western countries?

Science isn't run on opinion, especially public opinion. Why are you even arguing this? 

[lasciencefan]

@Gnug215 99% of scientist do not believe what you are saying they believe which is neodarwinism its a fact that the majority of those scientist believe in theistic evolution as does the general public all 4 billion or more of them people dont need to be employed scientists to be able to see thru the holes in neodarwinism , its not me who thinks there is anything "random" about natural selection at all it is the neodarwinists what i suggest as an alternative is to be honest

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan Your sentences are pure gibberish. Could you at least try to make an effort to make yourself at least a bit intelligible?

Yes, 99% of relevant scientists accept the modern theory of evolution. You seem to misunderstand the term "theistic evolutionist". A theistic evolutionist is someone who believes in God, but fully accepts the modern theory of evolution.

Seriously, get your facts and definitions straight.

[lasciencefan]

@Gnug215 a theistic evolutionist does not in any way accept the modern theory of evolution that natural selection and random mutation is purely responsible for the massive tree of life, there is a BIG difference in the way someone who believes inGod and someone who doesnt believes in evolution, neodarwinism claims that evolution is a blind watchmaker and that there is no guiding force behind life except natural selection , so that is a big difference

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan You're totally obfuscating the definition of the term. Go look it up on Wikipedia or something; a theistic evolutionist accepts the theory of evolution, but only inserts God as the creator of the forces behind it - that evolution is just one of God's tools.

Anyway, congrats on managing to derail this discussion even more. My video was about the Wedge Document, and you haven't even commented on that at all.

Sheesh.

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan 4 billion people? Where are you getting this number? And the majority of scientists are theistic evolutionists? Do you think the US is the only country in the world or what?

[lasciencefan]

@Gnug215 4 billion is an accurate number as that is how many believe in God or a higher power and evolution is a fact so from that i think its fair to say that there are 4 billion theistic evolutionists

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan From what you wrote I got the distinct impression that you were saying that 4 billion people of the general public (however that large group is in total?) didn't accept the theory of evolution. But well, of those 4 billion people, it's safe to say that not all are theistic evolutionists. A fair share are ID'ers or Creationists of various types, too. Even so, your point is moot, because a theistic evolutionist accepts the theory of evolution. It's the definition of the term.

[lasciencefan]

dissentfromdarwin is signed by athiests and thiests alike so you cant claim it is religious in nature it is honest signed by 20000 leading scientists the discoverer of DNA sir francis crick believed that it was engineered by aliens richard dawkins believes the same thing as they realise the deeply vexing nature of the questions we have not answered and that evolution does not explain nearly anything about life that it is still an UNPROVEN IDEA therefore ID has legitamacy

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan Wow, so many errors crammed into one comment.

The "Dissent from Darwin" petition is not the same as the Wedge Document. You must be confusing the two. It is the Wedge Document that I'm talking about in the vid, and it is indeed religious in nature; go look it up.

As for the Dissent petition, it's not signed by "20,000 leading scientists". It's less than 1,000, and most of them aren't even biologists. It is also not "honest" in nature, as some signeess felt duped by the DI.

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan Also, neither Crick nor Dawkins believe that life came from "aliens", although they may have expressed that as a possibility (fully realising that evolution would still be what explained the existence of those aliens). What you have probably heard is about life coming from space - by which they mean some of the naturally formed chemical building blocks (which have actually been observed in space) came from space via comets/asteroids.

[Gnug215]

@lasciencefan Finally, the supposed (imagined) failure of evolution (which does not attempt to explain tje origin of life, but the origin of species) does not mean that ID then gains legitimacy by default. ID has to be able to stand on its own legs as a theory, and as such it clearly doesn't. ID is essentially one large, glorified argument from incredulity, and its answer to everything is "God did it!".

Also, could you please use some punctuation? It's hard to tell your ramblings apart.

[JackHartHome]

Neo-darwinians laugh at the idea that ID is just a different interpretations of the same evidence.

However, when Darwin proposed the theory of Evolution, wasn't he looking at the same evidence as everyone else and proposing a different interpretation?

In fact, there can be no revolutionary theories unless someone looks at the same evidence and interprets it differently.

Q.E.D.

[JackHartHome]

It is axiomatic that the persecuted proponents of a revolutionary scientific theory would have to spend time and effort finding ways (wedge) to get their theory researched.

Wouldn't ya say?!

No, you would say their attempts to overcome your persecution is just more evidence that their theory is a sham.

[Gnug215]

I'm not entirely sure how this comment pertains to my video, to be honest.

And I'm not sure how revolutionary the ID "theory" is, since "God did it!" was the general idea of how things worked before many of the modern scientific theories came into existence.

I certainly wouldn't say Darwin just proposed a different interpretation, but rather came up with a new hypothesis that explained evidence that contradicted older theories. And that one still stands, so...

[JackHartHome]

Your "God did it!" statement is a misrepresentation of what ID theory is. There is no mention of God.

ID is a revolutionary theory (like Darwin's) which is being rejected (like Darwin's).

I don't get your point about Darwin, unless you are saying he uncovered some new "smoking gun" data. He did not.

Darwin studied the literature and gathered data, like everyone else had been doing for ages, but he came to a different conclusion.

This is exactly what scientists who accept ID have done.

[Gnug215]

And yet most ID'ers seem to be theists, and even admit to God being the intelligent designer behind things.

My point about Darwin was poorly phrased, sorry. 500 characters isn't enough.

Evolution as a concept was already the theory then, and Darwin jsut proposed a new mechanism instead of Lamarckism.

ID claiming something very different, not just a new mechanism, I'd say. Wouldn't you?

[NoeLPZC]

Enya sucks, but thanks for letting me know about the Wedge document! I can't believe I've been in the creation v evolution circle for years and never knew about it!

[Gnug215]

Nooo, Enya rules!

Hehe, glad the information is helpful. But hey, I think it was always pretty clear that this is what they tried to do. The fact that they put it down on paper is natural.

The fact that it leaked is just... epic win. :)

[internetaccount122]

It would be easier if creationists/ID'ers didn't have a massive comprehension barrier.

[Gnug215]

Heh, true, but I think we can still see some evolution (hehe) in the ID/Creationist movement. They may be spreading out and thinking of new arguments, but they're also abandoning older arguments.

For instance, if we were to find traces of life on Mars, it would be a major blow to them. Some of them would find ways around that in their minds, but I think some would find that info devastating.

We just have to keep debunking their crap.

[majorvoltage]

Contradictions between creationists are most often seen when they attempt to argue against many of the obvious transitional fossils.

For example, one creationist writes several pages worth of anatomy info to conclude that Acanthostega is fully-fish. Answers in genesis goes through a similar long-winded process only to conclude that Acanthostega was fully-tetrapod.

One creationist says it's a fish and one says it's a tetrapod, but both will tell you it's definitely not transitional.

[Gnug215]

Exactly. It occurred to me some time ago that the matter of transitional fossils is perhaps not a matter of stupidity or denial, but simply just a matter of not grasping the process and time frame.

I'm not sure if I made the video yet, or if it's in a script I'm working on, but I use the analogy of watching grass grow.

That's right, I firmly believe that it's come to the point with these people that only analogies and similes will get through to them - if anything.

[majorvoltage]

I agree. Creationists already contradict themselves and each other quite often.

For example, in a video about the age of the Earth John Morris Pendleton tells us that the rock layers were laid down during Noah's flood 4000 years ago but then tells us that the Mississippi river is 6000 years old. But the Mississippi flows over rock layers that are supposedly only 4000 years old, so the river must have been floating in mid air for 2000 years.

[Gnug215]

Lol, yeah, there are numerous examples of this and of them contradicting each other.

They're just making so many mistakes, and using so many dishonest arguments that it's gotten to the point for me that even if these guys were right about their conclusion, they'd still be wrong about over 90% of their arguments, and it baffles me that people can't see this.

[Muchodelcrazy]

Maybe all this stupidity on creation/ID is a blessing in disguise: it could usher forth a huge influx in interest in science interest, information, and put to rest an unhealthy type of skepticism *the type based on gullibility*

I think the massive number of videos, and the active commenting and rating is a testament to the consciouness on the subject raising. KEEP POSTING!

[Gnug215]

I agree. One thing I think I've already seen more of is scientists becoming aware of the fact that they have to do more about reaching the general public, making the information more accessible and understandable - coming out of their ivory towers, so to speak.

And I also think creationism will corner many Christians, as it tends to force them to make a choice - and many of them will not find creationism to be an acceptable option, since it's so extreme... and well, stupid. :)

[flashback999]

It's precisely because science involves gathering evidence and presenting it that the discovery institute has flourished. They make and sell their own text books full of errors about evolution and push god instead of science. It's not just about continuing what you are doing, it's about getting other people to be rational. A very hard task.

[flashback999]

The Discovery Institute/ Wedge Strategy / West bro baptist / Bush legacy is built upon an army of home schooled drones. One cannot reason with a brainwashed person.

[Gnug215]

Indeed, but no one is ever truly, fully brainwashed. Sure, some go through life without ever being convinced otherwise, but I'm personally convinced that no one is an island in this sense.

Besides, I think we should focus a bit less on the hard-core fundamentalists, and instead on the less hard-core segment. And we need to do it in the best way possible. I'll probably also do more on this at a later stage.

Thanks for your excellent points.

[Gnug215]

All these books that are circumnavigating the peer-review system pose a huge problem, you're absolutely right about that. So are all the home-schoolers, but I'm highly confident that all this will come back and bite them in their rears extremely hard.

This video is probably more about hitting them with their dishonesty than it is about constructing a counter strategy.

I actually have other ideas for strategy that involves increasing rationality, but that will come later.

[darkwhitedirewolf]

Oh don't confound things with evidence and truth! :)

[Gnug215]

Heh, yeah, how dare I. :)

[bleedingmonky002]

I think you're right about educating the middle ground people; telling them the truth about "ID" and the tactics used by its proponents (and telling them exactly who the proponents are).

People react very badly to dishonesty and thuggery because they know that anyone who uses these tactics is inherently wrong, otherwise the evidence would support them and they wouldn't have to got to such extremes.

telling the truth about ID and real science at the same time really is the best way to go.

[Gnug215]

I'd say so too.

After all, we have all seen how much emphasis some of the IDists/creationists put on morals and behavior.

And whenever they see an atheist yell or swear, they see it as proof that they (the religious people) are right.

I know we can't control everyone, but I'm working on some things suggesting how to better deal with this.

I'm even making an IRC chat channel for the purpose.

I just wonder if anyone will support something that.

Herding cats and all...

[bleedingmonky002]

Yeah, using the "Ur so stuped cas u do/don't bleve in god" works both ways; it alienates either party and proves the immaturity of the individual, but that individual becomes ambassador to whatever they are talking about.

We have a right to raise questions, not to blindly call people names and wallow in our own ignorance, be we atheists or religious.

An athiest IRC channel sounds like a fabulous idea, keep this kitty posted on that.

[timmyfred]

Let us hear your sexy voice!

[Gnug215]

*slap*

Boinkhead. ;)

[methinxaweezil]

LOL @ 0:38

[Scrapheap71]

I think we need to pass legislation making it a crime to bypass the scientific peer-review process... punishable by death from impalement!!!

[Gnug215]

Lol, perhaps a tad extreme. ;)

[aieak22]

AGREE!!!! :P

[DonExodus2]

Interesting, however you underestimate human stupidity. Things like way of the master which we view as comically retarded still raise thousands of dollars.

All the information in the world means nothing if people dont learn it. Furthermore, counting on creationists to recognize the inconsistencies is not going to happen- they think the Flintstones was a documentary, theyre not going to notice this.

The best plan IMO is to seek the middle-ground, undecided people, and educate them.

[Gnug215]

Heh, I'm afraid I know all too well about human stupidity. However, like you said, we need to seek the middle ground.

I am actually trying to appeal to the undecided with this video, showing that it is actually the supposed "moralless" that hold the moral high ground on this issue.

The undecideds will a lot of the time be judging the sides on their tactics, and I think our tactic should always be honesty and information.

That will appeal more to the middle.

[aieak22]

Great vid!!!!!!

[Gnug215]

Thanks! :)