East Meets West – Podcast

Stargate-U has the same look and feel of Glactica series. I don't know if that is good or bad. It is DVR it in my rating system.

First, glad you're feeling better, Tom, not that I thought there was any link between your evolution rant in one episode and being too sick to show up for the next episode.

Seriously, tho, I think in a discussion like that this, I'd like to first post my standard notice: If free will exists, and I think it does, then I can't *make* you believe what you do not want to believe. The best I can do is present the evidence why I believe and it's up to you to determine if whether said evidence meets your standard for proof. (Oh and I try very hard not to take personally when people exercise their free will to disagree with me, as recent scientific studies reveal the world does *not* revolve around me.)

That said, a discussion about evolution vs creation, religion vs science, often have the participants acting as if the discussion is in vacuum, an emotional vacuum. For those of us whose's feelings were ... hurt ... by Tom's comments, at least he didn't drag us out of our homes, throw us in stocks, jail, or have us flogged, tarred, feathered or killed--or even rap our knuckles for disbelieving him or even for questioning his word.

A dicussion of this sort doesn't happen in a vacuum. People have been physically beaten, flogged, imprisoned and even executed by the Catholic church, and later Protestant churches, for their professed beliefs--or lack theieof. Is it any wonder there might be a ... wee ... bit of backlash built up? (Galatians 6:7).

Imagine how things might have gone if Golden Rule had been applied, so that those who disagreed were not assaulted, but respected for having a different opinion or belief (Matthew 7:12). That's what Christ told his followers, that when preaching and someone does not believe, then (as opposed to attacking, jailing, killing or even insulting them) his followers were to simply move on (Luke 9:5).

-- Ken

P.S. Yes, I personally believe that the beginning of the universe, the cosmos, all of existence, was not someThing but someOne, that the word translated as "day" in the Genesis account of creation is misunderstood as a literal 24-hour day but a literal broad span of time in which something significant happened (akin to how we use "day" when we say in "back in my day" or in the "Good ole days", or "back in Ceasar's day"m where day is more than a 24-hour period), and thus that it's a vast misunderstanding to think the Earth, our Sun and the universe is only 6000 years old, but that many people are so personally emotionally vested in only a 6000 year-old universe as the only possible meaning for the Genesis' account of creation, whether they are for or against it, that they simply will not choose to accept that it's possible that understanding is wrong. But that's their choice and they have the free will to choose.

Sorry about this but my computer is in the shop for well over a week (never getting a Mac again) and so I haven't been able to comment and I just had to get some comments in!

I entirely agree in that the cost of health care is slowly killing small business and the current model can't continue as there will be a breaking point. Personally I think what is required is to pick a system from any of the 49 other countries, as noted in the CIA - The World Factbook, that have a life expectancy that is greater than the US. This will mean that the system that produces better health care will be used and as no one has higher per capita cost for health care than the US it will automatically be cheaper too.

By the way anyone watching Flash Forward? what does other people think?

Tom and Roger I have already written extensively, with references, on the point that race is a social concept and not a biological or genetic one. The thinking that certain 'races' don't like certain things is actually racist as I can, for any given group, point to a situation where the opposite of what is said is true. For instance the use and maintenance of public transport is highly prized and used in certain states of Brazil, or in Eastern Europe there is a lot of run down infrastructure.

As noted its not 'race' but socio-economic groupings that is the primary drivers for behaviour in a macro sense.

In regards to this debate about beliefs not been compatible with science is actually something that athetist who want to have the air of superiority have, successfully, implanted on the population.

All the great scientists that made all the major break throughs in the 19th century were deitists of some sort. Their very belief that there was a God of order was the very reason why they thought that there was going to be any ability to know the 'natural' laws.

In regards to the point about evolution, I would like to point out the second law of thermodynamics means that order isn't the natural state but that of disorder. That is the case why we do have mutations such as auto immune diseases et al. I will not dispute evolution on enhancements for bacteria to resist drugs but this then does not mean that out of what is really a low order complexity life will come out something that is of a higher order. Given current evolutionary thinking that the big changes in order (no eyes to eyes etc) occur in 'spurts' why haven't we seen any occur? I would like to also make a correction that Platypus and the other monotremes are not some primitive inbetween species but are quite a 'modern' species.

OK, I have to know what does the second law of thermodynamics have to do with the order or disorder of the universe and what that has to do with evolution or ID. You are like the 4th person who has mentioned this on boards and in discussion.

Really !?! sorry about that. If it had already been stated I shouldn't have mentioned it again. The second law of thermodynamics state that the entropy of an isolated system (in this case the universe) will increase when no extra energy is consumed.

That is order will decrease in a system and become simpler over time.

I was thinking about this but the term Theory doesn't mean anything as it has been devalued by its misuse in such items as 'string theory' when the only thing going for it is that there is a mathematical model. Bernie Madoff also had a great financial/mathematical model but it just wasn't based on reality. Another is the point of extra dimensions or multiverses have great math behind it but it can never be observed or studied in any way and so it really should never be stated as anything more than a hypothesis and not a theory but they are all called theories.

In reference to your debate about following the bible literally, if you haven't done so, I suggest reading the book "A Year of Living Biblically" by AJ Jacobs. In an attempt to understand the literal followers, Jacobs tries to follow ALL of the rules set forth in the bible. It was entertaining, but I thought it was also done with respect. He doesn't make fun of these different fundamentalist groups, instead Jacobs' writing comes across as a person earnestly trying to understand these groups by walking a mile in their shoes. The entertainment value comes mostly from Jacobs' trying to balance his quest for biblical literacy with attempts to maintain harmony in his home with his wife and child. It was a quick read, and like Jacobs, I got more out of his project than I thought I was going to.

Tom,

My favorite of all Buzz-Out-Louders. Your command over the art of communication is a wonder to behold. I have and will always enjoy the work you and Roger do on East Meets West as well. But… of course, I have a disagreement. I found your brief explanation on the “non-controversy” of evolution vs. intelligent design to be less than clear. Here is just a section of what you said:
“There are people who believe in the literal truth of the bible. If that’s the case, I would hope that you are having your wife sit in a hut while she is having her period. I hope that she doesn’t wear makeup. I hope that you’re not eating shrimp. I hope that you are literally following everything in the Bible. If you’re going to be literal, you’ve got to be literal 100%. All of those things are in the Bible. They’re in the Old Testament, except the makeup thing is in the New Testament. That’s fine, if you’re a literal follower of the Bible, but that’s not science. And you’re rejecting science to do that, you have to. That’s just the way it works. You can’t believe in Astronomy. You can’t believe in the Copernicus Revolution. There are all kinds of things you can’t believe if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible. I’ll respect your belief, but don’t try to put it up against science.”
I decided to cover the easiest problem first, which is why I pulled this section out. Within this section, you seem to break drastically away from the argument. Here is what I’d like to address:

#1 . Account of Creation vs. Cultural Prescription
I don’t really understand how you can get from a supposed account of historical event (creation), to descriptions of the Jewish culture within Biblical times. How do the two connect? I get that you’re trying to say that if you believe the creation account you are required to believe that Old Testament Jewish traditions are required to be practiced today. This takes me into the next point…

#2. What’s Literal.
Contrary to popular belief, Christians don’t arbitrarily choose which part of the Bible is literal or not. That would be very bad for Christianity or any system. They have a method to their madness. Christians do not believe God intended the Old Testament rules to apply to them, but to the Jews. Any study of Christian theology would show this to be true. Still, how does this mean that nothing that happened in the Old Testament ever actually occurred? You tell me.

#3 Morality?
Discounting a supposed historical event (creation) because practicing cultural acts common to the Bible are silly or don’t fit your worldview is not logical. Historical facts are historical facts, no matter who wrote them down. Should we discount our historical account because it involves the buying and selling of slaves?

#4 Science vs. Christianity
I really don’t think there is that much of a chasm between “literalists” and science. Besides the evolution/creation debate, “Literalists” agree with mostly all scientific theories. Are you saying in your explanation that “literalists” cannot believe anything, but what is in the Bible? What other things can a “literalist” not believe?

I’m sure there is something I am forgetting, but just wanted to start the conversation.
I am very interested in this topic, because I believe there are many misconceptions of Christianity.
Thanks for producing a great podcast,

I'm saying if your sole way of disproving evolutionary theory is to say the Bible is literally true, you need to apply that same maxim to everything and follow every precept of the Bible. YOu can't pick and choose the parts you like to disprove evolutionary theory. If you do pick and choose then the defense can easily be that you p[icked the wrong part. So you need to disprove evolutionary theory in another way. A scientific way. You can't just point to the Bible unless of course you live under the assumption that everything in the bible is literally the case. In which case you're not goign to engage in any science. I said it on the podcast and I'll say it again here, I respect that. But it's not science. You have the right to reject science.

Unlike people that misunderstand and misuse science, Tom understands that to argue with a scientific theory you must present actual evidence.

Evolution HAS been challenged many times. Challenged by data. Things like the discovery of genetics, of the DNA molecule, the idea of altruism and the discovery of kin selection while originally somewhat separate form evolutionary theory were quickly and easily incorporated into the theory. This is what good theories do, they explain data, they change when challenged and they are fruitful (make testable predictions). ID does literally none of these things better than evolution, and, ID is not testable. It has a supernatural being in it, how in the heck could that be tested? ID, is also more complex than evolution, and extra complexity in a theory is a very bad thing (tm).

Indeed, reject science all you want, but don't use religion, or say legislation (the law is another method of 'truth seeking') or common sense (which is pretty much useless in general) to go after a scientific theory. This would be like saying 'I just know the earth is flat, common sense tells me so'.

As I stated in the first comment on this post, subscribing to either Christianity or Intelligent Design does not mean you reject science. As scientific as Evolution is, it still has unaddressed criticisms and flaws, and many pieces that have yet to be proven with anything more concrete than "we think this part could probably have happened this way". To be unconvinced by such a theory does not mean you reject science (indeed, in pretty much every other area of science we don't accept a theory as truth until it is PROVEN; until then, we just say "this makes the most sense out of our present theories"), and many people who believe in both Christianity and Intelligent Design have contributed to other sciences without any conflict with the contents of the Bible.

I will concede that it is impossible to prove Intelligent Design (short of God himself coming down and telling us it's true), but supposing Evolution is not true, then it logically follows that normal, unspiritual science could disprove it or cause serious doubts about it's validity, and there are people working to do just that (see my first post).

Also, could you please elaborate on why you think Intelligent Design is more complex than Evolution? I always thought it was simpler, since many problems go away when you just decide that a magic superbeing made things the way they are.

Having a supernatural being that does the designing strikes me as being much more complicated that evolution, which, when you boil it down is basically a three sentence theory: "Reproduction occurs with variability, this variability is heritable and selection determines which traits are successful".

It is not about proving, it is about disproving. You cannot disprove a theory that has a supernatural element in it. Science is basically about disproving theories. (Karl Popper and all of that).

I would like to know what these flaws in evolutionary theory are. Every time evolution has been challenged by new data it has managed to change (evolve...) for the better.

Jason,

To your point #3 on morality I have to take up some opposition. You said, "Historical facts are historical facts, no matter who wrote them down."

I would argue that history (as with any genre of a media text) is skewed by certain perspectives (religious or otherwise). Old sayings like 'history is written by the victors' or 'the golden rule' certainly have to be taken into account, and do so to the exclusions of other voices (i.e. subaltern).

Discounting a supposed creation event is not the problem. But then which creation event are you saying is legitimate simply on the basis of having been written down? It is not like The Old Testament has the market cornered on creation theories. Other religions have their own too, which were also written down by people (and many translated over time from one language to another) and thus subject to certain perspectives. But at their core, they are all based on faith to some extent, not needing to be 'proven'. And for many, to question that faith at all is bad in and of itself (again as I mentioned above, think Dark Ages).

"Should we discount our historical account because it involves the buying and selling of slaves?"

Absolutely not, but again look at how history and education has treated a figure like Columbus over the years...venerating a man who some now claim was little more than a plunderer and slave trader himself.

Foxlore,

I agree. I was over-reaching to say that just because something is written down, then it becomes a historical fact. There are many variables that must be taken into account. I guess what I was trying to say was that it sounded like Tom was implying in his comment that other cultures (biblical jews) are a bad source of historical facts, because they participated in these activities. I may be mistaken.

The topic of evolution is one of the questions of creation that I have been reading on lately. Over the past few decades, creation through evolution has been loosing ground in the scientific community. As Astrologist continue to observe the universe using the latest technologies, the estimate of the age of the universe has been narrowing down to approximately 10-15 Billion years (not the hundreds of billions of years thought years ago), and although this may seem like enough time for evolution to take place, recent scholars as revield that this is vastly too young for any natural process to yield even the simplest living organisms. Not to mention, that the earth itself is far younger (Read Dr. Yockey's "Information Theory and Molecular Biology"; Robert Shapiro's "Origins: A skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth"; Charels Thaxton's "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current theories").
What I find most interesting is the arguments between young-earth religion thought (literal 6 days of creation approx. 6000 years ago) vs. older-earth religion thought (some billions of years) vs. oldest universe evolution (hundreds of billions of years). Although Tom says there is no scientific bases other than evolution, he is somehow missing a lot of the latest science that is undermining the older universe evolution and that is aligning with the 10-15 billion old universe that may not support evolution in such a time frame.
A good book that looks at all 3 scientifically, although written by a Christian who is also a astronomer, is the "A Matter of Days, Resolving a Creation Controversy" by Hugh Ross. He claims in the book that as scientific research advances, that indeed, these advances do not conflict with the Bible. Interesting read whether you believe in God or not. And he addresses all 3 major beliefs of origin.

May I ask for a peer reviewed citation for your statement that "creation through evolution has been loosing ground in the scientific community".

This is patently false. Oh and it is not creation by evolution, it is called evolution by natural selection, or more recently, the synthetic theory of evolution.

I assume you mean astronomers and not astrologers.

I want to say this again to everyone, there is no controversy none, evolution by natural selection already explains the data. I also wonder how in the heck it is even remotely possible to study the supernatural with the natural.

I think the whole science vs. religion issue in the states is due in part to the history of the church and science (see, the Dark Ages, Galileo, etc) which has built into a very strong us vs. them mentality. This is further stimulated by modern day politics in which the teaching of science in the classroom has become an ideological hot potato. Personally, I say if they want to teach religious 'theories' in the classroom, then fine...just give an equal opportunity to teach science and evolution in Sunday Schools and sermons.

There was an interesting discussion of Darwin with regard to other religions in a recent issue of The Economist. Article can be found online here: http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=14660446

OT: Tom,
I recently bought the Vampire Secrets episode of Haunted Histories in iTunes, and was delighted to see you in it, and to see Eileen's name in the credits (LOVE Bite Club, BTW). I seem to recall that this was covered in some podcast in the past (EMW or elsewhere), but I just wanted to send my thoughts your way. And I apologize if this isn't the right place to post this, but I figured that it's better than sending an e-mail to your work e-mail address. Love the show!

All Stargate series fall into the building the story for 45 minutes and then we need to wrap this up in the next 5 minutes. I really liked the last exchange between Rush and Young, as a creepy who is really in charge type of thing.

What's this? Someone who's not arguing about the origin of the universe and religion? I think you may be on the wrong site! :P

The last scene was definitely interesting. On one hand, Rush certainly didn't act like he knew in advance. He was surprised and joyous when the power came back on. On the other hand, when accused of withholding information he didn't act indignant, and the look he gave Young didn't say anything one way or another. But I'm curious to see where they'll take that distrust.

I am with Tom on the ending. I felt it had really wiped the character development of Rush, that had gone on in the prior 44 mins. It was really a slap in the face...like saying, 'ok, you thought you kinda got some insight into this character, well guess what...not!" I hope this is not going to be a continual pattern to cast Rush as a sort of loopy Baltar/Frankenstein figure...

I found that really jarring, which I appreciated. I am hopeful that the show continues to develop. I never got into either Stargate series, so I am a umm, a stargate virgin. OK, I did see the movie....

As mentioned previously, the communication stone thing is annoying. I hope those blow up or something.

Not much chance of them blowing up- they tried that in SG1 and they're pretty tough gizmos.

Fortunately, they have thus far used the comm stones sparingly. Given the minimal amount of contact Atlantis had with Earth in SGA, I'm confident that SGU can develop into it's own story with a mostly-isolated cast and scenario. As long as they can make it through the first season without finding a way to send matter back to Earth, I think it'll be OK.

It would be a different story if SG1 was running in parallel, though. I'd love to see some SG techs get the star-power tech working on the Hammond.

I should probably start watching SG1 reruns. I had trouble getting past McGruber being in the show...

The cool thing is Richard Dean Anderson makes fun of MacGyver during the show.

In the few shows I have seen I have noted that. I like when the fourth wall is broken down now and then. If done well it can be a really cool part of a show. If done too much, well then you have Norman Fell on the Ropers... My oh my I am getting old....

Straight off, I believe God.

As another poster mentioned, it is statistically impossible for even one living being to have come into existence by randomness, let alone the countless variations of life that are existent, not to mention that nearly all are both male and female (and, actually, this is speaking of just the physical part; inanimate material becoming animate is another matter entirely).

Science deals with the explanation of the physical world which God created, and the laws he put in place. These laws are set and fixed. Examining them, disproves an evolutionistic origin of life. Science cannot prove an origin of life separate from creation.

The scientific method is observing a phenomena, postulating a theory for its existence, and proving the theory by repeatable experiment. In this regard, physics disproves the evolutionary theory.

Everything in this creation breaks down into its constituent parts over time. Everything.
This is the track that every single existent object takes. There is no exception. For evolution to be the truth of the origin of life, this physical rule would have to be reversed. And it can't be...it is a fixed law (see the second law of thermodynamics).

Evolution also doesn't deal with the origin of life, it only deals with pre-existing matter. It has to be built upon the foundation of abiogenesis, even as the walls of a house are built upon its foundations. And abiogenesis is an unproven theory by the scientific method. Therefore, evolution, as an origin theory, is unproven by the scientific method.

Reason also disproves it. There is a loose rule of three's...three minutes without air, three days without water, three weeks without food...any of these happen, and we die. If I can't live for more than a few minutes without breathing, how can I possibly have existed for eons without breathing, while my lungs were forming? And if I was alive without lungs, what then was the necessity of their formation?

Randomness nevers produces order, it only produces chaos. This is provable by statistics, and provable by the scientific method. If I enter a room, and there are books scattered across the floor, they could have gotten there by any number of means. But if they are stacked on the shelfs, it can only be because someone (an active intelligence) put them there.

Even a cursory examination of our bodies and the world we live in shows that we are a designed being, living in a designed world. It is a world of exceedingly high order. This is even an argument that God uses, that He can be seen and understood by the creation.

Evolution is not about randomness. It is about random mutation conferring advantage (rarely) over a great deal of time. A cursory examination of the human visual system, for example, shows that if there was a designer, it did a hell of a lousy job. We would likely build an eye better than the ones we have.

This rule of threes idea is a bit much. Indeed, I can cherry pick any number and that proves nothing, these are coincidences. You lost me on the without lungs thing, humans never existed without lungs.

Why does evolution do such a good job organizing all of the data in biology if it is wrong?

There is no lens/camera combination in existence that even comes close to matching the contrast ratio/dynamic range of the eye/brain combination.

When the ealy telescopes were invented, they had the problem of a prismatic effect which for a long time they couldn't get rid of. The way that a man finally solved it was by looking to the eye. In the human eye, you have the lens, and the liquid behind it, which have different refractive qualities; this removes the prism effect. When the man applied the same principle, i.e., had a lens combination of two lenses made of differing glasses, the problem was solved.

Likewise, your optic nerve is located off-center where it attaches to the eye. Where the nerve attaches is a "blind zone", so to speak. If the nerve were attached to the same area in each eye, there would be a blind spot in our vision. Attaching the nerve off-center in each eye prevents this. In effect, we have two spots in our vision which are only 2D, but they're so small we don't notice.

The lung argument is this: humans can't exist without lungs; we can't last more than a few minutes without air. The creature can't exist without the lung, but neither can the lung exist without the creature. Therefore, how can something have taken millenia to come into existence, which the creature couldn't do without for more than a few minutes? The lung would have no host in which to grow, and the man could not exist without the lung.

Evolution didn't organize all the data...God did.

The idea that humans are "so advanced" and live in a world of such "exceedingly high order" that life "must" have been created by God is a falsehood.

You can argue about what started Life, the many scientists with devout beliefs in god would say that it is not hard to imagine that it was god that gave the kick-start to the primordial soup of chemicals and molecular structures that transformed them into life. Atheists would argue that random effects such as Lightning caused the transformation. This is besides the point- the argument is about belief in evolution- in the PROGRESS of life, in its continual change, in its transitory nature, ever advancing, ever adapting.

Humans are relative advanced, there is no denying that, from creationists and believers-in-darwin alike- the point is that we are not "so advanced" that we "must" have been created by god or an intelligent designer.

As an example of the pace of change and evolution of life, in just 5 decades, Bacterial strains have managed to adapt to, and render redundant, every first generation antibiotic known to man. In barely a century, Malaria has learnt to defeat quinine, and all of its artificial variants, and in just 15 years, has adapted to beat Artemisinin (bearing in mind that Artemisinin is/was known amongst malarial scientists as the "last stall", in which to develop a malaria vaccine, given that almost every other drug has slowly been rendered useless by the adaptation of Malaria).

Now remember that since the kick-start that forged the proto-chemicals that would go on to become DNA & RNA, and created life itself, well over 360 MILLION years has passed. So it is no wonder that a being as "advanced" as humanity has managed to evolve in such a period. 360 Million years is MORE than enough time for life to evolve into all the myriad of millions, billions of forms that it exists in, on every corner (beneath that corner, and above it) on earth. In fact, it is so long a period that life has essentially re-started several time, after great extinction events, where the life that was left evolved to fill the gaps and niches that remained. Further more, if we believe in Intelligent Design, and assume that the intelligent designer is at least as complex as all the life on earth (as intelligent designers must, for if life were designed, as it is now by the likes of craig venter- who can only design simple bacteria, then the intelligent designer must be far in excess in complexity than the life he creates)- then how is it possible for an intelligent designer to have left such massive flaws in the life on earth. For example, why on earth does the Blue-Whale (the largest creature to have ever lived) require air, and not feature gills, or why are the most innocent of all new-born creatures (human or otherwise), born with the horror of auto-immune diseases (and NO, the argument "God Works in Mysterious ways", or "The Intelligent designer has a plan" does NOT suffice- such phrases are Thought-terminating Cliche's that serve only to suppress dissidence).

If you believe in Intelligent Design, as the be all and end all- explain the development of Antibiotic resistance, in the permanent change of the influenza virus and the nigh on unstoppable change of the common-cold. In the scenario of pure intelligent-design, Antibiotic resistance is impossible.

Your Lungs argument is also equally false, and falls under the title of Irreducible Complexity: the idea that since the modern (insert life form or part of life form here- in your case, Human) cannot survive without all basic level systems functioning (in your case, lungs), it is "impossible" for these systems to have evolved, and they must have all appeared at once, through the work of an intelligent designer. This completely ignores the fact that life is not like a "constructed object" such as an airplane (which is constructed in factory's around scaffolding, and cannot function without key basic parts). Life IS the scaffolding, items can be added sequentially, and EVENTUALLY become integral (for example, when the scaffolding is three floors tall, the third floor is not irreducible, and could be removed at will, however, if a further 47 floors are added, the third floor has now been RENDERED irreducible, and can no longer be removed without bringing the whole vast edifice tumbling down). Life only goes forward, and only in extreme circumstances (by the destruction of vast swathes of life, with a small, primitive, remainder left behind- a great extinction event) can the other 47 floors be rendered unnecessary. A prime example is the photosynthesis (which we can imagine as the third floor of the scaffolding), amongst cyanobacteria, it is a relative luxury, and they can survive without it, however, amongst advanced plant life such as tree's (which have built the other 47 floors on top of the 3rd, and rely on photosynthesis), photosynthesis cannot be removed without the destruction of such life.

FInally, in an effort to stave off further thought-terminating cliché's, and the abuse of Ad hominem arguments to ridicule my examples- i will point out i am a believer, and have been always. True, i am not a Christian, i am of the Hindu Faith, but the point is i believe in a god(s), and am not on the fanaticism scale of Richard Dawkins, and am on a relatively level playing to any creationist or intelligent-design believer. The Cry of "irreconcilable unbelieving heretic" (which, i'm sad to say, i have seen hurled at darwin-believers in evolution debates) does not fit. As tom has mentioned above, religion has no place in the discussion of creationism & intelligent design VS belief in evolution. I myself am only willing to discuss intelligent design on abstract, non-religious terms (such as assuming, as is perfectly discussable, that we are all the result of some uber-craig-venters experiments on planet earth), the discussion of Irreducible Complexity above is a prime example, you put forward one side, i put forward another, god never entered the equation- that is the terms on which the intellectual discussion of intelligent design VS evolution ought to be debated on.

In terms of the strength of Evolution, i leave you with one final thought. Mathematics, the laws of probabilities, and even stories (Monkeys+Typewriters+time= works of shakespeare), leave you with the conclusion that if a lock is picked enough times, form enough different angles and in enough different ways, theoretically, it will open and be cracked. People have been "picking" at the "evolution" lock since its very inception, and it has held. In contrast, Creationism was held only for the hundreds of years it did hold through the halting, or immense slowing of scientific advancement, the application of vast power and wealth vested in the established churches, in the lack of education of the masses, and in the brutal suppression of all dissidence (see gallileo's, who's work on the earth orbiting the sun, was only accepted by the catholic church apon the raising of the issue to the most pragmatic and moderate pope in centuries, pope john paul, in 1999(!) )

I think i'm finished (phew).

Bravo.

The mamallian visual system has the optic nerve wired such that the eye has a blind spot, this is a poor piece of design. Instead, why nut run the nerve from the back and have receptors where the blind spot is?

Respiratory systems existed well before humans and other things like us. This argument is a red herring. Evolution does not work out of whole cloth, it is a very very slow and gradual process (depending on generation time). One wonders why we have an appendix, we can live fine without it, and it serves hardly any function. Indeed looking at our relatives with an appendix and looking at our genetic relatedness one can see that it has slowly disappeared. It costs more than it is worth, but it takes a long time for evolution to work.

There was no science of biology before Darwin published Origins. If you want to believe that god or whatever invented biology go ahead, but I am afraid then we are at an impasse.

I was listening to the portion of the conversation where Tom was pointing out that "Intelligent Design" isn't a proper scientific counter-theory to evolution, and I was somewhat irked when there was a need to point out that a religious belief has no place in *science*, specifically. Whenever anyone points that out, my knee-jerk reaction is: where does any particular religious belief have a place, anywhere? Why do we have to go subject-by-subject and "prove" that, for the n-th time, most/all religions were, as Roger aptly described the genesis part -- *A Story*.

It seems like people (individuals, not "masses"), have adopted the same reactive mechanism for a very long time: as long as religion isn't effecting me, I'm fine with it (or I 'tolerate' it). This is why it's so common for families to fracture because of religion: everything was progressing perfectly until a son/daughter decided to go and study paleontology. Or until someone in the family found out (or revealed) that they were gay.

This is only human, after all -- you don't go around picking fights with what, so far, hasn't caused you any harm. It's somebody else's problem, and I have plenty of my own, so I'll just keep my head down. It's not my problem if the religious family across the street is traumatizing their children with stories about hell and eternal damnation, they're no my kids. Is there any sizable religion that *doesn't* have a hell? In the end, there's going to be *something* that contradicts your religion, and then it's a lot of fire after death. It seems to me that specifically focusing on the evolution "counter-argument" is like surgically targeting one mosquito, when there's a whole swarm of them carrying disease.

Where did "Burden of proof" go? Why are we challenging any particular religious argument when we should be challenging religion itself?

Since I can't afford to have this post associated with my name, I'm posting as a "guest". Possibly there's some irony that may be pointed out here, and/or this is part of the problem.

I was raised in a religous family and I wasn't traumatized in any way that I am aware of nor were any of the children raised around me. As far as I know none are serial killers. I've never even been arrested, I don't beat my wife, don't smoke, never done an illegal drug, and drink only on occasion, I try and be green and recycle, I pay my taxes and vote. Yet from what you say I'm the problem with society? Really?

Again arguments like this are garbage in today's insistent acceptance of any lifestyle. Apparently there's room on the planet for every fetish or kink yet not for someone to have a belief in a God. Obviously there are some sick people out there who do bad things under the name of a god. But to paint all religious people with the broad brush is wrong.

This is an important point that I believe is really preventing understanding in the community. I didn't say, nor do I believe that the religious have no place in science. I believe religion has no place in science. Do you understand the difference? Spiffytech's response above is the right response. And answers my challenge. When you can scientifically defend ID then it can be taken seriously. But so many people get their back up immediately. And as the comments from Vance that I read show, Christians and others who believe in God can most definitely conduct science.

But you can't conduct science with religious principles, any more than you can preach a sermon scientifically. Faith does not prove anything. That's what makes it faith. And Proof cannot replace the power of faith. When you have proof you don't need faith.

I suppose I did get a bit petulant and I'll take that criticism but my point remains.

Thanks for the reply Tom. I do see the difference as you have written it here and I appreciate you expanding on it. That's not the message I got in the live stream and I now think we agree on the subject.

Thanks for the discussion, show, and the willingness to hear criticism.

I can understand nonbelievers not wanting intelligent design taught as science in public schools. I can respect the position based on our freedom of, or from, religion in our country.

However,I was really disappointed by Toms rant against people of faith and his view that such have no place in science the scientific community. Possessing a belief in God does not incapacitate one from being able to understand and accurately execute the scientific method. Why should people of faith restrict themselves from better understanding Gods creation? As I understand it even Einstein became a deist of a sort when he concluded the universe had a beginning.

Lastly the comments referring to Levitical laws came across as petulant. Tom, I've been a fan for years. You always seemed to be very open minded and considerate of others until now.

Religion simply has no place in science. Religion is supernatural. Science is about rational explanations of the universe. It is, quite simply, that simple.

It is not simple. Again why do you allege a person having a conviction in a God is incapable of executing the scientific method correctly? Hypothetically if a scientist who happens to believe in a God discovers the cure for the common cold would you reject it? Michael Faraday blew the doors off of science yet he believed in God. Again I point at Einstein, he reluctantly decided the universe must have been created so does that invalidate his work? Does E=mc2 no longer hold water because of his 'belief'. I can understand caution and skepticism of scientific work performed by people of faith by nonbelievers. However, if in the end the science is true it doesn't matter if they believe in God or not, that's why it is science right?.

What I object to is the notion that people of faith having no business in working on understanding the world we live in. In today's society, which insists on acceptance and tolerance of every lifestyle, rejection or persecution of scientists or anyone for that matter who simply have a belief in a God is garbage.

Einstien had a pretty weak version of 'faith' he basically believed in the laws of nature. Darwin was a religious man, (and my hero).

I am tolerant, but I need not tolerate the supernatural trying to explain the natural.

I said "Religion simply has no place in science" I did not say religious people have no place in science.

Exactly. As a person of strong Christian faith, it is very important to realize that science is simply the study of how the natural world works naturally, without reference to the supernatural. This is not saying the supernatural does not exist, only that it is not something science is equipped to study or evaluate. Science must be neutral on that and give the best natural explanation available. We can then take that for what it is worth and weigh any possible supernatural cause we like.

I can understand why you would believe intelligent design to not be founded in reason and science (there are certainly a lot of people who can't make a real argument in it's favor). However, there are people working to scientifically demonstrate the feasibility of intelligent design, and to use commonly accepted and well-established scientific principles and research to demonstrate the infeasibility of the Theory of Evolution.

I have been attending a weekly extracurricular apologetics class at my university which aims to do just that. The lecturer has been focusing largely on statistical probability of various fundamental assumptions of Evolution (you'd be surprised how many pieces of that puzzle fall well beyond the definition of statistically impossible), and he features quotes from well-respected scientists such as the (President of the National Academy of Sciences).

If you're interested in seeing the less faith-based side of intelligent design (and have a little while to listen to the lectures) check out sincereanswer.com

One important thing to always keep in mind is that even the ID scientists (Behe, Denton, etc) accept that evolutionary development occurred over billions of years and explains the diversity of life on this planet (including humans developing from ape-like ancestors). All they assert (and which I, even as a person of faith, do not accept) is that the evidence suggests that it could not have happened naturally. This is the "dirty little secret" of ID, and one which more conservative creationists don't seem to realize: the ID scientists accept EVERYTHING about evolution accept its ability to happen without a "designer".

I would first like to caution you against making sweeping statements about "all ID scientists". Some Christians in the sciences believe this, some don't. In my experience, subscribers to this theory are less numerous than those of either ID or Darwinian Evolution

Second, I would like to point out that the origin theory you posited above is not, in fact, Intelligent Design, but is another theory called Deistic Evolution. DE, like you said, claims that God started things off, maybe guided them a little as they progressed, but largely left the universe to it's own devices, and it managed to arrive at our present state through Evolutionary mechanisms. This theory is fairly well-known, and is not a "dirty little secret". Deistic Evolution attempts to bridge the gap between the improbability (or outright impossibility) of many parts of Darwinian Evolution and the ridiculousness and unbelievability of Intelligent Design, but has many of the problems of both, and most people I have seen reject this theory in favor of one of the other two origin theories.

The Intelligent Design theory does not make the claims you posted above, but instead claims that God, through speaking or willing, or some such, caused plants, animals, and everything else in the universe, to spontaneously exist at it's current level of sophistication and general state. Intelligent Design scientists have arrived (through means unknown to me) at a Universal age of less than 100,000 years, and do not accept no inter-species evolution as historically accurate (some even claim it's impossible).

I am afraid I would have to disagree with you on this point. The leading ID scientists, like Michael Behe and Denton, do not believe AT ALL what you are describing (instant creation of the current status within the last XX years). That is simply a very conservative version of Creationism. That is not Intelligent Design, which posits that, because of things like "irreducible complexity" and other "evidences", it is clear that the evolutionary development that HAS taken place over the billions of years can not have happened entirely naturalistically.

And, yes, most of the ID scientists would hold to some form of Theistic Evolution (as opposed to the more Deistic form you describe as DE). Theistic Evolutionists like myself believe that God created the universe with all the natural laws and processes we see today, including evolution, and lets the natural universe happen according to those rules except for those instances when he purposely intervenes (as in a unique event about 2,000 years ago). Not at all "hands off", really, just selective. And, many of us don't see any problem at all with the theory of evolution exactly as it stand right now.

The "dirty little secret" is that these ID scientists, who are being quoted by the evangelical creationists at every turn, are actually theistic evolutionists when it boils down to it, but the creationists don't even seem to know it. And, Behe et al are not going out of their way to mention it.