Thursday, April 06, 2006
Priceless National Treasure Time
by Tom Bozzo
Been there, done that. But I am ecstatic this morning — despite a high level of work-burnout (such that I didn't have time to pick up a hardcopy Onion) and sleep training-related sleep deprivation — because some findings that I'd neglected in my inbox last night support one of my hypotheses quite brilliantly.
2. NYT: Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals.
Happy, happy times at the Discovery (sic) Institute.
We might hope that we'll hear less from creationists, neo or otherwise, about the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, but that's a lot to ask from one morning.
1. Via Alan Schussman, The Onion: Goddamn Findings Fail To Support Researcher's Hypothesis.
Been there, done that. But I am ecstatic this morning — despite a high level of work-burnout (such that I didn't have time to pick up a hardcopy Onion) and sleep training-related sleep deprivation — because some findings that I'd neglected in my inbox last night support one of my hypotheses quite brilliantly.
2. NYT: Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals.
Happy, happy times at the Discovery (sic) Institute.
We might hope that we'll hear less from creationists, neo or otherwise, about the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, but that's a lot to ask from one morning.
Comments:
<< Home
Sorry to have to tell you old buddy but I keep an eye on "Wild Bill" Dembski's blog and he's already got hold of this:
"I feel that I should address the claim that this find is “a blow to proponents of intelligent design”. ID does not preclude evolution per se; it challenges the notion that evolution happened by blind chance. When somebody comes up with a plausible step-by-step model of how the mechanisms of the modern evolutionary synthesis could have created this (or any) transitionary form, then we can legitimately talk about blows to ID. Furthermore, when ID proponents speak of the sudden emergence of biological novelty, they tend to focus on the Cambrian explosion, during which many different animal body plans appear to originate suddenly over the span of only about 12 million years. This transition is believed to have occurred during the Devonian period which began about 75 million years after the Cambrian period had ended."
Don't even get me started on some of his commenters. You can lead someone to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.
"I feel that I should address the claim that this find is “a blow to proponents of intelligent design”. ID does not preclude evolution per se; it challenges the notion that evolution happened by blind chance. When somebody comes up with a plausible step-by-step model of how the mechanisms of the modern evolutionary synthesis could have created this (or any) transitionary form, then we can legitimately talk about blows to ID. Furthermore, when ID proponents speak of the sudden emergence of biological novelty, they tend to focus on the Cambrian explosion, during which many different animal body plans appear to originate suddenly over the span of only about 12 million years. This transition is believed to have occurred during the Devonian period which began about 75 million years after the Cambrian period had ended."
Don't even get me started on some of his commenters. You can lead someone to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.
You're a braver man than me, Drek, to plunge into those depths.
Needless to say, that Dembski is trying to shoehorn the observation into his hypothesis is not the most shocking development of the day so far.
Needless to say, that Dembski is trying to shoehorn the observation into his hypothesis is not the most shocking development of the day so far.
I was going to ask what "sleep training-related sleep deprivation" was, but then I got it. Great phrase. Mind if I use it?
Go for it, Janelle. I look forward to reading about how you use it.
The sleep training in question was toddler-related, but I do, in fact, have difficulty getting myself to bed at a reasonable hour sometimes...
The sleep training in question was toddler-related, but I do, in fact, have difficulty getting myself to bed at a reasonable hour sometimes...
I love how the proponents of ID subtly change their position based on whatever suits them at the moment.
Now Bill Dembski says:
ID does not preclude evolution per se; it challenges the notion that evolution happened by blind chance. When somebody comes up with a plausible step-by-step model of how the mechanisms of the modern evolutionary synthesis could have created this (or any) transitionary form, then we can legitimately talk about blows to ID.
Last week quoted and extensively praised a commentary that said:
The show tells us that Darwin’s theory helps us to “understand” the fossil record. This is odd, because the exhibit’s curator, the paleontologist Niles Eldredge, has written extensively about how Darwin’s idea of gradual evolution has never been supported by the fossils and certainly doesn’t explain them.
So last week, evolution was wrong because there is no evidence to support it. This week, evolution happens, but not by blind chance. Next week, after Tiktaalik is off the front pages, I predict he'll once again claim that there is no proof for evolution.
I intend to test my hypothesis by reading his blog regularly until he actually makes such a claim, no matter how much it burns my evolved retinas.
Post a Comment
Now Bill Dembski says:
ID does not preclude evolution per se; it challenges the notion that evolution happened by blind chance. When somebody comes up with a plausible step-by-step model of how the mechanisms of the modern evolutionary synthesis could have created this (or any) transitionary form, then we can legitimately talk about blows to ID.
Last week quoted and extensively praised a commentary that said:
The show tells us that Darwin’s theory helps us to “understand” the fossil record. This is odd, because the exhibit’s curator, the paleontologist Niles Eldredge, has written extensively about how Darwin’s idea of gradual evolution has never been supported by the fossils and certainly doesn’t explain them.
So last week, evolution was wrong because there is no evidence to support it. This week, evolution happens, but not by blind chance. Next week, after Tiktaalik is off the front pages, I predict he'll once again claim that there is no proof for evolution.
I intend to test my hypothesis by reading his blog regularly until he actually makes such a claim, no matter how much it burns my evolved retinas.
<< Home
