´óÏó´«Ã½

Does Dawkins have an employer at the minute and do they know he is saying he believes in aliens, although he admits he has no evidence?

Is this any different to the alleged import of Mcintosh's statement?

Is McIntosh really a professor in Thermodynamics? Is this correct?

Has Dawkinks put down a attempt at a rebuttal to Mcintosh's views anywhere?

PB

The world is full of wonders: in the second half of his life, one of Newton's principal interests was Biblical chronology, and he even assigned a date for the Second Coming --in the middle of the 20th century.

"McIntosh publically stated that evolution is incompatable with the second law of thermodynamics."

"In light of this clear connection between McIntosh's creationist views and his understanding of thermodynamics, Leeds University will presumably need to revise its press release."

It will need to revise more than its press release, it will need to remove McIntosh from its staff or....restrict itself to being strictly a theological seminary.

1) I do not have time to listen to the whole program again to get to the particular comments in question. I remember the exchange. However, I would like to see the transcript of the exact exchange between the two on this particular point. It would serve this discussion better if that transcript was posted before we all plunge in here further.

2) Presumably McIntosh will reply to the Guardian and it will also serve us better to await his defence of his remarks on Sunday Sequence.

Then with a complete record in hand there may be something worth further comment.

The last discussions on the Creation Wars topics went on to approximately 100 posts. I suspect this one could take off in the same way. Why don’t we wait before rehashing previously articulated positions.

Just for the record I do not believe that the 2nd Law is violated by evolution but right now I need to see the exact statements McIntosh made on Sunday Sequence in text form (and the text of his reply to Dawkins) before I wander without my flashlight down some dark syntactical labyrinth.

Regards,
Michael

Oh, come off it PB! Dawkins said it was more probable that there were aliens than God, and that science can't prove one or the other yet. Unlike Bertrand Russell's Celestial teapot and God at least Aliens would be susceptible to proof by the scientific method. I suggest you listen to Sam Harris on Beyond Belief 2006.

And if you don't know the arguments around the second law of thermodynamics then do some reading. It's an old chestnut which the creationists keep bringing up, but if nothing can violate it then I don't exist and you must be a figment of my imagination.

Bernard

Bernard

wind your neck in.
On RTE the Fri before SS he said it was "probable" that aliens exist (no mention of God) though he concended it was "speculation".

So nothing can violate a scientific law? that sounds a bit like scientific fundamentalism to me. I thought scientific laws were regulalry updated our outdated - am I wrong?

PB

From the record:

1) McIntosh is the one who raised the issue of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in order to counter Dawkins and evolution.

2) McIntosh was asked three times for an answer to the question, "Are you saying that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?"

3) Money quote: "...On that point with the DNA, it actually is seeking to break the 2nd Law. Yes, evolution - based on that thesis - is counter to the 2nd Law."

4) When Dawkins sought clarification that this is what McIntosh really believes, McIntosh replies, "I am saying that the DNA structure - to say that that came about by processes completely natural is actually violating the 2nd Law."

Did he say it? Yes, twice.

I think we have to be careful and not hear what one wants to hear.

As I recall McIntosh was trying to make a chemical engineering point about information, energy and nucleotides.

Crawley threw Irreducible Complexity at him and then as McIntosh indicated that was not what he was saying, Crawley cut him off and moved on.

It was Dawkins who asked if McIntosh’s position was that evolution violated the 2nd Law.

McIntosh never proferred that as his position.

McIntosh tried to answer, Dawkins refused to listen to his answer interrupting immediately and repeating the same question.

I was listening to hear McIntosh’s answer. Crawley being UNhelpful in my understanding of McIntosh's position demanded a yes/no answer forcing McIntosh to say that under the ‘natural law’ assumptions behind the Dawkin’s question evolution would violate the 2nd Law but.....

McIntosh tried to explain what he saw as the ‘natural law’ problem only to be cut off again by Crawley with some comment that a discussion on nucleotides was too complicated for his program and so we 'moved on' again.

Let me repeat that I DO NOT believe evolution violates any of the laws of thermodynamics. However, what I heard with the Crawley/Dawkins interruptions was an ‘inquisition’ in its worst form.

That is my OPINION and no one need respond to me.

McIntosh was not permitted to explain himself to me and now Dawkins et al are off with the madding crowd on a ‘wizardhunt’ about his job.

I’m not sure McIntosh will be able to defend his position but I HAVE NOT heard his defense!

Therefore, I will await his reply in the Guardian before I declare the guy ‘Guilty’ and join you all on the post mortem.

The Crawley/Dawkins interrogation was not the way I like to hear a debate. Pose a question, interrupt the answer before the respondent has got going, demand yes/no as the answer, and then conclude that the ‘defendant’s’ answer is too complicated so we should move on.

Give McIntosh and me 'a break'!

Regards,
Michael

McIntosh gets no free pass, no break. It doesn't matter whether or not he originally proffered it or said it in a reply to Dawkin's statement, the point is that he sad it as a matter of scientific fact. He used his reputation as an acknowledged expert to lend credence to an othewise unsupportable hypothesis in order to challenge another which has an increasing mountain of evidence on its side. These people don't call their theory "creation science" for nothing, they are trying to use the cover of science and scientists to sell their biblical theology for which they have no credible support. To those scientists who sell out their committment to the truth of what they know to help sell the fallacy of what they would have the world believe in its place is an unforgivable betrayal of all of those whose efforts went into their own training. This makes McIntosh more than just wrong, it makes him reprehensible. Quite frankly Micheal Hull, taking you at your word that you have a PHD in electrochemistry, I'm surprised that you are not equally outraged by it.

Re: 9 Mark wrote:

"Quite frankly Michael Hull, taking you at your word that you have a PHD in electrochemistry, I'm surprised that you are not equally outraged by it."

I may well be after I hear his defense. Ask me again when the Guardian publishes it.

Regards,
Michael

Michael- Did you see my post 7? He said it.

I agree that I would have enjoyed hearing more hashed out on this at the time but, as a broadcaster, I understand William's reasons for moving on. This point on thermodynamics is a technical one between academics, and it was a hectic morning with no less than three annoying reports on tape to go to in the middle of the debate, which wasn't helpful (as the program already was constrained enough by time).

But the answer was simple, Michael, and a yes or no would have sufficed. The question he was asked was "Are you saying that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?" That's a 'YES' or 'NO' answer. McIntosh then went on to say that, as he understands the process of evolution, the answer is that YES, it violates it.

Thus Dawkins is right in the Guardian. Correct?

As an aside, to those who don't understand what this means and find this some incomprehensible arcane dispute, McIntosh might just as well have said that that the theory of evolution violates the law of gravity. This second law of thermodynamics is just as basic and crucial to out best understanding of the way the universe works as gravity is. If this is open to dispute, so is everything else science understands. Miller clearly understood the full implications of this as did the inquisition when confronted with Galileo. This also illustrates the absurdity of comparing a scientific principle with a metaphor.

Mark- I understand your point, but I think McIntosh was attempting to cast the shadow of doubt upon evolution, not thermodynamics.

John Wright #13; He gave those who believe in him and what he said, because of his reputation alone, not their understanding of the technical issue involved (owing to their background didn't school them in it) an either/or choice, evolution is right or thermodynamics is right but not both. Either you believe in me Andrew McIntosh and creation or you don't believe in thermodynamics. Today thermodynamics is whatever Andy McIntosh says it is. Tomorrow it's paleontology, the day after archeology, and the day after that anything else. My point was that he sets himself up (and his counterparts in other disciplines) as the sole arbitor of scientific truth which is whatever he says it is on any given day. This will include denial of any and all scientific knowledge which he finds inconsistant with his theory regardless of objective facts or the conclusions of mainstream scientists. It's kind of an anti-scientific counterculture masquerading as science.

He's devised an interesting problem for himself. If he doesn't retract his statement, he can never regain credibility with the world's mainstream technical community (it may already be too late for that.) And if he does, he will badly damage the cause he lied for making it look even more foolish even to those who are undecided. It's a nice tight little corner he painted himself into.

Guys

I am not up in TSLOT but I am going to take that as an advantage here.

Going on the explanations given on this blog, I understand the point about TSLOT is that chaos naturally increases in any process over time.

Isnt this the case generally? Any garden, body, house lab or factory requires maintenance or it will decline.

Is there any practical example in the natural world in terms of TSLOT which can demonstrate that some particular process actually becomes more organised and refined without outside guidance?

Is this the point McIntosh was making, that DNA making itself is contrary to the ebb and flow of the natural world, in which processes and organisms actually decline and decay on their own.

But DNA is so intricate and complex to serve its purpose that it runs agains the tide of the natural world to say that it formed itself randomly from nothing?

PB

Re Post 11

John:

Here is what I hope is a fairly accurate transcript of the McIntosh - Dawkins exchange.

Start of Transcript ...

McIntosh: I want to come to the second law of thermodynamics because I now want to ask him (Dawkins) about the actual material in the DNA. The nucleotides combine....

Crawley (interrupting and laughing): Could you remind us at this early hour on a Sunday morning about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

McIntosh: Look, chemical engineering must interface with biology. It is not true to say that this is just one discipline. It's an interaction of many disciplines. I'm a mathematician, I'm an engineer, ok chemist, all the rest. OK. Now there is a ladder stucture in DNA, which of course Professor Dawkins knows all the details about, but there is a chemical bond and that requires a certain raising of what we call the Free Energy for it to be maintained. I won't go into all the details. But if that was left to itself it would just decay, alright? The information in the DNA sustains that slightly raised energy level, ok, and it will only work because of the information being there. If you put them in a petri dish they just eventually will come apart, ok? Because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that these bonds just dissipate. You CANNOT get ANY information in any information system even in a computer without slightly raised energy levels and the 2nd Law works AGAINST you.

Crawley (interrupting): In some ways a restatement of the irreducible complexity...

McIntosh: Well its not really that argument it's actually to do with the 2nd Law....

Crawley (interrupting): I need to move things along. Let me get a response from Richard Dawkins to some of those points.

Dawkins: Are you saying, Professor McIntosh, that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

McIntosh: I am saying that at that point .....

Dawkins (interrupting forcibly with McIntosh trying to continue his response while being talked over by Dawkins): ARE YOU SAYING, (repeats ARE YOU SAYING as McIntosh attempts to continue his response) Are you saying that it violates the second law of Thermodynamics.

McIntosh: I am saying ... (McIntosh repeats this several times but can not continue)

Crawley (interrupting McIntosh's answer): Can I get a Yes or No?

McIntosh: The thing about the one point with the DNA it actually is seeking to break the 2nd Law. Yes, evolution BASED ON THAT THESIS is counter to the second Law.

Dawkins: It's a violation! So let me get this straight. A professor of thermodynamics at the University of Leeds has publicly stated that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

McIntosh: I am saying that the DNA structure - to say that that came about by processes completely natural is actually violating the 2nd Law ....

Dawkins (interrupting) : Now, an earlier speaker said that it doesn't matter what Professor McIntosh believes because he is not teaching evolution he is teaching thermodynamics. We have now heard, and therefore it won't be doing the students a disservice, we have now heard that as a matter of fact he does think that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore it does impinge upon ......

McIntosh (interrupting forcibly): At a fundamental level ........ At a fundamental level in the DNA if you say that that comes about purely by NATURAL processes they will work AGAINST you. You cannot form the nucleotide bond ...

Crawley: OK much as I am enjoying the details of all of this I think we are going to have to keep it a little more general and move forward. We will have lots of chances to come back on some of these points in a moment.....

End of transcript....

My point is that we didn't come back to these points and I see nowhere in this transcript where McIntosh came out and said "Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics". I heard Dawkins say several times that that was what McIntosh said but what I heard was McIntosh trying to make a point about the Free Energy of chemical bonds.

Again, I am not a defender of McIntosh's belief system but I will defend his right to be quoted correctly and not have his statements interpreted through Mr. Dawkins' particular lens.

I continue to think that we should await McIntosh's response to the charge leveled at him by Dawkin's in the Guardian.

Am I being unreasonable?

As Ever,
Michael

Re Post 12

Mark: Give me peace on "this also illustrates the absurdity of comparing a scientific principle with a metaphor."

Forgive me but in my opinion you completely 'blew up' in the "Finding Darwin's God" blog and lost this argument to Maureen! The record there stands for itself. I'm not going to reopen the debate on my beliefs with you here. After you read some Marcus Borg we can maybe pick the discussion up again but I doubt it.

Now, back to the matter at hand, lets see if McIntosh can set his record straight. Presumably the Guardian will give him enough space without interruption to explain his position.

That is the way science gets to the bottom of such things.

Michael

pb#15, don't try to read intuitive or common experience into this, it will mislead you. Entropy, a physical property of matter like mass or density. It is carefully mathematically defined. We interpret it to mean a measure of chaos. What the second law says specifically and precisely is that in any real process involving a transfer of energy, the total entropy of the universe increases. That means that some parts of it can decrease at the expense of a greater increase elsewhere. In the formation of DNA from its constituent parts, that aspect of the universe undergoes a decrease in entropy but energy must be expended by some other agent in the process of putting the DNA molecule together and that agent's entropy will increase by a quantity greater than the decrease in the formed the DNA compared to its prior constituents. That means it can and will happen naturally if the conditions are right. If this seems complicated to you, don't feel badly, you're not alone, its a concept many trained people (including me) found difficult to understand and accept the first time they learned about it also. But at Andrew McIntosh's level of understanding, it's child's play, he could recite it in his sleep. It' inconceivable he didn't understand it. Why did he say the opposite then? It's just my opinion but I think he probably just lied and thought he would get away with it. He thought he'd convince anyone listening and nobody would catch him and challenge him. It' is a kind of intellectual arrogance dismissing everyone potentially in his audience. The only other possibility I can see is that for some reason, he has forgotten the most fundimental principles of his profession. Either way, he disqualified himself from further serious consideration among other science professionals.

Michael #16; where did McIntosh say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics? He said it implicitly since DNA is a necessary constituent of all living cells, they could not have arisen spontaneously according to his theory because the DNA necessary to their existance could not have been created naturally, only by devine intervention (this is the gist of his thesis.) I assume he would say that the ordinary replication of DNA either naturally or in a laboratory would not violate the 2nd law, only its initial creation.

Michael Hull#17; Did you say something about the marines landing? Where? When?

The second law - the law of sin and death.

PB- Only you, in a discussion on a point of science, could take it as an advantage that you know nothing about thermodynamics.

Michael- Thanks for your work on the transcript. But I have to disagree... I think it's fairly evident that Dawkins is right - McIntosh is debating the working model of evolution advocated by Dawkins and making the point that it violates the 2nd law. Even by virtue of the fact that he brought it up as a counter to what Dawkins was saying about evolution, it should be clear that he was taking issue with evolution on the basis of the 2nd law's existence. McIntosh says it violates thermodynamics "based on that thesis". What thesis is he referring to? The thesis of how evolution works, according to Richard Dawkins. I could be way off.......

Re 18

"He said it implicitly since DNA is a necessary constituent of all living cells, they could not have arisen spontaneously according to his theory because the DNA necessary to their existance could not have been created naturally, only by devine intervention (this is the gist of his thesis.) I assume he would say that the ordinary replication of DNA either naturally or in a laboratory would not violate the 2nd law, only its initial creation."

Well let's not assume. The man has got to reply to Dawkin's public attack on his position as a professor at Leeds. Then we will have his uninterrupted statement to critique.

Again, I repeat that I am not saying you will be proved wrong. I'm interested in seeing how he will relate the 2nd Law to the nucleotide chemical bond and from there link everything to evolution. He is asserting that Dawkins thinks evolution is solely a matter of biology. McIntosh is saying it is a matter of biology AND a host of other scientific disciplines. He was trying to make his argument with a discussion of the free energy of a chemical bond from the chemical engineering perspective and he wasn't allowed to complete his thought. Since I don't know what that thought is as yet I can not criticize him on where I 'assume' he was going with his argument.

He believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago. You and I agree why that belief is wrong (my DNA ticking time bomb being one reason as Maureen so aptly put it!). So McIntosh might be well on the verge of imploding on the 2nd Law too. I say if that is so then let's wait and watch him!

Regards,
Michael

#20 by Billy:

"The second law - the law of sin and death."

Ok, Billy, while we are waiting for the Leeds professor to get up enough free energy to write to the Guardian about something I know absolutely nothing about, you and I might have a chat about this.

The evolutionists say that 'death' must have preceded 'sin' as the animal 'man' has only come into existence in the recent history of an extremely long process in the evolution of 'life'.

Your position, as a creationist, I take it would be that 'sin' preceded 'death'.

Did I get it that right?

Peace,
Maureen

JW

I thought you had agreed to end ad hominem statements. You didnt even attempt to answer my questions.

PB

Mark

You say dont try and read common experience into this. But if what you are saying is really so bullet proof you should be able to stand it up from any different angle.

I understand you said before that it is difficult to get a really closed system, so you cannot fully account for where energy may be coming from.

But can you actually respond to my posting 15 rather than dismiss it.

I dont mind if you take posting as totally independent of TSLOT. But why should it be that when everything in nature tends to degenerate that DNA and evolution should run counter to this concept?

Please dont try and sidestep my question, that will only leave me unchallenged in my assumption and with no possible conclusion but that you cannot fully defend your thinking.

PB

PS You may have missed another possibility for McIntyre's thinking; he could be correct. Who would be better qualified between the two of you?

PB

you are continually harping about Phd on answers in genesis - If I am right there are two right here - listen to them.

Michael and Mark both believe evolution is not in contradiction to TSLOT - most other scientists agree (I don't know how many agree with McIntosh).

Choose your battles - this isn't the one for you in my opinion.

GW

I understand NASA and BAE have been researching the possibility of influencing gravity.

Would anyone be equally outraged at them for challenging supposedly "inviolable" law laws of science?

It seems the "outrage" being expressed here is non-scientific and intended to close down discussion to secure the hegemony of a particular non-scientific ideoloy, ie humanism.

PB

PS GW, choose my battles? I am not trying to win anything, I am trying to learn something. Phds do disgree on this subject, as answers in genesis website proves.

AIG discusses TSLOT;-

pb; I'm not here to give course lectures in chemisty or thermodynamics. I've posted what I know in terms that I thought most likely to make it comprehensible to someone who did not have any background which would have already lead to an understanding of it. It's not open for debate, at least not with me.

Michael; while I've enjoyed our exchanges of ideas, I find it impossible to reconcile your theological views with your credentials as a physics honor student and a PHD in electrochemistry. I also find your educational credentials incompatible with your belief that lines of reasoning based on the explicitness and precision of mathematical models could be in any way comparable to the imprecision of linguistic based reasoning especially when even the words themselves are deliberately cryptic in their meaning as in a metaphor. I'm at a loss to understand it.

Gee Dubyah; sorry to disappoint you but I am not a PHD, I don't even hold a Master's degree, just a Bachelor's degree in Engineering with some additional background in life sciences. Still, the curriculum was sufficiently inclusive of the concepts discussed by McIntosh, Dawkins, and Miller at an advanced enough level so that I feel I have a good understanding of them myself, certainly enough so that I understand the arguements in the debate well. I regret if I couldn't express it succinctly enough to shed some light on it for anyone here to whom it is mostly a mystery. Perhaps Michael or someone else would give it a try and be more successful at it than I was.

BTW, did someone let a fly in? I thought I heard the buzzing of a fly or a mosquito? Must have been my imagination.

Re 29 in which Mark wrote:

"Michael; while I've enjoyed our exchanges of ideas, I find it impossible to reconcile your theological views with your credentials as a physics honor student and a PHD in electrochemistry."

Well you are in could company here as I think PB and Billy for example would agree. So that's a lesson to be learned - if we all look hard enough we have lots in common!

Just for the record while I did take physics at university I did not take an honours degree in it - that degree was in chemistry - which explains why I am particularly interested in what McIntosh was going to say about the thermodynamics of the chemical bond.

Mark continued and said: "I also find your educational credentials incompatible with your belief that lines of reasoning based on the explicitness and precision of mathematical models could be in any way comparable to the imprecision of linguistic based reasoning especially when even the words themselves are deliberately cryptic in their meaning as in a metaphor. I'm at a loss to understand it."

I know about this loss of understanding. John might be able to help as I think he gets it. But in all seriousness pick up Marcus Borg's book "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time". Its in paperback and an easy read. I would place my theological perspectives in some alignment with his though I am much more agnostic about both religious and scientific beliefs than Borg would be.

Mark continued: "Gee Dubyah; sorry to disappoint you but I am not a PHD, I don't even hold a Master's degree, just a Bachelor's degree in Engineering with some additional background in life sciences. Still, the curriculum was sufficiently inclusive of the concepts discussed by McIntosh, Dawkins, and Miller at an advanced enough level so that I feel I have a good understanding of them myself, certainly enough so that I understand the arguements in the debate well. I regret if I couldn't express it succinctly enough to shed some light on it for anyone here to whom it is mostly a mystery. Perhaps Michael or someone else would give it a try and be more successful at it than I was."

Gee: I couldn't do any better than Mark. I'm also sure that a PhD degree doesn't mean all that much in the broader scheme of things. Two of the smartest people I know entered business straight from high school and are multimillionaire philanthropists.

Regards,
Michael

Michael, I disagree about the exchange. I became terribly frustrated with Andy McIntosh's evasiveness and his disingenuosness. He had to be pressed to answer even a basic question such as How old is the universe. He had to be pressed, against the time on a live show, to deal with thermodynamics. When Dawkins and Crawley finally extracted an answer from him, McIntosh had scientific egg all over his face. Don't shoot the messenger!

Mark

It doesnt give me any pleasure to say it, but it looks like you just admitted you cant defent the second law of thermodynamics on the basis of the question I put in post 25?

Does this suggest that McIntyre might have had a point after all?

I have seen his name smeared so much on this blog, but now that someone asks his critics to actually explain their position they all appear to melt away.

PB

Michael#30;
you said;
"if we all look hard enough, we have lots in common!"

Michael; just how hard do we have to look?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, I'm not going to read Marcus Borg's book, I have too many other unimportant things to do.

pb#32;

It's not up to me to defend the second law of thermodynamics, I merely tried and failed to explain my understanding of it to you. The second law of thermodynamics continues to defend itself in a completely unforgiving way everywhere in the universe just as it has for the last 12 1/2 billion years. If you are foolish enough to challenge it head on, I promise you it's a battle you will lose and one for which you will pay a very expensive price :>)

Ok Boys,

I will disport myself in a manner a lot less deferential know I know that you aren't all rocket scientists!!!!!

But seriously, this TSLOT thing seems relatively simple to me, any dismissal of the possibility of higher energy level chemical bonds forming seems to rely on the assumption of a closed system independent of energy input from ANY source, Solar, Geothermal, Electrical. This is clearly not the case in a primeval earth basking in the Sun's rays, packed with Geothermally active zones, and surrounded by a turbulent atomsphere and attendant electrical storms.

So in short please spell out to me why the TSLOT makes Evolution impossible. If you can't - please explain what you ARE talking about...

Lets have a bit less of answers in genesis - i think creationists bolt there at the first sign of resistance - tellingly there is a page entitled "arguments creationists should not deploy" - oh dear.

I remember reding a comment somewhere that AiG was crammed with Counterfiet Rhetoric, Apologetics, and Polemics. I'm sure there was an Acronym used C, R, A err - oh...

Mark- What's even funnier about that page on Answers in Genesis giving is that several of them have been already utilised by the creationists here on this blog! HAHAHA!

Ahem.

Hello Michael N. Hull!

Just to let you know that you get a mention in B.R.A.s THE OWL Christmas 2006 edition, and to let you know that my daughter is on the Owl Team this year.

Re 37:

Billy: Can you tell me more? I know Ken Hawtin and a group of us ex BRA people were going to an article for one of the OWLs but haven't got around to it yet.

I hope it is not about my wild youth in North Belfast!

Regards,
Michael

Everybody out!

Get over quickly to the Andy McIntosh blog.

There has been some sort of a reply ....

Last to leave close the door here.

We may be ready for the hanging!

Can someone stop off at Billy Graham's mechanical cow pasture and get a rope!

I'll bring my knitting.

Peace (after the hanging of course)
Maureen

(Sounds of running feet, engines starting, tires squealing.....)

hmmm

as I suspected, the belief in ID or creationism in the UK is much much more common than the sceptics here would have us believe.

I imagine this might have a few of you panicking...

From;-

..comes this clipping;-

In an Ipsos MORI Poll carried out in January 2006 for ´óÏó´«Ã½ Horizon , 41% of the respondents thought that Intelligent Design Theory should be taught in school science classes, and 44% believed that Creationism Theory should be taught. An Opinionpanel Research Survey in July 2006 found that 30% of University Students in the UK believe in creation or intelligent design.

There is a modern controversy over Darwin's theory of evolution and the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and this has considerable social, spiritual, moral and ethical implications. Truth in Science promotes the critical examination of Darwinism in schools, as an important component of science education.

the polls can be seen here;-

...and here;-

for the record John Wright, you can snigger if creationists dont all sing off the same hymnsheet. I personally did find recently I had used points AIG said were not correct.

SO what? I am open to learn and regulalry admit my errors. For example I believe I mistakanly said the New Testament contains a genologogy of Christ to Adam this week on this blog, but I now think I am mistaken on that one.

But John I have seen you time and again found out on different points and you just melt into the background.

So who is more credible...the person who admits his mistakes and learns from them or the person who pretends he never makes any?

And lastly you will not embarrass me into stopping hyperlinking to answers in genesis. You have no scientific standing and should have just a smidgen of respect for 200 plus phds and above, I reckon.

I certainly give Dawkins that much.

PB

PB- You have NEVER given Dawkins that much. To say you have makes you a liar. And I invite you to come up with the goods since you're making a claim here that I think you can't support: "But John I have seen you time and again found out on different points and you just melt into the background."

Which points?

John

I certainly do respect Dawkins for his professional position; he earns his wage and is professionally qualified. I could not begin to do his job, though I am free to highlight what inconsistencies I see in his public statements (eg ref aliens). No big deal. Also, when he speaks on God, I guess I may be as well qualified as he is to speak.

I have no scientific background but I equally respect the professional credentials of the AIG 200 phds and Dawkins. There, how does that make me a liar? Can you say the same about both groups, would you accept the AIG phd are professionally credible in their fields as Dawkins is in his, albeit at whatever level they are all at.

John posts 15 and 21 pretty much sum up almost every interaction we ever have on this blog. I ask a few questions that can be answered and you respond with a personal attack but fail to even attempt an answer.

There it is in black and white. It is how you normally behave but I am not going to get ad hominem and give you exmaples from way back because it would make me seem very petty and poison the wound.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I dont think I ever start on people with personal remarks. I hope I am not wrong about myself, but I think I focus on ideas, not personalities.

Thats how I would like us to be and I though we agreed that a few weeks back.

sincerely, hope you have a happy Christmas.

PB

My Christmas post to PB

PB- You say I have been "found out" on different points and just "melt into the background". I presume this is because I haven't answered every single one of your many points to your satisfaction, but it certainly doesn't mean that I'm stuck for an answer.

What you call ad hominem is usually just my own colourful way of dealing with your approach, and shouldn't be taken personally. A personal comment would be one about your body odour or crooked teeth. I usually focus on your attitude to the issues, which is appropriate. I realise my bluntness can come across as rude too, however, and wouldn't want you to be offended by anything I say. I remain overall respectful of the fact that you actually care enough about your faith to come on here and defend it. That alone speaks volumes about your fibre. I've always avoided discussing these issues with people whom I believe are incapable of understanding properly, or are not worth my trouble. The fact that I frequently take time to call you a liar and get on you like sandpaper is testament to how valuable and worthwhile it is to converse with you like this. I hope you stay on this blog for a long time to come because I enjoy the sport of debating with you and find that, in the middle of my frustration with you, you me smile a lot.

I too wish you a great and happy Christmas.
I'm well aware of what Christmas means to you and I respect that deeply. Enjoy... and we'll chat Boxing Day. :-)

John

I welcome and fully accept the sentiment of your post.

To resolve this issue for 2007 may I simply ask that if I ask a question that you attempt to answer it or leave it alone; or at the very least answer it before you start on me in any other way.

To be honest you have commented on "my attitude" but you will admit this is highly subjective ground and it is my view that you are often way off beam when you go down this route.

It certainly does little to inform anyone else surfing through about the issues.

Happy Christmas

PB

PS You certainly dont fit into an easy category do you; a liberal but a post-evangelical; a liberal but a stauch supporter of America; a liberal but a critic of postmodernism.

PB- Sometimes it's the question that's wrong, in my opinion. It is not the case that all use of knowledge of a person's consistency of approach, overall worldview and previous comments, which inform the way they ask a question, or the means by which they come to the question in the first place, are ad hominem. Use of such infortmation in a discussion like this can be helpful, and it's only ad hominem, and only a logical fallacy when it's used in an argument.

Yes I am quite difficult to pin down ideologically. My worldview comes from a lot of independent thought and virtually no peer influence, so it's hard to label me. One could say I'm the world's first commonsense liberal! ;-)

JW

Happy Christmas [Day]

It appears you are trying to reinvent the meaning of ad hominem John. I suggest you accept it for what it is.

"World's First Commonsense Liberal???"

That almost sounds like e approaching a messianic claim there John....careful!

PB

PB- No, I'm explaining that the remarks you claim to be ad hominem are, in fact, not. And I'm telling you that the few remarks that are ad hominem are not part of a logical fallacy, because they're not used in my arguments. Bringing arguments against William based on your interpretation of his remarks on the premise that he's a biased humanist: now THAT'S ad hominem!

Hope you enjoy the rest of your day. And don't be calling that turkey any names.