Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Midnight Rain]

He has talked about the possibility of life being seeded by alien intelligence of some kind, as a way to account for it's beginnings on Earth.. the 'Anything But God' answer to this unsolved question-

atheism of the gaps I call it!

I'm not sure if there is a direct quote in writing but I'll have a look

Can we get a quote or better a link to where it was said? He may have said that it isn't totally impossible or something but he doesn't give it any kind of scientific thought or explanatory power.

edit: And your "atheist of the gaps" phrase, as entertaining as it is, seems rather asinine. How did you come about it?

 

[McBell]

He has talked about the possibility of life being seeded by alien intelligence of some kind, as a way to account for it's beginnings on Earth.. the 'Anything But God' answer to this unsolved question-

atheism of the gaps I call it!

I'm not sure if there is a direct quote in writing but I'll have a look

He was pointing out that there are other possible explanations.

 

[leibowde84]

let's be honest.....
plethora of reasons?.....whose reasons?......God's?

Natural Selection. For example, those with better eyes will have a better chance of survival and passing on their genes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He has talked about the possibility of life being seeded by alien intelligence of some kind, as a way to account for it's beginnings on Earth.. the 'Anything But God' answer to this unsolved question-

atheism of the gaps I call it!

I'm not sure if there is a direct quote in writing but I'll have a look

I'm guessing you're talking about what he said in the movie, "Expelled?"

This is from his review of the movie:


"The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid — pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough.

Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett).

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."

http://io9.gizmodo.com/375766/richard-dawkins-the-rap-video?mail2=true

 

[Tiberius]

the creation

Aren't you just assuming it was created in order to justify your desire to believe in a creator?

How do you know it was a creation?

 

[Tiberius]

There are such brilliant designs everywhere. Here are just a few:

• Air conditioning in termite mounds
• The anchoring skill of the razor clam
• The navigation skill of the dung beetle
• The storage ability of DNA

All of these are explainable with evolution.

 

[Tiberius]

Yet, Jesus Christ appeared as the Messiah, right on time, and Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, as the prophecy stated.

Allegedly.

 

[Thief]

Natural Selection. For example, those with better eyes will have a better chance of survival and passing on their genes.

and you then contend that God the Almighty is not able to set life in motion with natural selection as the scheme of things?

 

[Thief]

Aren't you just assuming it was created in order to justify your desire to believe in a creator?

How do you know it was a creation?

about creation as a means to say.....I AM!

might be difficult to say so without something to show for it

 

[rusra02]

All of these are explainable with evolution.

By all means, explain with evidence, not just assertions.

 

[rusra02]

Allegedly.

Historically.

 

[leibowde84]

and you then contend that God the Almighty is not able to set life in motion with natural selection as the scheme of things?

I never said anything like that. I have never claimed that was an impossibility. We are discussing evidence, not mere possibilities.

 

[outhouse]

Historically.

Not much of anything YOU posit is historical.

Its why YOU can never provide credible links and sources of any kind for ANYTHING

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm guessing you're talking about what he said in the movie, "Expelled?"

This is from his review of the movie:


"The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid — pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough.

Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett).

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."

http://io9.gizmodo.com/375766/richard-dawkins-the-rap-video?mail2=true

Dawkins re-telling "Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred"

actual question "What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics'

why the change in tone I wonder?



Actual answer "Well, it could come about in the following way, it could be that [some alien civilization] designed a form of life that they seeded onto this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that [if you looked] you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

So yes, he absolutely at least considers; not only the possibility of ID, but explicitly acknowledges that it's an entirely scientifically verifiable field of study (one which he openly and vehemently opposes being studied at all)

Another unambiguous example of atheism versus science that we have discussed here before

I'm not sure we can say the same for unsupported beliefs in spontaneous abiogenesis, since even hypothetical proof of that is clearly more difficult to imagine.


The 'signature' is the key factor here, Dawkins agrees entirely with creationists of all stripes on this, and it's far beyond the scope of an 'evolutionary biologist', you get into the much deeper layers of information analysis - which is why mathematicians and computer scientists are much more apt to be skeptical of evolution than 'evolutionary biologists' just as they are also more skeptical of ghosts than 'paranormal investigators' are

Their qualification title does not include a pre-determined conclusion for something we don't yet understand

 

[Shad]

Dawkins re-telling "Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred"

actual question "What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics'

why the change in tone I wonder?



Actual answer "Well, it could come about in the following way, it could be that [some alien civilization] designed a form of life that they seeded onto this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that [if you looked] you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

So yes, he absolutely at least considers; not only the possibility of ID, but explicitly acknowledges that it's an entirely scientifically verifiable field of study (one which he openly and vehemently opposes being studied at all)

Another unambiguous example of atheism versus science that we have discussed here before

I'm not sure we can say the same for unsupported beliefs in spontaneous abiogenesis, since even hypothetical proof of that is clearly more difficult to imagine.

Entertaining an idea does not make that idea right nor does that mean anything produced by ID is correct nor verified. You are jumping to a conclusion well outside what was said. Yet ID does not even have a working hypothesis yet abiogenesis hypothesis do. It is amusing to see you denounce abiogenesis when ID has yet to present a hypothesis that can stand scrutiny. That conflict you are talking about is based on theists like yourself reading far more into interview than is merited.

The 'signature' is the key factor here, Dawkins agrees entirely with creationists of all stripes on this, and it's far beyond the scope of an 'evolutionary biologist', you get into the much deeper layers of information analysis - which is why mathematicians and computer scientists are much more apt to be skeptical of evolution than 'evolutionary biologists' just as they are also more skeptical of ghosts than 'paranormal investigators' are

Being skeptical does not make them right nor their ideas right. You are also using experts outside their fields as a reference. Do you know the fallacy you are using?

 

[viole]

edit: And your "atheist of the gaps" phrase, as entertaining as it is, seems rather asinine. How did you come about it?

I think it has the same motivation as saying that atheism is a religion, or a faith. It is a defensive move.

The usual translation is: you atheists are also as irrational as we are.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

Nope, as it being an accident is not the only other option. There are a plethora of reasons why life has evolved in specific ways.

I very much doubts that thief could ever understand that.

"God-did-it" is the only thing that he can understand, and that's about the extent of his education.

 

[james bond]

Question for evolutionists: Which came first evolution or the theory of the universe?

In the past, evo-heads or evolutionists went to great extremes to avoid scenarios that suggested an universe with a beginning or ending. This was because they posed bothersome philosophical questions such as, “What came before the beginning?” or “What will come after the ending?”. They only considered theories that guaranteed an eternal Universe were worthy of consideration.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Question for evolutionists: Which came first evolution or the theory of the universe?

What exactly is the "theory of the Universe"?

In the past, evo-heads or evolutionists went to great extremes to avoid scenarios that suggested an universe with a beginning or ending. This was because they posed bothersome philosophical questions such as, “What came before the beginning?” or “What will come after the ending?”. They only considered theories that guaranteed an eternal Universe were worthy of consideration.

Again, what are you talking about? What does the origin of the Universe have to do with evolution?

 

[james bond]

Theory of the Universe would be how it began. Today, it's the Big Bang Theory. Earlier, it was Steady State Theory. I am asking which came first evolution or the theory of the universe.

As for your last question, what do "you" mean by evolution? Is it just biological science to you?

Evolutionary thought goes into the origin of the universe. For example, the origin of the universe began 13.7 billion years ago.