Original assertions made by traderdrew found at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1426446#i


TR-1: I have something against what people have done with his theory and how it has influenced the minds of various people. An example given is from Dr. Daniel Dennett, a philosopher.

TR-1.A: http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/dennett.htm

TR-1.B: Darwinism is and has been viewed as a universal acid. Obviously the ramifications of the theory have not just been permeated throughout Science but in political and social arenas as well.

TR-2: Displays support for Intelligent Design and feels people standing up for Intelligent Design should be commended for standing up against mainstream science.

TR-3: There is Science and there are authors of books with controversial information making various claims:

TR-3.A: Evolution is true
TR-3.B: Evolution is the only theory, in principle, that explains how we got here.

TR-4: Pulls a quote from: http://www.tki.org.nz/r/science/science_is/nos/theme_19_change_e.php


TR-4.A: “All Science knowledge is, in principle, is subject to change.”
TR-4.B: Asserts that theories should not be seen as truth because a new theory may come around to explain a phenomena better.

TR-5: Gives an anonymous quote: “Once you credit supernatural causations for explaining phenomena, you effectively shut down all inquiry. Why would we question anything if God did it?”

TR-6: Agrees that citing a supernatural explanation would leave the realm of science.

TR-7: Asserts that “many people who would do their best to explain away any explanation that infers the supernatural.”

TR-8: Gives a definition for neo-Darwinism as: Random mutations + natural selection = evolution.

TR-9: Asserts neo-Darwinism is convincing in terms of gross anatomy.

TR-10: Asserts that neo-Darwinism “MUST be able to be understood and articulated at the molecular level because, random mutations occur at the molecular level and changes are made from it.”

TR-11: Asserts the secular twist does not make sense because it is “a reconstruction of the shadows of what happened with an earthly twist.”

TR-12: Asserts there are other theories besides neo-Darwinism such as Young Earth Creationism and other theories that you may not have heard of such as:

TR-12.A: evolution by symbiogenesis: (Lynn Margulis)
TR-12.B: biological self-organization (Stuart Kauffman)
TR-12.C: evolution through natural genetic engineering (James Shapiro)
TR-12.D: evolution by intelligent design (Michael Behe)
TR-12.E: creationism (Leonard Brand)

TR-13: Explains these theories range from most naturalistic theory to the most supernaturalistic theory.

TR-14: Asserts that the most naturalistic side invokes accidents and randomness to explain life. Asserts the most supernatural side invokes a more guided hand to explain life.

TR-15: Asserts that “guided” is taboo to many liberal evolutionists

TR-16: Asserts neo-Darwinism is based on faith.

TR-17: Asserts neo-Darwinsim is formulated without biochemical principles because the biochemical principles were unknown in Darwin's day.

TR-18: Gives an example of how unlikely neo-Darwinism was by looking at HIV.

TR-18.A: The mutation rate of HIV is 10,000 times faster than a cell.
TR-18.B: Some people are naturally immune because their immune system somehow burns the bridges to prevent HIV from invading the cell.
TR-18.C: HIV has not found a way to defeat this immunity.

TR-19: Asserts that some microbes mutate at a faster rate than advanced organisms is the error correction mechanisms to prevent mutations.

TR-20: If an error does get by, the mutation has to be the right type to be recognized and preserved by natural selection.

TR-21: Asserts sickle cell is an example that is not explained by neo-Darwinism due to its detrimental effects.

TR-22: Posts a thought question: “Are there any nutritionists out there who believe that mutations caused by toxins and a lack of antioxidants would lead to something that would benefit individuals? Perhaps it is theoretically possible but, it is certainly not within the framework of beneficial advancements that would help individuals.”

TR-23: Asserts there is a theory called “punctuated equilibrium” that explains that says there was rapid periods of evolution followed by periods of complete stasis because it appears to be the case in fossil records. Asserts Neo-Darwinism still has to explain those periods of rapid evolution.

TR-24: Asserts that two books books by Michael Behe (“Darwin's Black Box” and “The Edge of Evolution”) introduces the concept Irreducible Complexity where complex structures required ‘multiple coherent mutations’ for their existence.

TR-25: Asserts the last gasp of neo-Darwinism comes from Jason Shapiro's work in natural genetic engineering and gives link to: shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf

TR-26: Asserts: ”This research shows us that the bulk of mutations are clearly not random since these findings can be observed over and over again.”

TR-27: Finally, asserts that more info can be found at: http://www.uncommondescent.com


Further assertions made by traderdrew found at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1429059#i


TR-28: I believe adaptation is a great thing. I think an intelligent designer programmed organisms to adapt in order to ensure less tinkering.

TR-29: The problem with evolution is the neo-Darwin interpretation of it. Do some of you remember my posts on the flounder? There IS fossil evidence of transitional forms between a symmetrical fish and the flat fish. However neo-Darwin evolution cannot explain how it happened and that is just another example of why I don't believe in it.

Other assertions and a question by traderdrew found at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1430423#i


TR-30: What is so hard about accepting Intelligent Design anyway? I think a lot of scientists do but they are not willing to admit it publicly.

TR-31: I think scientists add faith to neo-Darwinism.

Introduction of “metascience” and
“assemblist” into the argument by traderdrew found at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1428381#i


TR-32: I agree with you that ID is not science BECAUSE under the existing definition of science, it isn't.

TR-33: Metascience is my view and I do respect science. I would use science as one of the filters for deciding what is good or better metascience. In the following post ( //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1429063#i
), traderdrew wishes to redefine science or let science have their own definition.

TR-34: I also am not a creationist. At most I am an "assemblist" and refers to original Hebrew terms, the word "vaya'as" meaning “to make”. You don't make things out of thin air, you make them out of parts of other things.

Another assertion by traderdrew at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1429062#i


TR-35: I think there are extreme views on both sides of this debate. I really think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I explained why I think God seemed to work harder in order to hide direct evidence of his existence through physical evidence in a post here months ago.

I, southern_reckoner, was challenged by traderdrew by asking if science explains everything. I asserted that science does not explain everything because there would be no science. Also, I asserted that science is a system to explore the natural world around us. ( //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1428534#i
). Based on my reply, traderdrew declares:

TR-36: Science cannot explain everything especially, the supernatural. It doesn't even attempt to begin to explain the supernatural because it disqualifies it right from the start. People everywhere need to understand my last sentence.

In the next post: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1430828#i


TR-37: Science attempts to explain away the supernatural.

TR-38: Requests to expand on the comments made in post: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1429121#i

You believe in science except in the areas you cannot accept or that science cannot explain. That is called god of the gaps. The heated debate between Creationism (ID) vs evolution is that the gaps in knowledge of the natural world is getting smaller and smaller.

TR-39: Asserts that the modern trend is to search for evidence for ID in molecular biology.

I, southern_reckoner, asked traderdrew, “If you accept supernatural explanations for natural events, how do you rule out which supernatural explanation is correct?” The reply found in: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1431592#i

TR-40: Says that I ask the wrong question. I should ask: “How do you rule out which explanation was correct; the supernatural one or the one that explains it through natural causes?”

I, southern_reckoner, requested traderdrew to define neo-Darwinism. The reply found at //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1430834#i
is an acceptable initial, working definition, but I leave it open for further clarification.

TR-41: It starts with multiple organisms (already formed). One or more of these organisms receive some sort of mutation apparently by some unintentional mechanism. Hence the term "random mutations". When one of these mutations asserts itself in a way that is used by the organism and proves to be beneficial, it gives the organism an advantage as it operates within the niche it occupies. Since it developed a new advantage, the selection process is able to weed out the weaker and let the stronger advance and survive. The new trait is then passed on to new offspring.

Summary of southern_reckoner to date:

Initial replies found at: //www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1427996#i


TR-1(reply): Dr. Daniel Dennet's ideas are themselves in controversy. He is a philosopher and his ideas on Darwinism being a universal acid is rather questionable. Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, a prominent evolutionary biologist , did not agree with Dennet. The Theory of Evolution is cornerstone of biology, not politics and sociology.

TR-2(reply): Traderdrew's claims of a new paradigm is unfounded. The people at the Discovery Institute would like you to believe in a new paradigm shift. But they are just putting lipstick on creationism and trying to call it a new paradigm shift in science. Do not get me wrong. The people at the Discovery Institute are intelligent and excellent at spreading Intelligent Design [ID] and “Teach the Controversy” in the media. However, they are not making headways into the scientific community.

TR-2(reply): Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, paragraph 1 of the Final Dover Opinion:

“The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

TR-2(reply): Michael Behe himself ( traderdrew later refer to his book and Irreducible Complexity) had to admit under oath:

"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and

the loose definition of “theory” would allow astrology to be taught in astronomy classes.

SO-1: There is no Science in ID.

TR-4(reply): Using the same link as posted by traderdrew that says Science is subject to change, three paragraphs down:

“The core ideas of Science have been subjected to a wide variety of confirmations and are therefore unlikely to change in the areas in which they have been tested. “

SO-2: Describes a summary of the basic scientific method from:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html


SO-2.1: Observe and describe phenomena
SO-2.2: Formulate hypothesis to explain the phenomena
SO-2.3: Use the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
SO-2.4: Proper experiments must be performed by several independent experimenters
SO-2.5: If the experiments fail, then the hypothesis must be rejected or modified and retested.
SO-2.6: If the experiments pass, then it is possible to move the hypothesis up to a model, theory or law.
SO-2.7: It does not matter how neat, elegant, or paradigm shifting an hypothesis is, if its predictions does not agree with the experiments, then the hypothesis fails. Intelligent Design fails here!
SO-2.8: If an hypothesis has limited validity, then it may be considered a scientific model such as Bohr's model of an atom. It works in simple cases.
SO-2.9: Next you get a scientific theory or law, such as the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution. Theories are not easily discarded. Theories have be validated over and over and over again by multiple experiments over time by multiple scientists. The term “only a theory” is not taken lightly in the scientific community.
SO-2.10: A theory may be discarded, but there must be overwhelming evidence. Why? There is already overwhelming evidence to support the present theory.

SO-3: The validity of a scientific theory marks our understanding of the world around us.

southern_reckoner asserts:

SO-4: traderdrew wishes to bring a supernatural explanation where one does not need to exist. Science deals with the natural world around us. Supernatural explanations fall in the realm of metaphysics and is not science.

TR-12(reply): Traderdrew once again shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process by elevating Intelligent Design and creationism to the level of theory. This is scientific mumbo jumbo and is an attempt to elevate its status in the minds of the public. There is no such elevation in the scientific minds.

SO-5: Religion and science are two different aspects of the human experience. They do not rely on the same principles to experience the world.


TR-16(reply): Traderdrew also attempts to put science in the same boat as religion by claiming that “Neo-Darwinism is Based on Faith”. Once again, there is a misunderstanding of science. If there is real evidence contradicting the Theory of Evolution, then it will be discarded per the scientific method. I would not dare to ask you to do the same of a religious belief. It is expected in science.

SO-6: I do believe the real problem is a matter of literal interpretation of the bible (or other religious text) not agreeing with the discoveries of science. I am sorry if science is discovering things in the natural world around us that does not agree with your particular brand of religion. It is not the first time and it will not be the last. Do not attempt to put religion into science unless you wish science to indulge itself in Sunday school (or equivalent).

//www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1429446#i


SO-7: There was much bantering around with #108005, but southern_reckoner cannot see a reasonable discussion down this path and asserts that one cannot debate against non-reason. southern_reckoner would be willing to take up further debate with #108005 under a more logical progression.

SO-8: southern_reckoner makes an unfounded claim that #105005 is traderdrew, then later recants the claim and apologizes. The official apology is found at:

//www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1430631#i


southern_reckoner gives his opinion that ID should not be taught in the classroom at:
//www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1428445#i


SO-9: That is my main problem with ID. It tries to act like science, but fails to be science. ID tries introduce its view of Science (creationism in disguise) into a science classrooms. We should teach science in a science class and religion in a more appropriate type of class (theology, philosophy, history or possibly literature) depending on the justifications.

southern_reckoner displays cautious, curiosity concerning “metascience.

TR-33(reply): What type of problems exits that you feel the need to create something new [metascience]?

Initially, southern_reckoner views “assemblist” as a religious assertion. This position may have to be revised as he learns more.

TR-34: (reply): Concerning your beliefs as an "assemblist". That is your personal religious belief system. I have no dog in that hunt.

Concerning the question from traderdrew: “Science is one thing but, do you think that science can explain everything?

SO-10: Science does NOT explain everything. If it did, there would be no need for science. Science is a system of exploring the natural world around us by examining the evidence.

SO-11: Science does try to explain supernatural things. It simply explains them in natural ways.

SO-12: You believe in science except in the areas you cannot accept or that science cannot explain. That is called god of the gaps. The heated debate between Creationism (ID) vs evolution is that the gaps in knowledge of the natural world is getting smaller and smaller.

traderdrew requests more of an explanation for the god of the gaps comment.

SO-13: If you accept supernatural explanations for natural events, how do you rule out which supernatural explanation is correct?