Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I say add a circle off to the side that is not overlapping anything. Put science in there.
Good idea, to fundies science is just a side show anyway.
Heh. Well, if nothing else, the one thing that Intelligent Design “explains” that evolution can’t is the actual origin of life. Assuming that simple bacteria actually did evolve into the the diverse life on this planet of today over several millions of years, you still have to get to the point of having life develop on its own where there previously was none. And I don’t recall reading any theories that can be tested of how that happened.
I do also appreciate that this diagram implies that there are no Democrats who also believe in ID. Pretty clever indeed.
Is it because some of the “Contributing Editors” here don’t have anything of substance to write about that they find it necessary to attack religion?
Mike – Abiogenesis is the theory you are talking about. Amazingly there is a lot more scientific evidence for it than most people think.
The electricity + “molecule soup” = complex chain structures experiments are fascinating.
Is it because some of the “Contributing Editors” here don’t have anything of substance to write about that they find it necessary to attack religion?
This isn’t an attack on religion, it’s a critique of dogma.
#4, well, the diagram attacks all religions! Not only one.
It appears that you are not an avid reader of the blog, since ID is a topic that John visits quite often.
#3
You mean like how the theory of Santa Claus explains how I get gifts every December?
#4
I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you that intelligent design is about religion. ;->
#5, yes, I am aware of the ability to synthesize amino acids and some other molecules under certain conditions in a lab. Beyond that, it is not much more than experimentation and hypotheses of whether or not a pile of bricks can assemble itself into a house.
#8, maybe if you had enclosed the word explains in quotes, like I did, your clever comment would be more apt.
Given all of the problems religion has caused on this planet, I’d be OK with an outright attack on religion, not just dogma. Religion is genuinely evil.
As to “abiogenesis”, a common term in apologetics, I’d point out that those who attempt to use statistics to disprove evolution in this manner are truly missing the point. When they state that the odds of abiogenesis occurring at random are 1 in 10^20, they are also stating that the odds of creating life from non-life by prayer should have odds of 10^20 to 1 in favor of working. Perhaps these are the tests being performed in the Christian Science laboratories. They should succeed any day now, right?
So, republicans are outside religion? who is inside then, democrats?
Clearly it is a chart to annoy people, since it is not very smart itself… to call someone that has a different opinion to yours “stupid” just because of that, is simply wrong.
The chart could be a little more “inteligent” (but also done just to annoy people) just by writing “republicans” instead of “politics”, but the author clearly could not resist the opportunity to call “stupid” to all republicans. Childish.
#11, I understand you have a smug condescension towards people who aren’t as enlightened as you, but what does the viability of abiogenesis have to do with proving or disproving evolution?
#4 Gig: How does this attack religion? Only PART of the religion set intersects the stupidity set. Thus, only SOME religion is stupid (based on the diagram).
Don’t you people understand how a venn diagram works? Only some religious people are stupid and political enough to believe in intelligent design.
Pope John Paul II declared evolution true for Catholics. Many biologists are religious and have no problem dealing with the “symbolism” of the Bible and the “facts” of scientific evidence.
Even the so called scientists who support “intelligent design” no longer support the bible version of history. They are simply playing into the “God of the Gaps” argument. (anything science cant explain is proof of God)
#8, sorry, Santa is a religion, not a theory. Its based on belief, not testable facts.
I hate generalizations. Why are religious people just assumed to be idiots than believe in intelligent design. I don’t know a single person that believes in intelligent design, yet I know a lot of people that are liberal evolution believing democrats that are relgious. A does not Equal B does not equal C in most cases.
Wow. A picture someone drew that calls the right stupid. The left continues to raise the bar.
Hacks. You’re all worthless….
Has anyone ever converted to Christianity over an intellectual debate? Romans 8 suggests not. If you don’t feel you are fallen and in need of redemption, you simply don’t have any need for God or Jesus. Of course you may still be tragically fallen, but if you don’t recongize this then you are not there yet. If you read this website, you simply must know that it poo poo’s religion. Particularly I.E.
Of course, disussing this venn diagram at all pushes us all towards the upper left regardless of religious or non-religous affiliatioin.
#19, If you read this website, you simply must know that it poo poo’s religion. Particularly I.E.
I.E.? Internet Explorer? 😉
Firefox is the way to go, only sinners use IE.
Islamic Extremists perhaps?
Hey there guys, I noticed a lot of commentary here, so I thought I’d share my perspective, being the author of this Venn Diagram and all.
1. The “Republican” part is not meant to be taken seriously. I closely followed the trial in Dover, and guess what? Judge Jones, a Republican, ruled that Intelligent Design was not science and also wrote a very erudite report on the whole matter as part of the judicial process. I certainly don’t belive that he is an idiot. Nor do I believe that no Democrats are stupid. Consider that aspect of the diagram to be the purely humorous part, inserted for comic value at the expense of social conservatives by someone who is a hard-nosed liberal–that being me.
2. I am not saying that all religious people are stupid or believe in Intelligent Design. The Venn Diagram clearly shows that subsets of “religion” are not included in the set of stupidity or ID. (I do believe that all religions are wrong, of course, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily stupid. Newton was wrong, for instance, but he was hardly stupid!)
3. There are many testable theories concerning the origins of life. All that it takes is determining the initial conditions of the Earth at the time life arose and then performing experiments or using our knowledge of chemistry to arrive at reasonable conclusions regarding the formation of the basic building blocks of life.
#16, #22
Ooooh..Santa is a belief unlike ID which clearly based on testable hypotheses (presumably one has no need to test a fact).
So, we should rephrase our theory of Intelligent Presents. ID is akin to claiming that all gifts for which you do not know the originator are clearly from a magic fat guy in a red suit whose existence and presence are impossible to prove. It’s just too complicated to have happened any other way.
#16, Les,
Sorry, but Santa really is.
I know, I dress up every December in a Santa outfit and give some presents away and bring a lot of joy to little girls and boys all around our little corner of the world. To them, they have proof on Christmas morning in my veracity.
So Les, as well as all the other Scrooges and Grinches, there really is a Santa. Now Rudolph, that part is a myth. Like I need some tick infested animal to guide my sleigh when I have GPS tracking.
#13 – Mike,
You said, “what does the viability of abiogenesis have to do with proving or disproving evolution?”
Actually nothing at all, I was just answering post #5. I was also pointing out that the term is not really used by scientists, but primarily by apologeticists. Then, I got sidetracked on a personal pet peeve about it.
I guess I’m only human after all, which is rather embarrassing for a misanthrope actually.
I personally don’t believe in Intelligent Design.
That said, real Science is both observable and reproducible.
I have seen observable and reproducible instances of intelligent manipulation of a creature. Science does it every day to breed animals for research.
I have never seen observable and reproducible instances of the spontaneous physical evolution of a less complex life form to a more complex life form.
All things being equal, in principal one is certainly easier to believe in that the other. So, lets be careful about throwing around the word “stupidity” when we are talking about unobserved matters of pre-history faith.
#26 – Brian
“I have never seen observable and reproducible instances of the spontaneous physical evolution of a less complex life form to a more complex life form.”
That, as anyone with even a rudimentary conception of the ToE is aware, is not how it works, not even remotely – But being so obviously ludicrous, it’s very popular with creationist preachers; “Lookit whut them dumbass scientists believe! Ain’t that jus’ the mos’ ridickelous thing you ever heard? ‘Joo ever see a dog turn into a cat?”
Straw man fallacy. Move along.
Next…
Wow, this debate is getting old.
Let me point out, once again, that countless millions Christians believe in both God and evolution. We see no contradiction between the highly symbolic STORY of creation in Genesis and science.
Sacred scriptures were never meant to be a science book (even if some cranky fundamentalists treat them that way) and science textbook are certainly not sacrosanct (even if some cranky atheists treat them that way.)
#21 – The comic is sweet 🙂 I laughed myself silly yesterday.
# 26 Lauren
Ahh, the snarky, smugly superior dismissive retort. Drag out the straw man terminology you read in your freshman logic course, and call it a day. As if Darwinian Evolutionist NEVER argued for spontaneous positive mutation. Since they HAVE argued that , and I’m not arguing with your PERSONAL faith, straw man does not apply here. Nice try though. Funny how you ASSume I am a creationist, as if anyone who disagrees with you must be one. Now, THAT might be a candidate for straw man. Personally, I’d be ok with evolution if it didn’t require MORE faith than the other solutions at this point.
So, life doesn’t spontaneously evolve? That wins you the day, eh?Well, I have never seen a transitional fossil either. In fact, most “definitive” pieces of the fossil record are more clay than bone. Why that doesn’t bother everybody in your camp can only be described as dogma. Not to mention the tremendous effects that submersion has on the sample, and that all fossil beds are near current or ancient bodies of water. Moisture is part of the equation.
Religious people are often terrible at these discussion. A 100% “That’s The Truth and I Ain’t Budging” Evolutionist is definitely religious. At least the Churches and Mosques have a book. You try to line up a bunch of rocks in order and say “Ta Da! Truths!”
The only position that requires no faith is the agnostic position. Unsatisfying, but it requires no “believing”.
I don’t buy the creationist 6000 year old Earth
I don’t buy your story either.
And, you never answered for the REPRODUCIBLE part of my comment. It’s not science without it.
By your interpretation of pre-history, you are little more than an over grown ape…
and you act like it.
#30 – Brian
You a trip, homes!
You do a lot of ASSuming, chum. Apparently someone taught you that bit back in grade school, so you keep trotting it out to show us what an objective, scientifically superior mind you must have to know such a thing! OK, we’re impressed. Happy?
First in your laundry list of arrogant, invincible ignorance is this: I simply stated that your absurd and laughably out-of-date “argument” is one that is USED BY creationists – because the only people stupid enough to fall for it at this point are the mouth-breathers who occupy the pews at fundamentalist churches. Nowhere did I state or imply that you yourself are one. You are good at reading shit into things that isn’t actually there, which goes a long way toward explaining why your abilitiy to use logic reasoning is so severely impaired.
“Evolutionist (sic) is definitely religious” “Evolution requires faith” “Dogma”
Oo yas. Keep repeating it. It might come true if you just cross your nubby little fingers and say it over and over. But we’ll return to that later…
“So, life doesn’t spontaneously evolve?” Nope. “That wins you the day, eh?” Well it certainly flushes your assertion down the Toilet of Knowledge, now doesn’t it? So you try to conceal your embarassment by a lame attempt at smugly minimalizing your loss. So sad.
We’ll put the decaying, maggot-infested “meat” of your so-called “argument” under the microscope when I return from errands…
Oh, and your pitiful parting shot there?
Ad hominem fallacy. And like Fusebox’s attempts at same, rather lame. No fire, no music, just schoolyard crap.
BBL! 🙂
“Why that doesn’t bother everybody in your camp can only be described as dogma.” Of course, by “everybody in your camp” you are referring to virtually every bioscientist of the last 150 years.