Send a Message
to Lee Bowman

Comments

17

Joined

Apr 18, 2008

Lee Bowman Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Evolution Debate

"Intelligent design" bill in Missouri

And rather than ignore it, I've read most of the testimony, and Jones' ruling, multiple times. Part two of his ruling is a highly subjective opine, based on skewed testimony. And his 90.9 percent of copy-and-paste of the Plaintiff's Brief ["Findings of Fact", table D] is plainly indicative of his lack of understanding of ID, and the points that it raised. And yes, Jonsey received his Biology 101 from Kenneth Miller.  (Jan 27, 2013 | post #13)

Evolution Debate

"Intelligent design" bill in Missouri

Perhaps. Kinda like Judge Jones admitting, "I could not remember hearing about ID before, so I really didn't know what it was." Not a quote mine. Go here [PLoS interivew, 12/5/08] for the complete interview. Scroll to "Jones: Large, meaning impactful, notable, involving a big issue."  (Jan 27, 2013 | post #12)

Chicago Tribune

'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys wi...

I had responded to an earlier post, "You're speaking of 150 years of additional *research* after Darwin's published hypothesis. Much of that research has refuted and falsified the central tenet of NS of RM to speciateHere's three: I) DNA/RNA coding, II) lack of transitionals, III) failure to valid RM/NS. I) DNA/RNA code is evidence of intelligent input to the process of embryogenetic reproduction. How it originated (designed), but not how it functions (natural process). II) Although some transitionals have been found, their existence does not necessarily rule out gene tweaking by an interventionary source, intelligently based (not God). The 'scales to feathers hypothesis' lacks substance. While certain scales appear are similar in appearance to certain feathers, morphologically, they are totally different. Feathers, bird bones and other anatomic features of birds (that produce high energy output) are so complex, that not only design, but likely multiple trial and error body plans were tried before success was achieved. Similarity of certain dinosaur feet to birds feet is no more evidence of spontaneous evolution than are any similar humanly designed components in our technology. Phyletic progressions and similarities are evidence of 'common design'. The fact that some biologic designs are better than others could be evidence of 'multiple designers'. Look at earth as a biologic workshop. III) Random mutations have not been shown to be favorable, except rarely. Neutral and deleterious ones seldom lead to improvements, the sickle cell mutation aside. There has been much research, but little substantiation for NS or RM as the cause of novelty and complexity. By the way, I accept evolution as part of the embryogenesis process. It functions as a means of 1) adapting to changing environments, and 2) to produce diversity (so we don't all look alike). It appears to be a 'designed in' process.  (Apr 19, 2008 | post #593)

Chicago Tribune

Patients rate their hospital care

I'm sure that [I]they[/I] would disagree.  (Apr 19, 2008 | post #26)

Chicago Tribune

Chicago students rally for tougher gun laws -- Laws, Hyde...

Sensible guns laws, if initiated years ago, would have reduced the number of loose handguns out there. Too late nowLet's make cars illegalWhat about charging someone who shoots to kill with the act of murder, even if the person survives?  (Apr 19, 2008 | post #562)

Chicago Tribune

'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys wi...

From what I've read, after (and likely before) publication of Origin of Species, Cambridge became a battleground between the competing ideologies of Creationism and Naturalism. Richard Carlie and Robert Taylor were forced to leave the university after hosting multiple anti-Christian meetings at various campuses. But Darwin had supporters like Huxley, George Busk, William Carpenter (who also nominated him for the Copley Medal), John Lubbock, Joseph Hooker, and many others, including his uncle, Erasmus II, who was quite active in his support. It took several years for Darwin to actually get the medal. Chairman Edward Sabine initially opposed Darwin being awarded it, but later relented, with qualifying remarks: "Some amongst us may perhaps incline to accept the theory indicated by the title of this work, . . . while others perhaps incline to refuse, or at least to remit to a future time, when increased knowledge shall afford stronger grounds for its ultimate acceptance or rejection. Speaking generally and collectively, we have expressly omitted it from the grounds of our award.” Huxley, who had fought to have Darwin get the award, even argued for language changes to Sabine's address, and ultimately succeeded in getting "expressly omitted" changed to "Speaking generally and collectively we have not included it in our award." Rather than evidence, consensus support of the scientific community was won largely in the political arena. Regarding the public, religious views were then (and are now) the primary opposition. But I repeat, my views are based on my ongoing studies of 1) morphological constructs, 2) functional synergies, 3) IC of complex organs, and 4) aesthetic features that offer *no* reproductive advantages, than anything either political or religious.  (Apr 19, 2008 | post #571)

Chicago Tribune

'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys wi...

(post 500 continued): That's right. The defense performed poorly. I disagree that conditions were favorable for *any* ID witnesses, and I would guess that few additional ID proponents would have agreed to testify sans gratis. The trial was a joke in many ways (as many trials are). At the end, the chuckle over "30 days and 30 nights" speaks to that inference (Biblical roots ... BS).  (Apr 19, 2008 | post #501)

Chicago Tribune

'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys wi...

Lee Bowman wrote: "See my post #243. As stated, it is evolving. Design inferences are one viable path, as there are features and functions whose intermediate steps offer no survival advantage, a requisite of 'selection'. But actual empirical tests are difficult, since how would you duplicate a design event from the distant past." Primewonk wrote: "So Lee, I went back to your message 243. Then I went to your first link - allaboutscience. Here's the problem - It's not a science source - It's a religious source." <snip> "I figured as crappy a science source your first link was, there wasn't much hope for your second source. Boy was I right. That site trueU.org is nothing but a fundiot site owned and operated by everyones favorite fundamentalist James Dobson and the Focus on the Family crowd." My bad. I hereby retract those two links, since you're right, they're fundamentalist based sites. It was 4am and I didn't read them carefully. Site #1 did make a few good points, however. "Now, how you get science sources for ID out of "allaboutgod. com" and James Dobson?" You don't. At least, not without probable bias. I did say "popular press", and "summation [quality] only", indicating non sci journal sources, tho.  (Apr 19, 2008 | post #493)

Chicago Tribune

'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys wi...

You're speaking of 150 years of additional *research* after Darwin's published hypothesis. Much of that research has refuted and falsified the central tenet of NS of RM to speciate.  (Apr 19, 2008 | post #492)

Chicago Tribune

'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys wi...

With speciation there are levels of divergence. A low level never leads to totally new species.  (Apr 19, 2008 | post #491)

Chicago Tribune

'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys wi...

See my post #243. As stated, it is evolving. Design inferences are one viable path, as there are features and functions whose intermediate steps offer no survival advantage, a requisite of 'selection'. But actual empirical tests are difficult, since how would you duplicate a design event from the distant past. Advances in Genetic Engineering (with human intervention) may demonstrate how genetic coding alterations can alter a species, and could act as a parallel to past events. Further, the inability to speciate empirically by using simulations that depend on random mutations (no human intervention), acts to falsify the NS of RM hypothesis/ theory. Before anyone claims that speciation has been done experimentally, you need to *exclude* speciations on a level that merely act to move organs around (fruit fly), or that inhibit the ability of a sub species to inter breed (by population isolations). At this point in time, RM/NS is in a falsified state.  (Apr 18, 2008 | post #265)

Chicago Tribune

'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys wi...

The publishers of Pandas and People co-opted the term 'ID' for 'creation' in that book for political reasons (Edwards v. Aguillard court decision). That book neither chronicles ID research, not are/were the authors ID spokesmen. A further note: The school board members sued under Dover V. Kitzmiller, and who had tried to distribute that book, were not only non-ID spokes-persons, but were largely unfamiliar with its tenets. That verdict, by the way, is one of the favorite 'straw men' of the NCSE, and most other neoD advocates. Judge Jones, acting from ignorance, extended his verdict to include the entire field of ID research, clearly a bogus ruling.  (Apr 18, 2008 | post #247)

Chicago Tribune

'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys wi...

This is not the place to argue details of new evidences. Moreover, the lack of empirically based data is lacking due to the restrains that have been placed on ID studies. That is about to change. Here are a couple 'popular press' take on it, but again, just a summation. Hopefully, in the near future, look for articles on current research to begin appearing in science journals. http://www.allabou tscience.org/intel ligent-design.htm http://www.trueu.o rg/Academics/Lectu reHall/A000000589. cfm  (Apr 18, 2008 | post #243)

Chicago Tribune

'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys wi...

Moore focuses on the language, imagery, production techniques, Stein's past, etc for most of the review, but never *really* gets down to the nitty gritty. In the second to last paragraph, Moore addresses it thusly, but is missing the point of the movie, I feel: ""Expell ed" relies on the viewer's inability or unwillingness to wrestle with a complex corner of science, double-talking its way toward a "must be a miracle" solution to anything that science may not claim to have an answer for." The central premise of the flick is that science dogmatically supports neoDarwinian Evolution (mutant-did-it), and won't allow for the investigation of teleology (Intelligent Design). The contra arguments are NOT based on "must-be-a-mi racle" or "god-did-it ", etc., as Moore implies. Attacks on the design hypothesis customarily use that approach, i.e. to conflate ID with religious belief. Not so, Roger. ID is a new science, based on new evidence, rather than time worn arguments from incredulity, or based solely on Biblical accounts. We traverse new ground today, by examining the complexity, synergy or systems, and aesthetics found in nature. We address DNA/RNA coding, a complex language that codes not only 'body plans', but the embryonic process to arrive there. As a result of that evidence, we seriously question random (accidental) mutations as the sole means. Either (or even both) processes may be valid however, and both need to be addressed. But the scientific community, and I'm referring to those that set the rules, has a 'closed door policy' on anything that questions neoDarwinian Evolution, and an 'expulsion' policy for any scientist who dares to go there. I've even read where many today are avoiding a science career for just those reasons. If so, dogmatic 'dyed in the wool' Darwinism is the true 'science stopper'. Science is about free and open inquiry of areas where evidence presents itself. To not allow that is a form of fascism. Benito Mussolini once said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Sadly, I think that we're seeing the same thing in academia and in science today.  (Apr 18, 2008 | post #227)