• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Ben Stein's Intelligent Design

I think the Black Sea is a plausible origin for the flood myth, but it's actually not clear whether such a flood actually happened. In particular, the archaeological records are fairly suspect. As for other evidence, it's hotly debated, as the news article from Science last year indicates (although it's probably more up in the air than the piece implies). I pasted in nearly all of it because Science isn't freely available and people wouldn't be able to see it otherwise, but I can cut back if that's a problem.

It was a hypothesis of biblical proportion: In 1997, two marine geologists proposed that a cataract with the power of 200 Niagaras filled the Black Sea 8400 years ago, driving Neolithic farmers into Western Europe and inspiring the story of Noah's flood (Science, 20 February 1998, p. 1132). Now, 10 years later, a torrent of research is still arriving, and almost all of it comes down hard on any Black Sea flood.

The proffered geologic evidence for a catastrophic event was misinterpreted, researchers write in more than 1000 pages of papers, and the raft of data collected around the Black Sea the past 50 years all points to a gradual filling starting thousands of years earlier. Putting it mildly, "the majority wisdom would be against" a flood, says geologist Norm R. Catto of the Memorial University of Newfoundland in St. John's. He is editor-in-chief of Quaternary International, where a new collection of papers appears. But a small cadre of researchers maintains that the flood hypothesis is sound and hints that definitive evidence is in the offing.


The latest surge of research comes in 15 papers in the June issue of Quaternary International and 35 papers in a 971-page book, The Black Sea Flood Question, published earlier this year by Springer. The new papers agree that the archaeological record shows no sign that people living around the Black Sea 8400 years ago fled from a rapidly advancing sea. "At this point, there just isn't any evidence for something big and catastrophic" in the archaeological record, says archaeologist Allan Gilbert of Fordham University in New York City, an editor of the new book. One apparent piece of supporting evidence--the discovery of the remains of a wood-and-mud house littered about with stone tools 91 meters beneath the Black Sea (Science, 22 September 2000, p. 2021)--has not panned out. "It looks peculiar," says Gilbert, but there's no sign it's anything more than a random bunch of rocks and sticks.


Then there's the geologic evidence used to gauge the depth and salinity of the Black Sea over the past 15,000 years. The tools include drowned beach dunes, seismic probing of bottom muds, oxygen isotopes, microscopic fossils, and pollen. Citing such data, the originators of the flood hypothesis--longtime marine geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York--have argued that 10,000 years ago, the Black Sea was a modest-sized lake lying perhaps 100 meters below its current level. It was cut off from the salty Mediterranean Sea, they say, because sea level was too low to spill through the Bosporus. When melting glacial ice raised sea level, the Black Sea basin filled up in a geologic instant about 8400 years ago.


But most of the authors of the book consider that scenario "a myth," e-mails another editor of the book, Valentina Yanko-Hombach of the Avalon Institute of Applied Science in Winnipeg, Canada. The Black Sea, she says, was never that low, and it rose gradually over millennia.


Not so fast, says coastal geologist Liviu Giosan of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Giosan, a native Romanian who studied oceanography in that Black Sea coastal country, has reviewed the new book for Quaternary Science Reviews and found it wanting. In particular, he says, the "vast amounts of data" collected around the Black Sea by Soviet scientists and researchers from former communist countries around the Black Sea are suspect. He distrusts much of the carbon-14 dating of lake levels and is frustrated by the traditional lack of access to primary data. As a result, he writes, "many conclusions of studies presented in the book should be considered with a grain of salt" until researchers buttress them with more-direct measures of lake level.


Lately, geologists are in fact looking at more direct sea-level gauges, as well as geologic indicators of past flow through the Bosporus. Richard Hiscott and Ali Aksu of Memorial University of Newfoundland and colleagues have reported several signs that the Black Sea filled slowly and gently. In the Quaternary International issue, they describe a core from the shallow Black Sea shelf that contains sediment laid down beneath tens of meters of water when Ryan would have that spot high and dry. On the Black Sea floor just north of the Bosporus, they have mapped old beach ridges and lagoons formed as the lake level slowly rose. And south of the Bosporus, they found a delta built by outflowing waters 10,000 years ago, when Ryan's scenario would have the Black Sea totally cut off.


Ryan and a half-dozen colleagues disagree. "I've found myself following those who criticize the flood," says Ryan, "getting my own data from their sites, and in every case finding a very different story." Where Hiscott and Aksu find a delta built by Black Sea outflow, Ryan and colleagues find a delta formed by a nearby river, as they will soon report in Marine Geology. As for the putative beach ridges, Ryan says unpublished coring results show they are actually mud brought in by bottom waters still flowing through the Bosporus today. He also speaks of an as-yet-unpublished description of "an extraordinary debris fan" right where the flood would have dumped its gougings. Erosional features there bear a striking resemblance, he says, to those created by catastrophic outbursts from glacial lakes (Science, 20 July, p. 307).


Despite the continuing debate, Giosan, who has worked with Ryan, is guardedly optimistic. "There is momentum toward solving this," he says. "Maybe we'll solve it someday."
 
It's hard to keep the religion versus science debate out of the thread, when it was brought up in post #1. Intelligent Design is religion - full stop. They have no scientific arguments, other than a handful of poorly thought out arguments from ignorance ("irreducible complexity" claptrap) and other logical fallacies. I'd be happy to discuss any evidence there is supporting Creationism if and when it is presented, but unfortunately there isn't any at this point.

-MEC

Hey, I'm trying.

Again, when did I say the flood myth proved Creationism?

All I'm saying is that archaeology has proven that there are SOME bases in history for the stories in the Bible. They can't prove the whole book's history, and I doubt they ever will, but there are SOME things mentioned that have a basis or two in reality.

Just so my answer is to the point - what particular type of flood is it that you think is more likely? straight forward rain or "foundations of the deep"?

I ask because the evidence disproving either is slightly different and I'd rather just tackle one specific type of global flood myth.

I'm already aware that there's no archaeological evidence of a global flood as depicted in the Bible. However, from what I've seen of the National Geographic film, and read of Ballard's Black Sea expeditions, that theory appears to be more of a "deluge" type of flood, where a particular civilization was overwhelmed by water (be it via tsunami, a breakdown of the land in the Bosporus, etc.), and that civilization either had only one or two survivors or was completely eliminated.

That's the thing with stories passed down through oral history, the details at the first telling of the tale aren't always the same as the details when it's finally written down.


Oh - if that's what you think, I entirely agree, a local flood that the myth in the Christian bibles (and other such books) is based upon, is not only likeable but entirely probable. I have no problems with ideas about regional or local floods, just the utter shite that is the concept of a global 40 day flood.
 
The trailer shamelessly godwins itself about halfway through. I don't see how there's any hope of anything intelligent coming out of this movie. Or this "theory" for that matter.
 
It would prove that the scientific community is rather solidly labeling as crackpots anyone who questions Darwin.

Makes sense to me since it's a theory that's stood up for over 150 years and positions that he himself backtracked on in later editions of Origin of Species have be proven to be correct.

We already know there is some archaeological evidence to back up some of the stories in the Bible.

Which ones and which Bible? I have no problems with believing in the kingdoms of Israel and Judea or their royal lineages, but anything from the Torah is completely suspect as are the events of the Christian Bible.

Is it controversial? No doubt. Is it asking questions that need to be asked of the scientific community?

No, because if someone has a compelling theory that proves the existence of an "Intelligent Designer" then all they need to do is publish it for peer review. The problem is that there is no such theory; therefore no test possible to prove it and therefore little point in discussing it other than for humour's sake.

What I find most amusing about all of this is that the controversy about Darwin amongst the Intelligent Designistas appears to be the same as when Origin of Species was first published: "The natural world wasn't created by a benign entity for human benefit/delight/amusement? This cannot be!"
 
It would prove that the scientific community is rather solidly labeling as crackpots anyone who questions Darwin.

Makes sense to me since it's a theory that's stood up for over 150 years and positions that he himself backtracked on in later editions of Origin of Species have be proven to be correct.

The classic sign of a crackpot is that they'll never actually want to discuss what their theory is or proves or how it can be tested, they will always want to discuss what's wrong with the theory of evolution.

The controversial angle is also just not true, it's just a modern version of what creationists used to push "evolution a theory in crisis". There is no controversy about evolution amongst the scientific community (which is not the same thing as saying there is not fierce discussions about the mechanisms).

Amongst the American public and people on the fringes of the scientific community there is much debate but that's not a reflection of any serious "problem" in the scientific community.
 
Someone should have simply asked Ben one question.

Who designed the intelligent designer?

If the answer is "another intelligent designer" then the "theory" is little more than infinite regression.

If the answer is "god" then it's a religious ideology and therefore not appropriate for science classes.
 
Someone should have simply asked Ben one question.

Who designed the intelligent designer?

If the answer is "another intelligent designer" then the "theory" is little more than infinite regression.

If the answer is "god" then it's a religious ideology and therefore not appropriate for science classes.

But then, we could ask the same question of what started the Big Bang?

If we operate on the assumption that time is both infinite and linear, then what existed before the Big Bang?

There's another infinite regression into areas where we only have belief to go on so far right there.
 
Fantastic discussion, especially for me in that I will be teaching a high school biology class beginning in the fall.

ID is not science and should not be taught in a science classroom. However that does not invalidate it in any way. Children (especially high school age) should be given all possible information in order to let them make their own decisions.

ID is not science because it does not follow scientific method which attempts to explain observable phenomena. The scientific method (which is the only thing that should be taught in a SCIENCE class) does not seek to prove anything, but to fail to reject stated hypotheses (that may be interpreted to read fail to disprove). When a hypothesis has failed to be disproved, more credence is lent to it and more questioning applied to it. That does not mean it is "accepted". A scientist should never accept anything without rigorous examination.

ID is more something that should be discussed in a philosophy class along with other concepts that cannot be examined by empirical methods. This does not mean that it should be dismissed out of hand, or that someone that mulls the idea over, or even accepts it should be ridiculed.
 
Someone should have simply asked Ben one question.

Who designed the intelligent designer?

If the answer is "another intelligent designer" then the "theory" is little more than infinite regression.

If the answer is "god" then it's a religious ideology and therefore not appropriate for science classes.

But then, we could ask the same question of what started the Big Bang?

If we operate on the assumption that time is both infinite and linear, then what existed before the Big Bang?

There's another infinite regression into areas where we only have belief to go on so far right there.

It's a fair question because it's implicit in the theory - that life is so complex it has to be designed (which the TOE doesn't have, it makes no claims at all about how life started). If you make that claim (and ID does), then you have two choices then you are forced either to an infinite regress of designers or you have to make a conclusion that the designer has some very bizarre characteristics.

Either way, it provide an "theory" that is of no explanatory value and thus of no scientific value - they might as well just lift up their ID skirt and shows us their creationist knickers.

Even leaving that aside, ID has no explanatory powers at all or if it has then, they are keeping them really really quiet (which would be an odd thing to do).
 
ID is more something that should be discussed in a philosophy class along with other concepts that cannot be examined by empirical methods. This does not mean that it should be dismissed out of hand, or that someone that mulls the idea over, or even accepts it should be ridiculed.

If people want to talk about ID in that setting or in a religious education class, I'd have no problem with that. The real issue is that the ID institute and it's supporters wants to push two lies

1) That ID is a scientific theory with equal weight and merit as the TOE

2) That it should be taught in the classroom because there is a large scientific controversy about which is true.

both are straightforward lies.
 
Someone should have simply asked Ben one question.

Who designed the intelligent designer?

If the answer is "another intelligent designer" then the "theory" is little more than infinite regression.

If the answer is "god" then it's a religious ideology and therefore not appropriate for science classes.

But then, we could ask the same question of what started the Big Bang?

If we operate on the assumption that time is both infinite and linear, then what existed before the Big Bang?

There's another infinite regression into areas where we only have belief to go on so far right there.

Yes, but the origin of the universe is not what Darwin's work and evolutionary science is based on. It focuses on the development of life. That's something creationists often intentionally confuse.
 
Someone should have simply asked Ben one question.

Who designed the intelligent designer?

If the answer is "another intelligent designer" then the "theory" is little more than infinite regression.

If the answer is "god" then it's a religious ideology and therefore not appropriate for science classes.

But then, we could ask the same question of what started the Big Bang?

If we operate on the assumption that time is both infinite and linear, then what existed before the Big Bang?

There's another infinite regression into areas where we only have belief to go on so far right there.

I agree. As I said before, Evolution and Creationism are not in direct conflict with eachother. Neigther is a created universe vs the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is a perfectly acceptable scientific theory from the religious POV.

The explosion of infinite energy that was required, logically came from a source with infinite energy. What that source is cannot (yet) be defined in our very limited scientific terms.

'Big Picture' people like Mr. Hawking, who have amazing theories about a 'unified theory of everything' are really smart, but it's like reconsructing a whole picture of the universe from a single pixel. Very hard, and needless to say as much based on belief as evidence. But that's how science has always progressed.
 
Someone should have simply asked Ben one question.

Who designed the intelligent designer?

If the answer is "another intelligent designer" then the "theory" is little more than infinite regression.

If the answer is "god" then it's a religious ideology and therefore not appropriate for science classes.

But then, we could ask the same question of what started the Big Bang?

If we operate on the assumption that time is both infinite and linear, then what existed before the Big Bang?

There's another infinite regression into areas where we only have belief to go on so far right there.

Yes, but the origin of the universe is not what Darwin's work and evolutionary science is based on. It focuses on the development of life. That's something creationists often intentionally confuse.


The theory of Evolution didn't stop developing with Darwin. These days, we're usually talking the development of life all the way back as far as we can scientifically go, which is pretty far. A logical extrapolation can be to try to figure out from the evidence we have what the first form of life on Earth was.

So, what put together the first amino acids to form life on Earth? Was it random chance, or was there some consciousness behind it?

I defer to those with more expertise than I on this one. Do we have any scientific evidence to legitimately rule out either school of thought on that?

I think the Black Sea is a plausible origin for the flood myth, but it's actually not clear whether such a flood actually happened. In particular, the archaeological records are fairly suspect. As for other evidence, it's hotly debated, as the news article from Science last year indicates (although it's probably more up in the air than the piece implies). I pasted in nearly all of it because Science isn't freely available and people wouldn't be able to see it otherwise, but I can cut back if that's a problem.

And that's an interesting article, actually, thank you. :)

I'm forced to wonder, if the Black Sea deluge wasn't the origin of the flood myth that has appeared in so many cultures around the world, then what was?
 
Last edited:
The theory of Evolution didn't stop developing with Darwin. These days, we're usually talking the development of life all the way back as far as we can scientifically go, which is pretty far. A logical extrapolation can be to try to figure out from the evidence we have what the first form of life on Earth was.

So, what put together the first amino acids to form life on Earth? Was it random chance, or was there some consciousness behind it?

See, this is what's confusing me - you seem to be suggesting on one hand that you are not a creationist, and then on the other, you pull a classic creationist trick of bait and switch - you mention Evolution and then actually talk about abiogenesis.

The TOE is not about the origins of life, the theory makes no claims about the origins of life, it has no predictive powers about the origins of life, no "logical extrapolation" can be made from the TOE about the origins of life because it says nothing about the matter.

I defer to those with more expertise than I on this one. Do we have any scientific evidence to legitimately rule out either school of thought on that?

Evolution says nothing about the matter and actually neither does ID (ID supporters vary between "it's not important" and "we have no way of knowing").
 
See, this is what's confusing me - you seem to be suggesting on one hand that you are not a creationist, and then on the other, you pull a classic creationist trick of bait and switch - you mention Evolution and then actually talk about abiogenesis.

Honestly, I'm not a creationist. If you really want my religious stance, I think the Bible is a lovely work of mythology handing down tales from oral tradition. I don't look at it as historical record, even though I admit to being fascinated with biblical archaeology.

What I mean is abiogenesis. In this case, I realize I'm misusing the terms, and I apologize. My primary areas of scientific study have been medicine (out of necessity), as well as cosmology and theoretical physics out of interest.

The TOE is not about the origins of life, the theory makes no claims about the origins of life, it has no predictive powers about the origins of life, no "logical extrapolation" can be made from the TOE about the origins of life because it says nothing about the matter.

That would be my mistake, then. Apologies for the confusion.

Evolution says nothing about the matter and actually neither does ID (ID supporters vary between "it's not important" and "we have no way of knowing").


So, how far back can both theories go for extrapolation?
 
So, how far back can both theories go for extrapolation?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean but ID doesn't really say anything at all about well anything it's not a theory in any sense I understand, it's just "god of the gaps" under a different name.

Step 1: "I don't understand how this works and it's pretty complex"

Step 2: "I guess the christian god...sorry Designer dunnit".

It certainly says nothing about how life came to be and as far as I'm aware nobody has tried to extrapolated backwards because that leads to god and they are still trying to pretend it's science rather than neo-creationism (although from all accounts expelled blows that one out of the water by explicitly linking the two).

As for evolution, I just don't know off the top of my head - anyone?
 
^^according to Hubert Yockey PhD, a physicist who was studying information theory as it applies to DNA:
"the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem"

Here is an interesting website

http://www.cynthiayockey.com/pages/1/index.htm

Dr. Yockey's publication is

click here

That's probably true, unfortunately. Microbial fossils occur in the oldest unmetamorphosed sedimentary rocks (3.5 billion years) and the limited older sediments (Isua in Greenland) are pretty heavily metamorphosed. If life began before 3.85 billion years there aren't even any metamorphosed sediments left over (and oceans, or at least liquid water, have been present since 4.2 or 4.3 billion years ago).

There are a number of interesting hypotheses for the formation of complex organic molecules from simple amino acids (which were present or even plentiful in the early solar system as they are throughout space, apparently). The use of clay minerals as templates for concentrating and organizing amino acids is an intriguing one because of the structure of multi-layered clays. Replicating abiogenesis in a lab, if possible, would certainly give us an idea as to what was plausible, but there would be no way of testing from the fossil record if that specific mechanism was actually what happened.

-MEC
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top