Debate Fog Into Empty Victory (Intelligent Design vs Neo-Darwinism)

Here's a lesson in the political-style writing and speech that can often get in the way of good solid debate between Intelligent Design advocates and those who support Neo-Darwin Evolution.

The past couple of weeks I've been reading blog posts and write ups about a heated discussion/debate between supporters of Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinist Evolution with regards to a newly published book "Science And Human Origins". The book is by Intelligent Design scientists and discusses all sorts of scientific studies, data and evidence that shows that the major questions about whether or not humans actually evolved from apes is still full of giant holes and doubts. However, when reading these blog posts, though the Intelligent Design supporters have made a number of good points, there's one particular point that they're making a big deal about that though valid, isn't nearly as big of a deal as they believe or say it is.

To see the latest post from ID supporters (and one of the authors of the book), and related articles, check out this link (at Evolution News).

Both sides of the debate are shouting their victory over the other, each claiming to have trounced their competition in the origins debate, but the reality is that neither side has done so as strongly as they believe (or want others to believe).


Chromosome 2: Apes and Humans

One of the key points of this particular piece of the debate is connected to chromosome 2 in humans. Chromosome 2 looks a lot like a pair of chromosomes found in apes that may have fused together in humans. Evolutionists surmise that if we really did evolve from apes, then a long time ago we too had two distinct chromosomes just like apes but that somewhere along the long timeline of very ancient pre-history these chromosomes joined together in humans but not apes.

There are many issues here, but one of the big points that both sides actually agree on is that in the grand scheme of things, this possible fusion event doesn't actually prove that humans came from apes, because humans could have originally had the two chromosomes separate just like apes, with the fusion happening relatively recently in the human genetic past. In other words, it's quite plausible that both humans (fully human) and apes (fully ape) had these highly similar chromosomes as two seperate chromosomes and that in recent human history, only in humans, they combined. That means there's no direct connection between the fusion event and supposed evolution from apes. The key point from the evolutionist is that the similarity in this particular chromosome to two chromosomes in apes indicates common ancestry. The Intelligent Design advocate says that this similarity simply means similar functional genetic code that works as intended, as designed by an Intelligent Creator, and that humans did not evolve from monkeys but that they were made as two unique kinds of living organism. So in the end, the fusion event doesn't really mean a whole lot, though it's interesting to study. Yet even while the evolutionist admits that the apparent fusion of chromosomes doesn't have to mean we came from apes, they still argue that it's good evidence for this belief.


"Victory" In Misdirection

Unfortunately both sides are arguing that they've defeated their opponents in the argument based on the idea of misdirection (clouding the real debate), while they themselves are actually throwing up misdirection themselves! It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. They're BOTH misdirecting readers and BOTH accusing the other of doing it in order to try and win a point.

The Intelligent Design side of the argument has made a number of good points, some of which have tied directly to the fact that the evolutionists have focused on just the issue of chromosome 2. "Science And Human Origins" is a big book with multiple chapters, each addressing different areas of science and data that show just how weak the evidence for human-ape common ancestry is. Chromosome 2 is only a couple paragraphs in the big book, but it's where a couple evolutionists have focused. Remarkably, the evolutionists admitted that they had not read the book itself, had not even read the chapter in question, and would NOT be reading it because they knew (believe) it would be garbage anyway. Win for the Intelligent Design group here! The evolution scientist won't even READ the detailed debate points and all the scientific articles cited by the Intelligent Design writers!

But as great of a point as this revelation is in favor of the Intelligent Design group, they then take the ball and run with it well beyond the winning goal. They started crowing about how the evolutionists haven't read their points (which is valid), and that to make matters even worse, the evolutionist refuses to even enter the arena of the greater debate itself. The evolutionist has focused on a couple paragraphs in a book he hasn't even read, and that's all. Win for Intelligent Design!... Yes, true, but also no. Let me explain.

This is misdirection on the part of the Intelligent Design writers. It's a good point, but to make such a big deal out of it is to warp it into being more than it is. The evolutionist has decided to focus on the issue of Chromosome 2 and not bother with the rest. He's focusing on Chromosome 2 specifically. Not reading the book in question is a dumb move and it certainly hurts his case, but focusing only on Chromosome 2 instead of all the rest as well is NOT an explosive victory for Intelligent Design scientists like they claim it is. A person can adequately debate or dispute a particular point without having to address all connected or related points (which can be a huge enormous undertaking)


Not A Nail In The Coffin

So the Intelligent Design scientists are saying, "We win because you're not addressing all the other information in the book, only focusing on Chromosome 2." While the evolutionist basically sits there and says, "I never meant to address the whole book at large, only this specific point about Chromosome 2. But because you're trying to drag me into discussion of all the other stuff, you're clouding the issues I'm bringing up." These quotes are not actual quotes, they're just paraphrases of the general points being made.

The evolution scientists are ALSO guilty of misdirection in that they've argued that the points made against common ancestry from the direction of Chromosome 2 indicates that the whole rest of the book must be garbage (a book they haven't read). They disagree about some interpretations of the scientific data regarding Chromosome 2, and by connection, ALL the points made by the Intelligent Design group must be wrong as well. That's their cloud of fog hanging over the debate.

So BOTH sides are arguing largely from one standpoint (ID the greater whole and evolution the one specific point), and both claiming victory over the other because the opposing side is trying to drag the other side "over the line" they've drawn in the sand like an old fashioned tug of war. BOTH sides cloud the debate, and then both sides accuse the other of doing exactly that, and by connection claiming victory over the other. Oi!

It's like both teams are playing with different sets of rules and neither one will compromise or agree to work in the same realm and so neither side can ultimately hold any kind of solid victory over the other. It means that many of the GOOD points and jabs are lost in the air amidst the fog. Essentially it's a case of both sides claiming the exact same victory podium based on the concept of debate itself, rather than the points within that debate. That's an empty win.

Energy Conundrum - Political Fog

Last weekend I announced on Facebook that I was planning to write a few blog posts about energy and power plants to give people an idea of the issues involved in the debates over energy production over the next century. Great idea, right!? Everyone needs energy and has to pay for it, and with things like climate change and the burning of fossil fuels being considered such a big deal, understanding the costs to your wallet and the environment can only be a good thing...

But there’s a VERY big problem trying to put together a study like this. Politics!

I’m maybe half way done researching this stuff (power planets, cost of energy production, etc.), but thanks to the massive amount of politics and government interference (for better or worse) in the energy markets, this study has been an absolute nightmare to put together. None of the studies I’ve done so far (on my blog or otherwise, and I’ve done some seriously political studies in the past) have ever been so full of misdirection, dramatically different statistics and a huge amount of information “masking”. Pretty much everywhere you look the information is overflowing with politically motivated deception and bias. It’s very sad to see and very frustrating to try and get any sort of straight answers.

Government Subsidies, Fines And Taxes

One huge pain in trying to figure out the costs of various types of energy production (power plants) is that cost can change dramatically depending on how much and in what way the government has its fingers in the mix. “Green Alternative Energy”, instead of carbon fuel, is the supposed saviour of the planet because it severely reduces Carbon Dioxide emissions, as well as other expelled gas pollutants. Because of environmental lobbyists pushing hard for green energy to be the way of the future, there are MANY high subsidies on green energy and heavy fines and taxes (which seem to grow with each passing year) on fossil fuels.

Subsidies are massive government hand outs (from collected taxes) that are given to companies that promise to “go green”. It’s an incentive to push this technology forward, because otherwise this technology and source of energy production would be mostly ignored, being far too expensive. The extremely high cost of building such alternative energy power plants makes the business largely unviable, unless the government hands out money to push the industry along.

To give you an example of how this system works, imagine two different companies competing for business. Company A sells chocolate bars and Company B sells health bars. Now let’s imagine that chocolate bars are cheap to make and cheap to sell, and a ton of people gleefully buy and consume them (not caring much that they’re unhealthy). Health bars, on the other hand (in this hypothetical example), are quite expensive to make, and so Company B must charge a lot of money for the health bars or else they can’t make any kind of profit. Unfortunately, the taste comparison between the two bars (chocolate vs health) and the cost to buy either of the bars means that there is very little competition between the two since most people consider the chocolate bar to be a much better value for their money.

The government decides to step in and fix this disparity between the two companies because clearly basic consumer-based capitalism is going to crush the healthy bars into non-existence. To solve this problem the government enacts subsidies and tax incentives because it considers the continued sales of health bars by Company B to be very important (it’s healthy!).

The government gives Company B millions of dollars to help build up its business in any way it can (advertising, stores, production, expansion, research, tax write offs, expenses, etc.) in order to make the business more profitable to keep Company B running. The chocolate bar company, Company A, complains that this isn’t fair because it doesn’t get “hand outs” from the government. The government argues that Company A doesn’t need the hand outs because they make money fine without needing government assistance. Then, to make matters worse for Company A, and to further “level the playing field” between Company A and Company B, the government hits Company A (the chocolate bar company) with fines and extra taxes for selling unhealthy junk food.

Is this fair? No. The idea is that the government knows best (it might, or it might not) and is looking out for everyone’s best interest (in this case, our health). To get what it wants, the government and the people behind the government manipulate the playing field.

These sorts of practices are very common in financial, investment, and government circles. Government often tries to influence how business operates. Sometimes it’s through giving tax breaks to certain types of business. Sometimes it’s done by passing laws and regulations that make it more difficult for businesses to operate as they wish. And sometimes the government hands out loans or even gifts of money to help increase the incentive for people to get into a business that the government deems to be beneficial to society. This can be a bad thing, but it can also be a very good thing. The outcome really depends on what the reasons for these measures are all about.

For example, governments often give tax breaks and money to farmers because the farming industry is crucial to society (producing food). Without these incentives and tax breaks, many farms could not turn any kind of profit, and would thus shut down, depriving us of much needed food. The alternative is for farmers to charge huge sums of money for the food they produce, making the cost of food far too high for most of the population to afford. To prevent that from happening, the government subsidizes the farming industry to help make sure the cost of food stays down.

Because energy is such an essential need and because environmental studies and lobbyists speak of dire consequences if we keep burning fossil fuels for energy, governments all over the world are playing a very difficult balancing act. They want to encourage long term energy security, affordable energy, and environmental care, but it’s not at all a simple matter of black and white or good and bad. It’s a lot more complicated and the politics surrounding the topic makes it that much worse.

What’s The Reality?

When trying to calculate the costs energy, all of the political and government interference contaminates and dramatically alters the picture. The information that’s out there is all over the map and hard to pin down. You might find one place that says that energy provided by coal power plants costs $50 per Megawatt per hour and somewhere else you might find a study that says it costs $300 per Megawatt per hour. Who’s telling the truth?

In their own way, everyone is telling the truth, and no one is. Most of these studies seem to be heavily biased for or against fossil fuels depending on who put the studies together. The more accurate and helpful studies will explain their methodology for calculating costs and expenses, while others will often ignore or gloss over very serious issues so that they can push and promote their political stance at the cost of factual accuracy or clarity.

What’s the lesson in all this? Take all the information, the studies, the research, the projections, the cost analysis and everything else with a massive helping of bitter salt instead of sweet tasting sugar. Don’t just swallow it blindly. Don’t trust the information until you test and really examine it because chances are good that what’s being presented is not entirely honest. Everyone has bias and personal opinion and it very easily clouds a person’s viewpoint on debatable topics. Read between the lines, analyze the sources, compare arguments and data sets, and try to put together the most accurate truthful picture of reality that you can.

Hopefully this week I’ll have it figured out enough to write a helpful blog post or two about power plants and energy so that you (the reader) can have an accurate and truthful understanding of how fossil fuels and green energy compare against each other. This is a very important topic as the costs of energy continue to rise and the debates over man-made climate change and pollution continue to rage.

A Gay "Christmas" Tree: Condoms ARE Included

Gay Club’s Condom-Decorated ‘Christmas’ Tree Causes Outrage At Penn. College

(http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gay-clubs-condom-decorated-christmas-tree-causes-outrage-at-penn-college/)

 

Here is an excellent example of exactly what homosexuality is all about. Never mind the whole politically correct agenda, anti-bullying campaigns, gay marriage laws and battles in court, homosexual couples adopting children, or whatever else you can think of with regards to the issue of homosexuality. The “Gay Christmas Tree” on display at Penn. College, like so many other public examples of “gay-dom” (ie. Gay Pride Parades, etc.) shows homosexuality exactly for what it is. It’s all about the sex. All the rest is just cover for the real heart of what it means to be gay. Unnatural disease spreading casual and publicly advertised deviant sex.

Merry Christmas! Let’s decorate our gay affirming Christmas tree to celebrate homosexuality… Cover it in condoms! This should surprise absolutely no one, at least if you haven’t been hoodwinked by the constant campaign to normalize this type of sex-obsessed behaviour.

Instead of a star on the top, there’s an unwrapped condom pulled over the top of the tree. A sign next to the tree says, “Take a free condom!” A couple things about this made me laugh, despite its disgusting nature. One, I don’t know how wise it is to trust condoms that have decorated a “Christmas Tree” covered in pine needles. Might bring a whole new misery to your gay sex life in more ways than one. Pine tree needles… Ouch! And have a “holy holiday condom for Christmas”, literally. The gay agenda’s gift to you, condoms with holes in them. Merry Christmas!

Another thing that made me laugh was the picture of the tree with the condoms on it. The condoms are labelled “Lifestyle”. Yup, we “gay hating bigots” have been saying it for years. Homosexuality is a lifestyle.

So the next time you hear anything about homosexuality in the news, just remember what the true meaning of homosexuality is really all about. Sex, sex, and more gay sex.

Canada Considering Backing Out of Kyoto

(Time for something a little different than Bible apologetics. This post is about Environmentalism, Canada, and Politics.)

Canada May Miss $6.7 Billion Carbon Offset Bill

(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/canada-may-escape-6-7-billion-bill-by-exiting-kyoto-protocol.html)

The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change was signed in 1998 and was a big political push to seriously limit the amount of fossil fuels the developed nations in the world would produce and burn. Canada was one of the first to sign the treaty (under the Federal Liberals), whereas the United States never signed it.

Canada is looking at having to pay the United Nations (or the international committee that manages the systems within the Kyoto Protocol) $6.7 billion next year for failing to meet the limits expected. Canada's output of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has supposedly increased by one third since the 1990s, which according to the treaty, is bad. The whole thing is based on the belief the CO2 is harmful to the environment, a belief that is facing very serious questions over the past decade as more and more science is emerging that has strongly suggested that the "science of man-caused climate change" is a partial or total myth.

The way the systems within the "carbon cap" protocol work is that any country that increases its carbon output from when the treaty was signed has to pay money (as a penalty) into an international fund. That fund is then used to pay for things in third world countries, as a kind of "good will tax". The idea is that you're harming the planet and mankind by producing Carbon Dioxide, so you have to make up for it by paying a sort of "compensation". It would be like a judge ordering that a crooked banker must give millions of dollars to charity to make up for the millions of dollars he swindled out of his customers.

What's interesting to note in all this, is that "developing countries" such as China and India, by far the world's biggest produces of Carbon Dioxide (besides the United States) are exempt from these rules because they are considered "developing", in the process of modernizing. That means that those countries are not bound by international law to reduce or maintain a minimum standard of CO2 emissions. They don't have to pay penalties for what they pump into the atmosphere, despite putting far more into the atmosphere than Canada and most other European countries that are already "developed" (modern). The idea is that one day, eventually, when those countries have reached a certain threshold for standards of living and modernization, they too will have to seriously cut back on emissions. Whether or not they will is still a giant question mark that only time will tell.

Also of note is the fact that 60% of Canada's power is supplied by Hydro Power, which is a very "green" (environmentally friendly) source of energy compared to carbon fuels, yet we STILL can't meet the limits of what environmentalists and government officials decided (back in the 1990s) was a reasonable and much needed limit. Why is this? Despite tons of systems having been created and improved to prevent pollution, encourage recycling, encourage "green technology", and despite having a little more than half our energy needs supplied by Hydro Power (a "green" source of energy), Canada still can't manage to produce less or equal amounts of Carbon Dioxide compared to the 1990s (when Canada's population was 6 million less). That should be no surprise to any realists who know something about economies, technology, society today, and the nature of Carbon Dioxide itself (you realize that every human being on the planet breaths out CO2 every time they exhale, and that plants "breath" CO2, requiring it to grow).

The problem is really the mindset of the people involved in heavily promoting all things "green". They are the super-environmentalist types who believe that mankind is essentially a parasite on planet earth, that mankind's population must be reduced to reduce our impact on the environment, that all fossil fuel burning, production and use is bad, that the answer to everyone's energy needs can be found in Hydro, Wind and Solar power (which can't come anywhere close), and would generally like us all to return to the "good old days" of tribalism when mankind lived in harmony with nature (so long as you ignore the hunting of animals to extinction, human sacrifices, and all that fun stuff). The problem comes down to the environmentalist world-view of an ideal "green" perfect harmony between the natural world and mankind.

The mindset envisions us having almost no impact on our world, on the environment, and they crave this because they believe that we are destroying our planet. But they largely ignore the fact that most of the wonders of modern technology, medicine, science, education, economy and pretty much everything else in modern society and our day-to-day lives has come as a direct result of carbon fuels and the push to progress through use of the natural resources in our world. If these people had existed back a couple hundred years ago, we would have never even HAD an industrial revolution or enjoy most (or any) of the modern marvels we benefit from today. In that case, we'd all still by dying by age 40, 1 in 3 babies would not survive birth (1 in 6 mothers would not), and we'd all generally be spending most of our time working our hands to the bone just to survive (feed and clothe ourselves and our families).

CO2 is NOT pollution! It's plant food! Energy is NOT evil. It's a necessity of life! Modern technology is NOT evil. It's what enables us to live as well as we do. The super-environmentalists ideal world is pretty much a world without humans. Heavily catering to that worldview means the end of modern society and progress as we know it, or better yet (in their minds, apparently), the end of modern mankind.