Evolutionists Explain Design Using Unscientific "Magic Words"
The term "magic words" is used here as a concise idiom that describes the best words evolutionists use to explain "apparent" design. Evolutionists confidently insist that a complex biological feature simply "appeared," "emerged," "arose," "gave rise to," "burst onto the scene," "evolved itself," "derived," "was on the way to becoming," "radiated into," "modified itself," "became a miracle of evolution," "was making the transition to," "manufactured itself," "evolution's way of dealing with," "derived emergent properties," or "was lucky."
How do words like "appeared" explain design? Just like magic, the use of this word invokes mysterious powers within unseen universes that are capable of leaping over enormous scientific obstacles without having to provide any scientific consideration for how a particular physical result was achieved. Magic words convey wish-like convictions that if evolutionists just believe deeply enough, their explanations must be true and someday will be true--though currently resisted by all scientific evidence. Explaining design by believing it "arose" appeals to imaginary special forces which help evolutionists to connect the evolutionary dots. But as in any magical kingdom, the connections are mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality.
Magic words lack explanatory power because they fail to tie real observations to detailed descriptions of how features of design originate. Claiming that novel biological features "burst onto the scene" abandons the need for experimental verification; indeed, the implication is to not even try. Take any biological observation. In evolutionary thinking, any observation can be transformed into a proof that explains its own existence by applying the magic phrase: "It exists because it is favored by natural selection." In reality, observations are only observations and are neither proofs nor explanations.
Engineers, medical doctors, and other scientists who rely on studies or experiments do not use these kinds of words. Their products do not "emerge" but develop via thought-filled processes. They rightly call filling a knowledge gap with narrative stories "arm waving," which calls to mind a stage magician.
In conversation with others, it would be difficult to overemphasize how important magic words are to evolutionary theory. Remark on how these words pervade elite journals like Science, popular magazines like Scientific American, and television shows like NOVA. "Magic words" pour from evolutionary literature like water over Niagara Falls. Challenge your listener to carefully observe the communication in these forums, noting how many paragraphs or statements pass without the use of these words. They are the lifeblood of the evolutionary community's most profound and highest-quality scientific literature.
Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D., Institute for Creation Research 61 Comments
[9/4/2012 3:05:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 59
1 2 3
Translation: "D'urrrrh, science is hard."
Shiny mirror is shiny.
9/4/2012 3:08:37 AM
And it's a bit rich for this dunce to talk about a "lack (of) explanatory power". Creationism explains nothing, offers nothing, and means nothing beyond "Goddidit", yet there is an Institute for researching it?
9/4/2012 3:14:05 AM
Filin De Blanc
First there is a mutation. If the mutation is beneficial, more organisms with it survive to reproduce, thus passing it down to future generations until it becomes the standard.
How hard is that to understand?
9/4/2012 3:19:05 AM
'Evolutionists Explain Design Using Unscientific "Magic Words"'
But when you use the word 'design' you imply no magic at all because 'design' is hardcore science.
9/4/2012 3:31:05 AM
If you actually read the journals, you would see that these phenomena are actually explained in intricate detail, probably too much detail for your creationist* mind to comprehend. It is true that popular science works do use vague terminology in order to reach a general audience, but only a fool would try to refute actual scientific achievements based solely on the language of popular science journalism.
*I have noticed that many who argue against creationism use words like "cretinist" and "IDiot", as taunts. I personally feel that the word "creationist" already implies such an astonishing level of idiocy that such taunts, however creative, cannot hope to match it. You cannot hope to beat creationists in a retard-off. They are simply the worst there are.
9/4/2012 3:32:02 AM
Oh My Dog!
Your lack of word comprehension doesn't have any bearing on reality.
And isn't it a bit ironic that someone who believes "Goddidit" is using the term "magic"?
9/4/2012 3:37:27 AM
This guy is projecting so hard, he should point himself at the wall and show powerpoint presentations.
9/4/2012 4:26:53 AM
Yep, occasionally words mean things, and they're used to spice up ordinary language; what does the language have to do with the veracity of the concept anyway? I know to you creationists, words like "theory" and such pretty much exist to be twisted around to support your own views, but to the rest of us, words aren't just cudgels we use to beat our opponents into submission.
9/4/2012 4:53:09 AM
"Just like magic..."
"...mysterious powers within unseen universes..."
"...leaping over enormous scientific obstacles..."
"...without having to provide any scientific consideration..."
"...just believe deeply enough..."
"...explanations must be true and someday will be true--though currently resisted by all scientific evidence."
"...appeals to imaginary special forces..."
"...mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality."
"...lack explanatory power..."
"...fail to tie real observations..."
"...abandons the need for experimental verification; indeed, the implication is to not even try."
"...can be transformed into a proof that explains its own existence by applying the magic..."
"...rightly call filling a knowledge gap with narrative stories 'arm waving'..."
Well, you seem to have a pretty good description of creationism.
By the way, how exactly do you have "Creation Research"? Do y'all just sit around reading the same two chapters of an ancient book over and over? Because, as far as I know, that's the only document to cover this "creation" you described.
9/4/2012 4:58:19 AM
How do words like "appeared" explain design?
They don't. Evolution does not seek to explain design. It denies it.
9/4/2012 5:02:31 AM
What's a P.E.?
9/4/2012 5:03:15 AM
Jezebel's Evil Sister
Oh dearie me, little Randy J. (who has delusions of being both a professional engineer and a medical doctor) has used up the world's quota of quotation marks for the week without saying anything but gibberish.
9/4/2012 5:11:31 AM
Your failure can be explained by your use of the first three words. Referring to nature as "design" is your major problem because you're assuming that nature was designed by some intelligent being.
9/4/2012 5:26:14 AM
"How important magic words are to evolutionary theory"? Yeah, irony overdose with this one.
On the brighter side, I just now found a blog
that deals exclusively with ICR.
9/4/2012 5:31:59 AM
Evolutionists. Pffft Here they are, using "words" to explain their "science". Grrrrr!, It makes me and my god so mad!
9/4/2012 5:35:50 AM
Institute for Creation Research? Is that next door to the Unicorn Behavioural Study Centre? Or at least in the same Kentucky trailer park?
Randy, you don't understand these words because they are used by people much cleverer than you, such as 8 year olds.
9/4/2012 5:37:19 AM
"The term "magic words" is used here as a concise idiom that describes the best words creationists use to explain goddiddit."
9/4/2012 6:01:17 AM
Well, if you only read science textbooks designed for children and the simple-minded, you probably will find these terminologies. There's a reason for that. Crack open a scientific journal, or more advanced textbook, and you might notice a SLIGHT difference. Though I'm not sure you'd understand a word, with qualifications you probably bought off Ebay.
9/4/2012 6:26:32 AM
Those "magic words" are simply what scientists use when they're talking to lay people about the theory. That and they save time. Scientists can say that "the earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they cannot distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena. The euglena's eyespot, called a stigma, is located at its anterior end. It is a small splotch of red pigment which shades a collection of light sensitive crystals. Together with the leading flagellum, the eyespot allows the organism to move in response to light, often toward the light to assist in photosynthesis, and to predict day and night, the primary function of circadian rhythms. Visual pigments are located in the brains of more complex organisms, and are thought to have a role in synchronising spawning with lunar cycles. By detecting the subtle changes in night-time illumination, organisms could synchronise the release of sperm and eggs to maximise the probability of fertilisation. Vision itself relies on a basic biochemistry which is common to all eyes. However, how this biochemical toolkit is used to interpret an organism's environment varies widely: eyes have a wide range of structures and forms, all of which have evolved quite late relative to the underlying proteins and molecules". Or they can say that the eye "emerged". The latter is simply a much faster way to say it and is useful especially when the evolutionary history of the eye isn't the main point of the discussion. In the same way, a mechanic is going to say he "fixed your car's A/C" and not go into the exact process he used.
9/4/2012 6:29:28 AM
"Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D."
How did he obtain his diploms for practicing medecine and engieneering?
9/4/2012 6:51:16 AM
The use of these words is metaphorical. It doesn't "invoke mysterious powers" at all, since the mechanism is all explained, without any mystery. No "imaginary special forces" are appealed to. And they don't believe that design "arose", but only the appearance of design.
"Abandons the need for experimental verification". You can't very well experiment with long-dead animal species over millions of years, can you? You have to draw inferences and make hypotheses from the best available evidence. And you can see from animal breeding that animal populations change over time.
"Natural selection" isn't a magic phrase, it's just maybe a phrase that you haven't bothered to try and understand.
"Observations are only observations", but we can draw inferences from observations.
A doctor might use these words, especially if he's interested in the evolution of disease and how germs adapt!
Metaphorical language is used only because it's hard to explain natural selection without metaphors. It's for purposes of illustration. It's more likely the lifeblood of the more popular science journals, aimed at the layman.
9/4/2012 7:47:37 AM
Confusing the mechanics of language between the scientific(or even medical) and non-scientific community does not equate some kind of lie in the works. NOVA is all about giving science to the masses, I'm not at all surprised they would use more fanciful wording to accomplish this than is strictly necessary.
9/4/2012 7:50:07 AM
Next time you put in an appearance at your doctor's office, hopefully he will just adjust your meds and not hang you for a witch.
"Of course they are idiots! Still ,the question remains, what kind of idiots are they?" - B. Kliban
9/4/2012 8:13:13 AM
"LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
Sounds like a magic incantation to ME!
9/4/2012 8:16:32 AM
So, what words would you use to describe where God came from and how he designed all animals, Randy-boy?
9/4/2012 8:22:39 AM
1 2 3