Let me get this straight. The purveyors of Intelligent Design argue that evolution can't account for the incredibly complexity of life--ergo (Latin for duh) there has to be some intelligence (religious twinkie code word for God) that designed life.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments126 - willcodfish
Timmy:
No, you're wrong. I meant "thesaurus" and "bragger." But wouldn't a PhD know that?
Well - if that is what you meant then your scope of language is lacking more than I initially thought.
CR33:
I'm not sure if your statement is directed my way - or not. If so, I'm not labeling ID a theory, but proponents of it generally do and those at the forefront of the ID view most assuredly do.
127 - cr33py
cod - yes i was, are you speaking of ID statements in the media, the trial, or the movements documentation?
from what i can dig up, this seems to be the "mission" from their top "experts":
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf
I have not read the full document.
128 - willcodfish
Mostly from spokespersons of the movement. The fact is is that is doesn't have a sensible name because it is a hodge-podge of cluttered nonsense.
That red alarm in itself (the lack of an agreed-upon qualification from ID itself) should be enough to perk up the ears of anyone who really doesn't know either side of the issue (our lawmakers).
To name it a theory, as I have heard several of their national spokespeople refer to it - is the only way they can possible fool lawmakers into thinking it is legitimate science.
129 - willcodfish
"possibly"
130 - island
Theory gets equated to opinion because both are approximations of reality that are based on the interpretation of evidence.
Some approximations are more accurate than others, and that's the difference, since theories are testable. Some, like relativity, have been experimentally vindicated to an extremely high degree of accuracy, while others, like evolutionary theory, are well tested in some areas and weaker in others.
IDists have enough solid scientific evidence for something besides purely accidental coincidence that's behind our existence to justify scientific investigation, and that's what they're using to try to get-over on them that would deny that this evidence even exists.
Scientific investigation into this evidence has never not been the case though. There are many articles in the archives of scientific papers that use "anthropic reasoning" to make real testable predictions, for example, but it will always require an unfounded leap of faith to assume that this evidence indicates an intelligent being over natural causes.
Neodarwinians who insist on denying that this constitutes plausible scientific evidence for something other than "accident occurrence" must take an extremist position that requires that they must make leaps of faith to untestable theoretical speculation.
That hard-lined attitude may well get em hung in court, but it won't have anything to do with intelligent design.
They'll die in Dover for their fanatical ideological "beliefs".
Will that learn em?... no they'll just move further off into left field and farther from reality, but at least they'll know in their hearts that they're right via the same kind unfounded leaps of faith that their advisories use.
Praise fanaticism on both sides...
OhMan!
131 - willcodfish
Well said. I suppose the problem I have is the idea of taking something - anything, really that hasn't met a certain level of exacting standards - and teaching that to our children.
If the belief turns out to be solid scientific theory then by all means, lets give it a run. Until that time, it doesn't wash.
I can remember my classes well when I was younger and there was often conjecture and questioning of areas that straddled the line of science and spirtuality, science and mythology, astrology, etc. But these things were isolated into disciplines unto themselves and rightly so. Speaking of Astrology, perhaps I've stumbled upon the thing that, in my mind, best relates to the analogy of this situation. Millions of people suscribe to the beliefs of Astrology and a similar number will swear on their mother's very lives that it is the real deal. But - it's guesswork, a belief - and we don't see it being taught in 10th grade classrooms.
132 - willcodfish
Correction to the above:
Well said. I suppose the problem I have is the idea of taking something - anything, really that hasn't met a certain level of exacting standards - and teaching that to our children.
If the belief turns out to be solid scientific theory then by all means, lets give it a run. Until that time, it doesn't wash.
I can remember my classes well when I was younger and there was often conjecture and questioning of areas that straddled the line of science and spirtuality, science and mythology, astrology, etc. But these things were NOT isolated into disciplines unto themselves and rightly so. Speaking of Astrology, perhaps I've stumbled upon the thing that, in my mind, best relates to the analogy of this situation. Millions of people suscribe to the beliefs of Astrology and a similar number will swear on their mother's very lives that it is the real deal. But - it's guesswork, a belief - and we don't see it being taught in 10th grade classrooms.
133 - cr33py
The issue is certainly an old one, when i was in 7th or 8th grade we were presented with a panel of science and clergy, who expressed their views and had a panel discussion. My problem however was the oposite, i grew up without religion and needed to understand what all the creation fuss was about, and i found it a truly rewarding experience...but it didnt go deep enough in either direction in the alloted time. I believe that education requires more studies in world religions and philosophy of science in general.
US education definitely needs something with statistics such as this:
55 percent of the public believes that "God created humans in their current form,'' according to a New York Times/CBS poll last year.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/29/BAGK2EVDAE1.DTL
That is the same spread as the vote for an administration that does not believe in science...'cept for flyin and killin things....
134 - island
lol... oh me... so much for a whole clue.
I give up...
135 - cr33py
yup, the problem with evolution is that people reject all science due to this one subject, tis why they dont understand global warming, and evironmental protection....
its hard not to give up.
136 - td
Huricane Katrina has kiiled 1000+ people and destroyed a major city. Why coudln't we have predicted that this would happen?
We understand the basic parameters of weather systems, all of which are testable. Gravitational constant, water and air temperatures, the base elements involved.
However, even knowing these factors we cannot predict nor fully explain such a seemingly complex end result as hurricane Katrina. Does our inability to fully understand and predict hurricanes mean they were designed by a higher power? No. We know that they are not designed.
We cannot fully predict how weather systems will develope because of the volume and speed of interactions involved. We cannot track and predict the path of one electron, let alone the trillions upon trillions that determine how atoms in a weather system will interact and what these interactions will result in. However, just because we do not have the technology and computational power to fully explain hurricanes, this does not mean that they must have been designed.
The same applies to evolution. What seem like random mutations in a population are actually the result of a seemingly infinite number of molecular interactions. While we fully understand the paramaters that these interactions take place within, and that given a sufficient number of individual basic interactions seemingly complex wholes can result, we still cannot track and predict said results.
This lack of a complete explanation is not evidence for a designer. It simply means we cannot go back in time and collect all the information concerning every molecular interaction involved with the evolution of human beings and then throw that information into a giant supercomputer and say that some guys named Osama will blow up the WTC.
If this is the 'proof' that you are insisting upon before believing in evolution then you need to reconsider your stance on realism.
137 - td
What I find most disturbing about ID is that it promotes selective believe in scientific reasoning.
It teaches kids that if your don't understand something, don't try to hypothesize and test an alternative scientific theory, just imagine that an invisible creator is responcible.
What is this teaching the scientific minds of tomorrow? What happens if in 50 years we need to dranstically reverse global warming because the ice caps are melting? Do we want the next generation of scientists to decide say
"Well, we can't fully explain why this is happening, so it must be designed this way and therefore we can do anything about it"
or
"Let's start hypothesizing testable theories to save the planet because that's what scientist throughout history have done to prevent us being harmed by other threats such as disease, volcanoes, uv rays, etc."
138 - willcodfish
TD:
"What I find most disturbing about ID is that it promotes selective believe in scientific reasoning.
It teaches kids that if your don't understand something, don't try to hypothesize and test an alternative scientific theory, just imagine that an invisible creator is responcible."
Exactly TD !! That's part of what I was getting at some of my earlier posts - this idea of: 1. Well, there's a hole here. 2. So, let's fill it with whatever we want - just so it's filled. 3. It doesn't have to fit, or make sense - just fill the hole.
You can't just say something is - and then expect that to be law or doctrine, or whatever. Doesn't work like that.
And you're right-it's beyond disturbing - it's downright scary to think that a movement with such a glaring lack of logic and reasoning ability is attempting to infiltrate not only the world of science but our children's minds as well.
139 - Demi
Yeah but... Bald men usually have incredibly hairy bodies, and I just LOVE hairy bald men. It's my thing.
Didn't someone a few years ago determine that the appendix and tonsils had a relationship working in concert with digestion and weight control?
Also...
The Klingon is Adaptation perfected... multiple organs for damage control during battle, plus other attributes attributed to the evolution of the warrior.
and lastly.... adaptation of the species was a separate Darwinian theory. Evolution was one and Adaptation of the species was another.... Adaptation was proven in the Galopagos archipeligo (excuse my spelling)
Oh and finally... I'm really getting tired of the rehash of ID and Evo blogs... does this have something to do with the recent book heralded on NPR and the NYT? The author isn't even a scientist, he's a reporter doing an extended book report, and he's not a bald hairy guy either.
ciao
140 - WTF
And this blog and all the posts contained herein are exactly why I prefer Mathematics.
141 - Baronius
TD and Cod -
What's unreasonable about ID? If (I said if) statistical simulations and biochemical analyses indicate that random mutations and natural selection couldn't account for the complexity of organic structures, then what is so scientific about denying it? There's an old joke about looking for your keys where the light is better.
ID mathematicians and biologists are using scientific methods. If the science works, then we should accept its conclusions, subject to future revision and correction.
142 - willcodfish
The answer is simple :ID is not Science - discover what science is, then you'll have your answer.
143 - willcodfish
ID is centered around the Bifurcation fallacy:
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. For example:
"Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so..."
Unfortunately for ID - science doesn't work in this "Well if it's not this, then it must be the thing I want it to be" arrangement. Nor does any other area of reasoned thinking or logic.
144 - Fireboss
Among stupid arguments this one is always at the top of my list right after "It isn't blue, It's azure". It does tend to prove one thing. Whether we got our wonderful brain by evolution or intelligent design....it's freekin' being wasted. Actually, there is more "proof" of evolution in the Bible then a lack of proof for "ID" among the evolutionists. That is, IF you actually take time to study either rather than paying attention to talking heads. Ask yourselves a simple question. What tools might God have used to create life? First, name all of the tools used to build a car. Pretty simple: A diety may well have caused a "big bang" to create the heavens and the earth. Then the difference between clay/water and primordial ooze.......uh, mud is mud. Pay attention folks, niether argument proves or disproves the other. It was afterall science that proved that thalimide, bextra and so forth were safe for human consumption. Now, pretend you're capable of doing something useful with your life (no matter where it came from) and go solve world hunger.
145 - phil
Intelligent Design is really quite a nice..old... theory. Trouble is the scientists we have today are not too intelligent themselves, or they might be able to grasp the concept of a divine power(besides themselves) in the universe. One which they will never understand. Which is pretty odd since stone age people thought up intelligent design 10,000 yrs ago
146 - Joey
"That's part of what I was getting at some of my earlier posts - this idea of: 1. Well, there's a hole here. 2. So, let's fill it with whatever we want - just so it's filled. 3. It doesn't have to fit, or make sense - just fill the hole" -- willcodfish
Hmmm, sounds like a few college textbooks I've had the pleasure of being overcharged for.
147 - willcodfish
Phil: "Intelligent Design is really quite a nice..old... theory. Trouble is the scientists we have today are not too intelligent themselves, or they might be able to grasp the concept of a divine power(besides themselves) in the universe. One which they will never understand. Which is pretty odd since stone age people thought up intelligent design 10,000 yrs ago"
Unfortunately, it IS NOT a theory. I feel like a broken record. Please - for your own sake - educate yourself !!! This "viewpoint" of ID is really very sad and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the rest of your comment. That is what you fail to understand, because you are ignorant in terms of reason, logic and scientific principles.
148 - Geo
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
149 - Annette M. Hall
You've got to be kidding. You can't possibly blame God because you choose not take proper care of yourself. I've been quite impressed with the scientific data that has been gathered by Creation Science Institute. I have personally read their material and attended seminars put on by CSI and they put forth some pretty strong arguements in favor of Intelligent Design, perhaps you should do your homework? Thanks for the laugh.
150 - gonzo marx
it seems Annette is easily impressed and needs to learn and comprehend the differences between science, metaphysics, hypothesis and theory
not to mention pure hokum
but at least some seem to enjoy the kool aide
Excelsior!
151 - Annette M. Hall
Let me guess... You aren't familiar with their work so you choose to attack me personally instead? If you can't debate the issues perhaps you should just sit back and read.
152 - Mark Schannon
Annette, Gonzo never attacks anyone personally--most of the time. But those of us who've read the ID literature make a clear distinction between metaphysics and science. ID has no scientific foundation. In fact, if you've read the papers recently, scientists have found one of the critical missing links between fish and land amphibians.
There's no scientific debate about whether evolution is a sound theory--there is scientific about the details. One cannot have a scientific debate about ID because it's philosophy, not science.
and that's the truth.
In Jameson Veritas
153 - gonzo marx
quite the contrary...
i am well Aware of the "work"...
just as i am aware of the terms i spoke of...it was nto my intent to be insulting, rather to be a bit educational, so that if discussion on this very tired bit of nonsense was to ensue...
we ate least could agree on the terms
for instance..ID is NOT a theory, since it is unprovable...and NO experimental nor empirical data has yet been put forward to even test it as an hypothesis
thus it remains Metaphysics...but NOT Science
now...just so we are nto misunderstood...check the header of the Article....and you will note that Mark has it flagged as "Satire"
thus some of his mad peckings should be taken as sillines intended to prove a Point
as for this "creation science institute".....as i stated, hokum...
see the definitions of "science" and why the statements put forward by said organization remain in the realm of Philosophy and Metaphysics..but NOT Science
my disgust, is not towards yourself...but rather the bogus institution that either is ignorant of a word's Meaning, or deliberately attempts to deceive in it's very Name
i do hope that helps
154 - Annette M. Hall
Exactly which definition of science would you be referring to:
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
It would appear that we are talking about two different definitions.
As for satire, some people take the discussion of God and His purposes very seriously and find this brand of satire offensive.
I for one find it utter foolishness that anyone could believe in the Big Bang "Theory" or any "Evolution." Even Darwin recanted those beliefs, yet people still can't help but hang onto that hogwash.
155 - My Opinion, That's All
Zimmer: Seems to me like all you're doing is complaining. Life isn't going your way and now you have to blame it on God? Or the ID people? Please.
156 - gonzo marx
that would be 1 a,b and c
what you consider "hogwash" is, of course..your own perogative...all people are entitled to their Opinions
opinions are NOT science either...but can lead to hypothesis which may then be tested, proven, disproven..improved upon...discarded....or proven enough to become a Theory ..which in turn is passed through such rigors again and again...
as for what you find Offensive...that is also your perogative..i merely pointed out that this Article was quite clearly marked as such
and, for the Record...i could care less
again..my Objection is against those attempting to blur the distinction between Metaphysics/Philosophy and Science
such as the "institute" you cite
and i have no patience for snake oil salesmen, nor do i suffer gladly the Fools who follow their Lies
nuff said?
Excelsior!
157 - Mark Schannon
And you consider it an objective scientific statement to call the big bang utter foolishness or that Darwin recanted evolution?
If not for your intolerable ignorant arrogance, i'd apologize for offending you with my satire about God....if you read my other posts, I have the greatest respect for He who can't be understood, perceived, or known. Hence, agnosticism but a respectful version.
You, however, substitute big words and obscure concepts for facts. Try more alcohol & lighten up.
(Gonzo, I've got it, let's do a debate about evolution!)
In Jameson Veritas
158 - Jet in Columbus
Mark, I feel for you. If you click on my URL for my site you'll find my post about the Bible should NOT be used as an accurate history text.
I actually got a comeback from an intelligent designer, who told me that God created dinosaur bones and purposesly placed them in the ground so we could find them as a test of our faith, but that they actually didn't exist.
You've got your work cut our for you. I know
...but of course that's only my opinion.
159 - Jet in Columbus
PS: Which "theory" best explains nipples on men?
Intelligent Design or Evolution?
Jet
160 - Steve
It's my understanding, Jet, that the embryo's gender is typically determined genetically after the nipples have been formed. Don't think it has a bearing on the debate one way or the other.
161 - gonzo marx
it's in the same league as the duck billed platypus
a sarcastic shot at the very notion of underlying "intelligence" behind the designs of Life on our little planet
so many other things...but the Idea is out there
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
162 - Jet in Columbus
Using that as an example gonzo, then one could make the case that the male has carried over female characteristics from the womb, which he could/would have no use for, but does. In that example, then sexual orientation in some cases could biologically be carried over the same way, as breast nipples on men would.
Hmmmmmm?
Jet
163 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Well, Mark, you sure got 'em going on mere satire. Especially since you knocked down a "straw man" like Intelligent Design.
Now there is a version of cosmological development that has plenty of room for a Divinity and evolution - but I digress...
164 - Mark Schannon
Ruvy, I've said all along that evolution and God are perfectly compatible. ID is also a perfectly reasonable philosophical topic--it just ain't science. And you're right about causing such a fuss over satire...and that this thread is active again after six months! Wow. I'm really powerful, lol.
Jet, thanks. These be weird times that try people's souls. Thanks to BC, I think I understand better why some Christians are so frightened, and I share many of their concerns about what's happening to our society, but I don't have a clue how to get people to throw off their idiological straight jackets and come together, singing, "Michael Row the Boat Ashore."
In Jameson Veritas
165 - Jet in Columbus
Coombiyah(sic) "Mark the all powerful" and amen.
166 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I don't have a clue how to get people to throw off their idiological straight jackets and come together, singing, "Michael Row the Boat Ashore."
Marc, the trick is to get them to teach you how to put on their ideological straitjacket. By the time the two of you are done learning, the jackets are off and you've taught them to dance the hora.
167 - Jet in Columbus
I don't know, that sounds kinda kinky to me!
And I should know.
168 - Earl
There ought to be a law about this BLOG reappearing every so often..... this and the 100 Best Guitar Players.
Someone bury this deep within the Archives... Gary Heeeeelllllpppppp!!!!!!
Shoo, shoo! Get away....
169 - Jet in Columbus
Now Mark Schannon is a very intelligent, entertaining, and convincing writer. If it's worth reading, then it's worth repeating.
Do you think you can do better Earl?
Rock on Mark
:p Earl
170 - Mark Schannon
Ruvy,
I can dance the hora...I may be agnostic, but it ain't true that Jews can't dance...given enough alcohol.
Jet, you are way too kind. And don't worry, all you do with the hora is touch hands, although if Ruvy thinks I'm going to let some prevert born-again Christian extremist put a straight-jacket on me, he's been spending too much time with the Sabbath wine!
Earl--hey, don't blame me for this thread reappearing. It's all Annette's fault. I'm as surprised as you. All I'm trying to do is make people laugh.
In Jameson Veritas
171 - Jet in Columbus
and succeeding... I think
Here let me help...
Dave Nalle might enjoy this too, so pass it on.
during a roast of Bob Hope, Henry Kissinger got up and announced that the House of Representitives had just pronounced Hope the funniest man in the world!!!
He went on to comment that the vote was 268 to 267
Ronald Reagon (he was still Governor then) got up and announced that both houses of California's legislature had UNANIMOUSLY voted Bob Hope Californias foremost citizen. He paused a moment and then announced that he'd vetoed it.
LOL
Jet
172 - Mark Schannon
Even then, old Reagan was two straws short of a malted. As for Kissinger, if he only spoke english, we could figure out what he was saing.
173 - Jet in Columbus
Dave Nalle, did you hear that?? did you hear what that that that that man said about Reagan???? are you going to let him get away with that????
{EXPLATIVE DELETED!!!!!!}
174 - Mark Schannon
Jet, please, Dave's way to intelligent to stand up for the 'credit card' president....aren't you, Dave?
175 - Jet in Columbus
Are we talking about Reagon, Bush sr. or Bush jr.
Oh, well I guess they're interchangable aren't they?
My bad