Intelligent design theory is quickly gaining acceptance with school boards from Kansas to Pennsylvania. For those desiring to educate themselves on the basics of intelligent design theory I recommend the following simple self-education procedure:…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Bombadill
easier linkage, sorry:
Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Biological Complexity
Alleged Transitional forms
Complexity / Irreducible Complexity
27 - Bombadill
On the Darwinian myth of Abiogenesis (or, Poof! Nothing made something!):
Abiogenesis
28 - The Fifth Dentist
You see what I'm saying about the pointlessness of trying to debate this? Oh you've got web links to the IDEA center? That's pretty irrefutable. You win. Let me flush all my graduate degrees down the toilet. I stand by my original statement that this shit should be mocked and derided and that these douchebags should be laughed at.
29 - DrPat
But, DDS-5, it's a maxim in such debates that if you can SAY it often enough, in enough venues, it MUST be true.
Based on that, our Bombadil is a master debater...
30 - The Fifth Dentist
...Yes, but I'm a cunning linguist.
--Austin Powers
31 - Bombadill
The linking started with "DrPat". I responded. Why not deal with what the scientists (yes, scientists) in the articles are positing?
32 - Orac
Bombadill,
Please, you're hurling a bunch of creationist canards at us. Your points are fallacious and have long ago been debunked. The Cambrian explosion is not a major problem for evolutionary theory, and there are indeed many, many transitional fossils. Get the hence to Talkorigins.org!
See:
Here,
here, and
here.
33 - The Fifth Dentist
Because it won't get us anywhere. The only issue we're qualified to address is: what do the vast majority of people who know what the fuck they're talking about think? The only skill involved here is simple arithmetic. So what do you think the numbers say?
34 - DrPat
Bombadil, it isn't about QUANTITY, it's about QUALITY of information. You cannot win this debate by citing Creationist arguments. All that does is reveal the source of your ID inclinations.
35 - gonzo marx
ah, but Dentist...it is not about numbers, rather ID proponents seek to redifine terms and thus establish ID as a "theory" rather than an unfounded hypothesis, hence attempting to lend credibility to the metaphysical excercise by equating it with science via the fallacious use of terminology
any time you really wish to open an honest debate, ask the ID proponent this simple Question
what repeatable, objective , Experimental process will you use to prove your hypothesis within the rigors of scientific method so it may be peer reviewed like any other scientific or mathematical Theory?
my next favorite is..please show me the mathematical model desribing the Theory...
neither have ever been done , to the best of my Knowledge by ID proponents..instead we always get the "seem like it had to be designed" argument...which is fine for philosophy or metaphysics, but does not pass muster when it comes to hard science...
Excelsior!
36 - The Fifth Dentist
gonzo --
It's impossible to convince them of anything. The motivation of the Republican campaign to discredit science is that science is not controllable. It's always getting in the way of their attempts to make their own reality. So what do they do. First they fund their own "scientists" to sow doubt in the mind of Joe Sixpack. Then they tell Joe, hey you don't have to listen to Professor Egghead anymore. He thinks he's better than you. You can figure out science for yourself now. Here are some web links. When you get these two sides together to debate, the average person can't tell that one side is based on a mountain of research from peer-reviewed journals and the other was pulled out of some guy's ass over at the Discovery Institute. Game, Set and Match to them in the short run. In the long, run everyone comes to admit that global warming is real and that smoking causes cancer. They may even deny that they ever said otherwise. Hopefully, we won't be living in caves when that admission finally comes.
37 - gonzo marx
you mean you don't live in a cave?
wow...
so there is something beyond caves? next you will be telling me there is more ot entertainment than these nice wall paintings...
{8^P~~~~~~~~~~
Excelsior!
38 - Bombadill
sigh... wrong on all counts.
First of all, Orac. You site Talkorigins.org which is as biased as any source I could post. They have a clear naturalistic/atheistic agenda and want nothing more than to censor the I.D. camp. And they have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to use blatant deceit (as well as out-dated data) to achieve their purpose. Furthermore, trueorigin.org was created in direct response to the lies perpetuated on Talk Origins. This is no secret. Now, we could fire links at each other until we are blue in the face. What matters is the actual data. The points I presented have not "long since been debunked". This is propaganda that the Darwinian Fundamentalists want you to believe. Again, for the most current and accurate scientific information on these issues and how they have not been debunked, please read carefully the following:
On transitional fossils
The testibility and legitimacy of I.D. as science
Probability & the mathematics
And what repeatable, objective, Experimental process will you use to prove your hypothesis that humans descended from a common ancestor since this is not testable or repeatable and since science has never observed a species evolving into a completely new genome?
39 - Bombadill
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design here
40 - gonzo marx
ah yes, self published books and books published by organizations backing ID...like the website itself...
nothing objective, nor within the scientific journals for such things..
as i have stated, so far ID has presented itself as a most excellenct source of Metaphysical discussion
but as science, it ranks just behind the phlogiston chemists
Excelsior!
41 - greg
How would this be taught in a curriculum?
*Teacher shows the inner workings of a human eye* and announces to the class "You see this? You see how complicated this thing is? Well this is easily explained as it was designed by a higher force... moving on"
What's the cutoff of how complicated an organism or system has to be before we say "that's not quite complicated enough to have been designed by a higher force" (tho religious fanatics will contend that everything was designed by a higher force). What about simple single celled organisms, bacteria, algae, etc.? Were those created by an intelligent designer? If they weren't why not and how did they come to be?
As has already been stated numerous times ID is not a scientific theory but at most a ludicrious hypothesis although it doesn't necessarily fall into this category either as the definition of a hypothesis is:
"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation". Oops how do we test ID by further investigation? ID is untestable, not falsifiable and therefore is not a theory and sadly those who cling onto ID will do so for many centuries to come as we'll never be able to disprove something that we've never seen and don't have any evidence that shows it exists.
One more thing: every time I read or listen to an interview with dembski or behe they always bring up the watch analogy, the rushmore analogy and the mousetrap analogy. You never hear them back up their argument with hard scientific, empirical data but instead sugarcoats it with analogies that the religious right can latch on to and say "Yah thats right! My god even if I saw Rushmore for the first time and was unaware of its existence I'd know it had to have been designed!" Religion has always attempted to explain to people things they don't understand (and therefore fear). What's easier to explain to a child when he/she asks "What happens when we die?", "Where did we come from?", etc. You're not going to say "Well we're not sure what happens when we die as we don't have any hard proof and we've come about by natural selection and random gene mutation", instead it's easier to simply say "There's an afterlife awaiting you and God did it". The latter responses are much more comforting. I admit it's a bit unsettling thinking that we came about from "random" gene mutation and even I admit I'd so like to believe that we were created and have fates but sadly my skeptical and what I like to think logical mind just can't latch itself onto a pseudoscience hypothesis.
P.S. I don't care about ID as long as it's not forced upon our young generation. If you're going to teach it in class teach it in an elective philosophy class or your local sunday school.
42 - The Fifth Dentist
See here
Intelligent design in the scientific literature
Science Citation Index* - the last 14 years (13 million articles, 5300 journals as of 8/8/04)
141 articles use the key phrase "intelligent design" in titles, keywords, or abstract.
....All but 43 are engineering articles.
....Of the 37 articles on biological ID, 32 are critical of ID.
....None of 6 articles promoting ID (primarily letters to the editor) is in a research journal.
For comparison 113,000 articles use the keyword "evolution", including 28,000 in 2003.
....Many refer to biological evolution and are in research journals.
The key ID concept "specified complexity" - 1 article (a book review)
Another key ID concept "irreducible complexity" - 9 articles.
....The two in research journals criticize irreducible complexity.
Key evolutionary term "natural selection" - 5400 articles
For comparison, "flat earth" returns 53 articles. "Cold fusion" returns 661 articles!
43 - Lono
Intelligent Design is a probably as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The religious right is trying to take away SCIENCE.
That is a serious concern. I mean, in the old days it was booze or sex or kicking your dog that was bad. Now, they are eliminating science. This is criminal, and we are becoming the laughing stock of the world.
44 - DrPat
Don't you be dissing the Diety, Lono! (Long live the holy meatball!)
45 - Baronius
Gonzo, your redundancy is repeating itself. To my recollection, you've never addressed my position: that ID isn't a theory so much as a collection of evidence which challenges the prevailing theory of evolution.
ID isn't creationism; that's a straw man. Evolution isn't atheism either. But ID does raise some questions that creationists have been asking. ID is compatible with creationism, as atheism is compatible with evolution. But let's not confuse them.
You argue that ID hasn't presented a working model. Well, the point of ID is: "there doesn't seem to be a working model". Gaps in the fossil record argue against a gradual evolution. Statistical analysis argues against the standard evolutionary timeline. Irreducible complexity argues against the sufficiency of random mutation. Extinction theory argues against the standard model of natural selection.
(more later...)
46 - Will Kessel
Meanwhile, back in the rest of the world: they are teaching true science in science classes and kicking our collective asses in the educational arena -- something which was unheard of just 35 short years ago! Are they teaching creationism or ID? Hell, no! They're teaching science, and leaving religion to the parental units -- and laughing their asses off at us! This debate is strictly an American event, folks... ever wonder why?
47 - Baronius
(...i'm back)
I saw a special recently about the Clovis First theory of archaeology. Without going into it, it was the dominant theory about how humans came to North America. It was the theory I learned back in high school: that they crossed over from Asia to Alaska before the last Ice Age, then moved southward when everything froze up. I believe that this was supposed to happen 9500 years ago.
Great theory. Archaeologists accepted it, and only dug down 9500 years worth. One guy dug lower (12,500 years, I think), and found some arrowheads. When he published his results, he was attacked in academic circles. Eventually people started presenting evidence that man was in North America 12,500 years ago, and the old theory was discarded.
This is how science is supposed to work: new evidence revises old theories. But I was fascinated by two facts: one, that archaeologists weren't looking where they didn't expect to find things, and two, that when they did find things below the expected sediment levels, that they were afraid to publish the results.
---
There was a recent article about a British computer scientist named Rugg who may have solved one of the great medieval mysteries, the Voynich Manuscript. This document is written in a code that no one has been able to crack.
Rugg has developed an analytical technique which has nothing to do with decryption, but he may have solved this mystery. What he does is diagrams out all possible solutions to an "unsolvable" problem, all yes/no's and areas of expertise. Then he looks at the assumptions that people are making, and the specialists involved in the project. He then focuses on an area of research that isn't being explored. As he puts it, it's a scientific way of finding errors in science.
Well, it turns out that everyone who had been trying to break the cypher had been assuming that the code was real. Rugg decided to explore the alternative. He researched medieval forgery, and discovered that one of the manuscript's first owners was later suspected of forgeries. As for the code, Rugg found a 1600's document on how to create a fake language, which would yield very similar results to the Voynich document.
---
If this wasn't too long a post already, I'd tell stories about plate tectonics and steady-state theory that are very similar to the above.
---
The point here? Beware of orthodoxies. Many pro-evolution posts on this site have talked about how all scientists agree with the current evolutionary model. But the fact that this model fails to explain the evidence raised by ID'ers should tell you that something's wrong. And the resistance that scientists have to contrary evidence (out of fear that they'll look like creationists) is another red flag.
48 - DrPat
However, to qualify as an alternate scientific theory, it must first qualify AS as scientific theory. ID isn't science -- no more than the theory that dinosaurs died out due to allergies.
Not falsifiable. Not testable. Not science.
49 - John Bil
Oh please, you just have to watch a Godzilla movie to know that dinosaurs and people lived together. Haven't you ever seen that science show "the Flintstones?" T-Rexes were used by the ancient Bozoyians as steam shovels. How the hell do think the pyramids were built? Evolution smevolution!
50 - John W Patterson
Editor
Teachers who include Intelligent Design in science classes should also explain why science now rejects ID and all other versions of creationism.
Explanations in science differ from those in religion and theology. Scientific explanations are deemed worthy only when they reduce or eliminate the initial mystery and confusion that nature seems to present. The best way to do this is to interpret reality solely in terms of purely naturalistic concepts, agencies and processes; i.e., those things that can be understood through careful observation, study and experimental testing.
Explanations in theology and religion, by contrast, are considered acceptable even when they radically increase the levels of human befuddlement and confusion far beyond anything that nature alone can present. This happens because religious explanations use miracles and supernatural agencies (Divine or Intelligent Designer Gods and the like) thought capable of wholly unfathomable acts of caprice, malice or benevolence, depending on whatever whim meets their fancy. Religious explanations and interpretations of nature do not bode well for progress and understanding, whether it be scientific, technical or otherwise.
This is why the �Intelligent Watchmaker� idea of theologian Wm Paley (1802) never really caught on in science, even though he wrote it especially to convince scientists that the world truly is the handiwork of an infinitely intelligent, supernatural agent, namely God. By contrast, Darwin�s theory, published 57 years later without any understanding of genetic inheritability, was enthusiastically received by scientists�as well as a broad cross-section of educated lay people�almost as soon as it was released. Why? Because Darwin�s central idea�his explanatory mechanism of natural selection�was not only plausible and understandable, but could also be researched by means of artificial selection studies carried out on plants and animals under controlled conditions. Moreover, because Darwinian selection in nature would proceed in a completely blind fashion, the theory was free of those kinds of caprice�willful, malicious or otherwise�that can not be ruled out when intelligent agents are involved, supernatural or otherwise.
The current �theory� of Intelligent Design is even worse than Paley�s for several reasons. Not only do modern ID theorists hold the door open to the things that caused Paley�s theory to fail, they go out of their way to broaden the potential for mystery and confusion even further. Could the Designer be same Intelligent Watchmaker as Paley had in mind? Yes. Could it be one or more of the Gods in some polytheistic Pantheon of Paganism? Yes. What about one or more incredibly advanced space aliens from civilizations located in distant galaxies? Yes, yes, yes. However all of these possibilities have in common something that highlights yet another difference between genuine scientists and ID theorists like Prof. Gonzales and his co-author, theologian Jay Richards. Whereas genuine scientists will tell you there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any of the foregoing kinds of intelligent agents; Gonzalez, Richards and their colleagues think they have been amassing overwhelming evidence that any or all of them actually do exist.
I have explored here only one aspect of why genuine scientists reject all forms of creationism and Intelligent Design forthwith. However there is one valid reason for including Intelligent Design or creationism in science classes. They are some of the best examples of what science is NOT, what some refer to as counterexamples. For a useful discussion of this powerful teaching approach, I recommend the article entitled, �ESP: Teaching �scientific method� by counterexample,� on page 1079 in the December 1975 issue of the American Journal of Physics (Vol. 43, No. 12). It was written by S. L. Blatt, then a physics professor at The Ohio State University.
John W. Patterson
[Address and phone number removed]
51 - Baronius
John - We're pretty informal around here. No editors, no real names, making out behind the dumpster. That kind of thing.
"Explanations in science differ from those in religion and theology. Scientific explanations are deemed worthy only when they reduce or eliminate the initial mystery and confusion that nature seems to present. The best way to do this is to interpret reality solely in terms of purely naturalistic concepts, agencies and processes; i.e., those things that can be understood through careful observation, study and experimental testing."
But what if the naturalistic explanations are revealing themselves to be incomplete? ID, as I've described it here, is a body of evidence which points out the weak spots in modern evolutionary theory. There's a guy around here who always asks anti-ev's if they'd believe in evolution if science in 30 years could explain the gradual development of the eye. My question to you is the other side of the coin: if evidence were to consistently defy materialistic models, could science ever accept "not natural by our current understanding" as the final word?
"Explanations in theology and religion, by contrast, are considered acceptable even when they radically increase the levels of human befuddlement and confusion far beyond anything that nature alone can present. This happens because religious explanations use miracles and supernatural agencies (Divine or Intelligent Designer Gods and the like) thought capable of wholly unfathomable acts of caprice, malice or benevolence, depending on whatever whim meets their fancy. Religious explanations and interpretations of nature do not bode well for progress and understanding, whether it be scientific, technical or otherwise."
I've got a bone to pick with this paragraph as well. Historically, the booms of science have come from societies with monotheistic religions. Divine caprice doesn't lead someone to investigate the natural order. Divine structure does. Germans didn't start grinding lenses in the days of Odin, but when there's one God and one truth, we can learn about Him from His works. It was during the time of the great cathedrals that the scientific method was spreading.
52 - Baronius
Dr. Pat, were you talkin' to me? (he said in a bad DeNiro)
53 - Nukapai
I have a less violent solution: move out of USA. ;)
54 - DrPat
In case you skipped over the long screed by John W. Patterson, here's the germ, emphasis added:
Somehow, I don't think that's what ID proponents have in mind, Professor!
55 - KOB
Intelligent design is media hype. It a virus, an urban legend, it's not science, it's a joke played by right wing nut cases. The really sad thing is all this blathering makes it seem like there's something to it.
56 - Les Slater
ID proponents seek to overthrow all science as we know it.
Their motivations are sociological and political, not scientific. All that follows is from one of their major proponents.
"CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE [an Intelligent Design think tank]
INTRODUCTION
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud …
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."
57 - DrPat
Link, please, Les -- not that I disagree, but it's crucial to state your sources!
58 - Randy Kirk
Since I have posted extensively on this subject in this forum before, I will limit my observations to one idea not covered above. After 100 years of the scientific community controlling the information flow, the public isn't buying Darwin. Since I believe in the common folk, and have real issues with any inbedded elite, I would suggest to those who have a religious faith in Darwin to carefully consider why they are so unrelenting.
Please don't come back and talk about flat earth. This is no longer flat earth. The argument has been going on for over a century. Intelligent folks disagree. Get over it. Get on with checking out your assumptions. And consider sincerely and scientifically, the potential for a spiritual realm. That spiritual realm which is EXPERIENCED by well over half of human kind.
59 - Les Slater
here
60 - Duane
Baronius: Many pro-evolution posts on this site have talked about how all scientists agree with the current evolutionary model.
People making that claim are misinformed. There is almost never a theory that is unanimously accepted by the scientific community. That's part of what keeps the field honest and vital. Dogmatic acceptance obviates curiosity, which leads to the death of a scientific enterprise. Contrast that to religious dogma. Doctrinal revisions shake the faith of the believers, weakening the religious enterprise that relies so strongly on the veracity of "ancient wisdom."
Baronius: But the fact that this model fails to explain the evidence raised by ID'ers should tell you that something's wrong.
IDers are not responsible for discovering anything except the persistent gullibility of the American public. IDers derive their energy parasitically by latching themselves onto researchers working at the cutting edge (where there are -- guess what -- problems to be solved!), then, in public view, spit the problems back into the face of the scientific community. Haha. Sadly, this sneaky un-Christianlike tactic is working in some quarters.
61 - Duane
Baronius: And the resistance that scientists have to contrary evidence (out of fear that they'll look like creationists) is another red flag.
If I were a biologist, and if I discovered scientific evidence supporting the intervention in Nature by an intelligent agent, I would win the Nobel Prize, since that would be the single greatest discovery in the history of humankind. It certainly has happened that ideas that later turn out to be correct have been squelched by scientists, since scientists are endowed with human frailties, like anyone else. But eventually, ideas with merit see the light of day. People who believe that the scientific community in its entirety is closed to new ideas lacks acquaintance with the history of science, and are poor judges of human nature.
Incontrovertible evidence supporting design would be the mother of all scientific advancements, and would be sought madly and single-mindedly by ego-driven scientists. But they don't know how to go about this. They only know how to do science. They have nothing to grab onto, no divers lines, no handles, no avenues of approach when it comes to ID. ID "theory" provides nothing to science beyond a call for pessimism, impatience, cynicism, and resignation to the defeatist attitude that the human mind is too feeble to answer questions it poses to itself.
But what I really think is that there are a lot of IDers who are perfectly aware of science and scientists, but who, nevertheless, peddle their anti-scientific wares in the interest of pushing their agendas, and in the interest of gaining a bigger piece of the pie for themselves. When their non-scientific, unoriginal ideas do not provide them with a platform in the scientific literature, they scream "dogma!" and "closed-mindedness!" and "establishment!" and "controversy!" And who do they scream to? The public at large, politicians, and religious organizations. They attempt to circumvent the scientific protocol, and instead appeal to their talent for rabble-rousing. Is it any wonder that scientists have no respect for IDers?
62 - DrPat
Randy: what Duane said, "But eventually, ideas with merit see the light of day."
What non-scientists feel about the process of science is less than useful in addressing this topic.
Come back to the topic when you have a testable, falsifiable concept to offer.
63 - Baronius
"IDers are not responsible for discovering anything except the persistent gullibility of the American public."
Duane, I'm trying to keep this above name-calling. I haven't said that ID'ers are discovering things, just presenting evidence which doesn't mesh with contemporary evolutionary theory. We've mentioned this evidence already: the biochemical presentation of Behe and the statistical work of I forget whom. To my recollection, you've never addressed this research.
"People who believe that the scientific community in its entirety is closed to new ideas lacks acquaintance with the history of science, and are poor judges of human nature."
I've given several examples of how that can occur. In any field of thought, people over a certain age become calcified. And they're usually in academia (mostly teaching Russian lit).
"Incontrovertible evidence supporting design would be the mother of all scientific advancements, and would be sought madly and single-mindedly by ego-driven scientists..."
...except that, as you note, they're not trained to recognize it. It's outside their assumptions. That's what makes Behe's argument so compelling: there isn't a tool on the paleontological ultility belt to deal with it.
There are people who want ID to prove God. There are people who will use any misrepresented fact to support their belief in a 6000-year-old universe. There are people who are pointing to errors in the random mutation / natural selection model. Why don't you and I laugh at the first two groups together, then look at the work of the third group.
64 - Greg
Randy> After 100 years of the scientific community
Randy> controlling the information flow, the public
Randy> isn't buying Darwin.
This says more about our failure to educate the public on the theory of evolution, than it does about the theory itself.
It also says a lot about how difficult it is for people to accept an idea that they have been indoctrinated against believing.
Randy> Since I believe in the common folk, and
Randy> have real issues with any inbedded elite, I
Randy> would suggest to those who have a
Randy> religious faith in Darwin to carefully
Randy> consider why they are so unrelenting.
It's not a "religious faith in Darwin", it's a scientific agreement that his theory was a pretty damn good one. Why we're so keen on promoting it: because we're interested in moving human knowledge forward, instead of stagnating in the (distant) past?
Randy> And consider sincerely and scientifically,
Randy> the potential for a spiritual realm. That
Randy> spiritual realm which is EXPERIENCED by
Randy> well over half of human kind
As Duane and DrPat have pointed out, there is no way to consider your "spiritual realm" scientifically.
Besides, how do you explain the fact that a good number of us have never experienced this "spiritual realm". If you're right about ID, surely the capacity to experience would have been intelligently designed into all of us? Or have we micro-evolved immunity to it?
65 - Greg
Baronius:
"I haven't said that ID'ers are discovering things..."
Finally, an admission.
Baronius:
"There are people who are pointing to errors in the random mutation / natural selection model"
No, there aren't. The people you're referring to are pointing to complex molecular structures, and saying "We don't believe these could have evolved", with the subtext of "Did I mention that I have a belief system that precludes me from believing in evolution" and "I'm a mathematician, so what the hell would I know about biology anyway" (no offence intended to thinking mathematicians).
They then go on to base flimsy arguments on premises that are so ridiculous that biologists have no option but to laugh in their faces. That's right, Baronius, it's not just the first two groups we're laughing at.
66 - The Fifth Dentist
This argument is making me sorry we ever climbed out of the primordial slime in the first place ... er, I mean, were directed by the invisible man to climb out of the slime (if you swing that way.) Our side has no problem with a god who kicked off the big bang, set the laws of physics in motion, and locked himself in the closet. Believe in him if you must. You can even believe he watches you disapprovingly every time you beat off. Knock yourselves out. But please don't cloak this tripe in the language of science because science is the only thing we have left that's unsoiled by religion. Can you please just leave us with this one scrap? You'll still have NASCAR ...
67 - Baronius
Greg, was that a reference to Behe's "irreducible complexity"? Let me ask you, how would you explain the frequency of irreducibly complex structures?
Dentist, have you read Dembski?
68 - Greg
Baronius:
"Let me ask you, how would you explain the frequency of irreducibly complex structures?"
Frequency? I've never even seen one "irreducibly" complex structure.
69 - The Fifth Dentist
Even better than that, Baronius, Dembski's apparently read me. Dembski's blog actually links to this article under the headline "Can Something This Crass Still Be Satire?." I don't know if it's meant to be an endorsement, but I'm flattered nevertheless.
70 - The Fifth Dentist
Actually, it turns out they weren't being flattering.
71 - caerbannog
Here's a homework assignment for ID proponents like Bobmadill, Hal Jordan et al.
The Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA is recognized as one of the world's top bioscience research institutions (arguably *the* top institution in terms of scientific impact -- see this link for details).
So here's the assignment:
1) Go to the Salk Institute web-site.
2) Locate the "search" button (top-center of the Salk home-page).
3) Perform a search on "evolution". Bookmark the results.
4) Perform another search, this time on the key-phrase "intelligent design" (include the quotation marks in the search). Bookmark the results.
5) Compare the results of the "evolution" search with the results of the "intelligent design" search.
6) Then ask yourself, "Is it possible that the world-class researchers (including several Nobel Laureates) at the Salk Institute might know a few things that I don't?"
72 - Gary Hurd
Bombadill's link to the "scientific" paper by Steve Meyer as if it were "scientific" support for intelligent design creationism is doubly ironic. First, Meyer is hardly a scientist- his degree was taken in history. Second, the article in in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington not only failed to provide evidence contradicting evolution, but was repudiated by the Board of Trustees of the BSW.
73 - Liberal
"why not find out the science behind intelligent design...?"
Because there is none.
74 - Randy Kirk
It would be a great world for the science community if we lay people just accepted their theories as fact and went about doing our pea brained stuff. But, it turns out their are some really smart folks who aren't scientists, and some folks who are only moderately intelligent if measured by IQ tests, but who have great insite. And some of those, believe it or not, have even had extensive teaching in science, and indoctrination by schools, government, tv, and others.
As a marketing guy, if I had the resources that have been devoted to trying to sell Darwin, and the majority of the public still wasn't buying, I'd look at my assumptions.
s
75 - Duane
It would be a great world for the believer community if we scientifically literate people just accepted their superstition as fact and went about doing our self-important sinful stuff. But, it turns out their are some really smart folks who aren't believers, and some folks who are only moderately religious if measured by church attendance, but who have great insight. And some of those, believe it or not, have even had extensive teaching in religion, and indoctrination by churches, government sloganeering, blog blather, TV preachers, and others.
As an anti-marketing guy, if I had the resources that have been devoted to trying to sell religion and creationism, and the majority of the scientific community still wasn't buying, I'd look at my assumptions.