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 comments126 - Baronius
Hobart, welcome. As someone who'd been carrying the water for ID earlier on the board, I hope you enjoy it here.
I took some time off after Greg's assertion that there is no evidence in favor of ID. Such blanket, unresearched statements on either side indicate that constructive debate is pointless. If you, Hobart, take the same position I do (ID may be true, it may not; blind dogmatism doesn't help the evolutionists' argument), I'm sure some of the postings will discourage you.
I've been looking at the links Zeno provided which argue against Behe. They're good, what I've seen so far. I've been looking for people to take up the challenge of explaining seemingly irreducibly complex structures, and the flagellum essay does just that.
One of the saddest things in the ID/ev debate is the scientist-types who scream "burn the witches" and think they've won the argument. BTW, in case Dentist hasn't told you, he has degrees. Advanced ones.
127 - ClubhouseCancer
I see, so ID is disproven, but you believe it might be right anyway.
You're blinding me with science!
128 - ClubhouseCancer
My comment refers to this, from comment 126:
I've been looking for people to take up the challenge of explaining seemingly irreducibly complex structures, and the flagellum essay does just that.
129 - Justin Berry
I am no expert on either ID or evolution.Therefore Ill post this question to this panel of experts. If Humans evolved from monkeys and apes why do we still have monkeys and apes?I have heard of the fossil evidence of the so called "missing links" but never an answer to why we have a starting point and an end point but only fossils in the middle.
130 - ClubhouseCancer
It's not correct to say we evolved "from" monkeys and apes. Darwin posited that humans and apes had a common ancestor. This ancestor is the so-called "missing link."
131 - Baronius
Club - My opinion is that the irreducible complexity argument puts the ball in the evolutionists' court. I'm not particularly strong on the probability arguments, but I have the impression that there's been some exchange on that front. But with ic, there's been a lot of anger, and not much substance, on the part of the establishment.
I hope that ic will be addressed. Why? Because I need science to quiet my fears about God's nonexistence? No. Because scientists scare me and I want to see them struck down? No. I just think it's a very interesting argument.
132 - Justin Berry
So we are back to faith, because "darwin posited" doesnt sound very scientific to me.
133 - DrPat
Justin, CC merely points out that you can't have it both ways -- you can't have the strawman of "human descent from apes" as an argument against Darwin's ideas, because that wasn't what Darwin posited.
134 - ClubhouseCancer
"darwin posited" doesnt sound very scientific to me.
Then I'm afraid you need a remedial course in science. Start here
Those who want creationism (like "ID") taught in schools would never succeed if people took the responsibility to learn enough about science to understand something about the world. It's amazing to me how ignorant people are about basic scientific ideas and terms.
135 - Greg
Baronius: "I took some time off after Greg's assertion that there is no evidence in favor of ID"
Um, what? I didn't say that. (I should point out now that Greg and greg are two different people).
You said: "There are people who are pointing to errors in the random mutation / natural selection model"
I said "No there aren't". There are people who clearly don't understand the processes of mutation and natural selection asserting that these processes couldn't possibly give rise to complex structures, but asserting something doesn't make it true (especially if you're insufficiently trained to make the assertions you're making).
You said: "Let me ask you, how would you explain the frequency of irreducibly complex structures?"
I said: "I've never even seen one "irreducibly" complex structure", meaning all the supposedly irreducibly complex structures posited by IDers have been shown to be reducible.
But I do have a problem with non-scientists who bandy about the term "irreducible complexity" as if it actually means something. Some people (who have ulterior motives) are desperately searching for examples of complexity that haven't been studied by biologists yet. When they think they've found it, they throw their hands up and say "Oh well, let's all give up scientific research, go back to church, and praise the lord for his intelligent design".
Scientists, who have, of course, spent several hundred years reducing "irreducibly" complex problems, just see it as yet another problem to tackle, and head back to the lab.
Of course, after you've spent the better part of a decade studying something for the good of human knowledge and society, and you finally make some progress and publish your results, and then society turns around and shows it's appreciation by giving you a swift kick in the nuts, you start to wonder why you're even bothering.
136 - Luke
We still have monkeys and apes because a beneficial mutation which causes evolution only affects the decendants of the individual that had the mutation, so we have a cluster of apes in one particular location that tend to breed among which ever apes are nearby to that area, within the area the decendants of the one that had the mutation survive better with that alteration, and so they're more likely to breed with other surrounding apes without it, so then maybe there's a 50% chance that the trait will be passed on, lets say 5 of the apes breed and each spawn 5 other apes with a 50% chance of inheriting the trait, you have 12 decendants with it and 13 without, but lets suppose the chance of survival is 6/10, but with the trait is increased 50%, about eight of regular apes have kids before they die, but 11 of the altered apes manage to breed before they die too, lets say each have 5 kids, the 8 regular ones have 40, and the 11 altered ones have 55, half of which will have the trait, so now about 27 apes with the trait, continue this process through enough generations, and eventually the apes which carry the trait will choose to breed among themselves, greatly improving the chance of passing it on, eventually, you have a group of apes that carry the trait exclusively, BUT, just because you have a group of apes who are better suited to survive in their environment, does not mean that all of the apes in surrounding regions without the trait are suddenly going to die, you simply wind up with two types of ape, in fact, the question about why we still have monkeys is so stupid, you might as well ask, "if africans migrated to europe, and their skin turned white through natural selection, then why are there still black people?"
137 - Luke
the word fog is an irreducibly complex pattern, because f, o, g, fo, fg, og, are all meaningless, but lets start mutating little pieces at a time, fog, dog, dot, cot, cat, at, a <--by changing one letter at a time, the other two letters are still useful to preform other tasks, until I've worked my way back to the progenator of the other words, however, if i work my way forwards, something silly could happen, a, ab, af, afg, ayg, jyg <--i've winded up with useless imformation that can't even be used to form a sylable, so why would anyone add it to the dictionary, random sillyness happens, but i was already at dog when i made one small change and ended up at fog, it's very unlikely that i can start with at, and evolve it into fog in one step, but as long as each previous step was useful for something, i'm going to end up with a pattern that is seemingly irreducible, the ID proponents would have you believe that the word fog is impossible to create through the addition of small changes, because the pattern disintergrates when you remove one of the letters.
138 - Baronius
Greg - Sorry. I should have said ic, not ID. I often make that mistake. Nevertheless, you do seem quicker to assert than to cite. The overall impression I get is that scientists are not even deigning to consider criticism. I understand how such a mentality could develop, with people reluctant to even comment about "those creationists". I fear that such thinking could lead a lot of researchers to miss the point.
Luke - Here are some dots.
(...........)
139 - Greg
Baronius: "Nevertheless, you do seem quicker to assert than to cite"
Sorry, yes, I do assert, but only because I assume that most people are already aware of the refutations of irreducible complexity (such as those described on www.talkorigins.com).
Baronius: "The overall impression I get is that scientists are not even deigning to consider criticism"
That is simply not true. Science is all about criticism. If you have a good idea, you better have the scientific evidence to at least partly back it up before you even think about submitting it to a journal, or you'll get laughed out of town. But it has to be reasoned, constructive criticism, not "I don't understand it or want to believe it, so it can't be true".
Baronius: "I fear that such thinking could lead a lot of researchers to miss the point"
And I'll ask again (like people here - and thousands before us - have already asked): what point?
The only point I have managed to derive from every bit of ID/IC/IDC/YEC literature I've read is: we don't know everything yet. Which is a severe case of stating-the-bleeding-obvious, really, and is the reason we actually do science.
140 - Justin Berry
Club- is science not about proving facts not merely making suppositions?
Drpat- If darwins strawman cant be used as an argument whose "strawman" can? and if noone has proved that we ascended from apes how does evolution apply to anything other than galapagos birds?
141 - The Evil Atheist
"Never start a topic about Intelligent Design, even if it's satirical, because the religion weirdos will come and make it an endless, pointless discussion."
Ah, but it ends up with people being _educated_, which is good.
" But with ic, there's been a lot of anger, and not much substance, on the part of the establishment."
That depends on which side you have been listening to. I suggest here for a start, then, for specific often-cited systems, go here and scroll to the 200. and 300. series.
"Club- is science not about proving facts not merely making suppositions?
Drpat- If darwins strawman cant be used as an argument whose "strawman" can? and if noone has proved that we ascended from apes how does evolution apply to anything other than galapagos birds?"
Dude. Your ignorance astounds me. Okay, guys, I have taken it upon myself to fight the good fight. Now, from the beginning, stop me if it is too complicated: Nice Mr Darwin went on a boat. He saw some birdies. Mr Darwin thought, "Hey, these birdies are like the ones back home, only with slight variations. Freaky shit. I wonder why?" Now, Mr Darwin, being logical, built upon the already-existing concept of evolution to produce the theory of natural selection. This says, that if something good happens (like a bigger beak for crushing yummy seeds - yum, yum!), it stays. If something bad happens (like legs in the wrong place - oh noes!), it dies. The reasoning behind this is as plain as the nose on your widdle face. Got it? Now, we're going to start using bigger words. If two populations of the same species were geographically isolated, with slightly different environmental pressures, and one population developed a specific trait that was advantageous to reproduction and survival, then only that organism's population would receive selective pressure for that trait. Therefore, from that point onwards, the two populations would have different evolutionary paths. Given the known taxonomical similarity between apes and humans, Darwin suggested that their might have been a common ancestor for both of them. This has been confirmed (if you choose to believe science) by studies of each species' genome. Nobody (except a Creationist) ever said, "humans evolved from monkeys". Nobody. Trust me. Okay, maybe an 8-year old. The question, "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is comparable to "if the Earth is round, how come it looks flat, and wouldn't the people on the bottom fall off?", or perhaps "if metal sinks, how come boats float?"
142 - The Evil Atheist
Oh, and I forgot the information and mutations thing.
Here
Here
(more in followups, since the anti-comment spam thing on here is retarded. why not just use captchas?)
143 - The Evil Atheist
Here
Here
Here
[not identical links to previous comment]
144 - The Evil Atheist
Here
Here
Here
[not identical links to previous comments]
145 - The Evil Atheist
Here
Here
And here
[not identical links to previous comments]
146 - The Evil Atheist
And, for anyone who considers themself a Creationist (I'm talking to you, Mr Berry, since IDists accept common descent), here
147 - Justin Berry
dont worry atheist, even as a christian i tend to get frustrated and sarcastic with people who dont believe as I believe.You could probably just tell me why humans and apes coexist in the same habitat.If it was advantageous for the missing link to evolve into a human then why the monkey?Instead you just put up more suppositions or as your faith calls them "facts". It will probably take alot more of those here's.I believe in science when it proves something i.e. Boyles law, Avagadros law, etc. etc.
but all I get from evolution is assumptions and when you assume you make an ass of u and me mainly you though.
148 - voltairean
One would think that Christians would tire of being on the wrong side of history.
The world is flat. The earth is the center of the universe. The planet is @ 5,000 years old. Kill witches. Slavery is good. Go Nazis. Keep women in the home. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
These types of debates would be a lot more interesting if Christianity could come out on the right side of an issue just once. But until that day happens, which I believe will fall on the same day as hell freezing over, its pointless to listen to their hogwash.
I have always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: "My God, make our enemies very ridiculous!" God has granted it to me - Voltaire
149 - Voltairean
Justin
The last line of my post above applies wholeheartedly to you. Fear not athiest making an ass of himself.
Volt
150 - The Evil Atheist
First of all, I was being patronising more than sarcastic. I was frustrated, though. Okay now, the key word is populations, not necessarily geographically isolated. The populations may well be within some certain distance of each other, but that doesn't mean they mate together. As environmental pressures change, one population (by the point at which the two are unable to mate) may migrate to a region closer to the other. That's the basics. Now, semi-hypothetical situation. If you go back far enough, you have one organism. That organism has two offspring. Given that they were created through sexual reproduction, they are genetically quite different. For whatever reason (there's lots of plausible ones, use your imagination), these two offspring, or their offspring, became separated. One lineage evolved into humans, one evolved into apes. Got it? As a modern-day analogy, consider the development by bacteria of immunity to certain antibiotics. Once a resistant population becomes successful, are all non-resistant populations immediately wiped off of the face of the Earth, through the will of God? Why, of course.
151 - Luke
Darwin thought there was a missing link, current evolutionary theory does not, because research was done, and things which weren't likely to be true, such as the mysterious missing link, were ruled out, scientists aren't shackled to every word that ever left darwins mouth, that is to say, they won't be convicted as heretics and burnt as the stake for having evolutionary theories which are different from what Darwin wrote, 'the origin of species' is not the bible
152 - Justin Berry
My point, simply, is that evolution is not a proven fact that could be used to debunk ID. Evolutionist are not shackled to Darwin just as ID'ers are not shackled to the bible. Neither side has been proven with concrete scientific evidence if it had, there would not be another side.Suffice it to say, you believe in your suppositions and Ill believe in mine.When we have enough evidence to convince either side then we wont argue this point.
153 - The Evil Atheist
My point, simply, is that evolution is not a proven fact that could be used to debunk ID.
Okay, that's just funny. You've got it the wrong way around, dude. Evolution is about as much proven fact as it could possibly be short of guaranteed fossilisation for every organism. Methinks you're a bit muddled up, dude, go to the Talk.Origins archive for some more information. ID is trying to debunk evolution, not vice versa, and ID will never be proven fact, because it requires argument from ignorance, which is not scientific, and is not falsifiable.
Evolutionist are not shackled to Darwin just as ID'ers are not shackled to the bible.
They are not shackled to the bible in trying to advance the "theory" (there are requirements for becoming a theory or hypothesis, you know), but all the major proponents are Christian, and it is clear that the real agenda is sneaking the Bible into the Science classroom.
Neither side has been proven with concrete scientific evidence
Well, if by "neither side" you mean "the ID side" you're right, but the idea of a lack of evidence for evolution is a serious misconception. Go to Talk.Origins.
if it had, there would not be another side.
Ever hear of the Flat Earth Society? Obviously, round Earth-ism has not been concretely proven, or else there would not be another side. What about Holocaust deniers? The Holocaust must not be historical fact, or else there would be no other side. Man, you've opened me up to a whole new world of thinking.
Suffice it to say, you believe in your suppositions and Ill believe in mine.When we have enough evidence to convince either side then we wont argue this point.
I have enough evidence. My side has for a loooooooooong time now. If this is not arguing, you might want to check over here.
154 - voltairean
Justin,
Evolution is a fact. In science a theory is used differently than in common everyday language. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity and electricity and you don't hear a lot of people doubting those theories. IT IS A FACT AND THEIR IS NO DEBATE.
There is about as much legitimacy in the ID claims as there is for the arguments that my bald headed granny from cincinatti or that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe.
A couple better questions are why is it that you want to believe in ID? Do you believe that the bible is god's word? Infallible? Id be curious as to your answers if you care to share them. But either way, you should definitely be asking those questions.
155 - Quicksilver
Irreducible Complexity - Even using this term shows a huge degree of hubris on the part of the ID camp
1) They don't accept the current theory of evolution and so being all knowing pronounce that Man can never understand, by himself, his own origins.
2) Man must be the highest form of intelligence (other than God) and so if he cannot understand his origins than it is not understandable.
I reject both of these. I don't see why non-belief in Darwin implies you must believe creationism and I am humble enough to be able to concieve that we may one day encounter an intelligence (other than God) superior to our own.
Besides the whole human intelligence being the summit proposition becomes circular. If you believe the bible etc. then you believe we are the ultimate intelligence, but then you are already believing in creation. You can't have one without the other.
156 - JR
Justin Berry: If Humans evolved from monkeys and apes why do we still have monkeys and apes?
(sigh) This one again.
If Americans are descended from Europeans, Africans and Asians, why do we still have Europeans, Africans and Asians?
157 - DrPat
Voltarean, I'm warning you -- stop taking the name of the Pulsing Almighty Meatball in vain!
Are you some kind of Parmasan heretic? All you have to do is look at the surge in hurricanes lately to see what the cheesy lack of Pirates in the Gulf has brought us.
158 - diana hartman
Namely, that biological systems possess irreducible complexity which Darwinism does not have a mechanism to produce.
do biological systems possess irreducible complexity that ID has a mechanism to produce?
159 - The Searcher
Can complex adaptive systems arise and synthesize into more complex structures out of chaos from an initial set of conditions?
Going forward in time, apparently irreducible complexity, going backwards...apparently irreducible simplicty...
But how to get out the system to get the meta-view? Hopeless...
160 - diana hartman
But how to get out the system to get the meta-view? Hopeless...
not hopeless...remove the artificial condition of irreducible complexity and see where you stand...
161 - The Searcher
I'm not sure how an absence of irreducible complexity relates to the capability of an observer to achieve a detached "meta-view" of the quantum system being observed.
I certainly do not abide by projecting irreducible complexity on the universe, misrepresenting that projection as inherent truth, and then using it to prove that such complexity must have had a designer.
Who designed the pattern made by the paint droplets after a paintball strikes a brick wall and explodes?
To my way of thinking, which is perhaps flawed, the idea of a "prime mover" is untestable and hence would seem to be outside the realm of scientific investigation. But to go beyond that to "intelligent, intentful prime mover" is clear off the rails.
At least evolution is testable, given enough time.
162 - diana hartman
my bad...i should've said "not hopeless, moot"...
IC suggests that there is an inside and an outside, a beginning and an end, that anything can be viewed in its entirety...
if you do away with the notion of a beginning and an end, of an inside and an outside, then there is no going from "i can't see it all" to "i can see it all"...the idea of a meta view isn't hopeless, it's irrelevant...
we can't limit the view, we can only limit what we view...
163 - The Evil Atheist
If Americans are descended from Europeans, Africans and Asians, why do we still have Europeans, Africans and Asians?
Curses! Occurred to me last night, but you beat me to it.
164 - Anthony Grande
That is the most stupid question I have ever seen.
I hope you guys are just kidding.
Americans are not descended from Asians, Europeans and Africans, we ARE Asians, Europeans and Africans. Our spirit is American, but our blood tells a different story.
165 - The Evil Atheist
The idea is:
People from America = Americans
just like:
People of species Homo sapiens = human
Geddit?
166 - Anthony Grande
American = Nationality
European = Race
Asian = Race
African = Race
American is not a Race. My family came from Sicily; therefore Sicilian is my race and since I live in American American is my nationality.
The only people who can claim American as a race is the Native Americans.
167 - The Evil Atheist
He wasn't referring to American as a race. It was an analogy, you see, and you are trying to mangle it. What you are doing is:
A ≈ B (the analogy)
B
Therefore, C(B)
A
Therefore C(A)
Bad logic. Analogy remember.
168 - gonzo marx
"sicilian" is a nationality, not even a nationality , but a tribal reference..NOT a "race"...italian would be the nationality
"european" is not a race either, but a descriptive that is semantically equal to "american"
spend more time learning in school, it will help you be taken a bit more seriously when you attempt to enter rational debate
Excelsior!
169 - Anthony Grande
If you want to get technical: European, Italian, Sicilian are all not races. The race you are looking for is Caucasian.
Sicilian is a sub-Race. There is not one like them in the rest of Italy. We are a mixture of Greek, French, Italian, Norman, Arab, Spanish and if you insist Black. It is common in the Italian-American culture to say, "I am of the Sicilian race".
That's Right
170 - gonzo marx
just because something is commonly said does not make it factually accurate
an Axiom it would behoove you to contemplate and comprehend
Excelsior!
171 - KYS
"It is common in the Italian-American culture to say, "I am of the Sicilian race".
It's common in Italy, as well. Show me a Milano who doesn't differentiate.
Che catso dici?
172 - diana hartman
it's curious that ID and evolution are seen as opposites, as opposing ideas...
evolution by natural selection has no opposite -- except maybe evolution by unnatural selection or that nothing has evolved and that everything is the same as it ever was, and there is no evidence to support either of these...ID argues the contentions, findings, and research of evolution but it offers no proof or viable alternative to explain any of the physical evidence in support of evolution...
ID's entire existence is an assertion against evolution with no standing or merit of its own...that's not the opposite of something, that's just parasitic...
173 - The Searcher
Diana:
Thanks for clarifying your point about meta-view being moot.
The fact is that ID is a reactionary concept [it is not even a theory in the strict scientific sense], formulated with a specific intent to introduce a creator and to refute a particular theory; this is in the same sense that Satanism was formulated by one man as a reaction against Christianity.
I would invite the experts to educate us all: What are some experimentally testable predictive statements offered by evolutionary theory and ID, respectively?
174 - troll
*I would invite the experts to educate us all: What are some experimentally testable predictive statements offered by evolutionary theory and ID, respectively?*
please - silently retract this invitation - its like summoning beetlejuice
troll
175 - manonfire
"You now understand the other side of the evolution debate."
Haha, I'll say!
You probably have no idea how true that is.