With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
In order to better understand Intelligent Design, it is important to appreciate how it abuses and conflates terminologies. For instance, ID claims that science is unable to explain 'design' and yet it appeals to science being able to explain design as evidence that ID has content.
Let's look at the argument in more detail:
---
“In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role [in] the origin of the system.”
---
Now remember that complexity refers to our absence to understand how to explain something, and that the statement basically states that "when we do not understand something" and it is 'irreducible' then it must be designed. However, we do know that natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems exist, of course, since these pathways are natural, the complexity disappears. However, the same applies when we provide a design explanation.
In order for the design inference to be reliable, ID has to be able to show that there are no false positives. And yet we know that historically, people have erroneously assigned design and designers to thunder and lightning, disease, natural disasters, solar eclipses and so on, so the claim that design inferences are reliable is flawed. Now, the mere fact that design inferences are not reliable, does not mean that science cannot use design inferences reliably. But for that science assigns a plausible positive hypothesis which can compete with other explanations. For instance in criminology we look at means, motives and opportunities, combined with eye-witnesses, alibis and physical evidence to generate a plausible hypothesis which can establish "beyond reasonable doubt" the guilt or innocence.
These forms of design as known as regular design as opposed to rarefied design. In an excellent paper Wilkins et al explain the differences (1)
--
he second way that the inconsistency can be resolved is as we have already indicated, by recognizing a distinction between ordinary design and rarefied design. For those events where our background information includes information about how agents or processes produce events of high probability, we would assign those to the HP category and explain them with reference to regularity. This would preserve a place for a class of rarefied design in the Explanatory Filter, but Dembski's earlier arguments about design indicating agent causation because his Explanatory Filter captures our usual means of recognizing design would only apply to the class of ordinary design, not the desired rarefied design. It is only by the attempt to inconsistently treat agent causation as a privileged hypothesis that Dembski can (erroneously) claim that ordinary design and rarefied design share a node on the Explanatory Filter.
--
In other words, instances of rarefied design, since they cannot really compete with the "we don't know" explanation, cannot be assigned the category of 'design'.
Notice how ID manages by bait and switch to claim both that ID provides an alternative explanation to scientific explanations as well as that ID uses the same scientific approaches as science to make its case. Needless to say, it is trivial to point out the inherent contradiction and show that because of this conflation, ID attempts to claim that it uses similar approaches to science to infer design. However, even a cursory scrutiny of their claims quickly reveals that ID relies not on a scientific approach of providing positive explanations and hypothesis, but rather on elimination and since they refuse to present any way to constrain their designer and thus the design, they are unable to compete with our ignorance.
Needless to say, science has found that such simple mechanisms as regularity and chance can in fact increase information and complexity and create what is called in ID parlance "specified complexity" in the same manner as ID claims that 'designers' can create such complexity.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that ID refuses to admit that there exists a theory which outcompetes their preferred 'single designer' thesis, and shows that a hypothesis of "multiple designers" explains the data much better. The unwillingness and inability to address even the simple alternative, shows that ID is more concerned about its religious position than about science.
Ask yourself: What has ID done in a non trivial manner, that increases our scientific understanding in a positive manner? Nothing, in fact, it has attempted to downplay scientific knowledge, misrepresent scientific findings, to further its case. More on the latter part in a future contribution.
(1) Wilkins, John S, and Wesley R Elsberry. 2001. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 9:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: No
How does science explain information in life versus Intelligent Design proponents? And why do ID proponents misrepresent science when describing for instance neo-Darwinism?
--
Casey Luskin writes:
Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes. ID proponents contend that the information in life arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using scientific methods employed by standard historical sciences.
--
While I agree with Casey that science provides testable mechanisms to explain information in life, I disagree strongly with Casey's representation of neo-Darwinism where he conflates theological concepts such as purpose and where he equivocates on 'guided' and 'blind'. Anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would quickly come to realize that evolutionary processes are not 'blind' or even 'unguided', in fact, the only aspect of evolutionary theory which comes close to this description is the concept of 'random' as used when describing mutations. And all random really means is 'random with respect to the effect in a particular environment', in other words, mutations do no arise in response to environmental pressures immediately beneficial to said environment.
Casey's suggestion that evolutionary processes are blind and unguided, ignore, as is quite common amongst Creationists, that evolutionary processes include "natural selection" where the environment both guides and where the outcome of the process is not 'blind' but rather leads to function.
In fact, it is trivial to realize that natural selection is very similar to 'intelligent selection' where in the former case, information is transferred from the environment into the genome (as science has clearly shown to be the case), where the latter one involves the guidance of an intelligence responsible for said increase.
So, now we have a situation where we know that both natural and intelligent processes can cause information to increase and we are left to establish which of the various explanations are the best. Since ID refuses to contribute any scientific explanation which positively identifies the processes, mechanisms etc, it remains unable to compete not just with evolutionary science but also with our ignorance "we don't know hypothesis".
ID claims that information is best explained by intelligence and yet it provides no explanations.
Weird eh?
- PvM September 9, 2008 10:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
I must say that PvM has a way with words. A few of those words were when he claims that Casey Luskin misrepresents neo-Darwinism because, claiming that “Anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would quickly come to realize that evolutionary processes are not 'blind' or even 'unguided', in fact, the only aspect of evolutionary theory which comes close to this description is the concept of 'random' as used when describing mutations.”
But if you read Casey’s posts, it seems like he is familiar with evolutionary theory because he documents where textbooks and leading evolutionary biologists have described evolution in this fashion. For example, Luskin writes:
“Even the widely-touted theistic evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller has claimed in five editions of his highly popular high school biology textbooks that the implication of evolution is that it works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”(22)”
Luskin also documents:
“A very popular college evolutionary biology textbook (which I used for one of my upper division evolutionary biology courses during my undergraduate studies) declares that "[b]y coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."(12)”
Additionally, Luskin observes that Francisco Ayala wrote in a top scientific journal:
“Similarly, in the prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates that "Darwin’s greatest accomplishment” was to show that the origin of life’s complexity “can be explained as the result of a natural process--natural selection--without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."(13) Just to make sure that his readers don’t try to invoke some kind of “God-guided” evolution, Ayala writes that "[i]n evolution, there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations.”(14)”
It seems to me that Luskin is just describing evolution how it has been described in leading biology textbooks and how leading evolutionary biologists have described it. You might not like how leading evolutionary biologists have described evolution, but this is how they have described it. Don’t fault Luskin for quoting these authorities. If you don’t like how they describe evolution, take it up with these authorities.
- taxibound2 September 10, 2008 11:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
--Taxibound2--
I must say that PvM has a way with words. A few of those words were when he claims that Casey Luskin misrepresents neo-Darwinism because, claiming that “Anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would quickly come to realize that evolutionary processes are not 'blind' or even 'unguided', in fact, the only aspect of evolutionary theory which comes close to this description is the concept of 'random' as used when describing mutations.”
--
But if you read Casey’s posts, it seems like he is familiar with evolutionary theory because he documents where textbooks and leading evolutionary biologists have described evolution in this fashion. For example, Luskin writes:
“Even the widely-touted theistic evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller has claimed in five editions of his highly popular high school biology textbooks that the implication of evolution is that it works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”(22)”
--
So in other words, Casey's ignorance is justifiable because he can find a textbook which fails to explain the concept correctly? Is that the full extent of your argument? In fact, are you aware that the author of the textbook accepted responsibility for the flawed definition and had it removed?
As to Ayala, I fail to see your point since Ayala correctly describes the historical past
--“Similarly, in the prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates that "Darwin’s greatest accomplishment” was to show that the origin of life’s complexity “can be explained as the result of a natural process--natural selection--without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."(13)--
Without the need to resort to a Creator is what good science is all about. We all know how simplistically easy it is to assign our fears and ignorance to 'God's will', imagine our ancestors who saw God's hand in such issues as thunder and lightning or the stability of orbits of planets (Isaac Newton).
You may of course use Luskin's arguments but I suggest that there is a risk involved, namely that his own writings expose a further level of unfamiliarity with evolutionary science.
I am here to help you understand the 'rest of the story'
- PvM September 10, 2008 11:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
From Mr. Luskin's argument:
"Design theorists *hypothesize* that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.... When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they *conclude* that such structures were designed." (*emphasis* added)
So ID first hypothesizes that CSI implies design, and then concludes that the CSI in biology implies design. But this is nothing but a restatement of the hypothesis! What ID forgets to do is to confirm their hypothesis, and somehow empirically support the claim that CSI necessarily implies conscious planning. ID never even tries to do this.
Instead, ID attempts to make an induction from a single data point, arguing that since human beings can build complex machines and humans are conscious, then everything which can build complex machines must be conscious. But one data point is not sufficient to induce the characteristics of all possible "intelligent agents", and so there is no justification for suggesting the cause of biological complexity (whatever it might have been) was a conscious entity.
One could, by the exact same reasoning, argue that everything which can build complex machines must have large, complex, biological brains. But this would mean ID can't account for the *origin* of biological complexity after all.
So ID does not use the scientific method to infer anything at all. It merely assumes that all CSI must come from conscious minds because we humans can create it too, which is a perfectly unscientific argument.
- aiguy September 12, 2008 10:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: No
I have yet to read a single sentence from any ID proponent that provides "testable predictions about the type of informational properties we expect to find in nature if an intelligent agent were at work in designing a natural object." Over and over this or similar verbiage is used to defend ID, but ID never produces any predictions. This isn't a theory, this is an untested hypothesis.
"Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI."
Explicitly and accurately defining CSI in such a manner that a specific prediction can be made would be a good first step. For instance, no where do I find in any ID writing anything that I can use to identify CSI. Is CSI DNA? Is CSI morphology? Is CSI hair color or eye color? Is CSI behavior? How would I know CSI when I see it? Since I can't pin down exactly what CSI is, I can't make any predictions about it, or with it.
"Scientists employing ID compare observations of how intelligent agents act when they design things to observations of phenomena whose origin is unknown. Human intelligence provides a large empirical dataset for studying the products of the action of intelligent agents."
In the experience of human beings, other human beings are the only creatures we have ever demonstrably seen design anything. (Meaning we can prove that the designed thing was designed) ID STARTS from a biased position. How often has the design hypothesis, caused by this human bias to detect agents, failed when used to explain natural phenomena? Ask any child in Sunday school what thunder is, and you will hear a failed design hypothesis: "the angels are bowling."
"Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski observes that "the principal characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice."(5) When "an intelligent agent acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities" to create some complex and specified event. Dembski calls ID "a theory of information" where "information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation." ID thus seeks to find in nature the types of information which are known to be produced by intelligent agents, and reliably indicate the prior action of intelligence."
What information is 'known to be produced by intelligent agents, and reliably indicate the prior action of intelligence?' Again, define explicitly what CSI is.
"Irreducible complexity is a form of specified complexity, which exists in systems composed of "several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Because natural selection only preserves structures that confer a functional advantage to an organism, it is argued that such systems would be unlikely to evolve through a Darwinian process because there exists no evolutionary pathway wherein they could remain functional during each small evolutionary step."
Every time I have read an example of irreducible complexity put forth by ID proponents, it has taken literally seconds for me to do enough research to discover that someone has already either
a) performed the scientific research to explain, using evolutionary science, the rise of said example from primitive and simple beginnings to the 'irreducibly complex' structure found in nature, or
b) is currently DOING the scientific research, and the initial results look like they will show an evolutionary pathway for said example.
"ID is a historical science, meaning it employs the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that the present is the key to the past. ID investigations thus begin with observations about how intelligent agents operate and then proceed to convert those observations into positive predictions of what scientists should find in nature if intelligent design was involved in the origin of a given natural object."
Ok, fair enough. What are the 'positive predictions' made by ID?
"Specifically, the theory predicts that we will find large amounts of specified complexity in natural objects."
Oh, there they are. ID predicts that complex things are complex. Does ID offer anything MORE specific?
"Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes."
And it does so without explicit definitions of terms used in it's arguments, specific predictions, experiments that have validated it's predictions, or any other kind of evidence that is useful or relevant when evaluating it's truth claims.
When held to the standards of proof required for all other scientific theories, ID fails.
- PStryder September 15, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
--When held to the standards of proof required for all other scientific theories, ID fails.--
Science does not deal in proof but rather the ability to withstand attempts to disprove. As such evolutionary theory has done quite well.
- PvM September 15, 2008 9:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I grant your point sir.
- PStryder September 16, 2008 10:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I appreciate your contributions as they provide an independent view into why so many have come to accept the scientific vacuity of ID
- PvM September 16, 2008 11:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Casey Luskin writes:
"Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI"
How high is "high" ? Just what exactly are you measuring here? What are the units? At what value does something go from not-designed to designed? Why? What objects have you measured and what was their CSI ? What's the CSI of the following objects:
A dog?
A biscuit ?
An ecosystem?
A virus?
A clock?
A sculpture?
- phoenix September 17, 2008 1:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Quote:
| Intelligent design (ID) has scientific merit because it uses the scientific methods
| commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of
| the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not
| an undirected process such as natural selection.
There are two problem with this claim:
1) The other historical sciences look for known patterns. They use known data to cross-reference their finds. Thus, the comparison fails.
2) Natural selection is not undirected. This is a pretty fundamental part of Evolution. I am surprised that someone as strongly opposed to Evolution has failed to grasp even one of its most fundamental concepts.
| Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life
| arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes.
Here, the false claim that Evolution (Natural Selection) is "blind" is repeated. The previous claim to this effect was not a mere mistake, but rather reveals a pretty huge hole in the author's understanding of Evolution.
| Scientists employing ID compare observations of how intelligent
| agents act when they design things to observations of phenomena
| whose origin is unknown. Human intelligence provides a large
| empirical dataset for studying the products of the action of intelligent
| agents.
An interesting claim. Let's break it down:
1) How do you know that the alleged designer was human, or had the capabilities of a human? What research is there to support your assertion?
2) Humans have so far failed to create artificial intelligence, much less life that acts intelligently and can come up with its own design. The designs we have come up with so far are far from similar to our own brain. Computers are extremely good at calculations, but extremely poor at things our brain is good at.
3) By claiming that you are using a specific data set to look for design, are you not admitting that you must know the identity or ability of the intelligent agent which allegedly designed life? This seems contrary to the claim from Intelligent Design advocates that we need not know the abilities of the designer to detect design.
You now seem to be in a situation where you are contradicting yourself, which means that you have to clarify:
Either you must admit that your "design detection" is nothing like the historical sciences since you don't know what to look for, or you must admit that you are either making unscientific assumptions about the designer or you must claim to know the designer's identity/abilities.
| According to ID theorists, irreducible complexity thus is an
| informational pattern which may be taken as a reliable indicator
| of ID because “[i]n all irreducibly complex systems in which
| the cause of the system is known by experience or observation,
| intelligent design or engineering played a role [in] the origin of
| the system.”
In other words, ID is an argument from ignorance: "We don't know, therefore design."
| ID is a historical science, meaning it employs the principle
| of uniformitarianism, which holds that the present is the key
| to the past.
Are you saying that humans designed all life?
- WayOfTheDodo September 18, 2008 1:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
I am curious about one thing - Luskin states:
"ID investigations thus begin with observations about how intelligent agents operate and then proceed to convert those observations into positive predictions of what scientists should find in nature if intelligent design was involved in the origin of a given natural object."
He justifies this assertion with this:
"Specifically, the theory predicts that we will find large amounts of specified complexity in natural objects [after an exposition on an analogy employed by theologian/philosopher Meyer)...
As Meyer explains, “by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation.”(18) "
In other words - Meyer is making an argument via analogy - made with lots of buzzwords and unnecessarily verbose prose.
If that is why ID is scientific, and if that is an example of a "prediction" that has been "tested", then I am afraid that ID is utterly worthless, for it consists of:
1. Construct an analogy
DNA is sort of like languiage, it is a code - why, we even call it th egenetic code
2. Make a syllogism employing the sketchy analogy -
Humans are complex.
Humans make language/codes.
DNA is like a language/code.
Therefore, DNA was made by a complex being like a human
3. Manipulate syllogism so as to appear to be an hypothesis -
DNA, being coded information, must have been made by complex intelligent agents, since we know that other complex intelligent agents, us, make codes/languages
4. Conclude what was assumed in step 1 and call it a tested and confirmed prediction -
ID predicted that DNA would be the product of an intelligent agent because it contains coded informaiton.
We know that coded inforaiton comes from intelligent agents.
Therefore, DNA was made by an intelligent agent.
Therefore, DNA was designed.
Brilliant.
- slpage September 19, 2008 8:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
From Wikipedia, the Scientific Method!
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest
So you're telling me that a procedure that starts with 3, moves to 2, pretends to have done 4, combines 5 and 6, and never ever touches on 6 or 8 or 1 is "scientific?"
- sharky September 24, 2008 3:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
"Specifically, the theory predicts that we will find large amounts of specified complexity in natural objects."
If that "prediction" really meant anything, then the "theory" might actually be a theory. But since "specified complexity" can never be properly defined, the "prediction" is meaningless and there is no theory. And since there is no theory, it's not science and all the other silly claims of the "intelligent design" propagandists are irrelevant.
"Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.(20)"
Then reference 20:
20. For More on CSI Tests:
These kinds of tests were reported by pro-ID molecular biologist Doug Axe in Douglas D. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol 301:585-595 (2000); Douglas D. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, 1-21 (2004).
One reply to the 2004 paper ("Needless to say, the grand pronouncements being made by the ID camp are not warranted."):
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html
The 2004 Axe paper presents a claim that random mutations of a particular enzyme are likely to produce an enzyme with much reduced activity. In essence, it is a claim that evolution could not possibly work properly. But, of course, the critics say that the study is flawed.
"Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes."
Well, it would if it did, but since it doesn't, ...
- onein6billion October 7, 2008 10:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I am an experimental scientist. The notion of intelligent design directly impacts my areas of study. However, unlike scientific theories, ID does not make any predictions that I can attempt to test. There are no working hypotheses that might enrich my thinking on the subject. No specific information that can help me predict the interaction energies of the molecules I study. I can either believe it, or not - either way nothing much changes. Evolution raises questions and makes many predictions, some of them I can test and others are longer term, which I hope to see tested during my life. If ID offered me anything I could actually evaluate experimentally, just hinted at some new interesting avenue of research, I would be immediately interested.
Scientists tend to pragmatic about big ideas - does it help me explore what I am most interested in? ID is useless to me as a scientist, so I don't bother with it in the lab. To be honest, Cosmology isn't much help to me either, but I can see that they are clearly making hypotheses and working to disprove them. They might uncover something more that I can use - I am certainly grateful for quantum mechanics.
ID is an interesting subject for late-night discussions after a party - like philosophy, comparative religion, politics, and sports history. All good stuff! Not science.
- Adam Hammond December 3, 2008 7:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"I am an experimental scientist. The notion of intelligent design directly impacts my areas of study."
Seriously? Details please. Besides....
http://redwing.hutman.net /~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm
"However, unlike scientific theories, ID does not make any predictions that I can attempt to test. There are no working hypotheses that might enrich my thinking on the subject. No specific information that can help me predict the interaction energies of the molecules I study. I can either believe it, or not - either way nothing much changes."
For a good example of the research and predictions made by ID, I suggest you visit this site...
http://biologicinstitute.org /
"Evolution raises questions and makes many predictions, some of them I can test and others are longer term, which I hope to see tested during my life. If ID offered me anything I could actually evaluate experimentally, just hinted at some new interesting avenue of research, I would be immediately interested."
Evolution affects your study of energies within molecules??? Love to hear how that methodology works.
Speaking of research avenues and ID...
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-02-26T10_59_13-08_00
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-01-31T13_18_26-08_00
"Scientists tend to pragmatic about big ideas - does it help me explore what I am most interested in? ID is useless to me as a scientist, so I don't bother with it in the lab."
That would pretty much apply to anything else outside of molecular physics. Including....
"Cosmology isn't much help to me either, but I can see that they are clearly making hypotheses and working to disprove them. They might uncover something more that I can use - I am certainly grateful for quantum mechanics."
I guess ID fits just fine with cosmology in that case.
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-03-21T16_04_16-07_00
"ID is an interesting subject for late-night discussions after a party - like philosophy, comparative religion, politics, and sports history."
So it can be a good discussion topic. At least we agree on something.
"All good stuff! Not science."
Well, you're half right.
- F2XL December 11, 2008 5:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I only need one sentence to reply to this: Can the existence of a designer be verified by the scientific method? Oh it can't? Oh darn.
- ikenovak March 26, 2009 10:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/id-does-not-address-religious-claims-about-the-supernatural
A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause.
Many critics of ID mistakenly believe that the theory is focused upon studying the designer, alleging that it specifically invokes supernatural forces or a deity. But ID is not focused on studying the actual intelligent cause responsible for life. Instead, ID studies objects in nature, attempting to determine if natural objects bear an informational signature indicating that an intelligent cause was involved in their origin.
- Screen Name April 8, 2009 1:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause."
And outside of action from a designer, how can the existence of an "intelligent cause" actually result in any physical change?
It can't. Whoops, your "argument" is showing cracks.
Uh oh, you now have a bigger problem...
First you claim
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause."
Then you claim
"But ID is not focused on studying the actual intelligent cause responsible for life."
So, you say it's about studying the intelligent cause, then you say it isn't, and we're supposed ot take you seriously?
ID is nonsense, and it's so far from science that claiming it follows scientific method immediately invalidates one's opinion.
- Blappo May 6, 2009 8:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies natural objects to determine if they bear the tell-tale signs that they were designed by an intelligent cause." does not say "A. Intelligent design does not study the designer, but rather studies an intelligent cause."
- Screen Name May 25, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Casey Luskin knows how to use impressive multi-syllabic words to suggest that he's intelligent. By gosh, he almost sounds like a scientist when he says that "The form of information which reliably indicates design is generally called 'specified complexity' or 'complex and specified information,' " whatever the hell that means. Apparently, all it means is that if a process with many components (therefore "complex") behaves so as to head coherently in a single direction (therefore "specified"), then it must be the result of intelligent design . OK, then try this one.
Get a hundred people to each throw a handfull of sand, perhaps a thousand grains per handfull (that's "complex"), at a wall. Watch to see what happens. If all of the 100,000 grains reverse direction when they hit the wall and then curve downward and end up on the floor (that's "specified"), with absolutely no communication among them, then surely they must have been guided by an intelligent designer.
Ah, but Mr. Luskin would object that the analogy is irrelevant, because while there was some random component to the movement of the various grains of sand, in the final analysis they were all subject to the overriding influence of gravity, and that's why they moved in a similar way and ended up on the floor. That's true. And in the same way, the various organisms and their various organs have shown significant randomness throughout their evolution, but in the final analysis, they were all subject to the overriding influence of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. The least fit died; the most fit survived and contributed their genes to the next generation.
The grains of sand all ended up on the floor without any conscious intention of going there, just because they were all influenced by gravity. In the same way, all those organisms kept on improving their fitness without any intention on anyone's part, just because those who were most fit survived and reproduced while the least fit died, as any reasonable person would expect. What's so mysterious about that? Would you expect anything different? Do you need to hypothesize a grandfatherly old codger in the sky who manipulated every gene in every organism? Get real.
- Fearless Theorist September 6, 2009 1:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
ALL human design (and resulting construction) starts with what exists: a designer and things (entities). Human design is impossible without the designer understanding something about the existents he's designing with else he's not designing. At minimum he's juxtoposing entities at a certain time and place, in a certain orientation, which, itself is a form of design requiring human thought, a human able to act, and the ability to separate those entities from others by distinguishing their fixed attributes (order) from those of other existing entities.
ID trys to switch the argument from design with existents---a common human activity, to a non-existing designer that designs and constructs something from nothing. The design argument is false because of this bait-and-switch as noted by other commenter.
ID makes the common mistake of seeing what order and assuming that means it must have been designed. But, as I've shown, design requires order to prexist in the designer and the entities the designer designs with. Yes, new order is the result of the design, but that's how we distinguish what was designed or not. Not whether it has order, but whether it's possible for a human to have created it---designed and construct it.
- Stan101 September 24, 2009 9:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Theories are not supported by finding confirming evidence only. They are largely supported by consistently failing to find disconfirming evidence. Conversely, they are refuted by consistently finding disconfirming evidence. Confirming or disconfirming evidence is determined by making predictions. On the condition that the predictions logically follow from the explanation the theory provides, failed predictions are disconfirming evidence and successful predictions are confirming evidence. Although it is clear that ID has led to some successful predictions, the best way to test ID is ultimately to derive predictions that logically follow from the explanation and never (or hardly ever) make failed predictions.
Those opposed to ID must use ID and generate failed predictions even when the predictions logically follow from the explanation. Predictions that do not logically follow from the explanation will not be a test of ID. For example, stating "If there is design in nature, then nature will be perfect" contains a prediction that does not logically follow from the explanation. This is because we have a wealth of experiences with designed objects, none of which are "perfect". Another example of an illogical prediction is "If the world is designed, then there should be no pain and suffering". This is because we have experiences of designed things that cause great pain and suffering.
I would like to see real scientists do real tests of ID.
- ufcarazy January 20, 2009 9:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
ufcarazy> "Although it is clear that ID has led to some successful predictions"
Really? What predictions has ID made? And, along those lines, how exactly would ID be falsifiable? Without valid answers to these two questions, it does not even begin to qualify as science .
- The Dark Ride August 30, 2009 6:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
- Features that appear vestigial and functionless actually serve a function (eg., appendix, coccyx)
- "Junk" DNA does, in fact, have a function.
- The alteration of an organism will not always be slow and gradual, or step-by-step.
- That which determines the fundamental features of an organism will be logical and ordered (eg. DNA), as opposed to random.
- There is no explanation invoking randomness or chance that can explain specified complexity.
ID would be falsifiable by testing its predictions. Some scientists have already claimed that ID has been falsified and adequately refuted, such as Ken Miller. Some non-scientist evolutionists believe that the ability to produce a mousetrap with fewer parts falsifies intelligent design . Seemingly every evolutionist believes that imperfection falsifies intelligent design. There is also a paper published in Science (1) that claims that a study by Bridgham and a study by Lenski “solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument”. Unsurprisingly the very next sentence is contradictory: “Those ‘alternate’ ideas, unlike the hypotheses investigated in these papers, remain thoroughly untested."
(1) Adami, C. (2006). Reducible Complexity. Science, 312 (5770), 61-63.
- ufcarazy September 1, 2009 1:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"- Features that appear vestigial and functionless actually serve a function (eg., appendix, coccyx)"
So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?
"- "Junk" DNA does, in fact, have a function."
ID only says that all DNA has to have a purpose, it does not predict what that purpose is or describe a mechanism for how that part of the DNA strand came to be.
"- The alteration of an organism will not always be slow and gradual, or step-by-step."
Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.
"- That which determines the fundamental features of an organism will be logical and ordered (eg. DNA), as opposed to random."
The Theory of Evolution says the same thing... features are not random, they are 'built' on features already present in an organism (A fish cannot give birth to a bird).
"- There is no explanation invoking randomness or chance that can explain specified complexity."
Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?
"ID would be falsifiable by testing its predictions. Some scientists have already claimed that ID has been falsified and adequately refuted, such as Ken Miller."
Like the bacteria flagellum... which was claimed to be 'irreducibly complex' but has since been demonstrated to be otherwise.
"There is also a paper published in Science (1) that claims that a study by Bridgham and a study by Lenski “solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument”."
You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment? Where E.Coli bacteria underwent a significant change (gaining the ability to use Citric Acid as a food source) over the span of twenty years? That experiment was a very good example of how a species can change in the presence of environmental pressures... without genetic manipulation from a 'designer'
"Unsurprisingly the very next sentence is contradictory: “Those ‘alternate’ ideas, unlike the hypotheses investigated in these papers, remain thoroughly untested.""
How so? Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show the manipulation of a designer?
- MrBook September 1, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
“So what, using intelligent design , is the purpose of the appendix?”
ID simply predicted that the appendix would have a function. The degree of specificity in our predictions concerning what an intelligence will or will not do is limited due to intelligent agents having freedom in their creation. For example, we can predict that Tom Cruise’s next movie will be an action flick, but we cannot predict the plot of the movie before he agrees to a part.
“Where does evolutionary theory say that it will be slow or gradual? Evolution has been observed to act very quickly, sometimes over the course of decades.”
It is true that evolution ( change over time) has been observed to act quickly, but the theory of evolution has from day one predicted that this change has always occurred step-by-step. The first time this prediction was made using the theory of evolution was in the Origin of Species. However, the Cambrian Explosion demonstrated this prediction to be false even before random natural processes wrote the Origin of Species.
“Specified complexity? Can you qualify that further?”
Specified complexity describes any sort of pattern. Some patterns are specific but not complex (eg., gtgtgtgtg). Some patterns are complex but not specific (eg., ctaagtcg). Some patterns are both specific and complex (eg., gattaca).
“Like the bacteria flagellum...”
Exactly. Ken Miller has claimed to have tested a supposedly untestable claim, a claim that is supposedly religious and has nothing to do with science .
“You mean the Lenski long term evolution experiment?...”
The Lenski study did not show e. coli changing into a different species of bacteria via undirected processes. The bacteria began as e. coli and ended as e. coli. Even if e. coli did change into a different species, the study would not justify inferring that all life changes into new species via non-intelligent processes.
Concerning the paper published in Science, the author claimed that ID is untestable immediately after claiming that it had been tested and refuted. This contradiction was ignored by the reviewers and editors of the journal.
“Can you show one recorded demonstration of intelligent design in action? One scientific study that would show
Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID misleading
The pro-IDers claim that "ID Uses Scientific Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive PredictionsDiscovery Institute on ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions"
However this is false and misleading. First of all it is important to point out that by design, ID means the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance". Now what does this mean? This means that when science fails to have found an explanation for any particular system, ID argues that the default should not be "we don't know" but rather "design".
In other words, design is a place holder for our ignorance. Now ask yourself, does ID provide any positive explanations? Of course it does not. How otherwise does ID explain the bacterial flagellum? It provides no testable hypotheses beyond the negative claim that "science cannot explain it".
Notice that ID remains scientifically vacuous, that is without merit, because it is unable to constrain its designer(s) which means that as an explanation it cannot even compete with the "we don't know" category.
In other words, ID uses misleading terminology as well as bait and switch to make its claims. Ask yourself for instance: how does ID define 'information' and how to does it actually use this terminology?
Information is the negative base two logarithm of the probability that a particular system can be explained by science. In other words, complexity or information, two terms which are used interchangeably by ID disappears when one can explain the system. But that also means that no complexity remains if ID were to be able to explain the system.
Realize that ID has failed to be scientifically relevant in any non trivial manner and you will come to realize why it has remained and is in fact doomed to remain, scientifically vacuous.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 8:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (7)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are not looking at it scientifically
PvM said:
quote
"The pro-IDers claim that "ID Uses Scientific Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive PredictionsDiscovery Institute on ID Uses Scien. Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions"
However this is false and misleading. First of all it is important to point out that by design, ID means the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance". Now what does this mean? This means that when science fails to have found an explanation for any particular system, ID argues that the default should not be "we don't know" but rather "design"."
/quote
I personally wouldn't attribute this kind of stuff to ID without more direct evidence than an "appearance" but a scientist wouldn't call this an explanation, (like you seem to think that IDists would), rather, (s)he would say that the so called, "appearance of design" that is often a common feature to these arguments, warrants further scientific investigation.
It is unfair for you to say that IDists will claim that this is the answer, end of story, when in fact, the science that is being begged by the "appearance" is only for further investigation into the "apparent plausibility" that there is some kind of strong anthropic constraint at work here that is a part of some good physical reason why we might be entirely necessary to the energy economy of the ecosystem to which we belong*.
You pretend like the "appearance" doesn't beg a real scientific question, because you are over-reacting to your perceived motivation of IDists, but not because you are thinking like an honest scientist would.
-A REAL country heard from
- island September 10, 2008 3:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hit a nerve?
--Island states--
You pretend like the "appearance" doesn't beg a real scientific question, because you are over-reacting to your perceived motivation of IDists, but not because you are thinking like an honest scientist would.
--
I am not sure what your argument is but given the ad hominem, I doubt that it is very relevant. Appearance of design does beg a real scientific question, however science has so far shown how honest scientists resolve this issue. After all, we know that us humans are very easily deceived in seeing design where there is none. This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation.
As to ID, what do they do to resolve the issue of appearance of design? Nothing really because they refuse to go beyond the design inference approach. Ask yourself, what have ID proponents done in this area?
Pray tell.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 8:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Apparently I did hit a nerve, yes...
... because I simply stated a common fact, and there was no "ad hominem" involved, but, as you stated, you "did not get the point", so you see it as an insult.
PvM says:
"Appearance of design does beg a real scientific question"
and
"This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation."
But is the adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end?... which is the question that the "appearance" calls for that is willfully ignored by scientists. Science doesn't give equal time to the guy that's standing over the body holding the smoking gun, (the most apparent implication of the evidence), because reactionary scientists think that it looks too much like god, so the single investigated possibility is strictly limited to... "This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation"... no matter how long it takes to prove it.
And they don't ever see this as the violation of the scientific method that it really is because they wrongly believe that "agency" necessarily equates to an intelligent agent...
Which makes the debate political, rather than scientific, much to the highly vocal chagrin of theoretically righteous scientists...
... which makes ID... a necessary evil to counterbalance the historically recorded fact that scientists are stereotypically anti-centric in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.
It is begrudgingly known to scientists as "Copernicanism".
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23 /
http://knol.google.com/k/richard-ryals/the-anthropic-principle/1cb34nnchgkl5/2
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2006/11/very-strong-anthropic-principle.html
- island September 10, 2008 10:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Honest scientist
You are missing the point, the ad hominem is not that I did not understand your argument, I can see why, given your limited exposure to ID, you may have come to that conclusion. Rather, I was referring to your statement "honest scientist".
--Island--
But is the adaptation guided by some higher agency to a specific end?...
---
A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous.
--Island--
Which makes the debate political, rather than scientific, much to the highly vocal chagrin of theoretically righteous scientists...
---
I think you are a bit to rough on your fellow ID proponents.
--Island--
Science doesn't give equal time to the guy that's standing over the body holding the smoking gun, (the most apparent implication of the evidence), because reactionary scientists think that it looks too much like god, so the single investigated possibility is strictly limited to... "This is very likely an evolutionary adaptation"... no matter how long it takes to prove it.
--
Where did we see God standing over the victim? The reason science does not give equal time to ID is because it presents nothing scientifically relevant, it's really that simple. Call it 'reactionary' or 'old fashioned' that scientists insists on something scientifically relevant.
Remember, design always remains a possibility, even when science manages to explain the supposedly 'designed' features, such is the nature of theology versus science. However, agency is never truly of the table, scientifically speaking, as ID very well realizes when it comes to historical sciences. So how come that, unlike these historical sciences, ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nope
PvM stated:
"A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous."
No, that's false, and this empirically evidenced plausibility doesn't even have to be right for your convenient ignorance of the plausibilty to have proven my point:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
- island September 10, 2008 10:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Design is always a theoretical possibility
--I wrote: --
"A good philosophical question and I think you and I would agree that this adaptation could have been guided by some higher agency, of course, by using a fully natural mechanism, such questions remain scientifically vacuous."
--
--Island--
No, that's false, and this empirically evidenced plausibility doesn't even have to be right for your convenient ignorance of the plausibilty to have proven my point:
--
I am not ignoring the plausibility, I told you as much when I stated that design always remains a possibility. What I am arguing is that a plausibility is not sufficient for it to be scientifically with merit. In fact, ID has shown nothing to go beyond its eliminative and thus highly unreliable approach to detect rarefied design.
Perhaps you can show us how ID has contributed in this area to make the question a scientifically tractable one?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Copernicanism isn't honest science...
PvM said:
Rather, I was referring to your statement "honest scientist".
So was I, and had you clicked on the very first link or even read the rest of the post, then you'd know why.
Pvm:
"I can see why, given your limited exposure to ID..."
LOL!
- island September 10, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The truth comes out...
PvM exposed his motives:
"I think you are a bit to rough on your fellow ID proponents."
I'm an atheist, a materialist, and a Darwinist, but you willingness to find god where no reason was given, proves just about everything that was said about how reactionary antifanatics hurt science just as much as any fanatical cretionist ever does.
So take your politics and vote.
- island September 10, 2008 11:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So take your politics and vote.
I surely intend to do so, but these issues go beyond questions of policy. I am not sure about reactionary antifanatics and how you believe it applies to me, but I can reassure you that rather than being fanatic, I am well informed and committed to my faith and good science. If that means I am guilty of some 'crime' in your eyes, then I plead willingly and proudly guilty as I stand for accuracy in science, freedom of religion and more.
I have many reasons to find 'god' and I am sure that I do not confuse my theology with my scientific endeavours, since both would suffer.
I am still somewhat lost as to the nature of your argument but at least I can attempt to address your confusions.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?"
You said "ID has failed to contribute in any meaningful manner?"
Wrong! Newton, Pascal, Einstein, and many others put stock in the ID theory. This is why they figured out what they did. With the assumption of ID you can bet that there is order to the natural world and that it its knowable. Einstein believed as much as people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and many others want to believe. After all, he was on a quest to discover the "Theory of Everything" or "to read the mind of GOD". When asked what was his objection to Quantum Mechanics he was quoted as saying, "I refuse to believe GOD would play chance with the Universe"
The better question is:
"What has evolutionary biology contributed in a meaningful matter?"
I'll help you out. Mr. Richard Dawkins said that using a computer program to map out piping to containers that over generations the program had calculated the perfect plumbing for this system. Then, proceeded to say that we see the same type of ducting system in canine livers.
Ha!
That simply means that (1)there was an intelligence behind both, and (2) your program sucked because it took more than one try.
If the bank took more than one try to deposit your check, you'd be pretty steamed. You be mad to continue banking with them.
So why then, do you trust a theory in which death & time are the heroes and is obviously lacking the same credentials that you claim apply to ID.
"Pull the beam out of your eye before trying to pull the splinter out of mine!"
Jesus of Nazareth
"Asking an atheist why he can't find GOD is like asking a thief why he can't find a police officer."
Kent Hovind
- archfilejockey
September 11, 2008 1:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's not add to the confusion.
I understand why ID proponents would like to embrace Newton and others as relevant to ID. And when pressed for details, the best they can come up with is that their faith guided them in developing scientific theories, theories which had no relevance to ID since it was based on methodological naturalism.
It's this regrettable confusion which may give ID more relevance in people's minds than it really deserves. Wanting to 'read the mind of God' can be a useful metaphor to spur scientific research to the same extent as 'wanting to discover a theory of everything' to better understand nature. One should not confuse this with ID having a meaningfull manner to science.
In fact, with Newton, one of the few ID explanations he provided, was shown to be quite wrong and it took until Laplace figured it out, to correct Newton's 'foolish' suggestion that since he could not understand how orbits of planets would remain stable, it would require God to actively correct these orbits.
The concept of God is one of faith alone, once you have accepted the existence, it is hard to imagine a world without, but similarly, to those who have not found the need or for those who were not grown up in a religious environment, the need for a God or gods seems rather foolish. And neither side really has compelling scientific arguments as to why one position should be better than others.
So let's not confuse these issues. ID is already confusing enough.
PS: Since you used double quotes to describe Einstein's response, it would be helpful to correctly quote him. It was not "I refuse to believe GOD would play chance with the Universe" but rather
"I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice." (Einstein in a 1929 letter to Max Born).
However, Einstein was hardly appealing to a God as guiding his quest for science.
--
Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
---
Source: Wikipedia "Einstein"
- PvM
September 11, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Quoting Kent Hovind In An Intelligent Design Discussion Is A Mistake
"Archfilejockey" quoted Kent Hovind as saying: "Asking an atheist why he can't find GOD is like asking a thief why he can't find a police officer."
Unfortunately for Kent Hovind, he has no problem finding police officers and prison guards in his current residence - he's serving time in federal prison for tax-related crimes. Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist and has the dubious distinction of having other Young Earth Creationist individuals and organizations such as Answers in Genesis criticize his excessive zeal.
Quoting such ardent defenders of Young Earth Creationism as Kent Hovind in defense of intelligent design creationism is anathema to the Discovery Institute, as they continue to try desperately to convince the world that intelligent design creationism has scientific merit rather than religious merit.
- Paul Burnett
September 13, 2008 4:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
conflating evolution with the creation of the universe
Einstein's quotes are not supportive of ID, he was talking about the fabric of the universe, not the means by which species evolve. This is a common shell game played by ID proponents. They setup some premise based on the creation of the universe then draw a conclusion about evolution and hope that no one notices. Evolution and the creation of the universe (or the fabric of the universe) are not the same issue.
- reckoner
October 16, 2008 10:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Looking at things scientifically?
Science is ultimately based on the scientific method, which is used to support and confirm physical and chemical laws. It is the application of those laws to the past that makes natural history possible and the application of those same laws to the future that makes it possible to make predictions.
The question is, what physical and chemical laws are in play in Intelligent Design? We know evolution is scientific because it does not contradict any scientific laws, we can make predictions based on evolutionary theory, and we can falsify it by finding a possible mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating beyond a certain limit, making evolution beyond the limits of a "created kind" impossible. But we have found no such thing, ever.
You cannot test to see if something in biology is "intelligently designed" by reference to scientific laws. Instead, you would ASSUME something is designed just because it looks complex and specific, but such complexity is indeed possible via natural selection, because complex organisms may have survival value over less complex organisms. DNA, RNA, and proteins are polymers, molecules that are made of repeating parts, and they can actually be of unlimited length, so their complexity is also unlimited.
In short, there is NO evidence for Intelligent Design. None. It is theology, nothing more.
- Dale Husband
September 11, 2008 11:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (7)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
AC Grayling v Fuller
Grayling explains, in his review of Fuller's latest book, quite well how ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous
--
Fuller has written about Popper; he seems to forget Popper’s killer point, namely, a theory that explains everything explains nothing. ID is such a theory; everything is consistent with it, nothing disproves it. The idea that there is such a thing as a deity behaves logically as a contradiction does (unsurprisingly, because the idea is indeed contradictory): anything whatever follows from it. (But presumably this is okay for Fuller because he was educated by Jesuits.)
--
AC Grayling, Origin of the specious, New, Humanist, Volume 123 Issue 5 September/October 2008
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1856
In his response, Fuller shows that he has fallen victim to the bait and switch of ID
--Fuller
But on to Grayling’s most glaring deficiency vis-à-vis the topic of Dissent over Descent: his sheer ignorance of ID’s argument structure, which is not that of a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) who looks for whatever evidence supports his pet theory. Generally speaking, ID is defended on the basis of what philosophers of science call “inference to the best explanation” for the plausibility of design over chance in nature
--
But ID is NOT about an inference to the best explanation, something trivially shown by asking any ID proponent how ID explains the bacterial flagella, which due to lack of sufficient scientific understanding was claimed to have been 'designed'
Of course, this somewhat foolish argument sets up Fuller for a scathing response
--Grayling:
I am, says Fuller, ignorant (sheerly so; this is the glaring deficiency in my case) of "ID's argument structure", which is - argument to the best explanation! Oh pul-eese! I ignored this bit in my review out of a kind of residual collegiality, for even among the toxicities that flow when members of the professoriate fall out, embarrassment on others" behalf is a restraint. But he asks for it. Argument to the best explanation! Look: there is a great deal we do not know about this world of ours, but what is beautiful about science is that its practitioners do not panic and say "cripes! we don't understand this, so we must grab something quick - attribute it to the intelligent designing activity of Fred (or Zeus or the Tooth Fairy or any arbitrary supernatural agency given ad hoc powers suitable to the task) because we can't at present think of a better explanation." They do not make a hasty grab for a lousy "best explanation" because they have serious thoughts about the kind of thing that can count as such. Instead of quick ad hoc fixes, they live with the open-ended nature of scientific enquiry, hypothesising and testing, trying to work things out rationally and conservatively on the basis of what is so far well-attested and secure. What looks like having a chance of being both an "explanation" and the "best" in a specific case turns on there being a well-disciplined idea of "best" for that specific case. But an hypothesis has no hope of becoming the best explanation (until a better comes along) unless it survives testing, is specific, and is consistent and conservative with respect to much else that is secure. This is a far cry from the gestural "best explanation" move that ID theorists attempt, which - and note this carefully - does not restrict itself to individual puzzles only, but applies to Life, the Universe and Everything. It has to, at risk of incoherence; and yet by doing so, it collapses into incoherence.
--
Well said. Seems that many people have fallen victim of the erroneous claim that ID is an inference to the best explanation. After all he should have consulted Dembski who is on the records as
--Dembski
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: ”Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
--
Are there still any ID proponents out there willing to defend the position?
- PvM
September 13, 2008 9:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PvM misleading
PvM wrote:
However this is false and misleading. First of all it is important to point out that by design, ID means the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance". Now what does this mean? This means that when science fails to have found an explanation for any particular system, ID argues that the default should not be "we don't know" but rather "design".
This is false and misleading. ID does not attempt to fill gaps in science, it looks at the same evidence produced by science (eg, the mechanics of molecular biology) and draws an inference different from folks like PvM. ID sees a complex system which contains inter-dependent parts, assembled in a highly specific way, does the math on probability this arrangement could arise by chance and concludes the system is designed. Period. No god, no gap filling.
I invite PvM to cite any leading ID theorist filling gaps in scientific knowledge with ID, as claimed above. Just one.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 8:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Glad you asked
--Hghlander--
This is false and misleading. ID does not attempt to fill gaps in science, it looks at the same evidence produced by science (eg, the mechanics of molecular biology) and draws an inference different from folks like PvM.
---
While many unfamiliar with ID may believe this to be the case, and indeed, the Discovery Institute has done a good job confusing its followers, it is important to realize that this is exactly how ID works.
I am sure that Highlander is familiar with the foundational works of Behe and Dembski, both rely on the absence of science being able to explain a particular feature to infer 'design'.
--Highlander--
ID sees a complex system which contains inter-dependent parts, assembled in a highly
specific way, does the math on probability this arrangement could arise by chance and concludes the system is designed. Period. No god, no gap filling.
---
That is incorrect as well, in fact in ID speak, complex means 'lacking scientific explanations', nothing more, nothing less. From this, ID conflates the meaning of complexity with what one has come to understand as complexity in science, which is not the same as how ID 'defines' it.
Sneaky eh..
But I can understand the levels of confusion. For instance, Highlander asserts that ID calculates the probability that something was designed by chance and then concludes 'design'. While this description only superficially matches the design inference, it shows the gap filling of "not chance thus design", nothing more, nothing less. Of course, ID has not done any non trivial calculations of probabilities and worse, it does not have to reject chance alone, which is often the simplest and still intractable calculation, but it also has to exclude regularity pathways. And yet, ask yourself, what calculations exist for the bacterial flagellum or any non trivial biological system?
None I tell you. Surprised? I bet. This is but one reason ID has remained scientifically without content.
--Highlander--
I invite PvM to cite any leading ID theorist filling gaps in scientific knowledge with ID, as claimed above. Just one.
---
Dembski, Behe come to mind.
Glad you asked. Many ID proponents are only vaguely familiar with ID.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In depth exploration
---
Okay, let’s start with how ID tries to infer design, namely by using the Design Inference. In order for something to be designed, it needs to be ‘specified’ and sufficiently ‘complex’. So what is really meant by these terms? Specification basically means that there exists an independent description of the event or system, and as Dembski points out in biology ‘specification’ is trivially met by function. So what about ‘complexity’? Unlike the more common meaning of the term, complexity in ID speak refers to something which cannot (yet) be explained by regularity and/or chance. When these requirements are met, a design inference is triggered. In other words, a design inference bascially states that something functional whose origin we do not (yet) understand and is thus specified and complex, is also ‘designed’. Or to use Del Ratzsch’s description: Design is the “set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance. “. This clearly qualifiies as an argument from ignorance, also known as a ‘gap argument’.
So far so good, Intelligent Design is inferred based on our ignorance not because of what we know. So how do ID activists make the claim that ID is based on ‘positive evidence’? After all, it seems self evident that ID cannot make any predictions or that it is based on ‘positive evidence’. After all, without knowing the intentions or capabilities of the Designer, how can one make any predictions? Anything goes…
---
As to the scientific vacuity, Ryan Nichols states it best
--Ryan Nichols--
In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I’ll argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t imply anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By ‘content’ I refer to a body of determinate principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By ‘principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue. By ‘determinate principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions of its terms are clearly defined. I’ll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter ‘IDT’) grounds an empirical research program. Later in the paper I assess a recent trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes research. I’ll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.
--
Source: Ryan Nichols, "Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of intelligent design theory", The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003, vol. 77, no4, pp. 591-611
From my contribution at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/post_17.html
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Assertions needing cites
--PvM--
| I am sure that Highlander is familiar with the
| foundational works of Behe and Dembski,
| both rely on the absence of science being
| able to explain a particular feature to infer 'design'.
Would that a citation exist to back this one up!
I am familiar with their works. Not familiar with that argument, though. I think PvM may be conflating 'science' with 'evidence supporting materialist assumptions'. The above statement is true with this substitution.
--PvM--
| That is incorrect as well, in fact in ID speak,
| complex means 'lacking scientific explanations',
| nothing more, nothing less. From this, ID conflates
| the meaning of complexity with what one has
| come to understand as complexity in science,
| which is not the same as how ID 'defines' it.
Again, a citation would be nice. I don't expect them considering PvM's continued conflation of 'science' with 'evidence supporting materialist assumptions'.
ID does say that complexity alone isn't a sign of intelligence, but irreducible complexity is. The criteria have been revised over the years to clarify, but the core idea is sound: A complex system with inter-dependent parts has a much higher probabilistic hurdle for spontaneous unguided assembly. A simple analogy is the game "Mouse Trap" - if all the parts aren't in the right place, the metal ball won't reach the trigger to drop the plastic net.
PvM is also confirming the falsifiability of ID with this statement. ID proponents do say an empirical demonstration (evidence supporting materialist assumptions) of an unguided process producing such interdependent systems, while retaining over-all reproductive ability, would falsify the design inference. Human technology, a result of intelligence, is chock full of irreducibly complex systems. It is therefore not unreasonable to infer intelligence in biological systems absent evidence supporting materialist assumptions.
--PvM--
| Highlander asserts that ID calculates the probability
| that something was designed by chance and then
| concludes 'design'. While this description only
| superficially matches the design inference, it shows
| the gap filling of "not chance thus design", nothing
| more, nothing less. Of course, ID has not done any
| non trivial calculations of probabilities and worse, it
| does not have to reject chance alone, which is often
| the simplest and still intractable calculation, but it
| also has to exclude regularity pathways. And yet,
| ask yourself, what calculations exist for the
| bacterial flagellum or any non trivial biological system?
Dembski wrote a book and has a website and several papers detailing the scope of input points and explaining how and why statistical probabilities are used and calculated. In real life they are used to distinguish/derive (designed) signals from (random) noise.
PvM seems unaware randomness and design are mutually exclusive concepts. I understand 'chance' as shorthand for that which happens as a result of unguided (random) interaction of matter according to human understanding of forces and material chemistry. 'Organized' means ordered with intent and implies intelligence Human tech. varies in level of organizational complexity, but is wholly caused by intelligent action upon matter. This organization (design) is inferred because the arrangement of such matter defies explanation appealing to chance.
The calculations on flagellum are irrelevant, but can be derived given accurate input points - how many of each different proteins are needed? Which components are required for it to function as needed - (ie, if the cell needs to move to survive, what functional parts are needed), how many nucleotides are needed to code the RNA template of each protein? And so on...
The lack of evidence supporting materialist assumptions complexity is a chance arrangement means the opposite could be true. That many of these systems look designed and that science has not (even remotely) demonstrated a chance pathway to such organization, leaves design as the logical alternative. Until proven otherwise.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 11:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Chance, no chance
--Highlander--
PvM seems unaware randomness and design are mutually exclusive concepts.
---
Pray tell given that I have shown you how ID defines design to be the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance. Or perhaps I should translate this somewhat technical phrase? Let me attempt to explain. Design is the compliment (mutually exclusive) of regularity-or-chance explanations. Of course, this is wrong in the sense that it may ignore the fact that randomness can in fact be an attribute of a designer and of course, the simplistic statement that randomness and design are mutually exclusive only captures part of the ID argument.
By focusing on pure chance, Highlander has shown that he does not understand the ID argument and has highlighted one of the major problems for ID, namely that regularity and chance can explain information and complexity quite well.
Until we clarify the terminology, highlander's arguments seem irrelevant at best as they argue a strawman version of reality.
When asked for examples, Highlander remains without any, exemplifying once again the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design. Why, if design depends so strongly on this step, are ID proponents unable to calculate any relevant measure of probability for said supposedly 'designed' systems?
That's the $1M dollar question. I would like to buy a vowel, Alex.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Still no cites?
Naming two well known ID proponents does not a citation make to support PvM's twisted version of ID arguments. I've asked for them repeatedly and he's dodging. What PvM still fails to understand is that probability is a measure of random outcomes. It cannot 'prove' design because it isn't a measure of agency.
Probability tells us how often to expect a certain arrangement of a given number of items within the whole set of items. We expect fellow poker players to get flushes and straights and even straight flushes. We know a royal flush is possible but not very probable so we might naturally suspect a fix on the deal if several royal flushes were dealt in an evening of cards. Extend that to a running game over many days and we are less suspicious. Why? Because of all possible arrangements of hands, a royal flush is the least probable and very unlikely to be repeated in a limited number of deals. A deck of cards is cut before dealing as a check on intentional sorting.
So we could go through all the permutations of flagellar components, the number and arrangement of proteins, the nucleotides needed to code them and so on, but why? If we stumbled upon a starter motor in the middle of a remote Amazonian jungle, our experience would immediately eliminate it as a product of environmental selection. The exact same is true when modern science reveals an IC structure such as the flagellar motor & assembly. The absence of a plausible natural pathway means the design inference is valid. The appearance of such a pathway would falsify design.
I have not focused on pure chance, either. Regularity and chance can explain re-arrangement of existing systems, but I would (again) request PvM produce citations to support his central claim that specified information is an emergent property of matter.
That I do not address other aspects of the ID argument doesn't mean I've I excluded them. I'm just addressing the simple core of ID: Design eliminates chance as a cause. Initial biological systems formed by chance collision of the right stuff in the right environment at the right time, growing more and more complex either happened or did not.
If the question is whether some arrangement of matter is random or designed, then assuming chance fills the gap beforehand is classic question begging. PvM's circular proof therefore doesn't stand. His allusions to facts to which he offers no support, other than the force of his assertion 'regularity and chance can explain information and complexity quite well', stand wholly unsupported.
Okay PvM. Support that last one. Cite the literature which demonstrates how information and complexity are easily explained by regularity and chance. That would falsify a central proposition of ID. Since you said it would be easy, I eagerly await the citation.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 1:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
See below
Seems Highlander was somewhat quick in his 'response' as I am more than willing to support my claims.
--
Naming two well known ID proponents does not a citation make to support PvM's twisted version of ID arguments. I've asked for them repeatedly and he's dodging. What PvM still fails to understand is that probability is a measure of random outcomes. It cannot 'prove' design because it isn't a measure of agency.
--
I love the assertion that my version of ID is twisted, when it is based on the writings of ID proponents. Perhaps Highlander knows something we may not know?
Am I dodging his 'repeated requests'? Of course not.
Highlander asks for another cite
--
Okay PvM. Support that last one. Cite the literature which demonstrates how information and complexity are easily explained by regularity and chance. That would falsify a central proposition of ID. Since you said it would be easy, I eagerly await the citation.
--
As I said, this is simple and quite well known in the ID world. I guess that means that it would indeed falsify a central proposition of ID?
Nuff said
Tom Schneider, "evolution of biological information" Nucleic Acids Res", vol 28(14), 2794-2799, 2000. http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov /~toms/paper/ev/blog-ev.html
Kim JT, Martinetz T, Polani D, Bioinformatic principles underlying the information content of transcription factor binding sites, J. of Theor. Biology, Volume: 220 , Issue: 4 , Pages: 529-544 , Published: FEB 21 2003
Christoph Adami, Charles Ofria and Travis C. Collier, "Evolution of biological complexity", PNAS April 25, 2000 vol. 97 no. 9 4463-4468
--Abstract--
To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural “Maxwell Demon,” within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.
--
Christoph Adami, Sequence complexity in Darwinian evolution, Complexity, Volume 8 , Issue 2, Pages: 49 - 56 , 2002
--Abstract--
Whether or not Darwinian evolution leads to an increase in complexity depends crucially on what we mean by the term. Physical complexity is a measure based on automata theory and information theory that turns out to be a simple and intuitive measure of the amount of information that an organism stores, in its genome, about the environment in which it evolves. It can be shown that the physical complexity of the genomes of clonal organisms must increase in evolution, if they occupy a single niche and if the environment does not change. This law of increasing complexity is a consequence of natural selection only and can be violated in co-evolving systems as well as at high mutation rates, in sexual populations, and in time-dependent landscapes. Yet, co-evolution, because it can be viewed as creating an increase in physical complexity across niches, is likely the agent of a global increase in complexity.
--
Richard E. Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert T. Pennock, Christoph Adami, ""The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features", Nature (Vol. 423, 2003, pp. 139-145)
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003 /
- PvM
September 10, 2008 1:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Flawed
--Highlander--
The exact same is true when modern science reveals an IC structure such as the flagellar motor & assembly. The absence of a plausible natural pathway means the design inference is valid. The appearance of such a pathway would falsify design.
--
As long as we agree that 'design' is nothing more that the claim that 'science cannot explain a particular feature or system', however then it has little relevance to intelligent design(ers). The IC claim of the flagellum is a good example of flawed reasoning. First of all, it has been shown how at least in principle IC systems can evolve, of course ID is quick to restrict IC to systems which retain their "original function" and "evolved by Darwinian processes". In other words, IC is basically the much narrower claim that certain systems could not possibly have evolved by Darwinian processes while maintaining their original function.
Of course, falsifying this would at best falsify the claim of ignorance, not really the concept of design as it is more commonly understood.
Clever trick...
- PvM
September 10, 2008 2:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cites
--Highlander--
"I am sure that Highlander is familiar with the foundational works of Behe and Dembski,
both rely on the absence of science being able to explain a particular feature to infer 'design'."
Would that a citation exist to back this one up!
--
Sure, always ready to please the audience.
William Demsbki. "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities", Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory, 1998
William Dembski, 'No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence ", Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001
Irreducible Complexity is an example of Behe's formulation of 'ignorance should be called design'. In case of Behe, his biggest mistake is that he limits himself to only Darwinian processes and the concept of original function.
So let me explain what the design inference is all about:
The Explanatory Filter
A good overview of the filter and its shortcomings can be found in Wilkins, John S, and Wesley R Elsberry. 2001. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html
Basically the steps involve
1. High probability then it was caused by a regularity
2. Intermediate probability then it was caused by chance
3. Small probability: either chance or design depending on the existence of a "specification"
Specification is a somewhat tricky concept but according to Dembski, function in biology would be a sufficient specification. Ironically, function is also the outcome of the process of natural selection and thus whether the low probability score was caused by our ignorance or because of design is why the design inference remains without content, in case of rarefied design.
Rarefied design: Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized.
The authors observe "There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies."
This is an important observation because it helps us understand why historical sciences can accurately apply 'design inferences' while ID remains scientifically without content.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 1:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pages please
Your cites are worthless as defenses of your claims Behe & Dembski define ID as an 'absence of science' What pages? What words?
Do you really think that's a clever proof of anything? You are not being very honest here, PvM.
- Highlander
September 10, 2008 1:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Honesty?
I am not sure why Highlander accuses me of not being honest when I provide the information and my explanation. I have shown how both IC and CSI are based on science's inability to explain a particular feature to lead to a conclusion of 'design'. So far I have seen no attempt by Highlander to refute anything I said, other than asserting that I am not being honest.
Telling...
- PvM
September 10, 2008 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Until 'proven' otherwise
--Highlander--
The lack of evidence supporting materialist assumptions complexity is a chance arrangement means the opposite could be true. That many of these systems look designed and that science has not (even remotely) demonstrated a chance pathway to such organization, leaves design as the logical alternative. Until proven otherwise.
--
Design always has remained a logical possibility however, ID does nothing to actually demonstrate that such a possibility is actuated. In fact, there is plausible and growing evidence that complexity and information increase are inevitable outcomes of evolutionary processes and while science may remain ignorant about the exact origin and evolution of systems, this does not give ANY credibility to the 'design' arguments, lest we define design to be 'that which science does not yet understand'. But then we should be careful not to use 'bait and switch' and conflate terminology to suggest that this kind of 'design' has any relevance to the concept of Design.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 11:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well, here we go in their own words
---
These two moves -ruling out regularity, and then ruling out chance -- constitute the design inference. The conception of design that emerges from the design inference is therefore __eliminative__, asserting of an event what it is not, not what it is. To attribute an event to design is to say that regularity and chance hav been ruled out.
...
To be sure, design renders agency plausible. But as the negation of regularity and chance, design is a mode of explanation logically preliminary to agency.
---
p.19 The Design Inference
--
Because the design inference is eliminative, ther is no "design hypothesis" against which the relevant chance hypotheses compete, and which must then be compared within a Bayesian confirmation scheme.
--
p.62 The Design Inference
In "No Free Lunch" Dembski attempts to show that the design inference, which is purely eliminative is not an argument from ignorance, as I have shown, his position is flawed. Others have done so as well, including Fitelson and Sober, Ryan Nichols, Pete Dunkelberg, Mark Perahk, Wesley Elsberry and John Wilkins.
--
Section 2.10 is of especial interest because it addresses the legitimacy of inferring design via an eliminative argument (the concern being that design inferences are arguments from ignorance--as we shall see, they are not).
---
p. 73 No Free Lunch
The argument is one of induction, with all its problems namely that according to Dembski all instances in which we identified specified complexity and we know the causal history, intelligence was involved as well. In fact, Dembski claims that "choice is the defining feature of intelligence and that specified complexity is how in fact we identify choice".
That final phrase dooms Intelligent Design since natural processes of natural selection also have 'choice' and thus such processes fall well within the realm of processes known to be able to generate specified complexity.
--
If the argument were purely eliminative, one might be justified in saying that the move from specified complexity to a designing intelligence is an argument from ignorance (i.1., not X therefore Y).
--
p. 111 No free Lunch
But the argument IS purely eliminative followed by an inductive argument which cannot exclude natural selection as a designer.
Need more?
- PvM
September 11, 2008 1:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent Design has Merit
PvM is confused.
The design inference reached based on our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can & cannot do, coupled with our knowledge of what designing agencies can do.
And as with ALL scientific inferences further research can either confirm or refute that inference.
Also if we truly "do not know" then it is a miscarriage of science to disallow the design inference just because some people would rather stick with the "chance & necessity" diatribe.
- Joe G September 15, 2008 5:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Misleading
--Joe
The design inference reached based on our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can & cannot do, coupled with our knowledge of what designing agencies can do.
---
We do not know that designing agencies can design a genome or a flagella. There is no inference to best explanation.
The design infernence is alo not disallowed, it's just that it cannot compete with the 'we don't know' explanation as it fails to add anything.
SImple really
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PvM is misleading
The design inference reached based on our knowledge of what nature, operating freely can & cannot do, coupled with our knowledge of what designing agencies can do.
---
PvM
We do not know that designing agencies can design a genome or a flagella. There is no inference to best explanation.
---
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened". We do have direct observatiuons of agencies designing rotary motors. We have NEVER observed nature, operating freely, even come close.
----
PvM
The design infernence is alo not disallowed, it's just that it cannot compete with the 'we don't know' explanation as it fails to add anything.
---
The design inference is disallowed. And experience tells us it makes all the difference in the world whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or by nature, operating freely.
And also it is not "we don't know" because all the textbooks are teaching that a designer was not involved.
So when it comes to teaching the theory of evolution the only real answer is "we don't know"- as in we don't know whether or not the transformations required by universal common descent are even possible via any amount of accumulated mutations.
Very simple really...
- Joe G September 15, 2008 10:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No design allowed?
Joe argues that the 'design inference is disallowed" and we agree to the extent that it fails to be scientifically relevant a posteriori but of course, it is never disallowed a priori.
--Joe
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened".
--
On the contrary, that's what ID's 'explanation' is "poof"
All textbooks teach that a designer was not "required" which is not the same as "not involved".
So let's accept the vacuity of ID and move to real science. So what evidence do you have that UCD is not possible through the accumulation of mutations?
I understand why you want to abandon discussing ID, I would also hate to have to defend it.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 10:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No design allowed
Joe
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened".
--
PvM
On the contrary, that's what ID's 'explanation' is "poof"
---
That's false. Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. BTW you don't have an explanation.
---
PvM:
All textbooks teach that a designer was not "required" which is not the same as "not involved".
----
There isn't anything that supports that concept. All our exoperience tells us a designer is required.
------
PvM
So let's accept the vacuity of ID and move to real science. So what evidence do you have that UCD is not possible through the accumulation of mutations?
-----
LoL- YOUR position is vacuous. And there isn't any data that shows an accumulation of mutations can do what you say they did.
THAT is how science works- by actually demonstrating the premise you hold.
---
PvM
I understand why you want to abandon discussing ID, I would also hate to have to defend it.
----
I understand why you don't want to discuss your position. It is totally based on faith.
- Joe G September 17, 2008 5:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I understand
Joe, I do...
--
That's false. Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. BTW you don't have an explanation.
--
In fact, it is true. Let me show you: How does ID explain the bacterial flagella.
As to UCD and mutations, the best explanation is that variations, selection as well as drift can indeed explain the observed data. After all, the mutation rates needed to explain the differences between species are well within the range of observed mutation rates.
I understand though why you want to move the discussion from ID, which explains nothing, to UcD and mechanisms.
Show us either how ID explains UcD or how mutation rates need to be too high for UcD.
Surprise us with some real science.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 9:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wrong again
--Joe
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened". We do have direct observatiuons of agencies designing rotary motors. We have NEVER observed nature, operating freely, even come close.
--
No the scientific position is 'we don't know'. Surely you should realize that misrepresenting the scientific position does little for your argument. And there are more than just two options. Chance, regularity, already provide two possibilities, not to mention the countless variations on this theme.
Remind me again how ID 'explains' the bacterial flagellum? After all, was it not claimed to be an inference to the best explanation. Are you saying that there is no explanation?
Weird, why would they then call it an inference to best explanation?...
What do you think?
--
So when it comes to teaching the theory of evolution the only real answer is "we don't know"- as in we don't know whether or not the transformations required by universal common descent are even possible via any amount of accumulated mutations.
--
Again missing the point, the 'we don't know' explanation is countered by real positive scientific hypotheses and these hypotheses have rendered the 'we don't know' hypothesis much less relevant. Of course minor questions still remain but the idea that there must be limits to evolution that would make common descent impossible are at best wishful thinking.
It's sad how you continue to misunderstand science.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We don't know
Joe:
We look at the options. And the anti-ID option is "it just happened". We do have direct observatiuons of agencies designing rotary motors. We have NEVER observed nature, operating freely, even come close.
--
PvM:
No the scientific position is 'we don't know'.
---
Then that is what should be on just about every page of a biology textbook- "We don't know". Yet instead we find that things "evolved" without even knowing whether or not the transformation is even possible.
BTW PvM regularity arose by chance in the anti-ID scenario.
The laws that govern nature "just are the way they are" - Stephen Hawking. IOW once again you don't have an explanation.
BTW PvM the scientific answer to UCD is "we don't know". So why is it OK for YOU to make an inference- UCD- when we don't know, but it is wrong for IDists to make an infer3ence when it is based on observations, data and experience?
- Joe G September 17, 2008 5:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
UcD
--JoeG
BTW PvM the scientific answer to UCD is "we don't know". So why is it OK for YOU to make an inference- UCD- when we don't know, but it is wrong for IDists to make an infer3ence when it is based on observations, data and experience?
---
Nope, the scientific fact shows UcD, the mechanisms through which UcD can be explained ,again are not 'we don't know' but rather observed sources of variation as well as processes such as drift and selection.
ID makes no inference based on obsevations, data and experience, it merely lifts its hands when seeing the data and argues, that because we do not know how it happened, it should be 'designed'.
We all know how that led Newton astray, ID is not much better than that.
What positive evidence for ID exists to explain UcD? Poof?
For science we can actually point to countless evidences that show not only the fact of UcD, a fact even some better informed ID proponents like Behe have to accept, but also science can point to actual observed mechanisms to explain.
All ID can do is say 'but but but'....
Thanks for your contribution as it demonstrates the vacuity of ID combined with the ignorance needed to reach such a conclusion.
PS: We do know that things evolved, the question is merely how. ID fails to propose any explanations beyond 'well it must have been designed' while science shows how natural processes of variation and chance serve as the 'designer'.
That my friend is why ID has no cotent.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 9:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Futher research
--And as with ALL scientific inferences further research can either confirm or refute that inference.--
Sure, just like 'we don't know' generates the same research or more than 'design (wink wink)' did it.
So at best ID is nothing more than the 'we don't know' position, but rather than calling it ignorance, they call it 'design'. What a bait and switch.
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wrong again
As I said earlier experience demonstrates that it matters a great deal to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated occurred via agency involvement or by nature, operating freely.
There is just no getting around that fact.
As for the "bait and switch"- that would be you. Who else would say "we don't know" and then allow the teaching of the "no design allowed" position?
"We don't know but we do know a designer wasn't involved."
- Joe G September 15, 2008 10:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nonsense
--
"We don't know but we do know a designer wasn't involved."
--
That's not how science works my confused ID proponent.
The fact remains, that, even in your response, you have failed to show that ID is scientifically relevant.
For that I thank you, it's most educational when one can provide some 'live examples'
- PvM
September 15, 2008 10:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I know how science is SUPPOSED to work
PvM- the quote-"We don't know but we do know a designer wasn't involved."
is YOUR position. And thank you for telling us that is not how science works.
BTW ID is scientifically relevant because experience demonstrates that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency involvement or nature, operating freely.
I take it you have never investigated anything in your life.
Also only ID will lead us to understand that DNA and RNA are similar to a computer's harddrive. That is they are data carrying mediums. That is the data is NOT the sequence but it rides on the sequence- just like a computer disk isn't the data but the data rides on the disk.
- Joe G September 17, 2008 5:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And more vacuity from ID
ID can be scientifically relevant if it were to take the scientific approaches used by real science, such as criminology which uses means, motives, opportunities etc. It is simple to show that ID is without content by showing how ID proponents refuse to answer the simple question
How does ID explain the bacterial flagella?
Chirp, chirp.
Yes, it matters if something arose throuugh agency or not, the problem is that ID's chosen method has doomed it to remain without content.
As to your claims about DNA, and RNA, your claims are at best wishful thinking. Science has done far more for our understanding here than ID will ever do.
How does ID explain DNA or RNA?
Let me guess, it's that poof thing again.
- PvM
September 17, 2008 9:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
An example of ignorance and misleading statements
In a recent article, Casey Luskin addresses the recent findings that changes in a regulatory gene can help explain the morphological differences between the chimpansee and humans.
Luskin however continues the somewhat ignorant statement that this shows how junk dna is not always junk. However, what Luskin does not tell you is that 1) Junk dna was introduced to describe initially pseudogenes etc 2) that regulatory genes were in fact already recognized and never considered junk 3) that said 'regulatory' genes are well conserved and under strong selection.
In other words, these findings strengthen, not weaken the argument. Furthermore, the research shows a change of I believe 18 nucleotides out of 80 or so, responsible for the regulation.
In fact, early papers had already pointed out that much of the morphological differences between chimps and humans are likely due to regulatory gene changes.
Now I understand that Luskin, who is a lawyer, may have been confused by how the popular press portrayed the findings but since he works for an organization which claims its goals are to correct errors in reporting, one would have hoped that Luskin would have quoted from the original research rather than from popular press.
Prabhakar S and 9 others. 2008. Human-specific gain of function in a developmental enhancer. Science 321:1346 - 1350. doi:10.1126/science.1159974
Wray GA, Babbitt CC. 2008. Enhancing gene regulation. Science 321:1300-1301. doi:10.1126/science.1163568
And for those wondering how ID explains these findings, of course, it doesn't, it does not deal in answering such 'pathetic questions', just ask Dembski.
- PvM
September 26, 2008 10:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Were we created by design?
The question is somewhat meaningless because you can believe that we were created by Design and still conclude that Intelligent Design, as proposed by the Discovery Institute and its fellows, is a scientifically vacuous concept.
For instance, many theistic evolutionists have no problem accepting both the design aspect as a faith element as well as science as providing the best explanation as to 'how'. The problem with ID is that it attempts to argue that the 'how', in the form of evolutionary theory, is somehow unable to explain this. And yet, the concept of a front loading design, is well within the paradigm of how ID approaches the issue and although ID proponents are quick to reject front loading since they have accepted an active participating deity on faith, the simple reality is that a God who set all in motion with the Big Bang, is as much part of the ID explanation as a God who is involved at every single moment in time and space. However, the former is much better supported by the evidence than the latter, for obvious reasons. To counter, ID proponents argue that evolutionary mechanisms lack purpose and are random, both of course are misleading and flawed arguments.
First, the concept of purpose or teleology is a complex one, where purpose and function are easily confused and thus when we see the outcome of evolutionary processes that lead to function, one may be tempted to conflate this with purpose. Secondly, evolutionary theory is not random, although aspects of evolutionary theory involve neutral evolution, which involves changes in the genome which are near neutral and have no significant benefit or cost to the organism, evolutionary theory also includes the Darwinian concept of natural selection, which is by definition strongly non-random.
ID proponents try to counter this with, yes but random or regular processes cannot explain complexity and information. Which is sort of tautological in ID speak since whenever such processes can explain a complex system with information, the complexity disappears by definition. Since ID proponents often conflate terminology like the concept of information, and attempt to argue that they really mean Shannon information, the simple observation that processes of variation and selection can in fact create information in the genome, in the Shannon sense, undermines any argument ID may have.
So what have we determined so far? That scientists can both accept the religious concept of 'design' and still do science without accepting the flawed and scientifically vacuous approaches of ID. In fact, many such Christian scientists would argue that ID not just remains without scientific content but also that its theological claims undermine Christian faith. For instance, imagine, and not much imagination is needed given the recent research, that science finds a more detailed explanation of the bacterial flagellum, which is the cause celebre of the ID movement? This would mean that science has disproven ID, or has it? If it has disproven ID then indeed ID may have some scientific value but why would ID want to open up religious faith to an unreliable design inference? History has shown us plenty of examples where 'design' was falsified, even Newton flunked here. Of course, the reality is that ID is never placing the 'designer' at risk because it is not an argument for Design but rather an argument against evolutionary theory. So all it has done is made a claim that "science cannot explain X" and science has done what it does so well, show that the lack of explanation was based on our ignorance not some mystical 'design' explanation. In other words, ID's proposal is not one which proposed an alternative explanation, in fact, it is not better than "science does not yet understand how X happened", but rather proposes that a particular scientific hypothesis cannot explain 'X'. By careful bait and switch and a confusion that evidence against a particular evolutionary hypothesis should be counted as evidence in favor of design, ID manages to avoid a scientific formulation of design and still pretend that it proposes a scientifically relevant hypothesis in favor of design.
Clever bunch but in the end, vacuous as well.
So "were we created by design"? As a Christian I fully accept this. However, I still reject Intelligent Design's approach not just because it is scientifically without any content but also because I believe it is misleading and dangerous from a theological perspective.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 10:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's Start By Defining Terms
All too often the terms of this debate don't get defined. It's hard to know what is being debated when readers don't know what the NCSE, ARI or AU mean when they say evolution, or when they refer to intelligent design.
Specifically, when defining intelligent design it's important to note that what is most often reported in the media is NOT in any way a definition of the theory that ID proponents subscribe too. You usually see something along the lines of "life is so complicated it must have been designed by a higher power." That is not at all how the leading proponents of ID describe the theory. That is how critics like the NCSE or ACLU describe theory.
According to the theory of intelligent design, certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. This definition can be found at: www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php .
Scientist who support intelligent design seek evidence of design in nature, and argue that such evidence points to intelligent design, based on our historical knowledge of cause and effect. Intelligent design theorists argue in favor of design theory based on the recognition of things like the rich digital information in DNA and the complex molecular machines found in cells. They do so because invariably we know from experience that complex systems possessing such features always arise from intelligent causes. For instance, the DNA molecule is embedded with an immense amount of information. In our uniform and repeated experience, information only comes from minds (read: intelligence). So why should we attribute the information in DNA to a mindless process like Darwinian evolution? ID scientists think we should not. Obviously, ID is an inference from the evidence, not from religious scriptures or practices.
So, intelligent design theory is not an argument based on what we don’t know, but rather an argument from what we do know.
Defining what biological evolution is:
There are three simple, but very different definitions of biological evolution. When speaking with people about the issue it is important to ask them which definition of evolution they are using.
1) Change over time (even billions of years, most leading ID proponents believe the universe is billions of years old)
2) Common ancestry, all forms of life evolved from a single original life form
3) Natural selection acting on random mutation is the primary mechanism by which life forms have evolved.
ID scientists do not have a problem with definition #1. There is some debate over definition #2, but it is not incompatible with ID. Definition #3, commonly referred to as Darwinian Evolution, is a specific part of evolution that ID challenges and is the heart of Darwin’s theory. Be sure you know what people mean when they say “evolution.”
Intelligent design is not the same as creationism. Creationism is usually defined by these tenets:
• The universe, energy and life were created from nothing.
• The earth is young, in the range of 6,000 to 10,000 years.
• Earth's geology can be explained by catastrophic events, primarily a worldwide flood.
• Mutations and natural selection cannot bring about the development of all living things from a single organism.
- Robert Crowther September 9, 2008 11:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confusion
Rob Crowther Claims:
According to the theory of intelligent design, certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
This is a somewhat meaningless position, as it provides no methods to determine the how and thus cannot make a claim that it is best explained by an intelligent cause. In fact, when looking at how ID defines its approaches, it quickly becomes clear that ID lacks any positive explanation and thus lacks the support for the hypothesis that ID "best explain[s]".
Furthermore, natural selection is not an undirected process, in fact, it is in many ways not dissimilar from 'intelligent selection', hence Darwin's appeal to breeders in furthering his argument. In both cases, choices are made and the future generation's genetic make-up changes under the processes of heritable variation and selection (whether natural or 'intelligent'). As such, without further explanations, ID has an interesting thesis but provides no way of resolving let alone providing a 'better explanation' to evolutionary theory which contains but is not limited to "natural selection".
So does ID have a "better explanation"? Ask yourself, how does ID propose to detect 'design', how does it propose to 'infer a designer' and how does their approach hold up in reality?
1. It proposes to detect design through elimination of processes of chance or regularity. Remember that the definition of Design is the "set theoretic complement of the disjunction chance or regularity". While chance may need no further explanation, regularity refers to a law like process. What is important to notice is that ID is not clear if it includes 'stochastic processes' since such processes typically contain both a regularity component and a chance component (also known as noise where noise is a concept which includes 'unknown processes').
This means that in order to infer 'design' ID needs to eliminate any and all known and unknown processes of chance or (and?) regularity, not a very easy task and in fact, Dembski argues that the design inference is "useless" if it includes false positives. Yet, we all know from history that design inferences have been inherently unreliable in cases of the "supernatural". So what is going on here? In case of the supernatural, we have no ways to constrain the designer and thus it can explain anything and in the end explains nothing. To understand this, realize that "a magic pink unicorn created life last thursday" is under such rules a plausible scenario and yet... So if we cannot constrain the explanation, ID cannot even venture to compete with our ignorance, which is basically the position when all known processes of chance or (and?) regularity have been eliminated. And yet, evolutionary theory, which deals in positive explanations does have a way to render itself as a best explanation because it can in fact compete with "we don't know" since it proposes positive hypotheses. ID however is not in the business of providing any explanations. And here we often see a 'bait and switch' approach in which ID argues that since 'intelligent design' can be successfully detected in such historical sciences as criminology and archaeology, it therefor must be the case that it can also be extended to include the "supernatural" or "rarefied" variant of design. This is however a misleading suggestion since in case of historical sciences, one does not rely on a fully eliminative approach and then conclude, well, we don't know how to explain this, thus design. In fact, in for instance criminology we deal with concepts of means, motives, opportunity, alibis, physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, eye witnesses etc to create a case "beyond credible doubt", in other words, a competing hypothesis.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confusion part 2
2. So far, many people have yet to realize that the concept of 'design' as defined by ID is actually quite limited. In fact, few seem to be familiar with the major concessions made by William Dembski.
--
Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency" (TDI, 227).
--
Source: Ryan Nichols, The Vacuity of Intelligent Design Theory (TDI: The Design Inference, William Dembski)
In other words, design does not imply designer, and in fact, as people such as Wesley Elsberry have shown, Intelligent Design cannot even exclude natural selection as a 'designer'.
Crowther then continues to confuse the terminology of 'complexity and information' while ignoring that science has shown how processes of regularity and chance can in principle explain complexity and information, and thus ID, which lacks its own positive explanations cannot even compare it to scientific explanations.
And that my friends, is the rest of the story.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 12:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Advocates of ID are missing the point.
The purpose of the spiritual realm has never been to say how, but why.
Spirituality will never give us the most efficient way to run an economy - and computers will never tell us how to live a fulfilling life. The authors of sacred texts never thought they were writing facts - they were writing truths.
- AlibiFarmer
September 9, 2008 1:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why is the purview of science
"The purpose of the spiritual realm has never been to say how, but why. "
It doesn't even do that very well. 'Why' is what drives scientists as much as how. Trying to figure out why things are the way they are is at the heart of scientific inquiry. The spiritual realm is not about discovering why but about telling you why.
- Kelly
September 13, 2008 7:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Science has never been about basic humanity.
Science is about how things work. The stories, myths and legends of our origins aren't about explaining how creation was accomplished. They are about explaining basic human needs and emotions - and about how man fits with both nature and himself.
Like much great art, they can tell a truth without representing fact. People taking them literally miss the authors' intent.
- AlibiFarmer
September 14, 2008 6:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not?
Good point, but as an evolutionary biologist I find that not entirely true. And as a matter of fact, several sciences from anthropology to zoology via psychiatry and neurology do tell us a lot about ourselves. But even more so does what we study, and the drive to study in itself.
Besides, I have doubts about the "intents" of the authors of at least some myths being more sophisticated than representing fact as they believed it. That being said, I certainly agree that they do say a lot about our basic human nature.
- Kyrre
May 12, 2009 9:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Even if you mapped the neuron pathways of every thought,....
and could predict the next one, there would still be the question of why it was set up that way. You can never answer that. The evolutionary track, while useful, is blocked by time. It can never reveal the why either.
Those are the questions each of us must come to terms with, if not answer, for ourselves. Religion does provide a framework for many people. A more interesting thought for me is that in Buddhism, the question itself is considered irrelevant. It's not whether there is a God, or any issue of theology that resonates, but how do I adjust myself?
- AlibiFarmer
May 12, 2009 11:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
philosophically or scientifically
While that is an interesting question it is hardly a scientific one... and the theory of ID is billed as science not philosophy.
- MrBook
May 12, 2009 7:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That was the point of my original argument.
The the myths and stories of the Bible were never meant to be taken as history in our sense of the word, and certainly not science . The physical record is overwhelming for evolution . Besides, I would HATE to think that there was divine being to blame for things like cancers, birth defects, and the poor design of human teeth.
There are questions for which religion /philosophy/spirituality has no answers just as there are questions which are irrelevant to science. But both are important in terms of coming to terms with ourselves.
- AlibiFarmer
May 13, 2009 8:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Defining Science
This will and is already descending into a debate about the philosophy of science.
The anti ID crowd will insist on a strict materialistic cause and effect definition of science. Falsely assuming creators or a Creator, can not be scientifically known. Meanwhile, hypocritically saying they can know the origins, without adhering to the scientific method.
The anti ID's have stolen science as their private domain, to be used only, to promote their views of the Universe. A view that insist upon a, no Creator (filter). To be put on first, by all scientist. They are entrenched and defending
their hold on science, furiously.
This isn't progressive science. It is holding to an old order that only wants to use science to discover advances that serve the status quo. But does not want to discover anything that would threating that status quo.
Real science and scientist should be free from this tyranny. Free to (follow the evidence, where ever it leads, and to what ever conclusions, brings
more enlightenment.)
Materialist would hold us back in the, present scientific, "dark ages". Where mankind is still crawling on hands and knees. Taking two steps backward for every step forward.
Set the scientist free. Embrace ID.
- jumpstart
September 10, 2008 7:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID is not scientifically relevant
--Jumpstart--
The anti ID crowd will insist on a strict materialistic cause and effect definition of science. Falsely assuming creators or a Creator, can not be scientifically known. Meanwhile, hypocritically saying they can know the origins, without adhering to the scientific method.
--
I am glad to hear that Jumpstart admits that ID is all about the supernatural. But he is wrong that scientists falsely claims that science cannot detect creators. That's a red herring which I have already shown to be false. However, ID proponents fail to recognize what kind of designers science has historically been able to reliably detect and which ones remain more elusive.
In fact, Jumpstart should have known that ID itself appeals to historical sciences as evidence that a designer can be known, so the accusation is at best self defeating.
Show me the ID science. Simple question, invariably answered by nothing but
silence
- PvM
September 10, 2008 8:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
supernatural=scientific gaps
When materialist impose the supernatural, all they are doing is saying; "somethings are beyond being explained through nature and by science". They are saying somethings can't be explained through interpretation of nature.
They know nothing of the same.
Therefore things they define as "supernatural", must remain, ignored. The same adherence to ignorance, I mention in my first post.
Although ID has some appeal to "historical science", Darwinian evolution does even more so. We don't see ID scientist falsely promoting ID as a dogmatic "fact of science"; as we see the mainstream doing with, Darwinism.
The only silence on the subject of ID, is caused by the cotton stuffed into the ears of the materialist.
- jumpstart
September 10, 2008 9:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gaps of our ignorance.
--Jumpstart--
When materialist impose the supernatural, all they are doing is saying; "somethings are beyond being explained through nature and by science". They are saying somethings can't be explained through interpretation of nature.
---
Why would materialists impose the supernatural? This just does not make sense.
---Jumpstart---
They know nothing of the same.
Therefore things they define as "supernatural", must remain, ignored. The same adherence to ignorance, I mention in my first post.
----
On the contrary, materialists do not ignore the "supernatural", they rather find scientific explanations for said "supernatural" which historically has included a lot of gaps in our knowledge.
--Jumpstart---
Although ID has some appeal to "historical science", Darwinian evolution does even more so. We don't see ID scientist falsely promoting ID as a dogmatic "fact of science"; as we see the mainstream doing with, Darwinism.
---
Of course ID could only wish for it to be a "fact of science". Those darn Newtonians and their dogmatic position.
--Jumpstart---
The only silence on the subject of ID, is caused by the cotton stuffed into the ears of the materialist.
---
Weird, so the reason ID proponents refuse to share their research is because they are materialists?
It should be clear by now that science does not fill gaps with promissory notes but rather with hard work or a simple admission of "we don't know" and that ID proponents wish to assign 'design' to said ignorance as a placeholder while providing no guidance as to how ID will serve to strengthen the 'design inference'.
Simple really...
And jumpstart seems to believe that only "materialists" object to ID, but what about the countless Christians, like me, who have come to reject ID as scientifically vacuous even though we also hold to the concept that our universe was Created? Could it be that this has nothing to do with materialism but all with scientific content or lack thereof?
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Materialist Mindset
-PvM-
Why would materialists impose the supernatural? This just does not make sense.
-
I do not know why they always do. "I am glad to hear that Jumpstart admits that ID is all about the supernatural." But they are always assigning IDeas, too the supernatural?!
-PvM-
On the contrary, materialists do not ignore the "supernatural", they rather find scientific explanations for said "supernatural" which historically has included a lot of gaps in our knowledge.
-
What they do is, try and find answers that stem from the material. So that nothing, that could be construed as an Intelligent Designer, can be identified by science! Therefore forcing the biggest
gap of all.
-PvM-
Of course ID could only wish for it to be a "fact of science". Those darn Newtonians and their dogmatic position.
-
Very funny. Of course, ID has nothing to do with Newtonians. But thanks for admitting dogma.
-PvM-
It should be clear by now that science does not fill gaps with promissory notes but rather with hard work or a simple admission of "we don't know" and that ID proponents wish to assign 'design' to said ignorance as a placeholder while providing no guidance as to how ID will serve to strengthen the 'design inference'.
-
All that to say, "I don't believe in an Intelligent Designer" (Creator)and even if there is one, that fact wouldn't strengthen the 'design inference', nor would the design inference, strengthen the inference to the designer. Now that
is a materialist mindset.
I reckon we'll have to take your word, on your Christianity.
- jumpstart
September 10, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Christianity
--Jumpstart--
I reckon we'll have to take your word, on your Christianity.
--
Should that not be sufficient? Of course, with me, countless other Christians have come to reject ID, some because it is theologically unsound, most because it is scientifically vacuous.
In Christ
PvM
- PvM
September 10, 2008 11:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How so?
If you're tired of debating Pandas, fine. Explain to me what rules of science ID violates.
- F2XL
November 25, 2008 6:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent Design is simply nonsense.
If Intelligent Design is a valid scientific concept, why is it that we have examples of IDIOTIC design in so many organism, including vertbrates? All their eyes are wired BACKWARDS, making their retinas vulnerable to damage. And there is no good reason for this, because the eyes of cephalopods are wired FORWARDS. It seems that there was a more intelligent Designer for the cephalopod eyes than for the vertebrate eyes.
- Dale Husband
September 10, 2008 11:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you know...
I recently read that after careful study the 'backwards' wiring is essential.. - something to do with cooling? I really can't recall...but considering I don't have a citation to give you - or a link.. what's it matter.
But anyway..I heard a list of reasons that our eyes for functional reasons are wired differently (front to back) I'm sure if you cared to seek them out - you'll find the defense for such 'mistakes'.. it's your dime.
Also.. In man's arrogance he assumes that anything he hasn't found a use or reason for must not have a use or reason... remember junk DNA..... not junk. Remember the 'useless' appendix... not useless. Your view that accidental nature is a great designer is what is nonsense....
Funny how man is scrambling to find any 1 thing they can point to as a 'bad design'... that in itself shows that the design is if anything near perfect. But what's it matter - evolution .. a theory without mechanism.. can design anything!
- lux113
July 21, 2009 5:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, YOU don't know!
If you are going to comment on something in science , you need to back it up with actual data. Mere assertions count for NOTHING. And your statement that evolution is "a theory without mechanism" is simply wrong. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is what Darwin identified.
The appendix has a lot of lymphatic tissue which is what you would expect in an organ that no longer has a digestive function but is prone to infection. It's when that tissues fails to function that we get appendicitus. That also shows natural selection in action, as well as its limitations. Indeed, there is plenty of lymphatic tissue and ducts throughout the abdominal region.
My point about the vertebrate eyes being wired backwards and therefore being an example of bad design still stands.
- Dale Husband
July 21, 2009 12:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, it has some merit...
First, I believe that religion is man-made, as are Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, et al. Thus, they truly are the opiate of the masses, and inherently flawed. Religion can be used for good and evil. Nonetheless, that's all it can be used for: a tool. Most of the time, that tool is used for evil, the perpetualization of ignorance and results in misery. Intelligent design has merit, but it has no place in government, schools or courthouses. It is and should remain personal.
However, I think that SOMETHING set all this into motion. I truly believe their is a God, though in what sense, I can't say. I think "God" is best defined as a Great Architect, for my purposes. As an agnostic, I think knowing God is inherently impossible, at least until my life ends, or rather, when and if my spirit dies.
I used to be a practicing christian, but as I evolved and saw how that religion and its worshippers lead through fear and are hypocrites like the rest of us, I moved on. Fear and growth are incompatible, as are ignorance and tolerance.
When I began studying physics and astronomy, though, that knowledge left me believing that there IS a reason for all of this. I guess I could sum it up by saying whatever Architect there is, he, she or it set evolution into motion. Ask yourself this: "if the universe is expanding, what happens when that expansion ceases?" My answer is that it can't be random. If there is an end to our universe, what lies on the other side? For now, that is unknowable. But it won't stop me wondering.
- PSYOP
September 11, 2008 12:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good queston
--
Ask yourself this: "if the universe is expanding, what happens when that expansion ceases?" My answer is that it can't be random.
--
It collapses. Why can this not be random? Simple, because it depends on the amount of mass in the universe, whether it is open or closed, and whether the expansion is slowing down, or increasing.
However, your 'it can't be random' does not require a designer necessarily since regularities such as laws of nature can explain these behaviors as well.
We humans love to believe we are here for a reason, and I can understand, as a Christian myself, why we may hold positions of faith. However, when I see claims that one can prove the existence of this supernatural entity or entities using science, and then come to realize that the 'science' is nothing more than 'real science cannot explain X' thus 'x should be called designed'.
And that my friends is exactly the foundation of ID.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 9:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My opinions
PvM, those are merely my opinions. I KNOW that the existence of God cannot be proven, then again, it can't be disproven. I never said the universe WAS created, that is just something I WANT to believe. I think it makes me a better person, and adds a certain amount of purpose to my life. That's all it is, opinion.
- PSYOP
September 12, 2008 5:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your opinions
I cannot argue with your opinions as to what you want to believe. We all seek purpose in life, I fail to see how ID can help us here.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 7:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My opinion
"I fail to see how ID can help us here."
It allows some people to "scientifically" believe in god . Which in turn allows people to see purpose in their life if there is indeed someone above them.
- camdaddy09
August 19, 2009 1:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Scientifically believe?
"It allows some people to "scientifically" believe in god . Which in turn allows people to see purpose in their life if there is indeed someone above them."
- camdaddy09US
What " science " is being used to demonstrate "god"? ID by itself has been trying time and time again to disavow any link with any particular religion's deity, so it almost seems like ID is an assumed premise used to breach the logical gap between existence and . I fail to see any science involved.
- The Dark Ride
August 30, 2009 9:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ok
I don't really care :|
- camdaddy09
August 30, 2009 10:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
actually...
currently science feels it's accelerating... and considering the '13.7 billion years' it's been doing so.. I don't anticipate any collapse... why would it still be accelerating?
the Bible mentions a hint -- 11 times even in 5 chapters... God 'stretched' out the heavens.
Funny how the expansion of the universe is biblical.. yet we have only recently discovered it... but of course - presuming we have a creator can't contribute anything to science! right? How would we know... so few try.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 5:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
past tense
"God 'stretched' out the heavens. "
That's the past tense, a process that happened but has since stoped... "God is stretching out the heavens" implies an active process.
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 6:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why would cosmological expansion cease?
PSYOP asks (rhetorically?): "if the universe is expanding, what happens when that expansion ceases?"
First of all, the expansion of our universe is an observed fact. No "if" about it.
And why would cosmological expansion cease? The same measurements which revealed the effects of some "dark energy" indicate that the expansion is accelerating. If that is so then the question is mooted.
- sean s
September 24, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
and as I just said to someone else..
the expansion of the universe is biblically supported. 11 times it says God 'stretched' out the heavens...- it is said 11 times for obvious emphasis.
you can scoff all you want at that reference... but what remains is the fact that we have only recently discovered the universes expansion.. the Bible pointed to it all along.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 5:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It can be used
So if the Bible can be used as a source for scientific discovery or guidance then what else in there can be demonstrated to be true scientifically? By what process did God 'stretch out' the heavens, where does God get the energy to do so?
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 6:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
lol
I'm hardly the authority for all the great questions in life.. and these debates make me feel as if I'm submitted as being so.. or required to be so.... That doesn't mean I don't have an answer... it just means it might not be correct... I'm flawed like everyone.
As I already said.. the Bible is not meant to be a science handbook... but it does profess to being correct in every detail.. since it is divinely inspired. Thus it can be useful as the tool to verify God exists. One aspect of that is the reason there is an 'old' and 'new' testament... the old testament largely consisted of future predictions - such as those in Isaiah - the new testament was verification that these predictions came to pass. These are discounted by people by claiming they were written after the fact.. though I think the dead sea scrolls show otherwise - and I believe the Bible's teachings were written even earlier than this - and passed in verbal form even further back.
Also in many regards you can find on the internet long lists of Bible statements which were not common scientific knowledge at the time.. As is with all things.. people attack many of them on many levels... One such statement in the Bible is that the world is described as a circle..this was completely unknown at the time - those who discredit the statement point out that the hebrew word could also be translated as 'circuit' or 'compass'....though obviously that wouldn't make as much sense..
'It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers'
that one is from Isaiah 40:22... and is old testament.. very ancient stuff. 740-680 b.c. is commonly held. The point being.. just when in history did we learn the earth was circular? Around 300 years later Aristotle proposed the idea in his book 'on the heavens'.. but it wasn't accepted as a given.
one nice example of Biblical 'science'
''He [ god ] hangs the earth on nothing''
first off..this is from Job - and as I recall that was old testament stuff as well -definitely B.C. - which I believe is in the dead sea scrolls as well.. at the time people had various beliefs about the earth... whether it be it was on the backs of infinite turtles or the like... and many other views -. but the knowledge that the earth floats in space was not known as a fact.
There are other examples.. and of course they can be debated on different levels.. one being the translation.. another being the date written.. and third the exact meaning implied..
The point is not that the Bible should be used as a science handbook - it was never intended to be so..that was never it's intended purpose. The point is that this 'primitive' text is consistent with science - and appears to be ahead of it's time from the things it points out, some of which would ironically be heresy at the time. There's much more.. but I'm not going to list them all.. descriptions of the process of water evaporation and clouds.. things like that - which may sound unimpressive until you consider what people of the time commonly knew about weather. Also.. scientists typically wonder why the Bible doesn't contain some more obvious reference.. like say to the DNA double helix.. or something similar.. though this would definitely be convenient -- it goes directly against God's purposes... as I mentioned to you before - it is necessary for God to maintain 'plausible deniability'.. a rough balance... he has to give enough evidence to support belief - yet not so much that it would make faith unnecessary - a mention of something such as DNA would clearly destroy this... (though I assume some still wouldn't believe... man's capacity for disbelief, especially these days, is amazing).
as far as your question..
Where does God get the energy to do so?..
You are kidding right?
- lux113
July 21, 2009 8:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
not kidding
“I'm hardly the authority for all the great questions in life.. and these debates make me feel as if I'm submitted as being so.. or required to be so.... That doesn't mean I don't have an answer... it just means it might not be correct... I'm flawed like everyone.”
But they are the answers you have come to. That makes the question of HOW you got to those valid in my book.
“As I already said.. the Bible is not meant to be a science handbook... but it does profess to being correct in every detail.. since it is divinely inspired.”
Then it can be used to make accurate predictions of physical phenomena, because it is ‘correct in every detail’.
“Thus it can be useful as the tool to verify God exists. One aspect of that is the reason there is an 'old' and 'new' testament... the old testament largely consisted of future predictions - such as those in Isaiah - the new testament was verification that these predictions came to pass. These are discounted by people by claiming they were written after the fact.. though I think the dead sea scrolls show otherwise –“
How so? The DSS have been dated to between 150 BCE and 70 CE… however that is using dating methods that you have already declared to be inaccurate. How do would you verify the age of the scrolls to ensure that they are really from that time and not written ‘after the fact’.
Also, what third party verifiable events were predicted in the Bible?
“and I believe the Bible's teachings were written even earlier than this - and passed in verbal form even further back.”
That may be, but how do you demonstrate that? How did you, logically, come to that belief?
“Also in many regards you can find on the internet long lists of Bible statements which were not common scientific knowledge at the time.. As is with all things.. people attack many of them on many levels... One such statement in the Bible is that the world is described as a circle..this was completely unknown at the time –“
How so? What is the verifiable age of that statement?
The circular nature of the Earth comes out quite easily when you start doing astronomy… it can be seen using very primitive tools (two wells positioned at different latitudes can be used to run rough calculations… which both the Egyptians and the Greeks did). An interpretation of Vedic texts (from what is now India) that date to around the same time can also be interpreted as to a spherical Earth… in many ways it is clearer because it can be interpreted to indicate the sun moving around the Earth.
"The [sun] never really sets or rises. In that they think of him “He is setting,” having reached the end of the day, he inverts himself; thus he makes evening below, day above. Again in that they think of him “He is rising in the morning,” having reached the end of the night he inverts himself; thus he makes day below, night above. He never sets; indeed he never sets."
-Aitareya Brahmana vrs. 4.18
“'It is He who sits above the circle of the Earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers'”
That is an observation that anyone who has stood on a high point can make… from a distance above you can see in a circle around you, and things do look smaller. It is in no way contradictory to what anyone at that time could have understood, nor necessarily indicative of the Earth as a circle.
The Earth is spherical after all, not a circle. If the statement was translated as ‘above the sphere of the Earth’ then a case could be made.
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 5:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
not kidding pt 2.
“that one is from Isaiah 40:22... and is old testament.. very ancient stuff. 740-680 b.c. is commonly held. The point being.. just when in history did we learn the Earth was circular? Around 300 years later Aristotle proposed the idea in his book 'on the heavens'.. but it wasn't accepted as a given.”
Yet the concept of a circular Earth is far older then that. Indian texts dating back to 1000 BCE can be interpreted just as easily to indicate a spherical planet.
''He [ god ] hangs the Earth on nothing'
But the Earth is not hung on nothing, it is tethered by the laws of gravity.
first off..this is from Job - and as I recall that was old testament stuff as well -definitely B.C. - which I believe is in the dead sea scrolls as well.. at the time people had various beliefs about the Earth... whether it be it was on the backs of infinite turtles or the like... and many other views -. but the knowledge that the Earth floats in space was not known as a fact.
And what of the passages that are interpreted by geocentrists about fixing the Earth in the ferment?
“The point is not that the Bible should be used as a science handbook - it was never intended to be so..that was never it's intended purpose.”
Yet you have said that the Bible is ‘correct in every detail’ and thus that it’s description of the creation of the Earth is scientific fact. You have even stated that the phrases about ‘ stretching ’ are describing the accelerating universe. Thus the Bible can be used to determine new theories as well. After all if scientists had paid more attention to the Bible then the accelerating universe would not have been a surprise to them (remember that an accelerating universe was not among the original three outcomes of our observations regarding the expanding universe).
“The point is that this 'primitive' text is consistent with science - and appears to be ahead of it's time from the things it points out, some of which would ironically be heresy at the time.”
Remember that scholars of that time knew that the Earth was round (it is surprisingly easy to prove really). Indeed the Greeks were very close to showing that the Earth revolved around the sun, put off only because they had miscalculated the size of the universe (lacking telescopes they could not correctly calculate stellar distances using parallax)
“descriptions of the process of water evaporation and clouds..”
Which can easily be observed by the people at that time, Aristotle himself gave crude descriptions of cloud formation processes.
“it goes directly against God's purposes... as I mentioned to you before - it is necessary for God to maintain 'plausible deniability'.. a rough balance... he has to give enough evidence to support belief - yet not so much that it would make faith unnecessary”
What about all the stuff in the Old Testament? Huge tracts of that book are devoted to God explicitly existing… The Flood, Sodom and Gomorra, the Seven Plagues, the Burning Bush, the Parting of the Red Sea. There is no plausible deniability when you are walking across the floor of the Red Sea.
“Where does God get the energy to do so?..
You are kidding right?”
No, I’m not. Or is this a ‘God did it’ point where we cannot go any further? Is there no possible physical explanation for this phenomenon?
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 5:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It by definition is still going to come down to faith part 1
Yes, God is by his nature - supernatural. That's not an excuse.. It's a core concept. So just by that nature some things are likely to not be measurable.. or have materialistic explanations. Including 'where God got the energy ' to create the universe. Although, possibly through science there may be a way to measure such a thing.. possibly it relates to dark matter.. and dark energy? But at this point I truly couldn't say.. and considering I'm not 'in the field' - I'd really have to depend on what is presented to us like most people.. and judge from the data.
Many things would leave signs... often creationist's view the big bang with mixed feelings.. because in one hand it seems to confirm creation.. but also conflicts. Even though I believe the big bang theory is flawed.. it does give an example of what I mean by signs.. - Then it comes down to comparing the biblical narrative with our scientific understanding.. To test what agrees..This is why the age of the earth and Genesis have received so much focus - although an old earth doesn't truly rule out the bible 's authority - it does leave creationists with a genesis which is symbolic.. not literal.. You could still believe in God.. but the weight of the argument would be dramatically lessened. Though geology feels it's an open and shut case... there are plenty of questions - if the Grand Canyon is the result of millions of years of erosion... where would the land from that erosion end up? It doesn't appear to be there. - also why is the river that is claimed to have created it so drastically small in comparison... a catastrophic flood doesn't suffer from these types of problems.
As far as the miracles of the Bible... including those of the life of Christ - these were necessary at the time for the purposes of that same 'plausible deniability' I spoke of.. it served to build God's case for believers. I never said that God doesn't do miracles.. for that matter the reason I'm so positive of God's existence is through things which happened in my own life. Since they are personal experiences they don't have weight with other people.. only for me. It left nothing physical - no faces of Jesus in pancake batter.. or anything I can point to as an example.. But definitely in some cases in the past as well as currently God reveals himself in a way to some people which leaves no chance of denying..(but oddly enough.. there were those who witnessed these things that still didn't believe) But generally speaking, parting the red sea.. and things of this nature occurred during biblical times and not now... These things were deliberately done by God during a time period that proving them would be very difficult... yet there should be signs of them happening if we look. To summarize.. it was necessary at one point in history for God to make himself more clearly known.. for him to take a more visibly active part in the world.
What was known at that time in history is debatable.. like the earth being 'round'. There were pockets of scholars at the time that had views on these things.. - but it's not as if they had a printing press. Although really the point of mentioning a round world.. or a mentioning of the world hanging on nothing. (which seems to imply gravity to me... though the line is 'poetic' it is an accurate description.. it truly hangs on nothing) but anyway.. the point of these lines is more that they do not disagree with science.. creation myths from different civilizations throughout time cannot make that claim - they often do disagree with known science .. matter of fact more often than they agree with it.
- lux113
July 22, 2009 4:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where did the energy come from?
First of all, the Bible is not a science book. But what it does says about Gods creation is scientifically true. In science there is a first cause that is beyond direct observation. This is called the Unified Force. In religion the Unified Force is called God. Where did God get the energy to "stretch out" the universe? He didn't. He was the energy.
- mike1948
July 25, 2009 11:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God of the Gap
Science can never conclusively prove that there is no God (unless proof of another god is somehow found)... so it is always 'possible' to push the 'God did it' into those gaps in our knowledge. However Science has consistently pushed into those areas where it was formerly declared 'God did it'
The forces behind the creation of the cosmos do not care in the least for the actions of humans, lumps of self amusing, self replicating proteins sandwiched between layers of clay, that we are.
- MrBook
July 26, 2009 8:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, It does!
Intelligent design does have merit. However it maybe useful
to use clearer terms then, "intelligent design". (Designed with for knowledge of purpose), is much more to the point.
Macro Evolution is all about, problem solving mechanisms, spontaneously generating.
It is difficult, even improbable to imagine how such a process could happen; without being jump started. There are as many opposing forces in the environment as there are beneficial. How could, fragile, non-evolved life, survive in a hostile environment? Further, what would cause successful
designs to leave one environment, for a totally alien environments? Sea life too land life.
There would be nothing that would lead a successful species, to make such a drastic move from one environment to a totally alien one, and fill the earth. Unless we view the environment as an intelligent entity.. IF such change was forced upon a species by catastrophic events, the species would become extinct; before random mutation, could find the correct body designs, to allow survival.
So not only is the survival of the first life improbable, without pre-designed survival mechanisms. Life evolving drastic body plan changes, to survive in totally different environments. Is also unlikely to have happened. I don't believe an honest mind could conclude this happened incrementally over eons of time. No matter how much time is involved, because with that idea, your always putting the cart before the horse.
The designed (cart) can be pulled by the environment (horse). But a horse
cannot build a cart. Neither can it change a cart into a boat or airplane.
The mindless environment can't do anything, without a pre-designed mechanism.
We don't see the environment incubating new life, or totally new body plans today.
Why would we conclude it only happened in the past;
in a even more hostel environment?!
- jumpstart
September 11, 2008 8:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks
Jumpstart helps us understand the eliminative nature of ID
--
It is difficult, even improbable to imagine how such a process could happen; without being jump started.
--
In other words, his lack of imagination or familiarity with science causes him to propose the need for a designer.
Ignorance is a powerful foundation for ID causing it to remain scientifically irrelevant.
PS: Contrary to his musings, selection and variation are highly plausible, all that is needed is variation, inheritance and a fitness difference. And while science may not have all the answers to origin of life, it has done far more science in this area to resolve this than ID could even dream of.
Ah the power of ignorance.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 9:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Question.
How did life begin?
- camdaddy09
August 19, 2009 1:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There is no such thing as an ID expert
Saying there are experts on Intelligent Design is like saying there are experts on astrology.
ID is a pseudoscience. The best definition of pseudoscience comes from Prof. Thagard at the univ. of Wisconsin.
"A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if:
1. it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but
2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in ralation to others, and is selective in considering confirmation and disconfirmations."
http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/PH29A/thagard.html
- jaa September 12, 2008 4:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, there is design ...
What always gets me with the Intelligent Design crowd is that, in their aim of inserting an external designer into the mix of biological science, they seem to miss or deliberately avoid one glaring fact - once life exists, with varying degrees of success, life designs itself according to the rules established by its environment and its own specific nature. Life needs no external designer. It has the power to design itself over time. Each of us is the design - conscious or not - of our two parents, or rather, of the egg and sperm that joined to create us. Some chance and some decision-making, some design is involved. Our parents, in turn, are the chance and deliberate design of their parents before them and so on. We purposely select our mates and the environment determines whether our coupling is successful or not. No matter the species, a great amount of examination and decision-making is involved one generation to the next. That is design, however, it is life designing life.
Of course, how life first appeared is a separate issue. Nevertheless, knowledge of exactly what happened is not the same as mere supposition. Hard objective science will provide the answers to our questions. Supposition remains mere supposition unless it is followed by indisputable facts. Could the basic blocks for life been externally inserted upon the Earth by intelligent beings? Perhaps, however, before one intends to teach such as knowledge, it must be more than mere imagination. If the evidence substantially supports such a proposition, then, by all means, integrate it into "what we know" and relate such knowledge to children so that they too will have your understanding. If one's imagination remains mere imagination without substantiation by objective facts, then do not behave criminally by relaying it to children as knowledge when it is clearly not.
- Naumadd
September 12, 2008 4:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
School
This is the age old question. This has been the battle of philosophers for all of time. Great minds have struggled with it. Nations have died fighting over it. Are we created or an accident? Are we machines choosing between incorrect and correct responses, or are we sentient being choosing between good and evil? How could you not teach this?
- Oasthad September 15, 2008 7:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sunday school
--Oasthad
Are we machines choosing between incorrect and correct responses, or are we sentient being choosing between good and evil? How could you not teach this?
--
That's a good topic for sunday school. As far as I can tell, this is part of the message they are teaching.
What more do you want
- PvM
September 15, 2008 9:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID explains nothing
ID is offered as an explanation for the complexity of life on Earth, which, according to ID proponents, cannot be explained by random chance and survival of the fittest.
But ID suffers a fatal flaw. If we have to hypothesize an intelligent designer to explain life, then we need to hypothesize another intelligent designer to explain that intelligent designer, which also could not have come about from random chance. We then need to explain the second intelligent designer with a third, and so on ad infinitum. There are only two ways to end this infinite regression. First we could accept that intelligence and complex life CAN come about by random chance, and that the first intelligent designer in this regression did exactly that. But if we do this, then why not just accept that WE came about by random chance and avoid the need for any regression? Second, we could hypothesize a supernatural god that did not need to be designed by a previous intelligent designer (maybe god is a self-designing designer?). But if we do this, then ID clearly becomes a religious argument, something ID proponents in this debate have denied.
At this point no one can explain how life/intelligence formed on this planet. But human ignorance does not constitute evidence for an even more complex and inexplicable intelligence. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it can not be explained.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
September 18, 2008 6:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Casey Luskin pwned again
On Pandasthumb, Nick Matzke, whose contributions to Dover v Kitzmiller were instrumental in the stunning defeat of Intelligent Design and whose contributions to exposing the fallacies in Behe''s arguments as well as the extent of ignorance of science amongst ID proponents has caused much concern amongst ID proponents, so much that in general they have chosen to pretend, in a typical creationist fashion, that Matzke's arguments do not exist. In this example, Matzke shows how Luskin's attempts to rebut the Kitzmiller decision by exposing the scientific vacuity of ID, once again backfire in light of the current state of scientific knowledge.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/luskin-and-the-2.html
Nick Matzke:
Over on the opposingviews.com website, Casey Luskin of the DI tries to rebut the Kitzmiller decision by re-fighting Behe’s spectacular implosion on the issue of the evolution of the vertebrate immune system. To review, in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe claimed that:
--Behe
“As scientists we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustruation.” (Darwin’s Black Box, p. 139)
“We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.” (Darwin’s Black Box, p. 138)
--
(PvM: Note how these are the typical ID arguments against science, we do not know, thus designed)
As the debate over “irreducible complexity” developed in the next decade, the most detailed arguments would go basically like this:
--
ID: Gradual evolution by natural selection can’t produce IC structures because any structure missing a part would be nonfunctional
Evo: You are ignoring cooption of structures with different functions, which has a been a major feature of the evolutionary explanation of complex structures ever since the Origin of Species.
ID: Cooption explanations are too improbable.
Evo: Why?
ID: Because we say so.
Evo: But homology evidence shows that “IC systems” lacking parts can still have other functions, and therefore your claim that structures missing parts would be nonfunctional is wrong
ID: OK well I don’t have a comeback on that point, so instead I will claim that evolutionary cooption explanations aren’t detailed & tested enough to satisfy me.
Evo: Here’s a bunch of detailed & tested research papers on the evolution of system X.
ID: Not detailed enough. I need every single mutation & selection pressure before I admit that evolution produced this IC system rather than ID.
--
At this point the ID proponent has abandoned the original argument and therefore lost, even though he won’t admit it. Knowing all of this before the Kitzmiller trial, we devised ways to bring this point to the attention of the judge. The most famous example was the fabled “immune system cross”. A large amount of evidence was submitted that showed how the key feature of the vertebrate adaptive immune system, rearranging immune receptors (antibodies), evolved.
Read the rest at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/luskin-and-the-2.html and educate yourself on the current status of science regarding the immune system and its evolution, and compare it with how ID 'explains' said immune system ('poof').
- PvM
September 19, 2008 9:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
actually..
I read the entire article.. and of course not being a member of the various fields of genetic research - it was not simple reading, nor did I understand even half of the references they made to various receptors and such. That considered... it appears to not actually prove the point and also does not answer Behe's original question.
also the comments show mixed reactions - and many of the readers reacted as I did... the original question was disregarded.
First and foremost - how does an animal without an immune system survive to acquire one. You would need to live to do so.... a dead animal does not good genetics make.
This is what Behe asked... instead what we have is a list of genetic comparisons of immune systems.. showing some as simple and some as complex... well, duh. This is the same technique as lining up skeletons and saying 'see.... a progression!'....
or not a progression - depending on whether you want to commit to a crime of assumption.
and besides... the article is about an ID trial... and Behe was presented with this pile of information... how could the judge (who is a judge by trade.. not a geneticist) decide whether or not these technical papers had proven anything?
in the articles words ''Judge Jones ruled that “Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex.''
how would the judge know that... ? He could have handed the judge a pile of recipes for sponge cake and called it a refutation.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 6:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
evolving
"First and foremost - how does an animal without an immune system survive to acquire one. "
It does not acquire one... it already has one from it's ancestors.
Evolution does not 'recreate' everything from scratch, it builds on previously evolved systems. As such when an animal 'evolved' the immune system of it's ancestor evolve with it. Evolution is not a one mutation at a time deal, it involves multiple mutations happening throughout the life form.
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 6:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
inherit the unknown
..... I'm talking about the EVOLUTION of the first immune system. You can't inherit what doesn't exist..
- lux113
July 21, 2009 9:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Developed
“... I'm talking about the EVOLUTION of the first immune system. You can't inherit what doesn't exist..”
True.
However for multi cellular life to survive and reproduce it would have to have a way to keep other life from interfering in it’s processes. As such the only multi-cellular life that would endure would be those that had mutations protecting them from other life forms. That would be the beginning of the immune system.
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 5:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
that only goes around the problem..
I think this comes down to an irreducible complexity argument... how many mutations would be necessary to build this simple defense mechanism.. they would all need to happen simultaneously (or as a stretch.. nearly simultaneously) to be effective.. and thus superior by natural selection.
- lux113
July 22, 2009 4:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
oneupmanship
“I think this comes down to an irreducible complexity argument...”
So far Irreducible Complexity has failed ever time it was tested. It’s validity as a Scientific theory has never been demonstrated.
“how many mutations would be necessary to build this simple defense mechanism.. they would all need to happen simultaneously (or as a stretch.. nearly simultaneously) to be effective.. and thus superior by natural selection.”
To reach modern levels quite a few mutations, however they built slowly over the past few million years. The immune system did not have to arise simultaneously after all… evolution is a game of oneupmanship.
One species develops defenses against a form of attach and goes on to prosper, while another species develops a new mechanism of attack that bypasses those defenses. All this happens in a constantly changing environment where multiple pressures exist.
Also, once a defense against one kind of attack has bee developed it is much easier to develop new defenses against a similar form of attack (once a species has developed a defense against one type of virus it is easier to develop defenses to similar types of viruses).
- MrBook
July 22, 2009 4:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Keep Religion Out Of Science!
As much as I might believe that there is some sort of creator and that a creation occurred, you cannot justifiably intermingle science and religion. ID is just "creation science" (which is not science at all) in disguise!
Teach science, not religion, in the science classroom, and creationism/ID in church. Bottom line, end of story.
- bagpiper2005
September 20, 2008 2:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID has no merit except as a religious idea.
ID has no merit except as a religious idea. For ID to be even minimally logical, the IDer must be God. Positing any other possible Designer is illogical because the question can be fairly asked: where did they come from? If they are naturally occuring, then we can be too. If they are not, then ID just posits God at some degree of separation.
ID is, in fact, just a version of creationism. Actually, ID is one of the oldest forms of scientific creationism; a version of it was proposed by William Paley around 1802; about seven (7) years BEFORE CHARLES DARWIN WAS BORN. The modern version of ID is differnt from Paley's watchmaker, but only because 206 years have passed. At least Paley was honest enough to not obscure the religious nature of his idea.
- sean s
September 23, 2008 3:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unintelligent designers
A common trait I've noticed in every debunker of Intelligent Design, Creationism, God, etc. is an ardent desire to believe there is no higher reasoning power than the human mind. Which means he thinks HIS mind is the smartest thing in the Universe. His mind is closed on that certainty and he derives smug pleasure from sneering at those who don't agree with him.
A good word for that attitude is "fanaticism."
A religious fanatic says: "I know I'm right because God told me so." A secular fanatic says: "I know I'm right because I am God in my own little Cosmos."
Such self-worshipers are insufferable bores who could be ignored if they didn't use government power to force their beliefs on others. By lying about "separation of church and state" and other nonsense, they urge judges to pass laws against teaching anything but their own views of science in public schools. That such actions are the exact opposite of tolerance of dissent and objective scientific inquiry doesn't bother their snobbish feelings of superiority.
It is, of course, futile to argue with closed minds. So I'll just try to retain my own skepticism and study all sides of a controversy.
- Allogic
September 29, 2008 9:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Turning reality upside down
What I desire to beleive is totally irrelevant. If desire guided my beliefs, I would be not only a supporter of Intelligent Design, but a young Earth Creationist and a fundamentalist Christian. But I'm not because my eyes were opened to the falsehood of those positions and that realization plunged me into a deep sense of grief at having been lied to and manipulated by promoters of bigoted dogmas. I think is it absolutly shameful for anyone to imply that my position is fanatical because I WANT to be the supreme intelligence in my universe. That is such a blatantly dishonest and ignorant strawman that I am amazed that it was even put out here.
In short, not one word of Allogic's statement rings true to me.
- Dale Husband
October 10, 2008 12:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
amen to that..
very well said. The arrogance factor is always obvious. The entire act of presuming you know anything for sure is not scientific... Their bias reveals them - and admittedly that happens on both sides. I don't believe a true 'scientist' exists... because no matter who you are, you are inevitably proving nothing but your world view.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 6:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
argh.
that reply was to allogic... I clearly should have clarified.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 6:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
and to Dale Husband
And I was just the reverse... I believed in nothing for 25 years.. and now I believe wholeheartedly in God.
You should never judge a religion by it's followers for one -- people are sinful, perverse, bigoted beings and are not the ruler to go by. No matter what denomination. Though I do think I find much more animosity spouted by the atheist... and for balance I do usually find more ignorance from christians...not all - just on the average. Yet, that is my point - you should never use them as a guide to what is true.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 6:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
animosity?
"I find much more animosity spouted by the atheist... "
The animosity is much higher on the religious side... the people who consider atheists immoral and even criminal.
- MrBook
July 21, 2009 7:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
only two choices
There are only two choices. Either the complexity of living systems is intelligently organized or complex biological organization is the result of a series of lucky accidents. Darwinism claims “natural selection” somehow turned all those lucky accidents into purposefully interacting systems. Exactly how such a feat is performed is not stated. ID claims the complexity of living systems is not accidental. Whether the organizing intelligence of living systems is an innate aspect of living matter, or whether it emanates from some deity can not be determined. The present argument between theists and evangelical atheists can never be resolved. However if intelligence of any form is involved in living systems, either an internal organizing force or direction from a deity -- life is intelligently designed.
- bertvan
October 9, 2008 11:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The irony of our time
Just as advances in genetic and protein research and mathematics are enabling us to understand and explain how evolution works, a growing number of our society are rejecting science in favor of myth and fake science.
Is it that people are losing touch with science because of its complexity; our education system is letting us down; the quality of our news sources is deteriorating; or informative (and could have been enlightening) books like “A New Kind of Science” are so poorly written?
- RichNau
October 16, 2008 1:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Faith Abounds
I really have to give the anti-IDer's credit, you have a lot of faith. More than I do actually. Some say that God does not exist and that there is no way in this universe that he created everything, yet what doesn't make sense to me is that there is less of a chance that The Big Bang happened then God actually creating the universe. Do the math: The Big Bang is really impossible. I heard a statistic that said the possibility of The Big Bang happening is like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling A WORKING BOEING 747.
Look around you. Look away from your computer screen for a moment and glance out your window. Really ask yourself, "Did all this happen by chance?" The trees, water, mountains, birds, cats, dogs; I'm not sure how people can believe that this was all a freak accident. Was it really a concidence that the planet we call Earth just happened to be the IDEAL place for life? Any closer to the sun, we'd fry. Any farther, we'd freeze. We're perfectly placed in the universe and thrive because of it. Coincidence? I think not.
Most of all, look at yourself. Ask any doctor and they will tell you that the human body is a remarkable machine. Well lubricated, efficient, intelligent; what are the chances of the body that you are in now coming from a pile of goo struck by lightning (or however you believe we came to existance). For those of you who believe that we were not created and came into existance randomly, I give you props for believing in something that mathmatically probably never happened.
Also, if there is no God, then we have no purpose; we are useless beings that try to make the most of of what we have been dealt. Is that what you want to believe? If you do, then you have more faith than most people.
I've found purpose. I've found happiness. Have you?
- filmfreak
October 28, 2008 7:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
True
While in science you cannot prove or falsify the existence of God (and ID doesn't change that), I agree that when it comes to blind faith Dawkins and PZ Myers are guilty of the same thing.
I considered atheism for a while after having a growing distaste for what seemed to be an elitist mentality among Christians, but then I realized that this new atheist movement is basically guilty of the same thing.
My mind was made up when I a couple people on youtube posted videos saying atheism offered nothing, and after viewing some of the attempts to prove atheism DID have something to offer, I realized that even if religion WAS false, it at least serves as a catalyst for a happier life.
- F2XL
November 2, 2008 1:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Theism and atheism
Theism is a belief in god/s. Atheism is a *lack* of belief in god/s. Atheists do not claim to have proof that there is no God, but rather are confident to work on the assumption that none exists. The person who makes an outlandish claim has to provide the proof; it doesn't work the other way around. Saying, "I'm waiting for evidence that God exists, and if that happens I'll reconsider my position, but until then I won't believe" -- that's atheism, and there's no faith involved there.
- thoughtcounts Z
November 3, 2008 8:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My Bad
Forgot that atheism ISN'T a religion, and if I say otherwise, people will apologetically insist I'm wrong.
- F2XL
November 9, 2008 11:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Atheism offers nothing
Atheism is merely the lack of theistic belief, and it offers nothing beyond that. It exists as a social movement only because arrogant and self-righteous theism is so rampant in this country. If most everyone accepted the lack of religion as readily as they accepted red hair or tattoos, atheism as a movement would cease to exist.
If you're looking for a catalyst for a happier life, you'd need to look elsewhere. There are atheistic philosophies that can fill such a gap. Secular humanism is my favorite, but there are atheistic spiritual traditions, including subsets of Taoism and Confucianism.
- Antimatter
December 26, 2008 10:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Science is not atheism.
First of all, science does not make a claim that every feature of the universe can be explained without God.
Instead, it makes a host of positive claims that a particular feature of the universe can be explained by some particular mechanism.
So, belief in the efficacy and scope of evolution does not equate to a belief in a universe with no metaphysical purpose, or a universe with no creator.
Furthermore, you conflate cosmology with biology. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the universe. The theory of evolution only explains why living beings posses complex structures which aid in the propagation of life.
Finally: "Did all this happen by chance?"
Scientists do not believe that life is the result of "chance." Instead, we believe that life the result of the uniform operation of natural laws.
During pregnancy a new organism is formed entirely by the operation of natural laws. This is not the result of chance, and does not make life purposeless.
- Matthew Ackerman November 3, 2008 7:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cosmology or Biology...doesn't matter
You're right, science is not atheism, but not that's what most people make it out to be. They take God totally out of the equation and most deny that He even exists. Some are even more open to the fact that aliens created us, which takes a lot of faith to believe.
I am not just addressing cosmology or biology, I'm addressing the whole concept that God was not involved in creating the universe. Whether your talking about either one of those particular topics is irrelevant, the real issue is that some people (maybe not yourself) make God absent in creating the universe, you, me, my dog, that that tree outside, and so on. I do appreciate that you state that "science is not atheism" and there are reason's the universe functions as it does (cosmology or biology), but what other explanation is there to...life...or the universe? Do you have a hypothesis on how we came to be? I would love to hear it.
I think you missed my point about the whole issue of "chance". When I said that, I meant that some believe the universe (cosmology) spontaniously came together by a giant expolsion, and later, just happened to create life as we know it (biology). "Chance" was just a point to illustrate the randomness of our whole universe and ourselves coming together. I still fail to grasp the amount of faith it takes to believe this.
Yes, a baby being formed is natural, but the fact that we as humans are able to reproduce is a miracle all in itself; just look at all the things that it takes to make it all happen. I just can't understand how some people can think this all came together by "chance". The belief in something other than intelligent design takes much more faith than what I believe.
You also missed the point about purpose. As a Christian, I know that the God who created me has a one-of-a-kind plan for my life. If God didn't create us (which is highly, highly unlikely) and there is no plan for each of us, then what's the point of living? If I'm here just to live and die, no wonder the suicide rate is as high as it is!
I'll say it again: I've found purpose. I've found happiness. HAVE YOU?
- filmfreak
November 3, 2008 5:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why should there be a god at all?
Your argument is compelling until we expand the question of "How did we get here?" to encompass the divine. I understand the Christian god had no beginning. I'm not asking, "Who created god?" but rather, "Why should there be a god at all?" What are the mathematical odds that your god would be the way he is? In light of that question, suddenly the big bang doesn't seem like such an outlandish problem in comparison.
We know the big bang happened, for whatever reason. The existence of a divine creator (conveniently) makes no difference in the observable predictions of the big bang, so why does it require faith to eliminate the assumption of a god?
I've found purpose and happiness too. Meaning doesn't need to be handed down from above; it comes from within too. That isn't faith; it's the courage to face reality.
- Antimatter
December 26, 2008 10:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
yet..
With belief.. facing reality doesn't require 'courage'... but facing a world with no purpose behind it.. with no reason except cause and effect, electrons and neutrons, yes - that world requires courage for sure.
Keep in mind that I did not find God out of some need to have an explanation..though I admit even as an atheist the concept sounded 'nice'. Nor was it a need to have this innate courage that comes from a world with reason, it was instead just a bonus. It's a typical atheistic viewpoint that because the believer lacked the courage to live in a world without some form of security blanket.. that they invent God..on the contrary I came to the conclusion from looking at the evidence and from personal experiences. The realization was unavoidable.
I was a happy person as an atheist.. -- though I can't describe the happiness that comes from knowing this isn't just a cosmic accident.
As far as you question of 'what are the odds your God would be the way he is?'... I truly don't get the question... I'd say 1:1... but that would mean I knew what that meant in the first place? It's awfully esoteric... Do you mean what are the odds.. that if there were a God that he would want to have a creation? I'd figure 1:1... though it's rather hard for an imperfect being to imagine the wants of God - but it would seem any God by necessity would 'do' something.... not simply be content as an all encompassing complete and perfect whole... it would most likely 'create' in some form.. and what are the chances that this creation would likely be a reflection of himself in some form.. I'd say 1:1... when you create your creation reflects your character... does it not? Now the next step becomes more conjectural... if you were to create this 'creation' would it be proper to force upon it absolute obedience? I'd say that wouldn't be right.. I'd say you'd have to give it a right to dissent... matter of fact I'd give it a 1:1 chance that the only path would be free will.. and thus an imperfect creation - since you cannot have the option to do wrong without it.. so free will is another 1:1 chance.. Now we have a creation.. and it's flawed and yet shows similarities to it's creator.. we need to give this creation some purpose.. some form of reason to exist of sorts.. well I figure the obvious choice would be that the very purpose the creator would devise is a great mystery of 'where did I come from?' .. in other words.. a beautiful mystery would be 'am I an accident.. or did I come from a creator?'... now THAT would be an ingenious idea... it would be like a game of hide and seek with my creation... It would be the ultimate question and the ultimate purpose... yes, I would give a 1:1 chance that this would be the perfect concept for my creation's 'fulfilling purpose'.. Now another problem... considering I am a perfect creator.. but have made an imperfect being... doomed to mistakes - and suffering.. and now he has a reason for life.. the search for the truth of me.. the creator.. I need to instill a reason for this search...a reward of sorts - since simply knowing I exist is not going to really provide meaning or even reason to search... I have it! the ultimate reward.. to return to me.. their perfect creator - ahhh... but there's a problem.. any reward means a punishment.. and that doesn't sound very benevolent of a perfect creator....hmm.. well then I will come to earth and live as them - in earthly form - yes! perfect idea... and even allow myself to die at their hands to show that I have suffered as they have! .. and I will make the rule that due to my own sacrifice... all that is necessary to return to me - the perfect creator is simply a heartfelt belief.. and an apology!! ingenious .. and perfectly simple!...
in conclusion... I'd say if there were a God... which there is... there's a 1:1 chance he would be precisely as we perceive him.
- lux113
July 21, 2009 7:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On the science
My other comment focused more on my atheist background, but I wanted to respond to your scientific misconceptions.
Nobody thinks lightning struck goo and humans popped out. Saying such constitutes a straw man and betrays your unfamiliarity with evolutionary theory. Before bashing what you've heard evolutionists "believe," you should check for yourself. There are several excellent books, some by Christians, that introduce the basic concepts behind the modern formulation of Darwin's theory (Darwin was wrong on most of the details) and explain why we accept them. I would personally suggest any of the books by Kenneth Miller.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?url=search-alias %3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=kenneth+miller
- Antimatter
December 26, 2008 11:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID Contradicts Itself
The name Intelligent Design is itself a hoax. It's meant to sound scientific to obscure the belief that the universe was created by a bodiless consciousness.
Further, to argue that the universe was created by some consciousness outside of the universe avoids the untidy question: Where would that consciousness be? If nowhere, then it can't have existed to begin with. If somewhere, then existence was already there before the bodiless consciousness came on the scene. Hence it could not have created existence.
Intelligent Design has no merit because it rests on the very concepts it denies. For instance, it rests on the view that an "intelligence" created the universe---yet states that that thing is unknowable. If it's unknowable, then no one can declare it's intelligent---or that it exists.
It's odd to attribute an orgin to the universe outside itself simply because it's complex. Given the naure of the universe, were it not complex, THAT would require an explanation.
- Sylvia Bokor
November 17, 2008 11:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You Contradict Yourself
"The name Intelligent Design is itself a hoax. It's meant to sound scientific to obscure the belief that the universe was created by a bodiless consciousness."
So are your main criticisms of ID just superficial ones?
"Further, to argue that the universe was created by some consciousness outside of the universe..."
Who said anything about a supernatural entity?
"...avoids the untidy question: Where would that consciousness be?"
This question can easily remain unanswered if all we are trying to do is determine if certain features of the universe and in living systems are designed or not; we need not know what the location of a painter is for a cave painting to know that such a painter existed by inferring from the painting itself.
"If nowhere, then it can't have existed to begin with."
See the above point, a design inference can be made independently from knowledge of a designing force's location.
"If somewhere, then existence was already there before the bodiless consciousness came on the scene. Hence it could not have created existence."
Where in the entire doctrine of ID do they state that "existence" is what the designer(s)/designing force created? In what book or article does a DI fellow state that there was know existence until a designer of some sort created it? Or are you just building a straw man?
"Intelligent Design has no merit because it rests on the very concepts it denies."
And this merit rests on what concept in denial?
"For instance, it rests on the view that an "intelligence" created the universe---yet states that that thing is unknowable. If it's unknowable, then no one can declare it's intelligent---or that it exists."
See the above point. We need not "know" the intelligence to draw inferences about it's existence because that's not what ID studies. ID studies the FEATURES that are best traced to an intelligence; not the intelligence itself.
"It's odd to attribute an orgin to the universe outside itself simply because it's complex. Given the naure of the universe, were it not complex, THAT would require an explanation."
How so? And of course the origins of the Universe (even if it was from unintelligent causes) would be from outside itself, something would've had to have caused the big bang from the point of singularity.
- F2XL
November 18, 2008 4:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fallacies Aren't Arguments
The response to my comment ID Contradicts Itself is a series of peculiarly unclear assertions. For example, the responder declares: --- "We need not "know" the intelligence to draw inferences about it's existence because that's not what ID studies. ID studies the FEATURES that are best traced to an intelligence; not the intelligence itself."---
Such an assertion presupposes that (1) the "features" exists separate from the entity, and that (2) the features are expressions of some intelligence one supposes exists. This is a logical fallacy. It assumes the prior existence of a thing whose features one is allegedly studying while declaring one is "tracing" them to some intelligence, which one denies one knows.
The responder is dealing in word salads, i.e., formulating arguments that float without reference to reality. This approach permeates the responder's entire post. As such, it's not worth rebutting.
- Sylvia Bokor
November 19, 2008 7:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree
"The response to my comment ID Contradicts Itself is a series of peculiarly unclear assertions. For example, the responder declares: --- "We need not "know" the intelligence to draw inferences about it's existence because that's not what ID studies. ID studies the FEATURES that are best traced to an intelligence; not the intelligence itself."---"
Is the fact that we don't need to know the exact source of a design to know such a source exists just an unclear assertion? If so, explain. Oh wait.....
"Such an assertion presupposes that (1) the "features" exists separate from the entity, and that (2) the features are expressions of some intelligence one supposes exists."
1. What do you mean by "separate?" 2. Agree, that's the whole point about design vs. the designer itself.
"This is a logical fallacy. It assumes the prior existence of a thing whose features one is allegedly studying while declaring one is "tracing" them to some intelligence, which one denies one knows."
How is it a logical fallacy to say that we don't need to know in person the author of a book to know that the book had an author? And what do you mean by the "prior existence" of a feature? Are you claiming that I'm bent on the assuming that the designed feature existed before the designer? Elaborate please.
"The responder is dealing in word salads, i.e., formulating arguments that float without reference to reality. This approach permeates the responder's entire post."
How on earth is the fact that we need not know the designer to identify design an argument that floats without reference to reality?
"As such, it's not worth rebutting."
Yet you felt compelled to do so.
- F2XL
November 19, 2008 10:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That's the wrong question
I do not believe in Jesus, nor I am a Christian. However organs like the snake venomous fangs, the wing, the eye and the flagelum are simply not possible to explain by natural selection, because all these need all their components to function properly. The true question to be asked is how these organs came about piece by piece, cell by cell until they were thoroughly operative?
The bizantine debate whether ID is or not science is to bark at the wrong tree. What about if Darwing was wrong and Monsieur Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck was right and there IS an inherent will that make species "intent" their organic changes? I have read scientific evidences that have recently sprung about living being's abilities to "intent" changes around them.
- Odlanierzenitram
February 4, 2009 5:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I want to believe not.
`Guided by a larger force`. I can't be sure of course, but I believe that that is not the case. If that is true then it seems that it will turn out to be a religious matter, because humans will automatically consider that force as god.
Even if some force created us, humans shouldn't take for granted that it did it so that we worship it. He might did it for fun or more likely just because that`s what is does. Why do ants make colonies on the ground and gather in big teams? Because that`s what they do, to survive. Maybe the force needs to create things to survive and if that is the case by now it will probably have forgotten about this place a long long time ago since it will be far far away creating other things.
- Joji
March 16, 2009 6:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
YES
Just look around.
There is know bang that can do all.This is a no brainer!
- zman
May 29, 2009 9:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent Design is Another word for creationism
Intelligent Design is a dishonest way for creationism to try to appear scientific. It's kind of silly when you think about it. Denying nature, the creationists attempt to replace evolution with biblical nonsense. They pretend that some bodiless ghost is the cause of everything in the universe and conceal their beliefs behind a psuedo-scientific cloak of "intelligent design."
- Sylvia Bokor
June 3, 2009 12:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why doesn't Intelligent Design claim everything Creationism claims?
If Intelligent Design is Creationism, why doesn't Intelligent Design claim everything Creationism claims?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq /#chptux
- Screen Name
July 11, 2009 3:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
misleading by the very words used to describe it
I realize my comment doesn't relate to the heart of the question, but the use of phrases like " intelligent design ", "Abortion", " pro-choice ", "gay" and all the other politically correct synonyms are really beginning to irritate me. Why not call things what they are? Abortion is the word used to insinuate the aborting of a pregnancy . It is Murder. Pro Choice means you believe a mother has the right to murder her baby. Intelligent design means you believe in a creator, i.e. "God". "Gay" means you are Homosexual, not necessarily gay and happy about it. These words are used to lessen the impact of what is happening around us, to make things vaguer in an already shadowy world. Who would benefit from that? The Father of all Lies perhaps?
- chief45
September 1, 2009 7:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yep
Satan is sure behind all of these things. That's what the guy cares about.
If you guys in the ID world want to come out and admit "Yes, this is religion ", it would save us all a lot of time.
Abortion = Murder. Sure, I suppose we could call it that. And antibiotics are genocidal.
Pro - Choice = Right to murder . Fine. And Pro-Life = Destruction of a rights-based society .
Intelligent Design = God. Okay. Evolution = ...Evolution. That one's not a euphemism.
Gay = Homosexual. Fine. Stop using the word straight, then. Heterosexuals aren't necessarily "straight" by any stretch of the imagination.
- quantummechanik
September 1, 2009 9:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lard speaks?
I really wish you'd find someone else to stalk. Final response to your nonsense:
Yes Satan does encourage sin in our world.
If "you guys" in the atheist world would come out and admit that atheism is a religion , it'd save us some time too.
Abortion kills babies , antibiotics kill germs. They may be equal in your world, but not in mine.
You admit pro-choice is a right to murder . pro-life DOES take away your "so called right" to kill babies, but murdering babies is no more a right than murdering an 8 year old child. Do you believe in that "right" too?
You agree on Id= God...good
I agree heterosexuals are not "straight" either. That's just one I overlooked. Thanks for pointing it out.
- chief45
September 2, 2009 8:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You're calling me fat now?
That's classy.
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of this site. Someone makes an assertion, someone responds to it. There is a debate. This occurs everywhere, from the main arguments to the comments.
- quantummechanik
September 2, 2009 11:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.