Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[Right Wing Professor]

TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

...

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.

On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[He Rides A White Horse]

And the scientists always insist it is real as fact until the next breakthrough occurs.

Of course.....over and over again.

[narby]

I'll leave you with this thought........

You bailing out already? Wow. You must have very little confidence in your ideas.

Have you looked up ERV insertions yet?

[narby]

until the next breakthrough occurs.

When was the last creationist "breakthrough". Has there ever been *any* science information discovered by such people?

[narby]

A wise man realizes what he doesn't know; a fool thinks he know everything.

I agree. Science continually refines what it accepts. Only religious people think they have infallible information.

[Virginia-American]

...There are specific locations where the viral genetic material is inserted. Since chimps and humans (some more than others) are so similar, the parts of the genome where viral genes can be inserted are similar, if not the same. ...

The facts are that every ERV found in both people and gorillas is also found in chimps. And also if one is found in both chimps and gorillas, it will be found in people.

However, there are ERVs that are only found in people, or in chimps, or in gorillas. There are also some that are found in people and chimps but not gorillas.

AFAIK, there are no exceptions to this observation. ToE predicts that there are none. What does ID predict?

Your evidence shows nothing more than that the ERV sequence was inserted in both chimps and humans in the past and is now part of our permanent genome. This doesn't show a common ancestor organism

No, it doesn't mean that we have to have had a common ancestor with chimps, and that chimps and people had a common ancestor with gorillas. But it does seem to imply that, for some unknown reason, the genomes are related in the same way.

The point is that the pattern exists. The pattern is manifested in hundreds, if not thousands, of ERVs and other mutations.

What explanation does ID have for this? Does ID have any reason to predict that the pattern will persist as the genomes of people, chimps, gorillas, et al are studied? Does it predict that the pattern will not be found for some other class of DNA marker?

[Doctor Stochastic]

[Doctor Stochastic]

Yeah, Miguel been translated into more languages than Manuel.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Or Emmanuel. Although, when I get a new toy, I always start by reading Emmanuel.

[narby]

No, it doesn't mean that we have to have had a common ancestor with chimps, and that chimps and people had a common ancestor with gorillas. But it does seem to imply that, for some unknown reason, the genomes are related in the same way.

Because of the astronomically high odds against an identical ERV sequence, in the same location, in any two different species because of *separate* infections, the only acceptable answer is that these sequences are the result of a single infection in a single individual, that then speciated to produce non-human, and human species.

Add to this fact that there are several thousand such identical insertions, and the concept that common ancestry is *not* the cause of these DNA sequences is just not believable.

deal with it.

[Dimensio]

The statement was fallacious?

Yes.

I think not,

That only demonstrates your lack of reasoning ability.

I could not begin to name the languages that the "Holy Bible" has been translated to, I personally have seen American of course, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, German, and French. But there are more, and there are new translations being written every day.

The number of languages into which the Bible has been translated has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of any statement within the Bible. Arguing otherwise is fallacious.

[Dimensio]

I guess ignorance is bliss, at least for now.

Why is it that so many creationists accuse others of being "ignorant" when their own logical errors are exposed? Why can't creationists ever admit that they made a mistake and used a fallacious argument?

[Dimensio]

The strong surviving and the weak not surviving is the very basis of Darwin's theory, is it not?

No. The basis of Darwin's theory is that organisms with inherited traits that provide a reproductive (not necessarily survival) advantage over those of their species without such traits are more likely to pass their genetic material on to a successive generation and, as such, those traits will become more prolific within the population over successive generations.

Einstein was a weak little old man, and criminals, who are strong, would have had no appreciation for his finer points.

But since your initial premise was faulty, this statement and any further statements derived from it are meaningless.

[Dimensio]

It's been fun, but I have a family. Ping me when you solve the problems of the world with evolution.

Translation: "I've been exposed as another ignorant creationist who knows nothing of the theory of evolution and have based my arguments from an unrealistic strawman representation of the theory rather than reality. Now that my ignorance is exposed, rather than admit my error I will run away like a coward."

[Dimensio]

I'm on pins and needles waiting for the Nobel prize given for the first scientific instrument measuring the presence of God."

Someone tell the Nobel Prize commission about this guy.

[Dimensio]

Most open minded scientists consider everything.

Even the notion that the universe was created Last Thursday by the cat Queen Maeve? Are they narrow-minded to not let that be taught as an "idea" in public school science classrooms?

[narby]

Translation: "I've been exposed as another ignorant creationist who knows nothing of the theory of evolution and have based my arguments from an unrealistic strawman representation of the theory rather than reality. Now that my ignorance is exposed, rather than admit my error I will run away like a coward."

LOL. That deserves a repeat....

[RunningWolf]

The virus and dna pieces of evolution were not part of the theory at its beginning, so how can you say this?

Interestingly google "evolution of the theory of evolution" and you get almost 47 million hits (46,900,000)

It does not have to be an either or situation. So I do not have approach this debate as a evo, id or whatever.

He looks beyond, that is what I would expect of a scientific pioneer.

With all the flaws gaps contortions re-jiggering, adding new particles, etc of TOE and cosmology I am surprised that more are not looking beyond the existing paradigm's. And why reject roads that may lead back to answers other than your materialistic ones?

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

But the thing is, Demented waits till the guy announces he has left the forum before he comes in with all this coward liar bs.

And Demented himself ran off when he could not answer Liberty Wins questions.

I don't know what you guys are high fiving each other about, as long as it is something to you well okay.

Wolf

[Dimensio]

Why do you think that criminals are the fittest?

He's already run away like a coward, but I think that I know why he made the assertion. He's already demonstrated that he has no idea of what evolution really states, so why not introduce another strawman while he's at it?

[Dimensio]

I like how RunningAtTheMouth decided that I "waited" until Liberty Wins left the discussion before calling him a coward, as if I would have known that Liberty Wins was a coward before he ran away from his mistakes.