Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)
----------------------------------------------
Eighty years after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the public still refuses to accept the idea that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena. In fact, opinion polls show that fewer people are willing to accept the idea that human beings developed from earlier species than they were just ten years ago.
In Britain—a country that is not exactly known for fundamentalist Christianity—fewer than half accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life. (And more than 40% of those polled believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.) Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.
Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory? Is it due to a resurgence of religious-based creationism? Or is it that the Discovery Institute and other advocates of Intelligent Design are more persuasive? I believe the credit belongs not to the advocates of ID but to the theory’s critics.
Had the critics remained silent, ID might possibly have moldered in obscurity. But instead they launched a counter-offensive, forcing people into choosing sides. The problem is that the more the public learns about modern evolutionary theory, the more skeptical they become.
I won’t argue that critics of ID are always wrong or that ID is always—or even mostly—right in its claims. But I do think a compelling case can be made that the anti-IDers are losing the rhetorical battle. Here is the first five in a list of ten reasons ways in which they are helping to promote the theory of intelligent design:
#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory. – Whether due to intellectual snobbery or intellectual laziness, too many critics of ID never bother to understand what the term means, much less learn the general tenets of the theory. Instead, they knock down a strawman version of ID that they have gleaned from other, equally ill-informed, critics. The belligerent or paranoid advocates of ID will assume that the misrepresentation is due to dishonesty or a conspiracy by “Darwinists.” But even those who are more charitable will agree that when a critic misrepresents the theory, it undermines their own credibility.
#2 By claiming that ID is stealth creationism. -- Resorting to this red herring is one of the most common arguments made against ID. While it’s true that ID could be used to promote a particular religious agenda, this is not a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate scientific research program. There is no a priori reason why a research program could not be completely in adherence to accepted scientific methods and yet be completely compatible with a particular religious viewpoint.
But it also refuses to acknowledge the vast majority of people throughout history have believed in at least a basic form of creationism. Most people believe that some form of intelligent being (i.e., God) created the universe and everything in it. For most of these people, “creationism” is not a derogatory term. The phrase “stealth creationism” might appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals (those who know almost nothing about science but do know that they despise “fundamentalist Christians”) yet for most ordinary people it sounds like bigoted nonsense.
#3 By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments. – Critics of ID often claim that the theory relies on a “God of the Gaps” “argument. (Don’t understand how something occurred? Well…God did it. Case closed.) As scientific reasoning, this method is obviously flawed. Yet the critics of ID often resort to the same tactic, only instead of saying “God did it” they claim “Science will find it.”
The problem is that this almost never happens. Closing a "science gap" almost always leads to the discovery of other, even more difficult to explain gaps in knowledge. For example, when evolution was first proposed by Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits from one generation to the next. With the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick closed that particular “gap.”
But as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate explanation for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of nowhere. Also, we do not have an adequate explanation within chemical evolutionary theory for the appearance of the mechanism that gives us a readout of the information, or for the appearance of methods that replicate information with out error, or for the appearance of the delicate balance of repair and maintenance of the molecular systems that use the information stored in DNA.
Scientific discoveries tend to find that nature is even more complex than we imagined which makes it even more unlikely that a process like natural selection is a sufficient explanation.
#4 By claiming that ID isn’t science since it's not published peer-reviewed literature...and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals. – The hypocrisy of snubbing ID because it lacks peer-review was exposed by the treatment of Richard Sternberg, a journal editor who made the career-killing mistake of actually publishing an article that was sympathetic to ID.
The resulting controversy exposed just how close-minded some scientists were to criticisms of neo-Darwinism. As Sternberg—who is not an advocate of ID--said after the incident, “It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."
#5 By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features. -- Instead of saying that “God created X”, Darwinists tend to claim that “Sex selection created X.” Take, for instance, this statement made by zoologist Richard Dawkins:
"Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.
Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some body hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again, the same answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You guessed it, sex selection.
The same goes for human behavior. Hardly a week goes by that some newspaper or magazine article does not include a story claiming how “evolution” is the reason humans do X, avoid Y, or prefer Z.
Even scientists grow weary of hearing such faith claims presented as if was “science.” As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, notes in a recent edition of The Scientist:
…Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive - except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm of faith. Yet when evolutionists make such claims they are often flummoxed by the public’s skeptical reaction. They can’t understand how we could be so stupid as to not accept their claims. And we wonder how they could be so stupid as to think we are really that gullible.
To be continued in Part II
IOW: You have no idea what I am talking about.
Perhaps he can't answer yes or no because he hasn't formed an opinion.
LOL, that was a test, you failed miserably. Two valued logic is just that, true or false. Three valued logic includes a third state which many technical people refer to as the "don't care" state and which is generally defined as "fuzzy logic" which you should be totally familiar with. Now run along Mr Business Administration before I ask you to construct some logic gates out of discrete components here live and in living color.
You found a way to falsify the claim that life started from non life yet Mr Science?
There are 2 possible opinions: Date or Codd (I am sooo good about leaving hints around to allow Googling possibilities!)
Of course there is always the ID option -- that logical operations will have a different result every time, depending on whether or not the Designer intervenes.
;)
I don't have disdain for public employees, I have disdain for public employees who embrace a libertarian philosophy and then cash a paycheck paid by public money every week. Big difference.
This is rich. Two yuttzes patting each other on the back.
Very funny. Thanks for the laugh!
Now that is interesting. Why should you care what the perosnal opinions are of someone who performs work on your behalf? Shouldn't you be interested in the quality of their work? You said you were Army. Should I have disdain for a soldier that is a Libertarian? Or worse, a Liberal? HOW DARE THEY! I mean, they suck of the public teat, too (by YOUR definition, not MINE).
And how about that 2VL vs 3VL thing? Has your feverish Googling been able to give you enough of an understanding to pretend you understand it?
Codd or Date? The Lady or the Tiger?
Don't care much.
Perhaps you'll get that and perhaps you won't, it depends on your level of knowledge.
You're knowledge level is woefully inadequate. You have no real world experience with boolean logic or gates, discrete or otherwise.
If you had you'd have known immediately that the "don't care" was a play on words in reference to 2 versus 3 valued logic.
In other words you struck out looking.
LOL!!!!! You have never been so wrong in your life!
ROTFLMAO!! I KNEW you were bloating your resume!!
You guessed and you LOST!!! You are BUSTED!!!
2VL and 3VL have to do with the management of missing data (nulling).
You know NOTHING about logic. Or very little -- maybe you can do some simple AND and OR operations (hey -- a chance to redeem yourself -- remember XOR? What is it?)
Thank you thank thank you thank you!!
See my 290 (LOLOLOL)
Ping to 290 FWIIW.
My patience paid off.
Puerile victory. Besides, what good is boolean logic for someone who cannot tell the difference between evidence and interpretations of evidence?
Two valued logic IS Boolean Logic. The phrases are interchangeable. Three valued logic in boolean logic is the addition of a third variable other than true or false which is an indeterminate state logically speaking. People who have worked with that hardware and software refer to those states as "don't care". Those are facts Jack.
We were discussing boolean logic. you don't even have the wherewithal to understand that you don't know what you're talking about. Now, I'd be happy to continue the discussion. You are confusing algortihms with logic. Like I said woefully inadequate knowledge base.
Victory? LOL.
The same as someone who posts a non-sequitur, I suppose.
Boolean Logic encompasses 3VL -- your information is dated, to say the least. Like, from 1968. Three valued logic in boolean logic is the addition of a third variable other than true or false which is an indeterminate state logically speaking. People who have worked with that hardware and software refer to those states as "don't care". Those are facts Jack.
The "3rd state" is NOT "don't care." Do you know what nulling is? If you don't understand nulling, you have, at best, a simple grasp of boolean logic.
We were discussing boolean logic. you don't even have the wherewithal to understand that you don't know what you're talking about. Now, I'd be happy to continue the discussion. You are confusing algortihms with logic. Like I said woefully inadequate knowledge base.
I guess the fact that I just blew you away somehow leads you to the conclusion "I have an inadequate knowledge base."
And yes, I know the difference between algorithms and logic (but I am sure you felt ever-so-clever for using both terms in a single sentence). By restating your earlier, incorrect, assertion, you think that you have buttressed your position? Boolean algebra is just that -- a mathematical construct that can be used for expressional evaluation. For the troglodytes in the audience, these used be expressed in "truth tables."
*ahem*
The introduction of nulling into the boolean expression introduced a significant deviation from traditional 2VL. The intermediate state is not "don't care" but rather "don't know." Booelan algebra recognizes the nulling in a 3VL expression consruct. There is a HUGE difference between the two -- and a substantial one. But perhaps that is a little bit esoteric.
I would explain the rest of how 2VL differs from 3VL from a boolean algebraic perspective, but I "suck on the teat of the State" (just like people in the Army) so I guess I have to let you figure the rest out yourself.
As what started this discussion, I urge you to educate yourself and learn about 2VL vs 3VL so you can formulate informed opinions. "Don't Care" is not a recognized state for any boolean operation.
But, in retrospect I will grant that you do know the difference between True and False. At least conceptually.
Feel free to ping me if you have any interest in the 2VL vs 3VL controversy. It is almost as heated as CR/Iders vs. TToE.
And XOR?
LOL, this is your former claim.
Or put another way Boolean Logic has to do with the management of missing data. You're assinine.
See my 297
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.