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.

[Gumlegs]

Based on probability factors ...

Oh. That clears it all up. Thanks for posting.

[RussP]

Good post, but don't expect it to persuade any evolutionists. They'll simply resort to their usual ad hominem attacks if they cannot argue the facts.

[balrog666]

Check out PH's link to the last millennium. Amazingly, while the entire world has moved on, this same cretin hasn't learned a single identifiable thing in the last six years.

[Gumlegs]

But ... but ... mathematicians have proved!!! it. Using "probability factors." (See post 174).

Let's see your science argue with "probability factors."

[phantomworker]

What is babblefish?

Are you talking about hidden patterns in evolution? Still don't understand how evolution relates to stochastic processes? Random variables? Time series? Random walk? Markov chain? Please clarify.

Here is a link to Stochastic processes so we are speaking the same language:

Stochastic processes

[JudgemAll]

Just wondering how you apply stochastic processes to evolution?

---

It relates to chaos theory. Natural phenomenum which appear completely random have in fact definite patterns and can be described by differential equations.

The "butterfly effect" is the case where a slight change in initial conditions yields a completely different result. Thus random initial conditions in nature would lead to natural diversity. Yet each life form would follow a definite pattern.

Darwinism fails in explaining nature's diversity or its potential in even greater diversity than seen today. Nature could be much more diverse if it were not for predatory races which killed other more viable but less aggressive races.

Darwin talks about adaptation to the environment, but there has to be restraints in this adaptation in order for the ecosystem to strive.

[frgoff]

In logic, this is known as changing the subject. The point is lack of ANY descendent species for an ogranism that has been on the earth for 400 million years.

Based on extrapolations of the current biosphere from the last mass extinction, millions is not an unreasonable number. What IS unreasonable is to say there are none, when TOE specifically predicts that genetic variation and natural selection would cause species to split off from common ancestors.

If you have a common ancestor, you have to have descendants. If all species descend from common ancestors, then all species old enough will eventually have descendants.

If the common ancestor of humans and chimps can spawn thousands of species in a few million years (remember, descendant species are the common ancestors of others; you've seen a phylogeny tree, take it the other direction), then it is reasonable to assume that a species 100 times older would spawn many, many more times species than that (remember, it's not a linear expansion).

It would be much easier to establish common ancestry using living species and living fossils than the fossil record. If it hasn't been done, it's very likely because it can't be done, and that is very damning to the theory.

[shuckmaster]

Where's the honest to goodness real living common ancestor?

Perhaps you should consider looking the word "ancestor" up in a dictionary.

[balrog666]

Damn! Learn some English, dude!

[RunningWolf]

Cinnamon Girl: The most disturbing aspect about this debate is the rabid desire of evolution proponents to ridicule and otherwise attempt to marginalize those who would dare to question them.

Jeff Gordon: I am curious. Just how should one respond to ridicules ideas that are on the margins of rational thought?

Wolf: Spoken like a true megalomaniac. I can give you examples, but you wont like them. Or then maybe you might.

Wolf

[ARCADIA]

"Intelligent design posits the theory that the universe as we see it looks more like the product of intelligence than of blind chance."

Please define "looks more like", and explain the relevance of "blind chance".

What test can you postulate that would allow us to demonstrate the function of Intelligent design? How do I look at a subject and objectively prove that it "looks more like" intelligent design?

[RunningWolf]

Well that prof at CalTech or Berkley was nuts on several levels with his statements.

Wolf

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The point is lack of ANY descendent species for an ogranism that has been on the earth for 400 million years. "

A falsehood. There are at least 350 species of sharks; most if not all did not exist 400 million years ago. *Shark* is not a species name.

"If the common ancestor of humans and chimps can spawn thousands of species in a few million years (remember, descendant species are the common ancestors of others; you've seen a phylogeny tree, take it the other direction), then it is reasonable to assume that a species 100 times older would spawn many, many more times species than that (remember, it's not a linear expansion)."

Nobody claims that the ancestor of humans and chimps has any where near *thousands* of descendant species. That's not even close.

[Liberty Wins]

"evolutionists . . . simply resort to their usual ad hominem attacks if they cannot argue the facts."

So true. Following are some of the insults the anti-ID "ping list" used against me the last time I dared to enter their exclusive domain on FR:

dumb as a stump
fake
hoax
silent slink-off
Dummy Dance
slippery escape
bogus quote
lie
lying
biggest lie
obnoxiously dishonest
pretends
cop-out
cowardly
cartoonish
mischaracterized
misleading
misinformed
misstatements
discredited
yapping
goofy screwup
grossly distorted
disgraceful
silly
ugly

Oh I forgot. This is the way scientists talk.

[Cicero]

You'd might as well say that Darwin resembles Hitler because they both believe in superior and inferior races. Or that the Rhine is the same as the Hudson because they both have water in them.

[Rodney King]

Richard Dawkins? The guy from the family fued?

[JudgemAll]

You guys are confusing issues of church and state vs. issues of science.

Your gripe is not about science but about which pet entitled "science" program should be taught.

Schools currently teach: gay classes, fisting, Harry Potter fantasy stories along with the cult of Darwinism.

No scientist has a problem with that.

So why the big deal about ID?

Poking fun at people is witness murdering.

[andysandmikesmom]

Regarding your post #165...I try to read all the evo/ID threads, and because my scientific knowledge is minimal, I usually just lurk, rather than post, and the lurking is always informative...

But I would like to address your point, that 'God created evolution', for that is what I do believe is the truth of the matter, at least for me...several days ago, when I posted this sentiment, I was told that obviously the God I believed in had to be a monster...in other words, since I did not believe the Bible, specifically stated what this other poster thought that the Bible said, obviously I believed in a God-monster, and he/she did not...I see, he/she had a special-secret information pipe line to God and I did not...this was the gist of this posters thoughts..

I think you are correct, the majority of Americans do believe this way..I have seen posters on FR try to skew polls that were done, but stating that all those who declared themselves as Christians, naturally also believed in ID...that is a really incorrect leap to make...being a Christian, does not make on a necessary believer in ID...tho its what the ID/creationist camp would wish everyone to believe...

Actually the statistics that I have seen, show that the majority of people in America do believe in a God, but those who claim that they believe in God, when questioned on whether they believe in evolution or ID/creationism, the majority of them say they believe in evolution...those who say they believe in ID/creationism, are really a very small minority...at least according to the survey that I read, and of course, different surveys done by different agencies, asking questions in a different way, might get different results...

But I suspect that what you say is true...most Americans do believe in God, and also do believe in evolution...and they reconcile belief in God with evolution, very easily...

Of course, there are those rabid anti-evolutions, who will nearly go berserk at this notion...they will readily condemn to Hell,(as if they know that God condemns anyone who believes in evolution to Hell)anyone who dares to believe in evolution, and challenges their strict, narrow interpretation of what the Bible says...I figure, they are seek to limit God, seek to put Him into a little box, ,that conforms to their rigid beliefs, and refuse to grant Him, the power and ability to acually create something such as evolution...

The leap that anti-evolutionists often make, that believers in evolution have to be atheists is truly sad...and if you are not an atheist to believe in evolution, then the God you believe in must be a 'monster'...that is truly sad as well...

To all those who provide actual information and links to sites that provide actual scientific information, my many thanks...I have been learning quite a bit...

[Gumlegs]

The fear of learning something which might jeopardize the existence of currently accepted notions isn't new.

173 posted on 12/03/2005 10:26:06 PM EST by Liberty Wins (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies | Report Abuse

Liberty Wins, meet Liberty Wins:

You mean like the following "scientists:"

Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow of International University Bremen, Germany and the University of Oulu, Finland; and Jozsef Gal of Loránd Eötvös University, Hungary, who used basic principles of physics to calculate the pressure that builds up inside a penguin, as detailed in their report "Pressures Produced When Penguins Pooh -- Calculations on Avian Defaecation."

What's wrong? Did Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow of International University Bremen, Germany and the University of Oulu, Finland; and Jozsef Gal of Loránd Eötvös University, Hungary raid your refrigerator?

[JudgemAll]

biggot