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.

[narby]

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

These virus DNA segments are yet another re-verification of evolution. Evolution predicts that any new technology with the ability to connect different species will reconfirm the apparent relationships found in the initial morphological and geological evidence (within the bounds of error, of course).

The new ERV virus DNA sequences common between primates and humans reconfirm, once again, the early morphological data. Just as Evolution predicted before DNA sequencing was available.

What has ID predicted and later confirmed with subsequent data?

[narby]

waits till the guy announces he has left the forum before he comes in with all this coward liar bs.

Announcing a surrender by saying you're leaving the forum is the same as saying "I'm sorry, never mind, I was wrong". Hey, a little high-fiveing is deserved. Fighting ignorance is hard work.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Don't forget the famous organist Emmanuel Pedal.

[RunningWolf]

Well out for now.

Demented can call me a liar and coward (like I really care) and all the evos can claim a victory over it.

Wolf

[Doctor Stochastic]

I actually had a serious point (if anyone still believes that.) Criminals don't usually survive well in society (unless they become politicians or corporate auditors.)

[JeffAtlanta]

I give you a link showing 700 scientists, and then I give you another link showing over 50 scientists, and you give me the credentials for only a couple, that you SAY are not worthy, & that's supposed to mean something

You gave me a list of about 20 scientists that had published papers favoring ID and I revealed that almost none had any graduate level biology experience.

A couple of the guys your listed aren't even scientists and haven't even been to college. These guys might be sharp, but your list was supposed to represent the best of biological science world.

As I predicted, essentially all of the ID proponents aren't scientists in biology but are engineers or computer scientists with a strong interest or even a degree in religious studies.

[metmom]

I have read of some cougar attacks in Readers Digest (yeah, I know, real reliable source but...) It seems as though they are losing their fear of humans and have been attacking people who are out biking or jogging on trails. I wouldn't feel safe with one around.

[Dimensio]

Announcing a surrender by saying you're leaving the forum is the same as saying "I'm sorry, never mind, I was wrong".

It wasn't quite that simple. In this particular case Liberty Wins asked a question predicated upon both a strawman definition of evolution (the "only the strong survive" canard) and also a completely unfounded assertion that violent criminals are somehow "stronger" than ordinary people. When his fallacies were exposed, he simply ducked out of the discussion without any further comment on his past faulty line of reasoning and a parting comment that dishonestly implied that anyone claimed that the world's problems could be solved through the theory of evolution. It wasn't just his abandoning of the discussion, it was that he abandoned it without so much as admitting his mistake (or attempting to show that he was not mistaken) and his dishonest strawman in the same post.

[Doctor Stochastic]

And he never told us how it felt to be sharing a philosophical bed with Al Capone, Bugsy Siegel, Clyde Barrow, and Dutch Schultz.

[narby]

Speaking of mountain lions. Mrs. Narby and I did some hiking east of Roosevelt Lake in AZ a few years ago. After a day of hiking, both of us compared notes on the trip home and deciced that we both suspected we were "followed" up and down the trail. The weird thing was a neighbor who had hiked the same area separately said the same thing.

I really don't believe in the supernatural, but after that hike I could have been persuaded. I'm sure it was because of the unknown "signs" on the trail, but whatever, it was weird.

[metmom]

That sixth sense has saved people's lives. It's like that *someone watching over your shoulder* feeling. It's creepy when you find out you were right. Even some of those RD stories read like your experience.
I was at a beach with my kids once and we considered taking a walk along some cliffs there but something just didn't feel right and it was a strong feeling. There wasn't anything wrong to see but....we didn't go. I'll never forget that.

[Virginia-American]

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.

We're in agreement. I was just saying that if the ERVs aren't the result of inherited viral remains, but were instead the result of the same virus infecting, say, chimps and people independently, there is still the problem of why these independent infections should show the exact same nested hierarchical pattern.

In other words, if the CS/IDer can't accept the inheritance of the ERVs, he still has to explain why the pattern of vulnerable places in the genome is that same nasty nested hierarchy.

[dread78645]

And when you croak, we'll eat you. And we might even bring a linen tablecloth and candelabra for the feast.

And with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

[dread78645]

> BTW, not only did we evolve from an ape, we ARE apes. :)"

Is THIS an example of a rational response?

Yep.
That's probably why it confused you.

[dread78645]

It's so difficult to be a logical person these days (sigh).

Which logical person did you ask?

[RunningWolf]

Your logic?? Welcome to the dark world of Hannibal Lecter.

Your logic is nothing but depraved deep-six-dread. It makes a case for nothing 'zept perhaps your cheerleading squad. And we know who they are

Wolf

[Right Wing Professor]

It's undoubtably an honor to be 'denounced' by these brainless idiots, and if your screen name is accurate, I'm sure you've helped quite a bit into cranking out quite a few of these morons.

I 'crank' out working scientists, not socialists, and not IDers.

[Sun]

"Good sense of humor. It is appreciated."

:)

[Sun]

However, you also said that the 700 scientists only had one-year of science in high school (which is not true; they are scientists), and then I gave you 400 scientists with credentials, so it seems to me that you are looking for any pie-in-the sky excuse to discredit any scientist or nonscientist who believes in ID, or is even skeptical of the evo theory.

So how can I believe you?

And how can you believe yourself?

[Sun]

"That's probably why it confused you."

I'm not a bit confused.

Why did you ask? Are you?