Careful what you ask for.
Posted on 10/11/2005 8:21:13 AM PDT by Crackingham
I must respectfully disagree with my TCS colleague Douglas Kern as he argues for " Why Intelligent Design is Going to Win." Kern lays out a five-point thesis in which he predicts ID's imminent victory. But his points fail to make the case. Allow me to take each in turn.
Point One says:
ID will win because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.
He goes on to argue that since religious types breed more babies, they'll pass along the ID memes with their red-state genes. But this misunderstands both memetics and human beings. I will grant that ID may be here to stay. But just because more people believe it don't make it so. (Read: fallacy ad populum) An ID meme won't mean the death of Darwinism anymore than the 95 theses killed Catholicism. Both of the latter have co-existed for 500 years -- occasional bloody wars notwithstanding. Likewise, religious folks will probably still cling to some variant of ID, and non-religious folks will still not be prepared to insert giant articles of faith where inquiry has presented a puzzle. And while Kern wants to believe that design would give us "unique dignity and value" as human beings, well, much like a night of bliss with Salma Hayek -- wanting it don't make it so either.
Point Two:
ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.
I agree that there is more than a little priggery among Darwinists. But even an intelligent man like Douglas Kern must admit the sheer number of troglodytic bible-thumpers in the Creationist ranks -- a number that does little to quell Darwinist condescension. In any case, to say that Darwinists are condescending is not to argue against their position. Kern of all people should know that he cannot criticize Darwinists for employing ad hominem arguments only to turn around and commit the very same fallacy.
Point Three:
ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.
Of course ID can be reconciled with any advance in biology. Faith can be reconciled with anything. It's the ultimate loophole. Imagine a contract that said "Party A reserves the right to void the contract at any time." What would be the point of the contract for Party B? Similarly, ID says basically "if you can't explain something, dress up the good ole Cosmological Argument from philosophy 101 and stick it in where necessary." This is known as the "God of the Gaps" fallacy, which says if you can't explain it, it's God. Again, faith in God is not an explanatory premise, but simply faith. Of course, we can go back and have the theism vs. atheism debate, but that won't get you into the papers.
Kern goes on to ask:
So you've discovered the missing link? Proven that viruses distribute super-complex DNA proteins? Shown that fractals can produce evolution-friendly three-dimensional shapes? It doesn't matter. To the ID mind, you're just pushing the question further down the road. How was the missing link designed? What is the origin of the viruses? Who designed the fractals?
First, I'm surprised that someone who knows about fractals isn't familiar with complexity theory. Specifically the phenomenon of "autocatalysis" answers Kern's ultimate question. Once the basic elements of the universe had laws of behavior and orientation (the latter known as chirality), the complex constituents for life emerged on their own. I recommend anyone not familiar with the concept of self-organization to read Stuart Kaufmann or download this multi-agent game from MIT, as once you've gotten your head around self-organizing systems, the very idea of "evidence of design" becomes more than suspicious. Of course, Kern might retort: someone had to establish the laws of nature.
Love the story title!!
Fantastic little writeup.
Fantastic little writeup.
`
Imagine a contract that said "Party A reserves the right to void the contract at any time." What would be the point of the contract for Party B?
Max Borders must not really read many contract because many contracts do say just that. I also believe that the default in any contract that does not specifiy a duration is often that either party can terminate the contract at will with notice. So what's the point of a contract like that and why would Party B accept it? The point is that it allows the two parties to work together and it's often the price of doing business with Party A -- and Party B has a need to do business with Party A. And I think there is a great ID vs. Evolution analogy in there...
Excelsior!
Douglas Kern must admit the sheer number of troglodytic bible-thumpers in the Creationist ranks
Doesn't this sum it up. The whole argument IS about how the laws of nature were established. Without a beginning there is not an end game.
That's an impossibly deep subject when you're dealing with people who don't even understand how we could have common ancestors with apes.
I've had the opportunity to speak with a couple of teachers at the school district and they are acting as if they are being asked to slit their own wrists in front of their class. I suggested to them that as employees of the school district they are contractually bound to teach the course as directed by the board. If they don't like it, they could always get another job.
Heresy!
To drive home the point I suggested that should work to defeat the school board. After all they are local & elected, and so can be removed at the next election. I warned them that having a judge decide is far less desireable since it probably is irreversible except through appeal (unlikely). What if the decision doesn't go 'your way'?
Silence...
We don't have a common ancestry with apes, they are an entirely different species. Besides, Darwinism goes deeper than that, you have a common ancestry with frogs worms, maggots etc.
But Suprize!! NEW DNA studies show we each have our own unique DNA which is impossible to have "mutated" from a common source. Of course, we will see the same old posts from the same old Darwinists following this using the same OLD data and pictures of skull which have been disproven over and over again.
Link please
Really? What studies? Authors and titles...
Of course, we will see the same old posts from the same old Darwinists following this using the same OLD data and pictures of skull which have been disproven over and over again.
What data and which skulls have been "disproven over and over again"?
Careful what you ask for.
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.