Show Me the Science [Critique of Intelligent Design, by Daniel Dennett

New York Times ^ | August 28, 2005 | Daniel C. Dennett

[AZLiberty]

...

Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.

...

[goldstategop]

That's philosophy, not science. ID is worthy of a philosophy debate but given it settles really nothing with hard factual evidence, it doesn't replace Darwin's explanation of nature. People look to ID primarily because the human ego is threatened by the idea that there's nothing moral about nature and that 90% of life that came before us is extinct. The entire idea of evolution demolished our singular privileged standing in the cosmos. In that respect, we're no different from the rest of creation provided we don't destroy ourselves. If we manage to control our own hubris, we may even avoid extinction.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

There's no evidence for ID. It would presume the intelligent designer got all the details correct. As Dennett points out, the eye, which ID proponents cite as proof of the complexity of design, has a flaw: the way the optic nerve runs down a cone to the brain. If something happens to it, blindness is the result. Of course no true designer would build anything that imperfect. If you care to examine nature, imperfection seems to be built into life. There are advantages to evolutionary mistakes. There are none from ID itself.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Junior]

That site is as accurate as it is professional looking.

[dynoman]

Top Ten Reasons why humans evolved from apes.

Where are the inaccuracies?

[dynoman]

Evolution of Television

Where are the inaccuracies?

[Junior]

Oh, so you post speculation about the reason for our upright gait and think it's a swipe against the theory of evolution. Brilliant. You realize of course that evolution itself is not in dispute. You do realize they are merely quibbling over the selection pressure(s) that drove our ancestors to assume an upright stance, right?

Your typical creationist is completely unable to actually parse an argument. That is why he or she keeps making such basic mistakes as confusing arguments over details with arguments over the theory itself.

I suppose it helps y'all sleep at night.

[Junior]

Dear me, you're batting a thousand today. Think for a minute ... televisions are not imperfect replicators competing for limited resources, are they? Now do you see how facetious the analogy is?

[dynoman]

Here are some serious articles from that site;

Dinosaur Blood and DNA

We Dug Dinos

We Dug Dinos - Part 2

Where are the inaccuracies?

[dynoman]

Hey Junior, maybe you could get with Jeff Gordon and collect that cool million the The Gene Emergence Project is offering.

[Junior]

My, your coming back desperately to keep your head above water on this thread, aren't you? Now you're hitting me with multiple links at once, hoping one will stick. The DNA and blood link provided lots of "scientific words" but didn't go into details of methodology, such as possible contamination of the samples. Also, the "dino blood" controversy is just that because of possible contamination of the sample. It is not settled science.

The "digging dinos" sections were basically repeats of the old "Niagara Falls" fallacy. I'll go into details of that if you'd like. Suffice it to say that measuring erosion at a site and then extrapolating back is as fallacious as it is simplistic. What's to say that site wasn't exposed to erosive forces relatively recently?

You are grasping at straws without actually knowing what those straws are. You are hoping that the engineer who created the website might have the answers you require, but you don't actually spend any time double checking those answers for validity. You simply accept them.

Show me you know what you are trying to talk about. Paraphrase, to the best of your ability, the argument you think best presents your position.

[Junior]

"The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life.

Interesting. No one will collect on this prize, and the offerers know it. That is because no one believes that genetic instructions "spontaneously arose." Indeed, it is assumed they evolved from earlier self-replicating molecules.

You really ought to read more science and less creationist claptrap. You'd learn something, if only critical-thinking skills.

[dynoman]

Creationists are not behind the Origin of Life Prize.

[dynoman]

"Indeed, it is assumed they evolved from earlier self-replicating molecules."

That is exactly what they say there;

"Inanimate stepping stones of abiotic evolution are essential components to any natural process theory of the molecular evolution of life."

[dynoman]

What's to say that site wasn't exposed to erosive forces relatively recently?

The eggs were found in dirt, what does possible "recent exposure to erosive forces" have to do with that?

[plain talk]

I repeat, Darwin did not theorize micro evolution and a macro evolution

Not sure what your point is. Macro evolution is being taught and is at the center of the debate. In fact it is the entire debate.

[plain talk]

Those who believe in macro evolution with virtually no evidence are the real fools. It takes more faith to believe in macro evolution than to believe in Jesus Christ. With faith in Christ one has hope of eternal salvation. What hope does faith in macro evolution bring?

[steve-b]

Does the phrase "God doesn't play dice with the universe" ring any bells?

Yep. It denotes Einstein's rejection of quantum indeterminancy.

Even Einstein got it wrong sometimes.

[ml1954]

Not sure what your point is. Macro evolution is being taught and is at the center of the debate. In fact it is the entire debate.

According to the TOE, the mechanisms that produce genetic diversity within a species are identical with those that produce genetic diversity between species.

To think that what causes genetic diversity within species stops generating genetic changes when it gets to changes that would cause a news species is not plausible.

To think that gamma rays or whatever causes genetic mutation selectively avoid causing genetic mutations that might result in speciation is illogical. How would a gamma ray know to make this change because it would only cause diversity within the species but not make that change because it might cause speciation. This is logically untenable.

Macro and micro evolution are just short hand labels used to categorize these resulting genetic changes. The mechanism of the change are the same.

It's been fun plain talk, but I'm going to go play golf now...a game almost certainly designed by an evil Intelligent Designer.

[Dimensio]

It takes more faith to believe in macro evolution than to believe in Jesus Christ.

Your assertion without evidence is noted.

With faith in Christ one has hope of eternal salvation. What hope does faith in macro evolution bring?

Ah, irrelevant twaddle that provides no support for your claims whatsoever.

[VadeRetro]

Have you ever heard of SETI? Please enumerate a few experiments which can be used to determine if a signal originated from an intelligent source.

Is SETI on your side? SETI researcher and freeper RadioAstronomer doesn't seem to be. BTW, what he's looking for isn't some number series or morse code.