Five critiques of Intelligent Design

Edge.org ^ | September 3, 2005 | Marcelo Gleiser, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Scott Atran, Daniel C. Dennett

[hombre_sincero]

What is odd - I never crossed my faith that GOD created us with darwin's evolution - they did not contradict each other.

My first question is "How long is GOD's day?" To who?

Until you can answer that small question, this discussion is moot.

There *IS* no missing link to man - nobody has found one and nobody ever will until it is created by man to fill in the gap.

Going back through all the histories and religions - including Judeaism - Man has been around 9-10,000 years.

I accept the age of earth as determined by science - like I said - GOD's day is how long? Man was not made until the last day? Time frame works for me!

Look back at the mental progression of man - it increases in an almost logarithmic curve - a slowly rising curve then increasing at an increasing rate to where the past century ... !!! Try a reverse time line with that theory. It goes back to near the same 10k years.

Now analysis of the Bible - Look at the Bible as the Boy Scout Manual. IF a person read the bible and followed the lesson taught on what & when to eat and other rules to living life - how to treat people - etc. You do not have to believe in a god to see this BOOK is a Survival Guide to Life.

Darwin explains how the butterfly could develop and how a blue tail fly came from a black tail fly, etc. But Darwin's Theory does NOT explain WHO wrote the Bible that contains scientific data that we humans just recently learned or are just now learning? Germs, causes of disease, sanitation techniques, a lot of high tech stuff for thousands of years ago, no?

The Bible is the perfect Book for a creature trying to learn how to survive - just as we teach our children and the Boy Scouts also - Could this explain the HATRED of the Boy Scouts by the leftists? It is too close to the Bible with all its references to the Book.

The next debate --- WHO wrote the Bible?

[Rippin]

The use of "prove" is very different between scientists and non-scientists, as is the use of the term "theory."

Can I get a free Native American Creation story for every time I can show you an example of "real scientists" claiming "proof" for NDT?

[Coyoteman]

For instance, now that Britain has found that its soil is releasing carbon due to global warming, wouldn't it be prudent to question the method of carbon dating? Isn't the "given" that carbon gets released at a steady rate over the millenia now debunked, and that the rate is determined by the warming and cooling cycles of the earth?

Carbon 14 dating is calibrated using bristlecone pines, which in turn can be accurately dated by simply counting tree rings. In other words, you can count the rings in a series of trees (using overlapping rings series to bridge the multiple trees needed), then date a particular ring or group of rings. Thousands of samples dated in this manner allows accurate calibration of the carbon 14 method back to about 10,000 years ago.

[Mr. Blonde]

I'm very curious how many kids are actually taught evolution in school. Sure it is in the book, but a lot of stuff is in any textbook that is never covered in class. I went to public school my whole life, and evolution was never even mentioned until college much less taught.

[ShadowAce]

Perhaps. Like I said--it was just an idle question, and one to which I attach very little importance.

[snarks_when_bored]

Lots of alternatives exist, including privatization, or elimination of the national bureaucracy and handing jurisdiction over to the states or counties.

I thought you were recommending home-schooling as the solution. But isn't it the case that most schools are run by their local school boards under state supervision?

[Jbuza]

The logic of these eveolutionsists is infantile. It is the theory of evolution that is psuedo-science, it is ecolution that pretends to be science. It operates through the scientific method, and then creates non-empirical and unprovable assumptions to the point that they are laughable. The don't comprehend science. Creationsists on the other hand make no claim to be science psuedo or otherwise. It reminds me of a two year old saying "no your ...". Sad to see the purity of science and reason raped by these blind fools. Origin of species is not close to science!!! You make science crap to say it is.

[rob777]

If I had the opportunity to meet the assumed designer, I'd ask what, to me, is the most important question of them all: ''Mr. Designer, who designed you?"

If the designer answers that it doesn't know, that perhaps it was also designed, we fall into an endless regression, straight back to the problem of the first cause, the one that needs no cause. At this point the mask tumbles and we finally discover the true identity of the IDists' Designer. We should capitalize the word, as this is how we are taught to refer to God.






I do not consider the above argument to be very convincing. The ID argument makes no claim to the nature of the designer, nor should it. (Creationists do, but that is another subject) The conclusion that certain phenomenon exhibit the characteristics of being designed is an argument that does not hinge on knowing anything about the designer other than it possesses intelligence. We do not know much about the identity of those who created the Great Pyramids, but that fact does not invalidate the conclusion that they are not a product of chance.

As for the progression back to a first cause, this is a philosophical approach rather than a religious one. The most famous proponent of this notion was Aristotle. The religious view does not speculate from a progression of causes to a first cause, but claims direct revelation from that cause.

The critics of ID should focus on the issue of falsification, i.e. what evidence could falsify this theory. Logically, I consider the notion of design to make much more sense than the alternative. That being said, to be considered as a scientific theory, it would help to have the problem of falsification clearly resolved.

[snarks_when_bored]

In what field do you work?

[King Prout]

if it was a mere "idle question" concerning a slice of physics and chemistry about which you cannot trouble yourself to learn, why did you then present it -in post#25- as a bona-fide debunking of C14 dating?

that is certainly not intellectually rigorous of you.

[snarks_when_bored]

This thread will generate more heat than light, I fear. Coyne's piece is especially informative, though. Not that many will read it.

Oh, well, ...

[Rudder]

I do happen to believe we're not random bits of matter that accidentally came together.

I agree with you, but the idea that evolution is the accidental combination of random bits of matter is false---that's not what evolution posits.

Ask PatrickHenry to send you a list of reading materials to bring you up to speed on the particulars of evolutionary theory.

[Jbuza]

IT belongs there no less than evolution does. The order and structure of the world demand just by plain reason that order and structure designed order and structure. Chance creating order and structure is anti-reason. These people fear the simple truth and concoct intricate deceptions to ease there own consciences

[plain talk]

Evolution is not taught as a separate course. It is integrated into Biology textbooks and has actually taken over Biology courses as a cancerous mass. Check out my profile page.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Quantum mechanics is a pretty fancy way of saying "random bits of matter that accidentally came together".

So you say. :) I don't think we are a product of randomness, we aren't the mere result of a series of lucky rolls of the dice. There is, I believe, something greater than man, and that "something" isn't 'chance'.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"The logic of these eveolutionsists is infantile. It is the theory of evolution that is psuedo-science, it is ecolution that pretends to be science."

Except that it actually works. Want to know where evolution is used to make no-foolin' real money?

Biotechnology companies
Pharmaceutical companies
Oil companies

[ShadowAce]

why did you then present it -in post#25- as a bona-fide debunking of C14 dating?

I didn't. Please re-read the post. I was asking whether we should rethink its methods. Not that C14 dating was bad. I had/have no idea.

[corkoman]

I do feel, though, that evolutionists have not proven their theory beyond a reasonable doubt. That is my basis for rejecting evolution

Well then you must have tossed your faith out the window a long time ago if thats the criteria you entertain.

There is a big jump between theory and scientific law. Evolution is a theory and we speak of the Laws of gravity. You can criticize evo all you want; you criticize the laws of gravity at your peril.

[PatrickHenry]

Those who could most benefit from this probably won't look, but anyway ...

The List-O-Links.
How to argue against a scientific theory.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

[Mr. Blonde]

I know where it is taught. That does not change the fact that in no class until I was in college biology was evolution even mentioned. In my biology class we skipped directly over that chapter and went on. My college biology professor was very hardpressed to even say the word evolution.