Five critiques of Intelligent Design

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

[snarks_when_bored]

Five critiques of Intelligent Design

John Brockman's Edge.org site has published the following five critiques of Intelligent Design (the bracketed comments following each link are mine):

Marcelo Gleiser, "Who Designed the Designer?"  [a brief op-ed piece]

Jerry Coyne, "The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name"  [a detailed critique of ID and its history, together with a summary defense of Darwinism]

Richard Dawkins & Jerry Coyne, "One Side Can Be Wrong"  [why 'teaching both sides' is not reasonable when there's really only one side]

Scott Atran, "Unintelligent Design"  [intentional causes were banished from science with good reason]

Daniel C. Dennett, "Show Me the Science"  [ID is a hoax]

As Marcelo Gleiser suggests in his op-ed piece, the minds of ID extremists will be changed neither by evidence nor by argument, but IDists (as he calls them) aren't the target audience for critiques such as his. Rather, the target audience is the millions of ordinary citizens who may not know enough about empirical science (and evolution science in particular) to understand that IDists are peddling, not science, but rather something tarted up to look like it.

Let us not be deceived.

[VadeRetro]

Who knows whose slinky she's been playing with, or where it's been.

Who needs a slinky anyway when you've got Superballs.

[microgood]

No, they're too busy trying to convince politicians that thousands of the smartest people on the planet don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Imagination is more important than intelligence - Albert Einstein.

I would add to that common sense.

And anyone that believes we evolved from single celled life to what you see today via random mutation and natural selection (especially the random mutation part, considering our increased complexity and the larger changes) has neither.

[VadeRetro]

And anyone that believes we evolved from single celled life to what you see today via random mutation and natural selection (especially the random mutation part, considering our increased complexity and the larger changes) has neither.

No one has less imagination than a practitioner of the science of "you can't make me see." Your post is a fine example.

[microgood]

No one has less imagination than a practitioner of the science of "you can't make me see." Your post is a fine example.

Actually there is. The one that says what I say is true because I am smarter that you.

[luckystarmom]

My husband was very surprised that I was never taught evolution. He grew up in California, and I grew up in Texas.

I know about it, but I was never taught anything about it.

[VadeRetro]

Actually there is. The one that says what I say is true because I am smarter that you.

Perhaps you speak of someone else. What you say is certainly not the basis of my acceptance of evolution. Much of the basis of creationism lies in a refusal to make extremely reasonable and straightforward inferences from 150 years worth of evidence for a thing creationists reject on doctrinaire religious grounds.

[microgood]

Perhaps you speak of someone else.

I was actually responding to the statment made in 411, where the argument seemed to be how dare you question all of us geniuses.

Much of the basis of creationism lies in a refusal to make extremely reasonable and straightforward inferences from 150 years worth of evidence for a thing creationists reject on doctrinaire religious grounds.

Now you are speaking of someone else. I think the fossil record shows an abundance of support for the idea of natural selection, but the random mutation is just inferred as a mechanism, and it seems that the rise of complexity and the large changes in structure seem to point to some other mechanism.

For example, the birds that Darwin studied were the beaks grew longer and were naturally selected, did that really happen randomly (which means a million other mutations must have happened in the same time frame that were detrimental), or did the mutation have a more direct feedback mechanism than just natural selection. The latter notion at least makes more sense. Having to depend on random mutation to get the right sequence for a changing environment seems a recipe for extinction. For all these species to get it right randomly seems a stretch.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Worked in Kansas.

Those kids'll have fine careers in the food and janitorial services.

[VadeRetro]

I was actually responding to the statment made in 411, where the argument seemed to be how dare you question all of us geniuses.

The reference in that post appears to be to the vast preponderance of opinion in science, particularly. It is an argument from authority, yes, but from the only relevant authority. When I defend evolution, I am careful to cite this body of authority and the literature it has produced, not my personal prestige as a renowned scientist or thinker, having neglected to become either.

The attackers of evolution must cite the opinions of the tiniest handful of crackpots, witch doctors, or their own refusal to know or understand. Nevertheless, we are to believe that there is an injustice in not given the attackers an equal voice. But where is their evidence? What is their theory? Their dislikes are not science. Their ignorance is not science.

Anyway, your response to that post remains a classic of hypocrisy. Criticize for lack of imagination, then argue from incredulity!

[VadeRetro]

... not given ...

Dadgum spell-checker!! "Not giving."

[microgood]

Anyway, your response to that post remains a classic of hypocrisy. Criticize for lack of imagination, then argue from incredulity!

Total BS. I do not have to accept your terms of the argument. I can say parts of evolutionary theory are wrong and not argue it from a scientific point of view, but rather a practical point of view.

What is BS is saying to question whether evolution is true or not has to be done on your terms. The arrogance is assuming science = truth and that arrogance is totally on your side.

There is no hypocrisy in saying scientists have this wrong. There are some things science(or should I say scientists) are no good at and the telling us how we got to be here is one of them.

Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[microgood]

Anyway, your response to that post remains a classic of hypocrisy. Criticize for lack of imagination, then argue from incredulity!

Just as an addendum, I am not even arguing from incredulity as there is no scientific evidence of random mutation in the fossil record anyway, only evidence of natural selection. It is not incredulity(which is a bs concept made up by sceptics and evos anyway) when there is not evidence to support the concept you are criticizing to begin with.

[VadeRetro]

Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Another irony meter in smoldering ruins. Your objections to evolution originate in your adherance to the long-outdated hope that somehow Genesis is also a science book.

[Coyoteman]

I can say parts of evolutionary theory are wrong and not argue it from a scientific point of view, but rather a practical point of view.

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It is constructed using the scientific method. To argue for or against it requires you argue using the methods of science. You can't just say you don't like it, or don't believe in it. If I trip and fall perhaps I don't like gravity, but that does not constitute evidence.

Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

This statement is embodied in Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Makes for fascinating reading. Nice, but it has no direct relevance to what we're talking about. There has not been a scientific revolution; rather, there is a religious attack on the science of evolution. Different things entirely.

[microgood]

Anyway, your response to that post remains a classic of hypocrisy. Criticize for lack of imagination, then argue from incredulity!

Just as an addendum, I am not even arguing from incredulity as there is no scientific evidence of random mutation in the fossil record anyway, only evidence of natural selection. It is not incredulity(which is a bs concept made up by sceptics and evos anyway) when there is not evidence to support the concept you are criticizing to begin with.

And finally, I was attacking their imagination because of their arrogance. Arrogance is the nastiest of all human traits.

[VadeRetro]

Just as an addendum, I am not even arguing from incredulity as there is no scientific evidence of random mutation in the fossil record anyway, only evidence of natural selection. It is not incredulity(which is a bs concept made up by sceptics and evos anyway) when there is not evidence to support the concept you are criticizing to begin with.

This isn't even BS. This is foaming at the mouth.

[js1138]

Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said...

But you will search in vain for a physical scientist of that caliber who doubts evolution.

[microgood]

To argue for or against it requires you argue using the methods of science.

Yes you can. Read the Philosophy of Science. If the scientific method used to develop the theory itself is flawed, all the conclusions are flawed. History is riddled with flawed scientific methodologies. If the concept of random mutation is not proven in the historical evidence, why should I have to believe it, because a bunch of scientists in the field do?

I can say science is good at things it can directly verify, and no good at things that happened a billion years ago. Scientists can say a meteorite caused dinosaur extinction and I can say BS: you were not there with quite a degree of confidence that I am correct. Science can be and is often misapplied.

The Nature and Philosophy of Science

[VadeRetro]

For example, the birds that Darwin studied were the beaks grew longer and were naturally selected, did that really happen randomly (which means a million other mutations must have happened in the same time frame that were detrimental)...

Strawman. It doesn't mean that. Variability within a population is observed constantly in virtually every measurable trait of virtually every population. In sexual species, multiple alleles for common genes and the constant recombination thereof are a given. You are fixing a thing that isn't broke--supposedly "Nobody questions microevolution" etc. etc.--and have nothing definite to fix it with anyway.

[microgood]

This isn't even BS. This is foaming at the mouth.

At least I now understand your MO. You do not argue substance. You are an attack evo.