"Intelligent Design": Stealth War on Science

Revolutionary Worker ^ | November 6, 2005

[From many - one.]

You're right...there is this idea that evolution is a ladder or pyramid with us at the top looking down at ever simpler organisms. And the assumption that our smarts represent some kind of pinnacle of evolutionary achievement.

[js1138]

And another point is that fitness and survival involves a trend toward the opposite.

Moving back to the theme of intoxication for a moment, a drunkard's walk from a wall will trend away from the wall. Stochastic change from a lower limit of complexity (bacteria) will produce some instances of greater complexity, but the modal trend remains near the lower limit of complexity.

And bacteria remain the dominant life form on earth, by any measure relevant to survival.

[Louis Foxwell]

In actuality, entropy, or disorderedness, must always increase.

You use the sun as an illustration of increasing entropy. The sun's breakdown, however, is in the direction of another generation of suns. These increase the periodic table thus increase order and complexity. Our disagreement is a difference of perspective. A sort of chicken and the egg discussion. Where you see, if I understand you correctly, a balance I see an increase of orderliness. Stars may explode and energy dissipate but order follows these events.

...your greatest folly in supporting ID is assuming the undiscovered is indeterminable and running to your "god" to fill in the blanks.

This seems to get at the heart of the dyspepsia about ID.

You choose to start with the premise that God is irrelevent to science. My position is that God as creator and sustainer of the universe can not possibly be irrelevent.

If you are correct the universe is a-theistic, without God. That is the essential premise of anti-ID crowd. You choose to limit God to a personal spiritual experience. I experience Him as essential to the structure of reality.

The scientific method is a helpful tool for understanding the universe. 'Like you, I choose to use that tool to discern more of the nature of reality. Thus far it has led me toward a confirmation that intelligence directs the course of the universe. If it leads you in the opposite direction we can have a conversation.

Do not delude yourself into believing that your dismissive attitude toward ID will rid you of the trouble of grappling with its claims. It will not.

[VadeRetro]

Science is older than 150 years...

Yes, but the parts that are are getting pretty out of date.

[js1138]

Yes, but the parts that are are getting pretty out of date.

But philosophy never changes. If you get my drift.

[VadeRetro]

Occamsrapier, it's quite a treatment your reasoned dissection of ATP's post in 133 has got here. ATP merely squeals in offense. Betty Boop down the page repeatedly and oh so earnestly asks for a substantial reply to ATP's original point, even as your post eats most of the bulk of the page above.

That should tell you beyond anything I can say that you did a decent job.

[cornelis]

the modal trend remains near the lower limit of complexity.

This is true, which makes us wonder about complexity and order involved in the survival and fitness of human beings and our solar system.

[VadeRetro]

My candidate would be class insecta. I'm confident about numerous and adaptive, less so about indestructible.

You can kill an individual bug. It matters so little it doesn't even make the rest of them mad. Scary.

[cornelis]

The teleology as a form of causality is only out of date through denial.

[js1138]

The teleology as a form of causality is only out of date through denial.

Yet opinion polls worldwide assert that most people believe pretty much what you do. Where are the great scientific achievement of the non-empiricists? Show me your digital watches.

[From many - one.]

Unpleasantly correct.

A dead cockroach just means more for dinner for the others.

[VadeRetro]

You really do need to stop drinking your breakfast, or else I need to start.

[cornelis]

But philosophy never changes. If you get my drift.

I think that I would say history never changes. Our difficulty is knowing what took place while not being there. In that situation, it is easier to impute present evidence as evidence of the past. Sometimes that's the best you can do, but it does limit the past to being a function of the present. That's might be a practical assumption, but not necessarily scientific.

[Louis Foxwell]

But philosophy never changes. If you get my drift.

Perhaps you could elucidate on your drift.

Philosophy is not the same today as it was 50 years ago.

Where, indeed, are you drifting?

[cornelis]

Starbucks Houseblend.

[js1138]

Philosophy is not the same today as it was 50 years ago.

Is there anything in modern philosophy that would baffle Aristotle or Plato if they were poofed to the present in a time machine?

[Doctor Stochastic]

... thus increase order and complexity.

Order and complexity are opposites; increase in one means decrease in the other.

[balrog666]

You really do need to stop drinking your breakfast, or else I need to start.

Maybe if you stayed up really late it would balance out and the irrational would become meaningful as you continued to imbibe into the morning hours.





Nah. But it might bring you down to a more equal plane with the terminally ignorant.

[Roots]

You use the sun as an illustration of increasing entropy. The sun's breakdown, however, is in the direction of another generation of suns. These increase the periodic table thus increase order and complexity. Our disagreement is a difference of perspective. A sort of chicken and the egg discussion. Where you see, if I understand you correctly, a balance I see an increase of orderliness. Stars may explode and energy dissipate but order follows these events.

It is obvious you do not understand my explanation. My explanation is backed and proven by mathematical formulas, it is not a "perspective". I cannot further a discussion on physics and chemistry with you.


You choose to start with the premise that God is irrelevent to science. My position is that God as creator and sustainer of the universe can not possibly be irrelevent.

I, along with the rest of the scientific community, chose to start with no BIASES when first performing these experiments. You start with a premise, that’s your first mistake. You believe science should conform around your beliefs, which is just as unscientific as the evolutionists that set out to further prove their pseudodogma (see earlier post). Science is about posing hypotheses and proving or disproving them through UNBIASED tests. Your dogma, ID, et al is an open-ended hypothesis, not provable by any means of tests. I’m sorry if you think your beliefs are anything but relative but you have ZERO credible evidence for them.


If you are correct the universe is a-theistic, without God. That is the essential premise of anti-ID crowd. You choose to limit God to a personal spiritual experience. I experience Him as essential to the structure of reality.

Can you at least attempt to use complete and coherent sentences?? You experience “Him” as essential to the structure of reality because you have yet to understand reality! Hell, you don’t even understand the physical laws governing disorder. Do you even know the dynamics of evolution and ID? I’m starting to doubt whether you know the arguments for ID and how all of those are countered. Thinkers were simply presented with the ID alternative explanations and showed how it was still possible for reality to exist without a specific, intelligent design involved.


The scientific method is a helpful tool for understanding the universe. 'Like you, I choose to use that tool to discern more of the nature of reality. Thus far it has led me toward a confirmation that intelligence directs the course of the universe. If it leads you in the opposite direction we can have a conversation.

Do not delude yourself into believing that your dismissive attitude toward ID will rid you of the trouble of grappling with its claims. It will not.

Your statements are not backed by the scientific method nor are they backed by a solid understanding of physical chemistry, stop kidding yourself. My dismissive attitude toward ID is justified by the fact that every argument for ID has already been countered – more than enough to justify a dismissive attitude – there are no more claims left to undo. Are you even reading/understanding our previous posts?

[VadeRetro]

If I stay up much past 11 it confuses my circadian rhythm and the cat.