The Flawed Philosophy of Intelligent Design

SETI is not sitting around pretending that the booms in the sky is the gods getting angry. ID, essentially, is just that.

I think your understanding of Intelligent Design theory is, um, lacking. If you want to argue against ID, you might want to familiarize yourself with their arguments.

Actually, I was being generous. To the pre-scientific ignorant, creating gods to explain natural phenomenon makes a certain amount of sense in that it is consistent with their knowledge and explains the phenomenon, and, frankly, they cannot be blamed for failing to have the insight, knowledge and technology we have.

IDers and Creationists have no such excuse. They're mired in their ignorance and rejoice in it. Those, like Johnson, Behe, Hovand, Gish, Morris, DI, ICR etc., are like those televangelists and criminals who prey on old people and steal their pension checks. To them, they'll do anything, push any kind of outrageous bullshit in order to keep the cash registers filled, regardless of whether we end up with another generation of science illiterates.

All that to say that you can't come up with one irrefutable piece of evidence?

Then coming up with one piece of irrefutable evidence shouldn't be a problem.

You've been on these boards long enough and seen enough of PatrickHenry and Ichneumon's postings that if you are willing to keep the blinders on, no amount of proof will be enough to get through your delusions.

The first 22 years of my life was uninterrupted evolutionary dogma. I assumed that evolutionary theory was as much a fact as the rising and setting of the sun. Then I read, "Darwin on Trial," and the whole thing collapsed like a house of cards.

BWWAAHAHA... What a deep thinker you must have been, to fall for that lawyer's manipulative piece of trash. I'll also bet that you had a profound religious experience sometime prior to picking up the lawyer's book. I've yet to find anyone who believes in this crap who hasn't has one.

Of course, you're free to believe whatever you want. Just don't ram it down my kids' throats.

You want to raise another generation of scientific illiterates; that is your business. Put them in some nice, private religious school where they'll prepare to praise God and wash dishes.

You've been on these boards long enough and seen enough of PatrickHenry and Ichneumon's postings that if you are willing to keep the blinders on, no amount of proof will be enough to get through your delusions.

Q.E.D.

All that to say that you can't come up with one irrefutable piece of evidence?

As post 243 notes, you've been exposed to many, many pieces of evidence, been told many, many times that science doesn't deal in absolutes, and still show no propensity to do anything but wallow in your religious delusions.

For example, to anyone who isn't brain dead or had his mind twisted by religious insanity, the Panda's morphology and lifestyle is a elementary, simple, easy to grasp and strikingly clear piece of evidence, sufficient to convince any rational, thinking, sane, unbrainwashed, truthful person of the truth of evolution.

But, given that religious cranks, like the author of the ~~creationist~~ ID book, Of Pandas and People, are more learned in twisting themselves in argumentative knots than learning actual science or reason, even the clearest, most elementary arguments fall on deaf ears. I'm sure you'll have some brilliant statement about how the Panda's contingent, patchwork morphology is actually... um... a brilliant example of God's work... Yeah, that's the ticket...

Absent some showing by you that it would make any difference, why would I bother with the likes of you?

What do you think of the points I make in posting 223?

the Panda's morphology and lifestyle is a elementary, simple, easy to grasp and strikingly clear piece of evidence, sufficient to convince any rational, thinking, sane, unbrainwashed, truthful person of the truth of evolution.

That's a rather thin reed upon which to base an all-encompassing theory, isn't it? Morphology can just as easily be explained in terms of design. Considered by itself, the evidence is ambiguous. But seen in the context of the larger problems with evolutionary theory, the evidence is of very little value.

There are two enormous problems with evolutionary theory. First, if evolution happened by great leaps, then a probable mechanism must be proposed to account for it. I am aware of no probable mechanism.

Secondly, if evolution happened by incremental change, then the fossil record should show this, and show it overwhelmingly. In fact, the fossil record shows overwhelming evidence of stasis in species.

I think you're straining at a gnat when you try to say that the fossilized bones show subtle differences proving the mutative alteration of life forms from one major class to another, when in fact an animal with a blend of organs/radical-skeletal-features would be the only acceptable proof of that.

(My source for the following information, and a more exhaustive argument revealing the transitional evidence, can be found here.)

Biologists today know of many skeletal indicators that distinguish mammals from reptiles. Given an unidentified skull of an extant animal, someone with the proper forensics training can unerringly discern between one from a reptile and one from a mammal. One of these important distinguishing factors is that in reptiles, multiple bones comprise the lower jaw. A small bone at the posterior end of the lower jaw, the articular, articulates with the quadrate bone of the skull. In mammals, one large bone, the dentary, comprises the lower jaw. It articulates with the squamosal bone of the skull.

The fossil record shows a detailed chronological transition between these two types of jaws. It shows that the relative proportion of the lower jaw comprised of the dentary bone gradually increased until the entire lower jaw consisted of the dentary. In Pennsylvanian and Lower and basal Upper Permian synapsids, the postero-dorsal edge of the lower jaw rose broadly but only slightly above the level of the tooth row.In succeeding forms, the posterior part of the dentary expanded dorsally and posteriorly as a blade-like process, and progressively became larger, forming the coronoid process to which the mammalian-type jaw musculature is attached. Concomitantly, the post-dentary bones progressively reduced in size.

Granted, this doesn't meet the first part of your demand for a blend of organs/radical skeletal features, but I contend that your inclusion of soft tissue organs is based not on a need for them to be present to make the evidence strong enough, but because of your certainty that they cannot be preserved. This ensures you will never have to worry about your demand being met. Unless you can provide a reason why a demonstrated radical skeletal transition requires this additional corroboration it is obvious you are not genuinely interested in considering any evidence.

There are no animals in the fossil record showing a fish-becoming-a-land-walker, or any other intermediate animal that MUST exist between the major divisions of life forms for this absurd idea to be true.
If evolution explained the different forms of life on the planet, then there would be PLENTY of fish with arms and legs in the fossil record, and that goes for all the other supposed transitions between major life forms as well. The fact that these fossils are utterly lacking by itself makes the evolutionary model impossible.

I present to you the Ichthyostega, a fish with feet.

Regarding the rest of your post, dealing with probabilities, I am sure you have heard the counterarguments before. If not, you can find them here. I am not going to delve into it any deeper because it is an argument against abiogenesis, not the ToE.

What do you think of the points I make in posting 223?

No offense, but it could use a lot of work.

As for your first paragraph, there are many fossils showing the transition from sea-based life to land-based life. And, in fact, with the cetaceans, of the reverse, as well. And when the founding species of a higher-level taxon begins to split, it initially would look no more different from the trunk species than subspecies do today. It is only with massive amounts of time do members of separate taxa take on strongly divergent morphology. For example, we wouldn't expect the most recent common ancestor of birds and mammals to look like half-bird, half-mammal, because the defining characteristics of each arose later. It would be something whose morphology is not evolutionarily inconsistent with either birds or mammals.

The second paragraph is based on the common misunderstanding as to the role of random mutation in evolution. In fact, you seem to express the creationist (although I'm not claiming you're a creationist.) obsession/misconception with the notion of randomness in evolution. Evolution through natural selection is not a wholly random thing. And, in fact, to the extent randomness is a factor, it is usually (but not always) randomness of the most mundane kind. It is the randomness that says, "if you measure the heights of all the men in a particular city, they will exhibit a variation around the mean." It is the next step, the natural selection in light of environmental pressure, that is the more interesting aspect.

That's a rather thin reed upon which to base an all-encompassing theory, isn't it?

That's not all I'm basing it on, so your statement makes no sense. If that was it, then perhaps. But multiply this example by the millions of other data points for evolution, then your objections melt away to nothingness.

Morphology can just as easily be explained in terms of design.

Anything can be explained in terms of design, because when you posit an all-powerful God, who can do anything, for any reason, then any evidence, of any kind, regarding anything can be explained by the words: "God wanted it that way." At that point you don't have science, you have religion. And if you want to believe this religious notion, that is your business. But don't try to get the government to force my kids to learn your religion.

And, moreover, some things in nature make so sense as design, if you assume the designer is rational and sane, such as the vagus nerve in a giraffe (hell, or the number of neck vertebrae) or the panda's "thumb" (or the human back or external testicles, etc., etc.,...). There are no good reasons for them (and many problems with them) to be that way someone with unlimited creative power.

Considered by itself, the evidence is ambiguous.

But it should not be considered by itself. It should be considered with the millions of other data points which show evolution occurred.

But seen in the context of the larger problems with evolutionary theory, the evidence is of very little value.

Again, only to someone who, to me, seems willing to wish away all of the evidence because, ultimately, he believes that his religious convictions are more important. As a religious matter, that's your business, of course. But your feelings about your religion don't change the facts on the ground.

There are two enormous problems with evolutionary theory. First, if evolution happened by great leaps, then a probable mechanism must be proposed to account for it. I am aware of no probable mechanism.

Check your premise. The error, no doubt, will be found in your use of, and understand of, the phrase "great leaps." No "leaps" greater than obtainable by the speed achievable by the various forms of speciation is necessary.

Secondly, if evolution happened by incremental change, then the fossil record should show this, and show it overwhelmingly. In fact, the fossil record shows overwhelming evidence of stasis in species.

That is one of the reasons why I think the Eldridge-Gould paper on the effect of morphological stasis and allopatric speciation on the fossil record is fundamentally correct, and why I think the theories pressing continuous gradualism are not.

Punctuated equilibrium - it isn't just for breakfast anymore.

Punctuated equilibrium - it isn't just for breakfast anymore.

Yes, although I find the phrase "evolution by jerks," to be humorous... Given the fact that too many creationists falsely believe that punctuated equilibrium is the same as the hopeful monster theory, I sometimes choose not to use the term, so as not to get the same canned creationists arguments against hopeful monsters.

This is one of the better opinion pieces I've seen on the subject. I'd never thought I'd have a good word for de Chardin, but in comparison with the incredibly awkward ID movement he does look good.

I'll also plug Edward T. Oakes' theological takedown of ID Reviewing The Wedge of Truth and follow-up correspondence

But multiply this example by the millions of other data points for evolution, then your objections melt away to nothingness.

Like the millions of fossils in the fossil record which aren't there? The fossil record demonstrates stasis. Period.

And, moreover, some things in nature make so sense as design, if you assume the designer is rational and sane, such as the vagus nerve in a giraffe (hell, or the number of neck vertebrae) or the panda's "thumb" (or the human back or external testicles, etc., etc.,...). There are no good reasons for them (and many problems with them) to be that way someone with unlimited creative power.

And you know how God should have designed the world? Creation is not necessary. God is sufficient unto Himself. Creation, in all its beauty, variety and idiosyncracies, serves to reflect His glory.

No "leaps" greater than obtainable by the speed achievable by the various forms of speciation is necessary.

Circular. Your problem throughout is that you're assuming your conclusion.

That is one of the reasons why I think the Eldridge-Gould paper on the effect of morphological stasis and allopatric speciation on the fossil record is fundamentally correct, and why I think the theories pressing continuous gradualism are not.

So this is the obviously correct evolutionary theory? Are the scientists who advocate gradualism truly scientists, and/or idiots? Or does that label only apply to people who believe what is truly obvious, that God designed the world?

Like the millions of fossils in the fossil record which aren't there? The fossil record demonstrates stasis. Period.

You are either lying knowingly or making a statement for which you don't know the facts, but which you nevertheless stating as a fact. Since it is not true that the fossil record demonstrates only stasis, I don't know whether this is an innocent mistake or whether you are another in the long line of liars for Christ.

And you know how God should have designed the world? Creation is not necessary. God is sufficient unto Himself. Creation, in all its beauty, variety and idiosyncracies, serves to reflect His glory.

No, I am saying that if you believe that this was intended by your God, then your God has the mentality of a slow ten-year old child. The world's biology is filled with mostly ad-hoc solutions, which make no sense to any rational thinker, but which make perfect sense as the contingent result of evolutionary history. (Your god must LOVE evolution, because the world is teeming with evidence for it, and is devoid of any evidence against it...)

Circular. Your problem throughout is that you're assuming your conclusion.

You are a theistic creationist, and you call anyone else's reason circular??? (And, my assertion isn't circular, the conclusion is well supported by the evidence, as the speed evolution can attain and the amount of change necessary for evolutionary change can be determined by science.)

So this is the obviously correct evolutionary theory?

Not necessarily, that's why I said it is "fundamentally" correct. For what it is attempting to show, it is, I believe, fundamentally correct.

Are the scientists who advocate gradualism truly scientists, and/or idiots?

Scientists. Their ideas are just wrong.

Or does that label only apply to people who believe what is truly obvious, that God designed the world?

No, some people who claim this are just brainwashed. Some are ignorant, some stupid, some cultured with the belief and never questioned it, some are insane, and some are so terrified at the reality of death that they'd cling to anything--even in the face of evidence the belief is untrue--so as not to have to contemplate their own nonexistence.

OK, now I see the source of your dogmatism.

whatever. Good day.

For example, the RNA codons "GGA GGC GGG GGU" stands for "glycine," not because it is some arbitrary code like language (like, in fact, the sequence of Latin letters G-L-Y-C-I-N-E is an arbitrary code,

I don't suppose you know what the word "codon" means (or its derivation)? Plus I don't suppose you have any idea how proteins are made in the cell? As a further note, you jump from DNA to RNA after asserting that the belief that DNA is encoded information is in error. DNA does not have the base Uracil.

Well thank you both for the thought provoking responses. With the fever pitch this thread sometimes reached I wondered if I should try, but I'm glad I did.

soft tissue organs is based not on a need for them to be present to make the evidence strong enough, but because of your certainty that they cannot be preserved. This ensures you will never have to worry about your demand being met.

No, I assure you, I don't think like that. I don't make arguments just to have them not be debated. I included the "/radical-skeletal-features" precisely because organs aren't preserved. My meaning is that although the arm and leg tissue would have decomposed, the skeletal strangeness of a fish with feet (as per your example) would nevertheless still be apparent. The churning of internal organs and changing external muscle structures would undoubtedly also affect the skeletal torso of the specimen, and that would be preserved in the fossil record, hence my reference to the organs (not preserved) and the radically changing skeleton (preserved)

I present to you the Ichthyostega, a fish with feet.

Well thank you for that interesting example, but the fact that there are not thousands and thousands of fish with feet, birds with canine teeth, true reptiles with inverted pelvises and wings, etc. is what shows clearly this evolution effect is not happening over time. The fact that a vast number of fossils of animals in mid transition do not exist simply cannot be explained. It's more probable that this specimen is a misidentification.

counterarguments before. If not, you can find them here.

this was also interesting, but after showing that super-simple molecules can sometimes make copies of themselves, the author then jumps to saying that they "might" then form more complicated cooperative molecules that "might" then work together and start creating life. I would have been more convinced if an example, and not just a candidate mechanism had been displayed.

WildHorseCrash:
Granted, everything in your first paragraph is quite accurate, but it's the lack of mid-transition fossils later in the "evolution" process that I'm referring to, not just at the beginning of the split. These fossils of blended animals don't exist.

Regarding an obsession with randomness, I understand that argument exists against creationists, but that's because evolution is fueled by randomness! Granted you draw a distinction between the operant factor being the actual environmental niche that the organism is in combined with its selective pressures, nevertheless the assertion that random genetic changes are always "throwing spaghetti on the wall" is what ostensibly powers this whole concept (ie that there is always something new ready to test said environmental selective pressures of such magnitude that the species itself would mutate over time), and I, personally, find the science for this unworkable.

Anyway, thank you both for responding this late in the thread. I suppose we should let this dead horse die. If you'd like to write a final response I will look forward to reading it.

Now, if only I could get GhengisKhan to respond to my question regarding pre-Hindu Buddhist manifestations of allegedly Hindu religious outlooks. I don't suppose either of you would like to take a stab at this topic?:
********************************************
To: Gengis Khan
The sources I've read declare that Buddhism (or its precedent) is the indigenous religion of the Harappa Civilization, the oldest known civilization in India. Harappa Civilization's artifacts, and its now indecipherable script, predate Sanskrit (and hence the Vedas), and some of those artifacts clearly demonstrate people in meditation positions practicing meditation. Buddha himself stated that he was simply redeveloping an ancient practice (a pre-Vedic practice, given that Harappa script is pre-sanscrit, and as you stated, I believe, that the Vedas describe Hindu history, but don't refer to Harrapa Civilization)

Perhaps it is a little bit of propaganda to say that reincarnation, karma, etc. was originally Hindu, when it may in fact have been Buddhist/pre-Buddhist-Harappa, then absorbed into Sanskrit reading Hinduism at a later date.

From what I've read the Hindus at Buddha's time were interested primarily in pantheons and ritualistic sacrifice, the later often being compared as less effective than the Buddha's living, analysis-driven doctrine, implying Buddhist rationality was something new to Hinduism.

I don't know if there was an invasion or not, but if not, then how was the Harappa Civilization displaced by the Sanskrit reading population?

24 posted on 10/23/2005 2:27:37 AM PDT by starbase (I like the way you think, and I'll be watching you.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
*************************************************