Intelligent design’s long march to nowhere

Science & Theology News ^ | 05 December 2005 | Karl Giberson

[catpuppy]

Noted.

[rootkidslim]

Ditto! CK is an amazing intellect and I savor his columns both on-line in in my local tabloid, The Boston Herald. I had a friend who was wheelchair bound and, though he was charmingly anti-intellectual, I grew to have great admiration for his personal courage and optimism. In Charles Krauthammer you have the best of both worlds. He has overcome daunting physical obstacles to share with the world his fine writing and elegant reasoning.

[Doctor Stochastic]

On the other hand, non-breeders may be helpful to breeders by aiding them in producing more offspring. Worker bees don't breed but they gather.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Da Vinci had extensive training for the time. He worked 6 years as del Verrocchio's apprentice. So da Vinci did get both formal and informal training.

[jec41]

Are you suggesting that counting could be part of an unbiased IQ test?

No, none of the IQ tests I have ever encountered included counting. However, Charlie's ability to count to ten can be measured by IQ testing. There are many instances in which someone with a low IQ has the ability to derive complex correct mathematical answers without training in mathematics but cannot do the simple tasks for everyday existence. I will agree that all tests are biased if the parameters are unlimited. However what purpose does it serve other than to make all tests invalid for a specific agenda.

[rootkidslim]

Consider this possible Darwinian irony, that whatever genetic component there is for homosexuality, they are less fit in a society that allows them to freely identify and act upon their preferences. In a more "repressive" society they are forced to hide their orientation and participate in reproductive activity in biologically viable ways. I'm sure Gregory Bateson would have fun with that idea.

[jec41]

What do you do when you forget a memory-aiding device?

Heck, I'm 64 with a major in math and a degree in chemical engineering and I couldn't remember it. Concepts are fine but details are a no no.

[Senator Bedfellow]

He worked 6 years as del Verrocchio's apprentice.

Until Verrocchio became a real boy.

[Fester Chugabrew]

On the contrary, it is an easy matter to dismiss all phenomena as occuring "naturally." That does not make one's conclusions necessarily more reliable, true, or "scientific."

[jec41]

This whole "untestable assumptions" crap you (and other anti-E types) toss out willy-nilly to dismiss research you don't like just does not hold water when looked at objectively.

Change that to research they don't understand.

[js1138]

However, Charlie's ability to count to ten can be measured by IQ testing.

I sure that specific skills vary genetically, but I do not accept the concept of g. Any large population will have those factors that contribute to survival in that culture. We value counting and reading. It is circular to say that the factors we value define general intelligence.

All populations have exceptional individuals, by any standards. The frequency of these exceptional traits can shift rapidly if they become valuable to the population.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"This whole "untestable assumptions" crap you (and other anti-E types) toss out willy-nilly to dismiss research you don't like just does not hold water when looked at objectively.

Change that to research they don't understand."

What research? When has ID ever been put to the test?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Oops, I think I misread your post. Friendly fire alert!

Sorry. :)

[Thatcherite]

The scary thing is that after Great Britain, America has the one of the highest, if not the highest, average national IQs. 98.

You'd soon shake yourself of that notion if you walked along some of the streets near my home. Either that or everyone else out there has the IQ of a fencepost. I'm not sure which prospect is more alarming. (anecdotal observations applying to population of many millions disclaimer, before Dr Stoch gets on to me)

[Thatcherite]

Congratulations, the pair of you have come up with the first interesting and novel (to me) comments that have ever arisen as a result of creato homo obsession.

[dread78645]

If you deal every card in a deck of playing cards out in front of you, what are the odds of you dealing the exact sequence of cards you end up with? Funny thing, those probabilities.

52! ~ 8.065 x 10⁶⁷.

Of course that's only one deck, dealt one time.

[megatherium]

megatherium: We live in a universe that supports life, where the laws of physics and chemistry are not random and appear to have lead to the origin of life. There is where I personally see the Creator, a Creator who has chosen the most elegant way possible to create life.

CarolinaGuitarman: That is a very nice position, but it is not open to scientific investigation.

Indeed, that's just my point. You do not have to adhere to "creationism" or ID to believe in a God who created the universe and life, and you're right, this isn't open to scientific investigation. I might recommend the book Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller; he is a prominent biologist who is a Roman Catholic, who explains why evolution is compatible with Christian theology but why ID is bad theology and bad science.

[Thatcherite]

Rampant agreement placemarker

[js1138]

evolution works on populations, not individuals. There are examples of species with a high proportion of nonreproducing individuals. You can't simple deduce the correct answer to questions like this.

[bobdsmith]

According to your perception, because you value that particular combination. But it's not statistically any less likely than any other combination.

No, but the probability of getting a combination that I value is extremely low, which is why I would find it astonishing to get one.

Take a better analogy: A lottery machine containing 100 billion blue balls and just one red ball. The lottery machine randomly selects a ball. If the selected ball is red I would find that astonishing because the odds of that happening were so low (this is entirely valid astonisment, showing that retrospective astonishment is not always a fallacy)

An argument parallel to your above argument would be that my astonishment at getting a red ball is only due to my perception because I value red balls, and pointing out that the red ball had just as much chance of being selected as any particular blue ball. But it isn't the particular ball that astonishes me, it is the particular color of that ball.