Intelligent design’s long march to nowhere

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

[dread78645]

That means there are multiple Fester Chugabrew's and doc30's out there.

Didn't Giordano Bruno get burnt at the stake for this?

[rootkidslim]

IQ And The Wealth Of Nations... a book I want to read when I get the chance. I've read some of Rushton's controversal stuff, but not yet IQ and wealth. I'm a little afraid to post this, very controversal... flame bait!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ

[Thatcherite]

In fairness RKS only ventured a hypothetical, and it was at least an interesting one. There would be a bizarre irony in the freedom to come out being bad for the homosexuality genes. Though I agree with you that I suspect it won't work like that. In evidence I cite that homosexuality hasn't died out in past human societies where it was openly practiced AFAIK.

[js1138]

I don't know a lot of openly gay people, but one of my former co-workers had been married and had children. It's possible that in a world without closets, fewer gay men would get married and have children. I wouldn't bet either way on the outcome.

[rootkidslim]

I don't know enough about it to speak with any authority, but I suspect that most exclusive homosexual tendencies are rooted in things like the hormonal environment in the mother's womb, rather than an identifiable gene. A "homosexual gene" that yielded lifelong, exclusive homosexual activity would be, by definition, lethal in its phylogenetic results.

[PatrickHenry]

... the probability of getting a combination that I value is extremely low, which is why I would find it astonishing to get one.

The point of my card-shuffle post is not that our particular biosphere isn't unlikely, because it is. It's just that whatever biosphere gets produced will be equally unlikely. Ours is no more unlikely than any other. If you went back to 4 billion years ago and started the whole thing up all over again, you'd probably end up with a totally different mix of species, none of them exactly like what we have now. But this "shuffle of the cards" is ours. We're unique. Which is why -- contrary to the endlessly repeated claims of the creationists -- the evolutionary point of view places a higher value on humanity than one where we could be wiped out and started up again at the whim of a deity.

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

Under cross-examination, Behe made many interesting comparisons between ID and the big-bang theory...

Behe also said that ID requires NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Which is appropriate since it doesn't have any.

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

That's the kicker, what you value. What we all value, of course, is our present existence, our present form of life. If things had worked out a bit different, there could be another form of life here, valuing its outcome.

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)

I would be astonished, too. However, now think of that tank having a billion different colors in it and you didn't care which one was picked. Are you now astonished that the red one came up?

[Junior]

Are you changing the subject now? You made an unfounded assertion that a lot of research was based on "untestable assumptions." I pointed out that you were wrong, and now suddenly we're talking about phenomena "occuring naturally."

[js1138]

Which is why -- contrary to the endlessly repeated claims of the creationists -- the evolutionary point of view places a higher value on humanity than one where we could be wiped out and started up again at the whim of a deity.

I personally lean toward the rare earth hypothesis. If you look at the history of mass extinctions on this planet it seems unlikely that any planet would undergo the history that led to primates.

There are lots of big brains around, but only one species with syntactical language.

[JeffAtlanta]

A "homosexual gene" that yielded lifelong, exclusive homosexual activity would be, by definition, lethal in its phylogenetic results.

Not if it were recessive.

[Junior]

One thing y'all may be overlooking is that relatively few homosexuals are exclusively homosexual. I've only known a few gay folks in my lifetime, and generally they were bisexual with a strong, though not exclusive, tendency toward attraction to members of their own sex.

[js1138]

Lots of gay men are married and have children. I imagine the same is true of women.

[dread78645]

I read somewhere that left handed molecules are more stable against ultraviolet light than right handed ones.

Not necessarily. It depends on the polarization of the light. In one direction left-hand predominates, in the other direction, right-handed.

We don't know if it's possible for right-hand life to exist in the universe; Our one example, Earth, is exclusively left-handed.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

On that same note, if there IS a genetic component to homosexuality, the expression of it could be highly variable depending on the social environment that the individual was a part of. Present day expression, with the desire of gays to have pair bonding, is relatively new historically speaking. Trying to figure out in what way this genetic component (if it exists) was expressed in early Man is probably not possible.

[Doctor Stochastic]

May your nose never need to grow longer.

[Coyoteman]

If you look at the history of mass extinctions on this planet it seems unlikely that any planet would undergo the history that led to primates.

Moties, on the gripping hand, would be easier, right?

[Diamond]

... It [ID]says nothing about what to expect, projects no data and makes no falsifiable claims.

The research is readily admitted to be theoretical. In one of the articles, though, the scientist explicitly disagrees with the assesment that ID projects no data and makes no falsifiable claims.
link

Cordially,

[Thatcherite]

One thing y'all may be overlooking is that relatively few homosexuals are exclusively homosexual. I've only known a few gay folks in my lifetime, and generally they were bisexual with a strong, though not exclusive, tendency toward attraction to members of their own sex.

Altogether now, "In the Navy..."

That was the thrust (arf arf) of one of my original replies to snowbelt, though not in so many words.

[Junior]

Present day expression, with the desire of gays to have pair bonding, is relatively new historically speaking.

IIRC, the Persians of Alexander's time maintained a regiment composed solely of homosexual men and their lovers, the idea being that no man would want to appear cowardly in the presence of his significant other.