Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[staytrue]

Intelligent Design is just as viable as ANY other theory

ID has no useful feature that would be of any benefit to study. Now witchcraft if true might be of benefit because you can alledgedly manipulate the current environment.

ID is ok to be taught, but not in science class. Science is about understanding natural processes and using that understanding to forecast, predict and manipulate the current state of affairs. ID, even if true, does none of that and is totally useless for manipulating today's world.

[orionblamblam]

[PatrickHenry]

Help for new visitors to the evolution debate
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you'd like to understand the concept of speciation, visit Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

[umgud]

It amazes me that a university proffessor (Butz) can utilize a university website to promote his belief (as fact) that the holocaust did not happen. He's protected because of tenure and freedom of speech. But, had he done the same to promote a theory of creation, he'd be run out of town on a rail.

[TXnMA]

Anti-ID article ping...

[BitWielder1]

You confuse Science and Scientists. Scientists are human being and thus suceptible to authority, prestige, pressure and greed.
Only by constant cross-checking can Scientists strive for the ideals of Science.
Real-life science is not perfect (whatever is?) but Science a constantly growing
and most importantly self-correcting system, very much unlike most religious
or political dogmatic systems.

[AntiGuv]

"a nonscientific philosophical conjecture"

Hmm.. Is that euphemistic for "a wild-ass guess"?

[VadeRetro]

Supporters of intelligent design vehemently disagree, but they do not offer alternative theories or verifiable data. Instead, intelligent design proponents attack evolution with misinformation, half-truths and outright falsehoods.

Exactamundo!

[hail to the chief]

...I think he was kidding.

[seastay]

Although scientific theories are necessary to explain the universe, they are not always sufficient, if the boundary conditions of the problem are not defined well. Second hand smoke is a good example, it could be dangerous but the system has be closed and well defined, no fresh air intervening to dilute for the conclusions to mean anything

Likewise, the universe would have to be a closed universe for evolution to hold true, no outside intervention, which really cannot be proven or disproved by science.

Therefore the rigors of science are only as good as the assumptions, which in turn means that it takes faith that the assumptions are correct, yet the reliance of faith itself is the only argument used by scientists to disprove that outside intervention to the creation our existence cannot exist.

[hail to the chief]

Sure he would. The Darwinist Atheist Conspirators eliminate creationists all the time.

[balrog666]

Good sumamry. How do you get the creationoids to understand it?

[forsnax5]

Sunday Funnies Placemarker

[hail to the chief]

Quite the opposite. There is no way to establish that outside intereference occurs, therefore science does not attempt to use outside power sources for its theories. Science does not deny the existence of God; rather, it simply does not try to decide whether he's there or not.

[N2Gems]

As we unravel the genome, and begin to get data back from that research, many of the results are not going to make anti -creationists happy.

It seems that human beings are surprisingly un diverse for supposedly evolved creatures. In fact, we are only a small fraction as genetically diverse as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos. One would think that since we have covered the entire earth that we would be much more diverse than apes who are, and always have been very geographically limited.

It is also becoming evident that human beings, homo sapiens sapiens, (not to be confused with hominid animals) originated in a single location (Africa, Mesopotamia region) from a very small population. The "out of Africa" model appears to be the more accurate. Some suggest that instead of out of Africa, the model should be called out of Eden.

Another startling result coming from molecular anthropology is data that strongly suggests that the human female genetic genealogy is at least several thousand years older than the male genealogy. It is an interesting riddle for those who don't believe in God, but for those who do, it is very clear.

Noah and his sons would be as far back as the male genealogy could be traced as they were effectively, our genetic Adams. Noah's wife and his son's genetic genealogy however, would continue right on back through time to the first homo sapiens sapiens.

Today, in labs across the globe, scientists are trying to create life. Assume that someday they do, and assume a few billion years for it to evolve. My bet is that whatever liberals those experiments eventually spawn will howl to the heavens that the idea of intelligent design is nothing but bunk.

[StACase]

Sure he would. The Darwinist Atheist Conspirators eliminate creationists all the time.

They could declare it a mental disorder. They're trying to do that with "homophobia"

[CheyennePress]

While I both agree with the concept of evolution and hold that God created the universe, the arguments put forth in this article against irreduceable complexity are a steaming load of hog crap. Or perhaps more properly, bringing a peashooter to a gun match. The author speaks of the lack of evidence put forth by intelligent design proponents and then gives precious little himself (indeed, I've seen far bettter arguments made by intelligent design proponents).

They simply do not address what I think are some interesting proposals put forth by evolutionary biologists and creationists alike.

[bvw]

Dawkin's blind watchmaker program -- the one he uses to produce a simple genetic algorithm that prodces line segment drawings -- creates a simple space of line-morphs. On my walk in the woods yesterday I got to thinking of that example of Dawkins, and of the genetic space in the real world. And also of star and galaxy clusters, and of brownian motion, and of dinosaur skeltons.

It seems to me that the genetic space is extremely clustered, or spotty, and that the same spottiness -- the same spots, that is, not just the fractality -- occurs in the various fossil epochs, and in our current one.

I could say more, but my speculations then turned to metaphysicalities.

FWIW.

[dread78645]

Who is to say that some giant alien creature named GOD didn't pick his nose and flick a booger which exploded into our timeline and universe?

Heretic!

All pious and good creatures know that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure! This is all that is needed to explain all the great complexity of the universe, for it is simple in comparison to the Great Complexity of the Great Green One!

Woe unto you, you unbeliever! Repent, or you will suffer greatly on the day of the coming of the Great White Handkerchief!

[Parmy]

Science is nothing more than the discovery, study and application of what exists.

For instance, because something is not 'seen' doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it hasn't been brought into form.

One can get into many examples. The planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies all roatate around and with each other in precise mathematical, therefor predictable formation.

Is that 'science'----or is that 'intelligent design'.

You decide!