The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[taxesareforever]

I have never said that I would not consider creationist facts. You have not provided any facts to consider.

That is because you have rejected everything that has been given you.

Here's something for you to comtemplate. If a person was to tell you that they had witnessed a nuclear explosion would you pursue seeking out all their evidence or would you turn to science and try to prove how, when and where it happened? I do believe I know what your answer will be.

[Dimensio]

That is because you have rejected everything that has been given you.

When I have rejected claims that you have presented, I have given rationale for doing so. Typically, the claims that you have presented are founded in factual errors.

Here's something for you to comtemplate. If a person was to tell you that they had witnessed a nuclear explosion would you pursue seeking out all their evidence or would you turn to science and try to prove how, when and where it happened? I do believe I know what your answer will be.

I would request further explanation of their claim. Without any detail beyond the initial claim, I would have no means of an evaluation.

[tortoise]

You only believe what you touch or see. At least until it comes to putting blind faith in evolution.

It would not be "blind faith" though, even if it was incorrect. Evolution is at least plausible in that the conclusion mathematically follows from the premise in theory -- it is a well understood abstract systems dynamic, speciation aside. It may in fact be that the parameters are such that a basic mutation/selection model does not work, but making that assertion very much depends on knowing what the real system parameters are.

The mutation/selection model could be trivially disproved by showing that the parameters of the system do not allow significant speciation via that mechanism. That would be a scientific argument. Instead, we get arguments asserting that the mathematical result is intrinsically incorrect, which mostly just paints the person making that argument as grossly ignorant of the subject.

Evolution does not require "blind faith" because it is a plausible model in a strong mathematical sense. It may not be the primary cause of speciation in fact, but it could be given what we know about the parameters of the system today. I would point out that the next leading contender after evolution is not ID but another system dynamic (a kind of computational automata). I have a preference for the latter one myself; it works much more quickly in the genome, and produces a smoother and more continuous type of gradual speciation than a strict random mutation would.

[taxesareforever]

I would request further explanation of their claim. Without any detail beyond the initial claim, I would have no means of an evaluation.

Exactly what I thought you would say. Goodbye.

[Dimensio]

Exactly what I thought you would say.

If you knew that I would request that a vague claim be given further detail before analysis is possible, then why did you ask how I would respond? Do you find such a response unreasonable?

[taxesareforever]

If you knew that I would request that a vague claim be given further detail before analysis is possible, then why did you ask how I would respond?

Because I wanted everyone to hear you spit on eyewitness evidence. Thank you and have a good day.

[Dimensio]

Because I wanted everyone to hear you spit on eyewitness evidence.

How is it "spitting" upon eyewitness evidence to request clarification of a vague claim? How does this relate to your previous unsubstantiated assertion that the theory of evolution is a lie?

[taxesareforever]

Evolution fraud alert!! FACTS prove that evolution is a lie!!!!

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=589

[andysandmikesmom]

Well, I started to read the article you just linked, and one of the first things I find them saying is this....

"Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals—all life today coming from that eruption."....HUH???? Who believes that is the definition of evolution...if you do, then obviously you dont know what evolution is...

Further on, they go on to quote the late Herbert W. Armstrong...gads, that guy founded one notorious cult, as far as many folk are concerned...The World Wide Church of God....uh huh...great authority...

Its late, and I will try to read this link article in full, tomorrow...but if just these two points that I have found are any indication of what else is in the article, I see its quite obvious, that there is no 'Evolution fraud Alert'....no 'FACTS prove that evolution is a lie'...no substance so far, lets see what else this article has to offer...

[taxesareforever]

"Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals—all life today coming from that eruption."....HUH???? Who believes that is the definition of evolution...

Evolutionists of course. Where else do they say life originated? Sheeesh. Enjoy your coffee while you read.

[andysandmikesmom]

No, evolutionists do not say that evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals...evolution itself, never, ever addresses how life began...it only addresses what happens once life has begun...evolutionists may believe that life began as you say, but that is never, ever included in the study of evolution...how life began is a completely different field of study from what happens once life begins...

Now, creationists always say, that evolution includes the study of how life began...and they are wrong, as are you...

Its late now, but tomorrow, do ask the evolutionists if evolution includes the study of how life began...see what answers you get...you will find, you will get the same answer as I am giving you...

[Dimensio]

From the article that you have referenced:

If the evidence proves the hypothesis, it then becomes a theory.

This statement is simply false. Hypothesis are not "proven". They are either rejected, or accepted as explanations in which high confidence is given. Theories are still open to disproof, and as such cannot be considered proven.

Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals—all life today coming from that eruption.

This statement is simply fase. The theory of evolution does not, in any way, address the origin of the first life forms. The author, in this statement, demonstrates that he has not actually studied what the theory of evolution explains.

The problem is, the authors of modern science textbooks will include the faked pictures as proof of evolution even when they know of the fraud.

This statement is unsourced. It is true that Haeckel's drawings have been included in even recent textbooks, however the author does not cite any of the claimed books to show that they were in fact using the drawings to advance Haeckel's failed hypothesis. In fact, Haeckel's hypothesis -- that organisms pass through stages of all ancestral forms during the embryoinic stage -- was never well accepted and eventually fully rejected within Haeckel's lifetime, and the hypothesis never became part of the theory of evolution. However, it is a fact that there are certain stages in the embryonic development of mammals that resemble the embryonic stages of previous ancestrals forms; mammals develop a yolk sac in development, even though the sacs remain completely unused -- a throwback to the ancestor egg-laying reptiles. One particular publisher Nonetheless, the author of the article is greatly simplifying the circumstances of the experiment, and also misleadingly downplaying the significance of the results.

This is supposed to prove the theory of “natural selection.” But fraud and lies permeate this deception as well.

The author again demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the scientific method in general. The peppered moth study did not "prove" anything, as nothing in science is proven. The peppered moth studies -- there were more than one -- is presented as an example of natural selection occuring.

As ridiculous as it may seem, the pictures are themselves faked. Peppered moths do not land on tree trunks in nature; they light on the undersurface of small horizontal branches higher in the trees.

The claim that the peppered moth study was a fraud is a common falsehood told by creationists. That the author makes the claim indiciates that the author is himself dishonest, or the author is receiving information only from dishonest sources, and now actually researching the validity of his sources.

There are multitudes of other misleading statements, false conclusions and outright lies common to pro-evolution literature. These things continue to be included in modern science textbooks and articles.

The author does not reference any such claims, however. The author has shown the existence of exactly one fraud, then misrepresented the implications of the fraud by claiming that it is used as evidence for the theory of evolution, when it is not. The author has also wrongly claimed that two legitimate experiments are fraudlent. The author has clearly not followed up on his research, or the author himself is not honest.

If reptiles somehow changed and became mammals, there should be fossils representing the intermediate steps. But there are none.

This is simply a false statement. The author has apparently done no research, and is using an incorrect assumption as evidence.

According to anthropologist Tom Kemp, in his famous review, Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals, “In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.”

It would be helpful to have the full context of the statement in order to better evaluate its meaning, however no creationist source that I have found is willing to provide any more than one or two sentences in most cases of quotations. Nonetheless, this statement only means that there is no established transitional lineage that covers every species in a line of descent. No biologist expects such a discovery to occur, however, as such a discovery would require an enormous amount of good fortune given that fossilization itself is a very uncommon event. In other words, the author is taking the fact that occasionally transitions amongst a lineage are found skipping a species or two, rather than having every single species in a chain represented, as evidence that no transitional forms exist. This is not an honest representation.

This admission of missing links is nothing new, as is demonstrated by this statement from 1930 by Dr. A.H. Clark in The New Evolution: Zoogenesis: “No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon Earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups or phyla.”

The author should be aware that extensive discoveries have been made since 1930.

Not one “missing link” has been discovered.

This statement is false.

Even Darwin was aware of the missing evidence for evolution. Evolutionist Sir Edmund Leach stated in Nature 293:19 (1981), “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”

Sir Edmund Leach was speaking of Darwin's belief that evolution was gradual (as opposed to oiccuring in rapid spurts of triggered by sudden environmental changes followed by periods of relative stagnation), not the theory of evolution as a whole. This is evident in the context of the Leach's entire writing.

Evolutionists claim that if one creature is physically similar to another, it is evidence of a common ancestor.

Note that no source is provided, nor any explanation that common origin is determined through more than just physical similarity, nor even the standards by which "physical similarity" is judged.

The possibility that bones in the forelimbs are similar because they were planned and created by the same Designer seems to elude the thinking of evolution scientists. Why?

Note that the author fails to explain why a "Designer" should be assumed, and what evidence exists for a Designer.

The idea that life sprang forth from some primordial ooze is at the foundation of the evolutionary concept—that is what evolutionists claim caused life on Earth to begin.

This is incorrect. The theory of evolution does not, in any way, rely upon the means by which the first life forms came into existence. Even if the first life forms were ultimately brought into existence by a supernatural entity, the theory of evolution is unaffected. The author again demonstrates his lack of understanding of the scope of the theory of evolution.

“After the microscope was invented in 1683, the masterly work of Tyndall and Louis Pasteur proved conclusively that the ‘law of biogenesis’ [that life can come only from life] held true for microscopic forms of life as well!

This is not a factual claim. Pasteur demonstrated that previously held beliefs regarding the emergence of maggots and other organisms that appear in rotting flesh were incorrect. He did not, in any way, demonstrate the impossibility of "nonliving" elements coming together to form "life".

“George Wald, professor of biology at Harvard, admits, ‘One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation’

This is a misleading quote. Wald was speaking of human perceptions, because he believed that such an event could not be made to occur within a single human lifetime. It is clear that Wald believes that there is evidence for abiogenesis (which, I will add, is not a part of the theory of evolution).

There is something wrong with a thought process ending with an “impossible” conclusion. At best, it is irrational; at worst, it is intentional deception. Either way, such reasoning is commonplace in the literary support for evolution.

The author has misrepresented the conclusions of Pasteur's work and misrepresented the statements of other scientists as a means to claim that a process that evolution does not address is impossible. I fail to see how this demonstrates any flaws in the theory of evolution.

Educator Herbert W. Armstrong wrote, “The most difficult thing for any human seems to be to admit being wrong—to confess error of belief and conviction—to unlearn false knowledge as well as to learn true knowledge”

I can agree with this statement, given the number of times I have witnessed creationists here on FreeRepublic steadfastly refuse to acknowledge error. For example, a creationists known as 'nmh' claimed that Antony Flew had rejected the theory of evolution, even though I was able to quote to the individual a statement from the relevant article showing that Flew did in fact accept the theory of evolution. Rather than acknowledge her error, nmh insulted me. Later, when I reminded nmh of her previous mistake regarding Antony Flew, she denied ever making a comment about him at all, even though I was able to link directly to the post where she had made her original incorrect statement about the man. More recently, creationist mlc9852 claimed that dinosaur DNA had been discovered in fossilized remains. To support the claim, mlc9852 referenced an article that specifically stated that no DNA had been recovered. Rather than acknowledge the error, mlc9852 referenced several other articles; two of them were satirical articles containing deliberately false information, and one was a reference to a 1994 announcement that was later debunked. Despite being clearly in the wrong, mlc9852 has never acknowledged this error. It appears that steadfast refusal to admit error is a common trait amongst creationists here on FreeRepublic.

The “theory” of evolution has repeatedly been proven wrong,

The author references no such proof, however.

There is only one scenario that fits all the evidence perfectly, and that is creation! The facts support the planned, guided and purposeful design and creation of everything in the physical universe.

The author also provides no support for this claim, nor any reason to believe that the "CREATION" that is supported by the evidence is the same "CREATION" that the author believes has occured.

The presence of only levo-amino acids in living materials is so mathematically improbable (see sidebar, above), the only way it makes sense is if it was purposely designed—and that requires a Designer and Creator. No other model works.

This statement references an oft-used "probability" model that assumes that all nucleotides coming together at once, and presumes that all permutations of nucleotides can possibly come about from one organism to the other. There is no reason to believe such a claim, and in fact reason to believe that such a claim is false, and as such the probability argument is founded upon faulty assumptions. A rebuttal to many creationist probability claims can be found here. Note also that the author -- in referencing the character "Satan" -- appears to be endorsing his specific creation view, without justification for ruling out all other possible creation views.

It would appear that the author has either not studied the subject at all, and has taken all of his information from misinformed or dishonest sources without fact-checking, or the author himself is not being fully honest.

[andysandmikesmom]

Excellent rebuttal to the article linked by Taxes...you have dismantled it, quite well...I will still probably read it, but will of course, keep your remarks in mind.....as I stated earlier, there is absolutely no 'evolution fraud alert', here...the article linked by Taxes, appears to be the true fraud...

[taxesareforever]

The author again demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the scientific method in general.

Everyone does except you. You must be related to Sir Isaac Newton. You are just a wealth of inconsequential data. Of course, no facts, just (yawn) theories.

[Dimensio]

Everyone does except you.

I have made no such claims. There is no factual basis for your statement.

You must be related to Sir Isaac Newton. You are just a wealth of inconsequential data.

I note that you have not addressed any of my rebuttal to your referenced article.

Of course, no facts, just (yawn) theories.

You are again misrepresenting my statements and misrepresenting the definitions of the words "fact" and "theory". I do not understand the reason for your continued willfull misrepresentations.

[taxesareforever]

I do not understand the reason for your continued willfull misrepresentations.

Ha ha ha. You are the leader of misrepresentations. The pot calling the kettle black. Ha ha.

[Dimensio]

You are the leader of misrepresentations.

What misrepresentations have I made?

[taxesareforever]

What misrepresentations have I made?

You misrepresent yourself as a scientist when in reality all you are is a stage for talking points.

[Dimensio]

You misrepresent yourself as a scientist

I have made no such claim. In fact, I am a computer engineer. While I have studied computer science, that alone does not qualify me as a biologist. I do not understand how you have arrived at the conclusion that I have claimed to be a scientist with respect to biology, but you are incorrect.

when in reality all you are is a stage for talking points.

I have referenced specific examples of why claims that you have referenced are erroneous. That is more than "talking points".

[taxesareforever]

I have referenced specific examples of why claims that you have referenced are erroneous.

Specific examples of talking points.