Not-So-Intelligent Design

The Scientist ^ | Mar. 4, 2002 | Neil S. Greenspan and Anthony Canamucio

[Karl_Lembke]

Consider another fire lit.....

[Karl_Lembke]

Onto list.

[arepublicifyoucankeepit]

Wake up people the "missing link" was never found. The whole dam chain is missing.

If they're going to teach the religion of Evolution then by all means teach Creation.

[gcruse]

"subversive design"

Religion, the weapon of choice
in the attack on human advancement.

[adakotab]

The concept of irreducible complexity is simply asserted; it is not based on either evidence or compelling logic. Consequently, proponents of ID must decide, essentially arbitrarily, what is too complex to have evolved.

Apparently the author hasn't read much, if anything, of William Dembski's articles on Intelligent Design. Dembski explains in detail how irreducible complexity is determined.

Par for the course from some evolutionists to cry deceit while themselves deceiving.

[marktwain]

Another problem caused by "winner take all" public schools. If we had school choice, I could send my kids to a school that taught evolution, and religious people could send their kids to a school that taught creationism.

[Cicero]

Smug pseudo-scientists. Intelligent Design and General Evolution are both theories put forward to explain the evidence. Intelligent Design makes some sense. General Evolution doesn't. Freud and Marx have both been widely discredited among people with sense, and Darwin is next on the list.

[earplug]

I think a loving god would have told us to boil water, wash often with soap and avoid lead, mercury, arsenic and fleas. But we pay our 10% and hope for eternal life. I feel so warm and fuzzy.

[cookcounty]

"How do ID proponents explain the existence of defective genes, no longer capable of expression, in one species that are strikingly similar to still functional genes in a related species? "

It seems the author of this article has seiously misunderstood ID. First of all, ID is NOT the same thing as "Perfection of Design, nor does it categorically deny evolution.

For crying out loud, even the Six-Day creationists believe in evolution of a degradationist type (the gradual loss or invalidation of information).

[AmericaUnited]

It's easier to believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus than the Theory of Evolution. So much evidence is piling up to discredit evolution. The emperor has no clothes any more, never did.

[AmericaUnited]

I think a loving god would have told us to boil water, wash often with soap and avoid lead, mercury, arsenic and fleas.

He did, by giving you a brain. You do know about those things. Thank God.

[TailspinJim]

Wrong about the six day creationists....read "Genesis and The Big Bang" and "The Science of God" by Doctor Gerald L. Schroeder.

[cookcounty]

"First, complexity is problematic to define, and irreducible complexity more so."

Oh, give me a break. The reason that we would be surprised to find a mushroom having a litter of puppies is that it is far too COMPLX of a transformation.

"Can't define 'complexity.'" Don't be silly.

[cookcounty]

I haven't read Schroeder, but I have to say, I'm sure you're mistaken. The idea of harmful mutations taking hold in a population are widely suported by 6-dayers. (are you saying they believe all mutations are neutral, or that they don't believe there are mutations?)

[jlogajan]

Dembski explains in detail how irreducible complexity is determined.

Yeah, he makes up odds for things that have already occurred. Most people can understand the folly of that.

For instance, calculate the odds that at this moment I just picked up a pencil. Using Dumbowski's method, he'd compute a series of improbabilities and say that the chance of me picking up a pencil just then is 1 in 10^76.

Of course, I did pick up the pencil, so there is no probability calculation that matters. It is a certainty. It already happened. Applying probability to prove it couldn't or didn't happen is hilariously inane.

But that's all ID has. Too bad for them.

[cookcounty]

"Really. Could you list the 5 most cited, peer reviewed articles, of 2001 that discredit evolution?"

Please list 5 journals that will accept non-evolutionary viewpoints for peer review. OK, name one, then. You can't complain about lack of peer-reviewed articles, if such articles are, a priori ruled out. It's an illogical question you suggest.

[jennyp]

I think a loving god would have told us to boil water, wash often with soap and avoid lead, mercury, arsenic and fleas.

He did, by giving you a brain. You do know about those things. Thank God.

Oh? I recall that in the Roman Empire, a very popular type of ceramic used in pots & mugs & wine bottles was high in lead. Rome, of course, was by far the most advanced society in Europe/Africa at the time. Far more advanced than God's favorite tribe was at the time.

Mercury was used for a number of things until recently that would make us blanch. And wasn't arsenic used in patent medicines as a pick-me-up? Or was that strychnine? (Actually, consulting my 1912 New Standard Formulary, all three, sometimes together. Yikes!)

You do realize of course how we did eventually learn why we should avoid lead, arsenic, mercury, & fleas? Godless, philosophically materialistic science! (Oh the horror :-)

[jennyp]

OK, how about if we rephrase the question...

Could you list the 5 best arguments as of 2001 that discredit evolution?

[cookcounty]

"Yeah, he makes up odds for things that have already occurred. Most people can understand the folly of that."

But lots of us can't understand it.

The example of your intelligent mind choosing to pick up a pencil is not a particularly cogent argument for the power of random non-intelligent processes.

How about this: You come to my house and find 10,000 pennies on the driveway, all facing heads up. Then I tell you they got that way by my flipping them out the window.

You express your skepticism about my flippping the coins.

Then I explain: 'You can't argue with it. It's already happened!