Not-So-Intelligent Design

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

[Dimensio]

Let me assure you that at the biochemical level the "Theory of Evolution" completely falls apart.

Er, in what way? Could you point out a link to a reputable reference where it is explained why there are biochemical problems with a change in alelle frequency over time?

[defenderSD]

"Could you point out a link to a reputable reference where it is explained why there are biochemical problems with a change in alelle frequency over time?

I'll try to find some references for you, but I've been out of the biochemical world for a few years. I remember some good scientific arguments against evolution from some biochemistry papers I read in college. The basic argument is that the number of beneficial genetic mutations that would have to occur for extensive evolution to occur is impossible. This large number of beneficial mutations is impossible because over 99% of naturally occurring mutations are destructive and lead to weaker, less-survivable mutant life forms. And for example, it would take a huge number of positive mutations for the brain of an ape-like creature to evolve into the brain of a human being. I'll try to dig up some of my old papers. But once you truly understand what has to happen at a genetic level for extensive beneficial evolution to occur, it's clear that evolution is impossible. You also have to be willing to accept this truth. Many scientists are unwilling to accept this truth because it runs counter to their own belief system.

[mindprism.com]

Yea, 40 days and 40 nights and a kabillion gallons of water makes for a pretty crude eraser.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm late getting in, but hereps a bit of the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].

[RadioAstronomer]

TailspinJim: I'm talking about time dialation,due to the fact that we're traveling at near the speed of light from the reference point of the big bang,.... [snip]

longshadow: That's very interesting. Could you provide us with the coordinates for the "reference point of the Big Bang"? In other words, were do you think the BB was located?

How about everywhere is the center of the universe. All of spacetime was the "center" when the Big Bang happened. BTW, since time also started with the Big Bang, there was no before.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks! Love the list of links. Just wish more people read them.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks for the link! :)

[BMCDA]

If you want you can define reality as space-time and its properties. We are part of this space-time whether we know all its properties or not. Our limited material senses, brains and instruments are the best tools we have (and to be honest I don't know of any immaterial senses). With these limited senses, brains and instruments we can gather knowledge that is only true with a high probability. We can never obtain absolute certainty as in mathematics.
And no we don't test reality but reality tests us and our knowledge we have about it. These tests can only show that some knowledge is faulty. A good example would be Newtonian mechanics which breaks down at the atomic level. Hence we had to come up with quantum mechanics. But is quantum mechanics absolutely true? We don't know; we only know that it works so far, as good as Newtonian mechanics works in the macroscopic world.

Nature (or reality for that matter) is as it is and not how we want it to be. You can compare reality with the graph of a weird function which we try to approximate with simpler, already known functions and as we zoom in even more details may become visible with which we have to deal then.

[RightOnline]

"Were the genes associated with conditions such as sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis designed by The Intelligent Designer, or by her sister, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer?"

I was prepared to read an intelligent treatise of this issue that may present cogent arguments.........but was stopped cold when I got to this disgustingly smug, drippingly sarcastic, outright blasphemous sentence.

Once again, we have blatant atheists attacking the very concept of God as Creator........but are too damned cowardly to admit their "bias".

This..........THIS............is what I find so despicable in these "discussions". It's akin to a closet Communist debating the republican form of government.

[BMCDA]

Yepp, that's true though it's hard to visualize.
I try this by imagining a two dimensional universe wrapped around an expanding torus for example. The whole torus has once been in the "center" at the beginning of the expansion but there is no way for an inhabitant of this universe to point at this "center".
Of course I don't think that our universe is torus-shaped (in a higher dimensional sense) but you're always welcome to correct me if this is wrong or if you have a better analogy.

[VadeRetro]

I was prepared to read an intelligent treatise of this issue that may present cogent arguments.........but was stopped cold when I got to this disgustingly smug, drippingly sarcastic, outright blasphemous sentence.

I'd be more impressed if statements of the above sort weren't all you ever do on these threads. I can't believe you still don't know what kind of party is it when you come.

[VadeRetro]

From a link off of your link:

Sideling Hill

just west of Hancock, MD. I drive through that road cut fairly often.

Every road cut in the Appalachians is a less-spectacular version of the same picture. How anyone can look at that and think "One great big flood. Yeah!" is beyond me.

[Sabertooth]

How about everywhere is the center of the universe. All of spacetime was the "center" when the Big Bang happened. BTW, since time also started with the Big Bang, there was no before.

No problem with the first two sentences. The third seems incautious and not agnostic.

Beyond the Big Bang, concepts like "before" are inadequate. We're four-dimensional entities in a four-dimensional universe, and our comprenension beyond that is as limited as would be the comprehension of of our reality would be to three-dimensional entities in some planar universe.

If we say without qualification "there was no before," prior to the Big Bang, we're also saying "there was nothing and no one."

This might sound like semantic niggling, but if science isn't attentive to the theological ramifications of certain statements (especially at the boundaries of space-time), we're never going to escape the tar baby of the false science vs. religion dilemma.

[Sabertooth]

I can't believe you still don't know what kind of party is it when you come.

Mr. Hatfield, meet Mr. McCoy.

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking ...

[Sabertooth]

If you want you can define reality as space-time and its properties. We are part of this space-time whether we know all its properties or not....

Nature (or reality for that matter) is as it is and not how we want it to be.

I basically agree with the rest of your post, but I want to quibble with you here.

I don't want to define "reality" as space-time, or use the terms "reality" and Nature interchangably. I don't see any problems with using the terms space-time and Nature synonymously.

But if we limit our definition of realitiy to the material world at the outset, we're preempting the very legitimate discussions of whether or not there is a reality that encompasses or is seperate from space-time.

Those discussions shouldn't impinge on science much, since they're better left to theology or philosophy.

[BMCDA]

But if we limit our definition of realitiy to the material world at the outset, we're preempting the very legitimate discussions of whether or not there is a reality that encompasses or is seperate from space-time.

I really don't see a problem here. If there is a reality that encompasses or is separate from our space-time and something in this reality can manipulate our material world then it is at least in principle measurable and thus knowable. Whereas if this particular something from outside our space-time cannot (or does not) influence our material world then there is nothing we can know about this entity or this reality. It may exist or not but in each case it is of no importance to our reality.

Some people argue that our brain is a kind of interface to such a reality but if that is the case then something from this reality which is outside of our space-time manipulates our material brain and so it must (at least in principle) be measurable. But since we don't know that much of our brains (the most complex structure we know of so far) we cannot and should not rule out the possibility that these sensations are products of our brain.

[WIMom]

Let's get this over with. Please donate to Free Republic. Click the picture to contribute by secure credit card.

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794


Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

80,000 Freepers and Growing - Freepathon

[Exnihilo]

If everything is designed, the theory is vacuous.

What is "everything" ? Do you mean every living thing? If so, then do you also suggest that if no living thing is designed, then the theory (of evolution) is vacuous? You can't have it both ways Doctor.

Your statement about evolution as a process and not a goal astounds me. You and Dr. Dembski both would agree a process of evolution has and is taking place. Since neither of you know with certainty that God does or does not exist, how can you assert that evolution is only a process and not a goal? Perhaps it is both a process and it is working towards a goal because it is being carried out by Dembski's intelligent designer.

You also assert that Dembski never defines specified complexity and how it relates to biological entities. This is of course, false, as anyone who has read his work knows. Specified complexity is a well understood concept and since biological life contains information, as I'm sure we would all agree, it is rational to inquire as to the nature of this information's storage. It really is no problem at all to apply the concept of specified complexity to biological information. The catch is proving that this could *not* have come about by natural means. Since neither side has proved this one way or the other, the debate continues.

[Exnihilo]

There is no criteria (under the Design Hypothesis) to say something isn't designed.

This is a patently false statement. Doctor Stochastic you may be persuading some of the readers who aren't familiar with Dr. Dembski's work. You are not, however, persuading any of us who are informed on this subject.