Between these following: Scenario 1: Galileo:  The earth orbits the sun Galileo’s opponent:  Idiot.  Ptolemy established that the sun orbits the earth 1,500 years ago and that theory has served us well ever since. Scenario 2: ID proponent:  The best explanation for the existence of complex specified information in living things is “act of an intelligent agent.” ID opponent:  IDiot.  Darwin proposed a chance/necessity mechanism to explain everything about all aspects of living things 150 years ago, and that theory has served us well ever since. The only difference I can see is that Galileo’s opponent seems to have a better argument, because the theory he was defending had been around 10 times longer.

ID proponents have a hard enough time getting their message across without the “help” of creationists like Kent Hovind and Venom Fang X. Not only have Darwinists impeded the advance of ID, but so also have some creationists.

For example the creationist Venom Fang X has harmed the ID movement by his less-than-scholarly videos. RationalWiki says of Venom Fang X:

VenomFangX (often shortened to VFX or Venom) is a creationist Internet vlogger who makes YouTube videos mostly about religion, God, Christianity and creationism, particularly young earth creationism. To this date, he holds the highest subscribers amongst Christian channels (even more than the Vatican YouTube channel),

Read More ›

David W. Gibson writes in a comment to a prior post: Joe, I think you have identified the problem here. In order to make his case airtight (i.e. that no other possible process can produce his entailments), Upright BiPed must prove a negative [Editors, i.e. that only intelligent agents produce semiotic* systems]. And I think he realizes this, which is why he simply continues to assert this. When the number of possibilities is unknown, process of elimination is not a valid means of picking one. I’d be willing to bet that Bill et. al. feel that they have indeed identified an alternative process, backed by 150 years of increasingly detailed scientific research. Their alternative may not meet what you feel Read More ›

DWG: I see: Bill is saying that IF you can demonstrate (and not just assert) that no other process can possibly produce the material observations, then your logic is correct. Stop right there, we are dealing with an empirical situation. No inductive or empirical fact or principle can be established beyond possible contradiction. To demand such a proof for a case where you should know better is selective hyperskepticism, here a form of question-begging. That’s like the rhetorical fast move played by Darwin when he spoke of a like condition. That boils down to demanding a default you have no right to. What inductive evidence can and does support is that there are two observed sources of highly contingent outcomes Read More ›