Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Darwinism an “Empty Theory”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At Evolution and News, there’s a link to a 2017 article tackling the problems of inflationary theory in the field of cosmology. What I find so interesting is the second to last paragraph in this six page article. Here’s how it reads:

A common misconception is that experiments can be used to falsify a theory. In practice, a failing theory gets increasingly immunized against experiment by attempts to patch it. The theory becomes more highly tuned and arcane to fit new observations until it reaches a state where its explanatory power diminishes to the point that it is no longer pursued. The explanatory power of a theory is measured by the set of possibilities it excludes. More immunization means less exclusion and less power. A theory like the multimess does not exclude anything and, hence, has zero power. Declaring an empty theory as the unquestioned standard view requires some sort of assurance outside of science. Short of a professed oracle, the only alternative is to invoke authorities. History teaches us that this is the wrong road to take.

Is he talking about Darwinism? No, about the “multimess” as he calls it. In the meantime, here we have a high-powered scientist telling us that a theory that lacks “explanatory power” is a theory that “excludes” very little. We have said here for years that Darwinism can accomodate ANYTHING; and, hence, it “explains” NOTHING. It is, to quote the author, an “empty theory” that “invoke[s] authorities” to keep it as the “unquestioned standard view.” Most compelling is his final thought: “History teaches us that this is the wrong road to take.”

How many more “epicycles” have to be trotted out by the scientific monopoly that is evolutionary biology before we get off this ‘wrong road’? We already have had too many.

Comments
JVL, you have long since been answered as to what would objectively falsify the design inference on sign, and -- notice the lurking shark, relativisation of reasoning and knowledge -- it is NOT a matter of what "[we] would accept." You are doubling down on a false assertion that has been corrected. It doesn't even have to be in the direct context of origin of cell based life or body plans, ANY clear observed case of FSCO/I coming about by blind dynamic-stochastic processes would suffice. And objectors have long known it, they used to put up a lot of claimed or suggested cases, only to see them reliably collapse; my fav example was someone who tried to simulate origin of a clock, but was obviously ignorant of horology and precision machinery so he missed how much active information he was feeding in. Hence, the current rhetorical tack. KF PS, Wikipedia's forced acknowledgement on random text generation being x 10^100 short on config space relative to the 500 - 1,000 bit threshold (itself a refutation of Dawkins' notorious warmer/colder feed-in of active information, Weasel), again . . . already ignored when it appeared in 13, 43:
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times. However, the probability that monkeys filling the entire observable universe would type a single complete work, such as Shakespeare’s Hamlet, is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero) . . . . The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation. One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on 4 August 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the “monkeys” typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t” The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”. Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from “Timon of Athens”, 17 from “Troilus and Cressida”, and 16 from “Richard II”.[27] A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on 1 July 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took “2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years” to reach 24 matching characters: RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r”5j5&?OWTY Z0d
In short, we see the significance of search challenge in large configuration spaces and how designers feed in active information, also, why islands of function in such spaces are an issue. That starts, for the world of life, with deep isolation of thousands of protein fold domains in AA sequence space, itself a tiny subset of broader organic chemistry.kairosfocus
January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
ET, the design inference is falsifiable (and more broadly testable and confirmed reliable), the point is that as something highly reliable across trillions of observations of its origin, it is confirmed reliable, as opposed to actually falsified. The problem is, as FSCO/I is so central to cell based life, e.g. D/RNA, proteins and that key subset, the enzymes of life, it points to life being designed, which cuts across an entrenched paradigm and worldview. KFkairosfocus
January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT
Random with respect to fitness does NOT mean the mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. JVL's continued false accusations just prove he is a desperate and clueless troll.
And when we asked you what criteria you would accept you can’t say.
It's up to you to make your case. You can't. The rest of JVL's post just proves he is a willfully ignorant troll. Again, not my problem.ET
January 23, 2022
January
01
Jan
23
23
2022
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
ET: Random with respect to fitness doesn’t address the claim that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes Correct. It states that mutations are accidents, errors, etc. The nonsensical criterium does not address the claim that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes! The 1s and 0s on a computer buss would appear random, mathematically, but we know they are not. Well clearly you don't understand the mathematical justification for things being classified as being random. If you don't understand the mathematics then, perhaps, you should stop arguing. Meantime we are still waiting for you to show us how to test the claims of unguided evolution. Seems like no one can. And when we asked you what criteria you would accept you can't say. Funny that. To falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that blind and mindless processes could produce life. It isn’t my fault that you can’t.l What would you accept as a valid demonstration? What kind of validation would you accept? I know you won't address this point since you can't since there actually is no criterium you would accept.JVL
January 23, 2022
January
01
Jan
23
23
2022
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
For JVL:
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable. In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum–or any equally complex system–was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1) How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design. Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?- Dr Behe
Again, it isn't our fault that no one can falsify ID. But that is what you would expect from the correct paradigm.ET
January 23, 2022
January
01
Jan
23
23
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Viola Lee:
I admitted I might be wrong, and that there would no way to try to find the discussions I thought I remembered. Doesn’t seem like an asinine response to me.
Seeing that you posted it AFTER you had been corrected, makes it an asinine response.
And do you know what trope means? I don’t see anything in my response that would be considered a trope.
Get an education. You posted it AFTER you were corrected.
And you didn’t respond to my point that being wrong is not the same as lying.
Semantic games. You posted the lie after you were corrected.ET
January 23, 2022
January
01
Jan
23
23
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
JVL:
You just don’t understand what random with respect to fitness means.
Obviously, YOU don't. Random with respect to fitness doesn't address the claim that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. And you have been unable to demonstrate otherwise.
Mutations are mistakes, errors, etc.
Again, I know the untestable claim. I have been telling you it for years. Grow up.
That is exactly what the qualification is doing: it’s specifying under what criterium they are random.
The nonsensical criterium does not address the claim that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes! The 1s and 0s on a computer buss would appear random, mathematically, but we know they are not.
You always say: you can falsify ID by proving that unguided processes can ‘do it’.
All IDists have said that. And we have provided specific examples. You choke on them. Not our fault. Meantime we are still waiting for you to show us how to test the claims of unguided evolution. Seems like no one can. To falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that blind and mindless processes could produce life. It isn’t my fault that you can’t.
What would you accept as such a demonstration?
DEMONSTRATE THAT BLIND AND MINDLESS PROCESSES CAN PRODUCE LIFE. I would even allow an intelligent agency to get all of the proper chemical precursors. Science knows the chemistry and physics involved. Yet not one scientist can create life in a lab. And that is because life is not reducible to physics and chemistry. Back to the OP- ID is alive and doing well exactly because evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is completely untestable nonsense. And JVL has proven that with every one of his hypocritical posts.ET
January 23, 2022
January
01
Jan
23
23
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
ET: Mutations are mistakes, errors or accidents.
Nope, majority of mutations are just "maintenance". What they call bad mutations are those situations when the maintenance mechanisms to adapt was overwhelmed. Only those mutations s can be called "errors".Lieutenant Commander Data
January 23, 2022
January
01
Jan
23
23
2022
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
JVL But their effect on fitness is unpredictable so they are random from a fitness point of view.
It's not about the effect of the mutations it's about the cause of the mutations. :!: What is the cause of the mutations? :!: This is the essential question because if cause is not intelligent then you can say the effect is random but if the cause has an intelligent nature then you never can say that the effect is random . There is a mechanism between environmental stimuli and emergence of a mutation ,because there is "something" that translate an environmental stimulus of one nature (too heat, too cold ,presence /absence of prey/predator ,lack /presence of food, etc.) into emergence of a mutation that has a different nature. Environment is not the direct cause of a mutation. There is a complex system between them that darwinists intentionally ignore it . Everybody knows why? :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
January 23, 2022
January
01
Jan
23
23
2022
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
ET: Mutations are mistakes, errors or accidents. I have been telling YOU that for years! However, saying taht mutations are random with respect to fitness does NOT address that! What is wrong with you? Wow. You just don't understand what random with respect to fitness means. I've explained it to you over and over again. You can look it up. One more time just for kicks: Mutations are mistakes, errors, etc. They don't occur uniformly across the genome. So they are not random across the genome. But their effect on fitness is unpredictable so they are random from a fitness point of view. If you still refuse to accept the above, simple concepts then you shouldn't even be discussing these issues. Wrong. Saying they are random is the only qualification required to say they are accidents, errors and mistakes. Saying they are random with respect to fitness doesn’t address their true nature. That is exactly what the qualification is doing: it's specifying under what criterium they are random. You don't get it. You should stop arguing about something you clearly don't understand. LIAR! I have said exactly what would falsify ID! Dr Behe has said so, also. And I quoted him above. You are just a willfully ignorant punk! And you are a bluffing coward. You always say: you can falsify ID by proving that unguided processes can 'do it'. But when I ask you what you would consider proof that unguided processes are capable you refuse to state what would be adequate evidence for you. That is the point: you don't know what would falsify your view. Or, even more likely, nothing would falsify your view. But, at least, you don't specify what you would have to be shown that would make you change your mind. If you have no specific falsification criteria then what's the point trying to show you anything? You'll just deny it's good enough when you, yourself, don't know what's good enough. To falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that blind and mindless processes could produce life. It isn’t my fault that you can’t. What would you accept as such a demonstration? You won't answer that as usual so there is nothing you would accept. If there is nothing you would accept then what's the point of trying? Your view is unfalsifiable by your own choice. That's not science.JVL
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
Re 140 :-) I admitted I might be wrong, and that there would no way to try to find the discussions I thought I remembered. Doesn't seem like an asinine response to me. And do you know what trope means? I don't see anything in my response that would be considered a trope. And you didn't respond to my point that being wrong is not the same as lying. Your turn ...Viola Lee
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
JVL:
Mutations are mistakes, errors or accidents.
I have been telling YOU that for years! However, saying taht mutations are random with respect to fitness does NOT address that! What is wrong with you?
That’s what the qualification means.
Wrong. Saying they are random is the only qualification required to say they are accidents, errors and mistakes. Saying they are random with respect to fitness doesn't address their true nature. And we are still waiting on those testable hypotheses for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Why is that?
Most of us aren’t. It’s just you.
So, most of you don't care about science? I already knew that. There aren't any testable hypotheses pertaining to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes unless you include genetic diseases and deformities. There isn’t any evidence that any bacterial flagellum evolved by blind and mindless processes. There isn’t even a way to test the claim. Unguided evolution isn’t science.
Mutations aren’t guided. Natural selection is not guided. So, evolution happened via blind and mindless processes.
That doesn't even address what I said! Obviously, you are just an ignorant infant. You clearly don't know anything about science.
You haven’t pointed to any clear flaw or mistake made by any evolutionary researcher.
Not one researcher knows how blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagellum!
And, most importantly, when asked what you would consider convincing evidence of the power of unguided processes you just punt.
Liar.
It’s not up to you, meaning: you have no idea what could falsify your view.
LIAR! I have said exactly what would falsify ID! Dr Behe has said so, also. And I quoted him above. You are just a willfully ignorant punk! And you are a bluffing coward.
Translation: you don’t think your viewpoint is falsifiable.
No one can falsify the notion that Stonehenge was intelligently designed! However, if someone could demonstrate that nature could produce it then it would be falsified! To falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that blind and mindless processes could produce life. It isn't my fault that you can't. The ID hypothesis: 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. Anyone with an IQ over 50 can see that there is a huge class of observations that ID excludes. So, what is JVL’s issue?ET
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Yes, Viola Lee. I read your asinine trope and I responded to it. You have serious honesty issues and should seek help.ET
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
JVL Mutations are mistakes, errors or accidents.
JVL Mutations aren’t guided.
Randomness doesn't make mistakes, errors, accidents. Mistakes ,errors ,accidents are the result of an intelligence(or designed cybernetic system) that didn't manage to follow the instruction/blueprint to attain a goal! JVL just admited that cell is an intelligent design . Good job. :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
ET: Wow. You can’t even follow along. Saying that mutations are random with respect to fitness does NOT have any bearing on if mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. What? Mutations are mistakes, errors or accidents. You really are not making any sense now. When and where they occur is the issue. Wow. Context. Random with respect to fitness doesn’t even mean they are totally random! That's what the qualification means. You really haven't understood any of this discussion. And we are still waiting on those testable hypotheses for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Why is that? Most of us aren't. It's just you. There isn’t any evidence that any bacterial flagellum evolved by blind and mindless processes. There isn’t even a way to test the claim. Unguided evolution isn’t science. Mutations aren't guided. Natural selection is not guided. So, evolution happened via blind and mindless processes. Meanwhile . . . You haven't pointed to any clear flaw or mistake made by any evolutionary researcher. You haven't been able to find the 'extra programming' or detection sources in the cell. Nor have you said how those sources would affect development. And, most importantly, when asked what you would consider convincing evidence of the power of unguided processes you just punt. It's not up to you, meaning: you have no idea what could falsify your view. Translation: you don't think your viewpoint is falsifiable. You can't even conceive of something that would falsify it. I mean specific, clear criteria not just some general, vague thing.JVL
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
ET, did you read 130?Viola Lee
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Viola Lee:
And I’m fairly sure that ET has written that everything is designed in discussions with me in the past...
And I KNOW that I have NEVER made such a claim. I bet that Viola can't find anyone on UD that said such a thing.ET
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
JVL:
Of course they are still accidents, errors or mistakes!
Wow. You can't even follow along. Saying that mutations are random with respect to fitness does NOT have any bearing on if mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes.
If they were directed they wouldn’t be random would they?
Wow. Context. Random with respect to fitness doesn't even mean they are totally random! And we are still waiting on those testable hypotheses for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Why is that?
Mutations aren’t guided. Natural selection isn’t guided. So . . .
Your bald assertions are not a testable hypothesis. There isn't any evidence that any bacterial flagellum evolved by blind and mindless processes. There isn't even a way to test the claim. Unguided evolution isn't science.ET
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Dismantled Evolution Documentary clip (30 minutes) What do you all think? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhEPAXXwcX0zweston
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
"Does anyone actually believe that the anti ID commenters here have ever added much if anything to the discussion?" Speaking as a commenter of many years, the answer is no with maybe some exceptions relating to side issues. As far as what ID addresses, no. Andrewasauber
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
I have a question.
Does anyone actually believe that the anti ID commenters here have ever added much if anything to the discussion?
It's the same drivel time after time. As far as everything is designed, if the universe was designed then in a way everything could be said to be designed. But that is not how people are using this objection. They are knowingly conflating one thing with another. ID accepts the laws of nature after they were implemented as leading to nearly all findings in our universe except for a relatively small percentage of findings. Thus ID accepts that the vast majority of findings were not designed. The extremely small subset of findings that seem to defy the four laws of physics (which may have been designed) are then one of the purviews of ID. ID has many purviews so to say it is a theory is misleading. It is a set of explanations/conclusions that have some commonality for this extremely small number of findings about the universe's laws, its beginning, the beginning of life, the origin of Earth, the change of life forms over time, the origin of consciousness. In other words it has many domains of interest So to call it a theory is misleading and not how the term/concept "theory" is ordinarily used. So I repeat. ID is not a theory. jerry
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
ET: Yes, it does! They are random when looked at from the perspective of fitness. That doesn’t mean they are accidents, errors or mistakes. And biological fitness is just survival and reproduction. What? Of course they are still accidents, errors or mistakes! They are mutations! You're not making any sense now. Most likely there are built-in responses to environmental cues. And it would work similar to sensors. Where are they? Are you looking? Is anyone looking? Could be they're in the DNA . . . Again, that does NOT address if the mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. That alone makes it bullshit. Not my fault that you are too stupid to understand the debate. It's impossible to predict if a mutation will be beneficial, neutral or deleterious before it happens. They are random accidents, errors and mistakes. You clearly can’t follow along. Saying mutations are “random with respect to fitness” does NOT address the question of are they spontaneous and stochastic or are they directed and telic? Not my fault that you are too stupid to understand that. If they were directed they wouldn't be random would they? Not only that but there is plenty of evidence to refute the claim of random with respect to fitness. And your ignorance on that isn’t an argument, either. No, there is evidence that certain genomic regions have a higher (or loser) mutation rate. But you still cannot predict when a beneficial mutations will show up. And we are still waiting on those testable hypotheses for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Why is that? Mutations aren't guided. Natural selection isn't guided. So . . .JVL
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
First, I may be mistaken, but that is different than lying. And I'm fairly sure that ET has written that everything is designed in discussions with me in the past, but there is no way I could ever find them, so I'll say that I could be wrong, and/or that the context we more nuanced than I remember.Viola Lee
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Once again: Can anyone identify a single possible observation that is excluded by ID theory?
Been answered several times. Why do you insist it has not been answered? That’s the interesting question. As I said, you are just playing games and are not serious.jerry
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
To clarify- I have NEVER said that everything is designed. Quite the contrary. I don't understand why Viola felt the need to lie about me.ET
January 22, 2022
January
01
Jan
22
22
2022
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
VL, the explanatory filter would assign closely similar outcomes under similar start points to lawlike mechanical necessity, on looking at such an aspect. It is high contingency on similar start points that opens up need to explain that aspect of an observed state of affairs, similar to how we would plot and do a best fit by eye -- e.g. stretchy rubber band rule of thumb -- or use statistics to differentiate the lawlike regularity from noise tracing to errors of observation. Recall, here, error bars on observational plots. Then, we might use an offset to detect bias, systematic error due to experiment or observer. Experiments of course are designed. KFkairosfocus
January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
DD, evasion pursuant to strawman fallacy, the core of design thought as a scientific matter is the design inference. As a matter of science and underlying logic of abduction, the design inference is about empirically reliable, tested signs of intelligently directed configuration [design definition, in a nutshell] and drawing the reasonable inference known on record since Hippocrates and beyond: reliable sign --> signified. There is no direct inference to intelligent creator on sign of design as process, as you have been repeatedly corrected. For example, the stoics and their intellectual descendants would see design as flowing from the structure of the cosmos. But then, this is for record, it is clear that you are not open to correction. KF PS, For example, on a per aspect basis, the design inference explanatory filter has two defaults. As, the intent is to have a strong inference on reliable sign, it happily accepts that it could miss designs lurking in what it would assign to lawlike mechanical necessity [a dropped object reliably falls with initial acceleration g], or blind chance [if a fair die, it would tumble and settle effectively randomly]. Such is why it is so stringent in the configuration based functional specificity-complexity criterion.kairosfocus
January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
ET, language and tone. KFkairosfocus
January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
Viola Lee:
For example, since math is designed, every example of math showing up in the world is designed.
That's a lie. No one said that. You made it up.
I’m pretty sure ET has used the point that everything is designed numerous times.
And I know that you are full of crap. Two lies
Part of the problem is some ambiguity about what design means:
Wow! THAT is the reason for the INTELLIGENT before the word DESIGN. It is to differentiate between optimal design on one side and apparent design on the other. Darwin's entire point was to account for the appearance of design without the need for an intelligent designer. Natural selection was his huckleberry. Intelligent Design simply means there is evidence for intelligent agency volition. An intelligent agency did something and we are seeing some result. See also: Intelligent Design is NOT Optimal Design Why do people who know so little about ID feel the need to try to bash it?ET
January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
To dogdoc: A number of people here would say no. For example, since math is designed, every example of math showing up in the world is designed. Recent examples are fractals, megaripples in sand, and "growth pattern which describes how pointed shapes form again and again in nature." I'm pretty sure ET has used the point that everything is designed numerous times. Part of the problem is some ambiguity about what design means: sometimes it means things that can't be explained by natural processes so some type of unnatural intervention is needed but other times it includes things that happen by natural processes on the grounds that natural processes are designed. There isn't a consistent understanding of what is being meant by design, but for the "everything is designed" crowd the answer to your question is no, I think.Viola Lee
January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply