“Incompetent Design” — to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic

_{William Dembski

January 16, 2007

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Apparently the design was not so incompetent as to render these Darwinists incapable of composing (dare I say “designing”) this song and then performing it (yes, the performance is poor, but poor design is not the absence of design):

Comments

I'm just saying that the sinuses are designed to drain properly from a quadraped design. Our bipedal stance isn't quite the perfect match for our sinuses. Our spine design (based on the quadraped design) is more prone to injury from a bipedal stance as well. Why would you call this Darwinian stupidity? I thought common descent could be accepted as part of ID.Fross_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Avater Why should ID explain poorly adaptive features or how they became poor if evolution does such a good job already? ID explains how those features arose and we can use evolution(in particularly RM) to explain how they got wrecked. Great answer! H.H. Function of the human appendix Tailbone serves as an attachment point for muscles and absorbs shocks when sitting down.DaveScot_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

bdelloid--The point is that Darwinian Evolution has been able to explain poorly adaptive features. Like the tonsils? Evolution says they are unnecessary so we remove them routinely then find out later they have a use. Thank you evolution. Anyway, I've become convinced there is nothing Darwinian Evolution can't explain. Of course, so can I. The tricky part is being right.tribune7_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

The entire spoof is a double-entendre mock and scoff. They mock ID while scoffing at the Lord, with the additional dufusness of forgetting the very real sacrifices of people giving their lives freeing slaves. Takes real high IQ them thar Darwinians have that I just can't get my poor pea brain around. ******************************** Battle Hymn of the Republic Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord: He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword: His truth is marching on. (Chorus) Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! His truth is marching on. I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps, They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps; I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps: His day is marching on. Chorus I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel: "As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal; Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel, Since God is marching on." Chorus He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat: Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet! Our God is marching on. Chorus In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on. Chorus He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave, He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave, So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave, Our God is marching on. ******************************** Worthy words sung by worthy men and a timely reminder that from the time Christ gave his life, brother and sister have sacrificed for others they did not know to set them free. As opposed to the true Dawinist hymnal... (warning satire follows in the spirit of Monty Python) I'm a Darwinist and I'm Not OK, I worry all night and I fuss all day. I put on women's clothing... To vist my psychologist in the morning. I wear high heels and shout out false warnings! Christians are like pedophiles I always say! If Darwinism dies, you'll certainly rue the day! Cuzzz I'm a Darwinist and I'm Not OK. I worry all night and I fuss all day... What about them Catholics having more babies! Alll right, 10's not enuf is it? Ohhhhh I'm a Darwinist and I'm Not OK. My sperms all lost and my wife's turned gay! dink... diddly dink dum, do daaa~ ;-)Michaels7_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

bdelloid: Ã¢â‚¬Å“ID, as far as I know, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t any explanatory power for these poorly adaptive features.Ã¢â‚¬Â Why should ID explain poorly adaptive features or how they became poor if evolution does such a good job already? ID explains how those features arose and we can use evolution(in particularly RM) to explain how they got wrecked.Avater_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

I've been wondering what purpose the appendix has... (off topic...)by the way, I've been told that the tail bone is just another left-over from when we supposedly had tails...(I'd don't believe it of course) but what can you tell me about it?H.H._{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

bdelloid, If the appendix is vestigal, why does it get progressively larger from monkeys (who often don't have an appendix) to apes to humans? As a prominate Darwinist web site states, "as one traverses the primate phylogenetic tree from monkeys to humans. ... the size of the appendix increases" Also, claiming the appendix is vestigal or poorly adapted is an example of Darwinism as a science stopper. A recent article in Scientific American states
"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals. "Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body. "In this context, the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix--like the tiny structures called Peyer's patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract--takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens. The connection between these local immune reactions and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as autoimmune reactions in which the individual's own tissues are attacked by the immune system, is currently under investigation.
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3Jehu_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Ops, that settles it, Intelligent Design theory, you are toast!bFast_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

OT... I'm still having to page down quite a bit to get to the first post on your new site. Is anyone else having this problem?Forthekids_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

bdelloid So you know how the designer should design. That's cool. Did the designer get like bad grades in design school or what? Do tell!DaveScot_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Fross, The idea our back and sinuses was designed for a quadraped body plan is a prime example of Darwninian stupidity. Sinus pain and sore backs come from damage to the design, not flaws in the design itself. The fact is, there is more perfection in the design of the human body than can be explained by selective pressure.Jehu_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

our backs could be better, but it was obviously originally designed for a quadraped body plan. The same goes for our sinuses. Is it bad design to refurbish old designs? I don't think so. Also, do our teeth not align because our jaws have decreased in size? Or is this another side effect of having gone bipedal?Fross_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

EvotardsÃ¢â€žÂ¢Scott_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

My thoughts from the other side... The point here is not that bad-design means no design. The point is that Darwinian Evolution has been able to explain poorly adaptive features. Most of the time, they arise out of the constraint of common descent. The appendix for example. ID, as far as I know, doesn't any explanatory power for these poorly adaptive features. That, as I understand it, is the crux of the issue.bdelloid_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

I think we just won. We should throw a victory party. Anyway concerning "bad design", these fellows are making a claim they can do better. Yet, cannot even approach desiging the things biological entities routinely do. IOW, these presumably highly credentialed types are conceding they are dumber than random chance. While, I'll willingly confess to being dumber than the designer of life, I have far too much self-respect to say that random events can bring about order and beauty in such a superior fashion than my own thoughts and actions.tribune7_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

They should have used "bad singing" as an example for "incompetent design" based on this performance.Avater_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Once again the darwiniod choir (deafness would be a design advantage if their brave new world brings us more of that) shows what I have been saying for a while; evolutionary theory is being sustained and creaks on solely by incredulity. No amount of rational proof highlighting the illogical and impossible nature of evolutionary theory can dissuade evolutionists who are abolutely convinced that there is no possible way that a more advanced form of life then us, could possibly create us. Therefore they resort to sophmoric fallacious arguments which are essentially religious and philosophical statements of incredulity. Funny how they can spend time on religious critiques of ID yet refuse to take seriously the scientific challenges to evolution. Can they answer why,if humans evolved from apes, then why are apes better suited for survival in the wild? Sure having our brain power is better for survival, but we are weaker, we can't subsist on the vegetation we find around us, we don't have fur, etc. Think about it. If natural selection is guiding evolution then why did humans ever come into existence? At the first sign of having less fur wouldn't that have heen a disadvantage and have been weeded out? Wouldn't cold weather and sun exposure to our bodies (before there was clothes) make our furless bodies destined to be weeded out or never arise in the first place? How about a weaker body and limbs? Shouldn't that have been weeded out? How about human teeth? If you were an ape wouldn't human teeth and jaw strength have been weeded out if it started to evolve away from the stronger ape teeth and jaw? How about our digetive system? Apes can survive on stuff they scrounge around in the wild for, humans cannot. Which is better for survival? We could go on down the line with this type of reasoning, not just for the ape to human evolutionary scenario, but for countless other life forms as well. The question those people raise is a religious question or philosophical question: "Why can't the designer make things better?" In fact what they complain about isn't design flaw in general, it's flaws that occur that are outside the norm. Instead of seeing human teeth as a wonder of engineering, they wonder why teeth are not perfectly shaped in each and every instance. Instead of wondering at the marvel of an apple tree with sweet apples, they will scowl at those apple trees which produce not so sweet apples and claim that as proof of no design. It's more or less like a child's temper tantrum which is thrown if the child can't get candy whenever it wants. "If everything isn't 100% perfect all of the time, then there cannot be an intelligence behind the design and cause of the variety of life" is their argument. If my mommy doesn't let me have candy and soda pop whenever I want and let me do whatever I want, then mommy doesn't exist anymore. Nevermind all the proof to the contrary that mommy exists, I refuse to acknowledge her existence if she doesn't act the way I expect and demand her to act. I call their arguments sophmoric because they like to think the question they raise is some new and deep revelation, some profundity that has never crossed anyone's minds previously. All of the great religions of the world have long histories and countless philosophical tracts from countless sages and saints and gurus on the question of the dual nature of our life on earth. We see the most beautiful and perfect things all around us, from healthy beautiful youthful human bodies, beautiful trees, stunning flowers, deliciously sweet fruits, wildely beautiful animals with astounding abilities, an amazingly beautiful perfect eco-system, all of it color coordinated for your viewing pleasure. Yet we also see human bodies that are not youthful nor healthy beauties. We can find disease and death and so many other things which are not what we would subjectively consider perfect. So we see a dichotomy here on earth, beauty and astounding perfection and the degradation of the same. This is not some new idea which a few evolutionists thought up of in their dorm rooms over pizza one beery night. For many christians the answer is original sin, for hindus it's individual karmic reaction or justice, for many muslims and jews it's believed that there is a purpose but that purpose is known only to god. all of these mainstream religions teach that the earth and life as we know it on earth, is an example of what the designer has to offer us if we can live up to our full potential. Life on earth or earth planets for us is seen as a place where we can advance our consciousness and mental state which can enable us to fit into a world without the defects we see around us. A realm where there is only the perfection of the natural world and the perfection that we can see in youthful healthy beautiful people, with none of the defects of old age, disease, violence, cruelty, natural disasters, etc. What the evolutionists are asking is "Why aren't we in heaven?" The answer is that when you are ready, you will be.mentok_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Although I don't think U2 are under any kind of threat; I wonder what selective advantage they have gained in 'singing' this 'song' ?WormHerder_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

[Off Topic] Regarding the topic in the "Additional Descent" column titled: "Cells Use Zip Codes to Determine Their Body Location" I think, this leads to an interesting question for evolutionists - ie. How would a single celled organism evovle into a multicellular organisms where cells are differentiatated from the original "seed" cell. And still end up replicating the original cell that began the development of the organism? It would somehow need to output a copy of the original cell, undifferentiated from the prior cell (excluding the "information rich" mutations). JGuy--JGuy_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT}

How sadly pathethic. "What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!" -Hamlet; Shakespeare That we have to denigrate the human body in order to prove a point. What we once looked upon so admirably is little more than fodder for bad singing by a group of individuals who didn't even know whether to cheer at the end of their song. There's so much I could write as a response to this but it would amount to little more than a philosophical rant. My own world view, Biblical in nature, indicates to me a state of existence that has degraded since a Fall. But even that aside, even by these people's perspectives, shouldn't the human being be far more complex and wondrous than what we originated from? I can't look at the human brain and not be impressed. But apparently, not everyone is.DAISHI_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

"That the design is truly bad. Are we sure that any seemingly bad designs are rely design flaws and not just a personal view that Ã¢â‚¬Å“it could be done betterÃ¢â‚¬Â" This is ultimately where they fall down isn't it. Hiding behind the assumption of "imperfect design" is an assumption that they are aware of any design trade offs and purposes for the design. If you are missing either than any comment on the imperfection of a design is simply wrong headed. Knowing the criteria is essential for knowing how good a design is. I wonder if they will provide one ?Jason Rennie_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

that is.. "a good reason for purposeful inperfection."dodgingcars_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

"However, the argument the song makes is wrong. It seems like they made three main arguments about bad design." Well there are more obvious flaws. 1) That a bad design means no designer. A poorly designed car is still designed. 2) That there is no purpose or reason for a bad design (in Christianity, original sin as well as probably a means to humble man would be a good reason purposeful inperfection). 3) That the design is truly bad. Are we sure that any seemingly bad designs are rely design flaws and not just a personal view that "it could be done better"dodgingcars_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

Very pathetic but quite instructive about NDE blindness. Certainly all those people did not consider that, although quite stupid, singing their song did require: 1. some hundreds muscles working in perfect synchrony: arm muscles to hold the song sheet, eye muscles to correctly track words during reading and to correctly focus eye lenses, mouth and tongue muscles to correctly articulate all the (non-sense) words, etc. etc. 2. many and many billion neurons used for reading words, correctly translate them into English phonemes (please don't forget that English is a non-transparent language), correctly remember the right melody and to pass the right information to vocal muscles.kairos_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

Okay, I thought that was funny. However, the argument the song makes is wrong. It seems like they made three main arguments about bad design. 1. Sore back Not everybody's back hurts. If you get proper excercise and don't sit on your butt all day making up "just-so" stories their backs would feel a lot better. Most sore backs do not cause a selective disadvantage, so why would healthy backs ever evolve in the first place? Why does anybody have a strong back? 2. Crooked teeth Again, not everybody's teeth are crooked. However, crooked teeth do not really provided a selective disadvantage, so why have some people managed to evolve perfect smiles when a crooked one will do? 3. Blocked Sinus Almost half the population does not suffer from allergies. However, allergies appear to be on the rise and maybe a modern phenomena of unknown cause. You can be sure the that the original design did not include allergies. Finally, as with the other two, the real problem is for evolution. Why if allergies are not a selective disadvantage, does almost half of the population not have them? Taken in total, the evidence fits a well designed system in decay much better than an evolved system.Jehu_{January 16, 2007
January
01
Jan
16
16
2007
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT}

Where do they find inane drones like this? Please tell me people like this are not going to be allowed in the education system, or politics, or to roam the streets after dark. My question to them is, "What would you do with a brain if you had one?" (Dorothy to Scarecrow)Borne_{January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

That was pretty awful. The real irony is that "incompetent design" is an assumption that they know why something was designed for a particular purpose. Consider DRM in media files. The website http://www.defectivebydesign.org/en/node speaks volumes as to that reality.Jason Rennie_{January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

Compare https://uncommondescent.com/archives/797 William Dembski_{January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply