Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

More on “Incompetent Design”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Sam Chen posted the inside story on the “Incompetent Design” video that I highlighted here at UD two days ago (go here for Sam’s post). Here’s my favorite quote from Dave Wise (not to be confused with Kurt), the designing intelligence behind this farce:

Branding ID as Incompetent Design involves both humor and grit but avoids direct insult to the opposition, a mistake to be avoided in any political campaign. All the tools of political campaigns should be used: slogans, songs, bumper stickers (“Human skeletal errors: Incompetent Design or Evolution ?”), IDers will attempt to take us off-message with debates on origins of life, thermodynamics, etc., but instead we must continue to pound simple themes of obvious design failures. Science can win this battle only if we recognize this is not a Sunday school debating match but a deadly serious political contest.

That’s right, let’s not get hung up on such trivialities as the origin of life. Wisdom teeth and back pain — that’s the slamdunk evidence for evolution! Yes, and these people get tenure at our universities, at tax-payer expense no less.

Comments
jmcd, Those who die later would produce more offspring so according to natural selection this trait should be increasingly more prevalent in a species and any mutation that affected it should be selected over time. The species does not know about cancer when it attempts to procreate unless you subscribe to a Lamarckian point of view or that the mechanism for cancer and long life are identical. So the universal lack of death being extended through natural selection would seem to argue against a naturalistic mechanism for species determination and point to some possible design element in a species. Otherwise we would see selection happening here for some if not all species. If there is a part of the genome that affects length of life then it is obviously being conserved over time and NDE would not predict such a mechanism but ID might. It might be an interesting area of research for ID because such a mechanism would not be inconsitent with ID. But once such a mechanism is found the Darwinists will rise to the occasion and explain why early death is better for procreating ones genes. I have faith in their ability to explain anything with this most powerful theory.jerry
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, pp. 59-63:
In my public lectures, I'm frequently asked about the alleged suboptimal design of the human organism. Among the things a putative designer of the human organism is charged with botching are...susceptibility to choking...back pain and loss of mobility...difficulty giving birth...difficulties with wisdom teeth...the inverted retina... ...Just because a design could be improved in the sense of increasing the functionality of some aspect of an organism, this does not mean that such an improvement would be beneficial within the wider ecosystem... Biology is, among other things, a drama. Interesting dramas require characters who are less than optimal in some respects. In fact, authors of human dramas often consciously design their characters with flaws and weaknesses. Would Hamlet be nearly as interesting if Shakespeare had not designed the play's lead character to exhibit certain flaws and weaknesses, notably indecisiveness? I'm not saying that weaknesses or flaws in the design characteristics of organisms or ecosystems can be the basis of a design inference. [But they] could be compatible with evolutionary changes guided by an intelligence... ...if we think of evolution as regressive, as reflecting a distorted moral structure that takes human rebellion against the designer as a starting point, then it's possible a flawless designer might use a very imperfect evolutionary process as a means of bringing a prodigal universe back to its senses... We've veered a long way from science, and for good reason. In arguing that nature couldn't be designed because various biological systems are suboptimal, opponents of intelligent design have shifted the terms of the discussion from science to theology... Nonetheless, naturalistic mechanisms are incapable of generating the highly specified, information-rich structures that pervade biology. Organisms display the hallmarks of intelligently engineered high-tech systems -- information storage and transfer, functioning codes, sorting and delivery systems, self-regulation and feed-back loops, signal-transduction circuitry -- and everywhere, complex arrangements of mutually interdependent and well-fitted parts that work in concert to perform a function. Opponents of intelligent design are fond of equivocating, staging ad hominem attacks, slaying strawmen, making simplistic theological claims in the guise of science or simply stonewalling. What they are not fond of is squarely facing the astonishing evidence for intelligent design and seeking to refute it point by logical point.
Pascal, Pensées:
Nature has some perfections to show that she is the image of God, and some defects to show that she is only His image.
j
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Sorry. I shouldn't laugh too hard. I've made my share of poorly thought out remarks.JGuy
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
LOL !!! "IDers will attempt to take us off-message with debates on origins of life, thermodynamics, etc., but instead we must continue to pound simple themes of obvious design failures" [my emphasis] Hahah....... my side hurts! This reminds me of satire by Colbert on supposed a Stephen Hawking's remark, ie. that we should look to colonise the moon or Mars to escape pending global disaters.. LOL.. Think about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVfJvWfyqFo I know. Colbert can be crude, but it was a funny point.JGuy
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Isn't it self-evident that "bad design" as "no design" is a logical absurdity in and of itself? Otherwise the word design should not even be employed. It's very use intrinsically annuls the logic. bad design It would be logical to say bad structures = no design. Bad design = no design is a misnomer of "argument". Like I keep saying, NDT pseudo-logic cripples the mind.Borne
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Mentok, I hear you. A wise man once said "It is important that we be able to distinguish between the scientific concept of ID, and the philosophical and theological implications we draw from it". Yet Materialists seem to only want to debate the metaphysical implications of ID. That same wise man wrote "Some ID theorists might think God is the designer, and that the design of life is the result of miraculous intervention at some point after the Big Bang, but ID does not take them there. ID proposes that certain things in the universe are the result of intelligent cause(s), or mind(s)". Again, the Darwinists want to talk about issues that are philosophical or religious in nature. A."Bad" design B. Why do people do bad things and hurt one another? C. Why do people get sick and die? These questions have nothing to do with the apparent design in nature.a5b01zerobone
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
Dave Wise wrote:
Science can win this battle only if we recognize this is not a Sunday school debating match but a deadly serious political contest.
Set. Match. "Science" can "win" if they see the debate as a "political contest"? This shows the clear bias of the evolutionists in crystal clear clarity. To them the debate is in fact a political (including social) challenge. They see the attack on Darwinism as an attempt to give scientific validation for the existence of god. In their view that validation is a political weapon that will be ultimately used in order to enforce religious laws on them. Nevermind about scientific integrity and honest scholarship, to them "science" is not about those things. To them "science" is a cult of materialism with a specific political agenda i.e. to promote their political and social values. "Science" isn't about knowledge to them, it's about destroying religious belief. Dawkins, Harris, et al, are their most honest strategists because they will come right out and say what many of them are too fearful to say because of the political incorrectness of stating their actual beliefs. Therefore the Darwinist collective is nothing more then a political party with the single aim of destroying faith in god. Dave Wise also wrote:
Branding ID as Incompetent Design involves both humor and grit but avoids direct insult to the opposition, a mistake to be avoided in any political campaign
Clearly most of the Darwinist collective cannot follow that commandment in their critique of ID. Their stock in trade is little more then ad hominem imbecilic insults. If you take away their juvenile and unending insult competitions, what will you have left? It appears that what they have left is religious arguments, political arguments, and the usual lies and decpetions and the putting the hands over the ears and saying nah nah nah nah over and over whenever confronted with science which discredits their dystopian fear mongering agenda.mentok
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
“It’s funny that they never list “getting old” or “death” itself as bad design. Or how about people being jealous, greedy, lazy, haughty, violent, etc… Why aren’t they never listed?” This actually is a very good description of the effects of sin if you want to stray into theological territory.a5b01zerobone
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
I would rate it as their best strategy, But that's the point. It's not science. Which means it's our best "strategy" to simply point it out. The only authority and influence they have is the claim of science. Since they are now merely playing games we can simply say "checkmate".tribune7
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
sal wrote: "We simply may not know the purpose or organizing principle for such designed “errors”." The "bad design" argument-pushers really annoy me. Who are we to judge "bad" design, when there's so much we don't know about life? You mentioned in another post there's most likely many layers of information in DNA. I think it's the pinnacle of ignorance to condemn a design because it's "flawed" when you have an extremely limited understanding of it - at best. That's usually the only response I give these days.shaner74
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Since they want soundbites, how about this for one: "Bad design is still design." "And it ain't all that bad."Atom
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Wise wrote: but instead we must continue to pound simple themes of obvious design failures.
We may view this as pathetic, but I wouldn't diminish the power of the bad design argument. I would rate it as their best strategy, and I think ID proponents would do well to give adequate answers. There are good philosophical answers to the ultimate "bad design" argments. I tried to give the ones which I consider adequate, above. Beyond that, on a smaller scale, one must know what the organizing principle around which a design is made to argue bad design. For example, a CD or DVD is optimized for compactness of storage. Without going into the details, the most optimal way to achieve compact storage is to allow numerous read/write errors into the physical medium and then use an error correction filter to clean them out. To learn about this technique, see: Reed–Solomon error correction. In other words, it is fair to say, the errors are by design! Darwinist have often complained about the error correction mechanisms in the DNA processing. They claim a competent designer would not design an information processing system with so many read/write errors as found in the DNA processing of cells. I respond by saying, like CDs and DvDs using Reed-Solomon error correction, cells also have error correction mechanisms to fix the numerous read/write errors in processing of DNA. Had they known a little more about information science, they would conclude that the cell is optimized for information compactness and robustness. Like CDs and DvDs, the "errors" are actually evidence of optimal design! Their limited understanding of good and bad design is inappropriate for making claims of bad design. They are quick to use the "bad design" argument, but a different perspective easily shows they are mistaken. One could argue that there could be organizing principles in the design of everything else which we may not fully comprehend. If read/write "errors" are the optimal design for the molecules of DNA, it shouldn't be hard to imagine there might be a larger design purpose for the errors of bad teeth and back pains. We simply may not know the purpose or organizing principle for such designed "errors".scordova
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
“It’s funny that they never list “getting old” or “death” itself as bad design. Or how about people being jealous, greedy, lazy, haughty, violent, etc… Why aren’t they never listed?” They are never listed because they cannot be addressed by ET. An evolutionary psychologist might want to venture a guess, but they are part of a seperate, much more contentious, and highly speculative field. As far as ageing and death are concerned they seem to be universals in nature. To a significant extent ageing seems to be a side effect of our defense against cancer. So it is a good design as far as keeping us alive long enough to procreate goes.jmcd
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
"It’s funny that they never list “getting old” or “death” itself as bad design. Or how about people being jealous, greedy, lazy, haughty, violent, etc… Why aren’t they never listed?" This wanders into religious/philosophical territory and is not something that ID addresses directly. Right?a5b01zerobone
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
In my view, we haven’t “won” until materialist ideology is no longer unquestionable orthodoxy in academia. How about until existing academia shows itself to be such fools they can no longer be taken seriously? (see video)tribune7
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Dave Wise: “Thus, Science need only show lack of intelligence in nature's designs, the human frame being a prime example.” By categorizing some parts of the human body as bad design, they unknowingly put all others into the “good design” category. How many examples do they have anyway: 1. Pelvis slopes 2. Too many teeth 3. Squashed facial bones 4. Tail bone 5. Appendix 6. Junk DNA 7. … It’s funny that they never list “getting old” or “death” itself as bad design. Or how about people being jealous, greedy, lazy, haughty, violent, etc… Why aren’t they never listed?Avater
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Again, what specific hypthesis are you referring to? We have a given effect (lifeforms, molecular machine, etc) and two possible causal classes: RM + NS or Intelligence. Now, can RM + NS produce the effects? Theoretical considerations say no and empirical tests are so far fruitless. Can intelligence? Theoretical considerations say yes and empirical tests have validated those claims. What exactly is faith-based in the above? (In regards to ID, that is...to still hold to Darwinism in light of the above surely does take a bit of faith.)Atom
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
RE#33: What "untestable" hypothesis are you referring to? (If you mean that intelligence can create CSI and IC structures, I'm afraid we test that claim everyday)Atom
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Thank you Atom!a5b01zerobone
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Perhaps the Creator has already answered "why" and "how". Regardless, do you really think Dr. Dembski or Scordova are simpletons? I see what you are trying to do here and it is not constructive. I am going to take your bait.a5b01zerobone
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
(bumped) I think calling something “bad design” is a very subjective thing. I think the point many people try to make (even though it may seem unreasonable to you guys) is that designs created by evolution are limited to using/modifying what was already there. For instance, whale fins are using modified hand bones, but they also work perfectly as a design for the whale. This isn’t a bad design, but it is a modified design vs. a redesign. Evolution is limited to modified design, and I think people don’t expect the workings of a designer to be limited to modified design. (vs design from the ground up) I think it’s a subjective opinion to say that something like boat that was built using nothing but the parts from a Volkswagon Bug is not as well designed as something like a ski boat that was designed from the start to be a boat. Both function well enough to be boats. It’s just that one shows signs of having once been useful for another function. The real point is that evolution is limited to the refurbished technique and ID makes no explanation as to why either technique should be expected.Fross
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Like I said on the other post. We won. It’s time for a victory party.
In my view, we haven't "won" until materialist ideology is no longer unquestionable orthodoxy in academia.crandaddy
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
This is marvelous! Essentially he is saying, “IDers will attempt to take us off-message by discussing whether or not Darwinian hypotheses and conclusions are supported by the evidence and withstand analytical scrutiny. We mustn’t allow this to happen. Keep the emphasis on politics and religion instead.” Like I said on the other post. We won. It's time for a victory party.tribune7
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Jehu, I wrote a bit about Sanford's work here: Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book I concur with DA Cook's review of maybe some editorial changes, but overall, WOW, what a book. Salscordova
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
scordova, interesting account regarding the Geron research. I think another clue is that tortoises don't age. If they can do it, it is resonable that humans were once able to do it but lost the trait. I recall a discussion we had about the ability to regenerat limbs and that it has been discovered that many species once had the ability to regenerate but have lost the ability.Jehu
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
dacook: Thanks, I added it to my shopping cart.Jehu
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Jehu: Yep, that's it. I have some quibbles about the book's organization, some imprecise language, and lack of definitions for some important terms, but overall I thought he makes his case quite well.dacook
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Regarding original design, for me personally the most exciting example was the reconstruction of an original design through immortalization of the human cell by the biotech firm, Geron. They re-engineered the cell based on a hunch that all the machinery was there for "immortality" in human cells except maybe a bad switch that was mysteriously re-programmed for early death... It made the stories of ancient people with long life more believable.
8 “How old are you?” Pharaoh asked him. 9 Jacob replied, “I have traveled this earth for 130 hard years. But my life has been short compared to the lives of my ancestors."
The account is from Genesis 47. Whether it is historically accurate and literal is the subject of never ending debate. However, in light of Geron's work, the hypothesis of the accuracy of Jacob's claims of long life in our human ancestors becomes far more compelling. The immortalization of the cell has other properties such as increased healing capacity. There is probably much about the original design that remains to be discovered. We've barely touched the tip of the iceberg. Another hypothesis is that most of biotic reality has dual modes, both malicious and benevolent. In principle this could be subject to discovery via reverse engineering as well.scordova
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
dacook, Is this the book? http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028Jehu
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
Sal writes: Is a Perfect Designer obligated to make something as eternally perfect as Himself? Is that even logically possible! I don't understand something. How do we know the Designer is perfect?rrf
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply