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
Gil said: "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.” I don't think that is what was said at all. Origin of Life discussions are extremely speculative because there is very little that we know about the subject. Arguments about thermodynamics have been refuted so many times but they are still effective with a lot of people because that can appear convincing at first glance. These topics do not begin to address the merits or defficiencies of evolutionary theory. Those are arguments that can be and have been used to take the debate away from ET though. bfast He claims its a political contest because that is primarily what it is. There is not much of a contest in science yet. To be fair there is a definite bias against ID that will be difficult to overcome. So the battle is being waged by school boards and is indeed political. I don't think it should be, but it is. As far as the bumper sticker campaign criticism goes I seem to remember the various t-shirts and coffee mugs that used to be peddelled here with oversimplified bumper sticker esque slogans. I am not saying its wrong or a bad idea. I am saying that this has long been a political fight waged by both sides.jmcd
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Robo, I probably shouldn't have used the words "good" and "bad" in my post. I did not mean to imply a moral judgement. What I take C.S. Lewis to mean is that the judgements of human minds (be it on "competence" or any other criteria) cannot be reliable if they are nothing more than the result of mere accidents. Why would such an apparatus be trustworthy in reporting facts about reality? Materialism is self-defeating epistemologically - and for that matter, morally.Columbo
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
“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.” I wish I had something better to say, but I have been shocked into a state of disorientation and rendered nearly speechless after reading such a dim-witted statement. It’s like he sat down and thought, “Hmm, what can I say to make the opposition look good?” Why didn’t he just say, “Darwinism is a religion, but we refer to it as ‘science’”? If a Darwinist said this in a debate they’d be shredded. I just hope the lawyers remember stuff like this the next time Darwin goes to court. dacook said: “And if you extrapolate back far enough, you hypothetically come to a time when the genome was perfect and people lived a very long time without wearing out.” Gee, if that was the case you’d think someone would have wrote that down, in like, a Book. Go figure.shaner74
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
a5b01zerobone: There's a pretty good implied challenge to that propaganda in the recent book on genetic entropy by (pardon me if I'm misremembering the name, the book's at home and I'm at work) Dr. J.C. Sanford, a plant geneticist. He makes a convincing case that the genome must be degenerating with each generation. This is my brand-new favorite explanation for back pain, ill-fitting wisdom teeth, arthritis (which definitely does tend to run in families) etc..: we are not as robust as our ancestors of many generations ago. And if you extrapolate back far enough, you hypothetically come to a time when the genome was perfect and people lived a very long time without wearing out. Dr. Sanford also states that one original couple could contain between them enough genetic information to account for all the diversity of the human race as it resorted over the generations. Interesting stuff.dacook
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Regarding wisdom teeth, see these articles: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/wisdomteeth.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/wisdom_teeth.asp "Research now indicates that the reasons for most third molar problems today are not due to evolutionary changes but other reasons. These reasons include a change from a coarse abrasive diet to a soft western diet, lack of proper dental care, and genetic factors possibly including mutations."jb
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Robo
Since we have examples of ‘perfect’ teeth, eyes and backs that appear to have no problems, how do we know we are not seeing devolution in the bad cases. This would be a loss of genetic information or unfavorable mutations over time.
Of course that is what we are seeing. If you look at the evidence, it fits this paradigm so much better than the Darwinist view. My favorite web site about degeneration: http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.comJehu
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
When I wrote this "Design Theorists are pretty bright people. I am sure they can explain Wisdom teeth and back pain" What I meant was that because Darwinism is the dominant school of though (as of right now) and Darwinists hold all the key positions in museums and universities. When a Darwinist makes a claim about "bad design" or "junk dna" it tends to confuse average joes like myself, because these people we have been taught to respect. So what I was saying was that there needs to be a vigorous attempt to challenge Darwinist propaganda. I hope that makes sense, I need to go get some lunch. Running on fumes here.a5b01zerobone
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Hi Scordova. I am not being sarcastic. I apologize if I gave you that impression.a5b01zerobone
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
"Science can win this battle only if we recognize this is not a Sunday school debating match but a deadly serious political contest." This guy is two-thirds correct, its not a Sunday school debating match, and it is a deadly serious contest (especially in light of evolutionary concepts like eugenics). How on earth does he claim that it is a political contest. Oh yea, because they can't win if its a scientific contest. I guess he is right after all.bFast
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Design Theorists are pretty bright people. I am sure they can explain Wisdom teeth and back pain.
I hope you are not being sarcastic... Is a Perfect Designer obligated to make something as eternally perfect as Himself? Is that even logically possible! Furthermore, what great drama has no bad design in it? What would Star Wars be without Darth Vader? Or a drama without a clumsy bumbling foil to increase the renown of the heroes? Likewise how meaninful would a perfect world be without an imperfect and troubled-filled world to contrast it to. The bad design argument is not so immutable as it seems at first glance.... When the civilized world first began seeing hieroglyphics, they knew it was designed even before it was decoded. Not knowing the reasons or purposes or even meaning (semantics) for a design does not negate the design inference. That was the case for hieroglyphics, and that could also be the case for life and the universe.... So I don't have an explanation for bad teeth and back pain, but what if the explanation would be beyond human comprehension? However, a good explanation is that the design has worn out, and if one can reverse engineer the good design from clues strewn across biotic reality, one has a hope of effecting some relief... Or may a decaying life, a disposable universe (one with the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it's most fundamental principle), is part of some greater design, like one chapter in a larger novel....scordova
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Since we have examples of 'perfect' teeth, eyes and backs that appear to have no problems, how do we know we are not seeing devolution in the bad cases. This would be a loss of genetic information or unfavorable mutations over time. Columbo: good and bad in the case of design are not moral good and bad. Rather they are gradings of how well a system works. Of course that requires we know HOW the system was meant to work but surely we can gather some ideas from revelation (the Bible) and/or by applying design principles we would use in engineering to our own bodies. Or we could compare ourselves to Hulk Hogan or superman.Robo
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
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.” The “incompetent design” argument is really a variation on the problem of evil, which is a theological question.GilDodgen
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Design Theorists are pretty bright people. I am sure they can explain Wisdom teeth and back pain. I would rather listen to the ID folks then the people who brought us the eugenics movement and Hitler.a5b01zerobone
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Dave Wise is correct about one thing, these are bumper-sticker grade "arguments." Where are the voices representing careful philosophical reflection on the side of NDE? Isn't the scientific method (however mythical its existence or application concerning NDE hypotheses) based on rules of logic? I would ask the proponents of the "'bad design' confirms no design" hypothesis to approach the argument as a logical proof and see if it holds water.kvwells
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
It seems to me that there is a fundamental fallacy here in materialistic thought. If we are purely the product of RM + NS, as materialists insist, then how can we possibly judge between "good" and "bad" design? What do such values mean? IF the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., Materialism and Astronomy – are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. C. S. LewisColumbo
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply