Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Some Point, the Obvious Becomes Transparently Obvious (or, Recognizing the Forrest, With all its Barbs, Through the Trees)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At UD we have many brilliant ID apologists, and they continue to mount what I perceive as increasingly indefensible assaults on the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection. In addition, they present overwhelming positive evidence that the only known source of functionally specified, highly integrated information-processing systems, with such sophisticated technology as error detection and repair, is intelligent design.

[Part 2 is here. ]

This should be obvious to any unbiased observer with a decent education in basic mathematics and expertise in any rigorous engineering discipline.

Here is my analysis: The Forrests of the world don’t want to admit that there is design in the universe and living systems — even when the evidence bludgeons them over the head from every corner of contemporary science, and when the trajectory of the evidence makes their thesis less and less believable every day.

Why would such a person hold on to a transparently obvious 19th-century pseudo-scientific fantasy, when all the evidence of modern science points in the opposite direction?

I can see the Forrest through the trees. Can you?

Comments
You're welcome, paragwinn. I must say, if it really was "an excellent example of an indefensible testimonial" then you would easily be able to demonstrate that, rather than rely upon an unsubstantiated assertion.Chris Doyle
June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT
Thank you, Chris, for an excellent example of an indefensible testimonial.paragwinn
June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
Spot on, GilDodgen. The vast majority of evolutionists cannot handle a forum like this. The problem they find is that they are obligated to confront actual scientific fact here (unlike other forums, where anything goes: which usually means the first things to go are evidence and reason). With each passing day, it is clearer and clearer that the objections to Intelligent Design are not scientific ones. Indeed, the empirical basis for design in nature is so overwhelming that "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved". The many, many threads on offer here build up the same picture: that the opponents of Intelligent Design have a commitment to neo-Darwinism and/or atheism that is strong enough to overcome anything that science can bring up to question that commitment. Even the best ID opponents here are merely skirting around the edges of irrefutable, central ID arguments.Chris Doyle
June 6, 2011
June
06
Jun
6
06
2011
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
"[T]hey continue to mount what I perceive as increasingly indefensible assaults on the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection." I affirm this statement.paragwinn
June 5, 2011
June
06
Jun
5
05
2011
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
1 11 12 13

Leave a Reply