Intelligent Design News

Captured from Facebook: Why ID is winning

Spread the love

Here.

A student emails me to ask how long it will be before the “tide turns from Darwinism to ID.” He follows the debate over intelligent design and is aware that the Darwin lobby’s rhetoric typically fails to address ID’s actual arguments (which are scientific in nature), instead focusing on personal attacks or trying to claim ID is religion. This student feels it is obvious that ID has the upper hand in the argument, but wonders when the majority opinion will also recognize this.

I agree that in the long-term, the position of the anti-ID lobby is simply not sustainable. You can’t keep claiming forever that ID is just “religion” or “politics” when the ID camp is producing legitimate science, and even non-ID scientists keep making discoveries that confirm the predictions of ID. Or I suppose you can keep claiming whatever you want, but it will become increasingly difficult to get people to believe you.

What are my reasons for optimism? One of the strongest signs is that in head-to-head debates over ID and Darwinism, the ID proponent generally wins hands down. In that respect, we’ve had many key intellectual victories in recent years, including: More.

I figured ID might have a chance in the argument when Darwin’s followers said things like:

1) You believe that ID stuff because you are a Mic, a paddy, a Catholic

2) Catholics don’t believe that! The Pope has said …. (Note to self: Order universal swivel joint for head)

3) There is a dark conspiracy to subject Americans to (whatever), led by the heirs of Jerry Falwell. [a conspiracy so dark that, where I live, it whistled right past, hey no blip.]

4) Innovation in science will decline if we don’t believe some Darwinian theory about evolution. [What was innovation doing before we had ever heard of Darwinian theory?]

5) “Well, there IS a law on the books, you know, that forbids you to … “ [forbids what, where, under what circumstances? Is it even operative in my jurisdiction?]

This is why we usually get lots of sleep at night, and come back refreshed.

7 Replies to “Captured from Facebook: Why ID is winning

  1. 1

    It looks to me like ID’s case becomes progressively shakier the further we go from the origin of the universe, physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.

    For me, I’m a little unsure about what can be asserted after the origin of life. It all seems to rest on how valid the first adaptive rule is.

    If it’s really possible to demonstrate that anything needing several amino acid changes can’t come to be *and* that such cellular systems exist, then I would abandon that uncertainty.

    For now I’m not sure anyone can say one way or another than evolution can account for life as we know it.

  2. 2
    jw777 says:

    Is it evolution versus ID?

    To me, it seems the argument is unguided evolution versus ID. As we discover the mathematical rules which govern variation and mutation, this will annihilate “random” from the discourse, leaving only the possibility of ID. ID is most fundamentally the concept that we can discover meaningful causality all the way down and all the way up. Unguided evolution is the expectation that we have to throw up our hands and say that the fundamental guiding systems in the universe are not fundamental, guiding or systems. As we learn more about laws and governing systems in biology, random of the gaps will continue to flee into an increasingly smaller corner. It’s not merely a reliance on Louis Pasteur’s 160 year old repeatedly confirmed prediction that life does not arise randomly from non-life; it’s that by Charles Darwin’s own criterion of historical science (i.e. – we can only invoke a process now in action) unguided abiogenesis is a purely religious proposition.

    This is also where ID is a win-win. As of now, we understand so little about microevolution on small scale that no one can predict with 100% accuracy what next season’s effective flu vaccine would be. It is a blight in the record for all people who want to claim we understand macroevolution. We don’t even have replete understanding of microevolution. The problem, of course, is the minute we can predict, it means we understand microevolution. If we understand it, then it is governed by a meaningful and designed, not pointless and unguided, process. Game over.

  3. 3
    Silver Asiatic says:

    If it’s really possible to demonstrate that anything needing several amino acid changes can’t come to be *and* that such cellular systems exist, then I would abandon that uncertainty.

    I think that’s been demonstrated mathematically already.

  4. 4
    Learned Hand says:

    When asking whether ID is “winning,” the fact that your answer has nothing to do with (a) empirically detecting design, (b) moving the needle among people who have expertise in the relevant evidence, (c) persuading experts in fields such as computer science, cryptography, information theory, or any of the other fields ID wants to influence, or (d) even articulating a rigorous, positive theory of Intelligent Design should be indication enough that ID remains an abject failure.

    “I don’t like the arguments some people make” is a long way from “ID works.”

  5. 5

    Well, one thing for sure is that I’m not even allowed to submit scientific theory to the ID journal:

    Interested in submitting to BIO-Complexity? We recommend that you review the About page for the journal’s section policies, as well as the Author Guidelines. Authors need to register with BIO-Complexity prior to submitting. To be registered, send an email from an institutional or corporate account to our support address, or if already registered simply log in and begin the 5 step process.

    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....on/authors

    It’s not what you know, it’s who you know. And that’s certainly another slap in the face from ID leadership.

  6. 6
    Robert Byers says:

    TEC and ID are winning simply because more intelligent people are applying their minds/hearts to origin issues relative to the past.
    YEC gains with the public very well and ID amongst the more educated public.
    Simply wrong ideas can’t take scrutiny.
    I think 15 years will see the end of basic evolutionism. Gods fingerprints in nature will prevail before then if not already for most of mankind.
    iD has provided people with a scientific backup to their common sense conclusion that a creator AFTER ALL created the universe.
    Its done already.
    Its evolutionism that needs to bite the dust .
    i predict yEC/ID thinkers/ leaders will be seen in history as once again a people who overthrow old tired strange ideas.
    The intellectual stakes have been raised and everyone is committed to a future judgement. Not too far away.

  7. 7

    I think that’s been demonstrated mathematically already.

    I acknowledge the possibility of this, but I would like to see a list of examples supporting this.

    I’ll have to dust off EoE (haven’t read it in nearly half a decade), and read through the criticisms and defenses of it again sometime.

    Not yet confident that evolutionary explanations for living systems can be ruled out until I see the following:

    1. Various experimental evidences demonstrating the validity of the first adaptive rule. Practically speaking I mean studies showing that anything needing more than several amino acid changes before selective advantage arises is unrealistic.

    So for example, Behe claims (and I guess this figure is confirmed to be reliable although room for debate exists about how many pathways achieve this) that the literature supports the idea that chloroquine resistance in malaria takes 10^20 cells to achieve.

    Okay fair enough. I just want more examples showing that we can extrapolate this further to say, “Any cellular feature needing several amino acid changes before it can be selected for won’t evolve because there isn’t enough available trials to do so.”

    More I could say on this but anyhow…

    2. Demonstration that the bulk of a cell’s features are things that actually require several neutral/deleterious amino acid changes for them to have evolved. This is where EoE seems to have come up short. Behe identified a likely “edge” but how we know if a trait is beyond that edge is another story. I’ll admit the possibility that Behe is right about “chloroquine complexity clusters” as he called them, I just don’t see how we can confirm whether or not a molecular trait actually consists of any.

    How can we actually work back in time to see what a likely ancestor for a cellular structure is? It seems like random gene knock-out experiments run into the problem of not being able to simulate evolving from short pathways of unknown previous features.

    It’s kind of hard to explain what I’m trying to get at here but all I’m saying is that Behe is on the right track but hasn’t yet proven his main point beyond reasonable doubt.

    What are some cellular evolution studies relevant to this? (e.g. Lenski, Seelke, Nick White, etc.)

Leave a Reply