Atheism Bad design? Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization Intelligent Design

From The Wall Street Journal: ‘Imperfection’ Review: Unintelligent Design

Spread the love

David P. Barash writes:

‘Imperfection,” by Telmo Pievani, begins as it should, with the big bang: “In the beginning, there was imperfection. A rebellion against the established order, with no witnesses, in the heart of the darkest of nights. Something in the symmetry broke down 13.82 billion years ago.” And it ends on a suitably ambiguous note: “There is something amazing in evolution . . . which in 3.5 billion years has taken us from an amoeba to Donald Trump.”

Credit: PEERAGRIT, 123rf.com

Mr. Pievani is a professor of biology at the University of Padua. His brief and thoughtful book (translated from the Italian by Michael Gerard Kenyon) isn’t just a description of imperfection, but a paean to it. There’s plenty of description and discussion, too, as “Imperfection” takes the reader on a convincing whirlwind tour of the dangers as well as the impossibility of perfection, how imperfection is built into the nature of the universe, and into all living things—including ourselves.

Mary Poppins congratulated herself for being “practically perfect in every way,” but of course she wasn’t, if only because she bragged about it. Moreover, perfection would make evolution stop dead in its tracks. In fact, it would never have begun—natural selection needs diversity upon which to operate. And diversity ultimately arises from mutation and sexual recombination, each of which is a perfect source of imperfection.

Yet another source of imperfection, unique to Homo sapiens and well described by Mr. Pievani, is the disconnect between our rapid cultural innovation and our slow biological evolution. (Immodest note: In 1986, your current reviewer wrote “The Hare and the Tortoise,” the first book calling attention to this troublesome imbalance.) For a homey example, consider that, being primates, our Pleistocene ancestors were naturally fond of sugars, which indicate ripe fruit, and of fats, present—albeit in generally small quantities—in game. Today, our culture provides us with excessive opportunities to indulge such fondness, which we overdo, benefiting only the confectionery and meat industries, along with dentists, cardiologists and morticians.

Abraham Lincoln had a cute way of undercutting our tendency to find perfection everywhere. It’s remarkable, he once pointed out, that no matter how tall someone is, their legs are always exactly long enough to reach the ground! Ironically, fundamentalists on both extremes of the evolution divide often converge in misinterpreting perfection, creationists proclaiming that only a supreme being could have produced such superb complexity, while hyper-adaptationists emphasize the power of natural selection to achieve the same thing, promoting a “gee whiz” perspective on evolution.

Counterintuitively, it is the imperfection of the organic world that provides some of the most cogent evidence for evolution as a wholly natural phenomenon, and against special creation, or, in its barely disguised incarnation,“intelligent design theory.” And here is where “Imperfection,” the book, is especially valuable.

As Mr. Pievani emphasizes, Homo sapiens are marvels of unintelligent design, “with their useless earlobes, their tedious wisdom teeth, . . . their vermiform intestinal appendage, their spinal curves, and their vas deferens, which carries sperm from the testicles to the penis not directly and by the shortest route but instead after going by a useless and lengthy route via the ureter . . . the remains of their ancestral quadrupedal gait, and the corresponding ills and pains, backache, sciatica, flat feet, scoliosis, and hernias.” Add the terrible structure of our knees, our lower backs, the fact that the opening of the tubes carrying food and air are so close that choking is a significant cause of mortality, the awkwardness of having our reproduction and sewerage emerging right next to each other. We are shot through with deficiencies that wouldn’t earn even a passing grade for a novice bioengineer, never mind an omniscient, omnipotent deity.

Full article at The Wall Street Journal.

So, this article continues, but let’s not overlook the grandeur of a mountain by having one’s eyes focused downward on a crack in a rock. Anyone who says, “Homo sapiens are marvels of unintelligent design”, and can only myopically see subjectively critiqued imperfections, while not being awed by the suite of biochemical marvels that comprise the human body, is ignorant at best, and perhaps maliciously antagonistic towards God at worst.

40 Replies to “From The Wall Street Journal: ‘Imperfection’ Review: Unintelligent Design

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    again ? they won’t stop …

    professor of biology is the top expert in design/engineering ? :))))))))))))))

    these people don’t even realize how ridiculous/stupid are …

    Let’s have another look at human “imperfection”.

    Human’s design:
    https://youtu.be/uhND7Mvp3f4?t=231

    God’s design:
    https://youtu.be/NX7QNWEGcNI?t=42

    PS: i was wondering when the ‘perfect’ human made humanoid robot will be able to swim/dive

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    as to design imperfections, let me add this one:

    Fasted dog alive

    https://youtu.be/AE6mfQp06Jk

    No combustion engines, no electro-motors, zero noise …

    An engineering masterpiece …

    PS: And some professor of biology (natural science graduate) dares to talk about some ‘imperfections’ …. Darwinian clowns :)))))))))

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    as to: “can only myopically see subjectively critiqued imperfections, while not being awed by the suite of biochemical marvels that comprise the human body, is ignorant at best, and perhaps maliciously antagonistic towards God at worst.”

    Indeed.

    William Bialek
    Excerpt: A central theme in my research is an appreciation for how well things ‘work’ in biological systems. It is, after all, some notion of functional behavior that distinguishes life from inanimate matter, and it is a challenge to quantify this functionality in a language that parallels our characterization of other physical systems. Strikingly, when we do this (and there are not so many cases where it has been done!), the performance of biological systems often approaches some limits set by basic physical principles. While it is popular to view biological mechanisms as an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises, these observations on functional performance point toward a very different view of life as having selected a set of near optimal mechanisms for its most crucial tasks.
    https://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.html
    William Bialek is the John Archibald Wheeler/Battelle Professor in Physics, and a member of the multidisciplinary Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, at Princeton University.

    William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined – March 23, 2013
    Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped.
    “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” …
    Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them the superb efficiency with which bacterial cells will close in on a food source; the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head; and the way a shark can find its prey by measuring micro-fluxes of electricity in the water a tremulous millionth of a volt strong — which, as Douglas Fields observed in Scientific American, is like detecting an electrical field generated by a standard AA battery “with one pole dipped in the Long Island Sound and the other pole in waters of Jacksonville, Fla.” In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....an-we.html

    Math sheds light on how living cells ‘think’ – May 2, 2018
    Excerpt: Dr Araujo’s work has focused on the widely observed function called perfect adaptation — the ability of a network to reset itself after it has been exposed to a new stimulus.
    “An example of perfect adaptation is our sense of smell,” she said. “When exposed to an odour we will smell it initially but after a while it seems to us that the odour has disappeared, even though the chemical, the stimulus, is still present.
    “Our sense of smell has exhibited perfect adaptation. This process allows it to remain sensitive to further changes in our environment so that we can detect both very faint and very strong odours.
    “This kind of adaptation is essentially what takes place inside living cells all the time. Cells are exposed to signals — hormones, growth factors, and other chemicals — and their proteins will tend to react and respond initially, but then settle down to pre-stimulus levels of activity even though the stimulus is still there.
    “I studied all the possible ways a network can be constructed and found that to be capable of this perfect adaptation in a robust way, a network has to satisfy an extremely rigid set of mathematical principles. There are a surprisingly limited number of ways a network could be constructed to perform perfect adaptation.,,,
    Professor Lance Liotta, said the “amazing and surprising” outcome of Dr Araujo’s study is applicable to any living organism or biochemical network of any size.,,,
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180502094636.htm

    The Math That Tells Cells What They Are – March 13, 2019
    Excerpt: It’s now known that some form of positional information makes genes variously switch on and off throughout the embryo, giving cells distinct identities based on their location.,,,
    That mounting evidence is leading some biologists to a bold hypothesis: that where information is concerned, cells might often find solutions to life’s challenges that are not just good but optimal — that cells extract as much useful information from their complex surroundings as is theoretically possible.,,,
    when researchers have been able to appropriately determine what cells are doing, many have been surprised to see clear indications of optimization.,,,
    “I don’t think optimization is an aesthetic or philosophical idea. It’s a very concrete idea,” Bialek said.,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-math-that-tells-cells-what-they-are-20190313/

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    I have two words for such: tradeoffs and robustness. Optimisation for a narrow set of constraints is often brittle or open to handicapping in the face of a variable environment.

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    Counterintuitively, it is the imperfection of the organic world that provides some of the most cogent evidence for evolution as a wholly natural phenomenon, and against special creation, or, in its barely disguised incarnation,“intelligent design theory.”

    OUCH! And in the WSJ no less. This will have the crew at DI scrambling to battle stations. “Malicious” heretic appears to be the first salvo……

  6. 6
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    Anyone who says, “Homo sapiens are marvels of unintelligent design”, and can only myopically see subjectively critiqued imperfections, while not being awed by the suite of biochemical marvels that comprise the human body, is ignorant at best, and perhaps maliciously antagonistic towards God at worst.

    This looks like a false dichotomy followed by two non sequiturs.

    1. This is phrased in a way as to suggest (but not assert) that if a trait is suboptimal, then the suboptimality is a “subjective criticism”, but if a trait is optimal or near-optimal, then the optimality is (presumably) objectively real. I don’t see what would justify this suggestion. Why wouldn’t suboptimality and optimality both be objectively real? (Or both could be subjective, but let’s not go there.)

    2. Why would stressing the suboptimality of certain features be “maliciously antagonistic towards God” at all? I’m no expert on theology, but my understanding is that it would be open to a person of faith to say that what matters is the harmony of all of Nature taken as a whole, and that’s perfectly consistent with suboptimal features in how any particular creature (or feature of that creature (ha ha)) has been designed.

    3. I was under the distinct impression that intelligent design had nothing to do with theology — indeed, that it’s logically compatible with atheism. If so, then I don’t see why someone who rejects intelligent design would be suspected of harboring any specific attitudes towards God. (For whatever it’s worth, I’m quite critical of intelligent design and I’m not an atheist.)

  7. 7
    asauber says:

    “I don’t see why someone who rejects intelligent design would be suspected of harboring any specific attitudes towards God.”

    PM1,

    Ever read Evolutionist troll comments here?

    Andrew

  8. 8
    jerry says:

    If anyone intelligent designed this world, it would be necessary to include doubt.

    Without doubt, there would be a sterile uninteresting world. Doubt would necessitate the appearance of sub-optimal entities. Actually the world as we know it would not exist without doubt.

    So is this the best of all possible worlds? A world of perfect imperfects.

    It’s amazing how the fine tuning gets overlooked so easily.

    Aside: ChuckDarwin endorses one aspect of ID. He points out the only evidence for Evolution is imperfection. It certainly isn’t natural selection.

    But Chuck fails to realize that the perfect world requires fools. In other words, Chuck is an example of perfect design.

    Aside2: if someone defending ID, doesn’t make a perfect comment, an anti ID person is ready to pounce on the part that isn’t seemingly perfect. That’s all they have.

    Aside3: ID has nothing to do with theology other than supporting various religious points of view. It’s a tool using logic and evidence. A screwdriver is a tool too and can be used for lots of end results.

  9. 9
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @7

    Ever read Evolutionist troll comments here?

    I’ve seen some people raise criticisms of intelligent design and argue in favor of evolutionary theory, but I haven’t yet seen any of them say anything critical about theology or organized religion in general.

    But even if they are all critical of both intelligent design and religion, so what? It’s perfectly coherent that they are fundamentally confused.

    If they oppose intelligent design because they think that intelligent design somehow raises the likelihood of God’s existence, that’s clearly a logical mistake on their part and should be called out as such.

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    “But even if they are all critical of both intelligent design and religion, so what?”

    To the Evolutionist Troll, they are the same thing. So, we get to read endless comments from pious religion-haters.

    Andrew

  11. 11
    Alan Fox says:

    To the Evolutionist Troll, they [religion and ID] are the same thing. So, we get to read endless comments from pious religion-haters.

    Endless comments? Can’t be too much trouble to find a couple of them that fit your description, Andrew.

  12. 12
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @10

    To the Evolutionist Troll, they are the same thing. So, we get to read endless comments from pious religion-haters.

    So just tell them that intelligent design has nothing to do with religion and that their dislike of organized religion is irrelevant to assessing intelligent design. But likewise, it surely doesn’t follow that someone is antagonistic towards religion just because they are critical of intelligent design.

    More generally: a psychological association is not a logical implication.

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    So just tell them that intelligent design has nothing to do with religion and that their dislike of organized religion is irrelevant to assessing intelligent design

    Doesn’t work.

    There is a constant referral to Christianity by anti ID people here. Not everyone but if one went through the comments by anti ID people, they can witness this continually. It doesn’t happen on every thread but quite often.

    It wouldn’t be hard to document.

    Aside: I had to explain to my wife the difference between the words, “continually” and “continuously.” Religion association with ID especially Christianity is continually happening but not continuously happening. ChuckDarwin is a “perfect” example.

    Another good example is Seversky. He and Chuck have left a lot of forensic evidence. Both are noted for never defending their beliefs, often only pointing out the imperfections of Christianity. There are others that pile on. Both are ex-Christians.

    if the comments are so frequent, maybe you could indicate a couple of examples so I can apologise for doubting you

    If enough examples are pointed out, I assume you will join the chorus of their irrelevance.

  14. 14
    Alan Fox says:

    Jerry, I like you. Your comments often make me smile. Maybe I haven’t been paying attention to the comments of other ID critics but I don’t see criticism of religion per se. There is usually criticism of unjustified authoritarianism and claims of absolute morality.

    As I said to Andrew, if the comments are so frequent, maybe you could indicate a couple of examples so I can apologise for doubting you

  15. 15
    chuckdarwin says:

    One cannot be a bona fide atheist and an intelligent design proponent. The only entity that fulfills the category “intelligent designer” is a god or gods.

  16. 16
    relatd says:

    Sad that the Wall Street Journal should publish nonsense. Typical Marxist-Atheist blather like this shows further erosion of rational thought in a previously well thought out publication. More and more, the Marxist-Atheists are attempting to undermine, if not own, whatever media outlet they can to further the ongoing Doctrine of Nothing.

    Nothing made you.
    You are a meat robot.
    The universe is a Marxist-Atheist Universe.

    Quite sad.

  17. 17
    jerry says:

    The only entity that fulfills the category “intelligent designer” is a god or gods.

    Wrong!

    If somehow one believes that our universe or another universe like it somehow appeared on its/their own, they must necessarily believe in a creator or an entity that could have created the universe(s). So every atheist believes in a creator.

    Aside: Chuck just upped his error batting average close to a thousand. He accidentally gets something right every now and then.

    Also Chuck just contradicted Allan by making a comment on the nature of ID. It’s a false one but he did make the comment. So Alan, we are waiting for your condemnation of Chuck.

  18. 18
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @15

    One cannot be a bona fide atheist and an intelligent design proponent. The only entity that fulfills the category “intelligent designer” is a god or gods.

    I can understand why someone might think that, given how these debates are usually framed. However, I think that careful examination shows that the intelligent designer can’t be God. Or more precisely, there is no valid argument which shows that the intelligent designer must be God, even if the intelligent designer designed the entire universe.

    I do think that the ID position requires that there be trans-cosmic intelligent designers, because the underlying logic is that laws of physics are insufficient to explain the emergence of complex systems, and intelligence is certainly a type of complex system. So even if life on this planet was designed by intelligent beings who belong to this universe, the need to explain where they came from will eventually kick the can down the road far enough that we must posit trans-cosmic intelligent designers.

    But there’s no reason why trans-cosmic intelligent designers must be God, for reasons familiar in the history of philosophy from Hume and Kant, but also — quite remarkably — from an argument that David Bentley Hart gives in The Experience of God.

    Hart presents as “classical theism” the idea that God is absolutely powerful, absolutely good, absolutely knowledgeable, uncaused, that on which everything else depends, the cause of all things not just in the sense of having brought them into being but in the sense of upholding all things in existence as they are from moment to moment. God is the reason why existence does not lapse into nothingness — He is not just a being that exists alongside quarks and giraffes, but the very ground of being.

    Now, there is no reason why trans-cosmic designers must be the ground of being — trans-cosmic designers could be beings that just exist in a way that isn’t limited by the physics of this universe.

    For example, the intelligent designer could be the evil Demiurge as taught by Gnosticism and that our immortal divinely created souls are trapped in a prison of satanic flesh. While I do doubt there actually are any intelligent design Gnostics, there’s nothing in ID that entails that the Designer is not the Demiurge of Gnosticism — which means that God is not the only candidate.

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Typical Marxist-Atheist blather like this shows further erosion of rational thought in a previously well thought out publication.

    Just curious . . . how is it Marxist?

  20. 20
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    Typical Marxist-Atheist blather like this shows further erosion of rational thought in a previously well thought out publication. More and more, the Marxist-Atheists are attempting to undermine, if not own, whatever media outlet they can to further the ongoing Doctrine of Nothing.

    If anything, there’s a perfectly good coherence between capitalism and evolutionary theory. Capitalist economics even since Adam Smith says that fantastically complex, harmonious organized economies are the result of millions of individuals seeking their own advantage. Evolutionary theory says that fantastically complex, harmonious ecosystems are the result of billions of organisms seeking their own advantage.

    From what I’ve read, Friedrich Hayek’s critique of planned economies was influenced by cybernetics and evolutionary theory — he realized that no centrally planner was necessary for a flourishing economy exactly for the same reasons that ecosystems don’t need a central planner. The complexity and order of markets and ecosystems emerges from billions of interactions, none of which are aimed at producing that complexity and order — and yet it happens all day, everyday.

    In other words, it makes really good sense as to why the most pro-capitalist newspaper in the world would publish a glowing review of a book about the importance of imperfection in the evolutionary history of life. “Marxism,” whatever you think that word means, has nothing to do with it.

  21. 21
    jerry says:

    Marxist or Marxism is just a red herring that a lot of people here like to shout.

    Another is atheist or Darwin. They just get in the way of making ID acceptable. Of course we all have different ideas as to what ID is.

    Aside: Marxism is real and espoused by a lot of people not knowing that it will take away all their creature comforts. They universally reject ID because marxism is traditionally correlated with atheism r=1.0.

    If they thought that ID did not espouse a Christian God and suggested a creator that did not have religion in mind, they might be all in. But that is not the current meme.

    ID does not suggest the Christian God, but is certainly compatible with it. ID is also compatible with other religions. This discussion does not happen here except for an occasional comment.

  22. 22
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 21,

    “They just get in the way of making ID acceptable.”

    Acceptable to who?

  23. 23
    Seversky says:

    JVL/19

    Just curious . . . how is it Marxist?

    Anything that isn’t Little House On The Prairie America is Marxist?

  24. 24
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 23,

    That’s right! 1950s America Forever !!!

  25. 25
    jerry says:

    Anything that isn’t Little House On The Prairie America is Marxist

    Little House on the Prairie is anarchist.

  26. 26
    relatd says:

    Ah Jerry, you have just been moved to another category…

  27. 27
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @25:

    Little House on the Prairie is anarchist.

    I don’t know if you were joking, but there’s certainly a sense in which this is true. From what I recall of the TV show, Walnut Grove has no mayor and I don’t even recall a sheriff. It’s very much a community bound together by mutual aid. No one likes the Olsens because they reject the principle of mutual aid. Or is my memory beclouded?

    @24

    That’s right! 1950s America Forever !!!

    Honestly can’t tell if you’re serious or just playing into the liberal stereotype of what conservatives believe.

  28. 28
    asauber says:

    “Little House On The Prairie America is Marxist”

    Well, behind the scenes they were non-binary, sexually liberated Gaia worshipping communists, like everyone should have been. 😉

    Andrew

  29. 29
    relatd says:

    The “liberal stereotype”? Who needs Ultra-Orthodox religions when you have politics? You know what? There are people who are aware of politics but who could otherwise care less. Who don’t belong to Political Cults. Do you understand? In the United States, Democrats and Republicans have both downgraded to cult status.

  30. 30
    chuckdarwin says:

    PyrrhoManiac1/18
    It’s interesting that you would bring up the notion of a demiurge. In the classical sense, demiurges are “artisans” that created the world out of pre-existing “stuff.” In essence they are “lesser gods.” But of course, that stuff has to come from somewhere. Like demiurges, your “trans-cosmic designers” are simply intermediaries, or middlemen, or subcontractors employed by the ultimate “ground of being” a/k/a unmoved mover a/k/a God, etc.
    Once you accept intelligent design, you reject physicalism and there’s no stopping till you get to a deity of some type…….

  31. 31
    relatd says:

    CD at 30,

    New from The Future:

    The Future (AP), Intelligent Design Textbooks Arrive at Public Schools – ACLU Up in Arms but Powerless to Stop It

  32. 32
    jerry says:

    don’t know if you were joking

    Yes and no.

    People like to fling words around here without thinking. Anarchists are not Marxist because they depend on small groups helping each other. That is exactly what Little House on the Prairie or the American frontier was.

    I spent a lot of time a few years ago reading about the Spanish Civil War. It was mainly a religious war. The anti religion factions were Marxists, Anarchists, Unions and some academics. So anarchists were associated with atheism as were the Marxists and a lot of the unions and academics.

    Atheism seemed to be more a driving force than economic ideology. But anarchism while usually atheistic does not require it. Little House on the Prairie was anything but atheism.

    A common thing uniting a lot of these people in Spain was their hostility towards religion. The Catholic Church in particular was guilty of hostility toward the lower classes through their acceptance of the Great Chain of Being This was especially true in Spain. The government for much of early 1930s legislated that religion could not be taught in schools and very narrowly taught outside of schools.

    Aside: we live in a world that anarchism cannot possibly work, religious or atheistic. Neither can Marxism ever work in any world.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Stupid Stupid Design Argument
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK5RXaEqTIg
    Molecular biologist Douglas Axe from Biola University responds to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s argument that “stupid design” in nature disproves the idea that nature is the product of intelligent design.

  34. 34
    relatd says:

    The Spanish Civil War? Who provided weapons and equipment for the Nationalists? Germany and Italy. Who provided weapons and equipment for the Communists? Russia.

  35. 35
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @32:

    I spent a lot of time a few years ago reading about the Spanish Civil War. It was mainly a religious war. The anti religion factions were Marxists, Anarchists, Unions and some academics. So anarchists were associated with atheism as were the Marxists and a lot of the unions and academics.

    I haven’t read much about the Spanish Civil War, but from what little I know, I would guess that the Republicans (as they were called) were against the Church because they saw the Church as aligned with hierarchy, monarchy, and oppression generally. Perhaps they would have had different attitudes if there had been liberation theology in Spain at the time?

    In any event, I quite agree with you that people like to throw around labels like “anarchism” and “Marxism” with little regard to the historical meaning of those terms.

  36. 36
    AaronS1978 says:

    Is there a comment here where CD is not being a condescending troll to ID? Like usual he fires first at 5 and continues to live up to his many name sakes.

    And by the way, to the comment that all the biological imperfections support evolution. It is very often that those imperfections are discovered to be perfections, because we just didn’t understand it yet. Often we hear it’s evolutionary sprandel until further notice. Of course later down the line when knowledge improves these supposed imperfections disappear.

    What’s more amusing is that the same people that argue many biological features are nothing more than evolutionary artifacts (the end) are the same people that argue that science will figure everything out in time but are quick to claim ID is a science stopper

  37. 37
    jerry says:

    I haven’t read much about the Spanish Civil War

    I have.

    Over 90% of those who express an opinion will be wrong about it including most Spaniards. The terms “loyalists” and “Republicans” were misnomers. They were the Communist and anarchists. But these terms were used to frame the fight and many outside of Spain would support a side that was made up of Republican and Loyalists versus Catholics if they were a Protestant or atheist. A good example is Hemingway.

    What precipitated the actual fight was a questionable election in 1936 and the totalitarian reaction of the new government. The government that supported religion was replaced by an election after being in power for about two years. Whether the 1936 election was legitimate or not is still an open question.

    But a lot of people did not like. the government that supported Catholicism. It still had a royalist tinge to it and that tinge was used to label religion as the enemy. Ironically, this included two very Catholic areas of Spain, Basques and I believe Galicia. It’s been six years since I read anything.

    This is not a place to discuss the Spanish Civil War. It only had relevance to the ideas of Marxist and anarchist and how people don’t know much about the terms they use. We are far afield of imperfection.

  38. 38
    AaronS1978 says:

    “Moreover, perfection would make evolution stop dead in its tracks. In fact, it would never have begun—natural selection needs diversity upon which to operate. And diversity ultimately arises from mutation and sexual recombination, each of which is a perfect source of imperfection.“

    Perfection is nonsense and always has been. It is not attainable and I am glad that there is at least this lucid comment in the article. “Imperfect” however does it equate to “not designed”.

  39. 39
    chuckdarwin says:

    AaronS1978/36
    My “many” namesakes? What in the world are you talking about? Also, is a spandrel not a sprandel….

  40. 40
    AaronS1978 says:

    Well your tag and all the loving pet names that have been given to you, from ChuckyD to ColossalD!@k that emphasize what a troll you are. Also yes I know, I didn’t catch in time thanks for the correction……..

Leave a Reply