Intelligent Design

Looking back: Why I think ID is winning, and why it might not look that way yet 2

Spread the love

When I first started covering this beat, about six years ago, it was pretty straightforward. Earnest people were trying to convince me that blind cave fish losing their eyes was just the same thing as creatures developing eyes in the Cambrian. Bacteria junking fancy equipment to survive antibiotic assaults was just the same thing as creating the equipment in the first place.

Life forms, I was told, self-assemble gradually from their component parts via natural selection, without design or purpose, just the way the Corvette had.

Shut up, they explained.

So what’s different now? Unbelievable explanations, not content to remain small and unbelievable, have grown grand and incomprehensible. Increasingly, I hear that there are many universes, and ours just happens to work. Richard Dawkins flirts with this, and here’s another quite recent attempt to make the multiverse plausible.

I am told, those other universes must be out there because if they aren’t, we have no explanation for the fine tuning of our universe, and Darwinism doesn’t work.

As Antony Flew says, it’s like the boy whose teacher wouldn’t believe that the dog ate his homework. So the boy changed his story: A huge pack of dogs ate his homework.

The story must be true because the boy doesn’t have the homework.

My sense is that people who are skeptical of Darwinian fairy tales now are not likely to be persuaded by extravagant cosmologies that support them.

The Darwinians will, of course, continue to get considerable help from the pop science media, which can be relied on to inflate even the slightest glimmer of hope into news of an imminent jackpot. After all what else can they do? It would take years to catch up to the real story.

Also, just up at Colliding Universes:

The number 137 has its own Web page? Why?

Origin of life: Random origin of life was exploded by 1970s discovery – who didn’t get the memo?

Astronomer argues that we can test whether Earth is fine-tuned as a science lab

Our unique solar system is less probable than our universe? – a reader writes

10 Replies to “Looking back: Why I think ID is winning, and why it might not look that way yet 2

  1. 1
    GilDodgen says:

    Shut up, they explained.

    You have a way with words Denyse. This really does encapsulate most Darwinian explanations.

  2. 2
    CannuckianYankee says:

    Denyse, I can’t believe you missed this one:

    http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com

    I suspect it’s another hoax that’s gotten more press than most similar “reports?”, but in the very slightest chance that it may be real, what will Darwinists do with it?

    “The Darwinians will, of course, continue to get considerable help from the pop science media”

    Oh, so that’s what’s going on. Who woulda thunkit?

  3. 3
    O'Leary says:

    For readers not into Bigfeet, the story is that two Georgia hikers found a 7-foot-750 lb “man-ape”.

    I can’t make the pictures on the guys’ Web site come in (maybe just my system?)

    Here’s the National Post’s view: Best quote out of this may be:

    “This is becoming like an alien autopsy,” Jeffery Meldrum, a noted Bigfoot researcher and a professor of anthropology at Idaho State University, said. “It’s shenanigans.”

    Reuters informs me (surprise, surprise), the man-ape failed a DNA test, so the father (s) of the presumed hoax are the hikers. Also noted there: “The spread of the online story was fuelled by a photograph of a hairy heap, bearing a close resemblance to a shaggy full-body gorilla costume, stuffed into a container resembling a refrigerator.”

    There, that’s what comes of overeating and failing to shave. Evolution at work, folks, you just saw it demonstrated.

    When confronting stories like this, I always say, first check the calendar. August is the chronological home of the hot weather story.

  4. 4
    johnny says:

    bililiad wrote,

    “What the materialists can’t get their head around is that if “Darwinism” loses, ID wins by default…”

    How many here would agree with that statement?

  5. 5
    Patrick says:

    Not quite. If Darwinism “loses” (and seeing how evolutionary theory is partially correct I don’t see it disappearing) there will be some people who accept the multiverse argument as a backup.

  6. 6
    CannuckianYankee says:

    Denyse: “Reuters informs me (surprise, surprise), the man-ape failed a DNA test, so the father (s) of the presumed hoax are the hikers.”

    Oh, but wait, the DNA evidence simply shows that in the distant past, human evolution branched off when humans interracted with oppossums, and a new species was born.

  7. 7
    CannuckianYankee says:

    Bililiad: “What the materialists can’t get their head around is that if “Darwinism” loses, ID wins by default…”

    Yes, because the materialists have clung to the only scenario that could be true under materialist assumptions: Neo-Darwinism.

    It means that methodological naturalism as the driving method behind doing science also loses.

    Going wherever the evidence leads transcends all assumptions, materialist and non-materialist. Flew got it right.

  8. 8
    CannuckianYankee says:

    Patrick: “Not quite. If Darwinism “loses” (and seeing how evolutionary theory is partially correct I don’t see it disappearing) there will be some people who accept the multiverse argument as a backup.”

    But it appears that the multiverse argument can never have the explanatory power of the Darwinian argument simply because the multiverse does not have any real observational data. It is merely a guess mandated by materialist assumptions. If ID shows that those materialist assumptions are invalid, then the multiverse argument falls on its face as well. There may be some who still cling to it out of philosophical necessity, but not out of empirical necessity.

    There’s another discussion similar to this going on in the next blog post, where they are comparing Darwinism with all of the other scientific theories, and the difference lies in the mathematical rigour by which other theories are formulated – not so in Darwinism.

    The point being, that if ID wins, it will be because of a rigourous presentation of the facts, not because of an opposing collection of fairy tales. And as such, this will change the way science is validated as science. Therefore, unless the multiverse arguments are backed by mathamatical rigour, they too will fail the test of validity as science.

  9. 9
    CannuckianYankee says:

    Clarification: “And as such, this will change the way science is validated as science.”

    I should have said that it will change the way science is validated with respect to evolution.

  10. 10
    William J. Murray says:

    I don’t understand how one accounts for the chance parameters of any supposed multiverse scenario. Isn’t “chance” actually a statistical product based on commodities found in our universe? How would one make a claim that “chance” even exists in whatever super-natural context is supposed to produce variant sets of “natural” laws?

Leave a Reply