Not Even Wrong

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 2, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The great physicist Wolfgang Pauli once criticized a scientific paper as so bad that it was “not even wrong.” It was so sloppy and ill conceived, thought Pauli, that to call it merely wrong would be to give it too much credit–it wasn’t even wrong. Today such a condemnation applies well to the theory of evolution which relies on religious convictions to prop up bad science. It seems that every argument for evolution wilts under scrutiny. Here is a classic example.

Continue reading here.

Comments

In the debate about design, most of the discussion seems to come from scientists. Occasionally an engineer may contribute, but it seems that the design disciplines are underrepresented. This leads, I think, to a somewhat incomplete idea of what constitutes design, and how it is done. William Dembski, in his book The Design Revolution, quotes Henry Petroski as saying “All design involves conflicting objectives and hence compromise, and the best designs will always be those that come up with the best compromise.” Dembski adds “Constrained optimization is the art of compromise among conflicting objectives. This is what design is all about.” I wouldn't disagree with these sentiments, except for the last one: constrained optimization is not, in my opinion, what design is all about. I've been involved in design for most of my life: I'm an architect and urban designer,and it's the creative part of design which I feel has been somewhat neglected in the debate about design and apparent design. To use an extreme example: when Mozart composed his Jupiter symphony, constrained optimization was not in the forefront of his considerations. Shakespeare, Goethe, Bach and Wright were all aware of the constraints under which they worked — English, German, the well-tempered clavier and common building materials — but they were not what really mattered to them. They viewed them, perhaps instinctively, not as constraints but as opportunities for creative expression. I believe a better understanding of how a creative designer works could yield interesting and perhaps useful insights into the claim that design in nature is not really design, but apparent design. Early on in the training of an architect the young student encounters a design process diagram. No doubt other disciplines undergo the same experience. These diagrams consist of a series of rectangles with impressive labels in them, such as 'design inception' 'initial concept' 'conceptual development' 'structural input' and many more. They are all linked with an intricate series of arrows and lines — some dotted, some solid — and there's always a sneaky arrow that leads from one of the later boxes back to one of the earlier ones, with the label 'feedback'. I believe these diagrams are not very helpful: the feedback arrow renders them nearly useless. Design is a virtually simultaneous process: initially it starts with some vague scribbles on a piece of paper, blobs and lines which which have meaning only to the designer. Early on the blobs and lines take on spatial meaning, and then actual dimensions. At some stage materials come into the equation, and the movement and activities of people are there from the start. Even at this blobby stage, considerations of site access and the cost of materials and their maintenance play a part, not to mention planning and building regulations. Very early on, a good designer will already be thinking about exactly how the elements in his design will be assembled. He needs a very good idea of the technical and fine motor skills of the average workman on site. It's no use designing a building that can only be assembled by a highly intelligent asbestos octopus. All of these issues, and many others, simultaneously swirl around in the mind of the designer as he or she develops concepts into a set of instructions which will enable the building to be erected. (It's like playing three dimensioned chess, only much more complicated.) These instruction — scale drawings, details, specifications, schedules and project management programmes — can all be sent to site by means of the internet, using a binary code. These are all acted upon by the contractors, very much as a cell responds to the instructions of DNA and RNA. It is clear that the intelligence behind the process of getting a building erected is easily discerned. Darwinists claim that a blind 'design' process takes place in nature, but I believe that the procedure claimed is so strikingly different from what really happens in the mind of the designer that it make the claim suspect. The design process is definitely not sequential. It can't be, as step 358 profoundly affects step 23. That's why those design process diagrams are so unhelpful. Design is something you can only learn through doing. To be sure, there's lots of stuff you've got to know before you can do it successfully, but exactly how you manipulate and juggle with it is a very complex mind game. In contrast, the childishly simple Darwinian design mechanism is rigidly sequential. There can be no anticipation of problems likely to be encountered when step 358 is reached. What might work well at step 23 can easily turn out to be a disaster by then. The two elements in the Darwinian design process, variation and natural selection, are themselves problematical when it comes to an understanding of how design works. The really creative element is the variation, and not the selection process. One thing is agreed: the variation, or mutation, is governed by chance. It's as if a chance design proposal is put on the table for consideration, and it's natural selection which decides whether the proposal is to be adopted. This makes the selection process sound as if it is doing something pro-active and creative, but it's not. Antony Flew, in his book There is a God, points out that Darwin himself recognised the inappropriateness of the term selection, and later substituted the word preservation — which is both more accurate and a lot more passive than selection. But selection, or preservation, is supposed to act as a force which is not governed by chance, but by necessity. From a design point of view, this is also questionable. Whether or not a mutation is preserved can be very much a matter of chance. If the offspring of an animal has thicker fur than its parents, it might lead to enhanced survival chances — but only if it is born during autumn, so that the full benefits of greater insulation can be enjoyed during its first winter. But if it is born in spring, it could well be that it might expire in the heat of summer. If the offspring of a horse has a mutation that enables it to run faster, it could be argued that it is more likely to be able to catch mares and mate with them, enhancing its chances of reproduction. Unless, of course, it's a mare, and can therefore outrun any randy stallion which shows an interest, which means her line will likely die out. (If that's how horses actually behave, which may not be the case.) I suggest that a proper study of the design process as it occurs in real life could help in our understanding of the weaknesses in Darwin's theory. Assuming that one can comprehend the mind of God and how He goes about designing stuff without understanding how design actually works is itself a chancy business.erik schaug_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PST}

Phinehas @ 45
All any alien designer, other than a creator god, would have done is exploit that pre-existing plasticity.
Please explain your “other than a creator god” exception in the above. Are you claiming that a creator God would not have exploited pre-existing plasticity? Or that it wouldn’t have pre-existed if God created it? What if He exploited it later in the creative process?
The "creator God" refers to the being presumed by the monotheistic faiths to be the primary cause and sole origin of all that exists. Since nothing existed prior to this being, there was no "pre-existing plasticity" for it to exploit. The plasticity must, therefore, have been created by that god for its own purposes. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this happened, it raises the inevitable question of 'why?'. If this god were omniscient as well as omnipotent it would have foreseen all the possible variation that would arise from this plasticity so why bother? Human scientists conduct experiments to acquire new kmowledge; they rarely if ever waste valuable time and resources confirming what they already know with reasonable certainty.
Is this noted exception a scientific or religious one
Since it is commenting on question of religion then, to that extent, it is religious. It should be noted, however, that commenting on some aspect of religion does not mean that you are automatically espousing a particular faith, in spite of what Cornelius Hunter alleges. As has been pointed out before, his thesis is based on an equivocation on the meaning of 'religious', much as Denyse O'Leary and others conflates discussing the nature of race with being racist. To this extent, Cornelius Hunter is just Denyse O'Leary but with bigger words and longer paragraphs.Seversky_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PST}

mere, "Intelligent genes? Are you serious? Why on earth would an evolutionary biologist assume that genes are intelligent?" You tell me. Or better yet, why don't you ask Dr. Dawkins? Dawkins anthropomorphises genes as in "selfish." Why wouldn't that imply some sort of intelligence? Why would Darwinists avoid intelligence at all costs then, if they require intelligence to make that assumption? That seems more illogical to me. Or are genes merely "superficially" intelligent - or "selfish," for that matter?CannuckianYankee_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PST}

"No, because what evolutionists say is that lifeforms superficially appear designed, though you can see that the design is illusory when you examine them scientifically." I think the reality is more like: lifeforms scientifically appear designed, though you might see that the design is illusory when you examine them superficially.CannuckianYankee_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PST}

CannuckianYankee wrote:
I’m confused. Don’t the Darwinists also contend that things look like design, but that the design is illusory? Is there not a clear contradiction here? “Things look like evolution, therefore there is no designer” - vs - “Things merely look like design, but there really is no designer.”
No, because what evolutionists say is that lifeforms superficially appear designed, though you can see that the design is illusory when you examine them scientifically.mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PST}

CannuckianYankee, you wrote:
In his book “Darwinian Fairytales,” [David Stove] essentially says that Darwinism is a (sort of) godless pantheism, and he points to Dawkins’ Selfish Gene as the god of the Darwinists. Why? Because any theism (in Stove’s view) is a subservience to a higher intelligence.
You continue:
...no matter what your life-encompasing/explaining paradigm, subservience to a higher intelligence is involved - Darwinism doesn’t escape this - it merely transfers it to a different intelligence than a transcendent one... The only problem is that with genes, you still need to explain where they get their intelligence from.
Intelligent genes? Are you serious? Why on earth would an evolutionary biologist assume that genes are intelligent?mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PST}

Dr. Hunter, "Indeed, today some evolutionists are now giving up on trying to use the evolutionary tree paradigm. And yet evolutionists such as mereologist keep telling us that the pattern can only be explained by evolution, or a designer who made it look just like evolution." I'm confused. Don't the Darwinists also contend that things look like design, but that the design is illusory? Is there not a clear contradiction here? "Things look like evolution, therefore there is no designer" - vs - "Things merely look like design, but there really is no designer." No wonder they're insisting on only one option - all things point to evolution by default - and they've made it that way.CannuckianYankee_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PST}

I asked:
Cornelius, where have I ever stated that the only alternative to common descent is “random design”? Quote and link, please.
Cornelius Hunter replied:
Here is your quote, coming from [7] above.
Either undirected evolution is true, or the designer has made it appear, overwhelmingly, to be true. Either way, you you have to ignore the evidence — all 38 decimal places’ worth — to conclude that ID is correct.

Cornelius, Do you truly not recognize that other nonrandom patterns are possible besides the one that confirms Darwinian common descent? For example, suppose (using Theobald's example of the standard phylogenetic tree of the 30 major taxa) that the morphological data produced the standard tree, while the molecular data produced the same tree except with the positions of humans and bananas reversed. That would be a huge problem for evolution, yet it would in no sense be a random pattern. There are literally trillions of trillions of patterns that could falsify evolution. Many of them are quite nonrandom, like the one I just described. All of them would be available to a putative designer. Yet when you look at the actual data, the morphological and molecular trees match perfectly, with 38 decimal places of precision. As I said:
Either undirected evolution is true, or the designer has made it appear, overwhelmingly, to be true. Either way, you you have to ignore the evidence — all 38 decimal places’ worth — to conclude that ID is correct.
mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PST}

IOW, JTaylor, Darwinists should assume that there are aspects of life where Darwinism does not apply - but they don't. They try to fit everything under the Darwin tent, and it doesn't work.CannuckianYankee_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PST}

JTaylor, "And replaced with what exactly, especially given that ID is a less than complete paradigm? Don’t you need to preserve some aspects of evolution? Even people like Behe believe that is necessary." I agree with you. ID does not attempt to be a complete paradigm - it limits itself to two questions: 1) is the Darwinian paradigm - RM + NS sufficient? 2) If completed to the cellular level - and perhaps beyond, is Paley's argument - (rejected by Darwin), a better, more complete paradigm? I think if Darwinism limited itself to the evidence, rather than extrapolating an entire metaphysical - all encompasing paradigm, it might have more explanatory power. The problem is with all the assumptions and just-so stories. Eliminate them, and you have a scientific theory that can go places. ID can deal with that.CannuckianYankee_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PST}

Borne, Nnoel, "That ID has, in the information age, started to become a far more full fledged empirically based science (far more scientific than Darwinism has ever been) runner does not mean it is new." I keep one of David Stove's books upon my shelf for amusement and some limited insight as well. He was an Austrailian atheist philosopher, who rejected Darwinism. In his book "Darwinian Fairytales," he essentially says that Darwinism is a (sort of) godless pantheism, and he points to Dawkins' Selfish Gene as the god of the Darwinists. Why? Because any theism (in Stove's view) is a subservience to a higher intelligence. The higher intelligence uses the lower as tools to accomplish its purpose. To Stove, humans and other biological organisms are the tools by which genes accomplish their purpose - to preserve and evolve the species. Of course like gods, genes are unseen, and have no end - they continue, and are passed down from generation to generation. What Stove misses, however, is what Dr. Hunter has been pointing out - the basis for the Darwinian religion is that "God wouldn't have created the world as it is." Perhaps becuase Stove is an atheist, he wasn't able to percieve this particular religious aspect of Darwinism - but I think he's right about how the gene replaces God for Darwinists. I think what it all boils down to this - (and Nnoel, you would benefit from attention to this); that no matter what your life-encompasing/explaining paradigm, subservience to a higher intelligence is involved - Darwinism doesn't escape this - it merely transfers it to a different intelligence than a transcendent one. So in the end, we do have only two real choices, Nnoel - transcendent intelligence, that comes from without the system, or non-transcendent intelligence that comes from within the system. The only problem is that with genes, you still need to explain where they get their intelligence from. The transcendent intelligence by definition is an uncaused and necessary cause of everything else. The gene can never make that claim. While Darwinism assumes chance and necessity, the only real necessity is transcendent necessity. And as Borne pointed out - the design argument is older than the evolution argument - (I would add) -the evolution argument is older than Darwin. Darwin's contribution to the state of affairs in the modern world was to wipe out the theistic paradigm - at least as far as our culture goes - while people still maintain a "form of godliness, they deny it's power." Sounds familiar. We attribute all power to nature itself. Now what happened when Darwin came along was to take a look at Paley's wathmaker argument, and attempt to dismiss it as insufficient. Based on Paley's argument, Darwin asserted that a god would not have created the world as it is, and contrary to Paley - determined that there were obvious flaws in the "creation" - seeing things from only a surface perspective, rather than from the perspective of the cell and it's complexity. And based on that assessment, Darwin began to make all kinds of ridiculous predictions, which turned out not to be true - such as the idea that there's this constant struggle for survival among species - where's the evidence? - that's certainly not the case with humans. While we struggle to survive, the "material world" we have created has shown that it is not "constant." I think that Darwin was hesitant to apply his theory to human beings, since our survival methods sort of negate the Darwinian assumptions - which is why he didn't make an attempt until 12 years after the publication of Origin. Take a look at it. We humans have learned that the bast way to survive is through cooperation, rather than through struggle. Struggle - in fact, is a detriment to our survival. For some reason, we don't fit within the whole Darwinian scheme. Another prediction Darwin got wrong was the notion that species multiply to the limits of the food supply - simply not a reality. Grain elevators, grocery stores and food banks are evidences that negate that idea altogether - not hard to do. The food supply is much larger than population, yet there does not seem to be any correlation - with the exception of countries where there is rampant malnutrition - but the contributors to these conditions are often man-made, and not due to any Darwinian struggle. Of course there are endless just so stories such as these - Darwin was a master of them, so it is no surprise that his followers have followed. So what is happening now is that the design theists are coming along and saying 1) Darwinism has failed to be consistent with Darwin's predictions and 2) Perhaps Paley's argument, while incomplete, was a better paradigm than Darwin's (even though Darwin genuinely admired Paley's argument). So ID theorists are absolutely right and justified in first of all criticising the Darwinian paradigm for its lack of explanatory power, and second of all - completing Paley's argument from a cellular perspective, while questioning the religious question-beggin premise of Darwinism - that a god would not have designed the world as it is. As Dr. Dembski has pointed out, there is no free lunch. You either have information as the prime contributor to complexity, or you have nothing. Chance is not a sufficient contributor to anything but decay into chaos - and "necessity" does not help it. Now some are going to (and have)wonder(ed) "is ID religious then?" ID in itself is not religious, but neutral - which is where science should be. It is neutrality that allows us to look at life from a broader perspective than to presume any ability or disability upon a god. If our neutrality while doing science leads to religious implications - so be it. Science started from a religious idea - that of a God who made the world according to rational laws. It is no surprise then that what comes out of science implies the very basis for doing science in the first place. Some of us learned that lesson with Big Bang theory - we ought to learn the same lesson with ID. And so NATURALLY we go back to where we started, but with a more precise analysis of reality.CannuckianYankee_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PST}

mereologist:
Cornelius, where have I ever stated that the only alternative to common descent is “random design”? Quote and link, please.
Shocking isn't it? I'm almost to the point where this isn't bizarre anymore. But at least evolutionists will never fail you. They'll make their non scientific proclamations and the next moment scold you for ever suggesting any such thing. Here is your quote, coming from [7] above.
Either undirected evolution is true, or the designer has made it appear, overwhelmingly, to be true. Either way, you you have to ignore the evidence — all 38 decimal places’ worth — to conclude that ID is correct.
For those of you not following, mereologist has cited resources that argue random design is the null hypothesis of the common descent test. IOW, if there are patterns amongst the species then they are only explained by common descent. The stronger the pattern, the stronger the evidence for common descent. You see god would never use such patterns, as evolutionists have repeatedly told us. mereologist summarizes the idea with the above quote. The only way to conclude for design, given such strong patterns, is to "ignore" the pattern. For the pattern makes undirected evolution appear to be overwhelmingly true. Of course the only way any evidence can make a theory appear to be true is if there are no other explanations for the evidence. Hence the only alternative the evolutionist can conceive of, to his theory, is the "deceptive designer" hypothesis, who made it look like evolution. This, again, is the "if-and-only-if" reasoning of evolution (not of science). That reasoning assumes full knowledge of the alternatives. The metaphysics run deep. That said, most would agree that the argument is pretty good if it were actually the case that evolution required the observed pattern, and otherwise was a compelling theory. If natural processes is a no-brainer explanation, then why complicate matters. But of course that is not the case here. The power of the argument has always been in its assignment of a low probability to divine creation or design, as the Sober paper helps to point out. The evolutionary argument, from Kant, Darwin and beyond was never motivated by a strong knowledge of how natural processes would obviously bring about what we observe. If you study the evolution genre, you'll see a consistent thread of mere accommodation on evolution, whereas the design explanation is disallowed. "We can explain that, but under divine creation it makes no sense," is the consistent refrain. You can see the evidential problems for evolution again and again. In this case, there are all kinds of outliers that evolution does not explain (beyond unfounded speculation about a universal tool kit, or some such). And furthermore, evolution does not require the patterns we observe (even if the plethora of contradictions were not there). Evolutionists have all sorts of explanatory devices to accommodate a wide range of outcomes -- including the supposed null hypothesis, random design. Indeed, today some evolutionists are now giving up on trying to use the evolutionary tree paradigm. And yet evolutionists such as mereologist keep telling us that the pattern can only be explained by evolution, or a designer who made it look just like evolution.Cornelius Hunter_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PST}

Phinehas, It's not just you, 'cause I see it too.tribune7_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PST}

Cornelius, First, thanks for the response.
But isn’t this contrived? Do you know of any cosmologist who actually has made that argument?
I have to concede that I don't know of any cosmologists who've used this argument, but it seems to me the premise is implicitly invoked, whether or not anyone says it out loud. Furthermore, I've had discussions with Christians who fall into the "appearance of age" camp; they will readily admit the universe appears to be quite old, but they believe that in reality, Creation occurred just a few thousand years ago. They would not accept the logic leading from Hubble's Law to the Big Bang. So I think there is an issue here. For whatever reason, the religious premises of modern cosmology are just not discussed much.
They don’t need to because the Big Bang is a quite reasonable inference from the data.
Perhaps so, provided we assume God did not create those patterns in the data suggestive of the Big Bang for some other reason.herb_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PST}

Herb:
Based on my experience here, I would say many (perhaps a majority) of IDers accept the Big Bang Theory. I’m skeptical of it myself. One of the most important (alleged) pieces of evidence for the Big Bang is Hubble’s Law, which describes a particular pattern we observe in nature. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this reasoning rely on a religious premise, namely that God would not have arranged our universe to satisfy Hubble’s Law arbitrarily?
But isn't this contrived? Do you know of any cosmologist who actually has made that argument? They don't need to because the Big Bang is a quite reasonable inference from the data. In the case of evolution, the religious and philosophical arguments were the motivators long before Darwin. Darwin, like most folks, were influenced by those traditions, and they continue to justify evolution today. There are substantial evidential problems but the theory is believed to be a fact, as much as gravity is a fact, as a consequence of those religious and philosophical arguments. That is a very different situation than the Big Bang.
Do you believe that falsifiability is actually even required of a good scientific theory?
No, but I can only deal with so many fallacies at a time.Cornelius Hunter_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PST}

Joseph, Don't call people chumps.Clive Hayden_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PST}

"Mapou" (#25) wrote: "We must tear a hideous and unsafe building down its foundations before we can start a rebuild. We need a clean slate, so to speak. How far down do you want to go? Some of us like our clean water and safe plentiful food and long lifetimes and low infant mortality rates and technological toys. Do electricity and computers and books appear on your "clean slate"?PaulBurnett_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PST}

Cornelius, Your bitterness is palpable, but it doesn't help your case. If you want to persuade readers, you need to advance a rational argument and support it with evidence. My first question was this:
1. What religious assumptions was I making in evaluating the phylogenetic evidence?
In response, you go on for a couple of paragraphs about how angwy "they" (dose wascally evowutionists, presumably) make you:
I assumed you were an evolutionist, and a well informed one. Folks, you gotta love this. They’ll hunt and peck for anything they can call religious in ID, a theory that claims one can infer design from the evidence. And they’ll use false rhetorical canards like “ID creationism.” But all the while, they argue that God would not have created this world and they’ll be as shocked as Lt. Renault when you point out there could possibly be any religion in their argument. “What are you talking about?” they ask.
Then, you focus in on David Penny:
mereologist, what do you seriously think Penny means when he concludes that evolution is confirmed because “independent origin” can be rejected due to the presence of a pattern. It is the same argument that evolutionists use over and over, and have been using for centuries. Do you really not see the metaphysics here?
Finally, you get around to answering my question, but you attribute a position to me that I have never taken:
What scientific experiment did you do to learn that the only alternative to common descent is random design?
Cornelius, where have I ever stated that the only alternative to common descent is "random design"? Quote and link, please. My second question was:
2. Why are they [my assumptions] invalid?
Your reply:
I didn’t say it was invalid, I said it was valid.
If you don't think my assumptions are invalid, then what are you complaining about? My third question:
3. What assumptions would you replace them with in order to produce a falsifiable designer hypothesis?
In response, you launch into another tirade:
Why is it that evolutionists are suddenly the falsification police when it comes to opposing ideas? If evolutionists were genuinely concerned with falsifying ideas then they wouldn’t be evolutionists. But of course evolution cannot be false, so it is a moot point. Falsification only applies to opposing theories, not to evolution... Evolutionists want to talk about falsifying design. Fine, perhaps design is false. Folks should have that discussion, but evolutionists are not genuinely interested in falsification, in general. They are interested in falsification of opposing theories.
More fulmination about "them". I think you're wrong about "them", and you certainly haven't corroborated your accusations, but that's not the issue here. I am not "them". I, not they, am asking you what assumptions you would make in order to produce a falsifiable design hypothesis. You even acknowledge that the design hypothesis needs to be falsifiable:
The questions of how design can fit within science, how it can be tested and falsified, etc, are all good questions.
If so, then why do you refuse to answer my question? Are you able to offer us a falsifiable design hypothesis or not?mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PST}

Sorry, the first paragraph @45 should have shown up as a block quote.Phinehas_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PST}

@Seversky All any alien designer, other than a creator god, would have done is exploit that pre-existing plasticity. Please explain your "other than a creator god" exception in the above. Are you claiming that a creator God would not have exploited pre-existing plasticity? Or that it wouldn't have pre-existed if God created it? What if He exploited it later in the creative process? Is this noted exception a scientific or religious one?Phinehas_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PST}

Cornelius,
The questions of how design can fit within science, how it can be tested and falsified, etc, are all good questions.
Do you believe that falsifiability is actually even required of a good scientific theory? I wonder if we've just been sold a bale of goods on that one. I'd also like to hear your thoughts on my Hubble's Law question if you could spare a moment. It seems to me this critique of evolution you've raised likely can be extended to many other scientific fields.herb_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PST}

@tribune7 Well, of course Darwinism tries to explain everything, including baldness and big bazooms. Incidentally, I noticed the phrase, "It's important to keep in mind..." in the linked. Is it just me, or does that phrase tend to show up a lot in Darwinistic writings?Phinehas_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PST}

Mapou @ 32
Any claim that the theory of evolution is either complete or correct amounts to crackpottery and outright dishonesty, in my opinion. Is it not obvious that a complete and correct theory of the origin and evolution of life on earth will have to await a thorough functional understanding of the genome of one or more species?
No, it is not at all obvious that a complete understanding of a genome, human or otherwise, will reveal the handiwork of an extraterrestrial designer which is what you are implying. Neither is it at all obvious that, even if such evidence were uncovered, it would tell us anything about the origins of life. Unless such evidence were shown to be the hallmark of divine intervention it would not answer the origins question any better than evolution. What is obvious is that living things change over time, at least in part due to environmental influences. All any alien designer, other than a creator god, would have done is exploit that pre-existing plasticity. In essance, it would have done the same as human breeders or farmers or genetic engineers have been doing over the years, just with greater skill and sophistication based on greater knowledge. That is assuming an alien designer was involved at all. Agreed that anyone who claims that the theory of evolution is a complete and correct answer to life, the universe and everything is a crackpot or dishonest or both. But then so is anyone who tries to cast ID in the same mold.Seversky_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PST}

If the theory of evolution is scientific then tell me how we can test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" from a popualtion of bacteria that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents? You chumps keep harping on ID when it is obvious tat your position can't even muster a testable hypothesis.Joseph_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PST}

Darwinism does not (and cannot) address OOL issues Except when it does! We are taking about a hard-core Alice-in-Wonderland science here, remember.tribune7_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PST}

@Alex73
ID, at the moment, does not claim to possess a comprehensive historical explanation for the life on Earth. In this sense, when compared to Darwinism, ID is incomplete.
Darwinism also does not claim to possess a comprehensive historical explanation for the life on Earth. Darwinism does not (and cannot) address OOL issues, since its mechanism presupposes the existence of a replicating life form. In this sense, when compared to ID, Darwinism is incomplete.Phinehas_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PST}

I have seen a Jesus fish and a Darwin fish on the same car Now, THAT'S uppityness!!tribune7_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PST}

I have seen a Jesus fish and a Darwin fish on the same car.David Kellogg_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PST}

Irony, sarcasm, and uppityness is some folks idea of good, clean American fun. Nakashima-san, irony is putting a Darwin-fish on your car while claiming to be a follower of science :-)tribune7_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PST}

Lenoxus, you don't understand ID. When you say If the (something) can and does produce both diseases and immune systems with equal flair, you're channeling evolution. ID is designed objects have certain traits and life is designed because it has those traits. Show designed objects don't have the traits ID says they do -- patterns of a particular complexity for instance -- or show objects known not to be designed have the traits ID says they cannot have and you falsify ID. ID says nada about why.tribune7_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply