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

Mr Tribune7, Why would a Darwinian attack a belief in Jesus? Given the signigicant possible overlap between someone who accepts evolution in their mind and Jesus in their heart, I see no reason to read the display of a Darwin fish as an attack. Irony, sarcasm, and uppityness is some folks idea of good, clean American fun. I agree with you that only the most fringe elements of Christian and scientific cultures defy the reality of significant overlap of these two populations, and demand an enforced separation between them.Nakashima_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PST}

mereologist (7):
1. What religious assumptions was I making in evaluating the phylogenetic evidence?
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. 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? What scientific experiment did you do to learn that the only alternative to common descent is random design? None, of course. Science deals with "If, then", not "If-and-only-if, then". The latter is not science--it is your logic, the logic of evolution. "If-and-only-if common descent, then pattern". You have turned science into metaphysics, and you point the finger at ID for precisely what you are doing.
2. Why are they invalid?
I didn't say it was invalid, I said it was valid.
3. What assumptions would you replace them with in order to produce a falsifiable designer hypothesis?
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. There is no way one can conclude that evolution is a fact from the evidence. Evolution is loaded with false predictions, yet evolutionists absurdly insist their theory is a fact. That sort of metaphysical certainty, for such an unsupported idea, comes from religion, not science. Who do evolutionists think they're fooling? 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. The questions of how design can fit within science, how it can be tested and falsified, etc, are all good questions. But the discussion will be meaningless with people who have repeatedly demonstrated incredible bias and non scientific commitments. If they can't see the obvious problems with evolution, how in the world can we expect them to engage in a realistic critique of design?Cornelius Hunter_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PST}

Jtaylor:
Interesting. Seems like a lot of tearing down is needed in your opinion. But I’m not sure my you answered my question fully - what will be replaced by evolution, given again that ID does not provide a complete explanatory framework in of itself. I know what you want to demolish but I’m not clear what you want to build in its place - or do you not know yet?
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? Given the slow pace of progress in this field, this may take a long time. But then again, maybe the designers did leave us an explanation somewhere but we are not looking in the right places due to our self-imposed blinders. Assuming the designers were conducting some sort of experiment vis-a-vis humanity, I consider it rather likely. We must continue searching and never give up.Mapou_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PST}

Alex73: No comments, just a thank you for a thoughtful contribution to the larger conversation. Thanks! :) tribune7: "But when compared to Darwinism it is not wrong." Indeed — as a direct result of its incompleteness. There does not appear to be any possibility of ID ever being "wrong", because there's so much room for it to wiggle into the moment it is confronted in any one area. If the designer can and does produce both diseases and immune systems with equal flair, there's nothing to stop it from producing whatever forms we may find in the future, in any ecosystem, planet, or fossil strata.Lenoxus_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PST}

In this sense, when compared to Darwinism, ID is incomplete. Sure. But when compared to Darwinism it is not wrong :-) It is better to be incomplete than wrong, right?tribune7_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PST}

Religion drives science and it matters.
I think you should have a talk with Mr Kairosfocus. He has Lewontin quote you should know about.
I believe that is the whole point of the quote. Lewy wasn't driven by the evidence, but by a need to put away his God - and was willing to beleive absurdities in order to do it.Upright BiPed_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PST}

Dear All, Having followed the recent series of arguments on multiple threads between the ID and Darwinist folks I noticed that a certain question is usually dodged on the ID side, at least by many regulars. In the following I will try to summarize what I mean. The central issue, of course, is the origin of the information we find in biological systems. Darwinism approx. claims that virtually all biological information can be generated using chance and necessity, i.e. random mutation and natural selection. This claim also carries an explanation for the history of the life on Earth, where the simple systems evolve into more complex ones, although the exact pathways are debated. Contrary to this, ID claims that based on our present and best understanding of physical laws and natural processes the only plausible explanation for the presence of information in biological systems is an intelligent designer. Strictly speaking at this stage ID stops. 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. When Darwinists ask questions like: Who is the designer? and get no direct answers, then, sometimes maybe implicitly, they take advantage of this incompleteness. When someone from the ID camp accepts the common descent then he puts himself into a difficult to maintain position because common descent was invented to explain away the need for a designer. In effect it is equivalent to saying that in the history there is no evidence for ID, therefore the Darwinist camp already feels victorious. This inconsistency is regularly exploited by the evolutionists on this site. This is why many evolutionists would demand an acceptance of common descent from ID, and why several ID supporters do not want to go into this game. There are, of course, comprehensive systems of world history that incorporate ID. However, any direct answer to the questions regarding the role of the Designer in the past is either ridiculed (like the clumsy guy behind the common descent) or demonized, e.g. YEC. ID was concieved to show the observable design patterns in nature while avoiding the attacks and the virtual excommunication creationists and other dissenters receive from the Darwinist establishment. The arguments on ID are a very potent threat to the Darwinists, and obviously they are not fighting this battle on the issues where ID indeed has the full weight of the evidence. Instead, they divert the attacks to the areas where ID is incomplete, showing an apparent superiority of Darwinism in those areas without detailed discussions about their actual claims and the actual evidence supporting it. For a Darwinists it takes only a very little logical step to identify ID with creationism. First of all, creationism is a complete explanation and ID is a core element in it. In the Darwinist mind if theory is united with history also and they cannot separate the two. Second, creationism has already been ridiculed and almost completely marginalized, so they feel no need for further discussion. That is why evolutionists demand to know the personal convictions of an ID supporter: they know that there is no official ID natural history and if the ID proponent believes in creation then can switch to a more potent strategy of personal attacks. The solution is far from being obvious. ID seemingly cannot de-throne Darwinism without a historical explanation. On the other hand, the debate about the actual historical role of a designer is the core theme of religions, and even mentioning it is an abomination for the establishment. As far as the folks on UD are concerned, perhaps the best would be to focus on the core claims of ID, i.e. recogizing design in nature. A bit more openness about the lack of comprehensive, religion free ID-ist natural history would also help. Personally, I do not think that such history will ever be brought together, and I also think it is perfectly all right and scientific to accept that the world around us was created from information, by information, as some books have stated it long ago. Cheers, AlexAlex73_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PST}

Nakashima-san Something to ponder if MES is not held by some as a religion, why do certain people put Darwin fish on their cars? . . .Irony? Sarcasm? In your face uppityness? But why would they do that? Darwinism is supposed to be science -- objective, detached, following truth to where it leads with emotional entanglements and prejudices etc. Putting a Darwin-fish on a car is a political-religious statement. It's doubly strange since a Jesus-fish is neither directly nor automatically an anti-Darwinian statement. There are those who devoutly believe in the Resurrection, and certainly the teachings, of Jesus yet accept Darwinian evolution. Why would a Darwinian attack a belief in Jesus?tribune7_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PST}

Mapou @25 Interesting. Seems like a lot of tearing down is needed in your opinion. But I'm not sure my you answered my question fully - what will be replaced by evolution, given again that ID does not provide a complete explanatory framework in of itself. I know what you want to demolish but I'm not clear what you want to build in its place - or do you not know yet?JTaylor_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PST}

JTaylor:
And replaced with what exactly, especially given that ID is a less than complete paradigm?
First things first. 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.
Don’t you need to preserve some aspects of evolution? Even people like Behe believe that is necessary.
Nope. There is nothing to preserve. DE must be completely destroyed so that we can have a fresh clean start. Trying to preserve anything will only pollute the replacement. The evil of Darwinism is that it took something that has been known to farmers and hunters for tens of thousands of years (that living things evolve) and acts as if it invented it. Then it wraps this common knowledge around a monstrosity and accuses critics of disagreeing with the obvious. The Darwinists (I love this term because of its pejorative undertone, LOL) have highjacked and corrupted the term 'evolution' to the point where one can no longer use it in its normal meaning. Their time in the limelight will soon come to an end, in my opinion.Mapou_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST}

Interesting new study that speaks to this subject http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090701/sc_livescience/peopleunsureofbeliefsaremorecloseminded
the new review suggests we actively keep our blinders on when opposing views are nearby. The review is detailed this month in the journal Psychological Bulletin. Some more so than others ... Overall, the studies suggested people are about twice as likely to cherry-pick information that supports their own viewpoints than to consider an opposing idea. Nearly 70 percent cherry-picked compared to about 30 percent who ponder the other side. Close-minded individuals opted for information that went along with their views 75 percent of the time. "Close-minded people are very certain and dogmatic in their views, and generally believe that there is a single correct point of view," said study researcher Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "The implication is that you have a group of people who would only seek to confirm their points of view, resisting all evidence to the contrary via avoidance of exposure." And since even a slight breeze could flatten a house of cards, the researchers found people with little confidence in their own beliefs are less likely to expose themselves to contrary views compared with their confident counterparts.
Onlookers, reminds you of anybody?Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PST}

You know, whether or not the overall theory of evolution is true, and whether or not it was completely random, there is still the obvious problem that the neo-Darwinian theory cannot explain: the arrival of information. The information that is built into the universe cannot reasonably be explained by random processes. The very fact that proteins can be built at all and work in a specific manner is completely beyond the scope of neo-Darwinism to explain. Now whether or not there is actually much evidence for common descent being random, I will not argue over, but I will, as of now, take any arguments for such a case with a grain of salt. After all, neo-Darwinism seems to flounder when it comes to actually revealing present day evidence of macro-evolution, so the past cannot be interpreted as having happened via random variation and natural selection without making assumptions.Domoman_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PST}

Paul Burnett,
Basic orbital mechanics apparently precludes planetary systems with contra-rotating planets from lasting very long - they self-destruct in a relatively short time. (Planetary system software easily demonstrates this.)
Thanks---it looks like Kant even got his religious assumptions wrong!herb_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PST}

Mapou: "IEvolution, in my opinion, is crackpottery and fraud in high places. It is a flagrant abuse of authority and a sin against humanity. As such, it must be mercilessly torn down and trampled underfoot." 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.JTaylor_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PST}

Mr Tribune7, Something to ponder if MES is not held by some as a religion, why do certain people put Darwin fish on their cars? Irony? Sarcasm? In your face uppityness? Membership in the First Church of Charles, Darwin is pretty far down the list.Nakashima_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PST}

Religion drives science and it matters. I think you should have a talk with Mr Kairosfocus. He has Lewontin quote you should know about.Nakashima_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PST}

herb (#14) asked: "...is there anything we can conclude from the observation that all the planets revolve around the sun in the same direction..." Basic orbital mechanics apparently precludes planetary systems with contra-rotating planets from lasting very long - they self-destruct in a relatively short time. (Planetary system software easily demonstrates this.)PaulBurnett_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PST}

Cornelius, Nicely written article. I don't think that Pauli's 'not even wrong' characterization does evolution justice. 'Intentionally wrong', 'deviously wrong' or 'boneheadedly wrong' to the point of silliness also come to mind. Evolution, in my opinion, is crackpottery and fraud in high places. It is a flagrant abuse of authority and a sin against humanity. As such, it must be mercilessly torn down and trampled underfoot. LOL. Every so often, I need to vent my rebellious bile. Thanks.Mapou_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PST}

Cornelius, One addition to my post #14: 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?herb_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PST}

mereologist quotes Cornelius Hunter from another thread:
mereologist, you’re giving a classic example of the religion in evolution, and its subtlety.
Cornelius, you keep accusing evolutionists of using religious assumptions, but the evidence for your assertion if often lacking. Out of Sober, Gould, Darwin and mereologist, I can only see that Gould actually did this. Can I second mereologist's request for you to state what religious assumptions are being made? (My apologies to mereologist in case you mind being grouped with the people I mentioned above). Also, I forgot to mention in my post #8 that it was directed at Cornelius. As an aside, I quite like the quote from Darwin I presented there. I think it nicely sums up why ID can't make any predictions.Hoki_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PST}

Cornelius, I've always had an interest in astronomy, so I especially enjoyed this post. From your quote of Kant:
It is clear that there is no reason why the celestial bodies must organize their orbits in one single direction.
BTW, I've noticed it's relatively easy to pick out the religious premises of these evolutionists---just look for occurrences of the phrase "It is clear that ____". LOL On a more serious note, is there anything we can conclude from the observation that all the planets revolve around the sun in the same direction, assuming no religious premises? As a biophysicist, do you occasionally encounter situations in which you need to find an explanation for a pattern you find in nature? Perhaps you could illustrate using examples from your own research. If so, please translate into language accessible to the layperson! :Dherb_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PST}

Borne (#2): "ID was always the number one horse in the race, the favored steed. Darwinism came in millennia later..." Why don't you differentiate between the "intelligent design" of the Greeks and medieval "intelligent design" and the "intelligent design" of Paley et al - and the post-1987 US Supreme Court Aguillard decision "intelligent design" of the Wedge Document? They are different things entirely.PaulBurnett_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PST}

Borne: "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." It's honestly and sincerely hard to see evidence for this. The main journal of ID, ISCID, has not published since 2005. Yes, there are a few papers that have been written, but also many (all?) have been quite convincingly refuted. The only research institute I know of associated with ID, the Biologic Institute has produced a few esoteric papers and there does not seem evidence yet of any lab-based experiments (there've been only 4 relatively short updates on their web since Dec 2008, and one of those was an April 1st spoof). Perhaps if you measure ID in terms of press releases and books and even popular support - on that basis it might be doing quite well. But as a "full fledged empircally based science" - by any measure, I don't see it at all. Am I missing something?JTaylor_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PST}

A quick summary and rebuttal to Dr. Hunter from a humble student. . . You mention that: “There are so many contradictions and absurdities in this evolutionary argument it is hard to know where to begin.” You then follow with a list of egregious examples. 1.) Speculative, untestable, and downright silly explanations are routinely contemplated. 2.) There certainly is a pattern of sorts, and so evolutionists take this as profound support for their theory, even when the data are contradictory, under evolution. 3.) I don’t understand your third point 4.) Evolutionists make all kinds of erroneous claims about how astronomically well the data fit their theory. 5.) Huhhh!? My rebuttal: 1.) In science speculation is encouraged, so long as it can be tested. Many silly explanations are contemplated so long as they can be tested. This is FINE. Another word for the speculation you describe is called forming a hypothesis. A smart scientist doesn’t just speculate randomly, they use a theory to help them target their wacky ideas. 2.) Data is often seemingly contradictory. Here a useful theory does wondrous things for a smart scientist. For example Gould describes the seemingly crazy life of a gnat. It emerges from mom and just dies!! What a waste. This contradicts all of evolution. But alas, no, it doesn’t. Because a smart scientists used a useful theory (evolution) and made some wild speculations (formed a hypothesis) to figure out that the male gnat that emerged from mom had already served its function. 3.) No need to respond. 4.) You say this but offer no support. So I’ll let that rest for now. 5.) No need to respond. Thanks for listening.90DegreeAngel_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PST}

Hoki,
Darwin wasn’t making a religious argument - he just realised that there was no scientific means of evaluating the “god hypothesis”.
Well played sir! I keep asking for a scientific definition of ID, but I'm always directed to books. I'll freely admit that I'm not the most learned of ToE supporters, but I can give a paragraph TRYING to explain how it works, and how it can make predictions etc. In this same manner, it appears ID supporters are EVEN LESS knowledgeable of ID than I am of ToE. If I 'religiously believe' ToE through my ignorance of the intricacies, then how much more so is ID supporters through their even greater ignorance of ID. Love you all!Nnoel_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PST}

mereologist, I'm afraid that behaviour is par for the course around these parts. It seems that if we create a web site that simply says "Evolution is true" we can link to it and that proves whatever point is in question. As that's what happens often here. "Here's a link that answers all your objections, question answered and now can be ignored".Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PST}

Strange, but I interpreted the Darwin quote you gave differently from you. I think Darwin did as well. A couple of paragraphs earlier in his book he said:
Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes. The hopelessness of the attempt has been expressly admitted by Owen in his most interesting work on the "Nature of Limbs." On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation.
I.e. his argument is not that god would NOT do it a certain way, but rather that he could (given creation) have done it that way because he liked it, although he certainly could have done it any other way as well. Darwin wasn't making a religious argument - he just realised that there was no scientific means of evaluating the "god hypothesis".Hoki_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PST}

Cornelius, In an earlier thread we were discussing the stunning congruence between phylogenetic trees derived from morphological and molecular data. I commented:
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. It’s surprising to me that so few ID supporters recognize the magnitude of the problem. When ID critics talk about “overwhelming evidence”, they aren’t kidding!
You responded:
mereologist, you’re giving a classic example of the religion in evolution, and its subtlety.
I then posed a challenge:
Finally, since you say that I am “giving a classic example of the religion in evolution”, let’s get specific. Tell me what religion assumptions you think I am making, why they are invalid, and what assumptions you would replace them with in order to produce a falsifiable designer hypothesis.
You directed me to this new post for answers. However, I don't see answers to the specific questions I raised: 1. What religious assumptions was I making in evaluating the phylogenetic evidence? 2. Why are they invalid? 3. What assumptions would you replace them with in order to produce a falsifiable designer hypothesis?mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PST}

Bourne,
The Darwinian “horse” has already broken more than just a leg; it’s neck has been broken by the information sciences and the poor animal should be mercifully put out of its misery.
Care to make a prediction as to when Darwinism will be replaced, as if it's already almost dead it can't be long? And what will it be replaced with?Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PST}

Borne,
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.

As far as other options go, there are only two others I’m aware of - panspermia (which is IDist in nature) and intelligent nature - which is basically a godless pantheism.
Well you see I was talking about SCIENTIFIC theories, otherwise you missed the Flying Spagethhi Monster, oh and the Beginningless Beginnings of eastern philosophy. These are all well and good but they are not science.
No one seriously thinks nature is itself intelligent or itself God and if there are some who do (Hoyle and Denton hinted at the intelligent nature hypothesis) they certainly have no basis for it other than the rejection of a real intelligence.
Excuse ME! but I do believe that excatly! 'itself intelligent' is the words I'd use, but I realise I have to qualify them so you may understand me better... I _believe_ that we are as if all organs in one body, the insects play a role (just like your liver does) and humans play a role (perhaps like your brain does), but your liver fighting your kidneys would be absurd. I believe we are all one, and the WHOLE is directing itself. I do honestly expect you to completely misunderstand me, but thats ok :) Also, all this I believe, but I would not dream of calling it science! I leave science to the professionals. tribune7,
Something to ponder if MES is not held by some as a religion, why do certain people put Darwin fish on their cars?
To show support for SCIENCE, oh great science!, bring forth my beloved McDonald's Happy meal and the wonder of my swift four wheeled chariot! Love you all!Nnoel_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply