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

From the linked post:
6. But is it not reasonable to test opposing ideas?
It's extremely reasonable. Please submit an opposing idea it is possible to test. (For example, that Earth life was in part designed by extraterrestrials who had limited capabilities.)
Can we not look for patterns as a means of rejecting the design hypothesis? Sure, but why do patterns refute design? Is there anyone (aside from the evolutionist) who says that a designer would not use patterns?
When evolutionists say this, they are in part trying to get a feel for what exactly this designer does tend to do that makes it do different from evolution. Of course a designer could choose to work only in common-descent-style patterns. The question is, what are the real limits to the designer's capabilities or intentions in creating life (limits of one would look just like limits of the other)? What are the physical or aesthetic limits that prevent the designer from forming a brand-spanking-new organism before our eyes, or from doing whatever else it wants? Until those limits are expressly stated, the theory remains untestable.
A far more significant test would be to show that evolution is compelling. If naturalistic processes do the job, then design is superfluous. But evolution repeatedly fails.
Sheesh with the hyperbole. Here's some hyperbole of my own: mutations occur. Death occurs. Resources are limited. Voila! By themselves they constitute an argument for evolution. Do they "wilt under scrutiny"? What about DNA and fossil evidence pointing to the common relatedness of life? Time and time again, ID has had to acknowledge the multitude of evidence for micro-evolution, yet continues to insist that there is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. If you mean "no evidence for the evolution of bat wings or other sufficiently complex strictures", or whatever, then just say it. But to deny that "evolution" (of some sort, maybe only the "micro" sort) is happening and has happened in the natural world is, well… have fun with that. "Evolution" includes everything that is "evolution". What would Cornelius Hunter be willing to concede evolution can do? Even if it turns out evolution can't produce certain structures we see today, that doesn't mean it's totally powerless. I can lift 40 pounds, but cannot lift a skyscraper. Am I therefore powerless or nonexistent? Much love!Lenoxus_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PST}

Excellent article Dr. Hunter! Something to ponder if MES is not held by some as a religion, why do certain people put Darwin fish on their cars?tribune7_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST}

Nnoel:
At the moment, evolution is the only horse in the race to understand our origins, and ID is attempting to join the race
Well right out of the gate you've got it wrong. ;-) ID was always the number one horse in the race, the favored steed. Darwinism came in millennia later as an attempt to remove God or gods from science altogether (see The Darwin Myth:life and lies of Charles Darwin). 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. 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. 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. It was never more accurate than that micro evolutionary adaptations can occur. The rest was always codswallop for the extremely gullible.Borne_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PST}

Your article states the assumption that if it didn't evolve, then 'God' must have done it. It is not a two horse race! At the moment, evolution is the only horse in the race to understand our origins, and ID is attempting to join the race (a bit of a crude analogy, but surely no one yet thinks ID is a fully fledged science), but as you can see, if ID is attempting to join, then there can just as easily be other options, just because no one has thought of other options, it does not mean if the horse running as evolution breaks a leg that horse ID automatically is entered in the race in it's place. It would still need to [pass some sort of criteria, I dont know horse racing that well, hehe] Anyway, please dont assume only two possible answers, I find it deceptive tactic to say the least, and one that should not be used. If I am wrong about more than just two options, please inform me why you can portray the situation as only a two horse race, and why you can dismiss other options just because no one has thought of them yet. I see ID as conitually attacking ToE as a means to support ID, but that is the same as insisting the horse NOT YET qualified to race should be entered when the horse IN the race breaks a leg. Love you!Nnoel_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply