Saturday Fun: Adapa’s DDS on Display

_{Barry Arrington
November 22, 2014

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Sometimes an example of Darwinist Derangement Syndrome (see UD’s glossary) is just too delicious to allow it to languish deep in a comment thread. Here’s an exchange between Adapa and WJM in the Way Forward thread:

First, Adapa claims that science has “conclusively demonstrated” that unguided evolution can produce observed diversity of life:

Adapa @99:

. . . science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today . . .

@ 587 William J Murray disagrees and says unless a P(T|H) calculation can be made for a naturally occurring biological phenomenon “evolution cannot be vetted as ‘unguided.’”

@ 590 Adapa then says it is “idiotic” to demand that science prove that unguided forces are sufficent:

This bit of idiocy seems to be WJM’s latest favorite – the demand that science prove evolution isn’t guided.

And that it is dumb to ask science to prove a negative:

Why an armchair philosopher would be dumb enough to demand science prove a negative is anyone’s guess.

But, in the first quote, that’s exactly what Adapa claims science has done – proven the very negative he claims is stupid and dumb to expect science to do! Adapa claims science has proven that evolution is unguided, and when WJM asked him to show him where, Adapa says that it is stupid and dumb to expect science to prove evolution is unguided!!

Comments

William J Murray Apparently, you are now saying that you do not know of any links or pertinent quotes that would be of any significant help to you in making your case here A link to websites with the evidence was provided. Serial liar WJM continues to perjure himself. Pathetic.Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Adapa said:
A demand to to see THE piece of evidence that conclusively demonstrates evolution is as stupid as demanding the negative “prove evolution is unguided.”
Except, to my knowledge, nobody asked for either. I simply asked you to support your assertion with some links and pertinent quotes. Apparently, you are now saying that you do not know of any links or pertinent quotes that would be of any significant help to you in making your case here. Well, I suppose "I can't provide any support for my assertion and you're stupid for asking me to" is better than keith's "I don't have to support my assertion and you're stupid for asking me to." But only marginally. Unfortunately, being unwilling or unable to support your assertion leaves it as nothing more than a bald, unsupported assertion as far as this debate is concerned.William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Axel You mean a kind of scatter-gun kind of proof, Adapa? No, I mean the strength of million of pieces of consilient evidence from dozens of independent sciences that all point to the same conclusion. Way too much to even properly summarize on this tiny board. A demand to to see THE piece of evidence that conclusively demonstrates evolution is as stupid as demanding the negative "prove evolution is unguided."Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Adapa said:
The first, to show evolutionary processes can produce the observed complexity in life we see – has been met. There’s not “one special piece or one quote” of evidence for this that WJM demands, it’s the sum total of all the work done and evidence known from all the life sciences. The link I gave him provided numerous web sites with good summaries of the evidence.
This appears to be a classic literature/link bluff. Surely Adapa (or some Darwinist) can offer a couple of reference and quotes? I'm just specifically looking for the method science utilizes to determine natural/random forces/processes sufficient? How do they do it? Obviously, the problem Adapa has here is that if science indeed has the capacity to quantify natural and random forces/processes as sufficient without intelligent agency, then it must also be able to quantify where intelligent forces/processes would be necessary. There is no way to have one without the other - it's logically impossible. That would mean that ID theory is legitimate scientific undertaking. You cannot scientifically tell where ID is not required unless you can also tell where it is required.
His second challenge is his same stupid demand that we prove evolutionary processes aren’t guided.
Please show me where I made this challenge?William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

You mean a kind of scatter-gun kind of proof, Adapa? To employ a metaphor from painting, a kind of 'impressionistic' sort of proof? It's in there somewhere?Axel_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

In response to 41 Shrugs shoulders, and puts the popcorn back in the cupboard (WJM, you sure do have patience) :)PeterJ_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

PeterJ Now can we please just move on and see if someone can answer WJM’s challenge? He made two challenges. The first, to show evolutionary processes can produce the observed complexity in life we see - has been met. There's not "one special piece or one quote" of evidence for this that WJM demands, it's the sum total of all the work done and evidence known from all the life sciences. The link I gave him provided numerous web sites with good summaries of the evidence. His second challenge is his same stupid demand that we prove evolutionary processes aren't guided. It's an illogical, impossible to meet demand so it gets ignored. What else do you want to talk about?Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Learned hand, Can you direct me to where science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today? Please note: I’m specifically only interested in how the processes, selection system and variations were vetted as actually being “natural” and “random” in nature wrt their being a sufficient explanation for biodiversity features. IOW, how did science determine that natural and random forces were sufficient?William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

It has been conclusively demonstrated that gravity and deterministic effects account for the orbit of planets. But it has not been conclusively proven that invisible angels aren’t pushing the planets in orbits that merely appear to be the result of natural forces.
Nobody is asking that the angels be disproven, only that the natural forces be shown sufficient.William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Adapa, You said, "science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today" As opposed to, "evolution is guided" I get that. And I'm sure most everyone else on here get's it too. Now can we please just move on and see if someone can answer WJM's challenge? ThanksPeterJ_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

William J Murray I see adapa is now choosing to avoid the actual debate “Adapa: Science has conclusive demonstrated that evolution is unguided” I don't debate with proven liars. Retract your blatant lie now.Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

congregate, seversky, and all interested Darwinists: This is the actual quote from Adapa:
science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today
I have asked Adapa repeatedly, now I ask you (if you wish to respond, since Adapa seems to have abandoned the meat of the debate): Can you direct me to where science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today? Please note: I'm specifically only interested in how the processes and variations were vetted as actually being "natural" and "random" in nature.William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

It would be a hard sell to claim that something has been conclusively demonstrated without it being tested to some degree or to imply some degree of “proven” in the scientific sense.
It has been conclusively demonstrated that gravity and deterministic effects account for the orbit of planets. But it has not been conclusively proven that invisible angels aren't pushing the planets in orbits that merely appear to be the result of natural forces.Learned Hand_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

I see adapa is now choosing to avoid the actual debate in favor of focusing on what he believes to be a lie on my part, even though I've already explained the misunderstanding, offered a suitable rephrasing, and apologized for the confusion.William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Seversky said:
Sufficient to account for” does not mean the same as “proven”, not even in the older sense of ‘tested’.
It would be a hard sell to claim that something has been conclusively demonstrated without it being tested to some degree or to imply some degree of "proven" in the scientific sense. "Conclusively demonstrated is pretty strong language - you apparently forgot to attach that to "sufficient".
The claim that observed natural processes have been shown to stand on their own as a sufficient explanation for the observed variety of life does not rule out the possibility of an intelligent agent intervening at one or many points and directing those processes towards a specific end.
First, nobody cares about "ruling out" intelligent intervention. That is nothing but Adapa's misunderstanding. Second, it does rule out that such designed intervention is necessary to the explanation. Also, we should unpack the claim that "natural (and random) processes have been observed to do X"; assuming those processes are natural/random and conclusively demonstrating them to be natural/random are two different things. One doesn't "observe" natural, artificial or random processes; one infers they are natural, artificial or random based on their behavior and effects. Because something appears to be "natural" doesn't mean that it is; because something seems random doesn't mean that it is; because something looks artificial doesn't mean that it is. Assuming that the forces and processes one is observing as they produce effect X can be rightfully characterized as "natural" and "random" is not the same as conclusively demonstrating that they are, in fact, "natural" and "random". One can only vet such characteristics by examining how things behave and what patterns they produce. Furthermore, IF biodiversity outcomes or features could be conclusively demonstrated to be sufficiently accounted for by unguided forces and processes, that would necessarily mean that there is some metric or method by which the necessity of intelligent guidance in attaining that feature could also be determined. It would be the same metric or method. Only, Darwinists claim there is no method or metric that can be used to conclusively demonstrate that intelligent guidance was necessary to generate a feature; that necessarily means there is no metric or method that can be used to conclusively demonstrate the converse - that it was not necessary.
In this specific case, as Adapa has argued, the proposition that “science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today” is only the claim that such an explanation is adequate or sufficient to account for biological diversity on it own.
I'm asking him to direct me to where the adequateness of the unguided explanation has been scientifically, conclusively demonstrated, as he explicitly asserted it was.
It is a conditional claim which is not the same as the categorical assertion that unguided natural processes and only unguided natural processes can possibly account for biological diversity.
Nobody said he made such a claim. All he has been asked to do is specifically support the exact claim he actually made.William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

So how could ID theory be falsified? And if it can’t be falsified, is it science?
ID can not be falsified just as naturalistic evolution can not be falsified. It can be discredited just as naturalistic evolution or naturalistic origin of life or the naturalistic origin of the universe can be discredited.jerry_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

"Have the "observed evolutionary processes” been exhaustively proven to be independent of unobserved evolutionary processes?" Beautiful. You ask Adapa to rule out (through empirical observations) processes that cannot be observed. Gotcha!REC_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

William J Murray Still waiting for you to retract this blatant lie. I’ve already explained that this was a paraphrasing You paraphrasing was a blatant lie. "Adapa: Science has conclusive demonstrated that evolution is unguided" Retract your blatant lie now.Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Still waiting for you to retract this blatant lie.
I've already explained that this was a paraphrasing that you've apparently misunderstood due to your lack of understanding about the ID position. I've already re-formed the paraphrasing to account for your lack of ID understanding and apologised for the confusion. I'm not sure what else I can do for you on this matter. You have stated that science has conclusively demonstrated unguided forces sufficient to generate biological diversity. Correct? When I ask you where this was conclusively demonstrated, you have told me I'm stupid for asking this. Correct? You then say that when I ask you to support that assertion, I've asked science to "prove a negative", but all I've done is explicitly ask you to support exactly what you have asserted - that unguided forces are sufficient to explain biodiversity. I haven't asked you to prove that intelligent design was not involved. I've only asked you to support exactly what you asserted - that unguided forces have been scientifically, conclusively demonstrated sufficient. If that is asking science to prove a negative, then it must be you that has assumed an unprovable negative, because I'm only asking you to support exactly what you have asserted. Now, can you support exactly what you have asserted, or not?William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Barry at 2- I did not "wrench Adapa's comment out of context." I reacted to it as it was quoted in your OP. If it was wrenched out of any necessary context, you are the one who did it.congregate_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

"Sufficient to account for" does not mean the same as "proven", not even in the older sense of 'tested'. The claim that observed natural processes have been shown to stand on their own as a sufficient explanation for the observed variety of life does not rule out the possibility of an intelligent agent intervening at one or many points and directing those processes towards a specific end. It's just that the intelligent agent is not necessary. If the intelligent agent were not there, the natural processes would just go their own way, the course they follow being shaped by natural environmental influences. In this specific case, as Adapa has argued, the proposition that "science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today" is only the claim that such an explanation is adequate or sufficient to account for biological diversity on it own. It is a conditional claim which is not the same as the categorical assertion that unguided natural processes and only unguided natural processes can possibly account for biological diversity.Seversky_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Vishnu So in the other thread, you were not making a claim that science has not demonstrated those assertions conclusively? Me describing evolutionary processes as unguided and claiming I said science has conclusive demonstrated they are unguided are still two very different things. I though you were smarter than to get the two confused. Maybe I overestimated you.Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

William J Murray Adapa: Science has conclusive demonstrated that evolution is unguided</i Still waiting for you to retract this blatant lie.Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.
ID claims to provide a method by which design in the natural world can be detected. If that method turns out to be useless, ID fails as a theory. I don't find it a stretch to say that would mean ID theory has been falsified. So how could ID theory be falsified? And if it can't be falsified, is it science? http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/#questionsAboutIntelligentDesignMung_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Adapta: I said it’s conclusively demonstrated that observed evolutionary processes can account for the variety in biological life, which they can. Wait a minute! Have you described for us what you mean by "observed evolutionary processes"? Have the"observed evolutionary processes" been exhaustively proven to be independent of unobserved evolutionary processes? Please point us to that revolutionary work if it exists. By the way you seemed to back off from my (if I may) thoughtful post #113 at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-circularity-of-the-design-inference/#comment-529161 Just thought I would give you another chance to acknowledge and thank me for edifying for you that discontinuity you were anxious to learn about early in that thread. We're all gentlemen here right? Unless one of us is in a tar baby wrestling match.groovamos_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Demonstration of unguided processes producing complex designs would falsify Intelligent Design theory.
No it would not do that. It would make it less likely as a hypothesis for evolution but it would not falsify it. There is a large population that believe that God created the universe (ID) but that all else followed from natural processes set up at the beginning. There is also a large contingent who only point to certain areas for an intelligent input.jerry_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

BA #4 -- sorry I misread your original quote. Thanks.Silver Asiatic_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Adapa:I never said or implied that science had conclusively demonstrated evolution is unguided. I said it’s conclusively demonstrated that observed evolutionary processes can account for the variety in biological life, which they can.
Here and Here you said:
The process itself is unguided just like in the real world.

All evolution requires is imperfect self-replicators competing for resources and the unguided processes take over from there.
So in the other thread, you were not making a claim that science has not demonstrated those assertions conclusively?Vishnu_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

congregate: "I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle..." Indeed, see WJM @ 13. I hope it's not too convoluted for you. congregate: "This is the error Joe always makes, when he says that providing evidence of some unguided process creating CSI would disprove the existence of an intelligent designer." Demonstration of unguided processes producing complex designs would falsify Intelligent Design theory. It would not all of a sudden cause all intelligent designers to cease to exist. That's just silly.Mung_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

The following is the basis for ID and I have posted it several times
This is a very long post but gets at the heart of what ID is and at those who object to it. How can you refute a design inference other than by showing that the result could be achieved through natural processes? This is a series of comments I made several years to go to clarify just what ID is. This is nothing new but apparently must be told continually. It comes from a thread over 5 years ago: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-evolution-the-spin-machine-in-top-gear/#comment-318723 The following was a comment by an Anti-ID commenter
“I wonder how many times this will need to be repeated? The above is a test of the alternative theory, not of ID. It would not follow from the failure of the alternative that ID is correct. Both can be wrong. The entire population of U.D., USA seems to be particularly dense on this point.”
To which I responded This is a rather stupid statement and indicates a lack of understanding of the issues. My reply to this is rather long so if no one wants to read it, I understand because I am mainly clarifying my thoughts by writing this. I will make this reply in three rather long comments and if anyone wants to comment, feel free. There are two choices for any phenomenon, both of them rather broad. One is that certain things happened naturally, the mechanism to be discovered. The second is that these things were produced through intelligent input. And by the way a lot of what may be considered natural, could be the result of a designed process allowed to proceed naturally. For some simple examples, pearl farmers seed their shell fish with an irritant and the let nature do the rest and beavers dam the course of a river and the ensuing wetlands provide an enhanced habitat for the beavers and other animals and plants.. But in general it is mainly one or the other but what appears to be natural could also be great design. There are no other choices unless you want to proffer some. As I said these are rather broad categories. It is almost impossible to eliminate the intelligent input option. It is not a theory such as gravity, the Standard Model, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Kinetic theory of Gases, Information theory or Plate Tectonics etc yet people keep on asking for some hypotheses and predictions. ID is simply that intelligence is an input at some time in the history of being, the universe, the world, life etc. Some hypothesize that it was in the design of the universe itself and the initial conditions and subsequent boundary conditions of the Big Bang were such fantastic design that it enables natural processes to produce everything we see including this very rare planet, the origin of life and the evolutionary progression through subsequent natural consequences. Some hypothesize that the input was ongoing and there were various events that reflect an intelligent input. This input could have been minimal and then natural processes were allowed to do the rest. To disprove an intelligent input, one has to show natural processes at every turn. It is a difficult job. All ID has to do is show that naturalistic processes fail at some point and that an intelligent input is more reasonable. They only need one point. That is the nature of the discussion. It seems unfair to some who whine that ID is unfalsifiable. But that is it. Because ID is more of a logic process and not a specific scientific theory it does not have the usual domain of interest such as plate tectonics, cosmology or even evolution. After all an intelligence could create life or modify a genome to guide life maybe only once and that is not the making of some theory. To create life or modify it is not too hard to understand as it appears to be within human capability in the near future. Thus, the possibility of an intelligence creating and modifying life is not an issue. It is whether it ever happened or not that is at issue. If we had a video camera at the time of an intelligent input, we could settle it once and for all but such an event does not exist and we have had people here and at other places demanding such evidence. Short of this something else has to be done. Part 2 – We have observed a lot of phenomena through out history that could possibly be explained by an intelligent input and the challenge for science is to verify if there may be a natural cause for each. For most of history it was thought that God was personally responsible for most, much, or a lot of these phenomena. From Zeus throwing lightning bolts in anger and the various gods determining the fates of various personalities such as Odysseus to Newton’s hypothesis that God sent comets to stabilize the orbits of the planets. Newton’s laws and then LaPlace’s theory of the heavens seemed to show that all was under control of natural laws. So it was assumed from then on by many that everything must be under control of natural laws. We have no need for Zeus and lightning bolts and for comets stabilizing orbits. And we get the conventional wisdom that everything is due to natural laws and chance and it is only a matter of time before science gets around to explaining it. And science has a good track record. But what is glaringly obvious is that science has some spectacular failures in one particular area. So while science continues to chalk up win after win there seems to be one opponent which gets the better of it every time. Consequently, one has to reevaluate the conventional wisdom and maybe consider an alternative to natural processes. ID only exists because science loses most of the time to the heavy weights in this one area, namely life. It does wonderfully well in some important areas of life, specifically medicine, food production and genetics but it is badly outperformed by the problems in the areas of macro evolution and origin of life. Why this failure here? Is there an alternative to naturalistic processes in these two domains. Is intelligence an explanation? Hence, every time science fails in these areas it adds credence to the alternative. At this moment in the realm of logic and reason both alternatives exist. Which is more feasible? Every time we see the failure of one alternative it raises the possibility of the other. After all it is possible. We just cannot identify the intelligence. So each failure for a natural pathway raises the probability of the alternative, namely an intelligent input. And the rationale for an intelligent input has been bolstered by the knowledge that what underlies life is different from every other area of nature, specifically information. Information is not present in any other area of nature except life. Part 3 – Now this game of supporting the ID premise is played two ways and both use the tools of science, logic and reason. One shows that time after time that certain naturalistic processes have failed. The second way is to show why naturalistic processes have failed. Both use science and point to the inadequacy of natural processes. There is a third way which one group says must be present before an intelligent input can be accepted and that is evidence for the specific event where there was an input of intelligence. The first way above is to challenge each natural explanation for the phenomenon as flawed and show why the explanation could not have possibly happened. This is the frequent challenges to Darwinian macro evolution we have seen not only by the ID people but also by the anti ID people as well as the creationists. It is represented here on this site and in the academic and popular literature by the lack of any coherent demonstration that Darwinian macro evolution ever took place. Now macro evolution did take place and no one is denying that here but there is no evidence for it happening by Darwinian processes or any other known natural processes. All the processes of science are brought to bear in this examination so to declare it non scientific is ludicrous. The second way is to use observations of the world and then to complement these observations with some form of analysis, mainly probability, and some understanding of natural processes to illustrate why the failure of naturalistic processes is not only reasonable but to be expected. To this end a couple of different approaches are in their infancy but have showed some reasonable results. One is being developed by Behe and is showing that there does not exist the probabilistic resources to create the changes needed in macro evolution. Behe’s two books, Darwin’s Black Box and Edge of Evolution, are aimed at this objective. Namely, that life is extremely complicated and naturalistic processes seem unable to climb the hurdles necessary to produce macro evolution. Another is being done by Dembski and others trying to show something similar using mathematical and probabilistic approaches to show that reaching the complexity necessary for life is beyond the probabilistic resources of the universe. So in lots of way the two approaches are similar but using different methodologies to attack the same problem. To argue that this is not science is also ludicrous. One may argue that the techniques by these scientists are flawed or that the interpretation of the results are invalid but to say that they are not using science is absurd. Now the naturalists respond with their challenges. The best challenge would always be to show that the phenomena probably arose by naturalistic means but this is rarely done because there seems to be little evidence supporting any particular mechanism. The main challenge is to use something similar to what I described above as the first approach, namely that the intelligent input scenario is flawed just as ID people point out that each naturalistic input is flawed. The creator could not be omniscient, or no one would design such an imperfect system or make these childish mistakes etc. They also point to science’s track record in other areas and that the work on the problem is just getting started etc. So we have two broad approaches and any evidence in one camp reduces the likelihood of the other. It is one that won’t be solved any time soon but to assume your side is right a priori is ridiculous. ID is the more reasonable side as far as I can see. They are willing to accept naturalistic explanations when it is demonstrated but are not willing to accept an arbitrary demand of absolute dismissiveness for intelligent inputs that is imposed by the naturalists. One side is flexible and reasonable while the other side is intransigent and unmoving. I added the following comments to these three comments in response to another inane challenge.
“And in my experience ID “considering” these issues consists of time in an armchair parasitically reinterpreting data obtained by others – in a way that, once again, generates no testable assertions and hence no further research. That isn’t science.”
The best term I can use for this attitude is “clueless.” When science takes on one more additional possible explanation, it does not mean it eliminates all the other explanations. Maybe we should speak in shorter sentences so you may be able to understand. ID does not eliminate anything that current science does. ID can do any experiment that current science does. ID can do additional experiments that current science might not do. ID can come to the same conclusions as current science does. ID can also come to some different conclusions than current science. ID will come to a naturalistic explanation in nearly all experiments. But in fact naturalistic explanations can be used to support intelligence based conclusions. ID will do some things differently than current science about its conclusions. For example, it will not make up any unsupported conclusions. It will not use the words “it evolved”, “it was selected”, “it was exapted”, “it emerged” to explain an unknown event or transition. ID will not use its imagination as evidence in science. Now that you understand some of the things that ID will add to science you may try some other non sequiturs to your array of arguments. But I suggest you try to understand instead. ID adds, it does not subtract. Your point of view subtracts and restricts and oppresses and misinforms. So please try an honest and logical argument. It is getting tiresome. No one is asking you to agree with an ID conclusion even if it is completely logical and well supported, but try to represent it reliably instead of distorting it. You might learn something. The anti-ID people are desperate to find some fault with ID that they misrepresent nearly everything and attribute some remarks by people as representing ID in total. It is a game of “gotcha.” But that is all they have. They have no positive support for what they believe
This is from 5 years ago and is essentially the same except for some minor edits. As an addendum, proof that a certain species arose naturally from a previous specious or proof on how a specific protein arose naturally does not invalidate ID. It only makes ID is a little less likely as the explanation for certain phenomenon.jerry_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply