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

Adapa, According to the ID position, if science can prove unguided forces sufficient for evolution producing the diversity of life, then science has proven that evolution is unguided. I realize doesn't understand this position of ID, so I apologize for any confusion (and did so in the other thread) and have: (1) explicitly stated that I am using paraphrasings so Adapa doesn't think I'm claiming to quote him where blockquotes are not being employed, and (2) have reworded the paraphrasings to be be more literal wrt your actual statements: Adapa: Science has conclusive demonstrated that unguided (natural & random forces) evolution can sufficiently explain the diversity of life. WJM: Where did science determine that unguided (natural & random forces) evolution was up to the task? Adapa: You stupid IDist, it’s idiotic to ask science to demonstrate that unguided (natural & random forces) evolution is up to the task of explaining the diversity of life! Adapa said:
Now he repeats the stupid demand that science prove a negative.
All I have done is ask him to support that which he explicitly claimed. Therefore, if I am asking him to scientifically support an unprovable negative, it was Adapa that assumed an unprovable negative in the first place. Adapa 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 . . .
My challenge: Please direct me to where science has demonstrated/vetted the "natural" and "random" aspects of your assertion. If this challenge is asking for science to prove a negative, then how did it establish in the first place the "natural" and "random" aspects of your claim? It is only if the "random" and "natural" aspects of Adapa's claim are unprovable negative characterizations in the first place that my challenge of them can be asking science to prove an unprovable negative in the second place.William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

"Why an armchair philosopher would be dumb enough to demand science prove a negative is anyone’s guess." What was that infamous demand that Darwin made according to which his theory would completely break down?Mung_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

William J Murray IF science employed a method to vet those processes/forces as natural/random, THEN direct me to it; IF you cannot, THEN you have no basis by which to characterize those processes/forces as natural/random. It's not bad enough WJM got caught in his blatant lie, misrepresenting what I said. Now he repeats the stupid demand that science prove a negative. The best ID has to offer is really on display this morning folks! Enjoy it. :)Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Here, I'll "reword" WJM's statement: WJM "if natural processes can be shown to produce complexity then ID is falsified" Adapa "by that criteria ID is falsified because it's been demonstrated natural processes can produce the observed complexity" WJM "Ah, a chance to lie! I'll lie and claim Adapa said science has proven that evolution is unguided!" Adapa: "That's not what I said" WJM: "Doesn't matter. I'm not interest in honest discussion, I'm just interested in saving face. I have no problem pushing my blatant lie. I'll even get the site owner to repeat the lie for me." Another shining moment for ID here folks. Observe and learn from it.Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

I'll ask this again of congregate, keith, and Adapa: IF you are claiming that unguided (natural (meaning, not artificial or intelligently orchestrated) & random) forces/processes have been scientifically demonstrated sufficient to produce biological diversity as we see it; THEN either science employed a method of vetting those forces/processes AS natural and AS random OR else science has no basis by which to characterize the processes/forces as natural/random; IF science employed a method to vet those processes/forces as natural/random, THEN direct me to it; IF you cannot, THEN you have no basis by which to characterize those processes/forces as natural/random. Now, can you direct me to where there is scientific research that shows us how the forces/processes were vetted as natural/random? If not, then you have no basis for your assertion.William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

congregate said:
Adapa says unguided processes are proven sufficient, but that it is nevertheless impossible to prove that guidance did not happen. They are two different things. They do not contradict each other.
I suggest you re-read the conversation. Nobody asked him to prove that guidance did not happen. I only asked him to support what he actually claimed – that unguided (natural, random) forces have been demonstrated sufficient by science. I’ll reword this paraphrasing for you, since you apparently haven’t been following the conversation: Adapa: Science has conclusive demonstrated that unguided (natural & random forces) evolution can sufficiently explain the diversity of life! WJM: Where did science determine that unguided (natural & random forces) evolution was up to the task? Adapa: You moron, it’s idiotic to ask science to demonstrate that unguided (natural & random forces) evolution is up to the task of explaining the diversity of life!William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

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…
WJM said:
I only asked him to support what he actually claimed – that unguided forces have been demonstrated sufficient by science.
Adapa says:
I never claimed that WJM. You are telling a blatant lie. Please stop.
William J Murray_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington Really Adapa. Quite it now. You are embarrassing yourself. Interesting then that even some of the pro-ID regulars here have pointed out your poor logic and misrepresentation of my statements. Someone is sure embarrassing himself but it isn't who you think.Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Really Adapa. Quit it now. You are embarrassing yourself.Barry Arrington_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington SA, the only thing that “ID has been falsified” can mean is that the evolution has been demonstrated to be unguided. More deliberate misrepresentation. I said then ID has been falsified by WJM's offered falsification criteria.
WJM: "If something with CSI over the threshold limit can be shown at least in principle to be plausibly generated from some combination of natural laws and chance, then ID as a theory is falsified
Is these pathetic strawman misrepresentations the best ID can do?Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Oh my word! You just can’t make this stuff up!!! I was only joking @ 6 about adding DDS-DD to the glossary, but I might really need to. We have two examples of it in the space of five comments. Adapa: “ID speculation . . . has been falsified” Adapa: “I never said or implied that science had conclusively demonstrated evolution is unguided.” Oh! My sides hurt.Barry Arrington_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Congregate’s attempt to defend the indefensible makes me think I might need to add another entry to the UD glossary: DDS-DD for Darwinist Derangement Syndrome – Double Down. ;-) Barry Arrington_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

I see Barry has decided to pick up WJM's lie and run with it. 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. Those are two very different things. The question is will Barry be honest enough to retract and apologize for misrepresenting my statements so badly?Adapa_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

SA, the only thing that "ID has been falsified" can mean is that the evolution has been demonstrated to be unguided.Barry Arrington_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Barry - you're missing a double quote in Adapa's first comment. I wasn't sure if he actually used that term "unguided evolution".Silver Asiatic_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Congregate @ 1
The fact that Unguided processes are sufficient does not prove that guidance did not happen. They are separate questions.
Congregate @ 598 in the Way Forward thread:
Adapa says unguided processes are proven sufficient, but that it is nevertheless impossible to prove that guidance did not happen. They are two different things. They do not contradict each other.
You have to wrench Adapa’s comment out of context to get to your conclusion. Let us see the entire comment at 99:

William J Murray If something with CSI over the threshold limit can be shown at least in principle to be plausibly generated from some combination of natural laws and chance, then ID as a theory is falsified
Since 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, what you call “CSI”, then ID speculation (it’s never been a theory) has been falsified. You can go home now.
In context Adapa is saying not only that unguided natural forces are sufficient to produce the diversity of life but in fact have done so AND the process was unguided. He is affirmatively stating that design did not happen. That is what it means when he says that ID is falsified. For ID to be falsified it must mean that it has been demonstrated that design did not happen. That is, in fact, the whole point of the comment. Your attempt to pull his bacon out of the fire fails miserably. Sorry. BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong.Barry Arrington_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Barry- I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle, so this is disappointing. The fact that Unguided processes are sufficient does not prove that guidance did not happen. They are separate questions. Can unguided processes create a pile of sand at the beach? Yes. Does that mean that any pile of sand at the beach was not created by a guided process? No. 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.congregate_{November 22, 2014
November
11
Nov
22
22
2014
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply