Sober Rebukes Evolution’s Religion (Sometimes)

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

The religion in evolution can be subtle and it can fool even sophisticated thinkers. Elliott Sober, for example, has recognized that religious premises are used by evolutionists. He says they don’t work because they rely on gratuitous assumptions. In his book Evidence and Evolution he writes the following:

Continue reading here.

Comments

vividbleau, You apparently missed this part:
The reason they are evidence for evolution is that the same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos. Agassiz (not a Darwinist himself) said, "The higher Vertebrates, including man himself, breathe through gill-like organs in the early part of their life. These gills disappear and give place to lungs only in a later phase of their existence" (Agassiz 1874).
I asked:
Vividbleau, why do you think the designer put hip sockets in the pelvic bones of manatees?
You responded:
Now you have just made Cornelius Hunters point.
No, because that is a question, not a statement. Do you have an answer, or would you prefer to avoid the question?mereologist_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

"vividbleau, See this." Thanks ...the article states what I said, they are not gill slits!!! "Vividbleau, why do you think the designer put hip sockets in the pelvic bones of manatees?" Now you have just made Cornelius Hunters point. Vividvividbleau_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

vivdbleau:
mere it is very hard to take anyone seriously that does not know that “gill slits” were debunked along time ago. LOL
vividbleau, See this. In any case, I am not arguing from personal authority. Read the literature and you will see that the term "vestigial" is used in exactly the way the Theobald describes. Furthermore, even if you choose to balk at calling these structures "vestigial", their value as evidence for evolution remains the same. Take the manatee pelvis, for example. Manatees have no hind legs, yet they still have two rudimentary pelvic bones within their bodies. These pelvic bones are not attached to the spinal vertebrae, so they could not support weight even if the legs were there. Furthermore, each bone contains a hip socket even though there is no femur to attach to it. In other words, these pelvic bones and their hip sockets do not function as a pelvis or as hip sockets. They are vestigial. Vividbleau, why do you think the designer put hip sockets in the pelvic bones of manatees?mereologist_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, The issue is falsifiability, not rationalism vs. empiricism. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is unscientific because it is immune to empirical disconfirmation. The designer hypothesis in its pure form, absent additional assumptions, is unfalsifiable. To make it scientific, you have to make it falsifiable. To make it falsifiable, you must make additional assumptions. This is as true for the ID supporter as it is for the evolutionist. The question for you and for all ID supporters is this: what additional assumptions do you make, how do you justify them, and is the designer hypothesis, together with these additional assumptions, the best explanation for the phenomena we observe, or are there superior naturalistic explanations?mereologist_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

"A structure need not be functionless in order to be vestigial" mere it is very hard to take anyone seriously that does not know that "gill slits" were debunked along time ago. LOL Vividvividbleau_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, A structure need not be functionless in order to be vestigial. Douglas Theobald explains this in his excellent 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp. 601-609; Dodson 1960, p. 44; Griffiths 1992; Hall 2003; McCabe 1912, p. 264; Merrell 1962, p. 101; Moody 1962, p. 40; Muller 2002; Naylor 1982; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886, pp. 9-10; Wiedersheim 1893, p. 2, p. 200, p. 205). For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ostriches have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays—a situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard. The specific complexity of the ostrich wing indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ostrich wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines ostrich wings as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings.
mereologist_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

mereologist (33):
But urging evolutionists to abandon all assumptions about the designer undermines your own position by making the designer hypothesis unfalsifiable. The upshot is that if the design hypothesis is to be considered as a valid scientific option, then assumptions must be made, by ID supporters as well as evolutionists. What assumptions do you make, and how do you justify them?
This is classic rationalism. It is a great question because it is so common and so telling. Evolutionists are, if anything, rationalists. They emphasize a strong philosophy of science, otherwise there is uncertainty (an anathema to rationalists). They require up front assumptions to form a framework, and they think everyone should follow their assumptions. Evolutionists, for instance, proclaim their religious premises as though they were obvious facts. Aristotelianism, though originally an empirical approach, had by the 16th century become quite rationalistic, and a stultifing framework. Though we all read that Aristotelianism was done away with, hard over rationalism certainly was not dead. It morphed into new forms, merging with strong theological claims. Rationalists are much more prone to truth claims and value judgments. And of course they are more rigid in their scientific approach. Changing gears, dropping core ideas, and so forth is more a sign of empiricist thinking. Empiricists are more comfortable testing a wide variety of theses, and even proceeding by just analyzing the data, without any strong framework in place. To the evolutionist, the design approach doesn't make sense because there is a lack of framework and definition. The empiricist, on the other hand, is trying to discover and evaluate those things by following the data. If you want ro read more about the classic rationalist vs empiricist debate, and how today's debate falls right into place in that history, see Chapter 9 of my book Science's Blind Spot.Cornelius Hunter_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Following up on 34, isn't the most honest, scientific approach to the features in question a simple admission that we don't yet know what the role is? Gven the optimism of Darwinsts (frequently expressed on this site) that science (of the materialistic type)is capable of filling in all of the holes in the ToE (if we just remain patient), isn't it curious that they suddenly find patience in short supply and are quick to jump to the "vestigial" conclusion? Hasn't this been a science-stopper in the past? As we allow science to go forward, don't we always end up finding functionality where we'd assumed none? So, what is motivating this apparent dichotomy in the way Darwinists think?Phinehas_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

He is saying that if the feature (e.g. tail) has no role then, without common ancestry, there is no explanation for that feature being present in many different species.
It seems to me that saying *if* a feature has no role and assuming that a feature has no role are two different things. It also seems to me that many Darwinists tend to slide right by the *if* to the assumption, and it is this slide that reveals the religion. How does one go about demonstrating that a feature has no role in order to make use of this *if*? Can it be done without an argument from ignorance or an appeal to un-scientific belief?Phinehas_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter wrote:
But I agree with you that in the specific case of an intelligent designer, the premise merely entails assumptions about the designer and, while that would need justification, it would not be “religious.”
If so, then any so-called "religious" assumption can be converted to a non-religious assumption simply by substituting the word "designer" for "God". It would retain the same force, but it would no longer be a "religious" assumption. The subsequent argument would remain the same and would reach the same negative conclusion regarding design. At that point, your only recourse would be to argue that the assumption, though not religious, is unwarranted. But urging evolutionists to abandon all assumptions about the designer undermines your own position by making the designer hypothesis unfalsifiable. The upshot is that if the design hypothesis is to be considered as a valid scientific option, then assumptions must be made, by ID supporters as well as evolutionists. What assumptions do you make, and how do you justify them?mereologist_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (25):
As far as I can see your whole case rests on: “X cannot be assigned a probability under separate ancestry (and then used to knock down creation as Sober explains) without non scientific premises” By “non-scientific” I assume you mean religious. As far as I can see, the only religious premise is the negative one that a divine force did not deliberately create similar useless features in different species for unknown reasons. Am I correct?
This is by no means the "whole case." The history of thought in general, and the evolution genre in particular, contain quite a few different religious or philosophical arguments for naturalism. This instance in the Sober paper is just one example of many.
By “non-scientific” I assume you mean religious.
Not necessarily. Some of the arguments are more philosophical than theological (e.g., evolution's intellectual necessity). In this case, yes the evolutionary premise is religious. These premises mandate evolution, and so it is said to be a fact (with the scientific problems yet to be ironed out). This claim, that we always hear, that evolution is a fact, is a constant reminder of evolution's non scientific premises. Cornelius Hunter_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

"As I have pointed out the designer may have wanted an imperfect design- or if it was God it may be an issue of the fall of man or some other theological argument." Doesn't this just become the ultimate post-hoc argument though? Isn't it reasonable to interpret that the "fall" is more of an explanation (by pre-scientific people) to make sense of an imperfect world and their own imperfect bodies? True, we cannot know for sure - but we certainly know enough about about human beings pattern-recognition and story-making-up predispositions to say that this is a more likely explanation than actual talking serpents in an ancient idyllic garden.JTaylor_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Cornelius (#24) and Mark Frank (#19):
In that case it would have no force against creation. ... All it could do in that case is rebuke the particular version of SA which says unnecessary features have low probability, or some such. That is, in fact, an evolution notion, so now you are merely comparing different hypotheses (such as different phylogenies) within evolution.
That "sanitized" approach actually seems like a reasonable program for scientists to follow. Of course a certain number of Christians/theists such as Ken Miller or Francis Collins carry their own assumptions about how a Designer or God would have done things and would therefore conclude common ancestry. At least the religious component of the decision is up to them, anyway.herb_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Excession @ 28
You can always blame women.
I think, on the whole, it would be safer to blame it on the boogie.Seversky_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

“Can a God, who is by definition perfect, create imperfection?”
You can always blame women.Excession_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Seversky, if you swap a couple of your sentances around you get the answer:
"Can a God, who is by definition perfect, create imperfection?"
...
Paleyists counter by arguing that we know nothing about the nature or purposes of a putative designer
the unknowable behavior of God can explain anything, apparently ;)Excession_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

Frost122585 @ 21
It is fine to make an argument for common ancestry- ok Dembski- Meyer have said this all along that ID can fly with UCA- but it becomes religious when a Darwinist says that vestigial (or perceived vestigial) organs show poor design and so that rules out design. As I have pointed out the designer may have wanted an imperfect design- or if it was God it may be an issue of the fall of man or some other theological argument.
If Darwinists make some claim about divine intent then, yes, they are making a religious claim, in other words, a claim about some aspect of religion. On the other hand, if someone is described as being religious, it is usually taken to mean that they belong to a particular faith or at least hold such beliefs. The word "religious" clearly has different connotations in different contexts. Hunter's thesis is founded on equivocation between the two meanings. Whether that is deliberate or through misunderstanding is difficult to tell. Darwinists argue that, if considered from the viewpoint of design, some organs show evidence of poor design because even we can see ways in which they might be improved. It is evidence against the claim of Intelligent Design but it does not rule out the possibility. On its own it cannot. Paleyists counter by arguing that we know nothing about the nature or purposes of a putative designer - an ignorance they are keen to preserve for obvious reasons - so it is possible that the shoddy work was deliberate. In other words, there is handy gap in our knowledge of non-human designers into which we can fit the designer of our choice, which obviously includes God for those who are so disposed. As for Christians, the existence of imperfect design raises a thorny question. Can a God, who is by definition perfect, create imperfection? In other words, is the creation of imperfection itself an imperfection which precludes the possibility of the creator being perfect?Seversky_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

Cornelius As far as I can see your whole case rests on: "X cannot be assigned a probability under separate ancestry (and then used to knock down creation as Sober explains) without non scientific premises" By "non-scientific" I assume you mean religious. As far as I can see, the only religious premise is the negative one that a divine force did not deliberately create similar useless features in different species for unknown reasons. Am I correct?Mark Frank_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (19):
I am sorry I really don’t see what is religious about this assumption. It is just an assumption about probabilities of unnecessary duplicate features appearing. It makes no mention of divine intent.
In that case it would have no force against creation. It is a matter of fact that this religious argument has been a powerful thread in the evolution genre. But let's say we want to sanitize it as you suggest. In that case it loses its power. All it could do in that case is rebuke the particular version of SA which says unnecessary features have low probability, or some such. That is, in fact, an evolution notion, so now you are merely comparing different hypotheses (such as different phylogenies) within evolution.Cornelius Hunter_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

#21 Frost122585 I think this is a different subject - but I am more than happy to respond to it. You wrote: It is fine to make an argument for common ancestry- ok Dembski- Meyer have said this all along that ID can fly with UCA- but it becomes religious when a Darwinist says that vestigial (or perceived vestigial) organs show poor design and so that rules out design. As I have pointed out the designer may have wanted an imperfect design- or if it was God it may be an issue of the fall of man or some other theological argument. I haven't read Sobers book (although I plan to order it now). However, from what Cornelius wrote I don't think his argument is anything to do with the quality of design. He is saying that if the feature (e.g. tail) has no role then, without common ancestry, there is no explanation for that feature being present in many different species. Granted one option might be that God did it that way for reasons we don't understand - but if we start to adopt that explanation for anything we can't explain then science will grind to a halt. Incidentally once you go down the route of "the designer might have wanted an imperfect design" you make all possible outcomes compatible with design. So then the only evidence for design is the rejection of alternatives. The only way that you can have positive evidence for design is if you allow some assumptions about what the designer was trying to achieve and the limits of the designer's power.Mark Frank_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

Hoki (6, 14):
I fail to see why this assumption is religious. The assumption is reasonable because it can be tested independently of the conclusion being drawn. (We do observe the propagation of loss-of-funtion mutations, after all [fans of ID's genetic entropy should be familiar with this]). ... Yes, Gould’s assumptions can’t be independently verified (they are “religious”). I was talking about using “useless” design to infer common ancestry. This evolutionary argument (i.e. assumption) can be independently verified. Hardly irrational.
These are religious premises either way. The tests you are suggesting would not remove the religious premise. As an aside, I have doubts about the feasibility of such tests being "independent." But for sake of argument, let's assume one could make reasonable conclusions about some "useless" design X (I won't use the gill slit example since they don't even exist in the human fetus as evolutionists suppose; and I won't use the tailbone example since it is not useless as evolutionists suppose), and whether or not it is a consequence of loss of function mutations, or some such. Either way, X cannot be assigned a probability under separate ancestry (and then used to knock down creation as Sober explains) without non scientific premises. mereologist (17):
1. I agree that Sober is making some assumptions about what a designer would do. However, it is you who applies the label “religious” to those assumptions, despite the fact that Sober’s quote acknowledges the possibility of a non-divine designer. That seems to indicate that in your mind, at least, the designer must be God.
I am not the one injecting religion into the discussion. That would be the evolutionists. Sober rightly explains that Darwin's Principle attacks creation. Darwin and evolutionists before and after justified and promoted evolutionary thinking with religious claims such as the god-wouldn't-create-useless-structures premise. The fact that these arguments also work very well, thank you, against an intelligent designer does not make them any less religious. But I agree with you that in the specific case of an intelligent designer, the premise merely entails assumptions about the designer and, while that would need justification, it would not be "religious."
2. If no assumptions are made about the designer, then the designer hypothesis becomes unfalsifiable. Literally any state of affairs can be ascribed to an omnipotent, omniscient designer having unknown motives.
Yes, but what if the strictly naturalistic explanation becomes increasingly complex and unlikely, as we have with evolution? Then the conclusion for design, of some sort, is pretty unheroic.
3. If assumptions about what a designer would do are necessarily religious, as you claim, then all sciences make religious assumptions, not just evolutionary biology.
No, I don't say that. But more importantly, much of science is merely trying to figure out how nature works. And that's pretty unheroic vis-a-vis assumptions about the creator.
Do you think physicists are making religious assumptions when they settle on naturalistic explanations of physical phenomena?
No, not in the sense that evolutionists do. It is true that those physicists do make some non scientific assumptions (e.g., parsimony, uniformity). But evolutionists go far beyond such assumptions.
4. My understanding is that you deny common ancestry.
No, I'm not on the denial side. Common descent may or may not be true, but what is clear is that it is not a good scientific theory.
If so, why do you think the designer gave us tailbones and gill slits?
Our tail bone serves several functions and we don't have gill slits. It might be more instructive to ask evolutionists why they keep raising these questions.
As Michael Behe asks, what kind of designer would deliberately create the malaria parasite?
There are three senses to this question: simple, profound and rhetorical: Simple: What kind of designer would deliberately create the malaria parasite? A designer who wants there to be malaria sometimes. Profound: What kind of designer would deliberately create the malaria parasite? A designer who is beyond my understanding. Rhetorical: What kind of designer would deliberately create the malaria parasite? No designer would to that. We can use the rhetorical sense to prove evolution. There is nothing wrong with this (as I have indicated elsewhere), but it is not a scientific argument. What I do think is wrong is to be in denial, as evolutionists are, about the religious and non scientific convictions driving them.
Why do whales have vestigial hind limbs?
The question presupposes that whales hind limbs are vestigial, which presupposes evolution is true, which is a religious conviction.
Why did the designer choose to design in a way that creates the impression that common ancestry is true?
There is no such impression from biology. This brings us full circle, back to the Sober paper. Evolution and common ancestry are not good scientific theories. So biology gives no such impression. That "impression" comes from the religious reasoning, such as useless structures have low probability on separate ancestry.Cornelius Hunter_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank allow me to explain what I think so many Darwinists don't understand about their own position. It is fine to make an argument for common ancestry- ok Dembski- Meyer have said this all along that ID can fly with UCA- but it becomes religious when a Darwinist says that vestigial (or perceived vestigial) organs show poor design and so that rules out design. As I have pointed out the designer may have wanted an imperfect design- or if it was God it may be an issue of the fall of man or some other theological argument. So an argument for UCA yes - an valid argment against ID - No.Frost122585_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

Excuse me on the above- The fact that tragic things happen does NOT* mean they did not happen for a transcendental reason-Frost122585_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

Re #7 Cornelius No, actually, “nature’s designs given separate ancestry is unlikely” is the denominator in the likelihood ratio. Furthermore, it is the crucial term that drives up the ratio when going from adaptive to non adaptive designs, as Sober points out. Far from being “irrelevant” as you say, it is crucial. Perhaps this is merely a mistake, but next we have … You are right. I misread what you wrote. Sorry. This is essentially the same statement as the one below. I still think you should remove the clause: And common ancestry is likely because To get to the essence. I wrote: This of course is an assumption about the probability of useless tailbones given separate ancestry. It could be rephrased as the assumption that the different lines of separate ancestry have no built in tendency to bring about similar useless features. I don’t see there is anything particularly religious about this assumption. You wrote: This is irrational. I hear it repeatedly, and it reveals a deep denialism in evolutionary thought. Making a statement about divine intent is religious. I am sorry I really don’t see what is religious about this assumption. It is just an assumption about probabilities of unnecessary duplicate features appearing. It makes no mention of divine intent. I suppose you could argue that as a consequence of this assumption one possibility that is being dismissed is that some divine agent deliberately created these duplicate features. You call this a religious assumption? In that case all of science relies on religious assumptions. Any data we observe might have been placed there by a divinity with the intention and power to confuse us. Science has to dismiss that possibility. Otherwise it would just give up at the first point of observation and say – “ah but I cannot assume it is not just God fiddling the data”Mark Frank_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

Great post Hunter- this really gets to the philosophical and yes also dogmatic or religious (based in faith) objections of the Darwinists. Notice this interesting dichotomy- the same argument used to rebuff creationism they also use against ID. Well we all know here that ID certainly is compatible with a tree of life theory- the inference of design is separate from a naturalistic historic time line of events- yet how do they kill 2 birds with one stone? They do the old argument from evil- or as they like to call it "stupid design" (as opposed to intelligent design). Now that argument from evil has been around for quite a long time- well before Darwin- there has always been Theodicy- the attempt to reconcile God's grace with a fallen world- but this is clearly Theology's domain and not evolution's nor secular science's. The fact that tragic things happen does mean they did not happen for a transcendental reason- to argue otherwise is to attempt to get into the head of a God that Dariwninst's deny the existence of. Likewise the fact that living structures seem imperfect- even in the fact of much exquisite design- is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water- for the designer would very well have designed a world which is meant to be more of a test than a paradise.Frost122585_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, A few points regarding your argument: 1. I agree that Sober is making some assumptions about what a designer would do. However, it is you who applies the label "religious" to those assumptions, despite the fact that Sober's quote acknowledges the possibility of a non-divine designer. That seems to indicate that in your mind, at least, the designer must be God. Otherwise, why call his assumptions "religious"? If so, that would put you at odds with other ID advocates who claim that although the designer might be God, ID doesn't tell us that, and therefore ID itself is not religious. 2. If no assumptions are made about the designer, then the designer hypothesis becomes unfalsifiable. Literally any state of affairs can be ascribed to an omnipotent, omniscient designer having unknown motives. 3. If assumptions about what a designer would do are necessarily religious, as you claim, then all sciences make religious assumptions, not just evolutionary biology. After all, as I noted above, any phenomenon could be the result of divine intervention; hence the jokes about "intelligent falling". Do you think physicists are making religious assumptions when they settle on naturalistic explanations of physical phenomena? 4. My understanding is that you deny common ancestry. If so, why do you think the designer gave us tailbones and gill slits? As Michael Behe asks, what kind of designer would deliberately create the malaria parasite? Why do whales have vestigial hind limbs? Why did the designer choose to design in a way that creates the impression that common ancestry is true?mereologist_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Re my post at #15: Of course the set of all hypothetical designers includes our Christian God, so on that basis Miller is still making a religious claim I suppose. On the other hand, if we are not able to say anything about the intent of the designer, don't we then have a problem with falsifiability?herb_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, I posed a question in the previous thread but didn't address it to anyone, so probably no one noticed it. I referred to the statement you cited of Ken Miller concerning the rapid appearance of those 10 elephant-like species. In that quote, he makes some judgments about the intent of a hypothetical designer, and AFAICS, not a God in particular. Therefore I wonder, is he actually making a religious claim in that quote?herb_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter:
Again, this is irrational. When Gould says god would not create the panda thumb design, it is a religious claim. Do we really need to say this? How does one deal with irrationalism?
Yes, Gould's assumptions can't be independently verified (they are "religious"). I was talking about using "useless" design to infer common ancestry. This evolutionary argument (i.e. assumption) can be independently verified. Hardly irrational.
This is fascinating. The irrationality and denialism of evolution is telling.
Perhaps you could explain why, rather than just giving snide remarks?Hoki_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

So, let me see if I understand this. ID is a theory that explains the data better then the current evolutionists theory, and this can be shown to be the case. Yet ID refuses to submit this evidence to the peer reviewed journal network because it'll be ruled out without being looked at simply because it supports ID. Have you ever thought about not putting "this paper supports intelligent design" at the top of the paper and instead letting the data speak for itself? That might do the trick, by jove! Honestly....Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply