Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Steve Reuland Slays a Straw Man

January 10, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over on Panda’s Thumb Steve Reuland uses Darwinian methodology to dispute the notion that medical doctors tend to accept ID in greater percentage than scientists in general. So what’s the first thing ole Steverino does to make his case? Why, he trots out a strawman – ID and “evolution” are mutually exclusive.

Here’s a clue for Stevie. You can accept ID, descent with modification from a common ancestor, and a 4 billion year-old earth all at the same time. Not all IDists do but many of us do including me. What you can’t accept if you accept ID is that random mutation filtered by natural selection turned mud into man or bacteria into baboons. Got that? Write that down. I know you won’t though because your arguments only work against strawmen. Pathetic. And you wonder why I treat you people with such scorn. Intellectual dishonesty like you display makes me ill.

Comments
Doug Is there evidence for descent with modification that allows for the dog to change that dramatically? Yes. It's called ontogeny. If a single undifferentiated cell can transform itself from that into a newborn human in 9 months composed of trillions of cells organized as hundreds of different cell types, tissue types, and organs it shouldn't take any great stretch of the imagination to presume that a single undifferentiated cell 4 billion years ago could transform itself into the complex ecology we have today. It's all a matter of planning. The cell that differentiates and turns into a human in 9 months is programmed to do that right from the word go. The environment plays no role in the process except to provide triggers on when to proceed to the next stage of differentiation. No complex specified information needs to evolve from random chance and natural selection in that process. The front loading hypothesis of ID posits that one or a few common ancestors were placed on the earth and that these common ancestors were programmed to diversify. No additional information needed to be acquired. It was all there at the start. Ontogeny mirrors phylogeny. I call the common ancestors "phylogenetic stem cells". Everything about evolution on this planet makes perfect sense in light of a front loaded genome.DaveScot
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
Heh, that first paragraph is a good description of what caligula was attempting to do.Patrick
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
I used to visit the ARN forums and a few others I can’t recall right now. I became so frustrated with the Darwinists I stopped debating them altogether.
One is able to be less frustrated when one realizes the goal isn't to reason with them,but rather to demonstrate the defenslessness and illogic of their position before the readers. Framed in that manner, the perspective is completely changed.... A very good guideline for internet debate is given here: DEALING WITH THE BACKLASH AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Our critics have, in effect, adopted a zero-concession policy toward intelligent design. According to this policy, absolutely nothing is to be conceded to intelligent design and its proponents. It is therefore futile to hope for concessions from critics. This is especially difficult for novices to accept. A bright young novice to this debate comes along, makes an otherwise persuasive argument, and finds it immediately shot down. Substantive objections are bypassed. Irrelevancies are stressed. Tables are turned. Misrepresentations abound. One’s competence and expertise are belittled. The novice comes back, reframes the argument, clarifies key points, attempts to answer objections, and encounters the same treatment. The problem is not with the argument but with the context of discourse in which the argument is made. The solution, therefore, is to change the context of discourse. Hardcore critics who’ve adopted a zero-concession policy toward intelligent design are still worth engaging, but we need to control the terms of engagement. Whenever I engage them, the farthest thing from my mind is to convert them, to win them over, to appeal to their good will, to make my cause seem reasonable in their eyes. We need to set wishful thinking firmly to one side. The point is not to induce a cognitive shift in our critics, but instead to clarify our arguments, to address weaknesses in our own position, to identify areas requiring further work and study, and, perhaps most significantly, to appeal to the undecided middle that is watching this debate and trying to sort through the issues. ..... Critics and enemies are useful. The point is to use them effectively. In our case, this is remarkably easy to do. The reason is that our critics are so assured of themselves and of the rightness of their cause. As a result, they rush into print their latest pronouncements against intelligent design when more careful thought, or perhaps even silence, is called for. The Internet, especially now with its blogs (web logs), provides our critics with numerous opportunities for intemperate, indiscreet, and ill-conceived attacks on intelligent design. These can be turned to advantage, and I’ve done so on numerous occasions. I’m not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics’ objections....
scordova
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
“Matzke, Musgrave, and Bottaro have, when discussing some technical issues in their field of expertise, have given good data. Douglas Theobold has also been quite impressive.” I used to visit the ARN forums and a few others I can’t recall right now. I became so frustrated with the Darwinists I stopped debating them altogether. I have to admit though I’m not the most patient guy in the world. But, it’s hard to be patient when you’re constantly being told how stupid you are for even doubting blind watchmaker evolution. The whole “NDE isn’t random” while at the same time making bizarre appeals to chance and allthewhile claiming how foolish ID is was the last straw.shaner74
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
Unless, of course, your main point is to have internet discussion as an example of the “other sides” unwillingness to engage in debate, as you mentioned in your post.
Matzke, Musgrave, and Bottaro have, when discussing some technical issues in their field of expertise, have given good data. Douglas Theobold has also been quite impressive. The one thing I find important in avoiding as far as a debate topic is politics, religion, and other non-scientific issues with the notable exception of the problem of "bad design". The "bad design" argument I think is the one non-science topic that is still very appropriate to discuss in relation to ID because even if it is somewhat logically irrelevant, the intuitive weight of the "bad design" argument is fairly substantial, and I don't think ID proponents should run from it... That said, I would hope Matzke, Bottaro, Cartwright, Inlay, Reuland, Smith, etc. and others show up on my technical threads and try to discredit my claims right here where my home field advantage is. They could score a stunning defeat if they succeed. The invitation is open to them if they wish to visit discussions I start here. Salscordova
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Scordova said: “I think we can effectively debate them before the readers, and I would prefer these exchanges take place here for posterity among the other fine threads at UD.” Maybe your experience has been different than mine, but I’ve yet to see a Darwinist (on an internet forum) that actually “debates” It’s usually hand-waiving and references to TalkOrigins links, followed by name calling, general misinformation, and appeals to chance that border on insanity. Maybe there are some out there that honestly discuss the issues? I’m just speaking from personal experience. Unless, of course, your main point is to have internet discussion as an example of the “other sides” unwillingness to engage in debate, as you mentioned in your post.shaner74
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Thank you DaveScot. There is also another reason why I think we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by keeping the channels open to the PT/Talk Origins authors. I think we can effectively debate them before the readers, and I would prefer these exchanges take place here for posterity among the other fine threads at UD. I expect we win the majority of exchanges and debates. It is generally their policy to avoid real debate with us. The only time it is undesirable to debate them is when someone like PvM decides to use the Chewbacca Defense against us. In such case, we have no recourse but to resort to drastic measures..... It is too their advantage to hide and comment at PT. It is to their disadvantage to show up here (unless of course one is on a spam and jam mission like PvM usually is).scordova
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
By the way, DaveScot, are any PT contributors posting under their PT name banned from UD? I think I told Pim Van Muers to take a hike. None of the rest of the PT Contributors as far as I know. Most of them ban me from their personal and group blogs though. While it's true I got tanked one evening 18 months ago, lost my cool, and used the "F" word in a comment on PT and told them their security sucked after the third or fourth time PZ Myers had removed all the vowels from my comments, they were just looking for an excuse to ban me because I was making them all look like morons in front of their cheering fans and refused to let the brigade of insult hurling sycophants discourage me. I can be a brigade unto myself is the problem and foul language doesn't bother me in the slightest. Marines are like that.DaveScot
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Steve Reuland wrote: the survey data make it abundantly clear that doctors are much less likely to buy into it than are the general public. If doctors are therefore considered to hold some sort of special insight into the evolution debate, this does not bode well for the IDists.
I responded at PandasThumb:
It is not so cut and dry as that. If one wishes to argue evolutionary theory is as sure as the sphericality of the Earth, that level of dissent by such a highly educated group absolutely flies in the face of such inflated claims…… The majority dissent from Darwinism is not needed, a measurable minority is a significant statement in and of itself. This minority serves as a counter example to the insistence that Darwinism is important for scientific and technological and medical progress. The interpretation you suggest likens the situation for votes for candidate for public office. It is an inappropriate (but understandably mistaken) analogy….
PS By the way, DaveScot, are any PT contributors posting under their PT name banned from UD?scordova
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
bFast, Just try getting that statement to stick on the Wikipedia article.mike1962
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
DaveScot
You can accept ID, descent with modification from a common ancestor, and a 4 billion year-old earth all at the same time.
Can you publish that in bold on the front of this website? This one statement abolishes 95% of the anti-ID arguments.bFast
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Yes, that scenario is also compatible with ID.Patrick
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
But including a creation event?Doug
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Dough, What you're missing is that there is more than one way to design what we see than a one-time creation event.Patrick
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Ok. I don't think I understand. All ID is doing is asking the Biologists NOT to say that Life wasn't originally created? I was following you until you got to the science part. I read Darwin's black box and, IIRC, there is no direct evidence for speciation through Random Mutation and Natural Selection. Has this changed? I'm sorry, I am willing to learn new things and to admit if I am wrong, but I have a hard time accepting that Humans evolved from Chimpanzees. To paraphrase Dave Scot (I think it was Dave) "Why are there still Chimpanzees?" I look around me at the incredible perfection of the world for me to live in and I can't help but to see the designer. In The Design Inference, (one of my favorite books on the subject) Dr. Dembski shows how Specifried Complexity essentially disproved the notion of descent with modification. And he laid out the framework (for me at least) of how to go about looking for the designer: look at the designs. What am I missing?Doug
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
shaner74
“What you can’t accept if you accept ID is that random mutation filtered by natural selection turned mud into man or bacteria into baboons.” After a year of following this controversy, I truly believe that full acceptance of blind watchmaker evolution can (and usually does) destroy a persons ability to think logically – a person who would otherwise be regarded as intelligent. It obviously affects reading comprehension too, because none of the Darwiniacs ever seem to get it, even when it’s spelled out for them.
How true. I'm actually in the process of developing a theory about these patterns of thought. The patterns are clearly there. But you must add an ounce or 2 of relativism to produce the neurological symptoms completely. I'm not sure how you would go about measuring or testing these things. Don't have any background in psychology so it's not my domain but it's a visible problem imo. What I've been examining over the last years is that there is a clear inability to see logical implications within any postulation - even simple ones. There is also strong pattern of avoidance of rational conclusions related to a premise. I see this over and over and have been puzzled by it time and again. It seems that once someone has gotten into the atheist/Darwinist reasoning process, which is indeed different from the normal, the above symptoms show up. You can spell it out as clearly as 1+1=2 and they still won't get it. Atheism is a system of denials of reality. That denial produces all the same psychological symptoms one sees in addictions: Denial that there is a problem. Failure to see the associated problems etc. Psychological defense mechanisms leading to false conclusions and inability to reason clearly I'd be curious to see how a good psy. and logician would do evaluations of a group of Darwinists/atheists vs. a group of IDists/creationists on critical thinking, logical analysis etc.. To see what the differences are. We should start a new group called Darwinists anonymous. ;-)Borne
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education: 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. Creationists go with 1-4, with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were. IDists go with 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveats in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.
Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism. Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.- Dr Behe
The point being in order to falsify IC it has to be done in terms of #6 above. Also at issue is people presenting evidence for 1-4 as evidence for 6.Joseph
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
I've read Design Inference and Darwin's Black Box. Thanks for the tip on Icons. I'll read it as soon as possible. What would be the counter argument? I maintained that I would need to see evidence of being able to select for that drastic of a change and that I didn't think there was any. Am I on the right track?Doug
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Hi Doug. I am confused. I thought evolution proposes that we all came from a common ancestor and that that is called descent with modification. I just had a conversation with a Darwinist a few days ago who tried to get me into that trap. He asked if things could change and cited dogs as an example. I said yes but it’s still a dog. Ok this Microevolution. This happens all the time and we have tons of evidence for it. A few million years go by with you selecting for a certain trait, now you have a creature who stands on its back legs and eats bread. Is it still a dog? This is called Macroevolution. As far as I know there is no evidence for descent with modification that allows for the dog to change that dramatically. Although this has nothing to do with ID. You can accept both common descent and Intelligent Design. What you might want to do is check out your local library (or EBAY) for Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells. Alot of libraries don't carry it because the Darwinists have done a fine job of blacklisting the poor man.a5b01zerobone
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Here’s a clue for Stevie. You can accept ID, descent with modification from a common ancestor, and a 4 billion year-old earth all at the same time. Not all IDists do but many of us do including me. What you can’t accept if you accept ID is that random mutation filtered by natural selection turned mud into man or bacteria into baboons.
I am confused. I thought evolution proposes that we all came from a common ancestor and that that is called descent with modification. I just had a conversation with a Darwinist a few days ago who tried to get me into that trap. He asked if things could change and cited dogs as an example. I said yes but it's still a dog. He said, ok now, a few million years go by with you selecting for a certain trait, now you have a creature who stands on its back legs and eats bread. Is it still a dog? My response was no. That can't happen. You can't get that from a dog. And I explained the lack of transitional fossils and etc. and forced him back into the Archaeopterix! corner. We left it at that. Was there a flaw in my reasoning? Is there evidence for descent with modification that allows for the dog to change that dramatically? Also, does Darwinism have a model of how the mud turned to man? I argue that one kind of a lot but mostly I get blank looks and evasions about how that isn't part of the theory of evolution. I know that a religious background isn't necessary for ID but it seems to me that if life was created, then it couldn't evolve because that wasn't part of creation. I guess that's a logical stretch but I don't see how you can get around it.Doug
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Hi everyone. I totally agree with you DaveScot and shaner74. Also this is a bit off topic, but I just wanted to mention that if anyone out there is curious about Intelligent Design, it's concepts and theorists. Check out ResearchID.Org, this new website provides unbiased, carefully researched material. http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Pagea5b01zerobone
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
“What you can’t accept if you accept ID is that random mutation filtered by natural selection turned mud into man or bacteria into baboons.” After a year of following this controversy, I truly believe that full acceptance of blind watchmaker evolution can (and usually does) destroy a persons ability to think logically – a person who would otherwise be regarded as intelligent. It obviously affects reading comprehension too, because none of the Darwiniacs ever seem to get it, even when it’s spelled out for them.shaner74
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
I read Steve Reuland's post and the only thing that I have to say is: I feel offended, at a personal level, and not only because of what it says of medical doctors (after all, I have never felt particularly identified with my professional cathegory), but just as a thinking man. If "scientist" is a new word for a superior race, I am very happy that I am not a scientist. I won't comment further, because the arrogance and condescension of that post do not deserve more.gpuccio
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
Steve says "The headline for the survey was that a majority of doctors, 63%, preferred evolution over ID. " Then he goes on to say that the survey would have confused the third of the poor doctors who couldn't really know how silly ID is or all would have preferred what he calls "evolution" I wonder whether the survey defined "evolution" as a completely unguided natural process that led from molecules to man? Of course everything is in the definitions. Why not use WDs definition of ID and Richard Dawkins definition of evolution and see what the results would be then?idnet.com.au
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply