Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Still No Bomb

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I posted my No Bomb After 10 Years post on October 23 and left for vacation the next day, and I’ve had very limited access to the internet since then. I am back and I am amazed at the energy that has gone into responding to that post (1,608 comments!). I have had a chance to go over the comment thread and can report that there is still no bomb.

Amusingly, keiths insisted that he had posted a bomb over at The Skeptical Zone that proved that Darwinism is “trillions” of times better at explaining the data than ID. His argument failed at many levels. Yet, even more amusingly, he kept on insisting he had debunked ID after his so-called bomb had been defused by numerous commenters. See, e.g., here and here for just two examples.

Keiths’ unwarranted triumphalism is just the latest example of a phenomenon I have seen countless times over the last 10 years. Many Darwinists seem to be literally unable to see past their ideological blinders, and this makes them blind to errors in their arguments that are obvious to those who don’t share their metaphysical commitments. I expect keiths to continue to go on ranting about how his bomb is waiting to be defused. Let him. At the end of the day, neither he nor I get to decide. We write for the lurkers.

Let me end with this. As I’ve said before, I will abandon ID, shut down this site, and become a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist just as soon as chance/law forces are demonstrated to have created complex specified information. [As always, question begging not allowed] keiths purported takedown did not even address this question, far less resolve it.

Comments
As I’ve said before, I will abandon ID, shut down this site, and become a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist just as soon as chance/law forces are demonstrated to have created complex specified information. When does this ever happen? I cannot think of a real-world example of a person abandoning (much less completely reversing course on) a dearly-held belief because they suddenly decide a particular argument proved them wrong. I have a very hard time believing that any single argument could persuade you, or any other committed ideological believer. You would have to not only "abandon ID," but conclude that you you wasted a decade passionately, angrily advocating for intelligent design and spitting on mainstream science. In other words, you've heavily invested your time and identity in intelligent design, and you aren't likely to walk away from that investment on the basis of simple arguments. I don't consider that a character flaw, just part of being human. This shouldn't surprise anyone, since it's basic and ubiquitous human nature. I doubt you intended your promise to be read literally. But consider the implications: you have a huge, heavy incentive to disregard arguments that would devalue your investments in intelligent design. Are you capable of objectively determining whether a "bomb" exists? Perhaps the impossibility of walking away from your ideological commitment led you to issue a specific challenge that can't be met, given the elusive and subjective nature of CSI calculations. I think the structure of your challenge is interesting in that regard. You're asking for proof that something can create CSI, even though it's been tacitly admitted that the concept doesn't work in the real world. ID has been toying with the concept for years, and has refused to ever test the concept. It seems to me that even IDists don't believe they can do anything with CSI, or show in practice that it comes from design but not natural forces. Asking for scientists to disprove a fringe theory that's never worked properly, when it would require a rigorous calculation of something that can't be rigorously and objectively calculated, is a very safe bet--you'll always be able to find an out that protects your cherished beliefs. If ID intends to make actual progress, why not advance some new and powerful arguments? In particular, it would be very difficult for scientists to ignore ID (as mathematicians, computer scientists, and philosophers do as well as biologists) if its proponents could actually use it to detect design in the real world. Having declared loudly, furiously, and stridently for years that their tools can distinguish designed from undesigned objects, I don't understand why IDists suddenly become so terribly shy when the subject of testing their claims comes up. That is, I don't understand how IDists justify their shyness to each other. My own theory, as stated before, is that it's quite clear to everyone who is capable of following Dembski's work that it just doesn't work in the real world. Else, why not show it by performing some blinded tests? That would be a bomb.Learned Hand
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
Look at Mapou's comment number 72, and at Joe's comments in this thread and others.Astroman
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
That should be the who, when, how, and where questions.Astroman
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Alan Fox said: "knowing full well that CSI is a bogus concept that cannot be defined with anything like the rigour necessary to quantify it." Joe said: "And yet it has. Relative to anything unguided evolution has CSI is in the most rigorously defined." Alan Fox said: "Who was doing the designing? When? How?" Joe said: "That comes AFTER, Alan. What, are you 5?" Joe, if calculating CSI is such a rigorously defined and useful tool as you claim it is then you should be able to demonstrate it by accurately calculating the CSI in a variety of things in nature and be able to define the CSI within those things in a coherent and relevant way. What that means is that you should, at the very least, be able to accurately and reliably calculate the CSI or lack thereof in a variety of things in nature (and no, not murders, deliberately set fires, artifacts made by humans, or anything that is already known to be designed) that are designed and not designed so that the differences are measurably shown, and you must also show the relevance of the calculations and differences in regard to the claim that a supernatural designer or a particular supernatural designer is responsible for the CSI or lack thereof, and if you claim that the supernatural designer is not responsible for the lack thereof you must show how you determined that, explain who or what is responsible, and explain how CSI is or could be lacking in anything in a universe that was/is allegedly designed and fine tuned by a/the alleged supernatural designer. And since you ID proponents claim to have already reliably, accurately, and certainly determined and demonstrated design (including fine tuning) in most or all things in nature (the universe) you shouldn't be avoiding the who, when, and where questions.Astroman
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
They have started a new fake science journal, Inference, but something tells me it's going to be even less successful than PCID. I predict more book reviews by Casey Luskin and review articles by whoever, but no actual scientific problems solved by actual research.notstevestory
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Let me just catch up on all the latest ID research by reading all this year's back issues of PCID. Done! Because there aren't any. That was easy!notstevestory
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
"The day will soon come when the impostors will be kicked out and discredited." Item #36 on the Crackpot Index: "40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant." Any day now, guys...notstevestory
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Who was doing the designing? When? How? Presumably this disembodied designer had to cross from the imaginary realm to do the tinkering. Where are the fingerprints?
Fox, go eat your own feces, jackass. I ain't your bitch. LOL.Mapou
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
notstevestory:
Ah, so it’s just Creationist Welfare.
Amazing how Darwinists love to accuse others of what they themselves are blatantly guilty of. Dembski does not receive any money from the public trough for his book. Why do you want to act like a jackass? Darwinists, by contrast, have managed to convince themselves and some others that theirs is not a religion just so they should get free money from the government. They don't need to convince the government since they ARE the government. Just Big Brother pretending to be your friend. It's the state religion whether you like it or not. Never mind, of course, that this is against the law of the land. The day will soon come when the impostors will be kicked out and discredited. I'll be watching the whole thing unfold with a grin on my face, a bag of cheetos in one hand and a beer in the other. :-DMapou
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
knowing full well that CSI is a bogus concept that cannot be defined with anything like the rigour necessary to quantify it.
And yet it has. Relative to anything unguided evolution has CSI is in the most rigorously defined.
Who was doing the designing? When? How?
That comes AFTER, Alan. What, are you 5?Joe
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Ah, so it’s just Creationist Welfare. Got it. Is Dembski still ‘teaching’ at that college where they made him sign a statement that he did too believe in Noah’s Flood?
I think he's just on the Discovery Institute payroll these days.Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Louis writes:
Intelligent design, as we know it from observing intelligent beings design various things, predicts that the evolution of complex objects designed over a long period of time forms a mostly nested hierarchy. However, lateral (multiple) inheritance (horizontal gene transfer in biology) is also a well-known design technique. Ask any computer software engineer. Guess what? This is precisely what is observed in nature.
Who was doing the designing? When? How? Presumably this disembodied designer had to cross from the imaginary realm to do the tinkering. Where are the fingerprints?Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
Ah, so it's just Creationist Welfare. Got it. Is Dembski still 'teaching' at that college where they made him sign a statement that he did too believe in Noah's Flood?notstevestory
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Holy Cow! Dembski’s new book is $105?????? Who in the world would buy that????
As he already got a $100,000 advance for it in September 1999 from the Templeton Foundation, maybe sales aren't so important.Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
notstevestory:
Holy Cow! Dembski’s new book is $105?????? Who in the world would buy that????
Amazon has it for $31.46.keith s
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Holy Cow! Dembski's new book is $105?????? Who in the world would buy that????notstevestory
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
ID predictions: Intelligent design, as we know it from observing intelligent beings design various things, predicts that the evolution of complex objects designed over a long period of time forms a mostly nested hierarchy. However, lateral (multiple) inheritance (horizontal gene transfer in biology) is also a well-known design technique. Ask any computer software engineer. Guess what? This is precisely what is observed in nature. Darwin, by contrast, predicted a strictly nested hierarchy enforced by common descent. This has been proven false many times over. It's embarrassing, to say the least. The only thing that is keeping Darwinism alive is politics and a bunch of brain-dead dirt worshipers. IDists : 1 Darwinists: 0Mapou
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Louis asks:
Where have seen this lame canard before?
Swimming in a circle? Talking about searches for solutions, talking about islands of function, talking about needles in haystacks. Challenging people to disprove a bogus concept like CSI.Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
its proponents unfailingly misunderstand and misrepresent evolutionary theory.
LOL. Where have seen this lame canard before?Mapou
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
drc466 writes:
Alan Fox has decided that ID must be wrong because it is comprised primarily of showing that Evolution “can’t do” something.
Not quite. ID is not wrong; it is non-existent as a scientific theory. And it fails in criticising evolutionary theory because its proponents unfailingly misunderstand and misrepresent evolutionary theory. Remember Barry upthread asked:
For example, perhaps you can point me to the peer reviewed paper where chance/law was demonstrated to have created CSI.
knowing full well that CSI is a bogus concept that cannot be defined with anything like the rigour necessary to quantify it. He knows full well that the scientific community do not discuss, write about or employ the concept. It is a vapid concept.Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Barry has opened a new thread, so I will respond to drc466 there.keith s
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
So, to sum up: keith s has decided that a subjective, statistical analysis of incomplete, contrary cladograms "proves" evolution. While ignoring the flaws of his argument, and all the statistical analyses of orders of orders of magnitude higher improbabilities that "disprove" evolution. Alan Fox has decided that ID must be wrong because it is comprised primarily of showing that Evolution "can't do" something. While being unaware of the fact that his only response to these arguments is an unsubstantiated Faith that Evolution "can do" them, and that throughout history the primary method of disproving hypotheses is showing how they fail to meet observed or calculated results (aka "can't do"). Rich's posts lack any substantive argument. Meanwhile, empirical evidence of chance/law producing CSI/novelty/macro-evolution/whatever you want to call it still remains absent. To which the evolutionist's only response is to deny there is a difference between complex/simple, specified/unspecified, up/down, add/subtract, new/old, live/dead, sandcastles/piles of sand.drc466
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
keith s- Your argument has been shown to be garbage and your ignorance has been exposed. Now the only question is why are you so proud of that?Joe
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
While we wait for Barry's refutation, here are the closing paragraphs of my OP:
This is a big problem for IDers. They concede that unguided evolution can bring about microevolutionary changes, but they claim that it cannot be responsible for macroevolutionary changes. Yet they give no plausible reasons why microevolutionary changes, accumulating over a long period of time, should fail to produce macroevolutionary changes. All they can assert is that somehow there is a barrier that prevents microevolution from accumulating and turning into macroevolution. Having invented a barrier, they must invent a Designer to surmount it. And having invented a Designer, they must arbitrarily constrain his behavior (as explained above) to match the data. Three wild, unsupported assumptions: 1) that a barrier exists; 2) that a Designer exists; and 3) that the Designer always acts in ways that mimic evolution. (We often hear that evolution is a designer mimic, so it’s amusing to ponder a Designer who is an evolution mimic.) Unguided evolution requires no such wild assumptions in order to explain the data. Since it doesn’t require these arbitrary assumptions, it is superior to ID as an explanation. Here’s an analogy that may help. Imagine you live during the time of Newton. You hear that he’s got this crazy idea that gravity, the force that makes things fall on earth, is also responsible for the orbits of the moon around the earth and of the earth and the other planets around the sun. You scoff, because you’re convinced that there is an invisible, undetected barrier around the earth, outside of which gravity cannot operate. Because of this barrier, you are convinced of the need for angels to explain why the moon and the planets follow the paths they do. If they weren’t pushed by angels, they would go in straight lines. And because the moon and planets follow the paths they do, which are the same paths predicted by Newton on the basis of gravity, you assume that the angels always choose those paths, even though there are trillions of other paths available to them. Instead of extrapolating from earthly gravity to cosmic gravity, you assume there is a mysterious barrier. Because of the barrier, you invent angels. And once you invent angels, you have to restrict their behavior so that planetary paths match what would have been produced by gravity. Your angels end up being gravity mimics. Laughable, isn’t it? Yet the ‘logic’ of ID is exactly the same. Instead of extrapolating from microevolution to macroevolution, IDers assume that there is a mysterious barrier that prevents unguided macroevolution from happening. Then they invent a Designer to leap across the barrier. Then they restrict the Designer’s behavior to match the evidence, which just happens to be what we would expect to see if unguided macroevolution were operating. The Designer ends up being an unguided evolution mimic. The problem is stark. ID is trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence, and the only way to achieve parity is to tack wild and unsupported assumptions onto it. If you are still an IDer after reading, understanding, and digesting all of this, then it is safe to say that you are an IDer despite the evidence, not because of it. Your position is a matter of faith and is therefore a religious stance, not a scientific one.
keith s
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
'If you’re going to criticize one scientific theory for not being used every day you need to criticize them all.' It wasn't a matter of evolutionary theory not being used by them every day, enkedi, or even frequently, but never! A Just So Story in the real scientific world. Surely, germ theory IS used every day, and I suspect, plate tectonics, too, though I believe such shifting of tectonic plates and seismic activity can't be predicted with much confidence with our current scientific understanding.Axel
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Well I'm sad that the debate is too robust for fragile petals such a yourself, Andre. :( Ask WJM about his "big boy pants" tailor and maybe one day you can get a pair and rejoin the debate.Rich
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Keith S What bomb? You did not have anything...... it is a dud.......Andre
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Barry, If my bomb is such a dud, you should be able to defuse it easily, in your own words. How about it?keith s
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Rich In my native tongue we have a saying... "Meng jou met die semels dan vreet die varke jou op." Look it up. TSZ is not on any of my wish lists......Andre
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Andre: " Perhaps I’m too low on the ladder to be given answers…." Or perhaps you have a whole thread on it ready to roll with a world class expert at your disposal? http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=5099 Honesty, Andre. Strive for it.Rich
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply