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
The soma vs germ-line has been pointed out to you, Andre.Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Axel Your comment is somewhat ironical, Reynard, in the light of the survey reported on here, in which all the scientists polled stated that Evolution had never figured in any of the work they had performed during their professional life. Indeed, risibly ironical would hardly be overstating the matter. How many scientists use the theory of plate tectonics in their day to day work? How many use the germ theory of disease? The validity of a scientific theory is not dependent on how many people directly use it.Enkidu
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Why don't you go and ask him directly?;) You sure love banging your drum. Don't be afraid that there may be a better drummer.Rich
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Rich I read the posts and there is just nothing..... Not even Joe knows how PCD came about by unguided processes ask him...... I asked you.... anything?Andre
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Andre, Why don't you ask Barry to let you author a post on, presumably, programmed cell death if yo think it is a killer argument? How about it, Barry?Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Andre, you've got a whole PCD thread of your own where world class biologist Joe Felsenstein is ready to continue your education. What are you doing here, asking me? You do highlight that there is no real substance to ID, just anti-evolutionary flailing, so I think your post was still useful, though.Rich
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Let's see if Rich can help...... Rich can you show us how unguided processes created a guided process to prevent unguided processes from happening? Anything? Please help me shutdown UD!Andre
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Barry, I think the CSI dog is dead. No-one is using it, or calculating it, or measuring it. You can't even agree amongst yourselves what it is or if its calculable. It has been found out as a rhetorical device and no-one is buying that bluff any more.Rich
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Welcome back Barry. I was a little worried. Denyse, defining those who disagree with you as "Trolls" may be politically convenient, but that's about it. In the first link, KF clearly has no grasps of the entailments of either theory. William the same. I suppose you could argue for a prankster designer who is trying really hard to make evolution look real, or accept evolution and focus on abiogenesis - again, ID is jello .. " The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" but I guess by calling out natural selection you can't hide behind the vagueness that is "some features". It went *so* badly for ID when there is a fair exchange of views that they (KF) closed comments on both threads. ID has a lot of work to do before its ready for prime time. Denyse also pulled up some research that destroyed the "islands of function" argument. *High Five* Denyse!Rich
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
"Science that works, proves useful, will survive and develop. Ideas that prove wrong will be discarded. " In a perfect world Alan, this would be true but it isn't, far from it unfortunately. Darwinian evolution is not useful, it has been proven wrong countless times, it has a mountain of failed predictions, and yet the outdated silly Victorian idea still plagues the world with true believers just not willing to let go. There is no bomb only fundamentalist Darwin believers who aren't mature enough to accept their cherished theory sounds more ridiculous with each new scientific discovery.humbled
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Scientific. Darned smartphones!Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Barry,of course I can't point out a s identification paper discussing CSI. CS is an undefined, unscientific term. Can you point me to the scientific theory of ID?Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
No, I didn't forget, Alan. I have many better things to do with my time than to preserve every article and post that comfirm the ineluctable truth of theism, as attested by the non locality observed in QM experiments. Well, it's true generally, although a few are noteworthy enough to preserve for future links.Axel
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Alan, do you have anything of substance to say? As I have often said before, sneers are poor substitute for an argument. For example, perhaps you can point me to the peer reviewed paper where chance/law was demonstrated to have created CSI.Barry Arrington
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
You forgot to include a link, Axel.Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
I've seen generally three things. 1) It just *has* to be true. 2) All the cool kids believe it and I don't want to be stupid, fringe, etc. 3) Employ a presupposition where design can't be even considered. Related to 1).geoffrobinson
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Your comment is somewhat ironical, Reynard, in the light of the survey reported on here, in which all the scientists polled stated that Evolution had never figured in any of the work they had performed during their professional life. Indeed, risibly ironical would hardly be overstating the matter.Axel
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Exactly, Barry. You don't get to decide. All you can do is watch from the sidelines. Science that works, proves useful, will survive and develop. Ideas that prove wrong will be discarded. Perhaps when ID eventually comes up with a genuine e testable theory it can be tested in the crucible of science.Alan Fox
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
So the trolls do not yet have the Bomb?News
November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply