Intelligent Design

Imitation is the highest form of flattery

Spread the love

The Anti-Wedge Document

This document, loosely modeled after the antievolutionary Wedge Strategy produced by the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture… defines a series of goals, and a preliminary set of suggestions on how to achieve them, which we hope will be adopted – with suitable modifications – by the three major US based societies of evolutionary biologists.

(HT: Paul Nelson at ID The Future )

8 Replies to “Imitation is the highest form of flattery

  1. 1
    russ says:

    “by Massimo Pigliucci, David Baum & Mark McPeek”

    Perhaps they’ll be remembered as the “Mikhail Gorbachevs” of Evolutionism.

  2. 2
    Joseph says:

    Hopefully one of their “goals” is to actually start substantiating their claims!

    Perhaps they may even get around to figuring out what makes an organism what it is and then we could actually test their “theory”. Or even without that knowledge perhaps they could tell us how to test the premise that, for example, a bacterial flagellum could “evolve” via some blind watchmaker-type process from a population of bacteria in which not one bacterium had a flagellum.

  3. 3
    scordova says:

    Greetings friends,

    One of the organizations listed by Pigliucci in the anti-Wedge is the group known as American Naturalists. I mentioned them in: In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom. Evolutionary biology has had a problem upholding its reputation even within BIOLOGY, much less the scientific community, and much less the world at large. The discipline is having a hard time justifying their existence to anyone but themselves and their socio-political allies.

    Salvador

  4. 4
    Joseph says:

    I just sent the following e-mail to M. Pigliucci:

    subject: If you REALLY want to refute ID

    Dr. Pigliucci,

    I read the anti-wedge document but I don’t understand it. That is I don’t understand its purpose.

    To really refute ID all you have to do is support the claims of evolutionism. IOW find a way to test the premise/ hypothesis that, for example, a bacterial flagellum could “evolve”, via purpose-less, undirected/ blind process, in a population in which no indivdual had one.

    Or better yet demonstrate that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. For if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via those types of processes there wouldn’t be any reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.

    Perhaps if biologists could figure out what makes an organism what it is we could test the premise of evolutionism. Yet all we know is the following:

    Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title) by geneticist G. Sermonti:

    “The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

    Also you shouldn’t place easily refutable jargon in your document. ID has no more to do with religion than evolutionism has to do with atheism. And reality demonstrates that we do NOT need to know anything about the designer in order to first detect (design) and then attempt to understand the design. Reality also demonstrates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer is by studying the design.

    As for evolutionism allowing for advances in anything- you know that is only wishful thinking and another piece that is easily demonstrated to be false.

    I hope this document becomes public. Then people will see evolutionism for what it really is- BS.

    respectfully,

    Joe Gallien

  5. 5
    John A. Davison says:

    Giuseppe Sermonti has been kind to publish my papers when he does not agree with much of what I have presented, but he is wrong about the cause that has produced species. It has not eluded us. The Darwinians have simply pretended that they had the answer. The cause of phylogeny, like that of ontogeny, has been before us for eons. It has come entirely from within the relatively few organisms that were able to produce offspring substantially different from themselves. They are no longer with us.

    A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  6. 6
    scordova says:

    John,

    Have you run across the works of Brian Goodwin.

    The large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the foundation of biological classification systems seem to require another principle than natural selection operating on small variations….

    Organisms are as real, as fundamental, and as irreducible as the molecules out of which they are made…

    The recogonition of the fundamental nature of organisms, connecting directly with our own natures as irreducible beings, has significant consequences regarding our attitude to the
    living realm….

    …one of Darwin’s most cogent critics was St. George jackson Mivart, who marshalled an impressive array of evidence that adaptation to the environment by natural selection is a quite inadequate basis for explaining species morphologies.

    Darwinian biology has no principles that can explain why a structure such as a tetrapod limb arises and is so robust in its basic form, it just appeared in a common ancestor.

    Brian Goodwin

  7. 7
    Joseph says:

    John Davison:
    Giuseppe Sermonti has been kind to publish my papers when he does not agree with much of what I have presented, but he is wrong about the cause that has produced species.

    What does that have to do with what makes an organism what it is? IOW do we know why a fly is not a horse?

    If we can take a eye-less fly, give it the PAX gene from a mouse and subsequent generations of flies have eyes- fly eyes, not mouse eyes- where is the information for the type of eye? Or is Denton correct in saying that although genes may influence development they do not determine it?

  8. 8
    Joseph says:

    Intersting- Was it something I said?

    Or is it that no one knows the answer(s)?

Leave a Reply