44 Replies to “The Intelligent Design Zoo

  1. 1
    jb says:

    Reminds me of the people gathered around the cross at the crucifiction demanding that Jesus call down angels to rescue himself “if he’s who he said he was…”. As if God would respond to this kind of mocking demand.

  2. 2
    TomG says:

    I’m sure God feels very welcome here. He’s being invited to do a circus animal trick, on their terms and not on his. What kind of special treat will they give him if he does it? I’m sure they’re trying hard to think of some favor that would impress him, and he’s just waiting until they come up with it.

    No, this is tempting/testing God. He will certainly show up and reveal himself unmistabably to all, but it will be in his chosen time and way; and he’ll decides who gets what rewards or consequences.

  3. 3
    jb says:

    This is OT on this thread, but here’s an interesting piece concerning JunkDNA (from a YEC source):

    http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4829

  4. 4
    bFast says:

    Whoever set up this display obvously is confusing the intelligent design hypothesis with special creation. How are we ever going to get the world past this hangup.

  5. 5
    SCheesman says:

    A suitable rejoinder would be to put a test tube filled with amino acids and an electrical source and wait for the first self-relicating organism to appear; or a large container with fruit flies and a radiation source and wait for the new “super fly”.

  6. 6
    shaner74 says:

    “A suitable rejoinder would be to put a test tube filled with amino acids and an electrical source and wait for the first self-replicating organism to appear; or a large container with fruit flies and a radiation source and wait for the new “super fly”.”

    ROFLMAO! Or we could do like Jonathan Wells suggested – just put a cell in a test-tube, “kill” it, then wait for it to reconstitute itself through the natural law of self-organization. I’m actually beginning to feel as though I may have underestimated my own intelligence these past 32 years. Where do you get “God poofed life into existence in its present form” from “Life displays evidence of design”? ID is so simple to understand, yet so many just don’t have the mental capacity to “get it” Imagine being taught by a professor who doesn’t have the competence to distinguish Biblical creation from ID? How scary is that? Maybe I’m just that smart? Nah, I rather tend to think others have allowed themselves to be blinded by their own “chance” worshiping beliefs because what science has discovered is too much for them to cope with. Maybe they need scientific grief counseling, much like the grief counseling offered after President Bush won reelection.

  7. 7
    cdf says:

    bFast:
    I understand why you might say that the “intelligent design hypothesis” is different than “special creation,” but in the end you must admit that the principle behind each is the same. Both claim that an “intelligent agent” must have intervened and created something… be it a flagellum, DNA, or a platypus. So you must understand why many can’t get past this “hangup.”

    SCheesman:
    What is more “probable”:
    organic compounds forming from inorganic compounds and so on… or an “intelligent agent” appearing from nothing to “design” a flagellum or DNA fully formed?

  8. 8
    rb says:

    Bill says, “If the challenge below were met, would it be evidence for ID or for teleportation?”

    so bill how different is this than Behe’s proposed, grow bacteria in a petri dish and see if a flagellum develops? At what level would the formation of a flagellum falsify ID? At what level would it not?

  9. 9
    austinite says:

    Whoever set up this display obvously is confusing the intelligent design hypothesis with special creation. How are we ever going to get the world past this hangup.

    It’ll never happen, on either side.

  10. 10
    Jared White says:

    What if a husband treated his wife the same way that skeptics treat God? She’d be out of the house, slamming the door on the way (and maybe slapping his face just before) faster than you can say Richard Dawkins.

  11. 11
    SCheesman says:

    “What is more “probable”:
    organic compounds forming from inorganic compounds and so on… or an “intelligent agent” appearing from nothing to “design” a flagellum or DNA fully formed?”

    It is, at least in principle, possible to determine the probability of the former, as it would be calculated based on known chemistry, reaction rates, etc. The second question, seems to me ill-posed, as the actions of an “intelligent agent”, are, almost by definition, not statistically calculable. I would agree that for an intelligent agent to appear from “nothing” is impossible; the mere appearance presupposes pre-existence. But just because we can’t detect something, doesn’t mean it’s not there. (c.f. dark matter). We DO know, however, that intelligent agents (e.g. ourselves) can design propulsion devices and write coded messages, so if we ALLOW (and this is more a philosophical consideration than a religious one) that a superior, pre-existing intelligence might exist, (and it need not even be God, at least proximaly) then it is no great leap (and rather probable) to expect that he/she/it would possess superior abilities to our own. Atheistic and agnostic sci-fi writers are continually proposing such beings, with nary the mention of God; why is it so hard to seriously consider them when talking about the origin and development of life on earth?

  12. 12
    a5b01zerobone says:

    cdf:

    I understand why you might say that the “intelligent design hypothesis” is different than “special creation,” but in the end you must admit that the principle behind each is the same. Both claim that an “intelligent agent” must have intervened and created something… be it a flagellum, DNA, or a platypus. So you must understand why many can’t get past this “hangup.”

    Intrigued by CDF’s irreverence, I felt I needed to speak up. If one can believe in the Big Bang (and most scientists do)one can surely believe that an intelligent agent input the necessary data into the Cambrian Explosion.

    Also “So you must understand why many can’t get past this hangup”.
    Last time I checked about 80% of Americans considered themselves to be Christians 80%! That does not include the observant Jews, Muslims ,Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, New Age groups, Jungians, Platonists, Deists out there.

  13. 13
    a5b01zerobone says:

    The mocking, anti-religious attitude expressed by Darwinists is wrong.

  14. 14
    russ says:

    Suppose some yet unknown organism was discovered in the cage. Would Darwinists not attribute it’s appearance to known laws of physics and chemistry anyway? Hasn’t some pillar of NDE already declared that even if there were no evidence for NDE, we should still be obliged to believe it is true?

  15. 15
    dodgingcars says:

    I guess I don’t see how this empty cage couldn’t be used to equally mock materialistic evolution.

  16. 16
    cdf says:

    dodgingcars:
    “I guess I don’t see how this empty cage couldn’t be used to equally mock materialistic evolution.”
    The difference is evoloution asks for very small (relatively) steps (organic compounds from inorganic), while ID asks for very large steps (IC molecular machines being “designed” by a complex “intelligent agent”)

    a5b:
    “If one can believe in the Big Bang…”
    …same principle. Which is more probable, small (relatively) steps, or great (relatively) leaps?
    I’m not necessarily hostile towards ID, I prefer theistic evolution. I just think people should be open about their beliefs and not try to work under some guise. I don’t understand why there needs to be a “hangup” at all between Christianity and evolution. That’s what all this comes down to anyways…
    (“Last time I checked about 80% of Americans considered themselves to be Christians 80%…”)

  17. 17
    shaner74 says:

    “I guess I don’t see how this empty cage couldn’t be used to equally mock materialistic evolution.”

    It could, it just comes down to the fact that “they” think their belief of non-telic, spontaneously-generating, self-organizing matter is superior to all other beliefs about life. It’s simple elitism. All one has to do is read a few comments on one of the pro-Darwin boards to get more elitism (and a lot of DaveScot bashing, they really hate him for some reason) than you can shake a stick at.

  18. 18
    a5b01zerobone says:

    I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man.

    – President Ronald Reagan

    You could just as easily replace Communism with Darwinism.

  19. 19
    jpark320 says:

    Look at these guy’s mocking God…

    They better hope that God doesn’t put something like a Dragon or something in there.

  20. 20
    a5b01zerobone says:

    jpark320.

    Jpark320. An example of just how lost our culture is.

  21. 21
    tribune7 says:

    What if a spider should be found crawling on one of the bars? I guess they’d have to accept that as proof of ID considering how they set up their experiment.

  22. 22
    Atom says:

    I don’t know if you guys noticed, but the words seem photoshopped on an old picture…look closely at the sign…you can see where they “smudged” brown over the old text.

    It isn’t a real experiment, just some joker who doesn’t understand ID displaying that fact to the world.

  23. 23
    SCheesman says:

    Atom: “It isn’t a real experiment, just some joker who doesn’t understand ID displaying that fact to the world.”

    Well, I don’t think anyone really suspected this was a “real experiment” 🙂

    If you check out the web site, it’s a rather polyglot collection of things, some humourous, some not.

    “Joker” is probably a good description, and should be an indicator of how seriously we should all take this particular posting. Still the discussion hasn’t been bad, so from humble beginnings…

  24. 24
    DaveScot says:

    Maybe the evolution story tellers will make a prediction for us.

    Which will happen first:

    Abiogenesis in Pasteur’s Flasks or the Intelligent Design Strawman empty cage filling up?

  25. 25
    a5b01zerobone says:

    One thing that excites me about Intelligent Design, is the what if factor. What if ID does become the new intellectual paradigm?

    Personally, I think our society would flourish. There would be breakthroughs in all fields, from medicine to theology. Our selfish gene society would begin to awake from its long materialist nightmare and perhaps move toward a more brighter and more egalitarian future.

  26. 26
    Atom says:

    @SCheeseman:

    I thought some were misled since tribune in the comment above mine referred to how they “set-up their experiment.” There wasn’t any experiment to speak of.

    But I agree, good discussion. (That is usually a given for UD)

  27. 27
    Simon H says:

    I guess its just a sad symptom of the brain washing of perfectly decent brains into a ‘naturalistic ontology’.

    I wonder if the guy who came up with this can offer some sort of explanation as to the source of physical laws; anything that approaches a response that is more substantive than ‘magic’ or ‘that’s just a silly question’, would certainly be progress.

  28. 28
    jb says:

    I took it for granted that everyone knew it was just photo-shopped.

  29. 29
    jb says:

    Speaking of photoshop, here are photos of some Darwinian transitional forms:

    http://www.dnaco.net/~vogelke/.....oes-wrong/

  30. 30
    dodgingcars says:

    cdf

    “The difference is evoloution asks for very small (relatively) steps (organic compounds from inorganic), while ID asks for very large steps (IC molecular machines being “designed” by a complex “intelligent agent”)”

    Actually, ID doesn’t say how big or small steps in design have to be.

    And, I still think you could just as easily have an empty cage with some mud in it and have it say something like “Materialistic evolution says that this mud will eventually become a highly intelligent organism. All you need is lots of time! Let’s wait and see what evolution magically gives us. Do you have 5 billion years?”

  31. 31
    jb says:

    I do find the relationship between TE and ID to be rather confusing (and I offer my comments as an interested outsider in the peanut gallery whose POV you might or might not find interesting).

    Depending on who you talk to, TE might or might not be considered to be within the “big tent” of ID. It also depends on how you define TE. On at least one YEC web site (I think it was AiG), they referred in passing to Michael Behe as “an evolutionist” (they were quoting something he said that was favorable to their POV). I suppose by this they mean that Dr. Behe accepts common descent and descent-with-modification. But Dr. Behe is considered to be within the ID “tent” (unless I’m mistaken). So is he a TE? However, TE sometimes seems to get some criticism from the ID folks (at least from what I’ve observed here). And some TE’s no doubt are critical of ID.

    I understand that the important distinction is between whether the common-descent / descent-with-modification involves completely unguided randomness or some sort of guided development. Or some combination of the two. Or front-loading. Or–as someone else here put it–small ‘i’, small ‘d’ (i.e., the “random” version of evolution, but being the result of an intelligently designed universe). It’s all very, very confusing, and it seems that the terms are fuzzily defined.

    Might there be some more precise terms for the pigeon-holes that various ID or non-ID POV’s fall into? (I realize that this might be a lot to ask, because one or more sides in a hotly debated subject might prefer imprecesion so they can equivocate: like when atheists define any form of theistic anything–including the “random” version of TE–to be “creationism”).

    So perhaps there could be something like “Theistic Darwinism” to designate the “random,” non-ID flavor of TE; and “Guided Theistic Evolution” to describe something more like Dr. Behe’s version (if I understand him correctly).

    Or maybe I’m just hopelessly confused and need to just do more reading on the subject 🙂 …

  32. 32

    The Darwinian Aquarium

    I’ve been inspired by this UD post.

  33. 33
    Michaels7 says:

    We should remember the materialist only argument for evolution lives in the past with great speculation and they’re flailing their arms in deep water with their stubborn refusal to admit just how wrong they’ve been. “JUNKDNA” causes more travail and shouting with each new function that is found.

    ID(and Creationist) live in the present and in the future. IDist and Creation scientist can manipulate life now and in the future by intelligent planning and foresight. By “tinkering.”

    Ateleologist cannot produce a valid experiment for dust to man, by a series of accidents or of snowflakes turning into polar bears. It is they who are living in fairy tales. All experiments have been utter failures. Fruit Flies, radiation, etc., etc.

    They are caught up in the first two subsets of Trevors and Abel’s Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity.

    1) Random Sequence Complexity
    2) Ordered Sequence Complexity

    Neither of which leads to
    3) Funtional Sequence Complexity

    Because they refuse to acknowledge the line of demarcation between numbers 2 3 they fail to produce a pragmatic scientific theory for future scientific research. Up to this point, science has progressed despite materialist evolutions 150 years of miscalculations and sometimes intentionally misleading(piltdown man, nebraska man, Haeckels embryo drawings) campaigns displayed to the public masses. Unfortunately forced upon children in schools with no apologies from the afundies.

    I am reminded the loudest screaming and shouting occurs during the realization one side is about to lose. This happens in games, politics, war and in science as great shifts in realization happen to individuals and groups.

    The other side has been screaming with fundamentalist calling for wacky oppression of freedoms against their perceived enemy. This will continue and get louder for awhile as ID becomes more accepted in scientific circles.

    As scientist cross over from the past into the present and see that ID provides more fertile ground in the future as a way to think about life’s design in us and around us.

    When scientist like Dr. Sanford and Dr. Pellionisz are eschewing materialist only philosophy of science, the Darwinist are in trouble. Atheist can no longer claim and throw insults as more prominent scientist shed light on the Code of Life found within.

    Materialist only crowds are losing ground little by little.

    Simple things that we know by simple observations. Without massive planning life does not 1) begin, 2) survive, 3) produce more informationally rich complex life forms.

    The mocking and scoffing is more evidence of a scientific groupt think culture in meltdown mode.

    When “ethical scientist” start Hitler-esque propaganda tactics like comparing pedophiles to Christians, they’re in serious trouble both morally and scientifically.

    They should be called out for what they are, morally corrupt, propagandist. They’re no longer scientist, but charlatans.

    When they started throwing insults instead of science, it was a sure sign of defeat. They have nothing left but insults and propaganda.

    ID is the future paradigm. Life, new life does not and will not “evolve” in other galaxies and solar systems, on other planets, moons, without specific and complex criteria prior to and during lifes emergence. New life here will not result spontaneously and unfold without prior planning and guidance by intelligent agents.

    The Third Subset of Functional Sequence Complexity is not attained without guided intelligence.

    And the Four Null Hypotheses still remaind unfalisfied.

  34. 34
    DK says:

    The evidence for ID is already met with the existence of the cage!

  35. 35
    shaner74 says:

    “The evidence for ID is already met with the existence of the cage!”

    Don’t forget the language on the sign.

  36. 36

    […] This picture, from My Confined Space, is doing the rounds (Uncommon Descent, Panda’s Thumb). It’s nice to know that by “no evidence for intelligent design”, ID critics really mean “no animals randomly popping into existence”. […]

  37. 37
    TerryL says:

    The ID Zoo won’t resolve anything because you can’t provide an answer to a question you don’t understand.

    When we ask the question “Do you believe in evolution or creation?” we presuppose that the issue is of one or the other–that is, that by “evolution” we mean the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) while by “creation” we mean the special intervention of God to create life ex nilo.

    However, as ID theory clearly shows, the evolution/creation debate is a distraction from the real issue–namely, the re-establishment of design as a scientifically acceptable mode of causation (along with chance and necessity).

    As other comments have indicated, the cage itself, as well as the sign posted before it, are already the products of intelligent design, thus tainting any conclusions we might draw establishing a purely naturalistic, Darwinian event.

  38. 38
    cdf says:

    jb:
    I think one of the main differences between TEs and the ID camp is that the ID camp asserts that one can detect design in nature. TEs feel that this is contrary to science and reason, as well as being damaging from a theological perspective. TEs accept the “random version of evolution” as the most acceptable theory from all of the aforementioned perspectives. For more on that, I suggest you read Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller.

  39. 39
    ajl says:

    looks like it happened after-all:

    http://viewmorepics.myspace.co.....1755708403

    and, I’m afraid it proves them right, eventually the monkey will become a human!

  40. 40
    EJ Klone says:

    Haha. Thats a funny picture.

    I think many people, both on the ID side and off, confuse ID and special creation.

    How are we to know that the designer(s) of life even had the ability to poof things into existance or use teleportation? If something appears there, it is evidence of teleportation of some sort, but the analysis of what appears there is what would make or break Design.

  41. 41
    Srdjan says:

    Is there a reason why I am not able to post here since new look UD?

  42. 42
    Tim says:

    As ID and evo wars raged,
    A materialist set up and staged
    A demand. So obtuse!
    . . . Treating God like He’s Zeus.
    Was it his brain or his will that was caged?

  43. 43
    mike1962 says:

    SCheesman:

    What is more “probable”: organic compounds forming from inorganic compounds and so on… or an “intelligent agent” appearing from nothing to “design” a flagellum or DNA fully formed?

    “From nothing?” Who said that? If a designer exists, he/she/it/they would certainly not be “from nothing”, although the designer might exist in a realm that is utterly unknowable to human reason.

    At any rate, neither is more probable since probabilities are assessed from known occurances. Thus far no known occurances exist for either ID or the Blind Watchmaker. If there were, there would be no contraversy.

  44. 44

    […] The Intelligent Design Zoo | Uncommon Descent – bFast: I understand why you might say that the “intelligent design hypothesis” is different than “special creation,” but in the end you must admit that the … […]

Leave a Reply