The Man Behind the Curtain: Evolutionists React to The Voyage

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 29, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out.

Continue reading here.

Comments

ShawnBoy,
I don’t want to upset anyone here, but I would go as far as to say that the average Darwinist gives off the impression of being afraid, possibly even terrified of Intelligent Design.
I agree completely. You see a lot of bluster, but I think we can almost smell the fear in these evos as their cherished paradigm collapses. (warning: Don't click on the link unless you have 5 minutes of your life to waste on PZ's juvenile a**hattery).herb_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @43: It looks to me like you're having some fun with what WM actually said. Perhaps I've been on the wrong side of this anyway. Reasonable people without bias should be willing to accept a scientific explanation. Please scientifically explain how birds came to be in the world.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

As a nonpartisan observer who's spent over a year browsing this debate online, I've found I.D. and it's proponents to be the more honest, respectful, and knowledgeable participants. Compare the behavior of this blog's regular commentators to the classless, foul-mouthed ramblings of the regular commentators over at Pharyngula and the like. In my unbiased view, the average Darwinist comes across as being alarmingly dishonest, pathetically insecure, and far more interested in propagating his/her world-view than discovering the actual truth. I don't want to upset anyone here, but I would go as far as to say that the average Darwinist gives off the impression of being afraid, possibly even terrified of Intelligent Design. While they would say it's because they're looking out for the prestige of science, the truth is they fear that I.D. is the beginning of the end for their archaic world-view masquerading as science. It is.ShawnBoy_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg @36: There are no ID answers to your questions regarding birds. Compare it to a computer disk containing To Kill a Mockingbird, and pretend you've never heard of the book. Where did it come from? Did one person write it or many? When? Has it ever been edited or changed? Was it originally handwritten, typed, or dictated, or was it written in another language and then translated? ID doesn't answer any of that. ID says that some intelligent agency was responsible for its existence. Would it really be a strength for it to guess at what it doesn't know?ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

DK: Yes, I've followed the other thread. I'll take a neutral position on the specifics, but I've experienced for myself how sometimes it can get me a little worked up.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

There is a flawed paradigm — NDE. A new one is proposed — ID
How is ID a paradigm? Nobody in ID will say how things happened or even when. When pressed (as on birds) they will say (as you did earlier) there's no ID view. Is there an ID position on anything beyond "evolution doesn't work, therefore design"? For example, can somebody give me 20 moments in the history of life where there's a design intervention?David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

all those ‘neo-darwinist’ (arggh! ID spin doctors did well coining that term) are all honest hard working people All? And Michael Behe and William Dembski are not? How is not seeking to find the limits of NDE not work? How is attempting to quantify the traits of designed objects not work?tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Nnoel-- The problem is, most of the flaws in the scientific knowledge is already known, and acknowledged by the scientific community, Does the establishment acknowledge flaws in the theory? As was noted earlier Haeckel's drawings were in text-books for decades after they were shown to be inaccurate. It was only after evo-skeptics began pointing this out did the matter start to be addressed. And consider this: There is a flawed paradigm -- NDE. A new one is proposed -- ID. How are defenders of the status quo practicing good science when they resort to non-scientific methods -- economic sanctions, social ostracism, professional isolation etc -- to defend their flawed model?tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Re #32 ScottAndrews I am having almost the identical discussion with WIlliam Murray on another thread. He came up with the remarkable position that he didn't know: 1) If all birds had parents 2) If there was a time that there were no birds Do you share his opinion?Mark Frank_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

tribune7 For my own opinions, I think ‘guided evolution’ by ‘a greater whole’ makes the most sense to me. How is that different than ID? My point excatly!!! But, I dont support* ID because of the LACK OF ANYTHING SCIENCE, and I love science, and all those 'neo-darwinist' (arggh! ID spin doctors did well coining that term) are all honest hard working people doing their best to advance our knowledge, unlike the knowledge vampires I mentioned earlier! *by 'dont support' i mean it offers nothing, it only lies and deceives people, but other than that, I'm not counting any chickens, I'm watching, waiting, and happy to do some constructive criticism! :) Love you all.Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

tribune7 @ 20 : How is pointing out flaws in a paradigm anti-science? The problem is, most of the flaws in the scientific knowledge is already known, and acknowledged by the scientific community, but when the ID spin doctors hear about them, they repackage the information and spew forth the propaganda! If you are referring to the 'religious undertones' of the 'paradigm' and the like that the 'Dr.' loves writing about, well it IS a novel angle, but again, he is only bashing, no recommendations of his own, especially significant I think when the 'religious undertones' he talks about are far from un-refuted, and in most cases 'common sense' appears to be the best label for the 'religion'. But most ID material (a good e.g. is the PDF PaulN provided), best fits the 'knowledge vampire' category, as they use the 'actively researched' areas of science to promote discord amongst the 'ignorant of the intricacies' public, which I think hurts ID, but hurts science more! Love you all!Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

I’m just curious what the ID folks think happened with birds. David, Some ID folk thing there have always been birds. Some ID folk think birds evolved from simpler life. Pro-evolution folks constantly have to answer questions on evolution here Speaking for myself, I think no answer is better than a wrong answer, and an honest tentative answer is better than faking certainty.tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

For my own opinions, I think ‘guided evolution’ by ‘a greater whole’ makes the most sense to me. How is that different than ID?tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

PaulN I understand your position, in the same manner as you think you understand mine. My understanding of your position is that no matter what they find, they'll 'twist' it in their own heads to fit their world view, but I'd have to say that is true of both your opinions and mine, but I'm standing by the people trying to make new advancements, understand the problems and work through them, rather than the people claiming 'God dun it, and we'll never understand'. (please see my extract from the PDF above) My problem is that most people hear me say something like that ('i'm standing with science'), and the assumptions made are incorrect. Why cant I stand by science and know that Truth will be revealed? When all I see 'the other side' doing is science bashing, why even bother. When I meet people that laugh and joke about the failings of others, and never make any contructive suggestions, I call them physic vampires, and ID [at the moment] appears to be nothing more than 'knowledge vampires', living off others hard work and contributing nothing to 'the pile' themselves. After everything I've said about ID 'not doing science', that is the only issue I have. It frustrates me more than anything else. I come onto this board and at times I feel like every other poster is array against me, thinking 'he's just another Darwinist', but I'm not. I feel like the court jester [a role i do enjoy], laughing at everyone cause they not doing it right, but most ID Proponents on this board are so staunch in their objections to ToE that they can't see the ally that I am (he is attacking what I believe, he must be 'with them'). All I'm doing is constructive criticism, I hope I'm valued for that :) Love you all! P.S. For my own opinions, I think 'guided evolution' by 'a greater whole' makes the most sense to me.Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Also Nnoel,
Throw your hands in the air and give up already you silly biologists, you cant solve THAT problem, go home and enjoy your time with you family instead.
Why would you consider inferring the best available explanation "giving up" on an inquiry? If you finally discovered how your laptop was designed, would that be considered "giving up" since an elaborately drawn out narrative involving wind and erosion wouldn't cut it?
That is THEIR conclusion, but not one that a reasonable person would conclude.
Right, reasonable people wouldn't consider complex specified functional code to come from a sentient programmer either would they?
The entire paper is not science, it is ANTI-science as I’ve said! There is nothing constructive, yet SO MANY words! All this shows me how much effort is being put into NOT COMING UP WITH A SINGLE useful bit of science.
Again, empty assertions. You fail to address any of the real issues being presented in the paper, making your wordiness completely transparent.
All the PDF does is say ‘God Dun It!’, and if god did it, I ask, why do science?
To figure out the HOW "God dun it." Also our own mental faculties are well and capable and sufficient for producing real-world creations that bear a striking resemblance to the mindful yet exponentially more complex articulations of a grand designer, just something to think about. If we could figure out the actual language of DNA and how it's read and written in all contexts, then essentially we could find out the "how" and possibly replicate a similar process.PaulN_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews, my apologies if I sounded obnoxious. I've been made especially testy today by others (not you). I'm just curious what the ID folks think happened with birds. Pro-evolution folks constantly have to answer questions on evolution here but ID folks here get to keep their views pretty close to the vest. Is there an ID theory of birds? They emerged at a certain point in history, during the Jurassic. How? Was there a design intervention at that point? Did it modify existing organisms (as in directed evolution) or create birds de novo? Does anybody have a scientific theory of birds that is not evolutionary?David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

DK: It astounds me that I lower my guard and phrase a sentence to deliberately admit what I don't claim to know, and you respond with a cheap shot. Frankly I prefer to keep my debating on a higher level and not resort to dishonorable tactics.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Nnoel, Since you can't come to grips with this, I'll spell it out for you. Yes these Darwinists are the ones making the the discoveries, but the fact is that these discoveries work AGAINST their position. It further invalidates their own position, so simply maintaining a specific position when you make a discovery does not mean that said position is being objectively supported by the evidence in question. It does not in any way immunize your position from the objective facts pertaining to it. In retrospect, Darwinists also first conceptualized "junk" DNA which is a presupposition that has held back science for years. If naturalism wasn't inherently philosophically limited, these types of corrections wouldn't need to occur at the rate they do!PaulN_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

No, I think birds evolved from earlier creatures -- probably dinosaurs but maybe not. Certainly I don't think a designer plunked them fully birded into the world during the Jurassic.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Birds were “added to the world” as birds? That’s sticking to science all right.
So in your opinion there have always been birds? Where's that research paper?ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Birds were "added to the world" as birds? That's sticking to science all right.David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Nnoel:
All the PDF does is say ‘God Dun It!’, and if god did it, I ask, why do science?
Well just as Newton did, to understand what "God" did. Do archaeologists stop their investigation once they determine they have found an artifact? No. Do forensic scientists stop once they determine criminal activity? No. Would SETI researchers pack it in once they found a truly alien signal? No. I guess the ignorance is a trickle-down effect.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

From the PDF you posted : "Such a magnificent solution to such a monster logistics problem could surely only come from a Master Designer" "There is thus no possible random (mutation) solution to this conundrum." Throw your hands in the air and give up already you silly biologists, you cant solve THAT problem, go home and enjoy your time with you family instead. "The discovery that virtually all our DNA is functional right now demolishes the neo-Darwinian argument that it contains mostly junk which constitutes a unique fossilized history of our genetic evolution." This is a straw man, its these 'neo-Darwinists' that are making these discoveries, again, as I said, that is propaganda, pure and simple! "The discovery that natural selection has been an insignificant factor in our genetic history demolishes Darwin’s theory that all life on Earth arose from a common ancestor by means of the natural selection of natural variation." That is THEIR conclusion, but not one that a reasonable person would conclude. The entire paper is not science, it is ANTI-science as I've said! There is nothing constructive, yet SO MANY words! All this shows me how much effort is being put into NOT COMING UP WITH A SINGLE useful bit of science. I'd love to live long enough to know how all this will pans out, but with ID doing nothing but preaching to the converted about the problems in science, and real scientists hard at work at the self same problems, I'd love to see what conclusion is eventually reached! Remember 'Man will not fly for a thousand years!' - Wilbur Wright, 1901, and oh yeah, my favourite, 'Everything that can be invented has been invented.' - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899 All the PDF does is say 'God Dun It!', and if god did it, I ask, why do science? Love you All!Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

All observations and experiments say that birds come from birds. So if we stick to science… Good answer, Josephtribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg: If you mean the specific mechanisms by which I believe birds were added to this world, I don't know.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

DK:
Out of curiosity, where do you think birds came from?
All observations and experiments say that birds come from birds. So if we stick to science...Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Nnoel, I was referring to the theory of evolution, Ya see no one even knows if the transformations required are even possible. That is ignorance. No one knows if prokaryotes can "evolve" into anything other than prokaryotes. Ignorance. IOW Nnoel you are right, Do some science and stop spreading dogma.Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

As I see it, every bit of the literature of the ID movement has been thoroughly desputed, I'm assuming you mean disputed, and, well yes. It is very much debated. But disputed does not mean refuted and nobody has come close to doing that with regard to ID.tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

JTaylor,
But is there any aspect of evolution (e.g., common descent) that he does accept? Or did Darwin get absolutey everything wrong?
But is Cornelius obligated in any way to answer these questions? After doing a little googling, I would conjecture that perhaps these matters are not Cornelius' specialty. Rather, he has presented a powerful critique in which he has shown evolution to be pathetic, deceitful, and religiously motivated. There are plenty of ID theoreticians working to determine what, if anything, can be salvaged from Darwin's theory.herb_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

"No, just a hunch that twenty years after paleontologists have decided that birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs." Maybe. Maybe not. Out of curiosity, where do you think birds came from?David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply