This is Stunning!

_{Barry Arrington

August 12, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Eric Anderson writes: “Darwinists regularly admit [the physical systems we see in life] look designed and they have to keep reminding themselves that they aren’t designed.”

Elizabeth Liddle writes later in the same thread: “…by intelligence I mean the power and facility to choose between options–this coincides with the Latin etymology of “intelligence,” namely, “to choose between”which is much more precise, but which would in fact include evolutionary processes”

And Upright BiPed asks: “Which evolutionary process has the facility to make a choice between alternate options?”

And Barry sums up: Ms. Liddle forgot to remind herself that she cannot use teleological language in a literal sense. Sometimes I wonder if the entire Darwinist program is built on nothing but linguistic equivocations.

Comments

Dr Liddle, the operations necessary for confitming the existence of recorded information have remained unchained since before yoou were born. They are covered in in item number 6 of the following post. Not only are they the only method ever used to demonstrate recorded information by any person throughout the history of the human species, they are also non-negotiable for that same reason.Upright BiPed_{August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Liz or Lizzie is fine. "Liddle", in the vocative case, I find demeaning. Consider the effect on you were you to be addressed, in the vocative, by your surname only. If it's a transatlantic thing,and you did not mean to be demeaning then apologise for having taken offense. And, FWIW, I do have a PhD, but, like most people with PhDs, rarely use it as a style. As the child of two physicians, the grandchild of another, the wife of another and the sister of another, "Dr" seems fraudulent. Although in fact, it isn't.
If you are now having a problem with my tone, then I refer you to my previous post above. I would remind you that this is a competition of ideas; one which must be conducted with frequent occurrences of demonstrated honesty on all sides.
huh? It must be conducted with honesty, of course. I don't know what all the other stuff is about.
I did not make an issue out of your willingness to practice in that fashion, you’ve done that yourself.
I don't know what you mean, UBP, and I'm not sure that I want to. But as I've said, I'm not willing to engage with someone on an extended without an mutual assumption of integrity. Without that assumption, communication is impossible. As, indeed, it has proved to be.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Well, UBP, until we operationalise your "dissociated representations which require discrete protocols in order to have an effect" we can't go much further. Your serve.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Liddle at 23
Upright BiPed: I ask you not to address me as “Liddle” in that aggressive and demeaning tone. I sign myself Lizzie, or you can use my full login name. Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. Thanks Lizzie
Dr Liddle, in my very first comments to you I think I called you either Liz or Lizzie. Something you said (obviously mistaken on my part) made me think that you didn’t care much for that name, so I never used it again, even after I saw you use it yourself. Instead, I saw Kairosfocus refer to you as “Doctor Liddle” and from my perspective you had given every indication of probably having earned that special designation. So I adopted it and gave you the due respect of using it throughout this conversation. If you are now having a problem with my tone, then I refer you to my previous post above. I would remind you that this is a competition of ideas; one which must be conducted with frequent occurrences of demonstrated honesty on all sides. I did not make an issue out of your willingness to practice in that fashion, you’ve done that yourself. So I agree with you that the well has been unneccesarily poisoned, and if the conversation should fail over that poison, then I am as prepared to live with that as you seem to be.Upright BiPed_{August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Liddle at 20,
While we are on the subject Dr Liddle, why is it that you refuse to retract false claims that you make about other people?
What false claims about other people?
You made the claim that ID proponents cannot make a case for ID that couldn’t also be the result of neo-Darwinian processes. So I gave you one. 1) DNA is an example of recorded information (by means of a sequence of material representations mapped to specific effects). 2) All instances of such recorded information have certain physical entailments that can be observed. 3) Those physical entailments include dissociated representations that must be actualized by discrete protocols in order to have an effect. 4) Dissociated representations occur when the state of an object/thing is mapped to an arrangement of matter or energy, but where the object/thing being represented and the representation itself have no direct physical interaction. 5) Protocols are a discrete facilitator which physically establish the mapping between the representation and what is being represented. They occur when dissociated representations determine the output of a system by allowing the representations and the output to remain individually discrete. 6) The presence of recorded information can be confirmed by isolating the representations, deciphering the protocols, and documenting the effects. Over the course of several weeks, you attacked each of these observations, and each was found to be legitimate and accounted for within the genetic information system. You have failed to produce any documentation that neo-Darwinian processes can establish such a system, and were therefore going to create a simulation where such a system would arise by chance contingency and physical law alone. The very fact that you have to create such a simulation is a real-time demonstration that you have (in fact) been given an argument for design that is not also known to be the product of neo-Darwinian processes. So your claim has been refuted by your very own involvement. You have been asked several times to do the intellectually honest thing and retract your claim, but thus far, you have refused to do so. This situation eventually led to a particular example of twisted logic (which took place well after the observations had been found legitimate and accounted for):
BIPED: You have thus far refused to acknowledge that one cannot logically be testing a falsification of an ID argument, while simultaneously claiming it doesn’t exist.
LIDDLE: It’s a fair cop. In mitigation, I plead that I did not understand the charge. I do now. I did not mean what you thought I was saying, but as I now understand what you thought I was saying, I willingly clarify that I did not mean what you thought I meant.
This roller-coaster response does not rise to the level of being even remotely plausible. To be believable, one would have to think that you are willing to spend months going to the trouble of testing your hypothesis against an argument that you think is already invalidated by some other means, and are withholding what those other means are. Instead of being a remark that is integrated with the observable facts of the challenge, it has all the earmarks of being flatly dishonest by refusing to admit to those very facts. In short, you have made a claim that has been proven false in real time by your own involvement, and you simply refuse to acknowledge that fact. In other words, you are withholding your honesty from this conversation, and specifically from me.Upright BiPed_{August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Liddle at #1 In the opening post to this thread you were discussing William Dembski’s writings, and told Barry Arrington of a particular point of view you had I mind. You referred to it as your own “preferred” use of language, one that eschews teleological terms. You described your view in these words:
Certain patterns can be inferred to be the result of systems of deeply nested contingencies.
Of course, by itself this comment says nothing. All that it would take to satisfy it would be for a system of deeply nested contingencies to produce any pattern at all. Since we’ve all seen a weather forecast, the bar set in your description is set so low as to be virtually meaningless. Yet, having described your view without regard to the patterns in question, you then turn to support your attack on ID by stating that these patterns can be mistaken to be intentional. You then take this seriously flawed description and use it to state what you then call the fundamental flaw in ID:
“I think the fundamental flaw in ID is to ignore the patterns that can arise from deeply nested contingencies and to assume that patterns that do so arise must have been “intentional”.
In describing this fundamental flaw, you begin by suggesting that design thinkers ignore the kinds of patterns that can arise from nested contingencies. That is a rather significant claim to make of a whole class of rather brilliant individuals. Whatever you had in mind to support this assertion, you do not say, although I wonder if Michael Polanyi was alive today, would he disagree with you. And, I wonder if your claim would be true of Michael Denton as well, or any number of others. In any case, I thought you should address the underlying flaw in your comment from the start; I wanted you to put a little meat on the bones you began with, so I asked:
In what discipline of science have we been observing patterns arising from “deeply nested contingencies” which come in the form of dissociated representations and require protocols in order to have an effect?
Of course, I am here referring to the entailments that are observable in the presence of any recorded information – given that recorded information is at the center of the biological design argument, and the center of biology itself. By asking the question in a way that constrains it to something useful, I intended to give some meaning to your otherwise meaningless claim. You quickly replied to my question with this:
Lots of disciplines, Upright BiPed. In fact they don’t always need to be that deeply nested as long as there are feedback loops.
I found your answer to be a bit of a surprise. Dissociated representations being actualized by discrete protocols requires very specific physical demands in the form of the dynamic relationships between representations, protocols, and their effects, so it was remarkable to be told that many scientific endeavors find it emerging with such frequency. You then offered the example that ”chaos theory if full of them”. Now certainly I am no expert on chaos theory (perhaps you are) but I am familiar with it to a degree and have done some reading on the subject. In all of that I don’t remember a single case of anyone claiming that representation, protocols, and effects had emerged in system of those specific dynamics (which you and I had talked so much about). In short, I just don’t believe your answer, and I think it was basically a punt in order to avoid having your claim against ID evaluated by the facts as they are. Knowing that you knew very well what I was talking about, I pressed for a specific example:
Tell me where patterns have emerged that are made up of dissociated representations which require protocols in order to have an effect.
And given that we have spent weeks negotiating our way through those terms and observations, and also that you yourself have constructed definitions based upon those observations, I then demanded that you not “BS me on the definitions of these terms”. I ended my post by saying:
You can either produce examples of such emerging patterns, or you cannot. Which is it?
That is a question you have yet to respond to with an example. And I predict that you will not be able to. Instead you responded by trying to diffuse the question. You stated that:
Barry was talking about CSI, not “patterns have emerged that are made up of dissociated representations which require protocols in order to have an effect”
However, I would just like to point out that your answer to my question (about representations and protocols) was not that ‘Barry was talking about something else’. Instead, your specific answer was that patterns made up of ‘representations, protocols and effects’ emerged in lots of disciplines. You then stated:
As we have agreed, your criterion for inferring intelligent design is stricter and more defensible.
Well then… Since you are here for the purpose of attacking the legitimacy of ID, and I am here defending it, then it would only make sense for me to hold you to the observations as they are. With that said, I will now ask you again to answer the question: Where do you find patterns emerging that are made up of dissociated representations which require protocols in order to have an effect? You can either provide an example that we can both observe, or you can say that you don’t have any such examples, and we can leave it at that. Or, of course, you can always punt this ball away once again, but to do so would virtually guarantee that most onlookers would be justified in assuming that you really don’t have any such examples to offer - which would, of course, support the claims of ID proponents by affirming that the specific entailments of recorded information are not known to arise from “deeply nested contingencies”. It would also suggest that if you continue to say that they do (arise in such a fashion), then your words are nothing more than an unsupported assumption, and cannot be logically used in your argument against ID.Upright BiPed_{August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Thank you Dr. Liddle... Thanks for taking the time to explain the concept. Too, I wasn't going to go here: "yes, I know it’s designed". I'm pretty certain you've had plenty of opportunity to field the interjection before. I'm content with the honest answer to my question...(as well as the opportunityt to digest the thought.) Cheers... K. Espenschiedarkady967_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Dr. Liddle, is selection the cause or the effect?Mung_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Barry was talking about CSI, not “patterns have emerged that are made up of dissociated represenations which require protocols in order to have an effect” My argument with Barry is inferring design from a pattern alone is useless. Inferring design from a pattern that appears to do something – “have effects” is quite different, and more of a challenge to falsify.
You really do not understand the ID argument. As such, you miserably fail to qualify as a critic. Now, it is in fact the case that the ID argument has been presented to you in an understandable way countless times since your most recent re-arrival here at UD. I do believe I have seen you accurately describe CSI before, somewhere in the midst of all your misrepresentations of it, and if I have to I'll go find it. So I think we can legitimately reject the "she's just ignorant" hypothesis. You do however appear to understand that "dissociated representations which require protocols in order to have an effect" is at least a subset of CSI or a case of CSI, but why on earth do you think you can have CSI without at least some specification, whether that specification be "has an effect" or something else? Why on earth do you think that an arrangement of stuff into a pattern qualifies as CSI in spite of all the evidence to the contrary? Why should we accept that your claim that Barry is both talking about CSI and that "Barry is inferring design from a pattern alone" is an honest representation of what Barry is actually talking about? Let me answer that. It isn't. Now, how have I "misunderstood" what you wrote? Do tell.Mung_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson: I think that front-loading is a perfectly decent ID hypothesis, because it makes clear predictions that can be tested. But no, I don't think the evidence so far supports it - I did, however, give you a link to a paper that might :) But it's not what I'm saying here. Although I am certainly more than open to the possibility (indeed, I think it likely) that selection occurs at population level - that some attributes of a population make the probability that it will adapt to changing environments more, or less likely. Over time, this means that populations with attributes that promote adaptability will persist, and those that do not possess them will tend to go extinct. This means that, for example, extant populations (i.e. populations that have not gone extinct!) are likely to possess attributes that tend to protect against extinction, and you could, in a sense, call this "front-loading" but not frontloaded by an "ID" merely by good old Darwinian rm+ns operating at the level of the population. For example, high mutation rates may tend to result in extinction after population crashes; low mutation rates may tend to result in lower adaptability, and thence to extinction following environmental change. Populations in which mutation rates are optimal will tend to persist, and become more prevalent over time. Epistasis is another interesting case in point - if the link between genotype and phenotype is too close, adaptation may tend to purge the genome of all but currently advantageous alleles, leaving the allele pool impoverished in the face of environmental change. So it is possible that a mechanism, such as epistasis, may have come about because it blurs the genotype-phenotype link, preserving genetic variance in the population. Again, populations with epistatic mechanisms in their individuals will tend to persist while those without go extinct. So, over time, just as genomes embody a "memory trace" of past environmental conditions that our ancestors were equipped to survive (and which may be irrelevant, and even disadvantageous to us), so they may also embody a "memory trace" of the rate of environmental change that our ancestral populations were able to adapt to. I know there is skepticism about the power of "rm+ns" on this site, but I think it is unwarranted. Once you have something that iterates, where what is carried through to the next iteration is contingent on a solution to some problem, then provided there is a steady supply of useful variety, then extraordinary solutions will evolve.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth @28: Are you suggesting that you support the idea of front-loading (i.e., some kind of pre-programed response to later contingencies), or are you just saying that physics and chemistry happens (meaning that everything is inevitable because it must automatically occur, given the contingencies)?Eric Anderson_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

arkady967
What are “deeply nested contingencies” and on what are they contingent upon?
OK, good question. First: by "deeply nested contingencies" I mean systems that can be represented, in computer code, by nested contingency loops: if a=b, then (if c=d, then (if e=f, then....etc but in particular, where there are feedback loops, such as that output of one set of nested contingencies is fed back as input into the next, result in non-linearities. So a computer weather-forecasting system (yes, I know it's designed :)) that takes in data from weather-stations, outputs a forecast, then compares its forecast with the actual weather, adjusts its contingency parameters, makes a new forecast, etc, would be one such system. Darwin, in effect, proposed that such a system occurs naturally once you have self-replication with heritable variance in the ability to self-replicate within the current environment. The self-replication is the analog of the iterations within the computer program, and differential reproduction in the current environment is the equivalent of changing the contingency parameters in the forecasting program. That doesn't tell you, of course, how the iteration got started, although "contingencies" are built into the physics and chemistry of the universe - things happen if other things happen and not if they don't.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
Name one [Elizabeth] Liddle. Tell me where patterns have emerged that are made up of dissociated represenations which require protocols in order to have an effect. Just. Name. One. …and [Elizabeth] Liddle, don’t BS me on the definitons of these terms. You know exactly what I am talking about in each and every one of these terms. You can either produce examples of such emerging patterns, or you cannot. Which is it?
Barry was talking about CSI, not "patterns have emerged that are made up of dissociated represenations which require protocols in order to have an effect" As we have agreed, your criterion for inferring intelligent design is stricter and more defensible. My argument with Barry is inferring design from a pattern alone is useless. Inferring design from a pattern that appears to do something - "have effects" is quite different, and more of a challenge to falsify. Especially if you also stipulate that the effects have to be achieved by means of an inert intermediary. But not impossible, I don't think, and if you would like to approve my proposal, I will get going on it. But as I said, I'd like to discuss the details here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1 rather than squat on moving threads at UD. I'm also not interested in conversations in which one party continuously casts aspersions on my integrity. We can do this civilly, or not at all.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Mung:
So what? Do you know what a tu quoque fallacy is?
Yes, but apparently you don't. It wasn't a tu quoque. I don't consider that I am equivocating, as I said. I think that IDists are. If you want the Latin for it, it would be non ego sed tu. Or something. My Latin is rusty.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

Collin:
DrREC, You forgot to state what protocol exists for the differential survival. You may say “the environment.” But we know that the environment is constantly changing. It is fluid and inexact. So one mutation that is “selected” as beneficial one day, may be malicious the next.
Bingo! Exactly. This is a point so often missed by critics of evolutionary theory. "Beneficial" and "deleterious" are functions of trait-within-an-environment, not of a trait alone. Not only that, but the prevalence of the trait itself becomes part of the selecting environment. Big horns may be beneficial when only a few organisms have them, but by the time everyone has them, they may be a more of a nuisance than a help - nimbleness in avoiding the horns of your rival may be a more useful trait, even if that requires slightly smaller horns.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson:
Elizabeth: “He allowed “choose” (which is a synonym for “select”) to be interpreted non-teleologically. And using it in that sense, evolutionary processes fit the bill . . .” What? Do you mean evolutionary processes look at alternatives and choose/select the one that is going to be more advantageous down the road? Or is it, as Charles D. proposed, that evolutionary processes simply create variations, some of which *happen* to be useful down the road?
Neither. Evolutionary processes, by which I include both the creation of heritable phenotypic variation and the differential effects on successful reproduction that those variations may have in some environments form, in toto, a natural "selection" system (which is why Darwin called it that, by analogy with the "selection" undertaken by human breeders. The difference between "natural selection" and "artificial selection" is that artifical selectors (human breeders) usually have some end in mind (a better-yielding grain; a cuter kitten; a more tumbling pigeon), and select towards that goal, whereas the natural selector, the environment itself, has no goal at all - it's simply, to use the language of chaos theory, an "attractor basin" towards which populations tend. But the results are the same in both cases - the population moves towards the attractor basin, an "intentionally designed" one, in the case of artificial selection, or the natural basin of the environment. Interestingly, of course, in the case of natural selection, the basin itself changes as the population moves. I guess it does with artificial selection too - eventually everyone gets tired of yappy little dogs.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: I ask you not to address me as "Liddle" in that aggressive and demeaning tone. I sign myself Lizzie, or you can use my full login name. Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. Thanks LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

DrREC:
“Consider how DrRec is playing fast and loose with the term ‘choice’ in post # 10.” Why don’t we substitute a synonym like pick, select cull, separate, etc? The effect is the same whether a set of wire meshes selects for pebbles of a certain size, or I do. But playing the game of “choice” requiring a “chooser” just reveals your desire to jam an intelligence into the process.
And this is why, it seems to me, the equivocation is not on the part of the non-IDists. Sieves and filters sort things - retains things with certain charceristics, let through things without characteristics. Let us use the words "select" and "reject" in those two senses, and stipulate that they are free of any teleological nuance, and I will use scarequotes to denote this special use (I'd use a subscript but this board doesn't seem to support subscripts for comments) In that sense, Darwinian processes "select" from each generation of organisms in a population those that thrive best in that environment, and breeds from those preferentially. And to put this even less teleologically: Those organisms that thrive best will leave most offspring, so that each generation will consist of a biased sampling of the previous generation such that heritable variation that promotes viability will be preferentially represented. There is no equivocation there at all. The important point is that even using the word "select" only in its strictly non-teleological sense, we can describe, and indeed devise, a system that promotes functional complexity - promotes "solutions" to the "problem" of thriving and breeding in the current environment. So when we observe such functional complexity we are fully entitled to infer that a "selecting" process has been going on. However, we are not, I would argue, entitled to infer that intentional selection (italics, no scarequotes) has been going on. True selection (intentional selection by an intelligent agent) is a subset of "selection" in the non-teleological sense. The task that ID faces is to demonstrate that complex functional entities, such as biological entities, are the products of selection, not merely "selection". And the CSI computation simply does not distinguish between the two.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

A wire mesh "selects"?kairosfocus_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

UBP
While we are on the subject Dr Liddle, why is it that you refuse to retract false claims that you make about other people?
What false claims about other people?Elizabeth Liddle_{August 13, 2011
August
08
Aug
13
13
2011
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Wow I feel like I'm watching an episode of New Jersey Housewives.ForJah_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

DrREC, You forgot to state what protocol exists for the differential survival. You may say "the environment." But we know that the environment is constantly changing. It is fluid and inexact. So one mutation that is "selected" as beneficial one day, may be malicious the next.Collin_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

DrRec @15: "But playing the game of “choice” requiring a “chooser” just reveals your desire to jam an intelligence into the process." Hmmm. Intelligence . . . intelligent design . . . yeah.Eric Anderson_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

But playing the game of “choice” requiring a “chooser” just reveals your desire to jam an intelligence into the process.
lolMung_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

"Consider how DrRec is playing fast and loose with the term ‘choice’ in post # 10." Why don't we substitute a synonym like pick, select cull, separate, etc? The effect is the same whether a set of wire meshes selects for pebbles of a certain size, or I do. But playing the game of "choice" requiring a "chooser" just reveals your desire to jam an intelligence into the process.DrREC_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Dembski specifically ruled out “intention” from his definition. He ruled out “teleology” in other words.
You don't even know what teleology is you silly person. Demsbki ruled out intention from his definition of what?
But we can equally cast it in clearly non-teleological language if you prefer
Did you just say that we can use non-teleological language instead after insisting you weren't using teleological language? Are are you insisting that evolution is in fact teleological but it can be described in non-teleological language?
Actually, Barry, I think the reverse is true! That ID is built on linguistic equivocations!
So what? Do you know what a tu quoque fallacy is?Mung_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Consider how DrRec is playing fast and loose with the term 'choice' in post # 10.Ilion_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

And lo and behold Elizabeth has performed 'linguistic gymnastics' in post #1 in order to justify her 'linguistic equivocations',,, As Dr. Hunter would say of this type of absurd Darwinian behavior,, 'You just can't make this stuff up' :)bornagain77_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

This following article has a small taste of how shameless Darwinists are to use 'linguistic equivocations' to try to make there theory seem scientifically legitimate; Playing Fast and Loose with Evolution Excerpt: The word evolution gets used and misused often. Strictly speaking, neo-Darwinian evolution demands that mutations and natural selection operate with no foresight or oversight, no purpose or direction, no impetus toward a desired outcome. In actual practice, scientists and reporters play fast and loose with the term, making it into a designer substitute. Here are some quick samples of how the word evolution gets used and misused in the popular press:,,,, http://crev.info/content/110810-playing_fast_and_loose_with_evolutionbornagain77_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed asks: “Which evolutionary process has the facility to make a choice between alternate options?” Differential survival and reproduction.DrREC_{August 12, 2011
August
08
Aug
12
12
2011
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply