Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

UD’s Weak Arguments Correctives page passes 50,000 visits


As I checked the dashboard, I just saw that the current visit-count for the “Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design” page stands at 50,307. Worth noting, even as onlookers are again invited to ponder its remarks. END

PS: Table of contents:


1] ID is “not science”

2] No Real Scientists Take Intelligent Design Seriously

3] Intelligent Design does not carry out or publish scientific research

4] ID does not make scientifically fruitful predictions

5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”

6] Since Intelligent Design Proponents Believe in a “Designer” or “Creator” They Can Be Called “Creationists”

7] Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos theology” of the Bible, he unwittingly exposed his intentions to do religion in the name of science

8] Intelligent Design is an attempt by the Religious Right to establish a Theocracy

9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong

10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design

11] Darwinian evolution is a Vastly More “Simple” Argument than Intelligent Design

12] Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of “micro-evolution”!

13] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution

14] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like “Darwinism.” The word “Darwinism” is a derogatory term used by creationists, intelligent design supporters, and other opponents of evolutionary theory that has no real meaning except as a rhetorical device to discredit evolutionary biologists.

15] Nothing is Wrong with the Modern Synthesis! (And, by the way, what kind of “Darwinism” is ID dealing with? Why?)

16] ID is really an attempt at overthrowing the well established principles of science. It is  a theory which denies the history itself of modern rational thought and of our scientific tradition

17] Methodological naturalism is the rule of science

18] Methodological naturalism is a centuries-old, traditional rule for science

19] Science does not address the “Supernatural.”

20] ID scientists are participating in a tautological exercise. They don’t really draw an inference to design; they assume a design in advance and then call it an inference

21] Evolution and artificial intelligence research have proved that there is no such thing as the “free will” that IDers attribute to designers; and, there is a scientifically respectable form of “free will” that is fully compatible with determinism

22] Who Designed the Designer?

23] The Designer Must be Complex and Thus Could Never Have Existed

24] Bad Design Means No Design

25] Intelligent Design proponents deny, without having a reason, that randomness can produce an effect, and then go make something up to fill the void

26] Dembski’s idea of “complex specified information” is nonsense

27] The Information in Complex Specified Information (CSI) Cannot Be Quantified

28] What about FSCI [Functionally Specific, Complex Information] ? Isn’t it just a “pet idea” of some dubious commenters at UD?

29] The ID explanatory filter cannot rule out chance or unknown laws!

30] William Dembski “dispensed with” the Explanatory Filter (EF) and thus Intelligent Design cannot work

31] Intelligent Design Tries To Claim That Everything is Designed Where We Obviously See Necessity and Chance

32] What types of life are Irreducibly Complex? Or which life is not Irreducibly Complex?

33] In the Flagellum Behe Ignores that this Organization of Proteins has Verifiable Functions when Particular Proteins are Omitted, i.e. in its simplest form, a protein pump

34] Behe is Jumping to Conclusions on P. falciparum and his so-called edge of evolution. P. falciparum did not evolve because it did not need to evolve: it is so perfect already that it cannot improve upon itself

35] What About the spreading of antibiotic resistance?

36] ID Proponents Talk a Lot About Front-Loading But Never Explain What It Means

37] ID Proponents use a lot of other buzz-words like Intelligence, Design, Complexity, etc, but never clearly and convincingly explain what they mean

38] Does Quantum Theory contradict and disprove the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)?

39] ID is Nothing More Than a “God of the Gaps” Hypothesis

40] Why are you Intelligent Design Creationists always so busy quote-mining what scientists have to say about Evolution?

41] What about the Canaanites?


DATCG, your word frequency comparisons are interesting. I guess 1996 was about the time ID began to snowball into more public consciousness. The challenge of course is, we operate in an increasingly polarised context in which projection and battling narratives have more prominence than responsible, reasonable search for truth. One is tempted to despair, but the significance of the hit count for the correctives page is that there are people pondering basic questions and so, bit by bit, the toxic fog of misleading narratives will lift. At least, for some. KF kairosfocus
Congrats KF, UD Team, News, Barry, etc., etc., to everyone involved for all your hard work. Also, a quick review of book search for terms Intelligent Design vs Neo-Darwinism(years 1800 - 2000)... Google Books Ngram Viewer and same search comparison of books from 1800 - 2008(would not allow past year 2008, not sure why)... Google Books Ngram Search Viewer Thanks for all you do UD :) DATCG
UD’s Weak Arguments Correctives page passes 50,000 visits kairosfocus

Leave a Reply