Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wesley Elsberry is such a dreamer…

arroba Email

Over at antievolution.org Wesley Elsberry tries to write an obituary for ID. Arden Chatfield faithfully rewords and repeats his master’s hallucination in the next comment. The kicker is a cat named GCT who asks if anyone has heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately?

No, I haven’t really heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately but maybe I missed Behe and Gonzalez because I was preoccupied in hearing ID recently supported by the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Florida as well as some U.S. Senators and other state governors.

What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over. ID may or may not be mathematically provable but it is intuitively obvious to any objective student of intracellular molecular machinery. Furthermore, to the same objective student, the initial assembly of said molecular machinery being assigned to random interaction of primitive chemical precursors doesn’t even pass the giggle test. ID is a given to anyone without a subjective commitment to a ludicrous contrary narrative.

As I’ve said many times before, there is only one prop still holding up the NDE narrative and that is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. It’s all political at this point and unfortunately for Wesley and his ilk he must convince a majority of voters that it’s his way or the highway. He’s failed utterly at that task and now we simply wait for the purposely slow moving wheels of the federal judiciary to move with the will of the people. Federal jurists have tenure so it’s a long process replacing those that have become unpalatable but a determined public will eventually have its way.

ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank.

First of all, kudos for publishing my comments, I admit that I read your policy afterward, and therefore didn't expect to be posted. Second, the judge in question had the responsibility of determining whether ID violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which last I heard (enterpreting the Constitution) is in a judge's job description. I don't recall the President's job description including responsibility for science education policy. That aside, is he really the spokesman you want? If so, its your (ID's) funeral. Considering Behe himself admitted under oath that his definition of science would have to include astrology, I'd sooner trust a federal judge. Third, while you're correct that the DI's position is not to teach ID in schools, it had agreed, at least according to the Thomas Moore Center, to supply a number of expert witnesses, including Stephen Meyer, Director for the Center of Science and Culture. Later all DI witnesses refused to be deposed, and that is what I meant by "pulling" support. I don't know if the DI or TMC is telling the truth, I was sincerely asking for commentary on that point from anyone who knows. But it seems clear that there was some discrepancy over how much or how little support the DI was going to give to the defense. Fourth, when referring to "observable" I meant CBR, obviously I realize no one could have physically observed the Big Bang. Fifth, confirming "unintelligent evolution" is NOT the same as falsifying ID, although that's exactly what I expected someone to say. Rather, make a prediction within the realm of ID, design a test or series of tests based on physical observations, and determine if the prediction was correct. Confirming evolution has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Proving that lead cannot be transmuted into gold does nothing to prove the origins of gold, it merely proves alchemy is false. Sixth, I did not set out to prove or disprove random mutation plus natural selection transcends the species barrier. My intention was to answer Charlie's assertion that the study of evolution hasn't contributed anything to science in 150 years. Slice and dice the semantics any way you want, but genetics (and thereby the development of new antibiotics for example) was predicted by Darwin, though he did not know the mechanism by which information is passed from one generation to the next. Lastly, as for me being a troll, sticks and stones...I've been called way worse, boot me if you like, I've said what I had to say. And contrary to the tactics you have chosen, I do not resort to name calling, I admit I lean a bit toward sarcastic, but I didn't endeavor to call anyone "stupid" or any other such simply because I disagree with them. Leo1787

To reply to Comment #8 by Charlie, you have to be kidding right? Just to name a few things in the last 150 years that the study of evolution has contributed to our daily lives: antibiotics, better farming via more effective pest control techniques, and oh yeah, the sequencing of the human genome, which I won't expand on further.

If you really believe the study of genetics, and thereby evolution, has nothing to do with these things, all I can say is, pray you never get sick, you will need medical science, which you obviously don't believe in.

None of these things demonstrate that random mutation plus natural selection can transcend the species barrier. These are examples of descent with modification where the descendent is only trivially changed and is at most a different sub-species. Sequencing the human genome has nothing to do with how it came to exist. You've got one more chance to demonstrate you're not a stupid little troll before I boot your ass out of here. -ds Leo1787

I've never been shy about being the sole voice of dissent in any conversation, and seeing how everyone on this post list seems to be preaching to the choir (couldn't resist the pun with this crowd), let me ask a question of the group:

Are we now considering as legitimate sources of science and/or education policy the Bobsy, excuse me, Bush Brothers and various US Senators? If so, isn't it hypocritical to affirm George Bush's opinion on ID (I doubt many would disagree his scientific qualifications are dubious at best) but disparage his choice of judge (he appointed the "activist" Jones, for those who didn't know) when that same judge makes a ruling based on his interpretation of the US Constitution (perish the thought!) rather than toeing the party line?

I'd also like to hear from anyone who'd care to comment as to why the Discovery Institute itself disavowed the policy of the Dover school board, and pulled its support from the defense causing a very public dispute with the Thomas Moore Center?

And for the person who made the analogy about the Big Bang and the CBR, that is a theory that is observable, testable, and falsifiable, and thereby makes it the polar opposite of ID, which shares none of those qualities (if anyone can describe in detail a test which would prove ID false, I'd love to hear it.)

Are we now considering as legitimate sources of science and/or education policy the Bobsy, excuse me, Bush Brothers and various US Senators? Why not? The other side is willing to have federal judges determine what is and is not science. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. why the Discovery Institute itself disavowed the policy of the Dover school board DI's position is that ID should not be mandated material in public schools. They might have also known about the flaws in the defense's case such as the school board member asking if no one was going to stand up for Jesus, trying to hide the source of the Pandas and People books donated to the school, and the creation science lineage of the book. I don't recall DI ever "pulling its support". I don't think they ever gave any support to pull. about the Big Bang and the CBR, that is a theory that is observable, testable, and falsifiable, The Big Bang is not observable. Don't be silly. It was a one-time event that happened 14 billion years ago (we think). The CBR is a testable prediction of the big bang theory. if anyone can describe in detail a test which would prove ID false, I'd love to hear it That would be the same test which confirms the unintelligent evolution of any structure that ID claims cannot evolve without intelligent agency. As soon as you tell me how to confirm unintelligent evolution I'll tell you how to falsify intelligent design. Fair enough? -ds Leo1787
We should keep calling it ID. That way, the darwinists can keep calling us IDiots as if this were some fresh and new idea--a metaphor for the darwinistic worldview if ever I heard one. terrylmirll
Evolutionary Design Theory? Mung
"all that is being contemplated is the subset of arguments that are purely about the capacity of evolutionary biology to result in life's history and diversity" At least he sees what the problem is for biology. idnet.com.au
I think that every time we try to compare ID to NDE we take a step backwards and play into the hands of the Darwinists. ID is mainly focused on firsts. Namely the origin of life or the first cell and the appearance of multi-celled organism with complex body functions as well as complex cell parts such as the flagellum and other elements. NDE works in micro evolution or fine tuning or slight adjustments. So to compare the two we are forced to deal with NDE successes in micro-evoltuon, not their lack of anything in origins or complex body parts. Give them micro evolution but then ask them to play in the major leagues where the tough problems are. When they do, they will fail. Do not try to compare ID with NDE. It is a losing strategy. Contrast then instead. jerry
Dembski@2 Bill, you better name it "Intelligent Unguided Evolution". Mats
Acccck! IEerrrrs? Ummm, nooooooo, there's a reason I dropped IE for my browser. ID would get lost in the noise with a name change. Besides with a true paradiam shift taking place towards Design, we need not make up names like the "Brights". There are many subplots within evolution. So to in ID there is development. Just as easy to say you're an IDE(evolutionist) or IDC(Creationist). I'm not worried about the age issue either way at this point. And besides, we've seen contributions like Sanfords destroys such labels. Better to destroy them than run away from them. Michaels7
When was the last time an evolutionist contributed something to science ? Can anybody here remember the amazing discoveries that benefited mankind due to an evolutionist contribution to science ? [ over the span of 1 day, 2 maybe 3 ? how about for the last 150 years ? ] Charlie Charliecrs
Dr. Dembski, I actually like the idea of renaming ID as IE. I know few IDers who do not see some reasonable semblance of common descent in their understanding of the way life on earth came to be. Whether species a became species b mutation by mutation, or whether the designer went back into his archive of DNA code, modified it, and produced a new creature -- species b, its still a variation on common descent. I think that the ID movement has been rhetorically trapped by the ID creationist label. I think that we would benefit by declaring that we are IEers. bFast
Forget the public schools and focus on the universities—absolutely. The public schools are, for now, a completely lost cause: They should all be privatized! As for the Big Bang—maybe there was a "Big Bang Bandwagon"—anyway I remain an agnostic. Rude

"asks if anyone has heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately" Maybe Behe is working on a new ID-book and has zero time for less important things?

Last I heard, Behe was editing a 10th anniversary edition of Darwin's Black Box with an added appendix in which he describes how since the book's release, it's critics have failed miserably in their attempts to debunk it. --Scott Markus Rammerstorfer
I used to be a fence-sitter when it came to the issue of teaching ID in public schools. Then I thought of a close analogy that helped me decide. The Big Bang theory was proposed in the mid-30s. But according to Gerald Schroeder (in his book, "The Science of God") when a survey of physicists and astronomers was conducted 25 years later, in 1959, two-thirds of them still rejected the theory. This, despite two lines of evidence supporting it: Einstein's equations and the red-shift in starlight. It wasn't until the prediction and discovery of CBR was made that the theory became mainstream. Now suppose that the Creationists back in the 30s hadn't been so wedded to a young Creation. They might have seen the Big Bang theory as supporting Genesis' account of God creating the universe out of nothing. And they might have demanded that it be taught in public schools. Let's suppose that had happened. What would have been the reaction of the Scientific community? My guess is there would have been a stiffening of resistance to the theory, so that even the discovery of CBR might not have swayed them. If I'm right, then we can all thank God that the Creationists of the 30s didn't jump on the Big Bang Bandwagon. And I think the lesson we should learn is that trying to get ID taught in public schools is counterproductive to our goals. I suggest that instead we should focus on dialogue with the Scientific community at the college level, among academics, and in settings where students can be exposed to both sides. I think this would be a much less threatening environment for those opposed to ID, allowing them to listen to the evidence with a more open mind. Bilbo
Yeah, anyone made this T-shirt yet: QUESTION AUTHORITY? QUESTION DARWIN! Rude
I guess it's time for Plan B: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/index.php/archives/134. William Dembski

Cute... this new strategy of the Materialistic Fundamentalists:

1. Create this pretense that ID is dead and that it's central proponents have abandonded it. Use the interweb to spread the sham.

2. Point to the decision of an activist judge in a podunk Pennsylvania town and cite this as the nail in the coffin.

3. Perpetuate the canard that biologists are the only ones qualified to examine biological systems and make judgements about their origins.

4. Pray to the gods of Darwin that people don't find about the last 30 years of scientific discovery in various fields (namely, the hard sciences).

Good luck, Mr. Dingleberry. You're going to need it.

Dave, perhaps a statistic on the growth in the number of positive ID posters at our little blog alone from January til now, would put things in perspective for these idealists. ;) Scott

Leave a Reply