Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism: An Exercise In Misdirection

arroba Email

Magicians have been doing it for centuries: using misdirection to keep attention off what is really going on. Darwinists have refined this art when it comes to defending their story: talk about religious motives, define “science” so that ID cannot be considered, fear-monger about the dangers of theocracy and the collapse of science education… etcetera, and so forth. Above all, divert attention from the substantive issues, like the origin of biological information. Listen to Michael Egnor here on that subject.

Now for the just-for-fun part: Check out this PowerPoint file of a David Copperfield illusion. Who can solve it and identify the misdirection?

What are your personal views on ID? Are they similar to Michael Denton’s in Nature’s Destiny? - JP
In answer to the second question, no. I am a Christian theist (although a former atheist/materialist, a position I now consider to be thoroughly untenable). One of the reasons I like Denton is that, as near as I can tell, he is at best an agnostic, but is honest enough to admit that the evidence indicates powerfully that the universe is rigged for life and even humanity. Since the physical universe had a beginning (including time itself) I conclude that the universe was designed by a mind that transcends space and time (it must have, and must still, since time and space didn't exist), for the purpose of creating life and minds. It strikes me as clearly evident that the entire unfolding of the history of the universe was rigged and planned in advance for this goal. (This includes the laws of physics, the formation of stars and galaxies, life-essential chemical elements formed in supernovae which are unstable and spew out these elements to form rocky planets on which life can exist, and all the stuff Denton talks about in Nature's Destiny.) The evidence for design in living systems I consider to be incontrovertible at this point (and Darwinism to be a transparently vacuous, desperate attempt to explain design away), and I see no reason not to infer that the mind that designed the universe for life also designed life itself. This is not an ID position, but my personal conclusion, and I'll stick to it until I can be convinced that this conclusion is not reasonable. As far as the Christian theism goes, I find the Judeo-Christian depiction of the human condition to be precisely what I observe in humanity and myself: made in the image of God (with a mind and consciousness capable of great and beautiful creativity, compassion, self-sacrifice, etc.), but in a fallen state (even capable of unspeakable evil), unable to overcome this fallen state in our own strength (attempts to create utopias always end in disaster), and therefore in need of regeneration and redemption from something outside ourselves and much greater than ourselves. As a final note, notice that the most virulent anti-ID people tend to be atheists/materialists like I was. Perhaps they fear that as public awareness of ID's arguments and evidence becomes more widespread, more and more people will come to the same conclusion I did. GilDodgen
GilDodgen @ #7, Haha! You're right, I never thought of it like that. It's the old "two coins add up to 55 cents" trick. For you youngsters, the two coin trick is a puzzle: Me: "I have two coins that total 55 cents, and one of them is not a 50-cent piece. What are the two coins?" Youngster: "Uhhhh..." *thinks for awhile* "I give up." Me: "The two coins are a 50-cent piece and a nickel." Youngster: "Hey, you said that one of them wasn't a 50-cent piece!" Me: "True. The nickel is not a 50-cent piece." angryoldfatman
Jerry, That talk by Dr. Campbell was quite fascinating. Jaz
GilDodgen What are your personal views on ID? Are they similar to Michael Denton's in Nature's Destiny? - JP JMP83
Another classic case of misdirection is the constant harping on "Darwinian evolution is not random." Of course, natural selection is not random, and by focusing attention on this fact attention is directed away from the random part of RM+NS. The strategy is obvious: once attention is focused on the random part, people are likely to become skeptical and figure out that Darwinists have created an illusion of the illusion of design. GilDodgen
Of the original six cards, none are in the second set of five. The card you thought about is always gone, because all six are gone. Jaz
I think it would be worthwhile if everyone read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and then followed it up with the commentary by John Angus Campbell. Both are free on the internet for easy listening. I am in the process of listening to Darwin at the moment and have listened to Campbell more than once. There is a link on every UD page to mp3 versions of Darwin's book and the John Angus Campbell is available using real player at http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.htm Dr. Campbell discusses the rhetorical techniques Darwin uses to convince you he is right. One of the most deceitful and hypocritical ones is when Darwin who was an atheist invoking God to convince his readers that what he is saying is true. I always thought Darwin was a straight shooter till I heard that. Talk about misdirection! So apparently the deceitfulness of Darwinists flows from their role model. jerry
Clarification - the improbability I mentioned above is with two different files of the same exact size having identical checksums. todd
Gil, Recently I was cleaning up my media files and used a comparison program to find duplicate files. I was given the option of matching by any combination of file name, file size, checksum and a few others I don't recall. I scanned my files by matching size and checksum, which prompted a conversation in my office about how checksums are unique only to a particular arrangement of bits - so if two files share the same exact number of bits, but contain different arrangements (therefore are different files) the file matching program can skip the mismatched checksums as duplicates. Anyway, our office conversation turned to discuss the probability two different files could have the same checksum. One of my office mates who I cannot speak to about ID without him getting all agitated and frothy, explained it was so improbable as to be impossible, except with really, really small files (which contain little information). I withheld the obvious, for my boss has requested I don't discuss ID with him for the sake of office peace... Since you're a programmer, I thought you might be able to offer further insight regarding checksums, I only know the basics. Could genetic code be 'checksummed'? Would it serve any useful purpose to do so? What is the useful purpose of checksum in programming/file management? todd
Be sure to check out Casey Luskin's interview with Michael Egnor at the link above. Dr. Egnor eloquently expresses the problems for Darwinian mechanisms presented by biological information and biology's "language" system. He makes an excellent point: When the information-bearing properties of DNA were first discovered in the middle of the 20th century, Darwinian assumptions should have been immediately scrutinized and reevaluated, but they weren't. The entire problem was just swept under the carpet with facile storytelling. Why do you suppose that was? GilDodgen
That was trick was so simple it was the dumbest thing since "Climbing Mount Improbable." Jehu
Ha ha. I do that trick on my kids' friends. It has never failed. No one I've done it to ever knows how. thanks Doug

Leave a Reply