Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: No Evidence for a Designer/Glass Houses
- View SourceAt 08:47 PM 5/26/2007, you wrote:
>NO EVIDENCE FOR A DESIGNERno kidding.
> Clare: "ID demands _intelligence_."
> Susan: "yeah, the intelligence of an entity who just happens to
>have the skill set to create a universe. Gosh, who does that sound like?"
> It sounds like God to me. I suspect that virtually everyone would
>think that God is the most likely candidate for the designer implied by ID
>(although Phil is holding out for "self-design," whatever that mightthat is true, at least for the ID publicists.
>be). The theory itself, however, makes no speculations as to the identity
>and nature of the designer. Its entire focus is on design detection, not
Obviously all the foots oldiers think it's God
and that they are "defending God" (as if God
needed it!). The "we don't speculate on the
identity of the designer" is a ploy intended to
evade the 1st Amendment. It's a deception. Since
the Dover trial it's a deception almost nobody believes any more.
> ID theory and its theistic implications are two different thingsthere is no ID theory.
>(just as Darwinism and its atheistic implications are two different
>This is really not a hard point to grasp, but for whatever reason,it is religion. You haven't shown us a shred of a
>you refuse to take hold of it. Thus you consistently and falsely describe
>ID theory as religion rather than science.
hint of why we should regard it as science or
even tried to make a case that it can be
considered science. You focus on ad hominem
against Darwin himself (As if Beelzebub couldn't
come up with a valid scientific theory) and you
talk about religious issues like "meaning" and
"materialism." I haven't seen a single scientific
thing about ID that has no reference to evolution-bashing.
>Consider your description inyet there is no definition of what "complex
>light of these facts: The core concepts of ID theory are specified
>complexity, complex specified information, and irreducible complexity (much
>like the core concepts of Darwinism are variation and natural selection).
specified information" might be or how you can
detect it. All the blather about it boils down to
"See! It looks complex!" You know what a fairy ring is?
It is an example of specified complexity. So much
so, that for centuries people assumed an
intelligence was behind it. Of course, they knew
nothing about the reproductive cycle of fungi. We
do now. Bye-bye specified complexity. Fairy rings
are a product of variation and natural selection.
There are many, many examples of irreducible
complexity Behe could have used in his book, but
he didn't use them, because how they evolved is
very well understood. All Behe did was suggest
research projects for his colleagues. Behe didn't
do the research himself because he needed a hole
in our knowledge that he could stuff God into.
"It CAN'T have evolved! God did it!" His
irreducible complexity argument is identical to
Gish's bombardier beetle argument which dates back to at least 1977.
>Its tools include advanced probability theory, information theory,see above. They are a rehash of old creationist arguments
>recursion theory, stochastic process theory, biochemistry, biophysics,
>molecular biology, microbiology, biology, paleontology, genetics, computer
>science, the explanatory filter, and philosophy of science. If you want to
>insist that ID is religion, then please identify which of those concepts,
>or which of those tools, is religious rather than scientific.
>I've been aID is religion because there is nothing, nada,
>Christian most of my life and I know what a religion looks like. ID looks
>nothing like a religion to me (which is not to say that theists can't get
>some theistic mileage out of the theory's theistic implications - much like
>atheists can get some atheistic mileage out of Darwinism's atheistic
zilch that can ever prove it wrong. There is a
huge list of things that could have (and didn't)
prove evolution wrong. I've listed several
before. The fossil record could have no pattern
but just be a jumble with the same array of
fossils in every strata. The DNA of all living
things could be the same way. A jumble. The same
DNA would be responsible for the eye from
organism to organism. The same DNA would be
responsible for a limb or a liver or a heart,
with no pattern across species. But it's not how
it is. There are 40 different kinds of eyes.
Almost all mammals can manufacture vitamin C in
their bodies from elephants to naked mole rats.
Guinea pigs can't. Chimps can't. Humans can't. We
three (and probably a few others) can't
manufacture vitamin C. We have to eat it in food.
Guinea pigs are native to South America. Humans
and chimps both come from Africa. Not only did
Chimps and humans originate in the same place but
we resemble each other physically and
behaviorally. Guess what? We, all three, have a
broken vitamin C gene. But Guinea pigs have
theirs broken in a different place and a
different way. Humans and chimps have the SAME
gene broken in the SAME place, in the SAME way.
The truth is, if evolution were NOT true, if
there was no evidence to support it, it might
have been popular for a while among some 19th
century atheists, but it would never have become
the robust, worldwide theory it is today.
> Clare: "Darwin's 'evolutionary theory' is a Weltanschauung hidinghahahahah!!!!
>behind the skirts of the institution of science."
> Susan: "uh, yeah, agricultural and medical advances are based on a
>worldview, not actual science. Gotcha. *Do* you take a flu shot every
> Medical advances owe nothing to Darwinism.
>The modern practice ofDarwin plays a huge role in the use of
>immunization, for example, originated in the 1790s, when English physician
>Edward Jenner (who obviously knew nothing about Darwinism) developed the
>smallpox vaccine. Similarly, Darwinism played no role in Alexander
>Fleming's discovery of penicillin or in the subsequent purification of
>penicillin into a clinically useful form (by Howard Florey and Ernst
antibiotics, though, because bacteria evolve so
quickly. Penicillin is used very little today
because most bacteria have evolved around it.
Clare won't take last year's flu shot because she
knows the viruses are constantly evolving.
Evolutionary biologists are always watching for
the new strains of virus so they know how to formulate this year's vaccine.
I also heard recently that evolutionary biology
is involved in the understanding of how cancer
works. There was a nice piece on NPR about it.
> Harvard biologist Marc W. Kirshner (himself a Darwinist) lamentedA Templeton guy. Actually a kind of creationist.
>the uselessness of Darwinism in this way: "Over the last one hundred years,
>almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except
>evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology,
>have not taken evolution into account at all."
> Echoing Kirshner, chemist Philip S. Skell (member, US Nationaland a creationist
>Academy of Sciences)
> Susan: "The whole Hitler/Darwin thing is just propaganda. It's adThere is no evidence at all that Darwinism has
> Actually, it's not "ad hominem" (see above). No one here has argued
>that the Darwin/Hitler link does anything to discredit the scientific
>legitimacy of Darwinian evolutionary theory. The argument that has actually
>been made (as you've been reminded repeatedly) is that Darwinism has had
>(and continues to have) adverse moral and social effects that go far beyond
>its scientific merits. The influence Darwinism exerted on Hitler and other
>Nazi theorists demonstrates its adverse moral/social effects.
had "adverse moral and social effects." In fact
if you look at the arc of the century and a half
since Darwin you will see that the spread of
humanism has hugely improved the morality of the
world in general from the elimination of slavery
to the criminalizing of spouse abuse. The only
place you get genocide and mass murder these days
is places where Darwin is not understood and
education in general is very poor. The safest and
most peaceful places on the planet are the places
were Darwin is well taught and widely accepted.
Compare anywhere in Alabama with anywhere in Sweden.
>GLASS HOUSESI'm comparing Atlanta to Oslo. Those places still actually exist.
> Susan: "As it gets less religious a society gets more peaceful,
>inclusive. The least religious countries in the world are the most peaceful
>and have the lowest crime rates."
> To garner confirming evidence for your claim, you need only point
>to the former Soviet Union, an officially godless state.
>For decades, thatI like to compare the USSR to 14th Century Europe
>"peaceful, compassionate and inclusive" society was governed by a series of
>kindhearted atheist dictators. The freedoms and prosperity enjoyed by the
>Soviet people were the envy of oppressed peoples everywhere. The USSR was,
>as everyone knows, a beacon of hope to a desperate world.
when church and state were the same thing.
Christianity has a long blood-soaked history. You probably shouldn't go there.
Stalin had the ground perfectly prepared for him
by the Russian Orthodox Church which had also
trained him for his career. He had millions of
people, all believers, who were accustomed to
follow whatever the authority du jure told them
to do. Freethinkers don't involve themselves in
cults of personality but, boy-howdy, believers do.
> Susan: "...you are in the camp that believes morality has no actualif morality is valuable in and of itself it is
> Actually, I believe no such thing. But since my attempts to explain
>my thoughts on morality to you have been fruitless, there's no point in
>repeating them. I've found no way to penetrate your willful
>misunderstanding of the things I've said about morality.
irrelevant whether God exists or not. Your
argument appears to be: "No god, therefore no
morality." It seems you are saying that if there
is no god there is no point to morality.
Obviously that is not the case. Morality is vital
to our survival whether God exists or not.
> Susan: "I have read a ton of ID literature. Including works by BeheI've read their essays on line. My husband buys
>and Dembski. Gah. It's trash too."
> Get specific. What books by Behe and Dembski have you read? And if
>you read them, why do you persist in making so many false claims about ID?
and reads their books. I'm an old lady and have to watch my blood pressure.
I make "false" claims about ID because I can see
through their lies and flim-flam. Pity you can't.
> Susan: "...you didn't hasten to add any merits ID has. Anyyou have? I missed it. What research is "inspired" by ID?
>scientific advanced brought about because of it. Any research project
>ongoing inspired by it. Nada. That is because it is not there."
> Actually, it is there, and I've previously pointed out research
>inspired by ID. Nothing, it seems, makes it past the barrier you've erected
>to keep all knowledge of ID out of your mind.
> Susan: "(Dembski) has nothing at all new to offer."his ideas are identical to the ideas of
> Assuming you're honest, a statement like this simply confirms that
>you've either not read or not understood Dembski.
creationists from 30 years ago. He has nothing at
all new to offer except some puffed up wording.
He's renamed some old ideas and we are supposed
to fall down in a swoon. Don't hold your breath
while you wait for me to go along with it.
Author of "Violet Crime" on Amazon Shorts
"Imagine an insinuating saxophone and you will
know what it was like to meet Violet Harris "
Explore with me the worlds of my imagination:
- View Source
>>...there is no ID theory...__ROTFL!! If "darwinism" is a "theory", then the negation of it is a
Using, of course, the clear and articulated definition of "darwinism"
that I have elaborated many times ad nauseum on this forum.
If "darwinism" is "science", then so is "creationism", and much more so
is the proposition that one might find patterns that suggest
"intelligent design" in the study of natural phenomena.
The principle is the same one upon which is predicated a
multi-million-dollar project called SETI, the brainchild of one of the
most famous atheists and scientists on the planet, one Carl Sagan!
Never mind that the kind of structure that would imply intelligent
design within SETI are so much more simplified that the kinds of
structures studied in ID, that this denial of ID is all obviously
backward to anybody open to truth!
And the only objections they can come up with against applying the same
principle to biology, or cosmology for that matter are:
__1__Its proponents have religious motivations.
__2__It is a religious idea.
(When pressed for what makes the principle different for studying radio
patterns of extraterrestrial origin, they plead based on the
implications in biology or cosmology, and always want to discuss
__3__The "authorities" forbid it!
__4__When all else fails, impugn the messenger, and claim subterfuge.