you're reading...
Christianity, science

Is Intelligent Design Biased?

One of the foundations of the scientific method is that it provides for replication regardless of prior conviction.  That is, if ten people perform the same experiment in the same way, they will achieve the same results regardless of what they expected the results to be.  In fact, this is one of the things that is so powerful about science.  When done properly, it does not bend to personal conviction.

This raises an interesting set of questions for Intelligent Design proponents and Young Earth Creationists.

  • Why is it that the only proponents of the theory of a 6,000 year old earth are prior believers in one of the monotheist religions espousing a 6,000 year timeline since the creation myth?  Why have no Buddhists, or Hindus, or Non-believers, or Taoists examined the evidence and come to a 6,000 year old earth?
  • Why is it that the only proponents of intelligent design are prior believers in one of the monotheist religions espousing a divine act of creation?  Why have no Buddhists, Hindus, Non-believers, or Taoists examined the evidence and come to a theory of irreducible complexity?

Returning to the scientific method, let me relate a question that was posed during a discussion several years ago:  If you were forced to go back in time and erase one historic work from existence, would you get rid of Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica or Shakespeare’s Collected Works, which would you choose?

The correct answer — the only reasonable answer — is that you would destroy Newton’s seminal work on the physical laws of the universe.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but the reasoning is very simple.  Had not Newton observed and described the laws of motion, someone else would have.  If you can imagine a universe in which Newton had never been born, you are still imagining a universe with the three laws.  Someone somewhere would have been clever enough to do the work and figure them out.

On the other hand, Shakespeare’s work — any or all of his works — are unique in history.  They are subjective works of art, and if he had never been born, we would still not have “To be or not to be:  that is the question.”

READ THE REST AT EXAMINER.COM

Related articles

Advertisements

Discussion

59 thoughts on “Is Intelligent Design Biased?

  1. I use this line of reasoning more generally to get people to accept scientific reasoning instead of religious reasoning.

    Newton’s laws of motion would have been discovered by someone, so it really isn’t necessary to proselytize them. On the other hand, Christianity and Islam have a need to proselytize. Thus the scientific method is more concerned with “truth” than religion.

    Posted by J. Quinton | May 19, 2011, 4:41 pm
  2. That’s a great angle, J. Thanks!

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 19, 2011, 4:58 pm
  3. CB? Where is CB? Beuller? Beuller?

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 19, 2011, 5:02 pm
  4. There are a group of People who are catagorized as ignorant Dipshits because they want to spew really fucking stupid lies such as:

    Most Atheists are simply closet Homosexuals needing freedom from any moral standards,

    and

    Intelligent Design advocates are simply closet Young Earth Creationists with an agenda.

    It is best to just simply igonre these backward retarded people because they hinder any intillectual discussion or debate and it would be like casting your pearls before swine!

    Posted by PG | May 19, 2011, 11:28 pm
  5. I think the main reason intelligent design fails is that it adds something that doesn’t need to be added.

    It takes a legitimite field of science [biology] and only adds confusion to it. Such as what are the properties of the creator? So what if it was designed?

    Such as I can say Sony designed my laptop, but that doesn’t tell me anything about my laptop.

    It’s just a handwaving explanation of a complex phenomenon.

    It’s just another pseudoscience[yes THAT kind of pseudoscience]

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 20, 2011, 1:25 am
  6. Hamby,
    Here, maybe this will help stop your deceit. Stew on this for awhile.
    An Atheist defends Intelligent Design..

    Atheist Bradley Monton, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, wrote a Book called
    “Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design”.
    Here is a quotation from p. 38.

    “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain global features of the universe provide evidence for the existence of an intelligent cause, or that certain biologically innate features of living things provide evidence for the doctrine that the features are the result of the intentional actions of an intelligent cause which is not biologically related to the living things, and provide evidence against the doctrine that the features are the result of an undirected process such as natural selection.

    He adds,

    This is a doctrine that I endorse, though I realize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason that I endorse the doctrine is that (as I’ll explain in Chapter 3),I think there is “some” evidence for an intelligent designer, and in fact, I think there is some evidence that the intelligent designer is God.

    Posted by PG | May 20, 2011, 2:17 am
  7. CB? Where is CB? Beuller? Beuller?

    Of course, you realize that the whole movie centers around Beuller’s exploits, yes? He’s sort of the Ultimate Cool Guy who outsmarts everyone, while anyone who opposes him is basically a bumbling idiot.

    So, yeah, thanks! And thanks for implying that this blog is All About Me!

    And, since you have formally asked, I will now argue obliquely for Intelligent Design. Not directly, for you guys would have to have an inkling of a clue as to what ID actually is first, hence “obliquely”.

    But I see that PG has beaten me to it, by providing another atheist’s intelligent assessment of what ID is, as oppsed to the childishly simplistic stereotypes that Hamby & Co. cling to. ID has absolutely nothing to do with YEC, for example, and IDers like Mike Behe accept common descent and a 14 billion year old universe, and so forth.

    What IDers do not accept is the naive notion that the Darwinian mechansim of random variation filtered by natural selection is capable of producing all of the phenomena we observe in the biosphere, and that some of what we observe is indeed evidence of deliberate design. An example of this would be the information content of DNA, and the associated 3:1 coding scheme that literally maps specific trios of nucleotides to specific amino acid molecules, in addition to providing other functions.

    I think the main reason intelligent design fails is that it adds something that doesn’t need to be added.

    What does that even mean? If the evidence suggests deliberate design, what does “need” have to do with it?

    Such as what are the properties of the creator?

    “The properties of the creator?”??? No, it is the anti-ID camp that is sooooo concerned with “the properties of the creator”, not ID iteself. It is the anti-ID camp that make such pronouncements as:

    The backward retina design of the mammalian eye shows that the designer is an idiot.

    And:

    The existence of the useless appendix shows up that the designer is incompetent.

    And so forth. ID itself simply says that the evidence shows deliberate design, and makes no assertion whatsoever about the designer. You’re just caught up in one of those stereotypes I mentioned earlier.

    Posted by CB | May 20, 2011, 10:44 am
  8. The puerile cartoon that illustrates this thread is a perfect example of a childishly simplistic stereotype regarding ID.

    Posted by CB | May 20, 2011, 11:05 am
  9. Atheist Bradley Monton, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, wrote a Book called
    “Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design”.

    Note that Monton does not build his case on crank theories involving DNA being a code, or criticism of macroevolution. Most of his arguments for “Intelligent Design” are entirely outside of biology; the closest he comes to evolution is an argument from abiogenesis. So it’s really very different from the kind of Intelligent Design theists lobby for.

    Posted by Ian | May 20, 2011, 4:12 pm
  10. I don’t guess I’m going to count a theory from a non-biologist about a non-biological theory. I should have been more specific. I was wondering why biologists specifically haven’t discovered irreducible complexity or any of the other “obvious principles” of Christian Creationist “Science.”

    You do raise a good point, though. It is possible that Intelligent Design could be proven outside of biology. My challenge would still hold. People of all persuasions outside of Christianity ought to reach the same conclusions.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 20, 2011, 4:16 pm
  11. Note that Monton does not build his case on crank theories involving DNA being a code, or criticism of macroevolution. Most of his arguments for “Intelligent Design” are entirely outside of biology; the closest he comes to evolution is an argument from abiogenesis.

    Well, that could very well be due to the fact that, while Bradley Monton is a philosopher of science, he specializes in physics, and would therefore approach the subject from his area of special expertise. Try not to read more into something than is actually there…

    Behe, a biologist, builds his cases for ID almost entirely outside the field of physics, and doesn’t rely on “crank theories about fine-tuning” and such.

    Go figure.

    So it’s really very different from the kind of Intelligent Design theists lobby for.

    Or perhaps it is merely “really very different from the kind of Intelligent Design” straw men stereotypes angry atheists erect (like the idiotic cartoon at the top of this thread), but not very different from an actual, authentic Intelligent Design argument as expounded by those who promote the concept.

    And I also note that Monton typically doesn’t use scare quotes when he writes about intelligent design.

    Posted by CB | May 21, 2011, 1:05 am
  12. Ian says….
    “Note that Monton does not build his case on crank theories involving DNA being a code, or criticism of macroevolution. Most of his arguments for “Intelligent Design” are entirely outside of biology; the closest he comes to evolution is an argument from abiogenesis. So it’s really very different from the kind of Intelligent Design theists lobby for.

    PG says:
    Ian. I think the only thing to note is the fact that you didnt do your homework. I will refrain insulting you in hopes that you will read the last paragraph over and over again until you understand that ID does not posit any particular designer or GOD!

    Monton defended ID in Biology:
    “First, despite how it’s typically portrayed in the anti-intelligent design literature, I maintain that Behe’s irreducible complexity argument is not a God-of-the-gaps argument at all. Behe is not saying that we don’t know (or can’t know) how irreducibly complex systems like the bacterial flagellum could plausibly arise naturalistically. Instead, Behe is giving positive reasons that the sequence of events that would have to happen for irreducibly complex systems like the bacterial flagellum to arise via an undesigned process is an improbable sequence, and hence the design hypothesis should be taken seriously.
    *My only comment is that Behe and other ID proponents are careful to point out that they think the evidence for intelligent design is insufficient to prove that the designer is God….
    ” Page:115,”Seeking God in Science”

    Posted by PG | May 21, 2011, 1:38 am
  13. Monton (Cont)

    “Here’s the second problem …of maligning the intelligent design arguments by calling them God-of-the-gap arguments. Just because gaps in the past were filled in with further naturalistic scientific investigation, it doesn’t follow that every gap in the future will be similarly filled in. [Denis] Alexander’s argument to the contrary is a relatively weak inductive argument. To see this, consider an analogous argument. If one looks at the history of science, one sees that all scientific theories before the ones that we currently favor have been shown to be false. Does it follow that the scientific theories we currently favor will be shown to be false too? While some philosophers have endorsed this argument (called ‘the pessimistic induction argument’), most think that the argument is not that strong. The reason the argument is not that strong is that we could well have good reason to think that our currently favored theories are true, reasons that didn’t exist for the past false theories. Just as that’s a reasonable response to give to the pessimistic induction argument, so Behe could have the resources to give an analogous reasonable response to Alexander. Behe could say that he has good reason to think that the gaps he highlights won’t be filled in naturalistically, reasons that didn’t exist for past filled God-of-the-gaps arguments.

    “Here’s the third and final problem with Alexander’s critique of intelligent design arguments by way of critiquing God-of-the-gaps arguments. Alexander says that the history of science is full of examples where there was a seemingly insoluble gap in our understanding, but where that gap was filled in naturalistically by further scientific investigation. While this is true, what Alexander doesn’t point out is that it’s also the case that the history of science is full of seemingly insoluble gaps in our understanding that have never been filled in naturalistically. For example, we don’t know what the nature of consciousness is, or how conscious mental activity arises out of physical brain activity. We don’t know why the universe exists — we don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. We don’t know why the universe has three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. We don’t know what the nature of mass is. We don’t know what the universe is made of (most of it seems to be ‘dark matter,’ but we don’t know what dark matter is). We don’t have a single fundamental theory of physics (the two theories we do have, general relativity and quantum theory, are incompatible). The list could go on, but I’ve said enough to make my point. One can’t just say: all gaps in the past have been naturalistically filled in, so future gaps will be naturalistically filled in as well, because in fact there are some persistent gaps that have never been naturalistically filled in. Thus, it’s reasonable to be cautious in assuming that any new gap we discover will be naturalistically filled in as well. (p.115-116)

    Posted by PG | May 21, 2011, 2:03 am
  14. Its refreshing to know that there are Atheists honest enough to challenge the Atheist propaganda machine and publicly go on record to defend ID as not a “God of the gap theory” and that ID only detects evidence of design, but posits no specific designer.

    Posted by PG | May 21, 2011, 2:22 am
  15. CB wrote:

    Behe, a biologist, builds his cases for ID almost entirely outside the field of physics, and doesn’t rely on “crank theories about fine-tuning” and such.

    Here’s the problem, chief. To my knowledge, there’s not a single physicist who would disagree that such a thing as fine-tuning exists. On the other hand, there’s only a paltry few biologists who don’t reject Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity, and they’re all committed to ID.

    PG wrote:

    ID does not posit any particular designer or GOD!

    LOL

    Um, what? Did you think I had suggested that traditional ID posited a “biology god,” whereas Monton posited a “physics god?”

    Since you brought up the subject though, if ID makes no claims at all about the designer, how could you ever falsify it? How could you ever determine whether something is the result of design or a teleonomic process? Aren’t you a priori committing yourself to your hypothesis?

    Posted by Ian | May 21, 2011, 8:01 am
  16. Ian wrote:
    Here’s the problem, chief. To my knowledge, there’s not a single physicist who would disagree that such a thing as fine-tuning exists. On the other hand, there’s only a paltry few biologists who don’t reject Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity, and they’re all committed to ID.

    PG resonds:
    Hey chief there is no problem. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that Many Biologists are accepting the empirical evidence that macroevolution events are not gradual events driven by random undirected mechanics as expoused by Darwinian evolutionary theory, but are evidenced as rapid events driven by highly complex decision making communicative information processes.

    SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by PG | May 21, 2011, 4:01 pm
  17. Here’s the problem, chief. To my knowledge, there’s not a single physicist who would disagree that such a thing as fine-tuning exists. On the other hand, there’s only a paltry few biologists who don’t reject Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity, and they’re all committed to ID.

    Well, the real problem is your continually demonstrated talent for missing or evading a point, which is that a scientist or science philosopher would tend to approach a subject such as ID from the vantage point of their particular area of expertise, and therefore would have absolutely no bearing on whether any other area of expertise is “legitimate” or “worthy”. That Monton approaches ID as a physics philosopher does not mean he regards a biology approach “unworthy” or “wrong” necessarily, but that is exactly what you were trying to imply. Whether a biology approach is ultimately legitimate is completely independent of wether Monton chooses to use such an approach.

    You’re simply committing a post hoc fallacy argument.

    Posted by CB | May 22, 2011, 9:57 am
  18. Ian asserted:

    Most of his arguments for “Intelligent Design” are entirely outside of biology; the closest he comes to evolution is an argument from abiogenesis.

    Actually, you’re just flat-out wrong, chief:

    First, despite how it’s typically portrayed in the anti-intelligent design literature, I maintain that Behe’s irreducible complexity argument is not a God-of-the-gaps argument at all. Behe is not saying that we don’t know (or can’t know) how irreducibly complex systems like the bacterial flagellum could plausibly arise naturalistically. Instead, Behe is giving positive reasons that the sequence of events that would have to happen for irreducibly complex systems like the bacterial flagellum to arise via an undesigned process is an improbable sequence, and hence the design hypothesis should be taken seriously.

    Bradley Monton, “Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design” (Broadview Press, 2009), p. 115.

    Posted by CB | May 23, 2011, 9:51 am
  19. Oops, PG beat me to it again…

    Posted by CB | May 23, 2011, 12:29 pm
  20. This is hilarious. They are actively competing to out stupid each other.

    Even if life as we know it was intelligently designed, where did the designer(s) come from?

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 23, 2011, 1:06 pm
  21. CB, he’s not arguing irreducible complexity as evidence for intelligent design. Here’s what he’s doing:

    1. Generously redefining irreducible complexity (he’s giving ID proponents an opportunity to disown Behe’s discredited concept of irreducible complexity without losing face by suggesting that it was a misrepresentation by “anti-intelligent design literature”).

    2. Attempting to provide rational grounds by which his re-defined concept irreducible complexity (which isn’t at all “irreducible” anymore) could plausibly be an argument for ID, rather than a God-of-the-gaps argument.

    His lack of expertise in this area shows, though, for the probability of the bacterial flagellum arising by an undesigned process isn’t bad at all. See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

    Posted by Ian | May 23, 2011, 3:41 pm
  22. Ian wrote:

    CB, he’s not arguing irreducible complexity as evidence for intelligent design. Here’s what he’s doing:

    1. Generously redefining irreducible complexity (he’s giving ID proponents an opportunity to disown Behe’s discredited concept of irreducible complexity without losing face by suggesting that it was a misrepresentation by “anti-intelligent design literature”).

    2. Attempting to provide rational grounds by which his re-defined concept irreducible complexity (which isn’t at all “irreducible” anymore) could plausibly be an argument for ID, rather than a God-of-the-gaps argument.

    His lack of expertise in this area shows, though, for the probability of the bacterial flagellum arising by an undesigned process isn’t bad at all. See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

    PG writes:
    Ian,
    Connect the dots. An Atheist comes forward and publically states that the ID position has been misrepresented, including the ID definition of irreducible complexity, and you just provided us with a shining example of such misrepresentation.

    Regardless, Todays evolutionary Biologists have discarded Millers, Dawkins, and Coyne Darwininan and modern synthesis evolution, and provide the empirical evidence of an evolution that demonstrates a non random, highly complex, decision making, communication system.

    Non random evolutionary processes, How interesting…

    Posted by PG | May 23, 2011, 8:04 pm
  23. CB, he’s not arguing irreducible complexity as evidence for intelligent design. Here’s what he’s doing:

    1. Generously redefining irreducible complexity …(blah blah blah)

    Well, Ian, you would do George Orwell proud with your utter mastery of doublethink. I mean, I explicitly stated just a few days ago:

    But I see that PG has beaten me to it, by providing another atheist’s intelligent assessment of what ID is, as oppsed to the childishly simplistic stereotypes that Hamby & Co. cling to.

    Posted by CB | May 20, 2011, 10:44 am

    To reiterate, it’s you guys who consistently redefine ID concepts in your collectively typical Straw Man fashion, and Monton was actually setting the record straight as to how the IC argument goes. It’s you guys who cling to childishly simplistic stereotypes of what ID is. Monton ain’t “redefining” anything, “generously” or otherwise — it’s you guys who do the redefining. And to now claim that someone sympathetic to ID is “redefining” is simply classic Orwellian doublethink in action. You may as well recite the three party slogans for us, Ian:

    1. War is Peace

    2. Freedom is Slavery

    3. Ignorance is Strength

    You continue to demonstrate your adherence to such thinking:

    His lack of expertise in this area shows, though, for the probability of the bacterial flagellum arising by an undesigned process isn’t bad at all. See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

    Monton’s “lack of expertise”?? I suppose you consider yourself to be the expert here? I see more shameless doublethink in action on your part, nothing more. As far as the whole debunked T3SS argument goes, if you had done your homework, you would realize that there is evidence to suggest that the T3SS is nothing more than a degenerate flagellum, which existed prior to the T3SS. How can a T3SS be an evolutionary stepping stone toward the flagellum if the flagellum precedes it in evolutionary history?

    Posted by CB | May 24, 2011, 7:41 am
  24. This is hilarious. They are actively competing to out stupid each other.

    Keep pegging that irony meter, Alex. You manage to consistently out-stupid yourself. No matter what depths of monumental stupidity you manage to plunge to, you keep managing to plunge deeper still. And then you call other people “stupid”. “Hilarious” indeed!

    Even if life as we know it was intelligently designed, where did the designer(s) come from?

    Whether something is the result of deliberate design has absolutely no bearing on whether we can answer, “Where did the designer(s) come from?” It’s the epitome of stupid to suggest that, even assuming we currently cannot answer the question, “Where did the designer(s) come from?”, we must therefore rule out the possibility of deliberate design, and must forbid ourselves from making the inference from the available evidence that certain things are indeed the result of deliberate design.

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that life is intelligently designed. Would our assumed inability to answer, “Where did the designer(s) come from?” magically make it so that life was not intelligently designed, assuming that it actually was prior to encountering that question?

    Your “arguments” simply get more pathetic with each passing day. As an “argument”, “Who designed the designer” has been so thoroughly refuted that, if you had even a lick of sense, you’d be embarrassed to have been reduced to using such a pitiful “argument”.

    Posted by CB | May 24, 2011, 7:44 am
  25. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that life is intelligently designed.

    For the sake of stupidity, sure, let’s do that.

    Would our assumed inability to answer, “Where did the designer(s) come from?” magically make it so that life was not intelligently designed, assuming that it actually was prior to encountering that question?

    Yes, actually it would, since the designer (by its very existence and intelligence) is part of that group called life, and thus either must have been intelligently designed, or you cannot simply say “life was intelligently designed”. You could get away with saying “some life was intelligently designed”, but not all life. Unless you’re going to claim you can have intelligence without being alive (you’ve proven it’s possible to be alive and not intelligent, but that doesn’t prove much about the reverse)…

    Is this a semantic dispute as to the way you phrase things, yes, but that doesn’t distract from the merit of the point. At some point we need another answer than ID, unless it is an unanswerable question (where/how did “life” originate).

    Unless of course, you’re not arguing about how life originated, but only about “how the diversity of life on this planet came to be” (i.e. ID vs. evolution as it relates to some subset of “life”), in which case, you are entirely correct and “where did the designer(s) come from” is entirely pointless a question (at least in a very narrowly defined scope such as this question).

    Keep pegging that irony meter, Alex. You manage to consistently out-stupid yourself. No matter what depths of monumental stupidity you manage to plunge to, you keep managing to plunge deeper still. And then you call other people “stupid”. “Hilarious” indeed!

    I try. It is entertaining that the only people who find my arguments stupid are blithering idiots (or at least they do their best to give that impression). I take great pride in that accomplishment.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 24, 2011, 12:36 pm
  26. Damn broken blockquotes. Figure it out yourselves (or Hamby can fix it).

    EDIT: Fixed. -HD

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 24, 2011, 12:37 pm
  27. As always, I need to explicitly and tediously connect the dots for you…

    By “life”, I simply meant TERRESTRIAL life, but again, things that should be obvious need to be spelled out in painstakingly tedious detail for you super-intelligent guys.

    You may call me a “blithering idiot” if it makes you sleep better at night, but I can at least manage my html tags…

    Posted by CB | May 24, 2011, 1:35 pm
  28. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that life is intelligently designed.

    For the sake of stupidity, sure, let’s do that.

    So here we have an example of Alex essentially equating “argument” with “stupidity”. I guess on his planet, all “arguments” are “stupid”. His performances in thi venue certainly demonstate as much…

    Posted by CB | May 24, 2011, 1:43 pm
  29. You may call me a “blithering idiot” if it makes you sleep better at night, but I can at least manage my html tags…

    But not your spelling?

    His performances in thi venue certainly demonstate as much…

    By “life”, I simply meant TERRESTRIAL life, but again, things that should be obvious need to be spelled out in painstakingly tedious detail for you super-intelligent guys.

    Sorry, but things do half to spelled out in painstaking detail. That’s how mistakes and effective communication work. Thanks for the compliment too.

    With that definitional question out of the way, you are correct. ID could certainly be a valid explanation for how the variety of life on our planet came to be.

    It does not however settle anything regarding the “origins of life” and still leaves the possibility of evolution open, since it doesn’t explain “variety of life” in all potential scenarios (which evolution does), since you are ignoring the preemptive question regarding the designer(s) origins.

    Final point is that you will have to answer that question at some point, as otherwise you cannot explain all life you may encounter (again, unless you are claiming the designer(s) isn’t alive).

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 24, 2011, 2:30 pm
  30. Hilarious. Half != have. Damn, I think arguing with idiots is actually making me dumber… I think I’m done with this one before the rest of my brain cells mutiny in protest.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 24, 2011, 2:32 pm
  31. CB wrote:

    Monton’s “lack of expertise”?? I suppose you consider yourself to be the expert here?

    Au contraire, I just LISTEN TO THE FUCKING EXPERTS. Try it. It doesn’t hurt.

    Posted by Ian | May 24, 2011, 3:30 pm
  32. Alex…

    Thanks for the compliment too.

    The pattern continues…again, it needs to be spelled out in excrutiating detail that I was being sarcastic, and we can clearly see why.

    I think arguing with idiots is actually making me dumber…

    They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…

    I think I may start losing IQ points just from reading this piffle. (I’m confident that the angry atheists in this venue would retort that I have few to spare…)

    Posted by CB | May 17, 2011, 9:01 pm
    “Macro-Evolution in Action”

    Ian…

    I just LISTEN TO THE FUCKING EXPERTS…

    Not very well, it appears…

    Posted by CB | May 24, 2011, 4:33 pm
  33. Well, well, well,

    I provide a book written by a highly educated Atheist Professor who is trying set the record straight about the ID paradign and the only responses have been to question the atheist and his credentials, insult the ID posters, and absolutely deflect all attention away from the facts being revealed by the Atheist.

    There is definately a bias here, but its not the IDers!

    Posted by PG | May 24, 2011, 4:45 pm
  34. Sorry, but things do half (sic) to [be] spelled out in painstaking detail.

    And of course, when I do that, Alex typically responds with his clever “tl;dr” rejoinder.

    (“tl;dr” == “Too Lazy;Didn’t Read”)

    Posted by CB | May 25, 2011, 9:36 am
  35. Sorry, but things do half (sic) to [be] spelled out in painstaking detail.

    And of course, when I do that, Alex typically responds with his clever “tl;dr” rejoinder.

    (“tl;dr” == “Too Lazy;Didn’t Read”)

    I’m torn between a witty comeback and just being an asshole, so I’m just gonna phone this one in…

    This saves us both time, as that’s all you’re gonna get out anything I (or any of us) say.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 25, 2011, 11:14 am
  36. You could get away with saying “some life was intelligently designed”, but not all life.

    Well, technically (since you insist on painstaking detail), I did not say “all life”. I simply said “life”, which you erroneously took to mean all life. For better or worse, the English language is rife with ambiguity, and this is a prime example of such. Thanks to that ambiguity, “life” could either mean “some life” or “all life”. My mistake was initially failing to specify which.

    This saves us both time…

    Well, it obviously saves you time, in that you don’t have to spend time straining to think up a quasi-intelligent response…

    …as that’s all you’re gonna get out anything I (or any of us) say.

    (shrug)

    It ain’t my fault if there’s little of substance in what you (or any of you) say — I can’t “get out” that which simply ain’t there to begin with…

    Posted by CB | May 25, 2011, 12:57 pm
  37. Well, it obviously saves you time, in that you don’t have to spend time straining to think up a quasi-intelligent response…

    Finally, an admission of what kind of answers are applicable to this debate on IDiocy. I’ll stick with actually intelligent answers on real science, you stick with quasi-intelligent ones on quasi-science.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 25, 2011, 2:35 pm
  38. Finally, an admission…

    Wrong again, chief. It appears that you get off on being wrong in a public forum. Making an observation on the utter mediocrity of your ability to debate an issue is only a reflection on your ability, and perhaps on how you personally view the issue being debated, but said mediocrity is certainly not an objective measure of the worthiness of said issue by any stretch.

    Just another example of your intellectual banruptcy…

    I’ll stick with actually intelligent answers…
    When do you plan to start?

    Posted by CB | May 25, 2011, 3:45 pm
  39. So, what was that about managing someone’s HTML tags again…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 25, 2011, 4:44 pm
  40. Score one point for your side — you certainly need it…

    Posted by CB | May 26, 2011, 7:20 am
  41. Score one point for your side — you certainly need it…

    If you’re actually keeping score this is even sadder (and since I’m a cruel individual, more entertaining) than I previously thought. In all seriousness, thank you for this, from the bottom of my heart.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 26, 2011, 8:25 am
  42. You certainly do have a flair for reading far more into an expression than is actually there, don’t you?

    Much is explained…

    Posted by CB | May 26, 2011, 8:30 am
  43. Alex,
    You shouldnt be so smug in your little victory! In your case, “Score one point” is like when the fly “scores one point” when I miss trying to smash it in just one swat of a flyswatter!
    So in that respect, Good job Alex you scored one!

    But perhaps you should ask yourself, why do people swat at flies? Because ON PURPOSE, their disruptive and annoying little pests, trolling and spreading their vomit everywhere with no regard to where it lands. So we swat them, and every once in awhile, we miss.

    Now Im not saying your a fly Alex, Im just say’in…

    Posted by PG | May 26, 2011, 11:35 am
  44. So flys do what they do on purpose? Wow, I didn’t realize the grand designer gave them free will…

    Amazing designer…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 26, 2011, 3:43 pm
  45. Now Back on topic!

    Monton is correct.
    1) ID is not a “God of the gaps” theory
    2) ID does not posit any specific Designer
    3) Not positing a specific Designer does not invalidate ID as a plausable theory.

    Q. Then Why do Dawkins and Co continue to attack ID?

    A. The simple answer. There is a war going on within evolutionary science. It is even greater than the Creation vs. Evolution war. It is the war between Darwinian evolutionists who believe evolution occures in random mechanical process, and the 21st century evolutionists who evidence evolution as an information based decision making process, and dismiss Darwinian and the modern synthesis evolution as outdated incorrect theories.

    Today it is very apparent that Darwinian evolution is losing this war and dying a slow death! The new evolutionists are winning the war because they have the empirical evidence to substantiate their theories. The fossil record also supports the new evolutionists theory because the fossil evidence reflects-new species followed by stasis.

    The new Evolutionists understand and state that while these discoveries of “information based decision making processs” unfortunately widens the chasm to finding natural causes for the origin of life, and potentially provides lots of ammo for the IDers war, they must continue to follow the evidence regardless of where it leads.

    Hmmmm, “decision making” cells directing evolution.

    Sweet!!!!

    .

    Posted by PG | May 26, 2011, 3:54 pm
  46. Alex says:
    “So flys do what they do on purpose? Wow, I didn’t realize the grand designer gave them free will…

    Amazing designer…

    PG says:
    Even your satire evidences your fucking ignorance. If you read any part of Montons book that I posted, you would realize that IDers dont posit any “Grand Designers, just the evidence of design. Is the new information over your head and too hard to grasp? Are you feeling dumber again?

    The fact that you didnt object to the implication that your like a fly trolling this blog and vomitting the shit that you ingest seems to confirm it!

    Posted by PG | May 26, 2011, 4:39 pm
  47. I don’t object when idiots claim the world is flat either, does that mean I agree with them? Dumbass…

    I do apologize for the hyperbole though. I didn’t really think your designer was all that grand. Exactly how can you claim “evidence of design” without claiming a designer (grand or otherwise)? I’ll restate…

    So flys do what they do on purpose? Wow, I didn’t realize the designer gave them free will…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 26, 2011, 5:00 pm
  48. Francisco Ayala on Intelligent Design

    The implication of Intelligent Design is that God is a very, very bad engineer. I mean, an engineer that we have design an eye with the optic nerve having to cross the retina would be fired. An engineer that would have designed the human jaw would be fired; I mean, our jaw is not big enough for all our teeth. God making this trivial, obvious mistake, an error of design? Well, maybe their God does those things – certainly not mine. I don’t want to have to worship a God who is not smart enough to do as well as a human engineer.

    Hilarious. The designer must be an idiot…

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 26, 2011, 6:02 pm
  49. And you dont object when intelligent people equate your blogging to a fly that simply eats shit and vomits it up.
    It it becoming very apparent Alex, that your little tiny dipshit brain is still stuck wondering if flys eat shit on purpose, so we can only imagine the challenges that await you as you try to comprehend the ID paradigm and your concern about any “designer.”, so lets help you. Ill just copy and paste from http://www.uncommondescent.com:

    Q: Who Designed the Designer?

    A: Intelligent design theory seeks only to determine whether or not an object was designed. Since it studies only the empirically evident effects of design, it cannot directly detect the identity of the designer; much less, can it detect the identity of the “designer’s designer.” Science, per se, can only discern the evidence-based implication that a designer was once present.

    Moreover, according to the principles of natural theology, the designer of the universe, in principle, does not need another designer at all. If the designer could need a designer, then so could the designer’s designer, and so on. From the time of Aristotle till the present, philosophers and theologians have pointed out that what needs a causal explanation is that which begins to exist. So, they have concludes that such a series of causal chains cannot go on indefinitely. According to the principle of “infinite regress,” all such chains must end with and/or be grounded on a “causeless cause,” a self-existent being that has no need for a cause and depends on nothing except itself. (Indeed, before the general acceptance of the Big Bang theory, materialists commonly thought that the logically implied self-existing, necessary being was the observed universe. But now, we have good reason to think that it came into existence – is thus a contingent being — and so must have a cause itself.)

    Ultimately, there can really be only one final cause of the cosmos.

    To ask, therefore, “who designed the designer,” is to ask a frivolous question. Typically, radical Darwinists raise the issue because, as believers in a materialistic, mechanistic universe, they assume that all effects must be generated by causes exactly like themselves.

    Posted by PG | May 26, 2011, 6:04 pm
  50. Alex says:
    Hilarious. The designer must be an idiot…

    PG says:

    What is hilarious is Alex’s depth of ignorance. Alex is in trouble. His tiny little brain still cannot absorb any information that may distort his current world-view, even when it is coming from an Atheist such as Monton who states that ID does not posit any designer. He needs to cling on to his beliefs that all IDers are Creationists, regardless of what anyone may tell him.
    He also believes that “bad design” would prove no design. He is too emotionally invested in his worldview to comprehend that the “bad design” argument still does not offer a challenge to ID theory as a scientific endeavor.

    But he cant stop because this is the shit that he eats everyday, and he feels validated when he vomits this misinformation. It confirm’s his worldview every time he does it!

    .

    Posted by PG | May 26, 2011, 6:56 pm
  51. Francisco Ayala on Intelligent Design

    Exactly as I was saying to cptpineapple just last week:

    “The properties of the creator?”??? No, it is the anti-ID camp that is sooooo concerned with “the properties of the creator”, not ID itself. It is the anti-ID camp that make such pronouncements as:

    The backward retina design of the mammalian eye shows that the designer is an idiot.

    And:

    The existence of the useless appendix shows us that the designer is incompetent.

    And so forth. ID itself simply says that the evidence shows deliberate design, and makes no assertion whatsoever about the designer. You’re just caught up in one of those stereotypes I mentioned earlier.

    Posted by CB | May 20, 2011, 10:44 am

    Thanks again, from the bottom of my heart, for being the poster boy of failed arguments. Your personal opinions of the designer’s alleged shortcomings are completely irrelevant to what the evidence shows. In fact, you and your buddy Francisco are just arguing from personal incredulity: “I cannot accept that a designer would design the mammalian eye this way, ergo, there is no designer.” Just because you personally don’t like the way the mammalian eye is designed, that has utterly no bearing whatsoever on whether it actually is a product of deliberate design.

    From Inverted Human Eye a Poor Design?

    Conclusions

    Claims of poor retina design are often raised by evolutionists to argue against Intelligent Design. A review of research on the vertebrate retina indicates that for vertebrates the existing inverted design is superior to the verted design, even the system used by the most advanced cephalopods. Its design has been maximized for life in our environment and no doubt would function poorly in another environment, such as that experienced by undersea bottom dwellers. This review supports Hamilton’s conclusion:

    Instead of being a great disadvantage, or a “curse” or being incorrectly constructed, the inverted retina is a tremendous advance in function and design compared with the simple and less complicated verted arrangement. One problem amongst many, for evolutionists, is to explain how this abrupt major retinal transformation from the verted type in invertebrates to the inverted vertebrate model came about as nothing in paleontology offers any support.

    Rather than being fired, our camera designer would no doubt be promoted for utilizing a less obvious, but, as a whole, a far more functional design.

    Posted by CB | May 27, 2011, 8:43 am
  52. To ask, therefore, “who designed the designer,” is to ask a frivolous question. Typically, radical Darwinists raise the issue because, as believers in a materialistic, mechanistic universe, they assume that all effects must be generated by causes exactly like themselves.

    Why is this question frivolous? I can see how it would be frivolous to ask who designed the designer when only discussing life as it exists on this planet (not necessary for that explanation), but when discussing the origins of life in general (such as that of the designer) then it becomes extremely relevant. That is of course, unless one is discussing not the designer of life on our planet, but of the universe in general (and especially if they are the same designer, which is what seems to be implied by PG, CB seems to be sticking to life on this planet, and thus has a valid argument to make, even if I disagree with him).

    If there was an original designer (of our universe), one of the two following are true:
    1) The designer always existed or sprang into existence from nothingness, and created our universe.
    2) There was no designer and our universe always existed or sprang into existence from nothingness.

    There are several disclaimers to this.
    *) always existed is from our point of view and may not apply to outside our universe situations (i.e. we could be a simulation and then of course time could be compressed in our universe as compared to the “real” universe outside of the simulation).
    *) sprang into existence from nothingness is from our point of view and only applies if this is the “real” universe and not a sub-universe (ala simulation or encapsulation of some kind) of another.
    *) these two scenarios simply move up the ladder (so to speak) if we are not the “real” universe. ergo ask how did the universe housing ours come into existence, repeat until you get to the original universe or discover an infinite chain of universes.

    It’s funny how both of these have the same requirements to begin (either always existing or coming into existence from nothingness). I’m not a physicist, so can’t answer this one in any way (but they all say there was no designer as far as I can tell).

    So, which is it? Are we discussing two different designers (one of the universe and one of life on this planet), the same designer for both (one for life on this planet and the universe), or only for one or the other (one for life on this planet or one for the universe)? The goal post seems to keep shifting here (who would have guessed).

    Disclaimer: CB seems able to stick to his point about life on this planet. I completely disagree with him (and so does nearly the entire scientific community), but at least he isn’t being blatantly dishonest. This is entirely for PG who conflates design of life on this planet with the universe itself, and as such doesn’t get to dodge the question (as much as he might like to). In CB’s debate it is a non-starter (at least in the very narrow confines he’s built for his position).

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 27, 2011, 9:24 am
  53. Thanks again, from the bottom of my heart, for being the poster boy of failed arguments. Your personal opinions of the designer’s alleged shortcomings are completely irrelevant to what the evidence shows. In fact, you and your buddy Francisco are just arguing from personal incredulity: “I cannot accept that a designer would design the mammalian eye this way, ergo, there is no designer.” Just because you personally don’t like the way the mammalian eye is designed, that has utterly no bearing whatsoever on whether it actually is a product of deliberate design.

    I simply said how hilarious it is that the designer of all life sucks so badly. I didn’t mean to imply that I thought it proved anything (beyond how unworthy of worship and how worthy of ridicule such a being would be).

    I completely agree that incredulity does not prove anything (remember that the next time some IDiot says he can’t accept that something comes from nothing). However, given enough incredulity, it becomes more likely that the credulous are wrong and the incredulous are correct (at least when given some scientific basis for their incredulity, such as the incredulous idea that the earth is flat…).

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 27, 2011, 9:32 am
  54. But he cant stop because this is the shit that he eats everyday, and he feels validated when he vomits this misinformation. It confirm’s his worldview every time he does it!

    So now we’re back in grade school? Perhaps an age appropriate response is in order:
    I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

    When you decide to grow up and be part of an intelligent discussion, let me know. Until then, sorry but I’m all our of troll food for this particular thread.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 27, 2011, 9:35 am
  55. Alex asys:
    Why is this question frivolous?

    PG says:

    Alex,
    Your question was answered in the cited material. I suggest you re-read it in its entirety. More importantly, re-read the explaination of the correct description of the ID paradign and its conformity to the scientific method.
    Ill repost it:

    “A: Intelligent design theory seeks only to determine whether or not an object was designed. Since it studies only the empirically evident effects of design, it cannot directly detect the identity of the designer; much less, can it detect the identity of the “designer’s designer.” Science, per se, can only discern the evidence-based implication that a designer was once present.”

    Posted by PG | May 27, 2011, 12:18 pm
  56. I’m going to allow you a gracious bow out and self imposed limitation similar to CB. You are only speaking about life on this planet, not life in general or the universe in totality.

    Thanks for making that clear.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 27, 2011, 1:52 pm
  57. Alex,
    Excellent post regarding your summation for the possible origin of an alledged Designer. Unfortunately, the linitation is not self imposed, but a limitation of the observation powers of the scientific method. Any discussion of an UNOBSERVABLE identity or characteristic of a Designer is speculative, philosophical, and beyond the scope of sciencs.

    Therefore, when Scientists makes statements regarding the identity or charactoristics of a Designer, such as “God is a stupid designer”, its just their personal opinion, not science! My personal opinion is that scientists like Ayala should first create a better eye using no lab and only simple chemical elements, then critique!

    However, Its interestingly to observe that when secular scientists discuss ID, they have already deducted their likely candidates down to a single God hypothesis. Thus any detection of design would be disasterous to their current world view.

    Posted by PG | May 28, 2011, 11:02 am
  58. I simply said how hilarious it is that the designer of all life sucks so badly

    The designer of all life, Alex? Weren’t you the one who went into convulsions twisting your “thought process” into a pretzel with your “the designer (by its very existence and intelligence) is part of that group called life, and thus either must have been intelligently designed, or you cannot simply say ‘life was intelligently designed. You could get away with saying ‘some life was intelligently designed’, but not ALL LIFE.” song and dance? Well, again, I NEVER SAID “ALL LIFE”, BUT YOU JUST DID! So you again shoot yourself in the foot. Your going to blow your foot clean off at this rate…

    Besides, there is every possibility that you just suck at understanding the design, as my cite (which you apparently ignored) illustrates. It is the height of arrogance to talk smack about that which you do not comprehend, but such is par for the course from the Angry Atheist Contingent.

    I’m going to allow you a gracious bow out and self imposed limitation similar to CB

    What are you prattling on about now? I haven’t “bowed out” of anything, and the only “self-imposed limitations” I am subjecting myself to are those things called facts, such as the fact that the only life we have thus far encountered is indeed terrestrial — extra-terrestrial life may exist, but we have no scientific evidence of such at this time. Therefore, any discussion of life beyond terrestrial life is currently outside the purview of science. However, that in and of itself does NOT place ID outside the purview of science, because ID only evaluates the existing scientific evidence and makes the design inference from that evidence. It is precisely because the designer itself is currently outside the purview that ID makes no attempt to make claims about any possible designer.

    It is for these and many other reasons that the childish cartoon at the top of this thread is so puerile.

    Posted by CB | May 29, 2011, 11:54 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: