Talk:Intelligent design/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 17 May 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Intro

Isn't ID regarded as a pseudoscience by mainstream science in general? Is there any professional outside of a narrow group of IDers who takes it seriously? --Kels 18:40, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Nope. Which just shows how HUGE AND INSIDIOUS the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy is!!!1one!!@!1!! --Gulik 18:55, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Personally, ID pisses me off. What was that about a wolf wrapped in sheep's clothing? This major issue of ID and why it is so bad in the US is that so many people in the US do not understand logic and therefore do not understand science. Take for example the millions (3 million) viewers of Pat Robinson's 700 club (I enjoy posting on their forums about evolution and science, they seem to hate the "Learned Man" there ). They report on all of these pseudo sciences as fact and even promote a few of them. The issue is that the viewers spread this nonsense to others and end up confusing people of what the facts are. The Discovery Institute knows this works in the US and is using ID to accomplish their religious goals. I always found it interesting that not one of the Discovery Institute Fellows is a non-Christian and most of their "scientific debate" forums are held in the theological or seminary departments of the universities they visit.--TimS 14:09, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I cannot tell you how much the piss me off. ID is a stealth weapon. And I also agree that if you can get someone to believe one crazy but plausible-sounding thing (ID), you can get them to believe another (send me 100 bucks).--PalMD^{-yada yada} 14:19, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

There two major proponents ("researchers") of ID: one talks about the "irreducible complexity" and other talks about "specificied complexity" via a mathematical model. Both have problems in that counterexamples have been produced or components of evolution cannot be explained by their theories. There also really aren't any experiments you can do. (Here little froggie--show me your designer...). Basically the argument is it looks like a duck so it must be a duck--an argument that failed spectacularly for the flat earth theory. There's a good article in The Best American Science Writing 2006 that goes into it. I'm going to be away for a time, but perhaps I'll add when I return. Sterile 14:42, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Not everyone agrees that the flat theory has been disproved, check Blogs 4 Brownback (alright, they might be a parody, but so far they keep denying it.)

I've learned that you can make people believe anything if you start brainwashing them in their childhood, especially if their family and friends are doing it, sadly that's just the way it is... MiddleMan

Perhaps I may work on this article a bit. I debated with Dave Scott and Dembski on their uncommon descent blog a couple of months ago. They got quite pissed at me (and banned me) when I ask for them to explain how they could falsify a test for a designer based on their hypothesis. I also mentioned before that debacle that their ideas based on probability (Irreducible Complexity) was derived from an arbitrary assessment of something being mathematically plausible. Anyone with an understanding of how probability works mathematically could deduce that just because something is not probable does not make it impossible to occur (that pissed them off as well). I guess I piss off a lot of people... Just wait till I finish off my Molecular Mechanisms of change and post it on CP, would be hard to fight against TOE when it is proven to happen in front of us.--TimS 14:52, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Here's the article I was talking about in its original context, The New Yorker, in layman's terms: [1] . If anyone wants to work on this feel free! Sterile 15:04, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Where can I put this?

I just Stumbled Upon this (isn't StumbleUpon great timewaster?) but I'm not sure how to work it into the article, or if there's a better article it could go in. Totnesmartin 04:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure. I think it really says more about the scientist involved than ID. The only thing it really says about ID/creationism is that they use out-of-date sources.--Bob^{bing up} 05:20, 8 November 2007 (EST)

NYU Professor on Intelligent Design in Schools

I'm privy to a paper by an NYU (non law-)professor, co-teaching a colloquium on law & philosophy, about how intelligent design ought to be taught in schools. Since it's just being written I can't copy text here, but I'd like to present the arguments for consideration. They're not things that you haven't heard before, so I don't think there's a harm there. The basic argument is that rejecting non-materialist explanations in public school science class is an over-reach of the Establishment Clause, since the issue at least ought to be broached, and that ID isn't dead science, it's something that's being actively debated and hasn't been conclusively decided against. The author characterizes the counter-arguments to Behe, that evolution is more than capable of handling flagella et al, as not a complete refutation but a partial accomodation. My objections are, to the latter, then teach it in a religion class, not a science class, and, to the former, it is dead science, being unfalsifiable. Discussion?

I'll post the whole thing once I'm allowed to. Until then, assume the text is:

“”REDACTED BY TEH FBI

-αmεσ (spy) 18:21, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Of course the problem is that any "nor materialist" explanation is, by definition, not science. It might be appropriate in a class about the philosophy of science - "What is Science" for example.--Bob^{bing up} 04:40, 11 November 2007 (EST)

You say that these arguments will be things we've not heard before. Are you sure that they are not covered in Methodological naturalism?--Bob^{bing up} 16:00, 11 November 2007 (EST)

That's initially what I read too, but: They're not things that you haven't heard before. Those deceitful double negatives strike again. A couple of questions I have are

1. Is the author a philosophy professor or a science professor? (out of curiosity)
2. Is there any element to the "non-materialist explanations in public school science class is an over-reach of the Establishment Clause" argument that isn't a rehash of the "science is just as religious as any other religion" argument?--Bayes^update 16:32, 11 November 2007 (EST)

What i think

Anyone who belives in any form of intelligent design is stupid, even if they went to college and got a masters degree. A Liberal

Very intelligent argument. I never cease to be amazed by RW members' superior sense of logic and form. That's really why I hang around here, to learn to be a better, smarter, more liberal (yes, I realize I'm being redundant here) person. Lurker 15:31, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I'm glad you find your time here worthwhile.--Bob^{bing up} 16:02, 11 November 2007 (EST)

And it rather looks like "A Liberal" is a rather heavy-handed parodist.--Bob^{bing up} 16:05, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Oh I figured as much. I have to give you guys some credit. Lurker 16:10, 11 November 2007 (EST)

We do seem to get 'em. Aylesburymartin 16:09, 11 November 2007 (EST)

You certainly seem to have picked up our sarcasm, you will need to help keep the taint of editing CP to a dull roar. tmtoulouse ^oppress 16:14, 11 November 2007 (EST)

We should fix this up

To frontpage it. I realize we're in the middle of sitewide drama, but this is important too :-)-αmεσ (spy) 15:14, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Ken's All-New ID page

I keep looking at that new version of the ID page Ken and his sock Freedom777 put up over at CP, and I just plain boggle at the very first line, "The central claim of Intelligent Design theory is that design -true design - is empirically detectable."

Doesn't that sound like something that would be easy to test for? If it can be empirically detectable, then all they have to do is give us a firm definition of what design would entail, and see if humanly designed stuff fits the definition, and then test it against stuff that humans didn't design. Easy! Funny, they don't seem to be doing that... --Kels 09:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Update?

Don't know if we need to update this in the light of recent developments.--Bob^{bing up} 17:46, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

The bias is palpable

// ... Is there any professional outside of a narrow group of IDers who takes it seriously? --Kels 18:40, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Nope. ... Gulik 18:55, 30 May 2007 (CDT) //

How do you know that? I'd like to see the data.

// Personally, ID pisses me off. ... --TimS 14:09, 1 June 2007 (CDT) //

You say that several times, along with PalMD, but why get so het up about it? Is that a scientific attitude?

// many people in the US do not understand logic and therefore do not understand science. // --TimS

Is there some place on this earth where that isn't true? Why pick on the US? Specifically, are UK citizens more logical and scientific than Americans, on average?

// ... I always found it interesting that not one of the Discovery Institute Fellows is a non-Christian //

Why is that interesting? I know nothing of the DIF, but maybe it is a Christian group -- or one that an Atheist wouldn't join, or both.

Now i understand how Atheists feel about Christians, that they are illogical, unscientific, and wrong -- but that's just a bias, right -- even tho it may be one that you share? Perhaps you feel Christians can't be good scientists? Any study of first-rank scientists and mathematicians would disabuse you of that notion.

There's an awful lot of "the people that believe ID are (negative terms)" -- surely that doesn't constitute a good argument against ID, does it? (There must be a logical fallacy that covers that.) I've only read about a quarter of this page, but have seen a dearth of scientific or logical discussion of ID.

I attended a 90" ID lecture about two years ago and found it very interesting. The lecturer never claimed ID was science, never mentioned God, and never denigrated evolution or Darwin, or their believers.

Since then, i have tried several times to have a discussion on the merits of ID, but everybody rejects it out of hand, even tho they know nothing about it. That strikes me as prejudice based on ignorance, not at all logical or scientific. Don't you agree.

I look forward to a spirited discussion, given that many here feel strongly about the subject.

[[User:Rembrandt.ryan|Rem]]^Beau 21:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

What have i done wrong with my name? It worked until i added blue.

see Wedge Document   ^Contribs_Talk 21:53, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay, i read until it got boring, but i gather DIF is Christian, which i guessed. That surely explains why non-Christians wouldn't join them. Any comments on my remarks above? Rem^Beau 23:55, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it's bias to some degree, but grounded in truth and rationality. What evidence to id advocates have other than faith and a bible? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 23:58, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I can't see how they could have any evidence -- what would constitute evidence of a Creator? Rem^Beau 00:05, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Then....what is the defense for doing...anything with it other than throw it in the trash? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 00:06, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Why not throw Sociology in the trash? It has all the trappings of science (charts, graphs, stats, etc), but except for the obvious stuff, it is pure opinion; certainly not science. Rem^Beau 00:13, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

As i understand it, at least ID has some actual science in it, altho it is not itself science. Rem^Beau 00:17, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

And philosophy -- not science, but interesting, and it's great to understand where ideas came fro and how it has shaped our current thinking. Rem^Beau 00:24, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

You mention sociology, a particular passion of mine. Well, that makes sense, but when did sociology get a counterpart that has better evidence, the ability to be studied and some proof. Id makes no sense because it isn't based on observance like all the other good sciences are. In real science, you begin by thinking what may happen. Then you find out what actually happpens. In Id, you assume that this is what actually happens, then observe, and if it doesn't fit into your little plan, it is wrong. Also, philosophy doesn't dictate how we work and where we came from. And it never said it was a science. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 00:28, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, isn't sociology called Social Science at some colleges? I know i have seen references that way. You haven't?

When you say ID isn't based on observations, have you never, when delving into math and physics, marvelled at what appears to be a design? I'm not alone in that; many important scientists have shared that insight.

I imagine an ID course would have to consider a lot of "thought" experiments, as Einstein calls them. Good workout for the brain i would think.

I have read that it is mathematically impossible for intelligent life forms to have developed given the short time the earth has had, which is why the panspermia theory was invented. Seems an obvious dodge to me, what say you?

Rem^Beau 00:47, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Is it rational to get "pissed off" at ID, or the people that believe it? Rem^Beau 00:50, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I can understand your passion for sociology; i was fascinated by psychology, but a lot of that was pure conjecture. In sociology, it seemed to me that a lot of the thinking was flawed, unless you shared a similar bias. And why would it be that there are so few non-Liberals (politically) that teach the subject?

Speaking of usefulness, could anything be less useful than deconstructionism? Rem^Beau 01:04, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, I was refering to Philosophy never labeling itself as science. Sociology is. Just because something is designed doesn't mean it was created by one imnipotent creator at the same time as everything else. How can it be said that it is mathematically impossible when the vast majority of known information has occured in the last I don't know, 500 years? We don't know how long it took for bacteria to evolve into turtles or even exactly how long it took for homo erectus to evolve into homo sapiens. I'm not a fan of Panspermia myself. I think that humans have a lot left to know. But at least we have more proof of evolution than intelligent design. And no, it isn't rational to get pissed. I don't get pissed. I only get pissed when you start telling young kids that god made us and we breath because god says so. ID is a threat to everything that is freedom. If however, there were evidence, my views would naturally change. Which is more than I can say for most ID proponents, who form their beliefs not by observation, but by faith. Also, I feel like you just pulled the ratio of liberal sociology teachers out of nowhere. And deconstructionism...I'm sorry, but I don't understand how that affects anything, unless you are refering to a different definition than I --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 01:10, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

As i understand it, at least ID has some actual science in it, altho it is not itself science. RemBeau 00:17, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Where did you get such an absurd idea? IDcreationism has never made affirmative predictions has has offered nothing but silly teleologic arguments. They have conducted no actual "research". At this point it is not a science, but a religion.-- -PalMD ^{--Yee haw!} 01:19, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

ID is not a single concept. Like most of these ideas it means different thing to different people. The only thing they have in common is the assumption that if something looks designed then it actually was designed. After that they go off in many different directions. For young earth creationists it's just another proof that the earth was created in 7 days. They don't really have any interest in the biological stuff. For people like Behe it's a way to make evolution and creation consistent over million year time-scales. Between these views you have a myriad other people for whom it means something in between. The only reason they aren't fighting each other is that they want to maintain some sort of united front.--Bob^{bing up} 04:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The bias our confusingly-named friend (Rembrandt? Rembeau? Rembeaurandt? Rembrandteau?) is referring to is the well-known Liberal Bias of Reality.

Also, is this actually a textual version of a Gish Gallop?Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 05:21, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Palpability, part 2

Response to Wazza --

Originally it was Rembrandt.Ryan, but when i found i could use a nickname i chose Rem, then for a link to my Talk page i added Beau (a takeoff of RamBo) -- isn't that proof of evolution? I did consider Rem's Rants, but i figured i'll let guys like you characterize my comments.

// Also, is this actually a textual version of a Gish Gallop?

What, my critique or the comments i was critical of?

Response to Shrink --

// I was refering to Philosophy never labeling itself as science.

That was initially my point, that a course not based on science can be useful.

// Just because something is designed doesn't mean it was created by one imnipotent creator at the same time as everything else.

That's kind of obvious, but have any prominent ID types made such an argument? I hope i haven't.

// How can it be said that it is mathematically impossible when the vast majority of known information has occured in the last I don't know, 500 years?

I don't follow your argument. I know only that scientists claim it to be true, which is the kind of thing that has them scrambling for a rational, non-supernatural explanation.

// ... it isn't rational to get pissed. I don't get pissed. I only get pissed ...

Wow. Et tu, Shrinkay?

// ID is a threat to everything that is freedom.

Now THAT's totally ridiculous. What happened to rationality?

But i am pleased that you care about freedom; few there are that really do. Do you not find much of political Liberalism antithetical to freedom?

// ... form their beliefs not by observation, but by faith.

That describes most folks on every issue that is labeled SCIENCE. Do you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that as many as 5% of those that swear by evolution (and AGW) actually KNOW anything about the subject?

Don't you suspect that much of the criticism of ID on this page is leveled by people that are willfully ignorant of the subject? They know who pisses them off, and can't wait to poison the well, and are certain those people can't be correct, but is their contempt of ID theory based on actual study or knowledge? I know the answer and you do too.

Now i KNOW my knowledgeable friend Shrink wouldn't fall into that pit.

// Also, I feel like you just pulled the ratio of liberal sociology teachers out of nowhere.

Yo -- hold on -- do you DOUBT that it is true? I have seen statistics that have merely confirmed what i have observed, and that includes talking to a lot of folks; including a self-described Liberal relative that is a physics professor.

The most interesting stat i've come across regarding this, is that librarians have an even larger ratio, MUCH larger, than other occupations including college professors. Why this is so, i have no idea. Most of my professors were Marxists, and knew it.

By the way, my verrry Liberal sosh prof was glad to have me in his class. We became pretty friendly. He claimed to have Libt yearnings, altho he never changed his politics an iota. (They go too far down that road, they never come back.)

// And deconstructionism...I'm sorry, ...

If it transpires that you teach both sociology AND deconstructionism (acronym SAD), i withdaws me whole critique.

Rem^Beau 13:55, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi Rem. I find your responses a tad difficult to follow. Sometimes these kind of multiple point "He said" "I say" things are easier in the Forum perhaps you might try there? It's a lot easier to quote the things you object to.--Bob^{bing up} 14:02, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Michael Medved

The Jerusalem Post interview with this senior fellow at the Discovery Institute had some interesting items:

"The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else."

"[Y]ou see, Intelligent Design doesn't tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random."

Good quotes to come from a fellow at the DI.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:41, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

This is really stupid

Wow, this is the absolute BEST treatment of ID I've seen yet! "Most scientists reject ID as pseudoscience, so it must be wrong." Yeah, way to refute all its evidence! P.S. Why is this "rationalwiki?" It should be "IRrational wiki."^{— Unsigned, by: 66.53.208.210 / talk / contribs}

What evidence? tmtoulouse ^oppress 13:49, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes the ad hominems are very cute, but still, what evidence? tmtoulouse ^oppress 13:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Like, the fact that the universal constants must all be fine-tuned the way they are for life to exist? Or irreducible complexity (which has not been refuted, as you might think)?

Which ones must be fine tuned? How fine tuned must they be? Do you understand the difference between "life as we know it to exist" and "life to exist"? How do you define irreducible complexity, the definition shifts around a lot because it is quiet easy to demonstrate how any particular definition is wrong, if you are willing to give a specific definition and not change it, evidence can be provided. A lot of these things are discussed in the article, and in other related articles. Some should probably be expanded upon, but we are "not done yet" so we will get to them. tmtoulouse ^oppress 13:58, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

I'll get to your other points later but I'll address one right now:

Do you understand the difference between "life as we know it to exist" and "life to exist"? Why is this important? Life as we know it is the only life we can observe, and for which there is evidence. Anything else is just speculation. You can say there are other planets unlike earth that have life on them, but how do you know? You're just speculating, and speculation has no place in an encylopedia article. We go with the evidence that exists, not what we hope exists out there somewhere. Frankly, no one has ever observed life anywhere else, and until they do this should not be considered a "death-blow" to ID. 67.150.121.185 14:47, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Not exactly true, for example, did you know that for much of the history of life oxygen was a deadly poison? There was a tipping point when atmospheric oxygen reached levels that it created a massive die off (extinction) of many species. Today, most life requires oxygen in one way or another. If we were to look at life right around the tipping point before the mass extinction we would say something like "the balance of oxygen is so perfect that if it was any greater life couldn't exist." Suddenly the tipping point hits and what happens? Life adapts. Life adapts to its environment often so well that it appears it could not exist in any other environment. Your doing a post-hoc analysis and getting your causes and effects all screwed up. tmtoulouse ^oppress 15:41, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Passive aggressive ref tags

If you want to discuss article content, come over to this page and talk about it. Adding snarky ref tags is silly. tmtoulouse 13:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Snarky ref tags revisited

Although its adherents claim this leaves open the question of who the designer might be, this is clearly contradicted by the wedge document which specifically states that the "intelligent designer" is the Christian God.

This is overgeneralization. Just because one groups of ID advocates believe the designer is the Christian God does not mean all ID advocates believe that. Ungtss 13:46, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

ID is a religious argument which attempts to rebut the theory of evolution, and, by extension, the facts that support it.

You're claiming ID is a religious argument. What exactly is a religious argument? An argument based on a religious authority? If so, ID is not a religious argument. Why do we believe ID to be a religious argument? Ungtss 13:46, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Some ID proponents honestly acknowledge that their critique is informed by a rejection of the methodological naturalism by which physical science examines the world and consequently cannot be science. Others are a bit more evasive.

Some ID proponents do not reject methodological naturalism at all. Some believe we were genetically engineered by intelligent, physically-based beings. Some of them are even atheists. These folks deserve a nod:). Ungtss 13:46, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Scientists dismiss Intelligent Design as being pseudoscience.

This is overgeneralization. There are a number of scientists that do not dismiss it. In fact, there are some scientists who advocate it. Ungtss 13:46, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

ID is a product of the Discovery Institute, born, raised, packaged and sold, the DI is a group of Christians. How many non-Christian professional promoters of ID can you name? ID is a "religious argument" because it is simply a rehash of the teleological argument with no actual science behind it. There are no scientist that have accepted ID because of evidence/science. And really a scientist is someone who does science, how much science have any of the ID proponents done lately? A tiny, tiny amount, most just write books, a few have done a little bit of science but none of it using ID. tmtoulouse 13:51, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

You may have heard of Francis Crick? He helped discover the structure of DNA. He was also an atheist, and a proponent of ID. Ungtss 14:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Not really an overwhelming sample is it? tmtoulouse 14:10, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

According to the scientific method, a single verified counterexample falsifies an assertion. You claim that "scientists reject ID." I've falsified that hypothesis. "Most" scientists? Absolutely. All? Absolutely not. Ungtss 14:16, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

My impression is the Crick was talking about "directed panspermia" - which I suppose you could call ID if you like - and that he subsequently backed away from it. But I'm not an expert on him.--Bob^{bing up} 14:38, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I am willing to adjust language certainly, but want to play this out just a little further:

• Francis Collins, converted to evangelical christian and started pushing ID.
• Jonathan Wells, got his Ph.D. at the direction of "Father" to destroy Darwinism
• William Dembski, "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"
• Phillip Johnson, another big fan of ID being motivated from the Gospel of John, amidst other data points
• Francis Crick, goofy alien theory atheist

Now take this group and rank them in order of how involved they have been in promoting ID, establishing its legal and philosophical doctrine, etc. tmtoulouse 14:21, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Well there are two issues here: whether ID is necessarily religious (which it clearly is not), and whether Christians have a particularly strong interest in politically advancing ID. Do Christians have a particularly strong interest in advancing ID? Absolutely. Is ID an inherently "religious argument?" Absolutely not. And Crick a "goofy alien theorist?" Seriously? The man discovered the structure of DNA:)! Ungtss 14:29, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, he discovered DNA alright...WHILE HE WAS WHACKED OUT ON ACID...probably similar to when he subscribed to "aliendidit". ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And Einstein described relativity, it doesn't mean his conceptualization of quantum physics wasn't any less silly or wrong. ID is relabeled creationism, the evidence for that is overwhelming. The creators of the concept, the promoters of the concept, the private and public face of the concept are all very religous and are using it to advance religion. There is no science behind it. That is the take home message, if it isn't "religious" and it isn't "science" than what the hell is it? tmtoulouse 14:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

The creators of the contemporary terminology yes. The creators of the concept, no. Again, there are world-renowned atheist scientists known to advocate research exploring the possibility of an intelligent origin of life. As to your last question, isn't there more to life than a strict dichotomy between "religion" and "science?" What about "result of abductive reasoning?" "Educated guess?" "Reasonable, albeit unfalsifiable, inference?" Ungtss 14:41, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

And we are back to the vague generalities about world atheist scientist again. There are atheist scientist that advocate a whole lot of crazy ideas, in fact we talk about a lot of them on this site. But these are tiny numbers, scientific consensus is overwhelming against ID just as it is overwhelming against bigfoot and rods. The wording can be adjusted to avoid absolutes but there is now ground swell of support in science for any of this nonesense. tmtoulouse 14:51, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

No claims of a groundswell of support here. Just a counterexample to the claim that all scientists reject it. Ungtss 14:54, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Did Crick really advocate the fundamental ideas of ID? Did he believe, for instance, that we could infer irreducible complexity? Coarb 14:32, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

That's not my impression. I believe he had some sort of "life came from space" idea at one time. --Bob^{bing up} 14:39, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

It seems he experimented with the idea. From the quote Ungtss links to above, Crick said he had been considering the idea but "the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability". The WP article on him indicates the same: that he was interested in this idea, not that he ever accepted it as incontestable fact. weaseLOId~ 14:46, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I think the first two paragraphs should be rewritten / rephrased to clarify a few things. - That intelligent design is a modern term used primaril by Christian groups like the Design Institute. - But that the concept of intelligent design is much much older, & exists in many other religions, as well as a few secular theories like Crick's "directed panspermia". weaseLOId~ 14:50, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I'd second that. Ungtss 14:54, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Works for me as well. tmtoulouse 14:55, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I can see no evidence that Crick supports any facet of intelligent design. He only said that if he had been born 150 yrs ago (+ another 18 now) then it would have been a reasonable explanation but the "argument was [then] shattered by Charles Darwin". His hypothesis of directed panspermia originates from 1973 and he partially retracted the idea saying that he had been overly pessimistic about the chances of life originating on Earth. Crick was a great scientist and a great humanist. Like many scientists he drew some conclusions based on the available knowledge at the time, he modified his views afterwards as any proper scientist would do when faced with newer data. He was a self-professed atheist so any acceptance of a "designer" would be an anathema. Tarring him with the brush of ID does him a great disservice, it's the sort of thing our old pal Ken would do and shame on those who try to do likewise.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 15:49, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I have often heard the Crick meme, and much to my chagrin I have never tracked it down, which I have no excuse for. Lily is write, this seems even more questionable after reading his later article. tmtoulouse 15:55, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Pink said, he was a self-professed atheist so any acceptance of a "designer" would be an anathema. You're equating "designer" with "God" -- something Crick clearly did not do, as he was open to the idea that the designer may have been extraterrestrial intelligence. Was he open to other speculations than ID when they came along? Yes. Was he also open to ID? Absolutely. It's not tarring him with any brushes. It's simply reality. The man thought ID was a possibility worth researching. Ungtss 18:15, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

First of all I'm not Pink, I'm Lily. And you're misrepresenting Crick again. Crick's idea (at the time) was that the development of life was a unique event and the chances of it happening on Earth were small. However, his idea was that it happened by natural means somwhere and that DNA seeds arrived on Earth from elsewhere. He never suggested that there was a designer in creating life. His speculation about extraterrestrials was more akin to athem being a distribution service not a designer. Life had arisen elsewhere and the just Fedexed it throughout the universe. And if you can suggest a designer that wan't a natural life-form in the first place then please explain how that differs from the concept of a a God.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 18:29, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

If life arose spontaneously elsewhere, but was designed and transferred here, then we would be intelligently designed. So let me get this straight: these aliens who transferred life here were capable of transmitting life through interstellar space, but did not make any efforts to genetically engineer the life they were seeding? Ungtss 18:41, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I'm not the sharpest apple in the marquee, but even I can see what's wrong with that at a glance. None of the conclusions seem to match the starting points. --Kels 19:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) Do you mean the article or the discussion above? I don't think this discussion is taking a particularly productive direction, but I'm going to try & rewrite the opening paragraphs of the article more reasonably as I suggested further up this thread. Regarding what Francis Crick believed, we can only interpret from what he wrote & what is known about him, not conjecture about the abstract implications of his ideas. weaseLOId~ 19:21, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Make sure you read the Wedge Document first Weaseloid. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 19:50, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

How can anyone be so dumb? There was no design needed, all that would be needed is a DNA molecule and then self-replication and evolution then does the rest when it arrives somewhere amenable. But this is immaterial as it was only a speculation by Crick to explain how life could be projected throughout the universe. He never said he believed in a designer. He merely pointed out that in the past people's knowledge was inferior and at that time a designer appeared to be the only conclusion. After Darwin's theory of evolution was published the designer concept became untenable.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 19:17, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Rewrite

I've sorted out the slightly tangled beginning of the article, adding some further content, & arranged into two new sections ("Origins" & "Designed by Whom?"). In reply to Bob, I'm afraid I haven't yet read all of the Wedge Document (but I will) as I haven't added much re the Discovery Institute specifically. The the main point of my edit is to differentiate between the modern ID movement (I.E. Discovery Institute etc.) & other forms of ID which can (theoretically) be non-religious, as the conflation of the two concepts was causing some antagonism (further up this page).

One interesting thing I discovered from Wikipedia, which we don't seem to have mentioned anywhere on RW, is that the current ID movement, & popularisation of the term, was really started by another court case, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), which ruled that teaching "creation science" in schools in unconstitutional. So ID (as argued by the DI etc.) was basically a complete rebranding of creation science in reaction to that ruling, to try to present creationism in a non-religious light. E.g. textbooks were written or rewritten to include all the intelligent design arguments without referring specifically to God. I think we definitely need more coverage of this angle. I may add some more about it myself, after I've read the Wedge doc. :-) weaseLOId~ 20:51, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your rewrite, I like it. And yes we should have more on that it is why cdesign proponentist exists, they were using "creationist" until the decision and changed it. tmtoulouse 21:01, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Yes! Of Pandas and People was basically a rewrite of a 1983 book called Creation Biology, which was republished after the Edwards v Aguillard case with all direct references to creationism removed or rephrased in intelligent design terminology. weaseLOId~ 21:24, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Cover story

(Please do not archive this section.)

I nominate this for a cover story. It's firmly on-mission, relates to science, pseudoscience, religion, education, law & politics, is well written & intriguing, & is pretty much an ideal demonstration of what we are about as a site. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:04, 14 January 2009 (EST)

It needs a little copy-editing I think. Some excess capitals. And since we don't capitalize I or D (or at least D) here, "Disproving Intelligent Design" needs to be moved to "Disproving intelligent design". If the general use is to cap I and D, we need to move this article to "Intelligent Design". But generally I agree, this would be a good cover story. ħuman 15:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

A "little" copy-editing finished. It's fairly internally consistent now, I bypassed some redirects, stuff like that. This forced me to read the whole article, which I highly recommend making a cover story. It's well-written, fairly comprehensive, links to other fine articles, and even has the requisite goat content. ħuman 15:50, 14 January 2009 (EST)

It's a consistent, accurate and lengthy article. Certainly deserves the cover story. ArmondikoV^theist 14:44, 19 January 2009 (EST)

The ape at the blackboard is fun, but maybe doesn't belong on a cover story. Move the cage pic up instead. Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 14:53, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Good point. The ape probably belongs better on an evolution-related article than ID. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:09, 19 January 2009 (EST)

For now I've moved the ape further down & changed the caption. Cage could be moved up, but I'm not sure whether it should appear on the cover. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:28, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Any image "near the top" should be noincluded, along with the templates. ħuman 16:04, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I've moved the ape picture down to the education section (IMHO it's more appropriate there with the new caption), and moved the cage up. -- Nx ^talk 17:34, 19 January 2009 (EST)

As a non-scientist, the only bit I struggle with is the "argument from fine tuning" section. The "blueprint for transformation" concept isn't explained at all, & the connection with ID isn't made explicit. For now I've relegated it to the end of the article, but arguably it could be shaved off as a separate entry.

Other than that issue, I reckon it's ready to go as a cover article. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:34, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I agree, go for it. Don't forget the noincludes. ħuman 19:33, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Done. Plus I've now moved the fine tuning stuff over to the argument from design entry, where it fits in a bit better. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:51, 20 January 2009 (EST)

"No need for 1 sentence paragraphs"

While I didn't see any edits I disagree with, there is nothing wrong with one sentence Ps. Sometimes, if nothing else, they can break up a "wall of text" effect. Also, they are useful for making "overview" introductions to sections, etc. The main rule, of course, is that a paragraph should be pretty much on one "topic" or sub-topic. IE, the reason (I think it was I) I broke up the falsification section into two short paragraphs was that the first sentence is fairly general, and the second bit mostly pointed to our snarticle. No harm either way, though, I think. ħuman 19:32, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I think it's a matter of opinion, as the "offender" of the change. I personally can't stand a string of one sentence paragraphs. I think it looks bad, and it breaks up flow. There's a reason for paragraph. But I'm not going to lose sleep over it either, as per the "edited mercilessly" stuff. Sterile^rationalize 08:52, 20 January 2009 (EST)

A long string of one sentence paragraphs are certainly needless, you may as well double space a single paragraph (you may not be able to avoid this on stubs). But concluding remarks, sentences that make the text flow better and easier to read and aspects you want to draw attention to are fine as single lines. These things also display differently at different resolution, a smaller screen will knock it onto two lines while people running huge resolutions may see very long and drawn out paragraphs and be tricked into thinking that they're shorter than they are. ArmondikoV^theist 08:59, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Funny Story About Intelligent Design

When I was in Berlin 5 years ago as a foreign exchange student, I wound up going to a Catholic High School equivalent there for a week. When I went to their Biology class (which was taught by a Catholic Priest, I might add) and introduced myself as being from the United States, the instructor immediately went on a 2 hour rant about how "intelligent design is absolutely made up crap" that was "invented by American religious nuts" who "would rather believe that the world is flat than to acknowledge that Darwin may have been correct." True story.The Goonie 1 03:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, that's funny, that there is, I don't care who you are, that's funny. ħuman 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the Catholic church has long been known to prefer science and reason to dogma and authority, hasn't it? Oh wait, never mind. Ungtss 17:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those German Catholics are a very different breed from American Catholics. In fact, there is a brewery in one of the rural towns just outside of Berlin (I can't remember the name of the town, though) that makes good, darker beer. The brewery was founded in 1723, and has been run ever since, by a local convent of nuns, who use the profits to fund charities.The Goonie 1 05:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the catholic church long ago gave up any suggestion that miracles happen.--Bob^{bing up} 11:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WAY back in the ancient era of the late 1960's, I went to Catholic school. Right here in the US. We still had plenty of nuns about, as celibacy was still cool in their age of unreason. Said nuns related to me all manner of apocryphal and similar "banned knowledge" of the RCC and related notions of evolution and similar science to me, as I was an advanced student of an early age when advance placement classes weren't considered in said schools. Some of those nuns even were great guests in our home for dinners and general discussion revealed that they were QUITE secular in many ways, save that of a belief in a deity that micromanages at least ONE world. Looking back, these decades later, I chuckle over their much more secular approach to the world and consider the current maniacs of the "faith" of many houses.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Unintelligent design

The intelligence behind the design seems to have a few glitches - allowing 'all sorts of unpleasant diseases, inheritance issues, gays, atheists...' unless a duallist theory is promoted ('the devil is in the detail') Jackiespeel (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See List of mistakes made by God. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Quoting-linking-together' rather than my opinion (g).

What is the IQ of the intelligent designer? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that wouldn't be QUITE dualist, but more gnostic in nature.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul

I put some rational into the "rational" wiki. The complete rejection of the concept of intelligent design on the grounds that creationists promote it is a logical fallacy.

"Since then, I have tried several times to have a discussion on the merits of ID, but everybody rejects it out of hand, even though they know nothing about it. That strikes me as prejudice based on ignorance, not at all logical or scientific. Don't you agree. "

Yes, I agree. It's a pet peeve of mine.

-Krux

I have one objection to your overhaul, which is the elimination of this quotation:

“”Try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, "OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works." Having tried this a few times myself, I am confident that you will be met with nothing but an awkward silence.

—Amanda Gefter

Take a look at Scientific theory#Creationism is not a theory. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss changes here first

Especially before removing gold brainstars. As for the sarcasm, read RW:SPOV. --ZooGuard (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lemon Test

I think this topic was requested. The Lemon test was established in the decision of Lemon v Kurtzman in 1971. The test has three conditions for government actions.

• does the action taken have a purely secular purpose.
• the action must neither promote or inhibit religion
• the action must not result in an entanglement of government with religion.
• (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test)

If any of the three conditions are violated the action is unconstitutional under the establishment clause of the first amendment and the other two conditions need not be examined. In the Lemon case the states action in supplementing the saleries of Catholic school teachers was found to result in an entanglement of government with religion and therefore unconstitutional.

in dover v kitzmiller the actions of the school board were found to have a religious purpose and to promote a religion and so failed two conditions of the lemon test Hamster (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a separate article for Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - I think that this should go there.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How does the lemon come into it? Is gin also involved? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lemon, as in, "Alton J. Lemon, et al. v. David H. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.; John R. Earley, et al. v. John DiCenso, et al.; William P. Robinson, Jr. v. John DiCenso, et al." The gin only comes into play in your own glass, provided by yourself.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to WLC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwO8BmcAnw

Well, I'm not sure if I understand his argument, so you can check the video if you like, but he seems to say that we are caricaturing ID proponents. He claims that they make deisgn inferences based on criteria.

I think he speaks more about it here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C34CF609D7F22AD6

Listen to his argument to get a full grasp of it.

I don't agree with it, but I'd like to see some discussion on it, perhaps? - Rivius (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Any chance you could summarise it in a few words? I've usually not got the patience to listen to youtubers stumbling through some argument.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well. It's not really a youtuber, but William Lane Craig talking. I understand it's a long video, but I'm terrible with summaries and my poor comprehension abilities often leave out key points. But a very short summary is that he claims that Behe and ID proponents like him claim that we arew caricaturing ID proponents when we say that their only argument is "evolution alone seems inadequate to explain the origin of life therefore life was designed.". Rather, he claims that there are certain criteria for a design inference and that in order to argue against it, we must prove that life and the universe do not fit these criteria. Otherwise, he states, ID is viable. He goes on more in the playlist and the only reason I suggest watching it, is because I don't want to personally misrepresent his argument so that we can get better discussion.

-Rivius (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really the place to discuss a topic like this? I went to the place where "he speaks more about it", and I had to stop after a couple of minutes of irrelevancies, especially as this was billed as a debate between Christianity and atheism (as if those were the alternatives - and is at all relevant to our topic - ID is certainly not equivalent to Christianity, nor is evolutionary biology equivalent to atheism). If there is any prospect that anybody addresses the points in Scientific theory#Creationism is not a theory, then I might give it a try. Is it caricaturing ID to say that "ID does not offer a competing explanation"? Does WLC suggest a "who, what, where, when, why, or how"? TomS TDotO (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is pretty much always going to be that evolution has pretty much been validated by evidence, ID advocates are going to have to find something totally freaking Earth-shattering to get it as even remotely acceptable. As it stands, it may be a caricature to say that the only ID argument is "I don't think evolution is right therefore ID is the only alternative" but it's still based very much in reality. It's certainly not up to conventional biology to prove that the universe is X, Y and Z in order to make ID not "viable", the burden of proof still lies with them to show a single piece of conclusive evidence that shows the world was designed, and by that we mean can only have been designed not evolution hasn't explained it (yet) therefore it was designed. By its very nature, ID is always going to be "viable" because you can always turn around as say "God made it like that" or "God designed it like that".

When he talks about Behe's "criteria" in the first vid, he is saying that it's a valid way of doing science but it isn't. So Behe's criteria are "independent pattern" and "highly improbable". These "criteria" still boil down to "I don't have the imagination to see how evolution did it therefore Goddidit" as they have nothing to do with design. "Highly improbable" doesn't mean anything as after the fact probability is still 1. It's equally "highly improbable" that insects or reptiles would have developed intelligence and technology as mammals - we don't see reptiles or insects with big brains and spaceships, but we do see mammals. Post hoc probability is irrelevant. With regards to that "independent pattern" (or however he put it) he doesn't clarify what this means at all so I'm going to have to infer that he means some sort of unique feature. But if the other criteria was "highly improbable" then surely we'd only expect to see it once anyway? He's trying to convince people otherwise - and I'm sure True Believers will fall for it - but it's still arguing from the weaknesses of evolution and not the strengths of ID. I want to know what ID predicts that evolution cannot explain and then I want them to do the experiment. Richard Lenski blew 20 years of his life on the LTEE. Dawkins has written hundreds of thousands of words on the subject. Biology departments across the world teach hundreds of hours of material to thousands of students who then go on to spend years in research. The ID camp? A few conferences, TV propaganda adverts, a couple of shit books, and a creation museum. Until they get out of their armchairs and go out into the field and look at the universe, they're not going to be accepted or even considered as viable by mainstream science. ^bomination 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I being unreasonable asking ID advocates to run experiments or make more solid hypotheses or getting me a copy of the designer's business card? It's a big ask, I'm sure, but considering their unreasonable expectations of the fossil record and consant goal-post moving with respect to micro/macro evolutiom I don't think I am. ^bomination 15:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

tl:dw That being said, no. Of course you're not. But it's a bit like asking for proof that the sky is red, isn't it? Quaru (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I repeat myself: (1) This is not the forum to debate creationism vs. science. "Talk" sections, as I understand it, are for discussing what should go into the encyclopedia entries. (2) I am not going to waste my time going through listening to someone saying that he has something to say, rather than just plain saying it. If there is any prospect that WLC somewhere tells us what he is talking about, then I will spend my time listening. Does he have any hint at a description of what happens when an intelligent design takes place, or when, or where, or what is the difference between things that are intelligently designed and those that are not, or what the world was like before there were any intelligently designed things, or something about intelligent design? If he doesn't care, then why should I? TomS TDotO (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

@ TomS: I don't think anybody's saying you should in particular - why take it so personally? & This isn't an encyclopedia - see RationalWiki for what we're about. Talk page guidelines aren't as rigid as at Wikipedia & the like. Generally article talk pages are for discussing what's in the article or what should be, but related discussions about the article subject can sometimes start here as well. If there's enough interest, it can be moved out to a Forum page.

@ Rivius: When you say this guy states that we are caricaturing ID supporters, do you mean he actually mentions the RationalWiki article? If so, can you please cite where/when? Thanks. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What the Weasel said.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, he's not talking about RationalWiki itself. I guess I used the word 'we' really uncarefully. Wasn't thinking too much about it. But all the information in the "Evidence" section of the main article seems to be more or less identical to the arguments he claims are caricaturing ID.Also, if this discussion is in any way inappropriate, I'm very sorry, and you can freely remove it. I didn't mean to cause any trouble.

-Rivius (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. And, no need to apologise, this is a perfectly appropriate place to bring this up. Tom dot momentarily got us mixed up with wikipedia, I suspect. ħuman 23:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

the only information presented for ID that I know of is Dembskis specified complex information and a subset of that, irreducible complexity by Behe. There is a mathmatical challange to CSI available, my maths skills wont handle it. Irreducible complexity seems to have fallen back to a case by case attempt to find something that actually is. Hamster (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

here is the paper http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/specified.complexity.html . WLC is correct if you take an isolated section of Intelligent Design and ignore some of their other actions. There is a hypothesis that is expressed in scientific terms, and which appears falsifiable. Hamster (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) As that failed to open for me, for some reason, I'm wondering, is that the one that LArron was looking into? ^bomination 02:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Opened for me: being an ignoramus I was soon lost. Picked up this significant point from it:

"(Note: the concept of "specified" is the point where Dembski injects the intelligent agent that he later "discovers" to be design! This makes the whole argument circular. Dembski wants "CSI" rather than a precise measure such as Shannon information because that gets the intelligent agent in. If he detects "CSI", then by his definition he automatically gets an intelligent agent. The error is in presuming a priori that the information must be generated by an intelligent agent.)"

and this:

"So what's going on? Living things themselves create "specified complexity" via environmental selections and mutations. Living things and their environment are the "intelligent designer"!"

03:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

a funny paper on intelligent design experiment with pasta HERE and yes the FSM gets a mention Hamster (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is magic. Give it to PJR although I suppose he'll TL:DR it. 05:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I didn't understand the ways of RationalWiki, sorry. But the question still remains: What is the alternative to evolution? What would it look like if we were present to see an ID event taking place? Does anyone have an example (even a hypothetical) of something which is not "intelligently designed"? Was there a time when there were vertebrates without eyes, animals which were not intelligently designed, animals which somehow managed to survive even without eyes, but got a tremendous boost when they got their eyes. Was it adult animals which got eyes placed in their heads so they could detect their predators (or prey), and then passed on their eyes to their offspring? Or did eyeless adults lay eggs which hatched out young with these new eyes? When a new species (or "kind") is designed, does that mean that a whole population appears in a flash, youngsters and their nourishing adults, or maybe a whole new eco-system of new predators and prey and physical environment? What is the alternative? TomS TDotO (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the trick, isn't it? YEC obviously gets around it because everything appeared quick as a flash and fully formed. ID on the other hand, with its pretence of science, doesn't get that luxury. As far as I know, we're still waiting for ID advocates to get back to us on that one. I think most people assume that the "designer" prods atoms around to generate the desired mutations (imagine the Cit+ variant in Lenski's work being due to an omnipotent being manipulating matter) BUT, and this is a huge BUT, there is, in principle, no real way to distinguish this from natural selection, which pretty much does the same thing - well, strictly NS takes random chance and refines it, in an almost algorithmic fashion, but the visible, (i.e., detectable, observable, verifiable) results are as identical as Newton's laws of motion and the principle of least action. ^bomination 10:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, I presume Behe and co's ideas try to say that if a mutation is sufficiently improbable, then it counts as designed. But of course, improbable things happen and with natural selection, if an improbable mutation happens and provides a benefit, it will be selected for and seemingly buck all notions of probability. Again, there's no observable difference so we make the well founded assumption of a naturalistic mechanism rather than something else. ^bomination 10:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If the ID advocates told us that "there's no observable difference", then at least that would be something. I can understand why they'd be reluctant to say that, but it would be better than saying "I've got a theory, but I'm not going to tell you, so you can't refute it." When a person makes a statement, they are taking a risk of being wrong. ID wants to be taken seriously, but doesn't have to courage to risk being wrong. I refer the reader, once more, to Scientific theory#Creationism is not a theory. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156 This would be an interesting one to go through in more detail. As we've said, CSI and IC are mostly bullshit arguments from lack of imagination ("evolution hasn't explained it yet so it must be design!") 2) Interesting, but I imagine it's a post hoc way of latching onto the Cambrian explosion. The fossil record has little or nothing to do with the debate, we need to look at actual real living creatures, as Dawkins points out in the Greatest Show On Earth, tapeworms don't fossilise so have, in theory just appeared this very moment! 3) Again, this isn't entirely by design as common descent and convergent evolution also explain this 4) WTF? If biological structures have function therefore design? Eh? But in short, no, we don't appear to be making straw men here, this is actually what ID proposes. ^bomination 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against Intelligent design

God in these theories is seen as male. Yet 'he' has designed men to be 'less good' than women - male pattern baldness, 'dangly bits' (which can be Bobbitted) etc, has not designed beer-trees or chip-trees, allowed the Offside Rule, women who do not wish to remain in their 'rightful place', and hunting closed seasons, and patterns of evolution which at several levels at least appears to support development unassisted by godly development... (add to taste). Therefore ID is flawed. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh heh. Also does not explain the existence of gays and lesbians, unless you are choosing some form of Calvinism. Mr. Anon (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also 'uppity foreigners who do not recognise Amuricah's divine right to rule the world', the illusion of global warming, and the absence of automatic inherent belief in ID.

There is a fusion of 'a belief in God (who, it is felt, must intervene in what has been created), puzzlement over how 'the primordial soup' turned into 'life but not as we know it Jim' and the failure to understand that the Law of Unintended Consequences can result in life becoming more complex without there being any logical reason for it (there are sound evolutionary reasons for early creatures to develop 'awareness of the outside world', which leads to receptor cells, which develop into complex sense organs). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

See "List of mistakes made by God" ^pathetic 18:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For persons unfamiliar with the reference [2] - 'minor squick factor warning.' Would the Funpage version of this be 'Idiotic Design'? (The Corollary/follow on question to the 'explain ID' question - what is the intellignce level behind (insert 'bad design factor of choice' here)? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of intelligent design

I'm notorious for discussion of evolution, appearing for most of it as supporting intelligent design. Eventually, I am challenged on couching my discussion with intelligent design. Upon hearing that, I exclaim, "Good heavens, no! I apologize for the misunderstanding. Consider the lesson of the humble domestic turkey and the sparse few generations of fowl that it required to breed our current stock. Consider the lack of knowledge and understanding of the people breeding the traits desired into the bird. The size of breast, inconsistent with natural flight. The great size, relative to its native version. It's mind numbing stupidity, where I've witnessed a domestic turkey try to eat the ember from a lit cigarette, to drop it from the cigarette to the ground, then keep attempting to consume it, whereas the wild version is quite bright enough to be praised by none less than Benjamin Franklin! Consider then, how much HARSHER a task master nature itself is, ANY meaningful trait that isn't required for survival of that gene line dies horribly or dies alone. Humans are not bright enough to create such a harsh environment as nature herself is! And when nature arouses herself, she's a *REAL* mother! No micromanaging deity is required for the intelligence of survival in a harsh environment." That typically is applauded, for those who were considering or had considered intelligent design, they depart with thoughtful looks upon their faces. Which is what was desired in the first place.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, bravo, I guess. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Naked emperor

The Emperor Has No Clothes, Naturalism and The Theory of Evolution by Sean D. Pitman, M.D. claims that scientists who believe in evolution are like the emperor in Andersen's famous story. Scientists can't bring themselves to admit the evidence for evolution is drivel in the same way that Andersen's emperor and other characters involved couldn't admit the emperor had nothing on. Can this be worked into the article? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I fitted it into Creation science, can it fit here as well? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's going to go into two or more articles...shouldn't it be its own article? --Seth Peck (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Quoting from the end of the article:

'However, never underestimate the "crazy" or the "blind". History has often shown that those who were crazy and blind in their own day turned out to be right after all.'

No disargreement with the first statement - 'Nothing can be made foolproof - fools are so ingenious.'

As for the second statement - it should be '...who were #considered#...' Quite apart from even more people who were considered crazy and blind in their times being proved wrong (and 'not even wrong') in later times, is it not that the writer is considering the scientists crazy and blind?

Reverse engineering

God made people in (deity all encompassing pronoun)'s image.

From what humans are like, what can be deduced about God? (Or at least those aspects of God which are manifestable in 'the universe as we know it'? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this talk page really the place for theological doctrines?--Seonookim (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lost Me At Pseudoscience

"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king." Tywin Lannister

Similarly any site that must call itself rational isn't truly rational. 68.188.68.66 (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So anyone who must state what they are aren't really what they claim to be, and that is in turn due to them having had to say what they were? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I am BobM. Therefore ...--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I bought some sausages today. It clearly said "sausages" on the packet. Does this mean they're not actually sausages? Flannan Isle (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So someone who proudly self-identifies as a hateful internet asshole isn't actually one, and conversely, those who would refer to themselves as reasonably fair and nice people are literally not that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If you trained your parrot to say "I'm a parrot", then he must clearly be a pigeon and thus deserves to get punched in the kidney with a broom handle? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And like BobM points out; how the hell are you supposed to introduce yourself!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It's about sex, politics, and epistemology

The Sexual Politics of Intelligent Design. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Refutation of ID opinion piece

http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.als.20160602.02.html Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 12:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Arguments against ID no...

• 'The wrong number of digits' for computer binary code (4 or 8 on each limb would be much more logical).
• Limited visual range (should include #all# parts of the spectrum creatures can access).

Perhaps there could be some snark involving Eloi, Morlocks and Monsters from the Id. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)