Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 241 of 352 (507302)
05-03-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Straggler
05-03-2009 2:22 PM


Re: Paradigm
Is that a paradigm?
Or an unevidenced assumption?
Has ID been confirmed by the standard scientific method of verification of predicted results?
Or does it remain an untested hypothesis?
It is a religious belief seeking to distort and misrepresent scientific evidence in order to fool school boards and courts into believing it is really science.
Religious belief is the exact opposite of science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2009 2:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2009 2:34 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 244 of 352 (507311)
05-03-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Straggler
05-03-2009 2:34 PM


Re: Paradigm
But demonstrating that this is the case is another question.
For example "irreducible complexity" is arguably a scientific argument.
It is just one that has failed.
The way Behe approached ID, through irreducible complexity, was arguably not science.
I think this was demonstrated on the witness stand at Dover when he was asked about the background research he had conducted. The attorney interrogating him was able to produce a huge stack of articles (50 or more if I remember correctly) that he was not familiar with. He had to admit, in essence, that he came to his conclusions without benefit of scientific research and in contrast to existing scientific knowledge.
That's pretty much the same as creation "science," from which ID is evolved.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2009 2:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2009 3:52 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 281 of 352 (508266)
05-11-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by traderdrew
05-11-2009 8:26 PM


Re: General Reply
Punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism seems to be a marriage of two conceptual explanations of evolution. Neo-Darwinism may explain microevolution but when you start leaving a step by step gradual process of change, you start entering the realm of miracles. The mechanisms that explain punctuated equilibrium have escaped my research.
I disagree.
Punctuated equilibrium is just a period of more rapid change. If you have more rapidly changing environmental conditions, those species which survive will be those changing quickly enough to get by.
On the other hand, with stable environmental conditions, little change is required. Most everyone is adequate enough when times are easy.
And that's the crux of PE! Nothing miraculous about that!
The mechanisms are exactly the same for PE as for anything else. Changes are just driven faster by more extreme selection pressures.
What would take a miracle is if there were some magical barrier which let evolution progress just so far and then said, "Stop! Just that far and no farther!"
Otherwise, sans miracles, those little micros just keep adding up and pretty soon, either through time or geography, you have two separate species.
So, specify that miraculous "Stop sign" you see that suddenly halts genomic change when it has gone far enough.
Make it good--your Nobel Prize awaits.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by traderdrew, posted 05-11-2009 8:26 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by IchiBan, posted 05-15-2009 2:58 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 286 of 352 (508510)
05-14-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by traderdrew
05-14-2009 12:30 PM


Re: General Reply
Once again, neo-Darwinism is at an extreme of theories pertaining to evolution.
No, wrong.
The theory of evolution is mainstream, accepted by something like 99.9% of biologists and evolutionary biologists.
The only class of people unwilling to accept the theory of evolution is religious fundamentalists, and their "evidence" comes from religious beliefs rather than scientific investigation. They simply try to couch their religions beliefs in scientific terms to rationalize those beliefs.
Also, the "what ifs" put forth by fundamentalists do not constitute scientific theories, so there are not multiple "theories pertaining to evolution" of which neo-Darwinism is at an extreme.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by traderdrew, posted 05-14-2009 12:30 PM traderdrew has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 291 of 352 (508612)
05-15-2009 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by IchiBan
05-15-2009 2:58 AM


Its evidence you be wanting, eh?
The only problem with that is that it has never been shown that the little micros as you call them amount to anything more than adaptation. salamanders remain salamanders etc.
Nice try, but "salamanders remaining salamanders" is not the issue; its different kinds of salamanders that we're talking about.
And that variation that you admit to, adaptation, has no specific direction--it reacts to environmental stresses. And when a population separates, either through geography or time, there is nothing to keep one group from drifting apart from the other through lots of those little micros.
But you sidestep your problem by suggesting that the little micros do, then asking for a 'mechanism' to stop it. Sounds like proving a negative to me.
Not so; creationists admit to variation, or micros, but creationists can't come up with a mechanism to limit those micros. Creationists are stuck supporting their biblical belief in "kinds" without being able to provide any mechanism to prevent those micros, either over a geographic area or through time, from adding up to "macros."
All you have proven here is how far the evolutionist will reach with little or no hard evidence.
We can see the changes both through time and geographically. We can see them go beyond simple variation to speciation. Through geological time we can see evolution in action, with speciation all over the place. We have tons of evidence.
It seems to me that creationists are the ones without the evidence, stuck supporting a religious belief that is contradicted by overwhelming evidence.
And all they can do about that overwhelming evidence is sullenly deny it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by IchiBan, posted 05-15-2009 2:58 AM IchiBan has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 315 of 352 (509129)
05-18-2009 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by traderdrew
05-18-2009 7:46 PM


Re: On the Topic
Why does the creator have to design perfect systems? Why not design adequate systems that get the job done??? Is there any sense in overdoing it?
Evolution does adequate systems just fine--that's its specialty, in fact.
If your creator also does adequate systems, how are you going to tell the difference between the two? Or that there even is a "creator" at all?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by traderdrew, posted 05-18-2009 7:46 PM traderdrew has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 331 of 352 (509271)
05-19-2009 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Taq
05-19-2009 10:35 PM


Re: On whatever is left of the Topic
So if we are to judge the designer by the design (assuming a single designer) we can come to two strong conclusions.
1. The designer is not all knowing nor all powerful. Using eyes as an example, the designer learned from it's mistakes with the backwards retina of vertebrates and perfected the design in cephalopods.
2. The designer chose to insert inept designs on purpose, and arbitrarily. Going back to the eyes, the designer knew that the backwards facing retina would cut down on light capturing and resolution but decided to do it anyway.
Given these observations, what scientific evidence is there that there is one designer, vs. no designer or multiple designers?
Creationists have spun off and disavowed intelligent design in an effort to "do science" but intelligent design leaves a lot of the scientific questions not only unanswered but unasked! (That's because they can't supply their real answers without giving away the whole sordid scheme.)
ID talks about design, but by who/what? (We all know the answer they require, now don't we?)
But if IDers were actually attempting to do science the question of how many designers there are/were would be an important one. But that's one question they dare not address because they know the designer is the Christian deity but can't admit it. That would blow their chances of sneaking ID into the schools under the false guise of science.
(ID = creation "science" = creationism with the serial numbers filed off in hopes of fooling school boards and state legislators.)
And to summarize the topic: Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
Answer: It is the IDers who are inept. They are pretending to do science while believing exactly the opposite of what science and the scientific method require.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Taq, posted 05-19-2009 10:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Taq, posted 05-20-2009 11:17 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 347 of 352 (510114)
05-27-2009 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by traderdrew
05-27-2009 3:50 PM


Re: Economics
But let me tell you some of your atheists something. Be prepared to rethink your belief systems. I know things you don't know about.
Don't you have anything better in your repertoire than calling scientists who find the evidence for the theory of evolution convincing, "atheists"?
Next you'll be calling them tools of Satan or something.
You do more harm than good to your cause with such statements.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by traderdrew, posted 05-27-2009 3:50 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by IchiBan, posted 05-27-2009 10:03 PM Coyote has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024