Sep 132005
 

Over at Telic Thoughts Mike Gene makes the comment that “there is no Intelligent Design Theory”. Mike is a serious scientist but I am not so I like to take a slightly different view of ID and explain it here. Mike provides the quote from Rush Holt

Scientifically, a theory is an accepted synthesis of a large body of knowledge, consisting of well-tested hypotheses, laws, and scientific facts, which concurrently describe and connect natural phenomena. There are actually very few theories in science, including atomic theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of the standard model of particle physics

IMO, “the theory of evolution” ToE sticks out like a sore thumb in that list. Before I go any further let me offer a couple of more quote to elucidate the definition of theory. From Biology-Online

In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.

From Wikipedia

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

For those familiar with Intelligent Design and the critics of evolution know there is a distinction between the theory of change over time (evolution) and the theory of common descent (Darwinian evolution). Darwinists conveniently obfuscate this distinction to their advantage. Does the theory of Darwinian evolution meet the criteria to be called a theory? What are the criteria of a theory? The explanation of a theory must be observable, testable and produce valid predictions (accurate deterministically reproducible). In other word, a theory must be empirically true., Darwinian evolution fails in all these counts.

The Discovery Institute also circulated a list of 100 scientists who are “skeptical” of the Darwinian theory of evolution. “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged,” said the statement.

One signer, chemist Henry Schaefer, a five-time Nobel nominee, said, “Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.”(PBS’ Evolution generates a debate)

The Darwinian theory of common descent from one species to another has never been observed and according to Darwinians it will never be observable due to the length of time required for this to occur. In fact the body of evidence shows the opposite of what the Darwinian premise expects.

The Darwinian theory is not testable. If the theory hypothesizes that all of life shares a common ancestry how would that get tested. Can you as Stephen J. Gould said rewind the tape of life and replay it to observe production of the diversity of life? This surely was the point that Henry Gee, Senior Editor for the Journal Nature, was making in his book “In Search of Deep Time”.

New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries “missing links”, as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps… To recall what I said in chapter 1, no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact.

From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth, we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. (quotes are taken from Darwinism Watch)

To be fair so I am not accused of quote mining Henry Gee repudiates any usage of his quotes for the purpose of refuting Darwinism. This is to be expected from committed Darwinists and fear of backlash from the Darwinian Priesthood. Even with his disclaimer, he still invites sneering comments from his fellow Darwinists. From NY Times review of “Deep Time”

Gee makes the usual obeisance to Darwin, despite his lack of patience with the ”Origin of Species”

At least he was smart enough to make the usual sacrifice to the god of Darwin. Here is a letter from Gee protesting the usage of quotes from his book.

Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, … and then go on to make clear that this is the assumption I am making throughout the book. For the Discovery Institute to quote from my book without reference to this is mischievous.
.
.
That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course — but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment — let’s say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor – even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true — which is not in doubt, because if we didn’t have ancestors, then we wouldn’t be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view

Thank you for that clarification Henry. In the words of Shakespeare, The lady doth protest too much, methinks. No one is accusing Gee of not giving obeisance to Darwinism. No one is accusing Gee of being anything less than a committed Darwinist who believes in common ancestry. However, it is fair to point out that in his moment of intellectual lucidity that he recognizes that the inference of common descent is NOT a testable hypothesis. Therefore Darwinian common ancestry cannot be considered a scientific theory.

Furthermore, his analogy of human kinship and human hominid ancestry is a category mistake. It is an empirical fact the human being give birth to human being but as Gee has illustrated we have no empirical evidence of a hominid giving birth to human beings.

The Darwinian theory has no valid predictions. From NCSE

A plausible model: We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs-but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world, and the outcomes of experiments. As an example, we’ll examine some evidence relevant to the allopatric speciation model.

This is so rich, “it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event”   This is a Darwinian size understatement. It is not hard. It is impossible. Let’s be honest here, Darwinian theory takes 2 disparate pieces of data and connects them together without an empirical “how”. It is just a fairy tale. It also follows that if you don’t know “how” it happened, the “what” and “when” is nothing more than conjecture.

“we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world” I have to say this is masterful. Who can argue against using models to test and verify with observational data. Models are indispensable in science for testing and predicting working theories. For instance, models are an integral part of electronic engineering for designing IC chips. It would be virtually impossible to design the chips that are in your computers today without models. There is only one catch to modeling. The model that you use must represent real world empirical reality. If I want to model a transistor, it must have characteristics of a real piece of silicon. It must have the size, shape, and response of the actual silicon. Similarly, if I want to model Darwinian speciation, the model must have the characteristics of common descent. It must have the behavior, and result of common descent. The only problem is that Darwinism has never produced an empirical model where speciation events are observed and measured. Conversely, in electronic engineering models can be built to test, measure and predict the interaction of transistors and higher logic functions. Darwinists are masters of misdirection. They will use terms from established engineering and science and cozy up to those terms as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Underneath these scientific terms they are vacuous of any empirical science.

Let’s be fair and examine a specific example NCSE uses as a case for verified prediction.

If allopatric speciation happens, we’d predict that populations of the same species in different geographic locations would be genetically different. There are abundant observations suggesting that this is often true. For example, many species exhibit regional “varieties” that are slightly different genetically and in appearance, as in the case of the Northern Spotted Owl and the Mexican Spotted Owl.

Some might object to my early statement that Darwinists are masters of misdirection. Frankly, with examples like this I can’t see how anyone could disagree with my statement. I like to know where in that prediction does it model or empirically demonstrate the Darwinian theory of common descent. It doesn’t. It is an example like many others of microevolution, change within a species. There are breeding programs with centuries of results without evidence of producing a new species. The fact of the matter is that up to this point in time evolution has not validated the prediction of Darwinian theory of common descent.

Now let me circle back to the beginning of this post. If there is no ID theory, then there is no Darwinian evolution theory. If we can teach Darwinian evolution in school and call that a well tested theory then ID is much more of a theory.

Footnotes:

Some well-respected scientists have fostered the spread of intelligent design. Henry F. Schaefer, director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia, has written or co-authored 1,082 scientific papers and is one of the world’s most widely cited chemists by other researchers.

Mr. Schaefer teaches a freshman seminar at Georgia entitled: “Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?” He has spoken on religion and science at many American universities, and gave the “John M. Templeton Lecture” — funded by the foundation — at Case Western Reserve in 1992, Montana State in 1999, and Princeton and Carnegie Mellon in 2004. “Those who favor the standard evolutionary model are in a state of panic,” he says. “Intelligent design truly terrorizes them.” — A Professor Turns Heckler, WSJ November 14, 2005; Page A1

This document is edited on 12-14-06 to correct formatting problems.

  20 Responses to “What’s a Theory?”

  1. “The Darwinian theory of common descent from one species to another has never been observed and according to Darwinians it will never be observable due to the length of time required for this to occur. In fact the body of evidence shows the opposite of what the Darwinian premise expects.”

    Doesn’t Dr. Michael Behe, of intelligent design theory/movement fame, subscribe to common descent or common ancestry? He doesn’t doubt that it happened, right?

    Thanks.

  2. Hi middle st,

    You are correct that Behe does allow for some version of common ancestry. I am not sure of the precise detail of his position, but I am sure it is not Darwinian. Remember the Darwinian process is void of teleology. Whatever the process Behe believes in it involves a guiding intelligence. It may be God or some built in front loaded intelligence.

    Do you have a point to your question?

  3. [quote]”For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” – Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box, p. 5)[/quote]

    Yes, Behe obviously does ‘allow for some version of common ancestry,’ as you suggest.

    You’re wondering, do I have a point? Well, that’s a bold question, isn’t it? I dare not ask the same of this thread. But an answer is possible here.

    Since you wrote above that (according to Gee) “the inference of common descent is NOT a testable hypothesis.” And then added your own conclusion: “Therefore Darwinian common ancestry cannot be considered a scientific theory.” My answer is found in a comparison of what your views against common descent and Behe’s views for common descent amount to.

    Thus, I am wondering why M. Behe believes common descent to be true or at least fairly convincing when you do not? Hasn’t he well considered the ‘scientific theory’ of evolution, particularly common descent? Instead, isn’t it possible to classify Behe as a ‘Darwinian’ to the extent that he accepts common descent/common ancestry, as did Charles Darwin?

    By the way, how should I address you, as teleologist?

    Middle St. Man

  4. Middle St. Man you may address me as teleologist. There is no reason for you to mock the point of my thread when you have failed to address any of the arguments in the post. Not only did you fail to address my arguments in the original post, you fail to comprehend my response to your Behe question. Let me repeat it again for you. Behe cannot be a Darwinian because what ever he believes about evolution it is not based on a blind and unguided process. He accepts that the current diversity of life must have involved intelligence.

    Regardless of Behe’s stand on common descent I am still waiting for you answer to my arguments and proof of common descent. Do you have any?

  5. Dance, teleologist, if you wish. Still the fact remains: Behe finds the idea of common descent (and an Old Earth) ‘fairly convincing’ and has no problem accepting certain forms of evolution. It seems you have sort of admitted that.

    And yet you apparently still insist: “Let’s be honest here, Darwinian theory takes 2 disparate pieces of data and connects them together without an empirical “how” . It is just a fairy tale.” Well then, it happens that this is a fairy tale (as you call it) that Michael Behe believes to be true!

    Since Dr. Behe is one of the main contributors to ID, which appears to be what you are advertising on this blog, and he thinks ‘Darwinian evolution’ counts as a ‘legitimate theory,’ e.g. that common descent (which Darwin wrote about) is the best explanation we have for origins of species, that it has been verified by evidence in several fields of scientific study by serious scholars and scientists, it shows you’re twirling away from uncomfortable facts by not acknowledging this. That’s a point worth addressing.

    Why didn’t you answer my questions, since I am the guest here? Therefore I will repeat them so you have another chance: I am wondering why M. Behe believes common descent to be true or at least fairly convincing when you do not? Hasn’t he well considered the ‘scientific theory’ of evolution, particularly common descent? Instead, isn’t it possible to classify Behe as a ‘Darwinian’ to the extent that he accepts common descent/common ancestry, as did Charles Darwin?

    I am still left to conclude thus far that Behe is both a theistic evolutionist and an evolutionary creationist. Thus, if you support Behe’s position, you also should acknowledge that it’s o.k. for creationists to ‘believe’ in evolution, i.e. to accept the evidence provided by geologists, paleontologists, botanists, anthropologists, geo-zoologists, soil scientists and even biologists who accept evolutionary theory as more efficacious than the recent hypothesis of intelligent design. Surely you are open to the evidence here and the strength of a theory, noting that I haven’t spoken against teleology once.

    The point of your thread is apparently to ask a question. What is a theory? Well, so it is something that can be applied to produce results. IDists are claiming ID can produce results. But they are so concentrated on the social and political side of their movement that they’ve apparently forgotten to advance the science. Evolutionary theory and Darwin’s contribution to science have already produced tangible results.

    For example:
    “Based on the principles of Darwin’s theory, it was possible to convincingly demonstrate that inflammation, one of the fundamental characteristics of an entire series of pathological processes, represents a defensive act of the organism against pathogens.” – Nobel Prize-winning Pathologist

    “The phagocytic doctrine developed entirely on the basis of Darwin’s evolutionary theory.” – Nobel Prize-winning Pathologist

    Btw, as you worded your last sentence, it implies that you too accept ‘arguments and proof of common descent’. Is this what you meant to say? I would feel no reason to answer to that.

    Also, before you list a bunch of Nobel Prize winners who accept ‘design’ as ‘proof’ of God’s existence, please give me the name of just one person that uses the actual recent formulation of ID from Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Nelson and company. Otherwise, I am left to conclude that ID ‘theory’ has played no role in any notable scientific discovery of our time.

    In trust,

    Middle St. Man

  6. Why didn’t you answer my questions, since I am the guest here? Therefore I will repeat them so you have another chance: I am wondering why M. Behe believes common descent to be true or at least fairly convincing when you do not?

    Please check my comments contrary to your erroneous accusation I have answered your question. It might not be the answer that your rigid Darwinian mindset is willing to allow but that is not the same as not answering your question. Do you understand the difference? I will restate my answer in the hope that you might understand. Behe cannot be a Darwinian because he rejects a purely naturalistic evolutionary process. From Behe’s point of view an intelligent agent (God) must have design certain IC artifacts that forms the basis of life. That is very different from Charles Darwin’s random evolution. Let me ask you this also in hope of guiding you to an understanding. Do you know what is the specific evidence that Behe finds convincing about common descent? IOW, where does Behe actually elaborate on what he thinks of common descent?

    biologists who accept evolutionary theory as more efficacious than the recent hypothesis of intelligent design. “. noting that I haven’t spoken against teleology once.

    Are you always this ironic?

    you also should acknowledge that it’s o.k. for creationists to ‘believe’ in evolution

    At the risk of being redundant, theistic evolution and creationist cannot believe in Darwinian evolution. Certainly, theistic evolutionists can fit in the ID camp because they do not accept the Darwinian concept of random mutation and natural selection as the sole source for the diversity of life. They believe that God was the intelligent agent and enabler for the evolution that we see.

    Which brings me back to another point about Behe’s view on common descent, Behe is but one voice among many leading advocates of ID. His view on common descent is (Research the question that I’ve asked above it is very different from what you might expect) not the law written in stones for ID. Just as there are differing stories for Darwinian evolution among Darwinists, there are differences in how we view evolution. At the end of the day it is not your appeal to authority that matters but hard scientific evidence, which Darwinian evolution does not have to support common descent. This was the point of the thread. Show me the evidence. While you have falsely accuse me of not answering your question. You indeed have not answer mine. Instead of obfuscating the issue, please address the scientific aspect of my criticism of evolution.

    Before I comment on your other examples can you tell me if you understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Do you know the difference between the variations of evolution and the evolution of species from universal common ancestry? I challenge you to demonstrate how the Darwinian concept of macroevolution has contributed anything to science. Don’t just make some appeal to authority or declaration of evidence. Explain in detail how your theory of macroevolution has contributed to any scientific discoveries.

  7. Please don’t write in such a patronizing tone as if I don’t have ‘understanding’ and that you hold some kind of monopoly over it. It is rather insulting. Likely you won’t find many dialogue partners if you continue to take such an approach.

    Let me add a comment about the anti-Darwinism being displayed here. Do you, Teleologist, really hate Charles Robert Darwin so completely, so unequivocally, as to find nothing good in what he wrote? Did he really have nothing helpful to contribute to modern science? Please know that a vast majority of scientists and non-scientists alike estimate him as one of the most insightful and influential naturalists in world history. Does this count as nothing to you?

    “theistic evolution and creationist cannot believe in Darwinian evolution. Certainly, theistic evolutionists can fit in the ID camp because they do not accept the Darwinian concept of random mutation and natural selection as the sole source for the diversity of life. They believe that God was the intelligent agent and enabler for the evolution that we see.” — teleologist

    Your first statement is untrue. Creationists CAN believe in Darwinian evolution and theistic evolutionists obviously do believe in evolution, whether or not they fully embrace Darwin’s brand of evolution is something different.

    “I am a Christian, and I am an evolutionist.” – Duncan Porter (Virginia Tech Botany Professor)

    Theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists for the most part don’t want to FIT into the ID CAMP because they consider the ID argument unconvincing, both scientifically and theologically, even if at the same time they do sympathize with ID’s efforts to confront naturalism, secularism and materialism. The fact that IDists apparently feel the need to put God-in-a-box does not mean other Christians, Muslims or Jews, who also believe in a creator-God, need follow or accept the argument(s) they are making. You seem to admit God ‘enables evolution’ and yet continue your onslaught against Darwin, who helped us to see that. Why?

    Though I can appreciate your felt need to defend teleological explanations, it is altogether difficult to dialogue with you given this apparent narrow-minded defence of ID ‘theory’ as if it has some kind of stranglehold on what defines teleological thinking. It is not nearly as useful as some IDists make it out to be. They have put their eggs into a constructionist basket and become rebels for a cause. Is that what you find applause-worthy? I would not actually argue against ID as a theory, however when it is used as an apologetic tool for Christianity (i.e. the argument from design) and at the same paraded as a great scientific discovery, even to some it is called a scientific revolution, that is more than a bit hard to swallow. Does it not bother you that you may appear to be an evangelist in the name of theistic science? Or perhaps this is not what you are proposing with your ‘theory’ of ID?

    By the way, which theories of evolution do you claim to be particularly knowledgeable about or an expert in? Are you a biologist, geologist, population geneticist, botanist or taxonomist? If so, I might wish to pit Drs. Peacocke, Caldwell, Morton, Davis or Lamoureux against you or even Dr. M. Behe and see who comes out as more convincing and up-to-date. For that matter, the two most recent Templeton prize winners would work fine for evolution as well. This way, you could follow the evidence/debate where it leads and may eventually side with evolutionary creationists or theistic evolutionists for biological evolution and common descent instead of succumbing to retrograde YEC and/or peripheral ID ideas. Darwin’s role is much smaller than you appear to make it with your inflated straw man caricature, but still worthy of respect.

    In fact, I would even agree with you (despite your condescension and apparent claims to ‘understanding’) that ID IS a theory, although not a theory with anything near the explanatory power that Darwinian theory and neo-Darwinian theory have. This is true, if for no other reason than that most ID theories rely on non-natural, super-natural or reversion to apologetic theism as fundamental concepts even for their biological branch (poof!). Thus it is more accurate to say there are many branches of ID theory. Would you accept this? For example, cosmological, biological, anthropological, geological, computational, informational, technological, political, social-cultural, etc. theories of ID.

    If you are willing to acknowledge this it would be a step forward. Then perhaps we could discuss what theory is, aside from the many words you’ve taken to bash Darwin and his contribution to science.

    Middle St. Man

  8. middle st. man this is your one and only warning. Your personal attacks will not be tolerated. I welcome any substantive challenge and debate of any posting here, but remarks like those below will not be tolerated. Don’t make this personal.

    You’re wondering, do I have a point? Well, that’s a bold question, isn’t it? I dare not ask the same of this thread.

    Why didn’t you answer my questions, since I am the guest here?

    Please don’t write in such a patronizing tone as if I don’t have ‘understanding’ and that you hold some kind of monopoly over it.

    Do you, Teleologist, really hate Charles Robert Darwin so completely, so unequivocally, as to find nothing good in what he wrote?

    Any protest of this post will also not be tolerated.

  9. Your first statement is untrue. Creationists CAN believe in Darwinian evolution and theistic evolutionists obviously do believe in evolution, whether or not they fully embrace Darwin’s brand of evolution is something different.
    “I am a Christian, and I am an evolutionist.” — Duncan Porter (Virginia Tech Botany Professor)

    I disagree. Creationism and Darwinian evolution is diametric opposites. Creationism proposes the involvement of God for the diversity of life. Darwinism explicitly rejects such an involvement. Here is a quote from THE ELIE WIESEL FOUNDATION FOR HUMANITY

    Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. As the foundation of modern biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.

    Theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists for the most part don’t want to FIT into the ID CAMP because they consider the ID argument unconvincing, both scientifically and theologically,

    I have no problem with disagreements from theistic evolutionists, but have you ever consider the same can be said of IDists? IDists find Darwinism unconvincing both scientifically and theologically.

    even if at the same time they do sympathize with ID’s efforts to confront naturalism, secularism and materialism.

    Thank you. Sympathetic gestures are welcomed. Don’t you find it repugnant that some Darwinists attack ID as “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” or “Creationism’s Trojan Horse” ? IDists have painstakingly laid out the case against Darwinian evolution and the case for ID.

    The fact that IDists apparently feel the need to put God-in-a-box

    This is a common misunderstanding of ID. ID does not involve God at all. It is a scientific theory that infers a designer. I am a Creationist who accepts the premises of ID, but not all IDists are Creationists.

    does not mean other Christians, Muslims or Jews, who also believe in a creator-God, need follow or accept the argument(s) they are making.

    No they don’t but that is irrelevant to the theory of ID. As to the God in a box comment that is a theological question not a scientific one.

    You seem to admit God ‘enables evolution’ and yet continue your onslaught against Darwin, who helped us to see that. Why?

    Please you should know better than that. I said microevolution. I was very clear to make that distinction. It only makes sense that a designer would build an organism that is capable of microevolution to adapt to different environments.

    Though I can appreciate your felt need to defend teleological explanations, it is altogether difficult to dialogue with you given this apparent narrow-minded defence of ID ‘theory’ as if it has some kind of stranglehold on what defines teleological thinking. It is not nearly as useful as some IDists make it out to be. They have put their eggs into a constructionist basket and become rebels for a cause.

    I don’t recall expressing my thinking on ID in this post, but I have expounded on it abundantly on this blog and website. Please show how I am “narrow minded” ?

    By the way, which theories of evolution do you claim to be particularly knowledgeable about or an expert in? Are you a biologist, geologist, population geneticist, botanist or taxonomist? If so, I might wish to pit Drs. Peacocke, Caldwell, Morton, Davis or Lamoureux against you or even Dr. M. Behe and see who comes out as more convincing and up-to-date.

    I don’t hold trainings in any of the fields above. I am an engineer with a grasp of practical engineering and scientific methods. Please bring who ever you want for the debate, but don’t expect me to accept any argument based on authority. Scientific principles and evidences will only convince me. Please demonstrate your scientific methods by addressing to the specific points that I’ve post on this topic.

    In fact, I would even agree with you (despite your condescension and apparent claims to ‘understanding’) that ID IS a theory, although not a theory with anything near the explanatory power that Darwinian theory and neo-Darwinian theory have. This is true, if for no other reason than that most ID theories rely on non-natural, super-natural or reversion to apologetic theism as fundamental concepts even for their biological branch (poof!).

    You are constantly accusing me of ignoble behavior that isn’t true. I would suggest you spend more time on understanding what I am actually saying and what ID actually presents as its’ theory. Your dogmatic claim of explanatory power is nothing more than a fairy tale. I’ve painstakingly presented the case against Darwinism and for ID. When am I going to see some substantive response to the specifics of what I’ve posted? You have spent four comments making personal attacks at me. While I appreciate your interest in this blog, your personal attacks stops here. Can you respond to the specific scientific issues?

  10. […] iz. The Darwinian mantra is that evolution is testable and anchored in evidence, which is preposterous. Part of the premise of ID is that Darwinism is not testable and is not supported by evidence. I […]

  11. […] 217;s theory, there is still no evidence to support it. There is insufficient evidence from paleontology, research (here, here, here, here) and simulation. Darwinian distortion of ID : Subjective, f […]

  12. […] biochemistry. Wrong, this is a strawman argument from willful ignorance. See here, here and here. Opponents of evolution made similar arguments in the past based on complex organs such as the eye, th […]

  13. […] scrutiny. Henry Gee, Senior Editor for the Journal Nature, in his book “In Search of Deep Time”. New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call […]

  14. […] scrutiny. Henry Gee, Senior Editor for the Journal Nature, in his book “In Search of Deep Time”. New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call […]

  15. […] 217;s theory, there is still no evidence to support it. There is insufficient evidence from paleontology, research (here, here, here, here) and simulation. Darwinian distortion of ID : Subjective, f […]

  16. […] cience, she is speaking of Darwinian evolution science. It is the opinion of this blog that Darwinism is not science, and it is completely anti-Christian. See also: The Anatomy of Darwinism The Anatom […]

  17. […] you mean a paleontologist like Henry Gee, Senior Editor for the Journal Nature, in his book “In Search of Deep Time”. New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call […]

  18. […] Yes, I agree with this assessment. You’ve seen it reported that universities around the country where faculties are banding together in signed letters chastising ID. I can understand the herd mentality when their metaphysics is threatened; Darwinism is a prerequisite for Atheism. What is more interesting is Schwartz’s observation of other Darwinian scientists. I am not sure if he realize it or not but he is making the case that many IDers have been saying for a long time, as least I have. Darwinists are driven by their religious biases and not objective scientific pursuit of the truth. This is the reason why Darwinists so vociferously declare that evolution is a fact as gravity is a fact, and there are overwhelming evidence to support that fact. As I demonstrated in this blog, Darwinian evolution is far from being a fact. The underlying speculation of gradualism in random mutation and natural selection does not even qualify as a theory. This observation/admission is so delicious that it qualify as a dessert. Sometimes it is good to start a meal with a dessert as an appetizer. […]

  19. […] How does the priesthood hide the truth from their rubes? Hide it in plain sight. Let me explain. The Darwinian priesthood has known for sometime now the neo-Darwinian fairy tale just don’t measure up to scientific scrutiny. Henry Gee, Senior Editor for the Journal Nature, in his book “In Search of Deep Time” . New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries “missing links”, as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps” From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth, we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices” To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. […]

  20. […] has got to be joking. See Darwinian Fizzbin 1, 2, & 3 and What’s a Theory?. Recently the movement known as Intelligent Design has attracted the attention of journalists, […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.