Nov 112005
 

Darwinian distortion of ID : ID holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

DI’s definition : The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

My definition : ID says Darwinian evolution has been shown empirically to be incapable of producing the complexity of life and the evidence is indicative of design.

The subtle Darwinian deception is to make ID a statement of subjective and even whimsical view of Darwinian evolution. In reality, ID is simply acknowledging that after 150 years since the acceptance of Darwin’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, fabricates a straw man.

ID definition : Strictly scientific, empirically based.

  16 Responses to “What is Intelligent Design? (Again)”

  1. You present a conspiracy theory of the highest order.

    If ID really had a better predictive theory, there would be Nobel prizes in it for the ID guys. Unfortunately, ID predicts exactly what we see, whatever we see. It cannot make predictions.

    The evidence is not on your side. We don’t know everything, but we know a lot, and both natural selection and common descent still rule the scientific roost.

  2. It all depends on what you mean by prediction.

  3. It has been my observation that the anti-ID crowd (such as those at Panda’s Thumb), consistently misrepresent what IDPs actually say and write. An instructive excerise might be to collect several such misrepresentations and provide responses to them such as Teleologist has done here with this one.

  4. Great idea DonaldM. If you have the time an inclination please write it up in the comments and I will promote it to an original posting. Your efforts would be greatly appreciated.

    At the meantime, here are a few cliche

  5. Speaking of Intelligent Design (which I have always regarded as a given and hardly subject to debate), it is interesting that John Rennie has abandoned SciAm Perspectives and opened a new site, SciAm Observations. He closed SciAm Perspectives in July and now just opened the new blog. The old one was a true forum with opportunities for comments. I left the terminal comment on about a dozen of the last several threads. Don’t take my word for it. Just examine the terminal history of that Forum. You will find how one devout Darwinian has found it necessary to deal with one skeptic of the Darwinain fairy tale. It is a beautiful demonstration of how the Darwinians refuse to acknowledge that they ever had any critics. We collectively simply are not allowed to exist.

    The new site, SciAm Observations, does not permit comments, only trackbacks so in effect it is no forum at all. One of the virtues of the world wide web is that it leaves a permanent record of its history. I recommend the perusal of the last several threads posted at the old forum and draw your own conclusions as to why Rennie found it necessary to close up shop. I personally am both flattered and delighted with his reponse to my unanswered challenges and comments. I left around twelve terminal comments on as many threads. They also pretty much summarize my evolutionary convictions.

    “War, God help me, I love it so!”
    General George S. Patton

  6. Incidentally, I now have my own blog:

    prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/

    Feel free to participate.

  7. Great idea DonaldM. If you have the time an inclination please write it up in the comments and I will promote it to an original posting. Your efforts would be greatly appreciated.

    I’ll give it a shot, but it’ll be a couple days as I have a lot going on these days. Thanks.

  8. Which features of the universe do you claim are better explained by intelligent design? How do they affect biology and evolution?

  9. Thank you DonaldM. Please take your time. There is no hurry. I think it is safe to say PT will still be around ’til the end of the year. đŸ™‚

  10. Everything in the universe was intelligently designed which is why we are here engaged in this silly discussion of that which is obvious to some but not all. Einstein saw all this long ago:

    “Then there are the fanatical atheists* whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They are creatures that cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

    * substitute Darwinists for atheists because there is no place for God, past or present in their paradigm.

  11. You call it “Darwinian distortion,” but “things are so complex that they must have been designed” is exactly how Behe, Dembski, Johnson and others have defined it.

    Why don’t you write a paper noting their errors? If you disagree with the definition of intelligent design that the major intelligent design advocates offer, why not do what a scientist would do, and write up your objections for publication, noting where the data support your case?

  12. You call it “Darwinian distortion,” but “things are so complex that they must have been designed” is exactly how Behe, Dembski, Johnson and others have defined it.

    edarrell, you are entitle to your opinion but not to your own facts. So show me a direct quote from Behe or Dembski where they say that ” things are so complex that they must have been designed” .

    PROVE IT!

  13. Trying to prove ID as Dembski and others keep attempting is like trying to prove pregnancy for example. Certain things are self-evident and ID is one of them. First of all it is redundant as I know of no designs that did not require an intelligence unless one is to accept such things as the hexagonal snowflake as an example. Similarly, the hexagonal patterns in drying mud are nothing more than an expression of the second law. They represent only the state of minimal energy. For the same reason most eggs are spheres. The moment we find departure from the law of the minimum, we should look for the cause. We soon run out of thermodynamic explanations and run up against real undeniable design. Design has become a dirty word largely because of the Darwinian ideologically knee jerk reactions it evokes. It is like saying Merry Christmas or Happy Thanksgiving these days. It is typical liberal foolishness and denial. We are engaged in an age old war beteen the forces of good and evil. Pardon my candor but I regard neoDarwinism in all its trappings as fundamentally intellectually evil. It denies any role for a creator past or present at the same time that it no longer even tests its own failed hypothesis based on its own Great God Chance. It is the most tested and failed hypothesis in the history of science, dwarfing both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics.

    Here is Pierre Grasse’s take on the issue before us. Referring obviously to neoDarwinism:

    “Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but is secretly worshipped. We believe there is no reason for being forced to choose between ‘either randomness or the supernatural,’ a choice into which advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living things; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should here have the final say.

    To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded assumption which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts,”
    Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107

    Amen

  14. I think you make a good point in your criticism, but (there is always a but isn’t there đŸ™‚ ) I think Mike Gene makes a lucid and convincing case for ID research.

  15. […] flagella are part of science. Krauss also trotted out the usual Darwinian equivocation that ID is an argument from ignorance. Behe already addressed this earlier with Colmes that Darwinian science jus […]

  16. […] r made complex 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 suc […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.