Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Why Intelligent Design is NOT a viable alternative to the ToE.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Intelligent Design is NOT a viable alternative to the ToE.

    It has become apparent that many of the neocreo's in this forum have pinned their hopes on ID as a wedge to drive into the ToE.
    There are a multitude of articles explaining why ID fails as an alternative explanation to the ToE but it seems they fall on blind eyes or are simply rejected because they do not fit the agenda of those intent on introducing the supernatural into science.
    I found a simple yet concise explanation as to why ID fails and will provide excerpts here in the hope that brevity may capture more eyeballs and reason will win out.
    From the pen of Massimo Pigliucci in the Skeptical Enquirer:-
    The claims by Behe, Dembski, and other “intelligent design” creationists that science should be opened to supernatural explanations and that these should be allowed in academic as well as public school curricula are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of both design in nature and of what the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is all about.

    A new brand of creationism has appeared on the scene in the last few years. The so-called neocreationists largely do not believe in a young Earth or in a too literal interpretation of the Bible. While still mostly propelled by a religious agenda and financed by mainly Christian sources such as the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute, the intellectual challenge posed by neocreationism is sophisticated enough to require detailed consideration (see Edis 2001; Roche 2001).

    Among the chief exponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory, as this new brand of creationism is called, is William Dembski, a mathematical philosopher and author of The Design Inference (1998a). In that book he attempts to show that there must be an intelligent designer behind natural phenomena such as evolution and the very origin of the universe (see Pigliucci 2000 for a detailed critique). Dembki’s (1998b) argument is that modern science ever since Francis Bacon has illicitly dropped two of Aristotle’s famous four types of causes from consideration altogether, thereby unnecessarily restricting its own explanatory power. Science is thus incomplete, and intelligent design theory will rectify this sorry state of affairs, if only close-minded evolutionists would allow Dembski and company to do the job.
    Pigliucci then goes on to present Aristotle's "Four causes in science". I will refer you to the link to see these - they are about a page long each for those interested.
    For those who wish to cut to the chase, here are Pigliucci's conclusions:-
    In summary, it seems to me that the major arguments of Intelligent Design theorists are neither new nor compelling:
    1. It is simply not true that science does not address all Aristotelian causes, whenever design needs to be explained;
    2. While irreducible complexity is indeed a valid criterion to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent design, these are not the only two possibilities, and living organisms are not irreducibly complex (e.g., see Shanks and Joplin 1999);
    3. The complexity-specification criterion is actually met by natural selection, and cannot therefore provide a way to distinguish intelligent from non-intelligent design;
    4. If supernatural design exists at all (but where is the evidence or compelling logic?), this is certainly not of the kind that most religionists would likely subscribe to, and it is indistinguishable from the technology of a very advanced civilization.


    Therefore, Behe’s, Dembski’s, and other creationists’ (e.g., Johnson 1997) claims that science should be opened to supernatural explanations and that these should be allowed in academic as well as public school curricula are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of both design in nature and of what the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution (Mayr and Provine 1980) is all about.
    As I implied in my opening statement, not a thorough explanantion of this issue, but a good one nontheless.
    With all the conflicting religious beliefs in the world, they can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.
    Herb Silverman.

  • #2
    Originally posted by aussiedave View Post
    It has become apparent that many of the neocreo's in this forum have pinned their hopes on ID as a wedge to drive into the ToE.
    There are a multitude of articles explaining why ID fails as an alternative explanation to the ToE but it seems they fall on blind eyes or are simply rejected because they do not fit the agenda of those intent on introducing the supernatural into science.
    Heh, heh. Evo-desperation at its best.

    The question that begs: If ID has 'failed' as you so naively state then why do "Intelligent Atheists Reject Darwinian Evolution and Embrace Intelligent Design" in larger numbers than ever before? Oops.

    And why are "Darwinian pigeons are running scared" of Intelligent Design? You appear to be very confused. You need to think before you post, yes? You gotta love it.

    Bottom line: ...nonreligious scientists and scholars who doubt modern Darwinian theory include former U.S. National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis, medical professor Raymond Tallis, Rutgers cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, New York University philosopher and legal scholar Thomas Nagel, and Princeton-trained mathematician David Berlinski—all of whom have publicly challenged neo-Darwinism and/or sympathized with ID.
    https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/se...gn#post5750446
    Science writer Susan Mazur wrote a book explaining why Darwinian evolution is dead. She wrote:
    What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature — let’s call them “the Altenberg 16” — who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It’s pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate “other” new phenomena.

    https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/se...sm#post5754322
    Naive and science-ignorant evos, so confused, so defeated.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by aussiedave View Post
      It has become apparent that many of the neocreo's in this forum have pinned their hopes on ID as a wedge to drive into the ToE.
      There are a multitude of articles explaining why ID fails as an alternative explanation to the ToE but it seems they fall on blind eyes or are simply rejected because they do not fit the agenda of those intent on introducing the supernatural into science.
      I found a simple yet concise explanation as to why ID fails and will provide excerpts here in the hope that brevity may capture more eyeballs and reason will win out.
      From the pen of Massimo Pigliucci in the Skeptical Enquirer:-


      Pigliucci then goes on to present Aristotle's "Four causes in science". I will refer you to the link to see these - they are about a page long each for those interested.
      For those who wish to cut to the chase, here are Pigliucci's conclusions:-

      As I implied in my opening statement, not a thorough explanantion of this issue, but a good one nontheless.
      I find it ironic that religious fundamentalists now resort to using Aristotle’s teachings (a Greek philosopher) as a basis for promoting intelligent design (neocreationism). It is as if the fundamentalists realized their own opinions have been found bankrupt of truth so they start borrowing from those they despised to salvage their opinions.
      Last edited by docphin; 01-20-19, 09:25 AM.
      We shall not injure God by remaining ignorant of Him, but shall deprive ourselves of His friendship.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by aussiedave View Post

        As I implied in my opening statement, not a thorough explanantion of this issue, but a good one nontheless.
        More correctly, your "explanantion" [sic] has failed, completely. You are not a scientist, right?

        Poor evo, so confused, so naive. Is there not end to evo-desperation?

        Comment


        • #5


          deleted post

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rook;n57And why a81834

            Heh, heh. Evo-desperation at its best.
            Heh heh, handwaving at it's finest.

            The question that begs: If ID has 'failed' as you so naively state then why do "Intelligent Atheists Reject Darwinian Evolution and Embrace Intelligent Design" in larger numbers than ever before? Oops.
            Because they do not have the facts to set them straight? Just look at all the creationists - they cling desperately to a 6000 year old universe nd earth despite the facts that thorughly contradict it.
            Iow, there will always be those ignorant of the facts.
            And why are "Darwinian pigeons are running scared" of Intelligent Design? You appear to be very confused. You need to think before you post, yes? You gotta love it.
            You are delusional - that explains it.

            Bottom line: ...nonreligious scientists and scholars who doubt modern Darwinian theory include former U.S. National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis, medical professor Raymond Tallis, Rutgers cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, New York University philosopher and legal scholar Thomas Nagel, and Princeton-trained mathematician David Berlinski—all of whom have publicly challenged neo-Darwinism and/or sympathized with ID.
            https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/se...gn#post5750446
            Science writer Susan Mazur wrote a book explaining why Darwinian evolution is dead. She wrote:
            What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature — let’s call them “the Altenberg 16” — who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It’s pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate “other” new phenomena.

            https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/se...sm#post5754322
            Naive and science-ignorant evos, so confused, so defeated.
            Bottom line is that the supernatural cannot be proven to be a viable alternative to real science.
            Oops...back to the drawing board for you.

            With all the conflicting religious beliefs in the world, they can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.
            Herb Silverman.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by aussiedave View Post

              Because they do not have the facts to set them straight? Just look at all the creationists - they cling desperately to a 6000 year old universe nd earth despite the facts that thorughly contradict it.
              LOL! You're delusional - the intelligent atheists who reject your Darwinian religion and embrace ID are not YEC. Hint: Your failed YEC straw-man renders you a failure once again.

              Give it another shot, Dave and fail harder: (1) Why do "Intelligent Atheists Reject Darwinian Evolution and Embrace Intelligent Design" in larger numbers than ever before? (2) Why are "Darwinian pigeons running scared" of Intelligent Design? (3) Why did the respected science writer, Susan Mazur write a book explaining why Darwinian evolution is dead.
              What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature — let’s call them “the Altenberg 16” — who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It’s pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate “other” new phenomena. `---Susan Mazur
              Watch the evo fail to defend his self-defeated OP. This will be fun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by aussiedave View Post

                Bottom line is that the supernatural cannot be proven to be a viable alternative to real science.

                You're right - Darwinian magic is always trumped by science. Your anemic Darwinian woo appears to have expired on the operating table, yes?

                Evos, so confused.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by aussiedave View Post
                  It has become apparent that many of the neocreo's in this forum have pinned their hopes on ID as a wedge to drive into the ToE.
                  The questions still beg, Dave. Give them a shot. Don't be shy: (1) Why do "Intelligent Atheists Reject Darwinian Evolution and Embrace Intelligent Design" in larger numbers than ever before? (2) Why are "Darwinian pigeons running scared" of Intelligent Design? (3) Why did the respected science writer, Susan Mazur write a book explaining why Darwinian evolution is dead. (https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/se...sm#post5754322)
                  What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature — let’s call them “the Altenberg 16” — who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It’s pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate “other” new phenomena. `---Susan Mazur
                  You're looking weak, yes?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rook View Post
                    LOL! You're delusional - the intelligent atheists who reject your Darwinian religion and embrace ID are not YEC. Hint: Your failed YEC straw-man renders you a failure once again.
                    Lol - I was using them as an example, a concept you should be familiar with and going by your underhanded quotemining of what I actually said I am correct.

                    Give it another shot, Dave and fail harder: (1) Why do "Intelligent Atheists Reject Darwinian Evolution and Embrace Intelligent Design" in larger numbers than ever before? (2) Why are "Darwinian pigeons running scared" of Intelligent Design? (3) Why did the respected science writer, Susan Mazur write a book explaining why Darwinian evolution is dead.
                    What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature — let’s call them “the Altenberg 16” — who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It’s pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate “other” new phenomena. `---Susan Mazur
                    Watch the evo fail to defend his self-defeated OP. This will be fun.
                    Try harder rook, by reading the op without your blinders on.

                    With all the conflicting religious beliefs in the world, they can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.
                    Herb Silverman.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rook View Post
                      You're right - Darwinian magic is always trumped by science. Your anemic Darwinian woo appears to have expired on the operating table, yes?

                      Evos, so confused.
                      Another simple bait and switch - more likely to be found on the playgrounds of grade schools and hardly convincing fare in rational, adult debates.
                      Poor rook - on the run.
                      With all the conflicting religious beliefs in the world, they can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.
                      Herb Silverman.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rook View Post

                        The questions still beg, Dave. Give them a shot. Don't be shy: (1) Why do "Intelligent Atheists Reject Darwinian Evolution and Embrace Intelligent Design" in larger numbers than ever before? (2) Why are "Darwinian pigeons running scared" of Intelligent Design? (3) Why did the respected science writer, Susan Mazur write a book explaining why Darwinian evolution is dead. (https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/se...sm#post5754322)
                        What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature — let’s call them “the Altenberg 16” — who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It’s pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate “other” new phenomena. `---Susan Mazur
                        You're looking weak, yes?
                        Oh dear, it appears rook has not carefully considered the op - a failing that now mirrors his deluded flailings.
                        I suggest you go back to the op and read it carefully - I promise, it won't hurt.

                        With all the conflicting religious beliefs in the world, they can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.
                        Herb Silverman.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by aussiedave View Post
                          .
                          Poor rook - on the run.
                          You're confused. I am right here trying to get you to answer the easy questions, Dave: (1) Why do "Intelligent Atheists Reject Darwinian Evolution and Embrace Intelligent Design" in larger numbers than ever before? (2) Why are "Darwinian pigeons running scared" of Intelligent Design? (3) Why did the respected science writer, Susan Mazur write a book explaining why Darwinian evolution is dead.

                          Poor evo, in way over his head again and going under for the third time. How long can you hold your breath? You gotta love it. When evos fail they fail hard. Entertaining.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by aussiedave View Post
                            I suggest you go back to the op and read it carefully - I promise, it won't hurt.
                            We are all watching you fail hard, amigo. Not pretty. Why not just wave your white flag a little higher.

                            Evos, so confused, so defeated. Next.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by aussiedave View Post
                              Lol - I was using them as an example, a concept you should be familiar with and going by your underhanded quotemining of what I actually said I am correct.
                              Just the facts, Dave. Intelligent atheists reject your Darwinian religion and embrace ID in ever-growing numbers (oops) and your failed YEC straw-man renders you confused once again. What to do?
                              https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/se...sm#post5754322
                              One more EvoOPFail.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X