“Pro-ID”, “endorse ID” and “ID-friendly” - Holy terminological ambiguity, Batman!

| 121 Comments

[Republished from Homologous Legs]

Intelligent design, as a scientific hypothesis, is in trouble if it doesn’t have peer-reviewed papers establishing, analysing and providing evidence for its core ideas - so it’s no surprise that proponents of ID are quite adamant that such papers do in fact exist.

Casey Luskin, intelligent design expert and apparent head writer over at Evolution News & Views, is naturally no exception, and he recently answered an objection to the claim that over 50 peer-reviewed articles support ID: namely, that the majority of the articles cited by the Discovery Institute in this list do not mention ID at all.

His answer?

The short answer is that all of the articles endorse ID arguments, in one way or another, whether or not they use the term “intelligent design.”

Now, this post is not about to dissect all 50+ citations, that’s for someone else (or me, if I ever get some free time) to do at another time, but I would like to look at exactly how Casey describes the way these papers, even if they don’t mention it by name, “endorse” ID.

I believe there’s a distinction here that isn’t being adequately recognised - one between articles that provide positive evidence for ID and articles that provide positive evidence for ideas of ID proponents. This distinction is apparent, but not noted, within Casey’s post:

For example, there are papers by biochemist Michael Behe, who is clearly pro-ID, that don’t use the term ID. But those papers argue that the complexity of biological systems is too much for Darwinian mechanisms to produce. That’s an ID argument.

But what does he mean by an “ID argument”? Does ID really predict that naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms are unable to produce the complexity of biological systems, such as bacterial flagella? I don’t think it does. Whilst Behe and friends like to claim that such an inability demonstrates that intelligent intervention was required in the production of said systems (which is a false dichotomy), ID, if true, does not necessitate that evolutionary mechanisms are powerless to produce complexity, at least not under the extremely vague definition of ID put forward by proponents. So what is the “ID argument” here? It’s not actually an argument from ID that Behe is making: it’s an argument that evolution is unable to produce complexity, which is a personal belief of Behe (and of other proponents too).

Other examples can be found in the work of protein biochemist Douglas Axe, whose anti-evolution papers are glowingly cited in the DI’s list. His paper “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds” (published in the semi-in-house journal BIO-Complexity) is all about demonstrating that functional protein folds cannot evolve by Darwinian mechanisms, and it is cited as pro-ID because ID proponents claim that ID is required to explain the origin of protein folds. But again, ID could be true and protein folds could be accessible by Darwinian mechanisms. It’s not a positive argument for ID that Axe is making.

These examples reflect that the majority of the papers cited in the DI’s list support not ID itself but the notions of the ID movement, many of which are technically unrelated to ID as a scientific hypothesis - and by using ambiguous phrases like “pro-ID”, “endorses basic ID arguments”, “the ID paradigm” and “ID-friendly”, Casey is helping blur the line.

What would be a proper positive argument for ID? Physical evidence that beings with the capability to produce life visited our planet in the past would be one. Perhaps a message left by these beings. Perhaps a message left in the genomes of all living things. These are just examples, it’s really up to the ID community to do the hard yards and generate testable predictions and find good evidence.

So what does this all mean for the legitimacy of the 50+ citations? Well, a lot of them are simply irrelevant when you draw the distinction between papers that support ID with positive evidence and papers that merely affirm the related beliefs of ID proponents. Out go the majority of the papers by Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, William Dembski and others! However, some survive this culling. Is ID therefore a legitimate scientific enterprise, fruitfully producing publishable results and making intellectual progress? Not necessarily.

It’s ultimately the job of the biological community at large to judge whether or not these papers are any good. Peer-review is not the only hurdle to a successfully published idea - it must also survive out in the wild. Will these papers make an impact? Will they be cited numerously and, more importantly, favourably? Will they inspire other researchers to follow the exciting new ideas and concepts present in intelligent design? Many of the non-culled “pro-ID” papers have been published in small journals with low impact factors, and are therefore unlikely to be taken seriously by many biologists - but if the hypotheses contained within are strongly supported, people will eventually notice.

The onus is on the ID community to produce good papers supporting the core ideas inherent to intelligent design. If they find unambiguously positive evidence for ID, the support of the academic community will start to swing their way. The current lack of such support is a clear indication that, despite much posturing, ID research still has a long way to go.

121 Comments

The onus is on the ID community to produce good papers supporting the core ideas inherent to intelligent design. If they find unambiguously positive evidence for ID, the support of the academic community will start to swing their way. The current lack of such support is a clear indication that, despite much posturing, ID research still has a long way to go.

There is also the profound problem of how Intelligent Design proponents also lack the desire to produce these alleged “good papers supporting the (movement’s) core ideas.”

I mean, look at the ridiculous posturing and blatant lying Luskin just went through to pretend that he had a list of papers supporting Intelligent Design.

With one one-hundredth of what the Discovery Institute spends on propaganda and schmoozing Right-wing lackwit politicians, they could fund a hundred laboratories to do research.

Yet they don’t, and they don’t want to.

The peers are the public .Not already committed evolutionists.

It actually is more demanding for evolutionary biology to show its conclusions are based on biological investigation using the scientific method or something close to it!!! I always find that they don’t draw conclusions, or many, from biological examination but from geological investigation coupled with biological conclusions. Certainly in the great relationships they draw. Indeed lines of reasoning, hunches, or special cases are the substance for much in evolutionary biology.

Is evolution a product of biological investigation using the scientific method??? Enquiring minds want to know!

The peers are people who know the subject. Not ignorant, absurdly prejudiced twits who reject the very idea of evidence, let alone the evidence itself.

Yes, evolution is a product of biological investigation using the scientific method. Enquiring minds understood that a century ago.

The onus is on the ID community to produce good papers supporting the core ideas inherent to intelligent design.

I suggest that the first step is to produce a positive, substantive description of “intelligent design”.

A basic example would be an expository essay telling us things like Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How.

Rather than merely, “Something, somehow is wrong with evolutionary biology”.

Once we get some idea of what happens when “intelligent design” takes place, then we can get to the “details” such as comparing the explanatory power of that exposition with that of evolutionary biology. Such as “what is the probability that intelligent designers would produce DNA?”

TomS said:

The onus is on the ID community to produce good papers supporting the core ideas inherent to intelligent design.

I suggest that the first step is to produce a positive, substantive description of “intelligent design”.

A basic example would be an expository essay telling us things like Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How.

Rather than merely, “Something, somehow is wrong with evolutionary biology”.

Correction, Intelligent Design is “Something, somehow is wrong with evolutionary biology because GODDIDIT”

Robert Byers, or any other ID advocate, feel free to answer these questions. Please keep replies civil and make a serious attempt to convince a skeptical individual. That is how science works. If you look at a scientific paper in a journal, you will never see language insulting readers.

1) Who is the designer? How do you know?

2) What did the designer do, exactly?

3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah.

4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong.

5) Offer an example of something that is not designed by the designer. Explain how this entity came into being without any intervention by the designer. Explain how you can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.

apokryltaros said:

The onus is on the ID community to produce good papers supporting the core ideas inherent to intelligent design. If they find unambiguously positive evidence for ID, the support of the academic community will start to swing their way. The current lack of such support is a clear indication that, despite much posturing, ID research still has a long way to go.

There is also the profound problem of how Intelligent Design proponents also lack the desire to produce these alleged “good papers supporting the (movement’s) core ideas.”

I mean, look at the ridiculous posturing and blatant lying Luskin just went through to pretend that he had a list of papers supporting Intelligent Design.

With one one-hundredth of what the Discovery Institute spends on propaganda and schmoozing Right-wing lackwit politicians, they could fund a hundred laboratories to do research.

Yet they don’t, and they don’t want to.

Intelligent Design has had more than twenty years to demonstrate that it is a viable alternative to the Modern Synthesis as a scientific theory accounting for the history and current composition of Earth’s biodiversity. No leading Intelligent Design proponent I know of and, as an aside, I have asked Behe and Dembski to do this - has offered anything that will show that Intelligent Design is indeed better than the Modern Synthesis in accounting for the history of life on our planet.

I suspect that it will be a cold day in Hell before Intelligent Design proponents can demonstrate that it is indeed “scientific”.

In the final analysis, it doesn’t matter if a million papers are published that are “pro ID” or “ID friendly” or “endorse ID”. The only thing that matters is that they provide some evidence. They have not. They can not. They will not. They refuse to even propose any real research, let alone do any. They even refuse to propose any testable hypothesis. They insist on denigrating real science, as though that will ever get them anywhere.

The most they can hope for is that their incessant whining eventually goads real scientists into actually doing some experiments. You know, like the peppered moth fiasco. If they really thought there was any real problem with the data, they should have been falling all over themselves to do the experiments that demonstrated that. They did not. They could not. They would not. Instead, a real scientist eventually got fed up with their lies and did some experiments himself. Guess what, he demonstrated that they were completely and utterly wrong and that their accusations were groundless. Maybe that’s why they don’t do any experiments themselves. Maybe that’s why they never do.

John said: No leading Intelligent Design proponent I know of and, as an aside, I have asked Behe and Dembski to do this - has offered anything that will show that Intelligent Design is indeed better than the Modern Synthesis in accounting for the history of life on our planet.

I’m more flexible than you.

I’d just like to hear how Intelligent Design makes any attempt (better, equal, or worse) at accounting for something.

As far as I know, there is no attempt at an explanation for the “tree of life” which does not involve common descent with modification.

Or, for that matter, I’d just like to hear of any alternative narrative of “what happened and when”, even if it doesn’t get around to accounting for the things that resulted.

And, by the way, I’d like to mention my appreciation for harold’s bringing up point (5). I think that this opens up several interesting issues.

Robert Byers said:

The peers are the public .Not already committed evolutionists.

It actually is more demanding for evolutionary biology to show its conclusions are based on biological investigation using the scientific method or something close to it!!! I always find that they don’t draw conclusions, or many, from biological examination but from geological investigation coupled with biological conclusions. Certainly in the great relationships they draw. Indeed lines of reasoning, hunches, or special cases are the substance for much in evolutionary biology.

Is evolution a product of biological investigation using the scientific method??? Enquiring minds want to know!

Well your peers are the public Robert. You know, the uneducated, unwashed masses with no background, training or reasoning skills. They are not the peers of the scientific community.

There is no such thing as a committed evolutionist. There are real scientists committed to the evidence, that is all. You should try it some time.

Evolutionary biology is based soundly on the scientific method. That;s what real scientists do Robert. You should try it some time.

Evolutionary biology explains many observations in geology. That is what a good scientific theory does. You should try it some time Robert.

When you get an enquiring mind Robert, then you will know. Until then, all you gots is ignorances.

And of course, everyone can see that you completely and utterly failed to describe a creationist “model” that is used to find fossil fuels. Thanks for demonstrating that you were just lying about that Robert.

TomS said:

John said: No leading Intelligent Design proponent I know of and, as an aside, I have asked Behe and Dembski to do this - has offered anything that will show that Intelligent Design is indeed better than the Modern Synthesis in accounting for the history of life on our planet.

I’m more flexible than you.

I’d just like to hear how Intelligent Design makes any attempt (better, equal, or worse) at accounting for something.

As far as I know, there is no attempt at an explanation for the “tree of life” which does not involve common descent with modification.

Or, for that matter, I’d just like to hear of any alternative narrative of “what happened and when”, even if it doesn’t get around to accounting for the things that resulted.

And, by the way, I’d like to mention my appreciation for harold’s bringing up point (5). I think that this opens up several interesting issues.

The issue isn’t one of flexibility, TomS. Intelligent Design proponents like Behe and Dembski contend that theirs does a better job in explaining what we observe in the biological sciences than does the Modern Synthesis. Okay, if that is so, THEN DEMONSTRATE IT. While I agree with you that harold’s point (5) has merit, I contend that if Intelligent Design proponents are serious in claiming that their “theory” is scientific, then they must show that it is better than the Modern Synthesis in explaining the history and current composition of our planet’s biodiversity. They haven’t and they won’t be able, period.

1) Who is the designer? How do you know?

2) What did the designer do, exactly?

3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah.

4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong.

5) Offer an example of something that is not designed by the designer. Explain how this entity came into being without any intervention by the designer. Explain how you can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.

You know the rule: Don’t ask, don’t tell

Robert Byers said:

The peers are the public.

That is literally true. ID is a mass advertising campaign. Nothing to do with science at all.

Robert Byers said:

The peers are the public .Not already committed evolutionists.

It actually is more demanding for evolutionary biology to show its conclusions are based on biological investigation using the scientific method or something close to it!!! I always find that they don’t draw conclusions, or many, from biological examination but from geological investigation coupled with biological conclusions. Certainly in the great relationships they draw. Indeed lines of reasoning, hunches, or special cases are the substance for much in evolutionary biology.

Is evolution a product of biological investigation using the scientific method??? Enquiring minds want to know!

Well Byers, despite evolution seemingly having multiple lines of independent evidence (molecular genetics, biogeography, comparative anatomy, fossil record, etc), a few dissenting scientists could still produce better scientific evidence that is then confirmed by other independent scientists. This could win over the scientific consensus despite any strong initial resistance. Far from being “committed evolutionists”, the scientific consensus could toss evolution into the proverbial trash can rather quickly.

Robert, we are eagerly waiting for your ‘scientists’ to come up with all this evidence, it’s about 150 years in the making. One could imagine your ‘scientists’ are hard at work in the field and the laboratory. Of course, if there is high confidence in success in the lab and field station, no need to waste time trying to bypass the scientific process by doing political action in state legislatures and school boards. If scientifically successful, your scientists would likely win a Nobel Prize or two, or three.

Indeed, a Nobel Prize and other rewards can make science rather self-critical, even when a current paradigm seems to have good evidence; click here for examples of mainstream scientists challenging aspects of current evolutionary theory, including by biologist William Provine (showing that even Provine, a rather outspoken atheist, is far from a total defender of everything Charles Darwin).

These are more challenges of mainstream science by mainstream scientists, including the final example in which Darwin’s - and Alfred Wallace’s - cornerstone idea of natural selection was shown to be incorrect.

Jack wrote

What would be a proper positive argument for ID? Physical evidence that beings with the capability to produce life visited our planet in the past would be one. Perhaps a message left by these beings. Perhaps a message left in the genomes of all living things. These are just examples, it’s really up to the ID community to do the hard yards and generate testable predictions and find good evidence.

As I’ve been writing for many years now (see, e.g., here in an exchange with Francis Beckwith), the content of ID “theory” is just this:

Sometime or other, some intelligent agent(s) designed something biological, and then somehow manufactured that thing in matter and energy, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process, the manufacturing process, or the presence (or even existence) of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).

So far no ID theorist has filled in any of the “somexxxx” placeholders with an operationally definable and testable concept. ID is quite literally content-free.

Robert Byers said:

The peers are the public .Not already committed evolutionists.

I’m also a commited Plate Tectonicist, General Relativist.. etc.

I’m committed because of the overwelming evidence in support of these theories. Yet you ignore your commitment to YEC based on nothing but supersition.

It actually is more demanding for evolutionary biology to show its conclusions are based on biological investigation using the scientific method or something close to it!!!

Happens every day. Which scientific journals do you peruse Robert? Or do you expect a special invitation?

I always find that they don’t draw conclusions, or many, from biological examination but from geological investigation coupled with biological conclusions. Certainly in the great relationships they draw. Indeed lines of reasoning, hunches, or special cases are the substance for much in evolutionary biology.

Fine Robert. Pick one such paper you have read in the peer-reviewed professional literature and present your criticisms.

Is evolution a product of biological investigation using the scientific method??? Enquiring minds want to know!

An inqiuiring mind is a great thing. To bad you do not possess one.

Here we go again:

1) Who is the designer? How do you know?

The Elohim. Read Genesis, first verse.

2) What did the designer do, exactly?

Created the heavens and the earth and life on it.

3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah.

We are working on this. There are many current hypotheses. We do know from our own experiments in directed evolution and artificial selection that intelligent processes can achieve things a blind process could not.

4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong.

I think the Earth was created around 1.545 billion years ago. The calculations are a little too massive to be posted here.

5) Offer an example of something that is not designed by the designer. Explain how this entity came into being without any intervention by the designer. Explain how you can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.

A cave is not designed. It is the result of natural erosion. Scientists use valid methodologies to distinguish between design and non-design in fields as diverse as palaeontology (stone tools, controlled use of fire) through to radio astronomy (SETI).

Atheistoclast said:

Here we go again:

1) Who is the designer? How do you know?

The Elohim. Read Genesis, first verse.

you only answered the first question.

2) What did the designer do, exactly?

Created the heavens and the earth and life on it.

That’s like asking a mechanic “What did you do with my car?” and having him answer “I fixed it”.

3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah.

We are working on this. There are many current hypotheses.

Many? Describe one for which there is actual evidence; not just an “ad hoc hypothesis” pulled out of the air.

We do know from our own experiments in directed evolution and artificial selection that intelligent processes can achieve things a blind process could not.

Artificial selection just substitutes the breeder’s artificial environment for the organism’s natural one.

Again, you only addressed the first question

4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong.

I think the Earth was created around 1.545 billion years ago. The calculations are a little too massive to be posted here.

So you offer Genesis 1 for the first question, then disagree with Genesis for this one?

Atheistoclast said:

Here we go again…

Here we go again.

Theistoclast, you haven’t the slightest evidence for your comic book stories about magic creator gods. You are wrong to believe that they exist. They do not.

You haven’t got any proof whatsoever for your purported gods. Your religious delusions compel you to see gods where there are none.

Of course you can show me up in an instant, Theistoclast. All you need is one tiny, teeny, simple bit of empirical evidence for your gods.

But you don’t have one. Not an iota. Not a shred. Not an atom.

All you have is hot air.

Atheistoclast said:

I think the Earth was created around 1.545 billion years ago. The calculations are a little too massive to be posted here.

Any links to such calculations, and to the other studies you mention? Perhaps I can be forgiven, but I wasn’t a science major and thus unfamiliar with searching papers in science journals.

O Lord, not all this again, please!

harold said:

Robert Byers, or any other ID advocate, feel free to answer these questions. Please keep replies civil and make a serious attempt to convince a skeptical individual. That is how science works. If you look at a scientific paper in a journal, you will never see language insulting readers.

1) Who is the designer? How do you know?

2) What did the designer do, exactly?

3) Precisely HOW did the designer do this? Give a sufficiently mechanistic model that it can be tested. Propose a scientific test that can distinguish between the designer doing it as you say, versus the same thing happening via natural processes. Propose a scientific test distinguishing between the designer doing it, versus an alternate designer, such as Allah.

4) When did the designer do it? How do you know? Some ID proponents argue that life originated approximately 6000 years ago. State precisely whether you agree or disagree with this, and why. If you agree that mainstream science has mis-dated the origin of the universe, of the earth, and the youngest possible age of cellular life (youngest reasonable date of unequivocal cellular fossils), offer a reasonable alternate explanation for all classes of dating evidence. If you do accept scientific dating methods, state so very clearly and say directly that YEC date claims, and any theological or conclusions dependent on YEC date claims, are completely wrong.

5) Offer an example of something that is not designed by the designer. Explain how this entity came into being without any intervention by the designer. Explain how you can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.

Luckily you said free. I decline. Its quite weighty even if legitimate questions. anyways I asked a question but don’t expect a reply because its just a part of a bigger point.

Either evolutionary biology is the result of accurate or inaccurate biological investigation or there is NO biological investigation going on but something else. I say, largely or the big points, its the latter.

Jack,

I would suggest that you start moving troll nonsense to the bathroom wall. Unless of course you want one hundred more pages of this off topic nonsense from Joe and Robert. They have proven that they are just here to be disruptive. Why let them get away with it?

TomS said:

I’m more flexible than you.

I’d just like to hear how Intelligent Design makes any attempt (better, equal, or worse) at accounting for something.

As far as I know, there is no attempt at an explanation for the “tree of life” which does not involve common descent with modification.

Or, for that matter, I’d just like to hear of any alternative narrative of “what happened and when”, even if it doesn’t get around to accounting for the things that resulted.

And, by the way, I’d like to mention my appreciation for harold’s bringing up point (5). I think that this opens up several interesting issues.

I always imagined that the ID explanation for the tree of life would be very like art history. Picasso had his blue period, his rose period, his cubist period, etc. Same thing with he designer. He worked in fish for a while. Got tired of that and started amphibians: the changes that look like evolution are the evolution of his artistic inspiration. When he was in his mammal phase he had a relapse to the fish period and made cetaceans.

I can imagine what else it could be.

…And of course, everyone can see that you completely and utterly failed to describe a creationist “model” that is used to find fossil fuels. Thanks for demonstrating that you were just lying about that Robert.

I didn’t think of it before, but you (or perhaps Byers) should read De Re metalica by Gregorius Agrippa, which is a handbook on mining from the 16th century. The author is a creationsit and he describes in great detail how you should go about finding an ore deposit to start a new mine. He doesn’t cover petroleum, of course, but I don’t see why it should be different. The technique he advises using is dowsing.

As it happens, even blind pigs can find an acorn. The publication of an article is the start of the most fierce part of peer review. In this case, I will place “Dissecting Darwinism” by Joseph A. Kuhn squarely in the frame. My first two pieces are, Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 1, and Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 2.

I have now switched writing styles from blog to a straight-on journal article intended for BUMCP.

Helena Constantine said: …but you (or perhaps Byers) should read De Re metalica by Gregorius Agrippa…

That’s Georgius Agricola (“George the Farmer”), father of minerology - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Re_Metallica [/pedant]

Atheistoclast said: I think the Earth was created around 1.545 billion years ago. The calculations are a little too massive to be posted here.

I will hypothesize that’s purest bullshit - you pulled that number out of your butt.

For the sake of discussion, I will secondarily hypothesize that the earth was created 1.547 billion years ago. Prove I’m wrong. Show us how you arrived at 1.545, not 1.544 or 1.546. Your inability to do so proves my first hypothesis.

Helena Constantine said:

TomS said:

I’m more flexible than you.

I’d just like to hear how Intelligent Design makes any attempt (better, equal, or worse) at accounting for something.

As far as I know, there is no attempt at an explanation for the “tree of life” which does not involve common descent with modification.

Or, for that matter, I’d just like to hear of any alternative narrative of “what happened and when”, even if it doesn’t get around to accounting for the things that resulted.

And, by the way, I’d like to mention my appreciation for harold’s bringing up point (5). I think that this opens up several interesting issues.

I always imagined that the ID explanation for the tree of life would be very like art history. Picasso had his blue period, his rose period, his cubist period, etc. Same thing with he designer. He worked in fish for a while. Got tired of that and started amphibians: the changes that look like evolution are the evolution of his artistic inspiration. When he was in his mammal phase he had a relapse to the fish period and made cetaceans.

I can imagine what else it could be.

Going by the fossil record, The Intelligent Designer never got tired of fish: He got tired of some specific groups (of fish) unfortunately, but He never got tired of fish.

He had a big fling with scorpion flies, judging by their heyday 260 million years ago, but got tired of them, save for a handful of genera He keeps around as souvenirs. It’s a tragic shame that He wasn’t as sentimental with the placoderms, acanthodians or pycnodontids.

DS said:

Jack,

I would suggest that you start moving troll nonsense to the bathroom wall. Unless of course you want one hundred more pages of this off topic nonsense from Joe and Robert. They have proven that they are just here to be disruptive. Why let them get away with it?

Yes, please, it would be very nice to have the thread exorcised of these two trolls.

Dave Luckett said:

Byers actually thinks he’s on to something with that. He’s that stupid.

Radiation affects biological organs, but chemistry and physics and geology don’t? Byers, follow your own precepts: swallow some cyanide, (a chemical), and go jump off a cliff. That’ll soon tell you if chemistry, physics and geology have an effect on your organs.

I think he already did that, hence the mental problems.

Apparently Robert has never heard of radiobiology, a field that has been around for over one hundred years. I took a course with this title in undergrad. But then again, by just redefining any area of science as being “not biology” He has an excuse to ignore all of the evidence. Funny how he never answered when asked if genetics, population genetics, developmental biology and evolutionary development were real biology. I guess it’s all just words games and nonsense from a myopic YEC.

Anyway, all of this nonsense if way off topic. Time for another dump to the bathroom wall.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Scanlan published on February 15, 2012 10:12 PM.

A purge of commenters at Uncommon Dissent (Oops, make that “Descent”) was the previous entry in this blog.

Freshwater: Is Hogwarts a religious school? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.38

Site Meter