Those pathetic pesky details again

Dembski has once again shown the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design.

On UncommonDescent Dembski has a posting titled Just say NO to Darwinian just-so stories

Dembski wrote:

I guess that’s what happens when you assume that sequence similarity automatically means a common ancestry (of the gene). A more likely scenario is that both cells require a protein with the same function so they have a similar sequence by design.

Once again, an ID perspective seems much closer to reality than the Darwinian (Lamarckian?) just-so stories.

I am not going to argue whether or not the proposed hypothesis is accurate, what I am going to do is compare the science hypothesis with Dembski’s claim

So let’s compare: The paper provides a tentative hypothesis based on scientific data. Dembski instead shows why ID is scientifically vacuous. ‘The designer wanted it so’. How Dembski has established that such a scenario is more likely is beyond me. I guess the math is too complicated to share…

Dembski’s double standard has been well documented, on the one hand he expects science to provide sufficiently detailed pathways, on the other hand, ID does not require any such ‘pathetic level of detail’. Strangely enough, the pathetic level of detail was Dembski’s own requirement.

Dembski: wrote:

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”


In the same thread, Dembski is educated by Deanne Taylor on the concept of scale free networks. Enjoy…

It must be comforting to ‘know’ that an Intelligent Designer (read God) is taking care of His Creation. But to call this science… Bizarre… But understandably if you realize that Dembski’s strength may be in apologetics.

Dembski could have benefited from Darwin’s wise words

Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain th[e] similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes. The hopelessness of the attempt has been expressly admitted by Owen in his most interesting work on the ‘Nature of Limbs.’ On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is;–that it has so pleased the Creator to construct each animal and plant. [On the Origin of Species, first edition, 1859, Chapter XIII, p 435]

It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the “plan of creation,” “unity of design,” ., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. [On the Origin of Species, Chapter XIV, p 482]

Btw anyone has an idea who TJ is? As in (TJ: it’s actually a fungus)?