Intelligent Design Can’t Get Off The Ground

Yet another great illustration of the relationship between science such as evolution and pseudoscience such as intelligent design from Sneer Review (click through to see the full-sized version):

Evolution is at 2146 meters and rising. Intelligent Design can’t get off the ground.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13599662252662686373 BSM

    Funny or not so funny but I’ve been having a spirited discussion over at ST concerning “chi”. Recently Black Belt Magazine ran and article that was written by a defender of chi (i.e. George Dillman’s no-touch knockout). They author said something to the effect that the reason scholars and scientists will not test chi is because there is no grant money in it. Yeah right. And baldness is a hair color. Here’s your test.There’s other videos too that test chi and ki out there. The difference is the “chi” fans don’t have a rich political base of nuts to market their inane idea.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060 Quixie

    That’s an awful lot of paper!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15801436449971512320 Looney

    Well, my impression is that the ID entities shown will stand up in a slight wind. Taipei 101 is a cool feat of ID which – if not taller – certainly weighs more than the cumulative evolutionism literature stack. I went up it and they had some cool exhibits on the design techniques related to earthquakes. Not so sure how the peer reviewed stack would handle the slight breeze.BTW: Can you identify the scientific theory of evolution in one of those peer reviewed papers? Paper name + equation number? Surely that isn’t too hard!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647 James F. McGrath

    No one denies that the research on evolution is undertaken by humans and thus intelligently designed, Looney. Can you find anyone in mainstream science or philosophy of science who argues that biology and chemistry are not branches of the natural sciences, since they are not always redusible to equations?Evolution is a forensic science. It uses currently available evidence to draw conclusions about the past. Given what happened in Dover, I’m not too surprised that ID supporters are eager to undermine the criminal justice and legal systems as well as science. But unfortunately that is ID’s only chance for success: rewrite what science means, rewrite law, rewrite the constitution, rewrite everything to include this shoddy enterprise, because ID can’t meet the standards to which science and other branches of scholarly inquiry seek to hold themselves accountable.You can try to shift the blame all you like, but those who have actually read genuine science aren’t so easily fooled by cheap imitations.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15801436449971512320 Looney

    “rewrite what science means, rewrite law, rewrite the constitution, rewrite everything to include this shoddy enterprise”Speaking of shoddy enterprises and re-writing, Washington Irving, in his novel about Columbus, invented a flat earth theory which he put into the mouths of Christian theologians. In 1896, prof. White, wrote “A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom”, with the basic argument that “evolution is science, because if you don’t believe then you are one of those flat earth fools – and I won’t ever let you have tenure”. Prof. White was a historian, and president and founder of Cornell. When I was growing up in Tennessee in the 1960′s, White’s thesis was the basic argument for the scientific validity of evolution that was taught in the public schools. Yes, I am a fan of forensics! I also appreciate the predicament of an associate professor of religion.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647 James F. McGrath

    Looney, I’m not sure how pointing out things that are common knowledge among those who are well informed about religion and science does anything to support ID. If anything, it raises problems for it. The idea that religion and science are fundamentally at odds is foundational not only to those opposed to religion but also to ID. But as someone who is persuaded that the mutually-reinforcing approaches of ID and the “new atheism” are victims of the false “religion vs. science” historical revisionism, I welcome your admission! :)

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15801436449971512320 Looney

    Well, I am not quite sure what that meant. My point was, however, that no matter how compelling the evidence for or against evolution, the peer dynamics of academia would require an insistence that evolution was proven and no sane person would ever have any doubts. That is what prof. White’s 1896 book established for all time.The other problem that will never go away, no matter how big the peer reviewed stack grows is software: ID of software is something that everyone knows about. Go through the backups and common descent suddenly is no big deal. Given that things like DNA and the rest of what makes up Alleles are software, and the theory of evolution effectively declares that it is impossible for alleles (i.e.software) to be explained by referring to the existence of a programmer, the position of evolution will always be hopeless.That is why you need the peer reviewed papers: A gnostic approach backed by legal action is the only way to achieve a temporary victory for evolution, but it will never be secure.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647 James F. McGrath

    Looney, I can only assume you are a stranger to academia. I’ve been asked to sign statements of faith by conservative Christian schools where I taught once upon a time, but there is no similar statement placed before me by any other mainstream academic institution. In my own field, Biblical studies, there are loads of religious believers and a large number who do not believe in Christianity in particular or any religious creed more generally. But while often the assumptions and religious faith or lack thereof will make those with different assumptions wary, we all have people whose work we respect even though we don’t share their (lack of) faith. Because in academia, what matters is evidence. Being a Christian or not being one will not ruin one’s credibility as a scholar. Claiming what the evidence clearly contradicts, on the other hand, would likely have that effect.ID’s wedge document is absolutely clear. The aim was not to conduct research and follow the evidence wherever it might lead. The aim was to promote a worldview. Having one’s mind made up so that no amount of evidence to the contrary can persuade you – that indeed is anathema in academia, because it is opposed to learning, and that’s what educational and research institutions are all about.You are welcome to keep coming back here and making your claims. But I’d suggest instead that you actually spend less time repeating the arguments you’ve presumably taken over from folks like Dembski, Behe and O’Leary, and try to figure out why it is that so many biologists, geneticists, and other experts, including those with deep personal faith committments, find the evidence for evolution compelling. Until you can understand that, you won’t be able to make a case that they are wrong, because the evidence seems to persuade just about everyone whose mind is not made up beforehand, and even some of those whose minds were indeed made up beforehand. As someone who falls into the latter category, I can only assume that the reason you’ve failed to find the evidence for evolution persuasive is the same reason I felt the same for so long. I wasn’t in contact with the evidence. I was only hearing the biased misconstruals of the young-earth creationists. I recommend broadening your reading list. It did wonders for me! :)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X