ID in a Nutshell

Posted 9 August 2006 by Dave Thomas

Over at Uncommon Descent, Wm. Dembski has a blog titled "Paley updated and videoized" :

August 9, 2006 Paley updated and videoized Kids growing up watching this video are going to find it harder later in life to swallow Darwinian evolution: http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html Filed under: Intelligent Design --- William Dembski @ 10:49 am

After watching the video, I clicked the "Learn more about The Watchmaker" button, and found a surprisingly clear statement of what "Intelligent Design" (ID) is, in a nutshell:

We believe the [Intelligent Design] movement is helpful to the Biblical Creationism movement because it causes people to see the lunacy of the Theory of Evolution.

By George - I think they got it! (And from the way Dembski is pumping the video on his blog, one must assume he approves...) It's not that Creationism led to Scientific Creation, which led to Intelligent Design, which led to "Evidence Against Evolution" - it's that Creationism IS "Evidence Against Evolution." Here are some more tidbits from "Learn more about The Watchmaker":

What is The Watchmaker's message? We are hoping that this presentation causes you to acknowledge that there is one true Creator God and to inquire as to Who this God is. Jeremiah 29:13 -- And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. ... Who is The Watchmaker? We believe that the "Watchmaker" is the triune God of the Old and New Testaments of Scripture, and has revealed Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God, and is truly "Lord over all." ... What is the difference between the theory of Intelligent Design and Biblical Creationism? ID (Intelligent Design) Theory simply tries to show mathematically what is already intuitively obvious -- that organisms in nature were designed. The theory does not make an attempt to identify who the Intelligent Designer is, although many ID theorists would identify themselves as Christians of some type. We believe the movement is helpful to the Biblical Creationism movement because it causes people to see the lunacy of the Theory of Evolution. This in turn shows them the wisdom of believing in a Creator, which can encourage them to read the Bible and come to know their Creator. You can learn more about the ID movement by visiting www.discovery.org and www.uncommondescent.com.

76 Comments

Gerry L · 9 August 2006

WOW. It's like they're giving up any last shred of pretense.

It sort of brings to mind the bank robber who scribbles his "hand over the cash" note on the back of an envelope that has his name and address on the other side.

David Williams · 9 August 2006

Just happened on to this web sight. Wow, we have come along way in 81 years. In 1925 a teacher in Dayton Tn is found guilty of teaching evolution and now creation science or I.D. is totally made fun of. I am not even an amateur student of science or apologetics but I have enough since to know that we did not come from monkeys. Why is there not life on other planets? How is it that we are perfectly distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze. How is it that the earth is running down instead of getting better if evolution is true. Evolution certainly is a religion - it takes more faith than to believe in I. D. When mankind rejects the love and authority of God, he sets himself up as god and therefore must come up with an alternative to how we got here.

Just thought I would throw in my two cents.
Thanks - David Williams, Tennessee

Father Wolf · 9 August 2006

I wouldn't be so smug about the IDers dropping any pretense of not being motivated by Creationism.

Given the current state and trend of the U. S. Supreme Court, in a dozen years or so, they'll do away with the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, and public schools will be freely allowed to teach religious ideas, including Creationism, as fact.

In another dozen years, the general public will have forgotten what all the opposition against Creationism was about, and only a minority of real science-minded people will be left to carry real scientific ideas.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 9 August 2006

Given the current state and trend of the U. S. Supreme Court, in a dozen years or so, they'll do away with the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, and public schools will be freely allowed to teach religious ideas, including Creationism, as fact.

I very much doubt that. As an effective political movement, creationism/ID is dead, as is fundamentalist Christianity in general. Their glory days are over.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 9 August 2006

WOW. It's like they're giving up any last shred of pretense.

Well, they've already shot their "ID isn't religion" load in court, and lost. No point in maintaining the pretense any longer, is there. Now they can safely proclaim their religious goals openly, just like ICR did after they lost THEIR court case.

Glen Davidson · 9 August 2006

That it's all about getting to the kids without, of course, any sort of critical analysis also seems to please Dembski to no end. The pretense about giving both sides disappears the moment it isn't needed to shoehorn religion into the schools.

Reportedly AFDave, who was here a short while before being sent off (to AtBC) to stonewall and distort evidence for the past few months (130+ pages so far) had a hand in repeating that old bit of nonsense in a more modern form.

I think they are tending to give up the pretense, but certainly not the efforts to poison minds to science before it has even been learned.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Keanus · 9 August 2006

And Dembski and his acolytes claim that ID has nothing to do with religion?????

I've read better doggerel on bathroom walls, and even written some when roasting friends, but to use it as religious propaganda is obscene.

And, David, welcome to Panda's Thumb. You need not have told us that you are "...not even an amateur student of science..." since that's abundantly clear from the rest of your comment. Before commenting in any way about science, you should at least read some basic books on the subject. If you did so, you're less likely to attract derision.

Darth Robo · 9 August 2006

David Williams wrote:

"I am not even an amateur student of science or apologetics but I have enough since to know that we did not come from monkeys."

And enough sense to use the word 'since' correctly?

"Why is there not life on other planets?"

How do you know there isn't?

"How is it that we are perfectly distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze."

If there are millions of planets out there (and there probably are), why couldn't at least a few others also be at that perfect distance? And we won't always be at that 'perfect' distance. Then maybe it could be another planet's turn.

"How is it that the earth is running down instead of getting better if evolution is true."

If the earth is running down, then why is god letting it happen?

"When mankind rejects the love and authority of God, he sets himself up as god and therefore must come up with an alternative to how we got here."

Could you point out when or where man has set himself up as god?

Father Wolf wrote:

"Given the current state and trend of the U. S. Supreme Court, in a dozen years or so, they'll do away with the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, and public schools will be freely allowed to teach religious ideas, including Creationism, as fact."

Would that also include religions like Islam, Hinduism, Raelism and Scientology? Or would there only be YOUR version of religion being taught? You don't like the freedom the consititution gives you? You just trying to live up to your aggressive namesake?

"In another dozen years, the general public will have forgotten what all the opposition against Creationism was about, and only a minority of real science-minded people will be left to carry real scientific ideas."

And which REAL science might that be?

Two DONUT posts like this in a row, and I'm sensing echoes of Casey Powell here. (a.k.a. Dr Morgan, Dr Greenwood, Dr Griffin etc)

Coin · 9 August 2006

As an effective political movement, creationism/ID is dead, as is fundamentalist Christianity in general. Their glory days are over.
— Lenny

You are surely quite right about IDC, but fundamentalist Christianity? They may have jumped some sort of shark in that there was a point at which they were more directly powerful than they are right now today, and there are some things which could reasonably lead one to suspect their power will decline in the near future, but at this exact moment I think that really the only problem that fundamentalist Christianity as a political movement has is that they've been so successful at achieving their goals over the last six years that it's finally beginning to generate a backlash. This isn't really such a bad position to be in.

Before commenting in any way about science, you should at least read some basic books on the subject. If you did so, you're less likely to attract derision.
— Keanus

This is good advice. Also, I would suggest reading up on comma rules. And don't trust spellcheckers so much; they are prone to missing subtle errors like "web sight" or "I have enough since".

Darth Robo · 9 August 2006

Originally saw this animation linked from here:

http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=13451

They weren't impressed either. But some did at least find it 'cute'.

And while you're on the KIDS4truth site, don't forget to play the PLAGUE game! :-)

Steviepinhead · 9 August 2006

David Williams, Tennesee

I am not even an amateur student of science or apologetics

Well, clearly you're not the first, but give yourself a little credit for the second.

I have enough since to know that we did not come from monkeys.

Cents, scents, sense, and since: life is certainly full of tough choices that we can easily get wrong, especially when we don't know very much and aren't willing to put any effort into study.

we did not come from monkeys

Nope, we're much more closely related to our chimpanzee, gorilla, and bonobo cousins, none of whom are monkeys. (Although we didn't "come from" these apes either, we did share a common ancestor with them six or seven million years ago. You do realize that that's a much longer time than six or seven thousand years, don't you? Do you think it's easier to produce the same amount of diversity of life in a shorter or a longer time period?) Monkeys are much more distant relatives, of course. Of most of us, anyway. In your case, though, maybe the monkeys would be willing to make an exception.

Why is there not life on other planets?

How do you know? Have you been to all of them? We keep finding new planets, in case you haven't heard, but most of them are pretty far away. Do you know how long a "light year" is? Humans have only landed on one celestial body beyond our own planet, the moon. We have landed unmanned exploratory craft on a relative handful fo others--Mars, Venus, and Titan. Of these, the jury is still out on two (bonus points if you can guess which one is least likely to harbor life). To the extent that you are relying on the apparent lack of evidence of life turned up by our exploratory craft so far, you are giving credit to the thousands of rocket scientists and exo-biologists who have enabled and interpreted those findings. Why place your trust in them, with their relative paucity of distant and hard-to-retrieve evidence, but not in our earthbound biologists, with their comparative treasure trove of easily-accessed data?

How is it that the earth is running down instead of getting better if evolution is true.

How is it that your drivel and drool is running down, instead of getting better? Oh, you apparently know so little of evolution that you believe it's progressive and targeted on a higher goal--that old Ladder-of-life thing. If I thought you could actually read, I'd be tempted to direct you to a collection of long-refuted creationist fallacies, just like this one. But that would be a waste of your time and your limited mental resources.

Evolution certainly is a religion - it takes more faith than to believe in I. D. When mankind rejects the love and authority of God, he sets himself up as god and therefore must come up with an alternative to how we got here.

Oh, I thought you came here to talk about science. Now I see where you're coming from. Gee, what a surprise! Though it does seem to me that people who pompously regale others about the existence and intent of unevidenced supernatural creator-spirits fit a good deal more closely into the setting-self-up-as-god pigeonhole.

Just thought I would throw in my two cents.

Hey, you guessed right that time! But then, even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day...

science nut · 9 August 2006

In soft calming tones set to meter and verse,
The Idiots lie and do things so much worse.
They pander to youth so wide-eyed and pure
To fill waning ranks of fundies, I'm sure.

They can't do the science and their faith is so shallow,
They'd best corrupt young minds before there is no one that follows.
Belief in the unproven is faith, shall we agree?
Nature's revelation of truth is through science, don't you see?

Julie Stahlhut · 9 August 2006

"How is it that we are perfectly distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze."

Here's some other stuff I've been wondering about. * Why were so many famous people like George Washington and Martin Luther King Jr. born on holidays? * Isn't it an amazing coincidence that flies are called flies, since they're so good at flying?

GvlGeologist · 9 August 2006

Darth Robo, I may be wrong, but I think you're misinterpreting the quote from Father Wolf,

"Given the current state and trend of the U. S. Supreme Court, in a dozen years or so, they'll do away with the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, and public schools will be freely allowed to teach religious ideas, including Creationism, as fact. In another dozen years, the general public will have forgotten what all the opposition against Creationism was about, and only a minority of real science-minded people will be left to carry real scientific ideas."

(my bold) To me, FW is bemoaning current Supreme Court trends, saying that if the creationists win, we won't be doing much real science. I don't think he likes the idea. On the other hand, David Williams' post looks like a caricature of creationist garbage. I'd even say that it's a spoof, but as has been noted many times, it's hard to tell the real thing from the spoofs.

Jim Harrison · 9 August 2006

In every attempt to repeal the scientific revolution there comes the moment when the reactionaries realize they aren't going to win and turn their enterprise into a way of extracting money from the stupider part of their audience. Like many a previous demogogue, Demsky is abandoning politics for mail fraud. Well, it's a living.

Matt · 9 August 2006

Here's some other stuff I've been wondering about. * Why were so many famous people like George Washington and Martin Luther King Jr. born on holidays? * Isn't it an amazing coincidence that flies are called flies, since they're so good at flying?
— Julie Stahlhut

And oranges. They're ORANGE. How mush CSI is that right there?

Matt · 9 August 2006

I predict that within 12 months Dembski will be peddling this s--t* on late night infomercials.

*-edited for vulgarity.

Kevin from nyc · 9 August 2006

That was really creepy.

If they had just stopped at one gear that floated around for 50 million years that would be ok, I guess.

The highways and cables thing made me sick

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 9 August 2006

You are surely quite right about IDC, but fundamentalist Christianity?

Yes. The fundies have never had, and will never get, a better chance to implement all of their social agenda than they have had for the past six years. Their pals in the Republicrat Party dominate the White House, both chambers of the Congress, and most of the judiciary. They can, quite literally, pass anything they want, and no one can stop them --- not the Democans, not the Libertarians, not the Independents, nobody. And yet they have not passed a single part of the fundie social agenda. Why not? They don't WANT to. They know that the fundie agenda has no popular support whatsoever, none, zip, zero, zilch, nada. Not a shred. And it would be political suicide to pass any of it. Not to mention that the corporados run the Republicrat Party (as they always have) and the corporados don't want a theocracy -- it's bad for business. Hence, the Republicrats treat the fundies the same way the Democans treat the, uh, "labor movement". They make speeches for them, they pat them on the back, they take their money, they take their votes, and then they don't do jacks--t* for them. As an effective political movement, the fundies are dead. The Republicrats will continue to give them lip service, and not much else. And, as the recent vote on stem cell research shows, many of them are no longer willing to give them even lip service when it becomes a liability. The fundies are dead. The Repubs might walk the stiffened corpse around at fundraisers, a la Weekend at Bernie's, but we can already see the flies buzzing around. *-edited for vulgarity.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 9 August 2006

In every attempt to repeal the scientific revolution there comes the moment when the reactionaries realize they aren't going to win and turn their enterprise into a way of extracting money from the stupider part of their audience.

Just like ICR did after they got crushed in Arkansas and Louisiana. Once again, we see that ID simply isn't doing anything new. Everything they've done -- absolutely everything -- was already done decades ago by the creation 'scientists'. Same poop, different toilet. (shrug)

Torbjörn Larsson · 9 August 2006

"How is it that we are perfectly distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze."

The habitable zone is quite extensive now, with new discoveries on extremophiles and water sources. That much "perfect distance" is AFAIK hard to miss by models of planet formation.

Kim Johnson · 9 August 2006

This would appear to be a simple attempt at re-consolidating the DI base. Pull the flock back together, so to speak. ID *is* creationism, but with arithmetic. Come on back in and support ID, all of you creationists who have become disgusted with our recent failures. We are really on the same side!

Popper's ghost · 9 August 2006

I am not even an amateur student of science or apologetics but I have enough since to know that we did not come from monkeys.

You left out a word. Enough what? Ignorance? Foolishness? Pigheadness? Blindness? Arrogance? Religious indoctrination?

H. Humbert · 9 August 2006

Even the bombardier beetle makes a cameo! My, how quaint and predictable these creationists are.

By the way, this video part of a lesson taken from the creation science PhD program. They make it sound as if it's only a bedtime fable for children, but this really is as technical and "advanced" as ID/creationist arguments get.

Havid Deddle · 9 August 2006

"The habitable zone is quite extensive now, with new discoveries on extremophiles and water sources. That much "perfect distance" is AFAIK hard to miss by models of planet formation."

Which is, of course, ironclad evidence that the laws that govern planetary formation were specifically designed to support life. Which is even *better* evidence of a Creator! Who is then obviously the God of the Christian Bible, because I say so.

Rich · 9 August 2006

The part I like best is how at the end they stay so true to form.

"...you can download the self running file for $5 in our secure store."

Even if I were a Xtian, I think I would get tired of the perpetual scam eventually.

H. Humbert · 9 August 2006

Anyone want to take any bets on how long it will be before Dembski posts "Bananas: The Atheist's Nightmare."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of90cKxSeuw&mode=related&search=

fnxtr · 9 August 2006

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!

This is so mind-pummelingly offensive, stupid, and just plain wrong I could only watch the first few seconds.

What a study in contrasts. Compare this simplistic rhyming lie with the actual work that was done as shown in PZ's posting of "Regulatory Evolution of the Hox1 Gene".

Poor smooth-brained fundies. Maybe they could get a job writing lyrics for Bryan Adams.

djmullen · 9 August 2006

I tried to look at kids4truth.com from my work computer and ran into a problem:

Request Blocked by URL Filter Database
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10/Aug/2006:04:49:32 +0000
Host: XXXXXXXXXX
URL: http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html
Category: Pornography
Client IP: xx.xx.xx.xx
UserName: XXXX
Version: Webwasher 5.2 Build 1781
Database S/N: XXXX
Policy: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reason: Your request to URL "http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html"; has been blocked by the Webwasher URL filter database. The URL is listed in categories (Pornography) which are not allowed by your administrator at this time.

Hmmm.... kids 4 truth .... pornography .... No time to investigate further. I'd better report Dembski to homeland security right now.

Father Wolf · 10 August 2006

To me, FW is bemoaning current Supreme Court trends, saying that if the creationists win, we won't be doing much real science. I don't think he likes the idea.

Yes, indeed. Darth Robo may have been misled by the neutral term "freely" Dr. Lenny and others are optimistic that the current golden age of fundamentalism is drawing to a well-deserved close. However, I work with too many far-right-wing religious nuts to be so optimistic.

steve s · 10 August 2006

Comment #118356 Posted by Popper's ghost on August 9, 2006 11:18 PM (e) | kill I am not even an amateur student of science or apologetics but I have enough since to know that we did not come from monkeys.

You left out a word. Enough what? Ignorance? Foolishness? Pigheadness? Blindness? Arrogance? Religious indoctrination? He didn't leave out a word, he misspelled the word 'sense'.

Hans-Richard GrÃ¼mm · 10 August 2006

Posted by Julie Stahlhut on August 9, 2006 08:40 PM (e) "How is it that we are perfectly distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze." Here's some other stuff I've been wondering about. * Why were so many famous people like George Washington and Martin Luther King Jr. born on holidays? * Isn't it an amazing coincidence that flies are called flies, since they're so good at flying?

Or why does the Seine flow under all 20 bridges of Paris, and not 15 km to the north or south ?

Darth Robo · 10 August 2006

Seen the banana video before, too. It's so unintentionally rude, it's funny!

And my apologies to Father Wolf. Misread I did! Me no think too well when past my bedtime! My bad. Sorry about that.

:-(

Inoculated Mind · 10 August 2006

"When mankind rejects the love and authority of God, he sets himself up as god and therefore must come up with an alternative to how we got here."

Thank you David Williams for showing us how scientific ID is.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

He didn't leave out a word, he misspelled the word 'sense'.

That's one theory.

Mike · 10 August 2006

Whenever I see people making the good old "How is it that we are perfectly distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze" type arguments I can't help but think of Douglas Adams saying:

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in'an interesting hole I find myself in'fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

http://www.edge.org/documents/adams_index.html

Mike · 10 August 2006

Whenever I see people making the good old "How is it that we are perfectly distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze" type arguments I can't help but think of Douglas Adams saying:

http://www.edge.org/documents/adams_index.html

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

This is much like lottery winners thinking that they must have been selected by God; after all, the odds of their winning were so minute, it must indicate design. (Didn't the Isaac Newton of information theory prove that?) Studies show that human cognitive faculties do poorly with a posteriori probability. Even professional mathematicians generally have trouble with such problems as Monty Hall and the Three Doors or the Three Cabinets.

So it's not all that odd that Mr. Williams would ask his bass-ackward question rather than consider the necessity that, of all the planets in the Solar System, the only one that has human life is the one where human life is possible.

Mephisto · 10 August 2006

How disgusting and manipulative. A website aimed at filling kids minds with crap. They have absolutely no shame, and absolutely no limits to which they'll not go in trying to propagandise their fundamentalism.

I simply have no patience for it. If someone with the relevant competence could make the site inoperable, I'd hardly view it as a moral crime.

fnxtr · 10 August 2006

To paraphrase Douglas Adams further: "This must be some strange new usage of the word 'truth' I wasn't previously familiar with."

Make it stop! Please! No more!
Normandy! They land at Normandy! Now please make it stop!!!

Stephen · 10 August 2006

Speaking as someone "inside the belly of the beast" aka as a member of the Republican Party I agree with Dr Lenny's take on the situation that the GOP treats the fundies the same way the Democratic Party treats unions. The majority of Republicans that aren't Bible thumping fanatics wish the fundies would quietly donate their money, vote the party ticket and shut up the rest of the time.

Alas I think ID & creationism are far from dead. However I will make an off the wall prediction: the opposition that finally drives these theologies back under their rock (they never will truly go away) will come from inside the Republican Party.

For whatever its worth, that's my opinon.

Stephen · 10 August 2006

For whatever its worth, that's my opinon.

Anonymous_Coward · 10 August 2006

Kids growing up watching this video are going to find it harder later in life to swallow Darwinian evolution:

Dembski actually said something I agree with. Although, I see that as a WARNING rather than promotional. If we teach kids with propaganda materials, instead of teaching them REAL critical thinking (not like that rIDiculous "they said 'design' in their paper" farce), of course they're going to find Darwinian evolution hard to swallow. When has a redneck fundie taught in the ways of the Fundi believed anything apart from literal Biblical truth?

Anonymous_Coward · 10 August 2006

I think this David Williams is that troll again where he took on various identities and "theorums".

Just happened on to this web sight.

And it's not a coincidence. It was made this way. Some unnamed force named "God" directed you to this site to convert us heathens.

is found guilty of teaching evolution and now creation science or I.D. is totally made fun of.

Think of it as "Intelligent Karma".

I am not even an amateur student of science or apologetics but I have enough since to know that we did not come from monkeys.

Why do people think that they strengthen their case by admitting that they don't know the first thing about science OR apologetics?

Why is there not life on other planets?

There is. But they're intelligent enough to know not to come here. Plus, they view us as "Mostly Harmless" so we're not a threat to them.

How is it that we are perfectly distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze.

Actually, the Earth orbits the sun in an OVAL. That means the distance from the sun varies by large distances (small astronomically, but large compared to us). Not to mention that the sun is slowly getting hotter due to the natural life process of stars. The "perfect distance" from the sun has been expanding and it merely happened to expand past our planet.

How is it that the earth is running down instead of getting better if evolution is true.

What is the Earth running down? I thought the Earth was spherical.

Evolution certainly is a religion - it takes more faith than to believe in I. D.

When you know nothing about evolution, that's when belief in it is faith. We're not in the business in trying to make people believe. If you want to feel smart by putting down real scientists, try learning a thing or to.

When mankind rejects the love and authority of God, he sets himself up as god and therefore must come up with an alternative to how we got here.

Which explains why Darwin was trained to be a priest or something. Didn't Linnaeus also record some kind attempt to reason out a phylogenetic tree or something? Why are Vedic Creationists also trying to come up with an alternative view?

Raging Bee · 10 August 2006

Stephen: "off the wall prediction" my ass -- what you "predicted" is already happening.

Torbjörn Larsson · 10 August 2006

Haved Diddle:
The perfect example of the designer god-of-no-stinking-gaps. Well, that's it then.

Anonymous_Coward
""How is it that the earth is running down instead of getting better if evolution is true."

What is the Earth running down?"

I think he refers to entropy. Somehow evolution should not only disprove but reverse 2LOT universally.

That is my interpretation anyway. It's hard to tell what the structure should be when so many screws are loose. :-)

Tyrannosaurus · 10 August 2006

So, everything is by design. Them, why on Earth this charlatan of Dumbski comes up with all the trash about filters and other crap to detect design? If everything is "designed", there is nothing to contrast against to have any certainty about anything. The logical fallacy is so obvious that you have to be a moronic stupid fool to fall for all this IDiotic nonsense.

BTW, instead of "Paley updated and videoized", after the blessings by D_ _ _ ski it should read
"Paley updated and IDiotized".

Moses · 10 August 2006

Comment #118290 Posted by David Williams on August 9, 2006 07:47 PM (e) Just happened on to this web sight. Wow, we have come along way in 81 years. In 1925 a teacher in Dayton Tn is found guilty of teaching evolution and now creation science or I.D. is totally made fun of. I am not even an amateur student of science or apologetics but I have enough since to know that we did not come from monkeys. Why is there not life on other planets? How is it that we are perfectly distanced from the Sun so as not to burn up or freeze. How is it that the earth is running down instead of getting better if evolution is true. Evolution certainly is a religion - it takes more faith than to believe in I. D. When mankind rejects the love and authority of God, he sets himself up as god and therefore must come up with an alternative to how we got here. Just thought I would throw in my two cents. Thanks - David Williams, Tennessee,

OK, who's bored out of their mind and is playing "stereotypical redneck creationist bumpkin without a clue" to get a rise out of the rest of the people here?

Michael Suttkus, II · 10 August 2006

So, everything is by design. Them, why on Earth this charlatan of Dumbski comes up with all the trash about filters and other crap to detect design? If everything is "designed", there is nothing to contrast against to have any certainty about anything. The logical fallacy is so obvious that you have to be a moronic stupid fool to fall for all this IDiotic nonsense.
— Tyrannosaurus

Actually, Dembski is aware of that fallacy and has addressed it in an internally consistent way. His vaunted filters are not "Yes/No" boolean filters. Instead, they produce results of either "Yes! Absolutely designed" or "I don't know." So: Absolutely intelligently designed: Paley's watch, Mt. Rushmore faces, humans broken vitamin C pseudogenes, ebola virus, American Idol We don't know, but it could be designed: Mt. Rushmore rocks, pebbles, etc. The beauty of the filters is there are absolutely immune to being disproved by false results. Since there is no way to say the universe *isn't* designed by God, there is no possible "yes, it's designed" result that we can possibly demonstrate isn't designed. Conversely, since the filter never produces a negative case, we can't apply it to anything known to be designed and have it produce a false negative. And all good creationists know, if you can't disprove it you have to teach it in science classes! That this makes the filters immune to being science... well, you can't have everything.

Why do people think that they strengthen their case by admitting that they don't know the first thing about science OR apologetics?
— Anonymous_Coward

It's a standard psychological tactic. The audience of the creationists is largely uneducated, so "Uneducated people smarter: see truth educated people miss" plays well. "I dont hav to feel stewpid that I nevr grajuate jr hi, at least I no that evilution make no since!" The US has a long history of anti-intellectualism. Look at how many TV programs celebrate the country bumpkin who beats out the educated and cultured. I have a book at home on trilobites written by a physicist. The author begins by explicitly pointing out that he's not really a biologist or paleontologist, but assures us that he's been interested in trilobites for years, studied them (as an amateur) intently, read the literature and, at the last, made sure his book was vetted by real paleontologists before getting it published. Compare this attitude towards Phillip Johnson's books, where he begins by claiming that *because* he is a lawyer with no biological training, he is better suited than biologists to seeing if evolution makes sense. He has an unbiased, outsider's perspective, you see. He can bring common sense to the matter! Why biologists don't get their papers reviewed by lawyers before publishing, gosh, it couldn't be at all less clear. I'll let you guess which attitude I put more stock in. We can certainly see which David Williams prefers.

Flint · 10 August 2006

I think we can best view "David Williams" as an object lesson in what happens when this sort of material is presented to children young enough to have no mental defenses at all. By they time they are old enough to think, all that's left for them is to find rationalizations, however dumb, for beliefs so hardwired they can't even be recognized as beliefs.

Granted, this sort of indoctrination doesn't "take" on everyone, but I insist that those exposed to nothing of the sort early in life, can never sincerely adopt it later. The Dembski Lesson is depressingly clear: There is nothing you can train your infants to believe, no matter how idiotic, that can't become impermeable later in life.

Letter writers responding to newspaper editorials are clearly uninitiated to science (they view science as having two parts: "theories" which are guesses and worthless, and "laws" which is stuff science has proved). But exposing high schoolers to good science, as Dembski is so clearly aware, serves no purpose because "Kids growing up watching this video are going to find it harder later in life to swallow Darwinian evolution." You have GOT to get to them young. If they don't know evolution is false before they know what it IS, they are in danger of learning.

Maybe there should be some rule that parents must demonstrate a clear understanding of evolution before they are permitted to baptize their children...

Pi Guy · 10 August 2006

It was almost like watching "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" only, I think, kids all know that the Grinch is fictional.

Glen Davidson · 10 August 2006

As to everything being designed (or at least "could be") according to the EF, yes that is essentially the message of the IDists. Privileged Planet certainly made that clear, since they managed to detect design in both the evolution of orbits and in the evolution of life. Maybe it wasn't the EF per se, but the whole point of the EF is simply that "chance couldn't do it", which was their only "scientific reason" for the "designer" of both cosmos and life.

ID is John 1 translated into science, remember? And John 1 credits God for the existence of everything.

Cognitively, IDists have it in their minds that everything was created, at least in the ultimate sense, by God, hence a "filter" that manages to find everything to be "designed" does not raise any flags in their minds. It has never even occurred to them, evidently, that in the scientific sense the results of RM + NS (etc.) really ought to be differentiable from the results caused by the "designer", without their resorting to probabilistic arguments.

They have no curiosity about how God did it, how to differentiate interventions from "natural processes", or what ID might do to assist in our understanding about the world. Any number of reasons may be adduced for this state of lethargy, the best (IMO) being their likely dread at the thought that science really could not support their claims. But another reason may be that ultimately even evolution was "created by God", so to speak, hence there is no point in detecting God's interventions when everything in the cosmos is ultimately God's will. That is their hope and dream, their only real goal with their "science", which is why they are content merely to calculate that "matter couldn't do it" to enough figures to assuage their tensions.

Why they can't just say that evolution was set in motion by God, like many theistic evolutionists do, I don't fully know. Probably the main reason is that theistic evolution provides no basis for injecting religion into the teaching of science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

David B. Benson · 10 August 2006

Wow! A "best thread" nomination for this one! Humor, pathos, tragedy, even some actual information...

But regarding "far from dead": Have your considered zombies?

Kristine · 10 August 2006

I think the whole deal with the EF is, yes, Dembski believes that God created everything, and so it would seem illogical (and indeed, it is) for him to juxtapose "design" against any object that is "natural", i.e., not designed and yet still created by God---but in Dembski's mind, he solves this contradiction by his subsequent belief that God left messages specifically for human beings to find, in the same sense that Scripture is "revealed" to us, as a means for us to come to God.

That is what the EF is for, deciphering these cloak-and-dagger hidden messages for man only. The pleasure of figuring out someone else's rules---that is what Dembski talks about when he mentions his spirituality and his desire to "rebel against materialism." The fact that I find his worldview even more lifeless and contrived than this cynical view that he mistakes for materialism is not a concept that he can get his head around.

Also, can't one make the argument that the watch, or any human-designed object, actually co-evolved with man? There is no one inventor of the watch and it was never designed at any one time. The first "watch" was a stick in the sand; then a shaft of light heralding the solstice; then a sundial; then a marked candle; then a water clock, etc. There is much trial-and-error in the ongoing design of human tools, which, despite being deliberately planned and executed, are rarely optimal in their function.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 August 2006

However I will make an off the wall prediction: the opposition that finally drives these theologies back under their rock (they never will truly go away) will come from inside the Republican Party.

The fundies think you are right. It's why they have identified their number-one enemy as "RINO'S" ("Republicans In Name Only"), their code word for any Republican who doesn't kiss their ass. People like Schwarzenegger, McCain, Guliani, Bloomberg. The fundies recognize the RINO's for the deadly threat that they are, and have targeted them openly for removal from the party. You are also right that they will never go away. But, once removed from their source of politicla power and influence, they become just as harmless and ignorable as the flat earthers or pyramid-power nutters. (shrug)

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

Actually, the Earth orbits the sun in an OVAL. That means the distance from the sun varies by large distances (small astronomically, but large compared to us).

Ahem. The Earth is closer to the sun during winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and further during summer -- the opposite in the Southern Hemisphere. IOW, the variance of the distance from the sun is not significant, even for us.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

P.S. Here more than you ever wanted to know about the Earth's orbit and its relation to the seasons.

the Earth's orbit is almost circular - the distance to the Sun at perihelion is only about 3% less than its distance at aphelion.

This might have something to do with why it wasn't obvious that Ptolemy was wrong.

gregonomic · 10 August 2006

So where is our spiffy Flash animation showing how intuitively obvious evolution is?

Dave Thomas · 10 August 2006

Well, there's this one, and then there's Pearl Jam.

Dave

Tice with a J · 10 August 2006

But regarding "far from dead": Have your considered zombies?
— David B. Benson

Well, the fundie movement is trying to eat our brains...

gregonomic · 11 August 2006

Well, there's this one, and then there's Pearl Jam.
— Dave Thomas

I'm actually serious (for once). We're supposed to be smarter than those dimwits, right? And yet they're the ones with the (you have to admit) good-looking animation. Why don't we have something equally appealing based on, I don't know, Darwin's five tenets of evolution (as promoted by Mayr)? We have to have something to throw back at the fundies, surely?

Shalini, BBWAD · 11 August 2006

[Why don't we have something equally appealing based on, I don't know, Darwin's five tenets of evolution (as promoted by Mayr)? We have to have something to throw back at the fundies, surely?]

I seriously think that there's still some work to be done on our PR.

On the other hand, we could simply let the IDiots keep shooting themselves in the face for us. Hmm....

Popper's ghost · 11 August 2006

Make that Mr. Williams, not Mr. Thomas.

fnxtr · 11 August 2006

Why are P's G and AnonCow sniping at each other? Are we still in grade school?

fnxtr · 11 August 2006

"Well, he started it!"
Come on, somebody take the high road and act like a grown-up, here.

Puckey Schick · 11 August 2006

What a lot of commentary over a presentation that uses an argument that one of the creators of ID has publicly admitted is bankrupt.

The Paley's Watch parable is presented in ID as "irreducible Complexity."

Michael Behe has admitted in "Reply to my Critics" that irreducible complexity fails to address the central task of natural selection.

It has nothing to do with evolution! Using an argument which claims to discredit evolution (while actually having nothing to do with it) with the intended purpose of proving Creationism is like me arguing that Jimmy's bait box is full of minnows because my motorcycle needs a quart of oil. There are *two* complete and total disconnects between the argument and its conclusion.

Dave Thomas · 11 August 2006

AHEM

I have moved the shrill squabble between Popper's Ghost and Anonymous Coward over to The Bathroom Wall where it belongs.

You could save me some trouble by duking it out over there.

Dave

misanthrope101 · 12 August 2006

"Even if I were a Xtian, I think I would get tired of the perpetual scam eventually."
--------------------------

I used to live in N. Texas, and I had to drive down to Houston once a month or so. When I got bored, I'd switch over to one of the religious radio stations and watch the dashboard clock to see how long it took them to ask for money. I never made it to 10 minutes. I DO think they're sincere, but it seems an oddly profitable business, doesn't it? People will buy anything, it seems, to support the team. Take the Left Behind books, for example. What bothers me isn't just the repugnant or bizarre theology, but that the books are so badly written. People buy this stuff? I understand why people have faith in God, though I don't share their faith, but I don't understand why they'll shill out their money for any book, cd, trinket, bumper sticker, book jacket, or t-shirt to show the world that they're proud to be a Christian. I call it "me too" Christianity, or "bumper sticker" Christianity, depending on how sour my mood is.

Wheels · 12 August 2006

I'm actually serious (for once). We're supposed to be smarter than those dimwits, right? And yet they're the ones with the (you have to admit) good-looking animation. Why don't we have something equally appealing based on, I don't know, Darwin's five tenets of evolution (as promoted by Mayr)? We have to have something to throw back at the fundies, surely?
— gregonomic

Well, the ID movement iswas the PR front of the whole Creationist culture, so you've got to figure they'd have a few tricks up their sleeves even after all this time. Evolution, compared to Creationism, does have kind of a monopoly on PBS, the BBC, Nat Geo, and the Discovery channels with all their cinematic programming on the topic. Even Carl Sagan's Cosmos has a lot of time devoted to the evolution of life. IDtionists have a rhyming Flash animation. Why the video envy now? But I do like the idea of the approach. Anybody know some nerdy animators who could be put up to the task?

Steve Greene · 12 August 2006

The Watchmaker's Message is this: "We love analogies, even when those analogies aren't really legitimate because they break down when compared to the real world natural processes we're applying them to." (Incidentally, did you notice that the hills 4 billion years ago were green???)

Also, the fact that IDists can't bring themselves to disavow the blatant pseudoscience of young earth creationist propaganda, and the fact that some of the fellows of the so-called "Center for Science & Culture" are known advocates of young earth creationism, demonstrates that their very name, "Center for Science," is nothing more than Orwellian guile.

Sir_Toejam · 12 August 2006

IDtionists have a rhyming Flash animation. Why the video envy now? But I do like the idea of the approach. Anybody know some nerdy animators who could be put up to the task?

You guys need to explore a bit more, don't take the creobots word for anything. Of course there have been flash animations made which make the creobots' look like what they are, elementary school efforts. example here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/guppy/index.html which also leads to a nice little mock-up of Endler's field experiments, in which users can modify the data (limited) and see how the results would differ. personally, I was very happy to see John Endler's work used in such a way. He was a prof of mine at UCSB, and I still find his field work on the evolution of secondary characteristics in poecilliids to be second to none. also see here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/origin/index.html there are some other nicely done animations on that site as well. they're around, if you look for them.

Wheels · 12 August 2006

Actually I've had the guppies link in my Evolution Favorites folder for a while now, but you know how that's just changes within a species, it obviously isn't producing "new information." *eye roll*
And none of these rhyme! That's the important part if we're supposed to "raise" our children on these! We need a cute little nursery rhyme to compete the the fairy-tale arguments of ID.

Sir_Toejam · 12 August 2006

oh, terribly sorry old boy! I missed the rhyming part.

*sigh*

I'm no poet, but if you find one, i'd be happy to do the flash animations myself (I do have a talent in that area).

Darth Robo · 13 August 2006

Maybe you ARE a POET and you just don't KNOW IT! ;)

afdave · 18 August 2006

Glen Davidson...

Reportedly AFDave, who was here a short while before being sent off (to AtBC) to stonewall and distort evidence for the past few months (130+ pages so far) had a hand in repeating that old bit of nonsense in a more modern form.

Had a hand in it? Yes, you might say that. I wrote the poem and came up with the concept for the illustrations. There will be more coming, BTW. Wanna come examine a brain such as mine? Hop on over to AtBC to my "Creator God Hypothesis" ... we're having a good time.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 18 August 2006

Wanna come examine a brain such as mine?

Wear gloves.