The continued confusion of Intelligent Design Creationists

Posted 21 February 2008 by PvM

On Uncommon Descent Bill Dembski

Evolutionists continue to be much exercised about evolution being treated as “merely a theory,” arguing that to identify it as such is as disreputable as treating gravity or the second law as “merely a theory.” But consider, as a close colleague recently reminded me:

And continues to quote from two scientists, Niels Bohr and Stanislaw Ulam (both physicists) about Bohr, he quotes from Mayr's "Evolution and the Diversity of Life":

“When I lectured in the mid-1950’s to a small audience in Copenhagen, the great physicist Niels Bohr stated in the discussion that he could not conceive how accidental mutations could account for the immense diversity of the organic world and its remarkable adaptations. As far as he was concerned, the period of 3 billion years since life had originated was too short by several orders of magnitude to achieve all of this.” (Quoted from page 53; the book is online at Google Books.)

Note that Mayr continues: "His conclusion was of course vigorously opposed by the evolutionary biologists whose painstaking analysis of the facts of evolution led them to confirm the original Darwinian thesis that genetic variability combined with natural selection is indeed able to account for the seeming perfection of the living world." In other words, Bohr's argument was, like the argument of the modern day Intelligent Design Creationist, based on a personal incredulity, a disbelief. And indeed on page 68-69 we read: "In the ensuing discussion, he [Bohr] agreed with my conclusions, except for reminding me that an emergence of new characteristics in a system was not peculiar to living systems. He cited chemical elements, which are systems that owe their highly specific properties to the quantity and patterns of their simple unit components, the nuclei and elections. These properties, Bohr said, could not have been predicted in detail on the basis of knowledge of the individual protons, neutrons and electrons. " What a difference it makes when people are educated in the basics of evolutionary theory. Let this be a lesson to those who object to evolutionary theory being taught in schools. about Ulam

“[Darwinism] seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent.” (Ulam’s remark on page 21 of the Wistar conference Proceedings.)

Note how Ulam is abusing mathematics in true Intelligent Design Creationist fashion by assuming that the process of evolution is fully random. the 'conclusion'?

In other words, Bohr and Ulam both believed that Darwinism was a false theory. If Darwinism is false, then it cannot be a fact. It can only be a theory.

And again we see how Intelligent Design Creationists confuse the concept of fact and theory. Yes, Darwinism is and will always be a theory of evolution (a status which no ID proposal will likely ever achieve) which best explains the fact of evolution Bill wonders

Do evolutionists think that Bohr and Ulam were anti-science crackpots? Did they doubt the validity of the law of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics? Were they ignorant of these laws?

No, they were ignorant of the mechanism of evolution. Ironically, this shows that relying on the perspectives on those unfamiliar with evolutionary theory can lead to a false impression that 'scientists' reject or object to Darwinian theory as being sufficient to explain the fact of evolution. Of course, most any biological scientist, including Darwin himself, would agree that Darwinian theory is but one of various mechanisms that have shaped the biological world. No Bill, your 'close friend's' examples are not really what you believed them to be.

64 Comments

rditmars · 21 February 2008

Does anyone care what Dawkins thinks about quantum mechanics?

Mr_Christopher · 21 February 2008

I wonder if Bill's "close colleague" is a code phrase for Davescot...Or maybe Denyse O'...

rossum · 21 February 2008

Does anyone have the full context for the Ulam quote? To me it seems that it might be a version of Darwin's discussion on the evolution of the eye. Ulam says "seems to require" and "naively at least". Both of these may indicate that later he intends to go into more, non-naive, detail as Darwin did on eyes.

rossum

DiEb · 21 February 2008

Thanks for providing the context of Bohr's quote - I had the feeling that there was something missing...

James F · 21 February 2008

Instead of quoting second-hand reports of statements from physicists in the 1950's regarding evolutionary biology, the Discovery Institute ought to publish a peer-reviewed research paper on "intelligent design." The problem is, ID invokes supernatural causation, which is not testable by the scientific method. When your argument is indefensible, all you can do is make more flawed arguments as stridently as possible.

SunSpiker · 21 February 2008

Mr_Christopher: I wonder if Bill's "close colleague" is a code phrase for Davescot...Or maybe Denyse O'...

... or maybe it's himself. He really is weird like this, always quoting a "close colleague". What do you think Bill? We never really get his opinion, only in this ass backwards way. Perhaps he is just covering his own ass...

ravilyn sanders · 21 February 2008

Mr_Christopher: I wonder if Bill's "close colleague" is a code phrase for Davescot...Or maybe Denyse O'...

Nah, it is the generic "close colleague" who comes to take the fall when Slicky Bill gets caught red handed plagiarizing videos from Harvard or when he gets caught abusing copyrighted certificate images from the web. I have a nephew who had these imaginary friends. He outgrew it when he turned six. At the rate at which our good Bill is proceeding he is expected to reach the mental age of six and shed these imaginary friends, mmm, in about, 20 years. Wondering what Bill is working on now. May be another hilarious video of a pull-string toy reading Florida Science Standards with creative sound effects added?

C. David Parsons · 21 February 2008

"The Quest for Right": A Creationist Attack on Quantum Mechanics.

By Stephen L of the newsgroups.derkeiler.com

Here's a different take on creationism/ID: "The Quest for Right," a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics:

"American Atheists base their reasoning on Quantum Interpretation, hand in hand with Quantum Mathematics. Summoning the dark forces of quantum mysticism, with mathematical incantations, possesses the power to bewilder, and thus con, the average persons seemingly at will, into believing the bizarre and surreal: Z Particles, Neutrinos, Leptons, Quarks, Weak Bosons, etc. Mystics attempt to pass off quantum abuses as legitimate science, by expressing the theories in symbolic fashion. These formula represent the greatest hoax ever pulled upon an unsuspecting public....The objective....is to expedite the return to classical physics, by exposing quantum dirty tricks. That is, unethical behavior or acts,...to undermine and destroy the credibility of Biblical histories. These dirty tricks include: Absolute dating systems, Big Bang Theory, Antimatter, and Oort Cloud. These...have no further station in Science."

http://www.questforright.com

A more sophisticated way to argue against Darwin is certainly to argue against modern physics. Without modern physics, you lose astrophysics too, which enables the author to make the case for YEC [young earth creationism]. The author goes on to "prove" that things like red supergiant stars and X-ray pulsars don't really exist, except in the imagination of scientists.”

Stacy S. · 21 February 2008

SPAM ALERT!!!!!

Kevin B · 21 February 2008

ravilyn sanders:
Mr_Christopher: I wonder if Bill's "close colleague" is a code phrase for Davescot...Or maybe Denyse O'...
Nah, it is the generic "close colleague" who comes to take the fall when Slicky Bill gets caught red handed plagiarizing videos from Harvard or when he gets caught abusing copyrighted certificate images from the web. I have a nephew who had these imaginary friends. He outgrew it when he turned six. At the rate at which our good Bill is proceeding he is expected to reach the mental age of six and shed these imaginary friends, mmm, in about, 20 years. Wondering what Bill is working on now. May be another hilarious video of a pull-string toy reading Florida Science Standards with creative sound effects added?

No, I'm not convinced. Calvin doesn't wear glasses. In any case, there is an obvious rational purpose behind the "close colleague" business - it provides a cop-out when the fundamental flaws are exposed. Even without the use of an Explanatory Filter, it is clear that there is design going on.

Tim Tesar · 21 February 2008

Off Topic - Readers should note that C. David Parsons (Comment #143729), who mentions "The Quest for Right", happens to be author of that series, here promoting his own books. He describes it as "A book that will change the world!" I don't doubt that it will because debunkers of pseudoscience will have yet another ignorant author to deconstruct. If I had the time, I would calculate Mr. Parsons' "Crackpot Index". I'm sure he'd be right up there with Deepak Chopra and other such luminaries. Mr. Parsons promotes "Expelled" on his own Web site, so that gives you some idea of the rarefied intellectual atmosphere he operates in.

raven · 21 February 2008

C. David Parsons employs the Tinkerbell Approach. If you clap your hands and believe real hard, reality goes away.

Many of his circle think his Soft on Electromagnetism position is heretical. The calculation is that if we eliminate the Theory of Electromagnetism, the Theory of Internal Combustion, and the Germ Theory of disease, we can all go back to living in caves and dying at 40 of infections we don't even have names for.

Rumor has it that the Texas Theocratic party will adopt this at their next convention.

William Wallace · 21 February 2008

rditmars: Does anyone care what Dawkins thinks about quantum mechanics?

No, but there is a reason for this. Physics is a hard science. William Wallace

Tardis · 21 February 2008

Gee - I wonder if Niels Bohr, a physicist, making a comment about biology based on personal belief and 1950's understanding of heredity would make the same comment in the face of 21st century genetics?

Could there be some reason (he looks out into space with bewilderment, sighs gently) Dr. Dr. quotes out of date material?

Tracy P. Hamilton · 21 February 2008

rossum: Does anyone have the full context for the Ulam quote? To me it seems that it might be a version of Darwin's discussion on the evolution of the eye. Ulam says "seems to require" and "naively at least". Both of these may indicate that later he intends to go into more, non-naive, detail as Darwin did on eyes. rossum

“[Darwinism] seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent. But, I believe that the comments of professor Eden, in the first five minutes of his talk at least, refer to a random construction of such molecules and even those of us who are in the majority here, the non-mathematicians, realize that this is not the problem at all." But not Dembski the IDiot, apparently.

Tracy P. Hamilton · 21 February 2008

William Wallace:
rditmars: Does anyone care what Dawkins thinks about quantum mechanics?
No, but there is a reason for this. Physics is a hard science. William Wallace

Physicist can't even solve the Schrodinger equation analytically for the helium atom. They must be stupid.

Mike Elzinga · 21 February 2008

If I had the time, I would calculate Mr. Parsons’ “Crackpot Index”.

It takes no time at all. Based on just what he posted here it is at the top. Wanna know what your brain looks like on Parson’s religion? Well, you would be better off having your brain completely removed, scrambled, fried, and shoved up the other end.

Kevin B · 21 February 2008

Tardis: Gee - I wonder if Niels Bohr, a physicist, making a comment about biology based on personal belief and 1950's understanding of heredity would make the same comment in the face of 21st century genetics? Could there be some reason (he looks out into space with bewilderment, sighs gently) Dr. Dr. quotes out of date material?

Bohr was born in 1885 and was 65 in 1950. He was therefore a "distinguished but elderly scientist" stating that something was "impossible". This is a situation where Clarke's First Law very obviously applies so, even without a detailed examination of Bohr's analysis, we can say that Bohr is "very probably wrong."

James McGrath · 21 February 2008

Presumably Bill Dembski would also be of the opinion that, if two prominent biologists expressed doubts about a theory in the field of physics, that would prove something? At least he shows that one has to look to elderly scientists in other fields to find this sort of skepticism about this particular evolutionary mechanism! :-)

Tardis · 21 February 2008

Thanks Kevin B - I don't disagree with your point but I was really trying to address the outdated quote mining issue.

The whole thing is - as usual - silly.

fnxtr · 21 February 2008

The bottom of WAD's barrel is starting to look pretty thoroughly scraped, wouldn't you say?

MattusMaximus · 21 February 2008

C. David Parsons: "The Quest for Right": A Creationist Attack on Quantum Mechanics. By Stephen L of the newsgroups.derkeiler.com Here's a different take on creationism/ID: "The Quest for Right," a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics:

Need I point out the immense irony that this whackjob is typing up their drivel on a device that is based directly upon the very scientific laws that he is attacking? Hey Parson's: Computers work based upon quantum mechanics, you dolt!!!

"American Atheists base their reasoning on Quantum Interpretation, hand in hand with Quantum Mathematics. Summoning the dark forces of quantum mysticism, with mathematical incantations, possesses the power to bewilder, and thus con, the average persons seemingly at will, into believing the bizarre and surreal: Z Particles, Neutrinos, Leptons, Quarks, Weak Bosons, etc. Mystics attempt to pass off quantum abuses as legitimate science, by expressing the theories in symbolic fashion. These formula represent the greatest hoax ever pulled upon an unsuspecting public....The objective....is to expedite the return to classical physics, by exposing quantum dirty tricks. That is, unethical behavior or acts,...to undermine and destroy the credibility of Biblical histories. These dirty tricks include: Absolute dating systems, Big Bang Theory, Antimatter, and Oort Cloud. These...have no further station in Science."

So now quantum physics is inherently evil & atheistic. Wow, this guy is simply drowning in woo. I suppose that in addition to swearing off modern antibiotics & vaccines (which result from evolution) this clown is going to throw out his computer, cell phone, MP3 player, and all the other technology in his life that is based upon quantum mechanics.

http://www.questforright.com

Of course, his link must work because angels are pushing the messages across the wires, certainly not because of quantum physics...

A more sophisticated way to argue against Darwin is certainly to argue against modern physics. Without modern physics, you lose astrophysics too, which enables the author to make the case for YEC [young earth creationism]. The author goes on to "prove" that things like red supergiant stars and X-ray pulsars don't really exist, except in the imagination of scientists.”

And geocentrism and the flat earth aren't far behind. Truly we need this kind of Luddite thinking pervading our public schools as we head into the 21st (11th ?) century.

Bill Gascoyne · 21 February 2008

fnxtr: The bottom of WAD's barrel is starting to look pretty thoroughly scraped, wouldn't you say?

No problem, he'll just dump in more of... whatever his barrel is normally full of. It's not hard to come by.

David Buller · 21 February 2008

Tim Tesar: Mr. Parsons promotes "Expelled" on his own Web site, so that gives you some idea of the rarefied intellectual atmosphere he operates in.

Yeah, where "Expelled" is described as talking about the "persecution of the many by an elite few." ummmmmmm....yeah

ail · 21 February 2008

That is, unethical behavior or acts,…to undermine and destroy the credibility of Biblical histories. These dirty tricks include: [snip]...Oort Cloud.

Awww, can't we at least keep the Oort Cloud? I promise I will use it for only ethical purposes, scout's honor. Dang those religious guys! But, wait... please tell me Pluto is still a planet? Heck, maybe there is something to this creationism stuff... if we can keep Pluto as a planet. /facetious

Mike O'Risal · 21 February 2008

Why is it that when two scientists from a different field say something that Dembski wants so badly to believe in, they're authorities... yet when 1,000 scientists in the relevant field say something that he doesn't want to believe, they're dogmatists?

Oh, right. Dembski is an IDiot, and an increasingly irrelevant one at that.

If it weren't for Dembski's droolings and Luskin's whinings, ID would be entirely forgotten by now. I mean, who needs it anymore? Even the Creationists that once used it as a cover have all but abandoned it. "Expelled" will play to the usual echo chamber and be forgotten, gathering dust as a played-once DVD on a few shelves of a few people who have no impact on the rest of the world.

Seriously, one would have to be pretty stupid to throw one's lot in with Dembski, to put any stock in anything he says, if one hadn't already invested themselves in it. Everybody knows he's an unproductive liar at this point.

Doc Bill · 21 February 2008

I think Dembski's "close colleague" also holds Dembski's Secret List of predictions made by ID that were later demonstrated as correct by working scientists.

The fellow answers to the name of "Harvey."

Bill Gascoyne · 21 February 2008

Doc Bill: The fellow answers to the name of "Harvey."

You're dating yourself...

Pole Greaser · 21 February 2008

Speaking of helium, in light of the gargantuan amounts of energy required to turn hydrogen into something as complex as helium how do evolutionists think hydrogen could turn into rocks, rocks into cells, cells into monkeys, and monkeys into humans with so much less energy? Darwinism of the gaps has more holes than god of the gaps?

Tracy P. Hamilton:
William Wallace:
rditmars: Does anyone care what Dawkins thinks about quantum mechanics?
No, but there is a reason for this. Physics is a hard science. William Wallace
Physicist can't even solve the Schrodinger equation analytically for the helium atom. They must be stupid.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 21 February 2008

Doc Bill: The fellow answers to the name of “Harvey.”

While it may be Jimmy Stewart’s friend Harvey who advises Dembski. Stewart also weighed in on the ID controversy having this to say: “ID is huge, it is at least this big.” Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Paul M. · 21 February 2008

William Wallace:
rditmars: Does anyone care what Dawkins thinks about quantum mechanics?
No, but there is a reason for this. Physics is a hard science. William Wallace

Yes, its lucky that biology is so easy that lawyers, ministers and mathematicians can be experts in it without having to study or understand it.

Pvm · 21 February 2008

Speaking of helium, in light of the gargantuan amounts of energy required to turn hydrogen into something as complex as helium how do evolutionists think hydrogen could turn into rocks, rocks into cells, cells into monkeys, and monkeys into humans with so much less energy? Darwinism of the gaps has more holes than god of the gaps?
— Pole Troll

Why so much less energy? Please share your calculations with us. As to planet formation, I am sure an introductory astrophysics book would be helpful to familarize yourself with the prevailing theories. Do you have any real arguments other than an appeal to your personal incredulity?

KL · 21 February 2008

Pole Greaser: Speaking of helium, in light of the gargantuan amounts of energy required to turn hydrogen into something as complex as helium how do evolutionists think hydrogen could turn into rocks, rocks into cells, cells into monkeys, and monkeys into humans with so much less energy? Darwinism of the gaps has more holes than god of the gaps?
Tracy P. Hamilton:
William Wallace:
rditmars: Does anyone care what Dawkins thinks about quantum mechanics?
No, but there is a reason for this. Physics is a hard science. William Wallace
Physicist can't even solve the Schrodinger equation analytically for the helium atom. They must be stupid.

Umm, last I checked, energy is released when hydrogen is fused into helium (it's called "nuclear fusion") But, hey, what do I know? I'm only a chemist...not a lawyer, or a pizza-delivery man.

Tracy P. Hamilton · 21 February 2008

Pole Greaser: Speaking of helium, in light of the gargantuan amounts of energy required to turn hydrogen into something as complex as helium ...
Hydrogen combining to form helium consumes energy? Maybe the reason I have never seen the power cord needed to make fusion happen in the sun is that the cord is on the side opposite from the earth. Or maybe the sun is only plugged in at night to recharge. Tell us more, Dr. Science!

Paul M. · 21 February 2008

Pole Greaser: Speaking of helium, in light of the gargantuan amounts of energy required to turn hydrogen into something as complex as helium how do evolutionists think hydrogen could turn into rocks, rocks into cells, cells into monkeys, and monkeys into humans with so much less energy? Darwinism of the gaps has more holes than god of the gaps?

Are you for real? Can anyone really be this monumentally stupid? Have you seen that big yellow thing in the sky? (You know, the one you think goes round the earth). That is a fusion reactor. It fuses hydrogen into helium and releases energy in the process. Depending on the size of the star fusion continues to produce most of the elements up to iron. Each of these steps release energy. Look up "Stellar nucleosynthesis" in wikipedia. Heavier elements are formed in the supernovae. These elements became rocks when planets form in the solar nebula. For our solar system this occured about 4.5 billion years ago. (The nebular hypothesis is being actively researched by many astropysicists, in part by studying the process in other parts of the galaxy. and details remain to be worked out. (That is why it is only a hypothesis at the moment.) None of this has anything to do with evolution. Rocks are dissolved and decomposed entering the nutrient chain along with gases from the atmosphere. Monkeys make monkey cells from nutrients. Monkeys are not turned into humans (although we did share a common ancestor)

Paul Burnett · 21 February 2008

The creationist coward hiding behind the username Pole Greaser ignorantly asked: "Speaking of helium, in light of the gargantuan amounts of energy required to turn hydrogen into something as complex as helium how do evolutionists think hydrogen could turn into rocks...?"

Did you ever hear of a nova, or a supernova? Or do they exist in your limited Biblical cosmology?

CJO · 21 February 2008

Can anyone really be this monumentally stupid?

Well, yeah. But whoever the twisted individual is with the hand inside the sock-puppet that is Troll Greaser probably is not. Monumentally annoying, on the other hand...

KL · 21 February 2008

Twenty bucks and a bottle of single malt says that Pole Greaser will run away and never answer to this major goof.

Zeno · 21 February 2008

Stan Ulam was a mathematician who learned a chunk of physics while working on the H-bomb project in Los Alamos. He had broad interests and was fascinated by problems of complexity and iteration. That included some dabbling in the math of evolution, but I know of no evidence that Ulam was an exponent of anything that would be of particular comfort to ID creationists. Here's a quote from p. 205 of the hardcover edition of Adventures of a Mathematician, Ulam's autobiography:

In 1954 Gamow and I happened to be in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at the same time. I was telling him about some of my speculations on the problems of evolution and the possibilities of calculating the rate of evolution of life. One day he came to see me and said: "Let's go to Massachusetts General Hospital-there is an interesting biology seminar." And we drove in his Mercedes. On the way I asked him who was talking. He said, "You are!" Apparently he had told the professors running the seminar that we would both talk about these speculations. And indeed we both did. On the way home I remarked, "Imagine, George, you and me trying to talk about biology! All these people, all these doctors in white smocks—they were ready to put us in straitjackets."

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 21 February 2008

major goof

Nah, considering his pen name I think it's likely he achieved his goal without goofs. Splendidly so, since he used a 1LOT creationist argument with a twist. (Or technically, a half salto.)

SLC · 21 February 2008

Re Tracy P. Hamilton

Actually, physicists can't solve the general three body problem in Newtonian physics. For instance, the combination Earth/Moon/Sun can't be solved in closed form, even neglecting relativistic effects.

Mike Elzinga · 21 February 2008

Speaking of helium, in light of the gargantuan amounts of energy required to turn hydrogen into something as complex as helium how do evolutionists think hydrogen could turn into rocks, rocks into cells, cells into monkeys, and monkeys into humans with so much less energy? Darwinism of the gaps has more holes than god of the gaps?

This is what is taught in Sunday school now?

Lou FCD · 21 February 2008

I find it hard to believe that no one has drawn a Clouserian comparison regarding C. David Whatsisname up yonder.

Y'all are slipping, and need to spend more time honing your snark at AtBC.

Just sayin'.

Doc Bill · 21 February 2008

I'm dating myself.

Story of my life, actually.

How evolution progresses with that sorry state of affairs, or not affairs, I don't know!

Bobby · 21 February 2008

Love that logic: someone didn't believe it, therefore it can't be a fact.

Any bets as to whether he applies the same ruler to his own silly claims?

Paul Burnett · 21 February 2008

Lou FCD: I find it hard to believe that no one has drawn a Clouserian comparison regarding C. David Whatsisname up yonder.

Clarence David Parsons is more like police detective Jacques Clouseau. This clueless doofus pseudoscientist, a self-proclaimed "Biblical Scholar and Scientist Extraordinaire" (with no publication record, no degrees, no nothing) brags about his writing technique: "Through much fasting, prayer, and seeking wisdom from God, the several volumes of The Quest for Right came to fruition." His "publisher" appears to be a "vanity press" catering to small Christian bookshops: "Tate Publishing & Enterprises, LLC, is a Christian based, family owned, main-line publishing organization with a mission to discover and market unknown authors." Tate appears to be about as big a publisher of science books as the publishers of "Pandas." The books' website has two testimonials, one from a preacher and one from the publisher's editor - hardly a recommendation for a "science" book. And the "science" is downright loony - imagine a mashup of Velikovskiy ("Worlds in Confusion") and Berlitz ("Bermuda Triangle") and a classroom of ten-year-old Harry Potter fans.

porkchop · 21 February 2008

I was over there this morning, pointing out many of the things mentioned in these comments, and I ended up attracting the ire of DaveScot. Excerpted below are some of his comments, for those who'd rather not sully themselves with a visit to UD. Dave's first response was to lay down some covering fire:

porkchop Obviously you have no understanding of the hierarchy in science. Biology is explained by chemistry. Chemistry is explained by physics. Physics is explained by law and statistical mechanics. If a physicist tells a biologist that something doesn’t make sense in the light of physical law and statistical mechanics you’d better pay attention to it rather than ignorantly accuse the physicist of speaking outside his field of expertise. This is why engineers are more likely than anyone else to scoff at creative evolution by pure chance and necessity. We (speaking for myself and the other engineer/authors on UD) are employers of law and mechanics for purposeful, practical ends. We don’t need to see a designer to recognize a design. Design is what we do for a living so who would know more about it? Not a biologist, that’s for certain. Any biologist who claims it a fact, or even likely, that the origin and diversity of life is pure chance and necessity is so contradicting physical law and statistical mechanics that, if they weren’t so arrogantly wrong, it would be a pathetic display of either ignorance or gullibility to to group-think among their peers.

The odd thing about his response was (aside from misunderstanding hierarchy) he seemed to be saying biology reduces to purely materialistic processes. After I pointed out this as well, he offered (the italics are from my response)

Contingency planning is part and parcel of engineering - anticipation of possibilities which may or may not happen and putting mechanisms in place to work with or around contingency. Chance and necessity can’t deal with contingency. It is 100% reactive and 0% proactive when it comes to contingency. You also seem to have unintentionally undercut a major premise of ID: Are you really arguing that physics alone explains biology? That’s one contingency that must be considered. It’s not the only possibility which is why it’s a contingency and not a certainty. It sounds like you’re arguing biology can be explained in purely materialistic terms. It’s contingency I favor so long as we acknowledge that intelligence can be a naturally occuring material quantity in the universe. I don’t consider myself supernatural or immaterial but the mere fact that you and I are both manipulating matter and energy into patterns as we communicate, patterns virtually impossible for chance alone to generate, means we’re both (more or less) intelligent agencies. I understand there are agencies like us who can push nucleotides around to alter the genetic composition of living things to suit their purposes. I don’t consider them doing anything supernatural either. Intelligent agency has already altered the natural course of evolution. If it happened once (with us as the agents) it could have happened twice or even many times. In any case we know for sure it’s a possibility. Do you consider intelligent agency to be supernatural or immaterial? If so, what justification can you offer me for it? Isn’t that what you’ve been spending so much energy trying to disprove? No. Life on earth could very possibly be the result, or even the partial result, of an evolved or unevolved material intelligence. I just consider it practically impossible to not have intelligence in the process somewhere. It’s a matter of likely explanations, some being more likely than others. No one was around to observe life getting started and diversifying so all reasonably possible explanations must be considered and ranked by likelyhood based upon indirect observations and analogous processes which can be observed. Pure chance and necessity, especially at the origin of life where Darwinian processes don’t have a mechanism yet, is particularly unlikely and no one has even come close to finding any natural process with the demonstrated capacity. That such a process exists is sheer and utter speculation without substance of any kind. Intelligent agents however routinely push matter and energy around to form patterns which otherwise have a probability approximating zero of happening otherwise.

Then he finished up with the usual threats about banning me, so I sent one last f*ck off message, and I assume I'm now banned from UD. Anyone else with the stomach for it want to head over and join in? I've had my fill of stupid for today.

ds · 21 February 2008

...could not conceive how accidental mutations could account for the immense diversity of the organic world and its remarkable adaptations...

This [disbelief] seems like an appropriate starting point for any legitimate ID hypothesis. The essence of ID would then be that the actual distribution of mutations and the actual survival of organisms do not match the predicted probability distributions but show a bias, perhaps a very small one, in favor of beneficial mutations and their survival. Carefully crafted observations could then seek out evidence of such bias, no matter how small, amongst successive generations of a large population. Then a theoretical framework and a mechanism could be proposed to account for such observed variations and predict their magnitude. Of course the current ID folk don't have such an approach.

Frank J · 22 February 2008

Of course the current ID folk don’t have such an approach.
— ds

It's worse than that. Classic creationists (YEC, OECs) at least are clear where the "discontinuities" are (not "in vivo" to start), and when they occurred (YECs and OECs strongly disagree, though). But the "don't ask, don't tell" IDers refuse to even get to that point. Behe thinks that the "discontinuities" do occur "in vivo" (maintaining common descent). Other IDers either vaguely disagree or claim to be undecided. Most seem to be old-earth, old-life, but do what is necessary to keep YECs in the big tent. Despite technical jargon that fools their target audience, IDers are even less interested in doing real science than classic creationists. Quite the opposite of what one would expect if they honestly thought one of the scenarios previously offered by classic creationists had the slightest promise. And quite consistent with a scam to cover up the scientific as well as the legal failure of classic creationism.

Ron Okimoto · 22 February 2008

fnxtr: The bottom of WAD's barrel is starting to look pretty thoroughly scraped, wouldn't you say?

"Close colleague?" How many could a perp like Dembski have? His close colleaques would be the morons that want to stand next to the target in a fresh cow pie tossing contest. Dembski would be the cow pie not the target for those that have been sleeping for the last decade. Ron Okimoto

David Stanton · 22 February 2008

ds wrote:

"This [disbelief] seems like an appropriate starting point for any legitimate ID hypothesis. The essence of ID would then be that the actual distribution of mutations and the actual survival of organisms do not match the predicted probability distributions but show a bias, perhaps a very small one, in favor of beneficial mutations and their survival. Carefully crafted observations could then seek out evidence of such bias, no matter how small, amongst successive generations of a large population. Then a theoretical framework and a mechanism could be proposed to account for such observed variations and predict their magnitude."

All this has been done, many times over. The result, no evidence whatsoever for directed mutations, no known mechanism for directed mutations and strong evidence for mutations that are random with respect to the needs of the organism. Then of course selection takes over.

If any ID advocate, or any creationist of any type were really interested in finding the truth, they would be repeating and expanding this type of research constantly. Of course, if none of them are really interested in evidence at all and only want to force everyone to agree with what they already believe for other reasons, then I guees that would explain their behavior.

J-Dog · 22 February 2008

porkchop: Come visit the rest of the UD banned at After The Bar Closes. Most of the fun is here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=462fa34e0942508a;act=SF;f=14

There is even a thread dedicated to Uncommonly Dense.

Frank J · 22 February 2008

If any ID advocate, or any creationist of any type were really interested in finding the truth, they would be repeating and expanding this type of research constantly.
— David Stanton

Like I say above, classic creationists at least give an idea of what direction that research would take. IDers don't even do that. They may suggest the "directed mutations" you spoke of, but that don't commit to it. They don't even rule out aliens seeding the earth with "kinds".

Of course, if none of them are really interested in evidence at all and only want to force everyone to agree with what they already believe for other reasons, then I guees that would explain their behavior.
— David Stanton

In the case of classic creationists it does seem that they want people to believe what they believe, but with IDers, all they seem to want is that people keep passing on their anti-evolution sound bites. Professional IDers spin so much that it's impossible to tell what they personally believe. To me, most seem to know that there is no promising alternative to evolution, but for all we know they could be closet flat earthers or even solipsists. There's no basis at all for the common assumption that they must be closet YECs of the Morris/Gish variety.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 22 February 2008

It’s not the only possibility which is why it’s a contingency and not a certainty.

So "Biology is explained by chemistry" isn't true. I guess DS intelligence "to the north of 150" has taken a turn for the worse and ended up in his ass. The ID (outside the scam known as "fate") of all creos.

slpage · 22 February 2008

Is William Wallace for real?

On his blog, he writes essentially that Ann Coulter is an 'expert' on evolution because her book was a best seller...?

Frank J · 22 February 2008

slpage,

On another thread, IIRC, Wallace said that he wasn't serious about that. But the point is moot because Coulter herself said on the Medved radio show in '06 that she was an "idiot" about science. AIUI, Coulter and Dembski admitted that the "Darwiniacs" chapters in "Godless" were written by DI folk. At best she added some of her own "color" - like the word "Darwiniac."

Stephen Wells · 22 February 2008

Don't bother complaining about Pole Greaser. He's the most elegant troll I've seen lately. All his 'creationist' arguments are carefully constructed with a massive flaw/reversal somewhere- in this case, the claim that hydrogen -> helium is endothermic.

Henry J · 22 February 2008

All his ‘creationist’ arguments are carefully constructed with a massive flaw/reversal somewhere- in this case, the claim that hydrogen -> helium is endothermic.

Oh, is that why cold fusion never worked! :p

stevaroni · 22 February 2008

When I lectured in the mid-1950’s to a small audience in Copenhagen, the great physicist Niels Bohr stated in the discussion that he could not conceive how accidental mutations could account...

What could Niels Bohr, admittedly bright guy that he was, have actually known about "accidental mutations" in 1955 anyway? Watson, Crick & Franklin didn't figure out DNA's basic structure till 1953, and Crick didn't deliver his seminal paper first speculating how DNA, RNA and replication actually works till '57. So, in an era when the best minds of physics couldn't conceive of computers smaller than 2 car garages, it's pretty safe to say that if the story is true (always a caveat with creationist stories) good ol' Niels actually was actually engaging in little more than uninformed speculation about mutation mechanisms because nobody on the planet would really know anything solid for several more years.

PvM · 25 February 2008

On UcD ID creationists are now blaming Ulam and evolutionists for Dembski's failed scholarship

Ah, so if there was a need for a clarification on the part of Ulam (four years later in 1970), then Dembski or any other subsequent Darwin dissenter should not be faulted for a so-called misreading that was perpetrated and caused by the same author four years earlier. Therefore, the onus fell on Ulam for failing to expound on the misleading details, for which he felt obliged to illuminate further in 1970, and not fellow darwin dissenters who had to wait four years for a clean-up PR explanation. But enough with Ulam. Dembski also mentioned Niles Bohr. Did Bohr also recant in likewise manner, or should he be hauled away in the “anti-science crackpot” wagon?

Yes, Bohr also admitted that he was at least partially wrong. Such happens when scientists are introduced to scientific theory of evolution. Ignorance quickly dissipates. Read some of the work by Mayr and do not rely on quote mining by ID creationists. The information is out there for all to enjoy, why rely on ignorance?

Popper's Ghost · 25 February 2008

Does anyone care what Dawkins thinks about quantum mechanics?
— rditmars
No, but there is a reason for this.

Of course there is, fool; that's why rditmars brought it up.

Physics is a hard science.

Uh, sorry, but everyone except you got the right answer.

Popper's Ghost · 25 February 2008

not fellow darwin dissenters who had to wait four years for a clean-up PR explanation

Uh, so Dembski posted in 1966, and then had to wait four years for the clarification? The dishonesty of creationists has no bounds.

Popper's Ghost · 25 February 2008

Is William Wallace for real? On his blog, he writes essentially that Ann Coulter is an ‘expert’ on evolution because her book was a best seller…?

Yes, this is the reality of modern intellect that we are faced with. Today this not-all-that-unusual specimen informs us that "Most who strongly advocate teaching the Theory of Evolution (T.o.E.) in secondary schools seem to be motivated out of a hatred for Christianity."

W. Kevin Vicklund · 15 March 2008

Up early today, Larry?