Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Five critiques of Intelligent Design
Edge.org ^ | September 3, 2005 | Marcelo Gleiser, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Scott Atran, Daniel C. Dennett

Posted on 09/08/2005 1:33:48 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored

Five critiques of Intelligent Design

John Brockman's Edge.org site has published the following five critiques of Intelligent Design (the bracketed comments following each link are mine):

Marcelo Gleiser, "Who Designed the Designer?"  [a brief op-ed piece]

Jerry Coyne, "The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name"  [a detailed critique of ID and its history, together with a summary defense of Darwinism]

Richard Dawkins & Jerry Coyne, "One Side Can Be Wrong"  [why 'teaching both sides' is not reasonable when there's really only one side]

Scott Atran, "Unintelligent Design"  [intentional causes were banished from science with good reason]

Daniel C. Dennett, "Show Me the Science"  [ID is a hoax]

As Marcelo Gleiser suggests in his op-ed piece, the minds of ID extremists will be changed neither by evidence nor by argument, but IDists (as he calls them) aren't the target audience for critiques such as his. Rather, the target audience is the millions of ordinary citizens who may not know enough about empirical science (and evolution science in particular) to understand that IDists are peddling, not science, but rather something tarted up to look like it.

Let us not be deceived.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: biology; creationism; crevolist; darwin; darwinism; education; evolution; intelligentdesign; science; superstition; teaching
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-499 next last
For the record.
1 posted on 09/08/2005 1:33:56 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; longshadow; headsonpikes; grey_whiskers; PatrickHenry

Ping


2 posted on 09/08/2005 1:34:22 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Heeeere we go again...


3 posted on 09/08/2005 1:35:10 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Oh, geesh.

You guys haven't resolved this by now?


4 posted on 09/08/2005 1:35:20 PM PDT by Skooz ("Political Correctness is the handmaiden of terrorism" - Michelle Malkin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Tribune7; Tolkien; GrandEagle; Right in Wisconsin; Dataman; ..
ping


Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

5 posted on 09/08/2005 1:35:30 PM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
ping for a look some time.

I do happen to believe we're not random bits of matter that accidentally came together.

But I am willing to listen to the other side. :)

6 posted on 09/08/2005 1:38:25 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Thanks for this: Jerry Coyne gave us a real gem of a quote!
No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs...

He makes the best case I've ever heard, in the fewest words, why the public school system should be abolished.

7 posted on 09/08/2005 1:38:34 PM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

I'm a creationist. However, I've never claimed it's science. I do feel, though, that evolutionists have not proven their theory beyond a reasonable doubt. That is my basis for rejecting evolution.


8 posted on 09/08/2005 1:39:04 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Hmm, let's see. Science can only 'prove' the repeatable and controllable, otherwise you are dealing in theory. So science cannot be the standard upon which we base truth or ultimate knowledge.

What does that leave?

Faith in the words of a God who chose to reveal Himself to and through, his creation.

Prove me wrong!


9 posted on 09/08/2005 1:40:17 PM PDT by RightCanuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

Does this subject belong in a science class though? I am not that familiar with the topic but I heard it is based in Creationism. If that is true, then it belongs in religious type classes.


10 posted on 09/08/2005 1:40:28 PM PDT by Buke (Integrity First, Service Before Self, Excellence in All We Do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: ShadowAce
I'm a creationist. However, I've never claimed it's science. I do feel, though, that evolutionists have not proven their theory beyond a reasonable doubt. That is my basis for rejecting evolution.

If 'not being proved beyond a reasonable doubt' is to be one's criterion for rejecting a scientific theory, one would have to reject all of empirical science, don't you think?

12 posted on 09/08/2005 1:42:23 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr; snarks_when_bored

Both sides call in their tag teams!


13 posted on 09/08/2005 1:42:23 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RightCanuck
Prove me wrong!

Why?!

14 posted on 09/08/2005 1:43:16 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Homeland Security NRP
Why would he reveal himself to only a portion of humanity?

Why not?

15 posted on 09/08/2005 1:43:51 PM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM - Being miserable for no good reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Borges

As I said in Post #1, "for the record". The existence of these essays needed to be noted in the FR database.


16 posted on 09/08/2005 1:44:19 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

I have a minor point to add, regarding the specious arguments based on "irreducible complexity"

Well-designed purpose-built mechanisms display strong tendencies towards irreducible SIMPLICITY, in which the ideal is the smallest number of parts is used to acheive the design objective, with a frequent but not absolute corollary that those parts are poorly-suited (to useless) in any other configuaration for any other purpose.

Rube Goldbergian mechanisms display irreducible complexity, in which far more components are used to acheive the design objective than are actually required (compared to the simplest possible configuration), with the frequent but not absolute corollary that those components are well-suited (to ideal) for other purposes and configurations.

Biology seems more "rube-goldbergian" than intelligently engineered.


17 posted on 09/08/2005 1:44:37 PM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Posts 14 and 15 are typical of what these threads usually come down to. :-)


18 posted on 09/08/2005 1:45:03 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Posts 14 and 15 are typical of what these threads usually come down to. :-)

Why or Why not? :p

19 posted on 09/08/2005 1:47:10 PM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM - Being miserable for no good reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
I think Gleiser's piece (who designed the designer) is extremely weak.

Materialist scientists expect physical answers to all questions. That's their business. Cause and effect. Everything has a beginning and everything has an end. It's Space-Time and everything can be explained, eventually. I think that's fundamentally why Intelligent Design (God) is not an acceptable answer to these good folk. It's exactly like saying "And then magic happened!" And that's not science.

But God is fundamentally different from the Material world. He is outside Space-Time. He had no beginning. He has no cause. He has no end. To ask the question "Who designed the Designer?" is to fundamentally (willfully?) mis-understand what you're up against.

Physical explanations can be found for almost everything in God's universe. Almost. Some things just require (yes: require) more than a physical answer. Science will eventually gain a better understanding of the scope of their work. For now, many scientists think they can (eventually) explain Everything. But they can't.

20 posted on 09/08/2005 1:48:12 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Homeland Security NRP

Welcome to Free Repulic!

I don't think God is entertaining Himself at our expense althought I'm sure He is frequently heartbroken at our foolishness.

God's word in Romans 1, verses 19 - 20 says,
"because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.


21 posted on 09/08/2005 1:48:26 PM PDT by RightCanuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
He makes the best case I've ever heard, in the fewest words, why the public school system should be abolished.

Yes ... or at a minimum, abolish the teaching of macro evolution religious indoctrination in the classrooms.

22 posted on 09/08/2005 1:48:46 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Placemarker bump.

Or bump placemarker.

Whatever.

23 posted on 09/08/2005 1:48:49 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
He makes the best case I've ever heard, in the fewest words, why the public school system should be abolished.

And your alternative for educating millions of young people is...?

24 posted on 09/08/2005 1:49:19 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
one would have to reject all of empirical science, don't you think?

Why? There are plenty of theories in science that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I just have a problem with some of the interpretations of the evidence as it regards evolution.

For instance, now that Britain has found that its soil is releasing carbon due to global warming, wouldn't it be prudent to question the method of carbon dating? Isn't the "given" that carbon gets released at a steady rate over the millenia now debunked, and that the rate is determined by the warming and cooling cycles of the earth?

I am not a scientist, but I can think through evidence fairly well, and make connections to patterns.

25 posted on 09/08/2005 1:50:09 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names.
See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage.
Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

26 posted on 09/08/2005 1:50:25 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Discoveries attributable to the scientific method -- 100%; to creation science -- zero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Posts 14 and 15 are typical of what these threads usually come down to. :-)

Actually the usually inspire me to post a Native American creation story. Haven't been inspired by this thread yet, but the day is still young!

27 posted on 09/08/2005 1:50:33 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Gleiser's piece was perhaps the weakest, I agree. But it was a brief op-ed, which may have been edited down.


28 posted on 09/08/2005 1:50:52 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Nothing is more hopeless than any religious zealot meeting any hardened athiest with both trying to prove the other wrong in rational discourse.....Totally impossible.

FAITH in the unproveable is essential either way.

29 posted on 09/08/2005 1:53:05 PM PDT by squirt-gun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

nope.

do look into the way radioactive Carbon14 is produced in the upper atmosphere.


30 posted on 09/08/2005 1:53:16 PM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

When truth retreats tyranny advances.


31 posted on 09/08/2005 1:54:18 PM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
There are plenty of theories in science that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Science has proven no theories; it is against the scientific method. Science can find evidence which supports theories, and it can find evidence to reject theories, but it cannot prove any theory.

The use of "prove" is very different between scientists and non-scientists, as is the use of the term "theory."

32 posted on 09/08/2005 1:54:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Quantum mechanics is a pretty fancy way of saying "random bits of matter that accidentally came together". Does the randomness of the mechanism of atomic formation mean that the universe was an accident? I don't think so.

Does the randomness in the mechanism of evolutionary change mean that life is an accident? I don't think so.


33 posted on 09/08/2005 1:55:09 PM PDT by Mylo ( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
do look into the way radioactive Carbon14 is produced in the upper atmosphere.

Nah. Like I said, I'm not a scientist, nor do I have any great interest in proving or disproving anything to people who are unwilling to see beyond their own beliefs.

I used to believe in evolution. But my questions quickly became unaswerable.

34 posted on 09/08/2005 1:56:20 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Actually the usually inspire me to post a Native American creation story. Haven't been inspired by this thread yet, but the day is still young!

And here I thought it was because you actually learned that ID and Creationism are not the same thing.

35 posted on 09/08/2005 1:56:42 PM PDT by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mylo; Right Wing Professor
I'd be curious to hear what the Scientific community here thinks about things like the Golden Mean and Mandelbrot sets. Reoccurring patterns throughout nature.
36 posted on 09/08/2005 1:57:51 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
There are plenty of theories in science that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are always doubts, but some are more reasonable than others. An evolutionist would argue that when confronted with the truly vast array of evidence with which he is familiar in his work, it's not reasonable to doubt that random variation and natural selection produced the organic world that we currently inhabit. There is simply no other empirical explanation able to account for it. Perhaps some day one will arise, but, until then, we go with what we know.

37 posted on 09/08/2005 1:57:52 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
you have the evidence of the heart the soul....it is irrelevant to science and reality. Just because you try to cram a square peg in a round hole dosent mean you can teach it as science. Keep that in your house of worship and let the scientists teach science. Faith is a wonderful thing that has enriched your life...but please quit cramming it down the throats of children trying to learn the physical nature of the universe. Save that for YOUR OWN kids and the pulpit.
38 posted on 09/08/2005 1:57:54 PM PDT by Vaquero (a red stater trapped in the body of a blue state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
And your alternative for educating millions of young people is...?

You're saying, "if it isn't done by a federal government organ, it can't be done at all"? What a strange thing to say! Lots of alternatives exist, including privatization, or elimination of the national bureaucracy and handing jurisdiction over to the states or counties.

39 posted on 09/08/2005 1:57:57 PM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

your question regarding C14 dating would be answered if you'd trouble yourself to look into the way it is formed in the upper atmosphere.


40 posted on 09/08/2005 1:58:11 PM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

What is odd - I never crossed my faith that GOD created us with darwin's evolution - they did not contradict each other.

My first question is "How long is GOD's day?" To who?

Until you can answer that small question, this discussion is moot.

There *IS* no missing link to man - nobody has found one and nobody ever will until it is created by man to fill in the gap.

Going back through all the histories and religions - including Judeaism - Man has been around 9-10,000 years.

I accept the age of earth as determined by science - like I said - GOD's day is how long? Man was not made until the last day? Time frame works for me!

Look back at the mental progression of man - it increases in an almost logarithmic curve - a slowly rising curve then increasing at an increasing rate to where the past century ... !!! Try a reverse time line with that theory. It goes back to near the same 10k years.

Now analysis of the Bible - Look at the Bible as the Boy Scout Manual. IF a person read the bible and followed the lesson taught on what & when to eat and other rules to living life - how to treat people - etc. You do not have to believe in a god to see this BOOK is a Survival Guide to Life.

Darwin explains how the butterfly could develop and how a blue tail fly came from a black tail fly, etc. But Darwin's Theory does NOT explain WHO wrote the Bible that contains scientific data that we humans just recently learned or are just now learning? Germs, causes of disease, sanitation techniques, a lot of high tech stuff for thousands of years ago, no?

The Bible is the perfect Book for a creature trying to learn how to survive - just as we teach our children and the Boy Scouts also - Could this explain the HATRED of the Boy Scouts by the leftists? It is too close to the Bible with all its references to the Book.

The next debate --- WHO wrote the Bible?


41 posted on 09/08/2005 1:58:41 PM PDT by hombre_sincero (www.sigmaitsys.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The use of "prove" is very different between scientists and non-scientists, as is the use of the term "theory."

Can I get a free Native American Creation story for every time I can show you an example of "real scientists" claiming "proof" for NDT?

42 posted on 09/08/2005 1:58:50 PM PDT by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
For instance, now that Britain has found that its soil is releasing carbon due to global warming, wouldn't it be prudent to question the method of carbon dating? Isn't the "given" that carbon gets released at a steady rate over the millenia now debunked, and that the rate is determined by the warming and cooling cycles of the earth?

Carbon 14 dating is calibrated using bristlecone pines, which in turn can be accurately dated by simply counting tree rings. In other words, you can count the rings in a series of trees (using overlapping rings series to bridge the multiple trees needed), then date a particular ring or group of rings. Thousands of samples dated in this manner allows accurate calibration of the carbon 14 method back to about 10,000 years ago.

43 posted on 09/08/2005 1:59:32 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

I'm very curious how many kids are actually taught evolution in school. Sure it is in the book, but a lot of stuff is in any textbook that is never covered in class. I went to public school my whole life, and evolution was never even mentioned until college much less taught.


44 posted on 09/08/2005 2:00:42 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You know, Happy Time Harry, just being around you kinda makes me want to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Perhaps. Like I said--it was just an idle question, and one to which I attach very little importance.


45 posted on 09/08/2005 2:00:48 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
Lots of alternatives exist, including privatization, or elimination of the national bureaucracy and handing jurisdiction over to the states or counties.

I thought you were recommending home-schooling as the solution. But isn't it the case that most schools are run by their local school boards under state supervision?

46 posted on 09/08/2005 2:01:23 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

The logic of these eveolutionsists is infantile. It is the theory of evolution that is psuedo-science, it is ecolution that pretends to be science. It operates through the scientific method, and then creates non-empirical and unprovable assumptions to the point that they are laughable. The don't comprehend science. Creationsists on the other hand make no claim to be science psuedo or otherwise. It reminds me of a two year old saying "no your ...". Sad to see the purity of science and reason raped by these blind fools. Origin of species is not close to science!!! You make science crap to say it is.


47 posted on 09/08/2005 2:02:16 PM PDT by Jbuza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
If I had the opportunity to meet the assumed designer, I'd ask what, to me, is the most important question of them all: ''Mr. Designer, who designed you?"

If the designer answers that it doesn't know, that perhaps it was also designed, we fall into an endless regression, straight back to the problem of the first cause, the one that needs no cause. At this point the mask tumbles and we finally discover the true identity of the IDists' Designer. We should capitalize the word, as this is how we are taught to refer to God.






I do not consider the above argument to be very convincing. The ID argument makes no claim to the nature of the designer, nor should it. (Creationists do, but that is another subject) The conclusion that certain phenomenon exhibit the characteristics of being designed is an argument that does not hinge on knowing anything about the designer other than it possesses intelligence. We do not know much about the identity of those who created the Great Pyramids, but that fact does not invalidate the conclusion that they are not a product of chance.

As for the progression back to a first cause, this is a philosophical approach rather than a religious one. The most famous proponent of this notion was Aristotle. The religious view does not speculate from a progression of causes to a first cause, but claims direct revelation from that cause.

The critics of ID should focus on the issue of falsification, i.e. what evidence could falsify this theory. Logically, I consider the notion of design to make much more sense than the alternative. That being said, to be considered as a scientific theory, it would help to have the problem of falsification clearly resolved.
48 posted on 09/08/2005 2:02:34 PM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jbuza

In what field do you work?


49 posted on 09/08/2005 2:03:54 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

if it was a mere "idle question" concerning a slice of physics and chemistry about which you cannot trouble yourself to learn, why did you then present it -in post#25- as a bona-fide debunking of C14 dating?

that is certainly not intellectually rigorous of you.


50 posted on 09/08/2005 2:04:47 PM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-499 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson