Pseudo-science Attacks Irreducible Complexity (that is, the Temple of Darwin attacks REAL SCIENCE)

ICR ^ | September 10, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[SampleMan]

I forgot to mention the most vital aspect of knowing “why” in relation to the ball landing on black. What if you are the casino owner?

[tacticalogic]

Well don't say that to your local science department, they tend to think that understanding the science is important for further application.

That seems to be a different question in the situation given.

Given the premise that the wheel is rigged to use electromagnets to get the ball to go to the black slots. Many people playing that wheel are probably aware of the principles of magnetic attraction, but aren't aware that the wheel is rigged. Someone who doesn't know about electromagnets, but does know the wheel is rigged to fall to black if they pat their head is in a better position to take advantage of the situation than some who understands the principles, but isn't aware that they're being employed.

It would be vital. If you are going to make tons of money, you would want to know where the observers were so that they could see you, whether they were sick that day, etc.

That's getting to much focused on the peripherals of the premise, and away from the central questions, IMHO.

[tacticalogic]

I forgot to mention the most vital aspect of knowing “why” in relation to the ball landing on black. What if you are the casino owner?

Does the casino owner really need to know "why" the technology works as long as he knows it's being used to rig the outcome? I'll grant you the person who's actually doing the work of rigging it needs to know that, but why the owner?

[tacticalogic]

Nor do I. The obvious deduction from that however, is that it must be clear what has and has not been explained. I think scientists, being human, far to often misrepresent what they actually "know" and include conjecture in the "know" column.

Do you see the same behavior with regard to ID and it's proponents?

[tacticalogic]

Absolutely, but that is a different animal altogether, from stating that they simply didn't exist. The claim that "The speed of light is a constant, except when the entire known universe moved at 1000 times that speed." Might require a little proof before it becomes consensus thought.

What do you mean exactly by "consesus"? You may get some sort of "consesus" on the specifics of particular aspects of the "big-bang" theory among the theoretical physicists that deal with this sort of conjecture, but saying this is "consensus" across the width and breadth of the entire scientific community seems a dubious proposition. I expect the vast majority of them would tell you they aren't knowlegable enough in that discipline to tell you one way or the other.

[CottShop]

[[Their tendency to try and argue that ID is proven because it cannot be disproven, and the any competing theory is disprove because it has not been proven.]]

that isn’t even remotely close to what ID proposes- Cripes- You are basing your opinion based on lay people- ID states that nature is not capable of creating irreducible complexity, it shows why it’s not able to, it points to Baraminology which shows discontinuity in the fossil recird, it points to biological impossibilities, it points to chemical impossibilities, it points to a violation of the 2LOT, and it also shows why an intelligence is needed behins irreducible complexity- which Macroevolutionists glibbly wave away claiming they ‘just don’t know how nature could have done it, that htey haven’t ‘discovered how nature could have done it yet’, and at best, give ‘explanations’ for natural evolution that show the need for itnellgient design’

Let’s rteview the basic arguments, and see which is more reasonable

ID: Macroevolution is mathematically impossible

Evo: You creationsits just don’t understand the math and how eovlution works (note- we’re NEVER given an answer as to how nature could beat out hte odds)

ID: MacroEvolution violates chemical laws

Evo: You creationsits don’t udnerstand how chemical evolution could lead to biological life- OR- Abiogenisis isn’t part of TOE, so it’s not a valid coutner-argument to TOE

ID: MacroEvoltuion biologically impossible

Evo: It is not biologically impossible- IF cells were subjected to such and such, and IF they were protected in such and such a way, and IF certain processes lined up just right, and IF a cell underwent certain genetic changes, then Macroevolution could happen (note- it’s never shown how mutaitons could produce NEW non species specific information in ever icnreasing complexity)

ID: Life’s structures are irreducibly complex, and hte heirarchal complexity of metainformation can not be produced in an upward manner, and must be top down (in otherwords, metainformation MUST exist FIRST, it can’t be derived from simple chemicals nor from nature_)

Evo: Irreducible complexity is a farce. Miller showed how complex blood clotting ‘could have’ occured. (Bzzzzzt- Miller perfectly demonstrated the NEED for an intleligent designer, and perfectly illustrated that nature, left to it’s own, could NOT have produced the cells and structures that Miller intleligently designed in his ‘explanation’)

ID: The fossil record stops at discontinuity

Evo: ID doesn’t understand how hte fossil record happened, nor how homology points to common descent- just because htere aren’t any missing links doesn’t mean they didn’t exist- OR- ID simply doesn’t accept the ‘missing links’ (which are species that are seperated by supposedly millions of years, are compeltely different in size, shape, internal structures- but are claiemd to be ‘missing links’ simply based on scant few homological similarities)

ID: There are no missing links

Evo: ID doesn’t understand how hte fossil record works- Fossils are extremely rare

On and on it goes- To state that ID opposes evolution simply because it ‘hasn’t been proven’ is a blatant misrepresentation of why ID rejects macroevolution- ID rejects it because it violates scientific principles, and because it lacks evidentiary support and is based on assumptions that defy the actual evidence

[tacticalogic]

that isn’t even remotely close to what ID proposes- Cripes- You are basing your opinion based on lay people-

The question was with regard to the proponents of the theory, not the theory itself.

If by "proponenets" it was intended that I limit my observatations to the actual authors of the theory and disregard the arguments of those not directly involved with it, I can do that.

[CottShop]

[[If by “proponenets” it was intended that I limit my observatations to the actual authors of the theory and disregard the arguments of those not directly involved with it, I can do that.]]

I haven’t seen many that do reject Macroevolution simply because “ID is proven because it cannot be disproven,” and “any competing theory is disprove because it has not been proven. “ Most reject it based on which proposal presents the most reasonable evidnece- they reject Macroevolution because it violates several scientific principles, and does so not insignificantly, but rather severely. Yes, some people don’t delve too deeply, and might say htose htigns you claim. howver, most people who have looked into the issues, and have even a basic understanding of hte issues, do not reject macroeovlution based on what you claim- Seems you’ve painted the whoel group with one broad brushstroke.

[tacticalogic]

I haven’t seen many that do reject Macroevolution simply because “ID is proven because it cannot be disproven,” and “any competing theory is disprove because it has not been proven. “ Most reject it based on which proposal presents the most reasonable evidnece- they reject Macroevolution because it violates several scientific principles, and does so not insignificantly, but rather severely. Yes, some people don’t delve too deeply, and might say htose htigns you claim. howver, most people who have looked into the issues, and have even a basic understanding of hte issues, do not reject macroeovlution based on what you claim- Seems you’ve painted the whoel group with one broad brushstroke.

Do you see any who reject Macroevolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, but try to use flawed or just plain wrong scientific arguments to rationalize it?

[antiRepublicrat]

Einsteins other theories don't really propose a cause, but rather an outcome.

A lot of the time we don't know the cause, but just have to describe what we see. We may eventually know the cause at least at a lower level (if not an absolute level) than we know now -- thermodynamics was being worked on even with most physicists didn't believe atoms and molecules existed.

[antiRepublicrat]

you most certainly have by playing the victim card- insinuating that peopel ‘ignorant of science’ are ‘attackign science’ by providing evidence against evolution

Again, not what I was talking about. I was talking about appeals to emotion for the consequences of not accepting the theory. ID as an example from you:

Why have laws against murder, why believe in human rights? All those things are based on the idea that this is an order in the universe that has preferred outcomes. If there is no order to the universe and there are no preferred outcomes of any kind. Then anythings goes.

You are appealing to my emotions, saying an "anything goes" world would be the result of not accepting your theory. Such a factor is outside of the actual science. Your theory is not on solid ground if you must resort to such appeals. Same with global warming saying we're all going to die if we don't get in lock-step.

This certainly doesn’t describe ID-

It most certainly does. You've had a large religious movement promoting it from the beginning. Even using your view of the Discovery Institute, you have a large, well-funded, very activist organization with admittedly non-scientific goals that is almost solely responsible for all of the pseudo-scientific (and admittedly sometimes scientific) work done to promote the theory, and promotes any other work done on it.

The credibility is not helped due to most of the arguments basically being a rehash of Creation Science arguments. But you might help me by showing me a decent percentage of athiest IDers and some ID organizations that have absolutely no connection to any religiously-motivated organizations.

you’ve got a legitimate objection to global warming ‘science’ because the ideology of global warmign science is infact NOT based on science

Global warming has a lot more legitimate science behind it than ID does. IMHO, they're just reaching the wrong, politically forced, conclusions.

How has ‘ID been poisoned’?

See above.

Are you lumping ALL ID scientists and research in with the those who happen to present both the evidnece AND their OPINIONS?

Those opinions are their non-scientific motivation.

[CottShop]

[[You are appealing to my emotions, saying an “anything goes” world would be the result of not accepting your theory.]]

Actually no “I” wasn’t- If that was part of my post- it was somethign I skimmed over and didn’t read- copy/paste- I wouldn’t suggest that and have argued against such a notion on philosophy forums infact

[[Your theory is not on solid ground if you must resort to such appeals.]]

My arguments are infact on solid ground

[[It most certainly does. You’ve had a large religious movement promoting it from the beginning.]]

LOL- first you post somethign fro mwhat you call a ‘prominent ID’ist’ Demski denouncing relgious thought, now you’re turnign aroudn and saying ID started off as a r’religious movement’ lol-

[[Even using your view of the Discovery Institute,]]

Psssst- DI and even organizations liek IRC aren’t the sum of ID- you shoudl really look into this a bit better- I personally beleive God is the creator and intellgience behind ID, but there are soem that don’t beleive in God yet who find Darwinism innadequate, and think there’s soem kind of ‘intelligence’ behind irreducible ocmplexity- (althout they are confused and think nature is capable of producing it—)

[[very activist organization with admittedly non-scientific goals that is almost solely responsible for all of the pseudo-scientific]]

Lol- ‘non-scientific’ apaprently means that IF somethign in science does infact agree with the bible and Creation, and an institution tries to promote that fact, then by golly they mustn’t be ‘scientific’- Swell reasoning there- Apparently ‘sciecne’ means that if somethign agrees with hte bible, it must be suppressed and not allowed in debate to you- Not sure why you folks have to keep resortign to spurious accusaitons and why you feel your hypothesis isn’t on solid enough ground to stand against ID- but maligning somehting because it muight happen to agree with hte bible, sure isn’t one of your strogner ‘coutner-arguments-

and tell me Anti0- Was it ‘activist’ of science books to promote missing links when they don’t have al lthe facts? Or to promote Eukoroytes as ‘evolution in action’ when it was nothign more than a symbiotic relationship which those doign hte promoting KNEW FULL WELL, but kept hidden? Or was it activist to promote a ‘nearly compelte evolution of hearing’ by deceitfully showing skulls of vastly different sizes set next to each other and drawn hte saem size in order to try to impress a nice neat little progression? Or settign a skull from a rat sized animal next to a hippo sized one and claimign they are ‘close kin’?

Don’t even start abotu ‘activism’ when evos have been nothign BUT activists all along- Cripes!

[[The credibility is not helped due to most of the arguments basically being a rehash of Creation Science arguments.]]

Your ignorance of ID is really showing through

[[Global warming has a lot more legitimate science behind it than ID does.]]

Just when I thought you couldn’t get much more ignroant about ID you go and post somethign like that- Well done! (I have REAMS of evidence showing that the IPC scientists were FORCED to state thigns they KNEW wasn’t correct- that isn’t sicnece)

[CottShop]

[[Do you see any who reject Macroevolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, but try to use flawed or just plain wrong scientific arguments to rationalize it?]]

are there websites that do this? Sure- but there are also great websites that mostly stick to hte facts and evidences- and even if they present opinion as well as the science, their opinion certainly doesn’t invalidate the facts and evidences- it’s the strengths of facts and evidences that present the case- scientists are, allowed to, ... gasp.... give opinions in addition to the science they present-

[tacticalogic]

are there websites that do this? Sure- One thing at a time. Are there proponents of ID, here or elsewhere in your experience that use these websites or similar sources as their reference, or present similar arguments?

but there are also great websites that mostly stick to hte facts and evidences- and even if they present opinion as well as the science, their opinion certainly doesn’t invalidate the facts and evidences- it’s the strengths of facts and evidences that present the case- scientists are, allowed to, ... gasp.... give opinions in addition to the science they present-

And they have a tendency to go transparently and effortlessly from the facts and evidences to personal opinion and back without qualification, conflating and confusing people with what is fact and evidence and what is merely their personal opinion or interpretation of the evidence. If we let them do that, then people like Dawkins are going to feel free to inject their personal theology into the debate, and it turns into pissing match. You've seen what happens here. Is that your idea of how scientific debate is supposed to be conducted?

[antiRepublicrat]

Actually no “I” wasn’t- If that was part of my post- it was somethign I skimmed over and didn’t read- copy/paste-

I suspected that about many of your posts.

LOL- first you post somethign fro mwhat you call a ‘prominent ID’ist’ Demski denouncing relgious thought

No, I posted something from one of the most prominent (fact) IDers promoting religion.

but there are soem that don’t beleive in God yet who find Darwinism innadequate

I'm still waiting for you to produce all of those atheist IDers.

Lol- ‘non-scientific’ apaprently means that IF somethign in science does infact agree with the bible and Creation

Actually, what makes it non-scientific is that all results must agree with a preconceived non-scientific conclusion. In fact, to work for the ICR a person must agree that the Bible is scientifically free from any error; therefore, any research they do must support that conclusion. IOW, you are not free to examine any evidence of the age of the Earth and come to your own conclusions based on the evidence, you must make the evidence or the interpretation of it fit to the literal story of Creation as written in the Bible.

Your ignorance of ID is really showing through

So the creationists weren't the first ones to bring up that flawed 2L argument, the one so popular with IDers these days?

[CottShop]

[[I’m still waiting for you to produce all of those atheist IDers.]]

you’ll find confessions from many scientists who confess that there’s no way aroud the problems facing macroevolution- We’ve posted many here on FR- knock youreself out

[[Actually, what makes it non-scientific is that all results must agree with a preconceived non-scientific conclusion.]]

Actually htis is a childish statement that just further goes to hsow yor ignorance of ID

[[In fact, to work for the ICR a person must agree that the Bible is scientifically free from any error;]]

Pssst- #1 the bible IS scientifically free of error #2 Of course you’d take an oath IF soemthign is scientifically free of error- you’d not be objective if you didn’t-

[[therefore, any research they do must support that conclusion.]]

Bzzzzt- Wrong- any research they do IS supportive of that statement- the problem with folks like you is that you’re always suggesting they simply ‘wish’ it to be true, and draw conclusions based on that wish- that’s hogwash- the fact is that it IS free of error, and the scientific evidence itself DOES support the ibble- it’s you macroevolutionists that go BEYOND the science and you know it-

[[IOW, you are not free to examine any evidence of the age of the Earth and come to your own conclusions based on the evidence,]]

And what ‘evidnece’ woudl that be? ‘Evidence’ based on methods that rely solely on ASSUMPTIONS? That’s not evidnce, that’s OPINION

[[you must make the evidence or the interpretation of it fit to the literal story of Creation as written in the Bible.]]

Psssst- the objective evidence DOES fit the bible- Dating methods are only accurate back to 5000 years- Beyond that- the methods used to ‘determine age’ are based solely on ASSUMPTIONS- Care to examien the evidence that shows this?

[[So the creationists weren’t the first ones to bring up that flawed 2L argument,]]

You’d better do some reasearch- As I explained in my posts about it- NO seriosu scientists even go near the subject because they admit it’s a problem and have doen so for a great many years- Wallace listed just a few who stated that the law was devestatign to the hypothesis of Macroevolution

[[I suspected that about many of your posts.]]

I read the relevent parts and always do- that quote you listed was in a section fro mthe paragraphs that wasn’t pertinent to the evidneces and explanations being given- it was simply his opinion, which again- I simply skim over- I’m looking for the facts and evidences- if someoen wants to give their opinion along with the facts, I certainly have no problem with it, because the evidences speak for themselves and the truth stands on it’s own merrits-

[CottShop]

[[One thing at a time. Are there proponents of ID, here or elsewhere in your experience that use these websites or similar sources as their reference, or present similar arguments?]]

What are you suggesting? That a site heavy in opinion can’t supply relevent scientific facts and evidences along with hte opinion? IF those type sites present somethign scientifically relevent, I don’t see any reason why those sectiosn shoukldn’t be used- do you?

[[And they have a tendency to go transparently and effortlessly from the facts and evidences to personal opinion and back without qualification, ]]

EEEEEEEEEEEEK! you’re kidding me????? Psssst- Practically EVERY site that supports macroevolution does the EXACT same thing- Golly, whoda thunk scientists and others interested in science would have opinions? What’s htis world coming to? The nerve of those people!

[[conflating and confusing people with what is fact and evidence and what is merely their personal opinion or interpretation of the evidence.]]

Oh- it’s not so hard to determien what is evidnece and what is opinion- Heck- We Creationsits and ID proponents have to wade throguh mountains of opinion when we go to ‘science sites’ like Scientific American and Sites like Dawkins, and Miller and other such sites- Again- Psssst- Scientists and people itnerested in science ARE allowed their opinions, and it’s not very hard at all to figure out what is what-

[[If we let them do that, then people like Dawkins are going to feel free to inject their personal theology into the debate,]]

ahahahaha- good one- ‘Going to’? Ahem- Dawkins is nothign BUT opinion and personal theology- Ask him to back up his ‘Selfish Gene’ or ‘Religious virus’ statmeents with FACTS- sorry- but you apaprently are unaware that ALL science sites inject healthy doses of opinion an theological beleifs- Macroevoltuion is FULL of opinion an theological beleifs that both lack evidence AND contradict the evidneces

[[Is that your idea of how scientific debate is supposed to be conducted?]]

Show me a site that doesn’t- Demski’s site does it- ISCID site does it, Behe’s site woudl do it, The only ones that don’t are sites that don’t allow discussion- but every site that allows discussion- even between certified scientists, turns into pissing matches- What’s the matter? Afraid of healthy debate? again, the facts and evidences aren’t hard at all to seperate from opinion and assumptions- not nearly ashard as you’re tryign to make it out to be (but I note you only refer to Creationist sites and ID sites- apparently fully excusing Macroevoltuion sites?)

Look- MOST sites offer good evidence- BUT you have to wade through the opinions to get to the meat of the issues- and I certainly have NO problem pointing to ANY site that offers soudn and valid scinetific evidneces regardless of their opinions- IF the sicence is sound, and can be backed up by the science, OR leads to beyond reasonable doubt conlcusions,- that’s ALL that matters. Persoanlly, I don’t really like IRC that much as they do pepper with a healthy dose of opinion- however, that doesn’t mean they don’t present ANY scientifically valid arguments, and htye infact have presented soem very indepth and scholarly work, as have many other sites- to simply paint it all as irrelevent with a big broad brush is beign subjectively biased on your part, and for someone complaining about bias, you sure seem to be showing quite a bit of it yourself when generalizing sites based on opinions that get presented alogn with hte facts and evidneces- but whatever- just don’t expect us to buy into your bias- ID is fine- even if only bits and pieces get presented on sites heavy with opinion- either the facts and evidences stand on their own accord, or they don’t- but pointign to a site’s stated opinions, and tryign to refute the facts and evidneces based solely on the your bias agaisnt opinion isn’t very scientific itself.

[tacticalogic]

What are you suggesting? That a site heavy in opinion can’t supply relevent scientific facts and evidences along with hte opinion? IF those type sites present somethign scientifically relevent, I don’t see any reason why those sectiosn shoukldn’t be used- do you?

Follow that argument back to the original question:

[[Do you see any who reject Macroevolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, but try to use flawed or just plain wrong scientific arguments to rationalize it?]]

Asked if any proponents of ID are doing this, you reply that there are indeed some "websites" that do it. Asked to clarify whether that's inteded to be an include some of the arguments being presented here, you answer a different question - whether you think personal opinion is allowable if they're also providing "something scientifically relevant", and proceed from there.

If it's not an intentional attempt to frustrate a reasonable debate on the issue, it's doing a good job of looking like one.

[SampleMan]

Do you see the same behavior with regard to ID and it's proponents?

Let's expand it to everyone that draws breath, including myself. Falls under human weakness. PhD's just need to be reminded sometimes that it is science that lends them credibility and not their degree, and so it goes with every profession. I'd like to see a lot more self-criticism by the professions (medicine, law, etc.).

Having said that, the media just proved that they could be purposely oblivious to 1.7 million people marching on D.C., so maybe what I'm seeing is more a case of the media handing the wrong people a megaphone and ignoring the rest. Let's hope that is the case.

[SampleMan]

Does the casino owner really need to know "why" the technology works as long as he knows it's being used to rig the outcome? I'll grant you the person who's actually doing the work of rigging it needs to know that, but why the owner?

Someone needs to be fired. It would help to know who.