The Top-Ten Misinformed Objections to ID

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by M.D. Rawlings, Jun 14, 2011.

  1. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    The Top-Ten Misinformed Objections to ID


    1. Intelligent Design is not true because there are no “real scientists” who
    support it.

    2. Intelligent Design is not true because it is not published in peer-reviewed
    journals.

    3. Intelligent Design is not true because it is a “God-of-the-gaps” argument.

    4. ID is not true because it is not fully naturalistic.

    5. ID is not true because it is against naturalism.

    6. ID is not true because there are finches on the Galapagos Islands that
    undergo cyclical variations in beak sizes, moths that are black and can hide
    from birds on dark colored trees, and insects and bacteria that “evolve”
    resistance to pesticides and antibiotics.

    7. ID is not true because I consider myself an intelligent person, and although
    I haven’t read any ID publications or really studied it very much, intelligent
    people agree that ID isn’t true. Intelligent people I know (who may or may not
    have studied ID) laugh at advocates of ID, and I hate being laughed at…

    8. ID is not true because it is religion.

    9. ID is not true because it is religiously motivated.

    10. ID is not true because it has religious implications.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    I thought most objections to Intelligent Design are not of the form "Intelligent Design is not true because..." but rather center on the fact that the truth content of Intelligent Design claims is not determinable. Which is why it isn't an appropriate subject for scientific analysis. Discuss it in philosophy classes, not science classes.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    True.
     
  4. geauxtohell
    Offline

    geauxtohell Choose your weapon.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Messages:
    15,125
    Thanks Received:
    2,153
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Out here in the middle.
    Ratings:
    +2,155
    That's not a misinformed statement. The best ID has been able to do is the article by Meyer that was snuck into a biological journal through dubious means and without peer review. When this was discovered, it was immediately retracted by the journal and Sternberg's (who had stepped down) shady methods were exposed.

    As for the rest:

    Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protei... [Protein Sci. 2004] - PubMed result

    I don't see any sort of conclusion that claims ID is valid or even refutes evolution.

    A presentation at a group of Intelligent Design adherents doesn't really qualify as "peer review" in the scientific community.

    The rest of the bunk has been refuted here:

    CI001.4: Intelligent Design and peer review

    So again, when you guys start doing some real research and publishing, you might gain an audience.
     
  5. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    Well, I appreciate what you're saying, and I know why you're saying it, but it's merely the political rhetoric that has built up around the controversy. In what sense is evolutionary theory's assertion of a common ancestry not merely philosophical? Now you see it, now ya don't. . . .

    In any event, the following is an excerpt from a post I wrote on another thread:

    It [ID theory] is demonstrably testable. Design detection/information theory is a legitimate and well-established branch of science and has been for decades since Carl Sagan and others developed it. You're simply ignorant of that fact.

    Evolutionist biologists, most of whom do not understand it, just arbitrarily eschew its application to origins and block the peer review of its application to microbiology and biochemistry . . . unless the findings of the research are couched in the terms of evolutionary theory: a little trade secret among a few of the highly respected leading lights in abiogenic research, for example, who just happen to be ID theorists.

    What people like you . . . do not grasp from abiogenic research is that the findings clearly point away from chemical evolution, putatively the beginning of it all, and that is what ID's theoretical paradigm shows when applied to the research, a whole body of research and testing that you are simply unaware of and unscientifically ignore . . . as if such an attitude were consistent with the scientific tradition of open inquiry.

    Evolutionary theory testable? In what sense is metaphysical/absolute naturalism testable? Makes predictions other than that which are historical in nature? Hogwash. We don't need a theory to see what forms of life have appeared or gone extinct over time, or to know that what survives, survives. The so-called predictions of evolutionary theory are in truth merely 20-20 projections based on the accumulated data of observation. Smoke and mirrors. ID theory can and accurately does the same thing. The real dispute between us has never been over the findings of research and predictions at the micro level of speciation, but the interpretation of the evidence beyond such speciation.

    Ultimately what evolutionary theory must show in order to be right is not simply the micro-speciation within lineages, but a macro-speciation of transmutation [between lineages in terms of] a common ancestry. That it has never done and apparently cannot do beyond the gratuitous insertion of a presumptuous metaphysics which begs the question.

    You just think it has. Many evolutionary biologists and paleontologists know this and will even admit it in private, but publicly they are committed to a metaphysical/absolute naturalism and the research grants that go along with it. Otherwise, no money, no peer review.​

    See link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...rrogance-of-evolutionists-13.html#post3749235
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2011
  6. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,111
    Thanks Received:
    6,895
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,963
    You were right until you got past: Intelligent Design is not true
     
  7. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    Can you elaborate on "design detection"?
     
  8. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    Well, it is "true" in the sense of the political rhetoric of evolutionary biologists, but it is not ultimately true with respect to the science of design detection/information theory, the essence of ID. The evolutionist just distorts the dispute when it comes to applying this branch of science to origins and at the same time unconstitutionally imposes his metaphysics on science, aided by an illegitimate, leftist tradition of jurisprudence, in the public education system.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2011
  9. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    Well, I'll admit, that's a pretty funny crack, but not ture. :razz:
     
  10. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    Sure. But I'm actually out of town tomorrow, leaving now. Got to put a "fire" out in one of our warehouses, personnel dispute. Will get back to you on Thursday or Friday.
     

Share This Page