Critique of Intelligent Design

[Foxfyre]

Read this….even today we are still validating Einstein. You talk like science theories are a done deal. They aren’t. That’s why they call them theories.

Einstein's theory passes rigorous 16-year tests (Update)

An international team has used telescopes around the world, including CSIRO's Parkes radio telescope—Murriyang, to complete the most challenging tests yet of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

phys.org

Again totally missing the point made. And demonstrating that you aren't capable of understanding it. Oh well.

Your problem with this universal intelligence argument is the spacing of time. So Einstein is one of the correct personae to study for this problematic.

I don't make a case for universal intelligence because all you have to do is read this thread to know that it doesn't exist. I do make a case for at least leaving the door open for the possibility of intelligent design and feel affirmed in that when Spinoza and Einstein both endorsed that theory.

One thing that alerts me to a non scientific mind are those who argue if it can't be defended with scientific evidence as they describe that, it isn't scientific.

And time and space exist though we may not understand but a small fraction of either. And science exists whether or not it has been discovered or whether there is any consensus.

 

[Foxfyre]

The antinomy (contradiction of one law opposed to a second one). In the OP, ID seems to need to, is forced to, include theology.

The live presentation in the OP should not be missed anywhere (Vaudeville) it goes. The subtle, spooky way in which the audience gradually was made to feel the uncomfortable masculine power relentlessly approaching, the words "he" boldly announced on the screen, right down to a personal Jesus, right down to the church-like threshold of an altar call, at which time Badger noticed that two females got up and left. Badger did so at the same instant.

"Lines of the Universe are feminine, lines of the State, prostitutional."
(Fenelon, quoted in A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia)

As will be shown, whether Einstein or Spinoza, their reasoning was faulty. The spacing of time refutes both claims.

In all honesty, I don't have a clue what you're arguing here. I do know I disagree with your last paragraph.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That’s ONLY BECAUSE THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPED A CONSENSUS ABOUT HIS CONJECTURES BY APPLYING THE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OVER TIME.
Creationism is not a science theory…ITS JUST AN OPINION OR CONJECTURE. Evolution IS a science theory. Einstein DID not develope the theory of relativity. It was a conjecture on his part. It becomes a theory ONLY after the scientific community develops a consensus.

Numerous experiments using the scientific method have added evidence to Einstein's conjectures which were not accepted at the time he published them, but are now due to the preponderance of evidence so far.

Darwin's conjectures were eagerly accepted because of their social implications. But the scientific method has not provided a whit of evidence that Species originated by means of natural selection, nor that there are any favored races in the struggle for life.

Creationism is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

Darwinism is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

Intelligent Design Theory is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

 

[Robert W]

Numerous experiments using the scientific method have added evidence to Einstein's conjectures which were not accepted at the time he published them, but are now due to the preponderance of evidence so far.

Darwin's conjectures were eagerly accepted because of their social implications. But the scientific method has not provided a whit of evidence that Species originated by means of natural selection, nor that there are any favored races in the struggle for life.

Creationism is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

Darwinism is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

Intelligent Design Theory is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

Why do folks think ID has to be science?
Many former theories by Science have been proven not to be accurate.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why do folks think ID has to be science?
Many former theories by Science have been proven not to be accurate.

Exactly.

I'm not sure that any theory about origins of species would be provable via experimentation. The study of origins is more natural history than science.

 

[Robert W]

Exactly.

I'm not sure that any theory about origins of species would be provable via experimentation. The study of origins is more natural history than science.

Notice too the Darwinististas never mention the first proven life form was Cyanobacteria. And how those became monkeys astonishes me.

 

[Robert W]

Exactly.

I'm not sure that any theory about origins of species would be provable via experimentation. The study of origins is more natural history than science.

How would a Dinosaur get modified into a monkey?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Numerous experiments using the scientific method have added evidence to Einstein's conjectures which were not accepted at the time he published them, but are now due to the preponderance of evidence so far.

Darwin's conjectures were eagerly accepted because of their social implications. But the scientific method has not provided a whit of evidence that Species originated by means of natural selection, nor that there are any favored races in the struggle for life.

Creationism is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

Darwinism is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

Intelligent Design Theory is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

Experiments and practices invariably originate from pre-conceived ideas. Why else would experiments be performed if not to validate the concept? You make no sense. When the speed of light was first accurately measured, for example, they had the 'pre-conceived idea" that it was very, very fast.
They sure did confirm that, didn't they? Does that invalidate their "pre-conceived idea"?

To you perhaps. But the argument that bias prevents one from making determinations is a Fallacy of Logic. Make all the determinations you wish, from anything you claim to be. Let the world examine the evidence and your explanations should bear fruit if you are right, irrespective of whether or not you are a high school dropout.

The insuperable statistics of naturalistic polypeptide synthesis are essentially mathematical proof of the intelligent design of over 20,000 different proteins in the human body, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138 amino acid residues in unique, precise sequence, all Levorotary, all peptide bonded. The resultant probability of its formation from water dripping on rocks - 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578th power. One chance in 10 to the 50th is impossible, as stated by eminent statistician, Emile Borel.
Ten to the 50 marbles one cm in diameter would fill 82,800 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Imagine picking out one UNIQUE marble if you were blindfolded in a spaceship which could navigate inside marbles. Pick one sphere. Dig inside and come up with that marble on your first and only try.
Some of Darwin's loyalists think they could do it with a giggle.

 

[ChemEngineer]

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)



“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)



“It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection…. I find this view antecedently unbelievable – heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense. The empirical evidence can be interpreted to accommodate different comprehensive theories but in this case the cost in conceptual and probabilistic contortions is prohibitive.” – Atheist professor Thomas Nagel



“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)



“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

 

[Dagosa]

Darwin's conjectures were eagerly accepted because of their social implications.

ah, not quite. It was for practical reasons….

Numerous experiments using the scientific method have added evidence to Einstein's conjectures which were not accepted at the time he published them, but are now due to the preponderance of evidence so far.

Darwin's conjectures were eagerly accepted because of their social implications. But the scientific method has not provided a whit of evidence that Species originated by means of natural selection, nor that there are any favored races in the struggle for life.

Creationism is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

Darwinism is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

Intelligent Design Theory is not science, because it is an attempt to make science fit into a pre-conceived idea.

No they were not. They were accepted because they were being used and studied since guess when ? Genetics in The 1800s and food supplies and breeding early earlier with more observed evidence.

Man has also used selective breeding for over 11,000 years.
Plus, accepting a theory doesn’t mean you view it as absolute truth. It simply means you understand it enough to be functional and usable. Darwinism is just like any theory, and is subject to change as more evidence is developed and we’ve been using it for over 11,000 years whether we had a name for it or not.
Einstein published his works in the in the early 1900s. It’s verification took more time because much of the technology to measure the forces he described, just didn’t exist.


“Modern genetics began with the work of the Augustinian friar Gregor Johann Mendel. His work on pea plants, published in 1866, provided the initial evidence that, on its rediscovery in 1900,

Bottom line, within the technological confines of the technology he had, Darwin was not right or wrong. He was right for the times and technology he had. Revisiting his theory resulted in changes, mainly because of inventions. like the microscope and more modern technology.
His proposals were neither right or wrong.

 

[Dagosa]

No, it's not that hard. We will be doing that in this thread, for sure.

Too bad you don’t know.

 

[Dagosa]

do make a case for at least leaving the door open for the possibility of intelligent design and feel affirmed in that when Spinoza and Einstein both endorsed that theory.

Ha ha
There you go again. Espousing Einstein and his endorsing a “ theory” about intelligent design. We’ll try one more time. Give us the link that Einstein theorized or indorse anything about intelligent design.
Secondly, there is NO THEORY IN SCIENCE about intelligent design. None, nix….

Lastly, you don’t have to quote a scientist about leaving the door open to anything. ALL SCIENCE LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN TO ANYTHING. They’re just waiting for evidence. Got any ?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ha ha
There you go again. Espousing Einstein and his endorsing a “ theory” about intelligent design. We’ll try one more time. Give us the link that Einstein theorized or indorse anything about intelligent design.
Secondly, there is NO THEORY IN SCIENCE about intelligent design. None, nix….

Dagosa when you can honestly respond to anything I've said--I don't ask that you agree with me but only that you respond to what I said and not twist it into something else--I'll engage you again. But since so far you seem incapable of doing that I'll wish you a good evening and be done with it. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Dagosa]

Dagosa when you can honestly respond to anything I've said--I don't ask that you agree with me but only that you respond to what I said and not twist it into something else--I'll engage you again. But since so far you seem incapable of doing that I'll wish you a good evening and be done with it. Thanks for understanding.

All I ask anyone to do, is show the evidence of what you claim. Got a link ?

 

[Dagosa]

Dagosa when you can honestly respond to anything I've said--I don't ask that you agree with me but only that you respond to what I said and not twist it into something else--I'll engage you again. But since so far you seem incapable of doing that I'll wish you a good evening and be done with it. Thanks for understanding.

Secondly, in the quotes he makes that I’ve read, they have nothing to do with support of any theory. Mainly because, there is no theory in creationism or intelligent design. It’s not a theory. He admits to being in awe and truly amazed at the universe and how it is…but he never makes any assumption as to who or what did it.

 

[Dagosa]

We need more fear, shame, and guilt in our thinking. Keeps us on the straight and narrow.

Exactly !

 

[Dagosa]

Perhaps "Science in the ass" will publish this brilliant ideas from a member of the species homo stupidus what have to do nothing with nothing. But who knows? Perhaps the science of stupid nothingness will be a big theme in the next century.

You never heard anything with substance about the real scientific theory of evolution, isn't it? You have not any lousy idea about what the theory of evolution really says and what it not says. But you "know" everyone else is wrong because an allknowing entity like you called "the science" is not able to be wrong.

But the reality in science is another one: Science is wrong on the upside. Science is not able to find out what's really true - but science is able to find out what's currently not wrong. And what's still not wrong is still true.

Science is never wrong, or right. You want to know what’s true ? Really ? Go to a shrink. .

 

[Dagosa]

Throwing temper tantrums and repeating nonsense, as Darwin's followers do constantly, is anti-scientific and unintelligent.

_____________________________________________

• johnjaeger

Thu 9/14/2023 11:35 AM

Hi John—

Your critique of the Dawkins weasel demonstration found its way to me, and I agree with it entirely. I offered my own critique in Undeniable (p198-200). You hit the nail on the head!

Regrettably, even solid refutations of evolutionary arguments like this don’t seem to get their proponents to rethink their position. I’ve become convinced that this is because the root problem is spiritual, not scientific or intellectual.

Best regards,

Doug Axe

Douglas Axe, PhD
Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology
Professor of Computational Biology
Co-Director of Stewart Science Honors Program
School of Science, Technology & Health
Biola University


______________________________________

Weasel program - Wikipedia

In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem.*

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

[NOTE: How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business. It was Sir Arthur Eddington.

In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.”

This is nonsense compounding nonsense. And yet my high school math teacher presented this proposition to his classes in the 1960’s.

First, an “army of monkeys” wouldn’t be very interested in hitting typewriter keys repeatedly. There is nothing for them to gain in so doing.

Second, those who did hit the keys would quickly get to the end of the line, and have no concept of returning the carriage to type the second line.

Third, those very few who somehow overcame the first and second hurdles, repeatedly, would find that the paper was ejected from the carriage, and they are hopelessly unable to replace the first page with a fresh sheet of paper.

Fourth, we will never get to the fourth problem of exhausting the ink in the typewriter ribbons because the “army of monkeys” would have defecated on or otherwise ruined every typewriter.

Fifth, Sir Arthur Eddington never began to consider the statistics of monkeys “selecting” 1 out of approximately 100 different keys, counting upper and lower case of all letters, numbers, and punctuation marks. A page of an average book has 250 – 300 words. (https://hotghostwriter.com/blogs/blog/novel-length-how-long-is-long-enough)

*Finally, the largest army in the world is the People’s Liberation Army of Communist China, with over 2,000,000 troops. This is hardly “infinite” in number. (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/)

The average word has 6.47 letters. (https://capitalizemytitle.com/character-count/100-characters/)

Using the lower value of 250 words, times 6.47 letters equals 1,617 characters in a page.

1/100 to the 1,617th power is 10-3,234, for just one page, much less “all the books in the British Museum.”

“we just think of one chance in 10 to the 40th power” as “impossible”. – Richard Dawkins, (The Blind Watchmaker, page 142)

Emil Borel, a famous statistician, defined “impossible” as an event with a probability of 10 to the -50 or less.

https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability

This is equivalent to finding one unique marble, in 82,800 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto, all full of identical marbles except for one, on your first and only attempt. You do not get an infinite number of attempts, not even two.

Therefore 1050 marbles, each 1cm in diameter, would occupy 82,800 spheres reaching from the center of the sun to Pluto, 5.906 billion kilometers from the sun. (10 to the 5 marbles/km)3 = 10 to the 15 marbles per cubic km x 4/3 pi (5.9706 km to center of sun) cubed is only 1/82,800th of 10 to the 50.]


Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins' words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]

Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P

Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL

Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL

Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL

Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Dawkins continues:

The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.



[So much for Dawkins’ specious argument in defense of Darwinism, which he proudly claimed, “… made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (http://UncommonDescent.com) Twenty-six capital letters plus the space bar equals twenty-seven. Twenty-seven to the twenty-eighth power equals ten to the fortieth different possible combinations, of which we seek only one specifically. Dawkins admits his definition of “impossible” is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power. This is not for all of Shakespeare’s works, but for one short sentence, and even then on a dramatically altered keyboard, not of fifty possible keys, lower case, and fifty more keys, upper case, but for only twenty-six keys, all upper case.

Of critical but neglected importance is the fact that for “selection” to occur, the intermediary produced by the random mutation MUST confer a “selective advantage” for the host organism, otherwise it will be lost. It is therefore incumbent on the advocate for Darwinism to demonstrate, in each case, what that improvement is and how it operates, every single time, without exception. “Selection” requires no less. This is easily done when copying short sentences, but not so easily done when originally constructing over 20,000 proteins in humansa, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138b amino acid residues in length. 1 out of 20 amino acids “selected” consecutively 38,138 times has a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 49,618. This is for only one protein. Calculating for chirality, i.e. the “selection” of L amino acids instead of D amino acidsc and all peptide bonds rather than the equally probable non-peptide bondsd reduces the probability of original naturalistic synthesis to 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578. Twenty thousand more proteins to go! ]

a - https://www.omim.org/entry/188840\

b - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889822/

c - ½ to the 38,138 = 10-11,480

d - ½ to the 38,138 = 10-11,480

The insuperable statistics of naturalistic polypeptide synthesis forever doom the folly of Darwinian evolution.

You buy this shit ? Remember you claiming that the periodic table was wrong and you were the only one in the world to pick that up ? You’re sick.

 

[Robert W]

“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)



“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)



“It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection…. I find this view antecedently unbelievable – heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense. The empirical evidence can be interpreted to accommodate different comprehensive theories but in this case the cost in conceptual and probabilistic contortions is prohibitive.” – Atheist professor Thomas Nagel



“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)



“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

Most Democrats, I believe.... have only heard of Darwin's book, but never held it or read it.
Yet like robots they accept it purely on faith.

 

[Robert W]

You buy this shit ? Remember you claiming that the periodic table was wrong and you were the only one in the world to pick that up ? You’re sick.

Why do you abuse yourself as you did above?