Tuesday, May 29, 2012

A troglodyte discovers a car ...

From GilDodgen at Uncommon Descent: Even IF the Genome is Full of “Junk”.
I enjoyed Jonathan’s presentation about junk DNA at the link provided above. Let us presume that the genome does include junk. What does this have to do with the evidence for design found elsewhere, such as in the highly sophisticated, functionally integrated, information-processing machinery about which we know a great deal?

I’m sure that Francis Collins is a very fine fellow. I have no doubt about his Christian conversion. (I underwent a similar one.) I have no doubt about his intellect or problem-solving IQ.

However, there is something missing in his reasoning, which basically goes like this:

A troglodyte discovers a car in a junkyard. The engine runs. The transmission works, and the car can be driven. But wait: The headlights don’t work and do nothing (of course, the troglodyte has no idea what a headlight is, but he sees such structures and assumes that they have no purpose).

Even if (and that’s a BIG if) the genome is full of junk (that is, degenerate stuff that provides no function), the existence of that junk has nothing to do with an inference to design from the stuff that is obviously not junk, but highly sophisticated technology.

Based upon my experience, design theorists are not the troglodytes who refuse to follow the evidence where it leads — Darwinists are.
You just can't make this stuff up.

There's an important point here. Up until now the IDiots have been drawing a line in the sand by claiming that junk DNA is inconsistent with Intelligent Design Creationism. Do I detect a bit of backpeddling?


[Image Credit: Troglodyte]

4 comments :

  1. I won't call this backpadling. Besides the "every DNA has to be functional" party line there has always been those who argued that genetic entropy initiated by the fall inevitable lead to non-functional DNA. In addition, we have of course the front-loaders like ronvanwegen in comment 3 who claim that junk is DNA which function has not been activated yet.
    Obviously, Barry Arrington who inherited UD from William Dembski doesn't care about if the blog's content is self-contradicting or in conflict with the statements of Behe, Dembski or other leading ID figures. The same is true for most of the UD commenters because their main concern is their christian beleave and junk DNA is just a buzz word they can use in their creationist meetings to pretend that they have science on their side. For their purpose it really doesn't matter in which way their bullshit is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, Barry Arrington who inherited UD from William Dembski doesn't care about if the blog's content is self-contradicting or in conflict with the statements of Behe, Dembski or other leading ID figures. The same is true for most of the UD commenters ...

      What you say is true and I find it very interesting. If you look at the science blogs you'll see that we spend a good deal of time arguing among ourselves over what evolution really means and over the accommodationist position.

      In fact, we seem to relish in those kind of disagreements and debates.

      What is it about the IDiot mindset that makes them never (almost never) openly contradict one another? I think it's because they don't really have any confidence in the logic behind their arguments and they don't want to expose each other as, ... well, IDiots.

      Delete
    2. "What is it about the IDiot mindset that makes them never (almost never) openly contradict one another? I think it's because they don't really have any confidence in the logic behind their arguments and they don't want to expose each other as, ... well, IDiots."

      I suspect there's something more fundamental than that at work; it's part of what they have to do to work together. If you look at the biggies of ID you find Moonies, Catholics, and Protestants, all fundamentalists who believe that their particular brand of religion is the one and only true religion. So they all believe the other guy is practicing a false religion and is, among other problems, going to hell as a result. Yet they have to work together, so they find a way to "overlook" that little problem so their partnership doesn't dissolve.

      This ability to overlook basic and obvious facts therefore has become a fundamental characteristic in their makeup.

      Delete
  2. As I'm sure you are aware, IDiots will pedal in whichever direction is convenient to their lame, dishonest attempts at trying to justify their claims and delusions.

    I find it interesting that gildo thinks that he is a machine. Of course he believes that he is "highly sophisticated, functionally integrated, information-processing machinery", but a machine nonetheless. I would think that godbots would never compare or equate themselves, or anything else in nature, to machines.

    Obviously, gildo sees all organisms (past or present) as being an assemblage of cellular "machinery" and therefor machines overall. Apparently his imaginary designer god is a machinist.

    joe g, who is as nutty as gildo, regularly claims that software (e.g. genetic algorithms) were downloaded into organisms when they were created, and he even brings up Lt. Data from Star Trek as some sort of an example. It seems weird to me that god zombies would think of humans, or any other organism, as machines that have downloaded software (as though we are simply computers) since they vehemently claim that organisms, or at least humans, are NOT just the sum of their parts.

    Religious zealots, which includes the IDiots, regularly argue that humans have qualities that are as far from being "machinery" as it's possible to be, such as morality, immorality, love, compassion, hate, spirits, souls, artistic expression, well, you know what I mean, yet they see humans and other organisms as "machinery" when they think it's a good argument for 'intelligent design' by their designer god.

    Considering the way IDiots describe atheists/materialists, I would think that the IDiots would be accusing atheists/materialists of being totally wrong if they see organisms (or any of their parts) as "machinery" and that it would be the IDiots who would be claiming that organisms (and their parts), and especially humans, are not "machinery" in any way whatsoever.

    I'm an atheist yet I wouldn't call organisms or their parts "machinery". Hmm, maybe gildo, joe g, and their IDiot comrades are more 'materialistic' than they realize.

    ReplyDelete