Denyse O'Leary gives us nine "predictions" from the IDiots [
Nine predictions, if intelligent design is true]. I present them here without comment. Notice how almost all of them are predictions of what science will not discover and none of them are predictions of what an intelligent designer creationist is expected to do. That's because the essence of Intelligent Design Creationism is anti-science and not pro-designer. Several of the "predictions" are based on Denyse's latest book
The Spiritual Brain.
- No good theory will be found for a random origin of the universe, either by the Large Hadron Collider or anything else. The universe will consistently behave more like a great idea than a great machine.
- No good theory will be found for a random origin of life, though there will be plenty of huffing and puffing in favour of bad ideas. All theories that exclude purpose and design fail because they leave out the key driver - the purpose that life should come into existence.
- Complete series of transitional fossils will not usually be found because most proposed series have never existed. Eventually, researchers will give up on ideologically driven nonsense and address the history that IS there. They will focus on discovering the mechanisms that drive sudden bursts of creativity.
- The environment will prove far more resilient than eco-doomsayers believe. People forget that the Permian extinction wiped out 90% of the marine life forms on this planet. Life seems to want to exist on this planet, even at the South Pole (cf March of the Penguins). Note: I have no time for environment destruction, and personally gave up keeping a car, as the simplest and most economical way to reduce my environment footprint. But I am NOT waiting for enviro-apocalypse!! - I don't believe it will happen. There will be changes. That's all. Not the end of the world or anything like it.
- No account of human evolution will show a long slow emergence from unconsciousness to semi-consciousness to consciousness, let alone that consciousness is merely the random firing of neurons in the brain. However consciousness got started, it appeared rather suddenly and it permanently separates humans from our genetic kin, however you want to do the gene numbers and however much time researchers spend coaxing monkeys to stop relieving themselves on the keyboard and type something meaningful.
- Claims that the human brain is full of "anachronistic junk" will be falsified, just as century old claims that there are hundreds of vestigial organs in the human body were falsified. The human body will be recognized as suitable for the purposes for which we exist. (Not in all cases perfect, to be sure, but in general suitable.)
- No useful theory of consciousness will demonstrate that consciousness is merely the outcome of the random firing of neurons in the brain. All useful theories will accept that the mind and the brain exist in a relationship. Research will focus on delineating the relationship more clearly. That will greatly benefit medical research, especially research on difficult mental disorders such as phobias, depression, etc.
- No useful theory of free will (human volition) will demonstrate that it does not really exist. Free will (which includes using the mind to help heal bodily injuries) will become an important tool of medicine, especially for helping aging people toward a better quality of life. For example, the fact that a drug only need perform 5% better than a placebo to be licensed for use will encourage the development of mind-based treatments for people who would otherwise be forced to take antagonistic drugs.
- No useful theory of human psychology will be founded on claims about what happened in the caves of our ancestors (= evolutionary psychology). That is because there are no genes that simply "cause" behaviour in a clinically normal human being. The mind is real and humans create their social environment by mental effort. Information is passed on from mind to mind, not through genes or physiology.
Denyse O'Leary gives us nine "predictions" from the IDiots [ Nine predictions, if intelligent design is true]. I present them here without comment. Notice how almost all of them are predictions of what science will not discover and none of them are predictions of what an intelligent designer creationist is expected to do. That's because the essence of Intelligent Design Creationism is anti-science and not pro-designer. Several of the "predictions" are based on Denyse's latest book The Spiritual Brain. 
27 comments :
I can only guess that the questioner isn't accustomed to dealing with IDCists. Of course Denyse and the rest didn't bother to answer with any predictions which actually came true as was requested, par for the course. But one also has to ask these people how ID predicts any of these, that is, in what manner does ID entail these predictions, or any other ones.
Then they'd need to further qualify the matter by asking how ID predicts something that isn't already predicted by other theories. As is typical, they're "predicting" non-random origins for the universe and life, which is the case for every concept for how the universe and life arose.
In fact, considering their lack of any actual causes, there seems to be nothing that actually makes ID predict anything non-random. The clades? Just a chance happening, due to the whim of the designer. Fine-tuning? The whim of the designer. Vertebrate wings made out of forelegs? You guessed it, whim of the designer. Consciousness? It's what the designer wanted, or again, sheer whim.
We see patterns and meaning in those patterns. They see a "designer" who had no constraints, either moral (see Behe) or physical, who nevertheless made everything fit the predictions of evolutionary theory and of the Big Bang model, you know, for a lark.
And of course it wouldn't even occur to O'Leary that she'd need to show how ID "predicts" any one of those claims of "prediction". The thought of actually doing science seems to be truly beyond her.
Glen Davidson
So if and when some of these predictions of what won't happen do actually happen, does that mean ID is falsified?
Or will some unspecified force cause the goalposts to mysteriously shift?
I want to make some comments on the specific "predictions":
1. What does it even mean to say that the universe will behave more like a great idea than a great machine? And even if there were a coherent answer to that question, why do Behe and Dembski constantly argue that life, which they claim is the purpose of the universe, acts like machines? And they mean man-made machines.
2. Of course no random origin of life will be found. But more important to this "prediction," where and what is this "purpose" of life? We've been asking for them to give us any evidence of design, and purpose (beyond human/animal purposes, of course) would be one of the marks of design. Why can't they ever provide us with said purpose?
3. This one is a total weasel, because they won't even predict that transitionals won't be found, even though we can see no reason in ID any prediction that they will (or to be fair, that they won't--meaning that they can't predict anything about it from their ID fiction). I won't belabor the point, but will finish with the observation that they're fitting the "prediction" to fit the evidence, not making a prediction from their "model" and then looking to the evidence.
4. This seems to be a "prediction" that life will weather tough times, again not obviously anything that ID could speak to, and a fitting of the "prediction" to agree with the evidence. I don't believe that any of us forget the Permian extinction, or any of the other extinctions which happen call into question the notion that the universe was "made for life," or especially, that it was made "for humanity".
5. Consciousness won't be found to come from random firing of neurons, eh? Again, whoever suggested that it would? Any evidence that it arose suddenly? And if it did, wouldn't Julian Jaynes's idea be just as good as ID at "explaining" it?
6. I've never encountered the claim that the brain is filled with anachronistic junk. The closest I've seen to that is the "reptilian brain" notion, which isn't considered to be of much worth any more. That the human brain is built from ancestral brains is obvious from morphology and physiology, however (mice brains are often studied to learn about human brains, despite the considerable separation of our two respective lines).
7. Again, the bizarre projection of randomness, from their God who produces "design" by whim, to our rule-driven models, appears. And of course we not only predict that mind and brain will be in close relationship, but that mind is the function of brain.
8. Again, Denyse shows that she can't write well: "No useful theory of free will (human volition) will demonstrate that it doesn't exist." Huh? There are no useful theories for the almost certain fiction of "free will", and if there were, in what way would it be at all likely to show that it doesn't exist? I'm guessing that Denyse is so scientifically ignorant that she doesn't know that a useful theory of free will would imply that good evidence that free will exists (MET is useful because it comports with the evidence), and the lack of such a theory, like the lack of a usable ID theory, implies that the subject proclaimed by these particular theists does not exist.
9. Actually, useful psychology is already predicated at least somewhat on evolution. Although there are problems with justifying very much that "evolutionary psychology" claims, the sexual nature of the "mind" is explained by evolution and the fact that sex-interested organisms (depending on context, of course) are more likely to survive than those who are not interested in sex. Of course the failure of "gene for homosexuality" and other pathetic ideas (no, I never believed those simplistic claims, nor did many others) of "a gene for..." is something they try to twist into a "prediction" of ID, with the usual lack of evidence.
In other words, Denyse and the rest of them have no concept of what a scientific prediction is, fail to recognize the need to base such predictions on actual causal mechanisms, or at least on causal implication, nor the fact that they'd need to predict something other than what causal theories like MET predict. Rather, they mainly scramble to try to fit their "predictions" to what we have seen, and because what we see fits the predictions of evolutionary mechanisms. In essence, they're telling us that MET succeeds, while they have nothing.
Glen Davidson
Just a correction of the last few lines of my last post. They should have gone more like this:
Rather, they mainly scramble to try to fit their "predictions" to what we have seen. And because what we see fits the predictions of evolutionary mechanisms, in essence they're telling us that MET succeeds, while they have nothing.
Glen Davidson
Meanwhile, a thread on Does Darwinism predict anything? on an ID blog 11 months ago was shut off after only 3 days, although several substantive responses were waiting in the queue.
The environment will prove far more resilient than eco-doomsayers believe. People forget that the Permian extinction wiped out 90% of the marine life forms on this planet.
The planet survived, of course. Life, as an abstract, survived. But, as they note, 90% of the macroscopic life forms perished. What exactly do they mean by "the environment"?
She's always great for a chuckle.
Denyse predicts: "The environment will prove far more resilient than eco-doomsayers believe. People forget that the Permian extinction wiped out 90% of the marine life forms on this planet."
WTF has that to do with a prediction about intelligent design? It seems to me that one recurring claim of design is that nature is limited in capability without the input of a designer. The Permian wiped out many species: How did the new ones arise? If Denyse wants to invoke 'front loading', she'll have to accept that a lot of evolution happened without overt intervention.
"But I am NOT waiting for enviro-apocalypse!! - I don't believe it will happen. There will be changes. That's all. Not the end of the world or anything like it."
Weird. There won't be an enviro-apocalypse in the sense that bacteria will always survive. Myself, I'd be upset if only 20% of Homo sapiens died slowly from starvation or lack of resources caused be preventable environmental deterioration. I guess it's a matter of perspective.
Then again, a Permian-like die-off might force the designers out into the open. Maybe some spaceships will land and disgorge new species.
I went to Denyse's web site and noticed that the "predictions" were in response to this question by a TV producer:
".. can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true?"
Yet, Denyse choose to answer with predictions that have not yet been fulfilled. Then she gets all uppity with a commenter who points this out!
And she wonders why we don't respect her and take her seriously? She can't even read a question properly...
As part of prediction #2, Denyse also offered this:
"Positive prediction: We will learn more about the real nature of our universe and our place in it, and how best we can explore it when we accept the fact that it didn't "just happen."
I wonder exactly how that is going to happen. Of course we already know that Dembski and her already believe the Universe was formed by Jesus and his Daddy and the spirit-thingie. Of course if you challenge her on that and ask for an apologetic from the Bible which supports ID, you are likely going to get a Coulterish whip-lashing from O'Leary.
But maybe the Big D is going to reveal itself? Who knows, because O'Leary conveniently omits any actual substance to her prediction.
Can't the ID movement find somebody better than this D-list so-called "science journalist" who has the critical thinking skills of a paper bag?
No good theory will be found for a random origin of the universe, either by the Large Hadron Collider or anything else.
Honestly, sometimes I don't know what that Hadron Collider is thinking of!
I can hardly wait for verification that its ideas will never pan out.
Great, "predictions" that you could wait for forever, and still be proven wrong on the next day.
ID proves (without predicting) that the human brain is capable of incredible levels of (self)deception.
A good positive testable prediction for ID is prime numbers in the human genome.
Still waiting for Bill Dembski on that one.
"The environment will prove far more resilient than eco-doomsayers believe. People forget that the Permian extinction wiped out 90% of the marine life forms on this planet. Life seems to want to exist on this planet, even at the South Pole (cf March of the Penguins). ... There will be changes. That's all. Not the end of the world or anything like it."
This is a "good" prediction. "Good" in the sense of "safe". As long as anyone is around, she can say, "See? I told you so!" And if she turns out to be wrong, nobody will be there to notice.
Of course none of these are predictions for ID, but that's a given, isn't it? ID would have to be a theory to able to make predictions for it.
But I loved a couple of these:
Re 3. Complete series of transitional fossils will not usually be found...
So they will be found, according to that guy, just not usually. :)
Re 4. I too have no doubt that life will continue on earth pretty much no matter what. The question is what life and how do we fit in, if at all. I also think that even if we do nothing about GW we'll survive, it's just gonna hurt a lot more.
Re 6. The first part is, as Glend mentioned already, based on WTF? The last part is even funnier (The human body will be recognized as suitable for the purposes for which we exist. (Not in all cases perfect, to be sure, but in general suitable.)) because that's pretty much a description of the expected results of evolution.
Inanity, thy name is Denyse O'Leary.
Anyone else catch this part?
The human body will be recognized as suitable for the purposes for which we exist. (Not in all cases perfect, to be sure, but in general suitable.)
That's funny, because if humans actually were designed by an omniscient, omnipotent being, then shouldn't we be perfect? Imperfect, flawed, "just good enough" beings, which is what we see, is exactly what evolution predicts.
It's kind of sad seeing IDiots try to make excuses for actual real life undeniable facts that they know sink their argument, but then it just sinks their argument anyway.
That's funny, because if humans actually were designed by an omniscient, omnipotent being, then shouldn't we be perfect?
Oh we were perfect - before the fall.
(snicker)
That's funny, because if humans actually were designed by an omniscient, omnipotent being, then shouldn't we be perfect? Imperfect, flawed, "just good enough" beings, which is what we see, is exactly what evolution predicts.
No. A perfect etc being could create us perfect. Or shitty. Or average. Or anything really. Thats the point - God could do anything he/she wanted. Hence you can't make useful scientific predictions.
Here's the latest gem from O'Leary in response to a comment about her "predictions":
"As for my predictions, I am simply waiting to see if they pan out. I only argue about such things with publishers."
This was in response to a comment arguing that her predictions did not really cut it from a scientific perspective.
But in the bizarre world of ID, science really doesn't matter too much - it's all about PR. Who cares what actual, real scientists think - as long as her publisher think they can make a buck out of her nonsense, then that's what really counts!
She has also turned off comments (she always does when the going gets hot) and has made some bizarre comments about 'fogies' needing to get a life etc. (apparently, she has one).
I don't know if she gets just how plain wacko she sounds at times - but then she is a Catholic, so I guess she's used to believing all sorts of bizarro things...
The firing of neurons in the brain of Denyse O'Leary is truly random.
After checking with Wikipedia, it appears that Denyse O'L suscribes to Teilhard de Chardin's theory of Orthogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
Where some "vital force", either internal or external to life, compells life to create more complex, and ultimately, conscious, lifeforms.
IDers obviously think that the driving force is external/divine
Orthogenesis share many concepts with garden-variety Teleology.
Life seems to want to exist on this planet, even at the South Pole (cf March of the Penguins).
Someone better inform life of its wants post haste, as the comparable March will turn to the Swim of the Polar Bears in about a decade. Or doesn't the North Pole count in an "enviro-apocalypse"?
Anonymous said:
" went to Denyse's web site and noticed that the "predictions" were in response to this question by a TV producer:
".. can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true?"
[...]
She can't even read a question properly..."
O'Leary can read the question properly, it's just that she knows tha answer in "No"
Instead she has provided an answer to a different question. This is a common tactic with people who do not want to answer the question as asked, and beloved by PR hacks, it's called "spin".
instead of asking for comments on a thread on UD, Dembski should have just referred the journalist to the ID journal, PCID,
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php
where ID scientists use ID theory to create hypotheses, perform experiments, publish results, etc.
Ian said:
"So if and when some of these predictions of what won't happen do actually happen, does that mean ID is falsified?
Or will some unspecified force cause the goalposts to mysteriously shift?"
You mean, like darwinists do with their theory?
Cyde says:
"That's funny, because if humans actually were designed by an omniscient, omnipotent being, then shouldn't we be perfect?
That's a theological question, and therefore don't be surprised if you get a theological answer.
Imperfect, flawed, "just good enough" beings, which is what we see, is exactly what evolution predicts"
Do we see it because that's what evolution "predicts", or does evolution "predicts it" because we see it?
Seems to me that evolution does not predict it, but accomodates it, just it has done with other verifiable scientific facts.
The theory that postulates that the living world is the result of a mindless, impersonal, unguided, undirected force of nature (Evolution) doesn't predict anything. It only accomodates everything.
Every time that a "transition" fossil is "found" what used to be a single gap becomes two gaps.
A slight extension of this obvious and empirical fact reveals that there are more gaps than there are living things, both current and past.
Prediction: No one can even count the number of gaps in the fossil record, therefore, the fossil record cannot and will not ever be complete.
Hannibal Lecter Hoc ("because of this I say that" alt. trans.: " this argument will eat your brain"): Paleontology fails and intelligent design wins!
Wow, doing Bible-inspired science isn't so hard. And, I might add, can be done very comfortably from the office.
I would love to know how the original writer defines a "good theory" or a "useful theory".
Such bizarre terminology.
Post a Comment