I think there's some serious attempts to do science among ID proponents but I also think it's bad science. It's fun, informative, and challenging to debate real science with knowledgeable, informed members of the ID community.
However, that same community embraces many, many advocates who are not knowledgeable about evolution and not informed about how science works. They are not scientists by any stretch of the imagination but they pretend to be scientific. Many of them are Young Earth Creationists who seriously think that the universe was created pretty much as it is only 6000 years ago. While it's true that every ID proponent is a creationist (i.e believes in the existence of a supernatural creator) there are some versions of creationism that are more irrational than others.
The theistic evolution version of creationism rejects the views of their anti-science YEC friends but Intelligent Design Creationism embraces all comers as long as they are vehemently opposed to materialism and evolution. That's fine, but then ID can't claim to be scientific. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you try to act like scientists, in which case you have to oppose the kooks and YECs in your movement, or you admit that you are a religious and social movement, in which case you stop pretending to be a science.
I hope that the knowledgeable, informed, members of the ID community will abandon the ridiculous path they've taken where they try to make a scientific case for ID knowing full well that the majority of their supporters disagree strongly with their premises (e.g. common descent). That's an untenable position.
We've seen recently that some ID proponents are attempting to do this. I'm thinking of Jonathan McLatchie and Vincent Torley right now but there are others. How is it working out? Look at the Torley post on Uncommon Descent where he's trying to explain evolution to IDiots: Human and chimp DNA: They really are about 98% similar. It's an uphill battle. The kooks are accusing him of becoming a Darwinist.
But that's exactly what the ID community needs to do in order to gain credibility. They need to shed the kooks and the IDiots who make them look silly. When they do that, they may find that more of us are willing to have a serious discussion about science.
Klinghoffer posts on Evolution News & Views (sic)—a site that doesn't allow comments. His latest post is a classic example of the problems that the ID movement faces: Here's Why We Answer Some of Our Less Cogent Critics.
As you can see, he avoids the issue I raised in favor of an ad hominem attack. Wouldn't it be nice to see a scientific debate between Michael Behe and David Klinghoffer on the meaning of evolution? Not going to happen as long as ID is primarily a religious movement.
1. Casey Luskin can't decide how old the universe is but he leans toward Young Earth Creationism. Yet he's a leading spokesman for the "science" of intelligent design.
405 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 405 of 405You guys should read through Larry and Nicks discussion on common decent. This subject is debated there.
Which discussion is that?
Hi Lutesuite
All the above points are relevant respectfully well stated. Have some business issues that are pressing right now. Want to spend time thinking about it so I can communicate as well as you have. The discussion is on junk DNA (Larry) and ape to man transition (Nick). If you look for Nicks name at the front of the webpage you can click on it and read the discussion. Your thoughtful questions are much appreciated.
Can you post a link please Bill?
Yes, Bill Cole. Or, if not a link, at least some clearer directions. I can't even tell what website you're talking about.
I also want to reiterate my main point, because it is really very simple. If you still need to think about it, it must be because I did not explain it clearly.
You keep bringing up the "sequence space" and saying that, for the degree of difference between proteins found in chimps and humans, it must be necessary for the genes coding for these proteins to have "worked thru" this sequence space. But that is simply not the case. If two proteins are, say, 95% similar, then it is only necessary that they undergo enough random mutations to account for this 5% difference. Empirical evidence demonstrates that the observed mutation rate can easily account for this.
Back to the earlier analogy: If you blindfold someone and place him at a house only three doors away from yours, there is a very high probability, that, given enough trials he will eventually make it to your door, just by chance.
However, if we blindfold him and place him on an asteroid in the Andromeda Galaxy, it would be, for all practical purposes, impossible for him to get to your door.
Your problem is you are failing to distinguish between these two scenarios. If those two 95% similar proteins arose completely from scratch in unrelated organisms that shared no common ancestor, and that similarity was arrived at by randomly traversing the sequence space, then you're correct. That odds against that are probably insurmountable.
But that's not what happened. Those two proteins arose from an ancestor that was only about 5% (or less) different from either of them.
Your argument is like saying your friend could not possibly have made it to your door from another house three doors down, because he would have had to travel the entire expanse of space between your house and the Andromeda Galaxy. I hope you now realize why that is nonsense.
Max, read and try to understand these two posts:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.nl/2015/11/molecular-evidence-supports-evolution.html
and this one:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.nl/2015/11/the-birth-and-death-of-salmon-genes.html
Now, with your knowledge of evolution, do explain why the conclusions in these posts are wrong.
After you've finished with the first part, now comes the hard part, explain how design explains the gene duplication event better. Questions I'd like to see answered are, but not limited to:
- why wasn't the duplication already designed in?
- why do some fish in this line have the duplication, while others lack it?
- looking at the sequence data, explain how this duplication event happened because one of the premisses of ID is that evolution can't add information. The sequence data tells us, there was a common ancestor before the duplication happened, the logical conclusion is that the design was made before the duplication event.
- Looking at the first post, the data tells us many (precursor) species where already present before the cambrium explosion kicked off. Some/many ID proponents say the cambrium was the starting point for the designer. The data shows something different. Explain please.
- Could you explain the error the authors of the paper made in the humanoid line? It seems the sequence data shows a common ancestor with monkeys. Can you explain why the sequence data is wrong?
I'm really looking forward to your answers.
Post a Comment