Intelligent Design Creationism Is Anti-Science

 
I'm not saying that everyone who subscribes to Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) is anti-science. There are some, like Michael Behe, Michael Denton, and Scott Minnich who are clearly not anti-science in any meaningful sense of the word. They're not personally guilty of the crime but they're intellectual cowards for not speaking out against the worst offenders.

There is a hard core of IDiots who are against everything that real science stands for. They attack evolution, for example, at every opportunity. They claim that "Darwinism," as they call it, is just plain wrong.

You can find this hard core of creationists in the usual places such as Post-Darwinist, Evolution News & Views, and Uncommon Descent. Most of the people who blog at those sites are supporters of Bill Dembski and Jonathan Wells and all the other kooks at The Discovery Institute.

You need only read their books to see how much Wells and Dembski hate science and how far they will go to discredit evolution. Anyone who stands under the big tent with those people will be assumed to condone their opinions of science.

The IDC crowd is now all a twitter over the Gonzalez case. Guillermo Gonzalez was recently denied tenure in the Physics Department at Iowa State University. His case is under appeal. Gonzalez is an Intelligent Design Creationist sympathizer and a Senior fellow at the Discovery Institute [Guillermo Gonzalez, Senior Fellow - CSC]. One suspects that Gonzales is anti-science. Either that or he is an intellectual coward for not speaking out against those who are anti-science.

The creationists are hoping to influence the outcome of the appeal by writing letters of support to the President of the University. They have also recruited right wing religious conservative politicians to speak out on behalf of Gonzalez.

At least they're being consistent. Their attack on the scientists at Iowa State is no different than their attack on all other scientists.

But, don't they get it? As a group who are known to be anti-science do the IDC's really think they're helping Gonzalez by confirming the worst fears of the tenure committee? Their stupid meddling has made it almost certain that Gonzales will be denied tenure. Or maybe it wasn't stupid at all. Maybe that's what they really want—a martyr.

I almost feel sorry for Gonzales. With friends like that ...

How the IDiots View Genome Research

It's safe to say that a majority of knowledgeable scientists now agree that the most of our genome is junk. This is bad news for Intelligent Design Creationism because they have staked their credibility on the idea that if the DNA is present is must be the product of god(s) the intelligent designer and it must be there for a reason.

One of the latest posts on Evolution News & Views (sic) emphasizes this point [More Clues that Intergenic DNA Is Functional]. Its author doesn't identify herself/himself. The point of the post is to cherry-pick a couple of papers from the scientific literature, including the horrible paper by Hangauer et al. (2013) [see How to Make a Scientific Argument ].

Do the IDiots Really Know What Evidence Looks Like?

I've been dealing with Intelligent Design Creationists for over twenty years. I've spent a lot of time addressing their scientific misconceptions and trying to explain where they've gone wrong. A few years ago, for example, I posted a whole series of article on Jonathan Wells' book The Myth of Junk DNA. A few weeks ago I explained why Jonathan McLatchie was wrong about pseudogenes.

Lately, I been focusing on one of the chapters in Darwin's Doubt—it's the one on molecular evolution and I know something about that subject. It has been pretty easy to show why Mayer is wrong about his conclusions.

That's why it's so frustrating to read what journalist Tom Bethell said the other day on Evolution News & Views (sic) ["What Is the World Really Like?" Darwinism, Materialism, and How They Relate].

The explicit materialism of the Darwinians is the mirror image of creationism. Creationists are easy for scientific materialists to rebut, because the materialists can say, "That is just your belief. We don't have to accept that." In a parallel way, we can say to the materialists: "That is just your belief. We don't have to accept that. And it is the real basis of your evolutionism."

In between the Creationists and the Materialists we encounter the scientific evidence that makes the materialist position increasingly improbable -- the evidence that Stephen Meyer recently presented in Darwin's Doubt: information theory, insufficiency of the fossil record, epigenetics, complexity of life at the molecular level, and so on.

Increasingly, it seems to me, the Darwinians are responding to this science by saying (in effect): "Bah! We won't read that! It's creationism in disguise." They get graduate students like Nick Matzke, or incompetents like John Farrell (in National Review of all places), to do the work for them. All along the Darwinists have found that their materialism has allowed them to lie back and relax without really bothering to study the evidence.

Now that may be changing. They are being put in a position where they just might have to hit the books. I suspect it is not a prospect that they relish.

Keep in mind that this is written by a man who denies that humans cause global warming and denies that HIV causes AIDS.

He has no idea what evidence looks like.

---

Watch what happens when a Canadian politician says he doesn't believe in evolution

Rick Nicholls is the Progressive Conservative Member of the Ontario legislature representing the riding of Chatham-Kent-Essex. (Ontario, is a province in Canada. Each province has it's own provincial government. The members of provincial parliaments are called MPP's.)

Watch the video where he says he doesn't believe in evolution and listen to the questions that the reporters ask.

The Globe & Mail reports that Rick Nicholls was quickly reigned in by party leaders [Ontario PCs distance themselves from MPP who denies evolution].

On Wednesday, Mr. Nicholls stood behind his comments.

“[Ms. Sandals] was very flippant in her response to my colleague and I gave a flippant response back to her,” he said, adding that evolution “is one’s personal belief set.”

Within an hour, he followed up with an emailed statement saying he’d been given a talking-to by PC House Leader Steve Clark: “I acknowledge that my comment is not reflective of Ontario PC Party policy,” he said of his anti-evolution remarks.

Here's how the views of Rick Nicholls are covered in the Toronto Star: Tory MPP Rick Nicholls says he doesn’t believe in evolution .

And here's how it is covered in Huffington Post Canada: Rick Nicholls Says He Doesn't Believe In Evolution, PC Colleagues Distance Themselves.

In Canada, it's pretty much political suicide to admit that you don't believe in evolution.

In other news, there's a debate going on in Ontario's House of Commons on introducing a new sex education curriculum into public schools (including the Roman Catholic schools). Another Progressive Conservative MPP, Monte McNaughton, said "it’s not the Premier of Ontario’s job, especially Kathleen Wynne, to tell parents what’s age-appropriate for their children."

Our Premier, Kathleen Wynne, is openly gay. She was a bit puzzled by the comments so she addressed Mr. McNaughton with the following questions.

"What is it that especially disqualifies me for the job that I’m doing? Is it that I’m a woman? Is it that I’m a mother? Is it that I have a master’s of education? Is it that I was a school council chair? Is it that I was the minister of education?" Ms. Wynne thundered. "What is it exactly that the member opposite thinks disqualifies me from doing the job that I’m doing? What is that?"

PC MPPs sat ashen-faced as Liberals heckled them and applauded Ms. Wynne.

Not a good day for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

---

The Purpose of "The Scientific Dissent from Darwin" List

A few years ago the IDiots tried to collect a list of credible scientists who supported creationism. They created a statement called "The Scientific Dissent from Darwin." It goes like this ...

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Only an IDiot would claim that supporters of this statement are also creationists. Many atheist scientists, including me, would agree with the statement. Nevertheless, if you look at the list of people who signed [Scientific Dissent from Darwin List] you'll not find very many evolutionary biologists because we all know that the IDiots will misuse this list.

A few days ago someone named Joshua Youngkin posted to Evolution News & Views (sic) in response to a question about the list. According to Youngkin, the list "is a thorn in the side of those who say there's no scientific debate over whether evolution works in a completely naturalistic fashion."

Why is that? The statement doesn't say anything about god or naturalism. This is exactly the kind of doubletalk you expect from IDiots.

Later on in the post Joshua Youngkin says,

The Dissent from Darwin statement counters and preempts any claim that (1) there is no scientific dissent over how evolution happens, by what means, that is, or that (2) it is unscientific to be skeptical of the proposition that natural selection and random mutation together satisfactorily explain the development of life over time.

There are plenty of ways to "preempt" such a false claim. Reading the scientific literature is one.

The list does serve one important purpose and for that we are truly thankful. It's the best list of Ph.D IDiots that I know of. It's easy to find your local IDiots using a simple word search. For example, I found these names from the University of Toronto: Stephen J. Cheesman Ph.D. Geophysics and Alfred G. Ratz Ph.D. Engineering Physics. Unfortunately, as I pointed out some years ago [I'm not a Darwinist, but I Ain't Signing], neither of these gentlemen are listed in the university phone book and they are not on the University website so we don't know what they are up to these days.

Project Steve with 1249 signatures, is an excellent parody of the creationist list.

---

Stephen Meyer Explains the Origin of Information

 
Intelligent Design Creationism is struggling to maintain scientific credibility. The movement claims to be scientific, not religious, and it's strongest defense is that it offers credible scientific explanations of biological phenomena.

Most of us don't see it that way. All we see is a bunch of people who attack science in general and evolution in particular. They publish lots and lots of stuff that raises questions about standard scientific explanations—some of the criticisms are valid but most are nothing more than wishful thinking. What we never, ever, see is a true explanation of how intelligent design creationism actually works.

This video was published on the Evolution News & Views (sic) blog [Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design: What is the origin of the digital information found in DNA?]. Watch it to see if Meyer¹ explains the origin of information according to the Intelligent Design Creationism Model. Wait right 'till the end to make sure you don't miss the explanation of how an intelligent creator put information into DNA. Learn who the creators(s) is/are and why they did it. Find out when she did it. Wait to see how this accounts for life as we know it today.

Folks, this is the best they have to offer. It's why we call them IDiots. There's nothing there but obtuse rhetoric about the origin of life and information. They have nothing to offer but criticism of evolution.

---

1. Stephen Meyer is one of the founders of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He has a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University (UK).

Darwinism and Junk DNA

 
Robert Crowther has posted a criticism of Francis Collins on Evolution News & Views (sic): Francis Collins, Evolution and "Darwin of the Gaps".

Much of Collins’s case for Darwinian evolution is based on so-called “junk DNA.” This is the part of the genome that does not appear to code for the production of proteins. In mammals, the vast majority of DNA has been dismissed as “junk.”

Junk DNA, according to Darwinists like Collins, gives evidence of common descent—the idea that all life, including human life, branches off from a common evolutionary tree. As life evolved, according to this view, garbled, useless genetic information accumulated and has remained fixed—like dirt swept under a carpet—even as mammals, for example, diversified from a common ancestor.

But the argument from junk DNA—also called “ancient repetitive elements” (AREs)— depends on the premise that no function will ever be discovered for AREs. Collins’s faith in Darwinian theory would be severely hamstrung if the premise were shown to be wrong. It is a faith based on gaps in scientific knowledge. Hence, “Darwin of the gaps.”

I don't want to defend Francis Collins. I want to emphasize something else; namely that the concept of junk DNA is about as far removed from "Darwinism" as you can possibly be and still be an evolutionary biologist. If it has any meaning at all, "Darwinism" has to be a synonym for the belief in natural selection as the most potent mechanism of evolution. Junk DNA is completely non-Darwinian and there's no way you could describe it as compatible with "Darwinian theory."

Why do creationists have so much trouble understanding this? It's not that hard.

---

Fugu, Pharyngula, and Junk

 
PZ Myers writes about Random Acts of Evolution in the latest issue of Seed magazine. The subtitle says it all.

The idea of humankind as a paragon of design is called into question by the puffer fish genome—the smallest, tidiest vertebrate genome of all.

The genome of the puffer fish (Takifugu rubripes or Fugu rubripes) has about the same number of genes as other vertebrates (20,000) but its genome is only 400 Mb in size [Fugu Genome Project]. This is about 12.5% of the size of mammalian genomes.

THEME

Genomes & Junk DNA

Total Junk so far

    53%
The Fugu Genome Project was initiated by workers who wanted to sequence a vertebrate genome with as little junk DNA as possible in order to determine which sequences are essential in vertebrate genomes. The small size of the fugu genome suggests that more than 80% of our genome is non-essential junk.

Many of you might recall the results of my Junk DNA Poll from last January. In case you've forgotten the results, I'll post them again. The question was: "How much of our genome could be deleted without having any significant effect on our species?" The question was designed to find out whether Sandwalk readers believed in junk DNA or whether they were being persuaded by some scientists to think that most of our genome was essential. (Modern creationists are also promoting the death of junk DNA.) There was some dispute about the interpretation of the question but most readers took it to be a question about the amount of junk DNA.




Astonishingly, almost half of Sandwalk readers think that we need more than half of our genome to survive. This would be a surprise to a puffer fish.

I began a series of postings in order to explain what our genome actually looks like. So far we've determined that about 2.5% is essential and 53% is junk. Now it's time to finish off this particular theme and have another vote.

PZ points out that most of what we call junk DNA is not controversial. It consists of LINEs and SINES, which are (mostly) defective transposons. The pufferfish genome has a lot less of this kind of junk DNA than we do. This accounts for a good deal of the reduction n genome size that we see in modern pufferfish.

PZ also points out that we need to think differently about evolution ...

In the world of genomic housekeeping, the puffer fish is a neatnik who keeps the trash under control, while the rest of us are pack rats hoarding junk DNA.

There's a lot of thought these days going into trying to figure out some adaptive reason for such a sorry state of affairs. None of it is particularly convincing. We'd be better off reconciling ourselves to the notion that much of evolution is random, and that nothing prevents nonfunctional complexity from simply accumulating.

Well said PZ!!¹

Watch for a few more postings on the remaining 45% of our genome then get ready to vote again. I'm hoping for a better result next time!

---

1. I used to know someone named Paul Myers who would never had said such a thing on talk.origins. Any relation?

[Image Credit: The junk DNA icon is from the creationist website Evolution News & Views.]

Do IDiots understand evolutionary theory?

Do Intelligent Design Creationists (IDiots) understand evolution? ... of course not.

It's been really frustrating over the past 25 years trying to explain modern evolutionary theory to IDiots. They continue to refer to "Darwinism" and "neo-Darwinism" but it's obvious that they don't have a clue what they mean by those terms. This become especially obvious when they discover, once again, that real evolutionary biologists don't accept the IDiots' version of evolutionary theory.

Check out the latest post by Casey Luskin on Evolution News & Views. It would be so easy for him to explain to his readers what the textbooks say on evolutionary theory and how it differs from what the IDiots are promoting in their own books and on their websites [Are Biologists Rejecting Neo-Darwinian Evolution?]. He doesn't do this, of course, and that's only partly because it suits his purpose to be dissembling. It's mostly because he really doesn't understand what he's talking about. We know this because dozens of people have tried to explain it to him over the years and he still doesn't get it.

In fairness, Casey Luskin is responding to an article on The BioLogos Forum by philosopher Robert C. Bishop [Two Rhetorical Strategies (Reviewing “Darwin’s Doubt”: Robert Bishop, Part 2)]. It's pretty clear that Bishop doesn't understand modern evolutionary theory either. Unfortunately, there are many scientists who share these misconceptions but that's not an excuse for Luskin and his fellow travelers since they are supposed to understand what they spend so much time attacking.

---

The ugly face of Intelligent Design Creationism

Intelligent Design Creationists like to pretend that their particular version of creationism is scientific. They claim they have evidence of an intelligent designer (gods), but 99% of their literature is an attack on evolution and not a defense of a new scientific theory. Those attacks take many forms but the worst ones are the attempts to smear Darwin and associate evolutionary biology with racism and the holocaust.

David Klinghoffer continues this despicable tradition in his latest post on Evolution News & Views (sic): In Explaining Dylann Roof's Inspiration, the Media Ignore Ties to Evolutionary Racism. Klinghoffer discusses the views of Dylann Roof, the man who shot and killed nine people in a church in Charleston, South Caroline (USA). Dylann Roof is reported to be a devout Christian [Dylann Roof was a devout Christian] but that's not relevant.

Of course, no one I've referred to endorses Dylann Roof's murderous rampage. I don't doubt that they are all sincerely mortified by the association, however unintended, with such unapologetic, undisguised evil.

I mention this at all not to blame them for Roof's crime, in any way, but simply to note -- because the mainstream media covers it up -- how certain ideas tend to hang together.

The racial elements in Charles Darwin's writing, the eugenicist implications, are often brushed aside as ugly but incidental, a mere byproduct of his time and place. Yet the myth of European superiority over inferior dark peoples continues to percolate in some evolutionary thinking, a century and more after the close of the Victorian era. It seems to have found an eager student in a disturbed young man named Dylann Roof.

---

Comments Allowed at Evolution News & Views!

 
Evolution News & View is one of the main blogs for promoting Intelligent Design Creationism. Up 'till now it has not allowed comments but that has changed. Here's the new policy ...

Of course, you might want to discuss it with the scientists and scholars themselves. To that end, comments will be allowed on selected articles. All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

By way of contrast, this blog and many others run by defenders of evolution will allow all comments except spam. We're not afraid of contrary opinions or uncivil behavior from creationists. We get them all the time.

I wonder what they're really afraid of?

---

[Image Credit: Institute for Creationist Strategies: Show pride in your anti-scientific beliefs]

Predictions of Intelligent Design Creationism

I love it when they make predictions. Here's what Casey Luskin just posted over on Evoluton News & Views (sic) [A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design?]

Regarding testability, ID makes the following testable predictions:

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

Such natural structures exist. They are perfectly compatible with evolution. This prediction does not distinguish between Intelligent Design Creationism and real science.

(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.

The vast majority of of species with novel information have arisen gradually with plenty of transitional fossils to document their evolution. In a small number of cases (e.g. Cambrian Explosion) the evidence for evolution from known precursors is too sophisticated for creationists to follow. This prediction is not supported; therefore, Intelligent Design Creationism is falsified for all species where we have lots of data.

(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.

Convergence is perfectly consistent with evolution. This prediction is meaningless.

(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.

Most of our genome is junk. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Intelligent Design Creationism has been falsified.

That was easy.

In this regard, ID is falsifiable. When we test these predictions, ID passes those tests.

No it doesn't. Two of the "tests" are consistent with evolution so the "test" is meaningless. Intelligent Design Creationism fails the other two tests.

---

An Honest Intelligent Design Proponent?

It's unusual to find a proponent of Intelligent Design Creationism who makes an honest attempt to evaluate scientific facts. Jonathan McLatchie (Jonathan M) seems to be one of those rare birds. I'm not going to refer to him as an IDiot.

Here's a bit from his latest post on Evolution News & Views (sic [Perspectives on ENCODE and Junk DNA].

The debate thus hinges on whether activity such as transcription, transcription factor association, and histone modification are signs of true function. My own view is that such activity is suggestive of functionality, but not proof. Therefore I would be cautious about claiming that these results show 80% of the genome to have function in the sense that we normally use that word.

On the other hand, the observation that the genome is buzzing with activity underscores what proponents of ID have been saying for years: not knowing what something does doesn't constitute evidence that it's doing nothing. Moreover, it wasn't long ago that Laurence Moran and PZ Myers were telling us that the genome is not even pervasively transcribed and that this amounted to evidence that the majority of our DNA is junk.

That's pretty good for someone who posts on a blog that also publishes stuff from Jonathan Wells and Casey Luskin. I wonder if they talk to each other?

On the other hand, it's not perfect. I've been arguing for years that there is good solid evidence that most of our genome is junk. I have never used the argument from ignorance that Jonathan attributes to me.

Also, I have never denied that the genome is pervasively transcribed. Instead, I have argued that pervasive transcription is something that one expects given what we know about DNA binding proteins and transcription. I've pointed out that the vast majority of our genome is transcribed very rarely—about one transcript per day in 100 cells—and this is consistent with accidental transcription. This is noise. The product is junk RNA and is has no function [Useful RNAs?] [Junk RNA] [Pervasive Transcription] [How to Frame a Null Hypothesis] [How to Evaluate Genome Level Transcription Papers ].

I discussed this thoroughly when I reviewed Jonathan Wells' book The Myth of Junk DNA [Junk & Jonathan: Part 6—Chapter 3]. Perhaps Jonathan McLatchie hasn't read my earlier posts?

Contrast McLatchie's post with that of Jonathan Wells [A Dishonest Intelligent Design Proponent?].

---

Breaking News: IDiots Don't Understand Genomes or Biology

Just when you think they couldn't get more stupid, along comes some IDiot to prove you wrong. Here's the latest from an anonymous contributor at Evolution News & Views [Your Genome? Which One?].

A new finding about DNA differences in somatic cells overthrows a common assumption and might have dramatic implications for evolutionary studies.

Young's Law (from Murphy's catalog of perverse tendencies in nature) states that all great discoveries are made by mistake. A corollary is that the greater the funding, the longer it takes to make the mistake, but we won't go there. Anyway, a team of Yale scientists wasn't looking to overturn a huge assumption in genetics -- but they did. The ripple effects of their discovery remain to be seen.

We've all been told that every cell in our body has a copy of our unique genetic code. That's one of those simplistic beliefs that sounds sensible but is almost impossible to check. Doesn't the whole body arise from cell divisions of a single zygote with its unique genetic code? Yes, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the genes in cells downstream don't get modified. That was just assumed....

"Somatic mosaicism" is jargon for the finding that genomes differ from cell to cell -- not only in copy number variations (CNV's), but in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP's). The assumption that you have one genome is thus falsified. You have lots of genomes!

Okay, let's take a poll.

How many of you thought that mutations such as nucleotide substitutions, deletions, and insertions, could never take place during the thousands of generations that give rise to our somatic cells? (How were they supposed to be suppressed?)

How many of you thought that all of our cells, including red blood cells, contain copies of our unmodified genome?

How many of you thought that there were no polyploid cells in our liver?

How many of you thought that B cells, and T cells (and others) contain the same identical copy of our genome that's found in germ cells?

How many of you thought that spermatocytes and ovaries have exactly the same genome as our original zygote?

How many of you thought that cancer-causing gene rearrangements and mutations in somatic cells were impossible?

How many of you are completely ignorant of any medical problems due to genetic mosaicism?

If you answered "yes" to all of those questions then, congratulations!, you're as smart as an IDiot.

Sheeesh!

One thing is clear at this stage: the assumption that each individual has a unique genome has been overthrown to some extent. Think how this might impact common evolutionary studies. For years, evolutionists have claimed small differences between human and chimpanzee genomes. What if the percent difference is a function of the source cells used? Remember, the Yale team found differences between cells in the same organ -- human skin. If the percent difference grows or shrinks depending on the source, any conclusions about human-chimp similarities would prove unreliable.

---

The Biologic Institute Expands

 
Posted yesterday on Evolution News & Views: European scientists working in conjunction with Biologic Institute.

The anti-ID crowd has an old canard about there being no serious scientists who doubt Darwin, let alone any that support intelligent design. And they like to say that there is no science being done by ID scientists. Both ideas are not just false, but absurdly so. Note this announcement of new scientific arrivals at Biologic Institute. Professor Matti Leisola, the Dean of Chemistry and Materials Science at Helsinki University of Technology in Finland; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research in the School of Mathematical and Information Sciences at Coventry University; and Professor Stuart Burgess, Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Bristol.

Three "serious scientists", eh? And not a biologist in the bunch. That's what we've come to expect in an institute that's supposed to be studying evolution creationism.

John Pieret has the scoop on these dudes. All three of them are creationists with strong ties to the Young Earth Creationist movement [The "Pros" from Dover]. John had the idea of comparing these guys to the Three Stooges. I thought it was appropriate so I "borrowed" it.¹

---

1. I steal a lot of John's ideas but let's not tell him, OK? It gives him a swelled head.

A "Simple" Argument for Intelligent Design Creationism

 
Once again, it's time to remind people of a famous quotation by Isaac Asimov—a biochemist— from his 1981 essay, The “Threat” of Creationism [see Bill Dembski, Isaac Asimov, and The Second Law of Thermodynamics].

Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.

In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.

Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens. [my emphasis - LAM]

Now, let's look at this video from: Are You Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design?]. Keep in mind that one definition of a "simple" argument is one that is suitable for kindergarten students (and IDiots).



This video was posted on the leading IDiot blog Evolution News & Views. It tells us a lot about the quality of their science and their commitment to truth.

---

A Reason to Doubt the IDiots

 

David Klinghoffer is one of the most entertaining bloggers at Evolution News & Views. His version of logic never fails to bring a smile to my face.

Klinghoffer's latest posting is: A Reason to Doubt the Real, Rather than Pretended, Confidence of Darwin Advocates.

Much of the debate about Darwinian evolution is conducted in public online forums. If interpreted with some care, these give a convenient way of measuring the real confidence of leading spokesmen on the Darwin side. I don't mean the level of bluster -- they're all full of bluster -- but rather what they really must feel at some level deep down.

If you follow the top Darwin blogs you'll notice how eagerly and often they go in for mocking extremely marginal and daffy creationists. PZ Myers specializes in this. So too, in his books, does Richard Dawkins. How about answering the arguments of a real scientist who advocates intelligent design on scientific rather than Bible-thumping grounds -- a Douglas Axe or Ann Gauger, for example? How about a thoughtful critique of The Myth of Junk DNA or Signature in the Cell? A response to serious science bloggers like ENV's Casey Luskin or Jonathan M.?

Uh, no, thank you!

It's quite a contrast with intelligent-design advocates who, like them or not, wrestle with the top scientists and thinkers on the other side, while ignoring the small timers.

I really don't think this merits further comment by me.¹ I'll let the words stand for themselves. I hope you were as amused as I am.

---

1. I assume those "serious scientists" don't read Sandwalk, Why Evolution Is True, Panda;s Thumb, Thoughts from Kansas, or dozens of other blogs and books that refute the nonsense spouted by those "serious scientists."

Image Credit: conservababes

An Example of IDiot "Civility"

Do you remember when Stephen A. Batzer listed several reason why "Darwinists" are so uncivil? [Why Darwinism and Incivility Seem to Go Together] I blogged about it at: Why Are "Darwinists" So Uncivil?. We all had a good chuckle about hypocrisy and stupidity.

You've also seen many IDiots defend their use of "Darwinism" by claiming that it's nothing more than an accurate description of the most important scientific prerspective on evolution.

Here's what David Klinghoffer wrote today in Scientific Anti-Humanism Is Being Refuted by Science Itself.

Scientific anti-humanism refers to the cheapening of human dignity and of the value of human life in the name of science. Among many other pieces of novel information on that theme, the most important point that came out of Michael Medved's discussion with John West just now on the Science and Culture Update is that this corrosive tendency is being refuted by science itself.

Darwin persuasively taught that life is the product of blind, meaningless, purposeless churning, making all life, not just human, hardly anything more special or dignified than cosmic refuse. Indeed in a Darwinian worldview, life is cosmic refuse. While accused abortion butcher Kermit Gosnell may be an outlier, he is an emblematic personality in our Darwin-tutored culture.

How civil of him to link Darwinism with Kermit Gosnell.

Remember, this is Evolution News & Views (sic), sponsored by the Discovery Institute. This is not some backwoods hack operating on his own. It's mainstream civility for the leading Intelligent Design Creationists.

UPDATE Klinghoffer posted the following a short time later in Darwinism Versus Reality: The Painful Divorce. It's just another example of how the IDiots link "Darwinism" with immorality and it puts the lie to the claim that "Darwinism" is just another word for "evolutionary biology."

I wanted to highlight what Josh Youngkin said yesterday in his very perceptive comments about the Jodi Arias verdict. Darwinian materialists like Jerry Coyne end up asserting there's no free will, therefore no such thing as moral responsibility. A murderer may be locked up for everyone else's safety, but not because we're correct to seek to impose retribution. We have no moral right to do so.

As Josh says, this casts the human being who murders as a fundamentally blameless animal, like a man-eating tiger. We would cage or even shoot such a tiger, but we could not blame it for acting as it does.

Profoundly, I thought, Josh's article suggests how remote from human experience a guy like Coyne must travel if he wants to carry his Darwinian materialism to its seemingly logical conclusions.

---

Is Intelligent Design Creationism winning the debate in the scientific community?

Back in 1998 the Intellignet Design Creationists published the Wedge Strategy. They set themselves several goals including some twenty year goals that they hoped to achieve by 2018 (three years from now). They are ...

• to see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science
• to see design theory applications in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology, and philosophy in the humanities, to see its influence in the fine arts
• to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political, life

They aren't even close to achieving the first two goals but I think it's fair to say that they are well on their way to achieving the third goal in the United States. I don't think they've had much success in other countries. Perhaps readers in Europe, India, Africa, and China could let me know if design theory has permeated their culture and their politics?

Casey Luskin has recently posted a progress report in Evolution News & Views (sic) [In the Darwin Debate, How Long Before the Tide Turns in Favor of Intelligent Design?]. He's very optimistic. He lists thirteen (13) recent victories for Intelligent Design Creationism and concludes ...

Don't expect a revolution overnight. We are in this for the long haul, recognizing that it can take time for the truth to slip past the checkpoints that the Darwin lobby sets up to keep the public uninformed. In the end, though, I'm optimistic because the fundamentals of ID -- the science underlying the inference to design in nature -- are sound. The truth will win out, though it may tarry in doing so. Or to put it another way, the tide of ID is already well on its way in. We need to focus on telling people about it.

They'd better hurry. There's only three years left.

---

Michael Egnor Answers the Questions

 
I treid to answer Michael Egnor's questions as best I could [A Quiz for Atheists from a Creationist]. Now Egnor has answered his own questions at: What I Really Believe.¹

Some Sandwalk readers will be delighted to discover that Egnor refers to Aristotle in support of his beliefs, proving that Aristotle is good for something!

Most Sandwalk readers will be interested in this ...

That's what I believe. Note that these beliefs are entirely compatible with modern science; in fact, classical philosophy and classical theism is the source for modern science, which only originated in civilizations that embraced this classical view of the world. Some enlightenment philosophers moved away from some aspects of classical philosophy (e.g. final causes), but classical philosopohy and classical theism remain the foundation of Western Civilization and of modern science.

Many of you are modern scientists. How many think that classical theism is important in your work? How about classical philosophy?

Really? No one thinks that? Where do the IDiots come up with these ideas?

More and more scientists, philosophers, and theists are recognizing that science and theism are incompatible. That sort of makes it hard to claim that classical theism remains the foundation of modern science, doesn't it?

---

1. Comments aren't allowed on Evolution News & Views so you can leave comments for Michael here.