Why is ID so successful?

[Christian Dude]

Hi guys, I still have been following this thread. I am reading articles on the talkorigins.org web site that jjramsey, Hawk one and cyborg suggested. I also have the books recommended by Robin and Peter Soderqvist coming. I don’t have anything new to add at this time. I hope this thread is still going strong once I have caught up with you guys. Take care.

- dude

 

[SpencerFW]

an example of intelligent design...

genesis chapter 1 - a god apparently created the day and night before our sun and stars, then plant life before humankind.

genesis chapter 2 - i presume the same god then created humankind before plantlife.

"a god" sure does work in mysterious ways

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, and if you are going to correct bug_girl about her own scientific area, please have the courtesy to cite published papers supporting your notions. It would be, after all, the form she is accustomed to.

This is something I've come across recently. It seems to reflect my own ideas on the matter. So yes, there are others who apparently hold similar beliefs as mine.

From the article, Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories ...

Yet Muller and Newman insist that population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life. Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure. They note, following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection (2003:3)--that selection must act on what already exists. Yet, in their view, the “genocentricity” and “incrementalism” of the neo-Darwinian mechanism has meant that an adequate source of new form and structure has yet to be identified by theoretical biologists. Instead, Muller and Newman see the need to identify epigenetic sources of morphological innovation during the evolution of life. In the meantime, however, they insist neo-Darwinism lacks any “theory of the generative” (p. 7).

Perhaps this (the part highlighted in blue) is why Darwin still believed in God?

 

[Mercutio]

This is something I've come across recently. It seems to reflect my own ideas on the matter. So yes, there are others who apparently hold similar beliefs as mine.

From the article, Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories ...

Wow, what a fascinating article. It reminds me of when I went to see a Creationist give a talk here at the University--deftly sidestepping any areas where the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of natural selection to focus on areas where they can generate the appearance of contraversy, relying on oversimplifications (if popular oversimplifications, like their diversion into "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", which was abandoned some time ago by mainstream biology), and generating a house of cards argument from ignorance, in which they "question improbabilities", bemoan the lack of "an adequately explained mechanism" (adequate for ID proponents, I suppose), and introduce their own terms to generate contraversy where none exists in mainstream science (yes,the usual terms--the ill-defined "forms", which even your own article here admits is poorly defined, and the resultant distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution, which are distinguished by whether they are changing "forms", apparently).

I was about to go into the paper in detail and explain why it was a piece of [rule8], but somebody already has. Read this for a critique of the paper you linked.
And this, for more.

Perhaps this (the part highlighted in blue) is why Darwin still believed in God?

I think it speaks more to your ignorance of Natural Selection.

Tell me, Iacchus, how much of the article did you read? Your quoted paragraph is only the second paragraph of the introduction, and there are much more apropos quotes further down. I know your aversion to reading...so I am just curious: did you actually read that article before basing your post on it? And what are the chances you will read the criticisms of your article?

 

[Mercutio]

A brief snippet from my first link above shows that it would be good reading for other areas of argument in this particular thread:

If we might be permitted a prediction, Meyer or his defenders will respond not by admitting their error on this point, but by engaging in calculated obfuscation over the definition of the words “novel” and “fundamentally.”Â_ They will then assert that, after all, yes, evolution can produce new genes and new information, but not “fundamentally new genes.”Â_ They will never clarify what exactly counts as fundamental novelty.

Pretty much what we have seen from CplFerro here; CF, I recommend reading the entire paper, to see if your concerns are answered.

 

[Iacchus]

Why do you pretend to know so much? When in fact, you -- and others around this board -- insist on telling us how little you know? Would you like to know something that's timeless? ... 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[Iacchus]

They will never clarify what exactly counts as fundamental novelty.

There's no need to, because things do not change at random. Indeed, how does the river flow, if the landscape -- which, is ever-variable and ever-changing -- mysteriously disappeared? This is the type of change you would be asking us to accept, which doesn't make a lick of sense. The change that occurs, is the change that follows the outlay of the land.

 

[Mercutio]

Why you do you pretend to know so much? When in fact, you -- and others around this board -- insist on telling us how little you know? Would you like to know something that's timeless? ... 1 + 1 = 2.

Excuse me?

Is this relevant to the current discussion?


Iacchus, it is not a matter of what you know. It is a matter of knowing how and where to look for answers when you do not know. It is a matter of critically evaluating claims, rather than accepting something simply because it fits your preconceived notions. It is a matter of being willing to follow the evidence, and willing to dig for that evidence--as much good evidence as you can find, not just the stuff that confirms your suspicions.

It is a very simple idea, actually. You should try it some time.

 

[Mercutio]

There's no need to, because things do not change at random.

Whether or not things change at random, there is a need for clarification of terms. In this particular case, your claim that "things do not change at random" is completely nonsensical in the absence of a clear definition of terms.


BTW, Iacchus, could you answer my questions: How much of the article you linked did you actually read?

Will you read any of the criticism of that article?

 

[Iacchus]

Indeed, how does the river flow, if the landscape -- which, is ever-variable and ever-changing -- mysteriously disappeared?

 

[Mercutio]

Indeed, how does the river flow, if the landscape -- which, is ever-variable and ever-changing -- mysteriously disappeared?

BTW, Iacchus, could you answer my questions: How much of the article you linked did you actually read?

Will you read any of the criticism of that article?

 

[cyborg]

Would you like to know something that's timeless? ... 1 + 1 = 2.

Wow! I'm impressed.

Except 1 + 1 = 10, everyone knows that.

 

[juryjone]

Indeed, how does the river flow, if the landscape -- which, is ever-variable and ever-changing -- mysteriously disappeared?

Wow, that's heavy, man.

Ooh, my turn. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

Whew, I'm spent. These digressions will do that to me. What say we get back to the topic? Merc has some questions for you.

BTW, Iacchus, could you answer my questions: How much of the article you linked did you actually read?

Will you read any of the criticism of that article?

 

[Iacchus]

Wow! I'm impressed.

Except 1 + 1 = 10, everyone knows that.

Well, I'm afraid you've taken what I've said out of context. And no, not everyone is "aware" of the binary system.

 

[Iacchus]

BTW, Iacchus, could you answer my questions: How much of the article you linked did you actually read?

Not much more than the first couple of paragraphs. It was in relation to another thread which was being discussed, however.

Will you read any of the criticism of that article?

Why should I? I have already confirmed my belief in God which, is really the issue here isn't it? Whereas if I based everything upon this one argument, then I may (or may not) have a problem. But that's not for you to say, because you don't understand the full extent of what I know.

 

[Mercutio]

Well, I'm afraid you've taken what I've said out of context. And no, not everyone is "aware" of the binary system.

There was a context to what you said?

Why do you pretend to know so much? When in fact, you -- and others around this board -- insist on telling us how little you know? Would you like to know something that's timeless? ... 1 + 1 = 2.

Remember what that was in response to? My comments on that paper we're kind of wondering whether you read?

I think cyborg's comment was actually more on-topic than yours was. At least cyborg's comment directly refutes your contention that your equation is "timeless". There are, after all, times when, as cyborg says, 1 + 1 = 10.

BTW, Iacchus, could you answer my questions: How much of the article you linked did you actually read?

Will you read any of the criticism of that article?

 

[cyborg]

I think cyborg's comment was actually more on-topic than yours was. At least cyborg's comment directly refutes your contention that your equation is "timeless". There are, after all, times when, as cyborg says, 1 + 1 = 10.

Precisely my point - you can't take an arbitarially contructed human logical system and point to it as something with a timeless quality when I can make the symbols have any semantics I wish.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, okay, so the equation isn't timeless. But it sure is baseless.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

Okay, okay, so the equation isn't timeless. But it sure is baseless.

~~ Paul

Screw math, huh? Might as well toss it, and all the rest of your scientific hogwash out of the classroom, right?

 

[Upchurch]

Screw math, huh? Might as well toss it, and all the rest of your scientific hogwash out of the classroom, right?

How's that computer you're reading this one working out for you?