I have to admit, even as a research scientist, used to reading dozens of scientific papers a day, I have a really hard time keeping up with the huge volume of research coming out of the Intelligent Design laboratory, Biologic Institute.
With one PR release every other month, ID will be For Realsies Science and Darwinamism will be dead any day now. For REAL.
The latest entry, written by 'staff' (aka Casey Luskin, Prince of Tits?), highlights how perfect biology is:
For decades enzymologists have recognized that certain enzymes are catalytically perfect--meaning that they process reactant molecules as rapidly as these molecules can reach them by diffusion. That hinted at a principle of physical perfection in biology, but no one anticipated its breadth until recently.
...
Although the Darwinian mechanism has some capacity to optimize, perfection seems to be well beyond its reach.
An enzyme is perfect. Darbinsnism cannot achieve perfection. Therefore, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior designed perfect enzymes.
This fuses perfectly with statements Luskintits made two years ago:
Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?
Pintos are shit cars. Pintos were designed. Therefore, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior designed shit enzymes.
This is some serious science these guys are doing. I think its finally to the point where Im just way out of my league when I try to address their claims. I is so scared. For REAL.
- Log in to post comments
Now wait just a sec. Your own good buddy and full professor Albatrossity uses just that exact kind of argumentation. He did so in a combox on this very blog with me, and I answered multiple ways. So why (if you're intellectually honest, which remains to be seen) make fun of Luskin here, as if he were answering phantom opponents? This was Albatrossity's main argument against my position, after all.
WTF? I thought most enzymes were over-expressed: it was one of the conclusions coming out of metabolic control theory (which was systems biology before it was cool).
Aren't enzymes like all living things? They don't have to be perfect - they just have to be good enough - to replicate?
(Unlike like caterpillar eyebrows - which are designed by Shiva... and can lead to kids getting picked on by their peers, thus leading them to Jesus and Epic Science Fail.)
"the Darwinian mechanism has some capacity to optimize"
I guess all us engineering types are just wasting our time with genetic algorithms and particle swarm optimisation, since they only have "some capacity to optimise."
Thanks Casey Luskin! Without your brilliant insight, I would have never know that my masters topic is a complete waste of time.
Lame. Just because an enzyme can process all that can diffuse to it in its current environment, does not make it perfect. After all, what if the environment changes, or was different previously? What if the concentration of the source changes? Lame, and very sad.
Er, in the link you just provided, you used that exact kind of argumentation, and Albatrossity called you on it. Did you mean to link to a different comment?
I appreciate your arguments, however, I take issue with your tactic of using breasts (or little birds?) to insult Luskin - what did the tits ever do to you?
Intelligent Design in films:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWIlP9t8y4
That's 'cause your a girl playing in a Real Man's game...
Just sayin'
*ducks*
-Rusty
Rho
Good to see that you have come out from under your rock again.
Contrary to your perception (i.e., in the real world), the argument I used against you can be summarized thusly, as I did on the link you helpfully provided. Let's try again.
Just let me know how two DIFFERENT AND CONTRADICTORY parameters can be considered to be evidence of the same thing.
Note carefully - it has nothing to do with the merits of arguments from poor design or good design, it has to do with a logical fallacy. Note also that you have never addressed it here, and I'm sure not going to give you a site hit to see if you addressed it on your own lonely outpost in the blogosphere.
chirp chirp chirp
Rho has also never even tried to define "design", or how one would distinguish it from an un-designed thing (he believes everything is designed, and thus has no frame of reference anyway), rendering his entire stance meaningless, and his empty posturing hollow and laughable (as usual).
Of course we're also talking about a guy whose utterly defective 'intellect' tried to exchange positions with an interlocutor in order to score a cheap taunt. The fact that its so easily disproven by the link he himself provided tells you either how completely delusional he is, or how far he will go to lie his miserable little ass off. What a worthless little dog dropping.
"Rho has also never even tried to define "design", or how one would distinguish it from an un-designed thing (he believes everything is designed, and thus has no frame of reference anyway)..."
Rhotard essentially assumes all his conclusions as premises and dares you to refute them. Then when you point out the question begging he says that you're doing the same thing because you can't prove you're not a brain in a vat. And despite not being cognizant of the layers of fallacy in this approach he fancies himself philosophy savvy. End of story.
Bob O'H:
Heh. Metabolic control analysis maps onto classical control theory, which is descended from the old-school cybernetics of Ross Ashby, Norbert Wiener and friends. . . so we are all cyborgs now! :-)
Rho has also never even tried to define "design", or how one would distinguish it from an un-designed thing (he believes everything is designed, and thus has no frame of reference anyway), rendering his entire stance meaningless, and his empty posturing hollow and laughable (as usual).
I recall offering the example of a natural stone bridge to him. It has the appearance of being designed, and it serves a functional purpose, and yet its explanation can be entirely explained by natural forces.
So why (if you're intellectually honest, which remains to be seen) make fun of Luskin here, as if he were answering phantom opponents? This was Albatrossity's main argument against my position, after all.
I'm pretty sure Albatrossity ain't the same person as ERV.
In other words, you might want to take up your complaints to Albatrossity. (Seein as how they ain't the same person as each other.)
I recall offering the example of a natural stone bridge to him. It has the appearance of being designed, and it serves a functional purpose, and yet its explanation can be entirely explained by natural forces.
But the stone bridge is designed. Everything in the freakin universe is designed to those guys. This "Darwinian" schtick is only a red herring. They like it a lot because they know many people are comfortable with the idea of having not come from the "no stinking monkeys".
Ken Ham thinks the atmosphere was designed by the Jesus for Ken Ham's lame radio show. I kid not.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-062/at…
Back when I was in the automotive industry, I used to build Pintos. I even screwed gas tanks. Onto Pintos. Now, I don't know exactly who designed the Pinto, but there were a whole lot of us that built Pintos. The guy who designed the Pinto did not design us. So is Luskin saying that Ford Motor Company, or God, or He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken, designed enzymes, but had to hire a bunch of guys from New Jersey to actually produce them? Did the enzyme workers belong to a union? Did they get paid time-and-a-half for working more than 8 hours a day? Did they ever go on strike?
OK, I know it's OT, but what's the deal with Casey Luskin and tits? What lame-brained thing did he do or say WRT modified sweat glands?
#20:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2009/02/casey_luskin.php
10-Albatrossity,
Just let me know how two DIFFERENT AND CONTRADICTORY parameters can be considered to be evidence of the same thing.
I linked to the answer in my first comment.
Think a little here. If a car breaks down the 2nd day you drive it b/c it had a factory defect, is it designed or not-designed?
11-minimalist,
Rho has also never even tried to define "design"
Shrug. Don't need to, since I'm arguing on Albatrossity's own terms.
tried to exchange positions with an interlocutor in order to score a cheap taunt.
Cheap taunt? When?
And as far as exchanging positions, let me suggest some light reading.
Peace,
Rhology
Your entire "answer" hinges on being able to define design in a coherent, non-tautologous manner that clearly distinguishes between "designed" and "not-designed".
Which you repeatedly, steadfastly refuse to do.
We all know why, of course. It's just fun to point out your squirming.
23-minimalist,
Sorry, that's not Albatrossity's question. He is proposing that bad design in something somehow means that this something is not designed.
As I said, I'm answering him on his own terms.
As far as my worldview goes, everything is designed, so it's a moot question on Christianity.
Rho
In no universe is that an answer to my question. Here's the question again. Note that the word "design" does not appear in the question; it is merely a request for you to justify an illogical argument.
Just let me know how two DIFFERENT AND CONTRADICTORY parameters can be considered to be evidence of the same thing.
Please try to answer this question without using the word "design"; there is no need to do that unless you want to continue highlighting your complete inability to address a simple question about logic (not design).
chirp chirp chirp
For more entertainment involving Luskin and Star Wars allusions, see here. This is an email that Casey sent to the uber-secret Dembski listserv for "phylogenists". You'll love how he compares himself to Luke Skywalker (with better eyebrows), fighting the evil (Darwinist) Empire and Darth (Eugenie Scott) Vader, using the power of the Force (God). Thrills and chills in abundance!
oh god, did rhology crawl out from under his rock again?
---
"Rho has also never even tried to define "design"
Shrug. Don't need to, since I'm arguing on Albatrossity's own terms."
Rhology, you are arguing that your claimed observation of design in nature is evidence that there is a designer. You steadfastly refuse to define design. That makes your argument content-free.
But then you knew that. Apologetics isn't about exchange of ideas - it is about steadfastly refusing to acknowledge any validity whatsoever to any point except your own.
---
"Sorry, that's not Albatrossity's question. He is proposing that bad design in something somehow means that this something is not designed.
As I said, I'm answering him on his own terms."
Rhology, stop being so dishonest. That is not what he said. He is asking you to explain how, when the evidence y'all (an dyou) offer for design seems to be complex things in nature that function so extraordinarily well, that you can also point to things in nature that function very poorly indeed and also see them as evidence for design.
Please note, Rhology, that if you intend to answer Albatrossity's point (as opposed to pretending he said something else and hoping no one notices) that you are going to have to define design in some way, and explain how you know that what you see is designed.
Actually, we know very well how you know that nature is designed - you have faith that it is, because of your religious faith and a literal interpretation of the most inherently un-literal piece of writing Ive ever read. Fair enough - but please don't pretend that building a circular defense of that in the pursuit of apologetics is anything other than a deeply dishonest effort to pretend there is independent evidence for that belief.
And no - to return to a point you refused to defend long ago - the Rabbis do not agree with your literalist position.
Chirp chirp indeed. Albatrossity, are you abandoning your original argument? It would certainly seem that way.
I'll just repeat the original challenge from you:
If both good design and bad design are considered to be evidence of your designer, your notions can't be discussed by rational people seeking useful explanations.
If you are trying to move the argument to different grounds, that's fine. Just be decent enough to man up and admit as much.
Peace,
Rhology
And once again, having successfully evaded answering any actual questions, Rhology slinks off into the dimness of the evening.
Rho
I don't know how to break the news to you, but this question
If both good design and bad design are considered to be evidence of your designer, your notions can't be discussed by rational people seeking useful explanations.
and this one
Just let me know how two DIFFERENT AND CONTRADICTORY parameters can be considered to be evidence of the same thing.
are really asking the same thing. You see, "good design" and "bad design" from the first version are the "contradictory parameters" mentioned in the second version. You don't need to talk about design to answer the question. You just need something that you obviously don't have, but I won't speculate further about the specific nature of your shortcomings.
More amusingly, you've not answered either version, proving yet again that the depths of your intellectual dishonesty are seemingly infinite. But it is amusing to see how long you will string this out before you go back under your rock again.
chirp chirp chirp