We are often told that “there is no ID research published in peer reviewed journals“. I receive Nature E-Alerts in a number of biological research fields. Almost every time I read the abstracts and even the titles, or spend more time delving into the detail, I hear “Intelligent Design” silently screamed from the pages. Am I deluded, or do others hear it too?
Yes and no, respectively.
Bonus stupidity: look at what the Isaac Newton of Information considers evidence of ID. Once he would have claimed you had to calculate something called specified complexity (though he never did so for a biological system). Now it suffices to show that a scientist used a metaphor of signaling to describe the behavior of a molecule.
Bonus question: The Discovery Institute's John West asks Does Darwinism lead to moral relativism?
No.
This has been simple answers to stupid questions.
- Log in to post comments
I hear the pages silently screaming.
Who will speak for the pages?
It's almost poetry.
Well, I can KIND of see what they're getting at.
I was noticing (with some amusement) during last semester's Biochemistry class how one might infer some sort of "design" process from the development of a new functional protein from a previous one. I kind of imagine that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared in front of me - excuse me - "Appeared Unto Me" - and appointed ME, personally, "Intelligent Designer" in charge of evolutionary processes and I had to use my new divine powers to personally induce evolutionary development, it'd look pretty similar. Make a small change to an existing protein. Wait several generations to see if it's viable (because I wouldn't KNOW in advance, of course), maybe induce a Gene Duplication event (to make a backup, of course, so that I can work on one copy while the other keeps doing what it's supposed to), maybe make a whole mess of different changes at once and watch to see which one works best...
In other words (and this is what was so amusing) if one postulates an "intelligent designer" behind these processes, said "designer" appears to be NOT omniscient nor omnipotent, and appears to have to work with existing materials and processes in small steps. No single "Let There Be Hemoglobin!" events, for example. I can almost hear the booming celestial voice shouting "Me Dammit! Why do some of these PrP proteins I designed keep folding up wrong!..."
Also, the recent "gay sheep" story collided in my mind with a recent report of the growing disparity in male and female births in China. Apparently (assuming I'm remembering this correctly), there is typically a disparity of about 2%-5% more males than females being born. And I vaguely recall that surveys of homosexuality tend to report about, what, 2%-5% of most male populations is homosexual? What a strange coincidence - it's almost as if this were to ensure that everyone could find some kind of partner in life. How benevolent...GASP! The conclusion is obvious! Male homosexuality has been INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED! (at this point my mind flops over and starts rolling around, laughing hysterically, and I can think no further...)
In short, as far as I can tell, any "intelligent designer" one might postulate that would explain observable events does not seem to resemble a Supreme Being of the variety the ID types seem to believe they Know exists. Maybe the Deists were right, except that the Supreme Being did leave an unpaid intern in charge of maintenance.
Since Dembski has such awesome powers of perception, you'd think he'd also be able to write up a modest little list of how the specific articles support intelligent design creationism. Yet he does no such thing.
There must be a reason for that.
Perhaps he has been driven made by the silently screaming pages. Mad, I say!
If only the IDers would scream silently.
If only.
The first comment in that UD thread is promissing an even more entertaining discusssion:
I wonder when I will realize it and what kind of experience that will be. Or was all my research that bad?
Dembski ... sigh. Whaddya gonna do?
He's already sabotaged his career. Why should he care anymore what he says? His audience is a bunch of teenaged boys. I don't believe they're going to be capable of refuting his ridiculous assertions. Only pumping their fists in the air and saying, "Yeah! Go Bill! Ya got 'em there!"
I do notice since Dembski's failure to rise to the challenge at Dover he's not been doing many public appearances. I suppose it would be too much to be confronted with his inanity in person, in a public forum.
When I saw him at one of the DDD conferences a few years ago here in KC, after the first couple of minutes of worshipful attention by the YECs in the audience, all eyes glazed over, and no one could figure out what he was talking about. Especially when he put up some complicated-looking math calculations. Talk about the way to lose an audience of non-mathematicians. But nonetheless, because he was on "their side," (i.e., anti-evolution), they gave him a nice hand when he stopped boring them to death.
I believe the YECs are beginning to realize they've hitched their wagon to a post instead of a star with the ID "movement." I predict a renascence of YEC, since they've gained nothing so far by their association with its "non-deistic" form.
Not that they'll gain anything in the public schools with YEC, but they probably will gain ground in increased numbers of home-schoolers and voucher advocates.
Not that it matters, but it wasn't actually Dembski who wrote that post. It was "idnet.com.au"
In all fairness, Dembski didn't post this stuff himself. The author is idnet.com.au. Still, it is quite telling that Dembski doesn't care what appears on his pages.
I'm just wondering: Who the bloody hell are the people claiming that "Darwinian evolution supports a traditional view of morality"? Googling wasn't of any use in finding out, so I guess it must be "often claimed" somewhere else than the Internet.
And all of this will be above little Billy Dembski's head.
All good research is ID research. ... Some of the researchers don't realize it themselves yet but it seems more apparent to me all the time.
sparc, you'll realize it when your work is quote-mined, twisted and distorted beyond recognition to provide "support" for ID.
On the contrary, Dembski cares greatly what appears on his pages. Anything he disagrees with is booted off in short order.
How come wMAD forgot to embolden the word "creation" that appears in that item from Nature? If he truly believes that such phrasings in real science papers indicate the authors believe in Intelligent Design Creationism, he is not only deluded, but demented as well. I'm sure he does hear screaming voices coming from the pages of Nature, and likely from dogs, oil paintings, and automobiles as well.
SMC said: "In other words (and this is what was so amusing) if one postulates an 'intelligent designer' behind these processes, said 'designer' appears to be NOT omniscient nor omnipotent...."
Precisely. An omnipotent, omniscient designer could choose to create all the features of living things *through evolution*. Thus, ID *requires* disbelief in the omniscient, omnipotent God of the Bible.
"Precisely. An omnipotent, omniscient designer could choose to create all the features of living things *through evolution*. Thus, ID *requires* disbelief in the omniscient, omnipotent God of the Bible."
Well said, Jud. By saying God *did* design DNA but had nothing to do with the snowflakes, the IDers limit His power and presence.