Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

By materialism I don’t mean consumerism. I’m not talking about people who are greedy for material things. I’m talking about a philosophical system that explains what is real and what is not. A philosophical materialist believes that everything is, at the bottom, material composition. You start with the fundamental particles that compose matter and energy.

Another word for essentially the same thing is naturalism. It’s stated a little bit differently. Naturalism says nature is all there is, and nature is made of those particles. (Don’t let the distinction between matter and energy confuse you on this, because energy, like matter, is composed of particles according to the naturalistic viewpoint.)

What bothers me with ID’s approach is the undeniable “philosophical” implication that it carries with the message. Not only that, there is a proclivity to beat evolutionists with the club of “immorality” under the umbrella of “materialism” or “naturalism.” They first associate evolution with aforementioned school of philosophies, then hammer their stand-point by asserting how the humanity, as we know it, would dangerously come to extinction if these school of thoughts are promoted through “Darwinism.” Oh for crying out loud! I thought we are talking science not philosophy! Straw man fallacy at its worst.

Another aspect of ID that baffles me is why the proponents, especially the religious people who do not necessary cognizant of its various parameters, are perturbed by the mention of evolution theory as if there is an attempt to snap “God” away from them and throw him down the abyss of evanescence. To my limited knowledge, evolution does not question the existence of deity of any sort — it merely pursuits to assay the existing set of data and to draw the best educated assessment according to the evidence; right or wrong in the sense of scientific conclusion, I am not going to venture in that as I have limited knowledge in such field. It could well be concluded by religious community that “God” has concerted the universe based on a set of fundamental principles (i.e. Anthropic Principle) which would construct itself in such a way that it is perceived today.

Also our inate sense of right and wrong comes from the fact that we live in social environment and would have died out long ago if we spent the entire time annoying our neighbours by killing their kids and stealing their food. The simple fact that you tried to justify your belief in god proves it’s not faith that you have, but reliance on misinformation.

mathematically Creationism requires Super-Evolution

evolution doesn’t necessary reward intelligence

What evolution does say about life on Earth is that: (a) All life on Earth examined so far appears to have developed by ‘descent with modification’; the common ancestry of all life on Earth has been very firmly established by multiple lines of evidence. (b) No biological structures or species have been identified that could not have arisen by a relatively gradual series of individually-advantageous steps. (In many cases, the individual steps have been illustrated by fossils, molecular evidence, etc.)

Bacteria did not up and evolve into humans. They evolved into slime-mold like bacteria colonies, and then everything went up from there.

Biological evolution is not faith. It’s as much a fact as Earth orbiting the Sun. The fossil record no longer leaves room for reasonable doubt that evolution does happen. That “what” aspect of evolution is backed by data. The “how” aspect is less clear, which is why biological evolution is rightfully called a theory.

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in the sun, it doesnt really matter because its still there. A fairy tale is some whispy old man with a snowy white beard breathing some halitosis into a pile of dirt and forming man. A fairy tale is a middle aged jew moving a trillion gallons of water with sign language. Dont insult science by applying your archaic belief system to it, but take your skepticism and want for evidence that you hold for evolution and apply it to creationism.

The Discovery Institute’s mission is to fabricate reasons to deny the 150 years of research that stands behind the theory of evolution because it contradicts a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Has Dr. West ever heard of Galileo?

Scientists will admit to mistakes in measurement, lack of sufficient data, failure to properly consider alternate explanations, etc., but bluntly admitting they lack the basic rationality to formulate theories, which they would immediately and honestly abandon when new facts or better explanations appear, strikes directly at their self-image and the cultural prestige they have worked so hard to obtain.

And, implying that our selfish emotional structure would unconsciously or, worse yet, consciously control a scientist’s reasoning when examining data or interpreting measurements invokes considerable angst among its practitioners. In fact, such a reality claim, if it were proven true, veers dangerously close to the religious concept of “original sin”.

Which brings us to another point I would like to establish here, a blatant, affronted political motivation of ID which is strongly backed by religious institutions. Here is why such assumption is strongly devisable; Evolution by itself does not shake the foundation of theism, that is, it does not contrive to take the possibility of existence, not in a natural sense, of supernatural being out of the equation — we leave that to philosophers. But the gist of TE does go up against what religious dogma has been preaching and what it has offered as a fact. This would congenitally ultimately paint a fraudulent picture of religion as we know it. To no surprise, this “upsets” the religious community which in turn would back an opposing movement, ironically Intelligent Design. So it is not discriminatory to state that religious folks have a political gain in their support for ID.

Such credence is mostly highlighted by the fact that, due to religious background of ID members, it is not naive to assume that their belief system is influencing the process of what is considered a norm in scientific methodologies. That is, the assumption has already been established (there is a God), now the premise is contrive by all means. I thought the science works the other way around, you state a hypothesis, then try to establish that point! So once again, it is bewildering to witness all these philosophical raving being thrown around while the actual scientific finding is being discarded — not saying ID or ToE are being disingenuous with regards to presenting the “data” but rather when it comes to battling off the details, the discussion astray to philosophy.

Besides, what would be a tantamount to evolution when it comes to the actual putting down Intelligent Design for school curriculum? If ID is ONLY “negating” the evolution argument, then ID has no discourse for teachers to go on. In other word, if ID is stating “evolution” is wrong, then what is it presenting in its replacement? God created all the life form and…? That’s it? Well, aren’t we getting that from religious institutions already? Unless ID’s finding vouches to take evolution to be taken out of the program in its entirely! Please note that I am not, in any shape or form, suggesting evolution is “the” answer and Intelligent Design Theory is bluntly wrong, but if ID reproaches evolution, then allow this “challenge” to be examined in its scientific domain because augmenting the “designer” into the discussion adds no value in the scientific disquisition.

Moreover, if ID is only disproving evolution, then I think anyone can see its offering would be entirely devolutionary to the science curriculum because in one hand we are telling students this is how we have evolved and the next thing you know, well… “it didn’t really happen that way!!!” What is the student to write on the final paper? So at the end, it’s either evolution or ID — you cannot have both at the same time. Am I missing something here? Again, I hope my point is clear that I am not suggesting one theory is more valid than the other (not yet at least) but rather absurdness of “both” theories being presented in the educational bubble.

There are other possibilities that belie the assertion that “everybody knows” the identity of the designer. It might be a kid named Oorv who exists in the 22nd dimensions of space and the 3rd dimension of time, and our 4th space-time dimension are his science project this semester (all held in a crystal sphere no bigger to him than a baseball).

It might be a master musician with no name who exists in Uber-Brane and all universes are effects of vibrational harmonics arising through his unimaginable instrument.

It’s a fact that the language of science is a developing practice.

Solutions that scientists have devised should be considered qualified and provisional

If one day some scientist discovered an ‘ectoplasmic dimension’ in which ghosts resided, and a method for reliably observing it, then ghosts would cease to be considered supernatural as the borders of what we consider ‘natural’ expanded. Conversely, to someone operating out of an earlier Cartesian or Newtonian framework of physical theory, the behavior contemporary scientists ascribe to quanta would seem blatantly magical.

Theism is the belief that God not only created the universe of mind and nature, but also continually sustains its operation. In contrast to: atheism (no God); pantheism (God equals the universe); panentheism (the universe is a ‘small’ part of God); and deism (God created an independent universe).

The anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. Originally proposed as a rule of reasoning, the term has since been extended to cover supposed “superlaws” that in various ways require the universe to support intelligent life, usually assumed to be carbon-based, and occasionally to be specifically human beings.

Anthropic reasoning involves assessing these constraints by analyzing the properties of universes with different fundamental parameters or laws of physics from the current one, and has frequently concluded that essential structures, from atomic nuclei to the whole universe, depend, for stability, on delicate balances between different fundamental forces.

the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years.

The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
–Victor J. Stenger

Science leaves open the question of whether those laws were designed. That is a metaphysical question. Believing the universe or some part of it was designed or not does not help understand how it works.

“Darwinism” is not a scientific term; it is a polemical term—like Maoism—designed to incite opposition to evolution. Scientists who raise objections are denigrated as “dogmatic” preachers of the religion of “scientism.”

“Darwinism” is a pejorative term concocted by religious community (I am talking to you Christians), as a polemic lingo to incite opposition against science. And this short-sighted twit getting materialistic and materialism (school of philosophy) mixed up is nothing short of a cretinous blind follower seeking mental sanitation by licking off sordid human ejaculation off of public restroom toilet seats.

“Evolution is theory not fact” should be regarded by everyone with a decent education as offensive insult to one’s intellect as awful one-liners from days past like “one man, one vote” and “segregation NOW, segregation forever.” It’s pig-ignorance from fundamentalists who don’t understand science, don’t WANT to understand science since they haven’t even made a slight effort, and whose agenda is to demolish science in favor of forcing religion back into society middle-ages style.

This textbook asserts that gravity exists. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force that cannot be directly seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

This book discusses heliocentrism, the theory that the Earth orbits around a centrally located sun. Students should be encouraged to fully consider the evidence for, and the evidence against, this interesting idea.

This textbook states that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. Because this fact conflicts rather directly with a hugely popular fictional account, both sides of the argument should be taught to impressionable children.

This book promotes the theory of plate tectonics, the gradual movement of the major land masses. Because nobody actually witnessed the land masses moving, teachers should refer to the theory as unprovable.

This textbook contains a chapter about general relativity, a theory that promotes relativism. The offending sections should be cut out of the book with a razor blade.

This textbook claims that evolution is not fully accepted by scientists because it is just a theory. The author hopes to confuse you into equating scientific theory with cockamamie theory.

carbon 14 is NOT used to determine the age of the earth. The geologic column does exist and only someone who isn’t a geologist and didn’t spend any time in the feild would say that it doesn’t. Uranium 238 is what’s used to date the earth and it’s easily 4.5 billion years old, if not more. He is using the equilibrium theory on the ASSUMPTION that the earth is less than 7000 years old.

Now that we know that equillibrium was reached over 4 billion years ago we can start. I’ll start with carbon 14 dating. It’s absolutely true that the levels of carbon 14 in the atmosphere indeed do fluctuate from year to year. But this fluctuation can be measured and predicted in reasonably accurate terms. The way scientists do this, is dendrochronology (which he conveiniently omits).

Dendrochronology is the fact that you can tell the age of a tree by counting its rings. The thickness of each ring is indicative of the amount of carbon 14 the tree absorbed in that corresponding year. This can be measured with reasonable accuracy. Also, through dendrochronology, scientists can observe a distinct pattern in the rate of fluctuation of the carbon 14 in our atmosphere in any given year, and accurately calibrate carbon 14 tests accordingly.

Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

carbon-14 stops entering the body when the animal dies. From there the carbon-14 starts to decay.

Empirical explanations can be scientific or non-scientific. Freud’s idea of the Oedipus complex is empirical but it is not scientific. Jung’s notion of the collective unconscious is empirical but it is not scientific. Biblical creationism is empirical but it is not scientific. Poetry can be empirical but not scientific.

On the other hand, if by ’empirical’ one means capable of being confirmed or disproved by observation or experiment then ID is not empirical.

Natural selection acts on variation within populations, resulting in modified organ morphology, physiology, and ultimately the formation of new species.

So far, the arguments I’ve seen advanced for ‘intelligent design’ have been answered; the two key biological concepts, ’specified complexity’ and ‘irreducible complexity’, have not fared well. Dembski’s ‘complex, specified information’ model has not produced new results anywhere outside the intelligent design area (unlike evolution, which has spawned genetic algorithms in computer science, enhanced epidemiology and immunization techniques, and improved breeding practices in animal husbandry and agriculture, etc.) and has itself been widely questioned regarding its fundamental definitions and mathematical rigor. Various biological systems proposed as ‘irreducibly complex’ have been shown to be evolvable, and indeed some of the precursor steps have come to light.

And even evolution does not attempt to dispute whether there is a God behind the universe or otherwise, but rather how the world evolves through progressive incremental steps. Then again, there is no assay in excluding a super natural power but surely, it does reveal a facade of extortion and deception in religion.

Evolution is only a threat to those who insist on biblical literalism (or literalism in whatever they consider holy text). These people are making a false idol out of their scripture (in the case of former Alabama Judge Moore, literally a graven one!).

Judaism does not require literalism. When I was growing up most synagogues were using a version of the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) published by the Soncino Press. It included commentaries by a former Chief Rabbi of the British Empire (from around the 1930’s). In it (page 194 of the second edition) he points out that the greatest Jewish commentator of all time (Rashi) taught that scripture was not supposed to give a strict chronology of creation, and that Maimonides taught that the account is not meant to be literal.

The Chief Rabbi also makes the following point: imagine if Genesis Chapter 1 had contained a scientifically accurate account of the creation:

Monera begat Amoeba, Amoeba begat Synamoebae, Synamoebae begat Ciliated Larva, . . . Primary Mammals begat Pouched Animals, Pouched Animals begat Semi-Apes, Semi-Apes begat Tailed Apes, Tailed Apes begat Man-like Apes, Man-like Apes begat Ape-like Men, Ape-like Men begat Men.

Would such an account have even been understood, much less inspiring? Galileo said it best, the bible exists to explain how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go (or were made). For that question we must turn to the observable facts, analyzed by reason. In short, for that we need science (knowledge not faith).

The Appendix: Often derided by vile, secular, liberal scientists as unimportant, the appendix is in fact an essential feature in God’s meticulous design for humanity. The Almighty uses this organ, which He non-coincidentally sculpted in the shape of a miniature flaccid penis, to remotely inflict torturous earthly pain on all who displease Him.

Wisdom Teeth: Contrary to the preposterous notion that the human jaw bone has somehow grown incrementally smaller over the course of untold millennia, God took great pride in carefully programming our DNA to cause at least one impacted wisdom tooth in 90% of adults. He did this in order to assure a bright and promising future for another of his intelligent creations: orthodontia.

The “Tail Bone”: Though it has labored under the double indignity of TWO anti-Christian labels: the evolution-implying “tail bone” and egregiously lewd “coccyx”, this ingeniously sensitive spinal tip was installed by God specifically for occasions when your rollerskates fly out from under you while you’re doing the Hokey-Pokey – so you’ll land on something that punishes you for acting like white trash.

Man Nipples: While know-nothing commie scientists might point to the man-teat’s inability to lactate as clear evidence of its nipple’s superfluousness, God felt it wise to include an aesthetic nod to the lesser gender’s mammaries on his otherwise superior male model, if for no other reason than to attract would-be lesbians to their rightful place: squatting spread-eagle atop a hunka hunka burnin’ man.

Hybrid Excretory/Reproductive Organs: The Almighty created humanity in His own perfect, infallible image. Yet inasmuch as He lives forever, and can create people just by snapping His fingers, He doesn’t need to have disgusting sex. And since He doesn’t eat, He doesn’t need to go tinkle or doody either. These minor differences required last-minute, albeit still perfect. modifications to His miraculous design. And while liberal academics suggest that excretory and reproductive functions would be kept separate in any truly “intelligent” design, in God’s mind, boys’ willies and girls’ hoo-hoos have but ONE function: expelling sundry sticky and smelly juices, semi-solids, and screeching little sinners.

The Narrow Birth Canal: When the Lord first designed woman – using His Original Recipe Disembodied Rib, His only intention was for Eve to sit around in the Garden of Eden being inferior and keeping the place clean. Hence, instead of providing her with the same sturdy crotch tool as Adam, He gave her nothing but an empty, dank, teeny-tiny little hole. Soon thereafter, God intelligently designed the “episiotomy” childbirth procedure – in order to punish Eve’s entire gender for all eternity for her being such a cock-teasing slut.

Tender Feet: In leaving human feet free of paw pads or tough, horse-like hooves, the Lord rendered our solitary means of locomotion highly susceptible to injury – thereby programming us to covet leather, calfskin, and/or snakeskin cowboy boots. Subsequently, man slaughters countless beasts for their hides, simultaneously asserting our iron-fisted dominion over all the earth.

Rev El Mundo

What do you expect? It’s Georgia! Where the family trees have no branches, creationism is bound to take hold.

God made man But a monkey supplied the glue

Youngstown Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory

Youngstown, OH – As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Wednesday in this embattled Midwestern town. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. The new theory will be introduced to Youngstown public school students starting at the beginning of the 2009 school year.

“Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence is pushing them down,” said the Reverend Dr. Stanton Doran, current president of the ECFR, who holds advanced degrees in education, biology, physics and applied Scripture from Oral Roberts University, Regent University, the Discovery Institute and The Billy Graham School for Advanced Molecular Engineering.

Reverend Dr. Doran: “Gravity – which is falsely taught to our children as a law – is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he was alluding to a higher power. What else could he have been talking about?”

Founded in 1968 at Dr. Stanton’s alma mater, East High School, the ECFR is the world’s leading institute of Christian medicine, a branch of medicine based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. Rev. Doran (famous for his studies demonstrating that stem cells should never be used in fighting disease because they may inadvertently “grow babies in the brain”) was joined in his announcement by other leading experts in the fields of physics, mathematics, biology and medicine including Dr. Charles McGowen, MD and the Rev. Mickey Erdel, all long-time Youngstown residents and graduates of the Youngstown public school system.

~Rev. El Mundo

It’s insane to believe that an all powerful being would create something as massive as our universe so we on this planet could play a game of avoid eternal damnation.

Time should also be spent teaching the controversy over astrology. Is it really inferior to psychology? The unconscious mind is only a theory. Shouldn’t children decide whether the 12 configurations of stars orbiting the earth is the actual determinant of their actions? Surely, we can produce scientists who read their daily horoscopes. Shouldn’t we have a pro vs. con discussion of this in 6th grade science class?

Teach also the controversy over numerology — is it really inferior to physics? Is alchemy not worth study with it’s denial that inanimate elements are in fact inanimate. Shouldn’t the schools present the counter theory that minerals have souls and genders?

Teach the children all the controversies and let the children decide.