In the tradition of offering threads to our visitors from Uncommon Descent (Gil Dodgen, Upright BiPed, gpuccio and others), I’m creating a thread in which Mung can explain why he is an ID supporter.
Mung continually complains that we misrepresent ID at TSZ. Here’s his chance to set the record straight, to tell us what ID really is, and to explain why he thinks the case for ID is strong.
Take it away, Mung.
(Thanks to OMTWO for the suggestion.)
Intelligent design proponents make a negative argument for design. According to them, the complexity and diversity of life cannot be accounted for by unguided evolution (henceforth referred to simply as ‘evolution’) or any other mindless natural process. If it can’t be accounted for by evolution, they say, then we must invoke design. (Design, after all, can explain anything. That makes it easy to invoke, but hard to invoke persuasively.)
Because the ID argument is a negative one, it succeeds only if ID proponents can demonstrate that certain instances of biological complexity are beyond the reach of natural processes, including evolution. The problem, as even IDers concede, is that the evidence for evolution is too strong to dismiss out of hand. Their strategy has therefore been to concede that evolution can effect small changes (‘microevolution’), but to deny that those small changes can accumulate to produce complex adaptations (‘macroevolution’).
What mysterious barrier do IDers think prevents microevolutionary change from accumulating until it becomes macroevolution? It’s the deep blue sea, metaphorically speaking. IDers contend that life occupies ‘islands of function’ separated by seas too broad to be bridged by evolution.
In this post (part 2a) I’ll explain the ‘islands of function’ metaphor and invite commenters to point out its strengths and weaknesses. In part 2b I’ll explain why the ID interpretation of the metaphor is wrong, and why evolution is not stuck on ‘islands of function’.
Read on for an explanation of the metaphor.
This is The Skeptical Zone, so it’s only fitting that we turn our attention to topics other than ID from time to time.
The Richard Mourdock brouhaha provides a good opportunity for this. Mourdock, the Republican Senate candidate from the state of Indiana, is currently in the spotlight on my side of the Atlantic for a statement he made on Wednesday during a debate with his Democratic opponent:
You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces. And I, too, certainly stand for life. I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life believes at conception. The only exception I have for – to have an abortion is in that case for the life of the mother. I just – I struggle with it myself for a long time but I came to realize that life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen. [emphasis mine]
A few weeks ago, commenter ‘kairosfocus’ (aka ‘KF’) posted a Pro-Darwinism Essay Challenge at Uncommon Descent. The challenge was for an ID critic to submit a 6000-word essay in defense of ‘Darwinism’, written to KF’s specifications. The essay would be posted at UD and a discussion would ensue.
The challenge generated no interest among the pro-evolution commenters here at TSZ, mainly because no one wanted to write an essay of KF’s specified length, on KF’s specified topic, in KF’s ridiculously specific format (and presumably double-spaced with a title page addressed to ‘Professor Kairosfocus’). We also had no interest in posting an essay at UD, a website that is notorious in the blogosphere for banning and censoring dissenters. Kairosfocus himself, in a ridiculous display of tinpot despotism, censored no less than 20 comments in the “Essay Challenge” thread itself!
(Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link)
The commenter in question, ‘critical rationalist’, was banned from UD and has taken refuge here at TSZ, where open discussion is encouraged, dissent is welcome, comments are not censored, and only one commenter has ever been banned (for posting a photo of female genitalia).
Given the inhospitable environment at Uncommon Descent (from which I, like most of the ID critics at TSZ, have also been banned), I had (and have) no desire to submit an essay for publication at UD. However, I did respond to the spirit of KF’s challenge by writing a blog post here at TSZ that explains why unguided evolution, as a theory, is literally trillions of times better than Intelligent Design at explaining the evidence for common descent.
In his challenge, kairosfocus wrote:
It would be helpful if in that essay you would outline why alternatives such as design, are inferior on the evidence we face.
I have done exactly that, and so my challenge to kairosfocus is this: I have presented an argument showing that ID is vastly inferior to unguided evolution as an explanation of the evidence for common descent. Can you defend ID, or will you continue to claim your bogus daily victories despite being unable to rise to the challenge presented in my post?
Since the time of the Dover trial in 2005, I’ve made a hobby of debating Intelligent Design proponents on the Web, chiefly at the pro-ID website Uncommon Descent. During that time I’ve seen ID proponents make certain mistakes again and again. This is the first of a series of posts in which (as time permits) I’ll point out these common mistakes and the misconceptions that lie behind them.
I encourage IDers to read these posts and, if they disagree, to comment here at TSZ. Unfortunately, dissenters at Uncommon Descent are typically banned or have their comments censored, all for the ‘crime’ of criticizing ID or defending evolution effectively. Most commenters at TSZ, including our blog host Elizabeth Liddle and I, have been banned from UD. Far better to have the discussion here at TSZ where free and open debate is encouraged and comments are not censored.
The first misconception I’ll tackle is a big one: it’s the idea that the evidence for common descent is not a serious threat to ID. As it turns out, ID is not just threatened by the evidence for common descent — it’s literally trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence. No exaggeration. If you’re skeptical, read on and I’ll explain.
Upright Biped,
Before fleeing the discussion in July, you spent months here at TSZ discussing your “Semiotic Theory of ID”. During that time we all struggled with your vague prose, and you were repeatedly asked to clarify your argument and explain its connection to ID. I even summarized your argument no less than three times (!) and asked you to either confirm that my summary was accurate or to amend it accordingly. You failed to do so, and you also repeatedly refused to answer relevant, straightforward questions from other commenters here.
At Uncommon Descent, Bill Dembski has announced the posting of a new article, Conservation of Information Made Simple, at Evolution News and Views. Comments are disabled at ENV, and free and open discussion is not permitted at UD. I’ve therefore created this thread to give critics of ID a place to discuss the article free of censorship.