ID is Dead (Again)

Posted on by

Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”

If that’s not enough to convince the reader that Elizabeth is no prophet, there’s aways other things we can point to.

UD is still chugging along, as is the Discovery Institute. Michael Denton has a new book coming out soon, as does Douglas Axe. BIO-Complexity continues to publish. More of the incredible design of the living world is being revealed daily.

ID Is Dead. But perhaps like the proverbial cat it has more than one life.

451 thoughts on “ID is Dead (Again)”

  1. Frankie: ID adds quite a bit, Alan. For one it adds that there is intent and purpose to our existence.

    No, it doesn’t add that. It merely assumes and asserts it. Ironically, it’s just begging the question.

    For another it adds that there is more to life than chemistry and physics.

    Again, nope. That’s just one of ID’s premises.

    I bet you can’t actually come up with one thing that ID has added to human understanding of anything.

  2. Frankie:
    Robin,

    LoL! They make the claim that evolutionism = atheism.

    Citation please.

    That puts it under the establishment clause

    Well, yes…for purposes of the exercising an atheist’s First Amendment rights. That’s specifically what the Seventh Circuit Court noted.

    But since atheism is not being taught in public schools as science and no action on the part of state or federal laws for science is an endorsement of atheism, there is no establishment issue.

  4. newton: Already did, you ignored it.

    LoL! Your “case” was based on a misunderstanding. Behe testified that ID does not require the supernatural.

  5. Robin: No, it doesn’t add that. It merely assumes and asserts it. Ironically, it’s just begging the question.

    Again, nope. That’s just one of ID’s premises.

    I bet you can’t actually come up with one thing that ID has added to human understanding of anything.

    LoL! You aren’t anyone to say, Robin. I bet you can’t come up with one thing that evolutionism has added to human understanding of anything

  6. Robin,

    In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

    …

    The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

    …

    Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

    ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

    Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.

    1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

    2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

    3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

    4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

    5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

  7. Frankie: ID adds quite a bit, Alan. For one it adds that there is intent and purpose to our existence. For another it adds that there is more to life than chemistry and physics.

    Without any knowledge of the designer beyond that it designs, how can you know its intent or purpose?

  8. Frankie,

    If the universe (nature) has insufficient probabilistic resources to bootstrap an endeavor then it’s cause must be supernatural.

  10. newton: Without any knowledge of the designer beyond that it designs, how can you know its intent or purpose?

    By the design and what it takes to do it.

  11. newton: Without any knowledge of the designer beyond that it designs, how can you know its intent or purpose?

    No foolishly consistent hobgoblins in that mind.

  12. Frankie: LoL! Your “case” was based on a misunderstanding. Behe testified that ID does not require the supernatural.

    Then please help me understand, what designed the first designer?

  13. Robin: Uhh…Joe…there’s this little thing called the Human Genome Project. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

    You’re statement above makes no sense.

    I know the HGP- it didn’t help in answering the question.

    Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)”

    ”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”- geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti

    and

    To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

    Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

    Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2

  16. Frankie: By the design and what it takes to do it.

    ID is not a mechanistic theory, you have no idea what it took to do it

  17. Frankie: LoL! You aren’t anyone to say, Robin. I bet you can’t come up with one thing that evolutionism has added to human understanding of anything

    You’re right…”evolutionism” is something you made up. It’s not something that is actually used.

    Actual evolutionary theory has contributed a great deal otoh. Antibiotic creation and use, research into maintaining and improving bee community resistance to ecological change, improvement in crop growth, sustainability, and nutrition value, to say nothing of more effective digestive absorption and crops that rely on less water.

    The list of contributions evolution has provided is monumental. ID…nothing.

  18. newton: ID is not a mechanistic theory, you have no idea what it took to do it

    That doesn’t follow. We can try to replicate it and that is how we would know what it takes.
    ID isn’t about the SPECIFIC mechanisms used for obvious reasons- that comes AFTER determining and studying the design

  19. Robin: You’re right…”evolutionism” is something you made up. It’s not something that is actually used.

    Actual evolutionary theory has contributed a great deal otoh. Antibiotic creation and use, research into maintaining and improving bee community resistance to ecological change, improvement in crop growth, sustainability, and nutrition value, to say nothing of more effective digestive absorption and crops that rely on less water.

    The list of contributions evolution has provided is monumental. ID…nothing.

    ID is not anti-evolution and your equivocation is duly noted. And please link to this alleged evolutionary theory. And only ignorance says evolutionism is something that I made up

  20. Robin,

    You can’t even tell us how to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes. Without that you can’t have a theory

  22. newton,

    Your opinion isn’t an argument. And you can’t tell us how to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes. You should focus on your position and science will take care of the rest

  23. Frankie:
    Robin,

    In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

    …

    The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

    …

    Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

    ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

    Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.

    1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

    2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

    3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

    4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

    5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

    Yeah…aaaannd…?

    All those are William Provine’s opinions on the subject. What of it?

  24. Robin,

    So when it comes to evolutionism they are only opinions. But when it comes top ID they are fact and part of ID.

    Pathetic

  26. Frankie: That doesn’t follow. We can try to replicate it and that is how we would know what it takes.
    ID isn’t about the SPECIFIC mechanisms used for obvious reasons- that comes AFTER determining and studying the design

    Since ID does not eliminate supernatural causes, how does one replicate those, how do you know what those take?

  27. Robin: No idea what you are replying to here.

    Your comment about humans being the intelligent designer. Please try to follow along

  28. newton: Since ID does not eliminate supernatural causes, how does one replicate those, how do you know what those take?

    By trying to do it. We know Stonehenge was done on purpose because of what it takes to build something like that.

  29. Frankie: I know the HGP- it didn’t help in answering the question.

    It does actually, as does the link I provided. I can’t help you understand why however.

  30. And you can’t tell us how to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes. You should focus on your position and science will take care of the rest

    wash, rinse, repeat

  31. Robin: ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind.

    I fail to see the relevance to a scientific theory that has no connection to religion and doesn’t require a creator god.

  32. Robin: It does actually, as does the link I provided. I can’t help you understand why however.

    You are bluffing, again. And thanks for ignoring the geneticists I quoted

  33. Robin: Uhh…Joe…there’s this little thing called the Human Genome Project. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

    You’re statement above makes no sense.

    What link?

  34. petrushka: I fail to see the relevance to a scientific theory that has no connection to religion and doesn’t require a creator god.

    If it promotes atheism it falls under the establishment clause

  35. Frankie: ID is not anti-evolution and your equivocation is duly noted.

    I didn’t say anything about ID being anti-evolution and I didn’t write anything that could even be construed as an equivocation. Did you even read my post?

    And please link to this alleged evolutionary theory.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=jrDD3cyA09kC&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

    And only ignorance says evolutionism is something that I made up

    Provide a reference to the usage and definition of “evolutionism” as used in science. Don’t have one? Wonder why…

  36. Frankie:
    Robin,

    So when it comes to evolutionism they are only opinions. But when itcomes top ID they are fact and part of ID.

    Pathetic

    Mischaracterize much Joe? I already provided links to actual work done with evolution and you’ve demonstrated that ID has done nothing. So who’s just tossing out nothing but opinions? Oh…riiiight…ID. Thanks for proving my point Joe.

  37. Frankie: Your comment about humans being the intelligent designer. Please try to follow along

    What…you’re incapable of replying with quote? Gee Joe…didn’t realize this was outside your capability…

    Be that as it may, unless you have some other designer besides humans, there’s no way to somehow assess any other type of work as a design by anything other than humans.

  38. Frankie:
    And you can’t tell us how to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes. You should focus on your position and science will take care of the rest

    Well…such an explanation has been provided. That you don’t like it isn’t exactly my problem.

  39. Frankie: You are bluffing, again. And thanks for ignoring the geneticists I quoted

    I’m not bluffing at all. I can’t help it if you don’t understand the points.

    ETA: Michael Denton is not a geneticist. And Sermonti stopped working in genetics back in the 80s, so his knowledge of current work in genetics is…lacking…to say the least.

  40. Frankie:
    newton,

    Your opinion isn’t an argument. And you can’t tell us how to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes. You should focus on your position and science will take care of the rest

    It is not opinion , it is the cosmological argument. You have two choices, either information comes from a undesigned contingent something which would falsify the need of a designer for information or information comes from a non contingent something.

    Now you could say that ID is limited only to earth but that has its own risks.

    First we need to detect whether ID requires God for obvious reasons ,then we can study mechanisms that God might employ. Isn’t how that works?

  42. Frankie: By trying to do it. We know Stonehenge was done on purpose because of what it takes to build something like that.

    Then unlike ID we eliminate the supernatural are you saying we can eliminate supernatural in design of living creatures?

  43. Joe is so cute:

    “Evolutionism”, modern usage:

    The Institute for Creation Research, in order to imply placement of evolution in the category of religions, including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief.[9]

    The BioLogos Foundation, an organization that promotes the idea of theistic evolution, uses the term “evolutionism” to describe “the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discourse.” It views this as a subset of scientism

    Bias much, Joe?

  45. Robin: Well…such an explanation has been provided. That you don’t like it isn’t exactly my problem.

    When and where? Please link to such an explanation. Or repost it

  46. Robin:
    Joe is so cute:

    Bias much, Joe?

    Desperate much, Robin? Evolutionism is merely what Dawkins calls blind watchmaker evolution.

  47. Robin,

    There wasn’t a theory in your link. Science requires QUANTIFUICATION and evolution doesn’t provide any way to measure its claims.

  49. Robin: I’m not bluffing at all. I can’t help it if you don’t understand the points.

    ETA: Michael Denton is not a geneticist. And Sermonti stopped working in genetics back in the 80s, so his knowledge of current work in genetics is…lacking…to say the least.

    Denton WORKED in genetics. And you don’t have anything that refutes what they said. Attacking the messengers is a sure sign of a loser

Leave a Reply