What mixture of “design” and “evolution” is possible as the IDM collapses?

This offers the simplest “neutral” colloquial mixture of “design” and “evolution” that I’ve seen in a long time. The site is no longer maintained, but the language persists.

“As a designer it is important to understand where design came from, how it developed, and who shaped its evolution. The more exposure you have to past, current and future design trends, styles and designers, the larger your problem-solving toolkit. The larger your toolkit, the more effective of a designer you can be.” http://www.designishistory.com/this-site/

Here, the term “evolution” as used just meant “history”. The author was not indicating “design theory evolution”, but rather instead the “history of designs” themselves, which have been already instantiated.

The topic “design is history” nevertheless enables an obvious point of contact between “evolution” and “design”. They both have histories that can be studied. Present in the above meaning of “design” are the origin, processes and agent(s) involved in the “designing”. This differs significantly from the Discovery Institute’s version of “design theory”, when it comes to history, aim, structure and agency, since the DI’s version flat out avoids discussion of design processes and agent(s). The primary purpose of the DI’s “design theory”, meanwhile, is USAmerican religious apologetics and “theistic science”.

The quotation above likely didn’t come from an IDist, and it isn’t referencing “Intelligent Design” theory as a supposed “scientific theory”. The “designer” in the quotation above is a (more or less intelligent) human designer, not a Divine Designer. This fact distinguishes it “in principle” from the Discovery Institute’s ID theory, which is supposed to be (depends on who you’re speaking with in the IDM) about first biology, then informatics, and statistics. The DI’s ID theory is not actually focused on “designing by real designers”, but rather on apologetics using “design” and informational probabilism.

The Discovery Institute’s failure to distinguish or even highlight the differences and similarities between human design and Divine Design, and instead their engagement in active distortion, equivocation, double-talking, and obfuscation between them, are marks of its eventual downward trend to collapse.

1,506 thoughts on “What mixture of “design” and “evolution” is possible as the IDM collapses?

  1. colewd: Do those papers eliminate design as a possible explanation? If so can you show how they do this?

    That should be the case if, in fact, ID was succeeding in it’s task to keep evolutionary science “honest”, right? Welp, turns out there’s no mention to Magic in any of those papers, so we can chalk another one up in the long list of ID failures 😜

  2. dazz,

    That should be the case if, in fact, ID was succeeding in it’s task to keep evolutionary science “honest”, right? Welp, turns out there’s no mention to Magic in any of those papers, so we can chalk another one up in the long list of ID failures

    ID fails and science is telling fairy tales. I hope Gregory has a plan to fix this 🙂

  3. colewd:

    newton: Maybe causing people to die in pain is a good thing designerwise. Who can know what an designer does if one cannot say anything about him , certainly an certain flavor designer might.

    Do you really think this is representative of reality?

    It certainly requires less moral gymnastics. All one has to do is remove human needs from the goal of the design. If you are trying to detect design with unencumbered designer, only considering those Designers whose goal is human good seems to be unnecessarily limiting the field.

    We know the reality that human designers are not limited only to the nice ones. And if analogy is the primary tool , it seems unjustified to limit unknown designers to the nice ones.

    For instance:
    “A 5-year-old boy died Sunday afternoon after being struck by lightning on North Carolina’s Outer Banks, said Chief Ralph Melton of Currituck County Fire and EMS.“

    Design or not?

  4. colewd: Do those papers eliminate design as a possible explanation?

    It’s impossible to eliminate “Design” just like it’s impossible to eliminate MAGIC! and the FSM. That’s why you IDiots need to supply your own positive evidence.

    Why did I know your willfully ignorant dumbass wouldn’t even bother to read the paper with the summary of evidence for the evolution of vision you claimed didn’t exist? 😀

  5. Adapa: It’s impossible to eliminate “Design” just like it’s impossible to eliminate MAGIC! and the FSM. That’s why you IDiots need to supply your own positive evidence.

    It’s impossible to eliminate the possibility that invisible pink unicorns did it and oddly I don’t see colwed making the case for that needing to be ruled out.

    colewd, it’s impossible to eliminate design as a potential source of anything at all. We all understand this. But it seems you think that’s something that will happen at some point that evolution will either rule ID in or out. It never will.

    That’s why you need to make your own case. If the bible and jesus and atoms are it, fine, just stop pretending that Behe is doing science when all you can do is link to his fucking youtube videos.

  6. colewd: I described the reason for the cellphone not how it came into existence. What is the reason for biological creatures?

    I already told you willfully ignorant dumbass. They exist because they evolved through unguided natural processes.

    Reason still does not equal purpose no matter how much you squirm and lie.

  7. CharlieM: The sun does not act on us from a distance, we are within the sun.

    I suspected as much living in Texas for many years. Wonder why Newton thought the force of gravity was inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the two objects . Obviously that is equal to zero. At least metaphorically speaking.

  8. Adapa,

    It’s impossible to eliminate “Design” just like it’s impossible to eliminate MAGIC! and the FSM. That’s why you IDiots need to supply your own positive evidence.

    Why did I know your willfully ignorant dumbass wouldn’t even bother to read the paper with the summary of evidence for the evolution of vision you claimed didn’t exist?

    If you find a mechanism that can explain the adaption you then eliminate design as the primary cause.

    The problem to solve with complex adaptions is generating the information necessary to build them. All these papers do not address this.

    Without a mechanism you don’t have a theory of the origin of complex adaptions.

    This is the exact same status as origin of matter and origin of life. The extraordinary amount of functional information required to build the adaptions suggests that a mind was directly involved in their origin.

  9. colewd: If you find a mechanism that can explain the adaption you then eliminate design as the primary cause.

    But Intelligent Design has never been assigned as a primary cause of biology so why does it need to be eliminated?

    colewd: The problem to solve with complex adaptions is generating the information necessary to build them. All these papers do not address this.

    Whereas you “address” it by saying a mind did it, a mind like ours, all the while ignoring the fact we don’t live for billions of years or can make universes.

    colewd: Without a mechanism you don’t have a theory of the origin of complex adaptions.

    There is a mechanism. Evolution. Stop denying reality.

    colewd: This is the exact same status as origin of matter and origin of life. The extraordinary amount of functional information required to build the adaptions suggests that a mind was directly involved in their origin.

    As discussed, you have no idea about the amount of functional information required at the origin of life.

    It might “suggest” it, but perhaps you should demonstrate first that “minds” were around at the OOL then secondly how they did what they did? Then, maybe just maybe, someone will give a shit about your ideas outside of this zoo.

  10. colewd: The extraordinary amount of functional information required to build the adaptions suggests that a mind was directly involved in their origin.

    Why do almost all theistic biologists disagree with you?

  11. colewd,
    Curiously, Bill, you have a tendency not to capitalize divine names. The Discovery Institute requires duplicity of non-capitalization for their ideological ruse, the one you’ve “invested” (a lot of time) into. Do you assent to their strategy or is yours “independent” from theirs, such that you’re allowed to capitalize divine names?

  12. newton:

    CharlieM: The sun does not act on us from a distance, we are within the sun.

    I suspected as much living in Texas for many years. Wonder why Newton thought the force of gravity was inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the two objects . Obviously that is equal to zero. At least metaphorically speaking.

    So the force of gravity reduces as the distance from the centre increases. The force will be less than sea level on the top of Everest and even less at an altitude of fifty thousand feet,even less in the space station. But it will always be present. So what are you trying to prove by bringing up the inverse square law?

  13. OMagain,

    There is a mechanism. Evolution. Stop denying reality.

    Can you describe how this mechanism generates functional information?

    The paper that Adapa posted forgot this minor detail :-). The “just so” story of the evolution of the eye has not changed much since Darwin. A few proteins names were added so I guess thats improved it a tad.

    The irony is OOL research is way ahead of eye evolution. At least they are performing some experiments.

  14. Gregory,

    Curiously, Bill, you have a tendency not to capitalize divine names. The Discovery Institute requires duplicity of non-capitalization for their ideological ruse, the one you’ve “invested” (a lot of time) into. Do you assent to their strategy or is yours “independent” from theirs, such that you’re allowed to capitalize divine names?

    If I don’t capitalize it is simply a typo.

  15. dazz: I guess we are all guilty of not letting go even though we all know nobody’s convincing anyone.

    🙂

  16. colewd,

    If only you knew, Bill. IDists are generally not trustworthy. The unarguably intentional duplicitousness they display constantly is a scar on their “dialogue partner integrity”, though asked multiple times by considerable “figures” even in their own communities, to openly acknowledge that for them, the capitalized Intelligent Designer just means God. And the acronym “ID” just means “God did it.” So what everyone else hears, except Bill, presumably because he thinks he can hide it and himself combined behind his pinky finger in front of his face, is not what Bill thinks he is saying. He thinks he is saying, “there’s a scientific inference to an Intelligent Designer that can be tested empirically, or at least argued for probabilistically, using Dembski’s genius-imbecile ‘filter’.”

    You know that’s what you’re arguing, right? You know you are trying to convince people that God can be scientifically inferred, right? That’s the name of the DI’s game – theistic scientism. And you’re playing it just the way they scripted it. Congrats, Bill!

    Sadly, it’s investing in a loser from the start to side with the DI, “ID theory” and professional apologist-IDists, And the DI leadership knows this when you speak to them up close and personal. This of course doesn’t mean one cannot believe in God and at the same time reject the ideology that “ID theory” has turned into in the mouths of IDists. Instead, it means one SHOULD disbelieve in IDism, while searching for the Creator in a more holistic and balanced way using not activistic pseudo-science, but rather engaging in credible science, philosophy, theological discourse.

    Bill Cole doesn’t engage in credible discussions yet; he’s still immaturely stuck in IDism. He can be helped to faithfully outgrow IDism, if he seeks a better way forward.

  17. Gregory: So you agree that the basic principle of conflating human design & Divine Design is not welcome, but that the DI does it continually?

    Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. So you do believe in Divine Design? Perhaps we could band together and start the Divine Design Movement. 😉

  18. OMagain,

    Why do almost all theistic biologists disagree with you?

    I haven’t heard any of them solve the FI problem. They know there is no solution to this. Joshua Swamidass recently acknowledged this in the debate with Behe and there has been no push back.

    The only know generators of quantities of FI required for complex adaptions are humans. This is the same problem OOL is facing.

  19. colewd:
    So you’re saying the same thing as Dawkins.

    I doubt it.

    colewd:
    You are not able to get beyond your own perspective in trying to make sense of reality.

    Nobody can get beyond their own perspective. We do try and take advantage of what others have done before/besides us, but, in the end, it’s still up to us to follow through. This is why it’s important to pay attention.

    colewd:
    Creators seem imaginary yet you are observing a universe with observers in it.

    Yet? What that word doing here? Creators of universes seem imaginary and I’m observing a universe with observers in it. The two statements are independent.

    colewd:
    You are not think through this and using inductive reasoning based on what you are observing.

    I have thought quite a bit. So what do you think is missing? Remember I was where you are. Only I was able to escape the absurdity.

    colewd:
    Inductive reasoning is about data and analysis not just “it doesn’t feel right”.

    Agreed. the data and analyses indicate that the creators are imaginary. Not only that, they’re absurd.

    colewd:
    Entropy if you are just atoms and molecules that came together by trial and error and the laws of nature your reasoning is faulty also by definition.

    Whether by definition or not, our reasoning is demonstrably faulty. This is why we have produced rules to keep us going in as good a direction as possible. This is also why we have to be careful with the statements we’re evaluating, against what we’re evaluating them, and, very importantly, try and be aware of hidden assumptions. For example, you had a hidden assumption above: that “yet” word indicates that you think there’s a contradiction between creators being imaginary and having a universe with observers in it. That means you have some weird assumption about that being contradictory. I have no reason to buy into such an absurd assumption.

  20. colewd: I think there is a place for Behe’s arguments.

    Behe’s recent efforts are directed towards showing what unguided evolution can (or can’t) do. The limits, as it were, of unguided evolution.

    But if evolution is guided, doesn’t this same evidence (e.g., Lenski’s LTEE) likewise demonstrate the limits of what guided evolution can do? If not why not?

  21. colewd: Can you describe how this mechanism generates functional information?

    Can you describe how your deity generates functional information?

    colewd: The paper that Adapa posted forgot this minor detail :-).

    Why is that a problem for you? You cannot answer the very same question so it’s presumably not a problem if other people can’t? Or is it not a problem for you to be unable to explain anything whereas it somehow supports your case if they cannot?

    colewd: The “just so” story of the evolution of the eye has not changed much since Darwin.

    Indeed. For example, here’s one such ‘just so’ story: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23578808/

    Whereas of course your version of the origin of the eye is ‘a mind did it’.

    If you compare what I have just linked to to ‘a mind did it’ which one is the just so story?

    colewd: A few proteins names were added so I guess thats improved it a tad.

    Those protein names are 100% more information they you have ever supplied about anything relating to ID. Specific details are lacking in ID.

    colewd: The irony is OOL research is way ahead of eye evolution. At least they are performing some experiments.

    And logically OOL research is way ahead of Intelligent Design in that case as no experiments ever have been performed that relate to Intelligent Design.

    colewd: I haven’t heard any of them solve the FI problem. They know there is no solution to this. Joshua Swamidass recently acknowledged this in the debate with Behe and there has been no push back.

    The only know generators of quantities of FI required for complex adaptions are humans. This is the same problem OOL is facing.

    And yet, despite all that, none of them are on your side. You did not address the question asked at all.

    If the only known generators of FI are humans then you are making the case that humans caused the origin of life and made the universe.

    And I think you have slipped up here. If the only known source is humans then what FI existed prior to humans must been none at all. Did you forget about your god? Is that not a source of FI?

  22. Gregory,

    If only you knew, Bill. IDists are generally not trustworthy. The unarguably intentional duplicitousness they display constantly is a scar on their “dialogue partner integrity”, though asked multiple times by considerable “figures” even in their own communities, to openly acknowledge that for them, the capitalized Intelligent Designer just means God. And the acronym “ID” just means “God did it.” So what everyone else hears, except Bill, presumably because he thinks he can hide it and himself combined behind his pinky finger in front of his face, is not what Bill thinks he is saying. He thinks he is saying, “there’s a scientific inference to an Intelligent Designer that can be tested empirically, or at least argued for probabilistically, using Dembski’s genius-imbecile ‘filter’.”

    You know that’s what you’re arguing, right? You know you are trying to convince people that God can be scientifically inferred, right? That’s the name of the DI’s game – theistic scientism. And you’re playing it just the way they scripted it. Congrats, Bill!

    What I know now is that you are changing Behe’s argument. If you cannot argue you’re position without invoking a logical fallacy why even play. Your conflating argument with motive.

    Science can discover remnants of Devine design. DNA is an example. Living cells are an example. Matter is an example. Why in the world are you fighting this other than you want to create a competing organization?

    Whats your alternative approach?

  23. Mung: Behe’s recent efforts are directed towards showing what unguided evolution can (or can’t) do. The limits, as it were, of unguided evolution.

    Funny how they never try to develop ID, and just try to show evolution did not do it.

    People like Behe know there is literally nothing that can be done to develop ID so they don’t try but people like colewd have been totally fooled into thinking that science is starting to support their deity’s existence.

    Mung: But if evolution is guided, doesn’t this same evidence (e.g., Lenski’s LTEE) likewise demonstrate the limits of what guided evolution can do? If not why not?

    If it’s guided? Is there some doubt then? Are you not sure?

  24. colewd: What I know now is that you are changing Behe’s argument. If you cannot argue you’re position without invoking a logical fallacy why even play. Your conflating argument with motive.

    What is Behe’s argument? Do you have a scientific version of it? If not, then how can you say someone is changing something that has no solid foundation? Right now it’s your claim, but if you just quote Behe making his argument and quote someone mangling it, that’s evidence.

    colewd: Science can discover remnants of Devine design. DNA is an example. Living cells are an example. Matter is an example.

    Blended children and cancer are also examples.

    But do tell me, science has written much about DNA, cells and matter. Could you tell me what scientific paper ascibes these to devine design?

    You are saying that science has put the claim that living cells were designed by a deity on a scientific footing.

    Citation please!

    colewd: Whats your alternative approach?

    To fairy-tales? Growing up, typically.

  25. colewd to Adapa,
    If you find a mechanism that can explain the adaption you then eliminate design as the primary cause.

    There’s no need to eliminate such a thing. design can only make it into potential causes if there’s evidence for it. So far it looks philosophically and scientifically backwards, therefore not-even-entertainable.

    colewd to Adapa,
    The problem to solve with complex adaptions is generating the information necessary to build them. All these papers do not address this.

    Depends on the papers. Articles referring to selection and drift deal directly with generating information. But the most straightforward about it examine the energy flows on the planet, which account for all of the work necessary for life’s reproduction and much more. The energy flow is more than enough to generate that and much more information.

    colewd to Adapa,
    Without a mechanism you don’t have a theory of the origin of complex adaptions.

    The mechanism has been mentioned and explained ad nauseam: the historical accumulation of successful variants.

    colewd to Adapa,
    This is the exact same status as origin of matter and origin of life.

    Sure. They’re also straightforward: the origin of matter is the condensation of energy after some cooling down of the universe; the origin of life the result of energy flows: enthalpy and entropy.

    colewd to Adapa,
    The extraordinary amount of functional information required to build the adaptions suggests that a mind was directly involved in their origin.

    Nope. It just suggests that quite a bit of energy flow must be happening for it to be possible. Guess what’s been found? More than enough energy flows through the planet to make that possible. Remember, even designers, and their minds, need that energy flow and enthalpy to be able to produce any designs and to be able to just exist.

  26. OMagain,

    And I think you have slipped up here. If the only known source is humans then what FI existed prior to humans must been none at all. Did you forget about your god? Is that not a source of FI?

    If living organisms are 3.5 billion year old so is FI. You go ahead and solve the puzzle. When you are done I have a book for you 🙂

  27. colewd: If living organisms are 3.5 billion year old so is FI. You go ahead and solve the puzzle. When you are done I have a book for you

    I wipe my arse on your book.

  28. colewd: If living organisms are 3.5 billion year old so is FI.

    colewd: The only know generators of quantities of FI required for complex adaptions are humans. This is the same problem OOL is facing.

    oh so humans were round 3.5 billion years ago were they? Your position is incoherent.

  29. Entropy,

    Depends on the papers. Articles referring to selection and drift deal directly with generating information. But the most straightforward about it examine the energy flows on the planet, which account for all of the work necessary for life’s reproduction and much more. The energy flow is more than enough to generate that and much more information.

    Your choice to solve the FI.paradox. Build a working model and there is 10m waiting for you. Have you come up with an origin of energy model yet 🙂

  30. colewd: When you are done I have a book for you

    If this book is so great why is the Church full of child molestors? You’d have thought they have read this book and realized what they were doing is wrong?

  31. OMagain,

    oh so humans were round 3.5 billion years ago were they? Your position is incoherent.

    The evidence is they were not. Tough puzzle.

  32. colewd: If you find a mechanism that can explain the adaption you then eliminate design as the primary cause.

    Or perhaps the mechanism itself is designed, in which case you can’t eliminate design as the primary cause. Perhaps you meant to say it would eliminate Creationism as the primary cause.

    I don’t understand why you think mechanism is an alternative to design. If there’s a mechanistic explanation how does that take design off the table?

  33. OMagain,

    If this book is so great why is the Church full of child molestors? You’d have thought they have read this book and realized what they were doing is wrong?

    You need to read the book for comprehension to figure this out. I look forward to your analysis. I have other tools that can help.

  34. colewd: Your choice to solve the FI.paradox. Build a working model and there is 10m waiting for you. Have you come up with an origin of energy model yet

    Funny how you have done none of those things either. Nor have you ever shown that your designer exists at all never mind that it was the source of any information at all.

    The fact is colwed, the science of ID does not progress. So ID will never solve this ‘paradox’ you claim exists.

    You call it a paradox but it’s really just your just-so story of a deity existing at all. There is no paradox other then your claim that only humans can create FI therefore humans must have created it before humans existed.

    You don’t get to avoid logical inconsistencies by calling it a paradox and thinking that somehow it does not devastate your position.

  35. colewd: You need to read the book for comprehension to figure this out. I look forward to your analysis. I have other tools that can help.

    Why don’t you just tell me? I know you like making excuses for slavery in the bible and I imagine this would also be similar.

  36. Mung: Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. So you do believe in Divine Design?

    I believe in Divine Creation. This notion of “Design” is now so stained by the IDM that credible theologians avoid it. It seems like the proper time to side with them, not with the scandal-prone IDM, which is causing anger, hatred, envy, rivalry, jealously, and enmity between scientists of faith, not just between “atheists vs. theists”, as Mung frames everything.

    Mung has never addressed the many religious theists, including theologians, as well as ordained clergy, reject ID theory, for a variety of reasons. He and the IDM, who apparently he hasn’t given up supporting yet, go soft on credibility when they enter discussions with theists who don’t need the “weaponized apologetics” that ID theory has become in the hands & hearts of some people.

    “Perhaps we could band together and start the Divine Design Movement.”

    We don’t need to. It already exists in another Name. It’s mainly non-mainline evangelical Protestants that are trying to drag the rest of us Abrahamic monotheists with them into their scientistic idolatry. We are uninterested and I am merely one among quite a significant # of voices now, among Abrahamic monotheists, who will not let the DI & IDM get away with their duplicitous tricks, like Mung allows them readily to do. Mung is aligning himself on the margins with the rabble, it seems, as a gullible IDist by swallowing their language hook, line & sinker.

    SAD – I thought we had gotten you over that hump, Mung! : ((

  37. colewd: I have other tools that can help.

    You have nothing, and you know it. All you have is the same that all believers have, and no way to reconcile it.

    Tell me, when ID has triumphed and shown that evolution never did it how will you and the other believers determine what specific god it was that did it? You all have holy books full of fulfilled predictions, no one better than any other.

    How will you decide if the right designer did it when it’s your turn at the sharp end? Or you believe that other religions zealots believe with less power then you do because you are with the right one and so will automatically win?

  38. Mung: Evolution is not a mechanism.

    When talking to children I keep it simple.

    And anyway, if evolution is not a mechanism then neither is design. Go tell it to your buddy JoeG.

  39. Do you think ‘mind’ is a mechanism them Mung? Do let colewd know your thoughts on that too.

  40. Mung,

    I don’t understand why you think mechanism is an alternative to design. If there’s a mechanistic explanation how does that take design off the table?

    I agree with your point. I am saying you eliminate DESIGN as the direct cause if you can find a real FI generator in nature.

    If the theistic model is right then ultimately everything is designed. Science is simply creating models of that design. In the case of gravity we can build a model of how matter can curve space. This then eliminates design as a DIRECT cause of bending space as the cause can be identified from the laws of physics. If then you ask where does matter come from now you may need design to explain this.

  41. colewd:
    Your choice to solve the FI.paradox.

    There’s no paradox except in the imagination of IDiots. Sorry.

    colewd:
    Build a working model and there is 10m waiting for you.

    If I presented a model it would be plagiarism. I also bet that depends on whether the IDiots who are offering that prize can be convinced, but I doubt they’d even try and understand. So, not wasting my time.

    colewd:
    Have you come up with an origin of energy model yet 🙂

    Have you notice there’s a star closeby called the Sun?

  42. Mung: You seemed to put far too much stock in the use of scare quotes.

    Do you really think that I cannot find instance after instance of scientists in the realm of biology speaking of design and design principles? Design that does not have it’s origin in humans. Perhaps you should adopt a different line of argumentation.

    Scare quotes help to clarify written communication. If you don’t like clarity or scare quotes, simply ignore them.

    You can find “scientists in the realm of biology speaking of design and design principles”, but that doesn’t make it growing, thriving, standard, or consistent in biology. “Intelligent Design” theory, an attempt at theistic science, has failed utterly in biology. The other uses of “design” as insignificant terms in a paper, don’t qualify as a “movement” of “design thinking” in biology. Design thinking is a staple of business schools, organizational theory, entrepreneurship; it doesn’t belong in biology.

    Now Mung, you’re pretending to know about biology. You’re pretending people should listen to you about “design in biology”, right? Yet the truth of the matter is that you’re really not trained in biology, but are rather a computer programmer, right? So you’re making an argument about something you know quite little about, and doing it on the basis of “teachings” by a proven duplicitous ideologically propagandist organization in Seattle, Washington, USA.

    Asserting “principles” that make a few biologists apply the term “design” to them, does not mean there’s a biological theory of design. It seems you are now pretending otherwise, are you not?

    When I and many others not only “seek design” as if “theistic science detectives” trying to find what Phillip Johnson said he was looking for “fingerprints of God” using natural scientific methods to do so, but as religious believers, then what we are really speaking about is Creation. And we are not advocating Creation Science, like the young earth creationists, are we Mung? Yet funny that, Johnson wasn’t a natural scientist either, and he was advocating the same category error as a forcing of theistic science into natural science as Mung and Bill are advocating. Nobody need waste time on this drivel that sets itself up as scientific apologetics.

    There simply isn’t time needed to waste exposing this because it has already been exposed. A businessman and a computer programmer are trying to convince atheists to become Christians by insisting until hell freezes over that that “God did it theory” properly belongs in biology? ROTFL! Have fun with that, guys.

  43. OMagain: If it’s guided? Is there some doubt then? Are you not sure?

    That evolution is unguided is an assumption, not a proven fact. Would you agree?

    I’m merely making the opposite assumption to see where it leads given the same data. I’ve no idea why you find that objectionable. I think it raises an interesting question and I’d like to know what Bill thinks.

    I don’t accept the un-demonstrated and in my opinion un-demonstrable assumption that evolution is unguided. I leave that to the atheists.

  44. Entropy,

    I bet that depends on whether the IDiots offering that money can be convinced, but I doubt they’d even try and understand. So, not wasting my time.

    The judges are well decorated scientists. We should have the Sun generation FI in no time.

  45. OMagain: Blended children and cancer are also examples.

    For the record, I am opposed to putting children in blenders.

  46. Mung: For the record, I am opposed to putting children in blenders.

    Someone should send a warrant to the Seattle police: the Discovery Institute has taken Mung and put him in an ideological blender called IDism.

  47. colewd:
    The judges are well decorated scientists.

    Then they would be no knowledgeable scientists, since they don’t know something that well established already. Given that willful ignorance, I still doubt they’d care to listen.

    colewd:
    We should have the Sun generation FI in no time.

    It’s doing it every day Bill. Have you looked around? All the time functional information sprouts all around you thanks to that star.

  48. Mung,

    I don’t accept the un-demonstrated and in my opinion un-demonstrable assumption that evolution is unguided. I leave that to the atheists.

    I agree. The mathematical problem here is a biggie, however Entropy thinks he can solve it with the Sun.

    Can the Sun melt the FI paradox?

Leave a Reply