Home » Intelligent Design » San Diego Locals Bash ID

San Diego Locals Bash ID

Check out the following item: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20050608-9999-lz1c08intel.html. Have any of these respondents read any of the ID literature?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

21 Responses to San Diego Locals Bash ID

  1. I’m surprised to hear the marine chemist say that one day science will come up with a mature process that explains the origin of life. I mean maybe one day we will see how amino acids are miraculously organized with their all their left and right hand sequences. You can bash ID now but only time will tell where the theory will stand in the future. The big bang was dismissed as illogical and ‘theistic’ by many early scientists, however, later evidence confirmed it. ID will likely go through the same process.

  2. This article is nothing more than a propaganda hit-piece by an uninformed journalist. The plan, it appears, is to define ID before it is allowed to define itself. The article is another sign that Darwinian’s are scared that they are losing the battle for the public’s mind. On the one hand it is always upsetting to see. On the other hand it will only draw further attention to the scientific alternative to the fashionable mythology of today.

    The following sentence suggests that Scott is either crafty or he had some Darwinian help in crafting his article: “‘intelligent design’… argues that there are things in the world – namely, life – that defy scientific explanation”. While perhaps he doesn’t say it, the suggestion is of course that ID is unscientific, or not based on science, which comes from page one of the one page catechism published by the Church of Darwin/Sagan. But it would have been more appropriate if Scott had written, “ID argues that there are things in the world – namely, life – that defies *Darwinian* explanation”.

    The only thing that currently defies “scientific explanation” is the hostility of secularists to anything that suggests design in life. This is certainly out of the domain of science and left to religion to explain – which is does quite handily. The emperor has no clothes and the public is beginning to find that out.

  3. “Or, in the case of evolution, one could search for sudden discontinuities in the history of life, in which a new structure or function has arisen without any previous history and no relationship to structures or functions in other related organisms. (Such new structures have not been found, by the way.)”
    -Christopher Wills,
    professor of biology, UCSD
    —-
    “A very simple experiment performed decades ago showed that when a mixture of simple chemicals was placed in a closed chamber and energy was added, the building blocks of life (amino acids) spontaneously formed. The conditions of this experiment mimicked the state of the primordial planet billions of years ago.

    Thus, the building blocks of life can easily be made through natural processes, and have been available for hundreds of millions to billions of years.”
    -Dr. Mark Tuszynski,
    neurologist/neuroscientist, UCSD

    “Debating intelligent design would be like debating someone who still insists that the Earth is flat…”
    -Dr. Ajiy P. Varki,
    professor of medicine, UCSD

    “One should never debate such lunacy.”
    -J. David Archibald,
    professor of biology, SDSU

    —–

    I was going to comment, but then realized no comment is really needed.
    -Charlie

  4. Once scientist wrote: “A very simple experiment performed decades ago showed that when a mixture of simple chemicals was placed in a closed chamber and energy was added, the building blocks of life (amino acids) spontaneously formed. The conditions of this experiment mimicked the state of the primordial planet billions of years ago.”

    Did I miss something? Has Miller-Urei made a comeback?

  5. Last I checked the official position of DI is that ID shouldn’t be taught in high school science classes yet and all they’re recommending is that the criticisms and gaps in the Darwinian narrative be added to the curriculum.

    Unless Darwinists think the gaps and criticisms are fatal flaws they shouldn’t object to that. Yet they do. Hmmmmm… strange response for a crowd that holds that their theory is so well tested it’s really just like a fact now. As firmly established as gravity they say. Uh huh. Right. Just like gravity. If that’s the case any criticism should be of no concern. Gravity certainly isn’t hard to demonstrate. You can drop “On the Origin of Species” from a measured height and watch it hit the floor in a predictable amount of time. How is it, exactly, that macroevolution is that well confirmed? Give me a big bleeding break.

  6. Dr. Dembski,
    First I want to apologize for leaving this as a comment but I don’t know another way to reach you. I have some questions about Intelligent Design and the ideas of common descent vs. common design in particular. One of the things Darwinist harp on incessantly is common descent ‘proving’ the fact of evolution. But when I read their writings what they call common descent could, it seems, easily be attributed to common design. If something works why not use it over and over? In large part it would seem that the hysterical branch of Darwinism uses macroscopic features to infer common descent. But if macroevolution occurred it did so at the genetic level.
    Dr. Dembski, I’m no biologist and I’ll understand if you can’t reply to this or think it needs to be deleted but I would appreciate some insight. Also, you’ve probably covered all of this somewhere else and if so just point me in the right direction.
    To clarify my thoughts I came up with the following If/Then statements to describe what I understand about the two alternatives of descent vs. design.
    A) If macroscopic differences occur because of common descent then common features would necessarily occur because of common genes.
    For example we know that all dogs are descended from a common ancestor. We also know that all dogs have hair. Therefore we expect all dogs to share a common gene (with small successive modifications) that leads to hair. But do all mammals share that same gene for hair? Do all organisms with hair like structures share similar genes for said structures?
    B) If macroscopic differences occur because of common design then common features have no necessary relation to genes.
    For example both automobiles and general aviation airplanes use internal combustion engines. But the engine of your average car is not the same as that of your average small plane. An examination of a car reveals a water-cooled engine with a steel block while the small plane has an air-cooled engine with an aluminum block. This makes the engineering, assembly methods, etc. radically different. Yet both have the common feature of an internal combustion engine rotating a main shaft to provide power.
    Should ID predict no necessary correlation between genetic sequence and macroscopic features in terms of macroevolution?
    As an aside it would also seem to marginalize Dawkins claim that the eye has arisen numerous times. Or at least to provide a much more elegant solution.

  7. This has got to be one of the worst articles on ID I have ever read! Not to mention that these so-called “scientists” are far from the cutting edge of research. For starters, ID proponents do not “argue that there are things in the world–namely, life –that defy [scientific] explanation…” They simply point to the inadequacy of Darwinian explication for some biological systems. Big difference!

    I think what the author was really saying is that, if it is not “evolution,” then it isn’t “science.”

    –What this articles has really demonstrated is the lack of good education in San Diego. :(

  8. This might help illuminate Bill’s position some and what the debate is. It’s nicely hypertext linked for any terms that might be unfamiliar. Wiki’s somewhat hostile to ID so keep that in mind.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski

    Hey Bill, check it out. St. Charles with his head in a vice made your wikipedia page! That’s hilarious! I almost have tears in my eyes from laughing. Wikipedia hotlinked the jpg from here, by the way. It’s another chance for some mischief.

    Your critics are just jealous of that big brain of yours. It’s now official, by the way, that larger skull capacity in individuals does indeed correlate with higher IQ. It was an article on the Drudge Report today.

    http://www.vcu.edu/uns/Release.....61705.html

    VCU STUDY SHOWS BIG-BRAINED PEOPLE ARE SMARTER

    RICHMOND, Va. (June 17, 2005) – People with bigger brains are smarter than their smaller-brained counterparts, according to a study conducted by a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher published in the journal “Intelligence.”

    –more at link

  9. The quotes from the scientists in the articles were so misinformed I stopped reading them about halfway through the first time. I hardly know where to begin correcting such a flood of mistaken verbiage.

    If the author is at all interested in being fair and balanced he needs to ask some local scientists that are skeptical of Darwinism for their opinion. Since he didn’t say he tried to do that then he likely didn’t try.

    I found at least three San Diego scientists who signed “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”

    http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....php?id=302

    Edward Peltzer, PhD Oceanography, Scripps
    Terry Rickard, Ph.D. Engineering Physics, UCSD
    William J. Powers, Ph.D. Physics, UCSD

    ID finds support converging from all directions in science so it shouldn’t be just biologists whose opinions are noteworthy. Indeed, asking evolutionary biologists these questions is like asking the fox questions about the security of the henhouse.

    Is anyone interested in some email addresses for the author and respondents? If so I’ll see if I can google up some of them.

  10. I submitted some edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski removing some of the blatant prejudice and within 5 minutes all my edits were deleted. It’s the usual manure of the “scientific world” (that is, the Darwinists), against the “theologists”.

    I posted to the Talk page for this entry that it violated the NPOV (neutral point of view). That edit was deleted as well.

  11. StephenG

    Your comment is still in the Talk page, the management made some changes (removed St. Charles!!!!! :-( ) and would like to discuss further changes with you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....A._Dembski

    Comment
    The page on William A. Dembski is an obvious violation of the NPOV. Those overseeing this page are obvious secular Darwinians ready to slander Dr. Demski. [Comment by User:204.96.24.109, moved from top of page by Guettarda]

    An exaggeration, but I have to admit there were some biased elements in the page, especially the “Darwin in a vise” image. I’ve removed these. If you have any more issues, list them here and we’ll work it out. — ChrisO

  12. For some of wiki’s neutral point of view, check out the “source” they linked to this statement:

    “His (Dembksi’s)critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing [1]

    The link goes to ….
     (http://www.csicop.org/creationwatch/designers.html). ”

    His “critic” here is
    Jason Rosenhouse, the author of EvolutionBlog, “providing commentary on developments in the endless dispute between evolution and creationism.”

    Is it just me?

  13. Well well. Yes, there’s some progress. An editor says, “I have to admit there were some biased elements in the page”…

    I don’t know if anyone else can see the note they’ve posted for me but my response was as follows:

    ***

    While the “intelligent” comment was gratuitous to “encyclopedic style”, it was a reaction to the completely prejudiced content of the article. Most, if not all of the other changes were completely justified to provide some context to comments made in this entry. The article suggests that the entire world of science is against William Dembski. In fact it is a vocal minority of fundamentalist Darwinians who are protesting so loudly. The so called “encyclopedic style” of this article is a joke and if you really think it has a neutral point of view, you need to resign from editing this article.

    *****

    Ok, now I know some of your are thinking, “tell us what you really think…”. What I think is that I need to take a few days away from the Darwinists.

    On a positive note I just got in 10 copies each of The Privileged Planet and Unlocking the Mystery of Life. I’m going to send a copy of each to 10 friends.

  14. StephenG

    In case you’re interested this is who removed your initial wiki edits almost as soon as you made them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin

    Kum bai ya!

  15. If you look at the Talk page for the profile on Dr. Dembski now you will see at the bottom a running discourse from a few of the Wikipedia’s Darwinian priesthood.

    One editor was honest enough to admit that the page contains “biased elementS”. That admission is a keeper and should be archived. That editor made one change but it was not central to the problems on the page.

    An attempt to moderate the blatant prejudices shown on the profile is to these zealots an attempt to become a “public relations firm” for Dr. Dembski. On the other hand they don’t have any qualms about being a public relations firm for the minority activist view they represent.

    Well, I just got back from Office Depot. I’ve got some videos to package for mailing. There are more fruitful ways for me to fight ignorance and prejudice than to argue with bigots.

    I figure in 20 more years the scene will have radically changed. At that time, I wonder if the ignorance of the past will be quietly pushed aside or if it will be subject to the open mockery -some- of it deserves. Well, when the scene does change, the Darwinian priesthood won’t have any room to complain. We have over 120 years of their behavior as precedent.

  16. 17

    Question from a nano-math [as distinct from a polymath] for critics of the Darwinists. After reading Phil Johnson, Dembski, Wells, and Behe a few years ago, I found myself shouting at Dawkins and the others “show me the [very bad word] evidence.” I’m not a scientist, but I always figured that science, at a minimum, had to be based on observable evidence, not just speculation.

    My question, then, is whether you guys think there is a reason, based on evidence and sound reasoning, why my attitude toward the Darwinists should be better than contemptuous disgust?

    I know there are moral reasons for a better attitude [be nice to people, even those you disagree with], and maybe tactical reasons. But I just wonder whether there are legitimate scientific reasons for a better attitude. Frankly, to me the notion [which hardly rises to the level of a theory] is preposterous that RM + NS led to Dave Scot’s list of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. Have I gone too far in my contemptuous disgust?

  17. I was surprised to see the wiki editor harping that Dembski was not peer-reviewed, and therefore not a credible scientist. So I edited his biography as follows:

    Original:
    “”"”"”"
    In 1998, Dembski published his first book, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, which became a Cambridge University Press bestselling philosophical monograph.
    “”"”"”
    I made the following small changes:
    “”"”"”"”

    In [[1998]], Dembski published his first book, the peer-reviewed ”The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities”, which became a [[Cambridge University Press]] bestselling philosophical monograph. It was included in the series: Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory.
    “”"”"

    Surprise!
    The edits are gone this morning.

  18. I’m having an edit war on that wiki page. An admin changes and I change it back. It’s a war of attrition. He’ll have to escalate by somehow locking the article or banning me from editing it. I have no idea how these things are eventually resolved but I’m going to find out! I’ve made the same edits a half dozen times now and had them immediately removed each time.

    I’m correcting the lie that ID as held out by Dembski is in opposition to evolution through natural selection. ID is an adjunct mechanism to evolution by natural selection. Few IDers hold that random mutation + natural selection plays no role at all in evolution. Clearly it does. I challenged the admin to find anything in Dembski’s work where he states that natural selection plays no role in evolution.

  19. Check out Behe’s Wiki entry. It explicitely says

    He does not believe that natural selection never occurs – merely that in some cases Darwinian evolution can not explain all mechanisms at a molecular level.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

    Yet when I try to get that clarified for Dembski’s entry it gets bounced in minutes. Not even quoting Dembski in two places saying natural selection plays a role in evolution is convincing anyone. This is frustrating.

  20. Charlie and Dave,

    Glad to have some help!

    I doubt Dr. Dembski would do this, but it would be a hoot if he’d go to that page, and on the “Talk page” edit that page to list the inaccuracies of the profile — and give his name. I suspect so of these keyboard-cowboys are cowards when confronted. If Dr. Dembski could post his list here we could hold the Wikipedia editors feet to the fire.

    Alternatively, Dave and Charlie, if Dr. Dembski could create a new blog article that allows us to post our own edits we could build our own list of things that need to change and try to get them made.

Leave a Reply