Home » Intelligent Design » The Naked Truth

The Naked Truth

I like to reduce stuff to the essentials. I thus propose that the essentials of Darwinian orthodoxy are the following:

Shine light on dirt and it can turn into complex information-processing technology, given enough time.

Next, introduce random errors into the dirt-to-complex-information-processing technology, and, given enough time, such errors can ultimately turn dirt into Darwin.

Really folks, this is the claim of materialist Darwinists, reduced to its fundamental hypothetical claims. It is a quintessential example of naked-emperor syndrome.

When presented honestly, as I have done, no reasonable person would accept such transparent nonsense. Yet, many people do. I know why.

The alternative of design and purpose would destroy their entire materialistic worldview, which is unacceptable. Reason and evidence are of no interest to such people.

It is they who are the enemies of science, properly understood.

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

16 Responses to The Naked Truth

  1. Gil:

    I always love your posts! :)

    Yes, you really like to reduce stuff to the essentials. That’s what we need to detect truth.

  2. Materialists are very easily impressed with the millions of years available for evolution. They are awed by all those zeroes, and one can hear the reverential inflection in their voice when they say, “Yes, it doesn’t seem likely, but remember we are talking about millions of years.”

    Unfortunately all those zeroes are but a rounding error against the awful probabilities that beset the materialist creation myth.

  3. 3
    sagebrush gardener

    I think it would help if prospective biologists would spend more time studying compiler design principles and less time studying fruit fly sex. Maybe that would help them understand that complex information processing systems don’t just happen by chance.

  4. Wow, that evolution stuff is almost as ridiculous as thinking that clouds of hydrogen gas can, given enough time, turn into solar systems and planets and waterfalls and the arches in Arches National Park. What absurdities!

  5. NickMatzke_UD:

    No. It’s absolutely and infinitely more ridiculous. Let’s keep absurdity where it belongs.

  6. As it stands, this post is the kind of parody that can mislead, like “Politics is just a lot of grown men shouting at each other”. Or even “Give a command to water, and it can turn into an inhabited universe with a ‘Poof!’”

    The validation is in the detail. What are the grown men shouting about, and what do they achieve by it? Who is giving the command, and what is his nature?

    What do we know of the capabilities of chemistry and light that could produce the organised result described? What mechanisms surround those random errors and have they been demonstrated sufficient to produce Mr Darwin? At that point, though no doubt opinion is divided, Gil’s post begins to look more like a simplification, and less like a parody.

  7. Jon Garvey:

    “What do we know of the capabilities of chemistry and light that could produce the organised result described?”

    Answer: We know quite well that they cannot.

    What mechanisms surround those random errors and have they been demonstrated sufficient to produce Mr Darwin?

    Answer: No special mechanisms, except the myth of natural selection, which is obviously not sufficient to produce, not only Mr. Darwin, but even the simplest bacteria.

    So, Gil’s post is neither parody nor simplification. It is, as the title goes, the naked truth.

  8. “Wow, that evolution stuff is almost as ridiculous as thinking that clouds of hydrogen gas can, given enough time, turn into solar systems and planets and waterfalls and the arches in Arches National Park.”

    Your sarcasm makes sense… if you don’t think about it.

    They can if:

    1) they are guided

    or

    2) they are front-loaded with the necessary initial conditions and laws of physics

    Neither of those options rescues your materialist metaphysics.

  9. Nick Matzke:

    Wow, that evolution stuff is almost as ridiculous as thinking that clouds of hydrogen gas can, given enough time, turn into solar systems and planets and waterfalls and the arches in Arches National Park.

    Umm time alone cannot do that, Nick. And time alone cannot make hydrogen.

  10. 10

    Hey Nick Matzke, I’ll tell you what is ridiculous: Going around for decades proclaiming that 97% of human DNA is functionless junk. Now that the ENCODE project has exploded that view for the unsupportable nonsense that it always was, are you and your Darwinist buddies going to say, “hey, those ID guys were right all along and we were wrong.” I will not be holding my breath.

    As EA says, “Gentlemen, start your spin engines!”

  11. Nick,

    Take some time off from the culture war to educate yourself on the sizable distinctions between physical laws, initial conditions, and contraints. Pay particular attention to the sources of constraints, like those imposed on physical systems by rate-independent physical structures (i.e. information).

  12. Nick, when you get a minute, why don’t you tell us what kind of functional, digital coding and translation system you’ve discovered within planets and waterfalls and rock arches. Then maybe we can start comparing apples and apples.

    Of course you know your comment is bunk and isn’t meant to be taken seriously. I know you just like to jump in quickly to pull people’s chains and then run off snickering while the rest of the UD commenters scurry around trying to come to grips with the utter absurdity of your comment. The intellectual equivalent of the neighborhood teenage game of ding-dong ditch . . .

    That’s OK. We love having you around for the laugh. :)

  13. If I ever start a blog I think I’ll call it “Absurdly Reasonable.”

  14. Yeah Gil. You left out the step required to turn hydrogen gas into dust/dirt, and THEN shine light on it.

  15. …clouds of hydrogen gas can, given enough time, turn into solar systems and planets…

    Nick is a hoot. He’s obviously a very intelligent guy, so why would he compare hydrogen fusing into heavier elements in stars with the information-processing technology found in cells? There is absolutely no logical correlation.

    Stars don’t use digital code, complex functionally integrated manufacturing machinery, with error detection and repair algorithms, to fuse hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei.

    Cells use such phenomenally advanced technology to manufacture proteins.

    Darwinists live in a bizarre fantasy world, completely disconnected from even the most trivial, basic, rational thinking. This is something to behold, and completely bewildering.

  16. This was a well done thread I think.
    Yeah it nailed what they are saying and at least a option for deeper motivations behind it all.
    We all can be surprised at what we discover on the couch under analysis and likewise evolutionist thinkers having ALREADY rejected God and Genesis, now and back in the day, was a secret motivational prompt to imagining the evidence was persuasive, or even there at all, for the mighty claims of evolutionary biology.
    They really did just want to find a explanation to get rid of the historic explanation.
    Yes also they want rewards for figuring stuff out.
    Yet evolution staying around in these modern times of great progress has been more then just in-attentive people in a almost obscure subject.
    Evolutionary evidence would fail any standard of a methodology that demanded high standards before conclusions are drawn.
    In short evolution evidence standards has never been peer reviewed.
    the peers are not other evolutionists.

Leave a Reply