Home » Humor, Philosophy » Space Shuttle Denying Darwinists (SSDD)

Space Shuttle Denying Darwinists (SSDD)

SSDD is an acronym for “Same Stuff Different Day”. In debate with Darwinists, it’s always the same stuff, different day. SSDD can be also an acronym for Space Shuttle Denying Darwinists — that is to say Darwinists that are so against ID that they will even deny that Space Shuttles are intelligently designed. Such people suffer from SSDD syndrome. There is no remedy for their philosophical malady.

Over at ARN the following exchange happened which I summarize:

Sal: Is a man-made design an example of intelligent design?

Alan Fox: NO!!!

Sal: Given what you said, is the Space Shuttle an example of intelligent design? How about GMOs?

Alan Fox: Nothing is an example of intelligent design unless you want to tell me what “intelligent design” is other than the creationist ploy we both know it to be.

Horrible Implications

I was tempted to call SSDD syndrome Alan Fox syndrome, but he’s too nice a guy for me to impale him in this way. Nevertheless, this exchange is symbolic of what it is like to debate a critic of ID — Same Silliness, Different Darwinist (SSDD).

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

15 Responses to Space Shuttle Denying Darwinists (SSDD)

  1. Hi Sal,

    I was beginning to think you were ignoring me!

    Well, best of luck on your journey, wherever it may eventually take you. Just don’t fly the shuttle in January. That’s advice from Richard Feynmann, too.

  2. BTW are you still convinced that Genetic-ID are using the “explanatory filter”?

  3. Oops

    Richard Feynman

  4. “Space Shuttles are intelligently designed”

    Well, I’m not a ‘Darwinist,’ but this is a typically ridiculous IDist argument, which shows why most thinking Abrahamic believers don’t take IDism seriously.

    Human-made vs. non-human-made. ‘Nuf said. ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ qua ‘theory’ is *not* about human-made things. It aims at OoL, biological information and (sometimes) human origins.

    As for ‘philosophical malady,’ one might notice that Salvador didn’t have a course in philosophy listed on his masters program. Of course, that doesn’t stop him from faking philosophical, as in the example in this thread.

    All he has to do to prove me wrong is list the name(s) of IDists who have proposed an IDT of human-made things, giving books or articles to go with their names. If he cannot do so, then Alan Fox’s “No!!!” is justified because he understood it as something outside of the claims of IDT.

  5. Lucy Shapiro comments at end of Session on
    “The Systems Architecture of a Bacterial Cell Cycle”

    She integrated her lab with Harley McAdams. He’s a Physicist.

    “… learned Genetics and Biochemistry, put together a program of people who are PhD’s in Computer Science, Electrical Engineers, or Physics.

    Instead of a Biologist saying we have this problem. My Physicist solve this problem for us. We design these experiments together and we understand what we need to ask the questions and how we can interpret these results.

    Sure these guys write algorithms and help us figure out how to build beautiful, technologically advanced equipment.

    So?

    But that’s NOT the point…
    We learn each other’s language and we learn to think in different ways. So, I would like to give a plug to Interdisciplinary Work.

    Really Recommend Integrated Labs, think they’re really wonderful.

    Question from the audience:

    Let me put you on the spot. What biological insight did you have as a consequence of collaborating with a Physicist?

    … (and Computer Scientist, Electrical Engineers, etc. People who intelligently design incredibly complex systems, like the Space Shuttle? What do they bring to the table besides technology?

    Best example… when we were first contemplating what the organization of that genome was like and we knew that the origin was at one pole and the terminus was at the other
    pole and what was in between. We knew that we could tag individual loci.

    But the question was, alright, What do we do?
    Like lock of 20 graduate students in a dark room for 10 years? That didn’t seem very logical.

    So working with some of our engineers and physicist, they designed not only the computer driven florescent scope, but designed the Algorithms that let the Computer analyze 50,000 images of 114 different tagged loci.

    And yes individual genes and their positions in the cell had been visualized in Ecoli… We’re now up to about 150.

    So whole question was how general is this? And we were able to answer a very important question.

    Her initial thoughts on the system architecture and process…

    Because immediately when we first started talking about this my druthers was well, you initiate replication, you keep replicating and then you start moving, or maybe you move the origin and the rest comes after it’s all duplicated.

    No experience with design? What about people who are familiar with aspects of Design? What do they think?

    And you know, the Physicist and Engineers said wait a minute, that makes no sense. What you want to do is you want to do it at the same time. And lets see if the Cell does.

    Shapiro then comments…

    You know, hypothesis driven research right, as opposed to non-hypothesis driven research. So that’s one example, but there are many others.

    It does not take faith to see how the acknowledgement of Human Designed experiences can give insight into the study of biological information, cellular circuitry, conditional logic, and bio-messaging.

    It merely takes a little less hubris.

    “We have used this bug as a way to carrying out in
    essence systems engineering on a living entity.” Shapiro

    Interesting session…

    Caulobacter Cell Cycle – Modular Components and Steps

  6. Gregory:

    All he has to do to prove me wrong is list the name(s) of IDists who have proposed an IDT of human-made things, giving books or articles to go with their names.

    From Design Inference by Bill Dembski:

    The key step in formulating Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is to delineate a method for detecting design. Such a method exists, and in fact, we use it implicitly all the time. The method takes the form of a three-stage Explanatory Filter.
    ….
    The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design. In particular, the filter describes

    how copyright and patent offices identify theft of intellectual property
    ….
    Entire industries would be dead in the water without the Explanatory Filter. Much is riding on it. Using the filter, our courts have sent people to the electric chair.

    In your case Gregory, SSDD is Same Stupidity from gregory, Different Day.

  7. DATCG: amazing Q&A:

    The Systems Architecture of a Bacterial Cell Cycle with Lucy Shapiro – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?&.....T4#t=2489s

  8. Sal quotes Dembski and makes my point for me. Pattern matching only works if you have the samples to match. You can’t match a DNA trace unless that individual’s DNA is on file.

  9. Alan,

    Pattern matching can work for things where you don’t have the pattern on file. See:
    Coordinated Complexity, the key to refuting postdiction and single target objections

    Sal

  10. Genetic-ID is an instance of the explanatory filter, it is an instance of design detection. “Using the explanatory filter” is a poor choice of words, “Using an explanatory filter” is probably better.

    The bottom line, Genetic-ID detects design, albeit man made.

  11. OT: FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Hummingbird tongue – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMw3RO7p9yg

  12. The bottom line, Genetic-ID detects design, albeit man made.

    Well, if you like, Sal. But in the real World, Genetic-ID is pattern-matching to a database of known GMO samples. They will not pick up unknown sequences, as they have nothing to match them against. If “ID” methods could truly spot something novel, I’d be impressed.

  13. Alan,

    If your position’s methodologies truly uncover something, the entire population will be impressed.

  14. If “ID” methods could truly spot something novel, I’d be impressed.

    The novel sequence in the false shuffle was detected and sent people to jail, there is no reason in principle novel sequences can’t be detected in biology as well.

    I could suggest a test of this hypothesis. Let humans put novel sequences in DNA where the receiver has nothing on file. If done right, they can be detected.

    I might post a thread to that effect. :-)

  15. Let humans put novel sequences in DNA where the receiver has nothing on file. If done right, they can be detected.

    Well, depending on what exactly you are suggesting as a thought experiment, spotting something extraneous in DNA by comparing the whole genome to wild-type should be feasible. But where does that get you?

    I might post a thread to that effect.

    Vas-y!

Leave a Reply