From the files: Why intelligent design is going to win, revisited
|November 30, 2007||Posted by O'Leary under The Design of Life|
Douglas Kern at Tech Central Station warned, in 2005 that intelligent design is going to win.
And why was that?
He starts with the claim that ID types are more likely to be fertile than others.
I will not hash that out here except to say this: If it means YOU, you might want to include a budget item for receiving blankets, gripe water, and soothers – and if you do not know what those terms mean, ask your nearest and dearest …
Update note: Your nearest and dearest may even have some amazing news for you that will change your, um, “expectations.” Like remember that night when you and she got along so well? Okay, well, life goes on. No, really, it does, and this is how it does. )
He then argues that “the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers”:
“Ewww…intelligent design people! They’re just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who’re trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads.”
There. I just saved you the trouble of reading 90% of the responses to the ID position.
Well, that certainly hasn’t changed! In fact, it was never any different. The Darwinists are always willing to believe any nonsense that underwrites materialism. And they always find supporters too.
He follows up with Darwinism’s critical problem:
ID has already made its peace with natural selection and the irrefutable aspects of Darwinism. By contrast, Darwinism cannot accept even the slightest possibility that it has failed to explain any significant dimension of evolution. It must dogmatically insist that it will resolve all of its ambiguities and shortcomings – even the ones that have lingered since the beginning of Darwinism.
Interesting. Strict intelligent design theory has never had – so far as I can determine – a problem in principle with natural selection (NS) as a conservative force that routinely eliminates non-functional life forms. Anyone can see that NS must function that way; otherwise, the planet would be overloaded with kludges.
The PROBLEM has always been with the idea that natural selection functions as a mechanism for creating information, as opposed to editing information. ID theorists have not been able to find any evidence that natural selection creates information at anything like the levels that Darwinists claim, and there is much evidence against it.
Which is, like, curtains, for Darwin’s theory.
Kerns also thinks that ID will win because it will attract the best minds, who are attracted to information theory. Could that be why the Darwoids are stepping up the persecution of smart guys who know that Darwinism is the Enron of biology?
Lastly, Kerns thinks that the human mind tends to find design whether it exists or not. This is a somewhat cynical view, as it begs the question of WHY the human mind finds design. For example, if I think that four and four make eight, did my selfish gene robot prompt that idea in the pile of mush in my head in order to help spread my selfish genes? Or … is Darwinism simply failing as an explanation of the history of life?