Home /
Reply to Message
Handwave not an arguement.
There is a lot of problems with this article's treatment of ID.
1) " Yet they typically get the math wrong by ignoring how much natural selection can sometimes make long-shot outcomes almost inevitable."
This statement is only assumed, it has never been observed. The assumption is that evolution is true, and if the math does not agree, the problem lies with the math, not the theory. This is probably the only field of science where mathematically testing the theory is discouraged. Secondly, "Natural Selection" is given an almost magical power to explain almost everything. In reality, Natural Selection has absolutely no creative power what so ever: It is a conservative phenomenon which can only act on what already exists. It maintains what works while that which doesn't work is eliminated. That's it. It can't even be called "a force of nature". The supposedly "creative engine" of evolution is mutation, and based on mutation rates in nature, one CAN mathematically calculate what the odds is that a certain feature could've evolved, given all the time in the world (litterally). A good example of this is Behe's book "The edge of evolution", where the limitations of the evolutionary process is explored using real live empirical observation and mathematics.
2) "The answer is that in any situation, the purported evidence needs to be tested against alternative theories for its origins. The theory of evolution provides mechanisms for living things."
Even if this statement is a given, you still have the problem of the ORIGIN of life and the first genetic information, which by definition can not arise by Darwinian means. The RNA world hypothesis, though interesting, is doomed to fail, because it lacks a mechanism for arranging RNA nucleotides in meaningful sequences. Without functional meaning, Natural selection tends to select shorter sequences over longer ones, because shorter sequences can reproduce more rapidly. More over, the darwinian evolutionary explanation is accepted, not because it provides a better explanation than design, but because it provides a materialistic explanation. This materialistic explanation however, breaks down on a molecular level, due to Irreducable Complexity and Genetic information. Once again, counter arguments to IC and SC are accepted, not because they're proven to be true, or even plausable, but because they're materialistic. Once again, this is the only field in science where someone can make up a just-so story, and then claim to have discredited a well reasoned argument that is backed up with empirical evidence and math. The fact of the matter is, Darwinian evolution can no longer hide behind millions of unobservable and mysterious years, it is a very real process that can be observed on molecular level. The problem is that whenever this process do work to gain some advantage, it is always due to the reduction of information or function. Once again, Behe's "The edge of Evolution" provides clear examples that illustrate this point. Moreover, mutation has never provided any major new genetic information that did not exist before. ID does not reject the idea that evolution has occurred, but rejects the idea that the Darwinian mechanism, or any blind materialistic mechanism for that matter, can account for what we observe in life.
In the end, the arguments of ID is sound. It is not discredited by the counter arguments, but by derogatory terms such as "Creationists" and "IDiots". These terms are used by materialists to convince themselves that they are more reasonable and intelligent than people who dares to question their paradigm.
1) " Yet they typically get the math wrong by ignoring how much natural selection can sometimes make long-shot outcomes almost inevitable."
This statement is only assumed, it has never been observed. The assumption is that evolution is true, and if the math does not agree, the problem lies with the math, not the theory. This is probably the only field of science where mathematically testing the theory is discouraged. Secondly, "Natural Selection" is given an almost magical power to explain almost everything. In reality, Natural Selection has absolutely no creative power what so ever: It is a conservative phenomenon which can only act on what already exists. It maintains what works while that which doesn't work is eliminated. That's it. It can't even be called "a force of nature". The supposedly "creative engine" of evolution is mutation, and based on mutation rates in nature, one CAN mathematically calculate what the odds is that a certain feature could've evolved, given all the time in the world (litterally). A good example of this is Behe's book "The edge of evolution", where the limitations of the evolutionary process is explored using real live empirical observation and mathematics.
2) "The answer is that in any situation, the purported evidence needs to be tested against alternative theories for its origins. The theory of evolution provides mechanisms for living things."
Even if this statement is a given, you still have the problem of the ORIGIN of life and the first genetic information, which by definition can not arise by Darwinian means. The RNA world hypothesis, though interesting, is doomed to fail, because it lacks a mechanism for arranging RNA nucleotides in meaningful sequences. Without functional meaning, Natural selection tends to select shorter sequences over longer ones, because shorter sequences can reproduce more rapidly. More over, the darwinian evolutionary explanation is accepted, not because it provides a better explanation than design, but because it provides a materialistic explanation. This materialistic explanation however, breaks down on a molecular level, due to Irreducable Complexity and Genetic information. Once again, counter arguments to IC and SC are accepted, not because they're proven to be true, or even plausable, but because they're materialistic. Once again, this is the only field in science where someone can make up a just-so story, and then claim to have discredited a well reasoned argument that is backed up with empirical evidence and math. The fact of the matter is, Darwinian evolution can no longer hide behind millions of unobservable and mysterious years, it is a very real process that can be observed on molecular level. The problem is that whenever this process do work to gain some advantage, it is always due to the reduction of information or function. Once again, Behe's "The edge of Evolution" provides clear examples that illustrate this point. Moreover, mutation has never provided any major new genetic information that did not exist before. ID does not reject the idea that evolution has occurred, but rejects the idea that the Darwinian mechanism, or any blind materialistic mechanism for that matter, can account for what we observe in life.
In the end, the arguments of ID is sound. It is not discredited by the counter arguments, but by derogatory terms such as "Creationists" and "IDiots". These terms are used by materialists to convince themselves that they are more reasonable and intelligent than people who dares to question their paradigm.
Posted by hannodb
8th Feb 2012