A Virginia Liberal

Sorry to post again on it, but there was just so much good stuff I didn’t get to last time.
Anyway, here are a few of ID’s one-line arguments, rebutted.

They say… “In the face of irreducable complexity, Intelligent Design is necessary.” By itself, this makes the argument “Because science cannot currently explain everything about absolutely everything, Evolution must be wrong.” However, in context, this says that certain things, like an eye, do not work without every single part, therefore they couldn’t have evolved over time. There is some logic to this, but it’s wrong for a couple of reasons. 1. They can’t come up with a single example. The eye, for example, COULD have evolved slowly-even a light-sensitive patch of skin has been proven useful. Since the argument is that EVERYTHING has to be there in order for it to work, the eye is not a good example. A mouse trap is also used as an example, however, each part of a mousetrap is useful-a piece of wood has uses, shaped pieces of metal are useful, and springs are useful. The thought of putting several useful parts together is pretty basic, so this example doesn’t work either. The ‘Irreducible Complexity’ argument doesn’t work.

They say… “What about the missing link?” ID proponents wish you didn’t know that there is no single chain that everything comes from. If there was, then the so-called ‘missing link’ would be a viable challenge. But there isn’t. There is a missing link in the human line of origins, sort of, but one missing link does not disprove all the other, complete, lines of evolution.

They say… ” ‘Micro’ evolution does not disagree with Christianity, while ‘macro’ evolution does . What? There is no difference in any of Evolution. The supposed division of evolutionary scientists is bullshit, plain and simple. The terms macro and micro evolution only exist because ID’s supporters wish there was a division between two kinds of evolution. There isn’t. There is, however, a division between ideological Christian scientists and scientific Christians. This particular quote shows what we’ve known all along: Intelligent Design is Christian Creationism in a bad disguise. Look at it “… disagree with Christianity…”. Hasn’t Intellligent Design been fighting the perception that ID is just creationism? Woops. Too late.

Just a few of ID’s failings, flaws, glossing overs, and outright lies.

I haven’t been updating much recently what with the change in schedule, but now I’m back into the groove of things so more updates should be coming along soon.
Wait for it…. now!

Alright, let’s jump right in by finishing off Intelligent Design.

My last post on ID ripped apart its shoddy internet representation. Now, I will refer to several stories published about them in the middle-of-the-road media.

A couple of months ago, Newsweek’s cover story was entitled “Doubting Darwin”.

“I.D. has nothing to say on the identity of the designer or how he gets inside the cell to do his work. Does he create new species directly, or meddle with the DNA of living creatures? Behe envisions as one possibility something akin to a computer virus inserted in the genome of the first organism, emerging full-blown millions of generations later. Meyer’s view is simply that ‘we don’t know.’ He declines even to offer an opinion on whether people are descended from apes, on the ground that it’s not his specialty. The diversity of life, in his view, is a ‘mystery’ we may never solve.”

So let’s get this straight-their entire hypothesis (Intelligent Design does not qualify as a scientific theory) is that an Intelligent being created all life-and they know nothing about the Being? That seems like it kind of puts a damper on their entire theory.

I guess we could instead look at Behe’s view-that the Intelligent Being placed something like a computer virus inside the earliest organism (i.e. cells) that emerged millions of years later. Think about it. If the Intelligent being Designed everything, why exactly would it take millions of years to evolv… I mean “emerge”? Isn’t the entire idea of cells turning into life forms an idea Behe has fought tooth and nail? Behe seems to have forgotten which side he was on when he ‘enivsioned’ this possibility.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design has no evidence, let’s take a look at how many scientists support it. Both IDists and Evolutionists tried to get signatures from scientists who believed in their cause. Intelligent Design got 350 signatures. However, in a nod to Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionists only took signatures from scientists named Steve-and they got 528, more than half again what Intelligent Design got. And that’s JUST from guys named Steven. Seriously. Imagine if you will two boxers going into the ring. One, like Bugs Bunny, puts cement blocks in his gloves. The other has everything but a toenail tied up to a post. And the toenail guy wins. That’s how incredibly overpowered ID is in the scientific community.

So if you hear a Christian Scientist tell you that Intelligent Design has ‘growing support’, as I have many times been told, dope slap him. I mean really. These people seem pretty obviously thinking impaired-or, more likely, honesty impaired.

And the next time you hear a story on NPR or CNN about Intelligent Design, listen closely. They never say ‘a new theory’, they always say ‘the successor to Genesis, this time couched in the terms of science”. By its very definition, “couched in the terms of science” means that someone is trying to make non-science sound like science. This is similar to when automatic toothbrush commercials say that their brush is ‘highly advanced’ ‘the next generation’ ’superior’ or that it’s ‘brilliantly designed’. They’d probably say all that with a light blue backround, because light blue is high tech. They might say all that and have a “lite” blue backround, because highly advanced pieces of technology always involve poor spelling-and light blue.

But you look at this, and you know. It’s the same old toothbrush, it just wiggles when you turn it on.