Atheism and Intelligent Design

I have stated that one can be an atheist and IDist without any irony. The following is my reasoning:

ID does NOT say anything about worship. Nothing about who, when, where, why or how to worship.

ID does NOT require a belief in a "God".


Main Entry: athe•ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity



Main Entry: athe•ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity


It is now obvious by reading the commonly accepted definitions of "atheist" and "atheism" and coupling that with the fcat that ID does not require a belief in a "God", that one can be an atheist and an IDist without any conflicts.

Of course evolutionists can & will re-define atheism and ID so that there would be a conflict, but that is another story...

Misunderstanding Behe by Zachriel

As I was cruising Telic Thoughts I read one of Zachriel's responses in a thread titled The Edge. He stated teh following:

Behe's entire point is that some adaptations are difficult for evolutionary processes.

No Zachriel. Behe's entire point is that some adaptations are difficult for blind watchmaker-type processes. He also says that design is a mechansim that can get around those difficulties. IOW intelligent agencies can do what culled genetic accidents can't.

Also not only are those adaptations difficult but also apparently beyond the reach of science.

Evolutionary "Logic"- Archaeology is a Science of "Giving Up"

Yessiree, if you engage in any form of design detection, be it as an archaeologist, forensic scientist, detective, fire investigator, insurance investigator (looking for fraud), all you are doing by "detecting" design is you are giving up.

The very second you think you have determined a homicide has occurred you have given up trying to find the natural cause of death.

The very second archaeologists determined that Stonehenge was an artifact they gave up trying to figure out how nature, operating freely, put it together.

It is now up to us to get rid of those quitters.

If any of that sounds stupid to you there is a reason for that. It is stupid but it is also evolutionary "logic". That is it is the "logic" used by evolutionists to try to discredit Intelligent Design by saying determining design is tantamount to giving up.

In reality nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact reality demonstrates that once design is detected the real work just gets started. But that is evolutionary "logic" for you. Ignore reality and defend your position at all costs.

Sheer Dumb Luck explained

It is amazing that people can't use a dictionary to figure out a three-word phrase.

In my debates I use the phrase "sheer dumb luck" when describing the anti-ID and anti-Creation position. That is because in the absence of design or creation that is pretty much all that is left.

The laws that govern our universe? Sheer dumb luck

Of course some say that in a multi-verse scenarion the combination of laws we have is inevitable.

These people obviously don't realize that any multi-verse scenario is metaphysical and not scientific. Multi-verse scenarios do not exclude a designer or designers.

I say any multi-verse scenario just further complicates their position.

But anyway:

Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation.-Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod

The point being, of course, that sheer-dumb-luck is “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind.”

Sheer- not mixed with extraneous elements
Dumb- lacking intelligence
Luck- an unknown and unpredictable phenomenon that causes an event to result one way rather than another

And the issue I have with this position is that it is unscientific- just how do we test sheer dumb luck?

See also:

The Deniable Darwin

Sheer Dumb Luck

"CHANCE ALONE," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."

The sentiment expressed by these words has come to vex evolutionary biologists. "This belief," Richard Dawkins writes, "that Darwinian evolution is 'random,' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth." But Monod is right and Dawkins wrong. Chance lies at the beating heart of evolutionary theory, just as it lies at the beating heart of thermodynamics.

It is the second law of thermodynamics that holds dominion over the temporal organization of the universe, and what the law has to say we find verified by ordinary experience at every turn. Things fall apart. Energy, like talent, tends to squander itself. Liquids go from hot to lukewarm. And so does love. Disorder and despair overwhelm the human enterprise, filling our rooms and our lives with clutter. Decay is unyielding. Things go from bad to worse. And overall, they go only from bad to worse.

These grim certainties the second law abbreviates in the solemn and awful declaration that the entropy of the universe is tending toward a maximum. The final state in which entropy is maximized is simply more likely than any other state. The disintegration of my face reflects nothing more compelling than the odds. Sheer dumb luck.

But if things fall apart, they also come together. Life appears to offer at least a temporary rebuke to the second law of thermodynamics. Although biologists are unanimous in arguing that evolution has no goal, fixed from the first, it remains true nonetheless that living creatures have organized themselves into ever more elaborate and flexible structures. If their complexity is increasing, the entropy that surrounds them is decreasing. Whatever the universe-as-a-whole may be doing--time fusing incomprehensibly with space, the great stars exploding indignantly--biologically things have gone from bad to better, the show organized, or so it would seem, as a counterexample to the prevailing winds of fate.

How so? The question has historically been the pivot on which the assumption of religious belief has turned. How so? "God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."' That is how so. And who on the basis of experience would be inclined to disagree? The structures of life are complex, and complex structures get made in this, the purely human world, only by a process of deliberate design. An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into being; why should the artifacts of life be different?

Darwin's theory of evolution rejects this counsel of experience and intuition. Instead, the theory forges, at least in spirit, a perverse connection with the second law itself, arguing that precisely the same force that explains one turn of the cosmic wheel explains another: sheer dumb luck.

If the universe is for reasons of sheer dumb luck committed ultimately to a state of cosmic listlessness, it is also by sheer dumb luck that life first emerged on earth, the chemicals in the pre-biotic seas or soup illuminated and then invigorated by a fateful flash of lightning. It is again by sheer dumb luck that the first self-reproducing systems were created. The dense and ropy chains of RNA--they were created by sheer dumb luck, and sheer dumb luck drove the primitive chemicals of life to form a living cell. It is sheer dumb luck that alters the genetic message so that, from infernal nonsense, meaning for a moment emerges; and sheer dumb luck again that endows life with its opportunities, the space of possibilities over which natural selection plays, sheer dumb luck creating the mammalian eye and the marsupial pouch, sheer dumb luck again endowing the elephant's sensitive nose with nerves and the orchid's translucent petal with blush.

Amazing. Sheer dumb luck.

Male Descendants- the Violation

Enough with the hints. It’s apparent I will just have to cut to it.

It was first posited that a paternal family tree, which Zachriel posted as having a father, alone at the top level as the patriarch, is a nested hierarchy.

It was then shown that a patriarch does not consist of nor contain his male descendants. That wasn’t enough.

Now that has evolved to the top level being whoever you choose, as well as all of that person’s male descendants. Each subsequent level has some male descendant(s) occupying it. D(x):x={x, all male descendants of x}.

All along I have dropping hints.

blipey spewed that I was saying “fathers have fathers” so it isn’t a nested hierarchy. So close and yet so far

I kept hinting at the female side of the equation. That has fallen of deaf ears. Not my fault.

So here it is:

If all sons have mothers, and all mothers have fathers, how many hierarchies does Sam’s son- D(sam)->D(sam’s first son)- belong to?

HINT: He is the descendant of two potentially unrelated men- his father and his mother’s father.

Maybe your tree has your father and your mother’s father as the same guy. Otherwise you have a violation as the sets are no longer contained.

Can one soldier belong to two different squads or two different divisions at the same time?

Can a human belong to two phyla?

A Nested Hierarchy of Male Descendants?

On another discussion board a Franky172 has changed the idea of a paternal family tree to a scheme of all male descendants ox x, including x. Read the stupidity for yourselves here

But is that scheme a nested hierarchy?

A reminder of the rules of hierarchy:

Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory:

With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Note the word "properties".

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.

Note the words "set of definitions"

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.

Note the words "several criteria".

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

Now in a scheme of all male descendants of x, including x what would be the properties that characterize the level in question?

What are the set of definitions that lock a level in question to those above and below it?

What are the several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels?

And for the clincher- what is done to the male descendants that are born of female descendants? How are they tied to the top level?

Questions like these arise and usually go unanswered when people, who don't know what they are doing, try to establish something anyway.

It is obvious that Franky172 doesn't realize that his:

D{x, all male descendabts of x} translates to D(sam) only when Sam doesn't have any male descendants.

Once Sam has a male descendant the scheme looks like:

_______________D(sam, sam's first male descendant)
_______________|
_______________D(sam's first male descdendant)

When the next male descenfdant arrives the scheme changes to, oops we may have a problem without specifically defined levels:

______________D(sam, sam's first male descendant, sam's second male descendant)

The definition of levels is key here. Would the first level below the starting node od D{x, all male descendants of x} be reserved for Sam's sons?

What happens when Sam's first male descendant isn't Sam's son but the son of one of Sam's daughters?

Without well-defined levels any alleged "nested hierarchy" dissolves into jibberish.

Nested Hierarchy for Dummies

Nested Hierarchy for dummies, ie evolutionitwits:

A nested hierarchy is nothing more than a well defined(super) set which contains and consists of other specified (sub)sets.

A good visual would be the Russian nested dolls.

For example when discussing Living Organisms we divide everything into Kingdoms. Humans are Homo sapien sapiens- Homo being the Genus, with the species and subspecies- are in the Kingdom Anamalia.

IOW the Kingdom Anamalia consists of and contains every level below it. Anamalia being the superset, with Chordata a more refined subset and Primates being a more refined set of Chordates so on down to the species level. Each level being a more refined level of the one above. Each level containing and consisting of the levels below it.

In the Army example we would be classifying the US Army which is broken up into Field Armies, which contain and consist of Corps, which contain and consist of Divisions, which contain and consist of Brigades, which contain and consist of Battalions, which contain and consist of Companies, which contain and consist of Platoons, which contain and consist of Squads & Sections. Squads and sections contain and consist of soldiers. Each level, down to the soldier, has a well defined role and place in the scheme.

Here is the $64,000 question:

In a paternal family tree scheme does the top level, the father, consist of and contain the lower levels?


(If you answer "yes" you are a complete moron and if you answer "no" then you see why a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy. You are not a complete moron.)

Is blipey the clown a liar or just extremely stupid?

In the thread about paternal family trees and nested hierarchy blipey posted the following:

I believe you may also be the only person in the world (in history) that believes a paternal family tree is a ficticious construct. Of course, you could prove me wrong by finding someone who will also say that a paternal family tree doesn't exist. If they use the phrase "in reality" it would be a super bonus. I await contact from this person.

However I do not believe what blipey sez I believe.

This means that blipey is either a liar, because I have explained my position several times and even dedicated the post below this one to that explanation.

Or it would mean that clowny could be extremely stupid because it does not comprehend any of my explanations.

Perhaps it is as I have stated since it first came here- that blipey the clown is a dishonest moron. The evidence is in the quote provided.

What I will say about any "paternal family tree" is it demonstrates chauvinism.

By blipey's insistent use of a "paternal family tree" we could safely infer he is a chauvinist as well.

Constructing a scheme not based on reality- for clowny

In the thread Of Internet Balls and Beer Balls, clowny has taken exception to something I said:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

and

That one can create a paternal family tree does not mean such a tree is a nested hierarchy!

It seems to think they are contradictory.

They are not. For example:

I can construct a scheme containing mythical creatures. Does that mean they exist in reality? No

I can construct a scheme based on Roman "gods" (or Greek "gods"). Does that mean they exist in reality? No

There are many more examples but that should be enough to get my point across- that point being that clowny's thinking is so confined and constrained it is a wonder it knows how to use a computer...

How to Stop ID Dead in its Tracks

Stopping ID from spreading is easy- just demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can give rise to living organisms from non-living matter.

And if you can't do that then demonstrate that genetic accidents can bring about the changes required if we owe our collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms.

Heck I would be impressed if anyone could account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

And if you can't do any of those then you have no one to blame but yourself for the spreading of ID.

Why a Paternal Family Tree is NOT a Nested Hierarchy- AGAIN!

I don't know why I have to continue to beat a dead horse...

Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory:

With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Note the word "properties".

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.

Note the words "set of definitions"

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.

Note the words "several criteria".

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

As I have already stated several times- a father is like the general. He is on the top of his particular family tree but does not consist of his family. Therefore the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.

That this point is even being debated just further exposes the anti-reality agenda of those who say a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy. Only through ignorance can one make such a claim.

Can anyone find one example of a paternal family tree being passed off as a nested hierarchy by someone with a PhD in science?

Is there any data that shows a father can give rise to any family tree without the aid of a female? If you can't then the "paternal family tree" is just a sham because it is NOT indicative of any reality.

But then again those who make the claim don't deal with reality.

Common Descent- Why Explain the Differences?

As I have stated in recent posts it appears that the "evidence" for Common Descent can also be used to support competeing hypotheses like convergence and Common Design. So in order for Common Descent to separate itself from Common Design and convergence it needs to explain the differences. It pretends to do so with the "decent with modification" motif, but that only explains minor variations of an already existing body plan. And from observations we know that those variations oscillate- the beak of the finch is a prime example. (see also Wobbling Stability) The only way around that observed wobbling stability is to throw eons of time at any (alleged) issue. So the current evolutionary formula can be summed up as: Mother Nature + Father Time + the blind watchmaker + magical mystery mutations = Common Descent Yet all we know about organisms and their body plans is summed up nicely: What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following: Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

That is where the "magical mystery mutations" come in. No one has ever seen them and no one knows exactly what they can do - that is the mutations which allegedly caused the transformations required. Subnstitute a HOX gene from a mouse into a fly and the fly develops fly eyes. Similar gene in a dissimilar organism points to a Common Design. Did the alleged common ancestor of the mouse and fly even have eyes? With imagination I guess any and everything is not only possible but likely. I would even say that Common Descent, as in all of the diversity of living organisms owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, cannot be tested. To date the only "tests" we have assume Common Descent and then show what is thought to be confirming evidence. What is needed is to test that assumption. But in light of what Dr Sermonti tells us there isn't any objective way to do that. For example the only reason we "know" that mutations can allow for upright, bipedal walking is because humans have that ability and other primates do not. And we "know" we evolved from some non-human primate. However that is about the most stupid way to present a case. But I digress. So here is the chance for any and all evos to ante up. The following site demonstrates the physiological and anatomical differences between humans & chimps. Take one and explain the mutations which allowed/ afforded the difference and you may be on to something scientific: Chimps become Human? For until you do so you either have to admit that yours is a position based on faith or that convergence and Common Design deserve the same status as Common Descent. Or just continue to expose the deception you are trying to pass off as "science". And just so I am clear- Despite Alan Fox's lies to the contrary, I am very interested in the data. I have looked but I cannot find it. I would really appreciate anything you can offer- data wise- so we can scrutinize it together. However I am sure, as with all other attempts, I will be met with distractions, nonsense and personal jabs. And that is the true depth and scope of Common Descent via some evolutionary process. So I thank you in advance...

Predictions and the Theory of Evolution

With the exceptions of change and stasis, does the theory of evolution make any real predictions?

And if the theory can only predict that populations will change or remain the same, is it of any value at all?


(now watch as the responses will generally ignore the OP and instead focus on something else- but who knows maybe I will get lucky and someone will actually provide something of substance)

Another Note to Alan Fox

I said on UD: and a note to Alan Fox:

ID still flourishes because educated people know that “Kitzmiller” was a farce and has been exposed as such.September 20, 2006 @ 9:49 am

Alan replied:
I always thought you saw the world as you wished it to be, rather than how it is. Now I know. I will agree with your remark when Kitzmiller is appealed and reversed because "Intelligent Design" is discovered to have some scientific basis, rather than just being a cloak for fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Somehow, I don't think I need to worry about having to agree with you in this lifetime. (my emphasis)

Yup Alan. Obviously it is you who chooses to see the world as you want it to be rather than how it really is:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."- John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research

Oops- "ID is strictly a non-Christian movement". And that is from someone who knows more about ID and Christianity than Alan Fox ever will.

As far as the "Kitzmiller v. Dover" decision goes, many legal experts have already shown beyond any doubt that Judge Jones went too far. It is also obvious from the decison that the judge took out his wrath on ID because of a few lying and ID ignorant school board members. IOW Judge Jones is still clueless to ID reality and most likely still ignorant of science.

It is also very telling that the best moment for the plaintiffs was a bluff. That being when their attorney threw down some 58 references that allegedly demonstrated the evolution of the immune system via blind watchmaker-type processes.

Judge Jones bought that bluff whole-sale. All judges are not that stupid.

Now I know Alan will just ignore all of this because willful ignoarnce is the evolutionitwit way...

Are You ID Ignorant? Take the Quiz and find out!

The following is a brief 5-question quiz that will determine whether or not you are ID ignorant. So far Dazza McTrazza has taken it and failed miserably (0-5). The blipey tried to stand up for DM but it also failed miserably.

See how you fare (please explain your answers):


1) Is ID based on religion? (or is it religious/ a religion)

2) Is ID based on scientific data?

3) Is sheer dumb luck really a valid explanation for all we observe?

4) What predictions can be made from the design inference?

5) Is ID anti-evolution or anti-the blind watchmaker?


Thanks to DM for pointing out a typo.