Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution Support Closing

-
Well this went exactly as expected- Ogre refused to provide a definition of "evolution"- most likely because he is an intellectual coward and then quote mines in order to make his "point".

I did provide defintions of "evolution" from accepted authorities and each of those definitions support my claim that ID is not anti-evolution. Heck my opponent even provided the words of the ID leadership which proves ID is not anti-evolution rather ID argues against one very narrow definition of evolution- that all of life's diversity arose via an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie the blind watchmaker thesis.

Every IDist says that. Dr Behe testified to that as well as testifying, under oath, that ID is not anti-evolution. He did NOT get brought up on perjury charges.

What else has Dr Behe said:
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe

Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:


The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"

and

And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

And from one more pro-ID book:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

So what we have is Ogre ignoring the evidence because he is willfully ignorant and pressing on regardless.

I should have known better than to try to have an unmoderated debate with a known intellectual coward.

My bad but the evidence still stands and the evidence proves that ID is not anti-evolution and that fact cannot change even though my opponent can pound the table.

22 Comments:

  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    OPAP: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

    That's no consistent with evolution.

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are definitely retarded. That quote was about the fossil record and is supported by punc. eq.

    You didn't read the book, did you? You think that quote-mining means soemthing- strange.

     
  • At 10:51 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Its a full cloth quote you. You still don't understand quote mining. Try reading:

    "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

    Do you know what the edition before read?

    I'll help:

    "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

    So we have 2 definitions that are the same, that is, equivalent.

    So ID = Creation

    Intelligent design = creationism.

    QED

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is NOT the full quote you lying moron. It is part of a subject- the fossil record, which you are not providing.

    Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appeared in the record with their distinctive features intact and apparently fully functional rather than gradual development.

     
  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    and "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appeared in the record with their distinctive features intact and apparently fully functional rather than gradual development." changes things how?

    Oh, right, it doesn't.

    The second (added) part tries to justify the viewpoint (ID / Creationism, doesn't matter, same thing)by appealing to "Some scientists".

    Ooooh. Sciency.

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the publisher:

    “The quote is from the second edition, “Excursion Chapter 4″ titled “The Fossil Record.” It occurs in the discussion of the meaning of gaps in the fossil record. Four interpretation of this datum are given: imperfect record, incomplete search, jerky process, and sudden appearance or face value interpretation. It is stated:

    “The intelligent design hypothesis is in agreement with the face value interpretation and accepts the gaps as a generally true reflection of biology and natural history. A growing number of scientists who study the fossil record are concluding that the structural differences between the major types of organism reflect life as it was for that era. This view proposes that only the long-held expectations of Darwinian theory cause us to refer to the in-between areas as gaps. If this is so, the major different types of living organisms do not have a common ancestry. Such a conclusion is more consistent with currently known fossil data than any of the evolutionary models. (p. 98)
    * * *
    Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency , with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. . . . Should we close our minds to the possibility that the various types of plants and animals were intelligently designed? This alternative suggests that a reasonable natural cause explanation for origins may never be found, and that intelligent design best fits the data.” (p. 99-100) “

     
  • At 11:10 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    And that helps you how?

    It doesn't.

    ID and Creationism still share the same definition and require spontaneous appearance which is at odds with evolution.

    ID = Creationism <> Evolution = Science.

     
  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm that isn't the definition of intelligent design. There is a glossary in the book that has the definition- that is what gloassaries are for- and it ain't that.

    That said ID and Creation do not share the same definition and spontaneous appearance is only at odds with gradualism. And sudden appearance is what we see in the fossil record.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera"

    Looks like a definition, a frankly honest one finally, to me.


    If ID and Creation aren't the same, then why does OP&P use them interchangeably?

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    And sudden appearance is what we see in the fossil record.

    How "sudden" is that appearance then?

    Hours? Seconds? Days? Years? Millions of years? Trillions of years?

     
  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Looks like a definition, a frankly honest one finally, to me.

    But you are a dishonest fuck.

    If ID and Creation aren't the same, then why does OP&P use them interchangeably?

    It doesn't- It is all explained on the publisher's website.

     
  • At 12:04 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "But you are a dishonest fuck."

    Joe Jim John the creationist Muslim who lives in a parking lot and is a war hero, you've got no business commenting on honesty.

    "It doesn't"

    Oh it does. They even used "Find and replace" for goodness' sake. Wake up.

     
  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have more "business" commenting on honesty than you do.

    Why is it that Creationists know and understand the difference between the two?

    Why is it that IDists understand teh difference between the two?

    Why is it that the only fucking people that conflate ID and Creation are proven dishonest evotards?

     
  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I have more "business" commenting on honesty than you do."

    How do you figure that, Joe Jim John the creationist Muslim who lives in a parking lot and is a war hero?

    "Why is it that IDists understand teh difference between the two?"

    NO TRUE SCOTSMAN. THANX 4 TEH LULZ!

    "Why is it that the only fucking people that conflate ID and Creation are proven dishonest evotards?"

    And publishers of ID books, apparently. Oh, and "Logos theology of John's Gospel" Dembski..

     
  • At 12:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I have more "business" commenting on honesty than you do."

    Richtard:
    How do you figure that, Joe Jim John the creationist Muslim who lives in a parking lot and is a war hero?

    That, right there.

    "Why is it that the only fucking people that conflate ID and Creation are proven dishonest evotards?"

    Richtard:
    And publishers of ID books, apparently.

    Not according to them. I will take their word over yours, thanks.

    Oh, and "Logos theology of John's Gospel" Dembski..

    Yet Dembski says ID is not Creation.

     
  • At 8:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Hm - these Idists - say one thing then go and say the opposite later. what gives?

     
  • At 9:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    These evotards, get caught quote-mining, get corrected and then blame someone else. What gives?

     
  • At 1:39 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You still don't understand quote mining, do you?

     
  • At 3:55 AM, Blogger OM said…

    How sudden is "sudden appearance" Joe?

     
  • At 7:53 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich, I am as much anti-Creationism as I am anti-Materialism. Both extremists are based on religious beliefs, and non-scientific.

    Creationists essentially believe that species were created by God, essentially as they are today. They insist we did not come from apes and some among them are Biblical literalists and/or believe in a young earth.

    As an intelligent evolutionist, I believe that each species is biologically related to each other. We came from monkeys.

    No part of life can happen by random accident, and evolution is undoubtedly the result of some type of intelligent agency. This is an overwhelmingly clear scientific certainty, not a religious statement. ID does not posit any unknowns and the "who" of intelligent agency is scientifically unknown.

    As to species forming with distinctive features intact, I dont necessarily agree that this is an absolute requirement of ID, but evidence shows it does happen. One, the fossil record shows that the norm is sudden, large genomic leaps. Two, master genes activate new genotypes only when they are ready to form a complete phenotype and only when that trait is needed. Three, modern day observations of evolution clearly show that only full formed features appear.

     
  • At 7:57 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich, yes, punctuated equilibrium (as coined by Gould) is quite consistent with evolution and accepted by the mainstream. This is not new ground.

     
  • At 10:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Lost posts are starting to show up:

    RichTard:
    You still don't understand quote mining, do you?

    I still understand it better than you.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home