[extropy-chat] against ID

[Samantha Atkins]

On Nov 21, 2005, at 10:20 AM, gts wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:31:40 -0500, The Avantguardian  
> <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> But when they say it's a theory with no data
>> to back it up, it bugs me. Their only justification
>> seems to be gaps in our knowledge.
>>
>
> The cornerstone of the so-called theory (I agree it is not a valid  
> theory) is "irreducible complexity" and they do offer supposed  
> statistical data to support the claim that some biological  
> structures are irreducibly complex and so could not have evolved  
> naturally. If such structures really exist then ID would seem a  
> reasonable hypothesis. However, as far as I can tell, no such  
> structures exist.
>

These folks are still rolling out the human eye as irreducibly  
complex.  Dawson showed by running a genetic algorithm how a very  
sophisticated eye could evolve over time years ago.  Bt they still  
trot this out.

> They muddy the waters further by positing that the same Intelligent  
> Designer also designed the universe, an idea I do not oppose and  
> which is not itself an affront to natural science or the theory of  
> evolution. Like their Creation Science predecessors, ID proponents  
> wrongly characterize evolution as an inherently atheistic doctrine.
>

This sort of claim is not remotely science and shows their true  
agenda.  To go from a critique of evolution  to saying only an  
intelligent designer (aka GOD) could explain the data to claiming  
evolution (despite having more data for it than almost any theory in  
science) is completely false to claiming that a superior being not  
only whipped us up (along with all that bothersome evidence for  
evolution) and also designed the entire universe (which would be even  
harder to get scientific evidence for)  shows clearly that this junk  
is not remotely science.

> I'm glad at least that the Vatican knows better than to support ID.  
> Apparently the Catholic Church learned something from Galileo.
>

Since they bolted together the Bible over contentious centuries they  
also should have more sense than to believe it is literal truth.

- samantha