Uncommon Descent is pretty painful to read, and if you disagree with them, you can’t respond without being deleted, so I have to be in just the right mood to pop in and visit. So this morning, with my head still trying to explode anyway, I took a look. Well! Apparently, scientific, peer-reviewed papers already show evidence of design, so there’s really no need for actual research of ID itself. You see, within their research, ID is “silently screaming”, much like the rest of us do when thinking about “Intelligent Design Science”. One commenter, trying to deftly turn the frequently used criticism of ID on its side, asserts: “What design does is eliminate all the easy answers. The presumption in most experimental programs is that “evolution-did-it”. So, in getting from A to B, you simply invoke evolution. ” Hmmm. I thought that saying “goddidit” WAS the easy answer – even in this thread, commenters dismiss the idea that the designer can be proven or tested, which means that using the designer as an answer ends further experimentation. Invoking evolution (or evolutionary principles) obligates a scientist to show how something fits into an evolutionary branch, or how it came to be. The study cited has nothing to do with evolution. It’s studying a genetic trigger for wing formation in drosophila, and while I’m not scientifically learned enough to be able to read such stuff and take it apart, I do understand the role of certain proteins and enzymes in DNA and how they tell individual genes how to form or develop physical characteristics. While this information might explain how a genetic mutation that became heritable originated, its use to prove anything but the role of the particular protein and enzyme is for a different study. It does not prove or disprove evolution, although it could be used to support an evolutionary theory or hypothesis directly related to this particular heritable characteristic in one or more species.
The fact is, ID proponents rely on this silent scream and on misinterpreting/repurposing of existing research to prove their point. A later commenter says: “Would a brigade of ID biologists progress faster on research than a similar number of agnostics/atheists (in regards to design)? There is only one way to find out: Put the groups head-to-head in races to find solutions to a set number of biological problems, give them the same levels of funding and support, and see who wins.” which is ridiculous, because the number of ID biologists who have produced ANY research on ANY biological problems is. . .ZERO. Real scientists have an astronomical lead (and it has nothing to do with “fairness”.)
Regardless of how much they try to publicly deny it, ID is creationism. It says “designer” but means “Christian God”. It says “scientific proof” but means “biblical evidence”. They quote mine, picking and choosing sections of research that contradicts their position and patching them together to look like they say the opposite, much as movie advertisers use unfavorable reviews in their ads. They use a lot of big, scientific words to impress the average Joe, and delete any information from real scientists that even hints, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that word means what you think it does, my friend.” They like to claim that their opponents don’t understand ID, while it is clear that their understanding of ID arises from a deliberate, massive misunderstanding of science in general and evolution in particular. It’s common to see the “if man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys” argument, as well as challenges to explain the origin of life itself with evolution. They like to insult their opponents (the Judge Jones farting video is an egregious example, but far from the only one), using words like “Darwiniacs”. They equate the word “theory” with “something my buddies and I came up with after a night of drinking”. And because their idea requires “belief in” a designer, they misapprehend that scientists and rational thinkers “believe in” evolution, as if it were some vague, mysterious, magical thing. The amount of information and research, the number of peer-reviewed evidence, that they need to ignore, the number of fossil records and genetic code that they need to deny, in order to maintain their belief system is astronomical.
I can only hope that the number of people with good sense in positions of power manage to hold back the credulous hordes that want this kind of stuff to be accepted, who think science is a matter of majority opinion, and want it taught to our children in school. Even though Dissent is Uncommon on Uncommon Descent, it needs to be loud and clear in real life.
Post a Comment