Another in a series by Dembski as Evo-News. As noted many times here, the left has gotten stuck in Darwinism and is unable to get unstuck. But the critique of Darwinism at such sites as EvoNews has crept on the Darwin fanatics. These sites are bastions of the conservative right but with ID they have moderated their religious/conservative take to the point that one can profitably consider their frequent contributions to discussions of evolution.
Marxists need to move on from Marx’s plug for Darwin and should consider that the debriefing of Darwinism should have been a task for the left. Failure to do so has left them ‘left behind’ when they could have better debriefed the issue as in part ideology.
I do not share the hysteria of the mainstream secularists over design, or ‘Intelligent’ Design. The quotes are there because the issue of specification in the Dembski (assuming I understand what he means by the term) won’t work for theological implications. If not, I can state my point without that term: evidence for design cannot use the term ‘intelligent’ safely if they can’t specify constructively the ‘designer’. The comparison of Mt. Rainer and Mt. Rushmore is apt, but in theology we only have a mountain Rainer: there is nothing comparable to Mt. Rushmore’s specification of the faces of presidents. The term ‘god’ is available to the discussion because it is part of what we are trying (and failing) to specify.
As a secularist who studies history I find world history to be designed to a degree that is remarkable. But ironically the ‘design’ behind, say, the early history of Israel compounds the issue. We cannot ascribe the design here to a divinity.
We addressed this question here already: cf. the essays in the recurring ‘Some essay posts’.
It is sad to watch the world of science so fatally addicted to Darwinism. The credibility of science is at stake and biologists seem oblivious.
Intelligent design’s scientific program can, at least in part, be viewed as an attempt to unmask Darwinist credulity.
Source: The Silence of the Evolutionary Biologists | Evolution News
This is a fascinating essay addressing the Rosenhouse attack on Dembski. Although I do not reject out of hand the issues of design inference, in fact taking them in a slightly different way without the mathematics, I might caution design theorists of the stakes involved: the religious right given license for design arguments would in principle create a theocracy beyond science that makes a skeptic of design arguments a sinner condemned to hell. If scientists frantically attack design arguments it is because history shows the outcome of fuzzy design thinking in the Old Testament and the devolution into crude theism (where originally ‘god’ was nameless), religious dogma and global religion. Continue reading “history and design inference…//The Success of Mathematics in Advancing Intelligent Design: A Guide to Reading Jason Rosenhouse – Bill Dembski”
Do Darwin Critics Reject Evolution Because They’re Anti-Communists? Carl Weinberg Says Yes
I was alerted to this book by the post at Evo-News, the ID site, and there is also a review:
I haven’t yet read this book but it has a free Kindle so I will go through it and comment again. But I can see already the hopeless confusion of Darwinists on the subject of evolution and the way the ID camp, if not the creationists can sink such books on the spot. My reaction is, What a waste? The issue is very simple: natural selection is statistically impossible as a source of evolutionary constructs. Darwinists, no matter how many times the problem is pointed to, are incapable of grasping the statistical error at the foundation of the whole Darwinian phantom ‘science’. The ID-ists win every argument here despite their own confusions over theism and design. A pyrrhic victory, therefore. If natural selection fails then the obvious problem arises with design, where does it come from. Here the creationists/ID-its fall into their own confusion by trying to graft a scientific argument onto a Biblical argument completely obscuring the whole design question. In any case, the design of biological entities show a mysterious design. And that can be problematic, but only because science can’t yet solve the problem which founders in some of the classic antinomial issues of Kant: you cannot prove the existence of god using a design argument, and the ‘design inference’ of Dembski however suggestive simply fails as proof however tantalizing as evidence, which induces design hallucinations.
Update: I forgot to address the issue of communism raised. But communism/socialism was in existence before Darwin and it was the blunder of Marx to graft that onto his work, to its great detriment. Lamarck was a radical leftist for his time (French Revolution) and his basic intuition about evolution was superior to the klutz thinking of Darwin.
Still, the design inference is a suggestive formulation of a tricky subject. If you can’t use the design argument to prove the existence of god, you can’t disprove it either, save only that the theistic tack is always such gibberish if bad theology that the anti-designist wins by default. That’s the catch: a design argument must be constructivist but that always fails. The history of monotheism shows the reign of delusive design arguments.
Note however that the ancient Israelites, in their now lot core vision, not really theitsts, and warned sternly of the dangers of ‘god reference’, insisting on pointing only, with a glyph for the unamable, IHVH, soon its coopte in the degenerate ‘Jehovah’.
In a way the point is obvious: evolution invokes design inference, but the trap is to cheat on the argument and then sneak the dated and obsolete theism of the Old Testament, confounding the issue. The obvious agenda of natural selection is to try and force the issue with the natural selection fallacy. Times have changed and evidence of design now seems more obviously to be unable to resolve the issues of theism. Prior beliefs in divinity in the Christian brand fail to grapple with the issue. Design in nature is a scientific issue without so far any real science, it would be of a type we can’t yet resolve to naturalistic laws known so far. Scientists can’t live with ambiguity and have foisted a myth of science on the question, to the great discredit to scientific integrity. It is a strange case of the emperor with no clothes. Continue reading “Red Dynamite by Carl R. Weinberg | Paperback “
The puzzle of Darwinism is the simplicity of the error and the failure even of experts in statistics to see the problem…The statistics of natural selection is so clear and transparent that it leaves a puzzle in its wake: how could so many have remained frozen in this fallacy? Fred Hoyle was one of the few really good scientists to expose the obvious fallacy but to no avail. Even Wikipedia is party to the deception with an entry on ‘Hoyle’s Fallacy’ ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado), a sophistical entry so fallaciously conformist that I could never again take this encyclopedia seriously again. Such deceptions work: the many who grasp the problem (not a few in the science field) are instantly ostracized as the many submit to the propaganda. Hoyle’s argument about the implausibility of natural selection as a driver of evolution is completely obvious and yet as in the tale of the Emperor with no clothes the public has been persuaded as even the scientific community remains silent. I suspect that most scientists suddenly snap out of the strange delusion but say nothing. So much for science.
The stance of Dawkins has been pernicious here: he is absolutely obsessed with his atheism and clutches at the natural selection argument in terror that evolution could be non-random, chattering teeth. But if evolution is non-random, so what? It does not follow that we can infer divinity behind nature. First and foremost because you can’t define god. Take out a piece of paper and define god and then show how non-random evolution proves the ‘existence’ of such. You won’t succeed. But many monotheists will think the argument valid. But it is not. The second reason is that god concepts historically are too primitive to be used in philosophy and too metaphysical in a Kantian sense to escape antinomial confusion. Let’s be clear, the ‘footprint of Crusoe’ is a design context: we infer a human is present. The whole situation with Friday’s footprint is a design case: we naturally infer the existence of a human. But such logic however cogent in ordinary situations can’t be generalized to cosmic theology. First, ‘god’ and ‘existence’ don’t match: if god existed (in space-time) it/he wouldn’t be ‘god’. God must be beyond existence which means we can’t predicate space-time physics to ‘god’. The whole morass is incoherent and can’t be subjected to Darwinian thinking. The same is true for ‘design’ thinking. Review the history of monotheism: it was a design argument par excellence and yet looking backward see the way the whole question of design by ignoring the Kantian limits of metaphysics became pernicious. It seems logical to infer mind in nature given evidence of design. But the inference is not science or logically established with a proof, and the distinction of ‘nature’ and ‘god’ still remains, further compounding confusion. The further reason is that you must be constructivist and explicitly define that ‘other’ you have egregious declared to exist after a simplistic and basically pagan version of a divinity. Ironically pagan versions of ‘divinities’ are not subject to the same skepticism, superstition though they be.
Let’s recall that the ancient Israelites originally forbade references to ‘god’, reversing mention to a glyph or token, IHVH. That soon degenerated into the pop theism that has cursed religion ever since.
So we should not consigned to evolutionary understanding with the stupidity of random evolution via natural selection. Science may never really recover from so much muddle, if not actually deception.
And it is so easy to take a sane approach to ‘evolution’: we the empirical reality of evolution in deep time, but so far its mechanisms elude us. The design factor in evolution is clear, but it has no theological implications.
Meanwhile Hoyle got it basically right: probability makes natural selection extremely unlikely
This is hardly anything we didn’t know twenty years ago, and yet nothing changes. The design argument is somehow transparent but the proponents of ID (intelligent design) have spoiled their c…
Source: If the progessives and activist left are so radical let’s see them challenge the core social darwinist ideology of Darwinism… – 1848+: The End(s) of History
It can be very helpful to study the eonic effect and model to consider the issue of design in nature: one must engage in the study without theological prejudice. The data of world history shows the astonishing reality: the emergence of monotheism shows design in history, but the same in true of atheistic religions like religion: the deep reality is beyond simplistic theism which is a secondary product of inadequate human understanding. It is clear that the original vision of the Israelites was entirely wary of popular theism in their early, but soon lost, insistence on pointing to IHVH without using the term ‘god’. But the Jehovah confusion soon overtook everything and we have since been stuck with the pop theism with its disordered metaphysical confusions ad infinitum. Confusion over design simply shows the immature limits of current science, and, no doubt, the inability to assess teleology, once a curse overcome with the rise of Newtonian physics, but then its banishment an obstacle to the question of biology, as indeed a school of so-called teleolmechanists pointed out at the dawn of biology in the period of the real first scientist of evolution, Lamarck, whose views however inchoate were the real starting point, before the endless confusion of Darwinian took hold.
As a secular student of evolution and the ‘design’ issue I am repeatedly astonished at the rote endorsement of Darwinism in the press, in academic and finally biology fields. It is also…
Source: Why Are Science Reporters So Credulous? – 1848+: The End(s) of History
it is useful to consider Kant’s take on design beside the grossly inferior idiocy of selectionist Darwinism. Considering the dangers of skepticism still in his time Kant, to me as my suspicion, is closer to ‘atheism’ than we might think. But he reinvents a handful of new ‘god conceptions’ none of which he takes too seriously. That said, the issue of ‘god’ is so muddled we can hardly entertain the idea. Kant shows with some suggestions however that there is a larger perspective in which the ‘god’ token is relevant but confronted with skepticism. In any case his views on design are fundamental and we take that as its own standard reference, free at the same time to take that critically. Design in nature versus theology is the swamp where most are lost.
The eonic effect shows spectacular design in its historical dynamism. But it does this as a direct critique of theistic historicism and the primitive ‘cargo cult’ of Yahweh in the Old Testament. It is a strange irony: design in historical presides over the demise of the ‘god in history’ concept.
Source: Robert C. Koons: Phl 356 Lecture #16
Having cited the original article on the human neck we should cite the right on schedule critique from the ID Central site: Evolution News.
I find both arguments unsatisfactory, but the ID folks expose the tendency to defend Darwin by claiming isolated incidents speculatively used as cases of flawed design. It is not a very good way to defend Darwinian fallacies. Between the two sides it is hard to figure out who is right here, but the case for a flawed neck taken in isolation is not very convincing.
We have proposed design arguments here without the term /intelligent unless take in quotation marks.
Despite the attempts to refine the ID argument beyond theism the fact remains that the ID group is entangled in theological legacies while the standard Darwinist view is a kind idiocy that cannot survive statistical critique. But if the Darwinists are such idiots they will survive, as we can see in the endless muddle of evolutionary scientism.
Darwin asserted the “absurdity” of evolution designing a shared opening to the esophagus and trachea (windpipe).
Source: Is the Human Neck a “Mistake of Evolution”? | Evolution News