RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: ID "theory" is dead on the vine, Signs of its demise....< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2007,15:47   

Everyone's favorite Morphodyke has been whining that not only is ID not dying, it's thriving.  Dimbski is always bragging about how ID is catching on in some 3rd world country (just look at his Google gaffs for evidence).  Yet most everyone with more than two brain cells is pretty much convinced ID "theory" is either dead or on its last leg.  Here are a few bits of evidence that I think are worth mentioning, and note the Amazing Steve Story posted this on PT and I asked if I could repost it here, it's too good to ignore.

Quote
William Dumbski, 2002:

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.


Quote
Paul Nelson, 2004:

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” –- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.


Quote
Jonathan Moonlight Wells, 2007:

“I don’t think I’m obligated to propose an alternate theory,” Wells publicly stated. “I don’t pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life.”


Quote
Behe in the vise:

(Rothschild)Q. And I’m correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?

(Behe)A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.

Q. And you haven’t undertaken to try and figure out those?

A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.

Q. It would be a waste of time?

A. It would not be fruitful.


Quote
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design:

Contact Information

ISCID
66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 1800
Princeton, NJ 08542

609-924-4424 (general)

The essay contests at ISCID have been cancelled, the conferences have been cancelled, the student workshops have been cancelled, the online chats have been cancelled. The ID ‘journal’ hasn’t put anything out since 2005.
I’ve emailed two different ‘editors’ of that journal, asking when the next issue was coming. No response. So I just dialed that phone number. After it rang for a while, a fax machine tried to pick up.


And let's not forget overwhelming evidence where at least 4 ir 5 IDers post at least once a week.  

After Dover they were all "this won't stop us, this is not our waterloo, we have not yet begun to fight" but it did stop them.  What have they done since Dover other than whine like babies?  And where are all the ID conferances?  

I think this pretty much makes a good case for the fact that ID as a theory is not really dead because it never came to life.

Other than UD (the home for wayward creationists) and the non-stop press releases from the DI, is there ANY evidence that ID even exists?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
cdesign proponentsist



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2007,16:46   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 07 2007,15:47)
Everyone's favorite Morphodyke has been whining that not only is ID not dying, it's thriving.  Dimbski is always bragging about how ID is catching on in some 3rd world country (just look at his Google gaffs for evidence).  Yet most everyone with more than two brain cells is pretty much convinced ID "theory" is either dead or on its last leg.  Here are a few bits of evidence that I think are worth mentioning, and note the Amazing Steve Story posted this on PT and I asked if I could repost it here, it's too good to ignore.

 
Quote
William Dumbski, 2002:

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.


 
Quote
Paul Nelson, 2004:

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” –- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.


 
Quote
Jonathan Moonlight Wells, 2007:

“I don’t think I’m obligated to propose an alternate theory,” Wells publicly stated. “I don’t pretend to have an alternate theory that explains the history of life.”


 
Quote
Behe in the vise:

(Rothschild)Q. And I’m correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?

(Behe)A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.

Q. And you haven’t undertaken to try and figure out those?

A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.

Q. It would be a waste of time?

A. It would not be fruitful.


 
Quote
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design:

Contact Information

ISCID
66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 1800
Princeton, NJ 08542

609-924-4424 (general)

The essay contests at ISCID have been cancelled, the conferences have been cancelled, the student workshops have been cancelled, the online chats have been cancelled. The ID ‘journal’ hasn’t put anything out since 2005.
I’ve emailed two different ‘editors’ of that journal, asking when the next issue was coming. No response. So I just dialed that phone number. After it rang for a while, a fax machine tried to pick up.


And let's not forget overwhelming evidence where at least 4 ir 5 IDers post at least once a week.  

After Dover they were all "this won't stop us, this is not our waterloo, we have not yet begun to fight" but it did stop them.  What have they done since Dover other than whine like babies?  And where are all the ID conferances?  

I think this pretty much makes a good case for the fact that ID as a theory is not really dead because it never came to life.

Other than UD (the home for wayward creationists) and the non-stop press releases from the DI, is there ANY evidence that ID even exists?

Quote
I think this pretty much makes a good case for the fact that ID as a theory is not really dead because it never came to life.


Scientifically, that quote is dead on, but in terms of the survival of ID "theory", I feel that it's irrelevant. ID's survival has never depended upon science but rather upon mimicry of science (as the meme thread has been discussing), and I think the Biologic Institute is further evidence that the show will go on. They've got people with degrees, a handful of papers that they claim support ID, and soon a research institution to call their own. Pump out a few more irrelevant papers about how knocking out genes or mutating some proteins kill cells, maybe get one published, and it'll be like Dover never happened.

I feel like people are too optimistic in believing that the ID is a done deal. The Creation Museum was still able to drum up the $25 million needed for construction long after YEC got shot down in the courts, and I don't see why ID should fare worse.

--------------
"Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons." -Dembski

The ID epiphany: Nothing in ID makes sense until you accept they're trying to look stupid.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2007,17:23   

Quote
I feel like people are too optimistic in believing that the ID is a done deal. The Creation Museum was still able to drum up the $25 million needed for construction long after YEC got shot down in the courts, and I don't see why ID should fare worse.


But all ID ever was, was the wing of Creationism that tried to act all sciency-like. Its base has always been people who were lured away from straight Creationism by the promise of Creationism made more powerful by looking all empirical and stuff. ID has bent over backwards not to conflict with YEC or OEC in any way, and ID jargon has been thoroughly assimilated into Creationism.

If ID continues to not accomplish anything, I suspect the bulk of its adherents will simply drift back to stratght Creationism, tho they'll presumably just keep the jargon, since Creationists are incapable of ever completely throwing out any discredited argument. Whatever is left of ID will simply become indistinguishable from Creationism.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2007,17:58   

Quote (cdesign proponentsist @ Mar. 07 2007,16:46)
I feel like people are too optimistic in believing that the ID is a done deal. The Creation Museum was still able to drum up the $25 million needed for construction long after YEC got shot down in the courts, and I don't see why ID should fare worse.

As an effective political movement, ID is dead, just like YEC died twenty years ago.

As a religious movement, of course, it will never die.  Just like YEC or the UFO conventions, they'll continue to make their living siphoning money from the fruitcake faithful.  And no one outside their hermetic little fundieworld will care, or pay the slightest attention to them (other than to laugh at them).  

Ya know, sort of like UD.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2007,19:10   

We can also add in there somewhere Denyse's credulous rantings that ID is busting out all over the world, it's an international movement. I've now called the International Society blah blah Design's phone number 3 times during regular business hours. Each time, it rings a while, and then a fax machine tries to pick up. Seems their conferences, web chats, student workshops, journal, is now just a lonely fax machine in a dark room in some little office building.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2007,20:18   

The monotonous drum-beat of criticism of "Darwinists" on UD, DI websites, and anywhere else that the "science of ID" is loved, is one of the best signs of its demise (and no, Dense O'Leary, "it's demise" doesn't refer to every dolt giving up their useless biases).

Seriously, they do nothing but lob the criticisms that we never address their points, we censor their science, and we're propping up a dying theory.  Once upon a time they'd at least try to back up their tired lies with some further insipid nonsense, but as they've been answered in just about every way possible they hardly have much scope for pointing to anything which might back up their BS.  

So it's just a bunch of naked and transparent whining going on, something that Denyse is at least able to put into some decent prose.  That she knows almost nothing about science as practiced or its raison d'etre, she's as untroubled as your typical mindless poster in merely following the whine and making bare and meaningless accusations, but at least it makes her glib where Dembski and DaveTard just look pathetic in their apologetics for ID.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2007,20:26   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 07 2007,19:10)
We can also add in there somewhere Denyse's credulous rantings that ID is busting out all over the world, it's an international movement. I've now called the International Society blah blah Design's phone number 3 times during regular business hours. Each time, it rings a while, and then a fax machine tries to pick up. Seems their conferences, web chats, student workshops, journal, is now just a lonely fax machine in a dark room in some little office building.

Priceless.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2007,21:09   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 07 2007,20:18)
something that Denyse is at least able to put into some decent prose.

Now you're just being patronizing.

Denyse couldn't write her way out of kindergarten if you gave her a box of 64 crayolas and filled in all the blanks for her.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
  7 replies since Mar. 07 2007,15:47 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]