(cont) They are LIARS. I would prefer it if they would just drop all the BS, tell the truth, and admit that their intent is to ultimately replace science with religion. But we know the reason why they don't. They know Americans would reject this approach, and it would not pass Constitutional muster. Hence the "Wedge" strategy. They keep sharpening it and sharpening it, and they are very patient and well-funded.
The thing that bothers me the most about the Discovery Institute (DI) is that they are such liars. Intelligent Design (ID) IS Creationism. This was actually proven in court. There are internal DI documents that have come to light, instructions to the followers of the movement to stop using the phrase "Creationism" and they even have found drafts of ID textbooks where Creationism was hastily replaced with the words Intelligent Design, and some of the characters were actually left behind. (cont)
3:19 "That is absolutely false, we need intelligence to explain engineering systems." No, we USE our intelligence to explain engineering system. We don't simply declare, "This system needs to be designed intelligently to work!" in engineering to explain how any machine work. We use science and naturalistic laws (physics, hydraulics) to explain how it work and to design new things. How does intelligent design even help our understanding in biology or translate to real world application?
As for HGT - that occurs in bacteria only (as far as I'm aware, I could be wrong here). The recipients of plasmids still reproduce in the same fashion (ie Vertical Gene Transmission). They just replicate the new information. So I'm not sure what you were trying to prove there.
I have enjoyed talking to you. But until you abandon literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and see the Genesis account as something doxological and praising, you will always disregard what I say.
Species diversify. It is what they do. And when they diversify to the point where they can no longer breed, they become a different species.
The time it took to get to the state of organisms on earth as they are today, took a very long time. We can still observe the same processes that made it happen. Just don't wait for something impossible like a penguin chick falling out of a hippo's bottom.
So you're saying heliocentric THEORY isn't a fact in the common sense of the word? I have news for you, nothing can be proved outside of mathematics, specifically mathematics deriving from Euclidean axioms. To deny evolution because it is labelled theory, is to deny heliocentric theory, Einstein's theory of relativity, cosmology and well, almost everything. And no, phylogenetic trees map the similarities. The opposing ends of a tree are not similar at all.
It isn't a lie - I have two uncles that are medical doctors specialising in infectious diseases, one of whom is thoroughly involved in clinical research of RNA viruses. I'm not a virologist, however, they themselves say evolutionary theory is a fundamental part of their ability to make accurate predictions about their experiments. I don't doubt the validity of their work. The standards of peer-review are very high.
@Eleutherarch Your two uncles are not the measuring stick for sciences so throw that bogus testimony out the window. It is worthless to me or any body else. What you need to prove is exactly how believing in a false theory affects what is observable and testable.
Beliefs have 0 impact on science! unless those same beliefs lead one to corrupt the science and tell lies to keep the myth of their beliefs true. (ie Haeckel and the like)
@Eleutherarch I do not believe in evolution one single bit. If I took your uncles work in a bid to falsify it, I believe I would arrive at the very same conclusions they did without making any assumptions about how life begun. THAT IS SCIENCE. THE OBSERVABLE AND TESTABLE!
Dont tell silly lies about how your uncles. Their predictions depend on previously observed and tested experiments not RNA viruses. (there are no RNA virus fossils buddy)
@karamarouge Please stop referring to "how life begun". We are not talking about abiogenesis. Stop conflating the two.
You are again, correct. Beliefs don't have an impact upon the validity of scientific theories (thankfully). Which is why evolutionary biology still exists, despite the crusades of Young Earthers.
The reference to my uncles was only an example close to hand. The simple fact is, evolution is testable, observable and disprovable. Fossils aren't the only way of confirming it
@Eleutherarch Um no! first of all beliefs have every thing to do with scientific "theory". Beliefs have nothing to do with scientific FACT. Which is observable, testable and ultimately falsifiable. There is no way to observe evolution because apparently it takes millions of years. And there is no million year old scientist that I know of. There is no way to test for it (again the million year problem.) so there is no way to falsify because you cant falsify that which cant be seen
@Eleutherarch Observing variation in life and then making the outrageous claim that an organism can sprout entire organisms and biological systems is about as stupid as seeing a man jump 2 feet high in the air then claiming that in a million years with selective breeding his kids will be able to jump right over mountains! Its the exact same logic. Making unprovable rather idiotic claims based on nothing really.
@Eleutherarch This video is indeed about the beginning of life. We are talking about design after all. At least I am. You may be talking about something else but I am clearly talking about the beginning of life.
@karamarouge DNA hybridisation is a readily accessible and repeatable experiment. It's results are mapped directly into irrefutable phylogenetic trees. It is proof of common ancestry. My acceptance of biological evolution is not dogmatic. If they found, for example, fossils in the wrong geological strata, I would reject the theory.
You can believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists are trying to deceive you maliciously. But is it likely?
@Eleutherarch An experiment is useless if it only satisfies circular logic. DNA is similar in certain organisms because well animals evolved. How do we know they evolved well because DNA is similar. That is circular logic it is not science. A creationist can equally argue that hybridization only proves intelligent design because the designer essentially used the same parts to design life only tweaking here and there to create variation.
@Eleutherarch And the person making the argument for this kind of design because there are several genes shared by different animals that could not have been acquired by any known evolutionary process. (horizontal gene transfer for example is not an evolutionary process at all). This is exactly why no scientist worth his salt even refers to Darwin's Tree of life exactly because it has been categorically disproven. And here you are trying to pimp its cousin.
Michael Shermer could've made it a lot easier for himself by simply explaining that evolutionary theory is the universally accepted model within biological, biochemical and applied science. Dembski is wrong (and he knows he is wrong) to say it is blind when natural selection is by its very nature, a non-random process operating on selection pressures. The selection pressures are harder to predict. Specific genetic mutations can be hard to predict. But evolution remains a valid explanation.
@Eleutherarch Um may be he didnt want to tell bold lies on national tv. There is absolutely no course requirement for evolution theory in any applied science in any university in the world. Not in genetics, bio-chemistry.
Evolution theory is categorized firmly as theoretical science and it is absolutely irrelevant to any of the applied sciences as history has shown a great many successful
scientists that have made many contributions to humanity yet didnt believe in evolution.
@karamarouge It is not theoretical. It is demonstrable. It is utilised to make predictions about the mutation of seasonal RNA based viruses to name an example. Or it's use to predict and correctly explain the difference between the 46 chromosomes of humans compared with the 48 of modern day apes.
Yes, scientists have made many, many brilliant discoveries in their respective fields (Newton and the laws of gravity) before the proposal of evolution, but not many after.
@Eleutherarch Um no sir DO NOT TELL LIES. Predictions about mutation of seasonal RNA based viruses is based on observation and experimentation of previously virus strains. Viral mutations can be observed, can be experimented on and same experiments can be repeated and verified.
Observing mutation is observing mutation. NOT EVOLUTION NONSENSE!
IT IS NOT DONE BASED ON WHAT HOW A FEW PEOPLE THEORIZE LIFE BEGUN!
@Eleutherarch "Yes, scientists have made many, many brilliant discoveries in their respective fields (Newton and the laws of gravity) before the proposal of evolution, but not many after."
I dont get it, so are you arguing that Evolution theory is the problem because after its advancement, scientific discovery seems to have slowed down according to you?
@karamarouge Oh I can think of an exception. One of the guys who discovered the carbon allotrope "Buckminsterfullerene" was diagnosed with cancer later in life. He gave his life to Christ after, became a fundamentalist and took up the creationist cause with vigour. But that has no bearing on his contribution to chemistry. And he wasn't exactly qualified to make unsupported assertions about biological science. It wasn't his field.
@Eleutherarch When it comes to evolution theory, a chemist has every right to challenge any chemical based theory such as abiogenesis. And even bio chemical events that have never been proven but evolutionists claim can happen.
He has more of a right to speak on evolution theory than say a Dawkins has a right to speak on theology or philosophy.
Speaking of which, Isnt Shermer just a "theoretical psychologist"?
@karamarouge Furthermore, you are right - observing mutation has nothing to do with the theory of how life begun, but the rates of mutation and subsequent changes in allelic frequencies is directly tied to evolutionary theory. No one ever said that about the unsubstantiated theory of how life was formed from organic molecules (abiogenesis).
Responding to that question, yeah I made a typo. I meant after E was proposed, we don't see many scientists endorsing creation (Crick, Einstein, Bohr etc)
@karamarouge Lastly, he does not have more of a right to speak on biology than Dawkins does theology (even though Dawkins can be a bit tiresome sometimes). There is no monopoly on theology, as evidenced by 30,000 denominations of Christianity. Not so with science. Philosophy is a different matter entirely. Shermer's big thing is skepticism. Here you have a skeptic (MS) vs a mathematician (Dembski).
Question to you - do you have a religious belief that influences your position on E theory?
Some intelligent agency designed the bacterial flagellum motor? bwahahaha. Please, even if we couldnt explain NOW have the motor evolved, its crazy to suggest its a higher being doing this. Anyway we do know how the flagellum evolved, you CAN reduce it's complexity, in fact if you do, you get bacteria like the bubonic plague. If something on a cellular level looks really complicated, WOW, well go ahead and explain how why that is. What a cop out to say it was just designed that way. sorry, no.
1st: Kudos to the CNN lady for smacking down Dembski's attempt to set up a strawman.
2nd: I'm fine with teleology being taught as one part of a comparative religion elective course. But keep it the hell out of our required science classes!
Humans are really bad at identifying design. Even human designs a hundred or so years old can be hard to identify because they are not used anymore. There are some "designs" in insect nests (beehives, wasps, termite and ant mounds) but are they really the product of intelligence ?
a nice study would be how does instinctive behavior come about.
THEORHETICALY "IF" there is intelligent design, Intelligent design PRECEDES the Big Bang "IF" there was a Big Bang! Duh you unnerstand now duh? IF IF IF
Thousands of years ago, we were unaware of the existence of micro-organisms, that meant people that got sick were being punished for being sinners. Just because we don't have the answers at the moment does not mean there is an intelligence behind it. Science is the constant critique and search for answers of the unexplainable. It is how we had advanced, and will continue to.
Dembski should no better.. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. We have very good explanations for its developmnt. If you remove proteins in the system, you get a virus syringe. It is reducible.
Intelligent design is not science. It's a failed metaphor.
"You can't look at a car and think it is not designed, that it does not have a designer."
No, but you would never say the phenomenon of thunder implies a thunderer. Or you can and we'll all laugh in your face because ancient peoples did indeed think that and named that designer Zeus. Lo and behold, religion.
@jerico641 The Discovery Institute is a constant source of amusement. I love it that these people exist. Their wilful stupidity makes me feel so much more intelligent. Oh sweet irony.
Thank Zeus for CNN and their strong devotion to vigorously investigating the truth and spending five rushed minutes on the question of the origin of complex life. Luckily they didn't spend 10, otherwise Brother Shermer would have gotten to speak for more than one minute total and intelligent design would no longer seem intelligent. "It could be god, it could be aliens. There's a real debate here." hahahahahhahahahahahaha
@ScottBrown666 Wow, 9 thumbs up for that. So on your logic, mechanical engineers do not exist? Bill Gates once likened DNA to a "computer software programme, but far far more complicated than any created." What does it take to produce a software programme? Code. What produces the code? Intelligence. The DNA molecule contains information which cannot be explained away by a Darwinian process. Blind chance does not produce order or complexity, intelligence does.
@elitegumby But then you find yourself in an infinite regress of intelligence and complexity. We can create things and consider it intelligent, but my point was that we could have done a better job with anatomy and physiology than our current design. Ironically we understand the complexity and how it evolved from the simplicity, the only place we fall short of your imaginary creator is in the genesis of the small and simpler things like single cells and organelles, but we're getting there too.
@ScottBrown666 Explain how you get an infinite regress? Ultimately there has to be a first uncaused cause. We know from cosmology for example that the universe had an absolute origin, it's not eternal in the past. Your second point, if I've understood it correctly, seems to suggest that because there's poor design, that disporves a creator. Your throwing stones in a glass house there. By saying the design was poor, your still conceding design. (Continued)
@ScottBrown666 Lastly, I don't think scientists will ever produce somethng as complex as a single cell. But even if they could, it justs proves the point, it takes 'intelligence' to produce complexity. Biogenesis, life comes from life. That's the only thing that has been tested and proved empirically. No-one has ever seen life come from non-life.
In the beginning, the reporter said that the discussion was interrupted by a report from NASA. We have a program that sends people into space, and we still haven't figured out that science works where ancient knowledge fails?
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL Apology accepted. I usually try not to point out other people's spelling or grammar errors unless I cut and past a comment from them and enclose it in my reply. If they've made an egregious error I often attach a [sic] to indicate I quoted them exactly, errors and all.
I have a masters degree yet I'm not that good at spelling, but at least I use a spell checker. I believe that it detracts from one's credibility if they don't have good grammar or spelling.
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL My god you're a prolific writer. You really have a lot to say but I wish you had sent these 20 or so comments to my personal inbox instead of here.
I do appreciate your thoughtful responses though, at least until I read your arrogance in your last two comments to me. Now you're starting to annoy me.
I would like to respond with equal detail but I would rather send it to you personally. Expect it in a day or so since I've worked a 24 hr shift and I'm too tired to think.
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL "It seems very clear to me that there is an "intelligent design" behind everything just from simple observation"
Simple observation is deceiving. If we relied on simple observation we would still believe the earth is flat, or that we live in a Ptolemaic geocentric universe rather than the correct Copernican heliocentric universe that we know. It was the scientific method that corrected our erroneous "simple observations."
@SnoopyDaniels And computers not reproducing is in fact very relevant. It means they couldn't possibly have the potential to have a common ancestor, so using it as an analogy to a living thing that has evolved is ridiculous. Reproduction is a fundemental tenet of evolution. Doesn't work w/o it. So of course anyone would agree the computer had to be designed, it's a man made unnatural object.
@SnoopyDaniels How so? Pls define intelligence? Do you know of any example of intelligence that is free of a physical mind/brain? Intelligence implies a mind, mind means there's a brain. And we have no examples of brains existing outside of earth, we know for certain they evolved here. So how could a mind exist outside of a brain?
except the bacterial flagellum has been explained by evolution... intelligent design is incoherent. there is no mechanism connecting the so-called-intelligence with any observable phenomena in the universe. it's just accepted by faith and personal incredulity. ask how it did it and the IDiots scatter. what, did it speak everything into being? did it dream it? use a magical pencil that made whatever it drew real? Geez, and they have the audacity to say this isnt creationism? What assclowns :p
the intelligent design argument was designed by a moron. That's why Rick Perry supports it and why he laid off thousands of teachers in Texas - intelligence threatens intelligent design arguments.
Actually, boc, it's "rattletrapski," after the way his mind works. The chances that it could be anything else are beyond Universal Probability Bound of 10 to the 150th.
What is it with creationists thinking that comparing non biological systems to biological ones is a good argument? The last time I checked even our most complex pieces of engineering didn't have DNA or reproduced with live young. To say something along the lines of well we know a computer is designed therefore a cell must be too is completely asinine.
I can't stand the hypocrisy of people like Dembski who say that he is not trying to say that the intelligence is god. Who does he think he is kidding. When you pointedly ask them to state who or what the designer is they will ignore the question or equivocate until no one is sure what is even being discussed any more. It seems like one of the requirements of being a creationist is be spineless.
Christians are accused of being "closed minded." I listened to others concerning Christianity and had to "open my mind" swallow my pride and admit ignorance. Christianity is testable, it is evidential. When people can't handle the truth they turn to personal attacks on the speaker. There is a God who created all things seen and unseen. Repent and believe the good news!
I hate ID. And I am a theist. People who blindly accept any "evidence" that they think supports their conclusions (which are made before any deliberation I might add) are an embarrassment to all theists. The more we like an idea, the more sceptical we need to be to keep from fooling ourselves.
i cant believe this guy (dembski) got away with creating his own ID "research center" at my school. funny thing, when all the science departments found out (it was kinda secret up to that point), he was forced to get out lol
The forces of nature are not blind despite the fact that humans have difficulty predicting outcomes in evolution. The problem of not being able to predict outcomes is too many variables and inability to know everything. Trying to predict what a creator being would create and any purposes this being would have for creating is unpredictable. How did this being get here and why must it be human like?
@buschmann It continues to surprise me that people who regard themselves as smart but produce theories that contribute nothing to the understanding of scientific processes received nearly unlimited air time to broadcast non-science. If you can't convince a person who understand the scientific method that your theory follows the method, do some reach and come up with something workable.
I am always amazed how stupid evolutionists are !! What the hell is the world coming to ?? IQ levels must be falling all the time, proving evolution wrong anyway !!
@buschmann69 " IQ levels must be falling all the time, proving evolution wrong anyway !!"
IQ levels falling wouldn't necessarily prove evolution wrong "anyway".
Maybe a lower IQ is beneficial for survival in today's world. ;-)
Whatever way the IQs go it's still evolution. Wouldn't "intelligently designed" people have a consistent IQ instead of a change of IQ over time? (Change over time = Evolution)
Though I guess your IQ actually depends quite much on other things than your genes.
EVOLUTION IS NOT BLIND!!!!! NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT CHANCE!!!! YOU DUMB FUCK CREATIONIST FAILURE DUMBASSKI!!!!!!!!!! cough* cough* sorry for the all caps everyone. Dumbasski just pisses me off with his shameless and repeated misrepresentations of the thing he is attacking.
@mattetho Are you incapable of understanding how conversations/debates work? Here, I'll show you. We ask each other questions, then answer them. Simple. What argument am I to present when all you do is throw pathetic insults?
@mattetho@mattetho This is pretty comical. If you want to argue about evolution, just send me a private message. If you want to troll and talk about how stupid you think I am, I'd suggest finding a better way to spend your time on YouTube because I'm not going to respond to any more replies of that nature.
@mattetho You call me a ballbag then claim the intellectual high ground? Hmmm...nice logic! Use correct punctuation and learn where to put a question mark and your infantile IQ insult might be taken more seriously.
"You brainless comments dont do you any favors?" Is that supposed to be a question??????????? LOOK! There are lots of them!
It is not about me. Look on the bright side you do not have to beleive me.
When I said out of His Ass, it means that all of his deductions are flawed, nothing but manipulation of contrived pure combinatorial examples, like his of the Election officials sample.
His principle had never being verified by any empirical data.
conservation means two things are equivalent ex: Mass / energy, Electric and Magnetic fields,
Potential and Kinetic Energy, Time and Space, and so on.
@mattetho Regarding "grow a brain and lets hear exactly what the argument is??? this is your chance to impress us all. I will wait," this isn't the place for that. I can't condense my arguments into a YouTube Comment, or even a few.
Go to college if you want a biology lesson. If there's a specific argument that you want to hear my take on, send me a private message.
@mattetho This is the YouTube comments section. I have an excellent vocabulary, but words like "shit" and "crap" are appropriate here. And since you called me out for being stupid based something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I'll show you how it's done. I could have called you a moron for misusing commas, not capitalizing words, forgetting an apostrophe in "let's," and so on.
@mattetho If you've taken anything above an introductory biology class, you know Dembski is full of shit. Religious people and math geeks might buy his crap, but most people scientists would agree that he's a glaring example of why you shouldn't try to speak with any authority outside of your specialty.
Because information is a “communication between minds”, another mind must have given RNA its information and the knowledge of the language by which it was to receive the information. This argument is a variation of Thomas Aquinas’ “fifth way” of proving the necessity of an intelligent creator.
In biology, numerous scientists have reasoned that ribonucleic acid, or RNA, started the biochemical reactions necessary to create life. RNA certainly does contain information, but where did it get its information from? How did the RNA acquire the knowledge of the language by which to receive information from?
For example: Am I giving you any information right now? In fact, I am not. Rather, I’m merely using lines in a specific order that represent information. Therefore, for this communication between minds to occur, a “language” must have been previously established.
Information can be defined as a “communication between minds”. In other words, all that has information must have received at least a portion of it from another being with information. However, it must be noted that information is not a tangible thing.
Dumbski is such a damn liar: everyone knows these IDiots are trying to get 'god' in the classroom in order to brainwash impressionable youngsters. They *hate* real science because it requires no superstitious assumptions!
I dont know much about science and I am Christian, I'll declare it before I make any comments. Dawkins himself believes in intelligent design... so why is everyone pissed at Dembski for presenting his argument? Personally I think every species has genes that interact with their environment; therefore, letting the species evolve in a beneficial way depending on its surroundings. But let me go on to say, when Charles Darwin proposed evolution, he knew not how complex the simplest organism is.
He doesn't even have the integrity to say that the intelligence behind the design he's proposing is God!
He claims it could be any kind of intelligence even aliens. But if it's aliens, who designed them Dembsky, ah? If he'll claim that the aliens could have come into being naturally, then why couldn't we? Hence, nullifying the need for intelligence! If not then he will ultimately have to get to a God!
No matter how you put it, 'intelligent design' = 'creationism'!!!
ALL of what Dembski claims can't be explained by evolution ... has been explained by evolution. Your personal disbelief is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance".
And nobody has come up with any good theory of how the flagellum evolved! Neither Miller nor Orr!! Some hypothetical ideas of how it might have evolved with no actual evidence for it! WOuld someone believe a Computer found beneath the earth just somehow evolved? You have to twist your minds and believe the impossible. It becomes religion! Noone has ever obsered Macro Evolution. Its just hypothetical and not scientific!
@joraynas Yes, they have. And they have shown that they can remove up to 40 parts from the flagellum's "motor" and it will still function. It's a different function, but it still functions which, absolutely proves evolution.
The computer analogy is also another one of those used regularly and tossed out as a joke.
Macro evolution is several micro evolutions over a time period. It is proven, and not just through the fossil records either. Even Behe said Intelligent Design is not science.
Dembsky had the better arguments!! But you biased atheists who have totally closed your minds to the possibility of there being a God keep on defending your religious doctrine of Atheism without even being open minded and using your minds! There are systems that are too complex to have evolved just by chance!Chance doesnt do a thing! Not in billions of years would something like a computer just assemble perfectly. Take the flagellum for example! ID is the logical and obvious way to go!
Obviously the anchor woman is really bias and clearly favoring the atheist Shemer. Demsky was great (from 3:50- 4:36) when he clearly debunk Shermer and suddenly the anchor woman steps in 4:37.
ID uses argument from ignorance and god of the gaps. We don't know, so god did it! ID is not science and the majority of real scientist agree. ID is creationism and an attempt to introduce Christianity in the public schools. So says the (Wedge Strategy). ID should never be taught in the science classroom. End of story.
OK, Creationism and ID has been proclaimed an idiocy by real science and in courts of law across the country. Let's move on towards real progress and civilization.
@bersa888 ID has not been proclaimed an idiocy by real science, it has been proclaimed as something that does not belong in the scientific field of discipline. Without the ability to prove or disprove using the scientific method, ID is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument.
@jameskirkwall : Even a philosophical argument should be based on something close to a logical and sound set of conjectures, hypothesis and possibly real data. Arguments from complexity or beauty don't hold on to today's standards of reason.
@bersa888 Do arguments of nothing creating something hold on to today's standards of reason? ID is a philosophical argument. At this point and time we do not know how random atoms and molecules became organisms. Perhaps everything ultimately has a natural scientific explanation. Perhaps not.
@jameskirkwall : You should read about the newest development in cosmology...Although still within the realm of theoretical physics (we can never know 100% how it happened), "something out of nothing" seems to be exactly how it happened, not only that, but possibly the only way it could have happened to have the kind of observable universe we have today: a truly godless universe. So far, calculations, observations, experiments (Hadron Collider) etc. are all confirming the theory.
@bersa888 I have studied the latest something from nothing rhetoric. I watched the lecture by cosmologist Lawrence Krauss titled, “A Universe from Nothing” on YouTube and read Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design. The problems I see with making a conclusion is that we don’t know how and why particles pop in and out of existence or why dark energy exists. We can easily dismiss religious fables, but there is still much we don't know in the origins of the physical and biological universe.
@jameskirkwall : Agreed :-) (we know "how", though. We - they - can only basically see clues and infer conclusions which reflect what they CAN indeed observe). At that level they may never get a fool-proof test of their theories. No matter what, they make enormously more sense than any theological preposition :-)))))
@bersa888 But what if natural science is simply a study of what was already intelligently designed, and what was intelligently designed is what we now call “natural.” Imagine a fish in an aquarium making a declaration that their world was spontaneously generated. :)
@jameskirkwall : Hahaha!! Yes, that too... actually, Hawking said "... because it (science) works". I misquoted him. But what if we are fish in an aquarium, inside an aquarium, inside another aquarium, etc.... this kind of speculations ARE what I'd call real speculations. I'm interested in what can be seen, tested, observed, understood. Religion has never worked to answer real question about what's count: reality. During the last 150 years or so, science has progressed... (cont.d)
@bersa888 (cont.d)... soooo much, while religion (the Church, theology, philosophy) has gotten us nowhere, still worried about whom we married, how and with whom we have sex, whining about anything, still causing hatred and war (Islam, Palestine & Israel)... there is only one light ahead of us which we should aim for, if we are willing to pull through the ages for a few more thousands of years, and that's the light of true science and humanism.
@bersa888 True, I hear what you're saying, but I believe religion can be used for evil, but is not necessarily evil itself. History is a roller coaster ride of good and evil while ancient religious text remains static. If somehow a supernatural intelligence is deemed necessary for the existence of the physical and biological universe, it still would not prove an afterlife or an interactive god. The afterlife is the greatest religion sales pitch IMO for so many who fear death.
@jameskirkwall : There's a great little book out there called "The Faith Instinct", by Nicholas Wade. It's a quite impartial essay on religion, its history, shortcomings, importance and relevance in today's world, etc.. I'd strongly recommend it :-) As far as the "afterlife", I hate to repeat myself, but I'm as skeptic about it as I'm skeptic about elves and unicorns. I say this with a straight face and complete honesty. I once was nothing, I will again be nothing some day. We are the lucky ones
Obviously, you are not an agnostic. Agnostic are rather smart, intelligent people, for whom, the 'watchmaker argument; is nothing more than yet another idiocy created by the creationists..ooops..err.. 'intelligent' designers.
I believe you like the word 'agnostic', huh? It's sounding so 'intelligent', so latin, right? :-))
@MrJurekGG Ah, but the argument is still relevant. Paley argued that life was more complex than the watch in a degree beyond all computation. The more basic the most simple life form is, the greater plausibility it happened by blind chance. The more complex, the less likely it was a blind accident. People used to think that the first life forms were simple sacks of protoplasm. We now know that even the most simple form of life is amazingly complex.
Dembski proves, once again, that he is a moron. But since he clearly doesn't understand the concept of reproduction, let's hope that his genes die a quiet death.
How does a series of random events produce a universe which exhibits regularity, a high degree of order, structure and harmony? A universe which is governed by a limited set of ingenious, elegant, logical, mathematically precise laws?
A designing intelligence or a natural world which is inherently intelligent makes the most sense of our understanding of the world. By no means am I suggesting a theistic god(s) nor do I reject evolution.
@JerezJulio, Dembski never said anything about computer programs reproducing. He was not referring to macroevolution, but the need for intelligence in biology.
Not yet! Just give us a few million years to evolve and lets talk then.
Now imagine if our universe, the bigbang itself was designed and artificially created by some unimaginably complex entity/intelligence as a test or prototype.
Crazy? As crazy as believing we are just a random mathematical coincidence, our consciusness and intelligence is just a stupid accident with no purpose nor goals.
quote: "Now imagine if our universe, the bigbang itself was designed and artificially created by some unimaginably complex entity/intelligence as a test or prototype."
What else can I say, you say is a crazy idea, and you are right.
As for the secund question, No there is not equivalence in the two positions, Dembsky is wrong.
Worse than that, he knows he is wrong but his dishonesty and his fundamentalist Christian views are stronger than any integrity he might has left.
Whether or not computer programs reproduce is perfectly irrelevant. Shermer's point was that to say something is intelligently designed doesn't mean anything because it invokes a supernatural explanation. Dembski made him look stupid by pointing out the obvious: that intelligence ISN'T a supernatural explanation.
Dembsky did not make anyone look like a Fool, Dembsky looked like a Fool.
Intelligence with not cause is a supernatural explanation.
Demsky seem to thinks that probability theories explain Creationism, and he is wrong, furthermore his Design inference Theory has being falsified many time.
He misrepresent basics principles of probability theory to arrive to predefine conclusion that he pull out of His ass. He has being called on his mistakes in his book but he ignore it.
4:00 "a purposeful design/process"....Wtf? The intelligence purposefully made us susceptible to disease and death?!! Well fuck him then:)
devilman666 1 month ago
(cont) They are LIARS. I would prefer it if they would just drop all the BS, tell the truth, and admit that their intent is to ultimately replace science with religion. But we know the reason why they don't. They know Americans would reject this approach, and it would not pass Constitutional muster. Hence the "Wedge" strategy. They keep sharpening it and sharpening it, and they are very patient and well-funded.
DandAinTac 1 month ago 2
The thing that bothers me the most about the Discovery Institute (DI) is that they are such liars. Intelligent Design (ID) IS Creationism. This was actually proven in court. There are internal DI documents that have come to light, instructions to the followers of the movement to stop using the phrase "Creationism" and they even have found drafts of ID textbooks where Creationism was hastily replaced with the words Intelligent Design, and some of the characters were actually left behind. (cont)
DandAinTac 1 month ago 2
Apart from its demonstrable falsness, what's there to really teach with Intelligent Design?
0122460166 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3:19 "That is absolutely false, we need intelligence to explain engineering systems." No, we USE our intelligence to explain engineering system. We don't simply declare, "This system needs to be designed intelligently to work!" in engineering to explain how any machine work. We use science and naturalistic laws (physics, hydraulics) to explain how it work and to design new things. How does intelligent design even help our understanding in biology or translate to real world application?
wildreams 1 month ago
Comment removed
wildreams 1 month ago
Dembski gives me the creeps
MrPhilosopher1950 1 month ago
CNN's programming is evidence against intelligent design.
lastsamba 1 month ago
As for HGT - that occurs in bacteria only (as far as I'm aware, I could be wrong here). The recipients of plasmids still reproduce in the same fashion (ie Vertical Gene Transmission). They just replicate the new information. So I'm not sure what you were trying to prove there.
I have enjoyed talking to you. But until you abandon literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and see the Genesis account as something doxological and praising, you will always disregard what I say.
All the best.
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
Species diversify. It is what they do. And when they diversify to the point where they can no longer breed, they become a different species.
The time it took to get to the state of organisms on earth as they are today, took a very long time. We can still observe the same processes that made it happen. Just don't wait for something impossible like a penguin chick falling out of a hippo's bottom.
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
So you're saying heliocentric THEORY isn't a fact in the common sense of the word? I have news for you, nothing can be proved outside of mathematics, specifically mathematics deriving from Euclidean axioms. To deny evolution because it is labelled theory, is to deny heliocentric theory, Einstein's theory of relativity, cosmology and well, almost everything. And no, phylogenetic trees map the similarities. The opposing ends of a tree are not similar at all.
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
The dude with the glasses looks way smarter than he actually is.
TripleDoubleFine 2 months ago
It isn't a lie - I have two uncles that are medical doctors specialising in infectious diseases, one of whom is thoroughly involved in clinical research of RNA viruses. I'm not a virologist, however, they themselves say evolutionary theory is a fundamental part of their ability to make accurate predictions about their experiments. I don't doubt the validity of their work. The standards of peer-review are very high.
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch Your two uncles are not the measuring stick for sciences so throw that bogus testimony out the window. It is worthless to me or any body else. What you need to prove is exactly how believing in a false theory affects what is observable and testable.
Beliefs have 0 impact on science! unless those same beliefs lead one to corrupt the science and tell lies to keep the myth of their beliefs true. (ie Haeckel and the like)
karamarouge 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch I do not believe in evolution one single bit. If I took your uncles work in a bid to falsify it, I believe I would arrive at the very same conclusions they did without making any assumptions about how life begun. THAT IS SCIENCE. THE OBSERVABLE AND TESTABLE!
Dont tell silly lies about how your uncles. Their predictions depend on previously observed and tested experiments not RNA viruses. (there are no RNA virus fossils buddy)
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge Please stop referring to "how life begun". We are not talking about abiogenesis. Stop conflating the two.
You are again, correct. Beliefs don't have an impact upon the validity of scientific theories (thankfully). Which is why evolutionary biology still exists, despite the crusades of Young Earthers.
The reference to my uncles was only an example close to hand. The simple fact is, evolution is testable, observable and disprovable. Fossils aren't the only way of confirming it
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch Um no! first of all beliefs have every thing to do with scientific "theory". Beliefs have nothing to do with scientific FACT. Which is observable, testable and ultimately falsifiable. There is no way to observe evolution because apparently it takes millions of years. And there is no million year old scientist that I know of. There is no way to test for it (again the million year problem.) so there is no way to falsify because you cant falsify that which cant be seen
karamarouge 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch Observing variation in life and then making the outrageous claim that an organism can sprout entire organisms and biological systems is about as stupid as seeing a man jump 2 feet high in the air then claiming that in a million years with selective breeding his kids will be able to jump right over mountains! Its the exact same logic. Making unprovable rather idiotic claims based on nothing really.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch This video is indeed about the beginning of life. We are talking about design after all. At least I am. You may be talking about something else but I am clearly talking about the beginning of life.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge DNA hybridisation is a readily accessible and repeatable experiment. It's results are mapped directly into irrefutable phylogenetic trees. It is proof of common ancestry. My acceptance of biological evolution is not dogmatic. If they found, for example, fossils in the wrong geological strata, I would reject the theory.
You can believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists are trying to deceive you maliciously. But is it likely?
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch An experiment is useless if it only satisfies circular logic. DNA is similar in certain organisms because well animals evolved. How do we know they evolved well because DNA is similar. That is circular logic it is not science. A creationist can equally argue that hybridization only proves intelligent design because the designer essentially used the same parts to design life only tweaking here and there to create variation.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch And the person making the argument for this kind of design because there are several genes shared by different animals that could not have been acquired by any known evolutionary process. (horizontal gene transfer for example is not an evolutionary process at all). This is exactly why no scientist worth his salt even refers to Darwin's Tree of life exactly because it has been categorically disproven. And here you are trying to pimp its cousin.
karamarouge 2 months ago
Michael Shermer could've made it a lot easier for himself by simply explaining that evolutionary theory is the universally accepted model within biological, biochemical and applied science. Dembski is wrong (and he knows he is wrong) to say it is blind when natural selection is by its very nature, a non-random process operating on selection pressures. The selection pressures are harder to predict. Specific genetic mutations can be hard to predict. But evolution remains a valid explanation.
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch Um may be he didnt want to tell bold lies on national tv. There is absolutely no course requirement for evolution theory in any applied science in any university in the world. Not in genetics, bio-chemistry.
Evolution theory is categorized firmly as theoretical science and it is absolutely irrelevant to any of the applied sciences as history has shown a great many successful
scientists that have made many contributions to humanity yet didnt believe in evolution.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge It is not theoretical. It is demonstrable. It is utilised to make predictions about the mutation of seasonal RNA based viruses to name an example. Or it's use to predict and correctly explain the difference between the 46 chromosomes of humans compared with the 48 of modern day apes.
Yes, scientists have made many, many brilliant discoveries in their respective fields (Newton and the laws of gravity) before the proposal of evolution, but not many after.
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch Um no sir DO NOT TELL LIES. Predictions about mutation of seasonal RNA based viruses is based on observation and experimentation of previously virus strains. Viral mutations can be observed, can be experimented on and same experiments can be repeated and verified.
Observing mutation is observing mutation. NOT EVOLUTION NONSENSE!
IT IS NOT DONE BASED ON WHAT HOW A FEW PEOPLE THEORIZE LIFE BEGUN!
AGAIN, DO NOT TELL LIES!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch "Yes, scientists have made many, many brilliant discoveries in their respective fields (Newton and the laws of gravity) before the proposal of evolution, but not many after."
I dont get it, so are you arguing that Evolution theory is the problem because after its advancement, scientific discovery seems to have slowed down according to you?
That is a question to you not a statement.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge Oh I can think of an exception. One of the guys who discovered the carbon allotrope "Buckminsterfullerene" was diagnosed with cancer later in life. He gave his life to Christ after, became a fundamentalist and took up the creationist cause with vigour. But that has no bearing on his contribution to chemistry. And he wasn't exactly qualified to make unsupported assertions about biological science. It wasn't his field.
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
@Eleutherarch When it comes to evolution theory, a chemist has every right to challenge any chemical based theory such as abiogenesis. And even bio chemical events that have never been proven but evolutionists claim can happen.
He has more of a right to speak on evolution theory than say a Dawkins has a right to speak on theology or philosophy.
Speaking of which, Isnt Shermer just a "theoretical psychologist"?
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge Furthermore, you are right - observing mutation has nothing to do with the theory of how life begun, but the rates of mutation and subsequent changes in allelic frequencies is directly tied to evolutionary theory. No one ever said that about the unsubstantiated theory of how life was formed from organic molecules (abiogenesis).
Responding to that question, yeah I made a typo. I meant after E was proposed, we don't see many scientists endorsing creation (Crick, Einstein, Bohr etc)
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
@karamarouge Lastly, he does not have more of a right to speak on biology than Dawkins does theology (even though Dawkins can be a bit tiresome sometimes). There is no monopoly on theology, as evidenced by 30,000 denominations of Christianity. Not so with science. Philosophy is a different matter entirely. Shermer's big thing is skepticism. Here you have a skeptic (MS) vs a mathematician (Dembski).
Question to you - do you have a religious belief that influences your position on E theory?
Eleutherarch 2 months ago
It takes intelligence to build a mouse trap but not the mouse? roflmao!
Macro Evolution FAILS the scientific method since it cannot be duplicated or predicted.
parasitesarefunny 2 months ago
Some intelligent agency designed the bacterial flagellum motor? bwahahaha. Please, even if we couldnt explain NOW have the motor evolved, its crazy to suggest its a higher being doing this. Anyway we do know how the flagellum evolved, you CAN reduce it's complexity, in fact if you do, you get bacteria like the bubonic plague. If something on a cellular level looks really complicated, WOW, well go ahead and explain how why that is. What a cop out to say it was just designed that way. sorry, no.
Johnf85 2 months ago
1st: Kudos to the CNN lady for smacking down Dembski's attempt to set up a strawman.
2nd: I'm fine with teleology being taught as one part of a comparative religion elective course. But keep it the hell out of our required science classes!
rmcdaniel423 2 months ago
"What does it mean to say that a computer program wasn't intelligently designed" -- I know, because it doesn't fucking reproduce!
ElDuorPaso 2 months ago
Humans are really bad at identifying design. Even human designs a hundred or so years old can be hard to identify because they are not used anymore. There are some "designs" in insect nests (beehives, wasps, termite and ant mounds) but are they really the product of intelligence ?
a nice study would be how does instinctive behavior come about.
SqueakerAlpha 2 months ago
I love Michael Shermer.......always so polite and has something to say.
AceofDlamonds 2 months ago
Dumbsky..
statickk14 3 months ago
That 'motor' he's talking about was quite actually developed by natural selection, as shown by modern day biologists.
OhmgrownCron 3 months ago
Cancer designed God and cancer is my favorite intelligent design.
puppiesNicecream 3 months ago 4
MICHAEL SHERMER FOR PRESIDENT!
screenflicker1 3 months ago
I glad we dont have this ID crap in Australia
dickhead2905 3 months ago
Intelligent design is way before the Big Bang
EGMAG 4 months ago
@EGMAG Duh.
ScottBrown666 3 months ago
@ScottBrown666
It took you one week to think of "Duh.
How far back on the evolutionary line is "your" brain?
EGMAG 3 months ago
@ScottBrown666
THEORHETICALY "IF" there is intelligent design, Intelligent design PRECEDES the Big Bang "IF" there was a Big Bang! Duh you unnerstand now duh? IF IF IF
EGMAG 3 months ago
Comment removed
BillKiernan 4 months ago
dembski was destroyed by hitchens
thescorpionking2020 4 months ago
That anchor needs to shut the hell up and let them talk.
obankobi 4 months ago
Thousands of years ago, we were unaware of the existence of micro-organisms, that meant people that got sick were being punished for being sinners. Just because we don't have the answers at the moment does not mean there is an intelligence behind it. Science is the constant critique and search for answers of the unexplainable. It is how we had advanced, and will continue to.
Heebz24 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dembski is so fucking ugly
1990PatMorrison 4 months ago
unintelligent delusion
phildirt3 4 months ago
Dembski should no better.. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. We have very good explanations for its developmnt. If you remove proteins in the system, you get a virus syringe. It is reducible.
Johnf85 4 months ago
Intelligent design is not science. It's a failed metaphor.
"You can't look at a car and think it is not designed, that it does not have a designer."
No, but you would never say the phenomenon of thunder implies a thunderer. Or you can and we'll all laugh in your face because ancient peoples did indeed think that and named that designer Zeus. Lo and behold, religion.
proprodigySD 5 months ago
even if we don't understand how something functions today doesn't mean you get to fill in the gaps with baloney.
kabloozie 5 months ago
If it's not science it's not shit
bighrabovsky 5 months ago
Intelligent design is for morons
bighrabovsky 5 months ago
Michael Shermer was eaten alive by Kent Hovind in a debate. He is a Joke. Skeptic about anything about what he believes in.
lightsoutnow30 5 months ago
@lightsoutnow30 what?
Kullfogden 5 months ago
@Kullfogden typo, thanks, "except what he believes in".
lightsoutnow30 5 months ago
The Discovery Institute is a Church in a cheap tuxedo...
jerico641 5 months ago 33
@jerico641 The Discovery Institute is a constant source of amusement. I love it that these people exist. Their wilful stupidity makes me feel so much more intelligent. Oh sweet irony.
nummulite99 5 months ago
@nummulite99
So true; true irony can be sooo sweet, right? And if nothing else, waiting to see what insane arguments they'll come up with next is a lot of fun!
jerico641 5 months ago
@jerico641 perfect what a lot of bullshit
phildirt3 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phildirt3
Sorry, are you referring to my comments or the Institute's?
jerico641 3 months ago
"intelligent design falls under the engineering sciences"?
uhh... whah?
022171 5 months ago 3
Thank Zeus for CNN and their strong devotion to vigorously investigating the truth and spending five rushed minutes on the question of the origin of complex life. Luckily they didn't spend 10, otherwise Brother Shermer would have gotten to speak for more than one minute total and intelligent design would no longer seem intelligent. "It could be god, it could be aliens. There's a real debate here." hahahahahhahahahahahaha
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
Intelligent design is an oxymoron.
ScottBrown666 6 months ago 24
@ScottBrown666 Wow, 9 thumbs up for that. So on your logic, mechanical engineers do not exist? Bill Gates once likened DNA to a "computer software programme, but far far more complicated than any created." What does it take to produce a software programme? Code. What produces the code? Intelligence. The DNA molecule contains information which cannot be explained away by a Darwinian process. Blind chance does not produce order or complexity, intelligence does.
elitegumby 3 months ago
@elitegumby But then you find yourself in an infinite regress of intelligence and complexity. We can create things and consider it intelligent, but my point was that we could have done a better job with anatomy and physiology than our current design. Ironically we understand the complexity and how it evolved from the simplicity, the only place we fall short of your imaginary creator is in the genesis of the small and simpler things like single cells and organelles, but we're getting there too.
ScottBrown666 3 months ago
@ScottBrown666 Explain how you get an infinite regress? Ultimately there has to be a first uncaused cause. We know from cosmology for example that the universe had an absolute origin, it's not eternal in the past. Your second point, if I've understood it correctly, seems to suggest that because there's poor design, that disporves a creator. Your throwing stones in a glass house there. By saying the design was poor, your still conceding design. (Continued)
elitegumby 3 months ago
@ScottBrown666 Lastly, I don't think scientists will ever produce somethng as complex as a single cell. But even if they could, it justs proves the point, it takes 'intelligence' to produce complexity. Biogenesis, life comes from life. That's the only thing that has been tested and proved empirically. No-one has ever seen life come from non-life.
elitegumby 3 months ago
@elitegumby Your stupid.
dickhead2905 3 months ago
@ScottBrown666 you believe that lie isnt that something how they made that up?
phildirt3 3 months ago
Engineering is not a science lolz
fcdog555 6 months ago
Gee, a theist that attacks and attacks without the notion that ATTACKING something doesn't PROVE his point. Here's my shocked face.....
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
In the beginning, the reporter said that the discussion was interrupted by a report from NASA. We have a program that sends people into space, and we still haven't figured out that science works where ancient knowledge fails?
theonlyguyontheleft 6 months ago 2
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL "unless I cut and past [sic] a comment"
I meant paste. See, I already made a mistake. That's what I get for not reading it before posting it. But then as I said I'm tired.
burkerow 6 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL Apology accepted. I usually try not to point out other people's spelling or grammar errors unless I cut and past a comment from them and enclose it in my reply. If they've made an egregious error I often attach a [sic] to indicate I quoted them exactly, errors and all.
I have a masters degree yet I'm not that good at spelling, but at least I use a spell checker. I believe that it detracts from one's credibility if they don't have good grammar or spelling.
burkerow 6 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL My god you're a prolific writer. You really have a lot to say but I wish you had sent these 20 or so comments to my personal inbox instead of here.
I do appreciate your thoughtful responses though, at least until I read your arrogance in your last two comments to me. Now you're starting to annoy me.
I would like to respond with equal detail but I would rather send it to you personally. Expect it in a day or so since I've worked a 24 hr shift and I'm too tired to think.
burkerow 6 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL "It seems very clear to me that there is an "intelligent design" behind everything just from simple observation"
Simple observation is deceiving. If we relied on simple observation we would still believe the earth is flat, or that we live in a Ptolemaic geocentric universe rather than the correct Copernican heliocentric universe that we know. It was the scientific method that corrected our erroneous "simple observations."
Dembski needs to practice real science.
burkerow 6 months ago
Demski: "Because Michael Shermer doesn't know exactly how microscopic entities evolved a billion years ago, I am right."
Shermer: "Seriously?"
Demski: "Computers are designed. But you think life wasn't? Therefore you are wrong."
darwinkilledgod 6 months ago
They seem to be talking past each other.
ion010101 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels And computers not reproducing is in fact very relevant. It means they couldn't possibly have the potential to have a common ancestor, so using it as an analogy to a living thing that has evolved is ridiculous. Reproduction is a fundemental tenet of evolution. Doesn't work w/o it. So of course anyone would agree the computer had to be designed, it's a man made unnatural object.
itrainedinside 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels How so? Pls define intelligence? Do you know of any example of intelligence that is free of a physical mind/brain? Intelligence implies a mind, mind means there's a brain. And we have no examples of brains existing outside of earth, we know for certain they evolved here. So how could a mind exist outside of a brain?
itrainedinside 6 months ago
except the bacterial flagellum has been explained by evolution... intelligent design is incoherent. there is no mechanism connecting the so-called-intelligence with any observable phenomena in the universe. it's just accepted by faith and personal incredulity. ask how it did it and the IDiots scatter. what, did it speak everything into being? did it dream it? use a magical pencil that made whatever it drew real? Geez, and they have the audacity to say this isnt creationism? What assclowns :p
craigore2011 6 months ago
CNN, this would have been different if on Fox:) i am just saying.
lightsoutnow30 6 months ago
Wow. Cnn is really biased!
3bforme 6 months ago
I hate how they have debates on news channels. They always end with "sorry but we are out of time."
Leifthrasir 7 months ago
the intelligent design argument was designed by a moron. That's why Rick Perry supports it and why he laid off thousands of teachers in Texas - intelligence threatens intelligent design arguments.
TheTexasbeekeeper 7 months ago
Actually, boc, it's "rattletrapski," after the way his mind works. The chances that it could be anything else are beyond Universal Probability Bound of 10 to the 150th.
alivingock 7 months ago
Is that Dembski or Dumbski?
boc1953 8 months ago
What is it with creationists thinking that comparing non biological systems to biological ones is a good argument? The last time I checked even our most complex pieces of engineering didn't have DNA or reproduced with live young. To say something along the lines of well we know a computer is designed therefore a cell must be too is completely asinine.
ptango101 8 months ago
I can't stand the hypocrisy of people like Dembski who say that he is not trying to say that the intelligence is god. Who does he think he is kidding. When you pointedly ask them to state who or what the designer is they will ignore the question or equivocate until no one is sure what is even being discussed any more. It seems like one of the requirements of being a creationist is be spineless.
ptango101 8 months ago
Christians are accused of being "closed minded." I listened to others concerning Christianity and had to "open my mind" swallow my pride and admit ignorance. Christianity is testable, it is evidential. When people can't handle the truth they turn to personal attacks on the speaker. There is a God who created all things seen and unseen. Repent and believe the good news!
jfmjldupre 8 months ago
I hate ID. And I am a theist. People who blindly accept any "evidence" that they think supports their conclusions (which are made before any deliberation I might add) are an embarrassment to all theists. The more we like an idea, the more sceptical we need to be to keep from fooling ourselves.
ErnilEnNaur 8 months ago
Dembski's assessment of evolution is as incorrect as his choice of glasses.
bioparahti 9 months ago 2
Mutations (variety) = Random
Natural Selection (environmental judge of variation) = NON-random [pass or fail]
Read that three times ID/creationists, because you're still not getting it.
bioparahti 9 months ago
i cant believe this guy (dembski) got away with creating his own ID "research center" at my school. funny thing, when all the science departments found out (it was kinda secret up to that point), he was forced to get out lol
DrProfessorMDPhD17 9 months ago
The forces of nature are not blind despite the fact that humans have difficulty predicting outcomes in evolution. The problem of not being able to predict outcomes is too many variables and inability to know everything. Trying to predict what a creator being would create and any purposes this being would have for creating is unpredictable. How did this being get here and why must it be human like?
humansaretheworld 9 months ago
It's funny how dembski only had stuff to say about evolution. Which wasn't even correct either.
ScientificBob 9 months ago
Bottomline: Dembski has no evidence. Period.
greenarcher180 9 months ago
@buschmann It continues to surprise me that people who regard themselves as smart but produce theories that contribute nothing to the understanding of scientific processes received nearly unlimited air time to broadcast non-science. If you can't convince a person who understand the scientific method that your theory follows the method, do some reach and come up with something workable.
Ematched 10 months ago
I am always amazed how stupid evolutionists are !! What the hell is the world coming to ?? IQ levels must be falling all the time, proving evolution wrong anyway !!
buschmann69 10 months ago
@buschmann69 " IQ levels must be falling all the time, proving evolution wrong anyway !!"
IQ levels falling wouldn't necessarily prove evolution wrong "anyway".
Maybe a lower IQ is beneficial for survival in today's world. ;-)
Whatever way the IQs go it's still evolution. Wouldn't "intelligently designed" people have a consistent IQ instead of a change of IQ over time? (Change over time = Evolution)
Though I guess your IQ actually depends quite much on other things than your genes.
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 9 months ago
EVOLUTION IS NOT BLIND!!!!! NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT CHANCE!!!! YOU DUMB FUCK CREATIONIST FAILURE DUMBASSKI!!!!!!!!!! cough* cough* sorry for the all caps everyone. Dumbasski just pisses me off with his shameless and repeated misrepresentations of the thing he is attacking.
RaggedM88 11 months ago
@RaggedM88 How dumb are you, tree-swinging monkey ass ??? Evolution is for brainless tree-swingers !! Regards to your chimp ancestors !!
buschmann69 10 months ago
@mattetho Are you incapable of understanding how conversations/debates work? Here, I'll show you. We ask each other questions, then answer them. Simple. What argument am I to present when all you do is throw pathetic insults?
crabbit101 11 months ago
@mattetho @mattetho This is pretty comical. If you want to argue about evolution, just send me a private message. If you want to troll and talk about how stupid you think I am, I'd suggest finding a better way to spend your time on YouTube because I'm not going to respond to any more replies of that nature.
MMAharaja 11 months ago
Comment removed
MMAharaja 11 months ago
@mattetho You call me a ballbag then claim the intellectual high ground? Hmmm...nice logic! Use correct punctuation and learn where to put a question mark and your infantile IQ insult might be taken more seriously.
"You brainless comments dont do you any favors?" Is that supposed to be a question??????????? LOOK! There are lots of them!
crabbit101 11 months ago
@mattetho Scared of a pin-dick, chisel-faced, cracker-ass like Dembski? You wish.
crabbit101 11 months ago
@mattetho
It is not about me. Look on the bright side you do not have to beleive me.
When I said out of His Ass, it means that all of his deductions are flawed, nothing but manipulation of contrived pure combinatorial examples, like his of the Election officials sample.
His principle had never being verified by any empirical data.
conservation means two things are equivalent ex: Mass / energy, Electric and Magnetic fields,
Potential and Kinetic Energy, Time and Space, and so on.
JerezJulio 11 months ago
@mattetho,
Demsky did not say what the Information is equivalent too, and how this can be confirmed.
But do not take my word for it, read what real Peer Review professors like Jeffrey Shallit say about Dembsky:
"Dembski is not a scientist by any reasonable standard, has not published any experimental or empirical tests of his claims"
JerezJulio 11 months ago
Jesus Christ Is God
1. Jesus Christ fulfills over 2-0-0 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies ( Isaiah 9:6-7; etc.) Google Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.
2. Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John.
a. “… for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
Check the Gospel of John in the New Testament.
3. 17 Secular sources confirm that Jesus Christ walked the earth (Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus.
GsliMaIiy 11 months ago
@mattetho Regarding "grow a brain and lets hear exactly what the argument is??? this is your chance to impress us all. I will wait," this isn't the place for that. I can't condense my arguments into a YouTube Comment, or even a few.
Go to college if you want a biology lesson. If there's a specific argument that you want to hear my take on, send me a private message.
MMAharaja 11 months ago
@mattetho This is the YouTube comments section. I have an excellent vocabulary, but words like "shit" and "crap" are appropriate here. And since you called me out for being stupid based something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I'll show you how it's done. I could have called you a moron for misusing commas, not capitalizing words, forgetting an apostrophe in "let's," and so on.
MMAharaja 11 months ago
@mattetho
Well I am a Mathematician and, for fun, I read his "Principle Of Conservation of Information",
and it is plain and simple and principle he pulled out of His Ass.
Would you like to discuss it with me?
William Dembky is a complete Ideologue that, he is dishonest, and untrustworthy.
JerezJulio 11 months ago
@mattetho If you've taken anything above an introductory biology class, you know Dembski is full of shit. Religious people and math geeks might buy his crap, but most people scientists would agree that he's a glaring example of why you shouldn't try to speak with any authority outside of your specialty.
MMAharaja 11 months ago
Because information is a “communication between minds”, another mind must have given RNA its information and the knowledge of the language by which it was to receive the information. This argument is a variation of Thomas Aquinas’ “fifth way” of proving the necessity of an intelligent creator.
THEEVANTHETOON 11 months ago
In biology, numerous scientists have reasoned that ribonucleic acid, or RNA, started the biochemical reactions necessary to create life. RNA certainly does contain information, but where did it get its information from? How did the RNA acquire the knowledge of the language by which to receive information from?
THEEVANTHETOON 11 months ago
For example: Am I giving you any information right now? In fact, I am not. Rather, I’m merely using lines in a specific order that represent information. Therefore, for this communication between minds to occur, a “language” must have been previously established.
THEEVANTHETOON 11 months ago
Information can be defined as a “communication between minds”. In other words, all that has information must have received at least a portion of it from another being with information. However, it must be noted that information is not a tangible thing.
THEEVANTHETOON 11 months ago
If you look in the dictionary for the word 'Nerd' you'll see a picture of Dembski.
Ignorant twat.
crabbit101 11 months ago
How can someone so stupid have so many degrees?
MMAharaja 11 months ago
@MMAharaja Depends where they got those "degrees"! As not all degrees are equal. LOL
Ahabite 11 months ago
Dumbski is such a damn liar: everyone knows these IDiots are trying to get 'god' in the classroom in order to brainwash impressionable youngsters. They *hate* real science because it requires no superstitious assumptions!
hznfrst 11 months ago
I dont know much about science and I am Christian, I'll declare it before I make any comments. Dawkins himself believes in intelligent design... so why is everyone pissed at Dembski for presenting his argument? Personally I think every species has genes that interact with their environment; therefore, letting the species evolve in a beneficial way depending on its surroundings. But let me go on to say, when Charles Darwin proposed evolution, he knew not how complex the simplest organism is.
CRAZE177 11 months ago
Dembsky is full of BS!!!
He doesn't even have the integrity to say that the intelligence behind the design he's proposing is God!
He claims it could be any kind of intelligence even aliens. But if it's aliens, who designed them Dembsky, ah? If he'll claim that the aliens could have come into being naturally, then why couldn't we? Hence, nullifying the need for intelligence! If not then he will ultimately have to get to a God!
No matter how you put it, 'intelligent design' = 'creationism'!!!
fassstar 1 year ago
ALL of what Dembski claims can't be explained by evolution ... has been explained by evolution. Your personal disbelief is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance".
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
I cannot believe that they still try saying that ID is not creationism. I mean come on, move on damn it!!
Hermy1138 1 year ago
And nobody has come up with any good theory of how the flagellum evolved! Neither Miller nor Orr!! Some hypothetical ideas of how it might have evolved with no actual evidence for it! WOuld someone believe a Computer found beneath the earth just somehow evolved? You have to twist your minds and believe the impossible. It becomes religion! Noone has ever obsered Macro Evolution. Its just hypothetical and not scientific!
joraynas 1 year ago
@joraynas Yes, they have. And they have shown that they can remove up to 40 parts from the flagellum's "motor" and it will still function. It's a different function, but it still functions which, absolutely proves evolution.
The computer analogy is also another one of those used regularly and tossed out as a joke.
Macro evolution is several micro evolutions over a time period. It is proven, and not just through the fossil records either. Even Behe said Intelligent Design is not science.
tommy605 1 year ago
Dembsky had the better arguments!! But you biased atheists who have totally closed your minds to the possibility of there being a God keep on defending your religious doctrine of Atheism without even being open minded and using your minds! There are systems that are too complex to have evolved just by chance!Chance doesnt do a thing! Not in billions of years would something like a computer just assemble perfectly. Take the flagellum for example! ID is the logical and obvious way to go!
joraynas 1 year ago
Obviously the anchor woman is really bias and clearly favoring the atheist Shemer. Demsky was great (from 3:50- 4:36) when he clearly debunk Shermer and suddenly the anchor woman steps in 4:37.
IMPhoenix1 1 year ago
@IMPhoenix1 ....actually the anchor woman did fine...Watch again, they both had equal time.
Shermer was interrupted by the anchorwoman and by Demski...twice.
The one time Demski is cut off - suddenly the whole thing is bias????
Shermer was calm, didn't interrupt...oh and he was right...maybe that's where the problem is.
Roper122 1 year ago
ID uses argument from ignorance and god of the gaps. We don't know, so god did it! ID is not science and the majority of real scientist agree. ID is creationism and an attempt to introduce Christianity in the public schools. So says the (Wedge Strategy). ID should never be taught in the science classroom. End of story.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
OK, Creationism and ID has been proclaimed an idiocy by real science and in courts of law across the country. Let's move on towards real progress and civilization.
bersa888 1 year ago
@bersa888 ID has not been proclaimed an idiocy by real science, it has been proclaimed as something that does not belong in the scientific field of discipline. Without the ability to prove or disprove using the scientific method, ID is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument.
jameskirkwall 1 year ago
@jameskirkwall : Even a philosophical argument should be based on something close to a logical and sound set of conjectures, hypothesis and possibly real data. Arguments from complexity or beauty don't hold on to today's standards of reason.
bersa888 1 year ago
@bersa888 Do arguments of nothing creating something hold on to today's standards of reason? ID is a philosophical argument. At this point and time we do not know how random atoms and molecules became organisms. Perhaps everything ultimately has a natural scientific explanation. Perhaps not.
jameskirkwall 1 year ago
@jameskirkwall : You should read about the newest development in cosmology...Although still within the realm of theoretical physics (we can never know 100% how it happened), "something out of nothing" seems to be exactly how it happened, not only that, but possibly the only way it could have happened to have the kind of observable universe we have today: a truly godless universe. So far, calculations, observations, experiments (Hadron Collider) etc. are all confirming the theory.
bersa888 1 year ago
@bersa888 I have studied the latest something from nothing rhetoric. I watched the lecture by cosmologist Lawrence Krauss titled, “A Universe from Nothing” on YouTube and read Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design. The problems I see with making a conclusion is that we don’t know how and why particles pop in and out of existence or why dark energy exists. We can easily dismiss religious fables, but there is still much we don't know in the origins of the physical and biological universe.
jameskirkwall 1 year ago
@jameskirkwall : Agreed :-) (we know "how", though. We - they - can only basically see clues and infer conclusions which reflect what they CAN indeed observe). At that level they may never get a fool-proof test of their theories. No matter what, they make enormously more sense than any theological preposition :-)))))
bersa888 1 year ago
@jameskirkwall : ...or, in Hawking's words, "science will win, because it's TRUE" ;-)
bersa888 1 year ago
@bersa888 But what if natural science is simply a study of what was already intelligently designed, and what was intelligently designed is what we now call “natural.” Imagine a fish in an aquarium making a declaration that their world was spontaneously generated. :)
jameskirkwall 1 year ago
@jameskirkwall : Hahaha!! Yes, that too... actually, Hawking said "... because it (science) works". I misquoted him. But what if we are fish in an aquarium, inside an aquarium, inside another aquarium, etc.... this kind of speculations ARE what I'd call real speculations. I'm interested in what can be seen, tested, observed, understood. Religion has never worked to answer real question about what's count: reality. During the last 150 years or so, science has progressed... (cont.d)
bersa888 1 year ago
@bersa888 (cont.d)... soooo much, while religion (the Church, theology, philosophy) has gotten us nowhere, still worried about whom we married, how and with whom we have sex, whining about anything, still causing hatred and war (Islam, Palestine & Israel)... there is only one light ahead of us which we should aim for, if we are willing to pull through the ages for a few more thousands of years, and that's the light of true science and humanism.
bersa888 1 year ago
@bersa888 True, I hear what you're saying, but I believe religion can be used for evil, but is not necessarily evil itself. History is a roller coaster ride of good and evil while ancient religious text remains static. If somehow a supernatural intelligence is deemed necessary for the existence of the physical and biological universe, it still would not prove an afterlife or an interactive god. The afterlife is the greatest religion sales pitch IMO for so many who fear death.
jameskirkwall 1 year ago
@jameskirkwall : There's a great little book out there called "The Faith Instinct", by Nicholas Wade. It's a quite impartial essay on religion, its history, shortcomings, importance and relevance in today's world, etc.. I'd strongly recommend it :-) As far as the "afterlife", I hate to repeat myself, but I'm as skeptic about it as I'm skeptic about elves and unicorns. I say this with a straight face and complete honesty. I once was nothing, I will again be nothing some day. We are the lucky ones
bersa888 1 year ago
omfg i cant belive ppl are still using the "watchmaker argument" and im a theist
1navyseal1962 1 year ago
@1navyseal1962 I like the ''watchmaker argument'' and I'm an agnostic. :)
jameskirkwall 1 year ago
@jameskirkwall
Obviously, you are not an agnostic. Agnostic are rather smart, intelligent people, for whom, the 'watchmaker argument; is nothing more than yet another idiocy created by the creationists..ooops..err.. 'intelligent' designers.
I believe you like the word 'agnostic', huh? It's sounding so 'intelligent', so latin, right? :-))
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
@MrJurekGG Ah, but the argument is still relevant. Paley argued that life was more complex than the watch in a degree beyond all computation. The more basic the most simple life form is, the greater plausibility it happened by blind chance. The more complex, the less likely it was a blind accident. People used to think that the first life forms were simple sacks of protoplasm. We now know that even the most simple form of life is amazingly complex.
jameskirkwall 1 year ago
Dembski proves, once again, that he is a moron. But since he clearly doesn't understand the concept of reproduction, let's hope that his genes die a quiet death.
Mapariensis 1 year ago
How does a series of random events produce a universe which exhibits regularity, a high degree of order, structure and harmony? A universe which is governed by a limited set of ingenious, elegant, logical, mathematically precise laws?
A designing intelligence or a natural world which is inherently intelligent makes the most sense of our understanding of the world. By no means am I suggesting a theistic god(s) nor do I reject evolution.
revo1974 1 year ago
How can anyone make this fool Dembsky understand that computer programs do not reproduce?
Changes happens because leaving things reproduce, and mutation and Natural selection generate diversity of life.
JerezJulio 1 year ago 10
@JerezJulio
Evolution on computers has been accomplished. Check out the BBC documentary The Secret Life of Chaos. You can find it here on YT, parts 5/6 & 6/6.
revo1974 1 year ago
@JerezJulio, Dembski never said anything about computer programs reproducing. He was not referring to macroevolution, but the need for intelligence in biology.
THEEVANTHETOON 11 months ago
@JerezJulio "computer programs do not reproduce"
Not yet! Just give us a few million years to evolve and lets talk then.
Now imagine if our universe, the bigbang itself was designed and artificially created by some unimaginably complex entity/intelligence as a test or prototype.
Crazy? As crazy as believing we are just a random mathematical coincidence, our consciusness and intelligence is just a stupid accident with no purpose nor goals.
They both might be right and wrong.
nadoeloiskat 7 months ago
@nadoeloiskat
quote: "Now imagine if our universe, the bigbang itself was designed and artificially created by some unimaginably complex entity/intelligence as a test or prototype."
What else can I say, you say is a crazy idea, and you are right.
As for the secund question, No there is not equivalence in the two positions, Dembsky is wrong.
Worse than that, he knows he is wrong but his dishonesty and his fundamentalist Christian views are stronger than any integrity he might has left.
JerezJulio 7 months ago
@JerezJulio
Whether or not computer programs reproduce is perfectly irrelevant. Shermer's point was that to say something is intelligently designed doesn't mean anything because it invokes a supernatural explanation. Dembski made him look stupid by pointing out the obvious: that intelligence ISN'T a supernatural explanation.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels
Dembsky did not make anyone look like a Fool, Dembsky looked like a Fool.
Intelligence with not cause is a supernatural explanation.
Demsky seem to thinks that probability theories explain Creationism, and he is wrong, furthermore his Design inference Theory has being falsified many time.
He misrepresent basics principles of probability theory to arrive to predefine conclusion that he pull out of His ass. He has being called on his mistakes in his book but he ignore it.
JerezJulio 6 months ago
Nothing you said was even coherent, so I'll just leave it alone.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago