disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap

http://www.mslaw.edu
Dr. Kenneth Miller uses Dr. Beatty's very own example of a mouse trap to prove why he thinks the central idea of intelligent design, irreducible complexity, is wrong.

Kurt Olson interviews Dr. Barbara Forrest, David K. DeWolf and Dr. Kenneth R. Miller in this episode of Massachusetts Educational Forum:Educational Forum: Evolution and Intelligent Design: The Science, The Debate and the Legal Landscape.

The full interview is available at http://tinyurl.com/yts5nb . The Massachusetts School of Law also presents information on important current affairs to the general public in television and radio broadcasts, an intellectual journal, conferences, author appearances, blogs and books. For more information visit mslawledu.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• dr.beatty
• irreducible complexity
• kenneth miller
• evolution
• intellignet
• design
• religion
• darwin

[zazen108]

You are making a mistake. You can not argue with a religious person. Religion is a mental illness. The religious deal with anxiety by believing in a giant all powerful father in the sky who protects them. They obsess over behaviors like having to wear special hats, or say certain words in order to appease this ever-watchful disciplinarian. That is simply a cross between OCD, delusion and paranoia. For example try defining delusion, now try and distinguish between that and the belief in God.

[jessydaytime]

@Genomiques I read your blog and I have no problem with you proposing a testable hypothesis on front loading, but ID has yet to be tested. Until that time, I think its a waist of time. But, good luck with it. Let me know when you have been able to have your tests go through the peer review.

[odinata]

@LoricaLady

Who cares, you dried up old cunt?

[Genomiques]

@jessydaytime

"Using ID, then what process are we going to describe?"

Patterns of protein sequence conservation across different lineages, for one. Then there's cytosine deamination which is starting to look interesting from a teleological point of view. "Obviously an intervention by an intelligence...cannot be a natural process." Artificial selection is not a natural process, but a supernatural one?

[jessydaytime]

ANYONE: Whenever I meet someone who talks about a subject that is way over my head, I'm going to post an ANYONE post claiming that I'm being insulted but in reality I'm bailing out, because I can't argue about something I know nothing about. Signed... Lorica.

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: If you see 0 replies to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like virulent personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, sometimes flat out lying & sometimes worse. Some of them follow me & other around YT with such tactics, guard dogging evo vids. If you feel they make a valid point & wish to restate it I will be happy to tell what I feel is "the rest of the story." However, I only debate with those who are civil & objective.

[jessydaytime]

@Genomiques I'll get to the point. I don’t think ID can work here as science (if in fact it can work any where as science). Using ID, then what process are we going to describe? Obviously an intervention by an intelligence by definition cannot be a natural process. That is why I think its a waist of time to sign on with “ID is science” as a realistic view.