Meeting of Minds #2
by KrauzeThe internet has often been compared to a giant brain, with the individual computers acting as neurons. And just as brain activity is dependent on the thousands of billions of connections between nerve cells, so does the internet rely on one being able to find several juicy links about one's favorite subjects in one place. Neurons have been firing, keyboards have been smoking, and the wires of the internet have been glowing to bring you this collection of blog posts about intelligent design. So, turn your retinal cells in this direction and enjoy the changes of membrane potential as you read these pixels.
Also, keep an eye on The Burning Panda, who will be hosting the next edition.
Benjamin Waters of Reflections of Reality has written about everything that's wrong with evolutionary biologists: "They have this outward persona of "following science" and not "being philosophical or religious" when in reality they are just the opposite. Evolutionary theory, to them, serves as more than just a scientific theory or even a metaphysical paradigm it has become a theory of origins (not unlike the origin theory in the Bible or any other piece of religious text)."
At Tales of Tadeusz, Eric Ashley asks about the accuracy of the characterization of evolutionary biologists as starting "from an a priori assumption of a materialist universe." Hmm, perhaps he and Benjamin should meet over a beer?
David Mobley gives us A Physicist's Perspective, writing about how believing that some things are designed (and even by the God of the Bible) does not lead one to embrace Christianity: "Darwin didn't invent atheism, and atheism won't go away if Intelligent Design becomes more common. "
The Burning Panda is a new blog, which, although assuring us that "no actual panda's were harmed for any of the content on this site", seems intent on tweaking the noses of certain ID critics. They're launching with a humorous compilation of the best arguments against intelligent design. This is my favorite:
"13)The 'It's our only Hope' proof
1. If intelligent design is true then everything will return to a theocracy.
2. Seriously, there will be witch hunts.
3. Children will be raised to believe in purpose! (oh dear…)
4. We can never let that happen! Help me evolution you're my only hope.
5. Therefore evolution is true."
RLC of Viewpoint writes about intelligent design and the public school, dealing with various arguments as to why it shouldn't be taught. "[T]hough ID is compatible with belief in the God of traditional monotheism, it doesn't require it. It claims only that life possesses the stamp of purposive, intentional organization. The organizer may be the God of Judeo-Christian tradition or it may be the God of Jeffersonian deism, or it may be extra-galactic beings which somehow seeded life on this planet, as some non-theistic scientists have suggested. "
Joe Carter of the evangelical outpost has this interesting post, showing how many of the argumentys commonly used against the design of life can similarily be used against the design of, say, a watch found on a heath. "Without a means of distinguishing between designed and designoid, we are left with the conclusion that the watch, like the stone, could have lain in the field for eons before Paley stumbled across it. If Dawkins view is correct, then we must accept that all watchmakers are blind."
Poor Paul is Exiled from GROGGS. However, that isn't going to stop him from taking on some of the criticisms raised against The Privileged Planet, discussing scientific, philosophical, and theological issues: "[I]f it is the case that Earth is privileged, as the authors suggest, then we are no longer in the realms of Intelligent Design in the abstract sense. We don't just "happen to be here", with some intelligent agent out there of provenance unknown throwing teasing bits and pieces in our direction. All of a sudden, if the hypothesis is true, we – the people who are able to observe the universe, on this privileged planet – represent the focus of the universe."
Thirteen scientists and doctors have negative things to say about ID. Telic Thought's own Mike Gene considers their perspective here.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:21 pm
OT: Did the burning Panda burn up? The blog is gone.
Comment by Jean — June 21, 2005 @ 2:21 pm
June 21st, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Site is up and running.
Comment by lobo — June 21, 2005 @ 3:52 pm
June 21st, 2005 at 3:53 pm
We pulled the site after we got what we wanted. Basically to show that anti-teleologist's can dish it out but can't take it themselves. It seems that someone from the panda's thumb already snagged the blogger.com user id as well.
However- for those who want to read it, here it is:
After surveying the literature over the past few months, I've compiled the best arguments against Intelligent Design and in favor of neo-darwinism.
1)The Monty Python Proof
1. Michael Behe is an intelligent design theorist who was seen at a church
2. But only creationist's go to church
3. Michael Behe's a creationist! Burn him!
4. Therefore Evolution is true.
2)The argument from really, really, really big bones
1. Some scientists found a bone
2. It was a really big bone
3. Manatees are really big but manatees don't have this bone
4. The bone must have belonged to an older form of manatee that has now evolved.
5. Therefore evolution is true.
3)The argument from icky things
1. There's moles on some people.
2. No designer would ever design moles.
3. Therefore evolution is true.
4)The argument from age of the earth
1. Earth is 4.5 billion years old
2. Therefore evolution is true.
5)The either/or argument
1. If evolution is true then creationism is false.
2. creationism is false because evolution is true.
3. therefore evolution is true.
6)The argument from scientists
1. Scientists are perfect and never ever lie.
2. Scientists believe that evolution can explain everything.
3. Therefore evolution is true.
7)The argument from truth as determined by peer review
1. There has never been anything published in peer-reviewed journals by I.D. theorists (Meyer, Dembski, Behe, Schaeffer, Thaxton, etc)
2. If it's never been published then I.D. is false
3. Therefore evolution is true.
8)The argument from falsifiability
1. I.D. isn't real science because it isn't falsifiable.
2. Evolution is true and has falsified design.
3. Therefore evolution is true.
9)The Scotsman Fallacy of Antony Flew:
1. No scientist believes there is an Intelligent Designer.
2. Well some do.
3. No REAL scientist believes in an intelligent designer.
4. Therefore evolution is true.
10)The argument from a hissing feminist
1. Intelligent Design presupposes a patriarchal womanizer!
2. Well as a feminist I can't tolerate that!
3.
4. Feminist response- "Hiiiiiiiiissssssssssssssssssss!!!!"
5. Therefore evolution is true.
11)The argument from computer programs.
1. A programmer wrote a program that he installed on a computer.
2. The code took written words and randomly placed them together, under certain programmed rules, to form complete sentences.
3. See? Random processes CAN create information.
4. Therefore evolution is true.
12)The Choo Choo Train Proof
1. A long time ago trains were fueled by wood.
2. Then they evolved and were fueled by steam
3. Now trains are powered by electricity
4. So trains have evolved by completely random processes!
5. Therefore evolution is true.
13)The 'It's our only Hope' proof
1. If intelligent design is true then everything will return to a theocracy.
2. Seriously, there will be witch hunts.
3. Children will be raised to believe in purpose! (oh dear…)
4. We can never let that happen! Help me evolution you're my only hope.
5. Therefore evolution is true.
14)The Evolutionary Modal Ontological Argument
1. There is a possible world where evolution can explain everything necessarily.
2. So evolution is necessary then?
3. Therefore evolution is true.
15)The Argument from Eyes
1. If dolphins have eyes and birds have eyes then evolution is true.
2. Dolphins have eyes and birds have eyes.
3. Therefore evolution is true.
16)The argument of ignorance
1. Intelligent Design theorist's are ignorant.
2. I mean come on, how could anyone seriously believe that?
3. No really, how?
4. Therefore evolution is true.
17)The argument against fancy words.
1. Intelligent Design Theorists use really big words.
2. If they are using big words, then they are just trying to sound smart.
3. But if they are trying to sound smart, they really aren't smart.
4. Therefore evolution is true.
18)The argument from the Crusades
1. Christians fought in the crusades and committed horrible attrocities.
2. Christians are creationists.
3. Intelligent Design is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
4. So Intelligent Design theorist's are responsible for the horrible attrocities of the crusades.
5. Therefore evolution is true.
19)The argument of mistaken vocational identity
1. An Intelligent Design Theorist mistakenly called a biochemist a chemist once.
2. How can the I.D. theorist be so retarded?
3. Therefore evolution is true.
20)The argument from mystery
1. Intelligent Design takes the mystery from science.
2. Therefore evolution is true.
21)The 'That's just the way it is' argument
1. I wish there was purpose to life but there isn't.
2. I'm really sorry.
3. Therefore evolution is true.
22)The argument from Children's Imagination
1. Only Children believe in Santa Claus
2. Belief in God is kind of like belief in Santa Claus
3. Therefore evolution is true.
23)The argument from Lunacy
1. A guy on a lot of drugs once claimed to feel God
2. But he was on drugs.
3. Therefore evolution is true.
24)The argument from David Silverman
1. David Silverman debated Norman Geisler once.
2. David Silverman can talk louder, faster, and over Geisler.
3. Geisler could barely get a word in!
4. Boy, if Silverman can talk faster than Geisler, then he must of won the debate.
5. Therefore evolution is true.
25)The Gold Star argument
1. An atheist quit going to sunday school because he didn't get the gold star one week.
2. He's been an atheist ever since.
3. Therefore evolution is true.
26)The argument from shared molecular structures
1. Amoeba's have proteins
2. Humans have proteins.
3. Therefore evolution is true
27)The flat earth association argument
1. There were some creationist's who used to believe the earth is flat a long long time ago.
2. But the earth is a sphere
3. Therefore evolution is true
28)The appeal to Richard Dawkins
1. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist
2. Richard Dawkins is also smart
3. Therefore evolution is true
Comment by commander — June 21, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
June 21st, 2005 at 4:01 pm
PLEASE!!! can I put that on my blogsite? I enjoyed it so much!
Comment by Exile From Groggs — June 21, 2005 @ 4:01 pm
June 21st, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Best. Arguments. Ever.
Comment by ariel — June 21, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
June 21st, 2005 at 4:20 pm
Exile From Groggs:
Go for it!
tom_kbel:
This wasn't a parody of arguments only given by evolutionary scientist's against intelligent design. Instead it was a parody of what I have read in the mainstream media over the past few months I compiled it for several reasons. One- because it's funny. Two- because many of the arguments given against ID commit elemental fallacies, such as appeal to popular vote, character assasinations, generalizations, questions of the motive of the arguer versus the actual merits of the argument, etc.
Go ahead and make a parody of arguments given by creationist's.
Comment by commander — June 21, 2005 @ 4:20 pm
June 21st, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Hi Commander,
Does this mean that you won't be hosting the next installment after all?
Comment by Krauze — June 21, 2005 @ 5:14 pm
June 21st, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Thanks, Commander. It has been reposted here.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — June 21, 2005 @ 6:29 pm
June 24th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
I don't know that I quite understand the burning panda situation. You started the blog, and then GAVE it to the pandasthumb people?
- Giff
Comment by thegiffman — June 24, 2005 @ 10:12 pm