«   |   »

My ID predictions for the year

by Neil Rickert

I predict a year for ID which will be as successful as the last year.

  • As before, they will find zero evidence that is against ID.  (If you are not looking, you won’t find much).
  • As before, they will find as much evidence for ID as against it.  (0 is both +0 and -0 at the same time).
  • The ID proponents will continue to have success in their search for gaps in which they can place their god of the gaps.  Unfortunately, the gaps they find will be gaps in their understanding of science, rather than real gaps in the science.
  • They will refute Darwinism at least 365 times.  Oops, better make that 366 times, since 2012 is a leap year.

Some predictions are too easy.

Posted on January 1, 2012 at 18:24 (UTC) in humor   |  RSS feed

5 Comments to “My ID predictions for the year”

    
  1. Noam Ghish
    January 8, 2012 at 07:25 (UTC)

    You don’t understand the God of the Gaps fallacy. There are only three things that can cause movement: law, chance or design. The theory of NS posits that NS + Genetic Drift is responsible for ALL the diversity of life. NS asserts that all the diversity of life is due to a combination of law and chance. We can exclude this theory out of principle based on knowledge. You need consciousness in order to design an organism. Consciousness has enormous advantages that law and chance do not have. Consciousness (design/intelligence) is aware of time and space, it is aware of wholes and parts, it can hit prespecified targets, it can distinguish between qualitatively identical objects. Law and chance has none of those properties. In order to build an organism you need to distinguish between qualitatively identical carbon atoms. Law treats all carbon atoms the same. You also need to be aware of time and space, you need to place those atoms in the right location at the right time, law and chance are not aware of time and space. Therefore, law and chance cannot build an organism.

    Those who believe that ALL the gaps will eventually be explained by law or chance fail to understand the nature of consciousness and design. They fallaciously assume that everything is the result of chance and necessity which is quite obviously wrong. You only need to speak language to refute that assertion.

    Like

    • Neil Rickert
      January 8, 2012 at 15:27 (UTC)

      This was posted as humor and you are taking it far too seriously.

      The theory of NS posits that NS + Genetic Drift is responsible for ALL the diversity of life.

      I am not actually a Darwinist. I am a proponent of evolution, but I have disagreements with the neo-Darwinian account.

      You need consciousness in order to design an organism.

      You seem to be assuming, without evidence, that organisms are designed rather than evolved. And you are making dubious claims about the need for consciousness.

      Like

  2. Noam Ghish
    January 8, 2012 at 19:04 (UTC)

    I’m not making assumptions. And you have given no evidence to the contrary of my position other than mere assertions.

    1. if one is to build an organism, then one must treat qualitatively identical objects differently (such as carbon atoms)
    2. law treats qualitatively identical objects identically
    3. therefore, law cannot build an organism

    1. if one is to build an organism, then one must be aware of time
    2. law is not aware of time
    3. therefore, law cannot build an organism

    1. if one is to build an organism, then one must repeatedly hit enormously improbable targets
    2. chance cannot hit enormously improbable targets
    3. therefore, chance cannot build an organism

    1. if one is to build an organism, then one must move matter
    2. if matter moves, then it is due to law, chance or design
    3. law and chance (alone) cannot build an organism
    4. therefore, it is the building of an organism contains an element of design

    Like

    • Neil Rickert
      January 8, 2012 at 19:13 (UTC)

      I’m not making assumptions.

      After saying that, you present several arguments in logical form. The premises of the arguments are all assumptions that you are making. And some of them are rather dubious assumptions.

      Like

  3. Noam Ghish
    January 8, 2012 at 20:27 (UTC)

    You failed for the second time to make an argument. I’d actually like to here from you a plausible scenario of just how one builds an organism without any knowledge of time, treating identical objects identically and being unable to hit a prespecified target. Instead all you’re doing is merely asserting things that are counterintuitive. So let me spell out for you what everyone is already aware of.

    If you want to build an organism, you need to organize, (for the human) 250 cell types into a coherent whole. When a cell divides, the daughter cells have to be the right cell type at the time. You can’t just divide whenever you want. Qualitatively identical objects: proteins are made of 20 different amino acids, you need to place those identical amino acids into the right sequence, you need to treat two identical Glycines differently, one Glycine needs to go to point x, another Glycines needs to go point y. Law cannot do that because laws treat all glycine equally. The same applies for hitting prespecified targets: if you need Glycine to go to point x, you’re in effect hitting a target, that’s not something chance cannot do regularly.

    Would you like to discuss this over Skype?

    Like

    
%d bloggers like this: