Abstract
Intelligent design (ID)—the latest incarnation of religious creationism—posits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent. Yet, many complex biological traits are gratuitously complicated, function poorly, and debilitate their bearers. Furthermore, such dysfunctional traits abound not only in the phenotypes but inside the genomes of eukaryotic species. Here, I highlight several outlandish features of the human genome that defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent. These range from de novo mutational glitches that collectively kill or maim countless individuals (including embryos and fetuses) to pervasive architectural flaws (including pseudogenes, parasitic mobile elements, and needlessly baroque regulatory pathways) that are endogenous in every human genome. Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces. In this important philosophical sense, the science of evolutionary genetics should rightly be viewed as an ally (not an adversary) of mainstream religions because it helps the latter to escape the profound theological enigmas posed by notions of ID.
Here’s an article that describes and explains the paper.
The basic concept of intelligent design comes in two parts and is as simple as it is satisfying for those unwilling to think deeply about the natural world, science, or the nature of religion. Part one, stretching way back to the ancient Greeks, notes that nature is so perfectly integrated that it must have been designed just as we see it. Part two, largely attributed to Lehigh University biologist Michael Behe, says that while some aspects of nature might certainly have changed (evolved?) over time, others are so complex that they must always have existed in the form we find them in today. Indeed, he coined the term “irreducibly complex” to explain such structures. Change anything at all in these irreducibly complex structures and they fail to work.
Both parts of ID are spectacularly wrong.
Honestly, it’s a waste of time trying to convince ID or creationism proponents with actual facts. Their “faith” trumps logic and reason every time. The sad/scary part is how easily it does so.
Why do so many waist so much effort in disproving christian claims. Nothing will change the mind and heart of a true christian, this kind of research is nothing more than bigotry. Why don’t you do something to help humanity rather than try to prove how smart you are.
Just what will it take to finally kill ID, a silver stake through the heart, buried at sea in a lead coffin wrapped in chains? ID is not science.
Agree with the above. I heard a phrase attributed to a recent political group that also fits here: impervious to reason. The ID proponents will fight to the death (almost) to keep their beliefs. Even accelerating the evolution of a species x 10K so we can watch it happen in a jar before our eyes…it won’t change any minds. And in the end, so what?
No, the fight must be targeted to keep ID out of science education. Let the believers have their faith and beliefs, that’s fine. But keep it a hundred feet away from any science classroom.
If empiricism is your god, then you can’t use empirical techniques to disprove your beliefs. It is possible to be perfectly logical but completely unreasonable. Usually the breadth and depth of your body of experience overcomes that dilemma. So, with a body of empiricists that insists that they know enough to actually explain everything, versus a group of spiritualists who insist they know the mind of God, you end up with silly arguments like this. If your body of experience hasn’t taught you, yet, that we haven’t scratched the surface yet of understanding this little old cosmos, and that we just don’t know enough yet to make any bold claims about anything, well, you’re deluded.
Beware the Evolutionary Biologist bearing gifts.
Why do so many waist so much effort in disproving christian claims.
Just look around you, look at what they try to teach in schools, look at the board members and their brilliant ideas, etc., etc. If you don’t stop them now, tomorrow may be too late.
This argument mentioned above (we have lots of messed up stuff that cause problems) can be explained away Biblically so it’s not going to change anyone’s mind.
The Bible says we were created perfect, however that was lost when Adam and Eve sinned and lost all that. At that point imperfection entered into mankind, causing the physical, emotional, etc. problems that we face now that lead to sickness, birth defects, death, etc.
Thank you #5.
Blind faith is always bad, in science and religion, but even worse when done with the assumption that the blind faith provides an all knowing POV.
People have created science and religion and therefor both are flawed.
The Open, non-judgemental minds will prevail, or else we will continue to destroy our civilization with war, prejudice and hate.
Religion: pray harder…its not working
Science: remember you don’t know everything and probably never will.
# 2 raspberry said, on May 13th, 2010 at 3:59 am
“Why do so many waist so much effort…”
It doesn’t take that much effort to avoid using homonyms. (Don’t confuse that with hominins since we have hominins as the picture for this topic.) Take this test to see what I mean: http://homepage.smc.edu/quizzes/cheney_joyce/waistwaste.html
#2 finished with this: “rather than try to prove how smart you are.”
Or you could use poor grammar and prove how illogical you are
“Grammar is the logic of speech, even as logic is the grammar of reason.” ~Richard C. Trench
#8 Skippy, eating that one piece of fruit was serious stuff. Not only were Adam and Eve punished, but so was everything else.
So basically ID is wrong because there are things in science that are not yet discovered, that doesn’t mean you should say God is the answer.
In global warming science a frequent point is that we can’t explain the temperature record without CO2 therefore that is the cause of current warming.
Yet it is the skeptics who get compared to creationists.
“These range from de novo mutational glitches that collectively kill or maim countless individuals (including embryos and fetuses) to pervasive architectural flaws (including pseudogenes, parasitic mobile elements, and needlessly baroque regulatory pathways) that are endogenous in every human genome.”
No, no, no, NO! You people who use “science” and “facts” and that “thinking” thing really piss me off! God creates these horrible mutations among us to test us, to cause us great pain and, thereby, force us closer to Him.
Just remember that the science is in! EVERYONE believes in Evolution! Scientists don’t ask questions, so don’t question Evolution (capital E).
You can write a paper about how bad Intelligent Design is, that’s easy. Improving on the theory of evolution so that we don’t have to tack on “theory” to the front of it, well that is hard – mostly because you’ll be labelled a religious wacko to try it.
Even non-religious scientists have questions about evolution. Lets do actual science instead of silly bickering and blustering, mmmkay?
They’ll never believe it because it’s not in their book of mythology.
They DO believe in a talking snake, a guy who lives in the clouds, and other nonsense, because it appears in their book of mythology.
Therefore, in order for them to believe that evolution actually exists, it must appear in their book of mythology.
@#11 “So basically ID is wrong because there are things in science that are not yet discovered, that doesn’t mean you should say God is the answer.” – actual scientific catch is that there are things in science/Nature that can’t be determined hence leaving open door or religious belief systems as long as those don’t claim scientific methods or results. Good example – BigBang and something-out-of-nothing catch,…
“In global warming science a frequent point is that we can’t explain the temperature record without CO2 therefore that is the cause of current warming.” – False point. Temperature record can be perfectly matched to Solar activity tracked by Be concentrations both over short and long term. Temperature record 2002-2010 can’t be explained by (and is exact opposite of) change in concentration of CO2.
I think people miss the major point. It is actually fairly irrelevant if either the scientific theory of evolution or the religious theory of intelligent design are correct or not.
What is relevant is if the religious theory of intelligent design can also be considered a scientific theory or not. If intelligent design does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory then it can not be taught in a public school’s science class.
This article claims to prove that intelligent design does not meet the requirements to be considered a scientific theory.
I believe strongly in separation of church and state and freedom of religion. People are free to religiously believe whatever they want – want they are not free to do is to use our public school system to push those beliefs on others. Which is what all this is about.
well then it should be no problem for scientists to create life from the basic building blocks in a laboratory and then influence it’s evolution into a complex organism……….
jman, the only problem is that we cannot compress three million years into a simple lab experiment. And even if we could, would you accept it?
#12 God creates these horrible mutations among us to test us, to cause us great pain and, thereby, force us closer to Him.
Poe’s Law: are you being sarcastic or sincere? If sincere, where is it written?
#14 Rabble Rouser said, “They DO believe in a talking snake, a guy who lives in the clouds, and other nonsense, because it appears in their book of mythology.”
I get the talking snake (it was really a serpent, but I’ll let you call it a snake.), but where in the Bible is there a guy who lives in the clouds. I read quite a bit of the Bible and never heard of a guy living in the clouds. Explain yourself.
The only reason to argue with IDers is to try to help them become better people. It’s very sad they’d rather believe something than actually think and reason as humans should.
I’d rather argue than let them be less than human.
Does anyone on here even know anything about ID? Please take a look at the book “Intelligent Design” by William Dembski, a mathematician.
ID was never proposed to be hard science – that is why the subtitle of this book is “The Bridge between Science & Theology” The point is more recognizing the boundaries of what we can learn from science. The theory itself is much more about mathematics than science. If by statistics we recognize the impossibility of something, why even go down the path of investigating a scientific theory which statistically cannot happen? I have never seen anything which refutes Dembski’s math. Besides this, my position is that science, acting with a pre-supposition that there is no outside force which science cannot ascertain, has no business trying to determine anything about a god or lack thereof, when the assumption has already been made that there is no god, or at least not one that would ever interact with creation.
Now about this article – have any of you read it? I gave it a good skimming. It reads more like a philosophy paper than a real scientific paper. How does something like this even get published? There is no new information in it – no new proposal or theory. There is certainly nothing in to refute the math on which ID is based. This paper makes Dembski’s book look like hard science. The conclusion is titled “A Reconciliation: Evolution as a Salvation for Theology” Basically, the author is saying that if humans were designed, then we shouldn’t have imperfections in us, but we were designed using a process that looks like evolution. Contrast this to ID’s point that the physical mechanisms of natural selection and mutation could not even come close to getting us from nothing to humans in less than 5 billion years. The author of this paper is trying to defend evolution from a completely different angle (which has been addressed many times by ID supporters), but offering no counterpoints to ID. I do not even see how an attempted to ‘refute’ has been mane, let alone a successful refutation.
It should be bothersome to anyone who has respect for science that a paper like this one which is full of attacks on various religions and riddled with the author’s religions opinion can get published.
#10–Benji, the Grammar Policeman==where is the grammatical error? Incorrect word choice is not a grammar error. I suggest “Word Policeman” the next time you want to correct such errors.
Wan’t there a court case where all sides got to present the basis for ID, Behe or someone like him got to testify and got cross examined, and a conservative judge who supposedly leaned towards religion wrote a 100 page decision concluding that ID was not science?
My mind is made up on the issue. Something other than “the standard nonsense” would have to be proposed for me to give this a second look.
If I am a free entity, and god does exist, the only question would be one of power. Who has the power to allow me to live/exist as I choose? Is it “me” or anything else? If its not me, I am not free and will fight to gain that freedom. You can be my friend, ally, mentor, but you cannot be my Master.
Everything you know comes from science. Everything you have wrong comes from belief.
The original sin was anal intercourse. For the exegesis, google the first scandal Adam and Eve. Click, read, and comment.
Sigh. I wonder why people don’t bother to actually read ID authors to see that they’ve already refuted these VERY TWO arguments. Oh, wait, that’s right. We don’t want to know about it we just want to refute it.
I’ve had it with you guys. Sick and tired of hearing this shit.
Release the fuck’n Kraken right now.
Rectagon–I’m confused by your use of double refutation. I think you are saying ID is proven? or maybe just that arguments against a point in ID has been refuted?
How did ID lose that big court case then?
Hard to believe that someone in support of religion masquerading (dishonestly) as science would make up anything.
#10 Grammer
Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
ID is not science; the common descent hypothesis is pseudo-science; and the notion that the genetic code of all living things can’t possibly be degrading over time is gross stupidity.
#25 Is this why Christians are so obsessed with gay sex? Never understood that.