Our inner ear is not a useable organ? Ooooohhhhh–I have lost most of the function of my left vestibular apparatus, and even though my right vestubular apparatus has now compensated well enough to help me return to being a fairly normal functioning individual who no longer falls all over the place vomiting because my damaged inner ear is telling my brain I am on a wildly pitching ship rather than on solid ground, I am only too well aware that the structures in the modern-day human inner ear are very useful in their healthy state. They are encased in a bony structure that probably evolved from a reptilian jawbone.

Regardless, Kevin has nothing useful to say. There are mountains of evidence for evolution and none for ID. This is the truth regardless of what Kevin chooses to believe. I think he’s unbalanced in ways I never was, and I’m not too hopeful he will put out the effort to recover.

You’re wasting your breath, Brian. Kevin Wirth has run away in defeat once again.

• We demonstrated that the central premise of his book, that Jerry Bergman and others were discriminated against, is false.
• He claimed that I wrote that Bergman had no credentials. When I proved that I actually said the opposite, and demanded an apology, he refused to give it.
• We showed that ID creationism is religion, and he could not refute it.
• We asked him to prove that the “designer” isn’t God, and he could not do so.
• We asked him to provide “reasonable challenges to evolution from respectable sources” (his terms) and all he could come up with were creationism books filled with logical fallacies.
• We then specifically asked him to provide proof for ID creationism, and he refused to answer.
• We asked him to name just one prediction that ID creationism makes, and he could not do so.

On that last one, he said “I’ll get back to you!” and then never did. Now he’s claiming that I’m censoring him, and using that as the excuse to not answer us. He’s unable to compete on a level playing field, so he’s taken his deflated ball and run home crying.

You are a complete fool. It’s hard to know where to start cleaning up the steaming pile of intellectual feces you deposited here, but it must be done.

I can assume from reading your latest insult to reason that you refuse to deny that god is the driving force behind your inane view of how the biological process works. Fair enough, and not at all surprising. I really didn’t expect you to defend the hard work of space aliens in crafting the tree of life on Earth, anyway. Although I wonder how keen you and your ilk would be to the idea of god suddenly becoming a quantifiable, measurable, and testable element of the universe. I’ll happily accept good evidence that a god exists, should it deign to provide us with an irrefutable miracle for all to see. Of course if that happened, god would cease to be a supernatural force and would become a mere natural force. I guarantee you that if god was an empirically observable facet of nature, science would accept it. This says nothing about the validity of Christianity, though, which would be something of a letdown for you as only Christians advocate this ID bullshit.

Sadly, for you, this has not happened. For all of your contrived cherry picking of evidence and obnoxious blathering about “holes” in evolutionary biology, there exists not one gold-plated, impossible-to-deny shred of evidence that a god has anything to do with anything. Don’t you think if god felt it was so damned important for us to accept his existence he’d exert just an infinitesimal fraction of his omnipotence to shut us atheist and agnostics up once and for all? Oh, wait. That’s a rational objection. You wouldn’t know what that is.

Your dullness truly shines when you claim that science can take us to the cusp of realizing that a god is behind it all, but then there’s no point in inquiring any further. You don’t care who or what your precious goddamn designer is? I suppose scientists should deem that question off-limits, even though the mechanism such a being uses in guiding the development of life is presumably still at work. How does god cause change, or poof a bacterial flagellum into existence? I want to fucking know! Oh, of course. We are supposed to take such things on faith, which has always been the rock-solid foundation of science, hasn’t it? Sorry, Kevin. I can’t live with that, and as long as you continue to espouse such drivel this conversation must continue.

You are trying to have it both ways, and you know it. You cloak your absurd notions in the trappings of science, without actually doing any real science (Predictions? I’m still waiting) while using this whole charade to undermine real science in the service of Christianity. I don’t give a damn what you believe, and I would never advocate any measure to restrict your religious rights, nor would any other atheist. Your faith, however, is not in possession of the facts, however much you might insist otherwise. You have nothing useful to contribute to the realm of science, and therefore do not deserve a seat at the big kid’s table.

Lastly, you scold me for being a sassy know-it-all. I’ll try to work through the pain you’ve caused me and continue. I never claimed to know everything. I do, however, have the benefit of a better-than-average understanding of science, so I can easily spot a fraud like ID with both eyes closed. If you wonder about my vehemence with regard to this subject, it is because religious dickwads like you have stunted and retarded human civilization for far too long. This overt ploy at infecting young minds, including my own children, with theological credulity is only one of a long, regrettable string of sins religion has committed without being held accountable for it. You are an agent of this malfeasance, and until you and your bretheren come to your senses (never gonna happen) scorn and ridicule are the best you deserve, not congenial debate.

Vestigial structures are entirely consistent with intelligent design, suggesting structures that were initially designed but then lost their function through accident or disuse.

Amusing thought: our inner ear isn’t an usable organ, it’s a vestigial part of a reptilian jawbone. This clearly means that if ID is true (and it’s not) that we were designed to be lizards. Damn us and our warm-bloodedness!

Parrotlover77

Remember that as long as a behavior doesn’t hurt the species it can propogate very easily (such as how humans take pets).

…or pets take humans. While we prefer to think of our pets, like dogs, as part of our family, as head of the “pack” for the Alpha-male of your family and member of the “pack” for every other human in your family, you’re all part of your dog’s pack. He’s not just in your family; your whole family is in his.

In a way, Fido isn’t humping your leg because he’s confused. He’s doing it because you’re his bitch.

Vestigial structures are entirely consistent with intelligent design, suggesting structures that were initially designed but then lost their function through accident or disuse.

I just read that. What a stupid argument. The tooth fairy is entirely consistent with intelligent design, but that doesn’t make intelligent design right.

Also “goodness” as in selflessness is not a solely human trait, altruism exists in nature as well.

Altruism is easy to explain in evolutionary terms. Remember, “fitness” in evolutionary terms just means able to breed — that’s it. An altruistic species may be able to breed more than non-altruistic counterparts because everybody is helping each other to succeed (a more “fit” state for humans than not helping each other). Human altruism is nothing more than a very complex pack behavior. Wolves hunt in packs because it increases their likelihood of getting prey (and surviving). Altruism works the same way. And before somebody asks “but what about altruistic behavior to dogs and cats, there’s no benefit there” — that’s just a side effect of the deeper altruistic behavior. Our pets become a part of our “pack” and we want to help them the same as another human. Remember that as long as a behavior doesn’t hurt the species it can propogate very easily (such as how humans take pets). Evolution is very complex, “survival of the fittest” (so to speak) is but one part of a larger picture.

First there is this one from the first chapter:

How does evolutionary ethics make sense of people who transcend their selfish genes? Genuine human goodness, which looks to the welfare of others even at one’s own (and one’s genes’) expense, is an unresolvable problem for evolutionary ethics. Its proponents have only one way of dealing with goodness, namely, to explain it away. Mother Teresa is a prime target in this regard. If Mother Teresa’s acts of goodness on behalf of the poor and sick can be explained away in evolutionary terms, then surely so can all acts of human goodness.

I hate to break it to you, but that is a religious argument. The reason it’s a religious argument is because it speaks to morality and how evolution can’t explain morality. However, unless you presuppose an altruistic omnipotent being as the designer then intelligent design can’t explain it either. I mean, if we don’t know who the creator was then how do we know that they were moral and that they designed us to be moral? Given the societal relativity of morality how can you claim that morality was designed at all? Also “goodness” as in selflessness is not a solely human trait, altruism exists in nature as well.

Then we have this from the third chapter:

Gould admits that anything Dawkins really cares about regarding biological structures – their origin, function, complexity, adaptive significance – is the product of natural selection. Gould was as much a Darwinist as Dawkins.

First off, Darwinist is not a word. Second, natural selection is the main driving force of evolution, so of course all of the biological structures of interest are a result of natural selection because natural selection is evolution. You can’t just hijack the term and crowbar it into ID and then pretend that evolution doesn’t exist.

From chapter 5:

Vestigial structures are entirely consistent with intelligent design, suggesting structures that were initially designed but then lost their function through accident or disuse. Nevertheless, vestigial structures also provide evidence for a limited form of evolution. From both a design-theoretic and an evolutionary perspective, a vestigial structure is one that started out functional but then lost its function. Yet, in the case of evolution, vestigiality explains only the loss of function and not its origination. Vestigiality at best documents a degenerative form of evolution in which preexisting functional structures change and lose their function.

This whole excerpt is based on the ID assumption that evolution means forward progress, when really it just means adaptation. There is no forward and backward in evolution, just changes to fit the environment. Also the claim that evolution doesn’t explain the origination of a vestigial trait while ID does is absurd, because the evolutionary explanation is the trait arose to fit the environment the species was in. As the environment changed, the species adapted and lost the trait. Whereas the ID explanation is someone/thing designed the trait and then it adapted away. It’s like halfolution or something.

These are the excerpts that have been selected to market the book on its official website. Given how pathetic they are, I can’t see myself making the purchase. Thanks for the recommendation, though.

Why SHOULDN’T we explore the possibility? Why are so many people so ADAMANT that such a notion can’t possibly qualify as “science”? Sure it can.

Kevin again demonstrates his remarkable ignorance on science.

Science requires evidence. Where is the evidence? Irreducible complexity is what ID puts forward, but it’s full of logical fallacies, not to mention disproved by far more likely evolutionary theories.

ID is NOT a religious view — however it IS a view that is consistent with some religious views. It doesn’t preach, require, or advocate adherenced to any religious view. There is no requirement or reference to any religious text in ID.

ID is NOT a scientific view — however it IS a view that is consistent with some religious views. It doesn’t predict, have evidence, or advocate any scientific view. There is no requirement or reference to any scientific text in ID.

Those both being true… What exactly is it?

People who have a religious perspective do not ALWAYS PREACH THEIR RELIGION in everything they do. At least SOME people with religious views are able to separate them from their ability to competently offer scientific views. Their religious views do not and SHOULD not disqualify them from engaging competently in other endeavors. The lesson you evidently choose to ignore is that people of faith should not be deprived of any rights offered to people with agnostic or atheist beliefs.

I agree. It’s too bad you are not one of those people. Additionally, there is far more evidence of being discriminated against for being non-Christian than for being Christian. For example, a majority of Americans would never elect an atheist president, under any circumstances.

Their religious views do not and SHOULD not disqualify them from engaging competently in other endeavors. The lesson you evidently choose to ignore is that people of faith should not be deprived of any rights offered to people with agnostic or atheist beliefs.

You sure make an awful lot of shit up. Neither I nor any of the other atheists and agnostics I know have ever advocated depriving anybody of their rights based on their religion. In fact, this entire site is devoted to religious freedom. Unlike you, we understand what religious freedom is, and we fight to protect it.

ID is NOT a religious view — however it IS a view that is consistent with some religious views. It doesn’t preach, require, or advocate adherenced to any religious view. There is no requirement or reference to any religious text in ID.

ID creationism has God as its central premise. Any system that contains God as a principal actor is religion.

Let me know when you finally comprehend that.