Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

[Jones]

Brilliant piece of work and an enjoyable read. Made my morning.

I propose that we create a list of articles and blog posts by others, etc, post it here, and everybody take a copy of the list, and every day post one or more links on FB and Twitter and other social media with maybe a short comment, or snip from the article. If a couple dozen people would do this faithfully, as a service to humanity, it might be enough of a butterfly wing's flap to initiate a change.

When an ocean liner is going full speed ahead at an iceberg, it takes a lot of coordinated effort to slow it down and turn it around. I don't know if we can do it, but we sure ought to try.

Anybody up for it?

Something hit me very hard once, thinking about what one little man could do. I think of the Queen Mary - the whole ship goes by and then comes the rudder. And there's a tiny thing at the edge of the rudder called a trimtab.

It's a miniature rudder. Just moving the little trimtab builds a low pressure that pulls the rudder around; Takes almost no effort at all. So I said that the little individual can be a trimtab. Society thinks it's going right by you, that it's left you altogether. But if you're doing dynamic things mentally, the fact is that you can just put your foot out like that and the whole big ship of state is going to go.

So I said, call me Trimtab.

- Buckminster Fuller

I'm in

 

[Konstantin]

Brilliant piece of work and an enjoyable read. Made my morning.

I propose that we create a list of articles and blog posts by others, etc, post it here, and everybody take a copy of the list, and every day post one or more links on FB and Twitter and other social media with maybe a short comment, or snip from the article. If a couple dozen people would do this faithfully, as a service to humanity, it might be enough of a butterfly wing's flap to initiate a change.

When an ocean liner is going full speed ahead at an iceberg, it takes a lot of coordinated effort to slow it down and turn it around. I don't know if we can do it, but we sure ought to try.

Anybody up for it?

I am also in.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

Thanks to everyone for the support! There's definitely more where this came from, so if people are interested, I can keep writing. Hopefully something shorter next time.


There's also something that dawned on me. I had never given much thought to the origin of life before. I've known about reincarnation, other levels of reality, and aliens since I was 13, so however life started on Earth didn't seem so important, as it wouldn't have changed anything about the big picture.

But the implications hidden in the DNA code are actually quite huge. I think it may well be the greatest discovery ever made, in a way that the whole scientific community apparently missed completely. What this discovery means, in my opinion, is:

DNA is basically scientific proof of the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence.

As far as I can see, it shows at least three things:
- There is intelligence outside of Earth
- This intelligence is way beyond ours
- This intelligence was already around at least 4 bn years ago (from a 3D linear perspective)

Now, you and I have known about aliens and densities and all that for a while, so this may not be so Earth-shattering, but DNA is something everybody knows about, so it can't be easily swept under the rug like UFOs. But the implications are massive. Like I said, scientific proof of some sort of ET intelligence. So I think this is exactly why the PTB insist on randomness and accidents. God might not really be a problem. People have always believed in that. But confirming other life, non-godly/non-human intelligence, might get people to think about a lot of things that could be rather inconvenient for the PTB. So they had to construct this totally implausible bullshit about how this all self-assembled randomly, even though nobody can explain how that could really happen.

They desperately need to keep people asleep and distracted. If people really comprehend that DNA is a code that's more sophisticated than any we have invented, and thus is likely to require a more sophisticated coder, things could get rather interesting.

I think it is also important, though, not to be dogmatic about this, and to let people come to their own conclusions.

 

[Ant22]

Brilliant piece of work and an enjoyable read. Made my morning.

I propose that we create a list of articles and blog posts by others, etc, post it here, and everybody take a copy of the list, and every day post one or more links on FB and Twitter and other social media with maybe a short comment, or snip from the article. If a couple dozen people would do this faithfully, as a service to humanity, it might be enough of a butterfly wing's flap to initiate a change.

When an ocean liner is going full speed ahead at an iceberg, it takes a lot of coordinated effort to slow it down and turn it around. I don't know if we can do it, but we sure ought to try.

Anybody up for it?

Count me in too

 

[thorbiorn]

I propose that we create a list of articles and blog posts by others, etc, post it here, and everybody take a copy of the list, and every day post one or more links on FB and Twitter and other social media with maybe a short comment, or snip from the article. If a couple dozen people would do this faithfully, as a service to humanity, it might be enough of a butterfly wing's flap to initiate a change.

When an ocean liner is going full speed ahead at an iceberg, it takes a lot of coordinated effort to slow it down and turn it around. I don't know if we can do it, but we sure ought to try.

"Would do this faithfully.... Anybody up for it?" I'll apply, then in time I can reflect on the efforts in relation to the goal.

 

[Jones]

Here's one:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/

 

[Konstantin]

And another one

The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences <i>Science, Evolution, and Creationism</i>

www.ideacenter.org

The NAS misrepresents irreducible complexity and the flagellum.
The NAS accurately defines irreducible complexity — “If one component is missing or changed, the device will fail to operate properly”—but then promotes a false test of irreducible complexity, wrongly claiming that if one part of the flagellum can perform some other function, then irreducible complexity is refuted.

The NAS claims that the fact that some flagellar components can function as a needle-nosed pump—the Type III Secretory System (T3SS)—shows that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. However, a number of biologists have concluded that that the T3SS was not a precursor to the flagellum. Moreover, microbiologist Scott Minnich explained during the Kitzmiller trial that the fact that some sub-components of the flagellum can perform other functions is not sufficient to demonstrate a Darwinian explanation for the origin of the flagellum because there is still a huge leap in complexity from a the needle-nosed pump to a flagellum. The unresolved challenge that the irreducible complexity of the flagellum continues to pose for Darwinian evolution is summarized by William Dembski:

“At best the TTSS represents one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. But that still wouldn’t constitute a solution to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. What’s needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we’ve discovered the Hawaiian Islands. Evolutionary biology needs to do better than that.”

Dembski’s critique is apt because it recognizes that Darwinists wrongly characterizes irreducible complexity as focusing on the non-functionality of sub-parts. Conversely, pro-ID biochemist Michael Behe, who popularized the term “irreducible complexity,” properly tests it by assessing the plausibility of the entire functional system to assemble in a step-wise fashion, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system. The “leap” required by going from one functional sub-part to the entire functional system is indicative of the degree of irreducible complexity in a system. Contrary to the NAS’s assertions, Behe never argued that irreducible complexity mandates that sub-parts can have no function outside of the final system.

 

[herondancer]

Me too. Maybe with some coordinated hashtags. Twitter gets things around fast. There's news up there long before the wires services get around to it. You mark them mentally, then wait a couple of hours for a formal write up.

 

[Jacques]

I propose that we create a list of articles and blog posts by others, etc, post it here, and everybody take a copy of the list, and every day post one or more links on FB and Twitter and other social media with maybe a short comment, or snip from the article.

I will create a list in a post in order to have all the links at the same place.

Anybody up for it?

Count me in too.

 

[Jacques]

Here's the list :
(Note: You can bookmark this post in order to have a quick access to the list in using this icon. ===========================^)

Darwinism, Creationism... How About Neither?

Is Creationism true? Or is Darwinism true? And why would it have to be one or the other? It seems it hasn't occurred to many people that both might be wrong. Since both of them, despite what they might claim, are more about ideology than science,...

www.sott.net

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/

The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences <i>Science, Evolution, and Creationism</i>

www.ideacenter.org

Why Darwinism Is Wrong, Dead Wrong - Part 1: Intelligent Design and Information

Despite its name, Darwin's theory of evolution - and its post-genetics variation, neo-Darwinism - is almost universally accepted as hard fact. It's 'scientifically proven' we're told, which in practice simply denotes something about which you are...

www.sott.net

The Truth Perspective - Darwinian Delusions: Why Darwin Is More Dangerous Than You Think

The 19th century saw a wave of theories claiming to provide the answers for everything: Marxism, psychoanalytic theory, utilitarianism, Zionism, Darwinism, and more. But what did all their creators have in common, besides impressive beards? They...

www.sott.net

Michael Behe: One man's battle with Darwinian evolution

When a man knows something's true, when it's obvious to him, but his peers and his colleagues believe something else, what does he do? Especially if it has to do with a subject considered to be very important, even foundational for the work he...

www.sott.net

But what if Darwin was wrong?

Darwinian evolution is a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory. Once it was a daring guess. Today it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth -no more subject to debate than the earth...

www.sott.net

As Above, So Below?

Here is an old idea: our world is part of a living universe, with a mind of its own, a place that is not only a playground for indulging desires, but also a school for learning from the suffering generated by the struggle of existence. This idea...

www.sott.net

See those links for many more articles:

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/thread...-intelligent-design.46621/page-50#post-801693

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/thread...-intelligent-design.46621/page-50#post-801694

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/thread...-intelligent-design.46621/page-50#post-801695

 

[Laura]

Here's the list :
(Note: You can bookmark this post in order to have a quick access to the list in using this icon. ===========================^)

What about Luc's article and several others that were on sott recently?

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

luc's article: Why Darwinism Is Wrong, Dead Wrong - Part 1: Intelligent Design and Information -- Sott.net

Maybe Sott could also make some T-shirts...

E V O L U T I O N
BACTERIA ACCIDENTALLY
TURNING INTO HUMANS
BY ACCUMULATION OF
RANDOM COPYING ERRORS
IN THEIR DNA​

 

[luc]

The article is finally up: Darwinism, Creationism... How about Neither? -- Sott.net

What a brilliant article, congratulations!! Informative, crystal-clear, and fun!

To be honest, I kind of put off finishing part 2 of the series I planned (the scientific side), plus other things got in the way. But I'm kind of glad now, because you pulled it off so much better than I could have. Keep going! As for me, I think I will write the next one about the ethical implications of Darwinism, something extremely important as well.

 

[thorbiorn]

Having looked up some posts and hashtags, I found out that #IntelligentDesign or #intelligentdesign is better than #ID, as this hashtag is typically associated with "Identity" or "identity card".
Others have used
#Darwinism
#Creationism
#evolution
And then there are a few other options I'm thinking about, like:
#postmodernism since this ideology is not really supported by the new research in biology, at this ideology is defined by the dictionary, at least there is nothing subjective and relative about the way a cell works.

Postmodernism

, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.

#Atheism this and the next for similar reasons as above, though not all atheists have the same views.
#atheist
#scienceeducation since much science education is clearly biased towards Darwinism, but as discussed previously for no good reason.
#science since the findings are based on deep knowledge of science, though as often seen these are neglected and shunned.

 

[genero81]

As for me, I think I will write the next one about the ethical implications of Darwinism, something extremely important as well.

Yes I agree. I know we've discussed this to a certain degree already but there's more at stake than just whether or not a materialist or atheist is capable of acting morally. My roommate and his bible believing co worker went to a debate earlier this week on morality between an Atheist and a Christian speaker. I probably should have gone but I really had no interest. Like I said there's really way more a stake than whether a 'non believer' can be a good person. I will be interested in what you have to say, luc. If you want to share some of what you have in mind here before hand, maybe the group can do some more brain storming.