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

[luc]

One of them, and possibly the most important thing I took away from this book, is how Darwinists treat purpose in life and evolution.

Yes, that is one of the most important points. No matter where you stand on all these issues, one thing is for sure: reproduction and survival are goals. They don't make any sense whatsoever in a material universe. Why should a random array of atoms care about survival? Why should the universe prefer one state of affairs over the other? Impossible in materialism.

On an optimistic note, I was at a dinner party yesterday for new year's eve and met someone who is a senior IT guy and who told me that his sister is a leading biochemist. You can read about her research here: bzh.db-engine.de/default.asp?lfn=2241&fg=3528

The way he described what her research is about it that proteins are a bit like TCP/IP packets on the internet, in that they contain a "targeting code", i.e. some kind of addressing mechanism, just like with computer networks. He then totally surprised me when he said, out of the blue, that there are articles published now that show that Darwinism is mathematically impossible! I don't know what his sister thinks about it, but I wonder how many scientists, while giving lip service to evolution in their research descriptions and grant application, know that Darwinism cannot work? I guess there's hope!

 

[mrtn]

Evolution Design goes on:

UVM and Tufts Team Builds First Living Robots

Scientists from UVM and Tufts repurposed living cells scraped from frog embryos and assembled them into entirely new life-forms. More: http://go.uvm.edu/firstrbts These tiny “xenobots” can move toward a target and heal themselves after being cut. “These are novel living machines,” says UVM robotics expert Joshua Bongard. They’re neither a traditional robot nor a known species of animal. It’s a new class of artifact: a living, programmable organism. The new creatures were designed on a supercomputer at UVM, and then assembled by biologists at Tufts University.

[german article]
[english article]

 

[Gaby]

Good job Mandatory Intellectomy, this is most excellent!

How the Incoherent Theory of Evolution Distorts Our Thinking

In my experience, most people who believe in Darwinian evolution know very little about what the theory really says and how this evolution is supposed to work. They believe that it most certainly works, but when you ask questions about the...

www.sott.net

It's hard to think that we ever even remotely believed in that stuff!

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

It's hard to think that we ever even remotely believed in that stuff!

Yeah, tell me about it! There's just kind of an invisible barrier that separates people who never had a reason to give it much serious thought (like us before) and people who got around to really thinking about it (like us now). The fact that many of us used to believe this garbage and would have given weird looks to people who suggested some of the things we talk about now brings home how hard it is to get through to even smart and reasonable people. The propaganda is just so strong, and I guess there's also some normalcy bias or something.

And the distorted kind of thinking that the article focuses on is something that all those people with that kind of thinking aren't aware of at all. That's the problem. It's really hard to make people see something they will find totally obvious if they ever do give it a serious thought. That first step sometimes seems almost impossible to take.

It's like people's attention has to be brought to the matter long enough (or often enough) for something to really sink in, and then maybe they'll look into it more and start realising that it all doesn't add up. So I kind of hope to contribute to that by shoving it into people's faces over and over in different ways.

And I must say that I'm kind of rediscovering at my own pace things luc talked about months ago. That thing about purpose - he was already onto it before I started writing, but it kind of went past me back then. Only when reading Stove's book did it really sink in, so a lot of this stuff needs some amount of context before it can really be understood properly. It's really amazing how far we've gone with this in the past year.


Thanks for your support, Gaby, and same goes for everyone else here.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

While writing the articles, I've put together some images in Photoshop to illustrate the bizarreness of some particular aspects of Darwinism. And I thought that since many of you like to share simple things on social media, such pictures might be pretty useful for that.

So I thought that whoever has some ideas and the skills (or just tell us about the ideas and someone else will do the Photoshopping) could make some images that point out the most obvious flaws in the theory of evolution, preferably in an entertaining manner (so that people actually take notice), and everyone can share those wherever. It appeals to people's short attention spans - look at a picture, read a few words, and that's all the effort required. Not everyone will stick around long enough to read a whole article. So if you have any ideas for this, post the images (or just ideas) here.

Here are some that I've made and included in the articles, in better quality:


This was the first one...


...and here's a variation without the last line. Not sure which is better, so use whichever one you like.


This one, I think, encapsulates one of the largest problems of Darwinism - the claim that incredibly improbable and difficult things just happen accidentally, an idea that almost everyone can see is stupid at its very core.


The quote at the top is by Richard Dawkins. Imagination is good, but it's not science. ( <-- That might be an alternative caption.)


Maybe a bit hard to notice, but the last cube has 15 layers, while the others have 13.


And this was kind of a last-minute idea when I was figuring out what to use for the top image for the latest article. I think it's easy to relate to. Not many people would believe that with a few mutations, you can really turn into Spider-Man, but what many believe with no trouble at all is something millions of times more fantastic.

 

[thorbiorn]

Thank you for writing this article, I had a good laugh at the illustrations you used and still more seeing those extras in your post.

...and here's a variation without the last line. Not sure which is better, so use whichever one you like.

I see what you are getting at, but not to overstate the case, not to confuse those who do not know who is in the picture and as it objectively seems the person can put on glasses. comb hair and put on a dress, I think a compromise is to leave out the text in brackets (No intelligence detected in the end result either.) in which case one could even consider changing the model for something more politically neutral.

 

[Laura]

And I must say that I'm kind of rediscovering at my own pace things luc talked about months ago. That thing about purpose - he was already onto it before I started writing, but it kind of went past me back then. Only when reading Stove's book did it really sink in, so a lot of this stuff needs some amount of context before it can really be understood properly. It's really amazing how far we've gone with this in the past year.

Join the club.

You might want to check out the Paul's theology thread. Paul, apparently, thought that the belief that the physical was all there was was the "lie" that caused the "fall from Eden". I rather suspect that you might find some things in Ashworth's book that are very very interesting and possibly useful!

 

[flashgordonv]

Yeah, tell me about it! There's just kind of an invisible barrier that separates people who never had a reason to give it much serious thought (like us before) and people who got around to really thinking about it (like us now). The fact that many of us used to believe this garbage and would have given weird looks to people who suggested some of the things we talk about now brings home how hard it is to get through to even smart and reasonable people. The propaganda is just so strong, and I guess there's also some normalcy bias or something.

And the distorted kind of thinking that the article focuses on is something that all those people with that kind of thinking aren't aware of at all. That's the problem. It's really hard to make people see something they will find totally obvious if they ever do give it a serious thought. That first step sometimes seems almost impossible to take.

It's like people's attention has to be brought to the matter long enough (or often enough) for something to really sink in, and then maybe they'll look into it more and start realising that it all doesn't add up. So I kind of hope to contribute to that by shoving it into people's faces over and over in different ways.

And I must say that I'm kind of rediscovering at my own pace things luc talked about months ago. That thing about purpose - he was already onto it before I started writing, but it kind of went past me back then. Only when reading Stove's book did it really sink in, so a lot of this stuff needs some amount of context before it can really be understood properly. It's really amazing how far we've gone with this in the past year.


Thanks for your support, Gaby, and same goes for everyone else here.

What an excellent article. I love the way you don't pull any punches and ridicule both Darwinism and Creationism. The distorted thinking is laid clear for everyone to see. The only people who won't stop and think are the ones who are blindly following their atheistic religion. A great article, you have blown Darwinism out of the water.

 

[luc]

And I must say that I'm kind of rediscovering at my own pace things luc talked about months ago. That thing about purpose - he was already onto it before I started writing, but it kind of went past me back then. Only when reading Stove's book did it really sink in, so a lot of this stuff needs some amount of context before it can really be understood properly. It's really amazing how far we've gone with this in the past year.

Amazing indeed. Why I (and we) haven't figured it all out long ago by simply thinking straight for a few minutes is still kind of a mystery to me. I was in the grip of this Darwinian nonsense for so long! There seems to be some kind of authoritarian compulsion going on, some weird imprisoning of the mind that is so hard to get out of. I think the only remedy is "knowledge input on a continuous basis", as the Cs recommended. Read and read and keep reading the good stuff. Slowly, something different starts showing up that enables us to break free.

I still keep encountering new arguments against all this evolutionary psychology nonsense. And it always feels like a breathe of fresh air, like being held captive in a cellar and finally being able to open the door and get out in the sunshine.

For example, Roger Scruton (rip) makes the argument that the evopsychs always just tell you that this or that behavior or trait "evolved", but they never really define this trait! And no wonder, because their silly theory would collapse. Take music, for example: yeah, some dudes use it to impress gals, duh! What a revelation! The evolutionary types obviously will tell you that this is all there is to it, and perhaps it was used for communication in the past yadayada. But that does tell me nothing about music itself! Why do some chords sound better than others? How is it that we can make out dissonant tones? And so on. Surely, hearing a major third as a nice interval hasn't helped any caveman survive! It's all just beyond silliness. And it is so incredibly impoverishing, because once that kind of thinking seeps in, you stop reflecting about art, nobility, beauty, purpose etc., and just think about how something might have been used to survive and reproduce.

There's also some weird kind of relativism built into Darwinian thinking. Moral relativism for sure, as you point out in the article, because how can there be right or wrong in a Darwinian world? But how can there even be truth? If everything is just aimed at survival and reproduction, how can I know that the Darwinists' claims are not mere strategies to advance their own survival? How can I know that science itself is not just an endeavor designed to advance the thriving of a certain group? It's here where postmodernism and Darwinism meet, and they have more in common than both sides admit.

And I second Laura's recommendation, reading "Paul's necessary sin" really makes one realize the tragedy that religious ignorance has done even to the founder of a religion. It's mind-boggling how Paul's deep wisdom has been so obscured over the ages.

Great job MI

 

[Wandering Star]

Yeah, tell me about it! There's just kind of an invisible barrier that separates people who never had a reason to give it much serious thought (like us before) and people who got around to really thinking about it (like us now). The fact that many of us used to believe this garbage and would have given weird looks to people who suggested some of the things we talk about now brings home how hard it is to get through to even smart and reasonable people. The propaganda is just so strong, and I guess there's also some normalcy bias or something.

And the distorted kind of thinking that the article focuses on is something that all those people with that kind of thinking aren't aware of at all. That's the problem. It's really hard to make people see something they will find totally obvious if they ever do give it a serious thought. That first step sometimes seems almost impossible to take.

It's like people's attention has to be brought to the matter long enough (or often enough) for something to really sink in, and then maybe they'll look into it more and start realising that it all doesn't add up. So I kind of hope to contribute to that by shoving it into people's faces over and over in different ways.

And I must say that I'm kind of rediscovering at my own pace things luc talked about months ago. That thing about purpose - he was already onto it before I started writing, but it kind of went past me back then. Only when reading Stove's book did it really sink in, so a lot of this stuff needs some amount of context before it can really be understood properly. It's really amazing how far we've gone with this in the past year.


Thanks for your support, Gaby, and same goes for everyone else here.

I know I'm not going to inflate your ego with this, so I want to tell you that your article is great. You have a special ability that makes me want the article to never end. A pleasure to read you.

I bow to you with the greatest respect.

 

[herondancer]

Evolution News is starting a great short vid series shooting down the various arguments made by the neodarwinists. It's called "Long Story Short" and is it funny! Here's the first:

 

[Voyageur]

I know I'm not going to inflate your ego with this, so I want to tell you that your article is great. You have a special ability that makes me want the article to never end. A pleasure to read you.

Same here, and wanted to tip my hat again, MI, as the last article was a good ride. No punches pulled. Also, had some comments back from friends after reading from you who are slowly starting to 'get' what they have never seen (with a few more wrinkles to sort out). And that is the thing (especially when there is no scientific skilled background), one repeats what one has been told over and over since the crib, just like the 'Crowd' in Gustave Lebon's world will follow. Just like in climate science - and I think people on one level know it is BS, heck, they can look out the window like most all do and can remember decades going back: some close to me remember nine decades, and that is nothing in time. However, like reversing on neo-Darwinism, getting off the anthropogenic climate wagon, if that is taking one for a ride, risks being run over by angry mobs (and it is all so fantastically embedded now). So, they play it safe and stay on the wagon and buckle up.

I think the only remedy is "knowledge input on a continuous basis", as the Cs recommended. Read and read and keep reading the good stuff. Slowly, something different starts showing up that enables us to break free.

Good one, luc.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

Evolution News is starting a great short vid series shooting down the various arguments made by the neodarwinists. It's called "Long Story Short" and is it funny! Here's the first:

That's a great video. I especially like the "evolution is true lol" post-it note. Looking forward to more.

In other fun news, I've been noticing what articles on new discoveries relating to evolution have in common. They all seem to share the same basic pattern:

Scientists have discovered new [something] that may shed light on how evolution [does something].
We are hoping that this [something] might lead to [something] and could help explain why real world data don't match our evolutionary explanations.
So far we know very little about how [something] works, so this should provide some useful data.
It is very exciting to see the possibilities here. If [something] happens, our theory might finally start making some sense, so that would be great.
If things turn out the way we want them to, this could be revolutionary!
Unfortunately we can't show you any useful results yet, but we really hope it's only a matter of time before they manifest.

And here's the same with some emphasis and comments.

Scientists have discovered new [something] that may shed light on how evolution [does something]. (Wishful thinking plus personification of evolution)
We are hoping that this [something] might lead to [something] and could help explain why real world data don't match our evolutionary explanations. (Because we have no clue how this stuff works, so we really hope this time things will become clearer.)
So far we know very little about how [something] works, so this should provide some useful data. (Of course if the data don't match our expectations and point in the wrong direction again, we will dutifully ignore all of this.)
It is very exciting to see (or rather, imagine) the possibilities here. If [something] happens, our theory might finally start making some sense, so that would be great.
If things turn out the way we want them to, this could be revolutionary! (More wishful thinking)
Unfortunately we can't show you any useful results yet, but we really hope it's only a matter of time before they manifest. (In other words, we don't really have anything at all, just our hope in a miracle.)

And of course the usual result is that you never hear about it again because the miracle didn't manifest.

This is becoming as funny as all those "NASA has discovered new [something] that doesn't fit into their model of the universe" articles. Neither NASA nor evolutionists are willing to admit their theory is junk despite constant reminders from the real world that it is.

 

[flashgordonv]

This is becoming as funny as all those "NASA has discovered new [something] that doesn't fit into their model of the universe" articles. Neither NASA nor evolutionists are willing to admit their theory is junk despite constant reminders from the real world that it is.

Even funnier when you consider that evolution is one of those "settled sciences" where we know everything there is to know that we are right and everybody and everything else is obviously wrong

 

[Glenn]

In other fun news, I've been noticing what articles on new discoveries relating to evolution have in common. They all seem to share the same basic pattern:

Scientists have discovered new [something] that may shed light on how evolution [does something].
We are hoping that this [something] might lead to [something] and could help explain why real world data don't match our evolutionary explanations.
So far we know very little about how [something] works, so this should provide some useful data.
It is very exciting to see the possibilities here. If [something] happens, our theory might finally start making some sense, so that would be great.
If things turn out the way we want them to, this could be revolutionary!
Unfortunately we can't show you any useful results yet, but we really hope it's only a matter of time before they manifest.

Yes, this is a very common tactic. You could substitute the evolutionary theme, for cancer, or cancer research. Same idea applies. In the end nothing ever changes. But false hope must be given to the tribe every once in a while...