# Why "intelligent designers" can't grasp evolution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 11, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033 "2005-07-11T17:59:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/41 "2005-07-11T21:11:31Z")
I’m beginning to think that **Ex Machina** is the new **Scott Plaid**. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/42 "2005-07-11T21:12:16Z")
> [@Ex Machina](#): > > Are you saying you also think what I said about unlikely events is contradictory? What is contradictory is that you are positing both A and Not A. You saying that the emergence of life is unremarkable, given what you seem to perceive as the nearly infinite potential for it to emerge, while at the same time saying that the emergence of life is remarkable, given a designer upon whom you’ve placed the deontic burden of simplicity. Nevermind that fifteen billion years or so is hardly infinite time. You seem to think that amazement predisposes one to a belief in God. But were our resident physicalist, Sentient Meat, present, he would tell you all about how he came from stars and how amazing that truly is. Frankly, I can see no more simple a plan for an eternal being to effect the creation of biological life than to collapse the wave of a massive singularity — the eventual emergence of carbon is practically guaranteed. All that aside, it is hardly necessary that God created the universe anyway. It serves His purpose all the same. God isn’t about mass and energy; He is about morality. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/43 "2005-07-11T21:18:30Z")
And while I’m at it, let me just say that nothing quite so assists the arguments made by IDers than hysterical non sequitur accusations that they are stupid, and can’t grasp the truth. It sounds like something Jerry Falwell would say. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/44 "2005-07-11T21:39:06Z")
> [@](#): > > What did you mean by: "Intelligent Design is a very particular branch of bad science that looks for a god of the gaps to fill in questions that we have not yet answered regarding the processes of neo-Darwinian Evolution. ID is a very limited subset of (and dead end to) the Theory of Natural Selection. I’m going to be lazy and link to the Wikipedia articles on [Intelligent Design](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) and [Theistic Evolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution). The problem that I have with Intelligent Design is that it seeks to assert as a principle that we can discern a transcendant God through _scientific_ activities. It leads to rather silly errors such as Behe’s “Irreducible complexity” in which he claimed that he had found several “designs” in nature that _could not_ have evolved because there were steps leading to those designs that required all the parts of the designs to have already evolved. In every case that Behe found a “gap” in the evolutionary theory, subsequent research has demonstrated that Behe simply lacked the imagination to see how the evolutionary process could have bridged his gap and that the “designs” that he claimed could not have occurred through the trial and error of natural selection actually did occur in exactly that way. (The phrase “god of the gaps” refers to the places in evolutionary process where we currently have a gap and a person with limited imagination simply declares “God did it.”) (Behe is mentioned part way down the Wikipedia ID article.) Intelligent Design arose as an emotional overreaction. There have long been atheists and skeptics who have pointed to the absence of God in the scientific record and made the _philosophical_ choice to conclude that God does not exist. Darwin’s younger protege, Thomas Huxley, was a strong opponent of religion and frequently tried to enlist science as an “ally” against “god.” More recently, Richard Dawkins has made similar arguments. (So have several posters on the SDMB.) _Philosophically_, such battles can be fun. However, if Dawkins ever tried to submit a peer-reviewed paper “disproving God,” he would be laughed out of the editor’s office. Such philosophical discussions are not amenable to scientific exploration. While one may choose to battle such arguments in the realm of _philosophy_, people are wrong to try to enlist _science_ to “prove” God, and ID advocates (such as William Dembski and Phillip Johnson) are behaving in a silly fashion when they attempt to argue against scientific discovery by using philosophical arguments. (There is a Philosophy of Science that is a legitmate forum for challenging scientific method, but these guys are generally not engaging in those discussions, preferring to have a “nature of god” fight under the guise of scientific criticism.) The point is that while one may choose to do battle over “god” or “humanism” or any number of other issues, it is not the domain of science to discover “truth.” When Dembski and his ilk attempt to get ID inserted into biology classes, he is doing a disservice to the science of biology and he is belittling philosophy and religion that should not be tied to the evidentiary basis of science. ---
**Author:** ![Ex\_Machina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Ex\_Machina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ex_Machina)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/45 "2005-07-11T22:09:29Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > while at the same time saying that the emergence of life is remarkable, given a designer upon whom you’ve placed the deontic burden of simplicity. I have no idea what you are talking about here. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/46 "2005-07-11T22:44:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What did you mean by: "Intelligent Design is a very particular branch of bad science that looks for a god of the gaps to fill in questions that we have not yet answered regarding the processes of neo-Darwinian Evolution. ID is a very limited subset of (and dead end to) the Theory of Natural Selection. What \*\*Tomndeb \*\* said, and… Intelligent Designers, as I understand them, basically believe that “science shows” God intervened \*at a very specific point in time \* - . i.e. God actively created DNA and the simplest proteins - the simplest life. There are logical holes in their reasoning so big you could drive a convoy through them, and Tomndeb mentioned the major one, “irreducible complexity.” But another big one and favorite of mine is the idea that since DNA carries “information” it must be evidence of intelligence, since all media that we know of that carry information are designed by intelligence. Basically their m.o. is to find examples of biological phenomena that are either a) not fully understood, or b) which are understood but are difficult for the laymen to grasp. They then overwhelm the reader or listener a barrage of such “evidence” and hope that quantity will bury quality. They can sound quite knowledgable and persuasive and will toss up dozens of electron micrographs and whatnot but the logic is always the same: if you can’t immediately explain “X” that means God must have done it. ---
**Author:** ![Monstre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Monstre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monstre)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/47 "2005-07-12T02:45:39Z")
> [@Ex Machina](#): > > I don’t believe you can comprehend … the astronomical **number of reproductive events** which created the various life forms on earth. Only Wilt Chamberlain can… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/48 "2005-07-12T04:06:10Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I can. I find it harder to imagine time being finite than time being infinite. I can understand both in a theoretical sense, but I find it harder to imagine the former than the latter. I think this is just that you find it impossible to imagine a boundary to time or space, not that you really can grasp the enormity of time and space, it just seems simpler to you to say that they’re really really vast, than to imagine a boundary. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Archergal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Archergal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archergal)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/49 "2005-07-12T04:10:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Surely you know that each organism plays a role in the larger cycle of things. Even the Dung Beetle serves a purpose. (Although I’m still wondering about the mosquito.) But my guess is that some **etymologist** knows, or will soon know the answer. Here’s what an etymologist could tell you about mosquito: > [@](#): > > Etymology: Spanish, diminutive of mosca fly, from Latin musca – more at MIDGE An entomologist might tell you something different. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/50 "2005-07-12T04:58:41Z")
Oops. Sad thing is that I know that. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/51 "2005-07-12T09:31:19Z")
> [@Ex Machina](#): > > I have no idea what you are talking about here. Too bad, since it actually is what _you_ were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/52 "2005-07-12T10:16:03Z")
Here is [an interesting article from Wired magazine](http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html) about the “Intelligent Design” movement. It’s actually more objective than I would’ve expected _Wired_ to be about the topic, and it gives some insight into the political machinations of ID proponents. Thanks to **tom~** for the introduction to Theistic Evolution; I’d been wondering what the term was for the belief that evolution and a deity are compatible. As a freshman in college, I made the mistake of telling my anthropology professor that I was a creationist before understanding what the term really meant and all its connotations. Once I found out what the “creationists” were selling, I was embarrassed and never had the chance to recant! ---
**Author:** ![BrianJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@BrianJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrianJ)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/53 "2005-07-12T11:34:29Z")
I read somewhere, and sorry no cite :(, that IDers consider the push to include ID in schools is a ‘wedge’ strategy. IE its the first step in pushing creationism into the classrooms. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/54 "2005-07-12T13:12:41Z")
> [@BrianJ4](#): > > I read somewhere, and sorry no cite :(, that IDers consider the push to include ID in schools is a ‘wedge’ strategy. IE its the first step in pushing creationism into the classrooms. Not to worry. If the slope is really that slippery, then we’ll be right back to evolution in no time. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/55 "2005-07-12T13:16:44Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > I’m beginning to think that **Ex Machina** is the new **Scott Plaid**. With a smidgeon of **Clothahump**? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/56 "2005-07-12T13:46:51Z")
The odd comment, here and there, is going to get by, but if someone needs to make a serious comparison of posters and styles, it should be taken to **MPSIMS** (if it is general) or **The BBQ Pit** (if it is going to get insulting). [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/57 "2005-07-12T13:55:45Z")
\*\* Ex Machina\*\*, you have it backwards. There are some people who believe in I.D. who are otherwise intelligent. They, however, don’t make the news. The people who want to put I.D. in textbooks don’t want to do so because they really think that evolution is a bad idea. Frankly, they don’t think at all. Rather, they would prefer that all the text books in all the land should reflect Christianity, and they seek to make up excuses why it should be so. The “reasons” given are simply smoke screens for what they really want, and if you defeat their arguments, they will simply pull out new ones. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/58 "2005-07-12T14:06:06Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > \*\* Ex Machina\*\*, you have it backwards. There are some people who believe in I.D. who are otherwise intelligent. They, however, don’t make the news. > > The people who want to put I.D. in textbooks don’t want to do so because they really think that evolution is a bad idea. Frankly, they don’t think at all. Rather, they would prefer that all the text books in all the land should reflect Christianity, and they seek to make up excuses why it should be so. The “reasons” given are simply smoke screens for what they really want, and if you defeat their arguments, they will simply pull out new ones. Hey!!! Is this a question?? {sigh} I knew it wouldn’t last. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/59 "2005-07-12T14:09:07Z")
No, the bet ended yesterday. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2005, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033/60 "2005-07-12T14:15:25Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Ex Machina, you have it backwards. There are some people who believe in I.D. who are otherwise intelligent. They, however, don’t make the news. > > The people who want to put I.D. in textbooks don’t want to do so because they really think that evolution is a bad idea. Frankly, they don’t think at all. Rather, they would prefer that all the text books in all the land should reflect Christianity, and they seek to make up excuses why it should be so. The “reasons” given are simply smoke screens for what they really want, and if you defeat their arguments, they will simply pull out new ones. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Hey!!! Is this a question?? {sigh} I knew it wouldn’t last. Scott’s agreement expired yesterday. By the way, Scott’s sentences in this post are actually comprehensible English, suggesting that he proofread it. If so, the pitting had a beneficial effect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-intelligent-designers-cant-grasp-evolution/312033.md?page=4)