Refuting intelligent design

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2002-11-18 12:06am

So in another forum I frequent, a few creationists have come out of the woodwork. Most of them have been spouting traditional arguments, including intelligent design. They say the same thing, basically:

"It is my opinion that it's much more likely we were created by god than by random chance."

How does one go about rebutting this? I know there's a way, but I want to make sure I get it right.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-11-18 12:09am

Bah. Intelligent design is so stupid it almost refutes itself. Check out Mike's excellent Creationism vs. Evolution site; it has plenty of great ammo for rebutting Creationist nonsense.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-18 12:19am

Where is this forum?

AIIF and ATJ are happy to come into town if you need help.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-18 12:28am

The AIIF stands ready.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2002-11-18 12:31am

Thanks guys, but I think I'll be OK. These people are morons. They're making themselves look so bad that most people aren't paying them heed any more. I'm ripping their arguments to shreds for shits and giggles, more or less.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-11-18 12:34am

Can I get a link? I would love to watch, always a pleasure to watch morons meet the sharp end of the mighty sword of logic.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2002-11-18 12:41am

Durran Korr wrote:Can I get a link? I would love to watch, always a pleasure to watch morons meet the sharp end of the mighty sword of logic.

I would, but only members can view threads.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-18 12:45am

Simple question: What makes you so arrogant as to assume that your opinion is the only correct one?

Creationists HATE having their own words flung at them, especially when he finds that the only response that doesn't sound bad is "The Bible says so, therefore I believe it" or some variant thereof. Then, just show them to be idiots by proving biblical absurdity (isn't hard to do). You'll have them retreating in no time, which sadly is the closest thing you'll ever get to a concession.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-11-18 01:01am

Hey data_link love the Alpha Centauri quote! I had that in my sig once upon a time on other forums

That was a great game ...

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2002-11-18 01:10am

Oh Jebus, one of them tried the ol' Second Law of Thermodynamics tactic. I can almost do that one by rote.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-18 01:14am

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY MAKES NO PREDICTIONS.
All scientific theories must be testable to account for their validity. In order to be tested, a theory must make a prediction. Intelligent design theory does not meet this criterion, so it is not a scientific theory. It does not predict anything. How are students going to test intelligent design theory? What experiment could they design and perform? They simply can't test the theory, and neither can scientists.

Intelligent design is nothing more than a compromise effort between evolution and creationism. It appeases those who believe in evolution by stating the evolution actually occurred, and it appeases those who believe in God, by stating the God directed the process. However, this compromise is a purely political effort, and intelligent design theory has no formal weight in the scientific community.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY ADDS UNNECESSARY TERMS TO AN ALREADY VALID THEORY.
The scientific method makes sure that any hypothesis must go through a battery of tests and modification to fit observation before it can be declared a theory. One of these tests is Occam's Razor, the logical principle of parsimony. In science, if two theories both fit the facts and explain observations, the one with the least amount of variables or terms is deemed the better theory.

Intelligent design theory adds unnecessary weight to evolutionary theory. Biologists have observed that evolution is guided by the process of natural selection. Natural selection basically posits that the outcome of evolution will be guided by what mutations develop in a species. If certain members of a species develop a mutation which allows them to survive more easily in their environment, those members will thrive, while members developing disadvantageous or nonadvantageous mutations will not. This is the process which guides evolution.

Intelligent design theory supplements an existing explanation with unnecessary weight. The two competing theories are as follows.

•Accepted evolutionary theory: Species evolve according to natural selection. If members of a species develop a survival advantage, they will reproduce and thrive, while other members will eventually die out.

•Intelligent design theory: Species evolve according to natural selection and the way God wants them to evolve. If members of a species develop a survival advantage, they will reproduce and thrive, while other members will eventually die out.

Clearly, the current evolutionary model (the first theory) is simpler, and it is regarded as one of the most robust, accurate theories in all of science. The "God" term in the second theory is not required to explain what we observe in nature. As stated before, since intelligent design theory makes no predictions, there is no way of testing it. How are we going to test God's desires or his will? How can biologists demonstrate through experiment that God really is guiding the evolutionary process? They can't. The Intelligent Designer is a redundant, unfalsifiable term. Yes, it is possible that there is one guiding the process, but this does not make the theory valid. Intelligent design theory's claims are tantamount to claiming that God's hand comes out of the ground and pulls objects down to the Earth when they are dropped. There is no reason for that term to be in the explanation of gravity.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY ATTRIBUTES AN UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN TO AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR.
The human body works, but there is no evidence that requires it to have been intelligently designed, and it has numerous flaws which indicate that no intelligent designer could have possibly directed its creation, such as the following.

•Humans use the same pipe to breathe and swallow food. This creates a potential choking hazard which is lethal. Why would any intelligent designer allow this flaw to persist for so long?

•The human eye receives input that is upside-down. This requires our brain to do extra work and flip it right side-up. This hampers efficiency, something which is paramount in any design practice. No intelligent designer would have let this flaw slip by.

•Human reproduction systems are disastrously inefficient. In a typical ejaculation, millions of sperm will be discharged, but only one will reach the egg, and the pregnancy yield is not even 90%. Many pregnancies will end in miscarriage or fail early on. Reproduction is a basic biological drive, so why would any intelligent designer make reproduction so incredibly inefficient?

•The human genetic code is not robust. If one little segment of the human genome is modified, it can result in mental retardation, disfigured limbs or a fatality. Today, such a design is completely unacceptable in everything from computer operating systems to the cars we drive. No one would dare call a computer which exploded or just stopped working upon its CD-ROM drive being removed "intelligently designed," yet the same flaws in the human body are sometimes regarded as evidence of the intelligent design.

•Humans retain a useless organ known as an appendix. There is no reason for it to be there, so why would any intelligent designer keep it there? It has been known to cause extreme pain, and it is sometimes necessary to surgically remove it. Its presence is not only an inefficiency, but a danger, as well.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-18 01:18am

Alferd Packer wrote:Oh Jebus, one of them tried the ol' Second Law of Thermodynamics tactic. I can almost do that one by rote.

Mu hahaha. I have experience with that as well.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2002-11-18 01:22am

Thanks, Durandal!

One of them just threw a bazillion random quotes at me. Have a look.

All right, explain this stuff then

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Noting the abundance of fossils, numerous transitionals must be found to prove my theory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Darwin said that. No transitional fossils have been found (to my knowledge) that have been proven to be genuine.

Also,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geologic table shows that rocks are in a sequential layer from pre-cambrian upward to the earth's crust. However, no place on earth has this sequential pattern from "oldest" to "youngest".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of extensive soil layers in the fossil record. With all these layers exposed for millions of years, you would expect to find numerous soil layers. Even in extreme desert environments these should build up. Yet in the fossil record there is very scant evidence of any build-up. Selected areas of soil layers is exactly what you would expect for the geology of a world-wide flood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biogenetic law -- This law has 2 provable concepts to it: (a) Life can only come from life. (b) Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. In all the years of observing nature, scientists have never seen this law broken or violated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 150 years, careful measurement by scientists have shown that the earth's magnetic field decreases by half every 1400 years. Extrapolating backwards, it is shown that the earth only 10-12,000 years ago would have been a magnetic star, totally incapable of supporting any life - even the most simple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When stars run out of gas they explode. During the course of the life of the galaxy there should be a number of super nova remnants visible from earth. Accordingly, for galaxies this size, there should be 7,250 super nova remnants visible using the evolution model. In reality, there are only 205 - very much in line with the creation model.

I'm tempted to just tell him to go fuck himself (or herself, I suppose) because he's just appealing to authority repeatedly. What do you guys think?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-11-18 01:40am

Oh jeebus...Why even try ...sometimes I think they live in the own little corner of the universe and believe only what they want to.

You could try to smack him/her down, but as to changing nah...won't believe a damn word.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-18 01:49am

Man that is a load of bull. You can either:

a. Disprove it.
b. Appeal to authority the whole thing.
c. Ask them why it is relevant.
d. Ask them why it is right.

Oh and you can ask them what the sources are too.

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2002-11-18 01:52am

You can start off by telling him that astronomy and biology are not the same, let alone evolution.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2002-11-18 01:54am

Heh, I found every one of the quotes refuted on Wong's site.

Oh, Lord Wong, I thank you for your enlightenment, and humbly offer this creationist as a sacrifice in homage to your great wisdom! *grovels*

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2002-11-18 10:04am

"Noting the abundance of fossils, numerous transitionals must be found to prove my theory

Charles Darwin said that. No transitional fossils have been found (to my knowledge) that have been proven to be genuine.

That's funny because numerous such fossils exist. The fact that creationist conclude that these must be fake is not surprising. Any proof you provide will be assumed to be false.

The geologic table shows that rocks are in a sequential layer from pre-cambrian upward to the earth's crust. However, no place on earth has this sequential pattern from "oldest" to "youngest".

The lack of extensive soil layers in the fossil record. With all these layers exposed for millions of years, you would expect to find numerous soil layers. Even in extreme desert environments these should build up. Yet in the fossil record there is very scant evidence of any build-up. Selected areas of soil layers is exactly what you would expect for the geology of a world-wide flood.

Does this person know how errosion works? Generally sediment builds up in bodies of water (like oceans). Mountains and most other "dry" locations experience errosion. So basically, if you want to find a continuous layer of sediment from pre-cambrian to present, its most likely underwater right now. Fossils today are being found on the surface, ie: errosion is wearing away layers from an exposed sediment layer.

Biogenetic law -- This law has 2 provable concepts to it: (a) Life can only come from life. (b) Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. In all the years of observing nature, scientists have never seen this law broken or violated.

In all the years observing nature, scientist haven't observed a process that takes a billion years??? Really??? Wow, that's amazing! How would you record that... VCR on extended record?

The theory is not applicable because it describes different processes. Genetic theory says how something with a genetic structure replicates. Its not applicable to something w/o genetics, like organic molecules randomly interacting.

Over the past 150 years, careful measurement by scientists have shown that the earth's magnetic field decreases by half every 1400 years. Extrapolating backwards, it is shown that the earth only 10-12,000 years ago would have been a magnetic star, totally incapable of supporting any life - even the most simple.

Here's an experiment: take a variable setting light bulb ... take one measurement at a high setting, another a second latter at a lower setting. Then extrapolate back, and conclude that a million years ago this lightbulb was brighter than the sun!!! Now was it?

It requires the incorrect assumption that the rate of change is constant. The magnetic field depends on the amount and direction of earth's internal flow of magma. The magnetic field increases and decreases overtime. It even reverses polarity, with the north pole heading south.

When stars run out of gas they explode. During the course of the life of the galaxy there should be a number of super nova remnants visible from earth. Accordingly, for galaxies this size, there should be 7,250 super nova remnants visible using the evolution model. In reality, there are only 205 - very much in line with the creation model.

Who said this??? 1) Correction: Not every star undergoes a supernova, 2) Identifying a SNR, requires that the shell be intact. These shells remain intact for several thousand years, then dissipate.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2002-11-18 10:28am

The supernova thing requires stars to be around for hundreds of millions of years ANYWAY, so even if there was only one observable supernova, it would still wreck a YEC model, which seems to be what this person's arguing in favor for.

In related news, sometime over the night they posted the good ol' appeal to ignorance, asking me to proved evolution irrefutably.

This one's in the bag, methinks. Thanks for your help and offers of help, everyone.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-11-18 11:12am

Another way to refute Intelligent Design is to show that it isn't very intelligent to begin with. Evolution is about things that get the work done, not necessarily the best way to accomplish something if an intelligent being would actually draw blueprints and create them.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-18 11:23am

All right, explain this stuff then
"Noting the abundance of fossils, numerous transitionals must be found to prove my theory

Charles Darwin said that. No transitional fossils have been found (to my knowledge) that have been proven to be genuine.

That's because Darwin didn't have access to the fossil record. He based his theory on the distribution of animal populations.

Biogenetic law -- This law has 2 provable concepts to it: (a) Life can only come from life. (b) Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. In all the years of observing nature, scientists have never seen this law broken or violated.

Bald-faced lie. The formation of amino acids from inert gases and substances found on early Earth was observed in a lab by Stanley Miller.

Over the past 150 years, careful measurement by scientists have shown that the earth's magnetic field decreases by half every 1400 years. Extrapolating backwards, it is shown that the earth only 10-12,000 years ago would have been a magnetic star, totally incapable of supporting any life - even the most simple.

Another blad-faced lie. The Earth's magnetic field is shifting slightly, not decaying.

When stars run out of gas they explode. During the course of the life of the galaxy there should be a number of super nova remnants visible from earth. Accordingly, for galaxies this size, there should be 7,250 super nova remnants visible using the evolution model. In reality, there are only 205 - very much in line with the creation model.

There is no "evolution model" for supernovae! Aside from that, the fact that supernova remnants exist at all throws the entire theory of creationism out the window, as supernovae are the result of large, massive stars reaching the end of their billions of years life cycles.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-11-18 05:05pm

Although there are much bigger sites on the topic, Mike's page on Creationism is more than enough to refute any Creationist claim. As for the guy who believes it's his opinion that God made us, then tell him there's more proof for evolution, and his belief is irrational, as it has no proof.