Intelligent Design, that nebulous concept that supporters think will remove evolution from the classroom, is useless. It’s also got even bigger problems than that (if that’s possible).
You see, one of the things that ID proponents don’t do (among things like research, experiments, and the like) is think about the implications of their own notions. ID proponents try to keep things very simple for the poor people they are deluding. But some of us, take the next logical step and that’s where ID runs into real trouble.
Never mind that ID proponents can’t even agree on what was done or when it was done. Never mind that there is no evidence for any thing that they claim. Just one simple question and one simple (relatively) logical statement shows the utter uselessness that is ID.
First, let’s talk about the question. It’s the question that drives them, that shows their notions to be useless. You know the question…
Can ID distinguish between design and non-design?
In other words, can it even do what it claims to be able to do? Indeed ID must be able to do this or there is no point to it at all. I’ve said this before and since then, I’ve challenged no less than five pro-ID supporters to show that they can distinguish between design and non-design. None have even acknowledged the question. [Note that these challenges take place on open forums as compared to the heavily moderated pro-ID forums. Those forums are well-known for deleting and banning anyone who questions ID, much less presents a challenge that cannot be answered by ID, so I don’t present them there. Any Pro-ID people are welcome to request the challenge from me and I will post it this blog and any responses to the challenge in this blog as well.]
My challenge is very simple. In fact, it is so simple that one wonders why ID proponents haven’t undertaken it themselves in an effort to support their own notions. It’s the least that any competent scientists would do.
The challenge is thus: I have provided a sequence of about 975 nucleotides that are known to be designed (because a human designed them). In addition, I have provided a sequence of random nucleotides of approximately the same length. It would be child’s play to modify this to proteins or RNA or even just strings of numbers. The two sequences are presented side-by-side (depending on the forum). Can ID proponents distinguish between the two?
So far, none have even bothered to try.
I maintain that it is impossible to distinguish between the two. Even doing a frequency count will not help because the distribution of nucleotides varies between organisms. Without knowing the organism in question and the normal distribution of nucleotide frequencies, it would be impossible to even determine which is which based on that.
Problems Bigger than Just Detecting Design
Now, here’s the real kicker. Even if they could determine which sequence was designed, even if they could determine whether any sequence was designed or random, there is no reason, intrinsic to the method, that would prevent evolution from being the ‘designer’.
In other words, the ID proponents have shot themselves in the foot. By explicitly rejecting a specific designer, with specific tendencies that could be searched for, the ID proponents have no method for restricting design to intelligence.
Since I have previously shown that design can come about without intelligence, ID proponents cannot logically exclude evolution from design activities.
Of course, that’s what they actually want. They want evolution out and God in, but since it’s effectively illegal for them to say that, they try to skirt the issue with ‘an intelligent designer’. Unfortunately, the ‘intelligent’ part of ‘intelligent design’ does not logically proceed from the ‘design’ part.
So, what’s a poor ID minion supposed to do?
Well, this shows that even if they could detect design (which they can’t), they still can’t rule out evolution. So the Intelligent Design proponent must discuss the designer. They must agree on a designer, at least in principle, and find positive supporting evidence that such a designer exists. Then they can explore the logical abilities of that designer and see if they match what we see in the real world. If not, then they must reject that designer and find another one.
This will be surprisingly difficult. ID proponents often refuse to discuss the designer or even engage with other ID proponents about the nature of the designer. In one particular discussion thread, there are two ID proponents. One insists that the designer is a material organism of this universe, while the other insists that the designer created this universe and everything in it. Obviously, these are mutually exclusive designers. Yet they refuse to discuss the issue with each other and instead require scientists and rational thinkers to refute BOTH designers.
No ID proponent has ever suggested more than one designer (that I am aware of). This would be the best solution for them, but it would interfere with the monotheistic God that they know is the real designer (wink, wink).
Obviously, they will not do this. Therefore, ID proponents have no interest in even talking about their notion, just in getting rid of evolution and promoting a specific religion, which was the point all along (wink, wink).