A formal argument of this type could be called "Argument From Sandbagging" as an attempt to just deluge a critic with info links and waste time...since these are the same creationist objections and smear tactics that have been used for decades! No surprise now that the two primary "proofs" of intelligent design have blown up, Dembski's blog is reaching for something new....and now it's butterflies are proof of intelligent design! And a hit piece (I assume, I'm not going to waste my time reading it) of quotes, or alleged quotes from scientists is supposed to be convincing argument. Imagine all the fun we could have if we just put up a long string of stupid statements from one rightwing evangelist, like Pat Robertson....there wouldn't even be a need to include any others.
Now, you might not like where this came from, but still what it says is accurate,
The Scientific Case Against Evolution. But none of these are from the Discovery Institute, which I see Wikipedia has several hostile articles about, they must have been written by devout followers of the religion of Evolution!
My mistake! That one is from ICR, which is an outright creationist site that tries to argue against all evidence of evolution....which is an even weaker case to try to support.
And, it is NOT accurate in any regard, because it makes ridiculous statements such as "evolution is not occurring now" even though medical research on immunization and cancer cures among others, is dependent on studying the process of natural selection that is occurring among bacteria and viruses. I've said before to creationists who want to tear down all the science they see as conflicting with their religion -- that they should not be entitled to receive any medical treatments that have been developed through using Evo-Devo and cures dependent on study of evolution of disease organisms.
And, last post I addressed the claims that were made regarding the probability of the origin of life. Maybe this went completely over your head, but abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution! Charles Darwin would have accepted an ID cause to create life in his time, but scientists today are aware of the wonders of organic chemistry and development of membranes, and believe that a supernatural spark does not need to be invoked to start living organisms. That piece repeated the nonsense probabilities based on going from simple amino acids to DNA without any intermediary steps + assuming that chemical reactions are random....which chemists from all backgrounds assure us they are not. But, my question for creationists is regarding the timeline of events on Earth: if God or a divine spark created the first life, why did he wait more than two billion years to get to the first multicellular life forms? And then why did he wait another billion years before creating the basic phyla we have today?
Actually if
the Discovery Institute thought Darwinism was socialistic they really got that wrong!
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism and I would add
Evolution and Modern Racism
Notice that they have to jump to Herbert Spencer to get the "survival of the fittest" narrative (which was never said by Darwin), and the use of evolution to explain culture and economic theory. But today, there are not that many atheists or secular humanists promoting social darwinism! Most of this philosophy has been embraced by the Religious Right, as we can see in the Republican debates, where the candidates proclaim their Christian faith and objectivist philosophy in one, seamless package. The most absurd example probably is Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who threatened to fire new staffers if they failed to read "Atlas Shrugged."
So, it would seem there would be quite a few Christians that would not agree with the Discovery Institute, Oh, what do I think of Pat Robertson? Hmm, I might use some lingo that I know but didn't use in my Army days, and I would want to do that! So, these series of articles cover him and his ilk,
a snippet from,
Does God Still Heal?
That is a little off-topic, but I can agree with any criticism of promoters of faith-healing, as it not only leads to death and illness through refusal of medical treatment, but the right wing Pentacostals have launched the worst candidates for political office, who have a weak grasp on reality: Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry....end of story!
Looks like the movie just makes an argument from ignorance, based on that review:
How could an unguided step-by-step process build metamorphosis, inherently an all-or-nothing proposition? As Dr. Gauger points, once the caterpillar has entered the chrysalis, there's no going back. It must emerge either as a fully formed butterfly or the soupy remains of a dead caterpillar.
Off the top, I recall the D.I. saying the same thing about bacteria flagella....how could these little motors that propel the cell have just evolved through natural selection....until scientists discovered clear evidence of intermediary steps that have since disappeared. What became the flagella were several components that had previously performed other functions, until a later species combined them together for propulsion. Up till then, it was the same line from D.I. -- what are the odds of the finished product being produced through random chance events? But, even then, the meaning of Irreducible Complexities made no sense -- what sort of god-in-the-gaps is consigned to be a tinkerer around the edges of the development of life -- so that all he does is create bacteria motors and other complex biological systems?