3 ms·

The Vagus Nerve[0] that controls every mammals voice box originates at the brain stem and travels through the abdomen, then back up to the larynx. It is also re

The Vagus Nerve[0] that controls every mammals voice box originates at the brain stem and travels through the abdomen, then back up to the larynx. It is also responsible for a multitude of functions from heart to the digestive track. Some people believe this is a clear case against ID, but to be fair, there are others who retort that statement[1]. It seems silly for a higher being/entity to create a central point of failure and "poor design" principals. As you've stated, evolution is more fleshed out then intelligent design and the fact that it's a Scientific Theory means that it was well tested via the Scientific Method that is established to cast doubt[2]. Just that statement is so powerful because a group of folks actually attempted to disprove and/or prove via a method that is reproducible. ID is merely a suggestion that has almost no way to be proven/disproven. Centering an argument on a possibility is always entertaining when taken with a grain of salt, however, when a hypothesis becomes a counter argument to a Scientific Theory, credibility is difficult to achieve. The crux of my issue with your comment is that you use the word "theory" interchangeably. While evolution is a Scientific Theory, ID is a theory[3] (lower case t), defined by "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true". Comparing the two is disingenuous. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve [1]http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Laats-Bergman-Throat.pdf http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2011... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory [3]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Cyph0n 10y ago
> It seems silly for a higher being/entity to create a central point of failure and "poor design" principals. Perhaps, but my thinking is that such a design choice could have a significant advantage we haven't noticed yet. > Scientific Theory means that it was well tested via the Scientific Method that is established to cast doubt This is a central issue I have with evolutionary science in general, and neo-Dawrinism in paricular. It has become somewhat of a "cult" within the scientific community. No single evolutionary biologist wants to risk his/her career attacking a particular aspect of evolution, which is partially why ID theorists are doing most of the attacking. Another problem is that evolutionists want you to present an alternative if you do end up attacking the theory. The argument I've seen is "don't attack if you can't come up with an alternative!". But if the theory is flawed in the first place and isn't able to explain a number of important issues, why should your theory be accepted as truth? In a nutshell, evolutionary scientists don't want the scientific method to apply to areas where evolution is weak, to avoid discrediting the theory. Remember, if evolution theory is proven to be false, Darwinists (and naturalists) won't have an alternative.
- bardworx 10y ago
  Dude, you're simply a troll. > In a nutshell, evolutionary scientists don't want the scientific method to apply to areas where evolution is weak, to avoid discrediting the theory. Remember, if evolution theory is proven to be false, Darwinists (and naturalists) won't have an alternative. If a Scientific Theory is verified to discredit evolution, then all those Darwinists and Naturalists will have plenty of things to work on. Besides being Nobel Prize worth and exciting because of the possibilities. I now regret replying to your comment and putting in the work. A shame.
  - kstenerud 10y ago
    When someone takes an idea as a core part of their identity, it gains power over them. An attack upon that idea becomes an attack upon themselves personally. A validation of that idea becomes a validation of themselves personally. This creates a perverse incentive to validate the idea wherever possible, even when the explanation makes no sense. Your thought patterns short-circuit, and you become unable to see the incongruity in your own arguments. In fact, this human failing is exactly why we developed the Scientific Method in the first place. What I'm saying is: This person isn't actually a troll. He's not doing it to mess with you. He really does believe what he's saying, and you cannot convince him otherwise until he relinquishes the core idea that led to it, which in this case is his religion.
    - wolfhumble 10y ago
      > This person isn't actually a troll. He's not doing it to mess with you. He really does believe what he's saying, and you cannot convince him otherwise until he relinquishes the core idea that led to it, which in this case is his religion. What you are really saying is that is his/her core idea is wrong and this leads to behaviour that clothes itself as trolling ("cannot convince him otherwise until he relinquishes the core idea that led to it, which in this case is his religion"). He/she could easily say the same thing about your core idea, so I fail to see how this adds to the discussion.
    - bardworx 10y ago

Cyph0n 10y ago

> It seems silly for a higher being/entity to create a central point of failure and "poor design" principals. Perhaps, but my thinking is that such a design choice could have a significant advantage we haven't noticed yet. > Scientific Theory means that it was well tested via the Scientific Method that is established to cast doubt This is a central issue I have with evolutionary science in general, and neo-Dawrinism in paricular. It has become somewhat of a "cult" within the scientific community. No single evolutionary biologist wants to risk his/her career attacking a particular aspect of evolution, which is partially why ID theorists are doing most of the attacking. Another problem is that evolutionists want you to present an alternative if you do end up attacking the theory. The argument I've seen is "don't attack if you can't come up with an alternative!". But if the theory is flawed in the first place and isn't able to explain a number of important issues, why should your theory be accepted as truth? In a nutshell, evolutionary scientists don't want the scientific method to apply to areas where evolution is weak, to avoid discrediting the theory. Remember, if evolution theory is proven to be false, Darwinists (and naturalists) won't have an alternative.

bardworx 10y ago
Dude, you're simply a troll. > In a nutshell, evolutionary scientists don't want the scientific method to apply to areas where evolution is weak, to avoid discrediting the theory. Remember, if evolution theory is proven to be false, Darwinists (and naturalists) won't have an alternative. If a Scientific Theory is verified to discredit evolution, then all those Darwinists and Naturalists will have plenty of things to work on. Besides being Nobel Prize worth and exciting because of the possibilities. I now regret replying to your comment and putting in the work. A shame.
- kstenerud 10y ago
  When someone takes an idea as a core part of their identity, it gains power over them. An attack upon that idea becomes an attack upon themselves personally. A validation of that idea becomes a validation of themselves personally. This creates a perverse incentive to validate the idea wherever possible, even when the explanation makes no sense. Your thought patterns short-circuit, and you become unable to see the incongruity in your own arguments. In fact, this human failing is exactly why we developed the Scientific Method in the first place. What I'm saying is: This person isn't actually a troll. He's not doing it to mess with you. He really does believe what he's saying, and you cannot convince him otherwise until he relinquishes the core idea that led to it, which in this case is his religion.
  - wolfhumble 10y ago
    > This person isn't actually a troll. He's not doing it to mess with you. He really does believe what he's saying, and you cannot convince him otherwise until he relinquishes the core idea that led to it, which in this case is his religion. What you are really saying is that is his/her core idea is wrong and this leads to behaviour that clothes itself as trolling ("cannot convince him otherwise until he relinquishes the core idea that led to it, which in this case is his religion"). He/she could easily say the same thing about your core idea, so I fail to see how this adds to the discussion.
  - bardworx 10y ago