Is the Wikipedia page on Intelligent Design biased?

On the origin of the spliceosome by Intelligent Design.
By William D Cole, internet nobody.

The spliceosome is beyond scientific reach. I say so.

The spliceosome is beyond scientific reach.

I say so.

It is beyond scientific reach.

The explanation is that the origin of the spliceosome maybe beyond scientific reach.

Ex recto assertion.

Cole, William D. Journal of stultifying pseudoscience vol1, 2022.


Then go and get one.


I note that you ask material questions as if you are expecting non-material answers. This is never going to happen, yet you continue to ask. Instead you get material answers, sometimes very hard material answers, and fail to accept them because (presumably) they are not compatible with your beliefs. (Actually, you don’t talk much about your beliefs, but maybe you should?) Rum works hard to provide you with answers to your questions - it’s hardly his fault they are material answers - that’s what you ask for.

My own perspective is that your beliefs (I assume) lead you to arguing against very hard conclusions (ie: arguing against math). The result is nonsense questions and refusal to understand, despite Rum’s best efforts.


If someone argues based on methodological naturalism I am ok as this will drive hard conclusions. If Rum is arguing based on methodological naturalism then I agree with you and will not challenge his conclusions.

The issue is when someone says that multiple origins is not supported by the evidence period. Multiple origins in itself is a possible materialistic position. It does however imply a non materialistic reason for the cause of many origin events.

This claim of a single common ancestor of vertebrates is highly suspect as the Howe diagram (and other similar Venn diagrams) is a powerful challenge to this position.

It’s like a tic.


A rotating one that evokes the classic SNL landshark sketches. Except that the rotation worked for the landshark, of course.

Coffee/nose/keyboard disaster here…

No it doesn’t. Don’t forget that as far as IDers know, the designer could be a space alien. “Multiple origins” implies nothing about the cause of those origins. In fact there are two theories I know of that involve separate origins of species without a designer at all. Check out Perianan Senapathy, for example. (I forget the name of the other guy with a similar theory.) Those theories, of course, are pure nonsense, but we can reject them for exactly the same reasons we can reject your notions.


I’d say multiple tics:

As always, Bill makes this assertion without offering any substantiation that Methodological Naturalism is directly implicated, or that relaxing MN would help his argument.


Yes you will, and often do, :wink:

OK, but …

It does however imply a non materialistic reason for the cause of many origin events.

I don’t see how that follows. Why can’t you have materialistic reasons for the cause of many origin events.

I think you are begging the question that non-materialic reasons are necessary to any physical event. I would ask you to provide examples, but I don’t think there are any.

More likely someone just made a bad diagram. Even so, Venn diagrams are descriptive, not inferential, so it doesn’t amount to a challenge. You would be better off IMO just saying that your beliefs (?) prevent you from accepting all the evidence supporting common origins.


Given that the Howe diagram is, in fact, a very clear and dramatic confirmation of common ancestry, there is another option: Bill just didn’t understand the diagrams.

You won’t exactly reap a windfall if you put your money on that option.


Nothing is wrong with the diagram. What’s wrong is Bill’s understanding of it, which he got from Sal Cordova.


This is important to remember. Bill’s continued and persistent failure to understand the diagram is not just a result of his own ignorance. It has been aided and abetted by the misrepresentation of the diagram by credentialed scientists in the ID movement.


Calling Sal Cordova “a credentialed scientist” is stretching quite a bit.


Fair enough. How about “Been to school long enough that he should know better”?


How have you eliminated non material reasons? There is no mechanistic model that reconciles the pattern. Common descent alone does not explain it. @John_Harshman needed to add gene gain and loss to explain it. The adaption gain model that Lynch offered is very limited in how many changes it explains yet this Venn diagram shows thousands of unique genes in the different vertebrates.

The pattern does show unique genes that are involved in building unique animals. According to Behe’s method this is evidence of design.

@John_Harshman correctly pointed out that the detailed cause is beyond ID. The evidence however supports Reasons to believe’s multiple origin model that @AJRoberts is working on.

My personal beliefs have very to do with my views here. I think the data will eventually speak for itself.

Oh man.

Common descent alone explains nothing. It’s always common descent with some kind of change on some particular branch or branches of the tree. This should not be a difficult concept to understand.

How can you know that if you don’t know what the model is? And what evidence?

Self-contradiction in two sentences. You think the data will eventually support you because your personal beliefs demand it. There is no other reason to suppose that the evidence will change.


So “descent with modification” would explain it perfectly then. :smiley:

I think I remember somebody talking about that. A guy by the name of Charles Darwin … 160 years ago. :roll_eyes:

Further confirmation that our friend Bill knows sweet Fanny Adams about evolution.

1 Like


I admit to mostly ignoring any discussion of the Howe diagram for over a year. Now I’ll have to look it up.