It's easy to convince people there are no biological precursors to eyes (even though there ARE)-- they seem to be willing to believe that if they don't know about it it must not exist.

Yes, in recent years there have been elegant studies in developmental genetics showing how simple mechanisms can assemble into something like an eye, or how a slight change in the protein produced by a gene can change scales into feathers. The core of "Intelligent Design" is the idea of irreducible complexity, but no such thing has been found in biology. Proponents of the ID are either ignorant or they are liars or they are both.

Made my chiro appointment for today, and cancelled the ortho. I need my spine cracked something awful. I don't know what's happening to my skeleton, but my joints are very cranky recently.

ita illustrates the other big problem with Intelligent Design: all known species are filled with unintelligent design that betrays their inefficient evolutionary history. It is obvious that humans, for instance, were not designed to walk upright, although some last-minute biological jury-rigging allows us to do so. If species were created by an intelligent designer, it must have been an intelligent designer on crack.

Also, why would an Intelligent Design just muck around with single cell organisms for billions of years?

Liz probably just made a pledge during a Devil Worship Telethon and it's all gotten blown out of proportion.

I think there's some evidence that humans more readily believe anecdotal evidence than statistical. Say what you like about seatbelts saving lives, but my uncle's friend's cousin who was thrown clear of the car that burst into flames because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt is more convincing.

why would an Intelligent Design just muck around with single cell organisms for billions of years?

Quest for perfection.

ita illustrates the other big problem with Intelligent Design

You have no idea how often I hear this.

in recent years there have been elegant studies in developmental genetics showing how simple mechanisms can assemble into something like an eye, or how a slight change in the protein produced by a gene can change scales into feathers. The core of "Intelligent Design" is the idea of irreducible complexity, but no such thing has been found in biology.

The whole irony of ID is that by pointing out holes in the theory of evolution, it's helping to fill in those holes, and increase our understanding of how evolution works.

Say what you like about seatbelts saving lives, but my uncle's friend's cousin who was thrown clear of the car that burst into flames because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt is more convincing.

I think that most people just don't like seatbelts, and thus are willing to belive something that confirms their dislike. Maybe seatbelts give some people a "trapped" feeling, so stories about being trapped by a seatbelt in a burning or sinking car tend to resonate.

Anecdotal evidence is more strong than statistical evidence as bad customer experiences matter more than good customer experiences. Discuss.

the idea of irreducible complexity

We reserve this for discussions of my arithmetic deficiencies.

I appreciate the backup even if Frankenbudda subscribes to that other gnomist sect.

So, do the differences in the sects include using light bulbs instead of candles in their respective rituals?

Anecdotal evidence is more strong than statistical evidence as bad customer experiences matter more than good customer experiences. Discuss.

You tend to remember the bad? Like, the line you go in is always the slowest, because you don't remember as well the times you pick the fast line? Also, when you're in the slow line, you have more time to stew about it - when you're in the fast line you have less time to think about how lucky you are.

Also, back in prehistoric times, someone telling you, "Don't eat that! Org ate that and then he died!" might have more weight than, "Don't eat that! Org did a statistical study and concluded that you have a 5% higher chance of dying in the next five hours." (note - these are different Orgs.)