Does Hitchens really know the difference between intelligent design and creationism? Or is he pretending not to?

Basic creationism holds that evolution does not occur. ID concedes that 99.9% of adaptations could occur naturally without outside intervention, but some (like the eye) could not.

Vestigial organs like salamander eyes or your appendix are indeed fine arguments against the strict creationist idea that adaptations never occur. As are dinosaur bones, early humans, and many, many other things. So Hitchens has put the thousandth nail in the coffin of the "species never evolve" idea.

But the ID folks are saying that very complex systems could not evolve on their own. This has nothing to do with whether complex systems could change to become less complex.

I can see where Hitchens had a revelation (can we say "epiphany" if it involves him?) and said "Hey, they're always talking about eyes . . . my point has to do with eyes, too!" I do agree that the ID crowd are just grasping at straws to hold onto a shred of the original creationism. But Hitchens (whether he realizes it or not) has left their main point untouched.

Though I must admit this: If any of the ID people believe that the mysterious force working to create complex systems is also working to make sure complex systems in each species remain as complex as possible forever, then Hitchens has just blown that idea out of the water. Not sure anyone believes that, though.

And your point is, exactly, what? If, as some philosophers argue, "intelligence" (defined as a tendency for matter to organize into more complex forms, crystals, organic molecules, heavy elements, etc) is as much a characteristic of matter as "mass," then living matter is one possibility that will occur given the required conditions. And matter does that "itself" just as certainly as matter occupies space, has weight, etc. All we know for a FACT about species is that they go extinct. We know that because 99% plus already have and thousands more are likely doing so each year with our help. So whatever forces cause species to emerge, those forces pretty clearly don't give a fiddler's f..k about whether they persist indefinitely. All the primate species which led to humans are extinct. It is quite obvious that we also will fade away, likely by our own hand. Hitchen's point is, I think, that whatever force impels the emergence of species, it is not a benevolent force. If the Universe were to be likened to a human, that human would be a serial murderer. One of the points being made in his piece is that not only species, but entire planetary systems and stars around which the planets orbit become extinct. Build a theology around that.

Great point. Obviously we will never know how the Universe began (and ends). But if there is one truth on Earth it is that it only matters if organisms live long enough to reproduce effectively. Why would god create sickle cell aneimia to protect us from Malaria. Anyone would have to admit that Sickle Cell is pretty "unitelligent" (and sadistic) way to allow people to survive malaria. The idea that God would create Malaria to infect us, then "create" the mutation in hemoglobin to cause sickle cell to occur to protect from malaria which it (god) created is maddening. If there is a god, all evidence points to a force that is completely indifferent to individual organisms, planets, stars and galaxies, and may even be unaware of it's own power.

God doesn't control you in every way but for every action there is a reaction. Ones 'condition' is largely caused by the reality of ones ability to recycle the useless.

“Basic creationism holds that evolution does not occur. ID concedes that 99.9% of adaptations could occur naturally without outside intervention, but some (like the eye) could not.”

>>ID by your own argument, then, is a creationist model—just one where the unidentified intelligent designer intervenes to a lesser degree than in classic 24/7 models.

“ So Hitchens has put the thousandth nail in the coffin of the "species never evolve" idea.”

>>Gee, I thought the final nails were the multiple instances where we’ve directly observed species evolve.

“But the ID folks are saying that very complex systems could not evolve on their own.”

>>The problem is they’re saying that despite the lack of any evidence supporting the claim that very complex systems could only evolve as a result of goal oriented intervention by an unidentified designer.

“This has nothing to do with whether complex systems could change to become less complex.”

>>It does, however, since the same mechanism by which complex systems become less complex is sufficient to explain how simple systems could become more complex.

JGC:

“Basic creationism holds that evolution does not occur. ID concedes that 99.9% of adaptations could occur naturally without outside intervention, but some (like the eye) could not.”

>>ID by your own argument, then, is a creationist model—just one where the unidentified intelligent designer intervenes to a lesser degree than in classic 24/7 models.

Creationism holds that the complexity already existed and that same complexity wasn't created by evolution.

JGC:

“This has nothing to do with whether complex systems could change to become less complex.”

>>It does, however, since the same mechanism by which complex systems become less complex is sufficient to explain how simple systems could become more complex.

I think the belief is that retards are as complex as politicians.

bemused bystander:

And your point is, exactly, what? If, as some philosophers argue, "intelligence" (defined as a tendency for matter to organize into more complex forms, crystals, organic molecules, heavy elements, etc) is as much a characteristic of matter as "mass," then living matter is one possibility that will occur given the required conditions. And matter does that "itself" just as certainly as matter occupies space, has weight, etc. All we know for a FACT about species is that they go extinct. We know that because 99% plus already have and thousands more are likely doing so each year with our help. So whatever forces cause species to emerge, those forces pretty clearly don't give a fiddler's f..k about whether they persist indefinitely. All the primate species which led to humans are extinct. It is quite obvious that we also will fade away, likely by our own hand. Hitchen's point is, I think, that whatever force impels the emergence of species, it is not a benevolent force. If the Universe were to be likened to a human, that human would be a serial murderer. One of the points being made in his piece is that not only species, but entire planetary systems and stars around which the planets orbit become extinct. Build a theology around that.

Actually, my theology explains that quite nicely.

What's interesting is that, if all we know for a fact, as you say, is that existing species die out all the time, then materialism has a real hard time explaining where they came from in the first place. As hard as your side tries to dodge the uncomfortable truth by citing examples of evolution that results from loss of complexity, at some point Darwinian or any other kind of evolutionary hypothesis has to account for the origin of complex living structures. Blabbing on about the philosophical ramifications of salamanders losing the ability to see is nothing more than smoke and distractions.

"I think the belief is that retards are as complex as politicians."

>>A crude way to put it, but I'agree that one's choice of profession--politicians, electrician, physician, etc.--doesn't reflect significant differences in biological complexity.