Charlie Wagner

Charlie Wagner (1944-2011) was an inept proponent of Intelligent Design.Charles Wagner 1944-2011 He specified that he did not attribute a religious agenda to his support of Intelligent Design, and the notion has been hijacked by those who do.http://www.charliewagner.net/case4id.htm Yet all of his arguments for intelligent input are rife with problems. He posted comments to online forums about evolution versus intelligent design to get attention.http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/01/02/smoke-and-mirrors-whales-and-lampreys-a-guest-post-by-ken-miller/#comment-13307
==A Scientific Case for Intelligent Input==
Wagner attempted to justify intelligent design by documenting the "scientific processes" he used to formulate his beliefs.
From the beginning, a reader fully understands the kind of logic and inability to understand reality that plagues Wagner's idea. Wagner's argument for support of intelligent input is wrought with inaccuracies and fallacies. He falls into many of the usual ID setups, such as:
* Arguing analogy of complexity by saying that objects like washing machines and airplanes are complex, designed things, and comparing them to dogs and humans.
* Using the "mousetrap" argument, that removing any integral part of a complex machine renders the machine useless
* Inanimate objects cannot create themselves from parts, therefore evolution is false
* Science cannot explain why we are here, therefore there must be an intelligent reason
Wagner argues that there are two distinct types of complexities in life: designed systems and completely random systems. "There is only one difference between intelligently designed systems and those systems which are the result of random processes. Randomly generated systems do not adapt means to ends, they do not adapt structure and process to function and they do not self-organize. And one must be careful not to confuse organization with order. There's a lot of talk about ordered systems in the non-living world, snowflakes, tornadoes, etc. but this is not the issue." Why would Wagner bother arguing design based on tornadoes, airplanes and such, then later state that "there's a lot of talk about" such things and they are not the issue?
But the only examples given are the ones Wagner claims are not the issue. He provides no living examples of such ordered systems.
He makes no connection between the order and the evidence that this is the product of a higher intelligence. He argues that order is the result of something making the order work for some benefit; but where is the evidence of this, or the setup? What are some examples? None are provided.
Is Wagner arguing that Y. Jiang,Jiang Y, Doolittle RF (2003) "The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes." PNAS 100: 7527-7532 M. J. PallenPallen MJ, Matzke NJ. (2006). "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella." Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4: 784-790. and R. F. DoolittleDoolittle RF, Jiang Y, Nand J. (2008) "Genomic evidence for a simpler clotting scheme in jawless vertebrates." J. Mol. Evol. 66:185-96. are all disingenuous in their research and evidence? It appears more that Wagner does not appreciate evidence that clearly shows intelligent input is not necessary for complexity in organisms, given that such complex systems have different structures and arose through an evolutionary process, as observed in nature. These aren't proposals, as Wagner claims, but observations of "unintelligent input."
Here Wagner is simply incapable of seeing past his own nose. If random mutations exist, and if natural selection occurs, where is the problem between the two? If mutations occur in any population, then there is a chance that a mutation can cause a benefit of some kind to the organism. Whether it be a color change, or forward-pointing toes for bipedalism, or concavity of light-sensitive cells to understand direction of light intensity, etc., the understanding is there. Wagner just does not attribute to mutations that which he wants to be intelligence. If something positive happens, surely it's part of a plan of some intelligent worker; otherwise it's just a mutation. And natural selection only works on the mutations, not on the tinkered bits.
Why, then would there exist mollusks which have the steps from light-sensitive cells to fully-functioning eyes, and those with less complex "eyes" still have such? If a tinkerer is driving the change to complex, ordered eyes, why leave behind the incomplete versions? Such a sloppy, intelligent inventor.
Wagner does not address this (as no ID proponent ever does) and simply argues that eyes are complex, and they have many parts, therefore they must be the result of something intelligent. This fallacy is commonplace with many ID proponents, and Wagner does not disappoint.
Except the evidence that shows complex structures, processes and systems accumulating through evolutionary means and not some supernatural force, of course. Wagner's only example has been thoroughly debunked, and the evidence shown for its steps are widely available. Yet somehow it just does not exist for Wagner.
Here is how Wagner dispenses with the evidence:
That's right, it looks to be accurate, it seems logical, but he just says it's "proven to be apocryphal." There you have it, folks! Pack it in, ID is true and evolution is false. Just because someone says there's proof it's apocryphal.
Snark aside, Wagner continues with his absurdities. "I am familiar with many of the papers published in journals that are often cited by evolutionary biologists as evidence that supports their theory. I'm sorry to report that not one of them provides any evidence, either observational or experimental that demonstrates that random, accidental events can ever accumulate in such a way as to result in the appearance of complex, highly organized and integrated structures, processes and systems." Evidence is not evidence. Yes, read that again.
Mammoths, dinosaurs and dodo birds would like to object to this statement.
Wagner's understanding of biology is about on par with that of any other internet trolling ID proponent.
And he returns to his analogy of complexity:
Name five, Wagner.
==Wagner and Religion==
Even though Wagner argues he does not attribute a religious agenda to his support of Intelligent Design, his website is filled with religious quotes and stories.
==External links==
*Conversation on Evolution
*Wagner on Evolution
*Wagner on the Burgess Shale
==See also==
*Hugh Dower
*Shaun Johnston
==References==
Category:Intelligent design creationism
Category:Pseudoscience promoters