The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism

[bevets]

Evolutionism != Atheism.

I would agree that not all evolutionists are atheists, but how many atheists reject evolution?

The ancient seekers after truth differ from their modern successors in only one respect. It was permitted to them to suppose that supernatural forces were at work in the world-forces which could be perceived only by the eye of faith. The modern seeker refuses to accept any explanation which involves the action of a supernatural agent, even as a last resort. ~ Arthur Keith

CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN stands among the giants of Western thought because he convinced a majority of his peers that all of life shares a single, if complex, history. He taught us that we can understand life’s history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine. ~ Niles Eldredge

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

 

[Happy Wonderer]

Here is the essence of the problem whether we are talking about a computer solution or a chemical one:

The reason a computer or chemicals cannot design something on their own is because of value judgements that must be entered into the system by someone who can discern values. It seems like the word would be better at first glance because it is much more brief. Someone has to decide if the brevity is better or the more complete explanation is better.

It is merely an assertion that value judgements are necessary for systems to come about. (It is also clearly untrue; you might want to at least make it complex systems.) If 'words' were for some reason more likely to successfully reproduce than 'sentences', wouldn't you expect that eventually there would be more 'words' than 'sentences? It has nothing to do with a value judgement and everything to do with replication and addition. After many generations, there will be more of the organisms that have a %30 chance of reproduction than there will be of those with a %29 chance.

Is a tube better if it is porous and allows some of the liquid to seep through or is it better if it contains the liquid completely? Is a low electrical current better than a higher one? Is an image better than text or is text better?

I don't know, you tell me. Is an image better than text? Is pi better than e? Supporting your argument with meaningless questions must be some kind of fallacy...

You seem to not be getting 'the proof is in the pudding' aspect of evolution. 'Better' on its own is a meaningless term without the all important for. A high voltage is better for transferring electricity across long distances with proportionally lower energy loss; a low one is better for systems where low heat production is necessary. A more porous tube may be better for letting in nutrients than a less porus one -- to a point. It is not necessary for a system to make a value judgement; in evolution the 'better for' system's possessor is more likely to survive and reproduce than its peers. By simple addition, over generations there will be more of the 'better for' guys than the others.

The answers to the above questions may vary even within the same system. Who or what makes these decisions?

Natural selection. The posessors of better systems for their environment reproduce er, "better." The diversity of life comes about because there isn't a single "best" design.

It cannot be assumed that somehow the information just evolved and we just haven't figured out how yet.

This sentence doesn't parse for me. "The information just evolved?" How on earth are you defining 'information' as something that changes, let alone could be claimed to evolve? Populations evolve.

It can be assumed however that it evolved (or was created instantly) by an intelligent being because that is where the evidence leads.

Perhaps I'm being pendantic, but this sentence makes no sense. An assumption is taking something for granted, ie without evidence. You could claim that the evidence shows that the information was created (although but you haven't presented any facts about the information) but that is not the same as saying that the rules of logic allow you to make an assumption in this case that is prevented in the previous case.

There is no basis for assuming that a purely materialistic solution exists.

Assertion, I think you left out the because part.

That is mere speculation that contradicts available evidence.

Er, what evidence? You haven't presented any.

Theism is the default position, not atheism.

Whoa! Where did this conclusion come from? I thought we were talking about if there was a materialistic solution for the origin of the information. One could be a theist and still believe in a materialistic solution to this particular problem, whereas one could be an athiest and believe that life as we know it (the only one we have evidence for) was created by a little green undergraduate student as part of their lab homework.

hw

 

[Jet Black]

Here is the essence of the problem whether we are talking about a computer solution or a chemical one:

The reason a computer or chemicals cannot design something on their own is because of value judgements that must be entered into the system by someone who can discern values. In other words, why is a word (codon) better than a letter (or nucleotide base)? Or, why is a sentence (or gene) better than a word?

my answer to both of your replies, is that "the ability to reproduce itself with modification (but not too much)" is the value judgement. If you could go over the hypothetical scenario that I gave, I would appreciate it, since it does outline how one might automatically include this value judgement in a chemical.

On the subject of codons et al. I recall a computer modelling of the errors that would crop up in a codon of 3,4,5,6,7 letters. It turned out that 3 is the best (4 was close behind), because it allows for a bit of modification from time to time, but does not suffer from the necessity for immensely complicated error checking procedures, which the others would require.

 

[Jet Black]

I would agree that not all evolutionists are atheists, but how many atheists reject evolution?

is that really an important question though?

 

[Happy Wonderer]

Making a <self replicating> molecule that can "evolve" further does not solve the problem because we are dealing with the formation of an information based machine.

Go on? I do not see why creating a self-replicating molecule that can evolve using naturalistic processes wouldn't show that such a molecule can arise by naturalistic processes. Saying "because it is an information-based machine" seems to me the same as saying "because it is green."

Or, the formation of a language that dictates the operation of an interactive, intricate biological machine that actually has a useful function.

This is a new criteria for the poor molecule. Why is it necessary? What is the useful function of a virus? It's only function is to replicate.

Surely everyone here realizes that it is only speculation without evidence (unless one uses the exact same evidence that ID uses, i.e., the universal code) that all life evolved from a single cell.

This (incorrect and easily disproven) assertion is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with the claimed general impossibility of the materialistic formation of an 'information based machine.'

The problem is not making a blob of some type of theoretical proto-life form that we then assume evolves into a fully functioning life form.

What is the difference between 'proto-life' and 'life'? It is not an easily answered question, so throwing this into the discussion doesn't really clarify things.

All life is information based.

Why? What is information-based[/i]? What would it mean for some system not to be information-based?

It does no good to escape that central issue by pretending that a "self replicating molecule" somehow continues to evolve into a coded language and machinery that is directed by the proper interpretation and translation of that language.

Why not? This statement doesn't work. If I 'pretend' that a self-replicating molecule somehow continues to evolve into a coded language...(that describes life)' then I have indeed "escaped the central issue." I'm really not sure what you are trying to say.

Yes, it is interesting how steel and glass are formed but we are making a car here. The problem is the evolution of a useful language without intelligent input.

Sorry, but I really am puzzled about what point you are trying to make. Maybe it would help to be specific. The only 'language' in question is the one that codes for amino acids. The first 'life' probably didn't have tremendously complex features like radios and power steering. So the question isn't 'how could complex life arise?' (that is answered by evolution) but 'how did an generic amino-acid based self-replicating system arise?" We don't know, but you have yet to show that it is impossible or that there is even any particular evidence against it.

You could start by showing how "well-designed" the genetic code is -- perhaps you could say why it needs to have so many duplicate entries? Why we need two starts and three stops? Why it was important to have duplicate codes for almost every amino, yet not include a checksum? Why the code is nearly universal, yet varies in a few uninteresting organisms for no apparent reason? http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

hw

 

[RFHendrix]

Go on? I do not see why creating a self-replicating molecule that can evolve using naturalistic processes wouldn't show that such a molecule can arise by naturalistic processes. Saying "because it is an information-based machine" seems to me the same as saying "because it is green."

This is a new criteria for the poor molecule. Why is it necessary? What is the useful function of a virus? It's only function is to replicate.


This (incorrect and easily disproven) assertion is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with the claimed general impossibility of the materialistic formation of an 'information based machine.'

What is the difference between 'proto-life' and 'life'? It is not an easily answered question, so throwing this into the discussion doesn't really clarify things.

Why? What is information-based[/i]? What would it mean for some system not to be information-based?
Why not? This statement doesn't work. If I 'pretend' that a self-replicating molecule somehow continues to evolve into a coded language...(that describes life)' then I have indeed "escaped the central issue." I'm really not sure what you are trying to say.

Sorry, but I really am puzzled about what point you are trying to make. Maybe it would help to be specific. The only 'language' in question is the one that codes for amino acids. The first 'life' probably didn't have tremendously complex features like radios and power steering. So the question isn't 'how could complex life arise?' (that is answered by evolution) but 'how did an generic amino-acid based self-replicating system arise?" We don't know, but you have yet to show that it is impossible or that there is even any particular evidence against it.

You could start by showing how "well-designed" the genetic code is -- perhaps you could say why it needs to have so many duplicate entries? Why we need two starts and three stops? Why it was important to have duplicate codes for almost every amino, yet not include a checksum? Why the code is nearly universal, yet varies in a few uninteresting organisms for no apparent reason? http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

hw

Have you read the thread? Why do you ask questions that were answered several pages earlier? The subject is the origin of information. And I already defined the word on a previous page. Also I answered similar question to most of yours in previous pages. Parsing my posts into little tidbits with clever comments after each one is a great idea if your intention is to confuse and evade but it really is not very beneficial to constructive debate. Anyway, I hope I can answer to your satisfaction the new questions that you posed:

You seem to have grasped part of the problem when you said:

"'how did an generic amino-acid based self-replicating system arise?" We don't know, but you have yet to show that it is impossible or that there is even any particular evidence against it."

Your answer is then; "we don't know"? Thanks.

Why would you assume then that a materialistic solution is indicated? Why would atheism be the default position when similar information-based systems are ALWAYS designed by an intelligent being? I cannot prove what God did or what a natural process did in the beginning and neither can you (and you certainly cannot prove that we evolved from a single cell). However, the evidence of several thousand years of human experience and scientific evaluation and testing has not admitted even one exception. The burden of proof is on you not me. In the mean time theism is indicated not atheism because similar system have always been designed intelligently.

There is certainly more to DNA and the use of the information within it than a three-letter code. Your questions assume a simple process when it is not simple. You should read up on junk DNA and discover the uses for what you assume is too may stop and start codons and useless duplicates. I am not going to go on this tangent with you. Do your own homework or read this brief summary:

http://www.puretolerance.com/chapter7.htm

The code varies, I assume, for the same reason everything else on this earth is corrupted: Deterioriation. There is no reason to think that everything is exactly the same as it was in the beginning whether one assumes a creator or a natural beginning. Almost all agree however that the corruption of the "universal" code is recent.

And the function of a virus is obvious when you get a cold.

 

[RFHendrix]

I get the impression that you are jumping right to some language, rather than developing a language.
of course I am just talking off the top of my head here, but look at a possible scenario. We know that RNA can catalyse RNA polymerisation so if we start off with a basic string that does this, then mistakes will more than likely be made. however if we get to a stage where there is an RNA catalyst that selects more specifically for a particular base, then this would lower the amount of errors in a self reproducing RNA strand. now double the length of the strand (in a similar manner to polyploidy) and then there is redundancy since we now have one RNA section that codes for a more specific base (or a couple, or even three would be better than four) and one that codes generally and so on. This second strand is better than the first, since it is more likely to replicate itself completely than the others.... so the "language" actually develops with repeated trial and improvement.

How does the development of language eventually assign meaning to a codon and coordinate that meaning with the evolving machinery? A language can get better or worse as it evolves over time and combines with other languages but that does not answer the core question. "One RNA section that codes for a more specific base..." evolving further as you describe cannot form an initial language because the essence of a language (and the genetic code) is assigned meaning to certain symbols (chemical or otherwise) and the proper translation of those symbols. Well, someone might say that we are simply coding for certain amino acids and specified enzymes. But how are they specified? In other words, We are not simply making bricks (proteins) but specified proteins and enzymes that must fold properly into a particular 3D form in order to perform a specified function in the information chain. We must evolve from a "gear" to a machine that is directed by meaningful information.

Something must anticipate the eventual folding of the polypetide chains and coordinate that shape and information with hundreds of other chains and their particular shapes and information in order to make something more than a self replicating blob of goo. Natural selection does not select on the basis of future benefit. There is no benefit to the word care over the word cram in the natural world yet their must be a distinction made and a benefit of one over the other in order for a language to evolve.

 

[Jet Black]

How does the development of language eventually assign meaning to a codon and coordinate that meaning with the evolving machinery? A language can get better or worse as it evolves over time and combines with other languages but that does not answer the core question. "One RNA section that codes for a more specific base..." evolving further as you describe cannot form an initial language because the essence of a language (and the genetic code) is assigned meaning to certain symbols (chemical or otherwise) and the proper translation of those symbols. Well, someone might say that we are simply coding for certain amino acids and specified enzymes. But how are they specified? In other words, We are not simply making bricks (proteins) but specified proteins and enzymes that must fold properly into a particular 3D form in order to perform a specified function in the information chain. We must evolve from a "gear" to a machine that is directed by meaningful information.

Something must anticipate the eventual folding of the polypetide chains and coordinate that shape and information with hundreds of other chains and their particular shapes and information in order to make something more than a self replicating blob of goo. Natural selection does not select on the basis of future benefit. There is no benefit to the word care over the word cram in the natural world yet their must be a distinction made and a benefit of one over the other in order for a language to evolve.

you raise some interesting points there. I hope you are aware that I am only talking conceptually here. My subject is physics, so pelase do not feel that I am claiming to be an authority on any of these matters at all. I do have a couple of issues to address though.

First of all you talk of evolving the machine from the gear. well we do have to be careful with that sort of analogy you will appreciate, because when we think of gears, we think of watches, we think of the end purpose, and not the purpose of the gear when it is sat on it's own. As I mentioned before, the value judgement of any of these chemicals is "the ability to self reproduce"

Another issue is that you mention enzymes, well here I feel you are jumping the gun a bit too much. Initially we do not require an enzyme, since the RNA strand itself does that job. all we need is a rudimentary catalyst. Here I may be stepping into the abyss and making unfounded assumptions, though I doubt it. All we really need at this stage is a mutation to the RNA that allows it to attach to an amino acid. at this stafe we would have an RNA strand capable of stringing together amino acids (though perhaps not very successfully) - which do not need to be in any specified order, though they could be something like an alpha-helix or a beta sheet. At this stage we do not need overwhelming accuracy in order to defeat the rivals.

Even if a given chemical is only 0.01% more successful in reproducing itself than others then after a million generation there will be many more of them than any other self reproducers. that means a language, no mattter how crude, or a translation system, no matter how crude will invariably win over anything else, except a better system. Enzymes do not have to be efficient if they are the only ones out there and there is nothing to compete with, indeed they do not even need to be proper enzymes at this stage (just a generic catalyst will do).

utilising the earlier methods of duplication of the RNA string and mutations again, this crude mechanism of attaching amino acids together would become more and more refined, becoming more successful at stringing AAs together, and eventually the string might start to select for increasingly better catalysts. A new mechanism only has to work once to give the RNA an overwhelming advantage over all the other bits of self reproducing RNA. Since the error checking issues settle on a codon length of three as the least error prone, as I mentioned earlier, then selection would invariably be weighted in this direction.

remember in this strange world of reproducing chemicals, only a slight advantage is needed, and after a short time, this slight advantage will be magnified a million times by the speed of chemical reactions.

 

[RFHendrix]

...the value judgement of any of these chemicals is "the ability to self reproduce"

...All we really need at this stage is a mutation to the RNA that allows it to attach to an amino acid. at this stafe we would have an RNA strand capable of stringing together amino acids (though perhaps not very successfully) - which do not need to be in any specified order, though they could be something like an alpha-helix or a beta sheet. At this stage we do not need overwhelming accuracy in order to defeat the rivals.

...they do not even need to be proper enzymes at this stage (just a generic catalyst will do).

utilising the earlier methods of duplication of the RNA string and mutations again, this crude mechanism of attaching amino acids together would become more and more refined, becoming more successful at stringing AAs together, and eventually the string might start to select for increasingly better catalysts. A new mechanism only has to work once to give the RNA an overwhelming advantage over all the other bits of self reproducing RNA. Since the error checking issues settle on a codon length of three as the least error prone, as I mentioned earlier, then selection would invariably be weighted in this direction.

remember in this strange world of reproducing chemicals, only a slight advantage is needed, and after a short time, this slight advantage will be magnified a million times by the speed of chemical reactions.

The "value judgment" that is needed is not which chemicals or molecules reproduce better. But, what causes an information system to evolve without an awareness of the meaning of the interactive componants. If a system evolved as you said we end up with one or more "words" (codons). Now let's say we eventually end up with a "sentence" of words. That is like forming a sentence from a child's lettered building blocks as the result of the kid stacking them all day until he coincidently forms a sentence that is familiar to us who understand the language.

We are still left with the same problem. After your hypothetical system evolves into making words and sentences that are reproduced and changed because of the advantage of survival of the ones which are more fit (chemically) than the others, where do we go from there? We eventually have to get to actual communication and logical use of these building blocks of information. In real life the specific "words" are selected and assembled into useful sentences (polypeptide string). These strings are useful because the folding is anticipated and they fit and exchange information that communicates with the original string of DNA/RNA.

There can be no communication unless everyone knows the meaning of words and sentences. Likewise a system that produces words and sentences is useless in communication if the system componants do not understand the meaning or purpose of a particular order of words. Without this understanding there is no communication only confusion.

Your system makes more chemicals it does not provide any more basis for communication than does words and letters blowing in the wind. There is no reason why a sequence of letters that does mean something (i.e., a particular amino acid in your example) should associate itself with others for the purpose of forming grammatical rules of communication that all system componants must follow. An efficient chemical process will survive better in competion with others but a nascent language cannot be expected to survive better because the only advantage it has is AFTER the meaning has been determined and the rules of grammar have been formulated.

 

[notto]

We are still left with the same problem. After your hypothetical system evolves into making words and sentences that are reproduced and changed because of the advantage of survival of the ones which are more fit (chemically) than the others, where do we go from there? We eventually have to get to actual communication and logical use of these building blocks of information. In real life the specific "words" are selected and assembled into useful sentences (polypeptide string). These strings are useful because the folding is anticipated and they fit and exchange information that communicates with the original string of DNA/RNA.

Your use of 'words' here is not a proper analogy. These chemical compounds only have this value you assign to them because they do what they do. Why aren't other compounds created with the same elements considered 'words' as well.

There is no 'communication' going on. The chemicals react as we would expect, a point you keep avoiding. Unless you can show that this communication prevents any chemical reaction that should happen or that it selects to perform only one chemical reaction when the possibility of two or more could take place, your argument is simply flowery language to describe what must happen.

There is no 'logical' use of the chemicals outside of what they are used for. There is no reason behind their use, it simply is and you are giving meaning to something (words), the meaning is not relevent in the actual mechanism.

There can be no communication unless everyone knows the meaning of words and sentences. Likewise a system that produces words and sentences is useless in communication if the system componants do not understand the meaning or purpose of a particular order of words. Without this understanding there is no communication only confusion.

So again, why aren't reactions in sugars and other molecules reliant on this same type of communication? Without this communication between the molecules that make up a sugar (or water) in a reation, would confusion happen as well and these molecules would simply combine in random compounds? Untill you address how we can tell when this 'communication' happens in a reaction and when it doesn't, again, your argument is simply flowery language to describe what must happen.

Your system makes more chemicals it does not provide any more basis for communication than does words and letters blowing in the wind. There is no reason why a sequence of letters that does mean something (i.e., a particular amino acid in your example) should associate itself with others for the purpose of forming grammatical rules of communication that all system componants must follow. An efficient chemical process will survive better in competion with others but a nascent language cannot be expected to survive better because the only advantage it has is AFTER the meaning has been determined and the rules of grammar have been formulated.

We assign the meaning to the 'letters' that do mean something BECAUSE they react and associate themselves with others. Your argument puts the meaning outside of why the 'words' actually have meaning in the first place.

By your rules, each and every element in the periodic chart should be considered a 'letter' and each simple compound they create considered a 'word' and when these compounds combine to form more complex molecules, they should be considered a 'sentence' that came about due to the rules of 'grammar' that have been formulated. Again, simply flowerly language to describe something that must happen.

You still have provide no way to determine how we can tell when this 'communication' happens and when it does not. Until you do, your argument has no scientific value or predictive value what so ever. You are placing a laymans analogy on something that is well understood outside of and without your model. There is no reason to try to use your model because there is no value to be found in it. You are simply renaming the mechanisms involved to try to sway readers to a false conclusion, which is that there is any meaning or communication in the way the reactions happen that have not been assigned by those that study it. There is no meaning or communcation inherent in the mechanism itself. YOU put it there with your poor analogies.

 

[RFHendrix]

Who don't you read the book written by the atheist Werner Loewenstein: The Touchstone of Life; Molecular Information, Cell Communication And The Foundations of Life. You obviously do not understand communication within biological organisms or you would not keep referring to "laymans" analogies. This guy believes in a materialistic solution to the problem of communication and information but at least he understands the problem.

 

[RFHendrix]

Here is an excerpt from his book on origin of natural codes (p 188):

"But how did all these optimized and stringent codes of biological communication come about? Here we are up against one of the great enigmas of biology, which thus far has defied all efforts of penetration. Darwinian evolutionary theory offers no help here. It's principle of natural selection or survival of the fittest, as even staunch evolutionists do concede, entails a tautology."

 

[notto]

Who don't you read the book written by the atheist Werner Loewenstein: The Touchstone of Life; Molecular Information, Cell Communication And The Foundations of Life. You obviously do not understand communication within biological organisms or you would not keep referring to "laymans" analogies. This guy believes in a materialistic solution to the problem of communication and information but at least he understands the problem.

Let me guess. He concludes that all of this communication is simply do to chemical reactions and they do exactly what we would expect them to.
Does he show any acceptions to this?
Does he suggest that any communcation other than chemical communication between cells?
Does he suggest that the 'information' in the DNA has any intrinsic value other than what the observer assigns to it?

I will also guess that he provides a way to measure the 'information' he is addressing. Something you have failed to do with your model. I would also guess that his model addresses the actual mechaisms involved, and does not simply base itself on renaming parts of the mechanism using flowery language that provides no value in actually understanding or providing a way to make predictions about the mechanism.

I don't need to read up on informatin theory or a scientists point of view anymore than I already have to see the holes in your argument and the poor conclusion (God Did It) that you come to.

 

[RFHendrix]

Yeah, a "evolution did it" argument is always much better if you are an atheist. And obviously you don't need to read up on anything because you are already convinced and no further fact will convince you regardless. And of course he thinks that DNA has an intriinsic value other than what we have assigned to it. That is basic biology. Maybe you should at least read one book on the subject.

 

[notto]

Yeah, a "evolution did it" argument is always much better if you are an atheist. And obviously you don't need to read up on anything because you are already convinced and no further fact will convince you regardless. And of course he thinks that DNA has an intriinsic value other than what we have assigned to it. That is basic biology. Maybe you should at least read one book on the subject.

I'm not an atheist.
Evolution != atheism.

Does he provide a way to measure the information?
Does he provide a possibility for something other than "God Did It"?
If so, you conclusions would seem to be debunked. You state that the only way the information could be formed was due to intelligent intervention. Have you looked at and debunked his possibility? If not, your conclusion is premature.

Can you tell us why we can't assume that a water molecule is created due to the communication between hydrogen and oxygen using the grammar and language of your model? If not, your model provides no predictive value.

 

[Meatros]

Yeah, a "evolution did it" argument is always much better if you are an atheist. And obviously you don't need to read up on anything because you are already convinced and no further fact will convince you regardless. And of course he thinks that DNA has an intriinsic value other than what we have assigned to it. That is basic biology. Maybe you should at least read one book on the subject.

Well, at least there is actual evidence of evolution to read up on...Can't say the same for God.

 

[RFHendrix]

I'm not an atheist.
Evolution != atheism.

Does he provide a way to measure the information?
Does he provide a possibility for something other than "God Did It"?
If so, you conclusions would seem to be debunked. You state that the only way the information could be formed was due to intelligent intervention. Have you looked at and debunked his possibility? If not, your conclusion is premature.

Can you tell us why we can't assume that a water molecule is created due to the communication between hydrogen and oxygen using the grammar and language of your model? If not, your model provides no predictive value.

He believes that the present models are only good for "treading in place". His conclusion is "...Thus, the question of how the hard and software here came into being is no less of a mystery than that of the genetic code." (p189) I do not recal if he provided a way to measure the information as I have not read the complete book again recently.

And my conclusion is that inteligent design is indicated while a materialistic solution is not. There is of ocurse a mystery either way but the default position is not atheism or materialism.

 

[RFHendrix]

Well, at least there is actual evidence of evolution to read up on...Can't say the same for God.

Well why don't you read some of the threads on other topics on this forum? There is plenty of evidence for God but you won't find it mentioned in scientific papers because he is considered irrelevant to the knowledge of man.

 

[notto]

And my conclusion is that inteligent design is indicated while a materialistic solution is not. There is of ocurse a mystery either way but the default position is not atheism or materialism.

But your conclusion is based on a poor base of premises. Unless your premises are valid, no matter what you conclude, it is flaud.

 

[RFHendrix]

Right, materialism is always indicated. That is the problem with your view of science. You always assume a materialistic solution so facts cannot change your mind. It is a one sided approach to reality therefore it is not an honest search for reality but rather a confirmation of preconceived notions. On the other hand, one can argue either way for or against ID. That is why it is a better approach to the actual truth of a matter.