Refuting Intelligent Design Creationism

Lee Thomas Wimberley, MD.
CDesign Proponentsist

On the Emergence of Life | Lee T. Wimberley, MD.

First a little background.

Apparently, Lee Thomas Wimberly, MD, is highly regarded in creationist circles in the social media, though not in scientific circles, where he appears to be a complete unknown. He has written what he believes is a critique of evolution and what he calls 'evolutionists'.

He has a medical degree from the University of Alabama School of Medicine and works as an internist associated with several hospitals in Birmingham, Alabama, USA. He appears to have no background in biological research or scientific research of any kind. He is an 'intelligent design' advocate, in other words, he is a creationist. As his record in the social media shows, he is a Bible-literalist Young Earth Creationist who believes in Noah's Ark, and a 6000 year-old Earth.

Having asked on Twitter why evolution can't explain the origin of life, as though demanding a scientific explanation for one thing - evolution - explain another - abiogenesis - is some sort of rebuttal of the ToE, and having conspicuously ignored the proffered ten-step process by which abiogenesis could very plausibly have happened, Wimberly challenged me to read and comment on his blog.

These tweets are my response, numbered to overcome the limited number of permissible characters on Twitter.

1. Well, I read most of it, but like you I suspect, I couldn't find the point you were trying to make. It read more like a random stream of consciousness, hoping a point would emerge at some stage, but alas it never did. Some claims were nonsensical, of course... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019	2. ...such as: "What is life?... Let us begin with a simple observation: Life moves with purpose." Not always, but teleological thinking was well displayed there. Are you familiar with the work of Wagner-Egger, et al? https://t.co/MebCeMxRq3 Perhaps you need to be... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019
3. Perhaps it might have helped if you had defined 'life' before you tried to define its properties and purpose. There were other basic errors too, such as: "The genetic code is not merely a code in a figurative sense. It is an actual code " DNA is a template, not a code... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019	4. That basic error led to a long, meaningless ramble all based on a failure to understand basic biology. You seem too to have fallen for Behe's fraudulent claim that complexity is evidence of intelligent design. It is not, of course; it is the antithesis of intelligent design... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019
5. Behe's fraud was exposed within days of him producing his 'irreducible complexity' hoax. We know that exaptation of existing structures can produce the superficial appearance of irreducible complexity. His sleight of hand was to fool the credulous... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019	5. ...into believing an entire structure needed to emerge as a single event in a single cell. It didn't of course; it emerged in a series of steps in parallel over a long time, within a large population, hence his maths is statistical nonsense and frankly dishonest... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019
6. Even Behe was forced to admit under oath in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case that intelligent design was not science. This case shows that ID is creationism posing as science for political purposes. Key Christian witness were exposed as liars with a clear political objective... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019	7. Using ignorant incredulity to bolster a weak case simply weakens it, I'm afraid. For example, the chemistry and physics of why specific triplets are templates for specific amino acids is not the mystery you seem to imagine. BTW, DNA is merely RNAs data store... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019
8. ... it is RNA triplets that actually 'code' for amino acids. You might want to correct that error of basic biology. Your persistent use of the term 'evolutionists' reveals a desire to reduce science to the same low credibility status as creationism to make them appear... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019	9. ...on an equal footing and therefore an evidence-free dogma. There are no such thing as 'evolutionists', of course. There are biologists who understand evolutionary science and who can cite the evidence for it. Where is your evidence FOR creationism? Even IF you could... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019
10. ... destroy the ToE as the explanation of biodiversity, you would be not a single step closer to establishing the truth of your evidence-free superstition. To pretend otherwise is to present your readers with a dishonest false dichotomy. Why do you need to use that trick? — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019	11. And so your long, pompous ramble continued without ever producing evidence for your alternative or even reaching a discernible conclusion, as though you thought your personal incredulity was sufficient in itself... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019
12. ..., so throwing enough stones would fool the reader into thinking there was one. It's a familiar tactic of American apologetics in particular to let the parochial ignorance and religious bias of the audience do the heavy lifting so demonstrating even the... — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019	13. ... existence of a creator is unnecessary, let alone that creationion mythology is a viable scientific alternative. It isn't of course. I would be surprised to see that apologetic trick posing as serious science had I not been used to the inherent dishonesty of creationists. — Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019

Lastly, to do him the courtesy of an opportunity to rebut my exposé of the intelligent design hoax in my book, The Unintelligent Designer: Refuting the Intelligent Design Hoax, I sent Wimberley this challenge:

I would be interested in your rebuttal of "The Unintelligent Designer: Exposing the Intelligent Design Hoax". In particular, why the examples I give are NOT evidence of unintelligent 'design', just as we would expect from a mindless, undirected and purposeless natural process.

— Rosa Rubicondior (@RosaRubicon) August 2, 2019

It will be interesting to see whether Lee T Wimberley, MD, reads this book and can offer a coherent rebuttal of it.

---

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link