Irony award goes to...

I would guess that in a "reality" you construct for yourself, you are free to decide what "cuts it." The scientific community is irrelevant in a fantasy world.

Anyway, I'm curious about what the YECs think about the ice cores that scientists drill to study the atmosphere of the ancient earth. These ice cores have annual rings, faithfully record past events (e.g. the eruption of Mount Vesuvius) and there are clearly more than 10,000 of them! Does anyone know?

-Karen

Of course, in Salvador's defense, evolution leads to defunct journals which can't find anything to publish for years at a time, while ID leads to thriving journals, bursting with new discoveries.

Sal's remarkably insightful comment points to a much larger problem with ID proponents, namely their inability to sceptically address either their own viewpoints or arguments which undermine their viewpoints.

There are some interesting studies done in this area. However seeing how ID proponents seem to also fall victim to global warming denial, suggests that there is a common thread. Is it a general disrespect for science, or just the prevailing scientific findings? Or is it a much larger problem where people who are more likely to accept poor science in one area will be more likely to accept poor science in other areas?

Why does this matter? Well, the scientists whose views I detailed above fit firmly into the mainstream and were presenting consensus positions, not controversial ones. It would be a stretch to say that the theory of anthropogenic climate change has become as firmly established as, say, the theory of evolution, but there are telling similarities. Both views have won broad acceptance by the vast majority of scientific experts and now only come under fire from a small band of contrarian outliers. Moreover, the outliers aren't contributing much real science at this point. With a few exceptions, they're taking their case straight to journalists and public policymakers, an end run around the peer-review process. And of course, when the debate isn't going their way, they cry persecution.

I was reading the latest Vanity Fair, and there's an article about global warming denial. It struck me as so similar to evolution denial, I'm having the guys at Kinkos scan it and email it to me. I'll post it at After the Bar Closes when I get it.

I just started reading the new bio on Einstein (looks like it will be a great read) when a couple of things struck me. I remembered reading a few weeks ago Sal posting a comment at UD about how Darwin was not a real scientist because he did not develop any mathematical equations, whereas real scientists like Maxwell created a lot of them. Real scientists create mathematical equations!!

So here you have a 3rd tier patent clerk (Einstein) who decides to dispense with the theories of one of the greatest minds (Newton) and replace them with papers developed on the basis of some 'mind experiments' - no mathematical equations at all in his first 4 papers of his annus mirabilis, not even any 'real' experiments!. ID claims that Science will not allow 'revolutionary' theories to be heard . . the story of Einstein demonstrates everything that ID would like to be but never will be. It is possible for a 'nobody' with a fantastic idea that is testable and resolves open questions

Compare it to a 3rd tier mathematician who decides to dispense with the theories of one of the greatest minds (Darwin) and replace them with . . . well, need I go any further?

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn't cut it scientifically.

Karen--Tree-ring dating has been used to calibrate radiocarbon dating back about 11,800 years. See, for example, Guilderson &al., 2005, "The boon and bane of radiocarbon dating" in Science 307(5708):362-364.

"Believing that the Earth is only 6-10,000 years old is the same as saying that the distance from here (Belfast) to San Fransisco is only to the end of the street. That's how much in error they (YEC's) are".

And not to be a complainer but when the supercontinent broke up a few kiloyears ago, why did Australia get too many marsupials and not enough placentals?

AIG: Then we say, how many believe kangaroos once lived in the Middle East? All the hands now go up. You see, when we think from a Biblical perspective, we know that all land animals must've once lived in the Middle East.

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn't cut it scientifically.

(But Pagan TE does? How about Norse TE?)

As a separate branch of science, there's no such thing as "theistic evolution," "Darwinian" or otherwise; there's just evolution, which DOES "cut it," as long as scientists don't let their religious beliefs compromise the quality of their work. If a scientist has an opinion about a God (or three), that's a completely separate issue from his/her work.

My own belief in Gods does not make me a "theistic technical writer." It just makes me a tech writer with a religion.

Karen---Tree-ring dating has been used to calibrate radiocarbon dating back about 11,800 years. See, for example, Guilderson &al., 2005, "The boon and bane of radiocarbon dating" in Science 307(5708):362-364.

— Mark Duigon

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn't cut it scientifically.

PvM -

"However seeing how ID proponents seem to also fall victim to global warming denial, suggests that there is a common thread. Is it a general disrespect for science, or just the prevailing scientific findings? Or is it a much larger problem where people who are more likely to accept poor science in one area will be more likely to accept poor science in other areas?"

The short answer is "it's politics".

Thanks for your reply Mark, but I was asking about ice cores, not tree rings. Ice cores go back in time much further than tree rings, and they also offer much more information about the past. I'm wondering what YECs think of these, since they go back in time much further than 10,000 years.

The critical thinking and precision of science began to really affect my ability to just believe something without any tangible evidence

I'd like to thank PvM for metioning me. He and I have had our moments in the past, but I applaud his Theistic albeit un-orthodox Christian views.

PvM, thou art a prodigal. You are always welcome to return to the YEC roots you left.

But if you return, you must learn it the right way, not the AiG or ICR Dr. Dino Kent Hovind way, but the right way. You'll learn YEC in the right way starting here:

www.creationscience.com

or

www.setterfiled.org

or

www.trueorigin.org

or

www.creationsafaris.com

Enjoy PvM, your former YEC family awaits the return of their prodigal son.

So, let's see if I follow that - doing actual thinking interferes with his ability to avoid actually thinking?

Huh. Who'da thought it.

I once read that an agnostic was an atheist without the courage of his convictions. I don't agree, but it seems similar to what I think TE really is: Materialistic science (if that's not redundant) with a crutch.

IOW, "I know that all of the evidence points to a natural, unguided process explaining all of Earth's biological diversity, but I don't care. Goddidit."

Sal, nice to see you back. Are you ever going to go over to Mark Chu-Carrol's blog where he shellacked your behind? You've left your entire point hang and swing in the wind while you hid out at UD.

How nice to see that you're still brave enough to come here and get spanked again.

Has someone come up with a suitable name for this phenomena. It seems fairly common.

Somebody points out that ID is basically religion and ID proponents come back with some nonsense that evolution is a religion with Darwin as God.

Somebody points out that HIV "rethinkers" spout pseudoscientific nonsense and HIV "rethinkers" come back with sill arguments that most if not all of modern virology is pseudoscientific or that the "germ theory of disease" is pseudoscientific.

Among the list of "scientists" that doubt the link between HIV and AIDS there is an extremely high proportion of homeopaths, chiropractors, kinesiologists, orgone therapists and quacks like Hulda Clark.

Sure, there's no evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS but orgone and homeopathic memory of water are all really really scientific with lots of evidence.

It reminds me of the back and forth twittering of inane 12 year-old schoolgirls.

Hi Sal,

Glad you stopped by, because I have a question for you: as a YEC, what do you make of the annual rings we find in ice core samples? We can count the rings, and they go back in time more than 10,000 years.

Posted by John Krehbiel on April 17, 2007 5:12 PM (e) ... what I think TE really is: Materialistic science (if that's not redundant) with a crutch. IOW, "I know that all of the evidence points to a natural, unguided process explaining all of Earth's biological diversity, but I don't care. Goddidit."

Obviously, the preceding statement doesn't apply to Sal. It was made in reply to the comment about TE.

IOW, "I know that all of the evidence points to a natural, unguided process explaining all of Earth's biological diversity, but I don't care. Goddidit."

Actually, it's more like: "Honest science, with no interference from any religious dogma (even my own) shows us the true nature of what, exactly, goddid."

Hey, Sal, when are you going to apologize for equating my words with the surgical mutilation of innocent children? Does your Creator give you the strength to admit wrongdoing?

Sal, welcome. I appreciate your invitation to return to YEC but I respectfully return to those dark times where I was forced to reject both God and science. I understand however why Bill may feel more comfortable surrounded by YECers, since they are the least likely to be involved in critical thinking.
As to the links you provided, I wonder why you believe that the ignorance of YEC of science, somehow improves at these sites. There is a vast amount of research and empirical data which shows YEC to be wrong about the age of the earth. As to their theological position. Well...

While there is less fertile ground for my self-selected calling (to provoke thought) than in the pro-ID camp, I will give it a try. How is it going to solve anything if the instant reaction to people like Salvador visiting here is to belittle and attack?

I am not suggesting any compromise on science and/or logic, in fact I am suggesting that a reliance on it. The Kangaroo scenario is a perfect example. I had a recent exchange with Salvador T. Cordova at Telic Thoughts where we tentatively agreed to explore a common OMA Truth ("OMA" being my term for a rejection of Gould's NOMA). I think it was a positive experience. I made a presentation that stipulated most of ID's base assumptions including an Intelligent Designer. I feel it is logically consistent and "possible". This put Salvador in the position of doing the same. I think it made an impact. He started to see things from my point of view and began trying to address weaknesses in his arguments without me saying anything.

Unfortunately, stubbornness and my weird set of ethics prevent me from continuing this conversation at Telic Thoughts. UD is out since I am unwelcome there. Panda's Thumb would be a good place if the peanut gallery could refrain from throwing things at the guest speakers.

Just a thought.

Anyone interested in more details on my presentation or my OMA/NOMA thoughts can see it at...
http://dfcord.blogspot.com

Sal,

Where are you? Did you see my post (#170600), where I asked you a question?

You're not seriously recommending those sites, are you, Sal? Sheesh, no wonder you're such an idiot. They're the most appalling antiscientific bullshit I've ever seen - just looking at the first link, I suspect about half of the Index to Creationist Claims is derived from this strawmanicide.

And you must have SEEN the refutations, surely. Does it not bother you that Walt Brown can be shown to be essentially lying in most places (by claiming that evolutionists claim X, or that Y /must/ be true)? Are you supporting lies in the name of Jesus, or do you feel the evolutionists have their refutations wrong?

Hi Karen,
Do you expect an answer? If so, why?

Same goes for you Pigwidgeon. What's the plan here? Are you trying to impress people with your wit? If so, who? Yourself?

How is it going to solve anything if the instant reaction to people like Salvador visiting here is to belittle and attack?

We've asked him numerous substantive questions, and taken lots of time to refute what substantive assertions he has made. His response has been to lie, obfuscate, and then run away. If you were not new here, you would know that he has earned every bit of ridicule he's got here.

I'm just pleased to see that--without at all descending into incivility--PvM's exchanges with "polite" blather-mongers like Our Salacious Sal have acquired a distinct and wicked edge.

Kudos on ya, Pim.

TP: Sal is peddling pseudoscience. I am calling him on it.

Besides, I wasn't being witty. I called him an idiot, that's just a plain insult. :)

What Steviepinhead just said...

Hi Karen

— ThoughtProvoker

Do you expect an answer?

— ThoughtProvoker

If so, why?

— ThoughtProvoker

This put Salvador in the position of doing the same. I think it made an impact. He started to see things from my point of view and began trying to address weaknesses in his arguments without me saying anything.

Hi all - Excuse the rant, but I believe it is topical since Salvador Cordova is the subject of the OP. While he is quite adept at seeing what he wants to see, I believe he still has the remains of a desire actually assemble the pieces of his wished-for reality.

I may be new to posting here, but I am not new to the issue. I just spent a six month tour of duty at Telic Thoughts (on an off) to understand things from their point of view, including Salvador's. Telic Thoughts and Panda's Thumb Blog have relatively equal policies with opposing slants. I tolerated TT's peanut gallery jibes because I felt they had so little of substance to work with and are afraid. I don't believe people participating at Panda's Thumb have anything to fear, do you?

If you are interested, I could go Loki on you (pretend to be an IDer) and make some sound arguments without resorting to name calling and I won't run away. However, I would think you would want earnest people presenting their side of the arguments.

If you want this Blog to be just another rallying point for Culture Warriors there is nothing I can do but request the URL where I can find people interested in discussing the problem as opposed to adding to it. Please post a comment or send e-mail to dfcord (at) hotmail.com. I would be very appreciative.

If you are interested, I could go Loki on you (pretend to be an IDer) and make some sound arguments without resorting to name calling and I won't run away. However, I would think you would want earnest people presenting their side of the arguments.

I tolerated TT's peanut gallery jibes because I felt they had so little of substance to work with and are afraid.

Does this mean that if the "jibes" had more substance, you'd be less tolerant of them?

Hi All - First I'll answer questions
To Sir_Toejam - no, I probably do not know what I just got myself into
To Raging Bee - I like a good intellectual fight, I don't learn much from people who agree with me

AS AN ID'er (what follows is Loki)....

First of all there is a difference between ID "science" and the ID Movement.
The ID Movement is not playing by your rules because the rules have been totally manipulated to only allow materialistic thinking. In a way Dave Thomas's recent post is titled correctly. ID, It is all your fault. The ID Movement, that is. You left no other choice.

For an example of the manipulation I am talking about, we can't even call our "scientific" proposals "science". That is why I put the word in quotes. The definition of science itself precludes anyone from offering an non-materialist alternative, no matter how plausible. Worse than that, even if it actually is empirically possible but sounds like it might not be, the knee-jerk reaction is to reject it in its infancy ala the peer review process.

This stems from Gould's NOMA concept. If NOMA is accepted, there is Non-Overlapping_Magisteria. This means a Truth in one Magisteria (e.g. Science) is totally separated from Truths in other Magisteria (e.g. Religion). The idea being that no Magisteria is better or worse than any other. In other words, separate but equal. Sound familiar? Well, we are getting the short end of the stick just like a certain race did in early US history. We aren't going to stand for it any longer.

For decades, strict materialism has been presented to our children as a government-sanctioned Truth.

Therefore, like the harm done with the previous "separate but equal" debacle, some kind of affirmative action is required. We need to remove the artificial barriers like the slanted definition of science and open up consideration of a COMMON Truth that is supported by direct evidence and not just biased expectations of materialistic scientists trained to only consider the empirical answers.

AS THOUGHT PROVOKER (end Loki)...

This is the start, there is more. Hints of things to come can be seen at http://dfcord.blogspot.com/

Provoking Thought

First of all there is a difference between ID "science" and the ID Movement. The ID Movement is not playing by your rules because the rules have been totally manipulated to only allow materialistic thinking. In a way Dave Thomas's recent post is titled correctly. ID, It is all your fault. The ID Movement, that is. You left no other choice.

If NOMA is accepted

Hi Sir_Toejam - My next comment (longer with more substance) will have to wait until tomorrow.

AS AN ID'ER (what follows is Loki)...

You wrote...
there are no less than TWO "scientific", peer-reviewed journals specifically created to publish ID related articles.

And former slaves had their own schools too. Of course ID "science" can't compete yet.
But this is mostly politics, what is important is recognizing the NOMA problem.

You also wrote...
NOMA simply doesn't work. not even philosophically speaking.

I am glad to hear you admit that NOMA is and was a failure.
What are we going to do to repair the damage already done?
What will be considered the one, mutual OMA Truth? (OMA = Overlapping Magisteria)

What are going to be the new default assumptions?

Schrödinger then Wigner provide compelling reasons to presume a "conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics"
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

Why should we presume this is not the case?

While a lot of things have been mathematically modeled, three things continually remain elusive; time, consciousness and intelligence.

In our new search of a single, mutual OMA Truth, we must give equal weight to empirical and non-empirical possibilities.

AS THOUGHT PROVOKER (end Loki)

Hints of things to come can be seen at http://dfcord.blogspot.com/

Provoking Thoughts

And former slaves had their own schools too.

What are we going to do to repair the damage already done?

we must give equal weight to empirical and non-empirical possibilities.

oh, btw, i think you misunderstood my lack of support for NOMA.

there is only ONE magisteria that leads to an increase in our knowledge of the world around us.

that's why NOMA doesn't work; it's irrelevant.

Well, we are getting the short end of the stick...

People who can't face reality, can't prove their assertions, can't separate truth from lies, refuse to understand what others observe, and blindly insist that their "truth" is equal to everyone else's "truth," because they say so, will ALWAYS get the short end of the stick. Reality is a bitch, ain't it?

Quit being a crybaby and get an education already.

Science uses methodological naturalism to understand the world. Formulate theories, collect data, analyze, falsify or prove, repeat. There is nothing to say that it cannot address or include supernatural forces.

But then they have to play by the rules. Formulate theories, collect data, and prove or disprove their assertions. The IDs don't bother to do that. They could start by naming the Designer(s) and counting them, a central element in the "theory".

Instead they refuse to say much about the central feature. The rest is just logical fallacies and bafflegab. "I can't see how my foot evolved so god exists." or "Genesis is literally correct so we must take most of modern biology, physics, geology, and paleontology and fold, spindle, mutilate, and ignore the data to fit a creation myth written by guys not all that far from the stone age."

Scientifically ID is a sterile dead end that doesn't lead anywhere. They were fools to try to take down science anyway. The collateral benefits are obvious to all who consider living in the 21st century preferable to fighting cave bears for a place to sleep.

Salvador:

If you are truly a YEC, then surely you have assetred somewhere that the various OECs, especially Behe's version that includes common descent, also don't "cut it scientifically." Is that correct? If not, why not?

Salvador:

I was a Flat Earth Creationist up to age four. Should I return to those roots? If so, is there a "postmodern synthesis" alternative to the Flat Earth Society's method?

Science uses methodological naturalism to understand the world. Formulate theories, collect data, analyze, falsify or prove, repeat. There is nothing to say that it cannot address or include supernatural forces.

Hey, where did Salvador go?

re: equating NOMA to "separate but equal":

Equating NOMA and SBE confuses social institutions, a human-created reality, with the reality dictated by the universe. This is one small step away from the common failing of religious thinking, confusing subjective with objective. We see this in the "belief creates reality" crowd. ("The Secret"? Is that what it's called now?) It's an interesting point of view, and a valuable tool for coping with life, if not taken too far. Disbelieving in gravity does not enable you to fly. Believing in the supernatural does not make it real or scientific. OTOH, building one school instead of two and sending all children to the same school overcomes SBE (eventually). People build schools. People create the perception of reality that exists between their ears (what I like to call "taking a picture of the inside of your camera"). But the perception of reality and reality are not the same.

("The Secret"? Is that what it's called now?)

Sir_Toejam: "no problem."

Sir_Toejam: "you show me how to make practical and testable predictions out of non-empirical possibilities, and you will have solved the problem all by yourself.

are you saying that IDers are the equivalent of freed slaves,... that's completely idiotic. I'm sure Behe would take offense at the implication.

there is only ONE magisteria that leads to an increase in our knowledge of the world around us.

People who can't face reality, can't prove their assertions, can't separate truth from lies, refuse to understand what others observe, and blindly insist that their "truth" is equal to everyone else's "truth," because they say so, will ALWAYS get the short end of the stick. Reality is a bitch, ain't it?

Scientifically ID is a sterile dead end that doesn't lead anywhere. They were fools to try to take down science anyway. The collateral benefits are obvious to all who consider living in the 21st century preferable to fighting cave bears for a place to sleep.

Equating NOMA and SBE confuses social institutions, a human-created reality, with the reality dictated by the universe.

If science, appropriately, gives equal weight to both empirical and non-empirical possibilities, ID will have won a major victory. This will open up a bright new era where courts are allowed to consider the real truth, not just what can be forced to be compliant with the materialistic religion.

Lat's apply this wonderful principle to criminal justice. The next time gunshots are heard and 23 students are found dead, perhaps investigators should give equal weight to both the empirical explanation (a person used a gun to shoot the students) and the non-empirical explanation (God caused the students to die, and made it look like they were shot, for reasons our lowly materialistic science can never comprehend, so who are we to question God's will?). This will open up a bright new era where courts can exonerate accused criminals by saying their acts were really caused by incomprehensible supernatural agency (and maybe burn a witch or two to appease said agency).

How does that grab you, thought-boy? Is that what the "major victory" for ID looks like?

TP blithered thusly:

At one time most thinking people assumed all numbers were rational numbers. They had faith that someday PI would be shown to be a rational number. The same thing with the square-root of two. The square-root of two eluded explanation until, eventually, it was realized that mathematics wasn't internally consistent unless numbers outside of the rational number set were presumed to be true (i.e. inductive reasoning).

This is the crux of the ID argument...

Minor point: the square-root of two did not elude explanation; it only eluded exact calculation.

Major point: ID is all about supernatural causation, which mathematicians never mentioned in relation to itrrational numbers (or anything else). So no, that math stuff has nothing at all to do with "the crux of the ID argument."

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

The idea, the promise, was that no one belief would be crowned as "the reality dictated by the universe."

You do know that he (?) is playing IDist as a Loki troll? As such, well, how could he play the role and sound like he knows what he's talking about?

Sir_Toejam: "no problem." I am glad to hear it. Now, if we can only get the National Academy of Sciences to agree with you. If science, appropriately, gives equal weight to both empirical and non-empirical possibilities, ID will have won a major victory. This will open up a bright new era where courts are allowed to consider the real truth, not just what can be forced to be compliant with the materialistic religion.

However, by "testable" I suspect you mean testable by your limited, materialistic parameters using established techniques that presupposes everything that is, was or ever will be, resides in the empirical realm.

This is like asking that PI be shown to be a rational number.

This is the crux of the ID argument.

Please understand that ID isn't asking for anything to be artificially abandoned. When the best explaination is empirical, it is appropriate ot retain that answer.

Dr. Behe was clear that a redefinition of science was needed in order to consider ID science.

And that ONE magisteria just happens to be yours and not ours. Of course, that would be your opinion.

I can empirically test the value of Pi. didn't you take geometry in high school?

TP --- I followed the link. Did you read the counterarguments?

experimentally unfalsifiable.

Therefore, by the Popperian criterion, not part of natural science.

TP --- I followed the link. Did you read the counterarguments? experimentally unfalsifiable. Therefore, by the Popperian criterion, not part of natural science.

— David B. Benson

Why the emotional responses?

Most IDer's really do feel the National Academy of Sciences' definition of science is overly restrictive.

Neither PI nor the Square Root of Two can be empirically tested. It can be theorized, it can be approximated, but not tested

Actually, this is going better than I thought it would.

Uh, Thought Provoker:

I can make a circle, measure the diameter and circumference, and divide the circumference by the diameter. If that's not "relying on or derived from observation or experiment " then what is?

The lack of precision in my measurements doesn't make it less of an observation, it just sets limits to how closely I can approximate pi.

I am under the impression that Greek and Roman architects used 22/7 as a good-enough approximation to pi...

Observer is only a requirement for perception, not existence.

Lay off the weed. Dude. Whoa.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion --- especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing. This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last. If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

— Jonathan Wells

Thought Provoker said: I played the "victim card" very early on purpose. In fact, I started with it. I am trying to convince you that it might be time to switch off your knee-jerk reactions and start looking for, and thinking about, the grains of substance in what the other side is saying.

To further make the point, every single statement in that Wells quote is false. For example, I'm sure it would come as quite a shock to the religious scientists who have been empirically validating evolution for decades to "learn" that evolution is "first and foremost a weapon against religion" and that the data is added after the fact.

Such a statement could only be believed by someone completely out of touch with reality. Putting that forth in a forum of people as knowledgeably about evolution as most of us are, is far more likely to provoke laughter than thought. You may dismiss that as an emotional response if it makes you feel better.

Hi Science Avenger,
First of all Dr. Wells didn't post his quote here, I did. Excuse me for not providing the link in my previous comment. It was from a "WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary". For those who are not familiar with the this particular on-line "newssite", let's just say anyone left of Ann Coulter would probably find it overtly biased.

I realize a lot of this ground was covered in the Chamberlainites/Churchillians debates. I have the impression this is still an open issue, but I would be interested to hear that I am mistaken. However, I believe what I am talking about is slightly different than this.

What I am suggesting could be as valuable to the Churchillian warrior as to the Chamberlainite appeaser. Know your enemy, understand their definitions and arguments. Maneuver them into the "reasonable" position of answering their stated concerns but not giving them what they really want.

Reading an ID proclamation and then applying your definition of terms results in a knee-jerk reaction like "Such a statement could only be believed by someone completely out of touch with reality." I have watched it from the other side, the exact reverse happens. The effect is similar to Palestinian Leaders making proclamations in Arabic to their own people with the English "translation" being something else entirely. The War continues.

My initial reaction to any IDer proclaiming that an Intelligent Designer is required to solve the Origin Of Life paradox is to ask "How does a Designer's ability to learn and/or adapt help solve any paradox, much less OOL?" This usually leads into discussing the definition of the word "Intelligent". They have to stop and think about it. Our best weapon is to get as many IDers to thinking for themselves, as opposed to following the siren sound of the ID Movement propaganda.

Belittling and attacking just feeds the stereotype that "Darwinists" have faith that they know everything and dogmatically refuse to listen to any alternative (i.e. a religion).

Provoking Thought

Hi All,

I realize that most of what I have been saying has been philosophical in nature. I do have something more concrete to belittle and attack all you want. In fact, I would welcome it since I would like to continue enhancing it. It is purely empirical and includes an Intelligent Designer. I built it from pieces that have been embraced by ID proponents as "evidence" they could be right. I was going to try and convert it to rely on the non-empirical of my Loki act, but now it doesn't look like I have to.

I tried posting it to Panda's Thumb before but it was, appropriately, not allowed.

Please go to http://dfcord.blogspot.com/ and belittle, laugh and scorn to your heart's content.

Note: this was worded for the Telic Thoughts audience, not Panda's Thumb. I found their reaction interesting. I am interested in seeing what your reaction will be.

Regards,
TP (Thought Provoker)

Sir_Toejam: so you're saying i can't measure the diameter of a circle empirically to determine if it is related by the value pi to the measured diameter?

Reading an ID proclamation and then applying your definition of terms results in a knee-jerk reaction like "Such a statement could only be believed by someone completely out of touch with reality."

Science Avenger: I choose to withhold respect from people I deem intellectually dishonest, and people who speak as Mr. Wells does qualify in my opinion. I also respect the more conciliatory approach that some of my brethren in this little culture war choose to follow. I believe in the strength of heterogeneity in approach, because there is heterogeneity in our target audience. Some need a softer approach which doesn't threaten any of their cherished beliefs. And some need a swift kick in the intellectual ass. You take yours, I'll take mine.

Perhaps your nervousness will subside a bit by noting that the "us" I think about are those that are intellectually honest, not those that necessarily agree with me. After all, sometimes I am the one in need of correction.

The intellectually dishonest are "them", the real enemy, regardless of topic, because the big picture battle isn't evolution vs creationism. It's the reality-based view vs the faith-based view, be that faith in gods, the bible, the invisible hand, or Joe Peschi.

A long time ago someone (Miles) said... "many academic institutions have the capacity to be more socially integrative without losing their focus on critical thinking, if they place a value on these issues." However, this leads me directly to my point ("...a capacity...if they place a value..."). The focus on critical thinking causes other issues to take a back seat, this includes survival. Miles' quote betrays that social integration efforts will always be secondary to the main focus, critical thinking. "Socially integrative institutions of the right" are dedicated to group think. Creating their form of society is their focus, not a side line. The dividing factor is which of the two groups has more resolve. A lack of certainty is inherent in minds open enough for critical thinking. Consider a rallying cry for ideals embodied in the quote... "The wisest of you men is he who has realized, like Socrates, that in respect of wisdom he is really worthless." (from Plato's Apology) Compare this to "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe- I believe what I believe is right." (George W. Bush, Rome 2001). While it may be interesting (and sometimes amusing) to watch people try to constrain reality into simple dichotomies (right/wrong, good/evil, etc.), the harm comes when people decide to create their version of this simplified reality. Academia can study it. Academia can understand it. Academia could probably even predict why and when a revolution will happen. However, academia lack the blind devotion needed to, as a group, kill or be killed. Academia lack the certainty to know what to believe, much less truly believe what they believe is right. Academia minds are trained to be open to doubt. When pitted against people who are resolved and certain of their actions, the result is inevitable. Please excuse this lengthy and pessimistic post, but I had to put my feelings (and frustrations) into words.

To Steve Avenger and lurkers...

I don't know how to edit my comments. Consider this a P.S. to my previsous one...

You might want to take a look at P.Z.Meyers latest...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/we_aim_to_misbehave.php

It is topical to the discussion we are having.

Laughter Provoker wrote:

Present a better Intelligent Design proposal than they have.

Should we also present a better flat-Earth proposal than the Flat Earth society have?

Why should we help the IDiots by rephrasing their lies more effectively?

PS: I also notice you haven't even attempted to address any of the points of my last post. Sorry if I'm hitting too close to home for your taste.

Actually, that's a lie: I'm not sorry for that at all...

I probably should have left this alone, but I thought it important to make sure I was communicating. Can you empirically test which, if either, of the following is PI?
3.1415926535897932384626433832795
3.1415926535897932384626433832796

Whichever value is most useful for whatever purpose you need to use an approximation of pi for. (I suspect that in most cases, it won't make a difference.)

The same applies to many rational numbers as well: Can you empirically test which, if either, of the following is 1/3: 0.33333 or 0.333333?

Yeah, you should have left this alone.

I suspect what you did in high-school geometry was to test an approximation for PI, not the actual number PI.

Um...so what? We can't get an exact number of humans currently living on Earth either. How any of this validates anyone's "goddidit" drivel has yet to be explained.

The Pythagoreans were absolutely certain that all numbers were empirically testable. They were wrong.

Actually, they were right: a number can be "empirically tested" if it can be found to have meaning in the real world.

Isn't it possible that an assumption about the empirical testability of all of "reality" is wrong too?

So your mental masturbation about "irrational" numbers means we have to give your badly drawn woo-woo a second look? Do you buy non-sequiturs in bulk?

Dude, you're putting, like, WAY too much weight on mathematicians' use of the word "irrational" -- it's, like, not nearly as significant as you want it to seem. Whatever you're smoking, get rid of it and look for the good stuff.