Behe's review in context, or what's the point?

Where "indirection" is used I think "misdirection" is meant.

The context makes him a colleague of William Dembski, who notoriously claims that undirected evolution cannot even in principle generate novel information. So Behe is concerned to minimise the importance of cases where evolution has demonstrably done just that.

Finally, any counterexamples still surviving this moving of the goalposts and restricting and tilting of the playing field are dismissed as untypical, and therefore unimportant.

Behe constructs an elaborate apparatus for classifying mutations as “gain”, “modification”, or “loss” of what he calls a Functional Coded Element (FCT).

Isn't QRB a relatively reputable journal, or at least used to be? I thought they solicited reviews rather than just taking whatever random musings pop out of someone's rotted gourd. The frequency with which this (papers being published whose assertions are unsupported by their data) is happening these days is rather disturbing. Or have I just not noticed this before?

Chris Caprette said: Isn't QRB a relatively reputable journal, or at least used to be? I thought they solicited reviews rather than just taking whatever random musings pop out of someone's rotted gourd. The frequency with which this (papers being published whose assertions are unsupported by their data) is happening these days is rather disturbing. Or have I just not noticed this before?

This line of “argument” has gone so far beyond ludicrous that I am surprised that QRB even bothered to publish it; unless this is simply putting creationist pseudo-science in the spotlight in journals that will bring it to the attention of the broader scientific community (that might ultimately be a good thing).

But this Behe junk science is so easily observed to be wrong even in physics and chemistry. Every level of complexity in condensed matter systems produces newly emergent phenomena that did not exist at lower level. This observation is absolutely unavoidable; and these IDiots are constantly bumbling around running into solid walls yet failing to notice.

This kind of stuff has been known for so long and is so well understood one has to wonder why Behe thinks it doesn’t apply to biological systems.

And he appears to think it doesn’t. But if he really believes that, then it is up to him and his cohorts to produce the laws of physics and chemistry that intervene to cut off such phenomena in biological systems and to show precisely at what level such physical laws kick in.

Physicists learned long ago that if it isn’t forbidden, it happens somewhere, sometime with some probability.

these IDiots are constantly bumbling around running into solid walls yet failing to notice.

Very elegant takedown. But Behe's whole argument in a nutshell seems to consist of semantic quibbles over the meanings of the words "gain," "loss" and "modification." Whatever words you use in describing the processes, genes do certain things that evolutionary theory claims they do - and ID claims they don't.

My own view of the MB paper is that it has done a service to the study of evolution by pointing out where the next generation of experients should focus.

Better things to do I mean.

Braterman said

Behe has actually had a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Behe M.J., Quarterly Review of Biology 85(4), 2010, 419-415). Well, not exactly a paper, more of a literature review. Well, not exactly a literature review, more a review of previous reviews, reinterpreting their findings according to his own criteria.

Did this paper add anything new to the research, why was it even published, did it even merit publication. It sounds more like Meyer´s review paper that Sternberg snuck into the Smithsonian related journal.

Even if Behe's paper was a legitimate summary of the work out there it could be viewed as nothing more than support for the 'anti-selectionist' point of view. In my view, living things are rarely under any selective pressure and there is growing evidence that there has been a continuous ratcheting up of complexity that isnt selected for. ( There was a great review in either Science or Nature in the last 2 weeks that I could look up if anyones interested )
Seems to me the intense selective pressure thats part of a lab experiment would occur very rarely in any lineage so occasional losses of "FCT's" would not be a problem

RWilson said: In my view, living things are rarely under any selective pressure and there is growing evidence that there has been a continuous ratcheting up of complexity that isnt selected for.

RWilson said: Even if Behe's paper was a legitimate summary of the work out there it could be viewed as nothing more than support for the 'anti-selectionist' point of view. In my view, living things are rarely under any selective pressure and there is growing evidence that there has been a continuous ratcheting up of complexity that isn't selected for.

There is more on classifying snowflakes here.

This is one of those extremely simple systems that can do all sorts of interesting things with just a few changes in environmental conditions.

Why then should anyone be surprised at what complex, organic living systems can do?

And why should anyone be surprised that any given experiment with such systems would not reveal the whole range of evolutionary changes that can occur in such systems?

wikipedia wheat: Wheat genetics is more complicated than that of most other domesticated species. Some wheat species are diploid, with two sets of chromosomes, but many are stable polyploids, with four sets of chromosomes (tetraploid) or six (hexaploid).[18]

To put this in perspective, Behe is just moving the goal posts.

Creationists used to say and most still do, that beneficial mutations are impossible.

Of course, there are countless examples of beneficial mutations wherever we look, including humans, alpha amylase (starch digestion), CDC5delta32 (HIV resistance), A1 Milano (resistance to artherosclerosis).

Now he is trying to say that they are all loss of function and evolution can't create new information. Which is just as wrong. Amylase and A1 Milano are gains of function mutations.

Who knows how many beneficial mutations are known that are modifications or gain of functions, but whatever the number is, it is large.

He is wrong on the facts just like he was in his book called the Edge of Evolution. A better title would have been the Edge of Behe's Ability to Tell Truth from Fiction.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Chris Caprette said: Isn't QRB a relatively reputable journal, or at least used to be? I thought they solicited reviews rather than just taking whatever random musings pop out of someone's rotted gourd. The frequency with which this (papers being published whose assertions are unsupported by their data) is happening these days is rather disturbing. Or have I just not noticed this before?

QRB is reputable. I have myself submitted an unsolicited review to them and seen it published. Of course, that was a good review. It would be interesting to know how this article came to be there.

Sometimes these sessions over ID theoretical arguments seem like "handwaving contests". They get up and wave their hands frantically, leading to a flood of handwaving in response.

Not that, given that ID arguments are fuzz, nitpicking, red herrings, and evasions, the discussion could possibly sound like anything else. The handwaving contest does work out in the end: nobody who has a grasp of the facts fails to see ID as a con job, and as far as neutral bystanders who don't have a grasp of the facts go, they soon get bored and go home.

Can somebody who has seen the article let us know if the term "intelligent design" actually appears in the article? (And that means in the body of the article, not in the author's CV, as Dembski did in a recent IEEE "article.")

Fake Michael Behe: Then you went and backed that up with zero evidence.

so again, how does this paper pass review? because the problem is entirely that it has. behe always says rubbish - no news there. but now, instead of saying "behe asserts X", creationists will say "behe has demonstrated X" and follow it with an irritating citation. if the paper so clearly fails to demonstrate it's claim, why is behe being over-debunked while QRB is under-attacked?

I prefer "indirection" to "misdirection" because that is the term used by professional conjurers.

Ironically, very shortly after this "review" appeared, Nature published a report on a massive study of innovation in bacteria:

Lawrence A. David, Eric J. Alm. Rapid evolutionary innovation during an Archaean genetic expansion. Nature, 2010; DOI: 10.1038/nature09649

As the summary diagram shows, innovations greatly exceed deletions. A major pathway to innovation is horizontal gene transfer, which is of course automatically excluded in the laboratory monocultures that are the only systems that Behe discusses.

And the IDiots are indeed already podcasting Behe droning on about how he has shown that "the overwhelming majority of changes are deletions or, at best, neutral".

But I don't blame QRB, who, politically speaking, were in a cleft stick.

Flint:
NOW, what do you do? Curl up and die? Failing that, EITHER your faith or reality must be modified as necessary. And the former is not possible. NOW what do you do?

//Personally, I would argue that the honest thing to do would be to admit that one’s faith is a higher priority than pursuing science and stop trying to use science to support one’s faith.//

Sigh, Behe was a Darwinian biologist before he became a skeptic, and like many Darwinian biologists who are still Christians at the same time, Behe had no problems with his Christian belief while he believed Darwinism was sufficient to account for the complexity and diversity of life.

@Raven

//Of course, there are countless examples of beneficial mutations wherever we look, including humans, alpha amylase (starch digestion), CDC5delta32 (HIV resistance), A1 Milano (resistance to artherosclerosis).//

Countless examples? Really, I can count the examples on my hand, the problem is that these types of mutations cannot be extrapolated to explain what needs to be explained. Yes, freak accidents happen, sometimes a single mutation in the right place is all it takes(works well when all you need to do is break something). But these types of mutations cannot be extrapolated to explain what would require a sequence of mutations in the right place in succession.

Creationist lying: But these types of mutations cannot be extrapolated to explain what would require a sequence of mutations in the right place in succession.

Adaptive mutations in bacteria: high rate and small effects. Perfeito L, Fernandes L, Mota C, Gordo I. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Rua da Quinta Grande, number 6, 2780-156 Oeiras, Portugal. Abstract Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10(-5) per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.

creationist lying: Countless examples? Really, I can count the examples on my hand,..

I'll point out here that medicine and agriculture depends heavily on the existence of beneficial mutations. On both sides.

Cancer is a disease of somatic cell evolution. What is often treatment limiting is resistance to radiation and chemotherapy. These mutations are beneficial to the cancer cells of course, not the host. But evolution is blind.

This fact will kill 1/3 of the US population, 100 million people.

The green revolution which feeds 6.7 billion people depends heavily on beneficial mutations from our stand point. It is threatened by mutations beneficial to various plant pathogens including fungi and insects.

Evolutionary biology only matters to people who eat and want to live long, healthy lives.

@Raven,

I am not a creationist, in fact I reject creationism for the same reason I reject Darwinism, I don't like "forward-based" reasoning from deductions, be these because of our understanding or interpretation of religious texts or the acceptance of metaphysical presuppositions in advance.

Darwinists like to throw all the problems in the same class, so if they can therefore show that is some can be solved by Darwinian means this means any problems can be solved by Darwinian processes.

My argument was that you cannot use examples of single point mutations that had beneficial outcomes for the organism and pretend that we can extrapolate this to explain what would require a series of mutations in succession at the right place at the right time.

University of Southampton Lecturer and evolutionary computer scientist Richard Watson points out:

"In computer science we recognize the algorithmic principle described by Darwin—the linear accumulation of small changes through random variation and selection—as hill climbing, more specifically random mutation hill climbing. However, we also recognize that hill climbing is the simplest possible form of optimization and is
known to work well only on a limited class of problems."

kris, Michael Behe, Dembski, et al: I am not a creationist, in fact I reject creationism for the same reason I reject Darwinism,

Johan said: //Personally, I would argue that the honest thing to do would be to admit that one’s faith is a higher priority than pursuing science and stop trying to use science to support one’s faith.// Sigh, Behe was a Darwinian biologist before he became a [Here, let me fix this for you:]skepticcreationist, and like many Darwinian biologists who are still Christians at the same time, Behe had no problems with his Christian belief while he believed Darwinism was sufficient to account for the complexity and diversity of life.

Johan said: My argument was that you cannot use examples of single point mutations that had beneficial outcomes for the organism and pretend that we can extrapolate this to explain what would require a series of mutations in succession at the right place at the right time.

Johan said: @Raven, I am not a creationist, in fact I reject creationism for the same reason I reject Darwinism, I don't like "forward-based" reasoning from deductions, be these because of our understanding or interpretation of religious texts or the acceptance of metaphysical presuppositions in advance. Darwinists like to throw all the problems in the same class, so if they can therefore show that is some can be solved by Darwinian means this means any problems can be solved by Darwinian processes. My argument was that you cannot use examples of single point mutations that had beneficial outcomes for the organism and pretend that we can extrapolate this to explain what would require a series of mutations in succession at the right place at the right time. University of Southampton Lecturer and evolutionary computer scientist Richard Watson points out: "In computer science we recognize the algorithmic principle described by Darwin—the linear accumulation of small changes through random variation and selection—as hill climbing, more specifically random mutation hill climbing. However, we also recognize that hill climbing is the simplest possible form of optimization and is known to work well only on a limited class of problems."

DS said: Third, why would you take the word of a computer guy about what evolution can and cannot do? It isn't just because he told you what you wanted to hear is it? That would be foolish. Why not accept the consensus view of the experts in the field? Only creationist use this trick. You don't want to be like them now do you?

In this dissertation we consider the impact that a certain class of evolutionary mechanisms has on these questions and the necessity of gradualism in evolution. Specifically, we consider the effect of mechanisms such as sexual recombination and symbiotic encapsulation which are instances of a class of mechanisms that can enable what we will term compositional evolution. We arrive at the following thesis:

Certain kinds of complex systems, considered unevolvable under normal accretive change, are, in principle and under certain circumstances, easily evolvable under compositional change.

//Forst, science in general and evolution in particular make no “metaphysical presuppositions in advance”.//

Who are you trying to convince? Let's suppose that naturalism was true, wouldn't this mean that something very much like Darwinian evolution one way or another would simply have to be true?

Darwinists claim that anything which is extra-natural like say design would not be scientific because it "would not be a natural" explanation (by which they mean material explanation).

The irony is that Christian philosophers laid the foundations for evolutionary thought (by mandating naturalism not on scientific grounds but on theological grounds), this led to the mental environment of which Darwin was an inevitable symptom. The history of evolutionary thought is fairly complex, but I don't think we have the time and space here to delve into that.

//Third, why would you take the word of a computer guy about what evolution can and cannot do?//

I don't think biologists are design experts nor do I think they are information experts.

//Why not accept the consensus view of the experts in the field?//

One of my favorite philosophers of science Michael Polanyi said "scientists are not heretics driven by skepticism, but rather are steadfastly committed to established beliefs and dogmas within the scientific community. It is the social scientific community, not a rational scientific method, that is the determining condition of scientific knowledge."

In short, science is not a consensus: philosophy of science 101

SWT said: Based on a quick look at Watson's own description of his research, I don't think you should rely on Johan to describe Watson's work accurately.

Johan said: //First, science in general and evolution in particular make no “metaphysical presuppositions in advance”.// Who are you trying to convince? Let's suppose that naturalism was true, wouldn't this mean that something very much like Darwinian evolution one way or another would simply have to be true? Darwinists claim that anything which is extra-natural like say design would not be scientific because it "would not be a natural" explanation (by which they mean material explanation). The irony is that Christian philosophers laid the foundations for evolutionary thought (by mandating naturalism not on scientific grounds but on theological grounds), this led to the mental environment of which Darwin was an inevitable symptom. The history of evolutionary thought is fairly complex, but I don't think we have the time and space here to delve into that. //Third, why would you take the word of a computer guy about what evolution can and cannot do?// I don't think biologists are design experts nor do I think they are information experts. //Why not accept the consensus view of the experts in the field?// One of my favorite philosophers of science Michael Polanyi said "scientists are not heretics driven by skepticism, but rather are steadfastly committed to established beliefs and dogmas within the scientific community. It is the social scientific community, not a rational scientific method, that is the determining condition of scientific knowledge." In short, science is not a consensus: philosophy of science 101

Johan said: Darwinists like to throw all the problems in the same class, so if they can therefore show that is some can be solved by Darwinian means this means any problems can be solved by Darwinian processes.

Yes anything that is supernatural would not be scientific.//

But then if this is what you believe, then blind material processes would simply have to be responsible for the complexity of life, somehow evolution has to be true or we are left to either accept there is no scientific explanation or we are to accept that science cannot deal with the supernatural therefore we will give the best potentially false explanation we can, clearly there must be a problem here. Or maybe we are really lucky, maybe the only explanation allowed according to the rules of the game just happens to also be the correct one?

You say "ignoring the massive creative role of gene duplication and polyploidy in eukaryotes". "Massive"? Have you read;

Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr, “Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?,” Complexity, Vol. (December 22, 2010).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract

//Some of us can’t tell the difference between that and creationism. Creationism, after all, is not in the business of trying to explain things,//

Can you seriously not tell the difference between concluding that some patterns in nature are best explained by intelligence versus everything in nature was created because religious book x says so, and we believe religious book x is the word of God and that our interpretation is the only way to interpret the text?

How is the logic of creationism and how this is applied any different from starting off on the assumption that nature is all there is and interpreting the evidence on the basis that this metaphysical belief or assertion is true?

... although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms.

Mark said: Have you read: Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr ...

Johan said: @Raven, I am not a creationist, in fact I reject creationism for the same reason I reject Darwinism, I don't like "forward-based" reasoning from deductions, be these because of our understanding or interpretation of religious texts or the acceptance of metaphysical presuppositions in advance. Darwinists like to throw all the problems in the same class, so if they can therefore show that is some can be solved by Darwinian means this means any problems can be solved by Darwinian processes. My argument was that you cannot use examples of single point mutations that had beneficial outcomes for the organism and pretend that we can extrapolate this to explain what would require a series of mutations in succession at the right place at the right time. University of Southampton Lecturer and evolutionary computer scientist Richard Watson points out: "In computer science we recognize the algorithmic principle described by Darwin—the linear accumulation of small changes through random variation and selection—as hill climbing, more specifically random mutation hill climbing. However, we also recognize that hill climbing is the simplest possible form of optimization and is known to work well only on a limited class of problems."

raven said:

kris, Michael Behe, Dembski, et al: I am not a creationist, in fact I reject creationism for the same reason I reject Darwinism,

You are the multi-ID sociopathic troll with no life. Which is what I suspected. And a waste of time.

Johan said: @Raven, I am not a creationist, in fact I reject creationism for the same reason I reject Darwinism, I don't like "forward-based" reasoning from deductions, be these because of our understanding or interpretation of religious texts or the acceptance of metaphysical presuppositions in advance. Darwinists like to throw all the problems in the same class, so if they can therefore show that is some can be solved by Darwinian means this means any problems can be solved by Darwinian processes.

Kris said:

raven said:

kris, Michael Behe, Dembski, et al: I am not a creationist, in fact I reject creationism for the same reason I reject Darwinism,

You are the multi-ID sociopathic troll with no life. Which is what I suspected. And a waste of time.

Wow, you must be a lot of fun in mixed company. NOT! I can't help but wonder if you were born with a 'Bitch' gene, or if you simply learned to be so arrogant, angry, and self-righteous. Is everyone who doesn't kiss your nasty ass automatically a creationist multi-ID sociopathic troll with no life?

Neither Kris nor Johan have a clue about the significance of the title of this thread. Context has completely eluded them.

Neither of them knows anything about Behe’s history, they have not read any of his writings, and they don’t know the significance of Behe’s “theories” in the context the history of ID/creationism, and they certainly know nothing about Dover.

Neither of them knows anything about Henry Morris, Duane Gish and the Institute for Creation Research, and neither of them knows about the persistent misconceptions introduced by Morris and Gish that permeate all of ID/creationist thinking and writing and links them all together.

These appear to be the reasons for their accusations of ID/creationist bashing taking place on a site that has been devoted to keeping the spotlight on the continuing socio/political shenanigans of ID/creationists.

Kris’s responses to the people who have tried to fill him in on this history have been to stalk, insult, threaten, and generally attempt to piss off anyone he can get to respond to him. Once he was exposed, he continues to insult anyone who has profiled him and his tactics.

This sensitivity Kris displays to the spotlight being kept on ID/creationist tactics is one of the clearest identifiers of an ID/creationist follower of their pseudo-science. It has become glaringly obvious that his goal is to start fights and derail any discussions that continue to analyze and articulate ID/creationist evolving tactics. The intensity of his hatred of such processes is telling.

He really belongs on the Bathroom Wall permanently.

Johan said: Yes anything that is supernatural would not be scientific.// But then if this is what you believe, then blind material processes would simply have to be responsible for the complexity of life, somehow evolution has to be true or we are left to either accept there is no scientific explanation or we are to accept that science cannot deal with the supernatural therefore we will give the best potentially false explanation we can, clearly there must be a problem here. Or maybe we are really lucky, maybe the only explanation allowed according to the rules of the game just happens to also be the correct one?

Can you seriously not tell the difference between concluding that some patterns in nature are best explained by intelligence versus everything in nature was created because religious book x says so, and we believe religious book x is the word of God and that our interpretation is the only way to interpret the text? How is the logic of creationism and how this is applied any different from starting off on the assumption that nature is all there is and interpreting the evidence on the basis that this metaphysical belief or assertion is true?

Flint said: Imagine that you are faced with two rigid, non-negotiable conditions: (1) Your faith absolutely demands that reality be a certain way, and simply cannot and will not tolerate anything else; and (2) Reality doesn't come remotely close to your requirements, and indeed roundly and trivially refutes it at every turn.

DS said: We have natural explanations for the diversity of life that have stood the test of time. Nothing else is required.

It doesn't matter who you think is an expert. Why not accept the consensus view of the real experts in the field of evolution and biology?

Actually, there is a consensus of the experts in biology.

In order to ignore it, you simply need a scientific explanation that has more predictive and explanatory power. Got one? Didn't think so. If you want a unscientific explanation, that's your choice, but there is not reason whatsoever why anyone should care.

Thanks for providing the scientific point of view Kris. Way to defend science. I knew you could do it.

Mike Elzinga said: Neither Kris nor Johan have a clue about the significance of the title of this thread. Context has completely eluded them. Neither of them knows anything about Behe’s history, they have not read any of his writings, and they don’t know the significance of Behe’s “theories” in the context the history of ID/creationism, and they certainly know nothing about Dover. Neither of them knows anything about Henry Morris, Duane Gish and the Institute for Creation Research, and neither of them knows about the persistent misconceptions introduced by Morris and Gish that permeate all of ID/creationist thinking and writing and links them all together. These appear to be the reasons for their accusations of ID/creationist bashing taking place on a site that has been devoted to keeping the spotlight on the continuing socio/political shenanigans of ID/creationists. Kris’s responses to the people who have tried to fill him in on this history have been to stalk, insult, threaten, and generally attempt to piss off anyone he can get to respond to him. Once he was exposed, he continues to insult anyone who has profiled him and his tactics. This sensitivity Kris displays to the spotlight being kept on ID/creationist tactics is one of the clearest identifiers of an ID/creationist follower of their pseudo-science. It has become glaringly obvious that his goal is to start fights and derail any discussions that continue to analyze and articulate ID/creationist evolving tactics. The intensity of his hatred of such processes is telling. He really belongs on the Bathroom Wall permanently.

DS said: Thanks for providing the scientific point of view Kris. Way to defend science. I knew you could do it.

//Johan, you actually make sense. Unfortunately, that won’t get you very far around here, as you have already seen by some responses to you. If it helps at all though, I understand what you’re saying.//

Thanks for the comment I will keep that in mind Kris.

//Bullshit. The point is that if you want a scientific explanation you have to do science.//

Again, I don't think naturalists appreciate the problem here, if x was designed, surely we would have to be able to reach the conclusion scientifically if we were doing real science?

//If you are willing to accept unscientific explanations,//

I certainly don't want false explanations, however a true explanation that might be regarded as "unscientific" according to your definition of science would still be a better explanation than a false scientific explanation(even if this was the best material explanation we had).

Johan

Kris said: Every time you and Dale speak I realize that you're both a lot sicker than I had previously thought.

Kris said:

DS said: Thanks for providing the scientific point of view Kris. Way to defend science. I knew you could do it.

I regularly defend science in my personal life, but only when the science is actually defensible. I don't blindly defend or worship science, or anything else.

Johan said: //Bullshit. The point is that if you want a scientific explanation you have to do science.// Again, I don't think naturalists appreciate the problem here, if x was designed, surely we would have to be able to reach the conclusion scientifically if we were doing real science? //If you are willing to accept unscientific explanations,// I certainly don't want false explanations, however a true explanation that might be regarded as "unscientific" according to your definition of science would still be a better explanation than a false scientific explanation(even if this was the best material explanation we had). Johan

Kris said: I regularly defend science in my personal life, but only when the science is actually defensible. I don't blindly defend or worship science, or anything else.

Kris said:

DS said: We have natural explanations for the diversity of life that have stood the test of time. Nothing else is required.

Nothing else is required? There are some natural explanations for the diversity of life and some are well founded, but not all so-called explanations are based on actual evidence and not all have "stood the test of time". There's a LOT that humans don't know and may never know.

It doesn't matter who you think is an expert. Why not accept the consensus view of the real experts in the field of evolution and biology?

HUH?? WHAT?? Your selected experts are all knowing and it doesn't matter who Johan thinks is an expert? That's a very narrow and arrogant way to look at things. Oh wait, your selected experts are "real" experts, AND they have a consensus to boot! Gee whiz and gosharooty! Are you actually saying that ALL "experts" and scientists agree on everything, and if they don't they aren't "real"? And you don't see your blind worship of science (or at least your version of it) as a religion??

Actually, there is a consensus of the experts in biology.

A consensus on what exactly? What is a consensus? Two people agreeing? Three? 100? 1,000? And out of how many total scientists?

In order to ignore it, you simply need a scientific explanation that has more predictive and explanatory power. Got one? Didn't think so. If you want a unscientific explanation, that's your choice, but there is not reason whatsoever why anyone should care.

Predictive, eh? Hmm, that makes me wonder why science didn't predict the Denisovans. You'd think that with all the available alleged genetic evidence and how much it's alleged to tell us about everything right back to the beginning of time that it would have predicted the Denisovans with ease, before a couple of specimens were found. And can 'we' trust 100% the determinations that have been made about their relationship with modern humans based on the DNA study using the 30,000(?) year old DNA extracted from those two specimens? Maybe, maybe not. Look, regardless of what Johan thinks or believes, you and most others here come across as science worshiping zealots who blindly accept whatever version of science you make up as you go along, while ignoring or making excuses for any slop, mistakes, disputes, disagreements, heated, sometimes long standing arguments, and any bullshit in science. If you guys were more honest and realistic, you might not come across just like (or worse than) the people you like to bash so much. You and others constantly attack creationists, ID-ists, religious zealots, and anyone else who doesn't instantly and automatically agree with you, and your main overall accusation is that they're dishonest and unrealistic. Tell you what, you should practice what you preach.

DS said:

Kris said:

DS said: Thanks for providing the scientific point of view Kris. Way to defend science. I knew you could do it.

I regularly defend science in my personal life, but only when the science is actually defensible. I don't blindly defend or worship science, or anything else.

And yet you pass up a golden opportunity to educate someone about their misconceptions about how science works. Well why don't you go back to your real life and leave science to real scientists?

Johan said: Can you seriously not tell the difference between concluding that some patterns in nature are best explained by intelligence versus everything in nature was created because religious book x says so, and we believe religious book x is the word of God and that our interpretation is the only way to interpret the text?

Kris said:

DS said: And yet you pass up a golden opportunity to educate someone about their misconceptions about how science works. Well why don't you go back to your real life and leave science to real scientists?

So far I haven't seen enough from Johan to tell whether I agree or disagree with him about "how science works", or should work.

Look, regardless of what Johan thinks or believes, you and most others here come across as science worshiping zealots who blindly accept whatever version of science you make up as you go along, while ignoring or making excuses for any slop, mistakes, disputes, disagreements, heated, sometimes long standing arguments, and any bullshit in science.

Johan said: @Raven, I am not a creationist, in fact I reject creationism for the same reason I reject Darwinism, I don't like "forward-based" reasoning from deductions, be these because of our understanding or interpretation of religious texts or the acceptance of metaphysical presuppositions in advance.

Johan said: //Bullshit. The point is that if you want a scientific explanation you have to do science.// Again, I don't think[.] naturalists appreciate the problem here, if x was designed, surely we would have to be able to reach the conclusion scientifically if we were doing real science?

@Tom

//Some patterns are best explained by intelligence doesn’t tell us anything. It doesn’t, for example, make an attempt to explain something, anything.//

a) I was making a point about the difference of my position(ID) and that of creationism, but thanks for playing by moving the goal post while you ignored the point I was making.

b) Saying something evolved long ago and far away(when no one was looking), and that evolution is irreversible doesn't tell us a lot either.

c) The first question is not how a designing intelligence acts but whether its action is scientifically discernible. Once we can establish that, we can speculate and hypothesize about how an intelligence acted once we have discovered patterns that are best explained as the product of intelligence. SETI is for now only interested in finding that radio signal that is irreducible to material processes, for now they don't really care how aliens went about to actually create it.

Kris said: So far I haven't seen enough from Johan to tell whether I agree or disagree with him about "how science works", or should work.

Johan wrote:

"b) Saying something evolved long ago and far away(when no one was looking), and that evolution is irreversible doesn’t tell us a lot either."

Actually, that's exactly wrong. For example, take grasshoppers. Saying that grasshoppers were designed tells you absolutely nothing, it explains nothing and it predicts nothing. It's just a way of saying that you'll accept a supernatural explanation without any evidence. Claiming that grasshoppers evolved however, automatically give several testable predictions. For example, you can predict the hox genes that should be found in every grasshopper species. You can predict the mitochondrial gene order that should be found in every grasshopper. You can predict the SINE insertions that should be found in every grasshopper. Well, you get the idea. And guess what, all of these predictions have been tested and have been confirmed! Imagine that. Creationism, or IF if you prefer, predicted none of this. It predicted absolutely nothing. That's why no ID "scientist" does any research. They haven't got a clue what to look for.

"c) The first question is not how a designing intelligence acts but whether its action is scientifically discernible. Once we can establish that, we can speculate and hypothesize about how an intelligence acted once we have discovered patterns that are best explained as the product of intelligence. SETI is for now only interested in finding that radio signal that is irreducible to material processes, for now they don’t really care how aliens went about to actually create it."

Wel what are you waiting for? Go to it. All you have to do is is provide some evidence for something that is designed. Any example will do. Notice that saying that you don't believe that it could evolve counts as evidence for design. Of course in order to have any testable hypotheses you will also have to determine something about the identity, motives and methods of the designer. Once you do that, it will become painfully obvious that you aren't doing science. That's why ID never gets anywhere.

IF = ID

counts as evidence for deign = does not count for evidence of design

Can you seriously not tell the difference between concluding that some patterns in nature are best explained by intelligence versus everything in nature was created because religious book x says so, and we believe religious book x is the word of God and that our interpretation is the only way to interpret the text?

— Johan

Johan said: @Tom //Some patterns are best explained by intelligence doesn’t tell us anything. It doesn’t, for example, make an attempt to explain something, anything.// a) I was making a point about the difference of my position(ID) and that of creationism, but thanks for playing by moving the goal post while you ignored the point I was making. b) Saying something evolved long ago and far away(when no one was looking), and that evolution is irreversible doesn't tell us a lot either. c) The first question is not how a designing intelligence acts but whether its action is scientifically discernible. Once we can establish that, we can speculate and hypothesize about how an intelligence acted once we have discovered patterns that are best explained as the product of intelligence. SETI is for now only interested in finding that radio signal that is irreducible to material processes, for now they don't really care how aliens went about to actually create it.

Johan said: a) I was making a point about the difference of my position(ID) and that of creationism, but thanks for playing by moving the goal post while you ignored the point I was making.

b) Saying something evolved long ago and far away(when no one was looking), and that evolution is irreversible doesn't tell us a lot either.

c) The first question is not how a designing intelligence acts but whether its action is scientifically discernible. Once we can establish that,...

... we can speculate and hypothesize about how an intelligence acted once we have discovered patterns that are best explained as the product of intelligence.

SETI is for now only interested in finding that radio signal that is irreducible to material processes, for now they don't really care how aliens went about to actually create it.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: I regularly defend science in my personal life, but only when the science is actually defensible. I don't blindly defend or worship science, or anything else.

Nor do I. Science is only a tool and it is only as good as the people who do it. I have always understood that. So what are you complaining about? You are flatly delusional if you think you are more scientifically minded than most of us.

Kris said:

DS said: We have natural explanations for the diversity of life that have stood the test of time. Nothing else is required.

Nothing else is required? There are some natural explanations for the diversity of life and some are well founded, but not all so-called explanations are based on actual evidence and not all have "stood the test of time". There's a LOT that humans don't know and may never know.

It doesn't matter who you think is an expert. Why not accept the consensus view of the real experts in the field of evolution and biology?

HUH?? WHAT?? Your selected experts are all knowing and it doesn't matter who Johan thinks is an expert? That's a very narrow and arrogant way to look at things. Oh wait, your selected experts are "real" experts, AND they have a consensus to boot! Gee whiz and gosharooty! Are you actually saying that ALL "experts" and scientists agree on everything, and if they don't they aren't "real"? And you don't see your blind worship of science (or at least your version of it) as a religion??

Actually, there is a consensus of the experts in biology.

A consensus on what exactly? What is a consensus? Two people agreeing? Three? 100? 1,000? And out of how many total scientists?

In order to ignore it, you simply need a scientific explanation that has more predictive and explanatory power. Got one? Didn't think so. If you want a unscientific explanation, that's your choice, but there is not reason whatsoever why anyone should care.

Predictive, eh? Hmm, that makes me wonder why science didn't predict the Denisovans. You'd think that with all the available alleged genetic evidence and how much it's alleged to tell us about everything right back to the beginning of time that it would have predicted the Denisovans with ease, before a couple of specimens were found. And can 'we' trust 100% the determinations that have been made about their relationship with modern humans based on the DNA study using the 30,000(?) year old DNA extracted from those two specimens? Maybe, maybe not. Look, regardless of what Johan thinks or believes, you and most others here come across as science worshiping zealots who blindly accept whatever version of science you make up as you go along, while ignoring or making excuses for any slop, mistakes, disputes, disagreements, heated, sometimes long standing arguments, and any bullshit in science. If you guys were more honest and realistic, you might not come across just like (or worse than) the people you like to bash so much. You and others constantly attack creationists, ID-ists, religious zealots, and anyone else who doesn't instantly and automatically agree with you, and your main overall accusation is that they're dishonest and unrealistic. Tell you what, you should practice what you preach.

First, DS's first statement you blasted is indeed accurate. Your noting that some explanations have been falsified and others are not supported adequately actually shows how science advances. An idea that is not falsifiable cannot be scientific anyway. Science advances by debunking those ideas that are not compatible with the latest empirically gathered and analyzed evidence. It also continues to look for evidence to support new hypotheses. If you were any real scientist, you would have understood that already. But Creationists do not. Second, since you claim to study butterflies, how would you like it if someone who knows zilch about them started attacking your work? Would you be so damned arrogant as to tell an auto mechanic exactly how to fix your car, when you have never worked as one yourself? Third, a consensus is a majority of people. Like the consensus of frequent commenters here who agree that you are an @$$hole. Fourth, you keep stating bullcrap no real scientist would be caught spitting out in public, unless he is actually one of those ICR, AIG, or DI phonies that have a science degree and use it only to decieve people.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said:

DS said: And yet you pass up a golden opportunity to educate someone about their misconceptions about how science works. Well why don't you go back to your real life and leave science to real scientists?

So far I haven't seen enough from Johan to tell whether I agree or disagree with him about "how science works", or should work.

You are either blind or being evasive, which is dishonest. Like most of what you say. Indeed, you stated misconceptions about science and scientists yourself, such as:

Look, regardless of what Johan thinks or believes, you and most others here come across as science worshiping zealots who blindly accept whatever version of science you make up as you go along, while ignoring or making excuses for any slop, mistakes, disputes, disagreements, heated, sometimes long standing arguments, and any bullshit in science.

Which is another of your many outright lies.

Sigh. In any discipline within science, there is a spectrum between at one end what is well-understood, essentially universally accepted, and regarded as solid. At the opposite end is the cutting edge, where data are ambivalent, understanding is hazy, disagreements are common, and even HOW to clear up the questions isn't yet known.

The consensus, the degree to which those in a given discipline agree, is complete at one end of the spectrum, and nonexistent at the other.

Now, one of the tests of a creationist is whether he understands this or whether he regards dispute about fine details at the edge of research, as equivalent to dispute about fundamental principles established beyond reasonable doubt decades or even centuries ago.

Nobody claims all experts agree on everything, but the implication that there's no agreement about anything is simply dishonest. Agreement in science is NOT at all an "appeal to popularity", it's simply a recognition that what HAS been established beyond reasonable doubt, is not reasonably doubted.

(And this may be impossible for the creationist to grasp. Agreement in religion is a matter of formal protocol, where people agree to agree about matters which CAN be agreed on ONLY by agreement. Agreement in science happens when the underlying reality has been sufficiently well-explored so as to leave no real doubt. Agreement in science is between mostly those who HAVE changed their minds in the face of evidence. Agreement in religion is between those who have NOT changed their minds, because evidence is irrelevant.)

Johan said: @Tom //Some patterns are best explained by intelligence doesn’t tell us anything. It doesn’t, for example, make an attempt to explain something, anything.// a) I was making a point about the difference of my position(ID) and that of creationism, but thanks for playing by moving the goal post while you ignored the point I was making.

b) Saying something evolved long ago and far away(when no one was looking), and that evolution is irreversible doesn't tell us a lot either.

c) The first question is not how a designing intelligence acts but whether its action is scientifically discernible. Once we can establish that, we can speculate and hypothesize about how an intelligence acted once we have discovered patterns that are best explained as the product of intelligence. SETI is for now only interested in finding that radio signal that is irreducible to material processes, for now they don't really care how aliens went about to actually create it.

Johan said: a) I was making a point about the difference of my position(ID) and that of creationism, but thanks for playing by moving the goal post while you ignored the point I was making.

b) Saying something evolved long ago and far away(when no one was looking), and that evolution is irreversible doesn’t tell us a lot either.

c) The first question is not how a designing intelligence acts but whether its action is scientifically discernible. Once we can establish that, we can speculate and hypothesize about how an intelligence acted once we have discovered patterns that are best explained as the product of intelligence. SETI is for now only interested in finding that radio signal that is irreducible to material processes, for now they don’t really care how aliens went about to actually create it.

You believe that your perception of what the truth is MUST be so obvious, so substantiated, so overwhelming, so easily understood, so available, so correct, and so consensual that the ONLY way anyone could not see or admit that same truth is if they’re deliberately lying and fucking with you just to pick a fight.

Kris said: You better hope that we never meet in person.

Kris wrote:

"In other words, a consensus on what exactly, and between whom?"

The vast majority of real biologists, those actively working and publishing in the peer reviewed literature, agree that descent with modification is responsible for the diversity of life we see on earth today. In fact, several scientific organizations have made explicit policy statements to this effect.

Notice that this is not an appeal to authority or popularity. This is a simple statement that those who are most familiar with the evidence and those who are most qualified to judge the evidence almost all agree on this basic conclusion. In order to ignore this consensus, you have to have a better explanation for all of the evidence. One that has more explanatory and predictive power. So, if you choose to ignore this consensus, you are not only saying that you have come to a conclusion that almost no other qualified scientist has come to, but that you either have evidence that they don't have or that you have a better alternative for the evidence they do have. Either that or you are just a stubborn creationist who refuses to be convinced by evidence.

Now Kris, Johan claimed that "Saying something evolved long ago and far away(when no one was looking), and that evolution is irreversible doesn’t tell us a lot either.” Do you agree with this statement? If you disagree, why don't you set him straight? If you agree, why don't you tell us all why?

Kris said: You believe that your perception of what the truth is MUST be so obvious, so substantiated, so overwhelming, so easily understood, so available, so correct, and so consensual that the ONLY way anyone could not see or admit that same truth is if they're deliberately lying and fucking with you just to pick a fight. The arrogance of that way of thinking is impossible for me to fully comprehend.

John Kwok said: In 2005 when he issued his historic ruling at the close of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Judge Jones recognized that Intelligent Design was indeed creationism.

Robb said: Do you disagree with any other judges' rulings, or do you just happen to find favor with this particular one? What does Judge Jones say about other issues? Do you agree with him on everything else? Are there any judges on the Supreme Court who you do not disagree with on certain things? If so, why and how could you ever disagree with a judge?

Mike Elzinga said: Before you pursue this line, listen to Judge John E. Jones himself.

Robb said:

John Kwok said: In 2005 when he issued his historic ruling at the close of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Judge Jones recognized that Intelligent Design was indeed creationism.

Do you disagree with any other judges' rulings, or do you just happen to find favor with this particular one? What does Judge Jones say about other issues? Do you agree with him on everything else? Are there any judges on the Supreme Court who you do not disagree with on certain things? If so, why and how could you ever disagree with a judge?

Robb said:

Mike Elzinga said: Before you pursue this line, listen to Judge John E. Jones himself.

Rather than just point me to this 1 hour link (which I have actually listened to before, believe it or not), can I ask what specific points Judge Jones makes that you think shows that ID is the same as Creationism? Can you briefly sum up in maybe a couple of sentences or point by point, Jones' case that ID is the same as creationism? I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been, at least in the last 5 years. Then again, maybe I am missing something...

Johan said: //Bullshit. The point is that if you want a scientific explanation you have to do science.// Again, I don't think naturalists appreciate the problem here, if x was designed, surely we would have to be able to reach the conclusion scientifically if we were doing real science?

I certainly don't want false explanations, however a true explanation that might be regarded as "unscientific" according to your definition of science would still be a better explanation than a false scientific explanation(even if this was the best material explanation we had).

Robb said:

Mike Elzinga said: Before you pursue this line, listen to Judge John E. Jones himself.

Rather than just point me to this 1 hour link (which I have actually listened to before, believe it or not), can I ask what specific points Judge Jones makes that you think shows that ID is the same as Creationism? Can you briefly sum up in maybe a couple of sentences or point by point, Jones' case that ID is the same as creationism? I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been, at least in the last 5 years. Then again, maybe I am missing something...

Robb said:

Mike Elzinga said: Before you pursue this line, listen to Judge John E. Jones himself.

Rather than just point me to this 1 hour link (which I have actually listened to before, believe it or not), can I ask what specific points Judge Jones makes that you think shows that ID is the same as Creationism? Can you briefly sum up in maybe a couple of sentences or point by point, Jones' case that ID is the same as creationism? I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been, at least in the last 5 years. Then again, maybe I am missing something...

Kris said: You say a consensus is a majority. Ok then, show me the evidence that a majority of the "experts in biology", or "real experts in the field of evolution and biology" agree with each other on whatever DS says or imagines they agree on. In other words, a consensus on what exactly, and between whom?

Kris said: You better hope that we never meet in person. I find it real interesting that so many of you regularly accuse people of lying just because they don't instantly and obediently agree with you. That shows me clearly that you think you know the ABSOLUTE truth about everything and that no one else could possibly disagree with you or question you without them being a deliberate liar. You believe that your perception of what the truth is MUST be so obvious, so substantiated, so overwhelming, so easily understood, so available, so correct, and so consensual that the ONLY way anyone could not see or admit that same truth is if they're deliberately lying and fucking with you just to pick a fight. The arrogance of that way of thinking is impossible for me to fully comprehend.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: 1. The identical content of a textbook originally drafted to promote "creation science" and ending as something promoting "intelligent design". Barbara Forrest's report on the drafts of "Of Pandas and People" detailed every single instance of text being carried over from various of the drafts through to the edition acquired by DASD. http://ncse.com/webfm_send/326 2. The identical argumentative content of "intelligent design" creationism (IDC) and "creation science". This was brought out especially in cross-examination of Scott Minnich. 3. The promotion of religion by IDC advocates, especially when they discussed the utility of IDC for religious audiences. There's more, of course. Read the expert reports, transcripts, and plaintiffs' findings of fact at ncse.com

Robb said: I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been,

Robb said: I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been,

fnxtr said:

Robb said: I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been,

Yeah, and the TMLC actually thought they were winning the case, too. How completely clueless can you be? (headshake) Sad, really.

Robb said: I was talking about the distinction of ID and Creationism, not who won the case.

Mike Elzinga said:

Robb said:

Mike Elzinga said: Before you pursue this line, listen to Judge John E. Jones himself.

Rather than just point me to this 1 hour link (which I have actually listened to before, believe it or not), can I ask what specific points Judge Jones makes that you think shows that ID is the same as Creationism? Can you briefly sum up in maybe a couple of sentences or point by point, Jones' case that ID is the same as creationism? I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been, at least in the last 5 years. Then again, maybe I am missing something...

Absolutely. Judge Jones base his decision on evidence that many of us here have known, watched, been involved in, and attempted to bring to the attention of the public for nearly 50 years. We have watched the evolution of creationism into “scientific” creationism into intelligent design for those nearly 50 years. We know the players, we know the “arguments,” we have studied the misconceptions and misrepresentations of science promulgated by ID/creationists.

Robb said: This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism. Are you saying here that because there are similar elements involved in the ID movement, that it is therefore indistinguishable from Creationism? How is Creationism defined?

Robb said: This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism. Are you saying here that because there are similar elements involved in the ID movement, that it is therefore indistinguishable from Creationism? How is Creationism defined?

Mike Elzinga said: You don’t appear to be paying attention to what any of us have been trying to get you to look at. Did you check up on that “cdesign proponentsists” thing? Have you read any of the transcripts of that trial in Dover? Does the fact that ID/creationism has a well-documented history mean anything to you? What do you claim is the “distinction” between ID and creationism? Are you buying the Discovery Institute’s attempt at rewriting history? They can’t do it, you know; it’s all out there and documented. And you can find it. Why are you having trouble finding this stuff?

Robb said: Any chance you could dumb it down for me?

W. H. Heydt said:

Robb said: This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism. Are you saying here that because there are similar elements involved in the ID movement, that it is therefore indistinguishable from Creationism? How is Creationism defined?

The judge wrote down his reasoning. It's all in his decision. You have read his decision, haven't you? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

W. H. Heydt said:

Robb said: This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism. Are you saying here that because there are similar elements involved in the ID movement, that it is therefore indistinguishable from Creationism? How is Creationism defined?

The judge wrote down his reasoning. It's all in his decision. You have read his decision, haven't you? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Robb said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Robb said:

Mike Elzinga said: Before you pursue this line, listen to Judge John E. Jones himself.

Rather than just point me to this 1 hour link (which I have actually listened to before, believe it or not), can I ask what specific points Judge Jones makes that you think shows that ID is the same as Creationism? Can you briefly sum up in maybe a couple of sentences or point by point, Jones' case that ID is the same as creationism? I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been, at least in the last 5 years. Then again, maybe I am missing something...

Absolutely. Judge Jones base his decision on evidence that many of us here have known, watched, been involved in, and attempted to bring to the attention of the public for nearly 50 years. We have watched the evolution of creationism into “scientific” creationism into intelligent design for those nearly 50 years. We know the players, we know the “arguments,” we have studied the misconceptions and misrepresentations of science promulgated by ID/creationists.

This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism. Are you saying here that because there are similar elements involved in the ID movement, that it is therefore indistinguishable from Creationism? How is Creationism defined?

Robb said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Robb said:

Mike Elzinga said: Before you pursue this line, listen to Judge John E. Jones himself.

Rather than just point me to this 1 hour link (which I have actually listened to before, believe it or not), can I ask what specific points Judge Jones makes that you think shows that ID is the same as Creationism? Can you briefly sum up in maybe a couple of sentences or point by point, Jones' case that ID is the same as creationism? I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been, at least in the last 5 years. Then again, maybe I am missing something...

Absolutely. Judge Jones base his decision on evidence that many of us here have known, watched, been involved in, and attempted to bring to the attention of the public for nearly 50 years. We have watched the evolution of creationism into “scientific” creationism into intelligent design for those nearly 50 years. We know the players, we know the “arguments,” we have studied the misconceptions and misrepresentations of science promulgated by ID/creationists.

This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism.

Robb said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robb said: This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism. Are you saying here that because there are similar elements involved in the ID movement, that it is therefore indistinguishable from Creationism? How is Creationism defined?

The judge wrote down his reasoning. It's all in his decision. You have read his decision, haven't you? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Yes, I have, but this really is beside the point here. I don't really care much about his reasoning per se. I'm just trying to understand how his reasoning and decision establish once and for all that ID and Creationism are exactly the same. That seems to be the argument that is being made here (and is always made throughout the media, etc). Is the argument that because he is an unbiased Judge, that it goes to show that the arguments from the anti-ID side are better?

Robb said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robb said: This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism. Are you saying here that because there are similar elements involved in the ID movement, that it is therefore indistinguishable from Creationism? How is Creationism defined?

The judge wrote down his reasoning. It's all in his decision. You have read his decision, haven't you? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Yes, I have, but this really is beside the point here. I don't really care much about his reasoning per se. I'm just trying to understand how his reasoning and decision establish once and for all that ID and Creationism are exactly the same.

Mike Elzinga said: It’s beginning to look like you don’t want an answer to your question.

Is there something about actually looking at the evidence that you can’t bring yourself to do? If you really want to know, start following the evidence. Gain some conceptual understanding. It is obviously going to take you some time because you apparently aren’t used to checking things out. Stop relying on the sound bites you have been getting from the ID/creationist leaders and start learning some real science and history on your own. That way you will have some real basis for comparison as well as a platform for understanding how the ID/creationists operate. Several of us have attempted to be patient and steer you to things you need to learn. Why are you nitpicking about words? Go dig and learn. Judge Jones did. You object to that?

Guys, it is 3:35 AM and I have to get up for work tomorrow. I will try to post some more tomorrow...

Robb said: Ok, I'll do one more post before I hit the hay..

Mike Elzinga said: It’s beginning to look like you don’t want an answer to your question.

Is there something about actually looking at the evidence that you can’t bring yourself to do? If you really want to know, start following the evidence. Gain some conceptual understanding. It is obviously going to take you some time because you apparently aren’t used to checking things out. Stop relying on the sound bites you have been getting from the ID/creationist leaders and start learning some real science and history on your own. That way you will have some real basis for comparison as well as a platform for understanding how the ID/creationists operate. Several of us have attempted to be patient and steer you to things you need to learn. Why are you nitpicking about words? Go dig and learn. Judge Jones did. You object to that?

Are you referring to 'evidence' that shows ID is the same as Creationism, as purported by Judge Jones? Let me try to steer this back on track. This wasn't really about evidence for or against ID or evolution; that is not what my initial post was about. Showing that ID is the same as Creationism is all I am talking about here. It should be possible to sum up in a 1 or 2 sentence answer, I would think. If that is not possible to do, then it should raise a red flag. You (or Judge Jones) should be able to say something like: 1. ID involves X 2. Creationism involves Y 3. X = Y 4. Therefore, ID = Creationism It should really be that simple. If you can't do this, then I don't think you can make a good case that the two are one in the same.

Robb said:

fnxtr said:

Robb said: I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been,

Yeah, and the TMLC actually thought they were winning the case, too. How completely clueless can you be? (headshake) Sad, really.

I was talking about the distinction of ID and Creationism, not who won the case.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: You say a consensus is a majority. Ok then, show me the evidence that a majority of the "experts in biology", or "real experts in the field of evolution and biology" agree with each other on whatever DS says or imagines they agree on. In other words, a consensus on what exactly, and between whom?

It appears you have read no recent biology textbooks or looked at websites that have references to the latest findings of biological science. Yet you claim to be a scientist who studies butterflies? Or do you think that butterflies are not affected by evolution? Why?

Kris said: You better hope that we never meet in person. I find it real interesting that so many of you regularly accuse people of lying just because they don't instantly and obediently agree with you. That shows me clearly that you think you know the ABSOLUTE truth about everything and that no one else could possibly disagree with you or question you without them being a deliberate liar. You believe that your perception of what the truth is MUST be so obvious, so substantiated, so overwhelming, so easily understood, so available, so correct, and so consensual that the ONLY way anyone could not see or admit that same truth is if they're deliberately lying and fucking with you just to pick a fight. The arrogance of that way of thinking is impossible for me to fully comprehend.

It's not arrogance, it's just what we know from dealing with trolls like you over and over in the Panda's Thumb. To be Creationist, you CANNOT use consistent logic and deal directly with empirical reality, yet science demands just that. The only way you can justify your bigotry against evolution and against scientists is to cast us as being no better than you. Hint: We do not have scriptures we see as infallible to guide us, not even Darwin's Origin of Species! Therefore, your claims are just hollow venom spitting with no substance.

Kris said:

Robb said:

fnxtr said:

Robb said: I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been,

Yeah, and the TMLC actually thought they were winning the case, too. How completely clueless can you be? (headshake) Sad, really.

I was talking about the distinction of ID and Creationism, not who won the case.

You'll quickly find that around here there is no such thing as a distinction between "ID" and "Creationism".

Wesley R. Elsberry said: 4. ID is a subset of antievolutionary creationism.

//ID is a subset of antievolutionary creationism.//

Apart from the fact that there is a fundamental difference between the logic of backward-reasoning (inference to the best explanation) and forward-reasoning(deductions from authority) ID and creationism deal with separate issues.

Creationism is concerned with the question of being, creationism asks: "where does everything come from?" (this includes matter, energy, time and space itself)

Ultimate origins is simply not the business of ID, ID is not concerned with the ultimate origins of matter or energy. Instead ID asks the question: "can patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter signify intelligence?, and if so, how could we tell?"

Ultimate origins is simply not the business of ID, ID is not concerned with the ultimate origins of matter or energy. Instead ID asks the question: “can patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter signify intelligence?, and if so, how could we tell?”

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

Uncommon Descent holds that… Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

Johan said: //ID is a subset of antievolutionary creationism.// Apart from the fact that there is a fundamental difference between the logic of backward-reasoning (inference to the best explanation) and forward-reasoning(deductions from authority) ID and creationism deal with separate issues. Creationism is concerned with the question of being, creationism asks: "where does everything come from?" (this includes matter, energy, time and space itself) Ultimate origins is simply not the business of ID, ID is not concerned with the ultimate origins of matter or energy. Instead ID asks the question: "can patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter signify intelligence?, and if so, how could we tell?"

Cubist said:

Kris said:

Robb said:

fnxtr said:

Robb said: I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been,

Yeah, and the TMLC actually thought they were winning the case, too. How completely clueless can you be? (headshake) Sad, really.

I was talking about the distinction of ID and Creationism, not who won the case.

You'll quickly find that around here there is no such thing as a distinction between "ID" and "Creationism".

True enough -- but only because there's no distinction between "ID" and "Creationism", period. If you disagree, perhaps you might be so kind as to show where Elsberry's analysis, in the post just prior to the post of yours I'm responding to, is in error?

Cubist said:

Johan said: //ID is a subset of antievolutionary creationism.// Apart from the fact that there is a fundamental difference between the logic of backward-reasoning (inference to the best explanation) and forward-reasoning(deductions from authority) ID and creationism deal with separate issues. Creationism is concerned with the question of being, creationism asks: "where does everything come from?" (this includes matter, energy, time and space itself) Ultimate origins is simply not the business of ID, ID is not concerned with the ultimate origins of matter or energy. Instead ID asks the question: "can patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter signify intelligence?, and if so, how could we tell?"

If ID and Creationism are, indeed, so thoroughly distinct as you assert, surely it should not be possible to convert a Creationist textbook into an ID textbook by the simple expedient of a search-and-replace operation which exchanges the term "Creation" for the term "Intelligent Design"... and yet, that is exactly what happened to OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE, an ID textbook which was a Creationist textbook in its earliest drafts, and which was converted to an ID textbook by the simple expedient of a search-and-replace operation which exchanges the term "Creation" for the term "Intelligent Design". How do you suppose that could possibly be?
If ID and Creationism are, indeed, so thoroughly distinct as you assert, how come the ID text EXPLORING EVOLUTION consists entirely of recycled Creationist arguments? Also, if ID and Creationism are, indeed, so thoroughly distinct as you assert them to be, how come Paul Nelson, a flat-out Young-Earth Creationist, is among the authors of the ID text EXPLORING EVOLUTION?

@Cubist

You write:

"If ID and Creationism are, indeed, so thoroughly distinct as you assert, surely it should not be possible to convert a Creationist textbook into an ID textbook by the simple expedient of a search-and-replace operation which exchanges the term “Creation” for the term “Intelligent Design”… and yet, that is exactly what happened"

ID deals only with specific patterns that could signify intelligence, there is nothing about a random mountain pattern in nature that signifies intelligence, and yet the creationist believes this mountain like any other mountain was ultimately created by God. The ID theorist cannot answer that because it's unknowable in the strict scientific sense. However what ID can tell us is that if certain mountain patterns could meet a certain criteria we could infer design only for this specific mountain pattern. (the pattern on Mount Rushmore for example would qualify as a pattern that signifies intelligence)

ID did not start after some court rulings against the teaching of intelligence design, ID goes back much further than that. In his Summa Contra Gentile Thomas Aquinas writes:

"By his natural reason man is able to arrive at some knowledge of God. For seeing that
natural things run their course according to a fixed order, and since there cannot be order
without a cause of order, men, for the most part, perceive that there is one who orders the
things that we see. But who or of what kind this cause of order may be, or whether there
be but one, cannot be gathered from this general consideration"

Not even the phrase "intelligent design" started after these court rulings. Long before these court rulings Fred Hoyle wrote:

"if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design."

Johan said: However what ID can tell us is that if certain mountain patterns could meet a certain criteria we could infer design only for this specific mountain pattern. (the pattern on Mount Rushmore for example would qualify as a pattern that signifies intelligence)

Johan said: "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design."

Kris said:

Cubist said:

Johan said: //ID is a subset of antievolutionary creationism.// Apart from the fact that there is a fundamental difference between the logic of backward-reasoning (inference to the best explanation) and forward-reasoning(deductions from authority) ID and creationism deal with separate issues. Creationism is concerned with the question of being, creationism asks: "where does everything come from?" (this includes matter, energy, time and space itself) Ultimate origins is simply not the business of ID, ID is not concerned with the ultimate origins of matter or energy. Instead ID asks the question: "can patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter signify intelligence?, and if so, how could we tell?"

If ID and Creationism are, indeed, so thoroughly distinct as you assert, surely it should not be possible to convert a Creationist textbook into an ID textbook by the simple expedient of a search-and-replace operation which exchanges the term "Creation" for the term "Intelligent Design"... and yet, that is exactly what happened to OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE, an ID textbook which was a Creationist textbook in its earliest drafts, and which was converted to an ID textbook by the simple expedient of a search-and-replace operation which exchanges the term "Creation" for the term "Intelligent Design". How do you suppose that could possibly be?
If ID and Creationism are, indeed, so thoroughly distinct as you assert, how come the ID text EXPLORING EVOLUTION consists entirely of recycled Creationist arguments? Also, if ID and Creationism are, indeed, so thoroughly distinct as you assert them to be, how come Paul Nelson, a flat-out Young-Earth Creationist, is among the authors of the ID text EXPLORING EVOLUTION?

You're apparently unaware of the fact that lots of people blend or convert things on a regular basis. That doesn't mean though that everyone agrees with the ways things are blended or converted. You and others here have it in your mind that ID and creation are the same thing and that they are defined only by you and the 'creationists' who have been involved with court cases, and/or certain books, websites, churches, religions, etc.

Kris said: When it comes to the terms "ID" or "creation" it's clear to me that different people have different definitions.

Poor Hoyle, who declared the Solnhofen Archaeopteryx fossil a hoax even before he had seen it.

I don’t care what Elsberry’s analysis is.

Doc Bill said: Kris wrote:

I don’t care what Elsberry’s analysis is.

And that, folks, is why it's pointless to "argue" with a creationist.

Kris the creationist claims that he defends science. Yet, when Johan made obviously inaccurate characterizations of the processes of random mutations and natural selection he failed to correct him. When he made obviously erroneous claims about how the hypothesis that an organism evolved tells us nothing useful and makes no testable predictions, he also failed to correct him. When he claimed that ID is not creationism, he actually agreed with him.

The evidence is clear. Kris has no understanding whatsoever about what science is, how science is done, what the modern theory of evolution is, or how it is tested. He is clearly ignorant of any of the evidence for evolution and claims that anyone who disagrees with the obvious consensus is unjustly ridiculed. In other words, he talks like a creationist, walks a creationist and quacks like a creationist. Why would he even bother to deny it? He's not fooling anyone.

Still can't wait for Kris to set IBIG straight.

Rolf Aalberg said: Poor Hoyle, who declared the Solnhofen Archaeopteryx fossil a hoax even before he had seen it.

@phantomreader42

//What are those specific criteria? How are they applied?//

The problem is ID is ruled out before we can even begin to discuss such a criteria, we are told ID is not science because "it's not naturalistic", or "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo". And yet ID asks perfectly legit scientific questions regardless if there happens not to be such patterns in nature that exhibit specified complexity.

//And again, you have made no attempt to address the fact that an “ID” textbook is nothing but a creationist textbook with an incompetent find-replace.//

And yet ID reasoning goes back to such thinkers as Socrates, Cicero, Aristotle, Aquinas and Polanyi and this is long before any court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools, odd that don't you think?

@mrg

//I think that is a relevant question. Hoyle was best known for his advocacy of the Steady State Universe. Do you defend Hoyle’s belief in a Steady State Universe?//

You are moving goal posts, it's not about whether Fred Hoyle is right or wrong, this is irrelevant to the point I was making by quoting him. My point was that the phrase "intelligent design" was not something that was invented by creationists after the court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Johan said: You are moving goal posts, it's not about whether Fred Hoyle is right or wrong, this is irrelevant to the point I was making by quoting him.

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

Robb said:

John Kwok said: In 2005 when he issued his historic ruling at the close of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Judge Jones recognized that Intelligent Design was indeed creationism.

Do you disagree with any other judges' rulings, or do you just happen to find favor with this particular one? What does Judge Jones say about other issues? Do you agree with him on everything else? Are there any judges on the Supreme Court who you do not disagree with on certain things? If so, why and how could you ever disagree with a judge?

Having had a hand in compiling the evidence that convinced Judge Jones, I certainly appreciate it when a judge pays attention to the evidence. When judges fail to pay attention to the evidence, I disagree with them. That seems a simple enough principle to work by. Judge Jones did not rule capriciously or arbitrarily, as your comment implies. The evidence made the difference.

Kris said:

Robb said:

fnxtr said:

Robb said: I only ask because I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and find the ID side is far more convincing on this subject than Judge Jones has been,

Yeah, and the TMLC actually thought they were winning the case, too. How completely clueless can you be? (headshake) Sad, really.

I was talking about the distinction of ID and Creationism, not who won the case.

You'll quickly find that around here there is no such thing as a distinction between "ID" and "Creationism". Almost everyone here lumps everything regarding those terms into one basket, and that basket is then attacked with raging, hateful vigor. Few to none here are the slightest bit interested in any possible or proposed distinction, even though they mostly claim to be scientists who nitpickingly examine and separate the tiniest details of the subject matter in their field of study. Terms like ID, ID-ist, creation, creationist, Darwinist, evolutionist, etc. either need to be tossed out, or they need additional words (descriptors) to make them more specific.

Kris said: I don't care what Elsberry's analysis is. For the purposes of the Dover court case particular definitions of ID and/or creationism were relevant. Outside the court though, and in the minds of different people, there surely are many definitions. You guys lump it all together all or most of the time but it's can't necessarily be lumped all or most of the time.

Robb, Kris, Steve P. and IBIG,

Early drafts of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" used the term creationism.

When the courts ruled creationism was religion and could not be taught in public schools the references to creationism in the book were replaced with intelligent design.

The book was then offered as an intelligent design textbook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Intelligent Design = Creationism.

Rob

@Mrg

//I KNEW you would say that.//

This doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what you did.

//why do you quote an astrophysicists as an authority on evolution – I know more about evo science than he did//

I never quoted Hoyle as an authority on evolution this is the only problem, I quoted him to show that the phrase "intelligent design" was not something that spawned after some court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools.

//Why would you cite Fred Hoyle unless you believed he had some competence?//

I would quote anyone had this person used the phrase "intelligent design" prior to the court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools to make my point. The competence of these people are irrelevant to the point I am making, whether these people happen to be right or wrong is irrelevant. I am making a point of debunking pop history, this is not about trying to prove ID or anything of that sort.

//Do you regard Fred Hoyle as competent?//

Even though I explained that this is beside the point, I do regard Fred Hoyle as fairly competent, he was a respectable scientist who did science a great service. (even though he might have been wrong on certain things, he was also right on other things, this is normal, no one is ever right about everything)

Rob said: Intelligent Design = Creationism.

Kris said: You're apparently unaware of the fact that lots of people blend or convert things on a regular basis. That doesn't mean though that everyone agrees with the ways things are blended or converted. You and others here have it in your mind that ID and creation are the same thing and that they are defined only by you and the 'creationists' who have been involved with court cases, and/or certain books, websites, churches, religions, etc.

Johan said: @Mrg //I KNEW you would say that.// This doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what you did. //why do you quote an astrophysicists as an authority on evolution – I know more about evo science than he did// I never quoted Hoyle as an authority on evolution this is the only problem, I quoted him to show that the phrase "intelligent design" was not something that spawned after some court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools. //Why would you cite Fred Hoyle unless you believed he had some competence?// I would quote anyone had this person used the phrase "intelligent design" prior to the court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools to make my point. The competence of these people are irrelevant to the point I am making, whether these people happen to be right or wrong is irrelevant. I am making a point of debunking pop history, this is not about trying to prove ID or anything of that sort. //Do you regard Fred Hoyle as competent?// Even though I explained that this is beside the point, I do regard Fred Hoyle as fairly competent, he was a respectable scientist who did science a great service. (even though he might have been wrong on certain things, he was also right on other things, this is normal, no one is ever right about everything)

Johan said: I would quote anyone had this person used the phrase "intelligent design" prior to the court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools to make my point.

Even though I explained that this is beside the point, I do regard Fred Hoyle as fairly competent, he was a respectable scientist who did science a great service. (even though he might have been wrong on certain things, he was also right on other things, this is normal, no one is ever right about everything)

Johan said: ID did not start after some court rulings against the teaching of intelligence design, ID goes back much further than that. In his Summa Contra Gentile Thomas Aquinas writes: "By his natural reason man is able to arrive at some knowledge of God. For seeing that natural things run their course according to a fixed order, and since there cannot be order without a cause of order, men, for the most part, perceive that there is one who orders the things that we see. But who or of what kind this cause of order may be, or whether there be but one, cannot be gathered from this general consideration" Not even the phrase "intelligent design" started after these court rulings. Long before these court rulings Fred Hoyle wrote: "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design."

Johan said: @phantomreader42 //What are those specific criteria? How are they applied?// The problem is ID is ruled out before we can even begin to discuss such a criteria, we are told ID is not science because "it's not naturalistic", or "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo". And yet ID asks perfectly legit scientific questions regardless if there happens not to be such patterns in nature that exhibit specified complexity.

Dale Husband said: Even if "intelligent design' as a phrase had been used for thousands of years, the fact remains that ID is merely a form of Creationism, stripped of most of its religious dogmas. That's what was revealed at the Dover trial.

Johan said: The problem is ID is ruled out before we can even begin to discuss such a criteria, we are told ID is not science because "it's not naturalistic", or "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo". And yet ID asks perfectly legit scientific questions regardless if there happens not to be such patterns in nature that exhibit specified complexity.

Is ID the same as Creationism? Let's have a look at what they say themselves:

1 From 'Biology and Creation', 1986, p560: "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

2 From 'Of Pandas and People', 1987, p652: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." (Emphasis added)

Seems pretty obvious to me.

rossum

Johan said: @phantomreader42 //What are those specific criteria? How are they applied?// The problem is ID is ruled out before we can even begin to discuss such a criteria, we are told ID is not science because "it's not naturalistic", or "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo".

And yet ID asks perfectly legit scientific questions regardless if there happens not to be such patterns in nature that exhibit specified complexity.

@Dale

//Hoyle’s incompetence in both cosmology and paleontology are both well known//

Darwin was wrong about many things, does this mean he was incompetent and we can ignore everything else he said? Since Aristotle was wrong on some things, does this mean we can dismiss the rest of his work?

Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and for me this is enough to say that someone qualifies as a scientist.

//Even if “intelligent design’ as a phrase had been used for thousands of years, the fact remains that ID is merely a form of Creationism, stripped of most of its religious dogmas. That’s what was revealed at the Dover trial.//

If by "form" you mean there are similarities between ID and creationism then we can say creationism is a form of evolutionism also as there are also similarities between creationism and evolutionism. Both are interpretations within frameworks, yes when it comes to the technicalities of the presuppositions there is a difference. (metaphysical naturalism versus religious authority) The logic is the same and they lead to the same problem.

Kris said: You better hope that we never meet in person.

The arrogance of that way of thinking is impossible for me to fully comprehend.

...the most credible philosophical argument against ID being treated as science is to point out the absence of any positive specification of its fundamental concepts, intelligence and design ... . The basic claim is that, in the absence of such a specification, ID cannot be a substantive theory, scientific or not. In the case of intelligence, there is no positive specification at all. In the case of design, there is no coherent specification.

Why will no one here ever see a fair point I make? When I show that ID did not start after some court rulings, you ignore my point and you move the goal posts?

When I explain the fundamental difference between the logic of ID and creationism and explain the different questions they address you ignore my point.

How can one ever have a fair discussion when evolutionists here (or anywhere else for that matter) would not even grant these simple points?

Johan said: If by "form" you mean there are similarities between ID and creationism then we can say creationism is a form of evolutionism also as there are also similarities between creationism and evolutionism.

If all it takes to show that x (ID) = y (creationism) is to point out to a similarity between x & y then I only have to point out to a similarity of a (evolution) & y (creationism) to show that a = y.

If evolutionists can use this logic, it's fair for anyone to use.

Johan said: @Dale //Hoyle’s incompetence in both cosmology and paleontology are both well known// Darwin was wrong about many things, does this mean he was incompetent and we can ignore everything else he said? Since Aristotle was wrong on some things, does this mean we can dismiss the rest of his work?

Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and for me this is enough to say that someone qualifies as a scientist.

//Even if “intelligent design’ as a phrase had been used for thousands of years, the fact remains that ID is merely a form of Creationism, stripped of most of its religious dogmas. That’s what was revealed at the Dover trial.// If by "form" you mean there are similarities between ID and creationism then we can say creationism is a form of evolutionism also as there are also similarities between creationism and evolutionism. Both are interpretations within frameworks, yes when it comes to the technicalities of the presuppositions there is a difference. (metaphysical naturalism versus religious authority) The logic is the same and they lead to the same problem.

Johan said: Why will no one here ever see a fair point I make? When I show that ID did not start after some court rulings, you ignore my point and you move the goal posts? When I explain the fundamental difference between the logic of ID and creationism and explain the different questions they address you ignore my point. How can one ever have a fair discussion when evolutionists here (or anywhere else for that matter) would not even grant these simple points?

@Chris Caprette

//Guess what, science self-corrects. Scientists learn from their mistakes and progress ensues.//

The problem is if the metaphysics is false, and science was driven by this metaphysics then science could for logical reasons not self-correct itself, as the correct scientific questions could become constrained and you wouldn't know it. If the metaphysics is wrong there is no way for the science to self-correct this metaphysics as the evidence is interpreted on the basis that this metaphysical presupposition is true. (even if it was false)

//Hoyle’s fact-free pronouncement about intelligent design have nothing to do with any science he did.//

For the millionth time, it's irrelevant to the point I was making. Pop history says that "ID was invented and the phrase was coined after the court rulings against the teaching of creationism". I quoted Hoyle to challenge pop history, not to prove ID or disprove evolution.

Johan said: If all it takes to show that x (ID) = y (creationism) is to point out to a similarity between x & y then I only have to point out to a similarity of a (evolution) & y (creationism) to show that a = y. If evolutionists can use this logic, it's fair for anyone to use.

Johan said: @phantomreader42 //What are those specific criteria? How are they applied?//

The problem is ID is ruled out before we can even begin to discuss such a criteria, we are told ID is not science because "it's not naturalistic", or "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo".

And yet ID asks perfectly legit scientific questions regardless if there happens not to be such patterns in nature that exhibit specified complexity.

//And again, you have made no attempt to address the fact that an “ID” textbook is nothing but a creationist textbook with an incompetent find-replace.//

And yet ID reasoning goes back to such thinkers as Socrates, Cicero, Aristotle, Aquinas and Polanyi and this is long before any court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools, odd that don't you think?

@mrg //I think that is a relevant question. Hoyle was best known for his advocacy of the Steady State Universe. Do you defend Hoyle’s belief in a Steady State Universe?//

You are moving goal posts, it's not about whether Fred Hoyle is right or wrong, this is irrelevant to the point I was making by quoting him. My point was that the phrase "intelligent design" was not something that was invented by creationists after the court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Johan said: Why will no one here ever see a fair point I make? When I show that ID did not start after some court rulings, you ignore my point and you move the goal posts?

Johan said: @Chris Caprette //Guess what, science self-corrects. Scientists learn from their mistakes and progress ensues.//

The problem is if the metaphysics is false, and science was driven by this metaphysics then science could for logical reasons not self-correct itself, as the correct scientific questions could become constrained and you wouldn't know it. If the metaphysics is wrong there is no way for the science to self-correct this metaphysics as the evidence is interpreted on the basis that this metaphysical presupposition is true. (even if it was false)

Johan said: If all it takes to show that x (ID) = y (creationism) is to point out to a similarity between x & y then I only have to point out to a similarity of a (evolution) & y (creationism) to show that a = y. If evolutionists can use this logic, it's fair for anyone to use.

Johan said: @Chris Caprette //Guess what, science self-corrects. Scientists learn from their mistakes and progress ensues.// The problem is if the metaphysics is false, and science was driven by this metaphysics then science could for logical reasons not self-correct itself, as the correct scientific questions could become constrained and you wouldn't know it. If the metaphysics is wrong there is no way for the science to self-correct this metaphysics as the evidence is interpreted on the basis that this metaphysical presupposition is true. (even if it was false)

For the millionth time, it's irrelevant to the point I was making. Pop history says that "ID was invented and the phrase was coined after the court rulings against the teaching of creationism". I quoted Hoyle to challenge pop history, not to prove ID or disprove evolution.

Johan said: If all it takes to show that x (ID) = y (creationism) is to point out to a similarity between x & y then I only have to point out to a similarity of a (evolution) & y (creationism) to show that a = y. If evolutionists can use this logic, it's fair for anyone to use.

Stanton said:

Johan said: If all it takes to show that x (ID) = y (creationism) is to point out to a similarity between x & y then I only have to point out to a similarity of a (evolution) & y (creationism) to show that a = y. If evolutionists can use this logic, it's fair for anyone to use.

Intelligent Design IS Creationism because the proponents of Intelligent Design have repeatedly confessed, boasted, even, that the movement is merely a rebranding of Creationism in order to deliberately circumvent court rulings against teaching religious propaganda (i.e., Creationism) in place of science in science classrooms. Intelligent Design is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance that repeatedly mentions God as the euphemism "Intelligent Designer"

@Robin

//Let me ask you, Jonah, how do you “know” there are any metaphysics that could be wrong//

Science should be free of metaphysical presuppositions, this is precisely my point, this is the only way science could be self-corrective. As long as science is driven by metaphysical presuppositions such as naturalism it could never correct itself if naturalism was false.

Johan said: When I explain the fundamental difference between the logic of ID and creationism and explain the different questions they address you ignore my point.

//Of course Intelligent Design advocates know that the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo-Christian GOD, and even Dembski admits this (Unfortunately, I have some terrible news for them. The Intelligent Designer was a Klingon. Qap’la!!!!).//

Accept Dembski never said any such thing, instead Dembksi writes:

“ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide."

and:

"Design theorists do not bring up God for the simple reason that design-theoretic reasoning does not warrant bringing up God. Design-theoretic reasoning tells us that certain patterns exhibited in nature reliably point us to a designing intelligence. But there’s no inferential chain that leads from such finite design conducing patterns in nature to the infinite personal transcendent creator God of the world’s major theistic faiths"

Of course Intelligent Design advocates know that the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo-Christian GOD, and even Dembski admits this (Unfortunately, I have some terrible news for them. The Intelligent Designer was a Klingon. Qap’la!!!!).

Johan said: Why will no one here ever see a fair point I make? When I show that ID did not start after some court rulings, you ignore my point and you move the goal posts? When I explain the fundamental difference between the logic of ID and creationism and explain the different questions they address you ignore my point. How can one ever have a fair discussion when evolutionists here (or anywhere else for that matter) would not even grant these simple points?

Johan said: Why will no one here ever see a fair point I make? When I show that ID did not start after some court rulings, you ignore my point and you move the goal posts? When I explain the fundamental difference between the logic of ID and creationism and explain the different questions they address you ignore my point. How can one ever have a fair discussion when evolutionists here (or anywhere else for that matter) would not even grant these simple points?

Johan said: @Robin //Let me ask you, Jonah, how do you “know” there are any metaphysics that could be wrong// Science should be free of metaphysical presuppositions, this is precisely my point, this is the only way science could be self-corrective. As long as science is driven by metaphysical presuppositions such as naturalism it could never correct itself if naturalism was false.

Oops! Hit submit instead of preview.

Johan said: //Of course Intelligent Design advocates know that the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo-Christian GOD, and even Dembski admits this (Unfortunately, I have some terrible news for them. The Intelligent Designer was a Klingon. Qap’la!!!!).// Accept Dembski never said any such thing, instead Dembksi writes: “ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide." and: "Design theorists do not bring up God for the simple reason that design-theoretic reasoning does not warrant bringing up God. Design-theoretic reasoning tells us that certain patterns exhibited in nature reliably point us to a designing intelligence. But there’s no inferential chain that leads from such finite design conducing patterns in nature to the infinite personal transcendent creator God of the world’s major theistic faiths"

//I forgot this part. You didn’t explain any logical differences between what the people claiming to research ID define ID as and creationism.//

What people do with their time is irrelevant when it comes to explaining the difference between the logic of creationism and ID, creationism says the universe and everything in it(time, matter and space itself) was created because religious book x says so, and religious book x is the word of God.
.
ID says there certain patterns in the natural world that are best explained as the result of intelligence.

Creationism could actually be false while ID was still true, matter could be eternal and ID could still be true because an intelligence could still be responsible for the specific arrangements of matter that ID proponents believe signify intelligence. Creationism says God created all matter, yet ID says nothing about the origin of matter, there is no way to infer design for the origin of matter itself. (although maybe Planck would disagree)

Johan

Robin said:

Johan said: //Of course Intelligent Design advocates know that the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo-Christian GOD, and even Dembski admits this (Unfortunately, I have some terrible news for them. The Intelligent Designer was a Klingon. Qap’la!!!!).// Accept Dembski never said any such thing, instead Dembksi writes: “ID’s metaphysical openness about the nature of nature entails a parallel openness about the nature of the designer. Is the designer an intelligent alien, a computional simulator (a la THE MATRIX), a Platonic demiurge, a Stoic seminal reason, an impersonal telic process, …, or the infinite personal transcendent creator God of Christianity? The empirical data of nature simply can’t decide." and: "Design theorists do not bring up God for the simple reason that design-theoretic reasoning does not warrant bringing up God. Design-theoretic reasoning tells us that certain patterns exhibited in nature reliably point us to a designing intelligence. But there’s no inferential chain that leads from such finite design conducing patterns in nature to the infinite personal transcendent creator God of the world’s major theistic faiths"

Selective reading...tsk tsk. Here: "The world is a mirror representing the divine life..." "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - William Dembski, with A., Kushiner, James M., (editors), Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.

@Robin,

Dembski is free to believe that the source of design in the natural world is the Christ-God, but he admitted that this is scientifically unprovable by the quote above, it's simply beyond the scope of science to identify the source of design, at best we could conclude design if certain patterns were best explained as the product of intelligence.

"I might add that my views on Christian theology should be just as irrelevant for evaluating the scientific evidence I present for intelligent design as Richard Dawkins’ views on atheism are irrelevant for evaluating the scientific evidence he presents for Darwinism."--William Dembski—

Johan said: @Robin //Let me ask you, Jonah, how do you “know” there are any metaphysics that could be wrong// Science should be free of metaphysical presuppositions, this is precisely my point, this is the only way science could be self-corrective. As long as science is driven by metaphysical presuppositions such as naturalism it could never correct itself if naturalism was false.

Johan said: @Robin, Dembski is free to believe that the source of design in the natural world is the Christ-God, but he admitted that this is scientifically unprovable by the quote above, it's simply beyond the scope of science to identify the source of design, at best we could conclude design if certain patterns were best explained as the product of intelligence.

//Of course Intelligent Design advocates know that the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo-Christian GOD, and even Dembski admits this (Unfortunately, I have some terrible news for them. The Intelligent Designer was a Klingon. Qap’la!!!!).// Accept Dembski never said any such thing...

"I might add that my views on Christian theology should be just as irrelevant for evaluating the scientific evidence I present for intelligent design as Richard Dawkins’ views on atheism are irrelevant for evaluating the scientific evidence he presents for Darwinism."--William Dembski—

Robin you write:

///Science isn’t driven by any metaphysical presuppositions though - certainly not metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that holds that there is nothing else besides natural objects, forces, and causes, but science doesn’t rely on such. Science is only capable of investigating naturalistic phenomena, but that isn’t the same thing as insisting there is nothing else.///

Ok, suppose you are right, and naturalists do not assume nature is all there is, how would one know that you are dealing with phenomena that doesn't have a strictly naturalistic origin? How would you reach a conclusion that natural explanations are insufficient to account for x?

Johan said: //I forgot this part. You didn’t explain any logical differences between what the people claiming to research ID define ID as and creationism.// What people do with their time is irrelevant when it comes to explaining the difference between the logic of creationism and ID, creationism says the universe and everything in it(time, matter and space itself) was created because religious book x says so, and religious book x is the word of God. . ID says there certain patterns in the natural world that are best explained as the result of intelligence.

Creationism could actually be false while ID was still true, matter could be eternal and ID could still be true because an intelligence could still be responsible for the specific arrangements of matter that ID proponents believe signify intelligence. Creationism says God created all matter, yet ID says nothing about the origin of matter, there is no way to infer design for the origin of matter itself. (although maybe Planck would disagree) Johan

@Robin,

You wrote: "Intelligent Design advocates know that the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo-Christian GOD"

Dembski in his own words says that the evidence cannot take us that far, even though it's his personal religious faith to believe that the Christ-God is that source, I fail to see the problem.

Remember, the theist has two possibilities, the theist cannot rule out the possibility that the Christ-God used Darwinian processes to deposit us here, however it's also possible that God used other processes whereby his design would be evident. Both options are live possibilities for the theist and he consider both fairly. Unfortunately it's not the same for the atheist, Darwinian processes have to be true one way or another as evidence for design would have some disturbing implications for atheism. The theist doesn't need design in the same way the atheist needs Darwin, because evidence for design would call atheism in question.

Johan said:Unfortunately it's not the same for the atheist, Darwinian processes have to be true one way or another as evidence for design would have some disturbing implications for atheism. The theist doesn't need design in the same way the atheist needs Darwin, because evidence for design would call atheism in question.

Johan said: Robin you write: ///Science isn’t driven by any metaphysical presuppositions though - certainly not metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that holds that there is nothing else besides natural objects, forces, and causes, but science doesn’t rely on such. Science is only capable of investigating naturalistic phenomena, but that isn’t the same thing as insisting there is nothing else.///

Ok, suppose you are right, and naturalists do not assume nature is all there is, how would one know that you are dealing with phenomena that doesn't have a strictly naturalistic origin? How would you reach a conclusion that natural explanations are insufficient to account for x?

Johan said: Unfortunately it's not the same for the atheist, Darwinian processes have to be true one way or another as evidence for design would have some disturbing implications for atheism. The theist doesn't need design in the same way the atheist needs Darwin, because evidence for design would call atheism in question.

Johan said: @Robin, You wrote: "Intelligent Design advocates know that the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo-Christian GOD" Dembski in his own words says that the evidence cannot take us that far, even though it's his personal religious faith to believe that the Christ-God is that source, I fail to see the problem.

Remember, the theist has two possibilities, the theist cannot rule out the possibility that the Christ-God used Darwinian processes to deposit us here, however it's also possible that God used other processes whereby his design would be evident. Both options are live possibilities for the theist and he consider both fairly. Unfortunately it's not the same for the atheist, Darwinian processes have to be true one way or another as evidence for design would have some disturbing implications for atheism. The theist doesn't need design in the same way the atheist needs Darwin, because evidence for design would call atheism in question.

Johan does not seem to understand that science must go where the evidence leads, full stop, end of question. It is not always 'right' because sometimes the tools needed to build the tools to build the instruments to run the experiment do not yet exist. It is, however, both self-correcting and additive.

The presumption of a designer is neither: it adds nothing to anyone's understanding of the world, provides no new knowledge, and cannot be of any practical use.

Johan also seems blissfully ignorant of Dembski's regrettable habit of saying lots of things, most of which he probably doesn't mean, to lots of people. When he's talking to his fellow Troo BeLIEvers (tm pat pend) he freely admits that 'Designer = Gawd', yet goes all coy whenever he has to come out in public. That's not usually a sign of honesty and integrity.

As for Behe...Behe has been kicked so many times that only the endless gullibility of the Troo BeLIEvers (tm pat pend) keeps him going. Well, that and the money. The man's scientific reputation is utterly shot, as far as I can tell.

That he decides to assume that atheist need Darwin somehow is quite telling: not only does he not understand science, let along MET, he doesn't know too many atheists. :) And probably wouldn't listen to them if he did.

The MadPanda, FCD

Robb said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robb said: This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism. Are you saying here that because there are similar elements involved in the ID movement, that it is therefore indistinguishable from Creationism? How is Creationism defined?

The judge wrote down his reasoning. It's all in his decision. You have read his decision, haven't you? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

W. H. Heydt said:

Robb said: This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism. Are you saying here that because there are similar elements involved in the ID movement, that it is therefore indistinguishable from Creationism? How is Creationism defined?

The judge wrote down his reasoning. It's all in his decision. You have read his decision, haven't you? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Yes, I have, but this really is beside the point here. I don't really care much about his reasoning per se. I'm just trying to understand how his reasoning and decision establish once and for all that ID and Creationism are exactly the same. That seems to be the argument that is being made here (and is always made throughout the media, etc). Is the argument that because he is an unbiased Judge, that it goes to show that the arguments from the anti-ID side are better?

@Robin,

//As to your question, if there is a phenomenon that can be observed in some way, either directly or indirectly from its effects, then that phenomenon IS, by definition, naturalistic based.//

Robin, it's crucial that we make a distinction between the operation of x and the origin of x, note I said, what will you do should x not have a naturalistic(material)origin?

Take you car's engine as an example, there is nothing non-material about it's operation, this can be understood on materialistic grounds, however, the same cannot be said for the origin of this engine. Although the engine doesn't require mind for it's operation, mind is indispensable when it comes to explaining its origin and design.

Now my question is, how would we know that we encountered such phenomena in the natural world if science could only deal with phenomena that had a naturalistic origin?

Johan said: Now my question is, how would we know that we encountered such phenomena in the natural world if science could only deal with phenomena that had a naturalistic origin?

Johan said: //I forgot this part. You didn’t explain any logical differences between what the people claiming to research ID define ID as and creationism.// What people do with their time is irrelevant when it comes to explaining the difference between the logic of creationism and ID,

creationism says the universe and everything in it(time, matter and space itself) was created because religious book x says so, and religious book x is the word of God. . ID says there certain patterns in the natural world that are best explained as the result of intelligence. Johan

Creationism could actually be false while ID was still true, matter could be eternal and ID could still be true because an intelligence could still be responsible for the specific arrangements of matter that ID proponents believe signify intelligence. Creationism says God created all matter, yet ID says nothing about the origin of matter, there is no way to infer design for the origin of matter itself. (although maybe Planck would disagree)

What’s going on here at PT these days?

Are all the kiddies home from their vacation bible “colleges” and bored by having nobody to party with?

Doc Bill said: Kris wrote:

I don’t care what Elsberry’s analysis is.

And that, folks, is why it's pointless to "argue" with a creationist.

Mike Elzinga said: What’s going on here at PT these days? Are all the kiddies home from their vacation bible “colleges” and bored by having nobody to party with?

Kris said: First of all, I'm not a creationist. And second, who the fuck is Elsberry and why should I care what he says? Does Elsberry define everything and speak for everyone on Earth?

Johan said: @Robin, You wrote: "Intelligent Design advocates know that the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo-Christian GOD" Dembski in his own words says that the evidence cannot take us that far, even though it's his personal religious faith to believe that the Christ-God is that source, I fail to see the problem. Remember, the theist has two possibilities, the theist cannot rule out the possibility that the Christ-God used Darwinian processes to deposit us here, however it's also possible that God used other processes whereby his design would be evident. Both options are live possibilities for the theist and he consider both fairly. Unfortunately it's not the same for the atheist, Darwinian processes have to be true one way or another as evidence for design would have some disturbing implications for atheism. The theist doesn't need design in the same way the atheist needs Darwin, because evidence for design would call atheism in question.

DS said: Kris the creationist claims that he defends science. Yet, when Johan made obviously inaccurate characterizations of the processes of random mutations and natural selection he failed to correct him. When he made obviously erroneous claims about how the hypothesis that an organism evolved tells us nothing useful and makes no testable predictions, he also failed to correct him. When he claimed that ID is not creationism, he actually agreed with him. The evidence is clear. Kris has no understanding whatsoever about what science is, how science is done, what the modern theory of evolution is, or how it is tested. He is clearly ignorant of any of the evidence for evolution and claims that anyone who disagrees with the obvious consensus is unjustly ridiculed. In other words, he talks like a creationist, walks a creationist and quacks like a creationist. Why would he even bother to deny it? He's not fooling anyone. Still can't wait for Kris to set IBIG straight.

Or, to avoid the obvious "plumbing was designed" argument:

How about meteorology? Do you complain when the TV weather person doesn't say "Well, it looks like a tornado was designed to hit Arkansas this week"?

Kris said: You're pretty good at twisting my words to mean something other than what they really mean. Congratulations, you're a dishonest douchebag.

Kris said: You're pretty good at twisting my words to mean something other than what they really mean. Congratulations, you're a dishonest douchebag.

Kris said:

Robb said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robb said: This doesn't really answer my question. I was more looking for how specifically did Judge Jones show that ID is the same thing as Creationism. Are you saying here that because there are similar elements involved in the ID movement, that it is therefore indistinguishable from Creationism? How is Creationism defined?

The judge wrote down his reasoning. It's all in his decision. You have read his decision, haven't you? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Yes, I have, but this really is beside the point here. I don't really care much about his reasoning per se. I'm just trying to understand how his reasoning and decision establish once and for all that ID and Creationism are exactly the same. That seems to be the argument that is being made here (and is always made throughout the media, etc). Is the argument that because he is an unbiased Judge, that it goes to show that the arguments from the anti-ID side are better?

It only shows that the judge's opinion and decision determined the outcome of that particular court case. Any other arguments from either 'side' would have to be dealt with when or where they occur, whether in a courtroom or otherwise.

Now my question is, how would we know that we encountered such phenomena in the natural world if science could only deal with phenomena that had a naturalistic origin?

Johan said: @phantomreader42 //What are those specific criteria? How are they applied?// The problem is ID is ruled out before we can even begin to discuss such a criteria, we are told ID is not science because "it's not naturalistic", or "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo". And yet ID asks perfectly legit scientific questions regardless if there happens not to be such patterns in nature that exhibit specified complexity. //And again, you have made no attempt to address the fact that an “ID” textbook is nothing but a creationist textbook with an incompetent find-replace.// And yet ID reasoning goes back to such thinkers as Socrates, Cicero, Aristotle, Aquinas and Polanyi and this is long before any court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools, odd that don't you think? @mrg //I think that is a relevant question. Hoyle was best known for his advocacy of the Steady State Universe. Do you defend Hoyle’s belief in a Steady State Universe?// You are moving goal posts, it's not about whether Fred Hoyle is right or wrong, this is irrelevant to the point I was making by quoting him. My point was that the phrase "intelligent design" was not something that was invented by creationists after the court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Science is about figuring out how stuff works.

Kris said: Something I find interesting is that fractal geometry is considered by many to be a valid and scientific way of perceiving and studying nature, and fractal geometry is concerned with designs and patterns in nature. Of course as soon as I post this I'll probably be bombarded by people who will say that fractals/fractal geometry have nothing to do with design.

I don’t know if you and I would agree on a definition of “ID” and whether it’s worth looking into, but I do understand what you’re saying about being cutoff before even getting a chance to discuss any possible aspects of ID.

Kris said: Something I find interesting is that fractal geometry is considered by many to be a valid and scientific way of perceiving and studying nature, and fractal geometry is concerned with designs and patterns in nature.

Johan said: @Robin, //As to your question, if there is a phenomenon that can be observed in some way, either directly or indirectly from its effects, then that phenomenon IS, by definition, naturalistic based.//

Robin, it's crucial that we make a distinction between the operation of x and the origin of x, note I said, what will you do should x not have a naturalistic(material)origin?

Take you car's engine as an example, there is nothing non-material about it's operation, this can be understood on materialistic grounds, however, the same cannot be said for the origin of this engine. Although the engine doesn't require mind for it's operation, mind is indispensable when it comes to explaining its origin and design.

Now my question is, how would we know that we encountered such phenomena in the natural world if science could only deal with phenomena that had a naturalistic origin?

Kris said: Of course as soon as I post this I'll probably be bombarded by people who will say that fractals/fractal geometry have nothing to do with design.

* There is ... the fact that biological configurations are "reinvented" over and over again, through convergent evolution: sharklike forms, flapping-wing forms, glider forms, mole forms, camera eyes, and so on. Of course they arise again and again, because of all the possible solutions they're part of the list of ones that work. There's a well-known and much-admired book, ON GROWTH AND FORM, published by Scots biologist and mathematician D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson (1860:1948) in 1917, that commented on the emergence of such regular patterns in biological systems at a lower level. Thompson most famously showed how the Fibonacci sequence, in which each number in the sequence is the sum of the previous two: 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 ... -- occurs or is implied in many different contexts in biological systems, from the growth of spiral shells to pine cones to the heads of sunflowers and so on. It's no surprise it does: if the growth of a biological structure like a spiral shell at one stage is proportional to the size attained from previous stages, then the growth will follow an exponential curve and track the Fibonacci sequence. The emergence of the Fibonacci pattern is not magical, it is simply dictated by the way things work, need to work, in the real world. Although Thompson accepted evolution, he rejected natural selection as the mechanism, claiming out that such structural constraints were the guiding force. While Thompson made an eloquent and brilliant case for his "structuralist" ideas, the general belief nowdays is that his notions were not at all incompatible with MET: natural selection works, but it is certainly subject to structural constraints. Even Richard Dawkins, a strong advocate of MET orthodoxy, gave an admiring nod to Thompson's ideas, describing at length in his book CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE a computer simulation that explored the emergence of form in spiral shells, and the wild variations in form that shells could take given changes in a small set of parameters. Modern advocates of the application of concepts such as "emergent systems" and "complexity theory" to evolutionary science have claimed their notions involve "revolutionary" changes to MET, but at least in a broad sense their ideas are following in the trail of Thompson's: evolution reflects underlying physics, underlying structure.

@Robin

//And no, “Darwinian” processes do not have to be true for anyone, but particularly not for atheists. I have no idea where you got that idea.//

Atheism demands materialistic evolution, and there is only one current theory going for it: Darwinism, it is no coincidence that the world's most famous atheist also happens to be an evolutionary biologist. For the atheist we must be the result of blind material processes one way or another, there is no other option which remains consistent with atheism.

The theist doesn't have this problem, for the theist it is a live possibility that God used an evolutionary process to deposit us here, but it's also possible that God used other processes whereby his design would be evident. Both options are live possibilities and the theist can consider them fairly, he is not forced to believe in the one or the other.

Johan said: Atheism demands materialistic evolution, and there is only one current theory going for it: Darwinism, it is no coincidence that the world's most famous atheist also happens to be an evolutionary biologist. For the atheist we must be the result of blind material processes one way or another, there is no other option which remains consistent with atheism.

Chris Caprette said:

Kris said: You're apparently unaware of the fact that lots of people blend or convert things on a regular basis. That doesn't mean though that everyone agrees with the ways things are blended or converted. You and others here have it in your mind that ID and creation are the same thing and that they are defined only by you and the 'creationists' who have been involved with court cases, and/or certain books, websites, churches, religions, etc.

You are apparently unaware of the fact that lots of people believe and do lots of things that are irrelevant to this discussion. You appear in this comment to be claiming either that you and Johan have a definition of ID that is every bit as valid as any other, despite providing no evidence that you have actually done any thinking on the subject and even less research. This was a post about Behe that showed that even after defining every term a priori in favor of ID, front-loading if you will, he nonetheless provides no evidence of design or a designer. Yet you and Johan embarked on a quasi-intellectual road-trip in which you meander around with a line of reasoning that resembles the path taken by a drunk driver going the wrong way on a busy four-lane interstate never addressing the issues raised in the original post. Has it occurred to you that just about everyone here has been studying this stuff for a very long time, quite probably, given the arguments that you make, much longer than you? Have you read William Paley's Natural Theology (1802)? I have. The entirety of ID is Paley's argument from design with a bunch of flawed math and worse biology draped over it to make it look non-religious. One problem (for ID) is that the proponents of ID that are actually publishing stuff can't help but reveal the religious nature of the concept in very public venues on a regular basis. Another other problem for ID is that when one of these jokers actually manages to get something through peer-review, it provides support for evolutionary theory but not ID, despite their evidence-free assertions to the contrary. None of them have provided one iota of evidence that anything in nature was intelligently-designed. Not one paper has provided evidence for intelligence outside of the species occupying our planet and none of those species, including us, show any evidence of having designed the things that Behe, Dembski and others claimed are designed (e.g., the bacterial flagellum). Behe especially has shown himself to be particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias, probably deliberately so. If you think that you have such evidence, kindly bring it to our attention so that we may evaluate it, just as actual scientists present their evidence to be evaluated. Otherwise, admit that you are not here to discuss the science but instead to banter (bad) philosophy, at best, or just jerk our chains. All I'm asking for here is a little honesty. Perhaps that is too much?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: Something I find interesting is that fractal geometry is considered by many to be a valid and scientific way of perceiving and studying nature, and fractal geometry is concerned with designs and patterns in nature.

Is this even relevant to Behe? The thing about fractal geometry is that it can lead one to conclude that something was designed (intelligently) when in fact it was not. Unless one is willing to therefore decide that somewhere there exists a workshop and patent office for the humble snowflake, a little misunderstanding of the underlying concept can really go strange places. It's neat stuff, but it's more than just pretty pictures. The MadPanda, FCD

Kris said: Never have I seen so much misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

//The origin of the engine is quite concrete and material. Even the concept of the internal combustion mechanism is quite material, even as an idea in the inventor’s mind (well…technically inventors’ minds). Everything about the engine, from the invention there of, to the manufacture, to the operation and principles within, are all material.//

And lies the problem, if there is no difference between an intelligently caused effect and a purely material effect that very science of SETI would simply not be possible.

For the materialist there is no fundamental difference between the explanation for an ordinary mountain pattern and the patterns of mountain rushmore, both are in the mind the of the materialist equally material.

Kris said: Are you claiming that, in fact, nothing is or was intelligently designed in nature?

Robin said: Selective reading...tsk tsk. Here: "The world is a mirror representing the divine life..." "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - William Dembski, with A., Kushiner, James M., (editors), Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.

Dale Husband said:

Johan said: ID did not start after some court rulings against the teaching of intelligence design, ID goes back much further than that. In his Summa Contra Gentile Thomas Aquinas writes: "By his natural reason man is able to arrive at some knowledge of God. For seeing that natural things run their course according to a fixed order, and since there cannot be order without a cause of order, men, for the most part, perceive that there is one who orders the things that we see. But who or of what kind this cause of order may be, or whether there be but one, cannot be gathered from this general consideration" Not even the phrase "intelligent design" started after these court rulings. Long before these court rulings Fred Hoyle wrote: "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design."

Even if "intelligent design' as a phrase had been used for thousands of years, the fact remains that ID is merely a form of Creationism, stripped of most of its religious dogmas. That's what was revealed at the Dover trial.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: Never have I seen so much misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

Let me guess. It's such an important bit of snark that you felt compelled to mention it twice? ID had a golden opportunity in Dover v. Kitzmiller, and they failed on the merits. Sorry, but them's the breaks. You might as well complain that phlogiston and aether weren't given a fair shake while you're at it. The MadPanda, FCD

Kris said: You and others here could save yourselves a lot of typing of irrelevant garbage if you would learn how to read and comprehend what I and some others actually say. Never have I seen so much misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

Johan said: For the materialist there is no fundamental difference between the explanation for an ordinary mountain pattern and the patterns of mountain rushmore, both are in the mind the of the materialist equally material.

The MadPanda, FCD said: Are you claiming that in fact everything in nature was intelligently designed?

Kris said:

Johan said: @phantomreader42 //What are those specific criteria? How are they applied?// The problem is ID is ruled out before we can even begin to discuss such a criteria, we are told ID is not science because "it's not naturalistic", or "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo". And yet ID asks perfectly legit scientific questions regardless if there happens not to be such patterns in nature that exhibit specified complexity. //And again, you have made no attempt to address the fact that an “ID” textbook is nothing but a creationist textbook with an incompetent find-replace.// And yet ID reasoning goes back to such thinkers as Socrates, Cicero, Aristotle, Aquinas and Polanyi and this is long before any court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools, odd that don't you think? @mrg //I think that is a relevant question. Hoyle was best known for his advocacy of the Steady State Universe. Do you defend Hoyle’s belief in a Steady State Universe?// You are moving goal posts, it's not about whether Fred Hoyle is right or wrong, this is irrelevant to the point I was making by quoting him. My point was that the phrase "intelligent design" was not something that was invented by creationists after the court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools.

I got your point instantly, but then I'm not consumed by obsessive hatred of anything that has to with the term "ID" like most of the others here. I don't know if you and I would agree on a definition of "ID" and whether it's worth looking into, but I do understand what you're saying about being cutoff before even getting a chance to discuss any possible aspects of ID. Something I find interesting is that fractal geometry is considered by many to be a valid and scientific way of perceiving and studying nature, and fractal geometry is concerned with designs and patterns in nature. Of course as soon as I post this I'll probably be bombarded by people who will say that fractals/fractal geometry have nothing to do with design.

Johan said: @Robin //And no, “Darwinian” processes do not have to be true for anyone, but particularly not for atheists. I have no idea where you got that idea.// Atheism demands materialistic evolution, and there is only one current theory going for it: Darwinism, it is no coincidence that the world's most famous atheist also happens to be an evolutionary biologist. For the atheist we must be the result of blind material processes one way or another, there is no other option which remains consistent with atheism.

The theist doesn't have this problem, for the theist it is a live possibility that God used an evolutionary process to deposit us here, but it's also possible that God used other processes whereby his design would be evident. Both options are live possibilities and the theist can consider them fairly, he is not forced to believe in the one or the other.

Kris said: Yeah, and the Dover trial decided absolutely everything, everywhere, for all time. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Johan said: For the materialist there is no fundamental difference between the explanation for an ordinary mountain pattern and the patterns of mountain rushmore, both are in the mind the of the materialist equally material.

Are you genuinely this dense? Really? Honestly? How exactly did you arrive at that stunningly ignorant conclusion? Show your work, please. The MadPanda, FCD

Johan said: I'm amazed to see people still bring up this trial, ID is as politically incorrect as you can get, chances are it will lose in the courts, but if that happens, that will be despite science not because of science.Questions of science especially questions that have been ongoing for more than 2000 years is certainly not settled by a federal judge in court.

Johan said: Why will no one here ever see a fair point I make? When I show that ID did not start after some court rulings, you ignore my point and you move the goal posts? When I explain the fundamental difference between the logic of ID and creationism and explain the different questions they address you ignore my point. How can one ever have a fair discussion when evolutionists here (or anywhere else for that matter) would not even grant these simple points?

Johan said: Shocked are we?

Johan said: Kris, thanks I appreciate the comments, I would define ID as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligence. Archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) all fall under this definition.

Kris said: It's because they have their minds made up and they are arrogant, self-righteous, illiterate, angry, hateful, obsessed blowhards who are entrenched in their own dogma.

I would define ID as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligence. Archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) all fall under this definition.

mrg said:

The MadPanda, FCD said: Are you claiming that in fact everything in nature was intelligently designed?

Well, that's the fun part, isn't it MP? Either it all IS or all ISN'T, and either way attempting to distinguish between parts of it that are Designed and parts that are NOT is absurd. All the more so because no scientific theory works the slightest bit differently which assumption is made.

Still waiting for evidence, any at all, supporting ID....... crickets chirping......... invective, whining, insults, whining, threats, whining...... crickets chirping....

By the way, has anyone with the knowhow done a sock puppet check on Kris/Johan? Something smells fishy.... could just be their "logic."

John Kwok said: Are poor, poor baby Kris. Am so sorry for hurting your feelings:

Kris said: You and others here could save yourselves a lot of typing of irrelevant garbage if you would learn how to read and comprehend what I and some others actually say. Never have I seen so much misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

BTW your concluding comments describe, most aptly, your own behavior here. If you don't like it Kris, then why do you insist on subjecting yourself to further mistreatment? Don't you think it's time you took a long - maybe even a permanent - vacation from here?

Kris said: And since you obsessively hate creationists and ID-ists and are subjected to so much alleged mistreatment by them maybe you should take a permanent vacation from this planet where most people believe in a creator and/or ID, and spare yourself from further mistreatment. Chances are there's a tall bridge or building near you. :)

Karen S. said:

I would define ID as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligence. Archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) all fall under this definition.

What? Archeology is a pattern in nature?

Johan said: Karen, archeology can be defined as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence, an archeologist could examine a piece of rock and tell you if this was an arrow or if this an ordinary rock. This is not controversial, only don't try to do this in biology as all hell will break loose.

Johan said: //The origin of the engine is quite concrete and material. Even the concept of the internal combustion mechanism is quite material, even as an idea in the inventor’s mind (well…technically inventors’ minds). Everything about the engine, from the invention there of, to the manufacture, to the operation and principles within, are all material.//

And lies the problem, if there is no difference between an intelligently caused effect and a purely material effect that very science of SETI would simply not be possible.

For the materialist there is no fundamental difference between the explanation for an ordinary mountain pattern and the patterns of mountain rushmore, both are in the mind the of the materialist equally material.

Johan said:

Karen S. said:

I would define ID as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligence. Archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) all fall under this definition.

What? Archeology is a pattern in nature?

Karen, archeology can be defined as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence, an archeologist could examine a piece of rock and tell you if this was an arrow or if this an ordinary rock. This is not controversial, only don't try to do this in biology as all hell will break loose. Johan

Johan said: So according to this logic all mountain patters are either the product of design or they are all the result of blind material processes such as sand storms or erosion? This is a false dilemma, there is a third possibility, some mountain patterns are best explained as the product of intelligence (ie Mount rushmore) while most mountain patterns are the result of blind material processes. Johan

Johan said: @Robin //And no, “Darwinian” processes do not have to be true for anyone, but particularly not for atheists. I have no idea where you got that idea.// Atheism demands materialistic evolution, and there is only one current theory going for it: Darwinism, it is no coincidence that the world's most famous atheist also happens to be an evolutionary biologist. For the atheist we must be the result of blind material processes one way or another, there is no other option which remains consistent with atheism. The theist doesn't have this problem, for the theist it is a live possibility that God used an evolutionary process to deposit us here, but it's also possible that God used other processes whereby his design would be evident. Both options are live possibilities and the theist can consider them fairly, he is not forced to believe in the one or the other.

Chris Caprette said:

Johan said: @Dale //Hoyle’s incompetence in both cosmology and paleontology are both well known// Darwin was wrong about many things, does this mean he was incompetent and we can ignore everything else he said? Since Aristotle was wrong on some things, does this mean we can dismiss the rest of his work?

Not at all, but we can dismiss any parts of it that have proven to be scientifically untenable, which really is the point. For instance, we know from scientific investigation that Darwin was wrong about inheritance. That is a big part of what the new synthesis was about. Guess what, science self-corrects. Scientists learn from their mistakes and progress ensues.

Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist and for me this is enough to say that someone qualifies as a scientist.

Hoyle's fact-free pronouncement about intelligent design have nothing to do with any science he did. This is one of the problems with your argument: you are saying because some smart guy said something with which you agree it must be right, despite there being no evidence to support the claim. This is classic confirmation bias and demonstrates a complete absence of skeptical thought.

//Even if “intelligent design’ as a phrase had been used for thousands of years, the fact remains that ID is merely a form of Creationism, stripped of most of its religious dogmas. That’s what was revealed at the Dover trial.// If by "form" you mean there are similarities between ID and creationism then we can say creationism is a form of evolutionism also as there are also similarities between creationism and evolutionism. Both are interpretations within frameworks, yes when it comes to the technicalities of the presuppositions there is a difference. (metaphysical naturalism versus religious authority) The logic is the same and they lead to the same problem.

No, the logic is not the same. Your failure to understand that demonstrates your empty philosophy, ignorance of science, and unwillingness to read or inability to comprehend what you read. The only difference between ID and creationism is in the titles of the terms themselves. The descriptions of ID and creationism in its current usage (as in the original post upon which all these comments are based - or have you forgotten?)are identical. Until ID proponents are willing to do the scientific research AND produce evidence supporting their claims, ID will remain non-science and the proponents will remain creationists. To borrow from Larry Moran: "This is why we call them IDiots."

mrg said: Well, that's the fun part, isn't it MP? Either it all IS or all ISN'T, and either way attempting to distinguish between parts of it that are Designed and parts that are NOT is absurd. All the more so because no scientific theory works the slightest bit differently which assumption is made.

Chris Caprette said: They have specific methods to distinguish designed and built things from natural artifacts.

Johan said: And lies the problem, if there is no difference between an intelligently caused effect and a purely material effect that very science of SETI would simply not be possible.

I think I can find someone who can get a spare bed for you in Bellevue. Think you need to be locked up there permanently, judging from your latest mentally-disturbed observation: Kris said: And since you obsessively hate creationists and ID-ists and are subjected to so much alleged mistreatment by them maybe you should take a permanent vacation from this planet where most people believe in a creator and/or ID, and spare yourself from further mistreatment. Chances are there's a tall bridge or building near you. :)

Robin said: There isn't necessarily an analogy between the two, yet you - like so many ID proponents - are insisting on assuming there is.

Sheesh!

It looks like we have a bunch of these bible “college” students home for the holidays.

I don’t know of any formal studies done on these kinds of students, but most of the anecdotal evidence – and certainly the evidence we see here today – would suggest they are preadolescent in their emotional and intellectual maturity.

They argue just like Ken Ham in his “Answers Academies” for children.

Perhaps some of them are getting “college” credit for visiting evil atheistic websites and posting more than 10 comments.

Chris Caprette said: ...since science is the main focus of this blog.

Johan said:

Karen S. said:

I would define ID as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligence. Archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) all fall under this definition.

What? Archeology is a pattern in nature?

Karen, archeology can be defined as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence, an archeologist could examine a piece of rock and tell you if this was an arrow or if this an ordinary rock. This is not controversial, only don't try to do this in biology as all hell will break loose. Johan

mrg said:

Robin said: There isn't necessarily an analogy between the two, yet you - like so many ID proponents - are insisting on assuming there is.

And they really don't draw the line between seeing Design in all of nature anyway. If parts of the Universe are the result of "blind material forces" ... then weren't the "blind material forces" Designed? After all, if you buy the Comic ... err, Cosmic Fine Tuning arguments so beloved by ID folks, the Universe wouldn't even be here, or at least life wouldn't be possible, unless all those basic physical parameters were carefully fine tuned.

Kris said:

Chris Caprette said: ...since science is the main focus of this blog.

ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! You've GOT to be joking.

I hope that Johan and Kris are the same person. I'd hate to think there's TWICE as much stupid out there.

Hey, Kris, take a trip down memory lane (page 4, 4:29 AM) and read how Elsberry, whom you don't care about, demolishes your argument.

What's next, Kris, a discussion about how water and ice are two different things?

Kris said: Johan originally brought up Hoyle, etc. to make the point that the concept of ID and the term itself were around LONG before the Dover trial. The reason Johan said anything further about Hoyle is because the goalposts were moved and he got sucked into it a bit. Johan didn't move those goalposts and his point was easy to see for anyone with a clue. Inability to comprehend is rampant here.

Stanton said:

Johan said: If all it takes to show that x (ID) = y (creationism) is to point out to a similarity between x & y then I only have to point out to a similarity of a (evolution) & y (creationism) to show that a = y. If evolutionists can use this logic, it's fair for anyone to use.

Intelligent Design IS Creationism because the proponents of Intelligent Design have repeatedly confessed, boasted, even, that the movement is merely a rebranding of Creationism in order to deliberately circumvent court rulings against teaching religious propaganda (i.e., Creationism) in place of science in science classrooms. Intelligent Design is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance that repeatedly mentions God as the euphemism "Intelligent Designer"

Kris said:

Chris Caprette said: ...since science is the main focus of this blog.

ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! You've GOT to be joking.

Mike Elzinga said:

Kris said:

Chris Caprette said: ...since science is the main focus of this blog.

ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO! You've GOT to be joking.

What is really funny about this comment is that, even as he makes it, it is being added to a profile of how creationists behave and believe. This gets added to the mountains of evidence already accumulated over 40+ years. Scientists observe things like that. And ID/creationists have made it necessary for scientists to study the beliefs, tactics, and evolution of ID/creationism and its attacks on secular society. It’s all about evidence; and, yes in this case, patterns of attitudes and behaviors by humans. Isn’t evidence wonderful? ID/creationists never recognize it even as it smacks them in the face right in front of everybody watching.

Kris said: It's one thing to speak of what certain people said at Dover, or what Behe and certain others have said or say now, but quite another when speaking of "ID" in general. Johan doesn't seem to be inquiring about only what was said at Dover or about what Behe says, and many of you are speaking about ID and creationism in general. You guys say things in general, and when Johan or I say something along those lines you say we're off topic. I guess you guys have different rules than he or I do. You guys move the goalposts, and when Johan or I respond along those lines you say we're off topic and that he or I moved the goalposts. I guess you guys have different rules than he or I do.

Kris said: You guys say things in general, and when Johan or I say something along those lines you say we're off topic.

I guess you guys have different rules than he or I do.

Kris the lying sack of shit said:

Johan said: @phantomreader42 //What are those specific criteria? How are they applied?// The problem is ID is ruled out before we can even begin to discuss such a criteria, we are told ID is not science because "it's not naturalistic", or "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo". And yet ID asks perfectly legit scientific questions regardless if there happens not to be such patterns in nature that exhibit specified complexity. //And again, you have made no attempt to address the fact that an “ID” textbook is nothing but a creationist textbook with an incompetent find-replace.// And yet ID reasoning goes back to such thinkers as Socrates, Cicero, Aristotle, Aquinas and Polanyi and this is long before any court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools, odd that don't you think? @mrg //I think that is a relevant question. Hoyle was best known for his advocacy of the Steady State Universe. Do you defend Hoyle’s belief in a Steady State Universe?// You are moving goal posts, it's not about whether Fred Hoyle is right or wrong, this is irrelevant to the point I was making by quoting him. My point was that the phrase "intelligent design" was not something that was invented by creationists after the court rulings against the teaching of creationism in public schools.

I got your point instantly, but then I'm not consumed by obsessive hatred of anything that has to with the term "ID" like most of the others here. I don't know if you and I would agree on a definition of "ID" and whether it's worth looking into, but I do understand what you're saying about being cutoff before even getting a chance to discuss any possible aspects of ID.

Robin said:

Johan said: @Robin //Let me ask you, Jonah, how do you “know” there are any metaphysics that could be wrong// Science should be free of metaphysical presuppositions, this is precisely my point, this is the only way science could be self-corrective. As long as science is driven by metaphysical presuppositions such as naturalism it could never correct itself if naturalism was false.

Science isn't driven by any metaphysical presuppositions though - certainly not metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that holds that there is nothing else besides natural objects, forces, and causes, but science doesn't rely on such. Science is only capable of investigating naturalistic phenomena, but that isn't the same thing as insisting there is nothing else. So your premise and conclusion about science are false - science is self-correcting within its area of investigation. Anything else, such as beliefs in gods, is outside science's area of investigation.

Kris said:

Doc Bill said: Kris wrote:

I don’t care what Elsberry’s analysis is.

And that, folks, is why it's pointless to "argue" with a creationist.

First of all, I'm not a creationist. And second, who the fuck is Elsberry and why should I care what he says? Does Elsberry define everything and speak for everyone on Earth?

Kris the word-gaming moron said:

Robin said:

Johan said: @Robin //Let me ask you, Jonah, how do you “know” there are any metaphysics that could be wrong// Science should be free of metaphysical presuppositions, this is precisely my point, this is the only way science could be self-corrective. As long as science is driven by metaphysical presuppositions such as naturalism it could never correct itself if naturalism was false.

Science isn't driven by any metaphysical presuppositions though - certainly not metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that holds that there is nothing else besides natural objects, forces, and causes, but science doesn't rely on such. Science is only capable of investigating naturalistic phenomena, but that isn't the same thing as insisting there is nothing else. So your premise and conclusion about science are false - science is self-correcting within its area of investigation. Anything else, such as beliefs in gods, is outside science's area of investigation.

Well, you just asserted that there are no scientists here, except for me and Johan and a few others. Ya see, according to what you said, scientists can't insist that there is nothing else besides natural objects, forces, and causes, but the thing is, you guys/gals do insist that constantly on this site. Therefore, you can't be scientists and this site has nothing to do with science. I'm so glad we got that settled.

W. H. Heydt said:

Johan said:Unfortunately it's not the same for the atheist, Darwinian processes have to be true one way or another as evidence for design would have some disturbing implications for atheism. The theist doesn't need design in the same way the atheist needs Darwin, because evidence for design would call atheism in question.

False dichotomy. Darwin's thesis could be dead wrong, but that doesn't rule out other possibilities besides a theistic creation. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: Are you claiming that, in fact, nothing is or was intelligently designed in nature?

Are you claiming that in fact everything in nature was intelligently designed? The MadPanda, FCD

Who the fuck is “Kris” and why should anyone care what he says?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: Never have I seen so much misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

Let me guess. It's such an important bit of snark that you felt compelled to mention it twice? ID had a golden opportunity in Dover v. Kitzmiller, and they failed on the merits. Sorry, but them's the breaks. You might as well complain that phlogiston and aether weren't given a fair shake while you're at it. The MadPanda, FCD

Sheesh! It looks like we have a bunch of these bible “college” students home for the holidays. I don’t know of any formal studies done on these kinds of students, but most of the anecdotal evidence – and certainly the evidence we see here today – would suggest they are preadolescent in their emotional and intellectual maturity. They argue just like Ken Ham in his “Answers Academies” for children. Perhaps some of them are getting “college” credit for visiting evil atheistic websites and posting more than 10 comments.

Kris said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Johan said:Unfortunately it's not the same for the atheist, Darwinian processes have to be true one way or another as evidence for design would have some disturbing implications for atheism. The theist doesn't need design in the same way the atheist needs Darwin, because evidence for design would call atheism in question.

False dichotomy. Darwin's thesis could be dead wrong, but that doesn't rule out other possibilities besides a theistic creation. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Like what other possibilities? And be as specific and thorough as you evolutionary theory worshipers expect and demand ID-ists and creationists to be when describing their beliefs, theories, methods, hypotheses, standards, and all that jazz.

John Kwok said: Think you need to read Judge Jones's ruling Kris, if you haven't already:

Kris said: Yeah, and the Dover trial decided absolutely everything, everywhere, for all time. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Legally, the ruling was binding only for the Dover Area School District board. But Judge Jones's well-reasoned, quite articulate, ruling has served as ample legal precedent around the country. If you doubt my word on this, then ask Wesley yourself, or better yet, look here: http://www.ncse.com

Kris said: Your colossal stupidity and lack of reading comprehension are really showing.

Kris said: No, I'm not claiming and haven't claimed that anything in nature is or was designed. Now, why don't you answer my questions?

Robin said:

Johan said: Robin you write: ///Science isn’t driven by any metaphysical presuppositions though - certainly not metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that holds that there is nothing else besides natural objects, forces, and causes, but science doesn’t rely on such. Science is only capable of investigating naturalistic phenomena, but that isn’t the same thing as insisting there is nothing else.///

Ok, suppose you are right, and naturalists do not assume nature is all there is, how would one know that you are dealing with phenomena that doesn't have a strictly naturalistic origin? How would you reach a conclusion that natural explanations are insufficient to account for x?

First - please don't try to put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about naturalists and what they may or may not believe - I wrote that science isn't based on metaphysical naturalism as there is nothing in science that holds that only natural objects, forces, and causes exist. As to your question, if there is a phenomenon that can be observed in some way, either directly or indirectly from its effects, then that phenomenon IS, by definition, naturalistic based. Science does not care and cannot comment on anything that isn't naturalistic by definition. So your question doesn't make sense - it seems to be based on the premise that there could be non-natural phenomenon that would behave naturally, which is a contradiction in terms. If some phenomenon DOESN'T have a strictly naturalistic basis, then science can't investigate it. It's that simple.

Kris said: Twice?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: No, I'm not claiming and haven't claimed that anything in nature is or was designed. Now, why don't you answer my questions?

Why? Your question was nothing more than a rhetorical trick, and a particularly silly one at that. Unless, of course, you think that a recognition of false positives is somehow the same as saying that there is no middle ground. I have watched you carefully, sirrah. You are not the honest broker you seem to want us to think you. The MadPanda, FCD

Kris said: What you wrote is one of the most convoluted, contradictory, messed up piles of game playing bullshit I've ever seen.

Kris said: In other words, you're chickenshit.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: Twice?

Read the sentence of yours that I quoted. You used the word 'misrepresentation' twice. It was an amusing error that brought a line from Red Dwarf to mind. The MadPanda, fCD

Kris said:

John Kwok said: Think you need to read Judge Jones's ruling Kris, if you haven't already:

Kris said: Yeah, and the Dover trial decided absolutely everything, everywhere, for all time. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Legally, the ruling was binding only for the Dover Area School District board. But Judge Jones's well-reasoned, quite articulate, ruling has served as ample legal precedent around the country. If you doubt my word on this, then ask Wesley yourself, or better yet, look here: http://www.ncse.com

Your colossal stupidity and lack of reading comprehension are really showing.

Kris said: No, I used the words misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

The MadPanda, FCD said: Johan does not seem to understand that science must go where the evidence leads, full stop, end of question. It is not always 'right' because sometimes the tools needed to build the tools to build the instruments to run the experiment do not yet exist. It is, however, both self-correcting and additive. The presumption of a designer is neither: it adds nothing to anyone's understanding of the world, provides no new knowledge, and cannot be of any practical use. The MadPanda, FCD

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Kris said: No, I used the words misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

(re-reads, shrugs) So you did. Gave me a laugh anyway. You seem to lack a sense of humor. The MadPanda, FCD

John Kwok said: You are either a prime candidate for a mental institution like Bellevue's psych ward ...

Kris said: How do you know that?

Maybe the tools and instruments haven't been conceived or built "yet" to find out.

Kris said: Nice try but you got your ass handed to you.

Kris/Johan could you try just for a moment to address the simple question of: "What evidence do you have that intelligent design is correct?" In 10 pages of comments you have bounced between empty philosophy and pathetic personal attacks but much like Dembski's sycophant DaveScot you refuse to provide any evidence to support your position that intelligent design explains anything at all.

Ouch, has this thread degenerated!

If you don't mind I have a few questions for the group, and will appreciate any help, as I don't have the time to sift through 200+ comments. But has Johan answered my simple questions about whether he agrees with Behe on the age of life and common descent? Have Kris and any other evolution-deniers on this thread clearly stated their positions on those two simple questions?

Frank J said: Ouch, has this thread degenerated! If you don't mind I have a few questions for the group, and will appreciate any help, as I don't have the time to sift through 200+ comments. But has Johan answered my simple questions about whether he agrees with Behe on the age of life and common descent? Have Kris and any other evolution-deniers on this thread clearly stated their positions on those two simple questions?

Mike Elzinga said:

Kris said: First of all, I'm not a creationist. And second, who the fuck is Elsberry and why should I care what he says? Does Elsberry define everything and speak for everyone on Earth?

The fact that you don’t know this is one of the most reveling things you have posted. It not only confirms what we have been saying about the fact that you know absolutely nothing about ID/creationist history, it also reveals that you don’t avail yourself of even the most rudimentary tools for checking stuff out. The cops will be along soon. It just happens to be vacation time.

Kris said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Johan said:Unfortunately it's not the same for the atheist, Darwinian processes have to be true one way or another as evidence for design would have some disturbing implications for atheism. The theist doesn't need design in the same way the atheist needs Darwin, because evidence for design would call atheism in question.

False dichotomy. Darwin's thesis could be dead wrong, but that doesn't rule out other possibilities besides a theistic creation. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Like what other possibilities? And be as specific and thorough as you evolutionary theory worshipers expect and demand ID-ists and creationists to be when describing their beliefs, theories, methods, hypotheses, standards, and all that jazz.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Frank J said: Ouch, has this thread degenerated! If you don't mind I have a few questions for the group, and will appreciate any help, as I don't have the time to sift through 200+ comments. But has Johan answered my simple questions about whether he agrees with Behe on the age of life and common descent? Have Kris and any other evolution-deniers on this thread clearly stated their positions on those two simple questions?

No and no, to nobody's great surprise, although Kris will no doubt claim to have done so and will then berate us all for not appreciating his brilliance. The MadPanda, FCD

Frank J said: Ouch, has this thread degenerated! If you don't mind I have a few questions for the group, and will appreciate any help, as I don't have the time to sift through 200+ comments. But has Johan answered my simple questions about whether he agrees with Behe on the age of life and common descent? Have Kris and any other evolution-deniers on this thread clearly stated their positions on those two simple questions?

mrg said:

John Kwok said: You are either a prime candidate for a mental institution like Bellevue's psych ward ...

Ah, Bellevue, made infamous in various jazz lyrics about where people end up when things get too rough for them.

Mike Elzinga said: My only response was, “Yup.”

Frank J said: Then why do y'all keep feeding them?

Aw, trolls get fed, no way around it. Almost everybody has the temptation -- I do, at least up to the point where I instinctly skip over postings by a troll whose repetition has sunk into my brain -- and some think they have a sacred obligation to bark back at them.

PT's security is very low -- any Proboards forum has much better security tech, and it doesn't seem that the people who run PT care much about the matter. So I shrug and accept it.

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said: Johan does not seem to understand that science must go where the evidence leads, full stop, end of question. It is not always 'right' because sometimes the tools needed to build the tools to build the instruments to run the experiment do not yet exist. It is, however, both self-correcting and additive. The presumption of a designer is neither: it adds nothing to anyone's understanding of the world, provides no new knowledge, and cannot be of any practical use. The MadPanda, FCD

How do you know that? Maybe the tools and instruments haven't been conceived or built "yet" to find out.

Chris Caprette: "I think Johan pretty clearly stated his thusly: "ID says there certain patterns in the natural world that are best explained as the result of intelligence'."

Heck, even Ken Miller, who is arguably the #1 opponent of ID/creationism would agree that intelligence (or something greater) is ultimately responsible. But he doesn't pretend that intelligence (or something greater) can be detected from ever-shrinking, sought and fabricated "gaps."

But even is Johan, Kris, Behe, Dembski, etc. were right, the onus is on them to state clearly what the designer did, when or how. Even YECs can do that without hesitation. Which tells me that IDers are just jerking y'all around. But you don't have to let them. Just keep asking them questions about their "theory" and, if my experience is any indication, they disappear fast.

Chris Caprette said: Kris/Johan could you try just for a moment to address the simple question of: "What evidence do you have that intelligent design is correct?" In 10 pages of comments you have bounced between empty philosophy and pathetic personal attacks but much like Dembski's sycophant DaveScot you refuse to provide any evidence to support your position that intelligent design explains anything at all.

Frank J said: Then why do y'all keep feeding them?

Rather than responding to more asinine comments and questions from you dumbasses in this thread, I'll say this:

You idiots need to learn to read and comprehend. You constantly assume things that weren't said or implied. You deliberately avoid reasonable, legitimate questions, and/or you respond with irrelevant and/or vicious remarks. Your hypocrisy is off the charts and your arrogance is astounding. Your childish behavior is clearly apparent and your denial is thorough.

Johan shows intelligence and curiosity; two extremely important attributes of a good scientist. He doesn't have all the answers to everything but he doesn't claim to have them. You morons, on the other hand, act as though you know everything and never even need to consider anything other than what you already think is the absolute and complete truth about nature.

The lack of intelligence and comprehension on this site is truly amazing. Luckily, there is a lot more to the world than this site and you incredibly ignorant retards.

Kris said:

The MadPanda, FCD said: Johan does not seem to understand that science must go where the evidence leads, full stop, end of question. It is not always 'right' because sometimes the tools needed to build the tools to build the instruments to run the experiment do not yet exist. It is, however, both self-correcting and additive. The presumption of a designer is neither: it adds nothing to anyone's understanding of the world, provides no new knowledge, and cannot be of any practical use. The MadPanda, FCD

How do you know that? Maybe the tools and instruments haven't been conceived or built "yet" to find out.

Frank J said: But even is Johan, Kris, Behe, Dembski, etc. were right, the onus is on them to state clearly what the designer did, when or how. Even YECs can do that without hesitation. Which tells me that IDers are just jerking y'all around. But you don't have to let them. Just keep asking them questions about their "theory" and, if my experience is any indication, they disappear fast.

Johan said: Why will no one here ever see a fair point I make? When I show that ID did not start after some court rulings, you ignore my point and you move the goal posts? When I explain the fundamental difference between the logic of ID and creationism and explain the different questions they address you ignore my point. How can one ever have a fair discussion when evolutionists here (or anywhere else for that matter) would not even grant these simple points?

Mike Elzinga said: I don’t think anyone here actually cares one way or the other; but Kris doesn’t know that, nor would he care. There are apparently some really violent fantasies going on in his head as he trolls here.

Kris said: Rather than responding to more asinine comments and questions from you dumbasses in this thread, I'll say this: You idiots need to learn to read and comprehend. You constantly assume things that weren't said or implied. You deliberately avoid reasonable, legitimate questions, and/or you respond with irrelevant and/or vicious remarks. Your hypocrisy is off the charts and your arrogance is astounding. Your childish behavior is clearly apparent and your denial is thorough. Johan shows intelligence and curiosity; two extremely important attributes of a good scientist. He doesn't have all the answers to everything but he doesn't claim to have them. You morons, on the other hand, act as though you know everything and never even need to consider anything other than what you already think is the absolute and complete truth about nature. The lack of intelligence and comprehension on this site is truly amazing. Luckily, there is a lot more to the world than this site and you incredibly ignorant retards.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: The phrase "intelligent design" appears in various works at times before 1987, but not to be defined and signified as if it represented a field of human inquiry. That happened in the second known 1987 draft of the textbook that would be published as "Of Pandas and People". It was presented that way as a sham to cram as many antievolutionary creationism arguments into the public schools as the antievolution advocates thought that they could get away with at the time. The fact that the same kind of shenanigans had been tried before and caught didn't help them out.

Heh! "Didn't help them out" ... yeah, it would be fun (well, not much fun) to trace out the evolution of creationist ploys: creation science, equal time, evolution is a religion, intelligent design, teach the controversy, strengths & weaknesses ...

I must admit that the "ID isn't stealth creationism" ploy is particularly annoying, because it's only when that specific question is raised that they do anything to try to conceal the fact.

Kris said: How do you know that? Maybe the tools and instruments haven't been conceived or built "yet" to find out.

Kris said: Rather than responding to more asinine comments and questions from you dumbasses in this thread, I'll say this: You idiots need to learn to read and comprehend. You constantly assume things that weren't said or implied. You deliberately avoid reasonable, legitimate questions, and/or you respond with irrelevant and/or vicious remarks. Your hypocrisy is off the charts and your arrogance is astounding. Your childish behavior is clearly apparent and your denial is thorough. Johan shows intelligence and curiosity; two extremely important attributes of a good scientist. He doesn't have all the answers to everything but he doesn't claim to have them. You morons, on the other hand, act as though you know everything and never even need to consider anything other than what you already think is the absolute and complete truth about nature. The lack of intelligence and comprehension on this site is truly amazing. Luckily, there is a lot more to the world than this site and you incredibly ignorant retards.

Well Kris, let's be "scientific" about you and gather some data. Several here hypothesize that you are a troll. If so, we should see a pattern whereby you taunt and insult people, and offer no constructive engagement. So, I went through all of the posts here, and following is a comprehensive list of your posts. As you can see, most of them can be summarized with a single word. Now, after reading this, please tell us why the moderator should not ban you to the bathroom wall immediately? Even "I Believe in God" at the very least attempted to argue "something*. My reading of this is that you do not even qualify as a new "chew toy." Enough said. Maybe if you have a point, someone can respond to it.

page 1…no comments

Page 2...

1) agree with an ID supporter and insult PT posters

2) an exemplary post which can be used to illustrate the tone of most of the others…. “I can’t help but wonder if you were born with a ‘Bitch’ gene, or if you simply learned to be so arrogant, angry, and self-righteous.
Is everyone who doesn’t kiss your nasty ass automatically a creationist multi-ID sociopathic troll with no life?”

3) long list of insults. No content.

4) insult

5) claim to defend science. No content.

Page 3…

1) defend Johan

2) claim to be a better scientist than everyone here. Attack comments and insult commenters. No content.

3) Implicit threat of violence. Insult poster. No content.

Page 4…

1) insult and accusation. No content.

2) insult

3) insult, claim about definitions of ID and creationism with no clear point other than to deride the Dover decision

4) post claiming that ID and creationism are different and mean different things. No clear point.

Page 5….nothing

Page 6 … nothing

Page 7…

1) claim that judges decision in Dover only applied to that case, with implication that it has no relevance to other discourse on ID.

2) claim Kris is not a creationist, insult

3) insult with odd taunt

4) insult, claim words were “twisted”

5) insult. Claim that discussion is cut-off if not agreeing with regular posters. First substantial comment – claims that fractal geometry can be used as evidenced for design.

6) claims to be misunderstood and misrepresented. Claims definitions of ID and creationism vary.

7) questions poster whether they claim there is no evidence for intelligent design in nature.

Page 8…

1) insult

2) insult

3) insult

4) defend Johan with idea the ID was around before Dover trial, insult.

Page 9….

1) insult

2) defend Johan, accuse PT posters of moving goalposts.

3) insult, claim not to be a creationist, more insults.

4) claims there are no scientists here except himself and a creationist

5) asks for alternatives to evolution apart from ID. Insult

6) denies claim of design.

7) insult

Page 10…

1) insult.

2) insult

3) point out that a poster misread a post. Insult

4) asks questions about the tools of science. Unclear how this undermines the poster’s point.

5) insult

6) insult

7) long list of insults. Defense of Johan as showing intelligence and curiosity.

The phrase “intelligent design” appears in various works at times before 1987, but not to be defined and signified as if it represented a field of human inquiry.

That happened in the second known 1987 draft of the textbook that would be published as “Of Pandas and People”. It was presented that way as a sham to cram as many antievolutionary creationism arguments into the public schools as the antievolution advocates thought that they could get away with at the time.

“That said (smile), this was the perfect case.”

You're funny, Lee.

"Design theory?" What theory? Allow me to refresh your memory that "intelligent design" the definition consists of an unsupported assertion followed by a negative argument against the real scientific theory of evolution. Where's the theory, Lee?

I realize you probably forgot, Lee, but there is no definition of design nor any metric to measure design.

ID isn't falsely conflated with creationism, it is creationism as documented by the history of the ID movement and by the actions and very words of the ID promoters.

Come on, Lee, don't be coy! Enlighten us on the theory of intelligent design. Oops, looks like your bungee cord is contracting, Lee. See you later!

(I realize that probably wasn't the real Lee Bowman, but a sock; slow night.)

Doc Bill said: (I realize that probably wasn't the real Lee Bowman, but a sock; slow night.)

“Design theory?” What theory? Allow me to refresh your memory that “intelligent design” the definition consists of an unsupported assertion followed by a negative argument against the real scientific theory of evolution."

No, If anything, it added political shackles to scientific inquiry, by falsely conflating design theory with creationism.

sorry, but even if you liberally interpret this:

ID as a conceptual idea, ‘does’ in fact date to antiquity, and yes, human inquiry logically follows.

as having any credence whatsoever, then you are either incorrect or lying to say that design theory is "conflated" with creationism.

it IS creationism.

and always has been, even if you define it terms of platonic ideals.

thus, when applied even conceptually, it has always suffered from the same, unanswerable question:

"who is the designer?"

If there is no actual answer to that, when applied to any observable artifact, then it is vacuous in application.

for example, sure, you can technically say a beaver dam is "designed", but the only reason we know that is because WE HAVE OBSERVED BEAVERS IN THE PROCESS.

likewise, for any anthropomorphic design inference to any particular artifact, aka, anthropology, the hypothesis is tested against how we already know humans can and have interacted with their environment.

so, thus, the design inference is either:

superficial and mundane

or

erroneous and vacuous.

so, if you really want to stretch your definition of "intelligent design" backwards, you similarly have to submit to the same reasoning.

IOW: it really doens't matter if you contend the design inference is old or new.

it's still a non-starter.

"Probably a sockpuppet of the same insipid troll impersonating Michael Behe, Bill Dembski and a couple other Discovery Institute frauds."

Nice try Stanton, buy you are way off base. My views are solely my own.

‘Design Theory’ is a general term, same as ID.

no, it isn't.

ID exists as an alternate hypothesis

by definition, hypotheses are testable.

ID is not testable.

ergo, it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

and is coherent in most regards to evolutionary theory

no, it isn't.

you're very confused.

“who is the designer?”

Lee Bowman (aka, Kris) said: One school board’s actions, along with a book with some creationist leanings, simply do not make that case.

But did that event invent open up a new field of “scientific inquiry” (a promotion of NDE I assume). No, If anything, it added political shackles to scientific inquiry, by falsely conflating design theory with creationism.

by definition, hypotheses are testable. ID is not testable.

Lee Bowman said:

“Design theory?” What theory? Allow me to refresh your memory that “intelligent design” the definition consists of an unsupported assertion followed by a negative argument against the real scientific theory of evolution."

'Design Theory' is a general term, same as ID. ID exists as an alternate hypothesis to natural selection rather than a separate developed theory, and is coherent in most regards to evolutionary theory. IOW, it addresses the same data. Got that?

These poor trolls simply will not learn the history of ID/creationism.

Lee Bowman said:

by definition, hypotheses are testable. ID is not testable.

Nor is radical speciation (novel body plans by empirical means). Nor the Big Bang, except by appealing to various observable effects (red shift). There is much in science that is not empirically demonstrable.

Nor is radical speciation

gibberish.

Irrelevant to design detection.

tell that to any anthropologist for a good laugh at your expense.

Nor the Big Bang, except by appealing to various observable effects (red shift)

that would be testing via empirically testable predictions, so, you'd be wrong.

I’m thinking that what you refer to as a troll is one who studies science issues daily, and has no religious preconceptions.

no, I'm pretty convinced you're horribly confused, about a great many things.

These will be adddressed in my paper, if I write one.

LOL

yes, you better get right on that!

perhaps you could submit it to the comics section of your local newspaper?

or, here:

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main

meh, same end result.

Lee Bowman said:

These poor trolls simply will not learn the history of ID/creationism.

I'm thinking that what you refer to as a troll is one who studies science issues daily, and has no religious preconceptions. I analyze the data from an engineering perspective. I'm presently working on muscle and ligament placement, and just may come up with data to support design constraints as not only the most likely, but necesssary. Now you can bring up 'poor design' arguments (lower back pain), but NO mechanistic constructs work perfectly, or without wear and degredation. These will be adddressed in my paper, if I write one.

How does Intelligent Design address the data? As “Intelligent Design” is currently used, all of its proponents merely state “this looks designed, therefore, it is designed,” with “designed” being a synonym and euphemism for “GODDIDIT”

I have yet to get an honest answer from creationists (of the ID variety or any other flavor) as to why they are so obsessed with getting their religion into public schools. Are their children not brainwashed enough at church and at home? Isn't homeschooling of their own intellectually benighted offspring sufficient to ward off the scary demons of the Real World? No? Well, they have obviously failed as parents, then, if they believe that a week, at most, of evolutionary theory in science class will erode their spawns' faith in Jesus and Bible-learnin'. The only response they seem capable of delivering is, "why are you atheists so a-skeered of your kids learning that goddidit?", because, you know, non-fundie parents are so frightened by Jesus that they've made certain that their kids have been completely insulated from all things religious by the time they hit high school. *snort*

Of course, this isn't really about THEIR kids, it's about trying to force their religious doctrine upon OTHER peoples' kids and using tax payer dollars to do so. Assholes. Then, naturally, they trot out the lame-o "evolution is a religion, too, so you can't teach that in public schools" idiocy to try to level the playing field in their feeble little minds.

They really are a contemptable bunch of jackals, aren't tbey?

If there are no radical speciation occurring

I think you may be missing his level of understanding, there, Stanton.

You're addressing real world observable instances of speciation, while I think Lee is addressing the "cat-gives-birth-to-dog" level of strawman normally reserved for those with IQ's less than 80, or the clinically insane.

I predict communication fail, unless you actually drink enough wood alcohol to cause permanent brain damage.

It ain't worth it.

for the record, I have seen Lee post before, and I don't think it uses sockpuppetry.

always a first time, though.

but it would include statistical probabilities (and improbabilities of natural selection is specific instances)

...that ID supporters like yourself pretend not to pull out of their asses.

LOL

Lee Bowman said:

How does Intelligent Design address the data? As “Intelligent Design” is currently used, all of its proponents merely state “this looks designed, therefore, it is designed,” with “designed” being a synonym and euphemism for “GODDIDIT”

I realize that "design inference" is a somewhat nebulous term, but it would include statistical probabilities (and improbabilities of natural selection is specific instances), and factors contra to reproductive and/or survival advantages. An earlier commenter asked, if not natural causation, then why ID? I would ask then, what is a third categorical causality? IOW, if not fully 'natural', then guided (intentioned) would naturally follow. And no, the Christian God is not required here. Any celestial entities are possibilities, and I don't mean aliens. Spirit entities are one possibility, since cosmic travel lugging a bioform along is not only impractical, but would be frankly impossible. Too fragile, and too much metabolic support required. But whatever, if design is operative in bioforms, interacting intelligences would necessarily follow.

Who the hell is this Lee Bowman fellow and why does anyone think he may be Kris? Just curious. A troll is a troll, but some trolls are more troublesome than others. Like David Mabus; anyone remember him?

Why are ‘poor design’ arguments not arguments against “Intelligent Design”? Why would lower back pain be the hallmark of an Intelligent Designer (who is either cruel or incompetent to have designed such an imperfect structure prone to pain and degradation), rather than side-effects of a quadrupedal anatomy having assumed a long-term bipedal stance over the course of evolution?

Lee Bowman said:

These poor trolls simply will not learn the history of ID/creationism.

I'm thinking that what you refer to as a troll is one who studies science issues daily, and has no religious preconceptions .

Why build a 400 HP race car when you know full well that it can crash and burn.

why build an argument like ID, that has crashed and burned totally and repeatedly?

might care less regarding ‘perfect’ design

and just make it look like the imperfect "designs" are EXACTLY what would be predicted based on the ToE?

bastards!

OK, don’t believe me.

no worries there, chief.

btw...

you're bugfuck nuts.

Lee Bowman said: Why build a 400 HP race car when you know full well that it can crash and burn. IOW, cosmic designers, and I hold somewhat to MDS (multiple designer theory), might care less regarding 'perfect' design. And anyway, physical bodies were never intended to never degrade and break down. Further, they are not the end point of consciousness, but merely a vehicle for a spirit based entity (you, my friend). OK, don't believe me. Accept carte blanche instead the prevailing synaptical consciousness consensus position held by most neurologists et al.

Lee Bowman said:

Why are ‘poor design’ arguments not arguments against “Intelligent Design”? Why would lower back pain be the hallmark of an Intelligent Designer (who is either cruel or incompetent to have designed such an imperfect structure prone to pain and degradation), rather than side-effects of a quadrupedal anatomy having assumed a long-term bipedal stance over the course of evolution?

Why build a 400 HP race car when you know full well that it can crash and burn. IOW, cosmic designers, and I hold somewhat to MDS (multiple designer theory), might care less regarding 'perfect' design. And anyway, physical bodies were never intended to never degrade and break down. Further, they are not the end point of consciousness, but merely a vehicle for a spirit based entity (you, my friend). OK, don't believe me. Accept carte blanche instead the prevailing synaptical consciousness consensus position held by most neurologists et al.

If you can not, or will not identify the “Intelligent Designer” then “Intelligent Design” is utterly useless.

the prevailing synaptical consciousness consensus position held by most neurologists et al.

ROFLMAO

Lee Bowman said:

If you can not, or will not identify the “Intelligent Designer” then “Intelligent Design” is utterly useless.

To identify the design would be religion, or an a priori viewpoint promulgated.

Lee Bowman said:

If you can not, or will not identify the “Intelligent Designer” then “Intelligent Design” is utterly useless.

To identify the design would be religion, or an a priori viewpoint promulgated.

To identify the design would be religion,

right. anthropology being an example? Cool; I'll alert my anthro buddies they can register themselves as religious ministers for the tax deduction.

or an a priori viewpoint promulgated.

more like a post-hoc one, and a bad one at that, being projected.

Hey, stupid! You do realize that natural selection doesn’t give a damn about whether or not individuals live forever. Evolution involves not the “survival of the fittest” (a phrase we really should toss out of the scientific vocabulary), but the reproduction of the fit enough. And that accounts for all the design flaws we see. Intelligent Design does not and never could.

Lee Bowman said:

Hey, stupid! You do realize that natural selection doesn’t give a damn about whether or not individuals live forever. Evolution involves not the “survival of the fittest” (a phrase we really should toss out of the scientific vocabulary), but the reproduction of the fit enough. And that accounts for all the design flaws we see. Intelligent Design does not and never could.

OK, then why hasn't natural selection gotten rid of back pain?

Then explain to me why Forensics, Archaeology, the SETI Program, and the Fashion Industry are all religions, as these all require that designs and designers be meticulously identified.

Lee Bowman said:

Dale Husband said: Hey, stupid! You do realize that natural selection doesn’t give a damn about whether or not individuals live forever. Evolution involves not the “survival of the fittest” (a phrase we really should toss out of the scientific vocabulary), but the reproduction of the fit enough. And that accounts for all the design flaws we see. Intelligent Design does not and never could.

OK, then why hasn't natural selection gotten rid of back pain?

Correction:

"Uh uh. With paleontology, we’re dealing with incarnate blokes ... "

Than should be 'carnate' blokes

If you have understood what I wrote, you phony, you’d know already. People with back pain still reproduce well enough.

Lee Bowman said:

How does Intelligent Design address the data? As “Intelligent Design” is currently used, all of its proponents merely state “this looks designed, therefore, it is designed,” with “designed” being a synonym and euphemism for “GODDIDIT”

I realize that "design inference" is a somewhat nebulous term, but it would include statistical probabilities (and improbabilities of natural selection is specific instances), and factors contra to reproductive and/or survival advantages. An earlier commenter asked, if not natural causation, then why ID? I would ask then, what is a third categorical causality? IOW, if not fully 'natural', then guided (intentioned) would naturally follow. And no, the Christian God is not required here. Any celestial entities are possibilities, and I don't mean aliens. Spirit entities are one possibility, since cosmic travel lugging a bioform along is not only impractical, but would be frankly impossible. Too fragile, and too much metabolic support required. But whatever, if design is operative in bioforms, interacting intelligences would necessarily follow.

Lee Bowman said:

Then explain to me why Forensics, Archaeology, the SETI Program, and the Fashion Industry are all religions, as these all require that designs and designers be meticulously identified.

Uh uh. With paleontology, we're dealing with incarnate blokes that can often be identified via fossilized remains. So your parallel to a cosmic designer sucks!

Lee Bowman said: Correction: "Uh uh. With paleontology, we’re dealing with incarnate blokes ... " Than should be 'carnate' blokes

If you actually studied Evolutionary Biology, you’d realize that natural selection is limited in what can and can’t be selected against, especially since back pain is not a hindrance to procreation. Furthermore, you still have not finished explaining why back pain is supposed to be evidence of magic, imperceptible, undetectable space spirits, AND you still haven’t explained why that’s supposed to be scientific. Or even why it’s supposed to be unnecessary to bother with identifying the intelligence behind “Intelligent Design”

Now you make even less sense. How is this suppose to explain how Forensics, Archaeology, the Fashion Industry and the SETI Project are or are not religions? Then again, you clearly have no desire to defend your inane, nonsensical “claims”

Lee Bowman said:

If you actually studied Evolutionary Biology, you’d realize that natural selection is limited in what can and can’t be selected against, especially since back pain is not a hindrance to procreation. Furthermore, you still have not finished explaining why back pain is supposed to be evidence of magic, imperceptible, undetectable space spirits, AND you still haven’t explained why that’s supposed to be scientific. Or even why it’s supposed to be unnecessary to bother with identifying the intelligence behind “Intelligent Design”

Lower back pain is simply the result of vertebrate wear, calcification of nerve passage ways, and largely due to lack of toning the proper support musclature.

What's your take on vertebrate eye design?

Stanton ranted, "Paleontology does not deal with identification of designers."

If you'll read back, I think you'll see that the correlation relates to 'forensic study', not who designed the paleo finds.

Lee Bowman said:

Now you make even less sense. How is this suppose to explain how Forensics, Archaeology, the Fashion Industry and the SETI Project are or are not religions? Then again, you clearly have no desire to defend your inane, nonsensical “claims”

Why would they be? You're the one making no sense Stanton. Religion within science is a non-sequitur (look it up).

Lee Bowman said: Stanton ranted, "Paleontology does not deal with identification of designers." If you'll read back, I think you'll see that the correlation relates to 'forensic study', not who designed the paleo finds.

No, you tell us why you think that the vertebrate eye design is supposed to be the result of invisible space spirits that can neither be perceived or leave evidence of their passing.

Yet, you were the one who claimed that needing to identify the designer is religious in nature.

correction

"WithOUT strife and competion, life would be mundane."

Lee Bowman said:

No, you tell us why you think that the vertebrate eye design is supposed to be the result of invisible space spirits that can neither be perceived or leave evidence of their passing.

Eye design entails multiple co-dependent systems that would have no function in intermediate stages. Erik Nilsson and others put forth the 'invaginated' retina premise, totally glossing over the requisite support systems. And 23 or so indepentent evolves in a relatively short time period? And with many similar organelles, such as pigments, opsin, photo receptors, and yes, glial cells?

Or, summarized in six words: What good is half an eye?

Lee Bowman said:

Or, summarized in six words: What good is half an eye?

I don't accept Dawkins' view that eyes would progress that way, each with a slight improvement. From a simple engineering perspective, the intermediates would not function. There are simply too many co-dependent systems involved, rather than simply an invaginating light sensitive patch eventially becoming what we have now. Dawkins and Nilsson are smart guys, but probably couldn't wire a light socket correctly. I exagerated to make my point, that most biologists are lacking in mechanistic (engineering) understanding, and tend to gloss over small evolutionary steps as logical precursers. Have you seen the cartoon of the prof by the blackboard? (who hasn't) Change the caption from "And then a miracle occurs" to "And then a new function evolved". Cheers, I'm goint to hit the sack. Have service calls in the AM.

You say this, despite the fact that actual intermediate eyes have been found and described in various organisms, including mollusks and flatworms. Boy, what a liar you are!

Lee Bowman said:

Or, summarized in six words: What good is half an eye?

I don't accept Dawkins' view that eyes would progress that way, each with a slight improvement. From a simple engineering perspective, the intermediates would not function.

I read it all until page 6, then went straight to page 13. Don't think I missed anything of value.

The trolls are having themselves a real ball this x-mas season; it looks carefully designed.

I believe that's all it is about. Who orchestrated the event?

Lee Bowman said:

“Design theory?” What theory? Allow me to refresh your memory that “intelligent design” the definition consists of an unsupported assertion followed by a negative argument against the real scientific theory of evolution."

'Design Theory' is a general term, same as ID. ID exists as an alternate hypothesis to natural selection rather than a separate developed theory, and is coherent in most regards to evolutionary theory. IOW, it addresses the same data. Got that?

Lee Bowman said:

You say this, despite the fact that actual intermediate eyes have been found and described in various organisms, including mollusks and flatworms. Boy, what a liar you are!

I'm familiar with the various eye designs. Ever heard of design according to need? Or incremental design? There are lesser designs, as well as those with enhanced night and distance vision that eclipse ours, save for lessened color detection. Each fits a particular need. Natural repro functions are in place, but there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that each evolved on-its-own from lesser forms. Cars and computers have evolved, and yes, they largely self-reproduce due to 'designed' assembly fixtures. Similarly, bioforms self-assemble via designed-in mechanisms as well. What is their commonality? Designers, and no, I kid you (lie) not.

Dale Husband said:

Lee Bowman said:

Or, summarized in six words: What good is half an eye?

I don't accept Dawkins' view that eyes would progress that way, each with a slight improvement. From a simple engineering perspective, the intermediates would not function. There are simply too many co-dependent systems involved, rather than simply an invaginating light sensitive patch eventially becoming what we have now. Dawkins and Nilsson are smart guys, but probably couldn't wire a light socket correctly. I exagerated to make my point, that most biologists are lacking in mechanistic (engineering) understanding, and tend to gloss over small evolutionary steps as logical precursers. Have you seen the cartoon of the prof by the blackboard? (who hasn't) Change the caption from "And then a miracle occurs" to "And then a new function evolved". Cheers, I'm goint to hit the sack. Have service calls in the AM.

You say this, despite the fact that actual intermediate eyes have been found and described in various organisms, including mollusks and flatworms. Boy, what a liar you are!

Lee Bowman said:

If you can not, or will not identify the “Intelligent Designer” then “Intelligent Design” is utterly useless.

To identify the design would be religion, or an a priori viewpoint promulgated.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Lee Bowman said:

Or, summarized in six words: What good is half an eye?

I don't accept Dawkins' view that eyes would progress that way, each with a slight improvement. From a simple engineering perspective, the intermediates would not function. There are simply too many co-dependent systems involved, rather than simply an invaginating light sensitive patch eventially becoming what we have now. Dawkins and Nilsson are smart guys, but probably couldn't wire a light socket correctly. I exagerated to make my point, that most biologists are lacking in mechanistic (engineering) understanding, and tend to gloss over small evolutionary steps as logical precursers. Have you seen the cartoon of the prof by the blackboard? (who hasn't) Change the caption from "And then a miracle occurs" to "And then a new function evolved". Cheers, I'm goint to hit the sack. Have service calls in the AM.

You say this, despite the fact that actual intermediate eyes have been found and described in various organisms, including mollusks and flatworms. Boy, what a liar you are!

Dale, you call people liars just because they don't say whatever it is you want them to. You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth. You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

Stanton said:

Lee Bowman said:

How does Intelligent Design address the data? As “Intelligent Design” is currently used, all of its proponents merely state “this looks designed, therefore, it is designed,” with “designed” being a synonym and euphemism for “GODDIDIT”

I realize that "design inference" is a somewhat nebulous term, but it would include statistical probabilities (and improbabilities of natural selection is specific instances), and factors contra to reproductive and/or survival advantages. An earlier commenter asked, if not natural causation, then why ID? I would ask then, what is a third categorical causality? IOW, if not fully 'natural', then guided (intentioned) would naturally follow. And no, the Christian God is not required here. Any celestial entities are possibilities, and I don't mean aliens. Spirit entities are one possibility, since cosmic travel lugging a bioform along is not only impractical, but would be frankly impossible. Too fragile, and too much metabolic support required. But whatever, if design is operative in bioforms, interacting intelligences would necessarily follow.

If you can not, or will not identify the "Intelligent Designer" then "Intelligent Design" is utterly useless. All of the sciences that deal with "design," i.e., Archaeology, Forensics, etc, all require that the "intelligence behind the design" be identified, so one can recognize who, what, where, when, and how the "intelligence" works. And if you have to posit inane gibberish about spirits and bioforms, and imply that your babbling jargon is somehow more informative and more scientific than what actual scientists are working on, then why don't you just go away and stop bothering us? You clearly don't know a single thing you're prattling on about.

Kris said: Dale, you call people liars just because they don't say whatever it is you want them to. You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth. You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

‘Design Theory’ is a general term, same as ID. ID exists as an alternate hypothesis to natural selection rather than a separate developed theory, and is coherent in most regards to evolutionary theory. IOW, it addresses the same data. Got that?

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Lee Bowman said:

How does Intelligent Design address the data? As “Intelligent Design” is currently used, all of its proponents merely state “this looks designed, therefore, it is designed,” with “designed” being a synonym and euphemism for “GODDIDIT”

I realize that "design inference" is a somewhat nebulous term, but it would include statistical probabilities (and improbabilities of natural selection is specific instances), and factors contra to reproductive and/or survival advantages. An earlier commenter asked, if not natural causation, then why ID? I would ask then, what is a third categorical causality? IOW, if not fully 'natural', then guided (intentioned) would naturally follow. And no, the Christian God is not required here. Any celestial entities are possibilities, and I don't mean aliens. Spirit entities are one possibility, since cosmic travel lugging a bioform along is not only impractical, but would be frankly impossible. Too fragile, and too much metabolic support required. But whatever, if design is operative in bioforms, interacting intelligences would necessarily follow.

If you can not, or will not identify the "Intelligent Designer" then "Intelligent Design" is utterly useless. All of the sciences that deal with "design," i.e., Archaeology, Forensics, etc, all require that the "intelligence behind the design" be identified, so one can recognize who, what, where, when, and how the "intelligence" works. And if you have to posit inane gibberish about spirits and bioforms, and imply that your babbling jargon is somehow more informative and more scientific than what actual scientists are working on, then why don't you just go away and stop bothering us? You clearly don't know a single thing you're prattling on about.

If you cannot, or will not "identify" the alleged origins, steps, causes, and processes behind the alleged Big Bang, alleged formation of the Earth, our solar system and our galaxy, alleged age, size, and content of our universe and any other universes, alleged plate tectonics, alleged abiogenesis, and alleged speciation/evolution in/of every organism that has ever existed anywhere, including who, what, where, when, and how all those alleged things work and worked, then any hypothesis or theory or speculation or inference or concept or discussion regarding them is utterly useless, right?.

Kris said: If you cannot, or will not "identify" the alleged origins, steps, causes, and processes behind the alleged Big Bang, alleged formation of the Earth, our solar system and our galaxy, alleged age, size, and content of our universe and any other universes, alleged plate tectonics, alleged abiogenesis, and alleged speciation/evolution in/of every organism that has ever existed anywhere, including who, what, where, when, and how all those alleged things work and worked, then any hypothesis or theory or speculation or inference or concept or discussion regarding them is utterly useless, right?.

Mike Elzinga said:

Lee Bowman (aka, Kris) said: One school board’s actions, along with a book with some creationist leanings, simply do not make that case.

These poor trolls simply will not learn the history of ID/creationism.

But did that event invent open up a new field of “scientific inquiry” (a promotion of NDE I assume). No, If anything, it added political shackles to scientific inquiry, by falsely conflating design theory with creationism.

And this is why Kris refuses to read those transcripts and the other court cases listed over at NCSE; it would completely shoot down his attempt to change the perception of history. What Kris wants is to claim that ID had nothing to do with creationism because the terms technically mean different things (word gaming is a standard shibboleth of creationists). And he wants to ignore the puppet masters behind the socio/political tactics that keep putting these cases in the courts with the hope that some judge will see it their way and allow ID/creationism creep to start taking place in public school classrooms. As we have always noted, the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion means for ID/creationists the freedom to force everyone else to adopt their sectarian dogmas.

Doc Bill said: Lee babbled thusly:

‘Design Theory’ is a general term, same as ID. ID exists as an alternate hypothesis to natural selection rather than a separate developed theory, and is coherent in most regards to evolutionary theory. IOW, it addresses the same data. Got that?

Nice slogan, Lee: ID - Got Theory? No, I don't "got that." I asked you to explain the theory of ID, and, please, use your own words; we're informal around here. You said nothing. You just said, well, it's not a theory, it's an hypothesis. What is this, Lee, Alice in Wonderland? Please, Lee, define design, a metric for design and how to measure it objectively. I'm not asking for a designer or a mechanism. Is that so hard?

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Lee Bowman (aka, Kris) said: One school board’s actions, along with a book with some creationist leanings, simply do not make that case.

These poor trolls simply will not learn the history of ID/creationism.

But did that event invent open up a new field of “scientific inquiry” (a promotion of NDE I assume). No, If anything, it added political shackles to scientific inquiry, by falsely conflating design theory with creationism.

And this is why Kris refuses to read those transcripts and the other court cases listed over at NCSE; it would completely shoot down his attempt to change the perception of history. What Kris wants is to claim that ID had nothing to do with creationism because the terms technically mean different things (word gaming is a standard shibboleth of creationists). And he wants to ignore the puppet masters behind the socio/political tactics that keep putting these cases in the courts with the hope that some judge will see it their way and allow ID/creationism creep to start taking place in public school classrooms. As we have always noted, the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion means for ID/creationists the freedom to force everyone else to adopt their sectarian dogmas.

You, like most here, obviously believe that you, the courts, or certain people (certain alleged and so-called 'ID/creationists') are the ultimate and only definers of all words/terms. You, like most here, also obviously believe that every thought, concept, speculation, idea, inference, hypothesis, theory, etc. in the human mind or vocabulary must be and only is decided and defined or definable by you, certain 'ID/creationists', or judges, and especially one particular judge who presided over one particular case. Amazing.

If you aren’t a Creationist, and you don’t support Intelligent Design, why do you keep insisting that we give Intelligent Design a chance?

— Stanton

TomS said:

Kris said: If you cannot, or will not "identify" the alleged origins, steps, causes, and processes behind the alleged Big Bang, alleged formation of the Earth, our solar system and our galaxy, alleged age, size, and content of our universe and any other universes, alleged plate tectonics, alleged abiogenesis, and alleged speciation/evolution in/of every organism that has ever existed anywhere, including who, what, where, when, and how all those alleged things work and worked, then any hypothesis or theory or speculation or inference or concept or discussion regarding them is utterly useless, right?.

If.

mplavcan said: Well Kris, let's be "scientific" about you and gather some data. Several here hypothesize that you are a troll. If so, we should see a pattern whereby you taunt and insult people, and offer no constructive engagement. So, I went through all of the posts here, and following is a comprehensive list of your posts. As you can see, most of them can be summarized with a single word. Now, after reading this, please tell us why the moderator should not ban you to the bathroom wall immediately? Even "I Believe in God" at the very least attempted to argue "something*. My reading of this is that you do not even qualify as a new "chew toy." Enough said. Maybe if you have a point, someone can respond to it. page 1…no comments Page 2... 1) agree with an ID supporter and insult PT posters 2) an exemplary post which can be used to illustrate the tone of most of the others…. “I can’t help but wonder if you were born with a ‘Bitch’ gene, or if you simply learned to be so arrogant, angry, and self-righteous. Is everyone who doesn’t kiss your nasty ass automatically a creationist multi-ID sociopathic troll with no life?” 3) long list of insults. No content. 4) insult 5) claim to defend science. No content. Page 3… 1) defend Johan 2) claim to be a better scientist than everyone here. Attack comments and insult commenters. No content. 3) Implicit threat of violence. Insult poster. No content. Page 4… 1) insult and accusation. No content. 2) insult 3) insult, claim about definitions of ID and creationism with no clear point other than to deride the Dover decision 4) post claiming that ID and creationism are different and mean different things. No clear point. Page 5….nothing Page 6 … nothing Page 7… 1) claim that judges decision in Dover only applied to that case, with implication that it has no relevance to other discourse on ID. 2) claim Kris is not a creationist, insult 3) insult with odd taunt 4) insult, claim words were “twisted” 5) insult. Claim that discussion is cut-off if not agreeing with regular posters. First substantial comment – claims that fractal geometry can be used as evidenced for design. 6) claims to be misunderstood and misrepresented. Claims definitions of ID and creationism vary. 7) questions poster whether they claim there is no evidence for intelligent design in nature. Page 8… 1) insult 2) insult 3) insult 4) defend Johan with idea the ID was around before Dover trial, insult. Page 9…. 1) insult 2) defend Johan, accuse PT posters of moving goalposts. 3) insult, claim not to be a creationist, more insults. 4) claims there are no scientists here except himself and a creationist 5) asks for alternatives to evolution apart from ID. Insult 6) denies claim of design. 7) insult Page 10… 1) insult. 2) insult 3) point out that a poster misread a post. Insult 4) asks questions about the tools of science. Unclear how this undermines the poster’s point. 5) insult 6) insult 7) long list of insults. Defense of Johan as showing intelligence and curiosity.

Doc Bill said: You're funny, Lee. "Design theory?" What theory? Allow me to refresh your memory that "intelligent design" the definition consists of an unsupported assertion followed by a negative argument against the real scientific theory of evolution. Where's the theory, Lee? I realize you probably forgot, Lee, but there is no definition of design nor any metric to measure design. ID isn't falsely conflated with creationism, it is creationism as documented by the history of the ID movement and by the actions and very words of the ID promoters. Come on, Lee, don't be coy! Enlighten us on the theory of intelligent design. Oops, looks like your bungee cord is contracting, Lee. See you later! (I realize that probably wasn't the real Lee Bowman, but a sock; slow night.)

Kris said: Dale, you call people liars just because they don't say whatever it is you want them to. You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth. You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

Kris said:

TomS said:

Kris said: If you cannot, or will not "identify" the alleged origins, steps, causes, and processes behind the alleged Big Bang, alleged formation of the Earth, our solar system and our galaxy, alleged age, size, and content of our universe and any other universes, alleged plate tectonics, alleged abiogenesis, and alleged speciation/evolution in/of every organism that has ever existed anywhere, including who, what, where, when, and how all those alleged things work and worked, then any hypothesis or theory or speculation or inference or concept or discussion regarding them is utterly useless, right?.

If.

Let's see you turn that "If" into an 'I can and will' and then do it. Go ahead. And before you or anyone else says "you do it first for ID and/or creation"; I've never said that creation or ID did and/or does occur. I've only suggested that either, in some form, are "possible". No detailed or 'scientific' definition or description of a possibility is necessary for it to be "possible".

Lee Bowman said: OK, then why hasn't natural selection gotten rid of back pain?

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Lee Bowman said:

How does Intelligent Design address the data? As “Intelligent Design” is currently used, all of its proponents merely state “this looks designed, therefore, it is designed,” with “designed” being a synonym and euphemism for “GODDIDIT”

I realize that "design inference" is a somewhat nebulous term, but it would include statistical probabilities (and improbabilities of natural selection is specific instances), and factors contra to reproductive and/or survival advantages. An earlier commenter asked, if not natural causation, then why ID? I would ask then, what is a third categorical causality? IOW, if not fully 'natural', then guided (intentioned) would naturally follow. And no, the Christian God is not required here. Any celestial entities are possibilities, and I don't mean aliens. Spirit entities are one possibility, since cosmic travel lugging a bioform along is not only impractical, but would be frankly impossible. Too fragile, and too much metabolic support required. But whatever, if design is operative in bioforms, interacting intelligences would necessarily follow.

If you can not, or will not identify the "Intelligent Designer" then "Intelligent Design" is utterly useless. All of the sciences that deal with "design," i.e., Archaeology, Forensics, etc, all require that the "intelligence behind the design" be identified, so one can recognize who, what, where, when, and how the "intelligence" works. And if you have to posit inane gibberish about spirits and bioforms, and imply that your babbling jargon is somehow more informative and more scientific than what actual scientists are working on, then why don't you just go away and stop bothering us? You clearly don't know a single thing you're prattling on about.

If you cannot, or will not "identify" the alleged origins, steps, causes, and processes behind the alleged Big Bang, alleged formation of the Earth, our solar system and our galaxy, alleged age, size, and content of our universe and any other universes, alleged plate tectonics, alleged abiogenesis, and alleged speciation/evolution in/of every organism that has ever existed anywhere, including who, what, where, when, and how all those alleged things work and worked, then any hypothesis or theory or speculation or inference or concept or discussion regarding them is utterly useless, right?.

TomS said:

Kris said:

TomS said:

Kris said: If you cannot, or will not "identify" the alleged origins, steps, causes, and processes behind the alleged Big Bang, alleged formation of the Earth, our solar system and our galaxy, alleged age, size, and content of our universe and any other universes, alleged plate tectonics, alleged abiogenesis, and alleged speciation/evolution in/of every organism that has ever existed anywhere, including who, what, where, when, and how all those alleged things work and worked, then any hypothesis or theory or speculation or inference or concept or discussion regarding them is utterly useless, right?.

If.

Let's see you turn that "If" into an 'I can and will' and then do it. Go ahead. And before you or anyone else says "you do it first for ID and/or creation"; I've never said that creation or ID did and/or does occur. I've only suggested that either, in some form, are "possible". No detailed or 'scientific' definition or description of a possibility is necessary for it to be "possible".

Ignorant windbag.

Kris said: At what exact point does something become a 'theory' instead of a thought, concept, hypothesis, assumption, experiment, speculation, guess, inference, vocalization, suggestion, discussion, debate, belief, or religious belief, and exactly who determines that point? One more thing: Have all 'scientific theories' (past and present) been proven to be completely solid and true, and does the word 'theory' automatically (or otherwise) confirm or guarantee everything or anything that is in it?

Kris said: Dale, you call people liars just because they don't say whatever it is you want them to. You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth. You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

Dale Husband said: I call people liars because they make statements that are false. If some loon says the sky is green, and I contradict him and say it is blue, am I worthy of a beating, you sick bastard?

Stanton said:

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Lee Bowman said:

How does Intelligent Design address the data? As “Intelligent Design” is currently used, all of its proponents merely state “this looks designed, therefore, it is designed,” with “designed” being a synonym and euphemism for “GODDIDIT”

I realize that "design inference" is a somewhat nebulous term, but it would include statistical probabilities (and improbabilities of natural selection is specific instances), and factors contra to reproductive and/or survival advantages. An earlier commenter asked, if not natural causation, then why ID? I would ask then, what is a third categorical causality? IOW, if not fully 'natural', then guided (intentioned) would naturally follow. And no, the Christian God is not required here. Any celestial entities are possibilities, and I don't mean aliens. Spirit entities are one possibility, since cosmic travel lugging a bioform along is not only impractical, but would be frankly impossible. Too fragile, and too much metabolic support required. But whatever, if design is operative in bioforms, interacting intelligences would necessarily follow.

If you can not, or will not identify the "Intelligent Designer" then "Intelligent Design" is utterly useless. All of the sciences that deal with "design," i.e., Archaeology, Forensics, etc, all require that the "intelligence behind the design" be identified, so one can recognize who, what, where, when, and how the "intelligence" works. And if you have to posit inane gibberish about spirits and bioforms, and imply that your babbling jargon is somehow more informative and more scientific than what actual scientists are working on, then why don't you just go away and stop bothering us? You clearly don't know a single thing you're prattling on about.

If you cannot, or will not "identify" the alleged origins, steps, causes, and processes behind the alleged Big Bang, alleged formation of the Earth, our solar system and our galaxy, alleged age, size, and content of our universe and any other universes, alleged plate tectonics, alleged abiogenesis, and alleged speciation/evolution in/of every organism that has ever existed anywhere, including who, what, where, when, and how all those alleged things work and worked, then any hypothesis or theory or speculation or inference or concept or discussion regarding them is utterly useless, right?.

And yet, why do you insist that we be forced to regard Intelligent Design as a science? If you aren't a Creationist, and you don't support Intelligent Design, why do you keep insisting that we give Intelligent Design a chance? Oh, wait, you're just a troll.

Rolf Aalberg said: I read it all until page 6, then went straight to page 13. Don't think I missed anything of value. The trolls are having themselves a real ball this x-mas season; it looks carefully designed. I believe that's all it is about. Who orchestrated the event?

Matt G said:

Lee Bowman said: OK, then why hasn't natural selection gotten rid of back pain?

This PERFECTLY illustrates what you do not – and perhaps cannot – understand: evolution is NOT directed. Evolution has no goals, no intentions. It isn't TRYING to do anything. It is a process, not a plan.

Kris said:

Matt G said: This PERFECTLY illustrates what you do not – and perhaps cannot – understand: evolution is NOT directed. Evolution has no goals, no intentions. It isn't TRYING to do anything. It is a process, not a plan.

Let's see you prove all that.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: At what exact point does something become a 'theory' instead of a thought, concept, hypothesis, assumption, experiment, speculation, guess, inference, vocalization, suggestion, discussion, debate, belief, or religious belief, and exactly who determines that point? One more thing: Have all 'scientific theories' (past and present) been proven to be completely solid and true, and does the word 'theory' automatically (or otherwise) confirm or guarantee everything or anything that is in it?

More evidence that Kris does not know how real science works. A hypothesis does not become a theory, ever. The two terms are certainly not interchangable. That is a common misconception made by many non-scientists who often say, "I have a theory how the murder was committed", when they really mean hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a specific observed phenomenon, past or present. A theory is general principle to explain and clarify an entire set of observations in a scientific field of study, and considered applicable to any future such observations in that field. Hypotheses that are thoroughly supported by evidence are considered facts, not theories. ALL things in science are considered tentative, but they must have clear and consistent support to be theories or facts. At any time, a theory or even a "fact" may be overthrown by new evidence that points to another explanation. But Creationists cannot do it with their unfounded claims.

You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth. You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Dale, you call people liars just because they don't say whatever it is you want them to. You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth. You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

I live on Earth, @$$hole. What planet of psychotic lunatics did you come from? I call people liars because they make statements that are false. If some loon says the sky is green, and I contradict him and say it is blue, am I worthy of a beating, you sick bastard?

Kris said: In other words, you can't come up with a good answer for the question I asked, and a legitimate reason as to why at least the concept/thought/idea/suggestion (take your pick) or discussion of the possibility of some form of creation and/or ID have no merit whatsoever, under any circumstances.

There is much we do not know, but there is one thing we all know: That you cannot have Intelligent Design without an Intelligent Designer. That's why we ask if you can produce that Designer for examination. All Creationists do is point to their religions, but those religions are themselves dogmatic and unfounded. So what do Creationists like you do? Claim (falsely, of course) that scientists are dogmatic bigots too. That's all they can do; they can't rise to our level, so they claim we are at theirs.

If all discussions were strictly limited to only what humans (or certain humans) can understand, find, test, analyze, verify, duplicate, prove, see, feel, hear, etc., right now or at any other point in human history, then science itself would never have come about in any way, and it wouldn't be able to make any new discoveries of any kind in the future.

What a nice bit of bullcrap! Are you sure you are sane? Oh, wait, you can't diagnose your own mental illness.

Most or all of the beliefs in religions are crap (to me), but the possibility of some form of creation and/or design is real, unless and until someone proves it isn't and can't be a possibility.

I agree. The problem is that we have a different standard for evidence than you. You let ID promoters make their claims and never challenge them even when they make absurdities, and instead attack us for challenging their absurdities. An objective person wouldn't do that. BTW, in science, like in American courts of criminal law, the burden of proof is NEVER on the one making a negative claim, but on the ones making a positive claim. How many times have you been told this?

I'm not trying to "insist" that you be "forced" to do a damn thing. I'm just tired of you guys/gals being so fucking sure of yourselves, and so fucking sure of what science has allegedly found, predicted, and verified, and so fucking sure that the so-called "scientific method" is so fucking perfect and comprehensive, and so fucking sure that scientists are all perfect people.

The history of science is something you apparently know nothing about.

A massive dose of reality and humility would do you a lot of good.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said:

Matt G said: This PERFECTLY illustrates what you do not – and perhaps cannot – understand: evolution is NOT directed. Evolution has no goals, no intentions. It isn't TRYING to do anything. It is a process, not a plan.

Let's see you prove all that.

Prove WHAT?

More evidence that Kris does not know how real science works.

ben said:

You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth. You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

Looks like we have yet another Internet Tough Guy. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Hmmmm, lost his cool and started screaming threats and obscenities. Just like JoeG always does. Go figure.

Kris said: As usual you missed the context, and the question marks, and who the questions were directed to. And your answer is not responsive to the actual questions. You are one seriously stupid, chickenshit, big mouthed dunce. So then, every time you have ever made a statement that was false, or ever will make a statement that is false, you were and will be lying. I’m so glad we got that settled. You deserve a beating because you’re an arrogant, chickenshit, big mouthed, punk ass blowhard who calls anyone who doesn’t agree with you in every way a liar.

Mike Elzinga said: Yup; that looks pretty close. We have already calculated his age to be somewhere around 12 or 13 (regardless of the physical age).

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said:

Matt G said: This PERFECTLY illustrates what you do not – and perhaps cannot – understand: evolution is NOT directed. Evolution has no goals, no intentions. It isn't TRYING to do anything. It is a process, not a plan.

Let's see you prove all that.

Prove WHAT?

His claims.

Prove WHAT? Matt G did not make a claim to be proven, but a simple statement of logic and fact. And why should we prove anything to YOU, since you will most likely deny it anyway? Still want to beat me up, you liar with the pants on fire?

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said: I call people liars because they make statements that are false. If some loon says the sky is green, and I contradict him and say it is blue, am I worthy of a beating, you sick bastard?

Apparently, yes: it's impolite to call a liar a liar, but it isn't impolite to kick someone's teeth in for not believing a liar's prattle. Apparently.

Dale Husband said:

Mike Elzinga said: Yup; that looks pretty close. We have already calculated his age to be somewhere around 12 or 13 (regardless of the physical age).

I know some 12 or 13 year olds that are better behaved than Kris. Most of them are Unitarian Universalists. Did you notice Kris bashed UUs too?

Dale Husband said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Kris said:

Matt G said: This PERFECTLY illustrates what you do not – and perhaps cannot – understand: evolution is NOT directed. Evolution has no goals, no intentions. It isn't TRYING to do anything. It is a process, not a plan.

Let's see you prove all that.

Prove WHAT?

His claims.

What claims? I'll just repeat my COMPLETE statement, @$$hole:

Prove WHAT? Matt G did not make a claim to be proven, but a simple statement of logic and fact. And why should we prove anything to YOU, since you will most likely deny it anyway? Still want to beat me up, you liar with the pants on fire?

Kris said: This claim: "evolution is NOT directed." This claim: "Evolution has no goals, no intentions." This claim: "It isn’t TRYING to do anything." And this claim: "It is a process, not a plan." Let's see Matt, or you, or anyone else prove those claims.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: This claim: "evolution is NOT directed." This claim: "Evolution has no goals, no intentions." This claim: "It isn’t TRYING to do anything." And this claim: "It is a process, not a plan." Let's see Matt, or you, or anyone else prove those claims.

For the last time, you deluded sack of $#it, those are NOT claims. They are what you conclude when you look objectively as the evidence for evolution all around us. Which you seem incapable of doing at all.

Kris said: You obviously have the same supremely egotistical affliction as Dale. You think that anyone who doesn't agree with you in every way is a liar. Tell me, what's it like to be the all powerful arbiter of truth? Maybe Dale can answer that too. After all, you guys obviously do think of yourselves that way.

Kris lied outright when he said: Actually, those are claims; positive, insistent, firmly stated claims, and since your claim of them as to not being claims is false, you're a liar.

I find it quite interesting how quickly this batch of trolls has gone from challenger to whiny victim to foul mouthed bully. but the stupidity stays coinstant.

nmgirl said: I find it quite interesting how quickly this batch of trolls has gone from challenger to whiny victim to foul mouthed bully. but the stupidity stays coinstant.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: You obviously have the same supremely egotistical affliction as Dale. You think that anyone who doesn't agree with you in every way is a liar. Tell me, what's it like to be the all powerful arbiter of truth? Maybe Dale can answer that too. After all, you guys obviously do think of yourselves that way.

Why would you say such an absurd thing? Knowing truth and calling someone a liar doesn't mean we think ourselves infallible. That's religious thinking. You seem to think that all people are blindly religious. I can assure you that's not so. Only a Creationist bigot would toss that lame canard at us. So if you deny being a Creationist, that makes you a liar.

nmgirl said: I find it quite interesting how quickly this batch of trolls has gone from challenger to whiny victim to foul mouthed bully. but the stupidity stays constant.

nmgirl said: ... stupidity stays constant.

As much as I enjoy debates in the internet, I have noticed that certain people tend to engage in tactics that cause the debates to degenerate into slugfests instead of allowing them to end on a civil note. Here are some examples of what they do: 1. Lie constantly. It does not matter if what you say has no basis in fact whatsoever. As long as you can make a counter to any statement of fact or logical argument that someone makes, you will appear to be on an equal level with your opponent. 2. Never bother to provide a basis for your assertions by linking to a credible source of information or providing a reference regarding a matter that is not common knowledge. Of course, if you are already doing No. 1, then No. 2 comes naturally. 3. Engage in the practice of what I call “parroting and nitpicking” constantly: Making an exact copy of your opponent’s arguments and answering them point by point exactly instead of stating a new point of your own to move the debate forward. This has two effects: It makes you appear equal to your opponent, no matter how dumb your statements turn out to be, and it encourages your opponent to respond to you in the same way, taking the debate into an endless circle. 4. When you are accused of lying, just call your opponent a liar as well. 5. Engage in frequent sarcastic insults to annoy your opponent. 6. When your opponent complains that your tactics are unfair or dishonorable, accuse him of not really wanting a debate. 7. If you know your opponent has a short temper, wait until his patience has run out and he has gotten angry and then take advantage of the situation to torture your opponent still more! 8. Never admit you are wrong about anything. Always accuse your opponents of not thinking or of being stupid, brainwashed, ignorant, mindless, etc. 9. Use religion as a excuse to justify your extreme position. If your opponent is not of the same religion, use that fact against him. 10. Keep the debate going as long as possible until your opponent gives up in frustration, allowing you to claim “victory” later. 11. Last. but not least, CREATE NEW PROFILES TO INFILTRATE AND THEN DISRUPT GROUPS YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY BLOCKED FROM, THUS VIOLATING THE GROUP OWNER’S PROPERTY RIGHTS! If you use these tactics repeatedly, you may appear very successful in debates. But you will also gain the contempt of most people who have a sense of honor and ethics. And that contempt for you personally may also lead to a rejection of your position as well, even if the position has some truth in it.

Dale Husband said:

Kris lied outright when he said: Actually, those are claims; positive, insistent, firmly stated claims, and since your claim of them as to not being claims is false, you're a liar.

Then you have no idea what a "claim" is and how it differs from a conclusion. Yet you claim to be a scientist? I don't believe you.

Kris said: Would anyone else would like to respond to this one from Dale? I just thought I'd give all you guys and gals a chance to show your honesty, logic, intelligence, etc., by pointing out to him that he's just playing games. Anyone? claim: to assert or maintain as a fact.

Dale Husband said: Just for fun, I will copy and paste one of my early blog entries, which deals with internet trolling. http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/how-to-make-enemies-and-irritate-people/

As much as I enjoy debates in the internet, I have noticed that certain people tend to engage in tactics that cause the debates to degenerate into slugfests instead of allowing them to end on a civil note. Here are some examples of what they do: 1. Lie constantly. It does not matter if what you say has no basis in fact whatsoever. As long as you can make a counter to any statement of fact or logical argument that someone makes, you will appear to be on an equal level with your opponent. 2. Never bother to provide a basis for your assertions by linking to a credible source of information or providing a reference regarding a matter that is not common knowledge. Of course, if you are already doing No. 1, then No. 2 comes naturally. 3. Engage in the practice of what I call “parroting and nitpicking” constantly: Making an exact copy of your opponent’s arguments and answering them point by point exactly instead of stating a new point of your own to move the debate forward. This has two effects: It makes you appear equal to your opponent, no matter how dumb your statements turn out to be, and it encourages your opponent to respond to you in the same way, taking the debate into an endless circle. 4. When you are accused of lying, just call your opponent a liar as well. 5. Engage in frequent sarcastic insults to annoy your opponent. 6. When your opponent complains that your tactics are unfair or dishonorable, accuse him of not really wanting a debate. 7. If you know your opponent has a short temper, wait until his patience has run out and he has gotten angry and then take advantage of the situation to torture your opponent still more! 8. Never admit you are wrong about anything. Always accuse your opponents of not thinking or of being stupid, brainwashed, ignorant, mindless, etc. 9. Use religion as a excuse to justify your extreme position. If your opponent is not of the same religion, use that fact against him. 10. Keep the debate going as long as possible until your opponent gives up in frustration, allowing you to claim “victory” later. 11. Last. but not least, CREATE NEW PROFILES TO INFILTRATE AND THEN DISRUPT GROUPS YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY BLOCKED FROM, THUS VIOLATING THE GROUP OWNER’S PROPERTY RIGHTS! If you use these tactics repeatedly, you may appear very successful in debates. But you will also gain the contempt of most people who have a sense of honor and ethics. And that contempt for you personally may also lead to a rejection of your position as well, even if the position has some truth in it.

I respond to people as they are. If Kris were at all sincere, he would have stated his Creationist allegiance from the start, not resorted to baseless insults at people constantly, or he wouldn't care at people throwing his own $#itty behavior back at him. Better still, if he really wanted to prove he is better than us, he would ignore any insult from others and just stick to fair arguments. He doesn't, so I see no reason to. And may I remind everyone that the first time I saw Kris here, he was arguing with Stanton about......freshwater sharks and Noah's Flood. His willful ignorance was obvious even then!

Dale Husband said: Which Matt G did not do, of course. Indeed, everything you read in science book is either a conclusion (fact), a hypothesis, or a theory, but not a claim. There are NO claims in science. If you were a real scientist, you'd know that already.

Evolution is NOT directed. Evolution has no goals, no intentions. It isn’t TRYING to do anything. It is a process, not a plan.

Dale Husband said:

Kris said: Would anyone else would like to respond to this one from Dale? I just thought I'd give all you guys and gals a chance to show your honesty, logic, intelligence, etc., by pointing out to him that he's just playing games. Anyone? claim: to assert or maintain as a fact.

Which Matt G did not do, of course. Indeed, everything you read in science book is either a conclusion (fact), a hypothesis, or a theory, but not a claim. There are NO claims in science. If you were a real scientist, you'd know that already.

Kris said: Dale, you are the very definition of 'projection', and you're a chickenshit punk to boot.

Dale Husband said:

Dale Husband said: Which Matt G did not do, of course. Indeed, everything you read in science book is either a conclusion (fact), a hypothesis, or a theory, but not a claim. There are NO claims in science. If you were a real scientist, you'd know that already.

And that is EXACTLY why Creationism (including Intelligent Design) cannot be scientific, because it does make claims and does not support its claims with anything other than assertions, even if the assertions are cloaked in scientific terminology to fool people. When you look at the fossil record, the genetic sequences of organisms, the geographic distribution of those organisms, and even their behavior and appearances today, what else can you objectively conclude but....

Evolution is NOT directed. Evolution has no goals, no intentions. It isn’t TRYING to do anything. It is a process, not a plan.

Conclusions, not claims. You lied, Kris! Again!

I find it quite interesting how quickly this batch of trolls has gone from challenger to whiny victim to foul mouthed bully. but the stupidity stays constant.

Wow. I left off at page 11 after about 1 hour with no new comments, figuring that the troll storm was over. Here it is now page 15 and the wind is up again. Nice to see that Kris has yet to contribute anything but insults, that the new guy thinks that claiming to be an engineer makes him an expert on eyes, and that the ID proponents steadfastly refuse to provide any positive support for their claim that ID explains any patterns in nature. Four additional pages of comments (~100 in all) with no substance, bummer.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Dale Husband said: Which Matt G did not do, of course. Indeed, everything you read in science book is either a conclusion (fact), a hypothesis, or a theory, but not a claim. There are NO claims in science. If you were a real scientist, you'd know that already.

And that is EXACTLY why Creationism (including Intelligent Design) cannot be scientific, because it does make claims and does not support its claims with anything other than assertions, even if the assertions are cloaked in scientific terminology to fool people. When you look at the fossil record, the genetic sequences of organisms, the geographic distribution of those organisms, and even their behavior and appearances today, what else can you objectively conclude but....

Evolution is NOT directed. Evolution has no goals, no intentions. It isn’t TRYING to do anything. It is a process, not a plan.

Conclusions, not claims. You lied, Kris! Again!

Whatever you say, delusional blowhard.

Johan said: ID makes no claims? Come again? ID has expectations just like Darwinian evolution has expectations, if the human genome is the result of a long trial and error process which makes it easier to copy errors than for natural selection to edit them out, one could expect that a lot of junk might accumulate in our genomes. However, if the human genome was the produce of intelligence, we would expect a lot more functionality for the genes in the human genome. If there happened to be DNA that did not code for proteins, one would hesitate to conclude that it was non-functional from an ID perspective. ID has expectations and these are different from evolutionary expectations.

Chris Caprette said: Wow. I left off at page 11 after about 1 hour with no new comments, figuring that the troll storm was over. Here it is now page 15 and the wind is up again. Nice to see that Kris has yet to contribute anything but insults, that the new guy thinks that claiming to be an engineer makes him an expert on eyes, and that the ID proponents steadfastly refuse to provide any positive support for their claim that ID explains any patterns in nature. Four additional pages of comments (~100 in all) with no substance, bummer.

Johan said: ID makes no claims? Come again? ID has expectations just like Darwinian evolution has expectations, if the human genome is the result of a long trial and error process which makes it easier to copy errors than for natural selection to edit them out, one could expect that a lot of junk might accumulate in our genomes. However, if the human genome was the produce of intelligence, we would expect a lot more functionality for the genes in the human genome. If there happened to be DNA that did not code for proteins, one would hesitate to conclude that it was non-functional from an ID perspective. ID has expectations and these are different from evolutionary expectations. Johan

Chris Caprette said:

Johan said: ID makes no claims? Come again? ID has expectations just like Darwinian evolution has expectations, if the human genome is the result of a long trial and error process which makes it easier to copy errors than for natural selection to edit them out, one could expect that a lot of junk might accumulate in our genomes. However, if the human genome was the produce of intelligence, we would expect a lot more functionality for the genes in the human genome. If there happened to be DNA that did not code for proteins, one would hesitate to conclude that it was non-functional from an ID perspective. ID has expectations and these are different from evolutionary expectations.

And the human genome is at least 95% junk - that is 95% or more of the human genome does not code for any functional product. Thanks for pointing out that one prediction of your version of ID failed!

Dale Husband said: And that is EXACTLY why Creationism (including Intelligent Design) cannot be scientific, because it does make claims and does not support its claims with anything other than assertions, even if the assertions are cloaked in scientific terminology to fool people. When you look at the fossil record, the genetic sequences of organisms, the geographic distribution of those organisms, and even their behavior and appearances today, what else can you objectively conclude but.... Conclusions, not claims. You lied, Kris! Again!

Kris said: Whatever you say, delusional blowhard.

Johan said: ID makes no claims? Come again? ID has expectations just like Darwinian evolution has expectations, if the human genome is the result of a long trial and error process which makes it easier to copy errors than for natural selection to edit them out, one could expect that a lot of junk might accumulate in our genomes. However, if the human genome was the produce of intelligence, we would expect a lot more functionality for the genes in the human genome. If there happened to be DNA that did not code for proteins, one would hesitate to conclude that it was non-functional from an ID perspective. ID has expectations and these are different from evolutionary expectations. Johan

Chris Caprette said:

Johan said: ID makes no claims? Come again? ID has expectations just like Darwinian evolution has expectations, if the human genome is the result of a long trial and error process which makes it easier to copy errors than for natural selection to edit them out, one could expect that a lot of junk might accumulate in our genomes. However, if the human genome was the produce of intelligence, we would expect a lot more functionality for the genes in the human genome. If there happened to be DNA that did not code for proteins, one would hesitate to conclude that it was non-functional from an ID perspective. ID has expectations and these are different from evolutionary expectations.

And the human genome is at least 95% junk - that is 95% or more of the human genome does not code for any functional product. Thanks for pointing out that one prediction of your version of ID failed!

Johan said: ID makes no claims? Come again? ID has expectations just like Darwinian evolution has expectations, if the human genome is the result of a long trial and error process which makes it easier to copy errors than for natural selection to edit them out, one could expect that a lot of junk might accumulate in our genomes. However, if the human genome was the produce of intelligence, we would expect a lot more functionality for the genes in the human genome. If there happened to be DNA that did not code for proteins, one would hesitate to conclude that it was non-functional from an ID perspective. ID has expectations and these are different from evolutionary expectations. Johan

Kris said:

Dale Husband said: And that is EXACTLY why Creationism (including Intelligent Design) cannot be scientific, because it does make claims and does not support its claims with anything other than assertions, even if the assertions are cloaked in scientific terminology to fool people. When you look at the fossil record, the genetic sequences of organisms, the geographic distribution of those organisms, and even their behavior and appearances today, what else can you objectively conclude but.... Conclusions, not claims. You lied, Kris! Again!

Kris said: Whatever you say, delusional blowhard.

Johan said: ID makes no claims? Come again? ID has expectations just like Darwinian evolution has expectations, if the human genome is the result of a long trial and error process which makes it easier to copy errors than for natural selection to edit them out, one could expect that a lot of junk might accumulate in our genomes. However, if the human genome was the produce of intelligence, we would expect a lot more functionality for the genes in the human genome. If there happened to be DNA that did not code for proteins, one would hesitate to conclude that it was non-functional from an ID perspective. ID has expectations and these are different from evolutionary expectations. Johan

Johan, are your comments directed to me, or Dale?

Johan said: And this is exactly why evolution is a science stopper, we are not going to be motivated to try and understand the human genome as best as we can when we think it is mostly junk, because we don't know of any function for non-protein coding DNA. If we really had to take our evolutionary presuppositions serious we would have to stop science, after all what would be the point of trying to figure out the purpose or function of something we believed is junk?

Rob said: Johan, Would intelligent design predict that 200 times more DNA base pairs are required to code for an amoeba than to code for a human? Amoeba dubia 670,000,000,000 Homo sapiens 2,900,000,000

Johan said: ID makes no claims? Come again? ID has expectations just like Darwinian evolution has expectations, if the human genome is the result of a long trial and error process which makes it easier to copy errors than for natural selection to edit them out, one could expect that a lot of junk might accumulate in our genomes. However, if the human genome was the produce of intelligence, we would expect a lot more functionality for the genes in the human genome. If there happened to be DNA that did not code for proteins, one would hesitate to conclude that it was non-functional from an ID perspective. ID has expectations and these are different from evolutionary expectations. Johan

Johan said:

Kris said:

Dale Husband said:

Dale Husband said: Which Matt G did not do, of course. Indeed, everything you read in science book is either a conclusion (fact), a hypothesis, or a theory, but not a claim. There are NO claims in science. If you were a real scientist, you'd know that already.

And that is EXACTLY why Creationism (including Intelligent Design) cannot be scientific, because it does make claims and does not support its claims with anything other than assertions, even if the assertions are cloaked in scientific terminology to fool people. When you look at the fossil record, the genetic sequences of organisms, the geographic distribution of those organisms, and even their behavior and appearances today, what else can you objectively conclude but....

Evolution is NOT directed. Evolution has no goals, no intentions. It isn’t TRYING to do anything. It is a process, not a plan.

Conclusions, not claims. You lied, Kris! Again!

Whatever you say, delusional blowhard.

ID makes no claims? Come again? ID has expectations just like Darwinian evolution has expectations, if the human genome is the result of a long trial and error process which makes it easier to copy errors than for natural selection to edit them out, one could expect that a lot of junk might accumulate in our genomes. However, if the human genome was the produce of intelligence, we would expect a lot more functionality for the genes in the human genome. If there happened to be DNA that did not code for proteins, one would hesitate to conclude that it was non-functional from an ID perspective. ID has expectations and these are different from evolutionary expectations. Johan

Johan said:And this is exactly why evolution is a science stopper, we are not going to be motivated to try and understand the human genome as best as we can when we think it is mostly junk, because we don't know of any function for non-protein coding DNA. If we really had to take our evolutionary presuppositions serious we would have to stop science, after all what would be the point of trying to figure out the purpose or function of something we believed is junk?

Has anybody mentioned endogenous retro-viruses (ERVs)?

Johan said:

Kris said: Johan, are your comments directed to me, or Dale?

Sorry Kris, that was meant to be a reply to Dale

Dale Husband said:

Johan said:

Kris said: Johan, are your comments directed to me, or Dale?

Sorry Kris, that was meant to be a reply to Dale

Uh, how do we know Johan and Kris are not one and the same? Can they prove themselves to us? This looks like a ploy to fool us, not an accident. Unless, of course, they really ARE as stupid at this looks.

Chris Caprette said:

Johan said:And this is exactly why evolution is a science stopper, we are not going to be motivated to try and understand the human genome as best as we can when we think it is mostly junk, because we don't know of any function for non-protein coding DNA. If we really had to take our evolutionary presuppositions serious we would have to stop science, after all what would be the point of trying to figure out the purpose or function of something we believed is junk?

The bolded phrase above is generally used in reference toward creationists, where it applies. That 95% of the genome is junk is not a presupposition. It is a conclusion based upon considerable (and ongoing) testing. I would end that sentence with "you lazy ignorant ass!" but I would be unnecessarily stating the obvious. I will ask one last time: show us the evidence that supports your claim that anything in nature is intelligently-designed or STFU and go away.

My journey to ID started after I read a paper by the legendary philosopher of science and physical chemist, Michael Polanyi, the paper was titled "life's irreducible structure", in it, he explained why self-organizational models fail to explain the origin of the digital information in DNA.

Anyway, now you know my story :)

I will ask one last time: show us the evidence that supports your claim that anything in nature is intelligently-designed or STFU and go away.

TomS said: Has anybody mentioned endogenous retro-viruses (ERVs)?

Johan said: Wow, so non-protein coding DNA really is just junk? This is a conclusion? Why am I not convinced by looking at the same evidence? It seems DNA codes not only for proteins but for a lot more, there are genes that act purely as switches which regulate the timing and expression of proteins, there are genes that get converted into RNA for many roles of which nothing has to do with building proteins. What do I think is evidence that something was intelligent designed in nature? Informational macro molecules[DNA, RNA, proteins] the information embedded in them together with the necessary machinery to translate and express this information, this I think is probably the most powerful evidence for ID. Johan

Johan said: My journey to ID started after I read a paper by the legendary philosopher of science and physical chemist, Michael Polanyi, the paper was titled "life's irreducible structure", in it, he explained why self-organizational models fail to explain the origin of the digital information in DNA. Anyway, now you know my story :)

Johan said: My journey to ID started after I read a paper by the legendary philosopher of science and physical chemist, Michael Polanyi, the paper was titled "life's irreducible structure", in it, he explained why self-organizational models fail to explain the origin of the digital information in DNA. Anyway, now you know my story :)

Flint said:

I will ask one last time: show us the evidence that supports your claim that anything in nature is intelligently-designed or STFU and go away.

What would you regard as evidence? Anything? After all, as many have pointed out, most structures of most organisms are functional and useful to the organism. Many are quite exquisitely suited to the organism's environment and lifestyle. NOBODY argues that these things are coincidence. And as many have also pointed out, IF we regard the environment as the designer, and differential survival rates as the environment's designing mechanism, then we have a universal and constant design process occurring. So what, exactly, are you demanding here? Certainly not either designs (all organisms are designed in this sense) or the design process (well understood but still being filled in with details). I'm guessing you're demanding evidence that some agency OTHER than environment is contributing to design, and some mechanisms OTHER than those already identified of selection, drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc. are being imposed by means not yet experimentally established. Right? I think it's important to make this clear. I don't see anyone disagreeing with Behe that design is obvious just by looking. The disagreement always revolves around the urge to inject unnecessary magical means and purposes into it. Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.

Johan said:

Flint said:

I will ask one last time: show us the evidence that supports your claim that anything in nature is intelligently-designed or STFU and go away.

What would you regard as evidence? Anything? After all, as many have pointed out, most structures of most organisms are functional and useful to the organism. Many are quite exquisitely suited to the organism's environment and lifestyle. NOBODY argues that these things are coincidence. And as many have also pointed out, IF we regard the environment as the designer, and differential survival rates as the environment's designing mechanism, then we have a universal and constant design process occurring. So what, exactly, are you demanding here? Certainly not either designs (all organisms are designed in this sense) or the design process (well understood but still being filled in with details). I'm guessing you're demanding evidence that some agency OTHER than environment is contributing to design, and some mechanisms OTHER than those already identified of selection, drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc. are being imposed by means not yet experimentally established. Right? I think it's important to make this clear. I don't see anyone disagreeing with Behe that design is obvious just by looking. The disagreement always revolves around the urge to inject unnecessary magical means and purposes into it. Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.

//Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.// The problem is, both Collins and Miller attack ID on theological grounds, for Miller detectable evidence of design would undermine the freedom of God, and for Collins evolution has to be true and God had to have no part in it otherwise "God was an underachiever and started this evolutionary process and then realized it wasn’t going to quite work and had to keep stepping in all along the way to fix it. That seems like a limitation of God’s omniscience.” I prefer atheistic evolutionists over theistic evolutionists any day, at least they are consistent.

Dale Husband said:

Johan said:

Flint said:

I will ask one last time: show us the evidence that supports your claim that anything in nature is intelligently-designed or STFU and go away.

What would you regard as evidence? Anything? After all, as many have pointed out, most structures of most organisms are functional and useful to the organism. Many are quite exquisitely suited to the organism's environment and lifestyle. NOBODY argues that these things are coincidence. And as many have also pointed out, IF we regard the environment as the designer, and differential survival rates as the environment's designing mechanism, then we have a universal and constant design process occurring. So what, exactly, are you demanding here? Certainly not either designs (all organisms are designed in this sense) or the design process (well understood but still being filled in with details). I'm guessing you're demanding evidence that some agency OTHER than environment is contributing to design, and some mechanisms OTHER than those already identified of selection, drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc. are being imposed by means not yet experimentally established. Right? I think it's important to make this clear. I don't see anyone disagreeing with Behe that design is obvious just by looking. The disagreement always revolves around the urge to inject unnecessary magical means and purposes into it. Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.

//Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.// The problem is, both Collins and Miller attack ID on theological grounds, for Miller detectable evidence of design would undermine the freedom of God, and for Collins evolution has to be true and God had to have no part in it otherwise "God was an underachiever and started this evolutionary process and then realized it wasn’t going to quite work and had to keep stepping in all along the way to fix it. That seems like a limitation of God’s omniscience.” I prefer atheistic evolutionists over theistic evolutionists any day, at least they are consistent.

So why aren't you an atheist? Because Theistic Creationists (TCs) are even more inconsistent than Theistic Evolutionists (TEs). TCs are inconsistent with reality itself, while TEs are merely inconsistent with a literal reading of the Bible. Or maybe you fail to consider that biologists have found many shoddy examples of design in nature that most theists are unwilling to believe could have been designed by God, once they know of them. No one wants to worship an idiot, unless he is himself one. Are you an idiot, Johan?

At what exact point does something become a ‘theory’ instead of a thought, concept, hypothesis, assumption, experiment, speculation, guess, inference, vocalization, suggestion, discussion, debate, belief, or religious belief, and exactly who determines that point?

So, Johan, when are you going to explain to us how Intelligent Design is supposed to be a better explanation than Evolutionary Biology?

You continue wasting our time with a lot of philosophical nattering, and proud spouting of your own willful ignorance, yet, you never seem to get around to explaining and demonstrating what, exactly the evidence for Intelligent Design is, AND you never seem to get around to explaining how Intelligent Design is supposed to be an explanation in the first place.

I say this is deliberate: You are too cowardly to admit that there is no evidence for Intelligent Design, and you are too cowardly to admit that Intelligent Design is not an explanation, scientific or otherwise.

Johan said:

Flint said:

I will ask one last time: show us the evidence that supports your claim that anything in nature is intelligently-designed or STFU and go away.

What would you regard as evidence? Anything? After all, as many have pointed out, most structures of most organisms are functional and useful to the organism. Many are quite exquisitely suited to the organism's environment and lifestyle. NOBODY argues that these things are coincidence. And as many have also pointed out, IF we regard the environment as the designer, and differential survival rates as the environment's designing mechanism, then we have a universal and constant design process occurring. So what, exactly, are you demanding here? Certainly not either designs (all organisms are designed in this sense) or the design process (well understood but still being filled in with details). I'm guessing you're demanding evidence that some agency OTHER than environment is contributing to design, and some mechanisms OTHER than those already identified of selection, drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc. are being imposed by means not yet experimentally established. Right? I think it's important to make this clear. I don't see anyone disagreeing with Behe that design is obvious just by looking. The disagreement always revolves around the urge to inject unnecessary magical means and purposes into it. Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.

//Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.// The problem is, both Collins and Miller attack ID on theological grounds, for Miller detectable evidence of design would undermine the freedom of God, and for Collins evolution has to be true and God had to have no part in it otherwise "God was an underachiever and started this evolutionary process and then realized it wasn’t going to quite work and had to keep stepping in all along the way to fix it. That seems like a limitation of God’s omniscience.” I prefer atheistic evolutionists over theistic evolutionists any day, at least they are consistent.

Doc Bill said: Kris pouted:

At what exact point does something become a ‘theory’ instead of a thought, concept, hypothesis, assumption, experiment, speculation, guess, inference, vocalization, suggestion, discussion, debate, belief, or religious belief, and exactly who determines that point?

Well, gee, I dunno, Kris, you're the only scientist on this forum, according to you, why don't you enlighten me.

Johan said:

Dale Husband said:

Johan said:

Flint said:

I will ask one last time: show us the evidence that supports your claim that anything in nature is intelligently-designed or STFU and go away.

What would you regard as evidence? Anything? After all, as many have pointed out, most structures of most organisms are functional and useful to the organism. Many are quite exquisitely suited to the organism's environment and lifestyle. NOBODY argues that these things are coincidence. And as many have also pointed out, IF we regard the environment as the designer, and differential survival rates as the environment's designing mechanism, then we have a universal and constant design process occurring. So what, exactly, are you demanding here? Certainly not either designs (all organisms are designed in this sense) or the design process (well understood but still being filled in with details). I'm guessing you're demanding evidence that some agency OTHER than environment is contributing to design, and some mechanisms OTHER than those already identified of selection, drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc. are being imposed by means not yet experimentally established. Right? I think it's important to make this clear. I don't see anyone disagreeing with Behe that design is obvious just by looking. The disagreement always revolves around the urge to inject unnecessary magical means and purposes into it. Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.

//Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.// The problem is, both Collins and Miller attack ID on theological grounds, for Miller detectable evidence of design would undermine the freedom of God, and for Collins evolution has to be true and God had to have no part in it otherwise "God was an underachiever and started this evolutionary process and then realized it wasn’t going to quite work and had to keep stepping in all along the way to fix it. That seems like a limitation of God’s omniscience.” I prefer atheistic evolutionists over theistic evolutionists any day, at least they are consistent.

So why aren't you an atheist? Because Theistic Creationists (TCs) are even more inconsistent than Theistic Evolutionists (TEs). TCs are inconsistent with reality itself, while TEs are merely inconsistent with a literal reading of the Bible. Or maybe you fail to consider that biologists have found many shoddy examples of design in nature that most theists are unwilling to believe could have been designed by God, once they know of them. No one wants to worship an idiot, unless he is himself one. Are you an idiot, Johan?

Why am I not an atheist? Because I regard the position philosophically too problematic, on atheistic grounds one cannot provide an adequate philosophy of mathematics (atheism renders mathematics an invention of the human mind), naturalistic epistemology cannot account for normative truth in general (atheism cannot explain the very possibility of having knowledge). Atheism cannot explain good or evil, and renders both illusions, to name a few of the reasons why I am not an atheist. Johan

Johan said: Why am I not an atheist? Because I regard the position philosophically too problematic, on atheistic grounds one cannot provide an adequate philosophy of mathematics (atheism renders mathematics an invention of the human mind), naturalistic epistemology cannot account for normative truth in general (atheism cannot explain the very possibility of having knowledge). Atheism cannot explain good or evil, and renders both illusions, to name a few of the reasons why I am not an atheist. Johan

The reason why Miller makes such bad arguments is because in the end he is motivated by theology not science, to Miller God's creativity and freedom is undermined the second evidence for his design was detectable.

Therefore in Miller's mind it makes perfect sense to conclude Motor bikes are not designed if one could strip the engine and use this as a heater, it's because theology like it did for Darwin and others drives science and this theology demands that evolution is true one way or another. Unless we are to accept that God's freedom is undermined, or that God is a cruel God, of course not! Fortunately evolution is here to save God's freedom and goodness, or so the story goes.

Johan

Johan said:

Chris Caprette said:

Johan said:And this is exactly why evolution is a science stopper, we are not going to be motivated to try and understand the human genome as best as we can when we think it is mostly junk, because we don't know of any function for non-protein coding DNA. If we really had to take our evolutionary presuppositions serious we would have to stop science, after all what would be the point of trying to figure out the purpose or function of something we believed is junk?

The bolded phrase above is generally used in reference toward creationists, where it applies. That 95% of the genome is junk is not a presupposition. It is a conclusion based upon considerable (and ongoing) testing. I would end that sentence with "you lazy ignorant ass!" but I would be unnecessarily stating the obvious. I will ask one last time: show us the evidence that supports your claim that anything in nature is intelligently-designed or STFU and go away.

Wow, so non-protein coding DNA really is just junk? This is a conclusion? Why am I not convinced by looking at the same evidence? It seems DNA codes not only for proteins but for a lot more, there are genes that act purely as switches which regulate the timing and expression of proteins, there are genes that get converted into RNA for many roles of which nothing has to do with building proteins. What do I think is evidence that something was intelligent designed in nature? Informational macro molecules[DNA, RNA, proteins] the information embedded in them together with the necessary machinery to translate and express this information, this I think is probably the most powerful evidence for ID. Johan

Dale Husband said:

Johan said:

Flint said:

I will ask one last time: show us the evidence that supports your claim that anything in nature is intelligently-designed or STFU and go away.

What would you regard as evidence? Anything? After all, as many have pointed out, most structures of most organisms are functional and useful to the organism. Many are quite exquisitely suited to the organism's environment and lifestyle. NOBODY argues that these things are coincidence. And as many have also pointed out, IF we regard the environment as the designer, and differential survival rates as the environment's designing mechanism, then we have a universal and constant design process occurring. So what, exactly, are you demanding here? Certainly not either designs (all organisms are designed in this sense) or the design process (well understood but still being filled in with details). I'm guessing you're demanding evidence that some agency OTHER than environment is contributing to design, and some mechanisms OTHER than those already identified of selection, drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc. are being imposed by means not yet experimentally established. Right? I think it's important to make this clear. I don't see anyone disagreeing with Behe that design is obvious just by looking. The disagreement always revolves around the urge to inject unnecessary magical means and purposes into it. Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.

//Apparently a good many respectable scientists (Miller, Collins, etc.) can do very effective work despite a belief that some mystical Final Cause somehow underlies the evolutionary process we are able to observe.// The problem is, both Collins and Miller attack ID on theological grounds, for Miller detectable evidence of design would undermine the freedom of God, and for Collins evolution has to be true and God had to have no part in it otherwise "God was an underachiever and started this evolutionary process and then realized it wasn’t going to quite work and had to keep stepping in all along the way to fix it. That seems like a limitation of God’s omniscience.” I prefer atheistic evolutionists over theistic evolutionists any day, at least they are consistent.

So why aren't you an atheist? Because Theistic Creationists (TCs) are even more inconsistent than Theistic Evolutionists (TEs). TCs are inconsistent with reality itself, while TEs are merely inconsistent with a literal reading of the Bible. Or maybe you fail to consider that biologists have found many shoddy examples of design in nature that most theists are unwilling to believe could have been designed by God, once they know of them. No one wants to worship an idiot, unless he is himself one. Are you an idiot, Johan?

Why am I not an atheist? Because I regard the position philosophically too problematic, on atheistic grounds one cannot provide an adequate philosophy of mathematics (atheism renders mathematics an invention of the human mind),

naturalistic epistemology cannot account for normative truth in general (atheism cannot explain the very possibility of having knowledge).

Atheism cannot explain good or evil, and renders both illusions, to name a few of the reasons why I am not an atheist.

Kris said: Speaking of idiots, have any of you looked at Dale's idiotic blog? He puts on quite a show there, and he obviously believes that he's just about the only one on Earth who isn't and is never wrong, delusional, ignorant, dishonest, fraudulent, stupid, uneducated, biased, dogmatic, insane, bigoted, arrogant, self-righteous, etc., etc., etc., and a 'liar'. Check these out: http://circleh.wordpress.com/my-spiritual-journeys/ http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/the-prophet-isaiah-did-not-predict-the-coming-of-jesus/ Need I point out more? Well, okay, here are some of his words: "Scientists can be just as mistaken, corrupt, dogmatic, and failing in their efforts and assumptions as the rest of humanity. A few of them can even be downright stupid!" If I said that, you guys and gals would attack me relentlessly, no matter what context it was in. When I have said things similar to that here, I have been attacked relentlessly. You all better run on over to Dale's blog and attack him, if you want to be consistent that is.

Natural selection describes the process by which variations in a population of organisms are edited over time to enhance the ability of the individual organisms to survive and reproduce in an environment. Even if over 90% of all mutations, being random, are harmful to the next generation, natural selection can still eliminate those and keep those others that are beneficial, thus countering the destructive effects of mutations in general. It is the same with the scientific peer review process. Because science has made so much progress over the past few centuries, most people have the impression that scientists are unusually brilliant, nearly infallible, and totally objective in their views and methods. But in fact, that is simply not the case for most of them, at least as individuals. Scientists can be just as mistaken, corrupt, dogmatic, and failing in their efforts and assumptions as the rest of humanity. A few of them can even be downright stupid! If that is true, how can science be trusted to produce reliable facts and theories? Because the scientists use peer review as their means to test any new ideas put on the table by one of their number. No scientist’s word need be taken at face value. In order for his idea to be accepted as anything beyond a speculation, he must show observational or experimental data, clearly defined, that supports it. Thus, it should always be possible for other scientists to duplicate the results of the first scientist making the claim. If attempts to duplicate the observations or experiments do not produce the same result, the idea is rejected. Sometimes the peer review process goes too far in its skepticism, and a valid idea, such as continental drift, is rejected and even ridiculed by scientists even though it explains all the data collected and is contradicted by none of it. But that’s why repeated testing of that idea is required, as long as it is not outright falsified. Continental drift WAS accepted in the 1960s once an overwhelming amount of evidence was found to support it and those geologists who had been bigoted against it in the 1920s had died or retired, and a new generation had arisen that was more open-minded. Those who supported the continental drift theory were able to come up with a mechanism, plate tectonics, that explained it, and once they did opposition to it faded away rapidly. Individual scientists may fall so deeply in love with their own ideas that they refuse to accept the peer review process when it rejects their ideas. Then they become cranks who no longer do science, but instead put out propaganda to appeal to the scientifically illiterate. This is especially true of Creationists and global warming denialists who happen to have science degrees. They even go so far as to attack the peer review process itself! But it must be noted that they can never produce anything that would produce superior results in terms of seeking objective data in the universe and explaining it. Scientists who refuse to recognize that an idea of theirs is wrong are like a population of organisms that are too specialized in their lifestyle to adapt to any sudden change in their environment, resulting in their extinction. Fortunately, the progress of science continues even in spite of such incidents, just as life on Earth has continued despite the mass extinctions that have wiped out most species that evolved on Earth before.

Doc Bill said: Kris pouted:

At what exact point does something become a ‘theory’ instead of a thought, concept, hypothesis, assumption, experiment, speculation, guess, inference, vocalization, suggestion, discussion, debate, belief, or religious belief, and exactly who determines that point?

Well, gee, I dunno, Kris, you're the only scientist on this forum, according to you, why don't you enlighten me.

"Doc Bill | December 28, 2010 12:20 AM You’re funny, Lee. “Design theory?” What theory? Allow me to refresh your memory that “intelligent design” the definition consists of an unsupported assertion followed by a negative argument against the real scientific theory of evolution. Where’s the theory, Lee? I realize you probably forgot, Lee, but there is no definition of design nor any metric to measure design. ID isn’t falsely conflated with creationism, it is creationism as documented by the history of the ID movement and by the actions and very words of the ID promoters. Come on, Lee, don’t be coy! Enlighten us on the theory of intelligent design. Oops, looks like your bungee cord is contracting, Lee. See you later!

Dale Husband said: I've never heard of this Polanyi guy. Anyone else know of him? He must not be so legendary, then. I know of Henry M. Morris, Duane T Gish, Ken Ham, Michael Behe, and William Dembski. They I would consider Creationist "legends".

Abstract. The linking of Michael Polanyi's name with a center (now changed to another name) at Baylor University that espoused intelligent-design theory calls for examination of Polanyi's teleology. This examination attempts to put Polanyi's epistemology in the perspective of his total philosophical work by looking at the clarification of teleology in philosophy of biology and in the framework of three major features of Polanyi's thought: open and truth-oriented, purposive but open to truth, and transcendent yet intelligible. The conclusion is that Polanyi would not support intelligent design according to the nature of his own theory

But Kris, if you're going to try to make an argument - something you want to attempt sometime - we need to know how you understand the terminology you're trying to use. So far, you have shown that you really don't appear to have a grasp on any of the relevant terminology. How can we talk to you if you hose not to educate yourself in the very basic terminology of science?

Flint said: Even worse, perhaps, an atheist cannot even imagine why this might be considered a problem!

Bored now.