William Dembski's "Catalog of Fundamental Facts"

FACT #1: If it looks designed to me, it is designed.
FACT #2: See Fact #1.

How ironic that Dembski uses as his metaphor a 19th century concept that mammals displaced dinosaurs by competitive superiority. But I think the basic trope can be salvaged. What would be needed for the triumph of ID would be for an asteroid to wipe out evolutionary biology, perhaps in the person of a new American theocracy, allowing ID to radiate into the empty scientific ecospace.

Richard mentioned Dembski speaking at BIOLA University in 2002.

Never forget that BIOLA is a stealth acronym for "Bible Institute Of Los Angeles" - not to be mistaken for an organization that has anything to do with science.

John Harshman said: What would be needed for the triumph of ID would be for an asteroid to wipe out evolutionary biology, perhaps in the person of a new American theocracy, allowing ID to radiate into the empty scientific ecospace.

It's almost been ten years since Wes Elsberry and I published our Eight challenges for intelligent design advocates. Needless to say, not a single one has been answered.

Where's the list of “incontrovertible instances where evolution is uniquely fruitful for biology"?

Oh, just about everything biologic?

Well, then, where's the list of “incontrovertible instances where evolution is beyond denial of the IDiots/creationists"?

Don't have an answer to that, do you?

Glen Davidson

Paul Burnett said: Richard mentioned Dembski speaking at BIOLA University in 2002. Never forget that BIOLA is a stealth acronym for "Bible Institute Of Los Angeles" - not to be mistaken for an organization that has anything to do with science.

Fact Number 1: Intelligent Design Creationism is bullshit propaganda.

Fact Number 2: See Fact Number 1.

End of facts.

(such as the mammalian visual system).

Well that's a literal revolution in Dembski's mind, where culture is Darwinian and biology not.

Jeffrey Shallit said: It's almost been ten years since Wes Elsberry and I published our Eight challenges for intelligent design advocates. Needless to say, not a single one has been answered.

Jeffrey Shallit said: It's almost been ten years since Wes Elsberry and I published our Eight challenges for intelligent design advocates. Needless to say, not a single one has been answered.

Two animating principles drive intelligent design. The more popular by far takes intelligent design as a tool for liberation from ideologies that suffocate the human spirit, such as reductionism and materialism. The other animating principle, less popular but intellectually more compelling, takes intelligent design as the key to opening up fresh insights into nature. The first of these animating principles is purely instrumental -- it treats intelligent design as a tool for attaining some other end (like defeating materialism). Presumably if other tools could more effectively accomplish that end, intelligent design would be abandoned. The second of these animating principles, by contrast, is intrinsic -- it treats intelligent design as an essential good, an end in itself worthy to be pursued because of the insights it provides into nature.

Any rule-setting about what intelligent design must accomplish in the scientific sphere before it may legitimately influence the political sphere is arbitrary and betrays a naiveté about the actual workings of science. In fact, any such rule-setting is sure to undermine intelligent design's progress as a scientific and intellectual movement.

The issue, therefore, before the public square is not in the first instance how far intelligent design has developed as a scientific project but freedom and equity.

Chris Lawson said: FACT #1: If it looks designed to me, it is designed. FACT #2: See Fact #1.

Chris Lawson said: FACT #1: If it looks designed to me, it is designed. FACT #2: See Fact #1.

harold said: Linnaeus, Lamarck, and Darwin saw the hierarchical relatedness of life from the "top down". "Bottom up" molecular genetic studies confirm the same thing.

Except neither Lamarck (see reference below) nor Linnaeus accepted common descent as we understand the concept since the rise of Darwinism

Linnaeus, Lamarck, and Darwin saw the hierarchical relatedness of life from the “top down”.

It seems that Nature has take pleasure in varying the same mechanism in an infinity of different ways ... She abandons one class of production only after having multiplied the individuals of it in all possible forms.

Sounds to me like Dembski's “Catalog of Fundamental Facts” is just brimming full of what the Intelligent Design movement has to put on the table for their "science-based" arguments. Page after page is chuck full of information gleaned by these sage investigators, and Dembski's own contribution from the mathematical perspective is underwhelming to say the least. But why then do they use invisible ink to record all their entries?

William Demsbki said: "However wrong Darwin might have been about selection and competition being the driving force behind biological evolution, these factors certainly play a crucial role in scientific progress."

DavidK said: Sounds to me like Dembski's “Catalog of Fundamental Facts” is just brimming full of what the Intelligent Design movement has to put on the table for their "science-based" arguments. Page after page is chuck full of information gleaned by these sage investigators, and Dembski's own contribution from the mathematical perspective is underwhelming to say the least. But why then do they use invisible ink to record all their entries?

Mike Elzinga said:

DavidK said: Sounds to me like Dembski's “Catalog of Fundamental Facts” is just brimming full of what the Intelligent Design movement has to put on the table for their "science-based" arguments. Page after page is chuck full of information gleaned by these sage investigators, and Dembski's own contribution from the mathematical perspective is underwhelming to say the least. But why then do they use invisible ink to record all their entries?

I wonder how much of it is “Endogenous Information” and how much of it is “Exogenous Information.” The difference is “Active Information.” They haven’t been very active in producing “Complex Specified Information” either. In fact, the movement has produced nothing but Shannon “entropy.”

Ray Martinez said: From the OP:

William Demsbki said: "However wrong Darwin might have been about selection and competition being the driving force behind biological evolution, these factors certainly play a crucial role in scientific progress."

Since one can easily find other Dembski quotes that express acceptance of natural selection, can anyone tell me what the above quote might actually mean?

Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.

Chris Lawson said: FACT #1: If it looks designed to me, it is designed. FACT #2: See Fact #1.

Chris Lawson said: FACT #1: If it looks designed to me, it is designed. FACT #2: See Fact #1.

mandrellian said: If that happens, I have to wonder how far you can actually dilute creationism before it becomes culturally meaningless.

mandrellian said: ... ID's success at "gaining a cultural hearing" is because the ID movement is entirely cultural, based as it is on a sectarian fundamentalist desire to entrench their tenets in the public education system (or at least produce scientific doubt of a severity not at all justified). In this they are handily supported by a generally scientifically ignorant base (an ignorance the ID crowd are seemingly all too happy to exploit and encourage) and a clamour of eager shills and ideologues, virtually none of them scientists engaged in biological study. ...

It’s extremely helpful to bear in mind that ID really is an artificial creation, deliberately pseudo-legalistic, obfuscating and dissembling. By “deliberately” I don’t mean consciously, but rather, predictably, in a way related to obvious goals.

When Dembski says "One of the marks of a disciplined science is...", I cannot shake the image of a child clomping around in over-sized shoes, draped in his father's clothes, pretending, pretending, pretending....

I have a brother like William. A nice enough guy, great dad, decent husband, but not too bright. That is he truly loathes academia, in all its forms. Knowledge which is counter-intuitive to that which he 'knows', to be selfevident causes him anxiety. I don't push him too much, it is far to easy to get a rise out of him. Put it shortly, he denies 'global warming' because he can't feel it himself, and there are still terrible winters. He denies evolution for the same lame reasons of all the other denialists. He is 56 and I know his views are set, there will be no enlightenment for him. Basically he sees a group of people, 'academics' who have access to awareness, an awareness he knows he will never posess, no matter how successful his successful business blossoms, thus causing him natural frustration; he is successful but does not understand why this material success does not naturally lead to understanding of his natural world. This causes him to develop fear, after all if you are economically, and socially successful, why does he still not grasp the truthfulness of evolution etc? Bill O'reilly is the closest example I can give of the thought processes my brother undergoes. I do love him however; My brother, not O'Relly:)

Ken Phelps said: When Dembski says “One of the marks of a disciplined science is…”, I cannot shake the image of a child clomping around in over-sized shoes, draped in his father’s clothes, pretending, pretending, pretending.…

fnxtr said:

Jeffrey Shallit said: It's almost been ten years since Wes Elsberry and I published our Eight challenges for intelligent design advocates. Needless to say, not a single one has been answered.

"Waterloo", indeed. :-)

robert van bakel said: I have a brother like William. A nice enough guy, great dad, decent husband, but not too bright. That is he truly loathes academia, in all its forms. Knowledge which is counter-intuitive to that which he 'knows', to be selfevident causes him anxiety. I don't push him too much, it is far to easy to get a rise out of him. Put it shortly, he denies 'global warming' because he can't feel it himself, and there are still terrible winters. He denies evolution for the same lame reasons of all the other denialists. He is 56 and I know his views are set, there will be no enlightenment for him. Basically he sees a group of people, 'academics' who have access to awareness, an awareness he knows he will never posess, no matter how successful his successful business blossoms, thus causing him natural frustration; he is successful but does not understand why this material success does not naturally lead to understanding of his natural world. This causes him to develop fear, after all if you are economically, and socially successful, why does he still not grasp the truthfulness of evolution etc? Bill O'reilly is the closest example I can give of the thought processes my brother undergoes. I do love him however; My brother, not O'Relly:)

Didn't Dembski ask for money from the Dover School Board to testify, and then bugged out of town? Did he get the money, or is this not a true story?

DavidK said: Didn't Dembski ask for money from the Dover School Board to testify, and then bugged out of town? Did he get the money, or is this not a true story?

[Dembski] is apparently $20,000 richer for it, however, marking yet another difference between us: whereas I served pro bono, Dembski charged $200 per hour and threatened to sue TMLC for payment for 100 hours of work he claims to have done prior to quitting. In late June 2005, he told Canadian ID supporter Denyse O’Leary that TMLC had agreed to pay him. (Footnote omitted)

William Dembski’s “Catalog of Fundamentalist Facts”

FTFY, Willy.

Sounds like TMLC didn't get a free lunch!

1. "Your Ice Age map appears to indicate that sea levels dropped by at least 250 m [820 feet], not the maximum 140 m as undersea shorelines indicate. What evidence is there for your number? Did all that extra water go into glaciers?" 2. "How much lower, exactly, was sea level during the Ice Week and how did you arrive at that number?" 3. "Isn't the Lombok Strait between Bali and Lombok 250 m deep, and isn't the Timor Trough between Timor and Australia 3,300 m deep? Were they always impassable? What mechanism enabled so many kinds of diprotodonts and marsupials and monotremes to cross these channels while preventing diverse placental mammals from doing the same?" 4. "If the sea level dropped and later rose rapidly by at least 250 m [820 feet] as your Ice Age map seems to indicate, wouldn't the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians have noticed and written it down as a sign from the gods?" 5. "Are all kangaroos the same 'created kind'? Are all macropods? Are all diprotodonts?" 6. "Are potoroos the same 'created kind' as kangaroos? Ditto the musky rat-kangaroo?" 7. "Exactly how many 'created kinds' of Australidelphian marsupial are there? Are all monotremes the same 'kind'?" 8. "Exactly how many 'created kinds' of monotremes are there?" 9. "Are all South American xenarthrans the same 'created kind'?" 10. "Are all lemurs the same 'created kind'?" 11. "What mechanism could cause the Australidelphian marsupials, e.g. diprotodonts, in Australia to achieve enormous diversity of functional/structural adaptations to numerous, very diverse ecological niches; while also, at the same time, PREVENTING almost ALL placental mammals from even existing on the same continent, much less making any comparable functional adaptations or occupying any major or minor ecological niches there?" 12. And analogous questions for xenarthrans in S. America, lemurs in Madagascar, etc. 13. "The Australian fossils of diprotodonts, monotremes and the Queensland lungfish are so distributed that, according to your Flood model, some in each group MUST have been buried during the Flood, and some in each group (diprotodonts/monotremes/lungfish) MUST have returned after the Flood to Australia and ONLY to Australia to live and die and fossilize some more. Surely you know that in the seminal "bible" of Flood Geology, The Genesis Flood, Henry Morris and John Whitcomb wrote on p. 286 that the "...many of the later Tertiary beds, those attributed to the Miocene and Pliocene epochs, represent the deposits made...in the final weeks of the Deluge activities. This may also be true of some of the supposed Pleistocene deposits.” But the macropod Nambaroo is late Oligocene (more than 23.3 Mya) so it is older than the Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene, and there are fossils of Australian monotremes and Queensland lungfish much older than that and all Australian." 14. "There are fossils of the macropod Nambaroo reliably dated at 25 million years old, in the late Oligocene, found in Australia, where many diverse macropods are today. Your Flood model requires that these and other diprotodont fossils be buried there during the Flood. After the Flood, how did many diverse macropods know that they should hop from Mt. Ararat to the same continent where older macropods had been buried and insta-fossilized during the Flood, and how did all the living diprotodonts know to avoid other continents which did not have fossilized diprotodonts?" 15. "There are fossils of the monotreme Teinolophos reliably dated at 123 million years old, in the Lower Cretaceous, found in Australia, where monotremes live today. Your Flood model requires that these and other monotremes were buried during the Flood. Steropodon and Kollikodon are also Lower Cretaceous but a bit younger, at 100–104 My old, and Obdurodon is from the lower-middle Miocene, and all must have been buried by the Flood. After the Flood, how did diverse monotremes know that they should waddle from Mt. Ararat to the same continent where older monotremes had been buried and insta-fossilized, and how did all the living monotremes know to avoid other continents which did not have fossilized monotremes?" 16. "There are fossils of the Queensland lungfish reliably dated at 100 million years old, found in Australia, where similar freshwater Queensland lungfish live today. Your Flood model requires that they be buried there during the Flood. How did a freshwater fish survive the flood? After the Flood, how did a freshwater fish know that it should swim through a global ocean of salt water to the same continent where older Queensland lungfish had been buried and insta-fossilized during the Flood, and how did they locate freshwater streams on the correct continent, and know to avoid other continents which did not have fossilized Queensland lungfish?" 17. "How do you push backward conventional Egyptian History by 1,000 years? And ditto for Babylonians? Why do creationists reject EYEWITNESS testimony?" 18. "Why is the Chinese flood myth clearly local and does not involve the sin or destruction of mankind? Why do creationists reject EYEWITNESS testimony?" 19. "Your timeline seems to indicate the Ice Age started about 2200BC and ended around 2115-2100 BC. That is 105 to 120 years total for the freezing, movement, and melting of continental ice sheets, and your continental ice sheets must be far deeper than the conventional hypothesis because your map shows a far, far lower sea level, by at least 110m, than conventional sea level values. Now all of Long Island in New York is a moraine, a pile of rocks carried by glaciers during the Ice Age. So are large parts of Manhattan (the parts without skyscrapers.) How could glaciers move fast enough to push all those rocks to form Long Island and much of Manhatten in 105-120 years, minus the time it takes for snow to fall, ice to compact, and the ice sheet to melt afterwards? Do you have any computation to show HOW FAST your ice sheet needs to move to form Long Island and Manhattan? It appears to be very, very fast indeed."

DavidK said: Didn't Dembski ask for money from the Dover School Board to testify, and then bugged out of town? Did he get the money, or is this not a true story?

As I recall, Dembski pulled out all by himself shortly after he witnessed Barbara Forrest's deposition. Somewhere I read that Dembski "visibly blanched" as Forrest laid out the case. Dembski knew the jig was up and that he'd get annihilated on the witness stand. Forrest is all scholar as Dembski is all dryer lint.

The irony is that some years earlier Dembski unveiled his "Vice [sic] Strategy" in which he fantasized having "Darwinists" in the witness box where they would have to answer questions under oath and the vice [sic] would squeeze the truth out of them. He did, eventually, spell correctly "vise." And here he was going into the witness box, himself, and he would have no way to methinks like a weasel out. So, he ran like a scared little wabbit but found enough courage to bill TMLC for his time! Classy fellow, our Dr. Dr.

Regarding the List o' Parts, aren't there literally billions of parts, pieces, processes, reactions and things biological? At least more than 10,000.

Yet, the ID List o' Parts Designed is empty. Even if you include parts for which the IDiots have been unable to calculate SCI or FSCI (all of them) and the parts Behe classified as "irreducibly complex" which have been refuted, I can think of less than a dozen. The only one that gets any ID press is the good old bacterial outboard motor.

Even ID theorist and journalist, Eric, claimed that ID was only useful for inferring design for "some" things. So, where's the list of Some Things?

Inquiring minds want to know!

My recollection about Dembski's departure was that he had sat in on Babara Forrest's deposition and had the first hand experience of what was going to happen to the book Pandas and People. Dembski was editing the third rendition of Pandas (that would be titled something else and was eventually published). The plaintiffs requested drafts of the book in preparation, but that request was dropped when Dembski ran away. Does anyone hear about that book? I can't remember what the title became, but it is a fact that no new intelligent design textbook ever seems to have been put forward to take the place of Pandas.

harold,

My understanding is that Dembski was the one who refused to testify (after seeing Forrest's deposition) and the TMLC's response was to attempt to get his testimony admitted without him being a witness (and therefore not able to be cross-examined), a tactic which Judge Jones quite rightly refused to allow. It's hard to see any of the pro-ID crowd at Dover in any sort of positive light, and it's very hard to defend Dembski's demand for payment when *he* refused to testify. It would be like a builder pulling out of a contract at the last minute when he sees a building inspector on the site but still demanding payment for building the house because of all the preparatory work he did. I'm sure the only reason the TMLC is even thinking of paying the fee is because it would be politic to do so.

I would like to see some references or evidence for the above allegations because they are pretty serious. If true then Dembski is a shakedown artist.

I would like to see evidence Dembski "visibly blanched' at Forrest's testimony.

Recall that the DI tried to stop her from testifying. saying she was not an expert but was what they called an "internet stalker" of the DI. Real classy.

Dembski may be selling the 'snake oil' to my sibling, that much I acknowledge, however it is the willingness of my sibling to accept the product I find so annoying Harold. He's not a fool, he is an intelligent person and easily sees the foibles of this world. He is a successful builder, he actually argues his taxes should be higher, as he has quite rightly come to the conclusion that a well fed, educated, healthy population is better, noy only for him, but for his family to boot. He understands all of this and yet cannot grasp the concept of evolution; Dembski is guilty of pandering to mass stupidity as you rightly point out, but what is the excuse for mass stupidity when the facts are out there? Simple answer, we need alot more evolution, ths won't happen of course because of our self-destructive tendencies.

As a "former" atheist, and current student studying ID, I'd like to offer this definition (excerpt) from the intelligentdesign.org website as a point of clarity in stipulating that ID is NOT about "creationism", but about understanding root cause. As I enter this discourse, I would ask for "intelligent" commentary, free of the personal (non scientific) character attacks;

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

mahsihmo said: As a "former" atheist, and current student studying ID, I'd like to offer this definition (excerpt) from the intelligentdesign.org website as a point of clarity in stipulating that ID is NOT about "creationism", but about understanding root cause. As I enter this discourse, I would ask for "intelligent" commentary, free of the personal (non scientific) character attacks; The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine desig

Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it.

Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature

and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence.

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Then why do IDiots (like at UD) spend much of their time carping about "materialism" and "naturalism," which aren't really things in themselves at all, but are merely versions of empiricism? Why is it against science and its insistence that you not merely invoke Behe's poof and theological "causes"? Why won't it provide honest evidence, rather than working to undermine science's insistence upon evidence? It is nothing but supernaturalism, or it would pony up and give us real evidence for design, instead of conflating the technology and life and pretending that the design of the former means design of the latter. It doesn't, and life's evolution is very unlike technological evolution, something the dishonesty of ID constantly avoids because it can't explain it. Glen Davidson

As for "personal attacks," once you IDiots quit lying about science and about scientists you can ask for that. You can't insist that we treat dishonesty as if it were even stupid but honest years after Dover, even longer after the rank dishonesty and vile lying attacks upon honest pro-science people have been exposed for what they are.

Either start with intellectual honesty, which you haven't thus far, or expect us to address the elephant in the room, the appalling dishonesty of ID. An honest ID advocate would address the wide-ranging and evidence-based criticism, rather than ask that we treat tired old lies as if they were new and honest conceptions that are new to the science side.

Glen Davidson

mahsihmo said: The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) ...

Mahsihmo, are you familiar with the term "cdesign proponentsists"? How do you reconcile this datum with your, ahem, "theory"?

And why do you put "former" in quotation marks? If you meant italics, you can use html formatting: the letter i between angle brackets before the word, then /i in angle brackets afterword, like this.

Thanks for the welcome (smile). And rest assured that I am actually "examining" the evidence to gain a greater understanding. I'm simply trying to stay below the "fireworks", while searching for answers...! Looks like I've already drawn the "ugliness" out of "A Masked Panda".

I came here in search of answers, or at least direction towards answers, NOT to quibble over "editorial farts".

fnxtr said: Mahsihmo, are you familiar with the term "cdesign proponentsists"? How do you reconcile this datum with your, ahem, "theory"? And why do you put "former" in quotation marks? If you meant italics, you can use html formatting: the letter i between angle brackets before the word, then /i in angle brackets afterword, like this.

Looks like I’ve already drawn the “ugliness” out of “A Masked Panda”.

mahsihmo said:

fnxtr said: Mahsihmo, are you familiar with the term "cdesign proponentsists"? How do you reconcile this datum with your, ahem, "theory"? And why do you put "former" in quotation marks? If you meant italics, you can use html formatting: the letter i between angle brackets before the word, then /i in angle brackets afterword, like this.

I came here in search of answers, or at least direction towards answers, NOT to quibble over “editorial farts”.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

mahsihmo said:

fnxtr said: Mahsihmo, are you familiar with the term "cdesign proponentsists"? How do you reconcile this datum with your, ahem, "theory"? And why do you put "former" in quotation marks? If you meant italics, you can use html formatting: the letter i between angle brackets before the word, then /i in angle brackets afterword, like this.

I came here in search of answers, or at least direction towards answers, NOT to quibble over “editorial farts”.

Clearly you came here for anything but an honest discussion. Your "editorial farts" came from simply swapping out "creationists" for "design proponenents," of which I'm sure that you've been informed. That is meaningful, that is why such an "editorial fart" is brought up, and you dishonestly ignore the implications of such an incomplete attempt in order to focus on the fact that it's merely a slight mistake. No, you've been around here before, quit with the innocent act, the pretense at wanting answers at which you'll merely spit if given. You're simply a committed charlatan, like the rest of the IDiots. Bozo Joe? Glen Davidson

mahsihmo said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

mahsihmo said:

fnxtr said: Mahsihmo, are you familiar with the term "cdesign proponentsists"? How do you reconcile this datum with your, ahem, "theory"? And why do you put "former" in quotation marks? If you meant italics, you can use html formatting: the letter i between angle brackets before the word, then /i in angle brackets afterword, like this.

I came here in search of answers, or at least direction towards answers, NOT to quibble over “editorial farts”.

Clearly you came here for anything but an honest discussion. Your "editorial farts" came from simply swapping out "creationists" for "design proponenents," of which I'm sure that you've been informed. That is meaningful, that is why such an "editorial fart" is brought up, and you dishonestly ignore the implications of such an incomplete attempt in order to focus on the fact that it's merely a slight mistake. No, you've been around here before, quit with the innocent act, the pretense at wanting answers at which you'll merely spit if given. You're simply a committed charlatan, like the rest of the IDiots. Bozo Joe? Glen Davidson

Not sure who this Bozo Joe might be, but you have my attention. Go on...!

mahsihmo said: Thanks for the welcome (smile). And rest assured that I am actually "examining" the evidence to gain a greater understanding. I'm simply trying to stay below the "fireworks", while searching for answers...! Looks like I've already drawn the "ugliness" out of "A Masked Panda".

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

mahsihmo said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

mahsihmo said:

fnxtr said: Mahsihmo, are you familiar with the term "cdesign proponentsists"? How do you reconcile this datum with your, ahem, "theory"? And why do you put "former" in quotation marks? If you meant italics, you can use html formatting: the letter i between angle brackets before the word, then /i in angle brackets afterword, like this.

I came here in search of answers, or at least direction towards answers, NOT to quibble over “editorial farts”.

Clearly you came here for anything but an honest discussion. Your "editorial farts" came from simply swapping out "creationists" for "design proponenents," of which I'm sure that you've been informed. That is meaningful, that is why such an "editorial fart" is brought up, and you dishonestly ignore the implications of such an incomplete attempt in order to focus on the fact that it's merely a slight mistake. No, you've been around here before, quit with the innocent act, the pretense at wanting answers at which you'll merely spit if given. You're simply a committed charlatan, like the rest of the IDiots. Bozo Joe? Glen Davidson

Not sure who this Bozo Joe might be, but you have my attention. Go on...!

I'll take that as a confirmation. Sewage spill in the harbor again! Glen Davidson

mahsihmo said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

mahsihmo said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

mahsihmo said:

fnxtr said: Mahsihmo, are you familiar with the term "cdesign proponentsists"? How do you reconcile this datum with your, ahem, "theory"? And why do you put "former" in quotation marks? If you meant italics, you can use html formatting: the letter i between angle brackets before the word, then /i in angle brackets afterword, like this.

I came here in search of answers, or at least direction towards answers, NOT to quibble over “editorial farts”.

Clearly you came here for anything but an honest discussion. Your "editorial farts" came from simply swapping out "creationists" for "design proponenents," of which I'm sure that you've been informed. That is meaningful, that is why such an "editorial fart" is brought up, and you dishonestly ignore the implications of such an incomplete attempt in order to focus on the fact that it's merely a slight mistake. No, you've been around here before, quit with the innocent act, the pretense at wanting answers at which you'll merely spit if given. You're simply a committed charlatan, like the rest of the IDiots. Bozo Joe? Glen Davidson

Not sure who this Bozo Joe might be, but you have my attention. Go on...!

I'll take that as a confirmation. Sewage spill in the harbor again! Glen Davidson

So, tell me, is your anger fueled by a hatred for Bill Dembski, Creationism, God, what...??? I'm simply searching for answers. Please, don't respond. I will engage someone else here; someone without a chip on his shoulder.

DS said:

mahsihmo said: Thanks for the welcome (smile). And rest assured that I am actually "examining" the evidence to gain a greater understanding. I'm simply trying to stay below the "fireworks", while searching for answers...! Looks like I've already drawn the "ugliness" out of "A Masked Panda".

You say that you are "examining" the evidence. I hope that includes more than visiting creationist web sites. I hope that you are reading the scientific literature. I hope that you are going into the lab and performing experiments. Why is it that you refuse to accept the verdict of the professionals that have already looked at the evidence? Why is it that you refuse to accept the conclusions of the thousands of professional scientists who devoted their lives to uncovering the evidence and analyzing the evidence? Are you gong to do this with every scientific theory, or just those that you think are relevant to your religious beliefs? You are certainly entitled to examine the evidence for yourself, that's the point of science. But what makes you think that you have the right to ignore all of the people who have already examined the evidence? If you conclude that they are wrong and you reject the conclusions of science, is it because they are biased, or could it be you? Are they untrained and ignorant of the relevant facts, or could it be you? How on earth are you ever going to examine all of the evidence from the last one hundred and fifty years of research? How are you ever going to be qualified to judge entire fields of science that you have no training or experience in? Why are you willing to get into bed with charlatans and liars and ignore the entire scientific community? And of course, just rejecting the conclusions of science isn't going to get you anywhere. You are going to need a scientific alternative and ID does not provide that.

mahsihmo said: ... Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

SWT said:

mahsihmo said: ... Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

I have it on good authority that intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. Is my source on that incorrect?

mahsihmo said:

SWT said:

mahsihmo said: ... Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

I have it on good authority that intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. Is my source on that incorrect?

If I can share a quote with you from The Language of God, by Francis Collins (page 186), "the ID movement is careful not to specify who this designer might have been"; as I just begun to study ID I am not able to answer (affirm or refute) your source.

mahsihmo said: I'm not able to do anything in a lab because I am a disabled veteran. I am currently reading a book given to me by a friend entitled "Darwin Day in America" (west), and am encountering more questions, than answers. Looks as though I'll need to put on armour out here...!

P.S. The book you cited, appears to be nothing more than a religious screed that demonizes science. Don't be fooled by liars and charlatans. Examine the evidence for yourself. Until you do, you opinion is worthless. Scientists don't have a religious agenda. Since they don't share any one religion, how could they? You should ask yourself why the ID crown all worship the same imaginary god.

For a review of the book you cited, look here:

http://ncse.com/rncse/29/4/review-darwin-day-america

If you think that that is "examining" the evidence, you are sadly mistaken.

As a “former” atheist, and current student studying ID, I’d like to offer this definition (excerpt) from the intelligentdesign.org website as a point of clarity in stipulating that ID is NOT about “creationism”, but about understanding root cause.

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

mahsihmo said: ... from The Language of God, by Francis Collins (page 186), "the ID movement is careful not to specify who this designer might have been" ...

Here's another recommendation for mahsihmo: Cite your sources. I find that your definition of intelligent design is not your own, as implied by the lack of quotation marks or link, but is simply copied and pasted from this site. That's very bad form, friend.

Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.

Mahsihmo -

I'm always interested in positive evidence for ID (I haven't encountered any yet but I am open).

I have a set of questions I like to ask. I don't have the file I copy and paste them from handy, but I'll try to post them this evening (EST). Perhaps you'll enjoy answering them.

An AMERICAN disabled veteran? Who needs armour (sic)?

mahsihmo said: The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it.

Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence.

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

harold said: Mahsihmo - I'm always interested in positive evidence for ID (I haven't encountered any yet but I am open). I have a set of questions I like to ask. I don't have the file I copy and paste them from handy, but I'll try to post them this evening (EST). Perhaps you'll enjoy answering them.

Mahsihmo,

Can you name anything that is NOT "intelligently designed"? If so, what is it? How do you KNOW it's not designed? And, most importantly, how can we tell, unambiguously and reliably, what things are designed and what aren't?

mahsihmo:

If you really are serious about wanting to examine the evidence for evolution, here is a link that presents a lot of evidence, complete with scientific references:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

My favorite is section 4 on genetics, but we can start wherever you want.

If you are not interested in the scientific evidence, but are just interested in feeding off the poison pumped out by the ID crowd, then just go away, you won't find any sympathy here.

Mahsihmo - Here are some questions for you...

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) You said "So, tell me, is your anger fueled by a hatred for Bill Dembski, Creationism, God, what…???" Yet you also claim that ID isn't religious. But...if it isn't a religious idea, what does God have to do with the discussion?

mahsihmo said: As a "former" atheist, and current student studying ID, I'd like to offer this definition (excerpt) from the intelligentdesign.org website as a point of clarity in stipulating that ID is NOT about "creationism", but about understanding root cause.

Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it.

Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

DS said: Scientists don't have a religious agenda.

Mahsihmo,

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. While you might think that your position is unique and how you are wording your questions is interesting or whatever, I can assure you that every single person here has experienced those exact same questions from dozens, if not hundreds of people. It's why we (as a group) are a little testy about how you began. To say that you started off on the wrong foot is an understatement.

I too have a number of questions about ID, but it sounds like you aren't too sure either. You say you have questions about something... what are they? I would encourage you to visit some places that are actually involved in the science of biology and learn about the things you aren't sure about.

The University of Berkley has an excellent evolution resource center.
The NCSE has a great deal of resources on the creationism/ID movements.
My own blog at Skeptic Ink (Smilodon's Retreat) has a lot of rebuttals of ID claims and a lot of biology information (including reviews of actual peer-reviewed research written for laypeople).

You should avail yourself of these sources and compare to what you are reading.

Ray Martinez said: The Bible is quite clear as to how God will react to those who deny Him before men.

Richard B. Hoppe said: There is no "theory" of intelligent design. At best what you have described is a research goal. But I am aware of no--zero, nada--research actually directed at that goal in the ID movement. I see a lot of armchair hand-waving, a lot of abuses of probability, a lot of unfounded assertions, but no research at all. Dembski's so-called explanatory filter has now been out there for well over a decade (The Design Inference was published in 1998), and his notion of Complex Specified Information (CSI) has been available for six years (his No Free Lunch was published in 2007). Yet to this day, no ID "researcher" has applied the explanatory filter to any biological system in the manner Dembski described in The Design Inference, and no one has calculated the CSI of a single biological system in the manner specified in No Free Lunch.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible is quite clear as to how God will react to those who deny Him before men.

I deny your gods before men. I've done it for years. And what do your gods do in reaction? NOTHING. Not a thing, Ray.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible is quite clear as to how God will react to those who deny Him before men.

I deny your gods before men. I've done it for years. And what do your gods do in reaction? NOTHING. Not a thing, Ray.

The scriptural context is talking to believers, not non-believers.

mahsihmo,

Just the other day, Gov. Jindal of Louisiana defended his state's LSEA, a law which was written by the Discovery Institute and which says it shall not be construed to promote creationism, by saying the DI's law was good because it enabled the teaching of creationism at taxpayer expense. He called ID creationism.

The founder of the DI, Phillip Johnson, stated many times that ID starts with the gospel (John 1:1) and that the entire Bible was at stake. He called ID "slow creation". William Dembski also said that ID was just the theology of the Gospel of John restated in the form of information theory.

The ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, in its early drafts defined and centered on what it called "creationism", but in its later drafts replaced that with "Intelligent Design", using the same explicit definition for ID that had been used for creationism.

Please read the testimony of Prof. Barbara Forrest at the Dover trial; the transcript is at NCSE. It is devastating to the assertions you have copied and pasted from DI lawyer Casey Luskin, whose legalistic sophistry attempted to rewrite the history of DI founder Johnson's absolute demand that all science be stomped and strangled by his Bible.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible is quite clear as to how God will react to those who deny Him before men.

I deny your gods before men. I've done it for years. And what do your gods do in reaction? NOTHING. Not a thing, Ray.

The scriptural context is talking to believers, not non-believers.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were resorting that universal Christian extortion trick, the salvation scam. You know, where you threaten people with eternal torture unless they believe what you tell them to?

mahsihmo said: As a "former" atheist, and current student studying ID, I'd like to offer this definition (excerpt) from the intelligentdesign.org website as a point of clarity in stipulating that ID is NOT about "creationism", but about understanding root cause.

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

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.

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.

Yes, folks, every typical creationist/ID argument you've heard in the past 40 years, is in here. "Cambrian Explosion". "Abrupt Appearence (yes, they were indeed stupid enough to use that very phrase, repeatedly)". "Fossil Gaps". "Created Kinds". "Microevolution and Macroevolution". "Bats have no fossil ancestors". "Flowering plants appear suddenly". "Common structures are the result of common function". "Common structures are just convergence". "Haeckel's drawings show that darwinists are liars". "Mutation and natural selection can't produce new structures". "Peppered moths were faked". "DNA can only change within fixed limits". "Evolution is just an assumption". "Biological information cannot increase". "No new genetic information". "No beneficial mutations". "Goldschmidt's monster". "Behe and the flagellum". "Irreducible complexity". "Evolution is a tautology". "The big bad scientific establishment crushes dissent". Indeed, the entire fossil discussion is straight out of Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!". The whole Introduction is one big long AiG "were you there?" discussion. The "A New Challenge" section is all about "Intelligent Design Theory", without ever mentioning the name (I expect that Dover had something to do with that, right Paul?).

As I enter this discourse, I would ask for "intelligent" commentary, free of the personal (non scientific) character attacks;

The theory of intelligent design…

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible is quite clear as to how God will react to those who deny Him before men.

I deny your gods before men. I've done it for years. And what do your gods do in reaction? NOTHING. Not a thing, Ray.

The scriptural context is talking to believers, not non-believers.

fnxtr said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible is quite clear as to how God will react to those who deny Him before men.

I deny your gods before men. I've done it for years. And what do your gods do in reaction? NOTHING. Not a thing, Ray.

The scriptural context is talking to believers, not non-believers.

That's hilarious. You're safe, phhht, apparently this particular god only punishes god-denying Christians.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Scientists don't have a religious agenda.

I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn; looks like a cash cow, email me if you want in.

Ray Martinez said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: There is no "theory" of intelligent design. At best what you have described is a research goal. But I am aware of no--zero, nada--research actually directed at that goal in the ID movement. I see a lot of armchair hand-waving, a lot of abuses of probability, a lot of unfounded assertions, but no research at all. Dembski's so-called explanatory filter has now been out there for well over a decade (The Design Inference was published in 1998), and his notion of Complex Specified Information (CSI) has been available for six years (his No Free Lunch was published in 2007). Yet to this day, no ID "researcher" has applied the explanatory filter to any biological system in the manner Dembski described in The Design Inference, and no one has calculated the CSI of a single biological system in the manner specified in No Free Lunch.

"Theory" is understood to convey how something comes about using inference. For example, the theory of how evolution occurs (natural selection) is wholly dependent on inference. When you say "There is no 'theory' of intelligent design" you are incorrect. DI-IDism does have a theory: Dembski's "The Design Inference." But if you meant historical ID, like Paley's Watchmaker, then you are correct. Victorian Creationism isn't theoretical, observation alone, not inference, is used to conclude for the effect of design. (But inference is used to conclude for Intelligence.) Dembski's design inference is false, but it's still a theory because of reliance on inference to establish an alleged effect (design).

mahsihmo said: I'm not able to do anything in a lab because I am a disabled veteran. I am currently reading a book given to me by a friend entitled "Darwin Day in America" (west), and am encountering more questions, than answers. Looks as though I'll need to put on armour out here...!

DS said: It's so cute when someone who doesn't even know what a theory is tries to claim they are doing science.

fnxtr said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The Bible is quite clear as to how God will react to those who deny Him before men.

I deny your gods before men. I've done it for years. And what do your gods do in reaction? NOTHING. Not a thing, Ray.

The scriptural context is talking to believers, not non-believers.

That's hilarious. You're safe, phhht, apparently this particular god only punishes god-denying Christians.

Speaking of the Missing Link, er, List there are a couple of other lists that have been missing for quite some time.

Berlinski famously expounded that he started a List of "things" that would have to be re-engineered to turn a cow into a whale. (Yes, I know it's an incredibly stupid thing to say and to hear Berlinski say something like that without peeing yourself with laughter is beyond me.) Anyway, Milton Berlinski went on to say he stopped at 50,000.
Really? Fifty Thousand? That's a long, long, long List o' Stuff. So, Berly baby, where's the list? Personally, I would have started with a sea lion and used Excel, but, hey ...

The other list that comes to mind, also pulled out of his ass but never produced, came from Paul "Oxygenetic Distance" Nelson who in a radio interview was asked if there was anything that would convince him that evolution was true and his "notions" were not. Nelson, surprisingly, said "Yes, I have a list of Seven Things." Sensing pure gold was within reach the interviewer then asked the obvious follow-up question, "And the list is ... ?" "Ah, well," Nelson stammered, "I have the list but it's back in my hotel room. I don't have it with me." Undaunted the interviewer said, well, it's only Seven Things, surly you can recount them or at least a a few. Nope, Nelson wouldn't budge. He said it would be a "disservice" to fumble his precious (yes, Presssssssssshusssss!) List without his notes. The interview moved on.

So, Dembski owes us a list. Berlinski owes us a list. Nelson owes us a list. And I am holding my breath until we get them. Starting now ...

You look cute with your face all blue like that, Doc.

Doc Bill said: Speaking of the Missing Link, er, List there are a couple of other lists that have been missing for quite some time. Berlinski famously expounded that he started a List of "things" that would have to be re-engineered to turn a cow into a whale. (Yes, I know it's an incredibly stupid thing to say and to hear Berlinski say something like that without peeing yourself with laughter is beyond me.) Anyway, Milton Berlinski went on to say he stopped at 50,000. Really? Fifty Thousand? That's a long, long, long List o' Stuff. So, Berly baby, where's the list? Personally, I would have started with a sea lion and used Excel, but, hey ... The other list that comes to mind, also pulled out of his ass but never produced, came from Paul "Oxygenetic Distance" Nelson who in a radio interview was asked if there was anything that would convince him that evolution was true and his "notions" were not. Nelson, surprisingly, said "Yes, I have a list of Seven Things." Sensing pure gold was within reach the interviewer then asked the obvious follow-up question, "And the list is ... ?" "Ah, well," Nelson stammered, "I have the list but it's back in my hotel room. I don't have it with me." Undaunted the interviewer said, well, it's only Seven Things, surly you can recount them or at least a a few. Nope, Nelson wouldn't budge. He said it would be a "disservice" to fumble his precious (yes, Presssssssssshusssss!) List without his notes. The interview moved on. So, Dembski owes us a list. Berlinski owes us a list. Nelson owes us a list. And I am holding my breath until we get them. Starting now ...

Looks like Mahsihmo missed my questions. For his convenience, I'll post them again.

Mahsihmo - Here are some questions for you…

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

9) You said “So, tell me, is your anger fueled by a hatred for Bill Dembski, Creationism, God, what…???” Yet you also claim that ID isn’t religious. But…if it isn’t a religious idea, what does God have to do with the discussion?

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Scientists don't have a religious agenda.

I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn; looks like a cash cow, email me if you want in.

DS said:

mahsihmo said: I'm not able to do anything in a lab because I am a disabled veteran. I am currently reading a book given to me by a friend entitled "Darwin Day in America" (west), and am encountering more questions, than answers. Looks as though I'll need to put on armour out here...!

So how is it going there mahsihmo? Read the review of that awful book yet? Looked at the 29+ evidences for macroevolution yet? I know you can't actually go in the lab and do any research for yourself, so I guess you'll just have to trust the scientists who already did. You can get on the internet, right? You said you wanted to examine the evidence, well, here it is. If you want to discuss it we can start any time. If you aren't really interested in the evidence, you can just declare victory, go back to your congregation and tell them how you preached to the heathens. EIther way, I'll be waiting.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Scientists don't have a religious agenda.

I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn; looks like a cash cow, email me if you want in.

Well mahsihmo had his chance. Apparently he wasn’t interested in examining the evidence after all.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Scientists don't have a religious agenda.

I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn; looks like a cash cow, email me if you want in.

Please state the "religious" agenda shared by all scientists, keeping in mind that even one counter example is enough to falsify your hypothesis.

(NOTE: methodological naturalism is not a religious agenda so don't even think about going there. And philosophical naturalism is not a requirement for all scientists, nor is it shared by all scientists, so don't go there either).

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Scientists don't have a religious agenda.

I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn; looks like a cash cow, email me if you want in.

Please state the "religious" agenda shared by all scientists, keeping in mind that even one counter example is enough to falsify your hypothesis. (NOTE: methodological naturalism is not a religious agenda so don't even think about going there. And philosophical naturalism is not a requirement for all scientists, nor is it shared by all scientists, so don't go there either).

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/darwin2.html George P. Landow, Professor of English and the History of Art, Brown University: "Darwinian theories of man's evolution out of lower species challenged nineteenth-century Christian belief on at least four grounds....By emphasizing that species changed over time, evolutionary theories called into question the literal truth of the Bible...."

Ray Martinez said: So if I produce, let's say, four scholarly quotes in behalf of X and you produce just one that contradicts, you're contending "the one" overrides "the four"?

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said: So if I produce, let's say, four scholarly quotes in behalf of X and you produce just one that contradicts, you're contending "the one" overrides "the four"?

Well, yeah, that's kind of the way secret conspiracies work. It just takes one guy to spill the beans and if the evidence is valid the cat suddenly finds itself outside of the bag licking itself in the sunshine while the world watches. See Watergate: Deep Throat. Mai Lai: Calley's prepaid Kodachrome mailer. Etc. The problem with a "religious agenda" shared by all scientists is the obvious fact that there are serious scientists all over the Earth, belonging to every conceivable religion, and many of these religions hate each other with the burning passion that only following a just, kind, and merciful God can inspire. Surely, there's some scientist somewhere on the planet who's not an atheist despite being privy to the Truth about God actually existing. Surely, there's some religion somewhere on the planet that that has no problem with exposing the Big Lie about evolution. Surely, there's one genetic scientist somewhere who stuck in a low-paying, dead-end job after pissing off the wrong tenure committee and he looks at Dembski and Behe and realizes that writing a tell-all book is the ticket to the Big Green. It's been 100 years, Ray. Millions of people must be in on this conspiracy by now. Where is that one guy?

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/darwin2.html George P. Landow, Professor of English and the History of Art, Brown University: “Darwinian theories of man’s evolution out of lower species challenged nineteenth-century Christian belief on at least four grounds.…By emphasizing that species changed over time, evolutionary theories called into question the literal truth of the Bible.…”

Ray Martinez said: Darwinian evolution... is anti-Bible and anti-Christianity.

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said: So if I produce, let's say, four scholarly quotes in behalf of X and you produce just one that contradicts, you're contending "the one" overrides "the four"?

Well, yeah, that's kind of the way secret conspiracies work. It just takes one guy to spill the beans and if the evidence is valid the cat suddenly finds itself outside of the bag licking itself in the sunshine while the world watches. See Watergate: Deep Throat. Mai Lai: Calley's prepaid Kodachrome mailer. Etc. The problem with a "religious agenda" shared by all scientists is the obvious fact that there are serious scientists all over the Earth, belonging to every conceivable religion, and many of these religions hate each other with the burning passion that only following a just, kind, and merciful God can inspire. Surely, there's some scientist somewhere on the planet who's not an atheist despite being privy to the Truth about God actually existing. Surely, there's some religion somewhere on the planet that that has no problem with exposing the Big Lie about evolution. Surely, there's one genetic scientist somewhere who stuck in a low-paying, dead-end job after pissing off the wrong tenure committee and he looks at Dembski and Behe and realizes that writing a tell-all book is the ticket to the Big Green. It's been 100 years, Ray. Millions of people must be in on this conspiracy by now. Where is that one guy?

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/darwin2.html George P. Landow, Professor of English and the History of Art, Brown University: “Darwinian theories of man’s evolution out of lower species challenged nineteenth-century Christian belief on at least four grounds.…By emphasizing that species changed over time, evolutionary theories called into question the literal truth of the Bible.…”

There are very many others, as well. Darwinian evolution, the only evolution ever accepted by science, is anti-Bible and anti-Christianity. The only reason some people deny is because of "Christians" who accept evolution.

Ray Martinez said: George P. Landow, Professor of English and the History of Art, Brown University: “Darwinian theories of man’s evolution out of lower species challenged nineteenth-century Christian belief on at least four grounds.…By emphasizing that species changed over time, evolutionary theories called into question the literal truth of the Bible.…”

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Darwinian evolution... is anti-Bible and anti-Christianity.

So is quantum theory, Ray. So is statistical mechanics and condensed matter physics and inorganic chemistry and pharmacology and computer science and, in fact, everything, Ray, every fucking thing from landscape gardening to refrigerator repair. All those fields of endeavor are just as anti-Bible, just as anti-Christianity, as evolution, because NONE OF THEM NEED GODS FOR ANYTHING AT ALL. And that is why you hate evolution, Ray. You hate it because it shows just how profoundly unnecessary your gods are. Gods are irrelevant to human endeavor, Ray. They are futile, feckless, impotent, imaginary delusions. They are useless hallucinations.

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said: So if I produce, let's say, four scholarly quotes in behalf of X and you produce just one that contradicts, you're contending "the one" overrides "the four"?

Well, yeah, that's kind of the way secret conspiracies work. It just takes one guy to spill the beans and if the evidence is valid the cat suddenly finds itself outside of the bag licking itself in the sunshine while the world watches. See Watergate: Deep Throat. Mai Lai: Calley's prepaid Kodachrome mailer. Etc. The problem with a "religious agenda" shared by all scientists is the obvious fact that there are serious scientists all over the Earth, belonging to every conceivable religion, and many of these religions hate each other with the burning passion that only following a just, kind, and merciful God can inspire. Surely, there's some scientist somewhere on the planet who's not an atheist despite being privy to the Truth about God actually existing. Surely, there's some religion somewhere on the planet that that has no problem with exposing the Big Lie about evolution. Surely, there's one genetic scientist somewhere who stuck in a low-paying, dead-end job after pissing off the wrong tenure committee and he looks at Dembski and Behe and realizes that writing a tell-all book is the ticket to the Big Green. It's been 100 years, Ray. Millions of people must be in on this conspiracy by now. Where is that one guy?

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/darwin2.html George P. Landow, Professor of English and the History of Art, Brown University: “Darwinian theories of man’s evolution out of lower species challenged nineteenth-century Christian belief on at least four grounds.…By emphasizing that species changed over time, evolutionary theories called into question the literal truth of the Bible.…”

There are very many others, as well. Darwinian evolution, the only evolution ever accepted by science, is anti-Bible and anti-Christianity. The only reason some people deny is because of "Christians" who accept evolution.

You seem to be under the delusion that the ONLY reason people enter the science fields is to destroy religion. That is, of course, WRONG. People become scientists to understand the world as it really is; the FACT that the reality they discover does not conform to your idiotic 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales does not mean they intended to destroy religion and superstition (that is a beneficial side effect).

The OBSERVED FACT that species can change put a dent in your idiotic 'species be immutable !!!' carping centuries ago.

If species were truly immutable, there could be no such thing as drug resistant bacteria. Drug resistant bacteria exist; therefore, sane and rational folk deduced that species immutability was an idea borne of ignorance.

Scientists live all over the world, and have many different theistic outlooks; being an atheist is NOT (nor has it ever been) a requirement to work in science.

You can believe anything about Magical Sky Pixies you like - just don't pretend your silly 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales supersede actual observations of reality.

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said: George P. Landow, Professor of English and the History of Art, Brown University: “Darwinian theories of man’s evolution out of lower species challenged nineteenth-century Christian belief on at least four grounds.…By emphasizing that species changed over time, evolutionary theories called into question the literal truth of the Bible.…”

But you notice something Ray? George Landow doesn't demonstrate that evolution is wrong, he just says he doesn't like it because it contradicts the Bible. That's a big difference. Go find me someone who provides some evidence modern evolutionary theory is incorrect, not just theologically unpleasant.

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? In a snowflake? In the rings of Saturn? In a piece of marble which shows a skyline? In the pattern produced by an Abelian sandpile model? Where? And suppose you could empirically detect design. How do you know it is YOUR god who did it? Why can't it be Allah? Why can't it be Vishnu? Why can't it be the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You have nothing, Ray. You're a bull goose loony.

Ray Martinez said:

mahsihmo said: As a "former" atheist, and current student studying ID, I'd like to offer this definition (excerpt) from the intelligentdesign.org website as a point of clarity in stipulating that ID is NOT about "creationism", but about understanding root cause.

---Creationism, conceptually, is about root cause (Creator did it). And you can stipulate all you want. The fact that you're admitting to stipulation means dislike of the accepted meanings of "Intelligence" and "Intelligent." Both terms, in the history of science, have always been understood as referring to the intelligence of the Genesis Creator. If you should disagree, then what other deity has the West ever worshipped? Your brand of "IDism" seems quite ashamed of God. The Bible is quite clear as to how God will react to those who deny Him before men.

Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it.

---This is a deliberate misrepresentation of Creationism designed as such to make people believe the author and his peers are not Creationists. The quote assumes and implies that Scripture is in need of reconciliation with science. The assumption and implication is atheistic (Bible is scientifically and historically at odds with science). I assume that you're a Theist or even a Christian? If so, why are you employing pro-Atheist ideology?

---We are Christians, in part, because the Bible (Word of God) is scientifically and historically correct.

Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

---The ending claim concerning "supernatural" is an excellent example of convoluted DI-ID thinking; as if "Intelligent design" does not imply the work of invisible Designer or Creator; and as if invisible Creator or Designer is not supernatural; and as if these concepts are not synonymous. DI-IDism is big on using inference, but the foregoing rudimentary inferences escape their understanding? This is why these people employ stipulation. As if honest and thinking people can morally and intellectually disconnect "Intelligent design" from invisible supernatural Creator. ---RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez said: Darwinian evolution, the only evolution ever accepted by science, is anti-Bible and anti-Christianity. The only reason some people deny is because of "Christians" who accept evolution. The end result of evolution acceptance: honest and forthright hatred of God, Bible and Christianity. “Christian” Evolutionists are buffoons.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said: So if I produce, let's say, four scholarly quotes in behalf of X and you produce just one that contradicts, you're contending "the one" overrides "the four"?

Well, yeah, that's kind of the way secret conspiracies work. It just takes one guy to spill the beans and if the evidence is valid the cat suddenly finds itself outside of the bag licking itself in the sunshine while the world watches. See Watergate: Deep Throat. Mai Lai: Calley's prepaid Kodachrome mailer. Etc. The problem with a "religious agenda" shared by all scientists is the obvious fact that there are serious scientists all over the Earth, belonging to every conceivable religion, and many of these religions hate each other with the burning passion that only following a just, kind, and merciful God can inspire. Surely, there's some scientist somewhere on the planet who's not an atheist despite being privy to the Truth about God actually existing. Surely, there's some religion somewhere on the planet that that has no problem with exposing the Big Lie about evolution. Surely, there's one genetic scientist somewhere who stuck in a low-paying, dead-end job after pissing off the wrong tenure committee and he looks at Dembski and Behe and realizes that writing a tell-all book is the ticket to the Big Green. It's been 100 years, Ray. Millions of people must be in on this conspiracy by now. Where is that one guy?

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/darwin2.html George P. Landow, Professor of English and the History of Art, Brown University: “Darwinian theories of man’s evolution out of lower species challenged nineteenth-century Christian belief on at least four grounds.…By emphasizing that species changed over time, evolutionary theories called into question the literal truth of the Bible.…”

There are very many others, as well. Darwinian evolution, the only evolution ever accepted by science, is anti-Bible and anti-Christianity. The only reason some people deny is because of "Christians" who accept evolution.

You seem to be under the delusion that the ONLY reason people enter the science fields is to destroy religion. That is, of course, WRONG. People become scientists to understand the world as it really is; the FACT that the reality they discover does not conform to your idiotic 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales does not mean they intended to destroy religion and superstition (that is a beneficial side effect).

Since no God exists, Atheists have no choice: they must believe and study material reality as "the Creator" of material reality. Their interpretations and conclusions are thus predetermined.

The OBSERVED FACT that species can change put a dent in your idiotic 'species be immutable !!!' carping centuries ago.

Accepted evolution is too slow to be directly observed as it allegedly occurs; therefore it is inferred to have occurred after the alleged fact. In short, your "science" is not observed. You believe in something that cannot be seen.

If species were truly immutable, there could be no such thing as drug resistant bacteria. Drug resistant bacteria exist; therefore, sane and rational folk deduced that species immutability was an idea borne of ignorance.

Mutating bacteria is NOT evolution. The Creation/Evolution debate is framed around the origin of sexually reproducing animal species; Paley's watches, the same Darwin referred to in his title: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" (1859).

Scientists live all over the world, and have many different theistic outlooks; being an atheist is NOT (nor has it ever been) a requirement to work in science.

Accepting pro-Atheism interpretive philosophies, Naturalism/Materialism, is required to join and remain in the club.

You can believe anything about Magical Sky Pixies you like - just don't pretend your silly 'interpretations' of ancient morality tales supersede actual observations of reality.

Again, your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? [....snip....]

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? [....snip....]

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (Paley 1802).

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? [....snip....]

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (Paley 1802; book title). "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Dawkins 1986:1).

PA Poland said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? In a snowflake? In the rings of Saturn? In a piece of marble which shows a skyline? In the pattern produced by an Abelian sandpile model? Where? And suppose you could empirically detect design. How do you know it is YOUR god who did it? Why can't it be Allah? Why can't it be Vishnu? Why can't it be the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You have nothing, Ray. You're a bull goose loony.

[....] 'APPEARANCE OF DESIGN' = 'ACTUAL DESIGN'.

Con men would LOVE him - show him a piece of pyrite that APPEARS TO BE gold, and he'd buy it since (by his 'logic'), if it APPEARS to be gold, it MUST be gold !! Show him a cubic zirconia that APPEARS TO BE a huge diamond, and he'd pay thousands for it since (to him), it if APPEARS to be a diamond, it MUST be a diamond !

Ray's god is a small, angry, ham-fisted imbecile that can ONLY create via magic (lacking the wit or competence to utilize known natural processes to do the job); to Ray, new species don't arise when differences between populations nearly eliminate gene flow between them, but when his Magical Sky Pixie 'POOFS !1!!1!1!!' a whole new population into existence all at once when no one is looking. The FACT that the two populations are incredibly similar and the observed differences are fully explainable via known processes is merely a staggering coincidence.

dalehusband said:

Ray Martinez said:

mahsihmo said: As a "former" atheist, and current student studying ID, I'd like to offer this definition (excerpt) from the intelligentdesign.org website as a point of clarity in stipulating that ID is NOT about "creationism", but about understanding root cause.

---Creationism, conceptually, is about root cause (Creator did it). And you can stipulate all you want. The fact that you're admitting to stipulation means dislike of the accepted meanings of "Intelligence" and "Intelligent." Both terms, in the history of science, have always been understood as referring to the intelligence of the Genesis Creator. If you should disagree, then what other deity has the West ever worshipped? Your brand of "IDism" seems quite ashamed of God. The Bible is quite clear as to how God will react to those who deny Him before men.

So God is an egomaniac who wants people to affirm Him but never supports his own existence with any empirical evidence? EPIC FAIL!

Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it.

---This is a deliberate misrepresentation of Creationism designed as such to make people believe the author and his peers are not Creationists. The quote assumes and implies that Scripture is in need of reconciliation with science. The assumption and implication is atheistic (Bible is scientifically and historically at odds with science). I assume that you're a Theist or even a Christian? If so, why are you employing pro-Atheist ideology?

You just flat out lied, Ray. The statement above is indeed accurate. Your obsession with seeing Atheist ideology everywhere seems to indicate insanity.

---We are Christians, in part, because the Bible (Word of God) is scientifically and historically correct.

I assert three things: One, that many statements in the Bible are NOT scientifically accurate and have been debunked by scientists. Two, that many statements in the Bible are NOT historically accurate and have been debunked by historical scholars. Three, it is BLASPHEMY to claim the Bible, or any other book made by men, to be the Word of God. You might as well be an idol worshipper, you hypocrite!

Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

---The ending claim concerning "supernatural" is an excellent example of convoluted DI-ID thinking; as if "Intelligent design" does not imply the work of invisible Designer or Creator; and as if invisible Creator or Designer is not supernatural; and as if these concepts are not synonymous. DI-IDism is big on using inference, but the foregoing rudimentary inferences escape their understanding? This is why these people employ stipulation. As if honest and thinking people can morally and intellectually disconnect "Intelligent design" from invisible supernatural Creator. ---RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Seriously, all you really are is a (bigoted, idiotic fraud).

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? [....snip....]

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (Paley 1802; book title). "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Dawkins 1986:1).

They decided that the earth was flat and that the sun circled arounds the earth using exactly the same methods. Imagine that.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? [....snip....]

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (Paley 1802; book title). "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Dawkins 1986:1).

They decided that the earth was flat and that the sun circled arounds the earth using exactly the same methods. Imagine that.

Who is "they"? Don't forget that back then even Atheists and other non-Christians thought the sun revolved around the earth.

dalehusband said:

Ray Martinez said: Darwinian evolution, the only evolution ever accepted by science, is anti-Bible and anti-Christianity. The only reason some people deny is because of "Christians" who accept evolution. The end result of evolution acceptance: honest and forthright hatred of God, Bible and Christianity. “Christian” Evolutionists are buffoons.

If that is true, Ray, why are you even a Christian at all? You just admitted before us that you (and the rest of us) indeed have absolutely no reason to be one. Thanks!

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? [....snip....]

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (Paley 1802; book title). "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Dawkins 1986:1).

They decided that the earth was flat and that the sun circled arounds the earth using exactly the same methods. Imagine that.

Who is "they"? Don't forget that back then even Atheists and other non-Christians thought the sun revolved around the earth.

And they were all wrong because the appearance was deceiving. Take a lesson.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? [....snip....]

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (Paley 1802; book title). "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Dawkins 1986:1).

They decided that the earth was flat and that the sun circled arounds the earth using exactly the same methods. Imagine that.

Who is "they"? Don't forget that back then even Atheists and other non-Christians thought the sun revolved around the earth.

And they were all wrong because the appearance was deceiving. Take a lesson.

So all appearances are deceiving? Is this your argument?

Ray Martinez said: Yes, why assume nature is deceiving us?

If not, what, then justifies the assumption that appearance of design does not convey actual design?

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Yes, why assume nature is deceiving us?

We don't ASSUME that, Ray, we know it. We are nature, and we deceive ourselves and others continuously. And the easiest person to deceive is yourself.

If not, what, then justifies the assumption that appearance of design does not convey actual design?

The fact that no one can detect or measure or even define design, Ray.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? [....snip....]

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (Paley 1802; book title). "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Dawkins 1986:1).

They decided that the earth was flat and that the sun circled arounds the earth using exactly the same methods. Imagine that.

Who is "they"? Don't forget that back then even Atheists and other non-Christians thought the sun revolved around the earth.

And they were all wrong because the appearance was deceiving. Take a lesson.

So all appearances are deceiving? Is this your argument?

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Yes, why assume nature is deceiving us?

We don't ASSUME that, Ray, we know it. We are nature, and we deceive ourselves and others continuously. And the easiest person to deceive is yourself.

If not, what, then justifies the assumption that appearance of design does not convey actual design?

The fact that no one can detect or measure or even define design, Ray.

You've conveniently changed the issue; once again: “Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature” (Paley 1802). “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (Dawkins 1986:1). Why assume said referenced appearance is false? Please stop evading. Intelligent people know what that means.

phhht said: And I expect that a design detector will not only measure the difference in designedness of a rock and a pocket watch, but also say whether a snowflake is designed, whether the rings of Saturn are designed, whether the pattern produced by an Abelian sandpile simulation is designed, and say whether the skyline in piece of marble is designed.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? In a snowflake? In the rings of Saturn? In a piece of marble which shows a skyline? In the pattern produced by an Abelian sandpile model? Where? And suppose you could empirically detect design. How do you know it is YOUR god who did it? Why can't it be Allah? Why can't it be Vishnu? Why can't it be the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You have nothing, Ray. You're a bull goose loony.

[....] 'APPEARANCE OF DESIGN' = 'ACTUAL DESIGN'.

Yes, why assume nature is deceiving us?

Con men would LOVE him - show him a piece of pyrite that APPEARS TO BE gold, and he'd buy it since (by his 'logic'), if it APPEARS to be gold, it MUST be gold !! Show him a cubic zirconia that APPEARS TO BE a huge diamond, and he'd pay thousands for it since (to him), it if APPEARS to be a diamond, it MUST be a diamond !

Comments depart context (biological origins). Again, why should we assume nature is deceiving us?

Has any scientist or scholar ever said or argued the examples of false appearance you mention above justify said assumption? If not, what, then justifies the assumption that appearance of design does not convey actual design?

Ray's god is a small, angry, ham-fisted imbecile that can ONLY create via magic (lacking the wit or competence to utilize known natural processes to do the job); to Ray, new species don't arise when differences between populations nearly eliminate gene flow between them, but when his Magical Sky Pixie 'POOFS !1!!1!1!!' a whole new population into existence all at once when no one is looking. The FACT that the two populations are incredibly similar and the observed differences are fully explainable via known processes is merely a staggering coincidence.

Ignoring the emotive elements seen in the comments above, the author is advancing another assumption---that discovery of incredibly similar species means evolution has occurred. We explain said discoveries as evidence supporting the claim that nature is the work of one Divine Mastermind (Genesis Creator). In essence, God saw that what He made was good, so He made another similar species.

Ray Martinez said: Dale, a Discovery Institute hating Evolutionist suddenly defends a representative (Mahsihmo) via nonsense and insult. This is what happens when a real anti-evolutionist shows up, the phony anti-evos (DI-IDists) are exposed to be in the same bed with Darwin and Dawkins. RM (Pathological liar, bigot, and idiot)

Ray Martinez said: I reject all evolution, micro and macro. So what are you talking about?

Ray: "In essence, God saw that what He made was good, so He made another similar species."

You mean God had to TRY it to see if it would be good? He didn't know ahead of time? You mean he's not omniscient?

Your sentence seems to indicate that the supernatural "design" of creatures was a one-at-a-time experiment: Make one; see if it's 'good'; if it is, try another similar one. And if it isn't 'good' then what? Instant extinction? Or just leave that one not-so-good species as a dead end, with no similar copies?

You see, Ray, when you make up 'Just So' stories about how your god works, you often end up with a tangled web directly in contradiction to what your god is supposed to be. In other words, sacrilege and blasphemy.

If you want to see examples of how bad that can get, study the supra-biblical pronouncements of FL and IBIG.

Just Bob said: Ray: "In essence, God saw that what He made was good, so He made another similar species." You mean God had to TRY it to see if it would be good? He didn't know ahead of time? You mean he's not omniscient? Your sentence seems to indicate that the supernatural "design" of creatures was a one-at-a-time experiment: Make one; see if it's 'good'; if it is, try another similar one. And if it isn't 'good' then what? Instant extinction? Or just leave that one not-so-good species as a dead end, with no similar copies? You see, Ray, when you make up 'Just So' stories about how your god works, you often end up with a tangled web directly in contradiction to what your god is supposed to be. In other words, sacrilege and blasphemy. If you want to see examples of how bad that can get, study the supra-biblical pronouncements of FL and IBIG.

Stop feeding the troll. This entire argument belongs on the BW.

diogeneslamp0 said: Stop feeding the troll. This entire argument belongs on the BW.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? [....snip....]

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (Paley 1802; book title). "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Dawkins 1986:1).

They decided that the earth was flat and that the sun circled arounds the earth using exactly the same methods. Imagine that.

Who is "they"? Don't forget that back then even Atheists and other non-Christians thought the sun revolved around the earth.

And they were all wrong because the appearance was deceiving. Take a lesson.

So all appearances are deceiving? Is this your argument?

Superficial appearance can indeed be deceiving. In that case, you must look deeper and use rigorous scientific methodology. That is how we found out that the earth was not flat and that the sun did not go round the earth. I know this is news to you Ray, but you should really try it some time. It can be very enlightening.

Ray Martinez said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Stop feeding the troll. This entire argument belongs on the BW.

Our evo is angry because he can't refute anything I've said.

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? In a snowflake? In the rings of Saturn? In a piece of marble which shows a skyline? In the pattern produced by an Abelian sandpile model? Where? And suppose you could empirically detect design. How do you know it is YOUR god who did it? Why can't it be Allah? Why can't it be Vishnu? Why can't it be the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You have nothing, Ray. You're a bull goose loony.

[....] 'APPEARANCE OF DESIGN' = 'ACTUAL DESIGN'.

Yes, why assume nature is deceiving us?

Nature isn't deceiving you - YOU ARE. You see something beyond your willfully limited understanding, and immediately leap to 'IT WUZ DEEZINED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE !!!!!' You presume that something complex MUST have been directly crafted by an 'invisible intelligence' because you 'think' it all had to fall together all at once.

Con men would LOVE him - show him a piece of pyrite that APPEARS TO BE gold, and he'd buy it since (by his 'logic'), if it APPEARS to be gold, it MUST be gold !! Show him a cubic zirconia that APPEARS TO BE a huge diamond, and he'd pay thousands for it since (to him), it if APPEARS to be a diamond, it MUST be a diamond !

Comments depart context (biological origins). Again, why should we assume nature is deceiving us?

Again, twit : nature isn't deceiving you - YOU ARE. By your 'logic', if something APPEARS to be gold, it MUST be gold (even it if isn't). Again, buffoon : 'appearance of design' in nature is rarely (if ever) 'actual design'. Evolution can produce results that LOOK LIKE the critter was designed by an 'invisible intelligence', but it is merely an illusion. The only reason you 'think' a Magical Sky Pixie is necessary is because you are too willfully ignorant to understand real world mechanisms.

Has any scientist or scholar ever said or argued the examples of false appearance you mention above justify said assumption? If not, what, then justifies the assumption that appearance of design does not convey actual design?

No EVIDENCE for actual design in nature. Nothing observed so far requires the direct intervention of Magical Sky Pixies to explain it. The FACT that evolution can produce effects that APPEAR (to the ignorant) like a Magical Sky Pixie somehow did something.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? [....snip....]

"Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature" (Paley 1802; book title). "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Dawkins 1986:1).

They decided that the earth was flat and that the sun circled arounds the earth using exactly the same methods. Imagine that.

Who is "they"? Don't forget that back then even Atheists and other non-Christians thought the sun revolved around the earth.

And they were all wrong because the appearance was deceiving. Take a lesson.

So all appearances are deceiving? Is this your argument?

Superficial appearance can indeed be deceiving. In that case, you must look deeper and use rigorous scientific methodology. That is how we found out that the earth was not flat and that the sun did not go round the earth. I know this is news to you Ray, but you should really try it some time. It can be very enlightening.

According to our evo nature appears designed, but it is deceiving us. We contend said appearance corresponds logically to the work of invisible Designer (Genesis Creator). And our evo has yet to produce one scholar or scientist who justifies denying said appearance, and its logical inference, based on false appearances uncovered by physics and cosmology. According to our evo all appearances are deceiving, which calls into question the inference of evolution (as well) because inference is dependent on observation.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? In a snowflake? In the rings of Saturn? In a piece of marble which shows a skyline? In the pattern produced by an Abelian sandpile model? Where? And suppose you could empirically detect design. How do you know it is YOUR god who did it? Why can't it be Allah? Why can't it be Vishnu? Why can't it be the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You have nothing, Ray. You're a bull goose loony.

[....] 'APPEARANCE OF DESIGN' = 'ACTUAL DESIGN'.

Yes, why assume nature is deceiving us?

Nature isn't deceiving you - YOU ARE. You see something beyond your willfully limited understanding, and immediately leap to 'IT WUZ DEEZINED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE !!!!!' You presume that something complex MUST have been directly crafted by an 'invisible intelligence' because you 'think' it all had to fall together all at once.

Long-winded way of answering in the affirmative: Yes, nature is deceiving us. But said answer presupposes design observed in nature. Again, said effect corresponds logically to the work of invisible Designer. This is why we are Paleyan IDists. Our science is based on direct observation.

Con men would LOVE him - show him a piece of pyrite that APPEARS TO BE gold, and he'd buy it since (by his 'logic'), if it APPEARS to be gold, it MUST be gold !! Show him a cubic zirconia that APPEARS TO BE a huge diamond, and he'd pay thousands for it since (to him), it if APPEARS to be a diamond, it MUST be a diamond !

Comments depart context (biological origins). Again, why should we assume nature is deceiving us?

Again, twit : nature isn't deceiving you - YOU ARE. By your 'logic', if something APPEARS to be gold, it MUST be gold (even it if isn't). Again, buffoon : 'appearance of design' in nature is rarely (if ever) 'actual design'. Evolution can produce results that LOOK LIKE the critter was designed by an 'invisible intelligence', but it is merely an illusion. The only reason you 'think' a Magical Sky Pixie is necessary is because you are too willfully ignorant to understand real world mechanisms.

Again, comments say nature appears designed. Appearance is observed; hence design based on the main tool of science: observation. Then our evo says evolution is the designer, meaning unintelligence designed nature. Let's examine the logic: design indicates unintelligent process, not invisible Intelligence.

Has any scientist or scholar ever said or argued the examples of false appearance you mention above justify said assumption? If not, what, then justifies the assumption that appearance of design does not convey actual design?

No EVIDENCE for actual design in nature. Nothing observed so far requires the direct intervention of Magical Sky Pixies to explain it. The FACT that evolution can produce effects that APPEAR (to the ignorant) like a Magical Sky Pixie somehow did something.

We contend that appearance of design equates to actual design, nature is not deceiving us. Again, this is why we are Creationists: design observed in nature. Dawkins agrees with Paley: “Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature” (Paley 1802; book title). “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (Dawkins 1986:1). Creationism is based on evidence, my only point.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Ray Martinez said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Stop feeding the troll. This entire argument belongs on the BW.

Our evo is angry because he can't refute anything I've said.

Oh, what the fuck have you said that needs refuting? Dawkins says biology has the "appearance" of being "designed"? I don't know what "designed" means and I don't know what "appearance" means.

Science is not about subjective feelings.

[....snip significant amount of irrelevant argument....] Now, I could point out many observed examples of observed natural processes that increase complexity, information, adaptation, fitness, etc. etc. However, if I point out any examples of natural processes creating the "appearance of design", our fraudster will deny it, because he insists on CONTROLLING THE DEFINITION of "appearance of design." You don't control the definition-- I do. We've seen evolution produce the "appearance of design", that's been observed. I control the definition, you don't.

If you don't like it you have only two options: 1. Do the scientific thing: present AN EQUATION for "appearance of design" that involves ONLY STRUCTURE, not the process by which a structure is made. Or....[snip]....

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: ...your "science" is all inferential (not seen directly). Our science (appearance of design) is seen directly. This is why we are Christians: The work of our God is clearly seen in reality.

Where? Where is your appearance of design seen? In a snowflake? In the rings of Saturn? In a piece of marble which shows a skyline? In the pattern produced by an Abelian sandpile model? Where? And suppose you could empirically detect design. How do you know it is YOUR god who did it? Why can't it be Allah? Why can't it be Vishnu? Why can't it be the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You have nothing, Ray. You're a bull goose loony.

[....] 'APPEARANCE OF DESIGN' = 'ACTUAL DESIGN'.

Yes, why assume nature is deceiving us?

Nature isn't deceiving you - YOU ARE. You see something beyond your willfully limited understanding, and immediately leap to 'IT WUZ DEEZINED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE !!!!!' You presume that something complex MUST have been directly crafted by an 'invisible intelligence' because you 'think' it all had to fall together all at once.

Long-winded way of answering in the affirmative: Yes, nature is deceiving us. But said answer presupposes design observed in nature. Again, said effect corresponds logically to the work of invisible Designer. This is why we are Paleyan IDists. Our science is based on direct observation.

Con men would LOVE him - show him a piece of pyrite that APPEARS TO BE gold, and he'd buy it since (by his 'logic'), if it APPEARS to be gold, it MUST be gold !! Show him a cubic zirconia that APPEARS TO BE a huge diamond, and he'd pay thousands for it since (to him), it if APPEARS to be a diamond, it MUST be a diamond !

Comments depart context (biological origins). Again, why should we assume nature is deceiving us?

Again, twit : nature isn't deceiving you - YOU ARE. By your 'logic', if something APPEARS to be gold, it MUST be gold (even it if isn't). Again, buffoon : 'appearance of design' in nature is rarely (if ever) 'actual design'. Evolution can produce results that LOOK LIKE the critter was designed by an 'invisible intelligence', but it is merely an illusion. The only reason you 'think' a Magical Sky Pixie is necessary is because you are too willfully ignorant to understand real world mechanisms.

Again, comments say nature appears designed. Appearance is observed; hence design based on the main tool of science: observation. Then our evo says evolution is the designer, meaning unintelligence designed nature. Let's examine the logic: design indicates unintelligent process, not invisible Intelligence.

Has any scientist or scholar ever said or argued the examples of false appearance you mention above justify said assumption? If not, what, then justifies the assumption that appearance of design does not convey actual design?

No EVIDENCE for actual design in nature. Nothing observed so far requires the direct intervention of Magical Sky Pixies to explain it. The FACT that evolution can produce effects that APPEAR (to the ignorant) like a Magical Sky Pixie somehow did something.

We contend that appearance of design equates to actual design, nature is not deceiving us. Again, this is why we are Creationists: design observed in nature. Dawkins agrees with Paley: “Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature” (Paley 1802; book title). “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (Dawkins 1986:1). Creationism is based on evidence, my only point.

Ray Martinez said: Apparently

You’ve already admitted, above: “I don’t know what ‘designed’ means and I don’t know what ‘appearance’ means” (diogeneslamp0). Now you contradict yourself and say “I control the definition, you don’t.”

So Ray, here are a few questions for you:

Does the earth appear to be flat? Did the earth fool you into thinking it was flat? Does the sun appear to go around the earth? Did it fool you into thinking that it went around the earth? Exactly how did we figure out that these things were not as they appeared?

Dawkins says that biology has the appearance of being designed. Does he conclude that life is designed? NO HE DOES NOT. So you have two choices, either stop trying to imply that he does, or admit that he doesn't. As you very well know, Dawkins has concluded that the apparent design of living things is a mere human construct brought out by the propensity of the human mind to d=see patterns, sometimes where none exist. His explanation for the apparent design of living things is evolution. So if you want to quote Dawkins admit that he categorically disagrees with your childish nonsense and STFU already.

Ray Martinez said:

dalehusband said:

Ray Martinez said: Darwinian evolution, the only evolution ever accepted by science, is anti-Bible and anti-Christianity. The only reason some people deny is because of "Christians" who accept evolution. The end result of evolution acceptance: honest and forthright hatred of God, Bible and Christianity. “Christian” Evolutionists are buffoons.

If that is true, Ray, why are you even a Christian at all? You just admitted before us that you (and the rest of us) indeed have absolutely no reason to be one. Thanks!

I reject all evolution, micro and macro. So what are you talking about?

I reject all evolution, micro and macro.

Ray Martinez said: Creationism is based on evidence, my only point.

Ray Martinez said: I reject all evolution, micro and macro.

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said: I reject all evolution, micro and macro.

Nonetheless, the genome moves.

Berlinski - is that the same Berlinski that claimed to have "calculated" 50,000 trait changes between a cow and a whale and concluded that whales could not have evolved? A real intellectual, that one...