RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Freelurker



Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2008,16:49   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 15 2008,17:33)
             
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 15 2008,13:08)
This seems to be the way of the new 'kinder, gentler' UD.  Under the old system DaveTard at least had the honesty to tell people when he was removing their posts or hitting the bannination button.  

These new slimy asshats now like to make selective posts (i.e. the embarrassing ones they can't address) just disappear with no mention.  Of course they no longer ban people at the new 'kinder, gentler' UD either.  They just put undesirable folks' posts in the category of 'awaiting  moderation for eternity'.


They want to maintain the illusion of openness at UD, which requires letting at least some critical comments through while quietly blocking the rest.  The problem is that most of the critical comments are well-aimed, and letting any of them through is enough to make the UDers look like idiots.

Slimy asshats, indeed. They let this comment of mine through:      
Quote
mynym ... while engineers who tend to be IDists and creationists generally have had something to do with the technology by which scientia/knowledge advances.

Do you claim that engineers tend to be IDists and creationists? If so, can you back that up?

And they let mynym reply:      
Quote
Do you claim that engineers tend to be IDists and creationists? If so, can you back that up?

I could point out that even Darwinists have noticed: “…the Salem Hypothesis states that creationists with formal educations are more likely to be engineers than they are to be other kinds of scientists. This hypothesis is supported primarily by anecdotal evidence: a good number of creationists who post to talk.origins claim to be engineers, and creationist organizations seem to be disproportionately populated by engineers. Why engineers would be more prone to creationism than other scientists is a good question.”

But is it so hard to figure out why that would be so given that they work with design problems in the real world every day instead of engaging in natural theology of a sort based on prissy or feminized Christianity?

E.g.: “Why would God make a panda’s thumb like this? It is settled then, Nature selected it and designed all the millions of organisms that exist.”

But they didn't let anyone see my rejoinder:      
Quote
mynym "the Salem Hypothesis states that creationists with formal educations are more likely to be engineers …”

But that’s not what you are claiming; you are claiming that engineers tend to be creationists.

Do you have any data to indicate that most engineers do not accept the theory of evolution? I expect that most engineers do accept it, but I don’t have any data on that either, right now.

The set of engineers who show up for ID/Creationism discussions is certainly not a representative sample of the general population of engineers. Although more than a few ID critics are engineers, most of the people who bother to confront ID/Creationism are scientists. The simple reason for this is that ID/Creationists are attacking science, not engineering (at least for now.)

    But is it so hard to figure out why that would be so given that they work with design problems in the real world every day …

OK, now you are describing why you think that engineers should support ID or Creationism. But, as IDists commonly do, you are equivocating between the meaning of “design” in ID and the meaning of “design” in engineering.

The core activity of ID is design detection, wherein some pattern is analyzed and then tagged as being attributable to chance, necessity, necessity, or design (purposefullness.) ID does not produce any patterns; it takes a pattern as an input and then categorizes the pattern. Engineering, of course, is all about producing patterns. In fact, in engineering a design is a pattern. To produce a design is to produce a pattern. During engineering design, we produce a pattern of an invented system, a pattern that describes a system’s parts and describes how those parts will work together. During engineering analysis, we examine some existing thing and then produce a pattern that serves as a model of that thing.

As you can see, IDists don’t do what engineers do, and engineers don’t do what IDists do.

I'm done commenting over there; the new regime is definitely worse than the previous one.

--------------
Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]