Joined: May 2006
I was uncertain who was meant as well. It didn't really matter, though, since I had no idea that I am banned, if I am (I don't know if that's really Springer posting either). That's how eager I am to post alongside DaveScot.
Not that he isn't the epitome of class in inviting whomever back, if he "is civil". To a bunch of ignoramuses and/or liars, I am not.
I loved ("I love it so") the response from JAD, though, who certainly thought it was the "Darwinian blow hard," and whined like a kicked dog that the dolts at UD won't take him back in. Is there any set of people about whom he wouldn't complain if they don't accept him (and even more if they do)? Someday he's going to be muttering out on the street that no bums will let their rags touch him, which will be believable. Of course he seems to loathe anyone dumb enough to think he has anything to add (for good reason), so he'll always spit at anyone who gives him the time of day.
Poor old fool, there isn't a forum new enough that it doesn't have a good many on it who already know about how he operates. He's as lonely on Stein's forum as he always was at his own. What's sad is that someone so socially needy is almost totally without social skills, and devoid of anything of value to offer anyone.
Back to the archiving, 9-12-07
|--Glen Davidson, |
Please knock off the insults and get back into the business of substantive discourse. --
I'm the only one of the two of us who has brought any substantive discourse into the discussion. Your inability to address anything properly is what I have to address, since you ignore almost everything that I actually write, and turn to repeat some meaningless claim that you made previously and of which you didn't understand the reply which was made to it.
It's interesting how quickly someone like you who came in with a completely false charge against me faults me for supposedly not engaging in substantive discourse. Also, when you haven't begun to address anything substantive that I've written.
--Intelligent design is in no way dependent on religion, nor has Dembski ever defined it that way.--
I wish you could actually make a point that would have some intellectual meaning. I know how dishonest Dembski is about ID, and I didn't suppose or claim that he ever defined it as dependent on religion (it would hurt the legal case if the truth were told). That it is dependent upon religion is the substantive issue, the one that you haven't begun to address.
--Here is one of the many ways he has expressed it::--
Do you dream that we haven't heard the droning claptrap of the ignorant Dembski over and over again? What's important is that we're independently capable of evaluating ID apart from the bogus claims of those who want to pretend that it is science, when that is the least plausible claim that it makes.
--“Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence.--
The trouble is, it doesn't. What Dembski does is to claim that simple but "unlikely" design is complex, contrary to any meaning of that term. Then he tries to claim that design is detected by his measure of "complexity," completely ignoring the fact that we rely most of all upon the marks of rational thought which are visible in designed objects, and also upon any evident purpose, novelty, and "borrowing" for an obvious or a non-obvious reason. What Dembski states is hardly credible.
--"Note that a sign is not the thing signified. Intelligent design does not try to get into the mind of the designer and figure out what a designer is thinking.--
Of course it doesn't. That's because their "designer" is inscrutable, just like Maimonides', or to a lesser extent, Aquinas's God. The "Designer" also is apparently capable of fine-tuning the universe, which in ID circles means some nearly-omnipotent Being (that we might be in a simulation is speculated on by non-IDists, in which case it might be a guy sitting around, drinking beer and playing a video game. Not the scenario proposed by IDists).
Actual science is concerned about anything that can be deduced from a putative cause, while the IDists are not concerned about investigable causes. We'd be intensely interested in the mind and purposes of a real designer, if you people would actually come up with something for once.
Thanks for pointing out how unlike science ID is.
--"Its focus is not a designers mind (the thing signified) but the artifact due to a designer’s mind (the sign).--
Dembski doesn't even know how to use the terms "sign" an "signified" properly. The mind that creates is not what is signified by the object, except in unusual self-referential cases (I don't dispute that some aspect of mind is essentially signified in "signifying something else," but that's already understood by actual scientists). The sign or object often does signify something, but something other than the mind that creates it. Dembski either ignorantly or deceitfully switches the meaning of words to avoid the fact that a real designer would indeed be expected to put signification into said designer's object, and this might actually tell us something about that mind (as it does with humans).
But of course Dembski's "Designer" is like the philosopher's God, hence one isn't supposed to speculate about this God, uh, "Designer". Once again, completely unlike how real science operates.
--"What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest).--
Why yes, apparently the "Designer" thinks in genetic algorithms, because instead of ever producing anything that appears like designed objects do, this "designer" is making organisms appear as if they had evolved.
--"But the designer’s thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design.--
How convenient, and how unlike real science. In real science, you have to know something about the cause in order to match it with its hypothesized effects (and ID cannot honestly predict complexity or simplicity, let alone pretend that complexity can only come about through the divine, er, the inscrutable designer). So Dembski declaims any concern about the actual cause, yet insists that life is its effect. That's bogus philosophy, let alone being pseudoscience.
--"As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.”--
Yes, we'll ignore the cause, and claim the effect. That's certainly not science, rather it is what is often known from religion.
--As everyone knows (including you, I trust) Barbara Forrest pulled the quote about “logos theory” to make it appear that ID is religious based.--
Simpleton, of course it was pulled out in order to provide evidence (you know, what none of you people ever provide) for the obvious fact that ID is about religion. Dembski said, it, quit pretending that there's anything wrong with using it.
--As it turns out, Dembski made that comment discussing intelligent design in the context of its relationship with theology and metaphysics for a Christian audience.--
Yes, we know that extremely well. During the week, he's telling us that ID is science. On Sunday, he's preaching ID as religion. This has been discussed a good deal on forums like Panda's Thumb, and of course you merely make our point, that not only is ID religion, ID is very dishonest regarding its claims to the contrary.
--Unlike many scientists, Dembski is formally trained in philosophy and theology–not just science.--
Dembski is not formally trained in science (I suppose he's taken some classes in it, but I have yet to see any indication that he understands it and its methods). Quit coming up with false claims. And he's not adept in philosophy at large, but only in a kind of metaphysical-religious sort of philosophy.
--That means, of course, that he is qualified to discuss controversies that appear at the intersection of science and philosophy,--
Only if he actually understands philosophy beyond a certain metaphysical ghetto, plus had an understanding of science. I have yet to see him understand any philosophical position that is critical of metaphysics, or science above grade-school level.
--an attribute that not everyone in this dialogue can lay claim to.--
Neither can he. And you certainly evince no knowledge of science or philosophy that would pertain to this subject.
--From a Christian’s faith perspective, intelligent design does have religious implications, of course.--
Ya think? I'd like to see what it has to do with anything other than religion.
--But the methodology itself is scientific,--
You know, it gets very tiresome to read you making the same monotonous claim each time you come in here to reveal still more of your ignorance. I asked you for evidence, for observational data that would support ID. As with all IDists, you utterly and completely fail to get up to the starting point of science, but merely complain whenever we point out how devoid of science content ID obviously is.
--as Dembski pointed out earlier in the same discussion.--
So, you're resorting to argumentum ad verecundiam. That's the formal name for your fallacy.
--To ignore the distinction is to violate reasonable standards of fairness. --
And so you convict yourself.
--If it is not asking too much, please limit your response to this one subject--
If it's not asking too much, please respond intelligently to even one thing that I've written. And by the way, the fact that you can't discuss or understand the range of issues involved is your problem. The repetition of untrue claims, fallacies, and your complete inability to broach the issues revolving aroud science and the pseudoscience of ID is unproductive and revelatory of your reliance on the bogus claims of the egregious IDists.
And I already posted this at post #1090, but here is an excerpt of something that one of the writers of this movie posted on a forum regarding ID:
--When I say ID is friendly to belief in God in a way that classical Darwinism is not, what I mean is Darwinism literally has no need for the God hypothesis. According to Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, everything can be explained purely by natural forces–including the origin of information, consciousness, and life itself. If you want to bring God into the picture, that is a belief that you are adding to science. It is not required by the science itself, and many Neo-Darwinists believe it gets in the way of science. ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one’s interpretation of science, God–or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer–is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code.--
Try to understand for once, Kevin Miller is contrasting "Darwinism" with its lack of need for a God with ID's prior belief that God is at the heart of nature. Of course one could try to bring up the charge of argumentum ad verecundiam, but it won't work because this is simply an example from a pro-IDist, while I've argued the actual case a great deal, here and elsewhere. Not only does Dembski betray his "during the week" claims when he's selling his book to the rubes, this whole movie happens to be a complaint that we're supposedly suppressing ID because it is religious (and we are suppressing it along with other bogus "science" in certain venues, but only where religion isn't supposed to be supported by gov't, and where our own freedom of speech and association give us the right to do so--along with the other pseudosciences and conspiracy theories).
Perhaps you should actually read Ben's blog. He doesn't mention ID, unlike Miller does, but Miller confirms that the movie primarily concerns ID, and the whine is that we're "keeping God out". Yes, that's what science does, unless you can actually come up with evidence that God is a proximal cause. You'd be a whole lot more convincing that ID isn't about religion if you weren't commenting under a blog whose main complaint is that ID is being suppressed because, in fact, ID is religious.
|Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. |
September 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names.–
Where are your answers to the questions and points that I raised in posts #389, #1031, #1065, and #1090, for starters? Oh, you didn’t answer them, did you? You prefer to write the blatantly false claim that we can only call names, when in fact I have not seen much other than name-calling from the creos and IDists, and the little else was recycled nonsense (and we have answered virtually all of it, no matter how tiresome it is to do so).
So your credibility level is—about where Dembski’s is, hovering around zero.
–I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension.–
And you provide as much evidence as Ben did for such flim-flam, none at all. But then the need for evidence famously doesn’t trouble IDists.
–My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution.–
Fascinating that a non-teleological biological process wouldn’t be taught to an engineer. Must mean something, huh? But sadly, Josh can’t quite relate what this meaning is (so he invents it).
–It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science,–
Actually, it does not. It has to do with applying the conclusions of science. You’re not the first ID engineer to make the colossal error of thinking that in bypassing science with your engineering degree you have nonetheless become an expert in science.
–not science fiction.–
Gee, imagine anyone resorting to name-calling. Well, it wasn’t me, Dimensio, Craig, or a host of other pro-science commenters who thought that name-calling and false accusations would stand in for discussing science (not that we don’t use the names that fit, certainly), it was the whiner who can’t back up a single claim that he makes.
–It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe.–
Mere ad hominem, and something that Josh could hardly know. I suspect that many on the pro-science side have seriously studied ID and creationism, like I have by coming from a creationist background. But why should Josh bother telling the truth when Stein’s blog is a mash of untrue claims barely altered from official ID mendacity?
–I have studied both evolution and ID.–
I should think that if you knew anything about evolution you’d be capable of dealing with it in detail. And if you really were a scientist, you’d finally tell us what we’ve been asking for, what is the scientific evidence for ID?
–What are those people afraid of? GOD.–
Why yes, it’s what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Dobzhansky, Father Coyne, Ken Miller, and Francis Collins were all afraid of, God. Oops, no. You’re as wrong about that as you are that engineers study science (aside from a few core courses).
Wow, you got absolutely none of your non-trivial claims right. But that’s as good as most IDists, I’ll admit, so you’re in the right company.
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
–I think the negative comments are proof enough of the need to clarify the THEORY of evolution vs. Intelligent Design.–
Yes, negative comments have proven that the city of Atlantis existed, that UFO abductions are a reality, that homeopathy works, that the CIA killed John Kennedy, that our government was responsible for the twin tower attacks, divination by birds, necromancy, Scientology, and Intelligent Design.
See, all you have to do is to make a statement, no matter how absurd, then when someone disagrees, that proves your statement. Anyway, that’s what all of the pseudoscientists tell us.
–One could just as easily ask an evolutionist to come up with real evidence that this THEORY is true as they push on the ID people.–
This tells us all too much about the mentality of most creos and IDists. Darwin published the evidence 150 years ago (accounting for non-teleological aspects (vestigials and some rather odd adaptations) which pointed away from purposeful design–in addition to providing the evidence of common descent itself), and we get the same demand for “evidence” and denial thereof from the sorts of people who never provide evidence for ID. I wonder why they’re so evidence-challenged?
Darwin only began the process of gathering and disseminating the evidence for evolution. Journals are rife with it, of course, though it rarely is called “evidence for evolution” any more than evidence for Newton’s laws of motion is called “evidence for Newtonian laws”–scientists have been satisfied with the evidence for over a century in the case of evolution. And beyond that, people have been repeatedly pointed toward evidence at Talkorigins and blogs which exist just for the purpose of putting out the evidence and discussing it, as well as presented in numerous comments.
It’s sort of what Plato noted in the parable of the cave, that nothing will actually affect people until they actually look. Because few IDists and creos will look at the evidence, or they fail to understand it, the mere fact that we have done what we can to make the evidence available doesn’t prevent the same kinds of demands and questions from being made. This is due to the fact that if they don’t see the evidence, it does the anti-scientists no good at all.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy