RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 148 149 150 151 152 [153] 154 155 156 157 158 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
sparc



Posts: 1675
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2008,23:21   

Quote

34
sparc
12/30/2008
11:15 am

gpuccio,
there’s a mistake in the sequence you’ve presented.


Quote
35
gpuccio
12/30/2008
4:49 pm

sparc:
Maybe an useful mutation? :-)


My next comment referring to the IUPAC code didn't show up but I'll try it again.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4230
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,10:35   

Steve Fuller is a sloppy thinker, and has written an sloppy New Year's post that trades on blurred distinctions. Let us sharpen some distinctions he would rather blur.
   
Quote
‘Intelligent design’ is presumably something more than a long-winded way of saying ‘design’. The phrase implies that the design displays signs of intelligence, which in turn means that the nature of the intelligence can be inferred, however fallibly, from the nature of the design...Contrast this with a ‘design science’ that insists that nothing about the artisan follows from the artefact. We know the artefact is designed simply because it functions in certain capacities in certain environments – and ‘design science’ is about identifying such things and making inferences about their functions, nothing more.

The inferences drawn by "design science" are to agency, which is very much something more. The feigned agnosticism deployed by the ID movement concerns the identity of the agent and features that go beyond bare agency. And even Fuller knows that among the cdesignproponetists of the ID movement this agnosticism is counterfeit, and that there is no ongoing "design science" of the sort he suggests.
   
Quote
‘Design science’ is pretty uncontroversial, and card-carrying evolutionists do it all the time under various guises, most fashionably these days as ‘evo-devo’.

Biologists characterizing complex and adapted functioning do not invoke agency as an explanation, which is required for "design" in the sense intended by ID. Neither does investigation into the evolution of development. Biologists do not do "design science" in the sense intended by ID at all. So this statement is simply false.
   
Quote
The controversy starts only once people talk about origins, whether design arose intelligently or unintelligently.

Fuller again equivocates upon the word "design." He has assigned "design" one meaning (the fact of biological complexity and adaptedness), while the entire ID movement wants another (an inference to agency.) The actual "controversy" concerns whether biological complexity and adaptedness arose from natural processes, or instead reflects agency. No one in evolutionary biology resorts to explanation in terms of agency, whether intelligent or unintelligent. So Fuller has again miss-stated the central issue, and has attempted to coopt scientific work (and legitimacy) to which ID can lay no claim.
   
Quote
Suppose the matter of evidence remains unresolved or equally balanced: What difference does it make whether I endorse ID or Darwinism?

Suppose Steve Fuller offered premises that wishfully assume his conclusions? The matter of evidence is not unresolved nor equally balanced. Indeed, there is no scientific evidence uniquely supportive of ID. Nor is there an active research program (empirical or otherwise) motivated by ID. But it is not surprising that Fuller makes an assertion so obviously contrary to reality; in the absence of this fiction, his entire thesis collapses. The fact that ID is a "scientific" proposition that lacks any evidentiary foundation suggests a reason to reject ID.
   
Quote
...Does it lead me to do science differently – in terms of the research questions chosen, the range of interpretations given to research results, as well as science’s broader cultural significance? The answer to these questions seems to me to be clearly yes – and this is what the battle is about.

Indeed. Devoid of scientific content, ID has nothing else to discuss. The entire movement, while masquerading as "science," is in fact a cultural project conducted for the purpose of apologetics. Steve Fuller thinks he has outlined new topics for discussion within the ID movement, when in fact he embarrasses its principals by blankly pointing to this reality.  
   
Quote
Only some leftover logical positivism and a repressive US legal environment could be discouraging ID supporters from thinking about science in a way that acknowledges the philosophical and theological issues implied here.

Nicely capturing the paranoia that characterizes the movement, paranoid assertions that justify its failures.
   
Quote
Contemporary ID is (at best) a collection of concepts in search of a synthetic theory capable of interrelating the evidence already on the table...

Nicely capturing the failure of ID to constructively generate either positive theoretical assertions or new evidence of any kind.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,11:15   

In the first Fuller thread, based on the numbering and this comment by StephenB, original comment #20 by allanius, was deleted.
 
Quote
48
StephenB
12/29/2008
10:48 pm

allanius @30. Yes, and I agree with you at 20. This is getting scary.

Did anybody catch it before it was obliviated?

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,13:03   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 01 2009,11:35)
Steve Full-of-S%$t said:
 
Quote
Only some leftover logical positivism and a repressive US legal environment could be discouraging ID supporters from thinking about science in a way that acknowledges the philosophical and theological issues implied here.

Right, because Judge Jones personally goes to your lab and knocks the test tube out of your hands....

   
Bebbo



Posts: 161
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,15:52   

Quote (bystander @ Dec. 31 2008,18:28)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 01 2009,09:50)
Quote (Bebbo @ Dec. 31 2008,07:42)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 30 2008,10:38)
Lil Billy D whines about Wikipedia:

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Through the Wikipedia page on Dembski I found this:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28460

I guess we can add "gullible sucker" to the list of Dembski's other shortcomings.

I just read that. Jesus christ. That's sad. What a poor dupe. That's a shame.

Too bad he goes on being Todd Bentley to other people.

The sad thing is that it wont really make WAD think.  A skeptic's next question would be to research to see if they are all fake and would expand the search to all miracles.

WAD on the other hand will just jump onboard the next great thing and try that. Notice that he mentions prayer and fasting. I wonder how much he has tried that without success.

Going without food just makes me hungry and never fixes my medical problems. Living in Dembski's house must be like taking a trip back to the Middle Ages.

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,22:31   

GilDo warns us of the danger of mindless extrapolation -- and then mindlessly extrapolates.

Short version of GilDo's argument:

You can't scale from boat propellers down to flagella without taking Brownian motion into account. You can't scale aerodynamic models without taking the Reynolds number into account. You can't scale from subsonic to supersonic without taking compressibility into account.

Therefore, Gil concludes, there must be some reason why small evolutionary changes cannot accumulate to form larger ones, and the entire biological community is "just plain stupid" to think otherwise.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,22:41   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 01 2009,23:31)
GilDo warns us of the danger of mindless extrapolation -- and then mindlessly extrapolates.

Short version of GilDo's argument:

You can't scale from boat propellers down to flagella without taking Brownian motion into account. You can't scale aerodynamic models without taking the Reynolds number into account. You can't scale from subsonic to supersonic without taking compressibility into account.

Therefore, Gil concludes, there must be some reason why small evolutionary changes cannot accumulate to form larger ones, and the entire biological community is "just plain stupid" to think otherwise.

Good Lord Mable, that is some serious TARD:

Quote
Experience has demonstrated that nothing in the well-understood, mathematically modeled physical sciences can be extrapolated forever without the rules changing, often quickly and without warning.


--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4230
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2009,23:45   

Fuller wrote, and I remarked:
   
Quote
   
Quote
‘Intelligent design’ is presumably something more than a long-winded way of saying ‘design’. The phrase implies that the design displays signs of intelligence, which in turn means that the nature of the intelligence can be inferred, however fallibly, from the nature of the design...Contrast this with a ‘design science’ that insists that nothing about the artisan follows from the artefact. We know the artefact is designed simply because it functions in certain capacities in certain environments – and ‘design science’ is about identifying such things and making inferences about their functions, nothing more.

The inferences drawn by "design science" are to agency, which is very much something more. The feigned agnosticism deployed by the ID movement concerns the identity of the agent and features that go beyond bare agency...Fuller again equivocates upon the word "design." He has assigned "design" one meaning (the fact of biological complexity and adaptedness), while the entire ID movement wants another (an inference to agency.) The actual "controversy" concerns whether biological complexity and adaptedness arose from natural processes, or instead reflects agency. No one in evolutionary biology resorts to explanation in terms of agency, whether intelligent or unintelligent.

Now Fuller just so happens to comment:
   
Quote
I need to see more upfront from you before I answer, since life is short and I don’t know where you’re coming from. It’s clear that I believe that ‘intelligence’ doesn’t make sense without the ascription of agency.

If so, Steve, you need to abandon your references to "card carrying Darwinists" and the research program of EvoDevo, because neither make reference to agency, your obfuscating equivocations on terms of art not withstanding.

(Hi, Steve! Your new post isn't any better.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,08:15   

Quote
gpuccio: CSI is an objective formal property that we in ID believe, on the basis of empirical observations and of theoretical considerations, to be invariably associated with the process of design.

Hi, gpuccio. We know you read AtBC on some occasions. CSI is not "objective", but based upon the background knowledge of the Semiotic Agent.

Quote
X = –log2 [ BIGNUMBER · S(T) · P(T|H) ]

Quoting Dembski, "S’s background knowledge now induces a descriptive complexity of T, which measures the simplest way S has of describing T." Furthermore, P is also dependent on our insight of a reasonable probability distribution, a dependency that seems to imply we already have to know the answer before we start our calculation. See here.

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,08:45   

Quote
kairosfocus: When a fitness landscape has a threshold of functionality, it means that unless you are at least at the shores of an islands of function, you cannot access differential success as a clue to climb towards optimal function.

This refers to the origin of life. No one knows how life started, that is, how the Evolutionary Algorithm found the first island of functionality.

Quote
kairosfocus: For a sufficiently complex space [the ones relevant to FSCI and CSI), we know that the search resources of the cosmos are vastly inadequate for reasonable chances of success at reaching islands of function from arbitrary initial points.

The search landscape for simpler organisms is much smaller, and so the channels between the posited islands of functionality are narrower.

Quote
kairosfocus: Once one then reaches to function, voila, one can hill-climb to optimal function, on the assumption that we have nice ascents -- if there are overly high and steep cliffs, that is another problem.

Meanwhile, once the first island of functionality is found, we can show that evolution can successfully explore vast landscapes (e.g. landscapes that are sufficiently characterized by proximal relationships).

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,08:51   

A Capsule Summary of the Status of Dembski’s Explanatory Filter.

The conclusion:

 
Quote

To summarize, the issues with Dembski’s EF are many and well-documented. Dembski’s EF fails to achieve its claimed status as a “rational reconstruction” of how humans empirically approach the problem of sorting competing explanations for natural phenomena. Better methods exist that serve as descriptions of how humans can “eliminate chance” in preferring alternative explanations for phenomena in the natural sciences.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,09:15   

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 02 2009,08:15)
Quote
gpuccio: CSI is an objective formal property that we in ID believe, on the basis of empirical observations and of theoretical considerations, to be invariably associated with the process of design.

Hi, gpuccio. We know you read AtBC on some occasions. CSI is not "objective", but based upon the background knowledge of the Semiotic Agent.

 
Quote
X = –log2 [ BIGNUMBER · S(T) · P(T|H) ]

Quoting Dembski, "S’s background knowledge now induces a descriptive complexity of T, which measures the simplest way S has of describing T." Furthermore, P is also dependent on our insight of a reasonable probability distribution, a dependency that seems to imply we already have to know the answer before we start our calculation. See here.

A discussion of CSI is ongoing at Mark Frank's blog:
Making the Case for Materialism.
Welcome to Wales.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
sparc



Posts: 1675
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,09:26   

KF is still optimistic:
Quote
Indeed, just by reading and taking seriously posts in this thread, we have intuitively used such an approach in deciding that posts are real messages, not mere lucky noise mimics.
KF, your posts are just noise, amplified by self-referential feed back.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,09:43   

Thanks to Reciprocating Bill for the useful comments on Fuller, which helpfully lay out his vacuity.

There is also a comment by dave Scot:
Quote
7

DaveScot

01/01/2009

10:18 am
Dear Steve,

Whoever invited you to participate as an author forgot to inform you about the “read more” button which should be used as a courtesy to other authors so that no one article takes up the entire home page.


I can only also assume that SteveFuller is barking mad, based upon the following quote:
Quote
Once we set aside matters of American legal repression, Darwinism currently surpasses ID not in the firmness of its evidence base but in its creative theoretical exploitation of that base. The project of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis forged over the past half-century has been about showing how evidence drawn from realms that historically have been irrelevant if not antagonistic to each other – e.g. fossils, ecological observations, laboratory experiments – somehow add up to an argument on behalf of the chosen theory.


Firstly, he conflates Darwinism and the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.  Has no one told him about labels, and how they can be problematic?  Secondly, it doesn't matter at all if fossils and ecology and lab experiments had been antagonistic to each other 150 years ago, because the simple answer is that these thigns are antagonistic only without a unifying theory, and we all know what that is, don't we children?
Thirdly, there is no evidence for it being "the chosen theory".  Fuller would know this if he had actually carried out an investigation of the science, but his continual lack of such investigation, well, you know, its pretty obvious he is intellectually bankrupt.

  
steve_h



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,10:47   

Only in ***** theory is it acceptable to talk about wrist watch production (design), jumbo jet production (design)finch beak variation (design), dog breeding (design), and insect pesticide resistance (design), and then claim with full assurance that these phenomena can be extrapolated to explain the origin of everything in biology
E.g.  Blagellums (design), blood clotting (design), fire investigation (design), arrowheads (design), plagiarism (design), death by malaria (design), life (design), universe (design), Zyklon B production and use (Darwin)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4230
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,11:04   

Fuller continues to sow unclarity:
     
Quote
Maybe my fears are ungrounded, but I have been always struck that when the media put out a boilerplate account of a key ID concept like ‘irreducible complexity’, they tend to interpret the ‘irreducibility’ as something like ‘unfathomability’. But in fact, the spirit of the concept is to show how things had to be put together in a certain way to serve a certain function, such that even minor changes would render the thing dysfunctional. This strikes me as the very opposite of ‘unfathomability’. If anything, it [IR] speaks to the hyper-rationalism, or at least hyper-mechanism, of ID thinking.

Again, Fuller blurs rather than clarifies.

First, irreducible complexity has been refuted by numerous quite specific demonstrations of possible stepwise pathways to the attainment of mechanisms that cease functioning upon the removal of a single component (e.g. scaffolding, exaptation, etc.). Whether or not popular accounts of ID critique IR on the basis of unfathomability (and I've never seen one that does) is irrelevant to the force of these quite specific arguments.

Second, the ID account does not embrace either "hyper-mechanism" or "hyper-rationality." The complexity, irreducible or otherwise, of biological systems and their origins is the explanandum, not the explanation. The question that calls for "mechanism," mechanism ID fails to supply, is the question of the origination and elaboration of that complexity. A parasitical recapitulation (parasitical in the sense that ID researchers do no actual research) of the complexities of observed in biological systems does not amount to an explanation of the origins of these systems. Nor does a denial that other proposed mechanisms (those of evolutionary biology) can account for that complexity, however well argued, represent an alternative mechanism.

ID has, as strategic choice, chosen to remain silent about any and all specifics regarding the "mechanism" of design, including the identity, number, capabilities, purposes, limitations, means, times, places, motivations and purposes of the designing "agent's" actions. What we are left with is unfathomability regarding ID's proposed mechanism with respect to these and other specifics. In that sense the charge of unfathomability is dead on. Fuller blurs these distinctions for rhetorical purposes.
       
Quote
Nevertheless, even on this blog – and over the last couple of days – one can find the following statement, which appears to draw a mystifying conclusion from a rather de-mystifying premise.

Are Gil Dodg'em's ornate tics relevant to anything?
       
Quote
The ‘science of God’ that I shall developing in the next few posts presupposes that we get closer to understanding the ‘intelligence’ behind ID, the more our own mental and physical creations turn out to model what actually happens in nature.

Good luck with that Steve. Particularly with concocting a formulation subject to empirical investigation. And thanks for the entertainment likely to ensue as an agnostic explains God to believers.
       
Quote
In this respect, the recognisably mechanical rendering of the bacterial flagellum that graces the banner of this website truly epitomises what ID is about – and what the 17th Scientific Revolution was about.

See above.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,11:57   

Quote
In this respect, the recognisably mechanical rendering of the bacterial flagellum that graces the banner of this website truly epitomises what ID is about – and what the 17th Scientific Revolution was about.

Flagellation?

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,12:59   

Steve Fuller's Crusade

Quote

[...] Fuller claims something applies as a blanket or at least common description, yet I don’t recall ever seeing the particular sort of interpretation that Fuller asserts is common in media reports. [...]


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,14:04   

17th scientific revolution?  What were the other 16?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3550
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,14:13   

Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 02 2009,14:04)
17th scientific revolution?  What were the other 16?

I assume they preceded the 19th nervous breakdown.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,14:25   

bFast
Quote
The fundimental challenge that the ID community offers is that we are requiring a paradyme change. The closest that physics has come to needing a paradyme change has been with the big bang. The bang faced fierce resistance until a couple of naturalistic theories (big crunch, and multiverse) allowed the big bang to be viewed within a naturalistic context — who cares how poorly.

I guess physicists had to make do with paradigm shifts.  Poor dears, if only they'd known they had been doing it wrong all these years.

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,14:46   

Bwahahaha!  Fundies asking for change!

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,16:07   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 02 2009,15:25)
bFast
Quote
The fundimental challenge that the ID community offers is that we are requiring a paradyme change. The closest that physics has come to needing a paradyme change has been with the big bang. The bang faced fierce resistance until a couple of naturalistic theories (big crunch, and multiverse) allowed the big bang to be viewed within a naturalistic context — who cares how poorly.

I guess physicists had to make do with paradigm shifts.  Poor dears, if only they'd known they had been doing it wrong all these years.

The problem for bFast and friends is that the new paradigm has to be useful and productive in order to be adopted.
Since the ID paradigm is worthless, it does not gain any traction.

Edited by stevestory on Jan. 02 2009,17:13

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,16:23   

That's part of the fascinating stupidity of ID. I asked Dembski, years ago, what kind of evidence I'd see that ID was winning. What kind of tangible events could he point to, or expect, as the ID paradigm was adopted. He replied "read Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Well no shit Sherlock. I've already read that book. Read it years ago in Philosophy of Science classes. That's what I'm asking you. What are you going to accomplish? Who will convert? When will the conferences be held? What field of biology is first to be revolutionized?

They've got nothing. And it's obvious. They can't publish anything because they can't figure anything new out. And Any ID supporter with an IQ over 85--there must be at least three or four--should be able to look at ID, look at PCID, look at the fact it is currently 2009, and the last issue of the "ID journal" was published in 2005, and say "Hmm... Apparently ID scientists can't accomplish jack shit." and that's the end of it. That they can't do that tells me they don't have the teeny tiniest idea how science works.

   
jeffox



Posts: 527
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,16:56   

Midwifetoad wrote:

Quote
Quote
(guthrie @ Jan. 02 2009,14:04)
17th scientific revolution?  What were the other 16?

I assume they preceded the 19th nervous breakdown.


He must have been thinking he was speaking to the 96 tards or the 101 red buffoons.   :)   :p

  
jeffox



Posts: 527
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,17:03   

Sparc wrote:

Quote
KF is still optimistic:

Quote
 
Indeed, just by reading and taking seriously posts in this thread, we have intuitively used such an approach in deciding that posts are real messages, not mere lucky noise mimics.


KF, your posts are just noise, amplified by self-referential feed back.


Ya ya, good ol' Gordy has a few direct-to-disc masters of just noise; after all, it's his only hit.  

IMO, it's best listened to with tardphones.    :)    :p

  
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,17:18   

On the other hand, what's going on at UD is the best they've got. Full stop. And they can barely keep a teeny ragbag of poo-flinging nekkid Darwinian apes such as ourselves (OK, me. The rest of you may be habitually clothed) amused. The stuff on there now... really, it'd embarrass a small rock.

There'll always be people who want to believe in creationism so much that they'll do it no matter what, and there'll always be people who'll be happy to turn a buck off the first bunch. Truth won't bother either overmuch, but as long as they can't stop science being taught or start to stone the heretics, there's not much they can do.

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,17:43   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2009,16:23)
That they can't do that tells me they don't have the teeny tiniest idea how science works.

Tut tut tut, Steve. That you're surprised by this tells me that you don't have the teeny tiniest idea of how the Goddidit Scam works.

1. Thou Shalt Not Talk Science to a Scientist (they couldn't sit for a month after learning that lesson)

2. Thou Shalt Not Waste Good PR Funds on Reescr . . . Reasrch . . . Test Tubes

3. Thou Shalt Make Lots of Sciencey Noise, But Just For The Rubes, Dammit!

4. Thou Shalt Buy My Book

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
jeffox



Posts: 527
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,19:20   

Don't forget:

5.  Thou shalt make a joyous noise unto the tard!

:)   :p

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,19:34   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2009,14:23)
That's part of the fascinating stupidity of ID. I asked Dembski, years ago, what kind of evidence I'd see that ID was winning. What kind of tangible events could he point to, or expect, as the ID paradigm was adopted.

Actually, they've been quite explicit about that:

Quote
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").

Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication

Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making

Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

GOALS

Governing Goals

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.
Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

4. Significant coverage in national media:

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly
Regular press coverage on developments in design theory
Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

7. Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

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

Pages: (500) < ... 148 149 150 151 152 [153] 154 155 156 157 158 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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