RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Orson Scott Card, ID, and Creation Science, Examining the essay< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4388
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,00:18   

Orson Scott Card, popular SF author (Ender's Game and sequels of particular note), wrote an essay about ID and the "Darwinist" response to it.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html

There's a discussion forum at the same site:

http://www.ornery.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=15

I'll be copying my entries from threads there in this thread.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4388
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,00:35   

posted January 21, 2006 09:53 PM      

I have posted the first part of a multi-part examination of the claim that "intelligent design" differs from "creation science" at
http://austringer.net/wp/?p=203

My thesis is that there is good evidence that "intelligent design" is just the same stuff as the earlier "creation science".

It may be some time between postings in the series, as I am preparing for participation in the Greer-Heard Forum event early in February.

==========

posted January 21, 2006 10:04 PM

Quote

   The reason the essay does not really on IC, is that IC says that there are biological constructs that CANNOT BE REDUCED, while Card states instead that there are biological constructs that have not been reduced.


Isn't it odd how the systems that are said to be irreducible at least start out as ones where the data is sparsest, that have received the least attention, or whose origins are so remote that further study is unlikely to reveal more good data, and that the ID advocates persistently ignore precisely those systems where biologists have compiled good data, both in quality and quantity, pertaining to some biochemical system? And isn't it odd that for every biochemical cellular system that does have good data concerning its origins, there is a plausible evolutionary mechanism for that origin?

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 25 2006,07:17

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4388
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,00:43   

posted 2006-01-21 22:11

Quote

   If you are looking to compare anything but they ideas behind the labels, you might want to restate your thesis.


That's all right, I think that noting that the same ensemble of arguments is made by "intelligent design" advocates as was made by "creation scientists", and "scientific creationists" before them, and "creationists" before them, and "natural theologians" before them is a strong argument. So far, I don't find the mere fact that you do not agree to be a convincing argument to the contrary. If you really wish another form of the thesis, then consider that there is no content to "intelligent design" that was not available in the corpus of earlier forms of antievolution. If you think that there is something novel to "intelligent design", I'd appreciate hearing about specifics.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 25 2006,06:47

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4388
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,00:52   

posted 2006-01-21 22:22

Quote

   Did you have a point, Mr. Elsberry?


I had thought it was obvious: "intelligent design" advocacy relies both upon "God of the gaps" thinking, arguments from ignorance, and a persistent refusal to deal with countervailing evidence.

I was in the courtroom at the Kitzmiller v. DASD trial when Scott Minnich, expert witness for the defense, was presented with a publication detailing the evolutionary origin of the bacterial DNT degradation pathway, a complex biochemical system that originated in exactly the sort of stepwise manner that "intelligent design" advocates claim is impossible for natural causes to account for. Minnich's response? That this is just an "adaptational response". See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day21am2.html#day21am565

And if you want to be precise about modes of address, it is Dr. Elsberry.

==========

posted 2006-01-21 22:45

Quote

   Do you have any idea what ID posits? And what "Creation Science" posits?

   Don't you think that the answer to those two questions matter more than the names of those who support the theories? Or do you care more about name dropping then facts?

   Do you think it's a strong argument to say "I've heard it all before, and I've heard of Creationism before, so therefore, they are the same"?


"Javelin", why don't you take a moment and plug my name into a Google search and stop treating me as a newbie on this issue?

I certainly do not think that the last question's content forms a strong argument. Fortunately, I haven't made that argument. Perhaps you would do better to take your own advice, handed out generously in this thread, to read the source materials before making statements. If you take a look at my page, I do not rely upon my authority to make points, and I have backed up what I say with references to federal court decisions and links to various online resources. But I do think that both the issues of identity of content and identity of advocates across "creation science" and "intelligent design" are valid arguments to make. If you look at the page I linked at first, you will see that the issue of the "two model" approach is approached on the basis of identical argumentative structure, not on identity of the speaker.

===========

posted 2006-01-22 00:22

Quote

   1. We aren't impressed by your credentials, Dr. This or Senator That. We aren't going to take your word for it, we're going to think it through for ourselves.


Good thing I haven't asked anyone to accept an argument on my authority alone, then.

Quote

   1. Creationist Science basically posits that the account from Genesis is literally true, and that science proves it.

   2. ID posits that life was designed at some point, perhaps more than one point - and those studying it believe it can be proved through science.

   How are these the same? Because, well, these ARE the theories - these are the things they posit. And if George believes both to be true, that doesn't mean what they posit are the same.

   Would you disagree, Dr. Elsberry?


Of course, because that isn't my argument. Anytime you wish to let up with the strawmen would be fine with me.

"Creation science" is the term I mentioned, not "creationist science". And "creation science" does not "basically posit that the account from Genesis is literally true, and that science proves it." I rely here on the affidavit of Dean H. Kenyon in the Edwards v. Aguillard case that was decided by the Supreme Court in 1987. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html

Quote

   D. Definitions of Creation-Science and Evolution.

   9. Definitions of Creation-Science and Evolution. Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation. Evolution-science is equivalent to evolution. Evolution is generally understood by scientists (although some would disagree) to include biological evolution (or organic evolution) from simple life to all plants and animals, biochemical evolution (or chemical evolution or prebiotic evolution of the first life), and cosmic evolution (including stellar evolution) (of the universe). Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts. The subject of origins is a part of evolution, and the origin of the first life and tre-origin of the universe are generally regarded by the scientific community as part of evolution.


I'd suggest reading Kenyon's affidavit carefully to get up to speed on how "creation science" was actually presented. Compare the various arguments presented there with what has been presented as "intelligent design" arguments in Of Pandas and People and Darwin On Trial. Perhaps doing so would be prudent before making grand contentions about how "different" it might be from "intelligent design".

=========

posted 2006-01-22 00:46

Quote

   I care about your argument, and it isn't sound.


So far, it seems that "Javelin" is having difficulty expressing in what way my argument fails to be sound. As I showed in my last post, he starts off by stating an invalid premise, mischaracterizing the content of "creation science".

That brings us to the second point:

Quote

   2. ID posits that life was designed at some point, perhaps more than one point - and those studying it believe it can be proved through science.


While "intelligent design" may broadly and loosely be said to do so, the fact is that "intelligent design" does more than merely make that sort of statement. There are more arguments made under the label of "intelligent design" than "Javelin" recognizes here; read Of Pandas and People, Darwin On Trial, Signs Of Intelligence, and other sources listed as "Wedge books" by the Discovery Institute. I have. All the arguments included there and the various writings of the "intelligent design" advocates are included in the ensemble.

I would note that people who do not know the actual content of both "creation science" and "intelligent design" and believe the propaganda coming out of the Discovery Institute will have a lot of difficulty dealing with my arguments.

==========

posted 2006-01-22 00:56

Quote

   If that's your definition of Creation Science, then I can see where you are coming from (for some reason, this wasn't clear on your website, fyi). I don't believe that Card or I are thinking of the same thing as you, however.


It is clear that some have misconceptions about what "creation science" and "intelligent design" are. The misconceptions are not my fault, and what I'm posting on my weblog is intended to remove some of those misconceptions. I will try to improve the clarity on my page.

==========

posted 2006-01-22 01:21

Quote

   If that's your definition of Creation Science


I'll start on the clarity here. It is not my definition. It is the definition given, under oath, by Dean H. Kenyon, the state of Louisiana's advocate for "creation science". That's about as official as one may be able to find.

==========

posted 2006-01-22 02:28

The context was the federal court case over Louisiana's "balanced treatment" act. Kenyon is a national figure in the antievolution movement, not a Louisiana local. But it was Louisiana who sought his affidavit. They recruited the person that they thought could best make the case for "creation science".

==========

posted 2006-01-22 08:49

Quote

   Please note that the definitions of Creation Science and Intelligent design are completely different.


That was argued in six weeks of trial last year in the Kitzmiller v. DASD case. Judge John E. Jones III listened carefully to the testimony taken and concluded differently.

Quote

   The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.


The trial record is online, so please feel free to use that resource to inform your arguments.

==========

posted 2006-01-22 22:29

Quote

   Read! before you post.


I did read. I just disagreed with your argument and conclusions. Also note that in the second thread dealing with Card's essay Ed Brayton was told that he shouldn't have created a new thread.

==========

posted 2006-01-23 07:35

Another relevant bit from the Kitzmiller v. DASD decision:

Quote

   As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post [141]Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in [142]Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-[143]Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. ([144]28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; [145]Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; [146]9:10 (Haught); [147]Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe's assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.


http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd....ion.pdf

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 25 2006,07:16

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4388
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,01:14   

posted 2006-01-22 03:24

Quote

   Like I said, it's dishonest. He invents "Darwinists" as a rhetorical device. But what'r'ya gonna do? *shrug*


The handy deployment of a non-existent bugbear by the label of the "dogmatic Darwinist" is an "intelligent design" standby. See
http://www.antievolution.org/wre_dogdar.html

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4388
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,02:01   

posted 2006-01-25 08:05

"Javelin",

Quote

Dr. Elsberry decides that this definition isn't good enough and posits the following:


I posited no such thing. The definition I documented was clearly and properly cited as coming from the affidavit of Dean H. Kenyon, expert witness advocating "creation science" for the state of Louisiana in the Edwards v. Aguillard case. What the quoted sentence above shows is called spin.

Quote

Let me put something as straightforward as I can - when someone is writing an essay, and misuses a label, that sucks. But when they define that label by providing context, then pretending they mean something else is either, as one poster here has said, "Ignorant or dishonest". If Card says that Creation Science, in the context of his essay, is about putting a scientific veneer over the Genesis account (for those who don't know, he means the book of Genesis, in the Christian's Bible), then guess what? That's the terms you need to accept, in order to understand the point of the essay.

If you want to say that he's wrong, that the label means something else, that's fine. But you can't go from there and say "point A is wrong because, according to my definition of the label he gave, it doesn't logically follow". That's often referred to as sophistry.


Validity for a deductive argument means that assuming that the premises are true, the conclusion follows. Soundness is the property of a deductive argument whose logic is valid and whose premises are true. (Those who wish to brush up on this distinction can head over to this page.) Sophistry resides in pretending that only discussion over validity should occur, and that discussing soundness is a dirty trick. For deductive propositional logic, yes, Virginia, it does indeed mean that if someone makes an unsound argument because they rely on a false premise, then the conclusion does not follow. This is not disputable.

Personally, I think that arguing over whether Card made a valid, even if unsound, argument that "creation science" differs from "intelligent design" is a huge waste of time, and if that is all that can be countenanced here then I see no point in going further. I'm arguing about the soundness of Card's argument, that is, not just about whether his structure of logic passes inspection, but also whether the premises he uses hold up to scrutiny. As I have documented in previous posts, Card's premise concerning what "creation science" was does not match what has been established in various court cases.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4388
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2006,08:31   

posted 2006-01-27 14:33

Quote

Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?


A lot of people have claimed to have sufficiently answered David Hume on this, yet there seems to be no appreciable progress on this score in over two hundred years. The question itself is tied to religious argument. Ignoring the distinction between ordinary and rarefied design inferences is a hallmark of argumentation on this point by those with a religious axe to grind. The supposed modern approaches of "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" each are based upon an argument by elimination, that "design" is affirmed to the extent that "evolution" is disconfirmed.

This point was made in court in the Kitzmiller v. DASD trial last year. Judge Jones took note of it in his decision. The first segment below comes from the section where Jones establishes that the ID argument itself is rendered in religious terms by the ID advocates, and the second is from his section showing that ID is not science.

Quote

[...] Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

[...]

ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. ([93]5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed "contrived dualism" in [94]McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support "creation science." The court in [95]McLean noted the "fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach" and that "n efforts to establish 'evidence' in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science." [96]McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago.


The notion that "ID is different from the ID movement" does not get ID into the clear so far as the issue of legal permissibility is concerned. The motivations of the ID movement are fodder for consideration of the "purpose" prong of the Lemon test, but the "logic" of ID goes straight to the "effect" prong of Lemon and the "endorsement" test.

I think the folks who claim that there is some pure, unsullied, pseudo-Platonic form of "ID" that does not bear the taint of the actions of its advocates have been conned. The religious aim is built into the arguments themselves, as Judge Jones quite clearly saw in the extensive testimony given in trial last year. I see some of the "ID is different from the ID movement" promoters as folks who unknowingly go around with a taped placard on their backs that reads, "Sucker!" The best expansion of "ID" that can be made is, in my opinion, not "intelligent design", but rather "intentional deception".

==========

Javelin,

I put links in my posts for a reason. I have already treated three of your questions at length, in a peer-reviewed philosophy paper, published in [i]Biology and Philosophy back in 2001.

The fourth question deserves some analysis.

Quote

If we can get verifiably scientific tools that can assist in answer the question "Was this object, in whole or in part, designed rather than randomly evolved?", then why would you consider this line of research "illegal" or whatever you are contending?


Golly, I *did* stop beating my wife some time ago. As a matter of fact, I never started. The quoted question similarly asserts an untrue premise, that I have considered research into "intelligent design" to be illegal. I'm all for anybody who wants to spend their time that way to pursue scientific research... propose theories, generate hypotheses, find out whether the data of the world supports or disconfirms those hypotheses, publish the results to the scientific community, participate in the cycle of criticism and refinement of ideas, and eventually either convince the scientific community that there is a good idea, or abandon it because it failed to accord with the evidence. This is what "ID" advocates have consistently failed to deliver upon.

What I oppose now and will continue to oppose is to take particular religious propositions and promote them in public schools. That's what happened in the Kitzmiller v. DASD case, the Dover school board made a policy that offered the book Of Pandas and People (OPAP) as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary biology. It turned out that OPAP was simply a creation science text that someone did a search-and-replace on "creation" and "creationists" upon, turning them -- hey, presto! -- into "intelligent design" and "design proponents", with one "cdesign proponentsists" along the way. "ID" and "teach the controversy" simply take the same argumentative structure and content of "creation science" and propose that now it is ready to be taught to public school students, without ever having had to demonstrate that it passes scientific muster. As my last post demonstrated, the argument structure of "ID" is inherently religious, without reference to the motivations of its advocates.

==========

posted 2006-01-27 17:05

Quote

(a) My friggin' quote is right above what you said. Everyone can read that I said "illegal or whatever you are saying" - because I don't understand WHAT you are trying to say in relation to the actual topic at hand - and I'd suggest you aren't saying anything, until this post, about the topic at hand.


Touchy, touchy. And without justification, too. Everyone can read "illegal or whatever you are saying", sure, but that came conjointly with "consider this line of research" where "this" references producing scientifically investigated and supported techniques. Now, somebody brought up "sophistry" before, and I think that a lexicographer could hardly do better than to use "Javelin"'s approach here as an "e.g." in the entry. The opening post simply referred to "ID" as an argument. The first instance of "research" occurs in "Javelin"'s question. "ID" as an argument is exactly what I addressed in my first response, showing that it, too, fails legal inspection, even without considering the baggage of the "ID movement". The thesis of the opening post is that the arguments made against the "ID movement" do not touch "ID" as an argument:

Quote

So the next time you see an ID critic trying to criticize ID by complaining about the ID movement, think about Ruse’s distinction.


My response demonstrated that criticism of "ID" as an argument proceeds separately, and directly, upon the content of the argument. This should be easily recognizable as relevant to the thesis stated in the opening post, and thus is about "the topic at hand". If one takes the thesis to simply mean that arguments against the "ID movement" don't impact "ID as an argument", well, then, it would simply be another case of people making much of the utterly trivial and banal. If one takes the thesis as an implicit claim that taking on "ID as an argument" has not actually been done, I've shown that to be false: it's a major part of the reasoning applied in the KvD case.

However, the notion that I was somehow saying that people should not be free to "research ID" to come up with "verifiably scientific tools" is a complete fabrication out of whole cloth. In fact, I have given Bill Dembski and Michael Behe suggestions about how to get started with such a program (see the online video of the 2001 "Interpreting Evolution" conference at http//counterbalance.org ). But none of that is relevant to the discussion of the false claim that separating "ID" from the "ID movement" improves things. "ID" as an argument is not a nebulous hypothetical conjecture; it has been instantiated and stated, at length, in a number of books (see OPAP and the "wedge books" list at the Discovery Institute). It plainly advances a narrow religious viewpoint by examination of its content, even without factoring in who advances the argument.

==========

posted 2006-01-27 17:16

Quote

Teleologist: And you don't think there are ID advocates that agree with this?


"This" being the capsule description of the scientific process I gave. Well, if they exist, they seem to have no influence upon the high-profile ID advocates. You know the ones, they organized a US Congressional briefing in 2000, wrote the "Santorum amendment" in 2001, published law review articles saying that ID was perfectly OK to teach in public school science classes, intervened in Kansas to support the changes to science standards in 1999 and in the current revisions, and have worked in many states to encourage the teaching of ID as if it were science well ahead of convincing the scientific community that their idea has merit.

Quote

Teleologist: And you don't think there are ID advocates that are opposed to religious propositions being promoted in public schools?


Well, if they exist, they seem to be awfully quiet about the efforts of the high-profile ID advocates to do just that. Or perhaps they do not object if it is their own set of particular religious propositions that is being favored.

==========

posted 2006-01-27 18:46

Contrary to "Javelin"'s claim, I took up the indicated sentence that says "what everyone else is actually discussing" immediately in my first post. It's right there, up the thread a ways. It's what I've been discussing, too. Does "design" have a reliable marker? The arguments that are supposed to establish that, "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity", suffer from the defect that I documented: they are based on "two model" thinking that itself reliably signals the advocacy of a narrow religious viewpoint. You can disagree with my conclusion if you wish, but it is simply a fact that the argument and conclusion are topical to the thesis of the opening post as it is given.

I should say that my comments on "Javelin"'s ideas and approaches are a mirror of "Javelin"'s commentary on mine. For example, let's take a recent comment by "Javelin" on a post of mine:

Quote

If you want to say that he's wrong, that the label means something else, that's fine. But you can't go from there and say "point A is wrong because, according to my definition of the label he gave, it doesn't logically follow". That's often referred to as sophistry.


In making my replies a mirror of "Javelin"'s own, I have made the assumption that references to "sophistry" on each hand simply refer to the arguments and claims, not the person. If I stand convicted by "Javelin" on this score, "Javelin" has also convicted himself.

As to "Why do I say this?", I realized that people could be taking the argument of the opening post in two ways, and thus wanted to clarify that the only substantive interpretation of that argument is, in fact, a false claim.

What I've noted in my visit to these fora is that "Javelin" and others, in fact, do not "only go on what I've said". They have asked questions having nothing to do with my actual arguments, as in the 'so, you think reseearch on ID is illegal or whatever' question. When I make a defense against these false implications (yes, there is such a thing as presupposition, which is the problem in the "Have you stopped beating you wife?" example), pointing out a factual -- and easily verifiable -- record of publication and interaction on the topic, I'm told that there is no interest in "researching my accomplishments". That wasn't the point, but I am coming to simply expect these lapses in the level of discourse around here. The level apparently preferred is that only those things which may be concluded in a state of uncontaminated ignorance or unverified assertion are worthwhile. Pardon me if I step out of the norm here and provide actual references, citations, and support for my arguments.

As for "Javelin"'s final comment, it would seem to me that this is a direct attack on my person, and has nothing to do with my argument, despite the lip service given elsewhere to avoiding ad hominem. There is a real problem with the argument of the opening post, one that I believe I nailed in my first reply. And that, I submit, is what is behind this display of personal animus on "Javelin"'s part.

I am prepared to be amused by further histrionics that don't touch the basis of my argument on the topic.

==========

posted 2006-01-27 19:41

Quote

Interesting that you pick that quote "Doctor" (what's with the quotes around my name, anyway?). That's exactly what you are doing here, again.


Given that what I did the first time was demonstrate that "Javelin"'s claim was not only unfounded, but in fact would require one to set aside the basic definitions of deductive logic, I'm certainly happy to continue with the same high level of debunking.

Quote

Until you address how ID is being used here (called it "Gidget", if that helps), then you aren't addressing anything in the discussion in this thread.


I have done this more than once in this thread. Once more, slowly:

Quote

Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?


That's the quote from the opening post that "Javelin" made much of earlier. There is argumentation that has been offered as instantiating the statement; the "irreducible complexity" arguments of Michael Behe and the "specified complexity" arguments of William Dembski. ID is being used here to refer to these arguments specifically rather than to their advocates. These arguments, which are precisely the stuff of the quoted question, turn out to be based upon a narrow religious view.

I heard heard the general form of argument that "that's not how it is used in this thread, therefore bringing in any knowledge from outside this thread is not topical" several times, and it has struck me as complete nonsense. In this case, it isn't even true that the quoted sentence represents some "different" usage; it has exactly the referents that I've named. In point of fact, "Krauze"'s question is not his own; he stole it from William Dembski. Compare "Krauze"

Quote

Intelligent design the idea is simply the attempt to answer a simple question:

Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?


with Dembski

Quote

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?


There follows a good deal of talk about "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity", followed by this:

Quote

The implications of intelligent design for religious belief are profound. The rise of modern science led to a vigorous attack on all religions that treat purpose, intelligence, and wisdom as fundamental and irreducible features of reality. The high point of this attack came with Darwin’s theory of evolution. The central claim of Darwin’s theory is that an unguided material process (random variation and natural selection) could account for the emergence of all biological complexity and order. In other words, Darwin appeared to show that the design in biology (and, by implication, in nature generally) was dispensable. By showing that design is indispensable to the scientific understanding of the natural world, intelligent design is reinvigorating the design argument and at the same time overturning the widespread misconception that the only tenable form of religious belief is one that treats purpose, intelligence, and wisdom as byproducts of unintelligent material processes.


That's what ignoring the outside world and the body of evidence that it provides does for someone: it puts them on the losing side of an argument.

==========

posted 2006-01-27 20:13

Come now, "Javelin", that weak bit of histrionics is hardly a tickle on the amusement scale.

Quote

Elsberry - forcing the "irreducible complexity" arguments of Michael Behe and the "specified complexity" arguments of William Dembski into this discussion is again, completely irrelevant to the point.

I honestly don't understand where this is coming from.


There is no "forcing" -- the original quote came from William Dembski's Encyclopedia of Religion entry on "intelligent design", and showed that what the the question referred to was "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity". What quote? might be asked, so I will refresh "Javelin"'s memory:

Quote

Here's a quote that sums up what the "ID" as an argument (as you call it) is about. Note that the following is from the first post, and is what everyone else is actually discussing here:

   quote:Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?


Yes, indeed, and that quote was lifted verbatim from the article that shows that what was meant by it was "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity".

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 27 2006,20:08

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

    
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2006,10:37   

Card doesn't represent the views of most ID people. Most ID people whom I have read, or written to, or spoken with, do not accept common descent. The common descent view is in the extreme minority in the ID camp. So when Card says "Id teaches this and that" what he is really doing is only giving the views of a tiny minority. His saying that ID people accept evolution but argue that the cause of evolution is something other then natural selection, is a case in point. The vast majority of ID people completely reject evolution beyond micro-evolution.

His views are consistent with his religious views. I hear that he is a mormon. Mormon's are polytheists who don't believe in a supreme being. They believe that each one of the males of their religion can ascend to become a God of his own world and that his first born son will become the Jesus of that world. Their religion is a syncretic mesh of Christianity and Rosicrucianism/Ancient Egyptian/Hermeticism. The founder of Mormonism and the leading early mormons were into freemasonry which at that time was heavily into Hermetic and Rosicrucian philosophy, which is derived in part from ancient egypt, or so they believe. In the egyptian religion the king would become a God in heaven after death and his son would become the new God on earth. For more on the mormon-hermetic history see http://gnosis.org/ahp.htm

So it makes sense for Card to promote ID from the point of view he does. In his religion there is no supreme creator God. In fact his religion is very fuzzy on the details of just how they will rule over a world as a God.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4388
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2006,15:21   

posted 2006-01-27 21:24


"Javelin", I'd suggest a re-read of Krause's article. It is clear from that that his argument concerns distinguishing between the arguments that ID advocates make (the description being the quoted question) and the motives of the movement that those advocates have. It is simply not the case that "Krauze" is discussing anything other than the "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity" arguments; there's not a shred of evidence in the opening post for the notion that anything else is on the table.

Oh, and while you have the book open, look up "sarcasm". Follow up with "prosody". Who knows, perhaps you will find enlightenment.

"Teleologist", thanks for the information that the original quote was linked to the source. Plagiary is something that I've seen several instances of in online antievolutionists, so I made an assumption there that turns out to be incorrect. I apologize for any inconvenience to "Krauze" that may have resulted.

However, that does pretty well put paid to the notion that "Krauze" was making some radical departure from Dembski concerning the content of the quote.

(Note: I tried to edit my previous messages that mentioned "Krauze"'s use of the Dembski quote in order to link to my apology, but the "edit" time period had already lapsed. Unless a moderator will step in, this post will have to do.)

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 27 2006,21:25

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

    
  8 replies since Jan. 25 2006,00:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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