RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: ID terms explained, with real life examples< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10073
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2013,21:21   

Hi everyone!

*waves*

I hope this be a series. Let's go!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10073
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2013,21:35   

Inference to the best explanation (abuctive reasoning)

here's the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......asoning

Please note the Occam's razor 'simple / economical / most parsimonious is best' aspect.

Now here are two ID examples to help you understand:

Example 1

1. People create cool, complex stuff that seems unlikely to come about by chance
2. People are intelligent
3. People have been around for 6k - 200k years.
4. Life and the Universe is 6k or a teeny bit longer years old
> Therefore intelligence created it all, obviously.

Example 2

1. A movement is started by Christian reconstructionists
2. They fund it
3. They create a strategic Wedge document towards the reversal of secularism via acceptance of faith (Christian).
4. They get caught copy and pasting from a creationist book
5. A court finds them to be "not science"
6. They try to redefine science
7. They get upset with science, yet do none of their own

> They are a scientific movement.


Now, your turn

1. There's a blog
2. It has numerous bible references, but no defensible information calculations.
3. It gets mad at Atheists
4. and Muslims
5. and Gays
6. and Women
7. It's just banned it's most scientifically literate commentator for asking questions
8. and followed up with a post "Who was Adam and when did he live? Twelve theses and a caveat"

What kind of a blog is it?


Edited per Driver - RTH

Edited by Richardthughes on Oct. 06 2013,13:51

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2013,04:27   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 05 2013,21:35)

1. There's a blog
2. It has numerous bible references, but no defensible information calculations.
3. It gets mad at Atheists
4. and Muslims
5. and Gays
6. and Women
7. It's just banned it's most scientifically literate commentator for asking questions
8. and followed up with a post "Who was Adam and when did he live? Twelve theses and a caveat"

What kind of a blog is it?

That's easy: It's an unreadable blog.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2013,07:37   

This is a bit like the Irregular Verbs party game:

  • I ask provoking questions
  • You are nitpicking
  • He is a mindless troll

The possibilities in the ID context are vast!

--------------
"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.

   
Driver



Posts: 518
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2013,08:47   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 06 2013,03:35)
3. They create a strategic Wedge document to get faith (Christian) back into the orig[i]ns debate

The Wedge document goes way further than that.

3. They create a strategic Wedge document towards the reversal of secularism via acceptance of faith (Christian).

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

It is high time we clarified our thinking. - Kairos Focus

  
k.e..



Posts: 2838
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2013,10:07   

Quote
What kind of a blog is it?


Errrrm let me guess?

Something tribal?

PFJ?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4012
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2013,13:59   

ID Terms?

ID = If it's Inconvenient, Deny it.

Henry

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2013,08:11   

Quotes

When an ID proponent takes a quote out of context, they are really presenting a controversial view that many support, but because of the vast Darwinist conspiracy, but none can speak about.

When an evil Darwinist takes a quote of a ID Proponent in context (see Behe trial transcript for example), then it is not to be taken literally and it doesn't mean what it was taken to mean.

In other words, using quotes from anyone is a complete waste of time.  

Then why do ID proponents use them so much?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
NoName



Posts: 1177
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2013,08:29   

ID
Design = manufacture

ID requires conflating the entirely different processes of design and manufacture.  The ID proponents have clearly never been involved in either design or production -- all that design itself produces is designs.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1466
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2013,10:05   

Guide to ID hand-waving excuses:

Providing relevant commentary from recognized experts in the fields of evolutionary biology = "argument from authority".

Providing relevant research papers from main stream peer-reviewed scientific journals = "literature bluffing".

Doing both in the same discussion with an IDiot = "elephant hurling".

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2013,10:09   

Maybe we can come up with an update for this.

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

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2013,11:10   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 07 2013,10:09)
Maybe we can come up with an update for this.

Talk about nothing changing...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2013,11:47   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2013,08:29)
ID
Design = manufacture

ID requires conflating the entirely different processes of design and manufacture.  The ID proponents have clearly never been involved in either design or production -- all that design itself produces is designs.

That's one of the things that have always bothered me about ID. Without a word about the process of implementation, ID is only a 'catchphrase'.

The possibility of anyone designer, divine or not, being capable of designing probably billions of species must lie far beyond Dembski's UPB. Implementation would take even a horde of gods more time than yet elapsed in the history of planet Earth.

What also remains to be resolved is the mystery of the missing evidence.

I don't think they can forever maintain a straight face propagating ID without being able to point at hard evidence.

I think they made a mistake not founding the theory of ID on magic. That's what the YEC's believe anyway, isn't it?

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Cubist



Posts: 345
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2013,13:19   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 07 2013,10:09)
Maybe we can come up with an update for this.

I see no need for an update, other than perhaps adding some footnotes to highlight supportive evidence which occurred after this webpage was originally uploaded.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4012
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2013,13:41   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 07 2013,10:10)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 07 2013,10:09)
Maybe we can come up with an update for this.

Talk about nothing changing...

Change is inevitable.

Except in arguments used by Creationists.

Or from vending machines.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2202
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2013,15:50   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 05 2013,19:21)
Hi everyone!

*waves*

I hope this be a series. Let's go!

Ok, I want to play:

Empirically tested

1.  There have been many variants of Dembski's CSI, which purports to detect design.
2.  Gordon is currently pushing his own version: FIASCO.
3.  It sounds all sciency: "specified", "information", "bits"...  It doesn't sound at all like "that property of things which look designed to Gordon, which makes them look designed to Gordon".  Not in the slightest.
4.  It has never been used in a peer-reviewed publication.
5.  It has never been used anywhere else, except a couple of religious blogs.
6.  Gordon has asserted that FIASCO can reliably detect design, but neither he nor anyone else has presented evidence that this is the case.
7.  FIASCO has never been calculated for an organism.
8.  FIASCO has never been calculated for any object known to have been designed.
9.  FIASCO has never been calculated for anything else.

What can we conclude about FIASCO?

Quote
That effort, as with dozens of other attempts to falsify the crucial ID claim that the empirically tested, reliable source of such FSCO/I is design, failed.


--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Freelurker



Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2013,19:46   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2013,09:29)
ID
Design = manufacture

ID requires conflating the entirely different processes of design and manufacture.  The ID proponents have clearly never been involved in either design or production -- all that design itself produces is designs.

No doubt IDists do at times use the term "design" when they are talking about manufacture. But Behe and Dembski actually define design to be purposefulness.

Michael Behe defines “design” as “the purposeful arrangement of parts.” He says that he has detected such design in, for example, the bacterial flagellum. But he does not claim to be one of the people who discovered the arrangement of parts in the flagellum; he learned about that from scientists working in labs. Also note that he does not claim to have discovered the purposes the Designer has assigned to the flagellum or to any of its parts. So this “design” that Behe says that has detected is  a free-floating purposefulness. (Dembski calls it the “complement of regularity and chance.”)

As you say, they are not using the term "design" the way it is used by people involved in either design or production. For engineers, in particular, purposes and intents are more closely related to the concept of requirements, not design. The IDist use of the term "design" is alien to engineers. I gather that they use the term the way it is often used in philosophy and theology.

In engineering, a design is an arrangement (a pattern) of parts.  The design process is the process of coming up with an arrangement of parts. When we engineers read a design specification or attend a design review for a system, we expect to learn about what its parts will be, how they will be arranged, and how they will interact to fulfill the system’s purposes (its requirements).

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

  
NoName



Posts: 1177
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2013,07:01   

Quote (Freelurker @ Oct. 07 2013,19:46)
...
As you say, they are not using the term "design" the way it is used by people involved in either design or production.
...

I think this is (another) very important point.
It is hardly the only place that the ID community abuses the language, and relies on a certain confusion of terminology.
Those of us involved in design and production, in any field, need to point this out and emphasize, repeatedly, that the DI and its various members/supporters/hangers-on are talking through their hats when they use the term 'design'.
They don't mean by it what 'the man on the street' means, and still less what those who design and manufacture for a living mean by it.

  
Freelurker



Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2013,09:47   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 08 2013,08:01)
... and relies on a certain confusion of terminology.

Yes, IDists are entitled to their own jargon but they are not entitled to use a confusion of terms to try to associate their philosophical musings with the practical work of engineers.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4012
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2013,19:41   

ID = Intelligence Did it.

The rest is Implementation Detail (or a pathetic level thereof).

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2013,01:44   

Some point about evolution is still debated by actual scientists: THEORY IN CRISIS.

Some point about evolution is pretty much agreed upon by actual scientists: DARWINIST CONSPIRACY.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2013,08:42   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 11 2013,01:44)
Some point about evolution is still debated by actual scientists: THEORY IN CRISIS.

Some point about evolution is pretty much agreed upon by actual scientists: DARWINIST CONSPIRACY.

Also

One "peer-reviewed" article that may, in one interpretation, indicate that some small aspect of evolution or abiogenesis has further questions: THEORY IN CRISIS

One million actually peer-reviewed papers firmly showing that evolution works: DARWINIST CINSPIRACY

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Argon



Posts: 7
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2013,10:39   

Baramins = Biblical 'Kinds' for the '1990s

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2013,11:24   

ID in context.

The Designer (In the courtroom) - some form of intelligence, it could be an alien or a time-traveling-cell-biologist.

The Designer (In the local community church) - God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1466
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2013,11:31   

The latest whining from the Disco 'Tooters:

Properly referring to ID (and the cdesignproponetists) as Creationism is STEREOTYPING.   :p

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2013,12:40   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 11 2013,09:31)
The latest whining from the Disco 'Tooters:

Properly referring to ID (and the cdesignproponetists) as Creationism is STEREOTYPING.   :p

ID is not religious, but if you object to having it taught in taxpayer-funded schools, or imposed on you in your workplace, that's religious discrimination.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2013,16:33   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 11 2013,18:40)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 11 2013,09:31)
The latest whining from the Disco 'Tooters:

Properly referring to ID (and the cdesignproponetists) as Creationism is STEREOTYPING.   :p

ID is not religious, but if you object to having it taught in taxpayer-funded schools, or imposed on you in your workplace, that's religious discrimination.

"But that's because secularism and science are religious beliefs!"

I wish that was a parody.

--------------
"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.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2202
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2013,17:01   

Creationists: Religious people.  Nothing to do with the totally secular non-religious subject of Intelligent Design, which is religion-free.  No-one could possibly think ID has anything to do with religion - it's totally objective design detection and not religious at all.  Did we mention it's nothing to do with religion?

Design proponents: Advocates of the totally sciency scientific theory of science which is Intelligent Design science.  We're scientists doing science in buildings which say "Science" on the door.  We've got labcoats and everything.

Cdesign proponentsists: I don't know what you're talking about.  That doesn't make any sense and... OH WOW!  LOOK AT THAT OVER THERE!

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2013,02:51   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 11 2013,16:33)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 11 2013,18:40)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 11 2013,09:31)
The latest whining from the Disco 'Tooters:

Properly referring to ID (and the cdesignproponetists) as Creationism is STEREOTYPING.   :p

ID is not religious, but if you object to having it taught in taxpayer-funded schools, or imposed on you in your workplace, that's religious discrimination.

"But that's because secularism and science are religious beliefs!"

I wish that was a parody.

This is yet another thing IDC inherited from "creation science". It's like they just don't care.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2013,03:02   

Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District

Quote

Peloza is a biology teacher in a public high school, and is employed by the Capistrano Unified School District. He is being forced by the defendants (the school district, its trustees and individual teachers and others) to proselytize his students to a belief in "evolutionism" "under the guise of [its being] a valid scientific theory." Evolutionism is an historical, philosophical and religious belief system, but not a valid scientific theory. Evolutionism is one of "two world views on the subject of the origins of life and of the universe." The other is "creationism" which also is a "religious belief system." "The belief system of evolutionism is based on the assumption that life and the universe evolved randomly and by chance and with no Creator involved in the process. The world view and belief system of creationism is based on the assumption that a Creator created all life and the entire universe." Peloza does not wish "to promote either philosophy or belief system in teaching his biology class." "The general acceptance of ... evolutionism in academic circles does not qualify it or validate it as a scientific theory." Peloza believes that the defendants seek to dismiss him due to his refusal to teach evolutionism. His first amendment rights have been abridged by interference with his right "to teach his students to differentiate between a philosophical, religious belief system on the one hand and a true scientific theory on the other."


Peloza lost.

Quote

V. CONCLUSION

The district court correctly dismissed Peloza's section 1983 claim based on allegations of a violation of his constitutional rights under the Establishment Clause and his rights to free speech and due process. He failed to allege sufficient facts to state a violation of these rights. The district court also correctly dismissed Peloza's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), because he failed to allege facts sufficient to state a violation of those rights; assuming, without deciding, that they fall within the protection of section 1985(3).

We affirm the dismissal of the complaint. We reverse the district court's award of attorney fees to the defendants.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.


The "reversed in part" refers to the matter of attorney fees, where the lower court had treated Peloza's suit as a frivolous lawsuit and ordered him to pay defendants' attorney fees.

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

    
  41 replies since Oct. 05 2013,21:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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