Joined: June 2007
| The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either! |
Cubist, I'd say that they do know. And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers). If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents. That at least is an objective claim, and one that is testable. And surely it is nothing new, as it's the same logic that bears use to find yaller jacket nests. This is not controversial, and it never has been (except that even at this basal level, they have never never substantiated even the mildest form of this claim that design is detectable).
Even at this first approximation, however, it's troubling to recognize the fact that many of the definitions of these terms and concepts IDists use to communicate this notion are, at the very least, not used in any sort of vernacular sense and in some ways completely opposite to other working prior definitions. They made up a tard-language to obfuscate some of the fuzzy logic and quivering mathematics.
First sleight of hand: least as far as I can peer through the murky pool of thick gloppy* tard that has obscured the mechanics of this logical system, some agents are defined as 'intelligent', which then surreptitiously imports secondary meaning from all sorts of feel-good affirmation self-esteem cultural and metaphysical legacies. One of those in particular is the ontological argument from intelligence and the eternal regress of where did intelligence come from. This, we know, is tard, and has been properly recognized as self delusional wish fulfillment at least since Kant and undoubtedly longer. It is an intractable morass resulting from improperly defined concepts**.
Even if I might be more charitable and grant that ID can legitimately deduce whether or not an object is designed, and while I am being charitable I will grant their definitions of all those terms. Ok, you proved*** something is designed. Now what?
This means that anything possessing those characters that keyed out to 'design' is also 'designed'. This could be peanut butter sandwiches, or scratches on a rock, or the precise position of the earth in relation to the moon sun galaxy etc, the blagella on a fracterium, the way that blood clots to the way that blood splatters from chicken gut oracles.
Who designed those things?
It can be hard to see where the science stopped and the stupid began. Thank Mithra for folks like Wes and Jeff Shalitt and PZ and Ken Miller and Barbara Forrest and Nick Matzke and ERV and Lenny Flank. They have exposed the greased palm groping underneath the skirts of reason.
What is amazing is that even though it's plain that ID is a non-starter from science, Kevin, your objective is to push for it anyway. Whether or not it is science, it validates your beliefs and by your manichean logic anything that does not affirm your beliefs is attacking your beliefs and as a free citizen with religious freedom you have the right to have your beliefs affirmed in the public square and not not-validated in the public square hence the big stink about academic freedom and religious freedom when really all that it has ever been is the freedom to be as stupid as you can possibly be. That, and follow a prescribed agenda by political and religious figures and be good little brownshirts. Which are you, Kevin? Are you a leader or a follower in this
religious Scientific Renewal Revolution?
* Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Kev did you interview Galapagos Finch for
Crossroads Expelled? Do tell.
** Formal logic does not work with propositions forged from jello and peppered with leavings from the Sandman.
*** Proved. That is another huge problem with all of the ID issue. Since IC and the EF are an argument from gaps, and science always leaves the door open to disproof, you and your fellow travelers have managed to squeeze a child's foot into the door. Shame on you.
Bad Tard, Kevin. Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Tard. You seem like a nice guy. Why do this?
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles