RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Tim Hague



Posts: 32
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2006,23:46   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 01 2006,10:38)
Lol. They're talking now, at Uncommon Pissant, about how so many people there are engineers. Much better suited to understand biology, don't you know.

Not all engineers are ignorant of biology... some of us software engineers have degrees in both genetics and design and have no problems whatsoever in spotting the 'breathtaking inanity' of ID ;)

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2006,04:31   

Quote (Tim Hague @ Feb. 02 2006,05:46)
[quote=stevestory,Feb. 01 2006,10:38]Lol. They're talking now, at Uncommon Pissant, about how so many people there are engineers. Much better suited to understand biology, don't you know.

Quote
Not all engineers are ignorant of biology... some of us software engineers have degrees in both genetics and design and have no problems whatsoever in spotting the 'breathtaking inanity' of ID ;)

For the record, back in December at PT, I pointed out how a disproportionate number of ID types have always been engineers, and speculated on what it is about engineering that should make this so. It got a rather, uh, irritated response from some of the non-crackpot engineers who frequent PT.  ??? But, hate to say it, it is a real trend!

Also retired property managers. Lot of them, too.

--------------
"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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2006,04:46   

and lawyers.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2006,04:58   

But is the percentage of engineers (software or otherwise) really higher than the percentage of non-biologists in general?

Henry

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2006,06:11   

The key difference here is, engineering doesn't necessarily rub your face in the relevant biological evidence. So it's not only easy, it's typical for a suitably interested creationist to survive even an advanced engineering degree program without slamming into any unavoidable conflicts with his faith. Biology programs tend to weed out creationists, few of whom are able to make the 'Kurt Wise breakthrough'.

Kurt Wise has understood that to maintain his faith, he must internalize the conviction that evidence simply *does not matter*. It is irrelevant. Most creationist engineers, on the contrary, recognize the importance of evidence, and thus the importance of MAKING the evidence fit the conclusions. The evidence MUST support their faith, because their faith is RIGHT. When evidence refutes their faith, see rule 1.

What's interesting is that, at least in my experience, these people are otherwise excellent at recognizing which evidence is relevant, how to draw conclusions from it, and how to reject conclusions the evidence denies. But when their religious faith is involved, it's like a blind spot. Suddenly you're through the looking glass, where conclusions are *not to be questioned* and evidence falls into three categories: it fits, it gets distorted to fit, or it gets denied. A spooky experience.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2006,06:36   

In one sense, I have more respect for the Wises of the world than the reinterpreters. They're taking a stand for their religion. When you 'reinterpret' a religion to remove contradictions with scientific evidence, you're submitting to the higher authority of reason, but too chicken to deal with the full consequences.

But that's the subject of another thread.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2006,15:13   

Quote




February 2, 2006
(off topic) Comment Policy
I created some new Pages with links in the right column of the blog. Under Comment Policy are Moderation which is the moderation policy statements made by Bill Dembski and continued by his appointed Blog Czar and Put a Sock In It which is a partial list of boring arguments that earn deletion and if repeated an invitation to leave Uncommon Descent. Please be aware of them.

Filed under: Off Topic, Adminstrative — DaveScot @ 7:08 pm


Any chance that could be translated as....awkward arguments?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2006,15:29   

Quote
You certainly don't have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I'm going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it.


somehow that didn't wind up on the Put a Sock In It list. I think we can safely assume that Dave Springer has been told where he can shove his Common Descent.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2006,16:51   

Re "Any chance that could be translated as.... awkward arguments?"

Such as asking what set of observations shows a repeating pattern such that it could actually be explained by a hypothesis of deliberate design of life forms?

Or more concisely - is there a big tent repairman in the house? :)

Henry

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2006,17:36   

I am an engineer, and as an engineer I have encountered many of the IDists

Actually...its really simple.  

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are all doing the same thing.  

A mathematician is working with numbers
A physicist is using the numbers with real objects
An engineer is using the physics in real-world applications

They are all wonderful degrees and normally the sign of an intelligent individual.

The problem:  They are not biologists.  As a general rule engineers think that they can do anything....so do math and physics guys.  Their studies were so difficult that they have this mindset that they could have learned and been experts in anything.

They use this superiority complex to bolster themselves into the argument.  You can normally tell the engineer.  Their vocabulary may be weak, but they seem intelligent.  They make old arguments repeatedly...remember...its still new to them...and they are so smart that they came up with it on their own.

So...give an engineer a hug
Engineers need love too
Engineers are not biologists.

I have a friend who is a physicist turned electrical engineer.  He argued for ID, first on the "controversy" side.  Then when i knocked that down...on the "incomplete evidence" argument...once again he lost.  Finally he argued that he simply was smarter than me....which he was, I was just more skeptical.  It ended with a fun conversation about his Christian Fundamentalism....

I have never argued with an IDist who wasnt a Theist
And DaveScot....is a Theist...despite what he says

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2006,19:01   

Sorry to double post...but this was hilarious

I just got a post moderated because i actually suggested a way that people would quit bringing up religion in the ID argument.

If Dr. Dembski was to stand up and say, "ID is not about God.  If God exists, he most certainly would not have been the intelligent agent.  He would be far too powerful and far too busy.  The Intelligent Agent is not God, and anyone who believes that the Intelligent Agent in ID theory is God, is lacking in theological and scientific education.  The Intelligent Agent is a naturalistic entity, that is responsible for slowly shaping the life of the Earth."

Of course....I am fairly sure if IDists kept making that statement, ID would lose ALL of its supporters

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,04:15   

LOL. Now they're framing themselves as Galileo to Judge Jones's Inquisitor.


Quote

February 3, 2006
Judge John E. Jones III as Inquisitor

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/775

   
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,04:48   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 03 2006,10:15)
LOL. Now they're framing themselves as Galileo to Judge Jones's Inquisitor.


Quote

February 3, 2006
Judge John E. Jones III as Inquisitor

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/775

Since I'm not going to all the effort of going over there just to get banned, I'll ask this here... If IDers deny that religion has anything to do with is, how is it they came that ID is morally superior to evolution?  I mean, in the referenced post it is claimed that:
Quote
Darwinian metaphysics is doing real moral and political mischief in our society

Supposedly ID doesn't identify a designer, so can they claim moral superiority when they can't know the motivations of an unknown designer?

(Yes, I know, the answer is that with every post Demski further demonstrates that ID for him is all about acknowledging his Judeo-Christian God.)

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,05:04   

Another psychedelic gem from Red Reader (to be read in your best William Shatner "Beat Poet" voice):
Quote

tinabrewer wrote:
“Can such a question hope to be settled in the realm of science which has unfortunately devolved into the playground of mere materialism?”

There’s an old saying, “Don’t give up just before the miracle happens.”

ID is a sea change; its a big idea.
Big ideas are unstoppable for a reason.
For example, the Copernicun universe was a big idea. It took decades.
Time marches on.

Art is a mirror; the movie is a mirror.
Behind the ridicule blindingly, hysterical horrible fear: fear flapping and flopping and flailing away.

Down deep they know they’ve climbed way, way out on a dead limb of Darwin’s tree.
The hear it cracking.
They’ve invested their lives in a worldview in which they are the greatest of the great, elite of elite, the kings of all, the glorious spear of man’s purposless ascent from the primordal ooze: gods of all knowledge; smarter, wiser, more manly…..(even the women!). —craaaack— huh? what was that? It’s the sound of the natural prunning of the branch.

They could have chosen to follow the truth where it leads, the evidence where it leads, but instead the chose the best seats at the universities and the worship of men just like themselves. —-craaaack—-

“I am the Captain of a mighty armada! Bear Left I command you!”
“I am the watchman in a lighthouse on solid rock. I suggest you bear right.”
—-craaaaack—–

Comment by Red Reader — February 1, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/752#comments

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,05:25   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 03 2006,10:15)
LOL. Now they're framing themselves as Galileo to Judge Jones's Inquisitor.


Quote

February 3, 2006
Judge John E. Jones III as Inquisitor

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/775

This is the sort of glue that holds evangelicals as agroup together.  A sense of being persecuted and fear (the "Darwinists" are corrupting our youth/country/etc.).

Victimhood is one of the driving forces behind intelligent design as a movement:

No one will publish us...

They forbid us to make one innocent statement to some high school kids in Dover...

Judge Jones is our Inquisitor...

We are vitcims of a Darwin conspiracy to stifle free speech and intellectual inquiry...

The truth is out there....



And the IDiot true believers eat it up...Just more pandering to the Pat Robertson crowd..

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,05:55   

Quote
#

Dr Davison

I think your PEH is nonsense but I agree with part of your comment #80

That is what internet forums are for so each can ignore what everyone else has to say and go right on gratifying his own ego with gay abandon in what can only be described as a kind of hysterical intellectual masturbation.

Comment by Xavier — February 3, 2006 @ 3:11 am


Someone else just got banned from Common Descent for this comment.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,06:18   

Quote
That is what internet forums are for so each can ignore what everyone else has to say and go right on gratifying his own ego with gay abandon in what can only be described as a kind of hysterical intellectual masturbation


Was this Dave Scott talking about Dave Scott?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,07:13   

I am always amazed when these religious types compare themselves to Galileo. Do they even know what Galileo discovered, or how? Do they acknowledge who he was being condemned by?

That the IDiots can't see the irony in their comparison just goes to show how IDiotic they really are.

  
Devon



Posts: 2
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,07:45   

Hahaha. Uh oh! Looks like somebody stumbled into ID's "Big Tent" without realizing the unspoken law: "ID doesn't point to a designer (but it's God wink wink nudge nudge)"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/773#comments


Quote
Dave T. said:

“Analogies between human design and design by an unknown designer work because, whatever the designer, he must work on the same universe with the same natural laws that we do.”

I agree. As Davescot said, “In every case where we can determine the source of design for a machine it is intelligent agency.” But the statement “In every case where we can determine the source of design for a machine it is humans” is also true. Do you know of any intelligent agency that is not human?
The intelligence of the agency is not what designed the machine. We attribute intelligence to the agency based on the fact that we as humans attribute intelligence to complexity. But intelligence is a description of the agency, it is not the agency.
If intelligent design cannot speak to the agency, then it cannot also speak to descriptions of the agency, which would be calling it intelligent.

Comment by M J — February 3, 2006 @ 10:58 am


and

Quote
One more thing (that you may think is ludicrous):

5,000 years from now, humans master not only time travel but have figured out how to hard wire “complexity” into the DNA of less “intelligent” animals. A scientist travels back in time, to 2 millions years ago and messes with the DNA of an ape, thus causing humans to come about.

That may sound pretty far fetched, but in reality, it does not break any known laws. We know (hypothetically) that time travel is possible. We know that with modern break-throughs in nanotechnology that one day it will be possible to change DNA in this manner. And we also know, that every time we see complex machines and determine their origins, that they were created by humans.

I think that that is a pretty elegant hypothesis for why we see “intelligent” design. I don’t believe that speaking about a designer should be left to theology and philosphy when you can have a very natural explanation for it. The only people that want to leave it to “theology and philosophy” are the people who already assume that the “designer” is outside the realm of science. I don’t believe the designer is. As they say, follow the evidence where it leads and the evidence leads to the fact that every time we see a complex machine, it is designed by a human.

Comment by M J — February 3, 2006 @ 11:10 am


I wonder how quick they will get banned?

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,09:17   

Two points:

I thought the law of time travel states 1 million years is the limit you can go back in time.  

And all this guy is doing is taking Michael "it could be a time traveler" Behe's intelligent design theory to its logical conclusion.  Why in the world would they ban him for echoing what Behe proposes? :-)

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,09:31   

Because they are so good with logic?

  
Devon



Posts: 2
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,10:03   

Davescot can't keep up with all the stuff he is posting:
Quote
4. Wait a minute DS,
Sorry to nitpick, but this is a fine article and you might need to amend the bit about the sun rising in the east being a natural law. It does not hold everywhere in the universe. It need not have been in the east.
There is only one star commonly referred to as “the sun”.

MJ-
Your theory may be within natural law so far as time travel, but there is an obvious problem which is that in this circle you would need to have had a first time that man evolved that didn’t depend upon him having already evolved.
Backwards travel in time is hypothetical nonsense. It warrants no space here. -ds
Comment by avocationist — February 3, 2006 @ 12:58 pm


5.
Avocationist:
“Your theory may be within natural law so far as time travel, but there is an obvious problem which is that in this circle you would need to have had a first time that man evolved that didn’t depend upon him having already evolved.”
Not true. You are basing that assertion on the misconception that time is linear.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel-phys/

Dave,
A supernatural designer is hypothetical nonsense because it breaks natural law. A hypothesis that does not break natural law is not nonsense. It may be wrong, or incorrect, but since you would rather stifle scientific debate that goes against the supernatural designer scenario instead of following the evidence where it leads, I can see why you would say that.
:)
Comment by M J — February 3, 2006 @ 1:56 pm


That was up there for a couple minutes before Dave deleted it and replaced it with:

Quote
M J has been awarded a time-out for failing to heed my warning to cease and desist with the man designed man nonsense.

Comment by DaveScot — February 3, 2006 @ 2:27 pm

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,13:05   

DaveScot has been quiet for days, perhaps smarting from the spanking Dembski no doubt gave him in private. Well, he's back, and arguing with everyone, but not in a particularly entertaining way this time.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/778#comments

get a load of this:

Quote
Machines Are the Result of Intelligent Agency

In every case where a machine is observed and its origin can be determined it is the result of intelligent agency.

When observations have been repeated billions of times by billions of people like this without a single exception it is a law of nature, not hypothesis and not mere theory. (more…)
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 11:20 am


Man, how many ideas can Dave Springer simultaneously misunderstand?

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,13:10   

Odd that you are not allowed to discuss the time traveler theory proposed by Michael Behe there.  

Why do William The Theologians followers hate Dr Behe?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,14:04   

One of the most astonishing consequences of the enlightenment, rationality and the scientific method is the notion that man is not necessarily as special as we have been led to believe.  The Copernican "sun centered" hypothesis touted so blithely by RR was heretical for precisely that reason.  

"Look," he was saying, "get over yourselves.  The earth is not at the center of the universe, despite what your Holy book tells you."

Why RR considers that an argument in favor of ID, I hesitate to speculate.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,15:58   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/775[/URL][/quote]
... If IDers deny that religion has anything to do with it, how is it they say that ID is morally superior to evolution?  I mean, in the referenced post it is claimed that:
Quote
Darwinian metaphysics is doing real moral and political mischief in our society

Supposedly ID doesn't identify a designer, so can they claim moral superiority when they can't know the motivations of an unknown designer?
 I mean, in the referenced post it is claimed that:
Quote  
Darwinian metaphysics is doing real moral and political mischief in our society.

Supposedly ID doesn't identify a designer, so can they claim moral superiority when they can't know the motivations of an unknown designer?
[QUOTE]

Goodness I had no idea we were so popular here.
This is actually a good question. I guess the answer is that the design inference is just that and nothing more. People have a real hard time getting that.
So a lot of ID people are motivated morally, philosophically, religously, just as are atheists. For example, you guys think if ID gets a foothold, we'll be having stonings of adulteresses just like they did in Afghanistan. But those opinions about what is good for society (no religion) isn't part of evolutionary theory, is it?

Devon kindly gave two links to show time is nonlinear. I just can't read through all that. I guess I know time is nonlinear, but isn't it linear here? I don't find MJ's idea at all reasonable.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,16:26   

Avocationist.....I can understand your concern....but you seriously misunderstand

We are concerned about Religion overstepping its boundaries...and getting involved in Politics and Science.

I fear creation science for the same reason that I fear a theocracy.  I can always argue against a scientific idea....if there is an alternative and rational idea.  Just as I can always debate in the political sphere.  The problem is that in religion...there is not much room for debate.  Granted, some religions allow a little bit of leeway.  Fundamentalists, however, always seem to grab the power.

Secular science isnt trying to claim moral superiority...they just fear religious encroachment into the sphere of science.  If you dont believe that this is a very logical position, I invite you to investigate the theocracies of the middle east....then please reply with an explanation of how they maintain a perfectly healthy and strong scientific and political system....despite the involvement of the theocracy.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,17:04   

Puck, I wasn't so much concerned as trying to give a real answer to the question. I think that ID does the best job of keeping in mind the difference between science and personal motivation. But the personal motivation is there.

Why are we discussing creation science?

I fear theocracy, but I fear any totalitarianism. The past few have not been religious. Well, they were atheistic...

I don't have any disagreement with anything you said, except the implications. You imply that ID is creation science which it isn't, and you speak of fundamentalism, but I don't find ID fundamentalist. You imply that any other conclusion than a materialistic one is a de facto encroachment of religion getting out of bounds.

The whole point of our constitution is to prevent a theocracy. Of course we need to be vigilant, although personally, right now, I worry about a corporate driven totalitarianism.

The problem is, biological systems might be designed by an intelligence. There is the possibility that this is true. If it is true, it will probably be discoverable. Yet you speak of religion overstepping its bounds. Like I said to Anteater to no effect: this is one reality. If that one reality includes God, then that might be discoverable, if not directly then indirectly. You just can't legislate it out of science.
Now, humanity is in a state of semi-ignorance. We used to be in greater ignorance. But if there is a God who set up life forms, and if that is ultimately discoverable by scientific investigation, then we will have a situation in which science and spirituality are not utterly separated.

This is the only possible place we will end up if:
1) There is a God
2) Our knowledge continues to increase

This seems irrefutable but I'm sure you will surprise me.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,17:14   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2006,21:58)
This is actually a good question. I guess the answer is that the design inference is just that and nothing more. People have a real hard time getting that.

I understand that is what IDist would have us believe. I was simply questioning why Bill Dembski persist in quoting friends, people and articles that specifically undermine this assertion?

Perhaps you should have a quiet word with Bill, eh?

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2006,21:58)
So a lot of ID people are motivated morally, philosophically, religously, just as are atheists.

I assume you meant to say "evolutionists" and not "atheists" since they are hardly synonymous.

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2006,21:58)
For example, you guys think if ID gets a foothold, we'll be having stonings of adulteresses just like they did in Afghanistan. But those opinions about what is good for society (no religion) isn't part of evolutionary theory, is it?

No, of course I don't believe that belief in ID leads to stoning adulterers.

However... I do believe that if ID ever becomes the primary theory taught in our schools, the most likely reason is that the Reconstructionalists or the Dominionists will have somehow managed to take over the government.  In that case the teaching of ID will be the least of our troubles. Fornicators and incorrigible children beware!

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2006,17:25   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2006,21:58)
This is the only possible place we will end up if:
1) There is a God
2) Our knowledge continues to increase

This seems irrefutable but I'm sure you will surprise me.

This is easily refutable. Again, you are making too many assumptions about the designer (or God, if you will).  

What if the designer/God doesn't want us to "know" him/her?  If God does exist then this is entirely possible and, indeed, is a widespread belief within Christian circles.  Many Christians claim that being able to prove God exists would only devalue their faith.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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