Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: ID terms explained started by Richardthughes


Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 05 2013,21:21

Hi everyone!

*waves*

I hope this be a series. Let's go!
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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


Posted by: Cubist on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's easy: It's an unreadable blog.
Posted by: Amadan on 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!
Posted by: Driver on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 06 2013,10:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What kind of a blog is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Errrrm let me guess?

Something tribal?

< PFJ? >
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 06 2013,13:59

ID Terms?

ID = If it's Inconvenient, Deny it.

Henry
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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?
Posted by: NoName on 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.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on 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".
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 07 2013,10:09

Maybe we can come up with an update for < this >.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 07 2013,11:10

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


Talk about nothing changing...
Posted by: Quack on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 07 2013,13:19

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


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.
Posted by: Henry J on 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 >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Talk about nothing changing...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Change is inevitable.

Except in arguments used by Creationists.

Or from vending machines.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 07 2013,15:50

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

*waves*

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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Freelurker on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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).
Posted by: NoName on 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.
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Freelurker on Oct. 08 2013,09:47

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


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.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 08 2013,19:41

ID = Intelligence Did it.

The rest is Implementation Detail (or a pathetic level thereof).
Posted by: fnxtr on 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.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: Argon on Oct. 11 2013,10:39

Baramins = Biblical 'Kinds' for the '1990s
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 11 2013,11:31

The latest whining from the Disco 'Tooters:

Properly referring to ID (and the cdesignproponetists) as Creationism is STEREOTYPING.   :p
Posted by: fnxtr on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Amadan on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

I wish that was a parody.
Posted by: JohnW on 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!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

I wish that was a parody.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is yet another thing IDC inherited from "creation science". It's like they just don't care.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: timothya on Oct. 14 2013,05:22

Being utterly wrong about science equals being right about theology:

< An Orthodox Rabbi Ventures into the World of Evidence >

Nope. Your premises are wrong, so your conclusions are wrong.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 14 2013,06:38

Quote (timothya @ Oct. 14 2013,05:22)
Being utterly wrong about science equals being right about theology:

< An Orthodox Rabbi Ventures into the World of Evidence >

Nope. Your premises are wrong, so your conclusions are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I was told long ago was that wrong premises mean that the conclusions are unsupported by the proffered argument and that whether the conclusion happens to be true or not is a different matter.

The < linked article > offers, so far as I can tell, an assertion rather than a conclusion.

The rabbi also doesn't venture into evidence. The rabbi simply applies the standard proof-texting, analogizing, and invention of irrelevancies that antievolutionary theologians commonly bring to a discussion of science, and then wonder why their "arguments" are not immediately accepted and acclaimed.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 14 2013,11:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I was told long ago was that wrong premises mean that the conclusions are unsupported by the proffered argument and that whether the conclusion happens to be true or not is a different matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention that a conclusion isn't itself invalidated by an invalid argument for that conclusion.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 01 2014,22:40

Crosspost:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....?p=3785 >
Posted by: Arctodus23 on Jan. 01 2014,23:16

< New "Scientific" Volume passes censorship. Nothing NEW >

The IDists are at it again. But this time, with the wonderful story of the "scientific" volume that passes through "censorship" (i.e. peer-review, where every bit of your crap is reviewed for any sight of errors, and there's a LOT, if not, ALL errors in ID creationism).
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 02 2014,11:19

Isn't that the book where the IDiots rented a room at Cornell, then told Springer that Cornell had a scientific symposium about ID, and Springer found out it the IDiots were liars, and cancelled the book, and they found a new publisher?
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 02 2014,11:30

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2014,09:19)
Isn't that the book where the IDiots rented a room at Cornell, then told Springer that Cornell had a scientific symposium about ID, and Springer found out it the IDiots were liars, and cancelled the book, and they found a new publisher?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the one.  The room was in the Department of Hotel Management, if I remember correctly.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Jan. 02 2014,12:18

ID:

No matter what experiment you show them that is evidence of an evolutionary process, it is actually evidence for ID, because the experiment itself - concept and technical implementation - was intelligently designed.
Posted by: hotshoe on Jan. 02 2014,23:44

Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 01 2014,23:16)
< New "Scientific" Volume passes censorship. Nothing NEW >

The IDists are at it again. But this time, with the wonderful story of the "scientific" volume that passes through "censorship" (i.e. peer-review, where every bit of your crap is reviewed for any sight of errors, and there's a LOT, if not, ALL errors in ID creationism).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the bit that first caught my eye (my bold):

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You see, originally Biological Information: New Perspectives was set to be published by Springer, but Springer illegally violated the book's publication contract by cancelling it ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had no idea it was illegal to cancel a business contract.   Gosh, what do you suppose the criminal penalty for canceling a contract could be? Just life in prison or is it a capital case?

That, plus the minor stupidity that the book is not the possessor of the contract -- the authors/corporation are/is the possessor(s) of the contract -- and I had to quit reading before I broke something.

Goddamned Casey Luskin. What a stooge.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 03 2014,02:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, attacks on academic freedom are a very important part of the story behind the publication of Biological Information: New Perspectives, and it's a story that now deserves to be told truthfully. This I will do in forthcoming articles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No comment.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 03 2014,07:52

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 02 2014,12:18)
ID:

No matter what experiment you show them that is evidence of an evolutionary process, it is actually evidence for ID, because the experiment itself - concept and technical implementation - was intelligently designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If that was the case, then why aren't slot machine engineers all wealthy?

The slot machines are designed, so the designer must know everything about them right? If slot machine engineers can't predict every spin, then (gasp) something else must be going on!?!?!?
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 03 2014,11:23

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 03 2014,05:52)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 02 2014,12:18)
ID:

No matter what experiment you show them that is evidence of an evolutionary process, it is actually evidence for ID, because the experiment itself - concept and technical implementation - was intelligently designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If that was the case, then why aren't slot machine engineers all wealthy?

The slot machines are designed, so the designer must know everything about them right? If slot machine engineers can't predict every spin, then (gasp) something else must be going on!?!?!?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because SLOT machines are magic and life violates SLOT... or something.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.