RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 120 121 122 123 124 [125] 126 127 128 129 130 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:43   

This bit, reprinted at Uncommonly Dense, confirms our impression that news coverage of ID has switched from He said / she said, to science vs religion:

Quote
In light of increasing media coverage and national debate of a discipline called Intelligent Design (ID), this study content analyzed 575 articles from major newspapers on this topic. Researchers drew articles from the LexisNexis® database and coded them for the presence of certain portrayal, and scientifically certain versus uncertain portrayal, and these variables were analyzed across news type. Researchers also measured the presence of several frames and the dominant frame within each article. Results suggest that ID was largely portrayed as a religious—as opposed to a scientific—movement. Coverage also was largely skeptical of ID's scientific legitimacy.


You just have to go read their discussion of changing ID's name. It's so funny.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,11:11   

IE (Intelligent Evolution) reminds me of ms' Internet Explorer. They can go up to IE v. 7 with this new concept.

Next, they'll move to IM (Intelligent Mutations), then INS (Intelligent Natural Selection) and  IGD (Intelligent Genetic Drift) to unify their theory with the IMNSGDT® 2020 edition.

I don't think YECs will appreciate.  :p

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,13:15   

They're not *that* dumb.

For example, instead of fighting the lost cause of getting the scientific establishment (or even the public in general) to accept ID as a scientific hypothesis, the IDists are focusing on retaining their existing believers with language that reinforces in their minds their own correctness.  Given that their ultimate goal is to establish and maintain a power base with specific doctrines, this is really the only reasonable response.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,13:55   

Has anyone pointed out yet that this proposed name change is a clear example of evolution in action?

Of course, you could say that it's an example of Intelligent Design instead, but using the word 'intelligent' in any relation to UncommonlyDense make me feel dirty.  ;)

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,14:00   

Re excerpt from UD "Results suggest that ID was largely portrayed as a religious as opposed to a scientific movement."

Hmm. I'm wondering what a scientific movement might be. Somehow acceptance of experts of something that's supported by evidence, doesn't strike me as what I'd call a "movement".

Henry

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,14:10   

The only "scientific movement" Dumbski ever experienced came as a result of his college experimentation with mixing Ethyl alcohol and prune juice.  :p

ETA:  I forgot the one he had when he read the Kitzmiller decision.  That sure left skid marks in his tighty whiteys.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,00:48   

I don't think johnnyb has been reading the DI's orders, he's just opened up a nice can of worms: Thinking about ID as a Theory of Causation.

Basically, he's saying that ID should be about more than design detection: it should start looking at the how and why (and who) of the design.  Jack Krebs has already replied encouraging him: I've added a post that probably won't see light of day (hi, Dave!;) prodding the discussion towards the "who is the designer?" direction.  Of course, this is the one direction the DI doesn't want to go in, so we'll see what happens...

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,02:34   

From Under Done;

to clean the ID house. Intelligent Design Evolution it is!


Why stop there guys why not Intelligent Darwinian Creation - Creationism Redefined As Proxy (IDC CRAP) to shorten it you could just call it  GDI goddidit

How about.

Non-darwinian Evolution Explicitly Designed --- Creationism Rejected Until The Creationists Holler (NEED CRUTCH)....we accept the expurgated version of evolution...the one without evolution .

or

DENI Darwinian Evolution Needs Intelligence.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,03:52   

The Arc of Conway

The ID arc of John Simon Conway, as reveiled in the pages of Uncommon Dissent

Poor John Simon Conway, how fast he rose in the ID firmament and now how far and how fast he has fallen from ID glory.  You can see his ID career climb ever higher in the pages of Uncommon Dissent and then, at the height of his ID greatness, the same blog documents his swift and terrible plunge to the status of a "Cultured Theological Despiser".  One crosses WAD at his own peril.

First, the climb to ID greatness:
April 22, 2005  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/19
Listed as a member of the Cambridge Templeton Foundation, helping to evaluate research proposals on Biological Complexity for the Templeton Foundation

May 15, 2005  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/73
"The renowned biologist Simon Conway Morris has found many such examples in nature and proposed that it’s “near inevitable” that species converge toward an intelligent “solution” to life."

May 18, 2005  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/78
Speaker to Templeton Foundation Journalistic fellows.

June 23, 2005 http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/155
Talks about a "gaffe" in Simon Conway Morris's book, Life's Solution, in which an exponent and base are reversed.  [Isn't this actually called a misprint?]

July 2, 2005  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/168
The Privileged Planet has received an endorsement from Simon Conway Morris

Sept 7, 2005  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/310
"The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed" is "the first British book-length critique of Darwinism".  It's "preface is explicitly Christian [and] Simon Conway Morris went through the whole manuscript"
Also, chapter 13 is "Based on Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris"

Sept 28, 2005  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/357
"… On matters scientific, Dr. Dawkins, who came from Oxford, and Dr. Conway Morris, a Cambridge man, agreed: The richness of the biosphere, humanity included, could be explained through natural selection. [I’ve corresponded with Conway Morris; he regards natural selection as an engine that powers evolution but not as what gives it direction. –WmAD] "
"For Dr. Conway Morris, a Christian, nature’s “uncanny ability” to converge on moral, loving creatures like ourselves testified that evolution itself was the handiwork of God…."

Dec 10, 2005  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/572
"Simon Conway Morris is scheduled to do the 2006-07 Gifford Lectures on the topic “What organic evolution tells us about our place in the universe, not least in terms of religious perspectives and natural theology “"

Mar 8, 2006  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/899
"Simon Conway Morris, noted Cambridge paleontologist, has similarly noted that evolution is constrained rather than open ended like the Darwinian process."

And then Conway Morris is cast down from ID heaven:
April 8, 2006  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1014
"Simon Conway Morris, a biologist at Cambridge and an adviser to the Templeton Foundation, ridiculed intelligent design as nonsense that no respectable biologist could accept."

June 10, 2006  http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1202
"ID’s Cultured Theological Despisers — Simon Conway Morris’s Boyle Lecture 2005"
"Conway Morris’s remark is another of the slapdash pseudo-theological criticisms of ID"

And from that day on, no matter how he wailed and gnashed his teeth, Simon Conway Morris never again sat at the right hand of the Apostle Dembski.  How the mighty have fallen!

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,04:37   

Conway Morris sympathized with IDers?? :O
I'm kind of disappointed.

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,05:36   

I don't think he ever did, but Dembski fooled himself into thinking he did and tried to pass the delusion on to others.  

Dembski seems to think that any argument whatsoever with any aspect of evolution equals an ID believer - especially if you're a famous scientist.

Of course, once you say something anti-ID, that belief can no longer hold.  That's how someone like Conway Morris can plummet from a "renowned biologist" to a "slapdash pseudo-theological" critic.

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,06:17   

Quote (djmullen @ June 11 2006,08:52)
words

And if you think that's bad, you should see the way Judge Jones went from ID's pure as the driven snow hero to moustache twirling villain after the Dover decision.  :D

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,07:31   

You must mean former Judge Jones.  IIRC, we were assured by Davie Boy that his job was toast if he gave the "wrong" verdict, and he did.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,17:01   

Ooooh, Oooh!

Gil of UcD who got fisked by an awesome post on the pandas thumb writes..

Quote
I am pleased that the Panda’s Thumb crowd has created a thread designed to refute my arguments. This is indicative of the fact that a very sensitive nerve has been stricken, and that they are in a state of desperation to defend the indefensible.


Oooh, I see how this works, let me play.

I am pleased that the Gil has created a thread designed to refute Genetic Algorythms. This is indicative of the fact he is a gay homosexualist , and that he cross dresses and didn't vote Bush.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,17:07   

Argumentum Ad Attentium?

If they notice me, I must be right?

Uncommonly Dense -- The Short Bus on the Information Superhighway

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,17:19   


   
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,18:12   

Quote (Henry J @ June 10 2006,19:00)
I'm wondering what a scientific movement might be. Somehow acceptance of experts of something that's supported by evidence, doesn't strike me as what I'd call a "movement".

What about Global Warming?

Can you imagine Dembski trying to do the Al Gore thing and putting out a movie?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,18:13   

If only that *dreamy* Davescot had a website...*swoon*

He's an ex Marine and Dell Exec, dontchaknow!

*cough cough* :p

--------------
"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: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,18:33   

aw, bless his cotton socks!

Dave discovers MS paint

I love it when he gets angry after one of their, er, 'sciency' threads gets fisked. Hey Dave, at least Gil didn't put up badly photo-shopped pics of marines 'praying' which was a bogus, 2 year old story. Only a proper nonce would do that.

     
Quote
Prayer Request: When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops around the world.
Just send this link
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=1141




spoken like a true, er, ‘agnostic’, Dave.

   
Quote
“Now that everyone is happy that this article isn’t a fabrication the comments are closed”


Hmmm, I doubt Dave is a marine, because in my experience, the have more honour than that….

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,19:13   

I tried to post the following on the Thinking about ID as a Theory of Causation thread:
Quote

<blockquote>Some people mistakenly think that ID is all about design detection. But that’s merely one aspect. The goal is to examine intelligent causation in its fullest.</blockquote>
One would hope that this would be true, but if it were then one of the first questions that would have to be addressed is "Who is the designer?".  But we don't see this problem being tackled: it seems to be quietly ignored instead.

Bob


And, oh my, it didn't appear.  Is someone scared of the "Who is the designer?" question?  Am I starting to turn into Lenny?

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,19:30   

oh yes, bob.  even periodic examination reveals that Dave Scott Springerbot is "tired" of that specific question, and has banned folks for asking it previously.

prediction:

if DT notices your post, I'd say you have a 60% chance of being banned outright, and 80% chance he will make a snide comment about your intelligence.

..er, assuming it ever makes it there.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,19:46   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 12 2006,00:30)
oh yes, bob.  even periodic examination reveals that Dave Scott Springerbot is "tired" of that specific question, and has banned folks for asking it previously.

Yep, that's why I asked it: JohnnyB seems to be showing intellectual honesty by setting up these questions, so let's try and show him what happens when you follow them up.

And I won't actually be banned: my comments will be moved to the Pit of Spam and People We Don't Like.  Which is not the same thing at all, oh no.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,19:54   

Sgt. Doofus informs us that there is no such thing as a fitness function in nature:

 
Quote (DaveTard June 11 @ 2006)
This is all so incredibly naive. All these programs have fitness functions which is explicitely a direction given by an intelligent agent. Nature has no fitness function. Nature, or rather Darwin’s version of nature, doesn’t give a flying flop if anything is alive or not. In fact any student of nature knows that the rule is utter sterility. Everywhere we look other than the thin skin of the planet earth is a completely sterile environment and nature is as happy as a clam with nothing alive. So get rid of all fitness evaluations in these so-called simulations of evolution and see what happens.

This is the same DaveTard who has said many times elsewhere that natural selection maintains the status quo by weeding out mutants.  

It's a good thing Dave is stupid, or the cognitive dissonance would have exploded his head long ago.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,23:58   

Aww, you spotted that one before I did.

Quote
Nature has no fitness function. Nature, or rather Darwin’s version of nature, doesn’t give a flying flop if anything is alive or not.


Right!  After all, dead organisms have just as many babies as live ones!  Pass those successfull genes on, dead man!

Does anybody get the impression that Dave knows just about as much about evolution as Dembski?

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,01:34   

This blew my mind!  I followed Dembski's lead to the site where Conway Morris's talk is stored - http://www.stmarylebow.co.uk/?Boyle_Lectures:2005 , opened up the .pdf file (Boyle lecture for 2005) and discovered that, "Simon Conway Morris holds an Ad Hominem Chair in Evolutionary Palaeobiology, at the
University of Cambridge."

An Ad Hominem chair?  A "To the Man" chair?  That sounds like a perfect academic position for Davie Boy.  Ad Hominem arguments seem to be his specialty.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,01:45   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1188#comment-42437

And, Michaels7 lets the cat out of the bag...again...He's becoming one of the best sources of laughter over there.

Quote
Collin, evolution worships the creature. True, ID does not state who the designer is, but that is a secular scientific principle that must be met for scholarship in this world. But if I were to make a tent and sell it like Paul and refuse to sell it to those who do not believe, of what profit is it to the House of the Lord? The message is not in ID itself and never was, but in individual testimony and always has been. The casting of the net was a mere realization of trust once the fish were caught. ID cast a large net, a 153 fish does not include all possible fish. Many creationist detest this part of ID. However the body of Christ is made of many parts. Should we do away with one to please the other? Who is to say how the Lord will call his sheep and thru whom will they be called? Each have gifts and are called by the will of the Father even at his timing and his ways, not ours. Is heroin a call? Not by us, but thru Him, all things are possible. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but ID was never my reason to believe. If anyone places their faith on such thin ice(creature design no matter how wonderfully created), they’ll fall thru.

Dave, I even heard some bulldogs were made in his likeness  

Comment by Michaels7 — June 8, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

Talk about a wink-wink, nudge-nudge moment.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,02:07   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1195#comment-42717

Talk about a glutton for punishment...

Quote
14.  We should keep calling it ID. That way, the darwinists can keep calling us IDiots as if this were some fresh and new idea–a metaphor for the darwinistic worldview if ever I heard one.

Comment by terrylmirll — June 9, 2006 @ 10:04 pm

OK, IDiot.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,02:22   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1209

GO AGNOSTIC DAVE GO!


:D

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,02:48   

Quote

GO AGNOSTIC DAVE GO!


I will. Oh wait, did I say me? I meant you. -dt

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,03:35   

The whole Ann Coulter Post is just friggin' hilarious.

I highly recommend that everyone read it.  There are too many funny comments to post them all.  DT admitting ID is just political.  Their embrace of Ann Coulter as a new ID defender (even though she only seems to be bashing Darwin, but I guess it's one and the same), talking about how Coulter doesn't have to use falsehoods like those liberal writers do, etc.  It's quite funny.

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 120 121 122 123 124 [125] 126 127 128 129 130 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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