Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > For the love of Avocationist

Pages: (16) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Cedric Katesby Posts: 55 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,04:07    Advocationist said...                                   Quote As to your request that I put my theory in my own words, I consider that a silly time waster. So, your own words are a "silly time waster"?  Gosh, you seem to have a very blunt self-assessment of yourself.                               Quote Does each of you have your own personal theory of evolution? would you feel called upon to improve upon, say, Mayr's def? Avocationist, I'm not asking you to re-invent the wheel.  I'm not asking you to become a scientist and bury yourself in a lab for twenty years. I'm asking you to explain to me how YOU understand the "the scientific 'theory' of ID". Once upon a time you presumeably didn't know about ID. Right? But then you found out about ID? Yeah? So you investigated the scientific theory of ID. You perhaps read a book or two on the subject and checked out a couple of ID friendly web-sites. After serious, level-headed research and reflection you found ID richly satisfying in a scientific sort of way (because as we all know ID is a scientific theory and DEFINITELY NOT a religious apologetics club full of people who don't know what they are talking about). All correct so far? Well, thats great.  You now subscribe to the Theory of ID, bully for you. (Insert image of Dempski and DaveScot giving the "thumbs up"  as a sign of support in the background)                     Quote What I gave you was plenty of my own thoughts and ideas, as well as a quick run down of where I'm coming from, what I've read and considered important. You want to play a little game on your terms. You gave me your thoughts and ideas? ...Ummm, OK...(?!?) (To tell you the truth I'm kinda busy with my own thoughts and ideas.  How about I don't burden you with my thoughts and ideas and you extend me the same courtesy?) You told me where you're coming from? ....Gee, umm (??) Ok, thanks..I guess. Little game? Advocationist, seriously, are you paranoid? I'm trying to extend you every courtesy to hear what you have to say.  I gave you the scenario of the party because I thought it might help you state your case. You are somebody who 'gets' ID.  You find it intellectually satisfying in a way that others here cannot understand.  I'm asking you to explain how it all works for you.  This being a science web-site and ID being a 'scientific theory' (insert queasy feeling in pit of stomach) I don't understand your coyness about you rattling off a few sentences on how you think the "theory of ID" works.               Quote The bit about if I was at a party is actually a good way to put it, but I am not sure I'd bother at the party. I'd give a very vague rundown... Oh, please, please, please bother.  Just for me! Look, let me get you a fresh drink and one of those cheesy thing on a cracker!  Ah, here's a nice comfy chair for you to sit in and get comfortable.  Do sit down.  There, how's that?  So...this very vague rundown of yours...Sound absolutely FASCINATING!!! Do tell me about all about this new scientific theory of ID.  Why, there was a news item about it on FoxNews only just last week!  As it happens, I remember a few of my science classes from high school so, go ahead and and hit me with what you've got. I'm all ears.           Quote I don't have "my" theory of ID. Oh, I know you didn't "invent" ID theory.  It's not like I saw you across the room and said to myself "Wow, there's the whole gang of the Discovery Institute stuffed awkwardly in the body of a woman at a party like some third-rate sci-fi movie". But you do understand ID theory, right? After all, thats why you support it and contribute to ID blogs, yeah? Ok, let's get started.... Oh no. That's OK.  You can tell me about your sources and reference books at some other party.  No need to give me a bibliography.  In your own words and at you own pace will be fine.  Feel free to use any scientific argument for ID that you choose. Vague rundown, eh? Oh, I'm sure you're just being modest.  Go ahead, I'm all ears.... (waits patiently)

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,04:43    I'm not going to address any of the scientific issues here - others are more qualified than I am to do that!  But what you have to say about your religious sentiments interests me.  I'm picking out two or three passages (not in their original order):         Quote I believe that God is everything, absolutely everything. I came to this conclusion myself, but years later found out it is also Hindu. So I am a monist, but it was years before I heard the term.         Quote There are a few things I identify with: Sufism, monism, panentheism, taoism.         Quote I guess I do have a problem with the idea of unplanned or unguidedness, because I don't like to think there is no mind of God. However, I also don't believe in a personal God, and that is somewhat hard to reconcile, so that's an issue I struggle with. There are a couple of reasons why this interests me.  First, when I do think about God, or the possibility of God, it's in the terms you describe in the first two quotes.  For me, God is either absolutely everything (and inseparable from everything), or nothing at all.  For many reasons (which I won't go into here - I'm sure you've been led to the same thoughts) the notion of a personal, "separable" God is absurd to me.  That is why I prefer to call myself a non-theist, rather than an atheist.  I'm not certain that the word "divine" has no reference, and I find Taoism, some Gnostic writings etc. to be very moving - to hit some truth which ordinary discourse doesn't reach. But I'm quite certain that there isn't a God after the Christian model.  I've found some food for thought in the past at the Scientific Pantheism website. That is why I can understand the "struggle" you describe in the third quotation.  It is a real struggle, because the two ideas you are trying to hold in your head are incompatible.  Behe/Dembski type ID - which you seem to want to defend, irreducible complexity and all - absolutely requires an intelligence separate from the objects of design.  Yes, it might be a space alien, but it's still working as an intelligent agent utterly distinct from that which is being designed. Whether you think of the Behe/Dembski designer as an alien or as something supernatural, all of the ID "theorists" are committed to dualism and division: something inert, lifeless, passive, being given form and life by something utterly different from it.  There is just no way to reconcile that with the monism that you've come to by other routes.   As I've said, I can empathize with your philosophical/religious position, and even share it to some extent.  It is an exhilirating view of the cosmos and the unity of all things.  Behe/Dembski ID, on the other hand, is a mean, unimaginative world-view.  They are the materialists, because they reduce God to a tinkerer in matter, fixing up bacteria much as a highly-skilled human engineer might do it; they simply cannot conceive that the divine may be bigger than any of their categories. --------------

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,06:37    Wow Altabin. That is one of the best posts i've seen. Seriously. The provincial sky-daddy is what I like to call that viewpoint. Eloquently stated. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

don_quixote Posts: 110 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,07:57    {at a party} Me: So, the theory of I.D., eh? What do you mean by that? Avo: The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design. Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why? Avo: Are you completely unaquainted with the literature? What have you read? Me: I've never heard of it before, but you seem to think it explains natural phenomena well. I was just wondering which features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design? Avo:  I am not sure why my giving an overview of what sorts of articles and books have influenced me is so illegitimate. Me: I'm wasn't asking you for a reading list, just for some examples. Avo: I think there are many IC systems. Blood clotting is a good one, the flagellum, the cell itself, perhaps DNA/RNA. Me: Okay, lets take blood clotting, as you seem to think it's a "good one". Why is blood clotting best explained as being the result of intelligent design? [Cedric comes along with a Martini and some nibbles and shows Avo to a comfy sofa] Me: Hey! What the...? [Don follows them] Cedric: So...this very vague rundown of yours...Sound absolutely FASCINATING!!! Do tell me about all about this new scientific theory of ID.  Why, there was a news item about it on FoxNews only just last week!  As it happens, I remember a few of my science classes from high school so, go ahead and and hit me with what you've got. I'm all ears. ======== Well then Avo, you now have some cheesy snacks (don't tell DaveScot!), a comfortable chair and the complete attention of two guys. Take it away! Edit: damned emoticons!

Serendipity Posts: 28 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,08:47    Avocationist. Dembski's proposition was concerning bacterial flagellum - escherichia coli (the genome e coli dna of 4.6-4.7 million base pairs representated of 400 genes). Dembski states in his book (No Free Lunch) that applying Darwinian mechanism then the bacterium flagellum evolved through Darwinian selection through a bacterium consisting of 0 flagellum, and for this to have occurred, they would have to be assembled and directed as opposed to chance modification. So utilising Behe's irreducible complexity that specific condtions rendered specific actions within the flagellum, then it would have to be specified. In order for such a complex mechanism to have such specification, then it ought to have been intelligently designed. (That's as simple as I can make his argument). The rotary mechanism of the flagellum is specified (Dembski's overall argument of design). What about (using Behe's irreducible complexity) other functions of the flagellum? Such as the e coli genome and base pairs? Is the flagellum's specification merely reliant upon the rotary itself? Well umm NO. If we take the blueprint o a flagellum (e coli genome/dna molecular function) can it be stripped from the flagellum (referring to the other subsystems of the flagellum)? It can't. So is using Behe's irreducibly complex systemisation to create his specified complex system, valid in this argument? No. Because it is applying variables where there are none. In a nutshell: Dembski takes into consideration the rotary of the bacterium, disjointly and rather casually ignoring its subsystems to create a system based on redefinition of scientific terminology to make things "fit". Serendipity. -------------- Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

don_quixote Posts: 110 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,09:12    Avo said:   Quote Don, I don't think we should get sidetracked into falsification. hafta at least make some attempt to focus. The point you should bear in mind is that a scientific theory/hypothesis has to be falsifiable. I.D. isn't, therefore it's not science. AFDave has had this explained to him over the course of almost 500 comments at richarddawkins.net's forum. He still doesn't get it. He probably never will. I just hope that you're a little bit brighter that him, I really do.

heddle Posts: 126 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,09:18    Atlabin, Quote They [Behe and Dembski]are the materialists, because they reduce God to a tinkerer in matter, fixing up bacteria much as a highly-skilled human engineer might do it; they simply cannot conceive that the divine may be bigger than any of their categories. Regardless of the truth of Behe/Dembski ID (and Dembski’s, based on faulty mathematics, is trivially false), you have not made any case that ID per se is incompatible with the “Christian” god. Nothing at all precludes the “Christian” god, even with all his omni-attributes, from getting involved with minutiae, should he choose to do so. And describing God as personal and involved in the little details (such as one of my favorite stories, when Gideon is speaking with God and says “wait here while I get a present for you” and God replies “OK, I’ll wait.”) does not detract from those times when God acts in all his majesty. I agree that ID is less compatible with new age Gnostic type ideas. But in the Christian model, we see time and time again that God is indeed a “tinkerer in matter.” So ID, in principle, does not belittle God. On the other hand, the methods of the ID community and its leadership are absolutely incompatible with Christian living. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,09:22    Avocationist: The reason I'd like to focus on Denton is because he attempted a critique of the entire body of evolutionary theory, so his work cuts to the heart of the matter. But thermodynamics is cool too -- hey, maybe someone will even answer my questions about the thermodynamics of abiogenesis. Then again, maybe not. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,09:33    Oh - I almost forgot. I really want to emphasise the importance of reading Max's essay. If Denton's typology theory is correct, then how does he explain shared errors that link species as disparate as deer and whales, or mice and men? -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,09:49    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,01:47) Improvius, I seem to remember reading that bit you quoted from, but the bit wasn't long enough for me to evaluate his point. Yes, I've seen the claim that NDE isn't falsifiable. Tell me why it is. You want my hypothetical tests for ID. I don't thin I am qualified to come up with that. But it is odd that the folks here spend so much time perusing UD and seem to get so little out of it. Because from time to time I have certainly seen ideas on how to falsify, and some possible experiments, and some predictions. I never intended to be a one person encyclopedia of knowledge about ID. I see.  So you aren't aware of any specific hypothetical tests for ID.  Which means you don't really know if ID is scientific at all.  Fair enough, I'll let it go at that.  But if you ever actually want to discuss ID as science, just let us know. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,10:09    Quote (heddle @ Jan. 25 2007,16:18) Atlabin,         Quote They [Behe and Dembski]are the materialists, because they reduce God to a tinkerer in matter, fixing up bacteria much as a highly-skilled human engineer might do it; they simply cannot conceive that the divine may be bigger than any of their categories. Regardless of the truth of Behe/Dembski ID (and Dembski’s, based on faulty mathematics, is trivially false), you have not made any case that ID per se is incompatible with the “Christian” god. Nothing at all precludes the “Christian” god, even with all his omni-attributes, from getting involved with minutiae, should he choose to do so. And describing God as personal and involved in the little details (such as one of my favorite stories, when Gideon is speaking with God and says “wait here while I get a present for you” and God replies “OK, I’ll wait.”) does not detract from those times when God acts in all his majesty. I agree that ID is less compatible with new age Gnostic type ideas. But in the Christian model, we see time and time again that God is indeed a “tinkerer in matter.” So ID, in principle, does not belittle God. On the other hand, the methods of the ID community and its leadership are absolutely incompatible with Christian living. Well, my purpose wasn't to argue that Behe/Dembski ID was incompatible with Christian theism.  It would be kind of strange if it were incompatible, don't you think? That said, it's hardly surprising that ID was "intelligently designed" to go hand-in-hand with American evangelical religion - the most thoroughly materialistic* version of Christianity.  Somehow, I don't see Meister Eckhart, or the Cappadocian Fathers, or Duns Scotus, or Gerard Manley Hopkins, or any number of other great Christian thinkers and writers falling for the bacterial flagellum.  Their vision was greater than that - a vision I can acknowledge and admire, even without sharing it.  And then there's the whole school of process theology which sees evolution as the only possible way for God - the Christian God - to have acted.  They're certainly not going to be beating a path to Dembski or Behe's doors either. The question is not, or shouldn't be, whether theism or non-theistic spirituality is compatible with evolution.  The truth of evolution is not going to be altered one whit by how we wish God's relationship with the world to be. Nor is the question whether we can form a conception of the divine that is simply compatible with experience.  That's like fitting spirituality into the cracks left in matter, and is just one step up from the "God of the gaps." Rather, the question is whether we can grasp the divine in a way that embraces and celebrates our experience, while at the same time transcending and unifying it. Or we can take the Dembski/Behe route: lie and obfuscate, deny empirical fact in order to prop up an impoverished notion of the divine, one which is a blend of fundamentalist pieties and their own self-image (God the biochemical engineer; God the probability-busting mathematician). Or you can say "to #### with all of that" and just love the science - as most regulars here would say!  I'm not trying to preach here. So many of the numbskulls at UD, and afdave, are quite simply unreachable.  They're already committed to their thoroughly limited conception of god, for which Behe/Dembski ID is a perfect apologetic.  No amount of explaining that, "no, God didn't make the flagellum, it's quite explicable by normal natural processes" is ever going to reach them. In avocationist, on the other hand, we have someone who seems almost as blindly devoted to the Behe/Dembski flimflam as an other UDer, yet claims to have a worldview, a metaphysics which is entirely incompatible with ID.  That puzzles me, but also interests me.  I'd like to hear more from her about this: which part of her belief-system does she not follow through to the end?  Not being snarky - we're all imperfect, inconsistent animals - but genuinely interested. *By "materialistic" here I mean vulgar, crass and self-serving.  Since I think that matter is all there is, and that it is quite marvelous, I don't usually use the term as an insult, or with this sense! --------------

heddle Posts: 126 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,10:31    Altabin,   Quote Well, my purpose wasn't to argue that Behe/Dembski ID was incompatible with Christian theism.  It would be kind of strange if it were incompatible, don't you think? Yes I do think so, but many anti-IDers as well as not-a-few Christians argue precisely that point. The usual claim they make is that Christianity is about faith and ID is about looking for physical evidence, hence they are incompatible. (The error in the argument is that Christianity is not at all about blind faith—but that’s another matter,)   Quote That said, it's hardly surprising that ID was "intelligently designed" to go hand-in-hand with American evangelical religion - the most thoroughly materialistic* version of Christianity. I’m no great fan of American evangelism, which is dominated by Arminianism and Dispensationalism. However, Christianity has always been materialistic if by that you mean the view that "matter is not evil." It is only distortions of Christianity that have adopted "the physical is evil" mentalities. Any way, I thought you were arguing that a separable God involved in designing the flagellum was somehow a "small" god. My point was: it is not necessarily so. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,11:01    Hi, I don't know if this is legal or not but I'm going to make a post here and John left his computer on and is logged in looking at this thread. So, I guess I need a funny name. How about Dingbat? I'll be Dingbat. That is how you should address me, although I am not going to mention my little escapade here and he won't be back for at least 4 hours so he will never know who did it. What is my official screen name? I guess I will figure it out after I post. Avocationist, I do not know what you do for a living and I don't know why anyone would bother posting over and over and over about such a boring topic but I would like to point out that there are 6 people in the offices next to this one that all have some sort of science degree I think. They are all overworked and underpaid (I would get points for that one). But another thing they all share is the ability to understand what sciences they are doing. I think John is a biologist or maybe an ecologist and the others are in similar fields. Let me just tell you that they know a heck of a lot more about science than non-scientists do and if you are not a scientist, you will lose a science argument because they will tell you how things really work instead of how you think things work. In my experience, they are polite about ignorance but not particularly forgiving. They really ARE experts and if you are not an expert, you just can't get into it with any kind of success. My advice is to ask questions. If people here are gracious enough to answer you will get a free education and you will be learning good information. Trust me, you may be able to teach them some things but it won't be science. Also, I have never met a scientist who isn't really interested in what the "mavericks" are doing. Sometimes they turn out to be onto something great. These guys read all the gibberish publications and actually get excited about it. They just require the "maverick" to do good science. That is all. So please, you have no idea how dumb you look telling a scientist that they are blinded by scientific dogma. It is the exact opposite. When they examine an experiment, within two minutes they will either raise their eybrows and start puzzling over it or they will point out the flaw and move on. Enough of them working together always move toward the right answer. Our office manager has some kooky ideas and he used to argue with these guys when he first got here about chem-trails. That is the idea that airplanes are actually putting some kind of mind control drug into our air and water that will gradually turn us all into sheep so we will be easier to control or something like that. One of the field ecologists brought back samples from 24 sites and analyzed them for the poor man. Sincerely, Dingbat -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,11:31    Ahh. I see that I am BWE. I didn't type the blue part on the bottom. AFDave... whatever about nazis and scientists. I don't know where that came from. Well, I gotta go. Bye. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,11:59    Quote (Serendipity @ Jan. 25 2007,03:21) These same systems could experience reverse isocaloric/adiabatics - making an isentropic process. Which of course causes no change in entropy. Sorry its taken so long to reply to this: I was reading back over the thread and picked it up. Serendipity. Certainly, that's why I said dS/dt must be positive or 0. In the previous setup, I was assuming that the system was allowed to change in an irreversible (dS/dt>0) manner.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,12:43    Okay, a lot of people, without perhaps realizing it, are going at this like lawyers in a courtroom - more focused on the game of battle than finding truth. Because of this, there have been reams of accusations and sneering remarks, which I just don't have time to decently answer. For example, I said I don't want to get sidetracked into falsifiability. It would be fine if this were a normal sedate discussion. I have seen good responses to this, and I have little doubt the poster could find them. Behe made a nice answer, in which he calls people on the fact that they refute ID will claiming it is nonrefutable. There are some scathing exposes of how slippery Darwinian outlooks can be as well. I happen to think that both proposals are scientific and falsifiable, in the main. But this is just not to the heart of the matter. I object to someone saying, "Oh, so you mean you can't even define why ID is falsifiable? So in other words you admit you are an ignoramous and a fool?" I do not claim to be able to have good recall, to the point of articulating well, all these topics. Many of them I could do if it were the only question on the table. But many of these are just baiting questions and the answers are readily available if you read up in the various discussions. I have to go to work shortly, and I can't stay up late again tonite, and I'm going away for a few days. I think I will be able to bring a laptop. I'd like to have a look at the nylonase question, it interests me, and I want to see if it parallels antibiotic resistance. But it will be DAYS before I can get to it. By the way, I had come across some antiDarwinian books perhaps 5 years ago, and was intrigued that they were written by secular people. It was long after that that I discovered the ID movement. Look, the party scenario question is a good one, even though I answered it. You've persisted so OK. But again, DAYS. I gotta open my mail sometime. I have other interests that are more compelling to me than even this! Paley, The essay you linked is far from a simple one. Actually, your cut and paste yesterday wasn't either...could you state what thermodynamics question you think there is? Even if we don't pursue it as a topic, I'm interested. Where are your questions. I am afraid that your motive here is to have the chance to shred Denton, but that's OK. I'll go along. However, I still don't think he made the about face that people say. I think he is a person who has been looking for a long time, and his thinking has evolved. Of course he may backtrack on certain points. I believe people mistook his first book as a creaionist screed, when in fact he was really agnostic, and trying to clear the table, so to speak, of errors so that the real detective work could begin. Sure he took off in a hopeful new direction with his second book, but the one builds on the other. By the way, I think someone made a remark that Berlinski dislikes ID. He's a maverick. Do you think that's so?

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,12:50    edit - pressed reply button prematurely. sorry

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,12:59    BWE, My feeling from your post is that you asked me my views on God so that you could look for links to my inner creationist tendencies. I don't appreciate it because you appear to be trying too hard. Maybe the word belief was a poor choice. But it isn't faith, it is logic. Now, some people have come to the conclusion that God is everything, or all is one, through a mystical experience, or LSD. Yes, of course science can study God. To what extent is the question. Quote Does this struggle influence what is true? Does that muddy the ideal? No. But it is important to have a strong commitment to truth as a first priority. Yet you can't ignore your own intuition. In the end, truth becomes something recognized. We have a kind of inner compass, or looking glass. It clouds things. It's a long process, of allowing your looking glass to become purified, so that your inner compass can line up better and better with truth. You have to be willing, but you can't throw your convictions out the window either. So what I find true today is hopefully, if I am sincere, clearer than my truth of yesterday. Quote I do have one inkling about how the mind of God could be. Since God is the totality of everything, that everything could have an overarching mind. The way many religions describe God, it's as if he is a separte person who is essentially, here but not there. There but not here. Is this inkling based on any evidence? Mostly it is logic, but also coupled with my sense that this universe, while it is the body of the impersonal God, is not without a mind.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,13:02    Shit! I did it again! What's wrong with me? I will continue...

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,13:02    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,19:43) Okay, a lot of people, without perhaps realizing it, are going at this like lawyers in a courtroom - more focused on the game of battle than finding truth. Because of this, there have been reams of accusations and sneering remarks, which I just don't have time to decently answer. Lady, you've walked into a room of curious, highly-opinionated people.  We're all taking time out of our schedules to ask you questions, give you things to read, argue with you.  We're so excited, we're all talking at once.  We've given you your own thread. Just imagine, for a moment, whether the regulars at UD, in a comparable situation, would be anything like as interested in or ready to debate with someone from the "other side."    Actually, you don't need to imagine - most of us have already been banned from there, for simply wanting to raise the possibility that they might have gotten anything wrong. This is what's called taking someone seriously - even if it can get a little rough around the edges.  So don't whine about "accusations" and "sneers."   Just be as honest and straightforward with everyone as they are all being with you. --------------

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,13:17    More BWE Quote Contemplation does seem to lead to a different set of truths. Maybe on an internal dimension rather than an external dimension? Yes, I do think that spiritual intuition and contemplation are of an internal dimension. That seems to be the best explanation. The fun is, bringing the experience of that dimension to this, and having such a richer experience. Quote So, is god only knowable through contemplation? Oh, no, I think there are other ways. Quote Little bit confused now. So, in this case, there is no such thing as a false idol, right? Because god is everything so if I hump a goat, I'm getting it on with god? The goat isn't such a problem, but false ideas are.   Quote Free of religion? Do you think jesus rose from the dead? Really and physically? Why are you asking about Jesus. He's enigmatic and I don't know how much of the Biblical stories are true, nor can we know. Too much obfuscation has occurred. Plus, I think that those stories can be legitimately interpreted in several ways and on several levels. The most material are the least important. Quote A relentless stripping of false idols until you are left with none. Yes, that's what I was getting at. Quote Is it possible to use thought and words and symbols and ideas to strip away samsara? For me, yes! Quote well well. What did you get free of? Are you critical now? Critical of what? gosh, I'm not quite sure why I feel free. The easy answer is free of the need for dogma, but there is something more subtle. Critical of Christianity as understood by them. I want to reform it. Quote Do you think I should be a xian? Is there any reason I should? Maybe after I get done with it. Quote Now, why do you dislike the idea of common descent? If god is simply what is, then why name her at all? Why is understanding god always a prerequisite for not believing in evolution? Do you think it is bad science? I don't care about common descent. I name God for convenience. I don't know that it is a prerequisite, although it's common enough. Perhaps belief in God allows one to see through Darwinian falsity? See, a theist can go either way as regards Darwinism, but an atheist, what choice do they have? I don't make global statements like it's bad science. An entire discipline with all the data it has turned up? The fact that we have strong contention is a spur and therefore a blessing in disguise.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,13:31    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,13:43) I happen to think that both proposals are scientific and falsifiable, in the main. But this is just not to the heart of the matter. I object to someone saying, "Oh, so you mean you can't even define why ID is falsifiable? So in other words you admit you are an ignoramous and a fool?" I do not claim to be able to have good recall, to the point of articulating well, all these topics. Well, you are basically saying that you think ID is falisifiable, but you don't specifically know why.  So it sure looks like you're just talking out of your arse. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,13:33    Quote (heddle @ Jan. 25 2007,17:31) Any way, I thought you were arguing that a separable God involved in designing the flagellum was somehow a "small" god. My point was: it is not necessarily so. OK, well it's difficult to know how to answer this.  First, as I've already made clear, I'm not a theist - so, clearly, I'm going to find a "separable," personal god to be lacking.  If I didn't, I would be some sort of theist. My opinion, then, doesn't get to your question about whether a God visibly active in the world is a "small" God - and is compatible with Christian theism.  I've already said that there is an admirable current of Christian thought that does have a view of God more lofty than a supernatural cosmic tinkerer.  On the other hand, my opinion here counts for little since (1) I'm not a Christian, and quite vehemently reject the notion of the "supernatural" altogether and (2) millions upon millions of Christians (and other theists) are quite satisfied with that "version" of God.  On a purely empirical basis then, it seems indisputable that this kind of god is compatible with Christian theism. But as to your specific statement: whether 'a separable God involved in designing the flagellum was somehow a "small" god.'  To this, I have to say that if there are Christians out there worshipping the God who made the flagellum, then yes, they are worshipping a very small God indeed.  Because - and it shouldn't need to be repeated - God didn't design the flagellum.  Or, at least, we have no compelling evidence that the flagellum is a special case, different from the countless other features of the natural world that the scientific method has explained.  The God of the flagellum is a chimaera; those who worship it are, as Francis Bacon put it, "seeking to gratify God with a lie." I find it difficult to imagine quite how - or why - a separable God would fiddle with things.  There is the fact that no such "intervention" has ever been found - and every time one has been declared, closer investigation has uncovered natural causes. But, for me, the problem is deeper than that.   This is probably a bit flippant, but I recall a conversation I had with some friends at the pub a few months ago.  None were "conventional theists," and they were discussing what might turn them into theists.  Someone suggested that if God sent down a plaque - or rearranged the stars - with a message along the lines of "This is God; I do exist; read the Bible - it's a more or less reliable guide to what I'm all about", then they would believe.  I couldn't disagree more.  In part, it's Hume's objection to miracles: I would find it less of a miracle to believe that I had gone insane, or that the human race was in the grip of a collective delusion, than to admit the much greater miracle of the suspension of the laws of nature.  But even more so, the whole scenario struck me as tacky.  Cheap.  Cheesy.  To be the ground of being of the universe, and yet so insecure as to wish to compel belief by violating your own laws of nature - that's a small god, and not one I want to know.  The bacterial flagellum - if it turned out to be proof positive of supernatural intervention - would be just such a calling card from a two-bit deity. EDIT: Fixed quote problem.  And BWE, cheers! just saw your post.  and you should encourage your colleague to join us legitimately!   --------------

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,13:34    Hello Altiban, I've got 5 minutes left. so I can't do your post justice. I also love the gnostic stuff. The scientific pantheist site I visited once, but that just doesn't quite cut it for me. Essentially I agree with you, yet I also think there is just way more going on to this puzzle, this pandora's box that Darwin et al opened, than anyone had a clue of, and probably still don't. That's why it is so confusing right now. I mean, this thing is BIG. However, I still do see evidence of the kind of design that they ascribe to the tinkering God. I just don't think God is the one responsible. There is no reason to suppose that the gap goes from humans to the Godhead. There could be other inelligences, they could be disembodied intelligences, they could be lightly-bodied intelligences. I was serious when I propsed that DNA might be a living spirit. The struggle I speak of does not simply concern evolution, but the nature of God and my relationship to that. There is the question of impersonal love. As I said the other day, the evolution of life stumps me for these reasons. I have some vague, barely articulated ideas about how evolution might be natural to the nature of God-universe. But that makes it somewhat inevitable, and that is not really Darwinism. However life unfolded, it was done from within. Yes, I agree that most Christians are dualists and have a very limited notion of God. By the way, I think space aliens have interfered on ths planet, but it doesn't touch the important questions. Just another interesting angle. Yeah, Behe apparently made an off the cuff remark that God poofed the flagellum into existence. I don't know if he really thinks that, but I sure don't. However life got here, it unfolded in an absolutely normal manner. But I don't mean normal in the sense of matter left to its own devices. I don't accept the idea of the supernatural. No meaning for me. What I want to reform about christianity is that while consciousness and the lack thereof is ultimately responsible for lowly views of God and the cosmos, I find that Christianity locks people into it, fails to encourage them to grow and even requires them to stay put. And this is one reason I find Denton so exciting. He's hot on the trail of he's not sure what.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,13:36    Oh that poor traumatized goat... ;)

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,13:57    Quote For example, I said I don't want to get sidetracked into falsifiability. It would be fine if this were a normal sedate discussion. I have seen good responses to this, and I have little doubt the poster could find them. Behe made a nice answer, in which he calls people on the fact that they refute ID will claiming it is nonrefutable. The theory of ID, if you can find someone who will actually spell it out, is not falsifiable. The evidence that they use, they believe, is positive evidence for ID, but usually turns out to be negative arguments against evolution or arguments from incredulity. Here, then, is the logical fallacy: We see A, therefore evolution is wrong. Intelligent design is correct. or Evolution can't explain A yet. Therefore Intelligent design. Personally, I don't like to think that God exists in these "margins of science", because if we find some material explanation down the road, His domain shrinks.  But this movement has never been about the science, and to not know that is not to know the history of intelligent design.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,14:24    Re "See, a theist can go either way as regards Darwinism, but an atheist, what choice do they have?" An atheist might conclude that there are processes at work that haven't been discovered yet - so they do have a choice regarding acceptance of the current theory.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,15:03    Avocationist:     Quote Paley, The essay you linked is far from a simple one. Actually, your cut and paste yesterday wasn't either...could you state what thermodynamics question you think there is? Even if we don't pursue it as a topic, I'm interested. Where are your questions. I am afraid that your motive here is to have the chance to shred Denton, but that's OK. I'll go along. However, I still don't think he made the about face that people say. I think he is a person who has been looking for a long time, and his thinking has evolved. Of course he may backtrack on certain points. I believe people mistook his first book as a creaionist screed, when in fact he was really agnostic, and trying to clear the table, so to speak, of errors so that the real detective work could begin. Sure he took off in a hopeful new direction with his second book, but the one builds on the other. By the way, I think someone made a remark that Berlinski dislikes ID. He's a maverick. Do you think that's so? I'm afraid there's no thermodynamic relevance to any of my links -- I'm just criticising Denton's claim that the cytochrome c protein casts doubt on evolution because if you calculate the distance between a bacteria's cytochrome c protein and an "advanced" critter like myself, then the distance should be large, because advanced creatures are very complex and evolved. Now take a primitive creature like, say, SteveStory. Since Steve hasn't evolved much from primordial slime, his cytochrome protein should be a lot closer to the bacteria's, because Steve is an intermediate between bacteria and real humans. But wait....scientists have found instead that Steve's slug-like protein is just as far removed from a bacteria's as yours is, or a tuna's, or a dog's, or what have you. This suggests to Denton that each basic "type" of creature is unrelated to another "type" of creature, with no way to connect the dots. But what if each modern type of creature is descended from a single, common ancestor that was an intermediate between bacteria and "higher" creatures? Then we shouldn't be surprised that all modern creatures are equally related to bacteria, because they've had equal amounts of time to evolve in their own direction! (Notice this assumes that the changes are proceeding at a roughly steady, clocklike rate). It follows that the best strategy is to choose a modern creature (a human, let us say) and compare its protein with other advanced animals. According to evolution, you should see different distances between the proteins now, because all complex creatures have recent ancestors that are not common to other animals' recent kin. For example, evolution predicts that humans and chimps should have very similar molecules, since they share a recent ancestor that a horse wouldn't (although all three would share an older ancestor, of course). Therefore, chimp and human proteins haven't had as much time to diverge from each other as each one has had to diverge from a horse's protein. Therfore, a horse's protein should be more different from our protein than a chimp's is. And we find that it is. More later. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,15:53    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,13:59) Yes, of course science can study God. To what extent is the question. Seems to me that I've asked you this the last time you had a thread.  How are you going to scientifically test for god? I'm not the only one who wants to know, others here have asked as well.  You couldn't answer it then, and you can't answer it now.

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,16:34    Quote Essentially I agree with you, yet I also think there is just way more going on to this puzzle, this pandora's box that Darwin et al opened, than anyone had a clue of, and probably still don't. Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled pantheist. (With apologies to Richard Dawkins). --------------

Pages: (16) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard