sparc
Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007
|
| Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,23:03) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 14 2014,21:51) | | Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32) | A terrible idea:
| Quote | 108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges |
A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.
Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID! |
If they really wanted to get back in blog hits, they would give one of us posting rights. |
Barry gave it to those three no-marks and passed Joe over. Poor Chubsy. Do it for the Lulz, Barry! |
you beat me on that: | Quote | 117 Barry Arrington March 14, 2014 at 5:53 pm | Quote | | GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges |
Agreed. They now have them. |
Some preview from a current comment:
| Quote |
116
Eric AndersonMarch 14, 2014 at 5:50 pm
Mapou @109:
Intelligent design has been defined by the primary proponents of ID (Dembski, Behe, Meyer, et al.) as the idea that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.” Period. That’s it.
Yes, that inference includes — by definition if something is designed — a reference to the existence of a designer, but it does not get into questions about the designer’s intent, identity, purposes, desires, motives, methods or otherwise.
These second-order questions may be interesting in their own right. And an affirmative answer to the design question may have implications for some of these second-order questions, but they are logically distinct and separate and must be recognized as such.
The fact that a forum like UD hosts various threads and contains comments and tangents, including from those who desire to delve into these second-order questions, has nothing to do with whether or not these issues should be kept carefully separate. I will be the first to acknowledge that the second-order questions are interesting, but they must not be conflated with the fundamental questions that intelligent design asks.
A tremendous amount of effort, time, energy, and spilled ink has been spent by the primary proponents of intelligent design to make sure everyone is clear on this point.
Unfortunately, as anyone familiar with the debate knows, and as UB has aptly pointed out, one of the primary ploys of anti-ID rhetoric is to conflate the question of design detection with secondary questions about the identity, intent, methods, motives, etc. of this or that putative designer.
It is therefore supremely unhelpful for anyone who is hoping to advance the debate or bring clarity to the discussion to conflate the two and claim that ID somehow includes or “merges” these second-order questions with the purely objective and scientific inquiry about whether design is detectable. It is extremely unhelpful for public perception, and it is wrong logically. |
In other words: | Quote | | So! It's all forgotten now, and let's hear no more about it. So, that's two egg mayonnaise, a prawn Goebbels, a Hermann Goering, and four Colditz salads. |
Edited by sparc on Mar. 15 2014,00:34
--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."
- William Dembski -
|
