news aggregator

Post by stevestory
I just want novelty, frankly. We've already replied ad nauseum to his mentally ill screeds, I kinda just want to see them waived past newbies, to see their replies.

A bill in Oklahoma that would, if enacted, deprive administrators of the ability to prevent teachers from miseducating students about "scientific controversies" is back from the dead.

Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, hear from bioethicist Wesley J. Smith as he talks about his new book The War on Humans, also adapted as a documentary film. In this first podcast of the series,...

When it comes to putting a Darwinist spin on anything to do with intelligent design, they have previously been more vigilant. David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209

Speaking of owls as being "engineered," thoughtful reader Donald sends along this clip from the 1988 film Clash of the Titans that we somehow missed. Evolution News & Views

A mechanical engineer at Michael Behe's university thinks owls are "engineered for stealth and silence." Evolution News & Views

Post by midwifetoad
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,14:50) Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,14:42)Name a specific feature of a living thing best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Bear in mind that not all unguided processes in evolution involve selection.
The intelligent behavior, of intelligent animals.

I already won. So now I'm getting back to work on the ID Lab.
Congratulations.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,14:42)Name a specific feature of a living thing best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Bear in mind that not all unguided processes in evolution involve selection.
The intelligent behavior, of intelligent animals.

I already won. So now I'm getting back to work on the ID Lab.

Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,15:39)...
For there to be a question I am obliged to answer you must first operationally define your terminology "evolve unguided except by natural selection" and "designed".

You're otherwise still just throwing ambiguous generalizations around, as an excuse for not being able to show why certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The shame for not even being willing to try, is entirely on you.
You really should stand in front of a mirror and recite this to yourself.
It's actually pretty funny coming from the guy who doesn't have a single operational definition in his 'theory', who constantly tosses around unfounded generalizations, and consistently provides excuses for why he shouldn't have to meet the same criteria expected of scientists in general or of scientific theories.
The shame is that even after all this time, we still try to engage with you.

But let's try to flip the issue around for once -- can you name a single 'feature of the universe' or a single entity that is not the result of intelligent design or an'intelligent cause'?

Post by midwifetoad
Name a specific feature of a living thing best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,14:17)Assume evolve unguided except by natural selection and answer the question.

Name a feature that was designed.
For there to be a question I am obliged to answer you must first operationally define your terminology "evolve unguided except by natural selection" and "designed".

You're otherwise still just throwing ambiguous generalizations around, as an excuse for not being able to show why certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The shame for not even being willing to try, is entirely on you.

Post by midwifetoad
Assume evolve unguided except by natural selection and answer the question.

Name a feature that was designed.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,13:37)No Gary, name a feature that did not evolve.
Show me where in the following information it says "did not evolve".

  Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php


If you cannot address the real premise of the theory then your opinions are already scientifically irrelevant.

I'm not obliged to entertain your deceptions.

Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,15:01)BTW: I have been spending all my free-time on the ID Lab and what I now have is already lifelike enough to be a little bit scary. And not because how it (still) works is complicated, it's because it's not. Something to respect and be careful with, or else (one way or another) be destroyed by.

Don't be in a rush to let the more theatrical thrills and shocks of a human (to human created intelligence) intelligent causation event now happening in our lifetime lead all to a tragically enslaving Karn Evil 9 ending.
Eliza was lifelike enough to be a little scary.
BFD.

You've been wasting your time with the ID-Lab -- it can accomplish nothing for you or for your 'theory' or for human knowledge.

But it's hardly surprising to see you meet the usual points raised against your nonsense with your standard "look over there" deflection and distraction.

You still don't have a clue as to just what 'features of the universe'** are 'best explained' by an 'intelligent cause', nor any idea what 'intelligence' is.  One suspects you don't even have a clue as to what a cause is.


** [by which we assume you mean 'entities in the universe'; the universe itself, the sum total of all that exists, has no more features than any collection]

Post by GaryGaulin
BTW: I have been spending all my free-time on the ID Lab and what I now have is already lifelike enough to be a little bit scary. And not because how it (still) works is complicated, it's because it's not. Something to respect and be careful with, or else (one way or another) be destroyed by.

Don't be in a rush to let the more theatrical thrills and shocks of a human (to human created intelligence) intelligent causation event now happening in our lifetime lead all to a tragically enslaving Karn Evil 9 ending.

Post by midwifetoad
No Gary, name a feature that did not evolve.

Post by REC
This, from Sal, seems worth preserving. He's all about phylogenetic methods, but resorts to nonsense about "gaps between created kinds" to scuttle the obvious evolutionary implications of a sound method.

Quote They ignore obvious gaps between created kinds...

Otherwise, the phylogenetic methods for a created kind I think are really cool. They’ve been used to reconstruct Y-chromosomal Aaron, and possibly Abraham, and maybe, just Maybe Noah or the daughters in law of Noah. We’ll see. I’m not totally against phylogeny, but I don’t believe in 1 universal phylogenetic tree, I believe in an orchard of phylogenetic trees.

UD link

Just three days after the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee refused to approve a section of the new state science standards involving evolution, Senator Mike Fair (R-District 6), a member of the committee whose opposition was responsible for the refusal, is reportedly withdrawing his objection.

NCSE is pleased to announce that the latest issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education is now available on-line.

The National Association of Biology Teachers expressed its opposition to Oklahoma's Senate Bill 1765 (document), which, if enacted, would deprive administrators of the ability to prevent teachers from miseducating students about "scientific controversies."