New Media Alliance - Robert E. Meyer

It is funny how the same people who say that SETI (the search for extra terrestrial intelligence) is legitimately scientific, or that investigators use legitimate scientific means to see if a fire was caused by intelligence (a.k.a. arson) will say that the same principle cannot be applied to biological or physical systems, since such an application might indicate that there is an Intelligent Designer of the universe. Yeah, sometimes the truth is scary.

"Intelligent Design is not science, but a conclusion inferred by applying the scientific method."

Bull. IDists begin with the conclusion they wanted-- that god created life on earth-- and then looked for ways to make that conclusion seem plausible. Rationalization is not the way the scientific method works.

'Bull. IDists begin with the conclusion they wanted-- that god created life on earth-- and then looked for ways to make that conclusion seem plausible. Rationalization is not the way the scientific method works.'

Indeed. That must explain Antony Flew's recent racantation of athiesm. All this time, he was simply unable to rationalize his belief that 'god created life on earth'. Finally, with the advent of ID, Flew has found his long-sought rationalization.

Not.

Ric -

Here's my version of what you just said:

"Bull. Darwinists begin with the conclusion they wanted-- that a blind, purposeless process created life on earth-- and then looked for ways to make that conclusion seem plausible. Rationalization is not the way the scientific method works."

Why don't you give us a measured, scientific number - a percentage, if you will, as to your certainty that a 'god' is not involved. Might that be 99%? or maybe 97%? Perhaps 51%?

Cat got your tongue? That's ok - Dawkins had that problem too in the movie.

History of science is a good place to go for understanding why there is just Darwinism and no competing theories when it come to the origin of species: if you don't have a truly naturalistic theory, forget about it, and like Huxley et al., the Darwinian will EXPELL all contrary discourses regarding this question.

"I want a methodology."

It would seem that you are unaware of the "scientific method".

"make the case for academic freedom"

They have books, articles, blogs, and a movie that has been seen by about 600,000 people. But since their nonsense is not science, they have "academic freedom" only when they can con a university into granting tenure (Behe) or avoid proper editorial oversight (Sternberg).

When you have no actual evidence for your "theory," complain that there is a giant conspiracy to suppress it. Classic pseudoscience tactic.

'It would be interesting to see what this same source had to say about the latest documentary movies promoted by Al Gore and Michael Moore.'

Myself: Atheist and political conservative.

Seen'em and they infact include numerous errors/misinformation/logical fallacies. Unfortunately, so does expelled. Again, what does this ridiculous red herring have to do with movies that are essentially anti-science propaganda films meant to demonize/dehumanize both scientist and atheist?

Ric said:

When you have no actual evidence for your "theory," complain that there is a giant conspiracy to suppress it. Classic pseudoscience tactic.

Is a series of prime numbers evidence of intelligence? SETI researchers seem to think so.

Are you saying that intelligence cannot be detected? Why is a watch, lying on the ground, evidence of an intelligent creator but a biological system is not? I doubt you can answer this question without resorting to philosophical assumptions (NOT SCIENCE).

What do you mean when you say that there is no "actual evidence"? Are you saying that biological and physical systems do not give evidence of design. Well then you must be smarter than both Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, since both of them say that such systems do indeed appear to be designed. There is your evidence. Saying that you can explain it away (which is what they attempt to do) is a very different thing from saying that such evidence does not exist. Best be careful what you say, your ignorance is showing.

"His idea is that professors and teachers who express skepticism about Darwinism are likely to find themselves not granted tenure, castigated and ridiculed, and disqualified from the opportunity to have research papers published."

That's not true. They are ridiculed because they publish nothing but apologetics. Research papers contain the data from research. No ID proponent has ever published a single datum from testing an ID hypothesis. I hypothesize that this is because they have no real faith.

Jim said:

"Are you saying that biological and physical systems do not give evidence of design. Well then you must be smarter than both Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, since both of them say that such systems do indeed appear to be designed. There is your evidence. Saying that you can explain it away (which is what they attempt to do) is a very different thing from saying that such evidence does not exist."

Uhm, Sigfried and Roy appear to do actual magic. Are you saying that that is not actual evidence of magic? Saying that you can explain what they do as being tricks that cause the appearance of magic is much different from saying that it is not actual evidence of magic. Clearly evidence for the existence of magic exists, solely from the appearance of things that look like they were accomplished magically.

Only to an IDiot does this kind of logic make sense. *roll eyes*

Ric,

Thanks for agreeing with me that there is evidence for ID. And your example from magic only shows that people can make a false inference based off of evidence. Nonetheless, if someone is trying to decide whether or not magic is real, a purportedly magical feat would indeed properly be classified as evidence in such an inquiry. Of course, they will probably find a way to explain it away (rightly so, I think), but it is still evidence that must be dealt with. It must be explained.

Glad you changed your mind.

In the movie, Dawkins apparently thinks there is evidence of intelligent design. After all, that is why he posits the possibility that aliens are responsible for life on earth.

I'm glad you agree with him now, and admit that there is evidence for intelligent design. This contradicts your earlier statement about ID advocates:

'When you have no actual evidence for your "theory," complain that there is a giant conspiracy to suppress it. Classic pseudoscience tactic.'



I also noticed you didn’t answer my other questions. So I’ll repeat them:

1. Is a series of prime numbers evidence of intelligence? SETI researchers seem to think so.

2. Are you saying that intelligence cannot be detected? Why is a watch, lying on the ground, evidence of an intelligent creator but a biological system is not? I doubt you can answer this question without resorting to philosophical assumptions (NOT SCIENCE).

Thanks,
Jim

Jim said:

Thanks for agreeing with me that there is evidence for ID. And your example from magic only shows that people can make a false inference based off of evidence. Nonetheless, if someone is trying to decide whether or not magic is real, a purportedly magical feat would indeed properly be classified as evidence in such an inquiry. Of course, they will probably find a way to explain it away (rightly so, I think), but it is still evidence that must be dealt with. It must be explained.

There are two definitions of evidence:

1. an outward sign 2. something that furnishes proof

Now if you meant by "evidence" definition 1, well that is pretty... trite. It really adds nothing to the conversation. Plus, the appearance of something may or may not be an outward sign of some truth about that thing, so even by definition 1, your claim that the appearance of design is somehow evidence for design is pretty shakey.

I, of course, meant definition 2, which actually adds to the discussion. The appearance of design is certainly not proof of design by any reasonable person's standards (well maybe by creationist standards, but that's another thing). So let me state again, and let's put all trite equivocation aside, there is no evidence of design in biological entities. Thus my claim stands, and let me reiterate: When you have no actual evidence for your "theory," complain that there is a giant conspiracy to suppress it. Classic pseudoscience tactic.

1. Is a series of prime numbers evidence of intelligence? SETI researchers seem to think so.

I suppose it depends on the length of the series and on other circumstances. And of course this is a red herring. Do you have any long strings of prime numbers in biological entities?

Which brings me to another point: ever heard of "true-believer syndrome"? It's when someone, for other than rational reasons, continues to believe in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events even after overwhelming evidence that the events are not paranormal or supernatural has been presented. If SETI was presented with overwhelming evidence that a string of prime numbers occurred naturally, you can be sure that they would not attribute it to intelligence. IDiots have been presented with overwhelming evidence that the appearance of design has occurred naturally, but for religious reasons they deny the evidence and continue to believe. This is one reason why IDiots are pseudoscientists and the people at SETI are scientists.

2. Are you saying that intelligence cannot be detected?

This is a straw man. Of course intelligence can be detected-- when we know something about the designer and how that designer works, which is one major reason we know watches are designed. Now I wonder why ID refuses to talk about the designer...

Why is a watch, lying on the ground, evidence of an intelligent creator but a biological system is not?

Seriously? The old and much-refuted watch maker argument? That's easy. Because a watch is not a biological system. Ever seen a watch reproduce itself?

Now I have a question for you, Jim: what is your religious persuasion? Don't lie, now; god wouldn't like it.

"Why is a watch, lying on the ground, evidence of an intelligent creator but a biological system is not?"

The biological system reproduces, watches don't.

Why has no ID proponent produced even a single datum from testing an ID hypothesis, Jim? Why do they have no faith?

ID, like all oxymoronic "historical sciences" is philosophy, not science. Paleontology is also philosophy, not science.

Science produces technological benefits because of its repeatability. Technology comes from science and is responsible for the high standing science has. Technology is only possible because of repeatability of scientific experiments and demonstrations. Therefore, I propose that we use technological application as a demarcation criterion in science.

Nothing in the "historical sciences" is repeatable and can have no technological application. Therefore, they are not science. This includes cosmogony, paleontology, biostratigraphy, ID, YEC theories, etc. Those things are *all* speculative philosophy. Even most astronomy is merely philosophy.

Ric,

You said:

“There are two definitions of evidence:

1. an outward sign 2. something that furnishes proof

Now if you meant by "evidence" definition 1, well that is pretty... trite. It really adds nothing to the conversation. Plus, the appearance of something may or may not be an outward sign of some truth about that thing, so even by definition 1, your claim that the appearance of design is somehow evidence for design is pretty shakey.

I, of course, meant definition 2, which actually adds to the discussion. The appearance of design is certainly not proof of design by any reasonable person's standards (well maybe by creationist standards, but that's another thing). So let me state again, and let's put all trite equivocation aside, there is no evidence of design in biological entities. Thus my claim stands, and let me reiterate: When you have no actual evidence for your "theory," complain that there is a giant conspiracy to suppress it. Classic pseudoscience tactic.”


It is not at all clear what you mean by the word “proof.” It looks to me like you are making it mean whatever you want it to mean; as if you just “defined away” your problem. You said, “The appearance of design is certainly not proof of design by any reasonable person's standards.” That is an interesting pronouncement, especially this phrase: “any reasonable person’s standards.” Hence, I guess the people who get to decide if it is “proof” are the “reasonable” people. If reasonable people get to decide what is proof, who gets to decide who qualifies as “reasonable” since we need them to tell us what is proof and what isn’t? Do you get to decide? What is your criteria for deciding? All in all, it looks like you are merely saying that this question is not to be decided by logic and clear thinking but by consulting some elite group of “reasonable” people. “Let us look to them, they will tell us what is proof and what isn’t.” Count me out. I’d prefer to think for myself.
So, I need you to tell me what you mean by proof. It would help if you would provide me with some examples, especially examples from science. I’m guessing you understand “proof” to be some kind of evidence that absolutely proves something to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. If so, you are setting yourself up for a fall. But I’ll just wait for you to clarify this point because I’m honestly not sure what you mean.


I asked, “Is a series of prime numbers evidence of intelligence? SETI researchers seem to think so.”

You responded, “I suppose it depends on the length of the series and on other circumstances. And of course this is a red herring. Do you have any long strings of prime numbers in biological entities?”
It is weird that you would think that I was suggesting prime numbers exist in biological entities. Prime numbers, because they do not occur naturally, and because they present an intelligible pattern, are evidence of intelligence. But we have a much more striking evidence of intelligent design in biological entities: INFORMATION, particularly the information found in DNA. This is way more complex (not to mention specified) than any series of prime numbers.

You said, “IDiots have been presented with overwhelming evidence that the appearance of design has occurred naturally.”
I’m assuming that when you say “overwhelming evidence that the appearance of design has occurred naturally” you are talking about the generation of specified complexity, generation of information (such as one finds in DNA), “generation” in the sense of originating it when and where it previously did not exist. That is what I’m talking about when I speak of the appearance of design: INFORMATION. I mean, think about it, how much information is in DNA? It is overwhelming. I'm wondering if you could present us with some of this “overwhelming evidence” of information naturally being generated. Please note, information being transferred is not what I am talking about. It is the generation of information that I am talking about.

I asked, “Are you saying that intelligence cannot be detected?”

You said, “This is a straw man. Of course intelligence can be detected-- when we know something about the designer and how that designer works, which is one major reason we know watches are designed. Now I wonder why ID refuses to talk about the designer...”
This whole discussion is about the nature of detecting intelligence, and you say that this question is a straw man? Strange. Well, I guess you’ll have to face the wrath of the straw man, because according to these criteria, that you just gave, we will not be able to recognize a signal from extra-terrestrial intelligence. Better call those SETI people and tell them they are not real scientists and that they should start looking for real jobs. After all, if we received some signal containing lots of data, such as Sagan described in "Contact", according to you we would not be able to say it came from an intelligent source. There are many possible scenarios in which we might receive such data from a source that we know NOTHING about. We might have lots and lots of information, perhaps it could even be decoded to provide diagrams for constructing a spacecraft, but since it would come from a source that we know nothing about, nor about how the source “works,” according to you we can’t say it came from an intelligent designer. The only time we can detect intelligence, in your own words is "when we know something about the designer and how that designer works." I guess all unknown sources of intelligence are disallowed according to you. It's funny how you have to come up with such ad hoc and arbitrary criteria to avoid admitting the obvious.

I asked, “Why is a watch, lying on the ground, evidence of an intelligent creator but a biological system is not?”

You said, “Seriously? The old and much-refuted watch maker argument? That's easy. Because a watch is not a biological system. Ever seen a watch reproduce itself?”

Yes, seriously.
So here is your answer: “That's easy. Because a watch is not a biological system.”
This hardly merits being called an answer.
Suppose I am having a dialogue with someone who denies that airplanes show evidence of design, but admits that a watch does indeed show evidence of design. It’s a ridiculous position, I know. But then suppose I ask him this question: Why is a watch, lying on the ground, evidence of an intelligent designer but an airplane is not? And then suppose he answers, “Because a watch is not an airplane.” Oh, okay. Does that really answer the question? (Again, you said, “Because a watch is not a biological system.”)
Suppose I am having a dialogue with someone who denies that calculators show evidence of design, but admits that a watch does indeed show evidence of design. It’s a ridiculous position, I know. But then suppose I ask him this question: Why is a watch, lying on the ground, evidence of an intelligent designer but a calculator is not? And then suppose he answers, “Because a watch is not a calculator.” Oh, okay. Does that really answer the question?
Suppose I am having a dialogue with someone who denies that refrigerators show evidence of design, but admits that a watch does indeed show evidence of design. It’s a ridiculous position, I know. But then suppose I ask him this question: Why is a watch, lying on the ground, evidence of an intelligent designer but a refrigerator is not? And then suppose he answers, “Because a watch is not a refrigerator.” Oh, okay. Does that really answer the question?

Moving on. As part of your answer, you then asked, “Ever seen a watch reproduce itself?”

No, but I’ve seen computer programs reproduce themselves. And I’ve yet to encounter anyone who believes computer programs are not the result of intelligent design, even though they can reproduce themselves. The qualification of being able to reproduce oneself sounds like another ad hoc rule someone made up to justify their belief that biological systems do not show evidence of design. I wonder, why do you believe this ad hoc rule? Hmmm . . . Ever heard of "true-believer syndrome"?

So, I’m still wondering if you can answer the old and much-refuted watchmaker argument. I’ll rephrase it for the sake of precision. Why is it that the specified complexity of a watch is evidence of an intelligent designer but the specified complexity of a biological system is not?

You then asked, “Now I have a question for you, Jim: what is your religious persuasion? Don't lie, now; god wouldn't like it.”

I am a monotheist. Why do you ask? What does that have to do with a discussion about ID, since ID does not require religious persuasion? Richard Dawkins has no religious persuasion but he thinks the evidence for ID is strong enough that he believes it may be best to explain life on earth as the creation of intelligent aliens. David Berlinski is an agnostic; he has no particular religious persuasion. But he is obviously a very strong advocate of ID and played a prominent role in Ben Stein’s movie. So again, why do you ask?

John,

You asked, "Why has no ID proponent produced even a single datum from testing an ID hypothesis, Jim? Why do they have no faith?"

Can you give me an example of producing a single datum? I'm not sure how your using that terminology. (But I'll try to give you an honest answer as soon as I understand the question.)

And I do not know what you mean about the latter question: Why do they have no faith?

Sorry, I'm probably not much fun to dialogue with right now. I just don't understand what you're asking with either question.

How can any fair and reasonable review of Expelled not even mention Hitler or the Holocaust? Too hot to handle?

This movie has been roundly condemned by atheists and theists alike. The only people who seem to give it any credence are those who agreed with the movie's supposed premise before they even saw it.

In post-movie interviews, Stein has said outright that "Science leads to killing people". If this isn't enough for anyone to reconsider their support for him and his anti-science agenda then no amount of rational argument will prevail.

ID has its place in religious instruction classes, why can't its proponents be happy with that?

Jim said:

It is not at all clear what you mean by the word “proof.” It looks to me like you are making it mean whatever you want it to mean; as if you just “defined away” your problem. You said, “The appearance of design is certainly not proof of design by any reasonable person's standards.” That is an interesting pronouncement, especially this phrase: “any reasonable person’s standards.” Hence, I guess the people who get to decide if it is “proof” are the “reasonable” people. If reasonable people get to decide what is proof, who gets to decide who qualifies as “reasonable” since we need them to tell us what is proof and what isn’t? Do you get to decide? What is your criteria for deciding? All in all, it looks like you are merely saying that this question is not to be decided by logic and clear thinking but by consulting some elite group of “reasonable” people. “Let us look to them, they will tell us what is proof and what isn’t.” Count me out. I’d prefer to think for myself.

That’s what you got from what I wrote? Nowhere was there an appeal to authority in that statement. A reasonable person is a person who uses logic and critical thought—and not critical thought in the Disco institutes’ sense of anything that criticizes evolution— rather than rationalizing their way to a conclusion. Of course it takes a reasonable person to evaluate proof—someone with a religiously driven, True Believer agenda is not going to agree no matter what proof or lack of proof exists. Which brings up the question of why I am even engaging in this argument with you…

So, I need you to tell me what you mean by proof. It would help if you would provide me with some examples, especially examples from science. I’m guessing you understand “proof” to be some kind of evidence that absolutely proves something to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. If so, you are setting yourself up for a fall. But I’ll just wait for you to clarify this point because I’m honestly not sure what you mean.

Proof is something that compels acceptance of a conclusion. Proof does not require certainty—just reasonable probability. Proof in science also needs to be objectively verifiable by independent experimenters, and it needs to be repeatable. Examples from science abound. If one controls for other variables, then administers an agent to a petri dish and observes that the organisms in that dish die, that constitutes proof that the agent caused the death of the organisms. Now we can relate this back to your claim that appearance of design is somehow evidence of design. In no way can how something subjectively looks to an observer constitute proof in this sense, especially when well-established mechanisms exist that account for why the object in question appears that way.

It is weird that you would think that I was suggesting prime numbers exist in biological entities. Prime numbers, because they do not occur naturally, and because they present an intelligible pattern, are evidence of intelligence. But we have a much more striking evidence of intelligent design in biological entities: INFORMATION, particularly the information found in DNA. This is way more complex (not to mention specified) than any series of prime numbers.

This is simply false. While prime numbers do not occur naturally, the formation of DNA does. So the relation between prime numbers and DNA is a non sequitor.

I’m assuming that when you say “overwhelming evidence that the appearance of design has occurred naturally” you are talking about the generation of specified complexity, generation of information (such as one finds in DNA), “generation” in the sense of originating it when and where it previously did not exist. That is what I’m talking about when I speak of the appearance of design: INFORMATION. I mean, think about it, how much information is in DNA? It is overwhelming. I'm wondering if you could present us with some of this “overwhelming evidence” of information naturally being generated. Please note, information being transferred is not what I am talking about. It is the generation of information that I am talking about.

This is an old creationist canard. But there are plenty of examples of this. You can google it the same as I can, but here are two good places to start:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information

This whole discussion is about the nature of detecting intelligence, and you say that this question is a straw man? Strange. Well, I guess you’ll have to face the wrath of the straw man, because according to these criteria, that you just gave, we will not be able to recognize a signal from extra-terrestrial intelligence. Better call those SETI people and tell them they are not real scientists and that they should start looking for real jobs. After all, if we received some signal containing lots of data, such as Sagan described in "Contact", according to you we would not be able to say it came from an intelligent source. There are many possible scenarios in which we might receive such data from a source that we know NOTHING about. We might have lots and lots of information, perhaps it could even be decoded to provide diagrams for constructing a spacecraft, but since it would come from a source that we know nothing about, nor about how the source “works,” according to you we can’t say it came from an intelligent designer. The only time we can detect intelligence, in your own words is "when we know something about the designer and how that designer works." I guess all unknown sources of intelligence are disallowed according to you. It's funny how you have to come up with such ad hoc and arbitrary criteria to avoid admitting the obvious.

And this is bull as well. “SETI researchers do not expect to find recognizably designed messages in the signals they are looking for; in fact, they expect that the signal modulation would be smeared out and lost. They are looking for narrow-band signals, which are what people build and are not found in known natural radio signals (SETI Instutute n.d., Shostak 2005). The objective criterion for recognizing intelligent design is to look for things that look like what people build. The SETI Institute itself recognizes "Intelligent Design" as creationism with no scientific value (DeVore 2005).” Thus SETI does not look for signals from things we know NOTHING about. Also, SETI has detected false positives before, from quasars for example, but when it was shown that such things had natural sources, they changed their opinion, because, unlike Idiots, they aren’t pseudoscientists.

In fact, why don’t you just read the Index to Creationist Claims at talkorigins and spare me the trouble of refuting your arguments (which have been refuted long ago).


Yes, seriously.
So here is your answer: “That's easy. Because a watch is not a biological system.”
This hardly merits being called an answer.
Suppose I am having a dialogue with someone who denies that airplanes show evidence of design, but admits that a watch does indeed show evidence of design. It’s a ridiculous position, I know. But then suppose I ask him this question: Why is a watch, lying on the ground, evidence of an intelligent designer but an airplane is not? And then suppose he answers, “Because a watch is not an airplane.” Oh, okay. Does that really answer the question? (Again, you said, “Because a watch is not a biological system.”) [snip]

You can give all the false analogies you want, but notice that all of your analogies involved comparing machines to machines. Your original question involved comparing a machine to a biological entity. Your reasoning is the very definition of a false analogy—there is no substantial difference for our purposes between a watch and an airplane, but there is a very substantial difference between a watch and a biological entity. Thus my answer, far from “hardly merit[ing] being called an answer,” is a very substantial answer that refutes what you said.

No, but I’ve seen computer programs reproduce themselves. And I’ve yet to encounter anyone who believes computer programs are not the result of intelligent design, even though they can reproduce themselves. The qualification of being able to reproduce oneself sounds like another ad hoc rule someone made up to justify their belief that biological systems do not show evidence of design.

Another false analogy. Computer programs do not reproduce themselves in the way that biological entities do. The ability to biologically reproduce is at the heart of this argument, because it is in large measure the thing on which evolution hinges, and thus it is far from an ad hoc rule.

So, I’m still wondering if you can answer the old and much-refuted watchmaker argument. I’ll rephrase it for the sake of precision. Why is it that the specified complexity of a watch is evidence of an intelligent designer but the specified complexity of a biological system is not?

*Sigh* I just answered that.

I am a monotheist. Why do you ask?
Way to be nice and vague. I suppose I should have asked what brand of evangelical Christianity you are. So please clarify. Exactly what brand and sect of monotheism do you belong to? And you know very well why I ask: in order to establish what motivates your True Believer syndrome.

What does that have to do with a discussion about ID, since ID does not require religious persuasion? Richard Dawkins has no religious persuasion but he thinks the evidence for ID is strong enough that he believes it may be best to explain life on earth as the creation of intelligent aliens.

Bull. Dawkins was asked to speculate about possibilities. He certainly does not think the evidence for ID is strong enough that life is likely to be the product of space aliens. If you forced me to speculate about possibilities, I could come up with any number of outlandish and highly unlikely explanations for life on earth. That means nothing. Science is about probability.

David Berlinski is an agnostic; he has no particular religious persuasion. But he is obviously a very strong advocate of ID and played a prominent role in Ben Stein’s movie. So again, why do you ask?

Now you are engaging in the fallacy of converse accident; your posts are like a primer in examples of fallacies. Berlinski is a possible exception (and possible, because I don't know if he is really an agnostic) that doesn’t change the rule. This is like arguing that women are stronger than men on average by pointing to a female bodybuilder. It is clear that the Intelligent Design movement is religiously motivated.

Now a slightly different topic. A large thrust of the Expelled movie is that evolution led to the holocaust, with the implication that the theory of evolution should be abandoned. I maintain that this is a ridiculous and hateful red herring. Making such an argument is akin to arguing that the theory of cancer generation has led to many people being given horrible news that they are going to die, so therefore we should abandon that theory and just tell them that a magic man in the sky has made them sick. In other words, whether or not the theory of evolution contributed to the holocaust (which I am not granting), does that have any bearing on the truth of the theory? If a theory is true but leads to distasteful conclusions, should it be declared false or not taught? Does the attempted connection to the holocaust have any useful purpose except to push people’s emotional buttons and to appeal to religious audiences?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html

Note the section on heretofore non-existent organs appearing in the lizard population over a 30 year period.

So we're finding a complex organ existing in a lizard population that didn't exist 30 years before. Now certainly we can imagine someone claiming that God decided to intervene and give these lizards some means of surviving in this new environment. But think about it. If we inserted Intelligent Design as the explanation for phenomena in a like fashion, we'd all be saying goodbye to everything the scientific method ever gave us. Say goodbye to your car, your air conditioning system, and your glasses. Toss aside your telescope, insulin, and calculator. It's all just too complex to figure out natural explanations for anyway. Just sit back, attribute it all to His Mysterious Ways, and watch Ben Stein on the telev.... nevermind.

As for the rest of us? We'll leave you to your blissful ignorance and try to figure out how things actually work.

Jim, you are kidding right? Poes Law and all?? (I need to apologize here for some of my sentence structure. My browser has suddenly decided that entering an apostrophe means I want to search for something.... it limits my style a bit.)

Oh wait - you claim "I am a monotheist" - which means, in couched terms, you believe in some "God" and if I had to guess, which I will as you seem willing to do so, that would be a god probably in the person of one named Jesus yadda yadda yadda.

In other words, your ID claims are - once again - couched creationist dialog trying to gain some sort of version of legitimate consideration by ostensible exclusion of the word "God".

Paltry, really You need to pay much more attention to Ric

Ben Stein DOES have a "Dangerous Idea" as specifically stated in this article. It is, however, an entirely different idea than purported here. That idea is that those to whom it is aimed squarely ENTIRELY FAIL to critically examine evidence, that they ENTIRELY FAIL to use reasoning to draw conclusions based on that evidence, and that they ENTIRELY FAIL to realize that "because I cannot conceive of any other way it could have happened." is NOT a valid argument against evidence.

This is the idea presented by this sad man and apparently espoused by you and many others. The evidence suggests that to the last point, you simply do not have sufficient conceptual abilities.

You present thought processes which are addressed in their paucity over and over again both here and outside this site, yet you refute the analysis of these results based not on a rational approach, not with rational evidence, but with a weird convoluted thought process that seems to say "since I can string words together in a way that makes things look like they are real problems, they must BE real problems!" This is in the form of the old saw: "I am unable to lie. What I have just told you is a lie." There are those who actually believe this is some metaphysical statement with the power to turn traditional logic to mush. It is, however, only a trick of semantics and has no meaning. All "arguments" you have presented so far in this thread hold about as much validity.

Talk about trite. By the way - "trite" can mean "boring, not fresh or original". You use the word in reference to replying to Ric (several times) giving you a definition. Are you truly saying that his definition (accurate, by the way) is "trite" because he did not make it up on the spot? Do you understand what a "definition" is? I use the word trite to refer to your arguments, as they are in line with this definition of the word. You appear to use it because it seems out of line with YOUR understanding of his definition.

Yep - trite. Again, you need to pay more attention to Ric.

Oh - wait - I forgot. You are a "Monotheist". You are naturally prevented from doing that. That, by the way, is an ad hominem attack, also illegitimate in respect to rational argument. I am capable of self-identifying my own problematic methods. You seem unable to do that. Another old saw: "Are you thinking, or merely re-arranging your prejudices?"

ID is known - and shown - to be re-arranging prejudices. Deal with it.

JC

I asked Jim:
"Why has no ID proponent produced even a single datum from testing an ID hypothesis, Jim? Why do they have no faith?"

"Can you give me an example of producing a single datum?"

Well, usually papers from the primary scientific literature contain multiple data (plural), not a single datum (singular). I used the singular to emphasize the complete scientific incompetence of the ID movement.

Have you never read a primary scientific paper (one with new data)?

"I'm not sure how your using that terminology. (But I'll try to give you an honest answer as soon as I understand the question.)"

I'm using it as an honest scientist who produces new data from testing my own hypotheses.

"And I do not know what you mean about the latter question: Why do they have no faith?"

When I come up with a new hypothesis, I am eager to put it to the test. Such tests produce new data whether my hypothesis is correct or incorrect. The more confidence (faith) I have in my hypothesis, the more eager I am to try to falsify it by testing it empirically.

So my question to you is, why is it, if the leaders of the ID movement have confidence (faith) in ID hypotheses, that they are incapable and/or unwilling of putting a single one of them to the test?

Jim wrote:
"Richard Dawkins has no religious persuasion but he thinks the evidence for ID is strong enough that he believes it may be best to explain life on earth as the creation of intelligent aliens."

Jim, this is utterly false. If evolutionary biologists are so wrong, why do you have to grossly misrepresent their positions to attack them?

Look inside your soul to answer that one.

Editor's note: This post has only been approved for viewing in order to demonstrate the profound and dangerous anti-Christian beliefs held by a number of people who justify their hate and oppressive tendencies in the name of science and "human progress."

===================================

Christians are morons. Most Christians are compulsive liars like Stein.

Christians are too lazy to study science, and they're too stupid to understand it. Christians are cowards who are afraid of any science that conflicts with their childish everything-is-magic fantasy world.

The christians need to keep their breathtaking stupidity in their churches and out of our schools.

I look forward to the day when all christian scum drop dead. They are good for nothing but getting in the way of human progress.

"So my question to you is, why is it, if the leaders of the ID movement have confidence (faith) in ID hypotheses, that they are incapable and/or unwilling of putting a single one of them to the test?"

I know! I know! It's because the ID they believe in isn't actually testable!

A creator being not limited to time and space doesn't need to operate via causality. And if there's no causal chain, then no one can confidently design a test that would identify said being as the cause of anything. No detectable causal mechanism = no testable means of discovering the originator of the phenomena.

"Christians are morons. Most Christians are compulsive liars like Stein.

[...]

They are good for nothing but getting in the way of human progress."


You, sir, are a bigot. Your entire post is blatantly false on its face. I know plenty of Christians who are honest, warm, genuine people. Many are dear friends of mine. Thankfully, they're all also honest enough to note that ID is not a scientific notion and never has been.

McStabbity said:
"You, sir, are a bigot. Your entire post is blatantly false on its face."

As an Atheist, I certainly agree with you regarding this one post - however, I can point to HUNDREDS of others of the ilk "You Atheist Scum deserve to die and go to your just reward and burn in Hell forever...." all over the place. Cites on request.

Invective of this sort from either side is unproductive, but is generally the consequence of the perceived methods that the far-right side of the "religious persuasion" uses on a regular basis. Personally, I prefer to avoid it.

And we won't bother to mention it is also the technique used by BS in his screed of a movie, as well as comments (eg: Science leads to murder) following. Oh heck - I just did.

I know MANY scientists - good ones - that are religious. I also know of many more that are not. Religion should never be an issue when you are dealing with discovery. Religion BECOMES an issue when it is used as the CRITERIA for discovery, however.

This horrid movie is precisely that. This horrible little snipped of puffery attempts to justify a non-science approach as persona-non-grata on it's face, regardless of it's rejection of the Scientific Method involved, it's flouting of the concept of falsifiability and it's refusal (Hey! I got apostrophes back!) to examine evidence in any appreciable manner. The movie has used deception, false argument and outright invective to try to make a point - one roundly criticized by both sides of the argument.

There are militant Atheists as there are Militant Christians (and Militant Muslims and....). I personally am usually as "Militant" as the person to whom I am speaking - balance, you know. I am as certain there is no "god" as they are that there is. I also have a credo that any HONEST person will admit there is no proof one way or the other and therefore MUST declare themselves Agnostic - the difference is only in degree. I have known only a very, very few of the Religious of ANY denomination that will admit to this.

However, the "compulsive liars" accusation must stand in the case of BS and anyone who can find the stomach to support this movie. Support of this mess indicates a strong willful desire to suspend all semblance of any truth.

JC

Mcstabbity wrote:
"I know! I know! It's because the ID they believe in isn't actually testable!"

I disagree. They are afraid to test it because they don't really believe it themselves.

"A creator being not limited to time and space doesn't need to operate via causality."

IOW, an omnipotent Designer hypothesis predicts no constraints. When we look at living things, the "creativity" in their "designs" is spectacularly constrained to modifying what came before. Therefore, the Designer isn't omnipotent, and the ID movement actually makes God look like a petty tinkerer who can't design truly new mechanisms. It belittles any coherent concept of God.

"And if there's no causal chain, then no one can confidently design a test that would identify said being as the cause of anything. No detectable causal mechanism = no testable means of discovering the originator of the phenomena."

But the fact that we observe causal chains doesn't support that hypothesis.

Methodological naturalism--why is it a good thing?

In experimental science, we must assume that we are able to control the experimental conditions and rely upon our ability to observe them. If we allow for God of the gaps to explain our experimental results, we will never be able to do science. Hence, we must presuppose our ability to control and observe the experimental conditions. This means that we must necessarily presuppose that God doesn't intervene in our experiments.

Let's apply methodological naturalism to historical science. Do we have any control over the prehistoric conditions? No. Are we able to observe anything besides the final conditions of the fossils, rocks, stars, etc.? No, we are blind to the initial conditions and intermediate states. Historical science puts us in the same position as the person who allows God in experimental science (i.e., the supernaturalist). In historical science, we have no control over nor powers to observe all the necessary conditions. "Historical science" is an oxymoron.