Open thread: Old stuff edition
by KrauzeThis is a thread about nothing, and therefore everything. In case you don't know what to talk about, here's some links a couple of months old - by blogosphere standards, an eternity.
Wesley J. Smith writes about the PETA, who "liberates" animals from a life with humans - by killing them and leaving their bodies in a dumpster.
Joe Carter writes about "the theocracy canard", the belief that the US is turning into a theocracy. Although Jonathan Rowe agrees with Carter that much of the theocracy rhetoric is overblown, he still takes exception to some of his claims. For more about the interplay between church and politics, check out what Timothy Goddard has to say.
Finally, in The New York Review of Books, a triple-review of books on evo-devo, challenging and revising the traditional Neo-Darwinian synthesis.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Since this is an open thread, I just thought I'd mention that the infamous "Dr. Dino", Kent Hovind, has been convicted of tax evasion and faces a long, long stint in federal prison along with his wife. So I guess the IRS won the $250,000 challenge!
Comment by Aagcobb — November 3, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Aagcobb:
Yup. Them Revenuers always git their man… er, woman. er… both. Nifty how that works, eh?
Comment by Joy — November 3, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Why, Krauze, that's so post-modern of you!
Comment by DonaldM — November 3, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:20 pm
I wish I earned enough money to owe $250k in taxes!!!
Comment by DonaldM — November 3, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Speaking of the coming theocracy, here is an interesting article I found on Slate today about the younger generation of evangelicals.
Comment by Aagcobb — November 3, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Yes, Hovind's trial sure is getting a lot of exposure at The Panda's Thumb and the so-called "ScienceBlogs". I can't wait until Myrmecos and Andrea find out, as I'm sure they'll want to tell their fellow critics how inappropriate and irrelevant this is.
Comment by Krauze — November 3, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
November 4th, 2006 at 1:03 am
A question:?:
Is Mike Gene's book out yet? The website said it was coming out this fall — is fall over yet? (When does fall officially end, when your jack-o-lanterns decay enough to collapse under their own weight?)
Comment by Leon — November 4, 2006 @ 1:03 am
November 4th, 2006 at 8:22 am
I found an interesting article on how mainstream scientists persecute brave trailblazers in alternative fields; in this case Bigfoot. Someday, when there is a Sasquatch exhibit in the San Diego Zoo, this guy will win a Nobel Prize!
Comment by Aagcobb — November 4, 2006 @ 8:22 am
November 4th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Hi Leon,
You write:
The last I heard, the book is in its final stages before being sent off to the printer. I should admit that the lengthy delay has been largely my fault, as I took too long to approve final edits and send in last minute changes.
Comment by MikeGene — November 4, 2006 @ 10:22 am
November 4th, 2006 at 10:45 am
This thread has a nice, airy feel to it, and I hate to bring anyone down. But speaking of old stuff, a link I offered on a thread a couple months ago got flushed into the Memory Hole. I think the thread was yours, Krause, but I'm not sure.
Here 'tis again: http://www.ushmm.org/museum/ex...
I don't mind stuff getting flushed, even my stuff. But I've wondered what the rationale was. Anyone (including Krause) have a guess?
(Warning, though: clicking on the link will present the clicker with a real downer)
Thanks to anyone who has a clue about this.
Comment by Lutepisc — November 4, 2006 @ 10:45 am
November 4th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Hi Lutepisc,
I don't remember ever having seen that page before, so I doubt I was the one who flushed it.
Comment by Krauze — November 4, 2006 @ 11:21 am
November 4th, 2006 at 11:43 am
I'm afraid this isn't "old stuff"…
Hi Odd Digit
I am replying to your query here as it seems more appropriate than on the thread where you asked me for my views. As I said to Joy, I am not writing to promote my views, but having posted on this blog on one matter feel, I should be prepared to answer any questions long standing members (and others) put to me.
Intelligent design is not creationism
These are not my words, but I do agree with them. In my post promising to reply soon I pointed you to an article I had written earlier in the year. There I quoted from a piece written by Stephen Meyer, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, in the Daily Telegraph (UK) on 28 Jan. this year. Here and elsewhere Meyer has sought to put clear water between ID and creationism. I believe that there is a clear gap between the ID and Biblical creation for a number of reasons. To support my reasoning let me give just one quote from his article:
"By contrast, ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected."
1) ID is only anti-naturalism, as stated above by Myers it is not anti-evolution when defined as common ancestry. The Biblical teaching of creation allows for limited change (over time) in creatures but not for common ancestry.
2) ID does not propose any historical context for its "˜concept' of biological design. The Bible not only states that there is a Creator, but it also provides a historical account of the Creator's work and what has happened to it since it was finished. This is important because today we are faced with the problems of bad design in nature and as far as I am aware ID has not addressed the issues raised by them.
3) ID is agnostic concerning the identity and character of the intelligence behind the design. The decision to concentrate on irreducible complexity as the "disproof" of naturalism (often described as Darwinism by Johnson and others) means that the most that the evidence so identified says about the designer, is that it/they/he/she is/are intelligent. A Christian understanding of creation believes much more can be understood through the work of the designer, "His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead" A Christian understanding also sees evidence of design in things which are not irreducibly complex.
4) ID is not Christian (I am not implying it is anti-Christian). Christianity is theist; not only did the God of the Bible create the universe, He has continued to rule over it and human events ever since. The best ID offers is a deist perspective, which is what Antony Flew abandon his atheism for. One reason for its position in this regard is that ID is designed to be acceptable to people of all religions and none.
The above reasons are why I consider there to be fundamental differences between ID and Biblical creation. Obviously, they are more philosophical than scientific. I am not sure leading proponents of ID appreciate the differences, if they did they might not encourage creationist to set everything else to one side by adopting ID's tactics against naturalism. I am sure the majority of creationists here in the UK and probably in the USA do not appreciate them, or they would not be continually borrowing their clothes. I am certain that fundamental naturalists (secular humanists, atheists, etc.) don't, though it is expedient for them to argue that ID is creationism-lite.
To be fair to creationists though, irreducible complexity was one of their arguments long before the ID movement was birthed. I am not aware that ID has championed any other "proof" of a designer. Please put me right if you know otherwise.
My attitude to those who are genuinely committed to ID is that I appreciate what they have done by opening another front in the battle against naturalism and the inevitable secularism which accompanies it. They have certainly ruffled many feathers in the scientific establishment. I am not convinced however, that they will achieve their objectives, though that might be a problem with those objectives rather than their methods. Having said that any alliance between ID and Christian creationism can at best be no more than that between Chruchill and Stalin during WWII - it was a common enemy which brought them together not a common vision.
I have made my views on the difference between Biblical creation and ID known to leading creationists here in the UK, these include those involved in TiS. (If you want to know John Mackay's views, first he saw and approved the article by me which I have quoted above. Secondly, he was interviewed recently on BBC World's HARDtalk programme, and towards the end he was asked about ID. The programme can be watched on line from this page.)
My Christian faith is such that most people would identify me as an Evangelical, though it is a term I normally avoid when describing myself. However, being associated with that description means I am deeply saddened when a leading Evangelical (anywhere in the world) disgraces the name of Jesus Christ by their behaviour. Jimmy Swaggart did this some years ago and Ted Haggard seems to have done so recently. Likewise others would see me as a Biblical creationist, but there again I cringe at much I hear and see being published by many who are labelled in that way. Yet, I feel the pain when Kent Hovind is convicted of fraud. Situations like these remind me, and I hope others, that any effort to promote the Christian Gospel which is not based on complete honesty, will in time result in disgrace and ridicule for that Gospel. "Be sure your sin will find you out" was said to those who were called by God's name, not to those who needed to get to know Him.
Personally, I cannot see how it is honest for a person to describe themselves as a Biblical creationist in some contexts, whilst claiming to be "only interested" in the issues of Science in another. Their only defence can be that they lack the wisdom and knowledge to act honestly - though I am not sure how valid that is as a reason. It is to be regretted even more when the choice of a name for an organisation seems to cut across what some members of it are actually doing.
Can I say once more that I have not posted this to promote my views, but to answer a question put to me. If others want to follow it up with other questions I will do my best to answer them. Time is limited, as I am sure it is for all, so please be patient.
Comment by Randall — November 4, 2006 @ 11:43 am
November 4th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Hello Randall,
Wow! I wasn't expecting such a comprehensive reply, thank you for taking the time.
I disagree with some of things you say and will try to respond to each point (time permitting!). Just to make my own position clear I am a scientist and what can be described as a moderate atheist (i.e. not evangelical) and I disagree with the assertion that ID is not creationism for several reasons.
I do agree that the DI has made a lot of effort to try and separate their ID notion from creationism. I think this is a deliberate tactic to get around the rulings of the courts in the USA, which had already ruled creationism and 'creation science' unconstitutional to teach in science class (and now has done the same for ID).
Evolution is not defined as just common descent. ID is very much anti random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift (the 'blind and undirected' bits that Meyer is complaining about). So ID is emphatically anti-most-of-the-known-mechanisms-of-evolution, and can be accurately described as anti-evolution in my view. The DI also specifically target Darwin as one of the people 'Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man' in their wedge document.
I agree with this.
Whilst you are correct about ID's official position, there are two issues here. The first is that the identity of the designer is vital if you want to demonstrate design (design is designer-centric by definition, no designer = no design). The second is that many statements by the leading ID proponents at the DI (including Behe, Dembski and Johnson) have confirmed that they all believe the designer to be the Christian God. The wedge document also makes it plain that the DI's motives are religious (God comes up quite a bit). My conclusion is that the DI members were (and are) deliberately not saying who they think the designer is specifically to avoid the constitutional restrictions that had already been placed on the teaching of creationism/'creation science' in science classes.
All the leading ID advocates at the DI are Christian, and the DI is largely funded by fundamentalist Christians in the US.
If you think about it for a moment you can see that while creationism makes more claims that ID, ID is not directly contradictory to what creationism teaches (apart from some of the 'YEC' age of the earth stuff). As soon as you fill in ID's unknowns (especially designer = God) then ID and creationism rapidly become indistinguisable from each other. This lack of contradiction is also a deliberate tactic by the DI (called ID's 'big tent') which is designed in order to not alienate a large number of creationists in the USA.
This one-to-one correspondence between ID and creationism is superbly demonstated by the ID textbook called 'Of Pandas And People' which was found to have directly substituted the words 'creationism' for 'intelligent design' and 'creator' for 'designer' - without changing the rest of the meaning. These changes were made shortly after 'creation science' was ruled unconstitutional in the USA (the 'Edwards' case). Here's a little bit from Judge Jones's ruling:
I don't think you can get a clearer demonstration of the equivalence of the two concepts than that. This is the ID textbook that the DI would like to be be taught as 'an alternative to evolution' in US school classrooms… and it's merely a reworded creationist text.
So Randall - are you a YEC or OEC? What's your view on the age of the earth?
Comment by Odd Digit — November 4, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
November 4th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
OD:
I know of no one who believes mutations can't be random, that selection doesn't shape population dynamics, or that isolation can't lead to exclusivity within a subspecies. This is a straw man. ID simply maintains that these mechanisms do not sufficiently explain biodiversity.
Common descent has its own limitations, as outlined in the background to Carl Woese's work (HGT Field), and possibly beyond. As I mentioned in another thread via a postdictive hypothesis (off the top of my head) of why it is we do not see life based on molecules with opposite chirality, the commonality of life's amino acid/protein components could be viewed as a result of the fact that life has metabolism and thus requires components from ingestion that serve to maintain it. Interdependency does not necessarily equate to common ancestry in the way described by most NDS evangelists, though interdependency does suggest commonality of design.
Of course, I only say that because some synthetic nutritive supplements for medicinal uses were produced with alternate chirality - organic molecules can be made either way. These were marketed anyway because nobody thought it mattered. Then it was found that these supplements were completely useless, uniformly excreted sans uptake, since living beings as-we-know-them simply can't use them. It should have taught us something.
Did you miss the part about the Post-Wedge World? Oddly enough, we've been living in that reality for quite awhile around here.
1. The Wedge was soundly defeated at Dover, and is no longer an issue for US public education.
2. If design is present in life, life is a perfectly reasonable candidate for designer in the provisional sense. Science does not deal with final causation, but only with efficient/proximate causation.
3. Your concern about other people's metaphysical beliefs belies your previous statement that you are not an Evangelical Atheist. What/who others believe may be responsible for design in life is irrelevant to science unless it is objectively demonstrable in scientific terms. Mere metaphysics, just like your own irrelevant metaphysics.
Again, no more relevant than the fact that your heroes are metaphysically motivated EAs. Dueling metaphysics may be a perennial human pastime, but it isn't science, and does not constitute a scientific argument.
Once again, it has been established that ID may not legally be taught in US public school classrooms until and unless its theoretics are accepted by science as science. What is it about this reality that you refuse to accept, and why do you refuse to accept it?
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
November 4th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Hi Joy,
I didn't think you wanted me to speak to you any more? However, as you are addressing me I will respond.
If you are arguing that evolution didn't do it (generate biodiversity), you are arguing against random mutation and natural selection. You must be invoking non-random mutation or artifical selection or both - or something else altogether. So my point that "ID is very much anti random mutation, natural selection" is not a straw man at all.
Where did I say we weren't? Straw man. I'm quite aware that the ID movement and the wedge both died at Dover. I was talking to Randall about the fact that ID is creationism, as was found during Dover. Just history, not histrionics.
I never said it wasn't. Same strawman as before. I'm happy it was. Just because it's history just mean it's irrelevent to the fact that ID is just creationism in a fancy tuxedo.
Where did I say it did? Different strawman this time.
Where did I profess concern about other people metaphysical beliefs in that paragraph? Yet another strawman. These people can believe what they like, it doesn't change my argument, which is that ID is watered down creationism.
It's relevent if you trying to figure out if ID is Christian fundamentalism in disguise. If all the people behind ID were metaphysically motivated evangelical atheists it would change the picture a bit, no? But they're not, are they?
I'm very happy with the reality that ID may not legally be taught in US public school classrooms. I accept it fully. I never said otherwise. This appears to be yet another strawman.
I appreciate you might not like me talking about the less than noble history of the ID movement and it's 'Waterloo' in Dover, but these subjects are relevent when Randall is making the old argument that ID and creationism are different while using a senior fellow of the DI (Meyer) as his source.
ID as peddled by the DI is nothing more that creationism with the deliberate omission of the G word.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 4, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
November 4th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
OD:
Oh, yeah. I forgot. But since you're on the line…
That's messed up. I've got no problem with evolution. Never did. It's the gratuitous and metaphysically-loaded qualifiers on the mechanisms I see as a problem. Mutation-selection, plus process. MSP (whoa! My own acronym!). Mutation need not be causally or effectively random. And selection may or may not apply to it in the short term. And there are non-Mendelian means of inheritance, as well as creative expression suites. Not to mention generation-skipping trait memory. Life is amazing.
People who are emotionally attached to the gratuitous qualifiers miss out on the possibilities. Anything "random" is unpredictable and of no practical use to us. It's the non-random aspects of life - what goes right rather than what goes wrong - that offer us the greatest potential of useful knowledge. Of course, that's a forward view instead of a backwards one.
The world won't end if we don't consider RM-NS the complete explanation for life. Go looking for another level of knowledge we can use.
Randall has been very honest about his position. And if he cares to respond to you it's fine with me. I was simply complaining about your SOP, which amounts to fallacious arguments per the TT position. So long as you don't conflate the two, go for it.
This isn't the DI. You might try to keep that in mind. Thanks.
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
November 4th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Randall:
Hi Randall,
You are, of course, correct. I have written several essays on this topic.
Many of us here are evolutionists, yet the critics actually believe we are creationists. Of course, it's useful to keep in mind that according to a critic no less than PZ Myers, Ken Miller is a creationist also. Critics are fond of the C-word in the same manner earlier witch hunters were fond of another C-word.
Anyway, let me offer my own two cents on your observations:
Actually, ID is not necessarily anti-naturalism, as life's design could have originated from a natural intelligence. There is nothing about design itself that points toward the supernatural. ID is simply one expression of a teleological perspective on reality.
Agreed. Up to this point, the ID theorists have been focused on developing methods for detecting design without the luxury of using independent information about the designers. I think they have chosen this focus because of the extremist position of the non-teleologist who simply cannot tolerate a single example of design.
As for the narrative, this should be rectified by the time The Design Matrix trilogy is completed.
Good points. I have also written about this here and here .
Your point about Flew is very good, as it nicely demonstrates that ID cannot take someone to full-blown theism, let alone Christianity. I made this point many years ago, when I challenged critics to find me a philosopher who would conclude Christianity was true if science could show that the first life forms were designed.
As for ID being "designed to be acceptable to people of all religions and none," I don't think that is the case. It is the logic of ID that matters, as explained here. It is likely that early on, some of the leaders of the ID movement recognized the political utility of the logic and the rest is history. But logic is not magically transformed into pure politics simply because people with political motivations can recruit it. It has the ability to stand on its own.
Comment by MikeGene — November 4, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
November 4th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Mike,
At this point I might go so far as to say there's Christian ID and then Telic Thoughts ID. Creationistists have a problem with Christian ID, and I not sure they make the distinction which is Telic Thoughts ID.
Comment by bj — November 4, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
November 4th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Hi bj,
You may have a point. Yet Telic Thoughts ID is simply the logic of ID. Our interest in ID is not a function of apologetics or a culture war (which explains the political and metaphysical diversity of our contributors). To us, the concept is inherently interesting and the possibilities are enthralling.
Comment by MikeGene — November 4, 2006 @ 11:51 pm
November 5th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Mike,
I couldn't find any arguments to counter the ID book 'Of Pandas And People' in any of your links. I may have missed it, in which case please point me in the right direction. I did find this piece by Krauze, but that doesn't address the central argument I'm making either.
It's this quote from Judge Jones that I am talking about:
So, what response do you have to the fact that in the DI approved ID textbook "cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID" and that "the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID"
This is the ID textbook to which Behe (a senior DI fellow) contributed and reviewed, and which was accepted to be representative of the position of ID during the Dover trial: "Defendants hold out Pandas as
representative of ID and Plaintiffs' experts agree in that regard".
Do you disagree with the defendents (pro-ID) at the Dover trial that the ID book "Of Pandas and People" is representative of ID? Do you disagree with the arguments of Behe?
Comment by Odd Digit — November 5, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
November 5th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
OD,
I am perplexed. I was being heavily critical of ID because I believe it has abandoned vital Biblical truths, and yet you responded as if I was defending it. This comes out in your comment to Joy:
Was there a problem with how I said things or how you heard them? You asked me for my views on ID and that is what I gave you. Yet for some reason you don't seem to have understood that they were the view from my perspective not yours. So if we are going to communicate we need to bridge some gaps, or all we do is bounce off each other. So perhaps a couple of illustrations will help. I'm not sure, but I'm willing to give it a go.
Have you ever stood on a plain looking at mountains in the distance? If you have, you will have noticed that it is not very easy from such a vantage point to estimate the distance between the nearest mountains and those which are further away. Now imagine that you are in radio contact with someone on top of one of the most distant peaks. You ask them what their view is of one of the foothills is, one near the edge of the plain. They reply that it is miles from them. You challenge that because from where you are stood the two highpoints are almost touching, you insist that they cannot be that far from it. They come back saying that from where they are, there is a vast rift valley between them and the foothill you are focussed on. Actually, it is in a different mountain range. Would you protest because you cannot see the rift valley? Or would you insist that because the two locations were not on the plain, they had to be in the same range? Would you be willing to visit the other person to try and understand their perspective?
Moving on to my second illustration. I will assume you know something about the Jehovah's Witnesses, forgive me if you don't. Because the JW's study the Bible, meet on Sundays and go out preaching I can appreciate why many would describe them as a Christian organisation, especially when they only have a limited experience of genuine Christianity. But those who have that experience need only point to one fact, that the JW's teach that Jesus is not God, to show that they are at best pseudo-Christian. Now the person on the plain may say, "So what, they are religious". In other words they are all mountains. However, if the non-religious want to understand those who have faith, they have to begin by admitting that the differences between them are real and important - at least to the people involved. After all, even amongst atheists there are differences, as your own introduction acknowledges:
Now, there are plenty of examples of "critics" taking the very easy option and lumping everyone who does not adopt their views together. This is of course what MikeGene recognises above:
If you are amongst these critics I can see why Joy has said in the past she didn't want to speak to you again. It seems to me the this practice of saying the world can only be understood from the security of your plain, and everything which isn't it on it is 'creationism', is nothing more than laziness, because as a tactic it's worthless.
As a result of this series of posts I have certainly learned something important from MikeGene and bj's response:
Whilst I would describe the DI version as 'pseudo-Christian ID' I will try and distinguish between the two in future. The challenge for you is, are you willing to make the effort and get to understand the differences between those who disagree with you? Until you do, there is very little point in sharing my opinion of the integrity and funding of the DI with you.
Convince me you are listening carefully and I'm happy to dialogue.
Comment by Randall — November 5, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
November 5th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Hello OD,
So what? I have never read Pandas nor have I seen one of the books in real life. How can I post arguments against a book I have not read?
Look, I have been arguing about this topic on the Internet for years. For example, over at the ARN forum, I contributed 5000+ postings. During all this time as I participated and watched, I can't recall a single case where an ID proponent held up Pandas as a source or cited some argument from it. It may have happened now and then, but it certainly was never a major factor. The same was true on the ISCID's forum, Brainstorms. It's a simple fact that this book has been largely irrelevant to the ID debate over the years. If you doubt me, ask around and see how many ID people you can find who point to Pandas as a major ID work or one that influenced them. For example, many of us got interested in ID because of Michael Behe's work (whose book HAS long been a major focal point of the debate) and Behe was influenced by Denton's first book. Can you explain to me why Pandas, a book that has been largely ignored by hundreds on ID proponents on the Internet over the years, has suddenly become THE book that defines the social reality we are now all part of? How does Pandas justify you in labeling us creationists?
Jones is not a historian, now is he? He reached an opinion based upon the arguments that were made in a highly contrived setting. It it a useful and informed opinion when it comes to the understanding how the authors of Pandas viewed ID and perhaps also the early pioneers of the socio-political expression of ID. But it doesn't really get to the concept/logic of ID. I think my own brief analysis is far more sophisticated in that regard.
My own guess is that when the arguments for ID began to emerge, rather than let them independently develop on their own, the notion of ID was coopted as a convenient way to keep a textbook afloat for financial reasons. Nevertheless, the logic of ID allows it to stand on its own, which is why Pandas is irrelevant outside the narrowly defined mission of the court. Those of us interested in the concept of ID cannot be held responsible for how others have used it.
Like I said, I have not read the book. But if the book simply replaces "creationism" with "ID," and thus has ID tied to anti-evolutionary arguments, then no, I do not think it is representative of ID. ID is not anti-evolution. As I have pointed out on my web page for years, the relationship between ID and evolution may be far more interesting than this.
What arguments?
Comment by MikeGene — November 5, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
November 6th, 2006 at 5:17 am
Mike, you say:
Pandas is not irrelevent when people are recommending it as the ID textbook to be used by pupils in public school. From the Dover disclaimer:
Quote from Behe at the trial (Behe is A):
Behe's was also asked specifically about the disclaimer:
Now, you would think that if this Pandas book was not representative of ID, this would have been the point when Behe might have said so. He appears to be quite happy to have this book available as an ID resource in public schools.
The arguments is Behe making in Pandas:
How Behe defines ID in Pandas:
You say you don't think the Pandas book is representative of ID. Do you disagree with the definition of Intelligent Design as presented by Behe in the Pandas book? Do you disagree with Behe's arguments about the purposeful arrangement of parts?
Another quote from Behe at the trial:
You quote Dembski in your ID101 piece. This is the quote you have chosen:
Why did you choose that Dembski quote? Why didn't you choose one of these:
You say that the ID book Of Pandas And People is not representative of ID. We can see that Behe contributed to the Pandas book, and Dembski was planning to write the revised edition. You use arguments by Behe and Dembski in support of your position on ID. I assume that you think these arguments are representative of ID? Yet this ID textbook to which both Behe and Dembski are shown to have an affiliation is somehow not representative of ID? How do you explain this contradiction?
Comment by Odd Digit — November 6, 2006 @ 5:17 am
November 6th, 2006 at 10:04 am
I don't doubt that the roots of ID as a philosophy come directly from a priori Christian beliefs. Dembski has said as much, somewhere. If Christ is the creator, then evidence of that fact, design, might be apparent. ID flowed out of prior theological beliefs. Hence, the links to Pandas. But, as Mike has said, the logic still holds no matter who or what might have done the creating. It does not have to be the Christian God. Dembski and Behe might be wrong about the creator, but right about ID. The general sense would then be that if some kind of intelligence operated in creation, that might be identifiable thru design. It doesn't have to be the Christian God. I have read the Bible and have association with the Christian religion in the past. I have a sense of the Christian God. I also have a good sense of the nature of the development of life on the planet. Deep time-descent with modification-the presence of death long before a supposed fall of man-faulty design. Quite honestly, the God and the Bible and the "God" of ID, are not the same person-intelligence, in my opinion. Demski has tried to deal with the problem of death before the fall and faulty design in a theodicy writing available on his website. It seems like special pleading to me. In the long run, I think Christian IDists are going to see that they have created and bitten off more than they realized. Randall is correct in his concerns about Christian ID. But, Telic Thoughts ID, that's another matter. Related but not the same. IMHO
Comment by bj — November 6, 2006 @ 10:04 am
November 6th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Hah! LOL! Wouldn't this be wonderful in an idealistic world! "˜Simply-the-logic'!
"˜Telic Thoughts ID' is a "˜simply agnostic' form of ID (yet there are theists who are among the "˜representatives' of TT's) "“ that is, without knowledge of the basis on which "˜their' views of ID stand. So it prefers to live in a vacuum whereby it ignores the actual coining of the words (i+d) that it is defending (in Joy's case, excluding the "˜science' from the "˜theology,' as NOMA would promote, "˜scientifically speaking'). It would be an outrage if anyone in the IDM actually cared enough to respond to such a claim by TT's to the "˜true ID' against its own perspective as the proven source of "˜controversy'. TT's ID is rather simply a small branch of ID that has taken advantage of ID successes and failures.
The IDM, in attempting to build a Big Tent of adherents, accepts theists, atheists, agnostics, scientists, fideists, culturologists, political scientists; anyone who could be conceived as supporting their dynamic concept duo! Of course, it is then obvious why Mike Gene chastises anyone who gives too much credit to the IDM, since he both profits from his connection with the IDM (e.g. recently quoting Dembski's statement from 4 or 5 years ago that he is "˜insightful') and by distancing himself from those places where ID has soundly failed (e.g. teaching ID in American public schools, while he himself carries a Cdn passport!).
In the above words of Mike Gene ("˜simply the logic of ID'), Telic Thoughts-ID seems to be actually vying for legitimacy as the "˜true ID,' even though it didn't originate the concept/percept or theory in the first place! This is similar to claiming the reality of a "˜Post-Wedge World' when you didn't present the "˜Wedge' in the first place. Incredibly presumptuous! A question: how can one "˜post' the wedge "˜world' when they didn't wedge the world in the first place?
Please notice how rarely Alfred Russell Wallace is mentioned by both the IDM and TT's. Notice also how evolution in non-natural sciences is almost completely ignored, and notice that Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Nelson, Richards, Gonzales, Chapman, Witt, Pearcy, etc. (i.e. the IDM) all accept theories of evolution to one degree or another. None of them wants to "˜fully situate evolution' because they might appear somehow "˜unscientific' or "˜unscholarly.' And none of them appears capable of exceeding the creation vs. evolution dichotomy because they require elements of both creation and evolution in their ID ideologies.
It will thus be left up to someone (a prediction) from a younger generation to ultimately eclipse the creation vs. evolution dichotomy in a way that both creation and evolution can be respected for what they are and are not. I would ask both TT's and anti-IDists to quit giving "˜creationists' a bad label because anyone who believes in God accepts the reality of God's creation. Likewise, the notion that "˜evolution is a theory of everything' is overstating things to the extreme and disqualifying alternative views in the process.
I have been watching this TT's blog since it started and 'speaking' with people at TT's since before it formed. For a while I posted at TT's thinking that people here might actually be able to contribute something to "˜telic thinking,' whatever that may be. When they didn't respond to Allen MacNeil's insights last summer about causality and the place of "˜final' and "˜formal' causality in modern science it made me think that they weren't sensitive to the broader issues involved in telic thinking. When Mike Gene admitted that he doesn't/didn't care about the impact of ID on discourses related to "˜science, philosophy or theology,' and that he was just following his own "˜hunch,' as a personal "˜hobby,' it showed me that TT's would not be able to seriously contribute to larger conversations, and that it was indeed pigeon-holed in its own way.
Over time, the conclusion I came to was that TT's was mainly a political soapbox, a place to complain that "˜they' (a small dis-unified group of "˜telic thinkers') were unfortunately not in the spotlight. Likewise, even if (they admitted that) the IDM got it "˜partly correct' still the actual meaning of ID is a purely relativistic concept. ID, according to TT's, is still subservient to the absolutism of evolution as today's dictatorial creation narrative.
Neither mainstream IDists nor TT-IDists are the same as "˜creationists,' here I agree with Mike, Krauze, Steve, Joy, Randall and others, over against the myopic views of Odd Digit (even given that "˜Pandas' did show particular connections) and his atheist-anti-ID cronies. After all, at TT's they still hang on too tightly to evolutionism "“ just post a respectable article about evolution and watch TT's either label it as Darwinian or accept it as "˜the true hand of Science.' Joy's rants against "˜Darwin Defenders©' are noteworthy, yet easily dismissible given that she accepts evolutionary theories as do others at TT's.
Which evolution(s)? is a question disregarded by both mainstream IDists and TT's-IDists.
On the TT's blog, let me direct your attention to the category called "˜design inference.' Notice that it has less than a half-dozen threads in its name? Also notice how "˜telic thinking' is conspicuously absent in the blog supposedly formed for just that purpose! TT's has become so wrapped around the (political) concept duo of i+d that it cannot function properly as a place to discuss telic thoughts (against that exact warning of some visitors over a year ago)!
Though I appreciate Mike Gene's curiosity and imagination, there is nothing "˜simply logical' about Telic Thoughts-ID. If viewers were to check into the mission of the blog they would see the political dimension spelled out immediately. There are hunters of good and bad press here, anti-atheists, anti-ID critics, promoters of a new religion, defenders of SCIENCE (while careful about scientism), and most of all antagonists to both theistic evolutionists (as if a responsible Christian could embrace both God and evolutionary science!) and Richard Dawkins and his followers.
Part-journalism of ID-related events, part-criticism of atheistic anti-IDists, theistic YEC-IDists (though the softness toward Salvador Cordova given here is noticeable), and anyone who would say evolution is not the "˜theory of everything' that Mike and Krauze and Steve and Macht think it is, and what results is a mosaic contribution to the ID mess that America and to some degree Britain (the country of Darwin and HERBERT Spencer) have landed us in! One could easily conclude that TT's formed in reaction to the assertion that Richard Dawkins is FOS and deluded in his own way. But this would under-symbolize the longing for truth that is held by TTists who apparently want to know where they are headed and what is their significance just as much as the next person. Theology and religion have traditionally held answers to such questions and still do "“ it is the trusting of such questions to scientists and scholars such as Dawkins and Dennett, Eugenie Scott that have led to questioning by those who find their answers insufficient.
Like Mike, Randall and Joy, I don't equate ID with creationism. Randall's contribution is welcome and much-needed imho, since TT's has high-jacked teleology as being without theological significance. The source of Mike Gene's front loading is problematic. The meaning and destiny of ID is up in the air. And the future of science as a professional, public, critical and reflexive field of study is left to both younger and older generations to untangle.
Mike, when will you give up capitalizing Science, Nature and Life? Do you not see this method as a holdover of Enlightenment thinking whereby Reason and Progress were elevated and religion was desecrated from its traditional place? In doing this, you ignore the entire discourse that Randall Hardy is highlighting in saying that ID *is* anti-naturalism.
When you ask "Why think of God as one more thing that exists as part of Nature?" then it seems you almost get it. And yet you remain stubbornly unwilling to include the domain of theology (even) into the conversation. What gives, Mike?!
Going further, you appreciate that "God's existence is not tied up in the ability of a microscope or teloscope to find him as yet one more thing that is part of our reality. God's existence is tied up in the depth of our reality." And so it leaves the reader in a confused position about what you want to defend and promote. "Even if we were to treat Dawkins as if he knew what he was talking about," asks Mike, "is there reason to think our instruments are up to the task of God-detecting?" Perhaps our "˜equipment' is not up to the task in a purely empirical pragmatic sense of asking. But why not ask instead if we can "˜feel' or "˜experience' God and God's love in our human existence? Why reduce the discussion of (the concept of) God to mere "˜detection'?
Just this past week Mike denied that he was agnostic (asking when he had ever said it, though it is noted that someone else within the last two days here asked again if he hadn't previously said he was agnostic). It might then be the question for Mike: where in evolutionary theories is there place for God as the source of original origins (e.g. front-loading), as the continuing creator/evolvor, and/or as the omnipotent interventionist that many religious believers (Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, as well as Bahai's and many others) envisage God as being? Can't God in fact be the "˜designer/Designer' that most IDists say God is?
What would it take for Mike Gene to conclude that his front-loaded-evolutionary-IDist position can actually be attributed to (his hunch[es] about) the creative power of God, Jahweh, Jehovah, instead of to some meaningless, random, process-of-change-over-time that is based upon materialistic, naturalistic and/or a-theological presuppositions? Does the ideology of "˜change-over-time' automatically supplant any positive or negative conception of God as beyond merely material or natural categories? Is there then a question about suspending one's disbelief, of detaching them-self from answering questions of ultimate significance, refusing to enter a higher level of conversation than when/where mere natural science is allowed to go? Perhaps the latter question need not be so.
Inquiring telic thinking minds would like to know.
G. Arago
p.s. though this message was written before reading bj's post, I quite agree with his statements: "Randall is correct in his concerns about Christian ID. But, Telic Thoughts ID, that's another matter. Related but not the same. IMHO" and "I don't doubt that the roots of ID as a philosophy come directly from a priori Christian beliefs."
p.p.s. this importance placed on language may encourage some at Telic Thoughts, instead of writing, "ID is not anti-evolution," as Mike Gene wrote, to instead write "Telic Thoughts-ID is not anti-evolution." This might help to clarify who is speakiing for and about what.
p.p.p.s. Mike, I tried to send a comment at Design Matrix and then a personal e-mail, but neither seem to work. If you still have my address could you please send a message so I can reach you?
Comment by g arago — November 6, 2006 @ 11:27 am
November 6th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
g. arago:
Since you mentioned me, I'll attempt once again to respond in a way that you'll understand, maybe even accept without complaint that I'm not religiously-motivated enough for your tastes.
Science is not about religion, nor about final causation. I don't know how it can be put more simply in the English language. This is honestly not difficult to understand. Whatever theological implications are imputed to science's creation story[ies] is a matter for theologians and their denominational GAs to deal with. They are not science's job to untangle or to justify or to apply.
Were this not so, science would be just another branch of theology. Dawkins is as wrong about this unreasonable conflation as you are.
The "True ID?" Once again you want to throw evolution back to theology to decide, and once again I'll tell you that science is not theology. ID and telic thinking is just a way of thinking about life, regardless of pronouncements from on high known as "Darwinian Orthodoxy." Which is scientism - just another religion - not science.
Pick your favorite and back it, Gregory. Or reject it all. I don't care what position you take, but it does bug me that you keep insisting you can read minds, know what's 'truly True', and can arbitrate your 'true Truth' for all of humanity.
Maybe it's because you're not a US citizen (are you?), thus are unfamiliar with our Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court and its subdivisions in actually arbitrating what is or is not legal in this country. The Wedge was a plan to insert ID (as a theistic version of Creationism) into public schools. It failed because that is unconstitutional - the court has ruled. Until and unless ID precepts and theoretical framework (when there is one?) are accepted by science *as* science, it can't be taught in public schools *as* science. That isn't difficult to understand either.
Those whose theistic notions of ID and/or ID-Creationism are illegal to teach in public schools can teach their versions in religious schools and Sunday School. The government can't stop them. Nor can the government - or science/scientists, EAs, etc. - dictate to citizens what they *must* believe about origins and evolution. Public school students taught NDS in science class and pass the test to demonstrate their ability to regurgitate the data on command, are not required to believe (or even retain) a single word of it.
Citizens still choose what they believe, and are still free to do so. A majority of them reject it. There's nothing you or Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers or anyone else can do about that, so it's best to just get over it.
"Christian ID" is… what, if not Christian-ID? Do you have a problem with it, or are you just insisting that everyone who thinks there's something to the idea must be Christian? The idea that life was 'created' as opposed to spontaneously generated by accident, and the idea that life displays purpose and strives to fulfill it, predates Christianity by as much time on the timeline as there were homo sapiens on this planet.
Even Neandertal had religious ideas and creation stories. The observation that life is purposeful may stand in direct contradiction to modern nihilistic versions of Evangelical Atheism, but that doesn't mean the observation is Christian. Even if many/most Christians observe this fact too.
All any of us speak about are our own observations, thoughts, analysis and ideas. Including you, though you do like to pretend you speak for everyone BUT yourself. If someone wants to be anti-evolution I honestly don't care. If someone insists that because they believe-in evolution all people must be forced to bow down to their views, I do care. It's a gross violation of human liberty and an exercise in pointless egotism.
Our beliefs can't be dictated by you any more than by Dawkins or Dobson. The attempt is a total waste of life in time. Which is a shame to watch, but not something anyone else can dictate either. Accepting that reality is advisable, but not required. Your obsession with other people's religious beliefs is no more impressive than Dawkins'. And no more your business than his.
Comment by Joy — November 6, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
November 6th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Mike Gene:
Good point, Mike, but one that apparently needs to be repeated often. Dembski made the point pretty clear in his book The Design Revolution when he said that ID seeks to differentiate between undirected, natural causes on the one hand, and intelligent causes on the other. There's nothing inherently 'anti-evolution' in that, nor is there anything requiring supernatural intervention, as is often claimed. Its a simple concept.
Comment by DonaldM — November 6, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
November 7th, 2006 at 8:02 am
DonaldM says (emphasis added):
Actually Dembski makes the exact opposite perfectly clear just here:
And ID is creationism in the exact same way that evolution is science. There are a lot more claims made for science as a whole then there are for evolution. There are a lot more claims made for creationism as a whole that there are for ID. Evolution is still a subset of science and ID is still a subset of creationism. As Randall mentioned earlier:
The arguments made by ID are exactly the same as the arguments made by creationism, with replacement of the word 'creator' with 'designer' and 'creation' with 'design'. As demonstrated rather well by the ID textbook Of Pandas and People.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 7, 2006 @ 8:02 am
November 7th, 2006 at 8:23 am
Randall,
sorry, I had somehow missed your earlier reply. Sorry for the late response, I wasn't deliberately ignoring you!
You say:
I was not responding to you as a 'defender' of ID, I was responding to your assertion that ID is not creationism. I believe it is, and I have made a number of arguments to that end in this thread.
I do understand your perspective Randall. I think it is based on the fallacy that ID is not creationism.
I geneally lump ID advocates and creationists together because they are making the same fallacious arguments and because they both have a history of attacking science education (although the latter doesn't hold for this blog).
I wouldn't read too much into the response from Mike Gene that 'Telic Thoughts ID' and the DI version are somehow different. I have been visiting this blog for a while and I have yet to be convinced of the difference between the two. The only difference I have spotted is that some of the contributors here have stated that they don't want ID taught in science classes, and they don't believe ID is scientific.
The arguments made for ID on this site are all DI arguments though (with the possible exception of front loading). The contributers here will strenously defend pronouncements made by the likes of Dembski, Behe and Meyer, all senior fellows at the DI. This is in spite of the dismantling that Behe's arguments received during the Dover trial.
And the problem with front loading is that all the data that is used in support of the concept can be more parsimoniously explained by the already extremely well supported scientific mechanism called common descent. Front loading also begs exactly the same question as ID - who by?
Comment by Odd Digit — November 7, 2006 @ 8:23 am
November 7th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Odd Digit is the kind of True Believer [TM] who would have agreed with Harlow Shapley & Co. back in the '30s, '40s, 50's and '60s, who insisted against all evidence that the public must not be told the universe had a beginning. Because it sounded too much like "Let there be light."
It's nothing new. When any science becomes an "Orthodoxy" instead of simply doing its job, it becomes nothing more than a corruption - just another religion in the dueling metaphysics game. It's illegal in the US for public money to be used to promote anybody's religion.
Charlie Darwin funded his own so-important "research." I'm sure modern EAs won't mind putting their own money where their mouths are.
Comment by Joy — November 7, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
November 7th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Off Topic:
What is GRISDA? And how reputable are the scientists associated with them? Particularly L.J. Gibson.
Thanks for any help.
Comment by Doug — November 7, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
November 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Joy says:
Oh look, an example straight from Krauze's piece on 'how to win an argument' a few weeks ago. And one of Joy's favorite techniques.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 7, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
November 7th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
GRISDA is the Geoscience Research Institute, which operates under the auspices of the General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists.
Comment by Joy — November 7, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
November 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Joy said:
Odd Digit said:
Odd, how do you get rule 38 from Joy's post (the one you quoted)? Why do you think she is being rude and insulting with that quote? Don't be so fragile with this. I think she's just making an analogy between your reactions to the reactions of those she meantions in her post. If you have a problem with her analogy than address that.
And that's kind of what you did too with your most recent post responding to hers.
Comment by Doug — November 7, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
November 7th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Odd Digit:
"I wouldn't read too much into the response from Mike Gene that 'Telic Thoughts ID' and the DI version are somehow different."
Everybody's allowed to their own perceptions. I still remember when Josh Rosenau didn't want to discuss with me because I wasn't "a real IDist".
"And the problem with front loading is that all the data that is used in support of the concept can be more parsimoniously explained by the already extremely well supported scientific mechanism called common descent."
I've already dealt with that in this old comment to you.
"Front loading also begs exactly the same question as ID - who by?"
You mean the same way evolutionary biology "begs" the question of the origin of life?
Comment by Krauze — November 7, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
November 7th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
OD
Thanks for your belated response - not a problem with the delay. However, with the rest…
&
&
(* I have to smile at your typo which I think means generally, but if it means genially then I think that is pushing it too far!)
Seriously, what do I read into the above? OD lives on the plain, anyone who sees the mountains from any other perspective is, according to his wisdom, wrong. Do you understand my perspective? If you really do then you need to reason with my logic not yours.
Would you be happy for me to treat you the way you treat me? What if I said, "I generally lump all atheists together because they make the same fallacious arguments and because they all have a history of ferociously attacking all non-atheists?"
If that is true, then I am not surprised that you insist I see the world from only your perspective for you, and your fellow atheists, become the sole judges of truth. Do you believe that?
Rather than assume you do, here is a comment by Dawkins in response to when Alister McGrath's (UK) challenged his knowledge of Christian theology, saying it was is extremely limited.
Do you agree or disagree with him? If you agree, then rather than try and convert me to your logic, just tell me you don't believe there is a rift valley which stands between my theological convictions and those in whatever part of the ID movement you care to point at and be done with. End the conversation in other words.
Dawkins has often described people like me as "Rome-deniers", though he did not acknowledged that it was borrowed from a comment by one of his evolutionary forebears (I can't remember which), though they cited different civilisation. Why it is convenient for you, and Dawkins, to deny that there is any content in Christian theology? Why do you deny that I have a serious theological difference with supporters of ID? Is it laziness, as I suggested above, or like Dawkins don't you want to admit that there is logic and coherence in it? Is the problem that you don't understand it and don't want to?
I will try and say it again as simply as I can. The gap between my own position and that of those in any part of the ID movement may not be as wide, but it is as real as the gap between you and those in the ID movement. Of course I suspect that you think science is real and theology isn't and therefore there can be no gaps between religious convictions.
Now we are on the subject of science, and the atheists' monopoly of the definition of all words associated with it. Again I think you are completely wrong when you say;
Joy is far more accurate when she says;
(OK I know it spans two sentences!)
Evolution is in fact nothing more than a paradigm through which people look to try and make sense of the data. Some use an ID paradigm. Others a Hindu one and so on. Out on a limb are people like me who look at the data through a Christian creationist paradigm. The fact the evolutionary paradigm is in vogue at the moment, does not make it the right one. But today's Darwinian Inquisition is prosecuted with as much vengeance as Roman church disastrously pursued a series of Inquisitions in the past. You have only to watch the video posted in "Dawkins and his disciples" to see that.
So OD let me repeat. Give me evidence that you are trying to appreciate where I am coming from and not insisting that I define life from your place on the plain. The view from the mountains is much better, though it is tougher as well. From where I stand genuine Christian Creatorism is not the same as ID, but you are fast convincing me that all atheists are mind-clones of each other no matter how loud they protest they are not!
Comment by Randall — November 7, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
November 8th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Hi OD,
Let's get to it:
You are simply restating what I already wrote: "Pandas is irrelevant outside the narrowly defined mission of the court."
Since you insist on using your broad brush to label us all as Creationists, you'll need to step outside the contrived settings of that courtroom and deal with the reality of an ID guy who had no part in the writing of Pandas, and in fact, has never even read Pandas.
All you did was quote Behe claiming that he did not think that short statement would harm the student's science education.
Next we find that Behe contributed some section to Pandas where he was beginning to work out his idea of IC.
Then, you quote Behe as he introduces the concept of ID in a section of the part of the book he wrote. You then write:
What did I say? I said:
You freely chose to omit all this context as you portray what I "say." Explain why you chose to omit this context.
No. These are definitions that go back to Paley and even further back to Greek philosophers. This is basic history that is taught at several universities.
I answered your question in ID101: " For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins "“ with a question."
Why did you choose to ignore my answer? Would you have us ignore the question? Does the question bother you?
Because a) they don't help from my investigative perspective and b) I don't agree with them. Why do you think I was supposed to choose one of them?
I see you now make this claim twice, and in doing so, twice chose to omit the context I provided. Explain why you chose to omit this context. Outline the thinking process that you used to make this decision.
Comment by MikeGene — November 8, 2006 @ 12:04 am
November 8th, 2006 at 2:47 am
I figure you folks here at TT will be happy to note out that the coming theocracy has taken a giant step backwards with, as of this writing, the Democrats haven taken control of the House of Representatives and leading in three races which would give them the majority in the Senate. Most of the credit has to go to Mr. Bush's War, of course, but I would like to think at least part of the reason for Rick Santorum's landslide defeat was his support of IDism which helped lead to the debacle in Dover, Pa. Arrogant Republican belief that they could create their own reality has collided with the brick wall of actual reality, with predictable results; tragic in the case of Iraq, and more farcical than anything else in regards to IDism. Hopefully we have heard the last of any serious efforts to inject anti-evolutionism into public school science classrooms, at least until the top secret ID research is triumphantly revealed to shatter Mr. Darwin's paradigm.
Comment by Aagcobb — November 8, 2006 @ 2:47 am
November 8th, 2006 at 4:56 am
Randall, you say:
And it is there that I must bow out I'm afraid. All I can do is recommend that you do some more reading about evolution as you have a profound misunderstanding of what it is.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 8, 2006 @ 4:56 am
November 8th, 2006 at 5:14 am
Mike:
You said:
I had already posted this in this thread (the context):
You have not contested this finding. Are you going to contest this? Do you agree with the judges ruling? Because this is the uncontested context in which I am speaking, and in this context your position can be accurately summarised as:
So, your position as I understand it can be summarised as either:
* You contest the decision of the court that Pandas contains a straighforward word for word replacement of 'creationism' with 'design', or
* You accept the decision of the court and you do not think the Pandas book is representative of ID
Which is it?
Comment by Odd Digit — November 8, 2006 @ 5:14 am
November 8th, 2006 at 6:47 am
Mike, as the stupid cretinist that you are, you are too weak to deal with reality without the crutch of authority. So obviously, you must treat everything by Dembski as holy writ, agreeing with it chapter and verse. When Odd Digit quotes Dembski saying something you disagree with, the appropriate action is to apologize and immediately change your position.
Comment by Krauze — November 8, 2006 @ 6:47 am
November 8th, 2006 at 7:34 am
I don't think Mike Gene's IDism is based on creationism, though mainstream IDism is. As far as I can tell, Mike Gene's IDism is based on an episode of "Star Trek-The Next Generation" in which Captain Pickard learns that the reason why the Galaxy is full of aliens that look like people in Halloween make-up is because an ancient race of aliens seeded the galaxy with primitive life front-loaded to evolve into people who look like they are wearing Halloween make-up.
Comment by Aagcobb — November 8, 2006 @ 7:34 am
November 8th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Krauze,
what I'm interested in is why Mike is quite happy to quote some parts of what Behe and Dembski say as 'holy writ' and not others. I'd like a reasoned argument as to why Dembski is wrong in this case.
We see Mike complaining mightily on multiple threads about the tiniest nuances of everything Dawkins says, yet when Dembski says something that Mike according to you 'disagrees with' why is not dealt with in the same way?
It appears to me to comp