Thanks for noticing me.

While we haven't directly crossed paths, I have noticed your comments over the years. I'm glad to see you posting more at Telic Thoughts.

I appreciate our exchanges and I thank you for the time and energy you put into them.

While I’ll admit to having a political agenda similar to Joy’s in fighting against mind tyrants of all stripes, I am mostly focused on provoking independent thought (the latter as a means to the former).

It is good that you disagree with me. It provides counter-balance to what I say. In fact, if you agreed with me, I would probably have to start arguing the other side. You see, I am not interested in persuading people to follow me; I want them to think for themselves. As long as no one ideology holds sway natural competition tends to keep things in balance.

“I don’t know the Truth” doesn’t make for a very good rallying cry.

The question, which you have yet to directly answer, is…

Do you think you know the Truth for us all?

Hi Alan,

Hi, TP, I think this is the first time our paths have crossed.

In case you are interested, I think I found the comment you were looking for here.

Apparently not, according to Roger.

Personally, I think the term "Intelligent Design" was a brilliant marketing move.

Me too, one might say "imaginitve", even. I have been musing over my substitution of "real" and imaginary" for natural/else, the association with real, imaginary and complex numbers, argand diagrams, the real plane and imaginary plane being orthogonal to each other, shades of NOMA, and how, by extending complex number theory, one can end up in Minkowski space. Coincidence? I think not.

Real life presses. Will try and respond to other questions and commenters as time permits.

My initial claim is Dr. Dembski indirectly outlined a short list of SCIENTIFIC ID alternatives when he posted on Uncommon Descent…

And nowhere in that quote does Dembski use either "SCIENTIFIC" or 'hypothesis". That's a creation of your mind that you wish to assign to him. And to top it all, GodDidIt isn't on the list. These are a list of alternatives if God isn't around to DoIt.

Likewise, I believe Dr. Dembski is identifying that the scientific ID alternatives the are high up on the totem pole require God.

Right, YOU believe, not Dembski says. I'm willing to accept that YOU are the world's foremost expert on what YOU believe. I'm gonna extend the same courtesy to Dembski for what he believes.

This is why I get such a kick out of you repeating "I don't know the Truth, do you?" Because it usually follows you making claims about knowing something that wouldn't be rationally in your area of knowledge without some specific evidence that you fail to provide.

Again, this is why you and Steve will always fail to persuade others: If they share your bias, they are already persuaded, and if they don't, they understand your position is without evidential support.

You wrote…

Not so fast. Political cause is your expression and your claim. First you have to define the term, and then use objective evidence to apply it to ID consistent with its definition. You don't get me to do any work you're not willing to. Alan sucked me in for a while, despite my public misgivings, and we see how well that turned out.

Personally, I think the discussion over the term "Intelligent Design" is going quite well. I tried to do my part by not only providing the link but copying and pasting it as well. Oh well, better late than never.

To call, you have to throw some chips in the pot, my friend.

That is a fair request and normally I would take you up on it. However, it is late and there are other subjects here I don't want to distract from.

This one, small pot is yours, my friend.

To my "Careful now. I was talking about the preferred choice for a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis, not a philosophical outlook." you wrote…

That's fine. Then you are wrong about your initial claims. That isn't the "SCIENTIFIC hypothesis" of Dembski and the senior DI staff that I can tell.

My initial claim is Dr. Dembski indirectly outlined a short list of SCIENTIFIC ID alternatives when he posted on Uncommon Descent…
"The problem is not that evolution implies God does’t exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility (well, actually, space aliens who seed the Earth, time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives that don’t require God; but these are way down the totem pole for most people)."

What we have here is a discussion of the various "alternatives" and the social and religious implications of each of the alternative.

With only a minor effort of reading comprehension it is obvious that the ID alternative or alternatives that are high up on the totem pole require God to exist whereas the ID alternatives that are low on the totem pole do not.

I happen to believe what Dr. Walt Brown proposes is scientific even though he presumes God exists(www.creationscience.com). Do you agree that it is scientific? Do you agree that it is an ID alternative?

Likewise, I believe Dr. Dembski is identifying that the scientific ID alternatives the are high up on the totem pole require God.

And, yes, I suggest this is consistent with movement one of two main goals is…
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture, 1998 (Wedge Document)

As to my obsession with NOMA. I think whether or not to embrace NOMA is a personal choice. Fifth Monarchy Man firmly rejects NOMA and I respect him for that. He is consistent in his position. Nullasalus firmly embraces NOMA and has often criticized my tolerance of NOMA rejecting atheists like Dr. Myers. Nullasalus is consistent in his position and I respect him for it.

I am suspicious of those who appear to try to have it both ways (embracing and rejecting NOMA when convenient).

…and yes, I see this happening on both sides of the Culture War and disagree with all who do it.

Granted, not all that great at all, but better than anybody else so far, even using genetic algorithms.

What strange standards you have. But hey, it's an awkward situation to be in.

Nope. To think that you know the solution when you don't often indicates a lack of imagination.

The person who proposes a solution has less imagination than the person who has no solution to offer. Odd way to put it, even though I'd reject the characterization even there.

But hey, we can actually agree on something - the mechanisms and general performance of evolution is quite brilliant. Inspiring. I take that to a different conclusion than you do, obviously, but at least it's something in common.

Face it, the term "Intelligent Design" was an attempt to frame the debate to the ID Movement's advantage. It was a pretty clever maneuver really.

And that's so unheard of amongst the human population. Gotta be something sinister behind that.

I would be interested in hearing you explain of how quantum quackery is a political cause. I'm sure you could do it, I'm just curious as to which way you would go about it.

Not so fast. Political cause is your expression and your claim. First you have to define the term, and then use objective evidence to apply it to ID consistent with its definition. You don't get me to do any work you're not willing to. Alan sucked me in for a while, despite my public misgivings, and we see how well that turned out.

To call, you have to throw some chips in the pot, my friend.

Which is why your backhanded reference to Wikipedia's definition is all but meaningless. It isn't YOUR concept.

I have no idea what that means. I didn't claim it was my concept, nor am I sure what the "backhanded reference" refers to.

However, I'm of the opinion purpose is a metaphysical concept trapped on the philosophical/religious side of the NOMA divide.

Trap it anywhere you want. But you've just trapped science and all its various theories on the same side.

One should make sure there is water in the pool before one dives in.

Careful now. I was talking about the preferred choice for a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis, not a philosophical outlook.

That's fine. Then you are wrong about your initial claims. That isn't the "SCIENTIFIC hypothesis" of Dembski and the senior DI staff that I can tell.

For the record, what is your non-theistic position concerning NOMA?

I'm agnostic about it. I know you are obssessed over it, I'm not.

You wrote…

Are you kidding?
The entire point of the name is to counter the claim that the design apparent in nature, and referenced throughout the literature, was accomplished by unintelligent processes

Hopefully you can see this is my point. It was a strawman argument to start with. By definition the evolution process learns and adapts. By definition, it is intelligent.

I would suggest you would be correct to say MET claims the process lacks conscious planning or foresight.

I also understand how those who reject NOMA can say it lacks purpose. But obviously people like Ken Miller would suggest that isn't a scientific question.

Face it, the term "Intelligent Design" was an attempt to frame the debate to the ID Movement's advantage. It was a pretty clever maneuver really.

By the way, if genetic algorithms and evolution are ever capable of coming up with "very smart solutions that no engineer came up with in their wildest dreams", I take it evolutionary biologists wouldn't have all that great of a track record predicting the solutions in advance of their discovery?

Granted, not all that great at all, but better than anybody else so far, even using genetic algorithms.

Engineers and evolutionary biologists must be very religious then - their wildest dreams can't help them figure out what evolution is going to come up with by your explanation.

Nope. To think that you know the solution when you don't often indicates a lack of imagination.