So, has anybody acutally listened to the lectures?

Ok, I listened (at least to some of it).

I skipped Wuthnow.

Here is a good quote from Krauss' speech…
"The purpose of eduction is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it."

Because I agreed with most of what Krauss said, I didn't find it that interesting. I agree with Sage's opinion, he was a pretty much cheerleading his opinion.

With apologies to Donald, I couldn't make it all the way through Plantinga. He sounded too much like the philosopher he is.

Miller presented a very good summary of the Kitzmiller v. Dover. I would recommend all ID proponents listen to the first half of the Miller's speach. If you find yourself screaming "THAT ISN"T ID!", you might be understanding what actually happened in that trial. The last half is optional.

I listened to Ronald Numbers for a while, and then skipped to the end and the Q&A with Miller. I agree thar Numbers was saying ID and Creationism is "almost non-overlapping". I think that was what Miller was saying too, but he was saying this split came about recently. Personally, I see the difference too.

In case that causes some confusion, I think while Numbers, Miller and I see the difference, what was presented in the Kitzmiller Trial (my first exposure to ID) was clearly creationism being labeled as ID (with the implicit agreement of the defense witnesses).

I only made it through a third of the panel discussion.

Most of what I heard was as expected. I would be interested if anyone else picked up on something they thought was significant or profound.

OK, I found something interesting in the talk. Take a listen to the Q&A on the part about science and ethics. I think the questioner may have been mixing morals and ethics. Krauss made it clear that he believes ethics is very different from morality. I agree with Krauss on this point. What do other people think?

So, has anybody acutally listened to the lectures?

Blessed are the peace makers.

No, I haven't looked into the topic of this thread. Excuse me while I go over and sulk in the corner while muttering "It's not fair." and "But, HE started it."

I will research the lectures later.

I would be interested in you explaining how I committed a logical fallicy (that is entirely possible), because, from my point of view, I wasn't arguing that Dembski's logic was incorrect just that is was unknown and unimportant.

I didn't say you made a logical fallacy. I said after Dembski clarified his position you resorted to calling him names.

In short, what is your proposal?

As an ID proponent, I believe that nature worshiping space aliens placed each species on the earth as part of a "Species of the Month" gift plan. That explains the stasis in the fossil record, and also why evolution is not demonstrable. The aliens haven't brought us any new species for a long time though, so ID proponents have theorized that Earth's subscription has run out.

What is your proposal?

That was good critical thinking right up until you started your ad-hominems.

Thank you for noting my critical thinking. I would be interested in you explaining how I committed a logical fallicy (that is entirely possible), because, from my point of view, I wasn't arguing that Dembski's logic was incorrect just that is was unknown and unimportant.

I am more interested in understanding your positions. Do you except Common Descent as a valid assumption. If not, when do you believe the last living organism was created (not descent)? Nothing exact, 100 seconds ago? 10,000 years ago? 2 million years ago, 3 billion years ago?

Do you believe a designer of life was required, or could something like Telic Organizing Principles in Nature be a valid assumption? Do you think that a clearly designerless solution would be a more modest scientific proposal than one that assumes a designer? If so, what are the weaknesses in exploring the possibility that a purely natural process can explain why things look designed?

In short, what is your proposal?

It was not I who arbitrarily ruled things out. William Dembski clearly and forcibly posted on his blog"¦

What has he arbitrarily ruled out? He included several alternatives that don't require God.

You may think Dembski consistently and clearly states his position, I do not.

I think his statement is consistent with his published writings. I'll admit that it could have been worded better, but I easily got the gist of it.
If you are bothered by the fact that he clarified the statement after the original post, I'll remind you that you are sourcing a blog which Dembski calls his "playground". That hearkens to my original comment about looking at published work and public lectures for the real definitions of ID.

I believe ID proponents (as I call them) are far better off thinking for themselves rather than relying on slick showmen of a giant PR machine.

No argument from me. And I don't fault you for making Dembski clarify his statement. That was good critical thinking right up until you started your ad-hominems.

4. This only leaves Telic Organizing Principles in Nature for those of us bottom-of-the-totem-pole dwellers"

chunkdz responded with…

Only if you have arbitrarily ruled out a designer.

It was not I who arbitrarily ruled things out. William Dembski clearly and forcibly posted on his blog…

"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."

http://www.uncommondescent.com...
(The "way down the totem pole" items were added as an afterthought).

You may think Dembski consistently and clearly states his position, I do not.

I believe ID proponents (as I call them) are far better off thinking for themselves rather than relying on slick showmen of a giant PR machine.

1.The Telic Processes concept was in Dembski's book, Design Inference where he used it as part of his proof as to why ID was a scientific concept. Apparently, you didn't know that.

Actually, I just don't remember hearing about 'telic organizing principles in nature'.

2. You stated that "Dembski is very openly and rigorously stated his position.". Which includes that Telic Organizing Principles in Nature is an ID alternative.

Except that it's not really part of his 'position' any more than space aliens or time travelers is part of his position. Do you also demand a rigorous definition of 'time travelers'?

3. There are plenty of ID proponents (though you don't call them that) that actually and earnestly believe ID doesn't require God, space aliens or time travelers. BTW, this is the kind of ID alternative that, I too, could learn to embrace.

Your right. Then maybe Dembski was referencing Jung, or perhaps some kind of nature worship cult.

4. This only leaves Telic Organizing Principles in Nature for those of us bottom-of-the-totem-pole dwellers.

Only if you have arbitrarily ruled out a designer.

5. Since you insisted that "Dembski is very openly and rigorously stated his position." I thought you know what the heck Dembski was talking about.

If it was part of Dembski's position, I might have looked into it. But since it seems like some kind of far-fetched nature worship cult teaching, I think I'll wait. Let me know what you find out.

What's the point of this exercise?

1. The Telic Processes concept was in Dembski's book, Design Inference where he used it as part of his proof as to why ID was a scientific concept. Apparently, you didn't know that.

2. You stated that "Dembski is very openly and rigorously stated his position.". Which includes that Telic Organizing Principles in Nature is an ID alternative.

3. There are plenty of ID proponents (though you don't call them that) that actually and earnestly believe ID doesn't require God, space aliens or time travelers. BTW, this is the kind of ID alternative that, I too, could learn to embrace.

4. This only leaves Telic Organizing Principles in Nature for those of us bottom-of-the-totem-pole dwellers.

5. Since you insisted that "Dembski is very openly and rigorously stated his position." I thought you know what the heck Dembski was talking about.

telic organizing principles in nature

It sounds like it's not his idea, but that he is mentioning someone else's idea, and saying that it doesn't require God. Maybe Dawkins? Spinoza?
What's the point of this exercise?