1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Have a nice day.

[The Brain]

I've been having a few nice days lately

[shadowhawk]

https://www.youtube....Q0NJQ_z3U#t=502

[The Brain]

[shadowhawk]

Dawkins asserts that final causes and design don’t really exist. Unguided evolution explains it all. Francis Crick thought the same thing but was afraid people would be misled by what they actually saw. So he issued this warning: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” What? A warning to ignore the obvious? Absolutely. Because if we don’t ignore the obvious, we might be tempted to follow common sense and attribute the “appearance” of design to actual design. — Frank Turek (from, Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case)

[The Brain]

Wow, I've been waiting for that tactic for two days


Desperate times eh...

[shadowhawk]

Again you say nothing.  Why don't you tell us where you waited and whether it was an intelligent wait?  And what was the "tactic," you were waiting for?

 

Design is a real part of this world and ID is reality.  Observing ID is so obvious but try convincing the willful blind.

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 April 2015 - 06:35 PM.

[The Brain]

We both know my comment is regarding your wanky behaviour in these threads, is there any reason for them to continue when you clearly just have an agenda that turns others away from participating?

[shadowhawk]

Why don't you participate?  All you are doing is committng logical fallacies and calling names.  Don't you have anything to say about ID?  What are you afraid of?

[The Brain]

You didn't address the issue at hand, your behaviour...

Can the threads really go anywhere when you've ruined them yourself???

[shadowhawk]

Since you are saying absolutely nothing and for many posts have said nothing but one long string of adhominems and logical fallacies I am tired of this childish game.  So I am going to continue to post to things on topic and ignore these kinds of posts.  You and Dead brain have fun talking to yourself.

[The Brain]

Seems like you've cornered the market on talking to yourself really. Most of your threads are you just posting rubbish for your own gratification.

Lol

[shadowhawk]

[Clacksberg]

Careful guys before it turns into a cactus war!

 

Been interseted in the ID debate (and the simulation hypothesis) for a while.

 

Time asymmetry with respect to information flow is interesting, like David Bohms ideas and the possibility of morphic resonance, another one - would put an interesting light on ID.

i'm about 50/50 on ID btw. I mean religion doesn't really have to come into it?

[shadowhawk]

Careful guys before it turns into a cactus war!

 

Been interseted in the ID debate (and the simulation hypothesis) for a while.

 

Time asymmetry with respect to information flow is interesting, like David Bohms ideas and the possibility of morphic resonance, another one - would put an interesting light on ID.

i'm about 50/50 on ID btw. I mean religion doesn't really have to come into
 

I agree with the statement that it is not about religion at all though its detractors want it to be.  It is about design.  I just posted two studies on the design in worms.  Both of them raise some interesting issues regarding something as simple as worms.

[calyptus]

The question shouldn't be if ID is science or not, because it clearly isn't. It doesn't offer a predictive model to be falsified, instead it tries to argue from the lack of such a (currently existing) sufficient model.

 

The question should be whether ID CAN be science or not, and how. But then it'd be either about panspermia or another natural teleological hypothesis, or philosophy of science needs to falsify methodological naturalism by coming up with a methodology that can evaluate supernatural causes.

Edited by calyptus, 26 April 2015 - 05:31 AM.

[Clacksberg]

Supernatural's the wrong word ! that means outside of nature, this force is in nature (if it exists)

Also we've probably got the methodology now.

[calyptus]

Supernatural's the wrong word ! that means outside of nature, this force is in nature (if it exists)

Also we've probably got the methodology now.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say; there's a force of nature(or there isn't) responsible for ID, that can be falsified under methodological naturalism?

 

If you don't even know if it exists or not, how can you present any mechanism that can be falsified?

Edited by calyptus, 26 April 2015 - 06:41 PM.

[shadowhawk]

ID is not a Christian view though Christians may find it helpful just like science.  Here is a Christian discussion which may be very helpful by WL Craig.

 

"From student to Craig:

So my questions for you are:

1) What is your definition of intelligent design?

2) Is intelligent design something that Christians should believe in?

3) If Christians should believe in intelligent design, then why do some people not believe in it? Are they just confused on the meaning of intelligent design?

I appreciate your time.

Drew

United States

I understand your bewilderment, Drew. In one sense every Christian believes in intelligent design, since the God of the Bible is an intelligent Creator of the world who had certain ends in mind which He intended to realize. So of course the world is the product of intelligent design!

So if we are to understand the professors’ statements, we must be careful to define our terms. Whenever anyone engages you on the topic of intelligent design, immediately ask him to define his terms, or you may be lost in ambiguity and confusion.

I think it advisable to capitalize “Intelligent Design" (ID) in order to signal that we are using the words in a technical sense, rather than in the sense accepted by every Christian. Broadly speaking, we may say that ID is a theory of justifiable design inferences. That is to say, it’s a theory which seeks to answer the question: what justifies us in inferring that design is the best explanation of some phenomenon? It is obvious that we make such design inferences all the time. A teacher who finds that a student’s term paper reproduces sections from Wikipedia realizes that this is not the result of chance but of deliberate plagiarism. Archaeologists excavating a site readily discern the difference between the products of sedimentation and metamorphosis and human artifacts. A beachcomber who comes upon a sandcastle recognizes that it’s not the result of the action of the waves and the wind but of intelligent design.

Some of these inferences are so obvious that it never even occurs to us to ask why we are justified in making such inferences to design. But philosophically, it’s no trivial matter to provide a theory of what makes a design inference justified. The theory of Intelligent Design seeks to provide just such an account. As an account of justified design inferences, Intelligent Design theory is of interest to a wide variety of fields: for example, to cryptographers who are trying to discern whether a sequence of letters is just meaningless jibberish or an encoded message; to crime scene investigators who want to determine whether the fire was a result of natural causes or of arson; to searchers for extra-terrestrial intelligence who are trying to make out whether the signal they’re receiving is just random noise or a message from an extra-terrestrial intelligence, and so on and so forth.

ID theorists have offered a number of accounts of what justifies a design inference. Undoubtedly one of the most sophisticated which has been offered comes from the mathematician William Dembski in his book The Design Inference, which appeared in Cambridge University Press’s monograph series on Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. Dembski argues that a design inference is justified when two conditions are met: first, the event to be explained is extraordinarily improbable and, second, the event corresponds to an independently given pattern.

In its most fundamental sense, then, Intelligent Design is a theory of design inferences which is applicable to a number of diverse fields. While disagreement may exist over which theory of design inference is correct, this is hardly the point at which Intelligent Design encounters heated opposition. Rather controversy arises when the theory of Intelligent Design is applied to the field of biology. For Dembski and other ID theorists have made the controversial claim that biological organisms exhibit just that combination of high improbability and conformity to an independently given pattern that justifies an inference to intelligent design. Accordingly, they maintain that we are justified scientifically in inferring that biological complexity is best explained by Intelligent Design.

This claim has drawn down upon ID theorists the wrath of the scientific establishment. Some, like Richard Dawkins, reject Intelligent Design out of anti-metaphysical or, rather, anti-religious motives. They believe that ID is just religion masquerading as science. But ID theorists have repeatedly insisted that the design inference is not an inference to theism but merely to some sort of intelligent agency. This disclaimer is not, I think, disingenuous, since they do not claim to be able to infer such qualities as the designer’s goodness or eternality, which leaves the door open for other intelligent agents as responsible for biological design. Ironically, Dawkins actually agrees with the most fundamental tenets of Intelligent Design theory: (i) that Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis which should be assessed as such, (ii) that it is illegitimate to exclude a priori from the pool of explanatory options hypotheses which appeal to final causes or even supernatural beings, and (iii) that the design inference is not to be equated with an inference to theism. It is remarkable that someone who is so dogmatically committed to Darwinism and so derisive with respect to religious belief should nonetheless find himself so supportive of some of the central tenets of ID. If you saw the movie “Expelled,” you may recall the interview in which Dawkins shows himself willing, if necessary, to countenance an inference to Intelligent Design, just so long as the designers are extra-terrestrial creatures who are themselves the product of an undesigned, evolutionary process. What he will not countenance, on philosophical grounds, is any kind of supernatural intelligence. That remains an inference to Intelligent Design. What follows is that ID is not religious creationism masquerading as science.

Obviously, theists, who believe in an intelligent designer of the universe, may not be on board with all the tenets of ID. My greatest reservation, for example, is the claim that the inference to a designer is supposed to constitute a scientific theory. As a philosopher, I tend to think that such an inference is philosophical or metaphysical in character rather than part of a new, rival scientific theory. I agree with the philosopher Brad Monton, when he writes,

one of the main lines of attack against intelligent design is to argue that intelligent design isn’t science. Even though I’m an atheist, I wanted to defend intelligent design by taking issue with this line of attack. Ultimately, what we really want to know isn’t whether intelligent design is science – what we really want to know is whether intelligent design is true. We could, if we wanted, agree with . . . Judge Jones that intelligent design is not science. But if it turns out that intelligent design is true, would the fact that it’s not science really matter. . .? (Brad Monton, Seeking God in Science, p. 53-4)

For my part, it’s a matter of relative indifference whether you class a design inference in biology as science or philosophy. The important question is whether such an inference is justified. That can’t be decided by mere labels.

So in response to your questions:

1) What is your definition of intelligent design? This is not the right question. We need to let ID theorists speak for themselves and not impose our meanings on their statements. That’s part of the problem! I’ve tried to explain above what they mean by Intelligent Design.

2) Is intelligent design something that Christians should believe in? Certainly, Christians must believe in (lower-case) intelligent design, since we believe in a provident God who has a plan for this world He has created. But belief in ID as a theory is not obligatory. One must assess the case ID theorists make and then decide whether to adopt all, some, or none of the tenets of ID, especially in application to biology.

3) If Christians should believe in intelligent design, then why do some people not believe in it? Are they just confused on the meaning of intelligent design? Of course, there is great confusion about ID. Some people wrongly take it to be religion or some form of creationism. On the other hand, as explained above, one may be an enthusiastic proponent of design arguments from nature without embracing all the tenets of ID. So you need to ask people who decry ID, “Exactly which tenets of ID do you reject?” That will tell you right away whether they understand what they are talking about!"

Read more: http://www.reasonabl...n#ixzz3ZIwlrJKN

[The Brain]

Can't you put your own argument forward

Always relying on others to support views you hold is pretty weak...

[shadowhawk]

as always, brain dead.  Name calling.  I have never heard you say anything related to the subject worth reading.  Not interested. 

[The Brain]

Why don't you invite these people you constantly quote to support your arguments here to comment?

At least let them see who is using their material and how it's being used......

[calyptus]

 

ID is not a Christian view though Christians may find it helpful just like science.  Here is a Christian discussion which may be very helpful by WL Craig.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Wedge_strategy

 

It's rare that a single piece of evidence can debunk this whole farce, and your comment. If you think WLC is in any way a philosopher of science you haven't been paying attention. His treatise on relativity is a great example of why he should stay out of the field.

Edited by calyptus, 08 May 2015 - 04:38 PM.

[shadowhawk]

What a joke.  You attack the person rather than what is said about ID.  Read it again.  http://www.longecity...0#entry726442  ID is about design inferances not religion.  Many agnostics as well as atheists hold to ID and are part of it.  Christians have long been involved in science and have various views just as non Christians.  Some Christians hold to ID and others do not.  Francis Collans a leading scientist was head of the genome mapping project which gave us the DNA map is a devout Christian.  The Big Bang theory was fathered by a Roman Catholic priest.  It is presently the dominant cosmology among scientists.  I could go on and on but my point is that Christians, like everyone else, are interested in ID and some like it and some don't.  You said nothing about ID and instead attacked the person in an ad hominem.  Then you cite a hotly contested wikipedia article which has been the subject of editing wars.  That debunks my post?  Read it again.

[calyptus]

What a joke.  You attack the person rather than what is said about ID.  Read it again.  http://www.longecity...0#entry726442  ID is about design inferances not religion. 

 

And I just showed you evidence that the ID-movement is trying to cram it into science as theistic creationism and thus has everything to do with religion, even if they flat out lie when asked. It's not what the metaphysically possible naturalistic ID proposed by these atheists is, which the exact piece of evidence is showing.

 

Naturalistic ID and supernaturalistic ID are not the same thing, and similar to theistic and secular morality, you're once again trying to use(parrot) equivocation fallacies to muddy the water and present them as the same thing. The fundies going for ID know this, because if this distinction is present, trying to "prove" intelligent design will just end up into the panspermia hypothesis, and the old "goddidit" is once again rejected. It's why you don't  see Dembski or Behe presenting a testable mechanism, just 'irreducable complexity' or 'specified complexity', which focus on debunking evolution/abiogenesis, not about presenting any supernatural mechanism.

 

 

 

Once again, the label isn't important, the concept is.

 

Oh, and do try to refrain from calling fallacies if you have no education in them. Tone of posting isn't an ad hominem, because I'm fed up with either your ignorance or your dishonesty. Neither are personal insults. I clearly motivated my disdain for your "article". Craig is not a good philosopher, he's a sophist great at preaching to the choir and debating. Similar to Hitchins, only he had no philosophy degree to tout.

 

 

 Then you cite a hotly contested wikipedia article which has been the subject of editing wars.  That debunks my post?  Read it again.

 

Oh but if you're going to use the wikipedia-argument, which I actually debunked as my bachelors thesis on the effectiveness of intersubjectivity(essentially making you posting subjective non-peer reviewed sources riddled with bias ironic), if you want the original wedge article, here it is.

 

http://www.antievolu...tures/wedge.pdf

 

Edited by calyptus, 10 May 2015 - 11:04 AM.

[shadowhawk]

The mistake you are making is to equate the "wedge" with ID.  The "Wedge" is a concept of UC Berkley Professor Dr. Johnson and I suggest anyone wanting to know it is not the same as ID and while many theists like ID some do not.  They like other theories.  I did not use a wikipedia article.  You did.

http://www.discovery.org/f/349

 

As far as ID is concerned there are many peer review studies and as any scientific theory it is a work in progress and is "in".  That is our subject.

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 May 2015 - 12:33 AM.

[platypus]

That's BS shadowhawk, ID has not contributed anything to the scientific discourse since the time of Darwin. A couple of believers publishing bullcrap in 3rd-rate journals is not actually at the forefront of science you know. 

[shadowhawk]

As usual no content but a lot of name calling.  I don't see anything worth refuting except you haven't a clue.  Here is a discussion on peer review by Frank Typler - you know who he is don't you.  http://intelligentde...T16_29_38-07_00

 

 

[The Brain]

He didn't name call in his last post, he called the work bullcrap

Perhaps it's you that relates so closely to bullcrap as to think he calling you names


Lol

[platypus]

I am a scientist and can assess the impact of published scientific papers. ID only results in pamphlets in 3rd-rate or even non peer-reviewed journals. This means it is not a scientific theory and that it has not contributed anything to science. I'm sorry to break you the news but I have to call it how it is.