As good vassals to the establishment, the mainstream media has accepted the responsibility to take science and magic and sunder them separate for the benefit of the laity. But as Arthur C. Clark noted many years ago in his Three Laws, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
One man's magic is another man's science.
Religious essayist Rev. Eric Strachan of the New Life Community Church in Ontario, Canada has published a short essay in The Daily Observer called "The Wonders of Intelligent Design."
Strachan writes: "There's a difference in the things that God creates, and the stuff that men and women design, a world of difference, you simply cannot compare the two, it's like comparing the artistry of Van Gogh with a pre-Kindergarten kid picking up a paintbrush for the first time. "
It's a pity this folksie contrast between the relative engineering skills of man v. God does nothing to advance my own knowledge of Intelligent Design or the controversy surrounding it.
If Strachan had taken the time during his travels to consider the relative impact of the Anthropic Principle on the Final Theory of Everything, I might better have enjoyed the time I spent reading his article.
Of course heady stuff like the Anthropic Principle or the framework for an organized Theory of Everything are not fit topics for Pastors, Priests, Rabbis, or Imams, or any other such defender of an Ordered Universe.
Science is practiced by scientists, not by priests. But recently science and religion appear to have become indistinguishable, as for example in their respective institutional intolerance of competing ideas.
The nominal bishops of the U.S. Scientific Establishment, for instance, have declared in a virtual edict that Intelligent Design is the stuff of "magic" — not science.
As good vassals to the establishment, the mainstream media has accepted the responsibility to take science and magic and sunder them separate for the benefit of the laity.
But as Arthur C. Clark noted many years ago in his Three Laws, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
One man's magic, it seems, is another man's science.
"Intelligent Design Creationism"
Strachan's article appeared in my daily Google News Alert on the key words "Intelligent Design."
My daily crop of the term "Intelligent Design" on Google News usually brings a plurality of articles that have in common a missionary intent to define Intelligent Design as a hands-down flavor of biblical creationism.
It's almost as though everyone in the Science-as-Public-Opinion business got a YouTube saying something to the effect, "Attention all Science Opinion contributors in the Main Stream Media: The following is an instruction from the Supreme Politburo at Central Command. You are hereby advised that whenever you are forced to use the two words 'Intelligent' and 'Design' together in the same sentence, you must ALWAYS include 'Creationism' as a qualifier. If you have questions about this, please submit them in writing to your supervisor. That is all."
Here's a sampling from a recent google news search of the term "Intelligent Design"…
- "…despite the fact that creationism, along with its uptown cousin "intelligent design," keeps getting expelled…" – Tornoto Star
- "Polls have shown some Americans don't even know the Earth orbits the sun. These same Americans believe in intelligent design creationism which is nothing more than a childish belief in magic. Teaching intelligent design magic is child abuse. This nonsense doesn't belong anywhere, not even in Sunday School."- South Coast Today
- "Young earth creation science and its fraternal twin, Intelligent Design profess that a great supernatural entity (God) created the world and all life on it." – IndeNews
- "The National Academy of Science, America's most prestigious group of scientists, has recently published an update of Science, Evolution, and Creationism that states: "the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproved by the findings of modern biology." Democrat and Chronicle.
This list goes on and on.
Conflating Intelligent Design with biblical creationism is a facile attempt to mold the minds of people who might otherwise be interested in the topic of Intelligent Design as a stand-alone course of study.
As Institutions, Media and Academia have taken on Intelligent Design with a palpable and sustained ferocity. The results of the Kitzmiller fiasco has also lent a fig leaf of legal legitimacy to the anti-ID movement.
The Prevailing Wind
Based on these current scientific and media biases, it would seem that Richard Dawkins has been appointed our veritable Minister of Science and Chief Defender of the Faith.
And despite the existence of a few intellectual rebels in the media, it should be noted that a majority of academic scientists are known to prefer the simple comforts of Dumb Mechanics over the ugly prospects of Intelligent Intention. Unlikely as it may be, the Orthodox Majority believes Blind Chance to be the Ultimate Cause of the Big Bang and the DNA molecule.
Remarkably, these writers and scientists seem to religiously avoid any discussion of a well-documented Anthropic phenomenon called the Observation Selection Effect (perhaps preferring instead the much easier task of denouncing the ignorance of Young Earth Creationists, or YECs).
But as we may note from the Double Slit Experiment, the simple act of observation may turn out to be a Cause in Itself.
In other words, at some level, observation may be a self-creating process.
If this is true, it follows that collective observation may be required in order for history to have occurred at all!
If the Observation Selection Effect is required for the Universe to exist, could we also infer that a real-time Observer of the Big Bang was required in order for it to have occurred in the first instance?
The Shifting Paradigm: Science as a Text of Human History
If the dissenters eventually have their way — and Intelligent Design becomes an accepted model for the origin of the universe — the current era of Scientific Positivism will itself become history.
In response to this threat, a Popperian Orthodoxy has emerged in the media and across the academic world. Science writers who want the biscuit must always declare a strict separation between science and magic in their public writings on ID. Likewise, Intelligent Design must never be acknowledged as being connected with the former, but always the latter.
And after all – Intelligent Design has no pedigree, as Positivism does. No new paradigm of science could possibly overtake the sainted Karl Popper – at least among the orthodox establishment.
The fabric of reality is the privileged province of a different kind of priest — a highly trained and vetted Priest of Science.
Popper is Challenged
No one doubts that there exists a plethora of Popperian loyalists in the Biological Sciences. But in the fields of Physics and Quantum Mechanics, the
LFDF – I will try to answer your concerns….
Re: Chaos – I am quite happy with the Greek definitions as I find them a cogent interpretation of the actual state of things prior to the Big Bang.
In respect to the scientific definition of Chaos: (physics) A dynamical system that is extremely sensitive to its initial conditions
… Herein is the key to the whole matter: what were the initial conditions? How do we define those conditions? Are these conditions susceptible to the Observation Selection Effect?
This is exactly my point: apparently chaotic systems in fact always have higher level order. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem shows that Order Exists whether humans can observe it or not.
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem says that Chaotic Systems have solutions that human beings will never know.
That blows Darwinism out of the water as a philosophical underpinning for atheism.
It turns out that Darwin doesn’t offer intellectual fulfillment to an atheist after all! LOL!
From this, I can argue that human observers are part of an underlying Order that cannot be construed by those very observers.
This higher level Order can be theoretically observed, but the observer must have at His disposal higher level cognitive structures than than are currently available to us humans.
Phil,
The AAAS is not the only science-based organization that opposes ID. Others are the National Association of Science Teachers, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Physical Society, and the National Academy of Sciences. But, from your POV, they’re probably as politically corrupt as the AAAS, and thus similarly peremptorily dismissible, right?
You can’t have it both ways, Phil. On the one hand, you excoriate the AAAS for their involvement in the politics of evolution, but on the other hand, you need your false caricature of the AAAS to argue:
Let’s analyze your contorted logic.
So, you bash the AAAS for entering the political realm. You then falsely characterize the AAAS’ position:
Please examine the AAAS Board Resolution and cite where the AAAS addresses the “why” of evolution.
Of course, the AAAS resolution didn’t address it. However, you need this straw man (ie, scientists embracing the “why” of evolution); else, your use of ‘thus’ is invalid:
You logic gets worse. Let’s say your condemnation of both sides is dead on, and that both sides engage in the most intellectually dishonest and scurrilous of tactics. Your solution? Let both sides duke it out in the classroom.
What? Are you serious? Boiled down to its essence, you’re urging a debate that has more to do with politics than with religion and science — and a debate that you consider almost totally fallow — to be conducted in the classroom, too.
Sorry, Phil. Try again. This time be rational and logical.
One last point re the “why”. Who are these evil scientists or group of scientists who expand the science of evolution to include the “why” and not just the “how”. Can you name them? Can you identify where these evil scientists have intruded their evolution-as-religion in the science classroom? Yea, I know what’ll you say. “Read my article”. Well, Phil, if you’re going to reference one of your articles, the least you could do is supply a link to it.
Phil,
In response to #6 and more.
Biology has come a long way to show that the species have a remarkable system to handle change. In many ways the field of biology is passing up the field of astrophysics. Our ability to unravel the genetic code has progressed well over the years. But until evolution can be broken down into the simple steps that are required from the theory then the jury will remain out. It is my guess that we will uncover additional levels of complexity along the way which will make the job near impossible.
Ray and I don’t have a problem with raw data in science, we just don’t see eye to eye in the application of the data to theory. Once you get past the data then worldviews come into play and we argue beliefs. This happens inside and outside of science. I do believe that both of us are willing to change our position when any new data comes along. I do not think either of us would change our beliefs.
Since data is king in science then Ray and I must accept that. I believe we do.
I think the ID people should have thought about what they were doing a little more before they jumped in. They should have come up with some catchy term meaning “I don’t know” instead of saying “Intelligent Design”. Like edge of understanding (EOU). Then tried to make some level of classifications of theories based on that edge. It would have saved all of us a lot of time. But if they wanted to start a war between the two camps they got what they were looking for.
fbaginski: What? You don’t look to court cases and board proclamations to “settle” an issue? :)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I actually think there is more common ground here than is apparent on first blush, once we consign the bomb throwers to their proper place and let the adults continue the discussion.
The National Association of Science Teachers, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Physical Society, and the National Academy of Sciences.
***Certainly no vested interests here! And all most certainly arrived at their determination after an open, careful, thoughtful examination of the issue where all sides of the issue were debated and explored in a neutral, search-for-the-truth manner. I’m sure the AAAS is just an aberration in the way it approaches the issue. Oh, and the NDRC too!
You then falsely characterize the AAAS’ position:
*** I quoted them directly.
Your solution? Let both sides duke it out in the classroom. What? Are you serious? Boiled down to its essence, you’re urging a debate that has more to do with politics than with religion and science — and a debate that you consider almost totally fallow — to be conducted in the classroom, too.
*** Heaven forbid we should use the educational process to debate an issue when we can rely on others to simply tell us what to believe.
Who are these evil scientists or group of scientists …
*** I dealt with one idiot who assigns “evil” motives to people who I describe as promoting political agendas. Now you want to talk about “evil people too? This is the best you can do to argue a point?
Well, Phil, if you’re going to reference one of your articles, the least you could do is supply a link to it.
*** It’s in the IC archives.
Hell hath no fury like a Phillip Ellis Jackson scorned?
To begin, sorry. I posted a couple of comments to your How to Increase Your Carbon Footprint article (the oldest of your articles still allowing comments) merely to test how the IC filter translated various HTML tags and other attempts at formatting (ie, unordered and ordered lists). Thus, you can disregard the comments posted to that article.
Now that I know how the filter works, I can teach you how to associate a link with one of your articles via use of the HTML “a href” tag. For example:
Yea, HTML sucks, but reality is.
Anyway, before you get pissed at me, you might enjoy an image of John McCain I lovingly crafted. Click here.
Sadly, I’ve concluded that you don’t understand the issues posed by ID. Your errors of fact and logic are many and fatal.
There are 2 key paragraphs in your The Politics of Science and Religion that underscore your ignorance of basic facts, and your illogic.
You begin the first paragraph:
Good. You’re trying to be fair. You criticize both sides. However, right out of the chute, you commit a fatal error. Why? Because the “kind of science” that does not consider God’s role in the creation of the universe is … science itself.
There are not 2 kinds of science: One that considers ultimate origins and one that does not. There is only one kind of science: The kind that does not consider ultimate origins.
Therefore, you buy the core ID argument: Any scientific discussion of origins should include a discussion of God’s role in the creation of the universe. In effect, you are an ideologue regarding this issue.
The fact that you are a closet IDer is affirmed by what you subsequently write:
Again, you buy the core ID argument: ID is not a religion since it is not a specific religion. Instead, ID considers god in the most universal manner possible.
But, the ID god is supernatural. Any credo that embraces the supernatural is religious. If a credo is religious, it’s also a religion.
If you disagree, please provide links (say, Discovery Institute links) where all organized religions formally endorse ID to be 100% compatible with their credos. If you can’t provide said links and said endorsements, then ID must be considered a religion discrete from other religions.
So far, you’ve committed 2 fatal errors: You don’t understand what science is, and you don’t understand what religion is. You compound these errors when you say:
You misuse ‘theory’. I suppose you’re trying to use it in the sense of a scientific theory, but ID is not a scientific theory. It’s merely religious dogma, whereas evolution is a proper and integral scientific theory.
You’ve got a hard-on for science. You said near the beginning of your 2 paragraphs:
The “the kind of” phrase is superfluous. Face it, Phil. You dislike science itself. NP, however. You can believe whatever you want to believe. Just don’t try to portray yourself as any kind of an advocate for science because you’re not.
We’ve established that you are a closet IDer. The above quote also identifies you as a closet Creationist.
You continue:
‘Knowledge’? Creationism is religious dogma, based strictly upon faith. Knowledge is the product of rational inquiry. Creationism rejects rational inquiry entirely.
You continue:
Again, you buy the Creationist argument: Creationism is science. Creationism is not science. It fails the test of the Scientific Method. Neither Creationists nor IDers can construct an integral scientific theory.
You continue:
Again, you buy the Creationist argument lock, stock, and barrel. However, to use your word, that ‘competition’ is over. Creationism lost.
I started this analysis in order to understand what you said in posts #48 and #50, and what you said in post #55 in response to my post #52. I now understand from whence you come and can therefore respond to what you said in posts #48, #50, and #55. But, not right now. Tomorrow, maybe.
One good thing came out of my analysis, though. I can now treat you as derisively as you treat Paul Burnett because, like him, you’re an ideologue.
“I recognize that virtually none of what I’ve said will have any impact on you, because ideologues rarely demonstrate the capacity to grasp complex issues.”
Precisely why I have taken to abstaining from discussion when these topics arise. It’s an exercise in futility. Once you remove yourself from the discussion, it actually becomes quite interesting and amusing to observe. When engaged in the “discussion”, it is much like smashing one’s head repeatedly into the wall.
Hell hath no fury like a Phillip Ellis Jackson scorned?
** No. I just have no patience for self-important fools. Particularly those who need to assign value laden terms like “evil” to supposedly counter an argument that shows how the AAAS, as a typical example, issues “scientific” proclamations that have little to do with science, and a lot to do with promoting a political philosophy.
And it’s equally difficult to carry on an intelligent conversation with someone who describes me as a “closet IDer”, when in fact I’ve stated openly and repeatedly that I believe in Intelligent Design. I just don’t contend that it is “science” the same as biology, physics, etc. is science. So why assign this “closet” status other than to set up another ponderous, pedantic straw man to knock down?
Do you actually ever read anything I or anyone writes, or are you so busy trying to make a point that you don’t care what the other person actually says?
Life is too short to take people seriously who have no interest in a real conversation. I’m sure you and Burnett will get along famously.
I think Mulligan got it right.
By the way, just for giggles here’s the entire passage (of a much longer article) that sent shocks of horror and indignation through Live Free:
“I have absolutely no problem presenting Creationism as a theory to compete with other theories about the subject. Knowledge is not advanced by suppressing beliefs, but rather by subjecting them to scrutiny. If Creationists want to have their faith evaluated as a scientific fact, then that’s fine by me. Compare and contrast their evidence with that of Darwin and his successors, and see who’s left standing. On the other hand, if the Biblical story of creation is more properly viewed as a matter of faith, not science — which I think is the way most fundamentalists would categorize their beliefs — then the laws of science have nothing to do with validating or debunking it. Whatever judgment science makes about the Earth being created according to the Book of Genesis is irrelevant, since the scientific method is not the standard by which the Bible is evaluated. But this also means that the concept of Creationism has no business being taught in a science classroom since a literal belief in the Book of Genesis is a matter of faith, not science.”
If someone wants to offer the theory that aliens created life on Earth, or fairies exist in Irish woods, or that dinosaurs are actually descended from birds, or even that God exists and acts purposefully — and they offer this notion as a matter of science — then what’s the fear in letting these notions be subjected to the scientific method of examination? I believe it was me who said “Knowledge is not advanced by suppressing beliefs, but rather by subjecting them to scrutiny.” Some of these crazy ideas may actually turn out to be true. Those that aren’t will be debunked.
On the other hand, if the idea of space aliens, fairies and bird-related dinosaurs is offered as a matter of faith to explain why something happens, not how it happens, then let it be taught in a religion, philosophy, or crazy-ideas-that-might-be-true seminar; but not as a scientific theory. Whatever conclusions one arrives at, whatever answers to life’s questions they provide for some people, they won’t be portrayed as scientific proof. I realize that this may be difficult for some people to grasp, but life involves a lot more than science. The challenge isn’t to suppress everything that is non-science, but to separate it from science so it can be discussed!
In this regard, using the Bible and Darwin as examples, I said “The Bible, and Darwin, ask and answer entirely different questions. The Bible teaches us philosophically how to think about things, and in so doing, orient ourselves within the universe. This in turn teaches us how to act in relation to our surroundings, how to interact with our fellow man, and most importantly, how to recognize God and honor Him appropriately. Darwin, on the other hand, doesn’t address the question of why we exist, but rather how we might have been created. Explaining why natural selection operates as Darwin suggests doesn’t answer the philosophical or metaphysical questions of life — who created us, what is our purpose on Earth, etc.? Rather, it only addresses the mechanics of life — what natural processes were involved in how a species changed and adapted over the passage of time? The Bible and Darwin are two sides of the same coin, related but quite different in what they set out to do, and how they do it.”
Now, if you’re LiveFree, from this you conclude that the entire meaning of this passage is “you buy the core ID argument: ID is not a religion since it is not a specific religion.”
Yep. I guess that pretty much summarizes everything I wanted to say!
Hey, guys, not to change the subject or duck my responsibilities as serious blogger or anything…but I thought you would be interested in this jewel:
http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_067125346.html
From now on, in Oklahoma, when little Johnny or Susie is asked “What is 2+2?” or “What year did Columbus discover America?” or whatever, and gives the answer “Jesus!” – “ the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill. The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.
But then that’s the whole idea, isn’t it?
(More information at http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/ )
(A similar bill has already been passed and signed by the Governor in Texas; a similar bill is being considered in Arizona.)
Mr. LaSalle – I’ve got other things to do so I didn’t look in here over the weekend, and I’ll have to keep this (relatively) short. It appears that you essentially define ‘Darwinism’ as an ‘atheistic worldview’. This is, as I noted, a rather idiosyncratic definition. I also think you’re rather stretching Goedel’s IT a bit further than it goes – all it really states is that formal systems are necessarily incomplete, not that “Chaotic Systems have solutions that human beings will never know”. (At the very least, I’ve never seen a case developed for that – it’s certainly not in the link you provided, for example.)
I’m reluctant to use your definition of ‘Darwinism’ for several reasons – as I noted, it’s idiosyncratic, and the term already has plenty of baggage anyway. (There isn’t an organized effort to discredit Relativity, for example, so nobody calls it ‘Einsteinism’.)
As to the link between evolution and atheism, I think you may overstress it. Evolution doesn’t imply atheism, as LFDF has pointed out – but it does undermine one of the historically killer arguments for God(s), the ‘argument from apparent design in the biological world’. Modern forms of the Argument From Design have retreated to cosmological-level arguments, where there’s less known. (When talking about the ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe, it’s not even clear that things could be different – as Einstein asked, “Did God have any choice in creating the universe?”)
Unlike LFDF, I am an atheist (and, BTW, I disagree with you on the moral consequences of atheism) but I don’t assume that “Blind Chance” to be the “Ultimate Cause”. I’m not sure what the “Ultimate Cause” of the universe is (if any – I’ve never seen anyone give a coherent justification for rejecting the notion of infinite regress a priori); for other reasons I’m about as sure as I can be that if there is such a cause, it doesn’t look much like anything the religions I know of propose. (You might say I’m agnostic in general, and atheist with regard to the specifics I’ve come across.)
I was actually responding to LFDF, who wrote that, “Chaotic systems also exhibit other high-level orders.”
I also appreciate that IT deals with “formal systems.” But a formal system in this sense can be described as an intelligently designed and internally-consistent model of nature. Obviously, the “formal system” is not nature itself. But it does PREDICT that nature has an order that our formal system cannot fathom or solve.
That’s the point: IT predicts that Order exists above Chaos whether we can observe or prove it or not.
And by the way, for anyone who might be interested, the way to include link tags in comments is to format the text in the following way [replace “(” with “(a href=”http://yourlink.com”)YourVisibleLinkText(/a).
Mike,
Your arguments have evolved beyond my understanding — perhaps not beyond my ability to understand them, but certainly beyond my current understanding-aka-knowledge.
As is my wont when I’m confronted with new ideas, I did some research this AM on the issues you raised, a couple of hours worth. I finally decided that the scientifically based teleological arguments you presented are best left to the experts. afaic, you’re one of them, and I’m not.
My research was beneficial, however. I think I now understand the broad parameters of your arguments and, more importantly, their novelty. Your arguments for an Intelligent Designer are certainly not re-treaded Creationist arguments. In fact, I must say that it would be intellectually dishonest to equate Creationism and ID.
That being said, it appears that your arguments may be refutable in the same way that previous Creationist and ID arguments have been refuted. Let me give an example.
A primary ID argument is that microevolution is possible, but macroevolution isn’t. However, if you embrace OPT (which you do), then you believe that the universe tends toward increasing complexity (ie, macroevolution?). OPT says:
For ‘developing’, can’t we substitute ‘evolving’?
Forget this argument. It’s not a primary one. My primary argument against the microevolution-but-not-macroevolution ID contention follows. However, this definition of OPT does suggest that there may be a split in the ID community; specifically, some IDers may reject OPT because it somewhat affirms evolution. I don’t know whether or not there is such a split. You might — or probably — know. Whatever. Merely an intriguing tangent.
My field of expertise is math and computers. I was a software professional when the Game of Life, among the first cellular automata, burst on the computer scene and screen. Even then, the implications were astounding:
Boiled down to its quintessence, computer automata demonstrate that complexity (macroevolution) can arise from simplicity (microevolution). A compelling and cogent argument, but a theoretical one.
However, there’s experimental proof, too. I said in a previous post:
I then cited an expert source:
The human genome demonstrates that the complexity of human DNA owes its complexity in part due to the infusion of simpler DNA sequences from simpler organisms. Complex DNA accretes over time; ie, it evolves.
From both a theoretical and experimental perspective, then, macroevolution is indeed possible. Thus, the ID argument against macroevolution fails.
So, too, will your more current arguments fail. That is my dogmatic belief which, like all dogmatic beliefs, ends any possibility of dialogue.
Without being dogmatic or even certain, it appears that your arguments also use the fatally flawed Argument from Ignorance which all ID arguments seem to use. If so, then this is the basis for my dogma.
However, I will grant that your response post remains essentially unchallenged. You win this argument. A few niggles, however. You said:
I don’t think but can’t prove that Godel’s theorems do not imply what you think they imply. You also said:
This is one of your core arguments. We know from QM that the act of observation “collapses the wave function” and forces, say, an electron to choose a specific path where, if the electron is not observed, it would take all possible paths. You extrapolate from this phenomenon to posit that only an Intelligent Designer existing outside the bounds of the natural universe can “collapse the wave function” of the universe and create discreteness (cosmos) out of non-discreteness (chaos).
During my research, I ran across a short article entitled (Warning: PDF file) The Athropic Principle by an anti-ID ‘expert’, Victor Stenger, who weighs in on your argument.
As an aside, Stenger chimes in on my prior computer automata argument:
In his article, Stenger responds to the 3 implications of the Strong Athropic Principle that Tipler, your OPT guy, posits:
Your argument is B. He basically dismisses it:
I’ll grant you, Mike, that his dismissal is not disproof; your argument remains uncontested and therefore still valid. However, Stenger said something that resonates with something I said in a previous post:
What did I say? That the quantum vacuum may have existed forever; ie, an Intelligent Designer did not create it. Thus, God or an Intelligent Designer is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the existence of our universe.
One point you might be interested in. You argued that the existence of the Multiverse implies the existence of an Intelligent Designer, right? Well, Stenger makes the case that the existence of the Multiverse implies the exact opposite:
This is all very fascinating stuff, Mike, but well beyond my mediocre abilities.
Finally, forget about responding to what Stenger said. Since I understand neither you nor Stenger, a response to Stenger’s criticisms is not required. Unless I can make arguments my own, my citations of experts adds nothing to our dialogue, and our dialogue is all that matters.
In essence, I can’t refute your arguments directly. Since so, you win.
Correction: replace the “(” with an angle bracket and you’ll be in business:
Phil,
Don’t get your panties in a wad. I plan to dissect your words and demonstrate their ignorance and self-contradictions, but not in this post. I respect you too much to do a half-assed job. Ergo, later.
Anyway, you said:
… … who wants at least ID if not Creationism taught in high school biology classes:
imo, It’s impossible to synch your words above with your words below:
As before, I’ll expand the above argument later.
You said:
What standard rejoinder is this? #2? #4? You seem to have more than a few standard rejoinders that you use reflexively whether or not they’re applicable.
Your problem, Phil, is that I do read what you write, and very carefully, too. You betcha I read what you write. On the surface, your words say one thing but, if one digs, one discovers that you’re saying something entirely different, or contradicting yourself on key points, or demonstrating your lack of understanding on key issues.
What standard rejoinder is this? #7? #3?
Your problem, Phil, is that I am interested in a real conversation. You’re not. Your use of selective citations of your own words and standard rejoinders demonstrates your lack of intellectual seriousness.
I can forgive you somewhat, though. Your realm is politics. In politics, the best words (eg, ones that inspire like Obama’s) ultimately mean nothing. Politicians actually strive to denude their words of meaning. Scientists and other types of rationalists, however, strive for substance and precise meaning in the words they use.
So, you arguably use words the way politicians and not scientists use them. Similarly, you arguably respond to criticisms the way politicians do.
Do politicians actually listen to other politicians? Do politicians ever have real conversations with other politicians?
Sure, there’s a political component to ID and Creationism. We can consider you to be an expert here. However, discussing this issue only via the use of political paradigms is fatal. More later.
Live Free:
No wadded panties here.
I read what you wrote.
At first I was tempted to agree.
But then I took a closer look, and doubts began to emerge.
I re-read the words again and alas, your counter to my counter arguments have encountered difficulties of their own.
So, I must reject your rejection. Sorry. No. It cannot stand.
That being said, I am left with only one question.
Do you actually read a sentence, comment on it, then read the next sentence, comment on that, and go on and on?
The answer I believe, is yes. Which explains a lot of your “analysis”. And why your comments ultimately fail to persuade.
And why your responses tend to read like this.
Thinking Reel Good, Part 2
You said ”Don’t get your panties in a wad.”
Clearly, you do not understand the issue. Men don’t wear panties. They wear underwear, briefs, shorts, even skivvies. But panties as you suggest? No, I think not.
Your words betray you as a closet panty-phile, which in any case, imh, has nothing to do with the subject of Intelligent Design.
That is, ergo, unless the discussion of said panties is a sign of super intelligence, and, in so doing, denies the existence of Calvin Klein. In which case, It’s impossible to synch your words above with your words below:
“I’ll expand the above argument later.”
Unless, of course, by “expand” you suggest that these panties will expand, in which case the subject has migrated to waist size, not clothing preferences, which is a new subject all together.
I can forgive you somewhat, though. Your realm is numbers. In numbers, the best words (eg, ones that measure) ultimately mean nothing unless related to an object worthy of measurement, in which case I will diet.
More later.
Thinking Reel Good Part 3
PEJ: There is thus a place for both science and ID in the classroom, as long as each side recognizes its own limitations.
LFDF: imo, It’s impossible to synch your words above with your words below:
PEJ: I just don’t contend that it is “science” the same as biology, physics, etc. is science.
*** You have heard of things like “political science”, and “social science”, which amazingly enough are also not “science” the same as biology, physics, etc. is “science.” And so when analyzing a social science position, I would not advise employing the same hard science methodology as one might use to analyze a claim made by physics or biology, because hard to believe as this appears to be, they ask and answer different types of questions … just like science and ID do.
Ipso facto, ergo, imo
For anybody who’s following this, the Discovery Institute has picked up on Mike LaSalle’s original version ( http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/03/02/darwin-ist-tot-intelligent-design-is-not-creationism ) which became the article at the top of the page – see http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/mens_news_daily_contributor_ex.html
Other universes? OTHER Universes? There’s only one. The lexicon is simply lacking. Whatever it is you think you’re talking about, it’s all part of the one Universe. Meaning of the term helllooooo.
The International Society for Science & Religion has recently issued a statement on ‘Intelligent Design,’ which it says “…is neither sound science nor good theology.” See http://www.issr.org.uk/id-statement.asp