Posted by ERV on February 6, 2009 Someone let Cottage Cheese Cordova out of his cage!!! Oh noooooooo! His putrid, milky slime is everywhere! We are gonna have aaaaaaants! Oh noooooo!
If youve ever wanted to engage in a ‘nice conversation’ with IDiots outside of their protected habitat, heres your chance! TARD is out in force over at this article at the OUDaily.
LOL eeeeeeeeeeew! We are gonna need so many paper towels…..
(Thanks Aseem!)
“LOL eeeeeeeeeeew! We are gonna need so many paper towels…..”
All this garbage is springing full grown from the soft skull of “Kid IDEA”, the opinion editor at the daily. If you want to be completely grossed out then read his, no doubt, self authored bio:
“Ray Martin – Charles Ray Martin has a passion to penetrate the secular field of journalism with the gospel of Christ while training others to do the same. He is completing his BA in journalism and mass communication at the University of Oklahoma.”
Charles Ray Martin has a passion to penetrate
a passion to penetrate
to penetrate
a passion
http://oudaily.com/staff/ray-martin/
You may now climb into a tub of Purell hand sanitizer.
“Darwinism doesn’t deserve to be called science. It has abandoned empiricism in favor of story telling. Ernst Mayr said it in so many words: “Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry…attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.
Physics and Chemistry: real science, laws and experiments
Evolutionary Biology (with the exception of the discipline of population biology): story telling and speculation”
So it seems that Mr Cordova is an ignorant. Who would have thought! I don’t know about his level in science; I suppose it’s pretty low. But here he shows his knowledge of epistemology to be near zero. So, the only good science is the one that produces “laws”? Hey, I’ve already heard that before, but where… Ah, I know! It usually goes with the old, silly “just a theory”!
Sorry, Mr Cordova. Attempting “to explain events and processes that have already taken place” does not equal bad science. You’ll find this attitude in cosmology, in geology, in all historical sciences (including, of course, history itself). You’ll have to discard the primitive view that only laboratory experiments are science, because something like 150 years have past since the last time it was taken seriously.
Sal Cordova’s comments are really painful to read (but some other commenters are, too).
The first commenter is really, really painful to read. “It’s completely valid to say that if science can’t explain something, then therefore MAGIC!”
Once upon a time, we didn’t have mathematical explanations for lightning or the ability to duplicate it. This is why scientists gave up trying to understand it, and our science textbooks now attribute lightning to Mighty Zeus.
And, of course, that’s not even touching on the fact that evolution can be quantified and replicated.
And Sal Cordova gave up the right to be treated with respect a long, long time ago. He is dishonest, full of slander against scientists, and blisteringly, intentionally ignorant. He does not argue in good faith and there is no need for productive members of society to waste any time arguing with him. And ultimately, he is a nobody: he has no science, he has no influence, he barely even has any name recognition outside the tiny circle of UD sycophants; he is, like Casey Luskin, a mouse who thinks his squeaks are roars.
Cordova is a dishonest pseudointellect, copying and pasting content he doesn’t understand and attempting to pass it off as his own arguments. He’s the perfect mascot for ID, the pretend scientist for pretend science.
“It’s completely valid to say that if science can’t explain something, then therefore MAGIC!”
So, to you, any non-naturalist force in action is “magic”? There’s no other name for it?
If so, how precisely does this argue for naturalism? Just calling the other side names doesn’t mean your side is correct, as I’m sure you realise in your calmer, more sober times of reflection.
Rhology –
Yes, “Non naturalism” DOES = magic = god = Intelligent Designer= space aliens ad nauseum, or however you want to define it. But this is actually a discussion about science, not semantics, so please take your word games back to the church basement, or your local IDEA club chapter, which is pretty much the same thing.
If so, how precisely does this argue for naturalism?
It works.
Magic doesn’t.
I win.
Unless you can think of another situation where “non-naturalism” explained something science could not?
I’d dearly like to see how you define “non-naturalist force” in a way that doesn’t amount to “POOF!” though.
Just calling the other side names doesn’t mean your side is correct
We’ve demonstrated that our side is correct repeatedly. Nobody is obliged to treat a known serial liar with respect, in perpetuity.
J-Dog,
But this is actually a discussion about science, not semantics
I wasn’t the one who mislabeled the action of a theistic God (or an unknown Designer) “magic”. So yes, by all means let’s do so. I’ll presume you directed your critique to minimalist.
minimalist said:
It works.
? “Naturalism” works? Naturalism is a worldview. Worldviews don’t “work”.
where “non-naturalism” explained something science could not?
Sure. The fact that atheists by and large (including your own ERV) treat moral questions as if there were objective, prescriptive answers to them, while a naturalist worldview can’t justify such statements at all. Much less can science make any statement thereon.
Or perhaps you could prove that evidence is the best way to discover truth. I’d like some evidence for that claim.
Or prove that you can discover truth using your senses. I’d like you to provide evidence that your senses are reliable for discovering truth (just make sure to provide evidence that doesn’t involve your senses, since that would be begging the question).
The consistent naturalist can’t prove that he is not a brain in a vat. He can *assume* it (presumably thru ESP, or even magic, or the tenacious power of self-willed deception), but he can’t prove it.
Sorry, you asked. I answer.
I’d dearly like to see how you define “non-naturalist force” in a way that doesn’t amount to “POOF!” though.
If by “POOF!” you mean “one second it was like this and the other it was like that, thru some unobservable force”, I answer that you believe in all sorts of unobservable things, like the reliability of your brain, the reliability of your senses, the problem of induction, etc. If “POOF!” is indeed the way it sometimes is, so what?
Further, you believe in “no life, long-drawn-out-POOF!, life”. Why is one preferable to the other? Give me a good reason rather than your typical mockery, please.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology wrote:
“Just calling the other side names doesn’t mean your side is correct, as I’m sure you realise in your calmer, more sober times of reflection.”
There were these carnival chimpanzees who had been taught to smoke cigarettes so I had a little talk with them about causation, reproducible results and cited several surgeon general’s reports in support of my solid foundation of Aristotelean logic and when they realized I had no smokes or bananas they threw poop at me.
In case you had failed to notice, the appropriate response to absurdity is laughter. Not logic.
If we are amused at the complete lack of qualifications of a I.D. proponent or his collection of disingenuous politicized sources, we are accused of the ad hominem fallacy. If we waste time attempting an intelligent point by point dissection of ludicrous claims we are accused of arrogance.
I wish you luck in your mission of apologetics based on the Groucho Marx Plurium Interrogationum School of Discourse.
I tried to comment on the OU Daily site. I guess they didn’t like me calling scordova a Troll and to not feed him. So sad. There goes your objectivity in journalism.
“? “Naturalism” works? Naturalism is a worldview. Worldviews don’t “work”.”
Natrualism is also a methodology that does, indeed, work.
“Sure. The fact that atheists by and large (including your own ERV) treat moral questions as if there were objective, prescriptive answers to them, while a naturalist worldview can’t justify such statements at all.”
And yet again I see some twit using some variant of the moral argument for theism without realizing the self-defeating nature of it. He was specifically asked what “non-naturalism” explains that naturalism doesn’t. Of course, this doesn’t explain anything, it merely argues by assertion (i.e., god exists, therefore morality) and demonstrates nothing.
“Or perhaps you could prove that evidence is the best way to discover truth. I’d like some evidence for that claim.”
You prove something through analytical deduction, not empirical observation. If you merely want evidence that evidence is the best way to discover truth, there is plenty you could look to in modern societies, including successful technological implementations of the principles we discover with such evidence.
(i.e., god exists, therefore morality)
No I didn’t. Prove it by quoting me from this combox.
I’m simply arguing that (and I’ll do you a favor by showing my cards), if naturalism, then no objective morality; to be consistent with naturalism, there is no way to make prescriptive moral statements to anyone else, to make moral value judgments on someone else’s actions, like ERV did recently in the post I linked to, like everyone does. I’ve never met a consistent naturalist, it goes without saying.
If you merely want evidence that evidence is the best way to discover truth, there is plenty you could look to in modern societies, including successful technological implementations of the principles we discover with such evidence.
That’s not what I asked. Please try again.
“(and I’ll do you a favor by showing my cards)”
It is probably not a good move, if you want people to judge you as an intellectually honest person, to admit you’re being deliberately obscuritanist.
“…to make moral value judgments on someone else’s actions, like ERV did recently in the post I linked to, like everyone does. I’ve never met a consistent naturalist, it goes without saying.”
Maybe you could try actually reading what people ask of you, i.e., an example of something that naturalism can’t explain that non-naturalism does. I’m not surprised that you can’t see that this is completely irrelevant to that question.
“That’s not what I asked. Please try again.”
Yes you did, you asked for “evidence” and I provided it. Or do you have a superior explanation for such successes?
“That’s not what I asked. Please try again.”
I rather think it is. Please stop trying to prevail in an argument by changing the original premise. Like most theists, you are a poor legalist.
Your style is also disingenuously saccharine which you may regard as a fallacious observation. Tell us again how the idea of what is correct has to do with informal fallacies.
Rho, you’ve disappeared so far up your own black hole of illogic that it’s hard to keep up with your nonsense. I’m not even sure you know what you’re trying to say anymore.
The first commenter in the OU article claimed that certain “patterns” (by which he/she likely means irreducible complexity or whatever half-assed ID-creationist ‘concept’ he’s trying to parrot) cannot be mathematically explained or replicated, therefore one must by default accept the “non-naturalist” position.
At best, even if your examples weren’t tedious freshman-philosophy conundrums, the sad fact is that you still can’t demonstrate that non-natural explanations are superior. Even if we are brains in vats, within the boundaries of that wacky virtual world, naturalistic explanations and mechanisms have demonstrated themselves through relentlessly positive feedback. “Non-naturalistic” explanations, on the other hand, have never been anything but comically fruitless tail-chasing, as you amply demonstrate.
#6
So, to you, any non-naturalist force in action is “magic”? There’s no other name for it?
It is supernatural (or otherwise untestable*) causation, and thus falls outside the scope of science. This is why ID has failed to produce any body of scientific research.
*I only offer the caveat that, to borrow from Michael Shermer, a sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from the supernatural. In either case, the action in question cannot be observed, tested, or otherwise analyzed by the scientific method.
“I’m not even sure you know what you’re trying to say anymore.”
It is because he is regurgitating two week old postings from his blog in lieu of actual comment and trying to revamp them into the basis of the dispute. He is looking for his keys, not in the place where he dropped them but where the light is most favorable and would like you to help him search.
The only comment of note here is:
In either case, the action in question cannot be observed, tested, or otherwise analyzed by the scientific method.
James, can you observe, test, or otherwise analyse the scientific method by the scientific method?
How about the claim “there is no God”?
I have been having a bit of difficulty cramming a microscope onto the stage of another microscope which I then must cram onto the stage of another microscope in order to validate any observations that have been made using the first microscope. On this basis I now declare all microscopy jibber jabber.
Attempting to force people into working through goofy tautologies is either a new low, or you are being held hostage by Nietzsche scholars in a fortune cookie factory
“The only comment of note here is…”
It’s so adorable when a poser like yourself attempts to mask his/her incapability to respond to criticism.
Oops, missed this one:
Tell us again how the idea of what is correct has to do with informal fallacies.
To dismiss someone with name-calling as ERV has done is called “ad hominem”. It’s not necessarily the end of the world, but I never claimed it was. I said it was ad hominem. Thanks for playing.
“To dismiss someone with name-calling as ERV has done is called “ad hominem”.”
Except for the fact that it isn’t. An ad hominem is an argument that takes the form of “you are X, therefore you are wrong”, and Abbie made no such statement. You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, as usual.
“Just calling the other side names doesn’t mean your side is correct, as I’m sure you realise in your calmer, more sober times of reflection.”
“Thanks for playing.”
Game set and match.
Thank you for the win.
Next time bring a full deck.
Tyler wrote:
“To dismiss someone with name-calling as ERV has done is called “ad hominem”.”
Except for the fact that it isn’t. An ad hominem is an argument that takes the form of “you are X, therefore you are wrong”, and Abbie made no such statement. You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, as usual.
No, no, no, Tyler, you’re way off base here!
What you need is a translation table between the Real World and the Creationist World.
In the RW ad hominem is as you say. But in the CW it means “criticism.”
“Criticism” in the CW is like anti-matter in the RW, except it’s more like anti-brain-matter. It causes Creationist’s brains to explode. That’s why when you look in a Creationist’s ear all you see is light coming in from the other side.
“Not suggesting that, I’m suggesting you have a couple of questions you could try answering.”
But you are not interested in answers, you are interested in roping me into adopting a infinitist epistimological position so that I will become frustrated by your demands for reasons for my reasons until ad nauseum I attempt to escape into foundationalism where your chances are better at hog tying me. You still can’t but I’m not going to make it easier for you. This isn’t my first rodeo and you are not the apologetics version of M.C. Escher.
Ooh, this is just sad. Rhology must be new at this. Even the deep ideas fail. Let’s look at this one:
James, can you observe, test, or otherwise analyse the scientific method by the scientific method?
Yes. Yes we can.
Hypothesis: “Use of the scientific method to analyze hypotheses does not result in finely tuned ideas that stand up to scrutiny due to repeated attempts at falsification of their tenets”
Data: Every well-designed study for the past century.
Result: Hypothesis falsified.
That’s a simplification, of course, but, frankly, it was a simple-minded question
you are interested in roping me into adopting a infinitist epistimological position
You are correct, sir! It’s b/c that’s the result of your position. And it would seem that you concede that a naturalist worldview leads to an infinite regress, or else a blind leap of faith. If not, why not?
you still can’t but I’m not going to make it easier for you.
Haha, oh, you mean by actually answering questions? Yes, by all means, just lob insults and run away into the sycophantic crowd. Typical Darwinian response.
Hypothesis: “Use of the scientific method to analyze hypotheses does not result in finely tuned ideas that stand up to scrutiny due to repeated attempts at falsification of their tenets”
Data: Every well-designed study for the past century.
Result: Hypothesis falsified.
Thanks for the colossal exercise in circular reasoning. What precise experiment did you run to let you know that the method you used was the right method? Don’t beg the question and say, “Well, duh! They just work!”
And thus, Rhology demonstrates the usual creationist ignorance of what the scientific method actually *is* and how it works.
Fail.
Rhology demands answers to his questions but when faced with other people’s questions, hides behind a wall of bluster.
You can add “irony” to the long list of terms he doesn’t grasp.
What the hell. I’ll play. Here are your question marks for the day.
1. can you observe, test, or otherwise analyse the scientific method by the scientific method?
Yes you can. The scientific method is regularly subjected to validation by external disciplines using criteria derived from the method itself. The contexts are law, public policy, social science philosophy etc.. Name another methodology with an inherent reproducibility requirement or you can’t challenge scientific method on the basis of a lack of self reflexivity.
2. How about the claim “there is no God”?
There is that problem of infinitism again. That is a claim of absence, which I think Russell has dealt with very tidily. Perhaps the design of an experiment to test the claim “there is a God”would be better suited to both of our respective ideological positions. I can think of a great many such experiments but since I don’t advance the proposition and you do, I invite you to undertake them at your expense. I have already reached my expenditure limits underwriting Boogeyman and Santa research.
3. If so, how precisely does this argue for naturalism?
It doesn’t because it doesn’t have to. You are banking on the proposition that most people confuse ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism to create a trojan horse premise. Since you have not specified, you haven’t asked a question that can be answered. Try again
4. So, to you, any non-naturalist force in action is “magic”?
Yes and no.
See ontological naturalism vs methodological naturalism
5. If so, how precisely does this argue for naturalism?
Badly and well.
See ontological naturalism vs methodological naturalism
6 .There’s no other name for it?
Yes and no.
See ontological naturalism vs methodological naturalism
7. Or perhaps you could prove that evidence is the best way to discover truth. I’d like some evidence for that claim.
Oh good I’ll just guess how you define truth, answer the question and then you can tell me how my guess was wrong and…….hey wait a minute.
8.Or prove that you can discover truth using your senses.
Ah the chestnut. I could….. but you see I’m tied up in a cave watching these shadows.
9. I’d like you to provide evidence that your senses are reliable for discovering truth
Arhgh but I can’t because all of my evidence of reliability would be derived by using my senses arrrrg green kryptonite arrrg.
Look I’m sure you AMAZE the average high school atheist who stumbles into an I.D. hugbox for some sport trolling but your version of the dialectic is hobbled by presupposition. The best you can do is set up rickety box traps and when the rabbits run past them you shout,
“Pip Pip! Though you convince yourself you have bested me it was my secret intention you savage my cabbage patch! Wot wot playing right into my hands you are!”
And that has become tiresome.
Rhology – Please seek help immediately. You have a major disconnect with reality. I visited your blog… Whoa! That is some sorry shit you’re spewing out. Perhaps you can get a good attorney and sue the shit our of whoever programmed you when you were younger. Good luck, we’ll be pulling for you.
Basing your beliefs and opinions on moldy old canards written down by bronze-age goat-herders is not the act of a rational person dude! Trying to base science on the opinions of the goat-herders is ludicrous.
Well done, Prometheus. I thought this was going to be like most encounters with atheists – insults and then more insults. Instead, you started off promising but then your baser instincts took over and you started Dawkins/Hitchens-ing.
1. I didn’t ask you to test external disciplines with the method. I asked you to test the method with the method.
The point – it’s not all-powerful, not self-justifying. You need sthg behind it to back it up.
2. That is a claim of absence, which I think Russell has dealt with very tidily.
To use an atheist illustration, you can’t prove there’s no IPU. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Moreover, you can’t run an experiment on physical processes and objects to test for the existence of a supernatural sthg.
I can think of a great many such experiments
Oh, do tell! No no, I’m interested in this. You can tell me about Santa later. Go ahead. (FYI, this is calling your bluff.)
3. It doesn’t because it doesn’t have to.
Oh, OK.
Then I don’t have to argue for theism. I don’t have to. It just IS.
Wow, that was really convincing for everyone.
3-6. people confuse ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism
Enlighten me. Let’s go with ontological. Unless you’re not a naturalist, please let me know if you’re not.
7-9. Oooohh, you were doing so well! You were (kind of) ponying up the dough and everything. All of a sudden you appear to have lost your nerve. Feel free to actually answer the questions sometime. Unless you don’t think they’re worthwhile. It makes me wonder why anyone should grant your view any credence if you can’t answer simple questions like these, especially if you don’t even want to try. You’re acting like a cult member who blindly switched off your mind when the high priest of your faith opened his holy textbook.
J-Dog,
Non-answers duly noted. Keep ‘em coming.
Gee I can’t imagine why nobody around here is willing to treat Rho like a grownup, it can’t be because he pops up now and again to spout the same crap and shows no capacity for learning (see: his list of self-contradictory demands for “non-intelligent experiments” in that thread and in the comments for the OU article; way to learn precisely nothing about the scientific method in a year and a half, Killer).
I answered your questions. You didn’t like the answers you invented amorphous baseless ones that suited your taste and limited experience and poor argumentative style. This is how religions begin. You also don’t know what methodological naturalism is and…..oh god I just realized…. I have met you. You are……stupid horrid child….ick.
You are incurably undereducated and so in love with the sound of yourself speaking I would not be surprised if you had a third ear growing in the roof of your mouth.
I am so sorry that I wasted our time. I have a great many friends in the clergy and am apt to entertain this sort of B.S. longer than most but this was a mistake. I will stop feeding it now.
Enjoy the weekend everyone.
his list of self-contradictory demands for “non-intelligent experiments” in that thread
Interesting you should bring that up. I’m actually very interested in knowing how people like yourselves would explain your heavy reliance on experiments that are manipulated by intelligent agents working on often non-random mutations and conditions to provide evidence for an unguided mechanism working on random mutations. How does that work, exactly?
Prometheus said:
I answered your questions.
When? You answered some of them, thus inviting others thru the inadequacy of your answers. Others you simply ignored.
I have met you.
You have? Email me. Maybe we can get together for a brewski or an americano or something and talk.
I will stop feeding it now.
Hey, don’t worry about it – this is just a blog and I’m just some guy. On the other hand, doesn’t it bother you just a little that you either can’t or won’t deal with many of these serious questions, and the ones that you tried to, you just provided question-begging assertions?
Good weekend to you as well. Mine has started quite well.
-Rhology
On the other hand, doesn’t it bother you just a little that you either can’t or won’t deal with many of these serious questions
Can and will, but only when it’s worth it. Why waste the time on a guy who revels in his ignorance and refuses to learn?
And on that note, thanks for linking to that same cut-and-pasted list of arbitrary, self-contradictory conditions for a third time; you only helped my point. (Also proving the efficacy of not having to waste much time in belaboring a point, since such things make themselves painfully obvious when you roll out enough rope.)
Rhology said on his link above:”1) A laboratory injects intelligence into the equation. No lab.”
This is an idiot’s argument. It treats intelligence as if it were some sort of magic serum or cantagious infection. It also essentially rejects all lab work. No wonder people mock you. Prometheus hit the nail on the head earlier. You’re just a chimp tossing poop at us.
eww…I shouldn’t have clicked that link for Rhology.
Oh well, I will wash out my brain by working on taxes.
This is an idiot’s argument. It treats intelligence as if it were some sort of magic serum or cantagious infection.
Hah, I was going to say the same thing too, but decided to just keep it minimal.
At first I thought, “he must be talking about experimental manipulation, righ— oh, wait, that’s a separate point, WTF???”
Has Rho ever even been in a lab? Does he have the slightest idea what goes on in there? This must be some new corollary of Clarke’s Third Law: if you’re appallingly ignorant enough, even the mundane looks like magic…
“Has Rho ever even been in a lab? Does he have the slightest idea what goes on in there? This must be some new corollary of Clarke’s Third Law: if you’re appallingly ignorant enough, even the mundane looks like magic…”
This pretty much isolates the disconnect between Rho and the rest of us. In attempting to answer his idiotic questions, we’re talking about the scientific method as it is actually implemented while he’s talking about some notion of it that exists only in philosophical fantasy land. He’s talking about magic carpets while we’re talking about airplanes.
“Look, the plane flies” we say. “Ha!” he responds, “that doesn’t prove that the carpet flies!”
“What you need is a translation table between the Real World and the Creationist World.”
In this case I’d imagine that the entry for “regurgitating coffee-shop pseudo-philosophy and having people call you an idiot for it” in the RW translates to “INTELLECTUAL CHECKMATE” in the CW.
It seems that this guy’s been bugging other people as well.
I’m late to this thread, but somewhere upstream Rhology seems to take offense at the statement that that the concept of an intelligent designer = magic.
Rho, can you tell us a single objective parameter that distinguishes ID from magic? Quoting your magic book doesn’t count. What I want to know is how would an objective person be able to tell if something happened via ID or via magic?
thanks
18 hours and nobody has attempted to answer my questions yet. Is this a pattern around here? Or do you only answer questions that you like, from people you like and agree with? That’s my running hypothesis. Maybe you hope to rely on sheer nastiness and irrational behavior to drive dissidents away…
Science Avenger said:
It treats intelligence as if it were some sort of magic serum or cantagious (sic) infection.
Spare me the hyperbolic caricatures. Answer the questions, please.
minimalist said:
Has Rho ever even been in a lab?
Yes.
Have I ever done much experimentation, no. A little, at the elementary level.
So what? Mind answering the questions?
It seems that this guy’s been bugging other people as well.
So? I enjoy blogging and debating topics of importance. Sue me.
Albatrossity said:
can you tell us a single objective parameter that distinguishes ID from magic?
Sure. Magic is an incantation calling on the power of some mystical, barely-defined cosmic principle or power, performed out of an irrational worldview by a non-omnipotent agent, also frequently accomplishing said incantation pretty quickly. Intelligent Design is, at its base, the understanding that the characteristics of life in nature show evidence of design by an intelligent and otherwise unidentified agent, probably over the course of many hundreds of millions of years, though not necessarily. It’s only in the strawman of ID that you find the major parallels to ID. A major college prof like you should know better than that. Why not just deal with ID as it is? It cracks me up to see well-established minds like you burn strawmen all over the place. Makes me think you don’t have a leg to stand on and some part of you knows it.
Rho
I think you missed the point. I didn’t ask for definitions of magic and ID, I asked for objective distinctions between that two that would enable an objective observer to distinguish between them as causes of any event.
I won’t bother with all the personal jibes in your comment; I’ve learned that creationists like to get personal when they would rather not deal with facts or ideas.
Let’s restate the question with an example.
Someone claims that a particular phenomenon, e.g. the appearance of a new species in the fossil record, or the appearance of drug resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was due to magic. You claim that the same phenomenon was due to an intelligent designer. What objective evidence (i.e., evidence that would make sense to another observer like me) could you use to show me that you were right?
Thanks
So, Rhology, I notice that besides you bugging the people on the Atheist Experience blog, someone equally as annoying has you as a guest blogger on his blog.
“Evidence for Evolution is evidence for ID”? You should tell the Disco people that. It’d save them a lot of trouble.
I’d say for the evidence of evolution that you’re asking for, to just go to the Evidences for Macroevolution site.
By the way, one of your qualifications is that you ask for no human intervention, since that in your mind just shows evidence for “intelligent design”. I think what you’re missing is that when human intervene, it’s just to speed the processes up, not to make sure that they happen at all.
If I’m wrong, I’m sure one of the people here will correct me.
Interesting that Rho defined them in two completely different ways, too; he gave a (sort-of) mechanistic definition for magic, but then gave a (sort-of) phenomenological definition for ID. Was it intentional, in order to dance around the complete lack of any mechanistic definition of ID (as Albatrossity points out), or is Rho really just thick?
Either way, this is why we don’t find it worth the time to do anything other than mock him.
Why not just deal with ID as it is?
Plenty of people have. Why reinvent the wheel?
ID hasn’t even come up with anything new since Behe’s last book; how are we supposed to work with that. Of course, I use the term “new” quite loosely, but, y’know, most of us have jobs that require us to keep up with science. ID’ers are welcome to try their hand at doing some, rather than give church talks.
the personal jibes in your comment
Haha, your thin skin is pretty pathetic. Quote me “jibing” you. I’ll show you ten against me for every one from me (if you can find one).
What objective evidence (i.e., evidence that would make sense to another observer like me) could you use to show me that you were right?
Well, let’s see. I would probably look at whether said occurrence were the result of an incantation calling on the power of some mystical, barely-defined cosmic principle or power, performed out of an irrational worldview by a non-omnipotent agent, also frequently accomplishing said incantation pretty quickly.
But of course, this doesn’t matter. If the evidence is that it was NOT due to an unguided process working on random mutations, then the answer lies in somewhere other than Darwinian mechanisms. If you don’t like the answer or where the evidence leads, that’s no one’s problem but yours.
minimalist,
Arguments for my position are on the table. I’m waiting.
Assertions aren’t arguments.
Until you learn the difference, there is no point in engaging with you.
Scuse me, assertions aren’t evidence, and you haven’t presented any.
You switch between pretensions of empiricism and “evidence” (which you don’t provide) and trying to make pseudo-formalistic logical arguments so swiftly — in the same post, no less — that it’s hard to keep up.
In any case, your assertions are completely baseless, and all you ever have to fall back on are false dichotomies.
Yes, false dichotomies, as I said.
Thanks for admitting there is no positive case for ID.
Rho
Quit trying to derail this conversation with grudges from the last time you lost an argument with me. Pay attention to this conversation and you might win one for a change.
So far I haven’t heard an answer to my question about the objective difference between ID and magic. Your last comment was also NOT an answer; it was mere hand-waving. You provided no objective evidence, so perhaps we need to define that more explicitly.
Tell me HOW you would “look at whether said occurrence were the result of an incantation calling on the power of some mystical, barely-defined cosmic principle or power, performed out of an irrational worldview by a non-omnipotent agent, also frequently accomplishing said incantation pretty quickly.” That’s quite a mouthful of stuff, but nothing in there tells me HOW you would show me any difference between that sort of cause, and the think-poof causality that underlies ID. How, exactly, do the results of incantations look any different from the invisible hands that ID requires? Causes leave fingerprints; different causes should leave different fingerprints. I can’t see the difference between ID and magic, and apparently you can’t see it well enough to show me. I’m still looking, so please show me the fingerprints.
And if you say “it doesn’t matter”, why did you argue with commenters above when someone suggested that ID = magic? Why did it matter then, but it doesn’t matter now? Is that because you have realized that your pet explanation is logically indistinguishable from magic?
If you still think that there is a difference, tell me how you would show an objective observer that difference. If you can’t do that, then we all (including you) will have to conclude that magic and ID are indistinguishable.
“Well, let’s see. I would probably look at whether said occurrence were the result of an incantation calling on the power of some mystical, barely-defined cosmic principle or power, performed out of an irrational worldview by a non-omnipotent agent, also frequently accomplishing said incantation pretty quickly.”
You really are a twit and a pseudo-intellectual poser. How can you not realize that this is nothing but raw question-begging?
Folks, there is no point in dealing with this stupid fuck any further.
the last time you lost an argument with me.
Yes, I clearly lost, that’s why I link to that convo from my own blog. Let the reader judge (as always).
nothing in there tells me HOW you would show me any difference
Take Scenario X on a case-by-case basis and apply those criteria. Not that hard, though it might require a bit of logical and philosophical rigor, which I’ve not come to expect from most Darwinians, especially not most in academia, whose writings are often rife with unaccounted-for and unjustified assumptions.
why did you argue with commenters above when someone suggested that ID = magic?
B/c “magic” carries quite a pejorative connotation. I dispute that connotation.
And again, the bare assumption of naturalism (especially ontological, and yes, I know the difference) is not convincing, if it’s unargued-for. Argue for it. Start by answering my above questions (and you’ll reveal it’s a faith-based position or an infinite regress, the former of which is the same thing you accuse the hated creationists of, the latter of which is clearly irrational). If “magic” is the way things are, where the evidence leads, what merit is there in clinging to Darwinian-style naturalistic processes as the way things are? That’s the stuff of cults.
tell me how you would show an objective observer that difference.
If you’d like to discuss one single example, even a thought-experiment of your making, I’ll be happy to engage it.
Rho,
The fact that you link that conversation from your own blog is merely more evidence that you live in a very interesting and evidence-free world. I hope you link to this one as well!
Give me a reason to think that “Take Scenario X on a case-by-case basis and apply those criteria” is anything other than more handwaving. When you “apply” those undefined criteria, what are you looking for in the way of objective evidence (aka fingerprints)? Does magic leave a smell of sulfur? Does ID leave a brown and smelly residue? Inquiring minds, a description which apparently does not include yours, want to know.
I’m sorry if “magic” has bad connotations for you. To me, its connotations are not nearly as negative as when I hear the words ID, or Cordova, or Behe, or Wells. But the connotations are not going to get better if you continually avoid showing us how to tell the difference between magic and ID. It’s up to you.
Finally, when I wrote “tell me how you would show an objective observer that difference”, and you replied “If you’d like to discuss one single example, even a thought-experiment of your making, I’ll be happy to engage it”, I guess you didn’t read my other comments very carefully. I did give you a thought experiment or two in #52 above. Here it is again; give it some thought of your own this time.
Someone claims that a particular phenomenon, e.g. the appearance of a new species in the fossil record, or the appearance of drug resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was due to magic. You claim that the same phenomenon was due to an intelligent designer. What objective evidence (i.e., evidence that would make sense to another observer like me) could you use to show me that you were right?
If two examples is too much, just concentrate on the Plasmodium case. How does Behe detect the fingerprints of the designer in that lethal parasite?
If “magic” is the way things are, where the evidence leads, what merit is there in clinging to Darwinian-style naturalistic processes as the way things are?
Why, then you’ve all but admitted that all you can do (and all the IDcreationists do) is to call the evidence for evolution into question?
Do you just not want to face the fact that you got nothing to bring to this fight, or do you truly not know what a false dichotomy is?
* then = when
“Look, the plane flies” we say. “Ha!” he responds, “that doesn’t prove that the carpet flies!”
Is that what he means? I thought he meant we need another method to show aerodynamics works than seeing a plane fly. (or for that matter, a way to prove this post is in English other than reading it.)
Rhology said: 18 hours and nobody has attempted to answer my questions yet. Is this a pattern around here? Or do you only answer questions that you like, from people you like and agree with? That’s my running hypothesis.
Most people will only answer questions that make sense, or that are posed by someone sincerely interested in the answers. Then there are those of us that are masochists.
Me: It treats intelligence as if it were some sort of magic serum or cantagious (sic) infection.
Rho: Spare me the hyperbolic caricatures. Answer the questions, please.
That is not hyperbole. That is literally what that ridiculous argument does. Not distingusihing between intelligence in setting up a test and intelligence within the test is so basic and simple a flaw you’ll have to forgive people for not taking you seriously when you do so. There is only so much irrationality one can be expected to take.
And on that score, we don’t need absolute morality. It’s a completely empty argument. We do just fine with our subjective, collectively formed ones, and in fact, vastly outperform in many ways societies that stick with the absolute versions.
Albatrossity said:
I hope you link to this one as well!
Believe me, I will. The amount of questions you guys have so far left on the table is impressive.
When you “apply” those undefined criteria, what are you looking for in the way of objective evidence
Are you planning to repeat your same questions all day? I’m not going to change my answer unless you give me a reason to.
Does ID leave a brown and smelly residue?
No, ID leaves evidence of design. Which is bolstered when people perform lab experiments that are GUIDED BY INTELLIGENT AGENTS. If you could provide some evidence that these mechanisms are at work, transforming organisms into significantly different kinds of organisms, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION, you might have sthg.
the appearance of drug resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was due to magic. You claim that the same phenomenon was due to an intelligent designer.
OK, sorry I missed it in your above comment.
But this is not a good experiment, as it is a false dilemma for my position; I don’t contend that the evolution of drug resistance is an example of ID “at work”, but rather natural, microevolutionary forces. Who’s denying that? I’m more interested in your evidence for, say, unicellular organisms developing into giraffes, etc. Things that are under dispute. I don’t see why engaging the topics actually under dispute is too much to ask.
Further, please explain how naturalistic mechanisms to which you’d appeal to explain this change in the organism is distinguishable from, say, karma. Thanks.
How does Behe detect the fingerprints of the designer in that lethal parasite?
That’s a question for Behe, not me. My questions here are fairly specific and are laid out in previous comments. My guess is he or another DI person would be happy to engage in a public moderated debate with you, given the position you occupy and your education.
Raguel said:
I thought he meant we need another method to show aerodynamics works than seeing a plane fly.
Not at all.
See, we can observe the plane fly. We can also observe organisms changing slightly over time. Thing is, we haven’t been keeping track long enough, nor does anyone live long enough, to observe the really juicy evolutionary changes take place. Yet those major, large-scale changes, are what Darwinians want everyone to think is how the current variety of life arrived at its current state. They say, “A finch’s beak got bigger. See? Lizards can turn into birds!” That extrapolation is unjustified.
They say, “We can make organisms become different by applying certain conditions and pressures to their reproduction and genes.” And that is intelligent design, the very thing they’re trying to DISprove.
Science Avenger said:
we don’t need absolute morality.
I don’t think you really believe that. Let me suggest you reflect on a (admittedly over-the-top and extreme) scenario. Feel free to leave a comment there so as not to sidetrack the convo here. Or email me. Or post a response on your own blog. Or ask ERV to post her own response. I don’t care.
We do just fine with our subjective, collectively formed ones
Uh oh, this hasn’t started well for you – you beg the question here, since you just admitted you don’t have an objective standard by which “just fine” could be judged or recognised. Please try again.
Peace,
Rhology
I’ve read through every word of Rhology’s postings here. My conclusion: He’s gone far beyond mere mental masturbation into the realm of auto-sodomy. Probably feels good to him but looks REALLY disgusting to anyone who’s exposed to it.
The comment about the largest threat to California is spam; I’ve seen the same damn text on several ScienceBlogs (including mine).
Rho weaseled: Are you planning to repeat your same questions all day? I’m not going to change my answer unless you give me a reason to.
The repetition of the question is solely dependent on the fact that you haven’t answered it yet. So the only way you can “change” your answer would be to generate one.
Your latest attempt is tautological, and again, not an answer to the question – No, ID leaves evidence of design.
How is that different from magic? Why would it be impossible for magic to leave “evidence of design”? What is “evidence of design”, anyway? Would you accept it if I said that magic leaves “evidence of magic”? I hope not!
You may think you are getting closer to an answer, but until you define some terms, and until you show how ID is different from magic in the fingerprints it leaves, we’re still left with the conclusion that ID = magic.
I’m amused that you contend that Behe’s example of drug resistance in P. falciparum is a “false dilemma. Mostly because I have no idea what a “false dilemma is! But here’s the facts. Behe claims that drug resistance in this organism cannot have occurred via evolution (aka, natural mechanisms). So it could have occurred by magic, or it could have occurred via the intervention of an intelligent designer (Behe’s contention), or by other mechanisms that need not concern us in this discussion. So you have, by saying that this is a natural phenomenon, dissented from Behe. That’s fine. What other Behe positions are you willing to declare yourself a heretic from?
More amusingly, you ask how this naturalistic explanation for malarial drug resistance is different from karma. That’s pretty easy. It is explainable by purely natural mechanisms (changes in bases in DNA resulting in changes enzyme structure resulting in changes in enzyme function resulting in changes in drug metabolism), which can replicated in other organisms by other scientists. That’s the definition of objective, in case you didn’t understand that word either. Let me know when you figure out a way that ID think-poofing can be replicated or explained by natural mechanisms.
So, to sum up, you have not been able to give us any objective evidence that distinguishes ID from magic, other than the tautological “evidence of design”, a characteristic which could be shared by magic. Thus ID could still be magic, and you can’t tell the difference. Furthermore, you have distanced yourself from one of the members of the ID pantheon, Mike Behe, in your pathetic scramble to get out of the corner you find yourself in.
If this is the sort of thing that your blog readers will misconstrue as you winning the argument, they must be even more ignorant and illogical than you are. I’m surprised that they can run a web broswer…
“Is that what he means? I thought he meant we need another method to show aerodynamics works than seeing a plane fly. (or for that matter, a way to prove this post is in English other than reading it.)”
No, what he’s continually saying is that we can’t prove his simple-minded caricature of the scientific method works by appealing to the actual, practical scientific method. Notice that in his own answer to you he brings up an imagined version of evolutionary biology without citing any actual examples of this methodology being A.) carried out and B.) being used to justify evolutionary theory in the way that he claims.
Albatrossity,
the only way you can “change” your answer would be to generate one.
Let the reader judge, then.
Were you ever planning to discuss the challenges to naturalism I raised above? Or the discussion of how I think it’s probable that a great deal of “evidence” cited for Darwinian processes is actually evidence for ID, given that these experiments are conducted by intelligent agents?
For the former, I imagine you’d do about as well as Dick Dawk in The God Delusion; that is to say, not well. (And that’s not your field, so I kind of understand.)
For the latter, feel free to jump right in.
How is that different from magic?
I suppose somehow you know that magic always leaves evidence behind.
Indulge me – where have you observed “magic” to know that about it? No, you’re just making this up as you go along without doing the hard work of establishing an actual realistic framework to ground your argument.
Why would it be impossible for magic to leave “evidence of design”?
It wouldn’t be impossible.
What is “evidence of design”, anyway?
A car.
Would you accept it if I said that magic leaves “evidence of magic”?
If you had a good argument, I’d consider it. It should be obvious that makes me far more open-minded than you (for better or for worse).
Got an argument?
until you define some terms
You have the burden to do so as well. I’m not the one who introduced “magic” into the discussion. Neither were you, to be fair, but you’ve run with it. So go for it, please.
Mostly because I have no idea what a “false dilemma is!
Here you go. Google (and the IEP) are your friends.
On P. falciparum…OK, so, Behe claims this is an example of irreducible complexity? Is that right?
So it could have occurred by magic
OK, and how does magic operate, exactly? Give me some info about it.
Out of what worldview are you operating? What are your presuppositions? On what power does this magic draw?
you have, by saying that this is a natural phenomenon, dissented from Behe.
I’d heard of P. falciparum before today just as much as you’d heard of false dilemmas, so, sorry.
I was reacting in general to the imagined problem often posed (though I don’t know why) to ID-ers, namely that organisms change over time, therefore Darwinianism is right. Sorry, that doesn’t necessarily follow.
(vs karma) It is explainable by purely natural mechanisms
And karma controls the natural mechanisms.
I’ll explain my ‘karmic’ worldview if you explain your magic one.
which can replicated in other organisms by other scientists
Yes, using INTELLIGENT MANIPULATION. Why isn’t that evidence for ID, since these things are conducted by intelligent agents (and thus non-unguided processes)?
“A car.”
And for evidence of evolution, I present: a human. That’s all I need! Wham, bam, thank you ma’am!
A car is only “evidence of design” if one takes into account the well known causal history behind car design and manufacturing. You are conflating instances where you are aware of the causal history of the entity with instances where the causal history is either not directly known or ambiguous. You’ve presented no method by which “design” can be extrapolated from the raw existence of the car, much less whether “design” can be differentiated from magic, as Albatrossity requested. So, you’re still in the corner, trashing and trying to get out as ineptly as a cat wrapped in a blanket. It really is fun to watch. 
unicellular organisms developing into giraffes…Things that are under dispute.
Who is saying that we went straight from unicellular organisms to giraffes? We’re talking a process of descent with modification over time versus God creating the African savannah and then “Poof!”, he populates the savannah with giraffes.
They say, “We can make organisms become different by applying certain conditions and pressures to their reproduction and genes.” And that is intelligent design, the very thing they’re trying to DISprove.
No, it’s a way of demonstrating that organisms become different when they are exposed to certain conditions and pressures that parallel what happens in nature without human intervention. I remember years ago my wife and I toured the Lost Sea in Tennessee, a cave with a large lake inside of it. The guide explained how years ago, rainbow trout (IIRC) were released into the cave lake in the hope that they would follow some underground streams and end up in a river lake somewhere. But the trout never left and over time their descendants lost their pigmentation and, if memory serves, their eyesight as well.
Now, this wasn’t a case of some scientists saying “Let’s expose these fish to different conditions so we can see how they change!” The results were purely unintentional. But it does provide an example that has been observed and documented that explains how creatures that live in caves are influenced by their environment and why they look different from their counterparts that do not live in caves.
This also addresses creationist claims that something as complex as an eye can only have come about from an Intelligent Designer. But if we can see (no pun intended) that species lose their eyesight (and in some cases, their actual eyes) in response to a change in environment, then why can’t the process work in reverse as well? Same thing with say, dodo birds, which were flightless birds that lived on a remote island in the Indian Ocean. If they lost the power of flight that their ancestors once possessed as a result of adapting to local conditions, why again can’t the ability to fly be a result of adaptation and natural process?
Rhology:
Questions: 1) Do you consider the bacterial flagellum, or the blood clotting cascade or the eye to be examples of intelligent design? If so, what evidence allows you to determine that they are such and not products of God poofing them into existence or of natural processes?
2) You resort to the creationist canard of “micro” vs. “macro” evolution. Where is the line drawn between these? What barrier exists to stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution? Why can’t pennies eventually add up to dollars?
3) You say “Darwinism” lacks evidence. Hypothetically, what evidence could be shown you that would lead to accept that “Darwinism” was sufficient to explain all of today’s life?
tl;dr
I leave you with this query. There are about SEVENTEEN MILLION individual peer-reviewed scientific papers indexed at the National Library of Medicine’s online database. Not a single paper refutes evolution, and not a single paper provides data in support of ID (the list provided by the Discovery Institute showcases a handful of data-free hypothesis and review papers, one of which was formally repudiated, and a few that are irrelevant to ID). What is the reason for this?
1. ID is based on supernatural (or otherwise untestable) causation, and thus is not science
2. There is a vast global conspiracy that has prevented even a single piece of data supporting ID from being published in peer-reviewed scientific literature
3. ID proponents are utterly incompetent at performing scientific research
Let’s recap.
Our new creationist plaything:
1. doesn’t know the evidence for evolution
2. doesn’t know the evidence for ID creationism (well done, Albatrossity)
3. cannot even competently define “design” or differentiate the mechanism for “design” from magic
4. yet, is convinced the evidence for “design” is totally overwhelming.
And I can’t even begin to unpack the rats’ nest of absurd circularity and ignorance around his conception of scientific experimentation. I can only say that if he really thinks that experimentation gives hot intelligence injections into experiments, and because he has no good reason whatsoever to believe “design” is a better explanation than evolution since he has no conception of what evidence lies behind either model, his choice is entirely arbitrary. And surprise, surprise, it all derives from his simpleminded authoritarian view (see, in past threads, his circular logic about the Bible’s infallibility).
So, in the end, anyone can get a bug up his butt about any scientific concept, arbitrarily demand that, say, a simple acid-base reaction demands “intelligence”, and declare all experimentation invalid because it requires intelligent manipulation.
Rho’s intent is nothing less than to tear down all of science, and indeed pretty much any modern post-Enlightenment advancement. This is intuitively obvious to anyone who’s been following his inane jabbering about “naturalism”, but it’s important that we make this absolutely clear — especially since this is also the stated goal of the ID movement as a whole (see also: Wedge Document).
The good news is, the “leaders” of the ID movement aren’t much more competent than Rho-bot. Which explains why they continually lose so humiliatingly.
Rhology
Yes, using INTELLIGENT MANIPULATION. Why isn’t that evidence for ID, since these things are conducted by intelligent agents (and thus non-unguided processes)?
Offhand, I’d say it’s because what scientists try to do in a lot of those experiments is to set up conditions that simulate what happens in nature, if perhaps accelerated.
That’s different then having an “intelligent designer” being necessary for anything to happen at all.
If I’m wrong, I’m sure one of the actual science people here will correct me.
Put another way, let’s say:
A. A small puddle of bacteria sees a sudden infusion of a certain toxic substance leaching out of the soil.
B. Scientists collect a flask from that puddle and grow it in the laboratory.
How much “intelligence” has been infused into situation B? How can you measure it? What is the mechanism of effect? If the bacteria mutate and develop resistance to the substance in nature, but not the lab, what do you think this means?
Dudes. The Rhobot is clearly not here to learn but to posture (for whom I’m not sure ’cause it ain’t impressive) and annoy. Stop wasting your valuable time on it.
Strider
Sometimes you just need some entertainment, and Rho has provided that, for sure!
Rho,
Thanks for your latest amusing comments. I learned that a false dilemma is the same as a false dichotomy, and that is good, since creationists are very fond of false dichotomies. I now have a new term with which to baffle them. That car argument will surely win you lots of followers! And this one
Why would it be impossible for magic to leave “evidence of design”?
It wouldn’t be impossible.
makes my point for me, thanks. Magic cannot be distinguished from ID.
Enjoy the day.
Science Avenger said:
we don’t need absolute morality.
Rhology said:I don’t think you really believe that.
Fuck you. Seriously. Accusing people of lying based on no evidence other than that their answer is incompatible with your little fantasies about how the world should be, deserves no more response than that. I do believe that, since the evidence is all around us.
SA: We do just fine with our subjective, collectively formed ones
Rhology said: …you beg the question here, since you just admitted you don’t have an objective standard by which “just fine” could be judged or recognised. Please try again.
I don’t need to, since “just fine’ is yet another aspect of the human experience where I don’t need an objective standard, and for the same reasons. All it takes to rip the knees out from this absolutist nonsense is a refusal to grant that unwarranted presumption in the questions. Demonstrate that we must have absolute standards for any of these things.
Rhology said:Yes, using INTELLIGENT MANIPULATION. Why isn’t that evidence for ID, since these things are conducted by intelligent agents (and thus non-unguided processes)?
Because a rock falls exactly as fast when released from the hand of an intelligent agent as it does from rolling off a cliff. It’s the same reason it isn’t cheating for adults to set up a game for kids to play. This really shouldn’t be that hard to grasp.
Rhology-
Since Tyler’s response to me is essentially what I would have written, I’ll just let his comment stand, with this addition: If you meant to ask, “How do you know evolution is true? Were you there?” you should have just said that. What you typed instead implied something else entirely.
Hahaha, thanks Rhology, that was humorously typical of a dishonest creationist. Or maybe just a daft one? You’ve confirmed most of the contentions made here already, beginning with: ID is no different than “POOF!” (magic) in how it predicts *anything*
I love it how you confirm the allegation that ID is a silly false dichotomy with every other declaration you make about evolution, too! HILARIOUS! You don’t even realize that you do it, do you?
Rhology sed I don’t contend that the evolution of drug resistance is an example of ID “at work”,
Can you provide evidence that ID has nothing to do with the evolution of drug resistance? In other words, can you falsify this statement: “Drug resistance is not the work of some Intelligent Designer.”
Ta ever so.
Are you guys still doing this? I hope you are having fun. I spent the weekend drinking wine talking to girls and watching Humphrey Bogart movies.
Here’s hoping my tags work:
Human perception is finite
Observation is limited
*flees to obtain medical diagnosis*
Empirical evidence is based on finite limited observation.
Science is not a perfect way of knowing things.
We should not rely on it’s conclusions.
*eats antibiotics*
Only through Metaphysical Epistemology can a thing truly be known.
*attributes recovery to prayer*
*reduces tithe to reflect medical billing*
*is insane*
Do you really need more than this?
Yes?
Rhology is part of the Trinity Baptist Church’s God Warrior Army
Even in the greater context of religious infantilism he is an infant.
He can’t stomach his own belief system without poetic sophistries posing as aphorisms and the strumming of electric guitars.
He is why Meyers has a Helldump rouges gallery and why Ms.Smith needs one.
“… since these things are conducted by intelligent agents (and thus non-unguided processes)?”
Was that phrase really not unnecessary? I’m trying to follow. Really. But this guy lost me 50 comments ago.
No, ID leaves evidence of design.
Which is bolstered when people perform lab experiments that are GUIDED BY INTELLIGENT AGENTS.
If you could provide some evidence that these mechanisms are at work, transforming organisms into significantly different kinds of organisms, WITHOUT INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION, you might have sthg.
But as I’ve pointed out to you on the other thread, in every case the ‘designer’ is a known, non-supernatural agent.
Since the designer of ID is (apparently) responsible for fine tuning the universe for life to exist, it cannot be a natural agent. How therefore, even assuming for argument you are correct in your assessment that intelligence is somehow ‘polluting’ these experiments, how can the actions of a known and detectable, physical, finite biological agent be considered evidence of the actions of an undetectable, non-natural agent’s actions?
As for detecting design – we were told (amongst other things) that IC was an example of how to detect design. However, none of Behe’s examples are IC (examples of why this is so have been provided to you by me in the past, so I will not restate them), so that’s that one out the window.
Another option was Dembski’s explanatory filter, which I gather even he has recently doesn’t actually do what he proposed it does ie it fails to provide a means to detect biological design.
So essentially your only conclusion from all of this is that we can detect human agents conducting lab experiments. This is not news to most people I’m afraid.
Hi all. Sorry for the delay. And thanks to ERV for hosting (ie, not shutting down) this debate.
Tyler DiPietro said:
A car is only “evidence of design” if one takes into account the well known causal history behind car design and manufacturing.
So you would seriously contend that if you encountered a car in the wilderness and didn’t know about cars, you’d think it had evolved thru natural processes…?
You’ve presented no method by which “design” can be extrapolated from the raw existence of the car
This is not my strength, honestly; while I find the standard ID arguments convincing, it’s not my intent to deal with those things here. I have presented other arguments.
much less whether “design” can be differentiated from magic, as Albatrossity requested.
I gave an answer. No one has rebutted it yet. Albatrossity has kindly declined. Did you plan to try?
I even asked a question along the same lines for you the naturalist. I’d like a reply to that myself.
Tommykey said:
Who is saying that we went straight from unicellular organisms to giraffes?
The Darwinian side is. It just took a REALLY long time.
God creating the African savannah and then “Poof!”, he populates the savannah with giraffes.
I’m not aware of anyone who believes that either. I join you in rebutting such a view.
(trout) wasn’t a case of some scientists saying “Let’s expose these fish to different conditions so we can see how they change!”
I’m not aware of anyone claiming that trout can’t become…trout, over time.
why can’t the process work in reverse as well?
I may have some idea, but I am not prepared to grant that without seeing some evidence of it.
And thank you, Tommykey, for your well-wishes. It is appreciated.
tresmal asked 3 questions:
1) Yes. I am a Christian. I consider everything to be an example of intelligent design, since God created the universe. And God “poofing” them into existence would be an example of intelligent design, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
2) I haven’t said there’s necessarily a barrier. I just refuse to accept such an assumed extrapolation without some good evidence. The fossil record doesn’t help you. You resort to trying to show that such things occur, via unguided processes, with experimentation, and a big problem is that a lot of said experimentation is much better classified as intelligent design since the experiments are guided by intelligent agents.
3) You could start by actually proving that, you know, lizards turn into birds, that nonrational things become rational organisms, w/o bringing intelligent manipulation into the picture.
minimalist said:
cannot even competently define “design” or differentiate the mechanism for “design” from magic
And what is your response to my reply to that and my counter-question?
absurd circularity
Is a priori restriction to naturalistic assumptions to perform experimentation and then appealing back to said experimental results to justify one’s naturalistic assumptions an example of absurd circularity? Please let me know why or why not.
his circular logic about the Bible’s infallibility
Did you miss the ones about the circular logic with respect to naturalism? Don’t tell me you missed those.
I posted some challenges on that very thing earlier in this thread. Only one person (Prometheus) has taken a swing at them, and badly at that. minimalist, you talk big – care to back it up?
declare all experimentation invalid because it requires intelligent manipulation.
Not all. I suggested a few possibilities. But I should think that most would certainly qualify.
You seem afraid to deal with the ramifications here, and that’s b/c you have an a priori commitment to reject ID, and to reject unthinkingly the suggestion that my ideas here, if true, would indeed undermine most of your ‘evidence’. You are not dealing with this question rationally at all.
the “leaders” of the ID movement aren’t much more competent than Rho-bot. Which explains why they continually lose so humiliatingly.
Hopefully your “rebuttals” to them amount to more than what we’ve so far seen here, which has been mostly a bunch of insults and “we just KNOW he’s wrong, so let’s rejoice in how wrong he is!”
How much “intelligence” has been infused into situation B?
How about you study what’s happening out in the wild? You know, to avoid suspicion that you’re inputting some guidance into the process and then writing it up and displaying it as an example of unguided processes?
If the bacteria mutate and develop resistance to the substance in nature, but not the lab, what do you think this means?
I’m not aware of anyone who disputes that bacteria can evolve into bacteria.
Reynold,
I’d say it’s because what scientists try to do in a lot of those experiments is to set up conditions that simulate what happens in nature, if perhaps accelerated.
Thank you for at least trying, which is more than most here could say.
The thing is, we can’t necessarily figure out how much meddling actually resembles how nature goes.
It’s bad enough that we can’t know with any significant amount of certainty what all these natural environments and processes were like 100, 1000, 10000, 1 million, 10s of millions of yrs ago, b/c we don’t have a time machine. We can make all sorts of assumptions, but assumptions aren’t the most solid of foundations.
Anyway, you’re trying to show that these nat sel processes are UNGUIDED. To do that, you GUIDE stuff. How much sense does that make?
Albatrossity said:
Magic cannot be distinguished from ID.
I will reply on the same level as your reply:
Yeah huh!
You disappoint me, sir. It would be great if you could actually deal with what I wrote.
Science Avenger said:
_ you. Seriously. Accusing people of lying based on no evidence other than that their answer is incompatible with your little fantasies about how the world should be, deserves no more response than that.
So, are you saying that it is absolutely wrong for me to misrepresent you like you think I did (I don’t grant that, but let’s just say for the sake of argument I did)? Or could it be wrong for you and right for me?
I note that your very reaction is the evidence of my statement.
since “just fine’ is yet another aspect of the human experience where I don’t need an objective standard,
“Just terrible” is also an aspect of the human experience. So is “I’m killing numerous people” and “I’m on a rape rampage”. I’m not celebrating those things, not at all! I’m just saying that this can’t be the standard of comparison.
Demonstrate that we must have absolute standards for any of these things.
Oh, well, if naturalism is true, there IS no absolute standard for any of these things, you’re right. So the claim “it is wrong at all times, for everyone, everywhere, and under any circumstance to rape and murder little girls” and the claim “it is right at all times, for everyone, everywhere, and under any circumstance to rape and murder little girls” are equivalent, aren’t they? Since you’re the one telling me that there are no absolute standards?
nunyer said:
Can you provide evidence that ID has nothing to do with the evolution of drug resistance?
I don’t know why you’d want ME to answer that…
Prometheus said:
Observation is limited *flees to obtain medical diagnosis*
Can you quote me casting doubt on anything remotely related to this question of the utility of modern medicine? Questioning what happened in the past when nobody was there to observe it is a far cry from this. To think that is pretty hubristic of you.
Rhology is part of the Trinity Baptist Church’s God Warrior Army
And we meet every Wednesday night in secret to drink the blood of babies born to atheists and Democrats.
Dr Funkenstein said:
the designer of ID is (apparently) responsible for fine tuning the universe for life to exist, it cannot be a natural agent.
You know me well enough to know that I don’t believe the IDesigner is a natural agent. So I’d agree.
how can the actions of a known and detectable, physical, finite biological agent be considered evidence of the actions of an undetectable, non-natural agent’s actions?
I’m not being specific about the Designer at all. This is an internal critique of naturalistic evolutionary theory.
Behe, Dembski
Those questions are irrelevant to the present discussion.
Peace,
Rhology
tl;dr
Dude, you really need to take a science class. Try your local community college. They should have some remedial bio class you could take, ’cause damn.
Hi Rho,
I hope the hospital incident was not too serious.
while I find the standard ID arguments convincing,
I’m not sure how you can claim that, since you have already demonstrated that you don’t know what those arguments are. Albatrossity already demonstrated how unfamiliar you are with Behe’s arguments.
So why do you claim the design arguments to be superior?…
I consider everything to be an example of intelligent design, since God created the universe.
…Oh, right, through the magic of circular logic.
Behe, Dembski
Those questions are irrelevant to the present discussion.
Of course they are, because you can’t answer them.
The same with your dodge of my “how much intelligence does a lab inject” question.
But it’s never been about the quality of the arguments (which you don’t understand or care to); your a priori beliefs are paramount.
Anyway, you’re trying to show that these nat sel processes are UNGUIDED. To do that, you GUIDE stuff. How much sense does that make?
:headdesk:
It makes perfect sense to those who understand that natural selection IS a guided (directional) process; do you not even grasp that? Good grief!
Of course they are, because you can’t answer them.
So, that’s one question I can’t answer, and at least 5 I’ve posed that you’ve not even touched.
It makes perfect sense to those who understand that natural selection IS a guided (directional) process
Guided by whom or what? I’m quite curious to hear this!
You know me well enough to know that I don’t believe the IDesigner is a natural agent. So I’d agree.
Right – but you’re claiming natural agents are evidence for the actions of non-natural agents ie the ID hypothesis – I don’t see any obvious reason our actions qualify as evidence that would support supernatural activity. (Additionally, the ID movement have claimed the designer could be natural – but this can’t be the case because of what I said before).
I’m not being specific about the Designer at all. This is an internal critique of naturalistic evolutionary theory.
But thus far (and I’m just going with the assumption here for the sake of discussion that human endeavour in some way renders experiments invalid) all you’ve demonstrated is that even if we assume what you say to be true is that a. humans do experiments, and b. we don’t know if processes operating in nature can do the same things that happen in an experiment (remember, I’m just assuming this position you’ve presented for argument’s sake). Nothing more or less – for your claim that experiments are evidence for the kind of ID practiced by religious groups and the DI (ie supernatural ID), you’d need some way of demonstrating this that distinguishes it from human activity eg identifying the designer and how a scientific investigator could establish this hypothesis via the usual scientific methods of investigation.
This is what Dembski and Behe claim to have found, which is why I find it confusing that you say their methods for detecting design are irrelevant here. I understand that you want to show ‘Darwinism’ to be inconsistent, but that’s not all you’re trying to do – you’re also claiming it supports the ideas promoted by the ID movement.
Behe, Dembski – Those questions are irrelevant to the present discussion.
They’re not – the means to detect supernatural design are described in the writings of those 2. If their methods fail (and they do on both counts), we have no means by which to identify supernatural design and rule out natural processes in biological structures. So unless they have some means to scientifically detect this non-natural designer, what do they have in the way of support for the supernatural ID thesis?
So you would seriously contend that if you encountered a car in the wilderness and didn’t know about cars, you’d think it had evolved thru natural processes…?
C’mon man,you’re just regurgitating the age old watch argument. There are means to either investigate a car’s design either via comparison to other similar mechanical processes of human engineering or via identifying parts of the mechanical device (serial numbers, manufacturers tags, number plates)
Mechanical devices also substantially differ from biological ones:
Some biological organisms can replicate themselves by dividing, others via reproduction with another member of the same species – cars and watches can’t
Biological organisms repair damage to themselves, isolated mechanical devices don’t
I’m sure you can think of other comparisons that demonstrate them to be suitably different
So, that’s one question I can’t answer, and at least 5 I’ve posed that you’ve not even touched.
Wrong. You haven’t answered a single question posed to you here. Sure, you type a bunch of crap and hit “Post”, but you weasel, you equivocate, you stumble clumsily between definitions in an effort to avoid being pinned to any one solid point. But you haven’t, by any reasonable definition, answered a question.
Guided by whom or what? I’m quite curious to hear this!
Seriously, man? Seriously?
The environment. In a certain environment, if allele A confers greater fitness than allele B, you will see more of allele A, and less of B, in successive generations.
This is basic, textbook, Bio 101 stuff here.
Go read a damn book.
“It makes perfect sense to those who understand that natural selection IS a guided (directional) process”
Guided by whom or what? I’m quite curious to hear this!
By the environment, of course. Remedial Science 101: In any given environment, those species that are generally the most succesful are generally the best adapted to that environment (also known as “fittest”). When the environment changes the characteristics of each species that previously made it well-adapted may now be a detriment, and so previously inconsequential variations in individuals become relevant in determining who lives long enough to reproduce and who doesn’t. If the enviromental changes are large and sudden enough, many species go completely extinct. Either way, the long-term descendants of the survivors will eventually be sufficiently different from their forebears as to be a different species altogether. That, in a brief nutshell, is how natural selection works and how it is guided by environmental factors. It’s quite simply, really.
minimalist said:
But you haven’t, by any reasonable definition, answered a question.
Let the reader judge. The questions and non-answers are all out on the table.
The environment. In a certain environment, if allele A confers greater fitness than allele B, you will see more of allele A, and less of B, in successive generations.
Yeah, it’s what I thought. This is a complete equivocation on the use of “guided”. You know (or ought to know) the distinction and the arenas of disagreement between the Darwinian camp and the ID camp, and then you say “but no, dude, seriously, OUR stuff is ‘guided’ too!” What’s the point?
The “environment” (whatever you mean by that) doesn’t “guide”. The only teleology it has is that there are only a few configurations of genes that will be viable and survivable. And who disputes that?
But since you’re so happy to accept that the processes are guided after all, what precisely repels you from accepting a more intelligent guide? After all, if you accept guidance, then it’s simply a naked assertion, begging the question, to say that it’s definitely the environment and definitely not some higher Designer doing the guidance. So please clarify, thanks.
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 6, 2009
February 7, 2009
February 7, 2009
February 7, 2009
February 7, 2009
February 7, 2009
February 7, 2009
February 7, 2009
February 7, 2009
February 8, 2009
February 9, 2009
February 9, 2009
February 10, 2009
February 10, 2009
February 10, 2009