Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2018 6:07 PM
226 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, JonF, ooh-child, Son Goku, Tangle, Taq (7 members, 219 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume:
Total: 840,654 Year: 15,477/29,783 Month: 1,421/1,502 Week: 178/241 Day: 57/74 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   A Year In Intelligent Design
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16044
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 1 of 27 (826248)
12-27-2017 11:02 AM


Here's the flagship journal of the wonderful new science of intelligent design. When it was launched in 2010 the Discovery Institute described it as "set to accelerate the pace and heighten the tone of the debate over intelligent design". In 2017 they've managed to produce two articles. Hooray! What a dizzyingly accelerated pace!

2018 will mark the twentieth anniversary of the Wedge Document. Here are their twenty-year goals:

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Good luck with that, boys.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 12-29-2017 9:10 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12560
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 27 (826250)
12-27-2017 12:16 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the A Year In Intelligent Design thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11328
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 27 (826344)
12-29-2017 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2017 11:02 AM


Pinkie And The Brain
Dr.A writes:

Here are their twenty-year goals:

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Seems puzzling why they care so much that intelligent design should be the dominant perspective in science. Unless...they have an agenda!


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2017 11:02 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 12-29-2017 11:12 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15429
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 4 of 27 (826372)
12-29-2017 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
12-29-2017 9:10 AM


Re: Pinkie And The Brain
Phat writes:

Seems puzzling why they care so much that intelligent design should be the dominant perspective in science. Unless...they have an agenda!


I don't think they understand their own agenda. Achieving it would put us back to the Stone Age.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 12-29-2017 9:10 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by frako, posted 12-29-2017 12:46 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2792
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 5 of 27 (826382)
12-29-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
12-29-2017 11:12 AM


Re: Pinkie And The Brain
I don't think they understand their own agenda. Achieving it would put us back to the Stone Age.

That is their ideal scenario, everyone as dumb as rocks and a few smartasses running the show because magic men in the sky told them they should.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 12-29-2017 11:12 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7577
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 6 of 27 (826384)
12-29-2017 2:45 PM


Rosa Parks They Are Not
For a long time now we have been told by ID/creationists how they have been persecuted and prevented from publishing their research in scientific journals.

Now they have a journal that will publish damn near anything they want to, and millions of dollars at the Discovery Institute to fund research. What do we get? Bupkus.

On the best of days, all they are capable of doing is falsely criticizing the scientific work done by others.


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-26-2018 4:57 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
A Certain Cyborg
Member
Posts: 7
From: Calgary
Joined: 12-19-2017


(1)
Message 7 of 27 (827508)
01-26-2018 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taq
12-29-2017 2:45 PM


Re: Rosa Parks They Are Not
Indeed. They have their own journals and publish nill.
However, I'd like to point out that Dembskis thesis was approved through the normal route, and that's probably the best they've done. Dembski's work, as far as I can tell from the peer review has been torn apart from every angle, and largely criticised by his own peers as obfuscatory.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 12-29-2017 2:45 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 01-26-2018 5:00 PM A Certain Cyborg has responded
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2018 2:18 AM A Certain Cyborg has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 8 of 27 (827510)
01-26-2018 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by A Certain Cyborg
01-26-2018 4:57 PM


Re: Rosa Parks They Are Not
Welcome home. Pull up a stump and set a spell.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-26-2018 4:57 PM A Certain Cyborg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-26-2018 6:01 PM jar has not yet responded

  
A Certain Cyborg
Member
Posts: 7
From: Calgary
Joined: 12-19-2017


(1)
Message 9 of 27 (827511)
01-26-2018 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
01-26-2018 5:00 PM


Re: Rosa Parks They Are Not
Indeed I shall. I've been lurking for a little bit now, I like what I see. It's a definite improvement from the conversation I see elsewhere.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 01-26-2018 5:00 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 8:18 AM A Certain Cyborg has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14423
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 10 of 27 (827519)
01-27-2018 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by A Certain Cyborg
01-26-2018 4:57 PM


Re: Rosa Parks They Are Not
I have read that there may have been some shenanigans behind the publication of The Design Inference. I have read it and on that ground alone I think there is some plausibility to the allegation.

Certainly it fails to elucidate how we actually recognise design, focussing instead on a method that is impractical - and, as Dembski has since admitted, flawed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-26-2018 4:57 PM A Certain Cyborg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-28-2018 4:21 AM PaulK has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19589
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 11 of 27 (827522)
01-27-2018 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by A Certain Cyborg
01-26-2018 6:01 PM


from lurker to poster
Welcome to the fray A Certain Cyborg,

Indeed I shall. I've been lurking for a little bit now, I like what I see. It's a definite improvement from the conversation I see elsewhere.

Things are a little slow these days, not much competition. What I like about this site is the opportunity to learn new things.

Where else have you been posting?

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-26-2018 6:01 PM A Certain Cyborg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-28-2018 4:36 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
A Certain Cyborg
Member
Posts: 7
From: Calgary
Joined: 12-19-2017


Message 12 of 27 (827584)
01-28-2018 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
01-27-2018 2:18 AM


Re: Rosa Parks They Are Not
Shenanigans? Interesting. I think I'll have to leave my interest in that on the back burner for now; the sudden shift from 'creation science' to 'intelligent design' rings a bell; especially in regards to the textbook subpoena in Kitzmiller v. Dover.


PaulK writes:

Certainly it fails to elucidate how we actually recognise design, focussing instead on a method that is impractical - and, as Dembski has since admitted, flawed.


Prepended: this next bit is a sort of position statement. Sorry.
I haven't read The Design Inference, but I have printed out several pages of his seminal thesis (upon which the book and his subsequent writing about Complex, Specified Information is based) for reference. When I first started reading the arguments from the Intelligent Design community I was immediately interested in their claim (based on Dembskis claim) that it is being used in Forensic Science and Archaeology.
It was a short order for me to cook up an argument probing my interlocutors as to exactly how the Design Inference would differentiate between four scenarios. Needless to say, they merely told me I should read the Design Inference (a seeming tacit admission that they haven't read it, or at least haven't understood it).
Taking their bait, that's how I came to accessing Dembskis thesis (my library didn't have a copy of The Design Inference, but did have a copy of The Design Revolution which I was unimpressed by, to say the least). I've tried my best to comprehend it, but as I mentioned even Dembskis academic peers have criticized his writing for being misleading or hard to comprehend (and not because it's a difficult topic).
Suffice it to say, those actually involved in Forensics and Archaeology aren't impressed. See: Chapter 8, written by Gary S. Hurd in 'Why Intelligent Design Fails'.
quote:
...focussing instead on a method that is impractical - and, as Dembski has since admitted, flawed.

I'm being tangential, pardon me.
How do you mean impractical? I've been reading the peer review and it's quite negative, but are you alluding to how the Design Inference (the Explanatory Filter) doesn't positively indicate design, but negates the (purportedly) only other explanations?
I'm also interested to read Dembskis admission, if you could find it. I have noticed though that he shifts his explanations from the Design Inference in earlier work to the Explanatory Filter in later work, and uses different diagrams, flow-charts, etc. each of which are slightly different iterations of the same concept.

Addendum Sorry for the roundabout, merry-go-round of a reply. I do intend to collate my ideas and criticisms of Intelligent Design in the future. This is a late-night reply so it's off the cuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2018 2:18 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 4:56 AM A Certain Cyborg has responded
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 01-30-2018 10:55 AM A Certain Cyborg has not yet responded

  
A Certain Cyborg
Member
Posts: 7
From: Calgary
Joined: 12-19-2017


(1)
Message 13 of 27 (827586)
01-28-2018 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
01-27-2018 8:18 AM


Re: from lurker to poster
Facebook; I lurk and comment in several 'debate' groups. There are some quality commentators (on both sides) that I enjoy reading and replying to. If it's a little slow, I might be able to convince some of them to at least happen by here if not participate.
Indeed, I see a lot of quality content here. The reference library, and platform itself are more conducive to learning from each other, especially compared to Facebook. I've learned a lot in my discussions there, but there's a need not met by the platform itself; formatting is a godsend.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 8:18 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14423
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 14 of 27 (827588)
01-28-2018 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by A Certain Cyborg
01-28-2018 4:21 AM


Re: Rosa Parks They Are Not
To quickly explain, Dembski’s method is impractical because eliminating the alternative explanations is usually not feasible. It will work in trivial cases where the explanations are easily listed and the probabilities can be calculated without too much work. But really, is there any non-trivial case where that actually applies ?

That’s why pretty much nobody bothers to use Dembski’s method. To the best of my knowledge even Dembski hasn’t managed to apply it to biology. At one point, I recall, he was using the dodge that if the probabilities couldn’t be calculated the explanation should be discarded anyway. Hardly rigorous mathematics!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-28-2018 4:21 AM A Certain Cyborg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-28-2018 2:58 PM PaulK has responded

    
A Certain Cyborg
Member
Posts: 7
From: Calgary
Joined: 12-19-2017


Message 15 of 27 (827607)
01-28-2018 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
01-28-2018 4:56 AM


Re: Rosa Parks They Are Not
Thanks. When I was reading Ch. 8; Forensics & Archaeology the argument was that most of the actual work was being done with side knowledge, and not the actual issue. In biology this is particularly important. How do we know there is a specified pattern in the genome, or the epigenome (as ID proponents seem to be fixating on now)? Any pattern we see we are more than likely applying ourselves, after the fact. So much for not painting the bull's-eyes where the arrows land, right?

Edited by A Certain Cyborg, : Autocorrect error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 4:56 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 3:20 PM A Certain Cyborg has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018