Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
259 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, xongsmith (6 members, 253 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,570 Year: 20,606/19,786 Month: 1,003/2,023 Week: 511/392 Day: 55/72 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 207 (141531)
09-11-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coragyps
09-10-2004 1:14 PM


Sorry Coragyps but ID is not creation. The two are patently different. IDists understand the difference. Creationists understand the difference. Why is then ONLY their opponents choose to conflate the two?

Young* Earth Creation:

1) There was a sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from God.

2) Mutations and natural selection are insufficient to bring about the development of all living things from a single organism.

3) Changes in the originally created kinds of plants and animals occur within fixed limits.

4) There is a separate ancestry for humans and apes.

5) The earth’s geology can be explained via catastrophism, primarily by the occurrence of a worldwide flood.

6) The earth and all living kinds had a relatively recent origin (on the order of 10,000 years ago).

(* There are creationists who believe in an old earth. They argue over the length of a day in Genesis. Are the first few days in Genesis actually eras?)

ID: pg. 92

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add more blank line in listed items. Eliminated bolding of listed items.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 09-10-2004 1:14 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Peter, posted 09-13-2004 7:36 AM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 207 (141532)
09-11-2004 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
09-10-2004 1:44 PM


quote:
Percy:
I can't adopt a different vocabulary for each person I debate with, so I'm going to continue to use Creationism to refer to the collection of proposals from the fundamentalist Christian community concerning origins. Whether it's old earth Creationism, young earth Creationism, flood theory, vapor canopy theory, hydroplate theory or intelligent design, I will continue to refer to them collectively as Creationism. ID is just one strategy, the most recent, as it happens, of the fundamentalist Christian community to get Creationism represented in public school curriculums.

Then I would have to conclude that you are confused at best and willfully misrepresenting at worst. What is your evidence that ID is a fundy christian strategy? I am a Budhist. Even AiG knows that ID is not creation. If what you said were true, and it is not, then AiG would embrace ID 100%.

quote:
Percy:
Naturally IDists want to distance themselves from the Creationist label, but even within a perspective that holds IDists separate from Creationists, Sternberg still accepts and promotes a view that has found acceptance only in the fundamentalist Christian community, a view which has no scientific support at this time.

Tell that to the scientists present and past who see (saw) plenty of evidence for design. All you have shown so far is that you can twist and spin with the best of them.

The paper in question passed peer-review. Now you want to argue semantics. Who cares what others on the board think. If they were qualified they could have been involved with the review process.

quote:
Percy:
So the facts we have so far are:

Editor Sternberg went against the journals stated purpose by including the article in the proceedings. From the above link:
"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history."

Merely by including a non-taxonomic article he was violating the Proceedings established focus.

The article was published without the knowledge of key officers of the BSOW (see prior quote above).

Sternberg states that the article was peer-reviewed, yet the officers of the BSOW knew nothing about it.

Sternberg has resigned.


That is a big SO WHAT? to all 5 points. Do officers on Nature get involved with its peer-review process?

Again, you the liar, has accused Sternberg of lying.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-10-2004 1:44 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 11:58 AM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 42 by lfen, posted 09-11-2004 3:12 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 207 (141533)
09-11-2004 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by PaulK
09-10-2004 1:36 PM


quote:
PaulK:
If ID is not creationism perhaps you can explain why Steve Jones was asked to leave the ID movement ?

I am not privy to that, nor do I care.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish to announce that I have left the ID movement, my position having become increasingly untenable, due to my advocacy of of common ancestry within ID, it being finally suggested by Phil Johnson that I leave.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Dr. Behe also believes in common descent. He states that in his book and elsewhere. So I would conclude there are other reasons Steve was asked to leave.

quote:
PaulK:
If species are not related by common ancestry then how does Intelligent Design explain where they come from ?

ID doesn't say that. Organisms could be related by common descent under ID, that is if that is what the evidence shows. What ID does say is the diversity arose via pre-programmed instructions, as opposed to nature acting alone as in NS acting on RM.

What happens when we understand that the evidence does not point to some single LUCA (last universal common ancestor), as some scientists already are suggesting?


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 1:36 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 09-11-2004 12:44 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2004 3:49 PM ID man has responded
 Message 45 by jar, posted 09-11-2004 4:58 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 207 (141535)
09-11-2004 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
09-10-2004 1:17 PM


quote:
PaulK:
Sternebrg is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group - a Young Earth Creationist organisation.

That does not make him a creationist. Baraminology could very well be the future of biology. It shows he has an open mind.

Sorry Paul but I will go with Sternberg on this one. He has no reason to deny he is a Creationist, yet he does just that. That means he is not a Creationist. It is that simple.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 1:17 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 12:19 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2004 3:57 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 207 (141536)
09-11-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nic Tamzek
08-25-2004 9:56 PM


quote:
Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile.

Remove "scientific community" and replace it with "materialistic naturalists". What is this allged "scientific community"? IDists and Creationists both have scientists on their respective sides. Are they part of that community? Would Sir Isaac be part of that community? How about Pasteur? Kepler? Galileo? Aristotle?

Maybe this alleged community will publish something that would falsify ID. I doubt it as it appears they can't support their premise but can only criticize all opposing ideas.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nic Tamzek, posted 08-25-2004 9:56 PM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 09-11-2004 11:10 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31635
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 36 of 207 (141538)
09-11-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:48 AM


Would Sir Isaac be part of that community? How about Pasteur? Kepler? Galileo? Aristotle?

Were they alive today they would support the TOE.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:48 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18984
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 37 of 207 (141541)
09-11-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:27 AM


ID man writes:

Then I would have to conclude that you are confused at best and willfully misrepresenting at worst. What is your evidence that ID is a fundy christian strategy?

This information has already been presented to you. As I mentioned, and as Holmes also mentioned while citing Steve Jones, traditional Creationists are part of Discovery Institute. Holmes also cited Dembski's book drawing connections between ID and theology. Creation/evolution discussion boards like this one always include ID as a part of Creationism.

ID supporters like yourself are understandably desperate to distance the movement from the traditional Creationism that has been so unsuccessful in achieving its goal of moving Creationism into public school science classrooms, or at least in moving evolution out. The ID movement especially doesn't want to be associated with the court cases lost by Creationism, nor with the efforts of some state school boards like Ohio and Kansas that were held up to national ridicule.

It's interesting that you're a "Budhist" (which, that being the case, you'd think you'd be able to spell), but ID is primarily a movement of the fundamentalist Christian community, not of science. As a Buddhist presumably interested in what you perceive as the scientific nature of ID you will likely experience the same dissatisfactions as Steve Jones when you eventually encounter those in the movement in a position of influence capable of maintaining the primarily theological focus.

Tell that to the scientists present and past who see (saw) plenty of evidence for design. All you have shown so far is that you can twist and spin with the best of them.

I'm only representing the views of science. If ID were truly a legitimate perspective within the scientific community then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The paper in question passed peer-review. Now you want to argue semantics. Who cares what others on the board think. If they were qualified they could have been involved with the review process.

Only Sternberg said it passed peer review. No one at BSOW agrees, and this includes not only the board and officers, but also Sternberg's own associate editors. Quoting again what I already quoted from Biological Society of Washington Repudiates Myer:

"It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings."

Clearly Sternberg kept the inclusion of the Meyer article a secret from everyone else at BSOW because he knew that not only did it not qualify because it wasn't about taxonomy, but also because it was bad science. These misbehaviors forced his resignation, a virtual admission of wrongdoing.

Again, you the liar, has accused Sternberg of lying.

I'm just recounting events and drawing conclusions. I'm not the one lying about my connections to Creationism or making up stories about fictional peer reviews.

--Percy

This message has been edited by Percy, 09-11-2004 11:25 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:27 AM ID man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2004 2:16 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 2:44 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18984
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 38 of 207 (141544)
09-11-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:42 AM


ID man writes:

quote:
PaulK:
Sternebrg is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group - a Young Earth Creationist organisation.

That does not make him a creationist. Baraminology could very well be the future of biology. It shows he has an open mind.

Let's see. He violates his own journals guidelines to publish an article on ID. He's a member of a baraminology group. He's a fellow of ISCID (International Society for Complexity, Information and Design), another ID group. He spoke at the 2001 Creationist conference called "Discontinuity: Understanding Biology in the Light of Creation." He might have an open mind, but all his activity appears to be on the Creationist side of the fence.

Sorry Paul but I will go with Sternberg on this one. He has no reason to deny he is a Creationist...

Sure he does. As I described in my previous message, ID wants to distance itself from earlier unsuccessful Creationist efforts.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:42 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8866
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 39 of 207 (141551)
09-11-2004 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:36 AM


LUCA ?
What happens when we understand that the evidence does not point to some single LUCA (last universal common ancestor), as some scientists already are suggesting?

This is interesting. Do you have some references?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:36 AM ID man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Ooook!, posted 09-12-2004 6:30 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 207 (141573)
09-11-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
09-11-2004 11:58 AM


"Budhist" (which, that being the case, you'd think you'd be able to spell)

Heyyyy, typos happen. I tell ya from the minute he started posting I said that reserved style, that centered demeanor, that there's gotta be a budhist.

Indeed, such a buddhist that he has some problems with common descent???

Oh yes, and his signature has a quote from a book/movie whose premise starts "what would the universe be like if God created the Universe for us to explore". Yeah, that sure is buddhist if I ever seen one.

This message has been edited by holmes, 09-11-2004 01:18 PM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 11:58 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18984
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 41 of 207 (141579)
09-11-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
09-11-2004 11:58 AM


Some additional clarification has appeared in the online Chronicle of Higher Education that addresses peer review of the Meyer paper. They interviewed the president of the BSOW, Roy W. McDiarmid,and the article states:

The paper had been reviewed by three scientists and had been recommended for publication pending revisions, said Mr. McDiarmid. He did not learn about the paper until after its publication. "My conclusion on this," he said, "was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part."

This means that Sternberg was *not* lying when he said the paper was peer reviewed. However, as I said earlier, it must have been reviewed by people Sternberg handpicked because he knew they were sympathetic to ID. I also question Sternberg's claim that they were scientists, because even a superficial perusal of the article reveals its scientific shortcomings. The difference in quality is as Dickens and Whitman to comic books.

For this reason, I also disagree with this quote from the article:

"People who would be appropriate to review the paper would be evolutionary biologists, and I doubt that any evolutionary biologists reviewed the paper," said Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.

It doesn't take an evolutionary scientist to recognize that the article was a combination of speculation and bad science. Anyone with a modicum of scientific background would have rejected the paper. Something fishy definitely went on.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 11:58 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2993 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 42 of 207 (141590)
09-11-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:27 AM


quote:
I am a Budhist.

ID Man,

You are a buddhist. May I ask which tradition? And what is your buddhist appraisal of ID?

edited to add: Who or what do you consider to be the Designer of the Intelligent Design?

Thank you,
lfen

This message has been edited by lfen, 09-11-2004 02:16 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:27 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15560
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 43 of 207 (141603)
09-11-2004 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:36 AM


Yet obviously ID does NOT accept universal common descent since declaring a belief in it is incompatible with membership of the ID movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:36 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 10:47 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15560
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 44 of 207 (141605)
09-11-2004 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:42 AM


I think the obvious desparation of your excuses is quite suffiicent to show how damning the evidence is. I suppose if he were on a Flood Geology group you would say that "might well" be the "future of geology".

Baraminology is based on YEC doctrine. It is allegedly a Biblical concept (although in fact it is nowhere in the Bible) and the papers requested include purely theological ones.

This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-11-2004 02:58 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:42 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31635
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 45 of 207 (141622)
09-11-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ID man
09-11-2004 10:36 AM


What happens when we understand that the evidence does not point to some single LUCA (last universal common ancestor), as some scientists already are suggesting?

TTBOMK, there is nothing that would exclude there being more than one common ancestor. Life could well have started multiple times. If we ever found evidence that life had started more than once it would change very little.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ID man, posted 09-11-2004 10:36 AM ID man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 09-11-2004 5:12 PM jar has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019