Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
86 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 85 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,045 Year: 5,157/6,534 Month: 577/794 Week: 68/135 Day: 8/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 61 of 207 (142308)
09-14-2004 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
09-13-2004 11:36 AM


quote:
PaulK:
No, I don't admit that I am wrong.

Of course you won't. That is how you and your ilk operate. You see the facts and ignore them because they interfer with your agenda.

quote:
PaulK:
Because you have offered no evidence that I am wrong.

Now you are lying.

quote:
PaulK:
As I say Behe's departure would be too politically damaging for the ID movement to simply ask him to leave for endorsing common descent.

That is nothing but an unsupported assertion. But evis are known for those.

quote:
PaulK:
And since you agree that rejection of common descent places ID in the creation camp you have to deal with Steve Jones' departure from the ID movement - according to Jones over that very issue.

That is NOT what I agreed to. You have again proven you are a low-life loser. Go seek help- quick.

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-14-2004 08:42 AM


"...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 56 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 11:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2004 10:14 AM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 207 (142310)
09-14-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
09-13-2004 5:36 PM


ID is not Creation
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=25&t=247&p=3

What usual players? Do I see Ham? Do I see Sarfati? Do I see Morris? Nope. No Creationists behind the curtain.

What are the options on how life and the universe came to be? How did nature come to be?

You and your ilk can call ID whatever you want. It just exposes your ignorance. It is like saying republicans are democrats and democrats are republicans. ID and Creation may have similarities but they also have differences. They both have things in common with the theory of evolution. Bottom line is that if you could provide positive evidence for your faith neither ID or Creation would have come about.

The problem with your post is that it is mere assertion. It doesn't face the facts.


"...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 59 by Percy, posted 09-13-2004 5:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 11:46 AM ID man has taken no action
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 12:11 PM ID man has replied
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 09-14-2004 12:28 PM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 207 (142312)
09-14-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Loudmouth
09-13-2004 6:39 PM


quote:
Loudmouth:
Your statement is too general, given the observations. It should be "Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agent THAT IS PART OF THE NATURAL REALM."

True, but we know that nature acting alone didn't do it. And it does not rule out a supernatural entity becoming part of the natural world and then designing life.

quote:
Loudmouth:
Therefore, life had to originate naturally somewhere, and this rules out the possibility that life can only arise through an intelligent agent.

It depends on what you call "naturally". Also you have yet to provide any evidence that life could arise from non-life by natyre acting alone. In fact the more we know the less likely it becomes.

Dean Kenyon was one of the front-runners for putting forth theories of the origins of life. Now he is an IDist.


"...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 60 by Loudmouth, posted 09-13-2004 6:39 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 09-14-2004 9:59 AM ID man has taken no action
 Message 72 by Loudmouth, posted 09-14-2004 12:36 PM ID man has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 64 of 207 (142314)
09-14-2004 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:55 AM


True, but we know that nature acting alone didn't do it.

How do we know that?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:55 AM ID man has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 65 of 207 (142317)
09-14-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:41 AM


If you have offered any evidence other than Behe's statemnets accepting common descent then I have yet to see it. I have already given reasons why I do not consider that adequate. Let me add that Behe's personal views are not necessarily those of the movement. Let us also note that the ID movement is happy to include YECs like Paul Nelson.

Moreover if you cannot work out for youself how the departure of Behe would damage the ID movement then I see little hope for you. Not only is Behe active in promoting the ID message he is one of the few IDers of any stature in any branch of Biology. It would be a serious blow to ID's scientific pretensions to lose him at all - the more so if it were over a scientific issue. But apparently you don't see any of that.

On the other hand you have yet to deal with Steven Jones' testimony. Steven Jones states that he was asked to leave the ID movmenet because his belief in common descent was not comaptible with membership - and by no less a figure than Philip Johnson (who has a far better claim to speak for the ID movement thna Behe).

And let me also point out that you did indeed state that a movement that rejected common descent should be placed

quote:

In the Creation camp,


Anyone can go back and see that you agreed with me on that point.

So now all your attacks have been proven false are you going to try to seriuously deal with the issues ? Or can we just expect more abuse because you can't stand the truth ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:41 AM ID man has taken no action

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 66 of 207 (142324)
09-14-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
09-13-2004 11:36 AM


Wrong?
No, I don't admit that I am wrong.

Can we clarify what you may or may not be wrong about? Behe is an IDist. He accepts common decent. It might appear that you were saying IDists don't accept common decent. One example would make you technically wrong.

However, ID Man might be saying that the "movement" as a whole isn't religious or somesuch. The general statement of the discovery institute would show him to be wrong with exceptions.

Just what is the argument there exactly?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 11:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2004 11:44 AM AdminNosy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 67 of 207 (142329)
09-14-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by AdminNosy
09-14-2004 11:21 AM


Re: Wrong?
I'm saying that the ID movement, as a movement, does not accept common descent. All Behe's testimony tells us is that one member of the movement personally accepts common descent and has not been forced out as a result.

The more important issue is Steve Jones' testimony, since he states that he was asked to resign from the movement by one of the few people who could legitimately claim to speak for the ID movenent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2004 11:21 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2004 5:47 PM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 85 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:13 AM PaulK has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 68 of 207 (142330)
09-14-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by ID man
09-13-2004 10:50 AM



The assertions are supported. They are supported by our current level of knowledge. Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agency. Also we have never observed nature acting alone do such. Therefore 1-3 are supported.

This is not correct.

Biological systems exhibit (apparently) these properties, but
cannot be shown to be designed via an intelligent agency.

To suggest otherwise is cyclic.

RE: (2) requires such a laborious and philosophical dicussion of
the nature of information that people here tend to get very
bored and the threads get closed just when they start to
become interesting

RE: (1) IC has (at some length) been shown to be insufficient to
infer Intelligent Design. IC can come from evolutionary
algorithms in which the 'design' comes from 'unintelligent'
process even though the rules are set in place by an intelligence.

High information content depends on what you mean by information.
If that has the physics slant, then order can come from natural
processes and does often in chemical reactions.

If you want to ascribe some 'meaning' related defintion to
'information' in this context then the problems in RE: (2) rear
their none-too-attractive heads again.

RE: (3) as I am sure has been pointed out here as far as IC
is concerned they can be shown to be feasible. The information
part is then subject to that tiresome discussion.

Any comment on the issues involving primary source would be
appreciated.

If 'life' cannot have come about without intelligent intervention
then that recurses backward and we find that 'life' can never have
got started. NOTE: 'life' is in quotes and used here in a kind
of abstract/poetic sense rather than scientific context.

If the prime creator was NOT intelligently designed, then the
arguments are falsified, since to have intent to create the
prime creator would have had to have a high information content,
be IC, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 10:50 AM ID man has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 207 (142332)
09-14-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:50 AM


Re: ID is not Creation
ID man writes:

What usual players? Do I see Ham? Do I see Sarfati? Do I see Morris? Nope. No Creationists behind the curtain.

But you're wrong, because Philip E. Johnson *is* a traditional Creationist, and he *is* behind the curtain. I mentioned him because he's the most well known. Do you really believe he's the only name traditional Creationist involved in the ID movement?

ID and Creation may have similarities but they also have differences.

Sure, and vapor canopy theory and hydroplate theory have similarities, but they also have differences. It is what traditional Creationism and ID hold in common that unites them under the umbrella of Creationism with YEC, OEC and all the other flavors. They all require divine intervention as an explanation, and which qualifies them as religion rather than science. They're also both primarily promoted by the evangelical movement, not by scientists or scientific organizations.

Bottom line is that if you could provide positive evidence for your faith neither ID or Creation would have come about.

Why would I need evidence for my faith? If I could support my faith with evidence, it wouldn't be faith, would it?

And my faith has nothing to do with evolution or Creationism. I accept evolution because of the evidential support, and I reject Creationism (ID or otherwise) because of lack of same.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:50 AM ID man has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 70 of 207 (142335)
09-14-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:50 AM


Re: ID is not Creation
This message offers further support that ID is just a form of Creationism.

ICR apparently believes ID is a form of Creationism. Their http://www.icr.org/creationproducts page lists intelligent design as one of the topics covered by their "Books and Videos on Creationism and Evolution." If you type "Intelligent Design" into the search box at http://www.icr.org, you'll get a long list of articles, and a quick perusal seems to indicate that ICR has no trouble endorsing ID. For instance, read Impact No. 341 titled, "The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design." ICR is a firm supporter of ID, indeed of anything that is anti-evolution.

The ID strategy is actually neatly summed up by an ICR titled Design is not Enough:

There is a strong movement among evangelicals today to emphasize "intelligent design" as the argument of choice against naturalism and Darwinian evolution. The movement is also called "mere creation" or "the wedge movement," the idea being to avoid controversial subjects such as the Biblical doctrine of creation in talking to evolutionists. Any discussion of a young earth, six-day creation, a worldwide flood and other Biblical records of early history will turn off scientists and other professionals, they say, so we should simply use the evidence of intelligent design as a "wedge" to pry them loose from their naturalistic premises. Then, later, we can follow up this opening by presenting the gospel, they hope.

The article concludes that is important to promote both ID and Biblical arguments simultaneously.

Need I go on? Should I go to CRS and see what their position on ID is? Or should I start going down the list of ICR and CRS officers to see which ones also support ID?

Separating ID from Creationism is as transparent a ruse as removing mention of God from Genesis. You're not going to fool anyone.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:50 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:24 AM Percy has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4468 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 71 of 207 (142338)
09-14-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:50 AM


Re: ID is not Creation
ID Man,

In support of Percy.

Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology by William A. Dembski

When the main proponents of ID start writing books with the words "Intelligent Design", & "Theology" being linked in the title, I think we can be fairly sure that ID is creationism. Certainly, Mr Dembski would disagree with you.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:50 AM ID man has taken no action

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 207 (142339)
09-14-2004 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:55 AM


quote:
True, but we know that nature acting alone didn't do it.

For the moment, let's assume that life on earth was designed. The best you could infer is that life on Earth came about through design, but you can not infer that life everywhere in the universe had to arise through design. The inference doesn't stretch that far. There are no observations of other life besides that on Earth to base your conclusions on.

quote:
And it does not rule out a supernatural entity becoming part of the natural world and then designing life.

The ID inference can not move into this realm. It no more rules it out than rule it in. However, since the supernatural is untestable it is not a choice for ID theory (since you claim it is a science). We would first have to observe a supernatural deity descending to earth to take the form of a designer, and this observation would have to be testable. Without this, there is no way that you can even bring forth the idea of a supernatural deity as a reliable agent, although it can be considered.

quote:
It depends on what you call "naturally".

Through repeatable, testable phenomena found in nature. These mechanisms should not rely on previous religious indoctrination or cultural indoctrination. They should be demonstratable through methodological naturalism and lend themselves to testing through the scientific method.

quote:
Also you have yet to provide any evidence that life could arise from non-life by natyre acting alone.

That life COULD arise through chemistry is very possible. Whether or not life DID arise through chemistry is another question, a question that ID creationists want to be answered by appealing to the supernatural. The answer is that we may never know. Two thousand years ago I could have asked you where lightning came from. If you were unable to answer could I then claim that it had to come from Zeus? This is the argument you are using towards many here.

quote:
In fact the more we know the less likely it becomes.

Actually, it's the other way around. Abiogenesis research over the last 50 years has made huge strides. They have still not reached to goal, but our understanding of biochemistry and early earth environments has steadily increased and the possibility of life arising in these conditions becomes more likely everyday. For instance, the discover of catalytic RNA has been a boon to abiogenesis research. Catalytic RNA is capable of building nucleotides and replicating small segments of RNA. It can act both as the source of nucleotide sequence and as an enzyme to replicate it. This makes it a very strong candidate for the first replicator.

{Fixed one quote box. Also, this is getting remote to the theme of the topic. There are better places for this discussion - Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-14-2004 11:49 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:55 AM ID man has taken no action

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3959
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 73 of 207 (142340)
09-14-2004 12:45 PM


ID is/ is not religion is off-topic , or at least better belongs elsewhere
The theme of this topic is discussing the peer reviewed journal publication of an ID article. Please confine messages to that theme.

There is the ID as Religion, for discussing the is/is not religion theme.

This topic almost closed.

Adminnemooseus


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20834
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 74 of 207 (142346)
09-14-2004 1:20 PM


I guess my last on-topic post said something like:

  • The editor of the BSOW Proceedings, Sternberg, is a Creationist who denies he's a Creationist.

  • Sternberg went against his own journal's focus to publish an article on ID.

  • Sternberg couldn't detect the article's lack of merit.

  • Sternberg submitted the article for peer review to unnamed "scientists", though this is not suspicious in itself since peer reviewers typically remain anonymous outside the editorial staff.

  • Sternberg does not recount the unnamed scientists saying anything about the lack of scientific content. This is hard to believe.

  • According to Sternberg, the unnamed scientists somehow found "merit" in the article. This is extremely hard to believe and incredibly suspicious.

  • Sternberg does not recount the unnamed scientists raising any questions about the appropriateness of the article for a journal focused solely on taxonomy.

  • Sternberg has resigned as editor for the BSOW Proceedings.

A side question for the BSOW: How did Sternberg get to be editor of the Proceedings.

Suggestion for Creationists: get your articles published on the merits, not by skullduggery. Scientists are not sneaking articles on evolution into church bulletins, so please stop sneaking articles on Creationism into scientific journals. Get your article published by an honest editor through honest peer review in a legitimate scientific journal. Get your article published because scientists think it represents good science. Don't do it the way Sternberg and Meyer did, because it only causes suspicion and resentment and brings you no scientific credibility. Hopefully, scientific credibilty is your ultimate goal.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2004 1:25 PM Percy has replied
 Message 78 by Ooook!, posted 09-14-2004 3:51 PM Percy has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 75 of 207 (142347)
09-14-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
09-14-2004 1:20 PM


I would expect that Sternberg was given the position for his experties in taxonomy. The fact that he was given the position is evidence against any claim that there is discrimination against creationists. His unethical behaviour in publishing Meyers' paper perhaps suggests that there should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 1:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 2:10 PM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 80 by derwood, posted 09-14-2004 4:45 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022