Intelligent Design in Universities

You still have sevral waiting for you, Mr. Cordova. I await with baited breath your replies to my questions.

He's got some papers on his site. Looks like handwaving estimates of the size of a parameter space, without any consideration of optimization within the parameter space. Pretty much useless.This message has been edited by paisano, 05-05-2005 11:24 AM

Um... I did. Beware projecting your ignorance on to others. It's very bad form. Hubris is something you should be ashamed of. It is not a laudable quality.

As long as you keep spouting nonsense, the answer is yes. Why not? Because you can't handle it?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

Can you show some of the science and mathematics?

---

I'm glad to. What area would you like to further understand?

---

Design Dynamics

Back atcha, Sal:Haven't heard from you for awhile:

quote:

---

I hope the Nature article has encouraged you that our efforts are not in vain. There are at least 20 bio majors in our Virginia IDEA chapters that I know, the number of ID friendly bio majors at the universities in our chapter's sphere is probably upwards of 80 and growing. We're slowly making inroads on the campuses. I believe that is a long term trend.

---

Yep. I caught the Nature article and we featured it front and center on our Web Site ID Theorist Salvador Cordova Appears in NatureI haven't been discouraged at all. I love the way things are going especially with the "gagging" of Darwinists from participating in the Kansas hearings by the AAAS. Lol--They are afraid that having to publicly defend Darwinism "might confuse people."Their new strategy: Make us look like "asses" and target people that are poorly educated (link below). They also openly admit they have been trying to "convert" creationists to their 'science.'Keep up the great work on the campuses. Young and curious minds seek truth and you are providing it. You've discovered your niche and appear to be soaring with it. Quite frankly, I'm very proud of you and your work. Now, get that PhD in cosmology as Uncle Bill advised you and I think we gots us another point man. Hmmm....who is encouraging who.

---

Design Dynamics

paisano, are you going to answer my post back to you, or just ignore it and hope it goes away? I wanted to do a little physics with our resident physicist.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Hubris is something you should be ashamed of.

---

What? I can't be proud of pride? And you guys just missed how I tied in my hubris to the puddle analogy and therefore into ID.

---

Design Dynamics

I've yet to see any evidence in your posts of anything other than an ability to quote equations. Let's see you develop one of your assertions with a technical argument.

quote:

---

I've yet to see any evidence in your posts of anything other than an ability to quote equations. Let's see you develop one of your assertions with a technical argument.

---

Well heck. I mean it's not like I can get the PhDs in here to the point where I can actually CALCULATE something. Every time I introduce some formulas and get to the calculation stage of my argument you guys all drop out and refuse to answer my posts.What is it you're afraid of, paisano? I know that none of you are mathematically illiterate, yet you just will not go there when someone comes on this forum like Sal and I that can actually show ID to be true both scientifically and mathematically.Interesting. There's got to be a truism in that fact somewhere.

---

Design Dynamics

Well, let's review the history. Back at Post 37 you made the following assertion: Rather than back this assertion up with a technical argument, you quoted a completely unrelated paper, and were soundly refuted by another poster .I don't think you can construct a technically sound argument that the 2LOT supports your position, because the 2LOT simply does not have the implications you think it does.But, if you think otherwise, let's see the calculation. Unsupported assertions won't cut it. I haven't seen either of you do it yet. All I have seen is unsupported assertions .

I see. You don't know the definition of "hubris" either.

Well, you have been challenged to show what you braggadocio claims. Go to it. I'm looking forward to it.As far as Sal goes, he has nothing to say other then bland assurances that he is succeeding at his goals (one is tempted to throw in nefarious goals, but I will not). I've asked him several questions he has not seen fit to reply to.He is a classic creationist, ducking and running when challenged. I am pretty sure you are the same, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Meet the challenge Paisano(sp?) has made with something other then arrogant claims of knowledge you have not demonstrated and insults.

quote:

---

What exactly do ID proponets dislike about science?

---

Your question takes the form of a Fallacy of PresuppositionYou accuse IDists of disliking science. That's bad form and a misrepresentation of our likes and dislikes.Did you notice that in the article half of my group that Brumfiel saw that night were science students including a professor of cellular biology? Kind of negates your attempt at misrepresentation.Perhaps you should retract your misrepresentation, and maybe I'll consider responding to some of your other inquiries.

quote:

---

I've asked him several questions he has not seen fit to reply to.

---

That's true. You are invited to discuss scientific issues and the general political climate of the university campuses. I don't think it's a good idea trying to misrepresent the likes and dislikes of people you don't even know (such as me and my IDEA chapters).If you wish to have some of your questions responded to, perhaps a more tactful approach of open inquiry, rather than presumptious accusations would be a better strategy.

Perhaps you can answer a simple question. I doubt it, but I will give you a shot. Exactly how is ID, which posits an unknown force capable of manipulating events on many scales in some unknown yet effective manner (a decent definition of a deity) not just a sham for simple religious creationism?Also, at what point is it appropriate, if the god of ID exists, is it proper for researchers to stop and say "goddidit"?I will admit that my charge was not accurate. ID advocates may well not dislike science but they certainly don't use it or like to see it applied to their ideas.In light of my admisson, maybe you would like to recant on your claims that a biology professor saying that they do not know a thing is somehow support for creationism (or ID... whichever... same thing). Since you have the ability to look up a fallacy on the web, perhaps you might take the time to look up false dichotomy.This message has been edited by mikehager, 05-05-2005 08:32 PM