What exactly is ID?

Well now you have defined "creationism" as anything that involves a supernatural designer of any sort. And that incorporates pretty much every theist, deist or any other believer. I don't think that definition is very helpful. Well what is the mechanism used to "direct change" then? I am afraid that what you are doing here is providing your own definitions, then equivocating on those definitions and now splitting hairs in ways that make no sense. How can you claim that Hindus believe in a Jew wizard? You are equivocating again. Argue the position. Not the person. If irreducible complexity has any merit as an argument (for example) simply saying "but you believe in a Jew wizard" does not refute that argument.Attacking wider belief and motivation for holding a position is not the same as refuting the argument presented. That is the creos game. Don't play it. This isn't about convincing creationists. It is about the wider public and the fact that creos are appealing to the vaguely IDistic beliefs held by many to promote their own more specific agenda. Yes. By conflating arguments and attacking the motivation and people that they oppose rather than by confronting the evidence.We do not need to do that. The evidence is on our side. Don't play them at their own game or stoop to their pitiful level of debate. The public just don't care as much about these issues as you and I probably do. But the public are not imbeciles and evidence based argument based on facts can win the day if presented appropriately. If you make this a PR batte based solely on attacking people and their motivation for holding a position then you are falling into the creationist trap.You will say that they are creationists whose motivation is to suport their "Jew wizard" beliefs. They will say you are a godless atheist whose motivation is to deny god at any cost. And the evidence and facts will just get lost in the red mist. No. I am saying deny the fire the oxygen it needs. I think that by adopting the creationist tactics of argument (i.e. fight the person and their motivation rather than the position or argument presented) that you are throwing yourself on the fire and adding yourself as fuel in the process.

Maybe - But that in practise the number of people this approach would reach would be extremely limited. Maybe not enough of the mass appaeal that I think the creos crave. Also those who tend to study philosophy tend not to be so gullible IMHO by virtue of age and academic incination. Do they teach philosophy at high school level at all in the US?My own prediction (re Coyote's question of what the next creo tactic will be) is that some cosmological approach will be bastardised for their own PR purposes. This has the attraction of having the support of both popular appeal and some eminent theistic scientists making the right kind of noises. Noises that can be claimed to support their thinking even if those genuine scientists advocating such things would never willingly support the creationist movement. But this approach doesn't tackle evolution at all so it depends where their priorities lie.

Well, I live to be helpful. You tell me which ones believe which mechanism apart from "Magic!" and I'll give them each a different label.However, so long as their default answer to everything is "Magic!" there's really no point in differentiating them. It's all the exact same argument.A reworded fallacy is still a fallacy. In the case of Creationists it's "Magic!"
In the case of scientists it's "No one is directing change, therefore there is no mechanism." So your entire point boils down to this apparently:
"You shouldn't pick of Creationists for believing in a Jew Wizard because some believe in a non-Jew Wizard.""Jew" is not the important word in the sentence. It's "Wizard" that's the problem. I am posting this message and it will likely be #873 or 4.In the nearly 1000 messages on this thread and the nearly half a million messages on the forum, how many times would you say that the "Evidence" for ID has been refuted?100? 1000? 10,000? 200,000?Has it made even a dent in people like SO? His been refuted about 300x on THIS THREAD alone! Hasn't changed his argument at all.You know what DID get through? Pointing out that he is attributing everything to "Jew Beams".You want to play nice because you think you are in a debate. You aren't. You are in a PR war. Facts have little to no meaning in a PR war. That's why science (which has ALL the facts) keeps losing ground to ID (which has NONE of them). No. They do it by making shit up. They are completely unburdened by having to support their claims so they out and out make crap up.Have you seen "Religilous" by Bill Maher? In an early scene he's talking to a trucker Creationist who insists that the "blood on the Shroud of Turin has only XX chromosomes and therefore Jesus was born to Mary without input from a human father."Can you count the facts wrong in that statement? No blood, Shroud is fake, no XX chromosomes, no Jesus, no males with XX.Do you think that ANY of those facts would make ANY difference in this guy spreading this story?Nope. None at all.You know why? It's EASIER for him to say that one sentence and leave than it is for you to explain how you know the shroud is fake.People are stupid. Easy = True in their minds."Jew Wizard" crystalizes the claims in an easy to understand term. Plus, since many of the Fundamentalists have a streak of anti-semitism running through them, it makes them bristle. No. It can't.There was a study done, and I'll edit this with a name and link once I find it, which examined what happened when you explained to someone why a claim was false.The basically took a claim like "Magnets cure disease" and walked the people through why this was false then checked in with them a few months later.People were MORE likely to remember the _CLAIM_ and think that it was TRUE!!!Think about that. The method you are advocating sounds responsible BUT it results in MORE Creationists. And since the evidence and facts don't help our side except in places where there are rules, I'll win as many battles as I'll lose - putting me well ahead of the curve.

Well it depends what we are trying to achieve. I thought public education of genuinely scientific conclusions and their evidential foundation over pseudo-scientific ID claims was the aim here? I don't think that is served very well by your "lump them all together" approach to this particular question. So by your definition anyone who doesn't accept utterly and completely the tenets of an entirely atheistic form of methodological naturalism, anyone who proposes that there be a designer of any sort at all behind any aspect of nature at all, is a "creationist"?Fuck - I thought I was bloody minded about these issues. You take things to a whole new level.I think your approach just alienates the vast majority of the public from scientific conclusions and sends them unwittingly into the eager arms of the genuine creationists. You are meeting all the creo aims of lumping science and atheism together so that "Darwinism" and other scientific conclusions can be labelled simply as attempts to deny god. You are also fulfilling the entire aim of the "wedge" strategy by unnecessarily pitting the conclusions of science against practically anyone with any sort of belief in the supernatural at all.I have my differences with theists and deists. But atheists have more in common with the vast majority of these guys on the issue of science education and evolution than we do the real creationists. You are making enemies of people that are on your side in this debate. Well by your all-encompassing definition practically everyone is already a creationist anyway!!! The key difference (the only difference that ultimately matters) between our side and theirs is that our position is based on facts and evidence.You wanna ignore that and instead play name calling games with creos then so be it - But don't be surpised if that strategy backfires and any recognition of the inherent superiority of the evidence based position gets lost in the process.

Actually I think this quote (just below) from the Pandas and People article is more relevant to me than the one you posted. It would seem logical to me to measure the specificity of an object first and then compare those objects to others. After you have many comparisons and references then, you can start to determine what is complex and what is not and the possible grey areas inbetween.Dembski's writing is conflicted on the subject of whether the system's specification comes before or after the determination that the system is complex. For example, in his infamous explanatory filter it is quite explicit that the determination of the system's complexity comes before the determination that it is specified. In other places, however, specification comes first.Much of the rest of that article is smoke and mirrors in my opinion. It would be interesting to see if or how you can reconcile science with your religious views other than the principle of NOMA which doesn't do the trick if, I was to assume we have learned enough about reality through science. There is the quote from the book of Genesis "The earth bought forth life" which could be interpreted as a very simple explanation of evolution.

quote:

---

Actually I think this quote (just below) from the Pandas and People article is more relevant to me than the one you posted. It would seem logical to me to measure the specificity of an object first and then compare those objects to others. After you have many comparisons and references then, you can start to determine what is complex and what is not and the possible grey areas inbetween.

​

Dembski's writing is conflicted on the subject of whether the system's specification comes before or after the determination that the system is complex. For example, in his infamous explanatory filter it is quite explicit that the determination of the system's complexity comes before the determination that it is specified. In other places, however, specification comes first.

---

Actually it doesn't tell you much. (And it tells you nothing unless you know what Dembski means - something you have been highly resistant to learning). In fact the two could be done in any order, but there are practical reasons why you would almost always check that the observed pattern is a valid specification first.

I really can't see any significant difference. Labeling something as peer review after it has been published doesn't seem to be any different from (your quote) - "a body of research of various scientists working in this field strongly suggests that it is true."Stephen Meyer published his peer reviewed article but it created a firestorm. From there people believe what they wanted to believe from the rumors and possible outright lies about what happend after it was published. It is reasonable to assume there are other scientists who do not wish to attempt to publish their views because I have seen there are those who do get upset. I have received a very small amount of anger myself (other than the internet) and I have spoken to a doctor (who also was an ID proponent) who told me, intelligent design is a good term if you wish to start a fight and he would rather not talk about it with other professionals.I have broken my silence long enough.

In other words, you agree with me.

The difference is the evidence. An argument from authority lends credence to an argument by citing the expertise of the person making the argument. This is different than peer review where the conclusions are based on empirical evidence, not expertise.

quote:

---

In other words, you agree with me.

---

No, I'm warning you that you don't know what you are talking about. There is no "specificity of an object" in Dembski's method, nor is complexity calculated by comparing objects. The quote doesn't help you because it is talking about a method that is quite different from whatever it is that you mean.If you can't be bothered to learn what Dembski's method actually involves then you really really ought to stop talking about it - and attacking people who try to explain it to you.

Close. By my definition anyone who attributes any "direction" in reality to the magical powers of an undetectable entity is a Creationist. Tell you what. I'll give you a 100:1 ratio.For every post you can find where a Creationist says: "Wow! You're right, your facts have convinced me that my position is wrong. I admit Creationism is wrong." I present 100 posts where Creationists openly deny facts they can not dispute.

Well done. By your definition the creationist movement can claim to represent probably the vast majority of people in the world today to some extent or other. And your point is what?Do you think that your preferred method of dismissing ID arguments by citing the wider belief systems and motivation of those who are (currently) making ID arguments either actually refutes those ID arguments or will result in the mass conversion of creationists to science? Dude c'mon!Anyway - As I have said previously: Argue the position. Not the person.ID arguments are evidentially bankrupt and cannot compete with genuine scientific conclusions in the only way that ultimately matters. THAT is the strongest argument we have on our side. In fact that is why it is "our side" in the first place. I say don't dilute that trump card by resorting to the same ad-hominem games the creos do.

Quite right. If we define "scientist" as someone who does science then there are no ID scientists. No ID scientists = No ID science.To be a bit more specific, no ID scientist is using ID to predict protein function for unannotated gene sequences. No ID scientist is using fossil data to do . . . well . . . anything. No ID scientist is using ID for comparative genomics in order to discern the cause of population changes in human pathogens.What needs to be focused on is how science works. It is hypothesis first, test hypothesis second, and described in text books third. They want to jump straight to step three. That's not how it works.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

No, what matters is sway. You believe your arguments have sway because you live in a society where theoretically having the facts on your side makes some sort of difference.Here in the states the facts don't matter _AT ALL_.The VAST majority of people here couldn't give a crap about the facts. They couldn't follow the facts to a logical conclusion even if they accepted the facts in the first place.You seem upset that I'm lumping people together rather than allowing them to label themselves.Let's break it down further.There are:
Fundamentalists Creationists - the people who either know or don't know that they are wrong but are NEVER going to change their opinion no matter how much evidence piles up. -- status: Unchangeable.Ignorant Creationists - the people who think that they are right because they don't have 2 cents worth of education and for them a "simple" answer like "It was magic!" is easier to swallow than having to actually learn something. -- status: Unchangeable.Deliberately Deceptive "ID" supporters - the people who wrote the wedge document. They know that they are lying and are truly just a subset of Fundamentalist Creationists, but you want to take their word for it that they believe something which they don't. -- status: Unchangeable.Ignorant "ID" supporters - these are the people who are just slightly more educated than the Ignorant Creationists. They really think that ID isn't Creationism because they haven't bothered to run down the logic in their head. They can frequently be heard saying things like: "I doesn't necessarily mean God, it could be space aliens". They DON'T want to label themselves Creationists because they don't like that label. -- status: Changeable.By forcing this last group to confront the fact that they are making a Creationist Argument, they are put into a position where they have to decide. "Am I a Creationist -or- Is my argument wrong."You seem to think they will all just decide to be Creationists if I force them to take a hard look at their argument.If that's the case, then ALL four of these types are unchangeable, and my calling any and all of them Creationists or describing their arguments as "Jew Magic!" really makes no difference whatsoever.

Science once thought that the appendix, unique to mankind, was a design flaw. Now it is known to aid in the function of the colon relative to beneficial microbes.I Googled largynal. All that came up was your EvC message. (Smile; you're unique on the www ) It is not in my unabridged dictionary. Is there a place you can direct me to read about it, or can you elaborate a bit on it?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.