Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Level Playing Field

In sports a "level-playing-field" is one in which all participants play not only on the same field, court, squared-ring, octagon, turf, etc., and utilize the same boundaries, but also adhere to the same rules. Also all judges, referees, umpires, scorers must also judge (score) the participants equally, ie without personal bias, based upon the rules of the sport.

With science the same should stand but with science being a broad venue the following caveat applies:

In any case, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, debate about methodological rules of science often forms part of the practice of science, especially during times when established paradigms are being challenged. Those who reject the "teach the controversy" model on the grounds that ID violates the current rules of scientific practice only beg the question. The present regime of methodological rules cannot prevent the controversy for the simple reason that those rules may themselves be one of the subjects of scientific controversy.
page xxv of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"


IOW the "rules" themselves may be creating an unlevel playing field. In which case those rules must be examined and their validity questioned.

And if one side is allowed to offer no more than speculative circumstantial evidence along with a heavy reliance on "sheer-dumb-luck", the other side should be accepted if it can also offer up the same level of data.

13 Comments:

  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Sorry, Joe G, as long as you censor posts willy-nilly, there is no point in continued discussion.

     
  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe,

    Thank you for establishing this thread. I understand your Thomas Kuhn caveat and agree that it would be a problem if one side got to impose a definition of "science" on the other side. This is why we got an up front agreement to the definition. To review...

    JOE: Science is... "any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws."

    ME: I find this acceptable. Two terms worthy of expansion are physical world and knowledge.

    ME: If I correctly understand your statements concerning science being limited to the physical world, I agree that neither evolution nor Intelligent Design can rely on the supernatural and remain "science". (JOE: "...one cannot define ID out of science without doing the same to any anti-ID position")

    ME: The use of the word knowledge in this definition is also something I find very agreeable. The pursuit of knowledge is subtly different than the pursuit of truth. Believing something that happens to be true, isn't knowledge, IMO....Unless I know how something is true and can show it to an unbiased observer, by my definitions, it isn't knowledge...

    ME: Are you still comfortable with this definition of science?

    JOE: "Very comfortable. Ya see the design in question is here in the physical world. It can be observed and studied, just like any artifact."

    Are you still comfortable with these rules on our level playing field?

    What about Occum's razor?
    "Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

    Do you agree it is part of the rules on our level playing field?

    If so, here are the two contestants as they currently stand...

    JOE'S proposal...
    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 explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.



    DAVE'S proposal...
    1. The universe exists. No assumption is made on the method of the universe's creation (before the Big Bang).

    2. About 4.6 billion years ago the earth was formed by natural processes generally agreed upon within the scientific community.

    3. Within the 1.5 billion years following earth's creation, living organisms appeared. Since there isn't a scientific consensus, the only assumption is that it occurred via natural processes.

    4. All indigenous, earth based organisms descended from the original life described in #3. ("Common Descent")

    5. Common Descent was, and is, achieved through changes in the properties of organism populations that are a result of naturalistic mechanisms. These mechanisms are sufficient to account for the existence and function of all natural organisms on earth.


    Joe, did you want to change your proposal's wording at this time?

    If not, may I suggest we start a back and forth exchange of two questions and/or criticisms each. I will answer yours, you answer mine.

    Ready?

     
  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    One more time- the ONLY position I am willing to debate against is the materialistic anti-ID position which is "sheer-dumb-luck", ie the blind watchmaker.

    Seeing that you have established that is not your position, even though it appears that the blind watchmaker is the consensus (despite your denials), I do not even want to further any attempt to flesh out a level playing field with you.

    However feel free to post any data that pertains to the subject of any particular thread.

    Data I like.

    Rhetoric, although sometimes useful, is a bit boring and can be annoying.

     
  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe,

    It appears all you are interested in is having a debate by your rules and definitions.

    I have provided you "data" on the definitions and positions of Dawkins, the person you credit with the "Blind Watchmaker" term. I have even offered to defend Dawkins' position in an even-handed debate. I am still willing to do that as soon as you show signs of providing reciprocating answers to my questions/criticisms of your position.

    I don't know where you are getting an evolution definition of "sheer-dumb-luck" but I doubt it is from a practicing Evolutionary Biologist.

    "Level Playing Field" is the title of this thread, and your actions are providing "data" that pertains to it.

     
  • At 7:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    It appears all you are interested in is having a debate by your rules and definitions.

    Umm, I have used standard and accepted definitions.

    Thought Provoker:
    I have provided you "data" on the definitions and positions of Dawkins, the person you credit with the "Blind Watchmaker" term.

    You provided a very vague definition of evolution that Dawkins uses.

    Also I am sure that I am not the only person who "credits" Dawkins with the "blind watchmaker" term.

    Thought Provoker:
    I don't know where you are getting an evolution definition of "sheer-dumb-luck" but I doubt it is from a practicing Evolutionary Biologist.

    What I said was the materialistic alternative to ID is "sheer-dumb-luck". Reality supports that assessment just as I have already shown:

    "Chance alone," the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation."

    Thought Provoker:
    "Level Playing Field" is the title of this thread, and your actions are providing "data" that pertains to it.

    The Privileged Planet

    Factors Required for Complex Life

     
  • At 10:49 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe,

    Ok, with no double standards...

    Here is a "standard and accepted" definition of ID...
    "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."
    (Of Pandas and People, pages 99-100)

    Here are two links that provide all the "data" you need to refute this definition of ID...

    http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

    Let me know when you are ready to stop fooling yourself and have a real debate.

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    Here is a "standard and accepted" definition of ID...

    How was it "standardized" and who accepts it?

    Ya see I the NCSE is to the theory of evolution as the DI is to ID. The NCSE supports my view of the theory of evolution but the DI does NOT support your view of ID.

    IOW it fully appears that YOU are fooling yourself- or at least attempting to do so.

     
  • At 10:44 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe,

    Of Pandas and People contributing authors included Behe, Meyer and Hartwig (Discover Institute fellows).

    From a recent Discovery Institute article..."An early pro-intelligent design textbook, Pandas was at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the hapless school district in Dover, Pennsylvania."
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/banned_book_of_the_year_of_pan.html

    Your evolution quote came from a Discovery Institute sponsored book, not the NCSE.

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    Of Pandas and People contributing authors included Behe, Meyer and Hartwig (Discover Institute fellows).

    Meyer & Hartwig just offered a "Note to Teachers" and it was only in the 1993 release.

    Thought Provoker:
    Your evolution quote came from a Discovery Institute sponsored book, not the NCSE.

    That is why trying to debate with you is useless. Richard Dawkins gave us the blind watchmaker thesis, not the DI. Crick agreed with the premise. Two more evolutionary biologists Pigliucci and Provine also gave it their OK.

    I also provided a link to a NCSE sponsored website that discusses "evolution" and guess what? It also supports what I stated.

    Misconceptions about
    Natural Selection
    :

    Second, it’s more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it’s not striving to produce “progress” or a balanced ecosystem. (bold added)


    So let's take a look:

    6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

    The Blind Watchmaker:

    Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose in mind.

    There isn't any way an intelligent person could say that the DI made up the definition given the above evidence.

     
  • At 5:58 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe said...
    "There isn't any way an intelligent person could say that the DI made up the definition given the above evidence."

    Intelligent or not, it was Discovery Institute fellows who chose which words to include in their formal definition of Evolution.

    This is similar to Rush Limbaugh telling his listeners what liberals really think.

    Joe also wrote...
    "Meyer & Hartwig just offered a 'Note to Teachers' and it was only in the 1993 release."

    It appears you are familiar with this pro-ID book. I offer that I am being more than fair using a direct quotation from "your side".

    We can go around and around on this. Here are your "level playing field" choices...

    1. We make our own definitions.

    2. We choose definitions from our respective sides (I choose Dawkins' definition of Evolution).

    3. We choose definitions for the other side (I choose Pandas).

    You can rant and rave all you want, but this is what happens when you truly take away a double standard.

     
  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe said...
    "There isn't any way an intelligent person could say that the DI made up the definition given the above evidence."

    Thought Provoker:
    Intelligent or not, it was Discovery Institute fellows who chose which words to include in their formal definition of Evolution.

    LoL! The DI "chose" the words that evolutionists use! Also the book gave multiple definitions of "evolution"- but THAT was the point- to show the deception.

    Thought Provoker:
    This is similar to Rush Limbaugh telling his listeners what liberals really think.

    Only AFTER they told him what they really think.


    Thought Provoker:
    You can rant and rave all you want, but this is what happens when you truly take away a double standard.

    Reality demonstrates that YOU are the one who is ranting and raving. It also demonstrates you are clueless when it comes to reality.

    And as I have stated many times now if you do not hold to "the blind watchmaker" thesis I don't see what there is to debate. And whether you like it or not "the blind watchmaker thesis" IS what is being debated by IDists. That is a fact that won't go away.

    When it comes to "evolution" I will go with the definition that is used by the scientific community. And that is the definition I provided yesterday. Now if you don't like that definition I suggest you take it up with the NCSE.

    As for the definition of ID I will go with what the DI states. Not some book that was published before the modern ID was even formulated.

    And again Dawkin's definition of evolution is too vague and useless. So I see why you would want to choose that. Heck you can't even defend his "non-random" nonsense....

     
  • At 10:59 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe,

    Let me modify my earlier statement to "When all else fails, declare victory and change the subject. When that fails, change the subject to abortion".

    Here was my last post on debating Dawkin's definition of evolution...

    JOE: "Right and replicators, all of them, can get wiped out by random events. Therefore "non-random survival" is total BS."

    ME:It sounds like you are understanding what Dawkins is saying, you just disagree with it.

    ME:I will gladly debate what the evidence shows once we avoid the "double standard" of having me define my terms while you avoid defining yours.

    ME:I still wish a definition of your term "information content". Let me repeat my request...

    ME:I am interested in having Joe expound on his term "information content". Can non-living things have "information content"? For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)? If that is the case, do two rocks contain more information than one rock (not necessarily double, just more)?


    You ignored my request and then changed the subject back to the other definition with "An attempt to clear a hurdle".

    I think things have gone far beyond convincing any lurkers. Now all we are dealing with is what you are able to rationalize to yourself.

    Let me know if and when you decide to participate in a world other than the one created by Rush Limbaugh. the Discovery Institute and yourself.

     
  • At 1:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    Let me modify my earlier statement to "When all else fails, declare victory and change the subject. When that fails, change the subject to abortion".

    I take it you don't realize that you sound like a clueless whimp. Oh well.

    I will blog about what I choose to blog about. And it just so happens that I was having a discussion on abortion this past weekend. THAT is what led to my blogging about it.

    That you think I was blogging about abortion to try to "change the subject" just exposes that you are a legend in search of a mind.

    Thought Provoker:
    I think things have gone far beyond convincing any lurkers.

    Yup and I am sure they see you for the blow-hole you are.

    I have provided more than enough evidence that demonstrates that the blind watchmaker thesis was not the product of IDists nor Creationists. That you can't understand that simple fact demonstrates that you just can't handle reality.

    So please take your ball and go home. Your momma is calling...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home