Intelligent Reasoning

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

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Are All Anti-IDists also Intellectual Cowards? It appears that way.

Are all anti-IDists also intellectual cowards? It appears that way. But appearences can be deceiving so I defer to the evidence so that you can make your own decision:

1- Anti-IDists are always quick to disparage Intelligent Design, but when pressed it is obvious they don't even understand the concept. IOW they appear to be too lazy to do any actual research about the subject.

2- When pressed to support their anti-ID position so that we can compare the two, they never do.

3- Instead of staying on-topic in any thread that requests that they support their point-of-view, they hem and haw, beat-around-the-bush, but never do as requested.

4- I have asked, several times now, that the anti-IDists present a testable hypothesis based on their anti-ID position. That is present a testable hypothesis that demonstrates non-telic, ie stochastic, processes can do what they claim. Yet all I get is more nonsense, no substance and definitely no hypothesis.

5- When told that there isn't any data, scientific or otherwise, that demonstrates that the physiological and anatomical differences between land mammals and cetaceans, between chimps and humans, can be accounted for via any of their proposed mechanisms, all I get in return is a vague literature bluff- meaning the answer I get is "It's in the scientific literature. There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles that support evolution"

However evolution is not being debated. And the data I requested is not in any peer-reviewed journal- yes I have looked. If anyone thinks I am wrong the easiest way to support that claim is to find ONE peer-reviewed artcle that contains the data I requested.

6- When all else fails I get invited over to one of their discussion boards- as if they will be able to do there what they are unable to do here.

The only reason for such an invitation is that there are more monkies waiting in the trees to throw shit at anyone honestly looking for some answers.

The bottom line is their position does not make any predictions based on any non-telic, ie stochastic, process. The position can't be objectively tested.

That is why they will not answer my request. To do so would be to expose their position for what it is- faith trying to be passed off as science.

IOW the anti-IDists are nothing but intellectual cowards.

And all the above is why I will be running for my local school board in the next election. Getting these chumps in Court and forcing them to answer my request will be well worth the effort- that is if the case even goes to court. No one has yet to say anything about my presentations in area schools, so I doubt anything will change once I become a school board member.

The other reason why I want to get elected to a school board is that Lenny Flank once said that he wants to destroy ID as a politacal movement. If Lenny comes up against me he will get steamrolled and it won't be pretty.

44 Comments:

  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Funny how the anti-intellectual cowards write all those peer reviewed papers, whilst the IDers write books for lay-people and do find and replace on creationist texts.

    You intellectual self-harmer.

     
  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Dazza McTrazza said…

    Is Joe G an Intellectual Coward? It appears that way.
    But appearences can be decieving (sic) so I defer to the evidence so that you can make your own decision:

    1- Joe G is always quick to disparage anyone who comes to his site, but when pressed it is obvious he doesn't even understand basic biology. IOW he appears to be too lazy to do any actual research about the subject.

    2- When pressed to support his ID position so that we can compare the two, he never does.

    3- Instead of staying on-topic in any thread that requests that he support his point-of-view, he hems, haws, beats-around-the-bush, quotes The Privileged Planet, calls people stupid, throws a few online tantrums, but never does as requested.

    4- A lot of people have asked, several times now, that the IDists present a testable hypothesis based on their ID position. That is present a testable that demonstrates telic, ie non-stochastic, processes can do what they claim. Yet all we get is more nonsense, o (sic) substance and definitely no hypothesis.

    5- When told that there isn't any data, scientific or otherwise, that demonstrates that the physiological and anatomical differences between land mammals and cetaceans, between chimps and humans, can be explained by a designer all we get in return is a vague literature bluff- meaning the answer I get is "It's in the Privileged Planet."

    However evolution is not being debated - it's already an established fact making this blog totally redundant other than as a form of christian apologetics. And the data I requested is not in any peer-reviewed journal- yes I have looked. If Joe G thinks I am wrong the easiest way to support that claim is to find ONE peer-reviewed artcle that contains the data I requested.

    6- When all else fails we get banned or moderated.

    The only reason for such a ban/moderation is that it's easier than having to face reailty.

    The bottom line is their position does not make any predictions based on any telic, ie non-stochastic, process. The position can't be objectively tested.

    That is why he will not answer our request. To do so would be to expose his position for what it is- faith trying to be passed off as science.

    IOW the IDists are nothing but intellectual cowards.

    And all the above is why I hope Joe G will be running for his local school board in the next election. Getting this chump in Court and forcing him to answer any question regarding biology will be well worth the resulting hilarity. No one has yet to say anything about Joe G's presentations in area kindergartens, so I doubt anything will change once he becomes milk monitor for a week.

     
  • At 12:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is funny that not one of those peer-reviewed papers supports the premise that all of the divesity of living organisms owes their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via culled genetic accidents*.


    * In evolutionary terms all mutations are genetic accidents and seeing that some are kept while others are lost, that means at least some are culled.

     
  • At 12:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- All the evidence demonstrates that I am not quick to disparage anyone. I am, and always have been, a counter-puncher. That means I respond in kind. I do not have to turn the other cheek. I hit back, not hit first. Ya see I have done the research . And as I said all it would take to prove me wrong is to present something that refutes my claim. It is obvious why Dazza chooses not to but instead has to make up shit like the response to my OP.

    2. In several of my blog entries I have supported the design inference. Dazza’s continued ignorance should never be a sign of refutation.

    3. See number 2 above.

    4. Dazza’s willful ignorance aside- To then say I haven’t provided a testable hypothesis just further exposes Dazza’s dishonesty. See Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis. Also “The Privileged Planet” makes other predictions based on the design inference.

    5. I never cited “The Privileged Planet” for a biological reference. IOW Dazza is lying again.

    “Evolution” as in the change of allele frequency over time or genetic change, over time, within a population, fits in well within even a YEC framework. Also I am not a Christian and have never offered any form of Christian apologetics.

    6. I have never banned anyone and it is obvious why moderation is required. Dazza’s response is a perfect example.

    Also all of my presentations have been to middle and high schools. That is a fact that even Dazza can’t change.

    And yes I will be more than able to answer questions in a Court of law. And yes watching the anti-IDists squirm in their seats will be hilarious.


    As Micael Egnor states:

    "The inference that intelligent agency is discernible in living things (and in nature as a whole) has been held by virtually all philosophers and scientists dating back to antiquity. Greek philosophers understood the intelligent agency as the logos, and Judeo-Christian scientists and philosophers understood the Logos in theological terms. The Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution were based the inference that there was design in the universe and that man could understand it using systematic investigation. Modern science arose from the design inference. All of the great scientists of the Scientific Revolution — Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lavoisier, Linnaeus, Faraday, Maxwell, and Pasteur (among many others) — believed that intelligent design was discernible in nature. The inference to design was the basis — the indispensable basis — for modern science. The recent Intelligent Design movement is a restatement of the inference that gave us modern science. It’s not new.

    The inference to design was excluded from many areas of science (such as biology) only in the later half of the 20th century. It wasn’t excluded for scientific reasons — if anything, modern science has shown us remarkable evidence for biological design — such as the genetic code and nanotechnology inside cells — that is even more compelling evidence for intelligent design that what was known to scientists in the past. The inference to design was excluded from biology for ideological reasons. The rise of atheism and materialism in the 19th and 20th centuries brought an atheist-materialist philosophical bias to our scientific understanding of nature. The bias was itself unscientific: only non-intelligent mechanical explanations were accepted, regardless of the evidence.

    Intelligent design is not creationism, and it is not derived from creationism. Creationism is the view that Genesis is literally true as science. Yet the historic inference to design, dating from the Greeks to scientists in modern times, wasn’t based on Genesis, but was based on the rather obvious inference that there was a kind of ‘reason’ in nature. Virtually all scientists and philosophers throughout history have attributed that ‘reason’ to intelligent agency. Intelligent design theory is the modern version of the theory that intelligent agency is discernible in some aspects of nature, using the scientific method. Intelligent Design is not biblical literalism, anymore than Plato’s or Aristotle’s inference to design in nature was based on the Hebrew Bible. Intelligent Design and creationism are not the same, and one is not derivative of the other. Mr. Johnson is smart enough to know this.

    Furthermore, Mr. Johnson’s comment about “mail order PhD’s” is objectionable. Advocates of Intelligent Design theory such as Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Steven Meyer, and Dr. Paul Nelson have quite real PhD’s, and over 700 scientists with real PhD’s have signed a statement dissenting from Darwinism. One doubts that Mr. Johnson would fare well in a debate with any of these scientists whose credentials he denigrates. Few prominent Darwinists are willing to debate them."

     
  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dazza Mctrazza:
    However evolution is not being debated -

    Dogma never is debated. However it is obvious that the claims made by evolutionitwits cannot be substantiated.

    If evolutionitwits could substantiate their claims then ID would go away.

    BTW Dazza- ID wasn't formulated to explain the physiological and anatomical differences. However it is obvious that no amount of culled genetic accidents can account for them.

    Universal common descent, on the other hand, if it wants to separate itself from all options that also can explain the genetic and morphological similarities, has to be able to account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed- that is if it wants to present an objectively testable alternative.

    With over 100 years of research all evolutionitwits can muster is ONE new protein-to-protein binding site- and that is in HIV, which isn't even classified as a living organisms (because it cannot reproduce without the help of a host).

     
  • At 3:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Nice link to some obvious pubjacking, Joe. What do you think the ratio of Press releases / books to Peer reviewed paper is for IDists? What about real scientists?

    the Templeton Foundation, that fundy freindly institute, want to give some research money to ID.. but ID didn't have any research to do...

     
  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nice blow holing Rich.

    The AUTHOR of the articles state they support ID.

    I will take his word for it.

    It's still funny that you can't provide ONE peer-reviewed paper that suports your position. It is also very telling that you revert to literature bluffing as if that means something.

    You are a blow hole, Rich and nothing more.

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    They are peer reviewed. The author may claim they support ID.

    Patently, they do not. There is no positive evidence for design in the papers, or anywhere else.

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "6- When all else fails I get invited over to one of their discussion boards- as if they will be able to do there what they are unable to do here."

    No Joe - it's because you and most other creationists don't promote posts that make you look bad.

    Didn't you get invited to Alan Fox's neutral venue? Where you too scared because you couldn't arbitrarily delete?

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    The AUTHOR sdaid they suppoirt ID and provided an explanation.

    Just because you and your ilk refuse to a) understand the explanation and b) refuse to understand the implication of the papers does not mean anything to the rest of the world.

     
  • At 5:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    To make me look bad just find and post the data I requested.

    You know the data which demonstrates the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans can be accounted for via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    You submit it and I will publish it.

     
  • At 3:02 AM, Blogger uriel said…

    "The AUTHOR sdaid they suppoirt ID and provided an explanation."

    Perhaps.

    But certainly _not_ in the papers themselves.

    Therefore, any ID specific inferences or conclusions Axe might have felt were implied by his research were, in fact, not peer reviewed.

    By that fact alone, any belated interpretations Axe may want to attach to the review process of those papers are exactly that- un-reviewed, after the fact hand waving.

    Sorry- if the conclusions weren't presented, they weren't reviewed.

     
  • At 3:02 AM, Blogger uriel said…

    "The AUTHOR sdaid they suppoirt ID and provided an explanation."

    Perhaps.

    But certainly _not_ in the papers themselves.

    Therefore, any ID specific inferences or conclusions Axe might have felt were implied by his research were, in fact, not peer reviewed.

    By that fact alone, any belated interpretations Axe may want to attach to the review process of those papers are exactly that- un-reviewed, after the fact hand waving.

    Sorry- if the conclusions weren't presented, they weren't reviewed.

     
  • At 4:35 AM, Blogger uriel said…

    "All of the great scientists of the Scientific Revolution — Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lavoisier, Linnaeus, Faraday, Maxwell, and Pasteur (among many others) — believed that intelligent design was discernible in nature."

    Wow- that's a pretty specious claim.

    I'm sure you and Egnor can point us to those areas where those men's discoveries actually supported the claims of ID, as opposed to merely pointing out that they were occasionally given regurgitating the predominate paradigm of the day?

    For instance: How, precisely, do Pasteur's discoveries appeal to the present day appeal to "the Logos theology of John’s Gospel" that is ID?

    How about Newton? How exactly do his observations (for exaqmple, Hypotheses non fingo) support the idea that the order he observed must be imposed from without by some unnamed designer?

    (And note here, you'll need to proffer something more than a god-of-gaps appeal to "Gravity may put ye planets into motion but without ye divine power it could never put them into such a Circulating motion as they have about ye Sun," since us materialists have managed to account for that bit in the intervening years, with the help of Laplace...)

    And while were throwing names around- let's add in a couple of others: Popper, Schroedinger, Einstein, Sagan, Hawkings, etc., etc..

    Or I guess in your mind science has been asleep in the 20th century?

     
  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Uriel,

    YES the papers themselves- as explained by the author.

    I take it you don't understand what is being debated-

    That is scientists conducting scientific research being allowed to reach a design inference if that is what the data warrants.

    And in the case of those two papers that is what the data warrants.

    BTW are there any peer-reviewed papers that state in their conclusion that what they are reporting occured via culled genetic accidents?

    If not, by your logic, there isn't any peer-reviewed papers that support the modern theory of evolution.

    So please be so kind as to point out those papers that have that in the conclusion.

    Thank you.

     
  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "All of the great scientists of the Scientific Revolution — Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lavoisier, Linnaeus, Faraday, Maxwell, and Pasteur (among many others) — believed that intelligent design was discernible in nature."

    uriel:
    Wow- that's a pretty specious claim.

    It's an acurate claim:

    Of Newton, Kepler, & Galileo in the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon."

    I'm sure you and Egnor can point us to those areas where those men's discoveries actually supported the claims of ID, as opposed to merely pointing out that they were occasionally given regurgitating the predominate paradigm of the day?

    ALL of those scientists used science as a way of understanding "God's" Creation. Also it was predomiinate because the opposite- your PoV- was rejected as being too stupid, unfulfilling and unscientific.

    BTW Einstein favored the design inference- what do you think when he said "God" doesn't play dice?

    We exist Uriel- and either exietence is due to some grand design or it is due to sheer dumb luck. Design, as archaeology and forensics demonstrate, can be tested. Sheer dumb luck cannot and therefore is out of the realm of science.

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Design, as archaeology and forensics demonstrate, can be tested"

    But they all look for mechanisms, not arguments from incredulity / improbability, Joe.

    Don't forget to promote my ERV post that shows how an working ERV was reverse engineered from Genomic fragments.

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But they all look for mechanisms

    Design is a mechanism you ignorant fool. And reality demonstrates that the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) or the specific design process used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    Archaeologists may come up with a mechanism but they will never know if the mecahnsim they came up withn was the exact mechanism used.

    Don't forget to promote my ERV post that shows how an working ERV was reverse engineered from Genomic fragments.

    I did and I also showed how it fails to make your point.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    How does one fabricate using design, Joe?

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How does one fabricate using design, Joe?

    By the design. People build houses using the design.

    People build cars by the designed process.

    People build computers by the designed process.

    Ya see Rich with arhaeology and forensics FIRST they determine agency involvement- ie design- and THEN they set out to see if they can dupicate it and therefore figure out a mechansim.

    And again their mechanism may or may not be the exact mechanism used.

     
  • At 11:34 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Ya see Rich with arhaeology and forensics FIRST they determine agency involvement- ie design- and THEN they set out to see if they can dupicate it and therefore figure out a mechansim."

    So they find someone dead, interview everyone to see if there *was* a murderer and then check the corpse for bullets, poison, etc.

    Fantastic work, Colombo!

    Is there any feild you're NOT clueless in?

     
  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "By the design. People build houses using the design."

    WRONG. PEOPLE DESIGN HOUSES USING DESIGN.

    People build cars by the designed process.

    WRONG. PEOPLE DESIGN CARS USING THE DESIGN PROCESS.

    People build computers by the designed process.

    WRONG. PEOPLE DESIGN COMPUTERS USING THE DESIGN PROCESS.

     
  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Touchstone said…

    Joe said:
    BTW Einstein favored the design inference- what do you think when he said "God" doesn't play dice?

    This is a pretty elementary gaffe. Just passing familiarity with Einstein and his ideas would keep you from asking this. You can Google and find a host of quotes beyond this one that drive the point home, but here's one that seems a problem for your claim:


    I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

    Unless you're prepared to argue that the "design inference" includes completely *impersonal* process and forces as the "Designer" -- in which case materialistic science would qualify -- then I think the "intellectual bravery" you possess (we're the cowards, remember) would obligate a confession of sorts.

    And I don't mean that you just goofed up on some trivia -- that's not such a big deal. Rather, that you admit you're in a position of knowledge and experience in these matters that would permit such a blunder.

    If that doesn't make sense, I'll relate an example. An "acquaintance" of mine had me doubting whether he really had spent much time in downtown Seattle, WA over the last three years. "Practically lived there", he said. Have you been to the Hendrix museum, I asked?

    "Yeah, that's the modern art one, right?" was his reply.

    Whoops. That told me all I need to know. If you "practically live" in Seattle for any length of time, you are at least aware of the Experience Music (Jimi Hendrix) Museum. It's an trivial bit of knowledge, but one that you won't mess up on, if you've really spent some time there.

    So, science-wise, Joe, an offhand comment from you is telling. It looks you really haven't "been there" if you know what I mean.

    -Touchstone

     
  • At 4:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Touchstone,

    Just because Einstein didn't believe in a personal "God" that does NOT mean that the processes of the designer had to be impersonal.

    What Einstein was referring to is "God" doesn't intervene in our personal lives.

    And yes the design inference doesn't require personal processes- whatever that means.

    All the design inference is saying is:

    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.

    Nothing personal about it.

    Einstein also said "The most incomprehansible thing about the universe is athat it is comprehensible."

    And that is something one would only expect in a designed world.

     
  • At 4:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ya see Rich with arhaeology and forensics FIRST they determine agency involvement- ie design- and THEN they set out to see if they can dupicate it and therefore figure out a mechansim."

    rich:
    So they find someone dead, interview everyone to see if there *was* a murderer and then check the corpse for bullets, poison, etc.

    Try to stay focused- I said in the absence of direct observation, meaning there aren't any eyewitnesses.

    Bullets and poison could be self-inflicted or accidental.

    Again nothing there that would lead one to a murder, much less to a murderer.

    "By the design. People build houses using the design."

    WRONG. PEOPLE DESIGN HOUSES USING DESIGN.

    I've built houses and I know that a plan, ie a design, is used. If one doesn't have a plan then one will more than likely run into many problems.

    Carpenters, roofers, plumbers, electricians, flooring installers ALL use the plan, ie the design for the house.

    People build cars by the designed process.

    WRONG. PEOPLE DESIGN CARS USING THE DESIGN PROCESS.

    The assembly line is a designed process. The car is built via that designed process.

    IOW car manufacturers don't build cars willy-nilly.

    People build computers by the designed process.

    WRONG. PEOPLE DESIGN COMPUTERS USING THE DESIGN PROCESS.

    Again this is something I have done. And I knmow via first-hand experience that computers are built via a designed process.

    That process tells the assembly people what goes where and when it goes there.

    And I have written, ie designed, such process.

    IOW Rich once again you are talking out of your ass.

     
  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe you are conflating design with manufacture / fabrication. A design by itself does squat. You need a mechanism to make the design actionable.

    "Bullets and poison could be self-inflicted or accidental.

    Again nothing there that would lead one to a murder, much less to a murderer"


    Which do they look for first Joe, Mechanism or agency. Be honest, If you can.

     
  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Einstein also said "The most incomprehansible thing about the universe is athat it is comprehensible."

    And that is something one would only expect in a designed world.
    "

    Why? For something to be comprehensible, it must be designed?

     
  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger Touchstone said…

    Joe G,

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

    Well, I think from this answer, you are way out of my league, either far above me, or way, way below.

    I think the answer to this may tell us which.

    Given 1) here, do you believe that a development process can be both completely controlled by impersonal process AND also be considered "intelligent design" at the same time?

    That's the implication of your statement. Either you are much deeper in a hole than simply betraying your ignorance of Einstein, or you have an extraordinarily innovative concept about impersonal processes being "intelligent".

    This begs the question, of course:

    How do you define "intelligent", Joe.

    I'm looking for a definition that is includes the completely impersonal, per your connection of the inference to Einstein.

    I'm eager with anticipation to hear your answer. Your place in the intellectual hierarchy hangs in the balance!

    -TS

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe you are conflating design with manufacture / fabrication. A design by itself does squat. You need a mechanism to make the design actionable.

    The mechanism is also designed Rich. Ya see Rich that is what I do for a living- I design processes. Processes for manufacture, processes for testing and processes for repair.

    Again nothing there that would lead one to a murder, much less to a murderer"


    Which do they look for first Joe, Mechanism or agency. Be honest, If you can.

    As I have already said one doesn't need to know the designer in order to determine design. Therefore it is obvious that one doesn't have to know the murderer in order to determine murder.

    Now they may determine A mechanism, but that doesn't mean they have determined THE mechansim.

    And that means that "mechansim" is also not required to determine murder.

    Stonehenge- we didn't determine A possible mechansim until recently. Yet we determined it was indeed an artifact decades, perhaps even centuries, before.

     
  • At 4:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Einstein also said "The most incomprehansible thing about the universe is athat it is comprehensible."

    And that is something one would only expect in a designed world."


    Why? For something to be comprehensible, it must be designed?

    That's not what I said. One wouldn't expect a comprehensble universe if it arose via purely stochastic processes. However designing agencies can and do make designed objects that are comprehensible.

    Of Newton, Kepler, & Galileo in the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon."

     
  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Stonehenge is an interesting example. What about giants causeway?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant's_Causeway

    Design was, erm, "inferred" until science came along.

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

    Stonehenge is an interesting example. What about giants causeway?

    What about it? What ignorant people believed has no bearing on anything.

    Did you have a point? I mean besides the one on top of your skull?

    Design was, erm, "inferred" until science came along.

    Exactly. Now science has come along and design is inferred when we look at the universe and living organisms. Go figure.

     
  • At 8:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Touchstone-

    You are conflating Einstein's point with whatever it is you want.

    Again when Einstein said "impersonal" he meant that "God" does not answer prayers. "God" does not intervene in your personal life. THAT is what he meant by "impersonal".

    Also "God" didn't necessarily have Einstein in mind when He Created the universe- hence "impersonal".

    IOW you are way, way below any level of thought I have ever had. And you obviously don't know what Einstein was talking about even though I 'splained it to you.

    How do you define "intelligent", Joe.

    As it pertains to Intelligent Design I define it:

    Explaining the I in ID-again

     
  • At 8:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To clarify what I said earlier:

    "Einstein also said "The most incomprehansible thing about the universe is athat it is comprehensible."

    And that is something one would only expect in a designed world."


    Why? For something to be comprehensible, it must be designed?

    If the universe was designed for scientific discovery (you know the ID premise from "The Privileged Planet") then we would expect it to be comprehensible.

    AND there isn't any reason for such an expectation if purely stochastic processes were responsible.

     
  • At 10:00 PM, Blogger Touchstone said…

    Joe G.,

    You said:

    Again when Einstein said "impersonal" he meant that "God" does not answer prayers. "God" does not intervene in your personal life. THAT is what he meant by "impersonal".

    Also "God" didn't necessarily have Einstein in mind when He Created the universe- hence "impersonal".


    Well, let's clear this up, then. I understand "intelligence" to require both consciousness and a will. Do you see both of those as required to qualify as "intelligent".

    If it seems like a trap, think carefully before you answer! There's a lot of Einstein's words out there to bring to bear on your answer.

    Also, even if we provisionally understand that Einstein invisions a God who *is* personal (has a will and is conscious), do you understand Einstein to make the leap that, say, Dembski does? That is, the bacterial flagellum is an example held out by Dembski et al of intelligent design.

    That is, it didn't "evolve", the flagellum, but is the beneficiary direct engineering work, perform by ... something with intelligence (has a will and is conscious).

    It's one thing to suppose that "God", however that is conceived as a "meta-creative" entity, endowed the universe with all of the structure and symmetry and emergent properties we happen to notice around us. Materialist scientist simply shrug and say that's out of scope -- before the Big Bang, and intractable, scientifically.

    It's another to suppose a God that is "tinkering" -- cutting trendy new designs for the flagellum, and new, more potent virulence features for various pathogens, oh, and of course, dinosaurs, don't forget dinosaurs.

    See, "personal God" here has nothing to do with praying or *interacting* with humans. A "personal God" means just that - a god who a person, a conscious being with a will (and probably a whole lot more, but minimally that). So when you ask a pantheist about God, they are happy to talk about God, an impersonal God -- no consciousness, no will, no intelligence -- with the same awe and wonder that conventional theists deploy in referene to their *personal* God.

    But it's a mistake to read the anthropomorphic language of the pantheist "God" as referring to a "Designer" god, a god who helps the little flagellum out with his motility challenges through direct intervention, for example.

    Anyway, that all points to this, then. Is a pantheistic God -- a God who *is* the universe in a completely impersonal way -- qualified to be called an "intelligent Designer" according to Joe G.?

    -Touchstone

     
  • At 11:47 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Your making assumptions about the designer now, Joe. Sure you want to go down that road?

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You've looked in every peer reviewed journal related to Evolutionary theory? And every journal that has data in it that relates to Evolutionary theory?

    I find that hard to believe.

     
  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Of course I can make assumptions about the designer.

    Just because ID is about the design and not the designer that does not prohibit IDists from making such assumptions.

    We have already made at least two-

    1- there was a designer (or designers) who could bring this universe into existence- complete with all the parameters by which the universe "runs".

    2- there was a designer (or designers) who could bring living organisms into existence. Those organisms who would scientifically uncover the designer(s) handy-work.

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Touchstone,

    No one says the bacterial flagellum didn't evolve.

    The debate is about the mechanism.

    that is it was DESIGNED to evolve.

    Obviously you don't even know what is being debated. And also you don't know what Einstein was talking about.

     
  • At 7:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    You've looked in every peer reviewed journal related to Evolutionary theory? And every journal that has data in it that relates to Evolutionary theory?

    I may have missed something- that it why I ask evolutionitwits because they should know the data that supports their position better than I. However it is very telling that not one has stepped forward with such data.

    IOW clowny, all you have to do to prove me wrong is to find one peer-reviewed artcle that supports accumulated genetic accidents that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.

    OR you can just stay the course and continue to offer nothing of substance.

     
  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Of course I can make assumptions about the designer."

    Why? Most ID 'theorists' suggest we can't know their motivations.

     
  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Of course I can make assumptions about the designer."

    Why? Most ID 'theorists' suggest we can't know their motivations.

    You are either very stupid or very dishonest. Why? Because I have already provided an explanation.

    1- ID theorists do NOT suggest we cannot know their (the designer(s)) motivations.

    2- ID theorists do say that the only way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific design process used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

    IOW once one gathers enough data, evidence and makes enough observations, then one may be able to make such determinations.

    and then I provided:

    Just because ID is about the design and not the designer that does not prohibit IDists from making such assumptions.

    We have already made at least two-

    1- there was a designer (or designers) who could bring this universe into existence- complete with all the parameters by which the universe "runs".

    2- there was a designer (or designers) who could bring living organisms into existence. Those organisms who would scientifically uncover the designer(s) handy-work.


    Which you ignored because you are an ignoramus.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home