How terrible! Let's see if I can fix the problem.
To start, Vincent Torley says,
Because science is defined by its methodology, any attempt to discredit a field such as Intelligent Design by casting aspersions on the motives of its leading practitioners completely misses the point. No matter what their motives might be, the only question which is germane in this context is: do Intelligent Design researchers follow a proper scientific methodology, and do ID proponents support their arguments by appealing to that methodology? The answer to this question should be obvious to anyone who has read works such as Darwin’s Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt. Intelligent Design researchers and advocates commonly appeal to empirical probabilities (which can be measured in the laboratory), mathematical calculations (about what chance and/or necessity can accomplish), and abductive reasoning about historical events (such as the Cambrian explosion) which bear the hallmarks of design.Torley has been reading my blog for years so he should know better. I define science as a way of knowing. For this discussion I'm willing to count that as a "methodology." Torley already knows that I agree with him. ID proponents do try to use scientific methodology to to answer questions about biology. They just don't do it very well and their answers are wrong.
In his endeavor to smear the reputation of Intelligent Design as a discipline, Professor Moran commits the genetic fallacy, which can be defined as the attempt to “discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, article Fallacies). Moran tries to discredit the claims of the ID movement by arguing that these claims have their origin in the religious motivations of their leading proponents. However, the appeal to origins is irrelevant because it is methodology, not motivation, which determines what counts as good or bad science.The question that Jonathan McLatchie was trying to answer is, "what is the difference between ID and creationism?" McLatchie described a methodology that one or two ID proponents try to use to identify designed objects. He did not define creationism but the whole point of the question was how to distinguish ID proponents from creationists. Creationists are motivated by their religious belief in creator gods.
Intelligent Design is widely recognized as a movement, not a scientific discipline. I agree with Torley that some of the stuff ID proponents do counts as science, albeit bad science, but when asking whether ID differs from creationism we are entering a different realm, especially when the question is being asked by a pastor on a Christian apologetics podcast. You wouldn't ask that question of a geologist or a chemist, would you? Imagine asking a chemist, "What's the difference between chemistry and creationism?" You ask the question of ID proponents because there is a legitimate reason to wonder if there really is a difference.
In this case, we are clearly talking about the political and social movement where ID takes on materialism and promotes belief in gods as creators. That was the goal of Phillip Johnson when he helped create the movement and that's the goal outlined in the Wedge Strategy. Here are the goals of the movement ...
This is what the Intelligent Design movement is all about and it's indistinguishable from creationism as I define it. Religious motives are a key component of the movement.
- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
- To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
- To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than the natural science.
- To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the fron of the national agenda.
In his endeavor to smear the reputation of Intelligent Design as a discipline, Professor Moran commits the genetic fallacy, which can be defined as the attempt to “discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, article Fallacies). Moran tries to discredit the claims of the ID movement by arguing that these claims have their origin in the religious motivations of their leading proponents. However, the appeal to origins is irrelevant because it is methodology, not motivation, which determines what counts as good or bad science.Vincent Torley is trying to use the standard excuse to legitimize the Intelligent Design Creationist movement. By claiming, correctly, that some of the things done under the umbrella of ID are science (but bad science). He tries to give the impression that the movement has nothing to do with religious motivation.
Nobody is buying that, Vincent. It's time to try another excuse. ID proponents can't argue that evolutionary biologists are motivated by a belief in materialism and atheism then turn around and accuse me of committing the genetic fallacy. None of your ID colleagues are willing to follow the science wherever it may lead. They will always find a way of sneaking god into the picture. Belief in a creator god is the defining characteristic of Intelligent Design Creationism.
When Moran writes that "it’s just a bald-faced lie to claim that Intelligent Design Creationists are motivated by a genuine scientific search for evidence of design," he is engaging in propaganda, by portraying scientists as dispassionate researchers who are totally devoid of personal motives in their research. This is nonsense. The question of whether life on Earth was designed or not is one which we are all, to some degree, motivated to either accept or reject, on temperamental grounds. Nevertheless, most of us are capable of putting our feelings aside when we have to.I never, ever, said that scientists are capable of putting aside all their prejudices and biases. We, aren't, but we try our best and our colleagues won't hesitate to criticize us if we stray.
What I'm saying is that Intelligent Design Creationism is a form of creationism. Almost all the arguments put forth by Intelligent Design Creationists are directed at disproving evolution and the motivation for doing that is to discredit naturalism and support a theistic viewpoint. When prominent members of the ID movement attack evolution because it's atheistic and materialistic, none of you ever bring up the genetic fallacy or tell them to back off. That's because you know full well that your movement is not just about science, it's about the war between creationists and those who don't believe in a creator.
I suspect that many evolutionary biologists are not only skeptical of God’s existence, but actually don’t want there to be a God. In particular, they may feel nauseated by the idea of a Being who produced human beings by a bloody, messy process such as evolution, killing billions and billions of animals in the process. But even if a visceral opposition to the notion of a Deity were the driving force animating their research, it would in no way invalidate that research. The only thing that could undermine these scientists’ work would be poor methodology.I don't know whether you actually believe what you wrote ... I doubt it. What I do know is that the vast majority of Intelligent Design Creationists are quite happy attacking the motives and beliefs of scientists in order to discredit evolution. Haven't you ever heard your colleagues attack Charles Darwin for being a nonbeliever or for being a racist? Haven't you noticed that they do this in order to show that natural selection is false because of Darwin's hidden agenda?
I agree with you that these biases and prejudices should be irrelevant and science should be judged on it's merit. We have judged ID on it's merit and it has always been found wanting, yet it persists. It persists because Intelligent Design Creationism is a political and a social movement, not a scientific discipline. The science part is bad science and the rest is pure religion.
Truth doesn't matter to Intelligent Design Creationists. Facts don't matter, unless they can be twisted into evidence of an intellignet designer.
Creationism, on the other hand, makes no attempt to follow a scientific methodology in arriving at its conclusions. In creationism, the conclusions are dictated by the Bible, and what it says trumps any scientific findings which may point to a contrary conclusion. Hence it is highly misleading of Professor Moran to argue that Intelligent Design is no different from creationism, because its main goal is simply “to provide scientific justification for the belief in a creator god.” Intelligent Design, unlike creationism, has no “higher authority” which can dictate the scientific conclusions it reaches.Bullshit. Every member of your movement is a creationist and they were creationists BEFORE they ever heard of using intelligent design to try and make their beliefs look scientific.1 They reached the conclusion first—creator gods exist—and then they tried to construct a rationalization based on bad science.
As for Professor Moran’s claim that Intelligent Design proponents’ focus is primarily aimed at discrediting unguided evolution rather than building a positive case for design, I can only reply that a design inference in ID can only be made after other explanations have been ruled out, so as a matter of necessity, much of what ID researchers do will be negative, and aimed at eliminating conventional explanations, before any positive conclusion can be reached that a given object was designed.That's just another way of saying that Johnathan McLatchie was misleading Bobby Conway when he tried to claim that ID was just about proving design.
You admit that the first important goal is to build a negative case against unguided evolution. What in the world would motivate you to do that unless you had already decided that evolutionary biology had to be wrong because it conflicts with your religious views?
1. I'm sure you can pretend to come up with one or two examples of "atheists" who converted to Christianity once they realized that irreducible complexity proved the existence of god. If you do try that, I won't believe you. That's because I've had too much experience with your crowd.
It cannot be that VJ never heared of cdesign proponentsists.
ReplyDeleteDarwin called in a Creator in "On the Origins of Species". Does that mean evolutionism is really Creationism?
DeleteJoe, please be quiet while the adults are talking.
DeleteJoe your arguments are getting increasingly purile
DeleteExactly. When you can replace all instances of "creation scientists" with "design proponents" and not change the (non)sense of an entire book, it's pretty clear that those terms are synonyms.
DeleteIts an excellent point to say methodology should be and is the what ID do in their thinking and research. YEC also does it in criticizing evolution etc. Just not in assertions on some conclusions from biblical authority.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter about moyivations previous to a accurate methodology.
Many "scients" have a motive to discover/invent/cure something while teenagers still in high school. Motives are irrelevant if methodology is accuarate.
its up to accusers to prove methodology is inaccurate or why even suspicious.
Believing In god and Christianity and the bible is accepted by most people as presumptions in researchers as long as their research is based on scientific methodology.
YEC is a organized intellectual defence of bible accuracy. its not scientific also , as I said, in attracks on error. Only on assertions in some subjects is there a little help from above. ID is wrong to say YEC is not scientific if they do.
Creationism relies on the Bible whereas ID doesn't care about the Bible. What motivates us to build a case against unguided evolution is that position is total untestable nonsense. It doesn't belong in a scientific discussion. It can't be modeled and is useless as a research heuristic.
ReplyDeleteID exists because the evidence supports it. ID would fade away if you could actually step up and find some support for unguided evolution actually doing something other than bringing on disease and deformities.
> Creationism relies on the Bible whereas ID doesn't care about the Bible.
DeleteThe fact that the people in these two camps tends to be the same is Larry's point.
> total untestable nonsense
So is the claim that gods tinker with genomes. What is the mechanism here? Upon what machine or brain is the computation done to determine which mutations are necessary to produce desired results? Where are the memory banks? What runs it's arithmetic logic unit?
Can you demonstrate gods tinkering with nucleobases? Does your god have a machine to reach in and swap out bases? What is this machine made of? What does it look like?
Please enlighten us how your fairy tale meshes with the real world.
> if you could actually step up and find some support for unguided evolution
It doesn't need support - it is the null hypothesis. If you want to make the claim that magic is involved then the burden of proof rests with you. We aren't the ones hypothesising that invisible computing devices exist.
It needs support, science demands that. Evolutionism doesn't "win" by default. The default is ":we don't know".
DeleteAnd both genetic and evolutionary algorithms model directed evolution- no intervention required.
Please explain how IDC models anything.
DeleteWhat you write strongly suggests that you have committed the Begging the Question fallacy: you have already decided that unguided evolution is wrong (which means you have decided that it IS guided, and therefore there is an Intelligent Guider).
Genetic and evolutionary algorithms model directed/ guided evolution. And yes, after decades of looking iot has become clear that unguided evolution is impotent. Comments like yours cement that inference.
DeleteJoe G- thank you for your clear and detailed description of the model developed by IDC proponents. It all makes sense now.
DeleteWell I'm glad we agree on THAT point!
Delete> It needs support, science demands that. Evolutionism doesn't "win" by default. The default is "we don't know".
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly right but there is a lot that we do know.
We know that God of the gaps type arguments tend to fail when new science is discovered.
We know that nothing has been shown to come about by magic so far even though this has been hypothesised many times in history.
We know without a doubt that common descent is true and so there will naturally be an explanation for novel traits arising when new species emerge.
We know that genomes are haphazard as fuck and are littered with all sorts of nonsense - they certainly don't look like the neat and tidy things we expect from a designer.
We know that most of these haphazard elements go back to way before we shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
We know that gene duplication happens all the time. A lot of the time this produces random crap but occasionally a new function arises in one of these duplicated genes. If this was the work of a magical being then why did it fail so many times?
I could go on but it isn't looking good for your god of the gaps argument.
LoL! You don't have a model and you don't have any testable hypotheses.
DeleteYou're the one invoking a magical being. I'm just calling you out on your bullshit. What is the mechanism? How does an immaterial being tinker with material genes?
DeleteYou're the one invoking magical mystery mutations. I'm just calling you on your bullshit.
DeleteWhat mystery mutations? Are you talking about gene duplications? These are literally everywhere. Here's a whole bunch of them which are novel to humans.
DeleteIt strikes me that the discussion in the original video is rather one-sided. The claim being made is that ID is distinguished from creationism by ID's being a scientific endeavor. Yet there are creationists who would dispute that and claim that their work is also scientific in nature. Ken Ham and Todd Wood are a couple names that come to mind. Maybe a debate could be arranged between the IDiot creationists and the other creationists to sort this issue out.
ReplyDeleteHi Professor Moran,
ReplyDeleteYou write: "ID proponents can't argue that evolutionary biologists are motivated by a belief in materialism and atheism then turn around and accuse me of committing the genetic fallacy."
I agree. I would also agree that when members of the ID movement attack evolution because it's atheistic and materialistic, their arguments have no scientific merit, regardless of whatever other merits they might have.
You also write: "Every member of your movement is a creationist and they were creationists BEFORE they ever heard of using intelligent design to try and make their beliefs look scientific.1 They reached the conclusion first—creator gods exist—and then they tried to construct a rationalization based on bad science."
This is nonsense. Mike Behe attended a parochial (Catholic) school where he was taught that evolution was simply God's way of making living things. He has no theological axe to grind against Darwinism. Richard Sternberg (who prefers to describe himself as a Pythagorean rather than as an Intelligent Design advocate) is a Catholic who attends Mass, but he adds: "I would call myself a believer with a lot of questions, about everything. I'm in the postmodern predicament." Anthony Flew, the most famous atheist of the 20th century (whose work I studied while doing philosophy at university) was converted to belief in an Aristotelian God (but not a personal Deity, let alone the God of the Bible), by the arguments of "American [intelligent] design theorists" in 2004. And what about atheist Fred Hoyle, who was so impressed by the evidence of carbon's fine-tuning that he wrote: "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature"? Finally, even you acknowledge that ID advocate David Berlinski is an agnostic.
You reproach me for failing to mention your acknowledgement that "some of the things done under the umbrella of ID are science (but bad science)," but you temper that compliment by adding that "99% of ID activities are attacks on evolution," rather than legitimate science. In my book, someone who says that Intelligent Design is 1% science is basically no different from someone who says it isn't science at all.
In any case, if you're going to say that books such as "Darwin’s Black Box", "The Edge of Evolution", "Signature in the Cell" and" Darwin’s Doubt" aren't science, then here's a question for you: why were they all reviewed in numerous science journals?
You make a big to-do about the Wedge Document for its declared aim of overthrowing scientific materialism, but I can name no less than 21 Nobel scientists who vocally opposed materialism, from Pierre Curie to John Eccles: See http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/zackfour.html . Many of these scientists were also human exceptionalists.
Finally, if you concede that "ID proponents do try to use scientific methodology to to answer questions about biology" then you cannot consistently maintain that Intelligent Design is a movement rather than a scientific discipline.
"The creationists pioneered many of the arguments that we are making today and some of them feel, with some justification, that they haven't gotten enough credit for what they did."
Delete-- Phillip Johnson, "Godfather of Intelligent Design"
"Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."
-- Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
"Intelligent design is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
-- William Dembski
I can name no less than 21 Nobel scientists who vocally opposed materialism, from Pierre Curie to John Eccles...
DeleteWait a moment. Pierre Curie (like may of his contemporaries) was fascinated by occultism and allowed himself to be fooled by the likes of Eusapia Palladino. Does it make him some sort of anti-materialistic "witness" in your eyes? For me, it's just a cautionary example of how even a great scientist can be easy prey to clever charlatans.
Eccles: Promissory materialism is simply a superstition held by dogmatic materialists. It has all the features of a Messianic prophecy, with the promise of a future freed of all problems — a kind of Nirvana for our unfortunate successors. A projection, if there ever was one.
why were they all reviewed in numerous science journals?
DeleteFor the same reason science textbooks contain accounts of the controversy between Galileo and the Catholic Church?
If we're done with arguments from authority and quote mining, are there any scientifically valid arguments for ID?
DeleteSorry Vince, but you're not thinking straight. That some IDiots might be trying to use and do science to support their beliefs, however badly, doesn't make ID any less of a religious movement. Think carefully. There's no contradiction. One thing is to be in a religious movement and then realize that your pretending that it's all abut science, quite another for the movement to be just science and nothing else. It's not. You know it. Haven't you read the idiocy that the members of your movement write? The classic creationist propaganda that appears constantly in your web sites? If you deny that you're either blind, stupid and/or dishonest, and I don't mind considering the latter. Not one bit.
DeleteMaybe if you started by kicking off classic apologists with a vengeance like kayrosfocus and other such classic arrogant creationist imbeciles you could start having a tiny bit of credibility. In the meantime, all I see is creationism, and not even original creationism, but the very classic, tired and stupid creationism of the last two centuries. The feble attempts at science (cherrypicked and all other defects) are overwhelmed by the enormous amount dedicated to the classic creationist bullshit. So don't tell me that a few "new" "concepts" make your movement any less about creationism than what we have witnessed before.
Why so much effort towards this hypocrisy? Do you really think that being such hypocrites does your movement any good?
Hi Vj,
Deleteyou wrote:
"In any case, if you're going to say that books such as "Darwin’s Black Box", "The Edge of Evolution", "Signature in the Cell" and" Darwin’s Doubt" aren't science, then here's a question for you: why were they all reviewed in numerous science journals? "
You do know you're invoking Galileo's gambit here?
And I quote:
"You get the most flak when you're over the target" is a pseudo-logical gambit, a favorite of Internet argument used as a substitute for rational rebuttal. Its intention, of course, is to prove that a hopelessly irrational woo proposition must be right because opponents are taking the trouble to criticize it. This fallacy is a major reason for real scientists' reluctance or refusal to debate creationists.
Vince, have you ever addressed "cdesign proponentsists"? What's your argument against that being evidence that ID is creationism in a cheap suit?
DeleteObjection! In a cheep tuxedo suit!
DeleteI see that my post has provoked a flood of replies. I will try to be brief.
DeletePhotosynthesis asks why Uncommon Descent doesn't kick off creationists and Christian apologists. He's attacking the wrong site. Uncommon Descent is intended for a general audience of laypeople, who are interested in ID for a variety of reasons - scientific, philosophical, cultural and religious. Scientific research conducted by Intelligent Design scientists is published in the journal Bio-Complexity at http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main . The journal welcomes contributions from scientists who reject Intelligent Design. I can guarantee that if you submit an article on apologetics to the journal, it won't get published.
Incidentally, I wonder what would happen if Professor Moran banned atheist evangelists from his Website and allowed only qualified scientists to comment. Methinks the number of comments (and readers) would fall dramatically. (Of course, I wouldn't be able to comment either, but that's neither here nor there.)
Ed accuses me of invoking Galileo's gambit when I point out that "Darwin’s Black Box", "The Edge of Evolution", "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin’s Doubt" have been reviewed in scientific journals. Nonsense. Just look at the blurb on the back of Meyer's two books, which is packed with complimentary reviews by high-ranking scientists who praise Meyer's "cutting edge molecular biology," "mathematical precision" and its "formidable array of evidence," and refer to Meyer's work is a "must-read." That sure doesn't sound like religion to me.
Patrick May produces three quotes purporting to demonstrate the religious motivations of three Intelligent Design advocates. Trouble is, Professor Moran himself admits that one of them (Dembski) has done some real science. And as I've repeatedly argued, religious motivations don't invalidate Intelligent Design's status as a science: it's the methodology that counts.
ChrisB asks if there are any scientifically valid arguments for ID. Please see here: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
John Harshman asks why I haven't addressed "cdesign proponentsists." That's because ancient history (1987) doesn't interest me much. I might add that the Discovery Institute wasn't founded until 1990 and that it didn't start considering Intelligent Design as an issue until around 1995. What's more, biochemist Charles Thaxton's adoption of the term "intelligent design" came BEFORE the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case, Edwards v. Aguillard, which banned the teaching of creationism because it referred to a "supernatural creator." See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/on_the_origin_o_5086701.html .
Piotr Gąsiorowski thinks Intelligent Design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo suit. I note for the record that he is eminently qualified in English linguistics. His biological qualifications (like mine) are precisely nil.
Scientific research conducted by Intelligent Design scientists is published in the journal Bio-Complexity,
DeleteROTFLMAO
Trouble is, Professor Moran himself admits that one of them (Dembski) has done some real science.
DeleteAnd did Prof. Moran say he had done some good science? What do you think is Prof. Moran's explanation for the reason that Dembski continues to support ID despite the fact that it is not supported by any good science?
ChrisB asks if there are any scientifically valid arguments for ID. Please see here: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1
DeleteSo the answer, then, is "No."
So you reject Of Pandas and People as a valid textbook for ID? That seems your only option, since it clearly began life as a creationism textbook and turned into an ID textbook by search and replace of a few terms. Either OP&P isn't a real ID text or ID is creationism. Logically, you will pick the first alternative, but I'd like to hear that from you.
DeleteOf course OP&P goes much past 1987. Why, it was used as an ID textbook in the Dover school district. Was that in error?
There is no scientific hypothesis of ID. There are no testable entailments.
DeleteThe fact that the publishers replaced all instances of "creation scientists" with "design proponents" without changing the meaning of an entire book clearly demonstrates that those terms are synonyms.
A number of proponents, including many founders, claim that ID is a religious movement.
Intelligent Design is clearly a form of creationism. If you disagree, produce the science being done to support it.
complimentary reviews by high-ranking scientists
DeleteThere may be some confusion here. "General science" is not a rank.
vjtorley writes of the creationist "journal" Bio-complexity:
DeleteThe journal welcomes contributions from scientists who reject Intelligent Design.
Hey, cool! Would you care to cite some of the articles critical of ID that have been published there?
Actually, I'd be satisfied if you could just cite more than a single research article it has published that was not written by a member of its editorial board. Or anything at all it has published in the last year.
Vince,
DeletePhotosynthesis asks why Uncommon Descent doesn't kick off creationists and Christian apologists. He's attacking the wrong site. Uncommon Descent is intended for a general audience of laypeople, who are interested in ID for a variety of reasons - scientific, philosophical, cultural and religious.
The web site claims to be intended for people interested in intelligent design. Yet, it contains all the classic creationist propaganda. That yells at everybody that ID is a religious movement trying very hard to pretend to be scientific. It doesn't matter if people are interested for whatever reasons you might list. The fact remains that it is a site filled with apologetics and bullshit, and that it betrays your true foundations: creationism and apologetics. Science is the last item in your list of priorities, and it shows. So, again, want to pretend to be about science? Stop propagating creationist bullshit.
Scientific research conducted by Intelligent Design scientists is published in the journal Bio-Complexity at http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main . The journal welcomes contributions from scientists who reject Intelligent Design. I can guarantee that if you submit an article on apologetics to the journal, it won't get published.
Doesn't matter if you have a journal. The fact that you associate to willingly and happily with all kinds of creationist bullshiters betrays your movement for what it is: a religious movement. Science, again, comes last.
Incidentally, I wonder what would happen if Professor Moran banned atheist evangelists from his Website and allowed only qualified scientists to comment.
Too stupid a comparison. Larry's is a personal blog, not an institutional blog. Your web site not only has comments from those creationist nuts, those religious nuts write their apologetics bullshit as part of the team. Having religious nuts as part of the team speaks volumes about your movement. It's religious in nature regardless on whether a few of you try to do some science. The real reason for the movement is clear.
So, again, why so much energy in pretending? Why doesn't this institutionalized hypocrisy bother you?
Vince,
DeleteI'm astounded that you wrote this:
Human and chimp DNA: They really are about 98% similar.
Congrats. That's a huge advance in honesty. I will keep wondering: Why doesn't the institutionalized hypocrisy of the ID movement bother you?
Piotr Gąsiorowski thinks Intelligent Design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo suit. I note for the record that he is eminently qualified in English linguistics. His biological qualifications (like mine) are precisely nil.
DeleteI'm not a tailor, but I can recognise a cheap tuxedo suit when I see one.
Hi VJ, I can't remember saying ID = religion, thus I don't understand where your repsonse "That sure doesn't sound like religion to me." comes from.
DeleteWhat I did mention is that although those books were reviewed by scientists, it doesn't automatically make them science books. I understand the large majority of scientists who reviewed these books actually made mince meat of the attempts at science and the logical fallacies in those books.
And blurbs on the back side of books don't say much to me, any one can write 'Must read' on the back side of a book, it's pure marketting anyway. You can add a "Must read" blurb to Snow White, 10 years a slave, 50 shades of grey and War and peace. I've only read two of them, one when I was a kid, the other a year ago. And I'm not convinced I'll be reading the other two must reads any time soon...
vjtorley,
Delete"ChrisB asks if there are any scientifically valid arguments for ID. Please see here: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1"
That is not a scientifically valid argument for ID. That is a poor argument trying to say evolution cannot produce protein folds in a sham journal that doesn't have an honest peer review system.
Where is the scientific evidence that ID has occurred?
torley said:
ReplyDelete"I agree. I would also agree that when members of the ID movement attack evolution because it's atheistic and materialistic, their arguments have no scientific merit, regardless of whatever other merits they might have."
Then why do you attack evolution (actually, evolutionary theory) on the basis that it's atheistic and materialistic, and why do you cozy up with all the other IDiot-creationists (e.g. the UD IDiots, the discotooters, etc.) who constantly attack evolutionary theory, anyone who accepts evolutionary theory, materialists, atheists, agnostics, non-christian philosophers, etc., and even so-called 'theistic evolutionists'?
Why don't you disassociate yourself from the UD IDiots, the discotooters, etc., and why don't you ever condemn the lying, defamatory, falsely accusatory, massively malicious crap that your fellow IDiots constantly spew, including but not limited to all of the 'Darwin and all other evolutionists are responsible for and as evil as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, serial killers, and every other bad person and bad thing that has ever existed/occurred'? I'm sure that your fellow malicious, lying, two-faced, falsely accusatory IDiot-creationists joey g, o'leary, arrington, kairosfocus (gordon mullings), mung, mapou, dembski, west, wells, luskin, klinghoffer, and all other IDCs appreciate your support.
And are you actually claiming that catholics are not creationists? Do you actually believe that you can get away with that? ANYONE who believes in a 'creator' (aka 'God') is a creationist. Stop lying to yourself, and stop lying to others.
One more thing for now, the catholic 'church' that you're a willing member and promoter of is a despicable, two-faced, destructive, robbing, raping, perverted, oppressive, regressive, lying, murderous cult of pompous, theocratic/autocratic lunatics. It's no wonder that you've also chosen to be an IDiot.
"Because science is defined by its methodology, any attempt to discredit a field such as Intelligent Design by casting aspersions on the motives of its leading practitioners completely misses the point"
ReplyDeleteVincent is right but then you are not going to really get much sense out of people who put so much faith in chance.
When I used to talk with Atheists/leftists in the past then they appealed to motive a lot when it came to the ID movement.
Atheists/ leftists appear to think that the Appeal to Motive fallacy is the beginning and end of logic.
Jack,
DeleteLeaving alone the stupidity of referring to "atheists/leftists," let me explain a bit. The problem is not the motivation behind ID, the problem is one of hypocrisy. ID is a religious movement first and foremost. Science comes last, if at all.
Also, we know how "science" operates within creationist circles. They might use or mention a scientific discipline or two while doing their shit. They might bring math, or data, or whatever, but they never have any intention of letting the data and the experiments speak. They twist them and mischaracterize them to fit them into their beliefs.
If they were truly about the science, then they would not associate so strongly with the likes of yourself, who has a religious ultra-right agenda in mind, and who could not care less about science. If someone tells me they care about the science, but insist on calling me a leftist, and then tell me that I am the reason that the holocaust happened, then pretend to do science but cherry-pick, often contradictory between "arguments" and/or "analyses," then they're not about science, they're about politics and propaganda. Just like the ID movement, which is a religious movement where science is but an afterthought.
I have friends who are motivated to finding how "God-did-it." The huge difference is that, unlike the IDiots, they pay attention to what the current theories explain, rather than draw cartoons about them. They don't cherry-pick from the scientific literature. Their presentation of results is not about "quotes" taken out of context, and, if I tell them about some contradictory notions they're using, they think about it and fix it if I'm right.
Do you get it now? Religion is not just motivation for the IDiots, it's the very core of what they do, and how they do it.
"Leaving alone the stupidity of referring to "atheists/leftists,"
DeleteThe fact that you are embarrassed to be one of these people does not entail it is stupid to refer to them.
" is a religious movement first and foremost. Science comes last, if at all."
Sounds like Darwinists to me.
"They twist them and mischaracterize them to fit them into their beliefs."
Coming from a Darwinist then your claim is very hollow.
"If they were truly about the science, then they would not associate so strongly with the likes of yourself, who has a religious ultra-right agenda in mind"
OOh there is the agenda claim again. Atheists/leftists do seem to think logic begins and ends with the appeal to motive fallacy. They can't help themselves.
"religious"
You have a lot of religious faith dude.
"and who could not care less about science"
leftists don't care about science, A man sticks on a dress and calls himself Caitlyn and then loony lefties like yourself think of him as a Woman.
That shows how much you care about science.
hahaha
" If someone tells me they care about the science, but insist on calling me a leftist"
You are embarrassed to be a loony lefty. I understand.
" and then tell me that I am the reason that the holocaust happened"
Did they, You poor thing.
"then pretend to do science but cherry-pick, often contradictory between "arguments" and/or "analyses,"
Says the guy that rejects the law of biogenesis.
"then they're not about science, they're about politics and propaganda."
So projects the loony lefty that rejects the law of biogenesis,
" which is a religious movement where science is but an afterthought."
Coming from a Darwinist, then that sounds a lot like projection.
"I have friends who are motivated to finding how "God-did-it." The huge difference is that, unlike the IDiots, they pay attention to what the current theories explain, rather than draw cartoons about them. "
So they don't have so much faith in chance like you do then, Good for them.
"They don't cherry-pick from the scientific literature."
So says the loopy lefty that rejects the law of biogenesis
"Their presentation of results is not about "quotes" taken out of context"
Of course, when the loony atheists/leftists and Darwin worshippers cannot refute quotes then they cry that they are out of context.
"and, if I tell them about some contradictory notions they're using, they think about it and fix it if I'm right."
When you tell them then they can smell the bs coming from your mouth.
"Religion is not just motivation for the IDiots"
You coppied your idol Moran in contorting the word to IDiot, What a good devotee you are. Well you believe everything is the result of dumb chance forces. We can call you a dummy in that case.
" it's the very core of what they do, and how they do it."
You have been talking about yourself and your own religious faith dude. It is the core of loony leftists like you to accuse others of their own behaviour
Well, for one, I'm quite the capitalist. For another, your projections could not be clearer. I knew you would fall for it and list all of your propagandistic mantras in one go. You're evidently that stupid.
DeleteI wanted to congratulate Vincent Torley on this UD posting:
ReplyDelete<a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/double-debunking-glenn-williamson-on-human-chimp-dna-similarity-and-genes-unique-to-human-beings/#comment-584393>Double debunking</a>
His integrity and honest determination to get to the heart of the matter, no matter what he finds there (Amicus Barry, sed magis amica veritas) are exceptional for a UD regular. Unfortunately, I remain banned at UD, so let me express my respect here.
Oops, I'll try again:
DeleteDouble debunking
I still found my way to the impressive article.
DeleteI'm in agreement that Intelligent Design proponents would be better off not using these arguments anymore.
Wow,
DeleteWhat Williamson has shown is that even when human chromosome 20 is compared with itself, the calculation method used by Dr. Tomkins when running the “nucmer” program would imply (absurdly) that it is less than 90% similar to itself!
Did Tomkins really think he would get away with this?
Props to Mr. Torley for his honesty
Well let's hope he doesn't. I do think this needs more attention.
DeleteLarry, you said this:
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm saying is that Intelligent Design Creationism is a form of creationism. Almost all the arguments put forth by Intelligent Design Creationists are directed at disproving evolution and the motivation for doing that is to discredit naturalism and support a theistic viewpoint. >
I disagree. I think that ID is a direct attack on Darwinism, and Darwinism as bad science. There are those--I'm not in their number--who would see this attack, if successful, as a way of promoting belief in God. These are secondary motives, which, in certain people, can elevate themselves to primary purposes.
My own journey towards ID started when I actually read Origin of Species. One of the "Difficulties on the Theory" Darwin himself put forth was precisely what Meyer addresses in Darwin's Doubt; namely, the Cambrian Explosian. Having obtained a degree in zoology, without ever being shown the "missing links" that nevertheless were said to exist, I scratched my head and kept moving. However, years later, when I find Darwin himself scratching his head as well, it was only normal to think that if the problem still hadn't been resolved, then why is Darwinism still accepted.
Enter Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," and my concerns were only heightened. Then I looked for some reasonable answer as to how macroevolution might occur, only to find that no one has ever given a reasonable explanation; only "just-so" stories. This, simply, isn't acceptable for what purports to be a science. Either answer the poignant questions, or admit that the theory is tentative and lacks a fully formed foundation.
But that's not what we see, or hear. Instead, we get a unified front that forestalls inquiry and insists that all the answers are there.
Again, this isn't how science is supposed to work.
If, as Dawin's Doubt so fully demonstrates, Darwin was wrong in his theory, then retract the theory. If you are unable to retract the theory, then maybe there's something underneath the surface that is preventing you from doing so. Bias and prejudice is not a 'one-way' street.
Saying that if Darwin's theory is retracted, then there will be no theory available simply won't do: what did they do before Darwin's theory? Science was done then, too---or else you're in the position of saying all of biology began with Darwin. It seems to me that Gregor Mendel didn't need the Theory of Evolution to do his studies, as an example.
Impugning motives, and dismissing critical questions and problems because of "who" is asking them or demonstrating them, subtly suggests that actual rebuttals to these questions and problems don't exist.
Your reply exhibits no understanding of the huge problems with the arguments of both Meyer and Behe.
DeleteE.g. Meyer:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/06/meyers-hopeless-3.html
E.g. Behe:
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/annotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-vertebrate-immune
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/evolution/irreducible-complexity/immune-system/
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/behe-replies-to.html
Answer the critiques, which are devastating, or you haven't got a case.
Cheers, Nick
NickM:
DeleteYour reply exhibits no understanding of the huge problems with Darwin's thesis, which forms the basis of both books you'd like to burn.
Take up your putative criticisms with the authors..
Once again, we see how creationist "debates" go.
DeleteCreationist: Where's all this evidence for evolution I keep hearing about?
Scientist: Right here. (Provides relevant citations.),
Creationist: (Plugs ears, shuts eyes.) Nah, nah, nah. What? I can't hear you!
You guys really need to work on a new act, Lino.
but..but.. lutesuite, Lino never said he's a creationist. How did you figure that out? you mean to tell me Lino is lying about his "darwinism" deconversion and he actually rejects evoltution for religious reasons?
DeleteNoooooooo way!!! LOL
Lino,
DeleteSo you're willing to read and just believe both IDiot books, but you won't even try and read and understand refutations to them?
OK then we learn from your example what ID creationism is all about. Thanks for letting us know.
What idiocy you spout here.
DeleteTwo citations to Panda's Thumb? That's refutation? A website that has posted one-sided, and wrong-headed evaluations of ID literature in the past?
And, of course, I suspect that one, or both, of those citations are citations to NickM's own supposed refutation.
Conjecture is not fact; hypotheses must be tested; theses must be thought out reasonably.
You're all guilty of exactly what you seem to be charging me with: you haven't cited anything from the citations NickM gave; ONLY the citations. Have you read them? I've already read NickM's supposed put-down of Meyer's book. I don't buy it one bit.
I'm sure that Meyer's book and Behe's present every side by the weight of the evidence collected with no bias and no ignorance of any facts, not just their side and without adding anything. Sure that they have immediately acknowledged their mistakes when they were shown refutations to their conjectures and just-do-stories. Same for the IDiots at UC and the "discovery" "institute." Never one sided those guys. Of course, it's very reasonable to think that there could be no answers to what those IDiots wrote. It must be all true and painfully accurate because .... ahem ... because ... because they believe in gods and god-believers cannot possibly be wrong! They cannot be blinded by their fantasies one bit!
DeleteI've got it Lino. Thanks again for showing how your fantasies and derived biases play with your mindset.
photosynthesis:
DeleteYou write drivel. Good luck.
Lino,
DeleteWhat objective evidence leads to the conclusion that evolution cannot account for the fossil record succession around the base of the Cambrian? I don't want to read the book. Really, I want a bite-sized rationale for saying that ID must have been at work, and some kind of verifiable metric that the changes observed were too rapid for evolutionary process. Bite-sized as in something that would fit into a scientific paper. Obviously, this margin is rather small. But if the argument is compelling it is presumably summarisable. Insisting that evolution prove itself capable is one thing. But you are declaring it categorically incapable, and another process capable. That's a strong claim, and needs support irrespective of any 'burden of proof' you feel falls on evolution's shoulders.
Lino,
DeleteAnd you write masterful pieces of shit. Good luck to you too.
Allan:
DeleteIt's about potency. Neo-Darwinism isn't potent enough to do what's seen in the Cambrian Explosian. Using evo-devo doesn't help since what evo-devo "works on" had to come about some how, and it had to do so in a short period of time. Again, lack of potency.
I wish I had time to discuss it; but too many constraints. I came this way only to provide Larry a perspective that he might now have formerly considered. I'm not sure he considered it since he didn't respond. But, I've said what I came here to say.
Ciao!
"lutesuiteWednesday, October 28, 2015 3:30:00 PM
DeleteOnce again, we see how creationist "debates" go.
Creationist: Where's all this evidence for evolution I keep hearing about?
Scientist: Right here. (Provides relevant citations.),
Creationist: (Plugs ears, shuts eyes.) Nah, nah, nah. What? I can't hear you!
You guys really need to work on a new act, Lino."
Yep. Look how he beat a hasty retreat when it turned out there actually was a ton of peer-reviewed literature on the evolution of the systems Behe or Meyer talked about.
"Neo-Darwinism isn't potent enough to do what's seen in the Cambrian Explosian."
DeleteWell then, lino, it's a good thing that no scientist claims that "Neo-Darwinism" did "what's seen in the Cambrian Explosian". "Neo-Darwinism" doesn't "do" anything in the processes/events/results of evolution. "Neo-Darwinism" is a label that was applied to some aspects of evolutionary theory. You IDiot-creationists should know that the territory is not the same as a map of the territory but I don't believe that it matters to you IDCs if you know that or not because you don't accept that the processes/events/results of evolution have occurred and will continue to occur and you don't accept the map(s) drawn by evolutionary theory. You hate it all, so to you it's all the same thing, and one of the ways that you IDCs push your theocratic agenda is by demonizing Darwin, so you always call evolutionary theory Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism, or Darwinian theory (in a demonizing way) even though evolutionary theory has changed a lot since Darwin presented his evidence and ideas.
Hey lino, or another IDiot since lino has run away, instead of falsely demonizing Darwin and asserting that evolution couldn't have resulted in the diversification of organisms during the millions of years that are labeled as the Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation, let's see you do something that no IDiot-creationist or any other creationist has ever done. Let's see you describe (scientifically and in detail, with lots of supporting evidence) how, when, where, and even why your chosen, so-called 'God' designed-created-guided the diversification of organisms during the Cambrian, and be sure to explain how everything you present fits with the biblical story called Genesis.
Lino (or his Shade):
DeleteNeo-Darwinism isn't potent enough to do what's seen in the Cambrian Explosian.
That's not the most rigorous of conclusions, but you missed my point. Never mind what 'neo-Darwinism' can do, how potent is your alternative method? And what is it? Mass Genetic Engineering on the grand scale? Think how you would give a specific change that evolution could not have wrought but your alternative could, and show why the one is inadequate but not the other.
Lion,
ReplyDeleteNickM:
Your reply exhibits no understanding of the huge problems with Darwin's thesis, which forms the basis of both books you'd like to burn.
You see Lino, NickM's job and future depends on his not understanding the huge problems with Darwinism, origins of life and whatever issue comes his way that could jeopardize his ambition.....
We must all be aware of our biases.
ReplyDeleteYeah, lino, and it's obvious that you are not aware of your biases.
DeleteFor example, you spewed:
"Either answer the poignant questions, or admit that the theory is tentative and lacks a fully formed foundation."
So, scientists have to answer the "poignant" questions about the OOL and evolution, eh? In other words, they have to provide the answers that you creobots want to hear, and you expect and demand that absolutely every detail of absolutely everything that has ever occurred be provided and thoroughly backed up with irrefutable evidence that meets or exceeds your expectations and demands, otherwise your chosen, so-called 'God' did it.
"But that's not what we see, or hear. Instead, we get a unified front that forestalls inquiry and insists that all the answers are there."
That's a lie. Inquiries are NOT forestalled and NO scientist insists that "all the answers are there". If anyone insists that "all the answers are there" they are not a scientist. Look at yourself and your fellow theoloons to see who insists but never demonstrates that they have all of the answers.
"Again, this isn't how science is supposed to work."
Yeah, so when are you IDiot-creationists going to get around to doing science and answering questions about the how, when, where, etc., of 'intelligent design-creation-guidance' by your chosen, so-called 'God'? When are you going to provide positive evidence and explanations to the same or greater level of details that you expect and demand from scientists?
"Impugning motives, and dismissing critical questions and problems because of "who" is asking them or demonstrating them, subtly suggests that actual rebuttals to these questions and problems don't exist."
Well then, since you two-faced creobots constantly impugn motives and dismiss critical (and other) questions and problems that pertain to 'ID' because of who's asking or demonstrating them (scientists, atheists, so-called 'Darwinists', theistic evolutionists, etc.) that suggests (well, it actually goes way beyond suggesting) that rebuttals to the questions and problems don't exist.
"And, of course, I suspect that one, or both, of those citations are citations to NickM's own supposed refutation."
Why don't you read them and find out?
"Conjecture is not fact; hypotheses must be tested; theses must be thought out reasonably."
Yeah, so when are you IDiots going to stop conjecturing, come up with testable hypotheses for all of your 'ID" claims and actually test them, and reasonably think out some theses?
"You're all guilty of exactly what you seem to be charging me with"
Look who's talking!
":you haven't cited anything from the citations NickM gave; ONLY the citations. Have you read them? I've already read NickM's supposed put-down of Meyer's book. I don't buy it one bit."
Oh puleeze, you creobots never provide anything that substantiates your IDiotic claims, and why should anyone care whether you "buy it one bit" or not?
Nice summary of your side's position: "why should anyone care whether you "buy it one bit" or not?
DeleteYes, why bother convincing when you already know the truth. All it takes is faith, you know.
I'm glad you agree faith is a despicable attribute. Nothing should be believed on faith.
DeleteLino Di Ischia, Darwin's Demise: http://darwinsdemise.blogspot.com/
DeleteNo posts. No members.
If you have zilch to communicate, why keep a blog?
Dumbshit says "I'm glad you agree faith is a despicable attribute."
ReplyDeleteYou couldn't even drive your car without Faith. You have faith when you drive that people driving from the opposite direction are going to be sober, driving responsibly and stay on their side of the road.
You have faith that your food was prepared in a hygienic manner when you eat somewhere that is not familiar to you.
When you go out and about then you have faith that you will be respected and are not going to violently assaulted etc
You wouldn't leave your house without faith dummy.
"Nothing should be believed on faith. "
That makes no sense. If you believe something to be true but do not know it to be true then you have faith.
Merriam Webster, Faith : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
There is no proof for your faith, known chemistry does not even provide any evidence for your faith.
Your faith is not based on reason though because you believe human reason is the result of dumb chance.
You reject known chemistry with your faith that a living organism arose spontaneously in nature.
You have a lot of faith but your faith is not based on reason or evidence but on your emotions of what you want to be true.
The whole truth "going to get around to doing science"
Whenever you appeal to science then you are admitting your chance faith is false.
Your dumb chance faith provides no grounding that your sensory apparatus corresponds to reality, that the universe has underlying laws that can be discovered and understood, the uniformity of nature has no grounding on a faith in a dumb chance universe, As you believe humans are nothing more than bags of walking chemicals then you cannot believe in free will, chemistry is not free, Ask Professor Moran what chemicals on the periodic table are free.
Is Iron free? Is lead free?
If scientists are not free but matter in motion determined by laws of chemistry and physics then there is no grounds to morally judge them for reporting their results inaccurately.
Every time you argue and chirp for science then you are admitting design is true and that your chance faith is false.
Why are you people such walking contradictions?
You couldn't even drive your car without Faith
DeleteI have plenty evidence that my car is safe, no faith involved. And I don't need to worship my car for it to get me to where I want to go, and I don't have to deny that planes work to keep using my car, or convince everyone that my car is the one and only answer to the deepest questions of the universe and that anyone who disagrees will burn for eternity.
My car doesn't require me to hate on homosexuals, people driving other cars, or those who chose not to drive one.
And last by not least, my car has more mileage than all the "gods" ever invented combined