Jump to content


Same Evidence, Different Interpretations


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
59 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2005 - 11:26 PM

It could just as easily be that the teleological implications are evident for themselves, and that the language naturally fits.

View Post

The "wisdom of the ancients" notwithstanding, truths held to be self-evident by some early language architects included some notions not all of us would care to embrace today, such as the idea that eclipses were caused by giant snakes attempting to devour celestial bodies, or that volcanic eruptions were expressions of displeasure at being deprived of virgins.

#42 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 15 August 2005 - 05:31 AM

QUOTE
Still I would love to read about the theory of evolution. I asked for the literature it can be found in but you didn't answer that question. Why is that?

Cal:
Because I found it trivial, argumentative, and insincere -- an assessment that is confirmed by the obvious ease with which you found at least one source on your own.


It's not trivial nor insincere. Your evasion is noted. Just because I found a source doesn't mean that source is correct.


Cal:
The theory of evolution is simple and concise.


Really?

Cal:
It can be expressed in a single sentence, and understood by a child.


Then leave it for children. Once they grow up they will learn to know better.

Cal:
By comparison, ID is an exercise in bafflegab like this heaping helping of word salad:



ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

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.




QUOTE
ID is about the detection and understanding of the design. As I said the ONLY way to infer anything about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design.

Cal:
So you continue to deny that among the most important inferences ID makes is the existence of the designer?


My point is that ID does not care about the designer. IDists do, but ID does not. It is not necessary to know anything about the designer before detecting and understanding the design.

Cal:
I'm sorry, I just find that very difficult to accept. It seems to me that by the simplest of Aristotelian logic, the statement:

"X is the product of Y"

contains the statement:

"Y either exists, or once existed".

If you accept the premise, the conclusion is forced (unless you care to take me up on my earlier offer to describe whatever alternate system of logic you are using).


If the ToE can say it isn't concerned with the origins of life then ID can say it isn't concerned with the designer. The ToE would not exist withjout life and if life didn't arise from non-life via unintelligent, blkind/ undirected processes then there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversification arose via those processes.

Stick that double-standard in your logic pipe and smoke it.

Instead of asumption why don't evolutionists just present the evidence that would substantiate their claims? Talk about disingenious...

#43 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 August 2005 - 07:27 AM

If the ToE can say it isn't concerned with the origins of life then ID can say it isn't concerned with the designer.

View Post

The ToE endeavors to explain mechanisms, while presently offering no explanations regarding origins. ID endeavors to explain origins, immediately encountering the ultimate barrier to ever being able to explain mechanisms...

...and, by the way, sucking all attempts at explaning anything into this epistemological vortex by voiding naturalistic causality. We can never know how or why supernatural agents would interfere with our universe, and once we posit that they have done so, we can never be sure if or when they will do so again, whether or where they are doing so now, etc. Intelligent Design theory is a carefully disguised offer to replace science with superstition.

#44 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 15 August 2005 - 08:52 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Aug 15 2005, 05:31 AM)
If the ToE can say it isn't concerned with the origins of life then ID can say it isn't concerned with the designer.

Cal:
The ToE endeavors to explain mechanisms, while presently offering no explanations regarding origins.


ID also endeanvors to explain mechanisms, intentional design being one of those mechanisms. As I said without knowing how life originated there is no way to reasonably infer about its alleged subsequent diversity.

Cal:
ID endeavors to explain origins, immediately encountering the ultimate barrier to ever being able to explain mechanisms...


How would you know what ID endeavors to do? Show us the ID literature that demonstrates that ID endeavors to explain origins. And then show us how explaining origins is any barrier to explaining mechanisms.

Cal:
Intelligent Design theory is a carefully disguised offer to replace science with superstition.


Spoken like someone void of any knowledge of ID. Next Cal will tell us that Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Linne, Pasteur et al., were not conducting science because they knew they were uncovering the handiwork of the unltimate designer.

What are the options to our existence Cal?

#45 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 August 2005 - 10:38 AM

View Post

ID also endeanvors to explain mechanisms, intentional design being one of those mechanisms

You apparently make no distinction between explaining mechanisms and explaining origins. If I tell you my car was made in Detroit, can you tell me whether it runs on diesel? If I tell you it runs on diesel, can you tell me where it was made? Intelligent Design says NOTHING about mechanisms; they are GOD's mechanisms -- what could possibly be said about them?

Show us the ID literature that demonstrates that ID endeavors to explain origins

Assuming you don't mean all of it, I expect you will accept this as a representative sample:
---------------------------
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.

DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92
---------------------------


And then show us how explaining origins is any barrier to explaining mechanisms.

I did:
---------------------------
"...by voiding naturalistic causality. We can never know how or why supernatural agents would interfere with our universe, and once we posit that they have done so, we can never be sure if or when they will do so again, whether or where they are doing so now, etc."
---------------------------


What are the options to our existence Cal?

Among an infinite number of logically possible (and empirically vacuous) alternatives is the 'meta-universe holodeck' model I offered above:

So if I propose that the metaphysical explanation to which the evidence leads is the conclusion that the universe we observe is a simulation on the holodeck of a starship Enterprise that exists in an infinitely larger parallel universe, that must be accepted as a complete explanation for the reality behind our existence?

View Post

Neither you nor anyone else offered to answer either that question or the other question I asked:

"In precisely what way is the Creation model a better fit?"

#46 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 August 2005 - 12:31 PM

The "wisdom of the ancients" notwithstanding, truths held to be self-evident by some early language architects included some notions not all of us would care to embrace today, such as the idea that eclipses were caused by giant snakes attempting to devour celestial bodies, or that volcanic eruptions were expressions of displeasure at being deprived of virgins.


....or the idea that life formed by chance......

Terry

#47 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 16 August 2005 - 04:23 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Aug 15 2005, 08:52 AM)


ID also endeanvors to explain mechanisms, intentional design being one of those mechanisms

Cal:
You apparently make no distinction between explaining mechanisms and explaining origins. If I tell you my car was made in Detroit, can you tell me whether it runs on diesel? If I tell you it runs on diesel, can you tell me where it was made? Intelligent Design says NOTHING about mechanisms; they are GOD's mechanisms -- what could possibly be said about them?


Design is a mechanism. ID does not say anything about God, nor does it attempt to.




QUOTE
Show us the ID literature that demonstrates that ID endeavors to explain origins

Cal:
Assuming you don't mean all of it, I expect you will accept this as a representative sample:
---------------------------
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.

DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92


Where does it state ID endeavors to explain origins? It does say that naturalistic explanations do not suffice to explain the origin but it does NOT say ID endeavors to explain the origin.



QUOTE
And then show us how explaining origins is any barrier to explaining mechanisms.

Cal:
I did:
---------------------------
"...by voiding naturalistic causality. We can never know how or why supernatural agents would interfere with our universe, and once we posit that they have done so, we can never be sure if or when they will do so again, whether or where they are doing so now, etc."


Can you post something that would substantiate that statement? Can you demonstrate that intelligence is a non-natural cause?



QUOTE
What are the options to our existence Cal?

Cal:
Among an infinite number of logically possible (and empirically vacuous) alternatives is the 'meta-universe holodeck' model I offered above:


Actually there is a very finite number of options. I provided them earlier.


Cal:
QUOTE(Calipithecus @ Aug 11 2005, 07:56 AM)
So if I propose that the metaphysical explanation to which the evidence leads is the conclusion that the universe we observe is a simulation on the holodeck of a starship Enterprise that exists in an infinitely larger parallel universe, that must be accepted as a complete explanation for the reality behind our existence?


Neither you nor anyone else offered to answer either that question or the other question I asked:

"In precisely what way is the Creation model a better fit?"


Reality demonstrates I answered the first question. The answer to the second question can be inferred by your and every other evo in the thread about the evidence.

#48 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 August 2005 - 07:44 AM

View Post

Design is a mechanism.

I'm confused. Is a mechanism also a design?


ID does not say anything about God, nor does it attempt to.

In fact, it attempts not to. That's what makes it so dishonest. What, is the "Intelligent Designer" a space alien?


Where does it state ID endeavors to explain origins?

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.


"We can never know how or why supernatural agents would interfere with our universe, and once we posit that they have done so, we can never be sure if or when they will do so again, whether or where they are doing so now, etc."

Can you post something that would substantiate that statement?

You seem to have authority issues, JP; you place little value on my ability to consider such a matter independently of some 'expert from afar', and (judging by your penchant for cut-and-paste) nearly as little on your own. If you can't evaluate a statement like that without referencing citations from peer-reviewed philosophy journals, then reference them yourself.


Can you demonstrate that intelligence is a non-natural cause?

I believe I can, for the definition of 'intelligence' most pertinent here. Before I bother, are you sure you want to claim that the intelligent designer is a natural phenomenon?

#49 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 16 August 2005 - 10:21 AM

QUOTE
Where does it state ID endeavors to explain origins?

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

There is a difference between endeavoring to explain origins and saying the best explanation is intelligent design. I am surprised you don't understand that basic fact.


"We can never know how or why supernatural agents would interfere with our universe, and once we posit that they have done so, we can never be sure if or when they will do so again, whether or where they are doing so now, etc."

QUOTE
Can you post something that would substantiate that statement?

Cal:
You seem to have authority issues, JP; you place little value on my ability to consider such a matter independently of some 'expert from afar', and (judging by your penchant for cut-and-paste) nearly as little on your own. If you can't evaluate a statement like that without referencing citations from peer-reviewed philosophy journals, then reference them yourself.


I have authority issues only when some alleged authority attempts to use rhetoric in the place of actual substance. My point is we don't have to know how, why, when or where in order to make a determination of design or not.



QUOTE
Can you demonstrate that intelligence is a non-natural cause?

Cal:
I believe I can, for the definition of 'intelligence' most pertinent here. Before I bother, are you sure you want to claim that the intelligent designer is a natural phenomenon?


That is not what I am claiming. Perhaps I should wait until you have at least a basic grasp of what ID is.

#50 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 August 2005 - 12:26 PM

There is a difference between endeavoring to explain origins and saying the best explanation is intelligent design.

View Post

I agree. An honest endeavor to explain origins is certainly not exemplified by mere assertion, and I believe ID does in fact attempt to do much more. I submit that the central postulate of ID is the existence of an intelligent designer. You are eager to argue that ID makes no such explicit claim, but as I can see no way this conclusion can be avoided, I would ask you to clarify your position further: do you deny that ID makes this claim either explicitly or implicitly?


I have noticed (whether you have or not) that others here who presumably share your worldview are not exactly scrambling over each other to support you on this. I'd like to ask for a show of hands: is there anyone here besides John Paul who believes that the existence of an Intelligent Designer is not the central postulate of Intelligent Design theory?


I have authority issues only when some alleged authority attempts to use rhetoric in the place of actual substance

The absence of substance in that statement, besides rendering it deliciously self-refrential, would inspire me me to ask for clarification as to what 'authority' you refer -- if, that is, it weren't for the fact that the statement was so clearly presented rhetorically.



My point is we don't have to know how, why, when or where in order to make a determination of design or not.

If all you want to do is make a philosophical examination of possible meanings the word design might have in various contexts, that might be true; scientists, on the other hand, are unflinchingly dedicated to the how, the why, the when, and the where -- I wonder if you would be willing to extend the same liberty to them?



Q:
--------------------------
"are you sure you want to claim that the intelligent designer is a natural phenomenon?"
--------------------------
A:
--------------------------
"That is not what I am claiming."
--------------------------
I thought not.


Perhaps I should wait until you have at least a basic grasp of what ID is.

Clearly, at least one of us lacks this basic grasp. In fact, one of us appears confused about what his own position is. Could ID itself be similarly confused?

#51 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 August 2005 - 09:48 PM

I'm confused. Is a mechanism also a design?
In fact, it attempts not to. That's what makes it so dishonest. What, is the "Intelligent Designer" a space alien?
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
"We can never know how or why supernatural agents would interfere with our universe, and once we posit that they have done so, we can never be sure if or when they will do so again, whether or where they are doing so now, etc."
You seem to have authority issues, JP; you place little value on my ability to consider such a matter independently of some 'expert from afar', and (judging by your penchant for cut-and-paste) nearly as little on your own. If you can't evaluate a statement like that without referencing citations from peer-reviewed philosophy journals, then reference them yourself.
I believe I can, for the definition of 'intelligence' most pertinent here. Before I bother, are you sure you want to claim that the intelligent designer is a natural phenomenon?

View Post


I'd perfer you did not use "large" bold letters to respond to someone. This is known as what's called: screaming at someone using text. This is an indication that this thread may get out of control, and the other member may respond in kind.

If you have a problem making your point, best to move on to another subject. Or if someone is making you mad on purpose, let us know.

Admin3

#52 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 17 August 2005 - 05:44 AM

QUOTE
My point is we don't have to know how, why, when or where in order to make a determination of design or not.

Cal:
If all you want to do is make a philosophical examination of possible meanings the word design might have in various contexts, that might be true; scientists, on the other hand, are unflinchingly dedicated to the how, the why, the when, and the where -- I wonder if you would be willing to extend the same liberty to them?


I am sure those scientists understand my position. It is a fact that in order to detect design, ie make a determination of dsign (or not designed), the who, how, why, when or where is not required. Real scientists understand that in order to answer those questions in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question.

Notice I never said those questions weren't important.

Cal:
I have noticed (whether you have or not) that others here who presumably share your worldview are not exactly scrambling over each other to support you on this.


I don't know of anyone here who shares my worldview.

Cal:
I'd like to ask for a show of hands: is there anyone here besides John Paul who believes that the existence of an Intelligent Designer is not the central postulate of Intelligent Design theory?


Why don't you just use your ID knowledge to refute my statement? Surely you have something from Dembski, Behe, Minnich, Johnson, Meyers or Wells that shows ID's central posulate is an intelligent designer. I know that ID is only about the detection and understanding of the design.

From Top questions about ID :


4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.


Reality refutes nonsense every day and it also demonstrates who is the confused one. Ya see Cal I have many books on ID written by IDists. I know what ID is. I also know when someone else is talking out of some other orafice on their body.

#53 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 August 2005 - 05:52 AM

I'd perfer you did not use "large" bold letters to respond to someone. This is known as what's called: screaming at someone using text. This is an indication that this thread may get out of control, and the other member may respond in kind.

If you have a problem making your point, best to move on to another subject. Or if someone is making you mad on purpose, let us know.

View Post

Before we can talk to each other, we have to learn how to talk to each other.

I prefer not to use large text, and you may have noticed that I do not make a habit of doing so. I wasn't the least bit mad, and frankly, didn't even give much thought to my use of large bold being taken that way. If I want to yell, I use ALL CAPS (except I pretty much never yell). I used large text to place emphasis on the answer to a question, and to emphasize the fact that the question had been asked and answered -- the first time I answered, I bolded the critical phrases, and JP continued to act like he never saw it. Since I could not be sure whether this was the result of haste, myopia, or stubbornness, getting mad would have been premature, even if I were prone to that.

As far as complaining, I assume that admins follow these threads, and have found nothing objectionable in JP's participation here. I, on the other hand, have frequently felt that he was not making his best effort at maintaining the standard of honest, civil dialogue, and you may have noticed that I have taken it upon myself to admonish him for it several times. Even JP seems to have agreed, because every time I have done that I seem to have noticed an improvement in his attitude.

The forum rules are silent on the subject of large text, and I have seen it used before without drawing complaints. Is there an official policy on this? What are the circumstances (if any) under which large bold would be acceptable?

#54 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 17 August 2005 - 06:49 AM

I did not take Calipithecus's bolded enlarged text in any way except for the fact he was trying to point something out that didn't support his claim.

Ya see I saw the phrase- I posted it. I have posted those 3 premises and the following inference so many times I know it by heart.

Calipithecus should admonish by example. Notice that he just plainly states things as though they were fact. Notice he never substantiates his claims when called on them. And notice his absence in the evidence thread.

I have refuted his claims in this thread. He accusses me of cut-n-paste. Well yeah- to support what I am saying. Calipithecus doesn't do that. He thinks his words are all that is needed. That would explain his absence from the evidence thread.

#55 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 August 2005 - 08:12 AM

View Post

Real scientists understand that in order to answer those questions in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question.

So when biologists study organisms, or paleontologists fossils, it is not the making of inferences that you object to, but the nature of the inferences themselves?

I don't know of anyone here who shares my worldview.

Well, I'm glad I gave myself a bailout clause by using the word presumably. Nevertheless, I believe there are others here who embrace Intelligent Design theory (if not as an end in itself, then at least as a means to an end) and it wouldn't surprise me if that could even be said of a majority of the regulars here ...a silent majority. You seem to place great importance on the opinions of others, and it might be worth looking at how willing you are to continue to do so once they cease to agree with you.

Why don't you just use your ID knowledge to refute my statement? Surely you have something from Dembski, Behe, Minnich, Johnson, Meyers or Wells that shows ID's central posulate is an intelligent designer.

Again you imply that the only valid refutation I could possibly bring is one made by someone else, preferably in the form of a cleverly mined quote. You appear to feel that the loftiest role I could assume in this discussion is that of messenger; importer of second-hand arguments. I submit that your statement: "ID does not say anything about God" is self-refuting, on the basis of prima facie logical inconsistencies, and that you and I, here and now, can examine the logic for ourselves. I have already made one attempt to show how your statement is logically flawed:

---------------------------
"X is the product of Y"

contains the statement:

"Y either exists, or once existed".

---------------------------

You responded with a schoolboy's excuse:
---------------------------
"If the ToE can say it isn't concerned with the origins of life then ID can say it isn't concerned with the designer."
---------------------------

And added this piece of advice:
---------------------------
"Stick that double-standard in your logic pipe and smoke it."
---------------------------

Is that really the best you can do?


With a genuine examination of that logic, we would be at least indirectly addressing the subject I hoped to explore by starting this thread. In arriving at our respective interpretations for the same evidence (same rocks, same etc) -- even if we limit ourselves to merely absorbing the arguments of others -- we begin with fundamental assumptions, and everything which follows is determined by what those fundamental assumptions are, and the logic we use in stacking one assumption on top of another. The problem, as I see it, is that fundamental assumptions not only default to intuition (which can perhaps be remedied to some extent by closer examination than many of us take time to subject them) but ultimately reduce to intuition (which can't be remedied at all, as far as I can see).

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

I don't see how ID can avoid making the implicit claim that an intelligent designer (a supernatural agent) acted (or acts) as a causitive force -- whether its official policy is to withhold a commitment to any specific model or not. If my lease says I can't have a dog, and I get a dog anyway, but I don't give him a name, and the landlord decides to evict me because of the dog, does the fact that I didn't name the dog give me a good defense against the eviction?

#56 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 17 August 2005 - 08:28 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Aug 17 2005, 05:44 AM)
Real scientists understand that in order to answer those questions in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question.

Cal:
So when biologists study organisms, or paleontologists fossils, it is not the making of inferences that you object to, but the nature of the inferences themselves?


Not at all. All I want is to know what the evidence is that they base their inference on. The Privileged Planet makes it clear what the evidence is that the inference is based on.



QUOTE
I don't know of anyone here who shares my worldview.

Cal:
Well, I'm glad I gave myself a bailout clause by using the word presumably. Nevertheless, I believe there are others here who embrace Intelligent Design theory (if not as an end in itself, then at least as a means to an end) and it wouldn't surprise me if that could even be said of a majority of the regulars here ...a silent majority. You seem to place great importance on the opinions of others, and it might be worth looking at how willing you are to continue to do so once they cease to agree with you.


Reality demonstrates I don't place any importance on opinions and I surely don't care what you believe.



QUOTE
Why don't you just use your ID knowledge to refute my statement? Surely you have something from Dembski, Behe, Minnich, Johnson, Meyers or Wells that shows ID's central posulate is an intelligent designer.

Cal:
Again you imply that the only valid refutation I could possibly bring is one made by someone else, preferably in the form of a cleverly mined quote.


Not at all. It is just that anti-IDists and ID critics don't get to tell IDists what ID must postulate. Therefore if not one IDist says that ID postulates a designer and only anti-IDists do, then it is a sure bet that it is eother a red-herring or a strawman.

Cal:
You appear to feel that the loftiest role I could assume in this discussion is that of messenger; importer of second-hand arguments. I submit that your statement: "ID does not say anything about God" is self-refuting, on the basis of prima facie logical inconsistencies, and that you and I, here and now, can examine the logic for ourselves. I have already made one attempt to show how your statement is logically flawed:


Your attempt failed. I and others have shown that it is not necessary to say anything about the designer in order to detect and understand design. I have also demonstrated that the origin of life is more important to the ToE yet evolutionists insist that one has nothing to do with the other.

Cal
---------------------------
"X is the product of Y"

contains the statement:

"Y either exists, or once existed".
---------------------------

You responded with a schoolboy's excuse:
---------------------------
"If the ToE can say it isn't concerned with the origins of life then ID can say it isn't concerned with the designer."
---------------------------

And added this piece of advice:
---------------------------
"Stick that double-standard in your logic pipe and smoke it."
---------------------------

Is that really the best you can do?


That "schollboy's excuse" is better reasoning than you can come up with.

QUOTE
Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

Cal:
I don't see how ID can avoid making the implicit claim that an intelligent designer (a supernatural agent) acted (or acts) as a causitive force -- whether its official policy is to withhold a commitment to any specific model or not.


And I don't care what you can or can't see. I don't see how the ToE can avoid making any claims about the origin-of-life.

One more time- ID is about the detection and understanding of the design. Period..

Someday perhaps a theory of the intelligent designer will be formulated.

#57 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 17 August 2005 - 08:39 AM

More logic & reasoning demonstrating the designer is of no importance to detecting and understanding the design:

Who designed the designer?

#58 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 August 2005 - 09:01 AM

Calipithecus should admonish by example.

View Post

I agree, and I don't claim to do a perfect job of that. Learning how to do it better may be the one thing of real value here. After all, whether we ever come to agreement on any of the substantive points on which we differ, we (with different names, and actual faces) must still live together in society; we are neighbors, co-workers, clients. When we see each other in trouble, we try to help; we don't stop first to ask about beliefs, or axioms, or evidence. People have been divided by greater gulfs than those which divide us here, and yet have learned to treat each other with genuine respect.

Out of all the places on the internet where these subjects are discussed, this forum is unique in having so much as a stated commitment to honesty and civility as even an ideal toward which to strive (and only in that regard; the substance of what we discuss here is pretty run-of-the-mill). For the most part, the evolution versus creation debate consists of uncounted zillabytes of the most vicious mudslinging imaginable. Let's all make a commitment to doing better than that -- that by our collective example, we might admonish any who find their way here that honesty and civility are not merely nice ideas, but indispensible components of genuine dialogue.

#59 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 August 2005 - 12:58 PM

View Post

All I want is to know what the evidence is that they base their inference on.

Could you possibly mean: "All I want to know is what fundamental assumptions do they begin with, and what logical support do they provide for the steps they take in proceeding from those assumptions to the conclusions they reach"
?

I surely don't care what you believe.

Can you explain what it is that you hope to achieve by participating in these discussions?

It is just that anti-IDists and ID critics don't get to tell IDists what ID must postulate.

What is the authoritative body which determines such rules? Just what options do you see as being permitted to those thinkers who stand outside the theory?

Therefore if not one IDist says that ID postulates a designer and only anti-IDists do, then it is a sure bet that it is eother a red-herring or a strawman.

Another possiblility is that IDists are not being honest when they deny this implication.

More logic & reasoning...

None of it yours, I can't help but notice. As usual. You wanna do argument by URL? Try this on for size.

#60 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 05:32 AM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Aug 17 2005, 08:28 AM)
All I want is to know what the evidence is that they base their inference on.

Cal:
Could you possibly mean: "All I want to know is what fundamental assumptions do they begin with, and what logical support do they provide for the steps they take in proceeding from those assumptions to the conclusions they reach"
?


Nope. I mean exactly what I said.


QUOTE
I surely don't care what you believe.

Cal:
Can you explain what it is that you hope to achieve by participating in these discussions?


I hope that evolutionists can present the evidence that supports the ToE and the claim that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms.


QUOTE
It is just that anti-IDists and ID critics don't get to tell IDists what ID must postulate.

Cal:
What is the authoritative body which determines such rules? Just what options do you see as being permitted to those thinkers who stand outside the theory?


Most likely the same type of "body" that determined the origin-of-life is separate from the ToE.


QUOTE
Therefore if not one IDist says that ID postulates a designer and only anti-IDists do, then it is a sure bet that it is eother a red-herring or a strawman.

Cal:
Another possiblility is that IDists are not being honest when they deny this implication.


I guess that also applies to evolutionists who try to distance the ToE from the OoL.


QUOTE
More logic & reasoning...

Cal:
None of it yours, I can't help but notice.


If you read the link you would have read that it is pretty much what I have been saying for days. I just got sick of typing because you don't know how to listen.

Cal:
As usual.


AS usual I see you don't have an intelligent response. As usual you can't admit that you know very little, if anything, about ID.

Cal:
You wanna do argument by URL? Try this on for size.


What was that article supposed to do? The article I provided refuted your nonsense. The article you provided doesn't do a thing- as usual.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users