So much for camaraderie. New York Times movie reviewer Jeannette Catsoulis found fellow Times writer Ben Stein's "Expelled," his new documentary on evolution and how the concept of Intelligent Design is being stifled in academic circles, "an unprincipled propaganda piece."
(Catsoulis's politics are pretty easy to peg; witness her simplistic left-wing raves over the 2005 documentary "Waging a Living," based on a book by socialist writer Barbara Ehrenreich.)
Catsoulis not only doesn't buy "Expelled"'s premise that scientific debate is being squelched in academia in favor of Darwin-worship, she calls the movie names:
One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.
Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of "big science" to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy -- after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody's Business for The New York Times.)
Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins -- accurately identified on screen as an "atheist" -- are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.
Can someone point out the Times's lambasting of left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore for making those kind of leaps in his own widely praised documentaries?
Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn "Expelled" is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.
Catsoulis concluded with a mock rating:
"Expelled" is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I really have a hard time
April 18, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Troika37I really have a hard time with Catsoulis calling this movie a "conspiracy-theory rant" when the Truther's aren't completely disowned and disavowed by the left... I would think that if the Truther movement didn't count as a conspiracy theory, nothing would.
Does disowning & disavowing "Truthers" actually help???
April 18, 2008 - 14:26 ET by sarcasmoNot in my experience right-here....
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Clay well you beat me to it
April 18, 2008 - 14:26 ET by bigtimerClay well you beat me to it with the Moore example, but I will throw in algores Inconvenient Lies....
Nevertheless, I expected nothing less by the leftists of all venues when it comes to Stein and Expelled, this gal masquerading as a movie reviewer is a prime example.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Yeah Bt and thousands of others that are left wing propoganda
April 18, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Dee BunkWhether it's debates, documentaries, news, T.V or movies, Liberal think conservative theories should be hushed and not allowed. It's really frightening the way they flip out about people's free speech.
"an unprincipled propaganda
April 18, 2008 - 14:32 ET by motherbelt"an unprincipled propaganda piece."
That's as opposed, of course, to Algore's "An Inconvenient Truth" which was a well-researched and -documented, compilation of incontrovertible facts, right?
Pot meet kettle
April 18, 2008 - 14:32 ET by terrigThis is rich coming from the NYT, if anyone is experienced in "unprincipled propaganda piece" it's them.
terri, Boy have you got
April 18, 2008 - 14:38 ET by bigtimerterri,
Boy have you got that right....releasing the info they did to hurt this war against the terrorists is the utmost in a treasonist agenda in my opinion.
....zilch happens.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Well, it is wrong when
April 18, 2008 - 14:36 ET by blogonatorWell, it is wrong when left-wing propaganda films aren't criticized, but that is no reason to suggest other types of propaganda films shouldn't be. From what I read in a previous newsbusters entry, this movie does seem like conspiracy-filled propaganda. Conservatives outraged over films such as those by Michael Moore should be similarly outraged at this film.
Oh really blog.... I
April 18, 2008 - 14:40 ET by bigtimerOh really blog....
I think not.
How does it seem like it is conspiracy filled propaganda?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Well, suppose for a second
April 18, 2008 - 14:46 ET by blogonatorWell, suppose for a second Moore is right about the healthcare industry in his most recent film. (I don't agree with Moore but bare with me) The way he uses ad hominem attacks, quotes out of context, faulty reasoning, dumb logic, and ill-informed "experts" to make his point would be wrong. That would be propaganda, and suggesting that the governemnt is behind all the healthcare problems in the country would be conspiracy theory like.
Similarly, whether you agree with the theory of evolution or not, it seems to me that Stein uses dishonest tactics to arrive at his conclusion. And suggesting there is a conspiracy among scientists to keep ID out of the science classroom is also dishonest.
I haven't seen the film so maybe I'm wrong, but the discription I read has led me to this opinion.
Conspiracy sounds too cloak and dagger.
April 18, 2008 - 15:17 ET by Karmablogonator,
Is this documentary suggesting a "conspiracy" or a "concerted effort" in keeping ID out of the classroom?
I am under the impression
April 18, 2008 - 18:15 ET by blogonatorI am under the impression that this film portrays scientists as dogmatic about their crazy theory and refusing to acknowledge other points of view. That they are trying to suppress Intelligent Design in the classroom, while the ID proponents are the victims whose well supported idea is being hidden to the masses.
Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
Blogonator: Sounds like
April 18, 2008 - 18:24 ET by tracheostomyBlogonator: Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.
I prefer to call it "peer review" myself.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Hehehe... I appreciate your
April 18, 2008 - 19:12 ET by blogonatorHehehe... I appreciate your humor.
However, call me a prude, but I don't find it funny when a film claims the theory of evolution led to Nazism as this movie seems to imply. It's as a dumb of an argument as when a Dawkinist claims that religion is the root-cause of evil. This type of reasoning is best reserved for the left. If conservatives embrace this movie while slamming Michael Moore's movies, it is hypocritical of them to do so.
B: However, call me a
April 18, 2008 - 19:37 ET by tracheostomyB: However, call me a prude, but I don't find it funny when a film claims the theory of evolution led to Nazism as this movie seems to imply.
Ah, but it does. You don't need a film to imply it either. See my link below.
B: It's as a dumb of an argument as when a Dawkinist claims that religion is the root-cause of evil. This type of reasoning is best reserved for the left. If conservatives embrace this movie while slamming Michael Moore's movies, it is hypocritical of them to do so.
In either case of either claim, they both have to have something to back it up.
- The typical Dawkinist is indeed speaking truth when they say this. In fact, they're practically quoting the Bible. However, the error comes when they point the finger exclusively at Christians*. You can't paint the entire movement with the same broad brush as "evil" by cherry-picking one errant sect that wasn't playing with a full theological deck.
- OTOH, the typical ID proponent is indeed speaking truth when they say Darwinism leads to Nazism. Because Hitler absolutely did not cook his "truth" out of whole cloth. There's a paper trail to his philosophy. And it amounts to the conclusion (that everyone's afraid to talk about, OMG, don't even GO there) that just as Cro-Magnon man was superior to the Neanderthal. . .so also are any theories floated out that conclude the same about race today. Can't conclude one valid without allowing the other. And with a little charisma, a hunger in your belly, and the need for a racial scapegoat, you've got the perfect recipe for a holocaust.
-PJ
*And ultimately "Teh Joooooosss!!!"
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Oh Please blogonator
April 18, 2008 - 17:22 ET by Dee Bunkeven if this film uses any of Michael Moore's tactics, what's the worst thing that can happen from his supposed lies? That people think ID should be allowed in school? Come on. Michael Moore tries to convince people to hate this country and blame it for everything wrong in the world. He wants to confiscate people's money for a socialist system and fundamentally change our form of government. What he lies about is far more important.
I find it hard to believe how a movie saying that they don't allow ID in the schools can be a lie. They don't allow it in the schools where I live. Do they allow it where you live?
Even if it were some horrific thing to let children know that the possibility of a creator exists, Conservatives would have every right to be fine with any tactics in this movie if it's anywhere entertaining. It's One conservative Documentary balanced against thousands of liberal ones using extremely biased tactics. If nothing else it should be lauded as giving them a taste of their own medicine.
So, while it may work the other way; Liberals should have no problem with his tactics if they have none with the plethora of lib docs that have come out, you can hardly reverse it when conservatives have a grand total of One documentary that has made it to the mainstream theaters. Then you are back to letting liberals forbid conservative speech.
The worst thing that could
April 18, 2008 - 17:49 ET by blogonatorThe worst thing that could happen is that people will be motivated to pass and enforce legislation based on bad reasoning. It doesn't matter whether it's Intelligent Design taught in the science classrooms or encouraging 10 year olds to have promiscuous sex in the classroom. If we make an exception for one thing, that puts the state in a much better position to do all the things that you fear.
One can make their point with humor and be entertaining without giving in to using dishonest tactics. Southpark does it all the time. We need integrity to reverse the progress that the left has been making in this country. If we stoop to their level, we'll be losing hearts and minds.
Again, I haven't seen the movie and maybe I'm projecting my own bias onto it, so I may be wrong. If I am I apologize.
blogonator, here's 7 minutes
April 18, 2008 - 18:39 ET by upcountrywaterapologize now
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
I've been reasonable in
April 18, 2008 - 18:55 ET by blogonatorI've been reasonable in my opinions so please don't patronize me by giving 7 minutes of the film and telling me to "apologize now".
I'm willing, after seeing the film, to admit I'm wrong if Ben Stein did create a thought-provoking and honest movie without going into "Moorish" territory. Are you willing to admit that this film deserves the same criticism that Fahrenheit 9/11 does if the reasonings are in fact similar?
I'm already skeptical based
April 18, 2008 - 18:57 ET by balboaI'm already skeptical based on the Dachau segment.
Bal: I'm already
April 18, 2008 - 19:34 ET by tracheostomyBal: I'm already skeptical based on the Dachau segment.
No problem with that. Just don't use your skepticism as an excuse to quit.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I actually think it is a
April 18, 2008 - 20:31 ET by cleverpigI actually think it is a horrific thing to allow ID in science classrooms. Horrific. I think it constitutes a perversion of the very idea of science. It can be in a sociology classroom, a theology classroom, a mythology classroom. It is not science, and no amount of whining about how unfairly it is treated will make it science. So it shouldn't be taught to our students as science.
I think you can mention ID
April 18, 2008 - 20:39 ET by balboaI think you can mention ID in a science class, but I agree that discussion, analysis, etc., should be reserved for philosophy, religion classes.
"our students"?
April 18, 2008 - 22:31 ET by Karmacleverpig,
Here is where we drastically part ways. I disagree with 100% of everything you said. You are wrong. I am right. You believe the opposite. So be it, but, DO NOT refer to them as OUR STUDENTS. They are MY children, not yours or the all knowing governments'. I graciously allow you to teach your children what you mistakenly see to be "enlightened". You don't seem to be willing to allow those of us who disagree with you, to ... uh disagree with you. I truely thought you where more open minded and tolerant than that.
I'm sorry, but this is more
April 19, 2008 - 02:29 ET by cleverpigI'm sorry, but this is more than an issue of philosophy. It is an issue of standards of inquiry. And I believe that as someone who has taught some of them, it is perfectly appropriate for me to refer to them as "our students." You are free to tell YOUR children whatever you want at home, but if you want ID allowed in the science classroom then you are affecting OTHER PEOPLE'S children too. So let's not get our noses too high in the air here, you don't get any points for playing the mommy card. I may not have children now, but if I ever do your stand on this issue will affect them.
To me, this is an issue of how we teach students to evaluate the world. Is popularity the measure of a theory's merit, or are there empirical standards that we can apply? The only way ID makes it into the debate is by relaxing our standards, making exceptions to save people's feelings. That is important in many realms of human endeavor, but NOT science.
When science discovers unpleasant things, we don't hide them. You don't like the truth? Too bad. Doesn't match with your religious beliefs? Suck it up. You can work as hard as you want to reconcile the two, and scientists spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff, but the day we fudge the science to fit someone's mythology we lose what to my mind is one of the greatest human acheivements in the history of our species.
The same goes for scentists themselves. When our pet theories are disproved, we don't get to keep them. That's just not how it works. Occassionally people try, but they always get found out. And believe me, there are scientists out there who know what it means to let go of a great hope, to throw away an entire career. It can be devastating. But no one says to them "Hey, it was a really good idea, and we know it is important to the way you see the world, so we'll just keep it in the textbook for you anyway."
Science is a human endeavor, which means that it is imperfect and has societal implications that have to be considered. But in the end it is incredibly unforgiving, and we need it to be unforgiving so that we know we are seeing the world clearly and not just imposing our ideas upon it.
Thank you, cleverpig! Bravo for your eloquence!
April 19, 2008 - 07:22 ET by Syrius"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
No apology necessary.
April 19, 2008 - 07:25 ET by Karmacleverpig,
We need to think about the children. And ourselves.
...And I believe that as someone who has taught some of them, it is
perfectly appropriate for me to refer to them as "our students." You
are free to tell YOUR children whatever you want at home,...
That is one scary statement. This is why home/private schooling is far superior to government schools. Tell me, how much longer will you allow me to tell my children whatever I want at home?
So let's not get our noses too high in the air here, you don't get any
points for playing the mommy card. I may not have children now, but if
I ever do your stand on this issue will affect them.
Sorry cleverpig, it's your elitism that shines through here. Your stand on this issue doesn't effect, detrimentally I might add, others' children?
Is popularity the measure of a theory's merit, or are there empirical standards that we can apply?
AGW anyone?
When science discovers unpleasant things, we don't hide them. You don't
like the truth? Too bad. Doesn't match with your religious beliefs?
Suck it up. You can work as hard as you want to reconcile the two, and
scientists spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff, but the day
we fudge the science to fit someone's mythology we lose what to my mind
is one of the greatest human acheivements in the history of our species.
In my mind, it's you who have a problem fitting the possibility of ID into your mythology and elitist world view. You need to find a way to deal with it.
...When our pet theories are disproved, we don't get to keep them...Occassionally people try, but they always get found out. And believe
me, there are scientists out there who know what it means to let go of
a great hope, to throw away an entire career. It can be devastating.
But no one says to them "Hey, it was a really good idea, and we know it
is important to the way you see the world, so we'll just keep it in the
textbook for you anyway."
I get the strongest sense that here lies your greatest fear. You feel the overwhelming need to close your minds and the minds of others to anything contrary to your views to protect ego's and claim your careers weren't a waste. Trust me cleverpig, we who have open minds to all possibilities in this debate understand our human weaknessess and we are very forgiving. Your career and contributions will not have been a waste. Quite the opposite.
BTW, felt my first earthquake ever yesterday. Eerily exciting.
Karma, You write: In
April 19, 2008 - 17:06 ET by hydrodynDMKarma,
You write:
The reason scientists don't accept ID as scientific is because it incorporates supernatural agents within its theories in a non-trivial way. Supernatural agents - by definition - have non-empirical characteristics. Consequently, you can't derive unique empirical consequences from theories that incorporate them and so can't test them.
So no - science doesn't "need to deal with it" and scientists are not being "elitist". The reason for rejecting ID as scientific is a practical one. Supernatural agents fall outside the realm of what science can deal with.
You also write
I've seen this insulting suggestion leveled at scientist so often it's getting tiresome. As I pointed out above, science cannot incorporate supernatural agents. Period. If you can explain to me how to derive unique empirical results from a theory that uses supernatural causes, I'd love to hear it, because as far as I know, no one knows how to do this.
And by the way - there are a ton of scientist who are people of faith who don't accept ID as scientific. How do they fit into your condescending characterization of scientists?
As a final note - I know your comments were aimed specifically at cleverpig and my above comments assume that you meant them for the scientific community in general. If that isn't the case, I apologize ahead of time.
hydrodyneDM and
April 20, 2008 - 11:57 ET by KarmahydrodyneDM and cleverpig,
I read both of your posts today and they say pretty much what I expected. One side makes a statement, the other side perceives an insult and the back and forth continues.
My comments were aimed at anyone who believes their unproven theories are superior to other unproven theories and then attempt to stifle opposition.
The battle will continue and life goes on. Mr. Stein's documentary does a great service to this debate and I hope to see many more.
I wish you both well and have a great Sunday.
Karma,
April 20, 2008 - 13:49 ET by hydrodynDMKarma,
You wrote:
OK. I'll take that for what it's worth and not assume you mean evolutionary scientists in general.
But just so you know, most scientists realize that scientific theories can never be "proven". That doesn't, however, prevent them from discussing the relative merits of theories. And it also doesn't prevent them from being able to comment on whether a theory, like ID, is scientific or not.
And it's that last point - whether ID is a scientific theory - which is at the heart of this discussion and which you failed to address in your post.
hydrodyneDM, Your
April 20, 2008 - 19:20 ET by KarmahydrodyneDM,
Your assumption was correct, my comments were aimed at any elitist individual or group who touts their theoretical ideas as supreme and unquestionable.
It's my nature to be very sceptical of rules made by the "rulers".
I am not a politician, but I refuse to let "politicians" dictate to others what they consider to be political. We don't live in a static world.
I am not a scientist, but I refuse to let "scientists" dictate to others what they consider to be scientific. We don't live in a static environment and what some call "supernatural" today, may be just their current inability to comprehend "it" in the way they have been taught. Who knows what the future holds. Anything may be possible when you think outside the box.
So yes, in my view, ID is as much a scientific theory as evolution. Either one does not need the other and neither nagates the other. Neither is close to being proved. Feel free to disagree. Freedom to speak and comment is a wonderful thing.
Karma, You wrote: I
April 20, 2008 - 22:04 ET by hydrodynDMKarma,
You wrote:
I'll quote myself here from a previous post to you
I'm repeating this because you chose to ignore this comment in your posts to me and it is the central point I'm trying to make. Science is unable - unable - to deal with theories that incorporate supernatural agents. ID incorporates supernatural agents and so is the kind of theory scientists do not know how to work with. Notice I didn't say "choose not to work with", I said "do not know how to work with".
I think even you will agree that a scientific theory has to either be directly testable or have uniquely derivable consequence that can be tested, so that we can check to see how accurate the theory is.
Once you include supernatural agents in a theory, this becomes impossible to do. Supernatural agents - by definition - do not have known empirical characteristics. Consequently, we can't quantify their properties or derive unique results from theories that include them.
During the course of the discussion here, I've said this about half a dozen times and not a single person I've said this to has acknowledged it, let alone addressed it.
So I'll ask you directly - how do scientists get around this problem? If you could explain this to me, it would represent a fundamental change in all of science. So please - give me a clue. I'll even split the credit with you.
Is it possible that at some point in the future, these things will change? Sure. But today - the way that science stands as of now - we can't include ID within science.
But please - go right ahead calling ID a scientific theory. You don't have to try to try to actually use it within a scientific context, so what difference does it make to you?
And by the way, if not "scientists" (quotes and all), then who exactly should define what a scientific theory is? Auto mechanics? Lawyers? You? Just wondering.
hydro
April 20, 2008 - 23:05 ET byprecisely why, at this time, there is no attempt to identitfy any supernatural agents. ID is that, studying whether or not there is an intelligent design (can you show me where ID proponents call for a supernatural designer?) just as i posted to you before.
first lets see if there is design, and IFF then consider the designer supernatural or otherwise.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, You say IFF then...
April 21, 2008 - 19:15 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
You say IFF then... but if you assume (or maybe, given the evidence, convince yourself of) a design - you have to assume a designer from the start.
And for you to suggest that that designer is anything but supernatural is disingenuous.
If you are talking strictly about design in biological systems, then even if you are open to the option that life on Earth was created by an intelligent alien species, you are still left with the problem of where they came from. And since I know you won't accept the idea of a naturalistic organism creating itself, you are going to have to admit a supernatural agent.
And if you are talking about design on the scale of the entire universe, then it goes without saying that the designer in supernatural. You have said as much in another post to me.
It seems to me that proponents of ID are just trying to hide God behind the term "intelligent design". And that's fine - but don't pretend like you're not.
hydro
April 28, 2008 - 20:05 ET byread it again, i assumed you would understand:
IFF=if and only if
thus no such assumption of supernatural agency is contained in my reasoning. Now it also does not preclude the possibility as it would be unscientific to eliminate possibile explanations without testing them first. This merely removes your a-priori material only postulate. Why do you play the shell game of being open when it is you who are eliminating possible explanations without testing?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, I know what “iff”
May 1, 2008 - 13:54 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I know what “iff” stands for. I also know that it’s used primarily in math and logic and not science since it loses its meaning in systems that use statements that are not truth preserving – like the empirical statements used in science.
As an example, there is no way to justify the statement like “If and only if Newton’s law of gravity is true, will it be the case that two masses a certain distance apart with feel a gravitational force given by Newton’s formula.” If we verify by experiment that the force is what is predicted my Newton’s formula (i.e. we verify the second half of the above iff statement) that still doesn’t justify the assertion that Newton’s Law is true (the first half of the iff statement). As a concrete example, Einstein’s Law of Gravity (General Relativity) might predict the exact same gravitational force (and in fact, it does for cases where gravity isn’t too large). But Newton’s Gravitational Law and Einstein’s are completely different theories (both in detail and in interpretation). Yet they both predict the same results for many situations.
But that aside, I understand what you are saying – that you don’t assume a designer until you find evidence of design. Well, I’m not going get into a discussion of what defines a “design” – which, to me, seems the major weakness of ID. What I will argue is that ID people do, in reality, already have it in their heads that there is a designer and that that designer is supernatural, whether they want to admit it or not. That’s what my argument in my previous post – the argument you haven’t addressed yet – tries to show.
And supernatural agents (for the hundredth time) can’t be dealt with in scientific theories so it would be “unscientific” to include them in science. Unless you can explain where I'm wrong on this.
You ask “Why do you play the shell game of being open when it is you who are eliminating possible explanations without testing?” So how exactly do you “test” for supernatural agents?
Botg can follow up if/when
May 1, 2008 - 16:45 ET by tracheostomyBotg can follow up if/when he wants, but this really burned me up.
Hydro: But that aside, I understand what you are saying – that you don’t
assume a designer until you find evidence of design. Well, I’m not
going get into a discussion of what defines a “design” – which, to me,
seems the major weakness of ID.
Yes. It sure seems that way, doesn't it? In your little world ruled by your perception only, there is no field of applied mathematics and engineering called Information Theory.
In your little narrow-minded world there "just isn't" any provable thing as Complex Specified Information.
Why?
1. Because of the name behind the papers is a "suspect" of the consensus science community due to his weekend activities.
You say you oppose AGW, but that assumes you got over the consensus science and actually looked at the raw data of global warming theory. So then why aren't you capable of doing this in every case of consensus science? What else is holding you back from investigating? Hm?
2. Also, because CSI "cannot be proven to exist in nature apart from man." But that's the point entirely!!!
Man's ability to design and man's language ability can be used as valid proof. But consensus science arbitrarily chucks it out, because it cannot be measured against a lesser species or plant, or their concept of "nature." As if man were not really a part of nature. Postmodernism really divorced us from this idea.
Hydro: What I will argue is that ID people do,
in reality, already have it in their heads that there is a designer and
that that designer is supernatural, whether they want to admit it or
not.
But at the same time you sit there and name-drop Descartes, also while at the same time you endorse Hume without really specifiying which of the conflicting schools of Hume-theory you cling to. But no one really has the same problem understanding Descartes.
If Descartes could play by the rules and be honest with his ontological arguments, then so can the founders of ID. Both Descartes (for example) and ID proponents' logic stop at a higher intelligence, then they smack the label on afterward.
The hypocrisy of this is crystal clear and is as follows:
- Why is it, when one thinker imagines and can logically demonstrate "the perfect" or "something of which nothing greater can be conceived," that is invalid.
- But when another thinker imagines something from pure induction only, and founded on "holding out for the possibility of," or "chance," then that's valid and then the debate is somehow ended?
So just because there's a name-tag attached doesn't necessarily mean the thinking itself is faulty!
Hydro: And supernatural agents (for the hundredth time) can’t be dealt with
in scientific theories so it would be “unscientific” to include them in
science. Unless you can explain where I'm wrong on this.
Tell that to Sagan. Oh, wait. Pfft. That was just a side-hobby of his.
Oh wait. . .that was actually based on a real project that was at one time funded by the National Science Foundation, NASA, and run by "real scientists."
Hydro: You ask “Why do you play the shell game of being open when it is you
who are eliminating possible explanations without testing?” So how
exactly do you “test” for supernatural agents?
See above. I think you're pre-judging the opposition and disposing it because you assume they'll start the seminar or book or whatever with "In the beginning, God. . ."
That's what I used to think as well. That was the reason I avoided the books and seminars. After a few years, I like it better the way it's really going down. But then you'd have to get over your own phobias and prejudices in order to look into it yourself.
No, no. You're much safer sitting there asserting the science isn't there. And all day you can go on exploiting those who are only capable of pointing the way.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
hydro
May 1, 2008 - 22:50 ET bySo how exactly do you “test” for supernatural agents?
we've covered this; you test for design not supernatural agents
That’s what my argument in my previous post – the argument you haven’t addressed yet – tries to show.
your arguement assumes an answer and rejects it out of hand, it is akin to saying "blaming a black man for this would be racist therefore we will only allow white suspects"
my argument says lets collect the evidence and see where it leads why do you balk at scientific examination?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
No one is threatening to
April 19, 2008 - 20:18 ET by cleverpigNo one is threatening to tell you what to talk to your kids about at home. No one. That is paranoia. I'm not allowing you to do anything, and you know it. You're just trying to stir up people's fears.
Being open minded does not necessitate that I give credibility to every possible idea, only the reasonable ones. I can't walk into a conference with the spagghetti monster theory of panspermia and expect to be taken seriously, and the people who refuse to take me seriously are not being close-minded.
Incidentally, science is filled to the brim with disagreement, argument, and alternative viewpoints. It is vicious, the fighting that goes on over alternate theories. That's part of healthy science, as several people here have pointed out. One of the big reasons why I distrust ID is because its proponents don't argue with each other. If you look at the literature closely, there is a big disconnect between laypeople who believe in ID and scientists who believe in ID. Laypeople tend to accept evolution on a small scale but reject macroevolution. The scientists on their side tend to accept large-scale changes but not microscopic ones. It is a huge issue that no one ever talks about. I guarantee in any other field, those people would be all over one another. No problem like that, two groups believing the same thing for different reasons, would be allowed to stand for any length of time. But in ID it is never talked about, never addressed. That says to me that these people are more interested in advancing an agenda than really looking hard for the truth.
So no, it isn't elitist for me to say that ID doesn't make the grade any more than it is elitist for you to demand that your doctors have medical degrees or your children's teachers know something about the subjects they teach. There are requirements for scientific theories, and ID doesn't meet them. It isn't testable, it isn't material, it isn't falsifiable. It generates no hypotheses that are falsifiable. Any theory that can fit all possible data isn't a theory at all.
I'm tired of this whole "cult of the amateur" thing we have going on in this country, and I think this is related. We no longer evaluate the qualifications of people telling us things, we just decide if the message sounds good or not. It's lazy, and it is going to get us into trouble very soon. For the sake of the future of this country, let's keep the classroom one place where critical examination isn't left by the wayside.
Clever Pig - Your statements agree with the Documentary
April 19, 2008 - 08:28 ET by Dee BunkYou should watch it. I saw it last night and to my surprise, it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether or not to allow it to be taught in schools. It is all about how it should be allowed to be talked about, tested and studied in the Scientific community.
From what you have said here you should be in 100% agreement with what the film concluded. It's whole point is that it's not being allowed to be tested and studied. So any one who believes in Science should be appalled.
It's not the only scientific subject
April 19, 2008 - 08:41 ET by sarcasmoWhere name-calling has displaced intelligent debate. I can think of a few examples, but one of the best in the inartfully named and revealed "cold fusion." No, it's not what was originally claimed, but there are still strange results out there. There's also seemingly 0 curiousity about them.
In part that might be for fear of all the name-calling. And in our past, if we're to believe the History Channel and other sources, there has been government financed name-calling programs against those who got curious about the UFO phenomenon. Again, telling the obvious truth -- that there are unexplained strange phenomena which have been witnessed by many people who tend to have the same descriptions of their experiences -- instantly elicits name calling hysteria instead of scientific intellectual curiousity. Fearless intelligent curiousity has gone the way of the gold standard in an age of media and government-influenced "science."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I agree Sarc - I don't "believe" in UFO's myself but think that
April 19, 2008 - 10:28 ET by Dee Bunkpeople should study it and try to get to the bottom of claims. Especially when there are multiple sitings of things. Here in Chicago, a couple years back, there were many people who witnessed what they thought was some type of Alien aircraft hovering near O'hare airport. The FAA explained it away as a weather phenomenon yet produced no scientific evidence to back up that claim. It was all kind of hushed up at not talked about.
While I don't think aliens or other life forms exist, I have no problems with people studying or doing scientific tests that would assume that they did. In fact people should do it. Science shouldn't be about declaring anything that can't be proven or explained by current science is stupid and unworthy of consideration. It's crazy that, that's what it has become. They think that testing these type of things threatens science but it's really not testing them that does. What do scientist have to do if we know it all already?
What gets me is all the name calling...
April 19, 2008 - 11:04 ET by sarcasmoIt's not about belief, it's about a forced lack of curiousity, and as you say that is antithetical to the basis of what used to be good about science. These days you need tenure or the words "professor emeritus of" next to your name to question just about anything.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I agree Sarcasmo and if you see the film, tenure can't even
April 19, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Dee Bunkalways protect you. It can protect you from being fired but not from having your research shut down
cleverpig
April 19, 2008 - 09:20 ET byperhaps your 'science' can explain abiogenesis
perhaps your 'science' can show us your forcing agent that causes the punctuated equilibrium spurts to occur only at some brief (geologically speaking) time periods and not at other.
Do you teach that similarity does not necessitate causality? Or do you allow the changes within species which can be shown to imply the same conclusion (without proof) for the geological tree? Is that scientific?
My good woman you teach in the field with the whole of the accepted dogma of the scientific academy at your back and you have not yet been able to satisfactorily answer some electrician?
When our pet theories are disproved, we don't get to keep them. "Hey, it was a really good idea, and we know it is important to the way you see the world, so we'll just keep it in the textbook for you anyway." wow isn't that exactly what was done with Haeckel's embryos and recapitulation theory?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Actually...
April 19, 2008 - 11:38 ET by Syriusbotg,
With all due respect, you are asking someone to "prove" your theory exists...
"...perhaps your 'science' can show us your forcing agent that causes the
punctuated equilibrium spurts to occur only at some brief (geologically
speaking) time periods and not at other."
It is for you to prove your theory and for others to prove it wrong if they can. If the results by the scientific community negate your findings, you must throw it into the dust bin of history. As I have said in the past- Without GD, PE does not exist. If you are to cling to a PE theory, you must acknowledge GD as true and as a working model for your PE theory.
There are no scientific authorities, only experts in their particular fields of studies. There are authorities of religious doctrines. There is a difference. Once you understand it, you will always be allowed at the table of science whereas if you were to question a religious authority, you will be shown the door and told to go away. Religion cannot explain science, nor can science explain religion. Simple yet so complex...
Civility in a response or a personal attack...What will it be?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
i'll wait for cleverpigs
April 19, 2008 - 12:42 ET byi'll wait for cleverpigs answer, you don't understand the question if you assert PE to be my theory. Also if you assert that GD is able to account for the fossil record without PE you are either disingenous or don't know the facts. Again your argument is with Stephen J Gould not me. Perhaps cleverpig will enlighten you on the current state of evolutionary theory??
You will one day know that science and religion are compatable and complimentary fields, i just hope for your sake that you come to this knowledge in time.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Syrius is perfectly capable
April 19, 2008 - 20:50 ET by cleverpigSyrius is perfectly capable of discussing this issue intelligently on his own, as he's shown in the past. Please don't use me to belittle other posters. Thanks.
do you truly believe that
April 19, 2008 - 21:14 ET bydo you truly believe that you and Syrius agree on this subject?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Whether or not Syrius and I
April 21, 2008 - 00:54 ET by cleverpigWhether or not Syrius and I agree is completely irrelevant to the question of whether he can carry on the discussion on his own. I don't reserve my respect only for people who agree with me.
botg, I'm curious - and
April 19, 2008 - 17:25 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I'm curious - and forgive me if you have already answered this in one of our previous conversations on this topic - but you do know that even if evolution is shown to be 100% wrong, that doesn't prove that ID is right, don't you?
Also, I'm not sure what your point is in pointing out problems with evolution? Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be taught or that it should be rejected outright? Are you suggesting that scientists in evolutionary science will never be able to address the issues you bring up?
I ask because, as far as I know, every scientific theory - every one - has its flaws and weaknesses.
Again, forgive me if I'm reading way to much into your posts.
hDM
April 19, 2008 - 17:28 ET by BlondeI saw this thread go on and on the other day....and thought of your forum post on the topic...of course, I was too lazy to go find it.
But I wanted to recommend it to those who have strong ideas on ID vs evolution. I found it to be very interesting. Perhaps you could ressurect it (oops)...by finding it and adding a new post.
Just a thought.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, Thanks for the
April 19, 2008 - 17:46 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
Thanks for the suggestion - I posted the links below.
hydro
April 19, 2008 - 17:44 ET byteaching in schools should include the legitimate concerns/problems with the theory. I also am at odds with the censoring of ID theory in the schools. Does ID have it's problems? surely so teach them. I don't believe that evolutionary theory has the goods to explain what it purports to explain, but it is proposed as THE explanation. If the schools are teaching kids that something is true and undisputed as such while in truth it is not, isn't that scary to you?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, I can't speak for
April 19, 2008 - 17:55 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I can't speak for every science teacher, but I would imagine the responsible ones do point out the problems within evolutionary theory.
As far as science is concerned, evolutionary is the only available theory. ID isn't a scientific theory for the reason I pointed out to you before and which I've restated in a post (above) to Karma.
No scientific theory is "true". The problem is, most people (as evidenced by the comments I've seen here) don't realize that. A competent science teacher shouldn't suggest that any theory (be it evolution or relativity or quantum mechanics) is "true". If one does, that isn't the fault of science - any more than it's the fault of all of religion if one particular priest misstates the meaning of some religious doctrine.
It doesn't "scare" me that there are teachers out there like that - but it does bother me.
even if evolution is shown
April 19, 2008 - 20:52 ET by cleverpigeven if evolution is shown to be 100% wrong, that doesn't prove that ID is right, don't you?
My apologies, I'm totally echoing points you've already made further down on the thread! That's what I get for failing to notice discussions that happen above the arguments I'm in!
cleverpig, I was thinking
April 19, 2008 - 20:55 ET by hydrodynDMcleverpig,
I was thinking about saying something but ... it's Saturday night and it's all good.
Your insistence that I
April 19, 2008 - 19:54 ET by cleverpigYour insistence that I prove the perfection of evolutionary theory is ridiculous and tangential to the discussion. The question at hand is not "is evolutionary theory perfect and whole in every way," but "is ID a theory of equal merit?" Showing that evolutionary theory still has areas that need study does not in any way address the problems with ID. So I will politely decline to answer, it's off topic.
Your insistence that I
April 19, 2008 - 20:06 ET byYour insistence that I prove the perfection of ID theory is ridiculous and tangential to the discussion. The question at hand is not "is ID theory perfect and whole in every way," but "is ID a theory of merit?" Showing that ID theory still has areas that need study does not in any way address the censorship rather than engaging the issue. So I will politely decline to answer, it's off topic.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Um, I didn't ask you to
April 19, 2008 - 20:36 ET by cleverpigUm, I didn't ask you to prove anything. Have you really sunk to mimicking my words instead of responding? In your head, did you say that to me in a nasally sing-song? Did you point, for extra emphasis? Perhaps next you can try "I know you are but what am I?"
why not at all cleverpig
April 19, 2008 - 20:48 ET byjust allowing you to see the credibility of your logic by switching the sides. If it is a valid argument for the one it is valid for the other. Perhaps you are engaging in 'special pleading'?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
ID isn't a theory of merit
April 19, 2008 - 20:51 ET by balboaID isn't a theory of merit in a science class.
answer number 2
April 19, 2008 - 20:09 ET bythis thread is about Ben Stiens movie on Evolution? How does a critique of evolution become off-topic and tangental? I know you have better answers than that!
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
† Please botg
April 19, 2008 - 20:14 ET by Cool ArrowCan't you see? The topic is "evolving"
♣ a seal
√ please waiter we're
April 19, 2008 - 20:30 ET by√ please waiter we're done with dessert
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
It's Ben Stein's movie about
April 19, 2008 - 20:40 ET by cleverpigIt's Ben Stein's movie about how ID is a theory that merits discussion. Even if evolution was proven to be completely wrong, that wouldn't make ID any better of a theory. Therefore, you cannot support the movie's assertion by attacking evolution, only be shoring up ID. Any discussion of particular contentions in evolutionary theory will be long, complicated, and in the end do nothing to change the facts about ID, so I am saying it is tangential and threatens to take us way off topic.
the first step in a defense
April 19, 2008 - 21:07 ET bythe first step in a defense of ID is to debunk the 'strawman' arguments against it. It is also a request for an even field. To say prove ID before we allow it while evolution is not held to the same standard is special pleading. To then say we shouldn't talk of evolution misses the point since if evolution is fully correct ID is not. Showing the holes in the evolutionary explanation shows a need for additional explanitory power in a theory. They do not have to be mutually exclusive and both could be wrong. Perhaps i need to do a forum on the positive case for ID? First would be a 'philosophy of Science' forum.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Here's my beef: evolution at
April 19, 2008 - 21:20 ET by balboaHere's my beef: evolution at least has evidence that scientists have cited and can provide. What evidence does ID have?
bal
April 19, 2008 - 21:24 ET bywhat books on ID have you read?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
None. That's why I asked.
April 19, 2008 - 21:38 ET by balboaNone. That's why I asked.
As a math teacher, I can
April 20, 2008 - 02:27 ET by PeskyDaneAs a math teacher, I can tell you that the odds do not favor evolution, but do favor a designer. It is the nature of the designer that belongs in philosophy class, whereas the design product belongs firmly in the realm of science and in the science classroom.
As for evidence, most paleontologists will tell you that there is no where near enough evidence in the fossil record to teach evolution to the degree of certainty with which it is presented in many classrooms.
PeskyDane, As a science
April 20, 2008 - 13:54 ET by hydrodynDMPeskyDane,
As a science teacher, I'd be interested to know how exactly you would calculate the odds of a scientific theory being a good empirical model.
That aside, I fully agree with your comment on which classes are appropriate for which topics.
The more I read about the
April 20, 2008 - 14:10 ET by tracheostomyThe more I read about the general topic, the more I understand the mistakes being made on both sides.
- Rank and file atheists and agnostics popularly assume ID theory "identifies" the designer as a Judeo-Christian God.
- Rank and file Christians and Jews popularly assume ID theory "identifies" the designer as a Judeo-Christian God.
Both are wrong. Because ID is not an "ID card" for anyone in particular. Thus, the evangelical right loses their back-door gospel*, and consensus scientists lose their appeal to motive fallacy.
Yet the theory remains.
-PJ
*Which I myself am more than willing to part with.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You are spot on. ID
April 20, 2008 - 14:15 ET by PeskyDaneYou are spot on. ID is just an assertion that there is a guiding hand along the way.
PeskyDane, And what is
April 20, 2008 - 14:29 ET by hydrodynDMPeskyDane,
And what is that "guiding hand" if not supernatural in nature?
tracheostomy, Um, I never
April 20, 2008 - 14:28 ET by hydrodynDMtracheostomy,
Um, I never said that ID theory identifies the designer in any way.
I do, however, think that at its core, ID does assume a supernatural agent of some kind. If I'm wrong on this, please explain it to me.
But if I am correct on that, then ID isn't scientific.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a worthy field of study.
Hydro: Um, I never said
April 20, 2008 - 23:30 ET by tracheostomyHydro: Um, I never said that ID theory identifies the designer in any way.
Um. . .I never said you did. It's the popular opinion of those who aren't really that well read on ID.
Hydro: I do, however, think that at its core, ID does assume a supernatural
agent of some kind. If I'm wrong on this, please explain it to me.
No, it doesn't "assume" it. See what I'm saying? For one thing, it necessarily depends on information theory. This is something you can actually measure and something unique only to intelligent beings.
Hydro: But if I am correct on that, then ID isn't scientific.
That's the consensus assumption. The wiki on this is particularly bent.
Hydro: But that doesn't mean it isn't a worthy field of study.
Please don't be patronizing. If it's founded on an a priori assumption that cannot be proven at the outset, then it really should be thrown out completely.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
tracheostomy, trach: Um.
April 21, 2008 - 19:40 ET by hydrodynDMtracheostomy,
trach: Um. . .I never said you did. It's the popular opinion of those who aren't really that well read on ID.
Well, you did post that comment to my post - so silly me, I thought it was directed at me. But flippancy aside - I get that you were just clarifying some points and I freely admit that I don't know much about ID.
trach: No, it doesn't "assume" it. See what I'm saying? For one thing, it
necessarily depends on information theory. This is something you can
actually measure and something unique only to intelligent beings.
You will have to explain to me (or maybe suggest a reference) with regard to your comment about "information theory". I am more than willing to admit my ignorance about the details of ID (and no, I haven't bothered to look at the wiki entry for ID - I generally avoid that site for anything but the most trivial of things). So I can't really comment on this.
However, if you'll indulge me, maybe you can explain where I'm missing the boat when it comes to the idea of how the notion of a "designer" is incorporated into the theory (or not). I addressed this in a post to botg and rather than rewrite what I basically already wrote, I'll just copy it here:
trach: Please don't be patronizing. If it's founded on an a priori assumption that cannot be proven at the outset, then it really should be thrown out completely.
First, you don't know me so don't assume I'm being patronizing.
Second - I hate to brake it to you, but science is based on a set of a priori assumptions, the biggest being that inductive reasoning can and should be used to gain an understanding of the world despite the fact that it isn't truth preserving.
hydrodynDM,
April 24, 2008 - 15:03 ET by tracheostomyhttp://newsbusters.o...
How this for an
April 20, 2008 - 14:14 ET by PeskyDaneHow this for an illustration:
A trillion junkyards, a trillion tornadoes. Not so much as a machine screw turned through a nut, much less a working automobile.
That's were you run into trouble with teaching orgins in any form. You can not hypothesis orgins in the classroom, because neither evolution nor design theory are testable hypothesis (hypotheisi? - LOL). The problem you run into with biological evolutionists is that they insist that the scientific method should not apply to them. The fact is that if neither theory can be tested, then they both belong in philosophy class.
Another problem is that on the extremely rare occasions that you can get an evolutionist to debate in public, it nearly always a biological evolutionist. I have yet to hear from a paleontologist who will cite the fossil record as proof for either Darwinism or Punctuated Equilibrium in a public forum. If I'm wrong, please link me to the uTube vid.
PeskyDane, I agree that
April 20, 2008 - 14:42 ET by hydrodynDMPeskyDane,
I agree that certain theories that deal with "origins" can't be directly tested. But the same goes for theories in areas like Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology and Planetary Geology. Are you saying these topics should be taught in a philosophy class as well?
You say a theory like evolution isn't testable. I disagree. Theories that deal with phenomena that can't be reproduced in a lab or tested directly can be tested indirectly. Naturalistic theories (like evolution or theories about stellar or galactic origins and evolution or even the big bang) will have uniquely derivable consequences that can be extrapolated to situations that can be tested directly. The resulting test or experiments will either support or contradict the theory (you do know that scientific theories can't be "proven", right).
By contrast, ID incorporates supernatural agents. Consequently they don't have uniquely derivable consequences and so can't be tested (or falsified, if you're into Popper's view of things).
Tell me when it's been insisted that the "scientific method" doesn't apply to evolution. It would seem that the same would have to be said of the other types of theories I'm mentioned above - and I don't ever recall reading or hearing that from any scientist.
And to be clear, I'm not debating the empirical merits of evolutionary theory - just whether it and ID are scientific or not.
botg, What "strawman"
April 19, 2008 - 21:23 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
What "strawman" arguments are you referring to? I've pointed out why ID isn't considered a scientific theory (incorporation of supernatural agents and the problems that causes) and have yet to have anyone explain to me where I'm missing the point on this. To suggest that there should be a "even field", you have to assume ID is a scientific theory. Most scientists don't accept that.
All scientific theories have their shortcomings. Pointing out that evolution has problems does not make ID a scientific theory.
As I've mentioned in another post, I would look forward to a forum post from you on ID.
supernatural agents
April 19, 2008 - 21:26 ET byare not invoked by any serious ID proponant it is a strawman
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, OK, then I'm
April 19, 2008 - 21:30 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
OK, then I'm totally missing what ID theory is about. What is the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" if not some form of supernatural agent?
Maybe you can direct me to some reading material that would clarify this for me.
hydro
April 19, 2008 - 21:40 ET bythink of ID as you would a forensic study. What is the evidence? How did it come to be? Much like SETI looks for signs of intelligence ID looks to define what are those characteristics which separate random (chance) occurances and designed phenomina. These do not attempt to identify any designer just (and first) whether or not design exists.
'The Design Revolution' by William Dembski covers beginning thoughts on this. {btw: most ID proponents hold to an old (3.89 billion year) earth view.}
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, But, the term
April 19, 2008 - 21:46 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
But, the term "design" assumes a "designer" doesn't it?
And since people in ID look for design within the universe as a whole (not just organic systems), it's hard to argue that the designer (or designers) in ID isn't supernatural - even if you don't try to specify the designer.
why would that be a
April 19, 2008 - 22:00 ET bywhy would that be a concern? do you look at acceleration of particles except if caused by electromagnetic fields? the point is lets see what the evidence is. Yes there is a possibility that there is a supernatural designer (God) who has done this, if that is true why would you want to exclude truth from your study? But that is very premature lets first look to the features of design and see if that exists. One step at a time. I imagine that when gravity was proposed it was shunned as some 'mysterious force' (they'd be right how does gravity work?)
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, I've never said
April 19, 2008 - 22:14 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I've never said that the search for design and a designer isn't a worthy pursuit.
It just isn't a scientific pursuit if it presupposes supernatural agents. And as far as I can tell, ID theories do presuppose such an agent. If I'm wrong on this, I'll be more than happy to admit it.
(See, this is even more reason for you to put up a forum post to explain this stuff).
Not sure what your particle acceleration example is getting at. Regarding gravity, you are actually correct. Initially, scientists didn't like the "spooky action at a distance" that Newton's theory suggested. The reason scientists didn't like it is because they were concerned that Newton's theory might introduce unscientific elements into science. However, they stuck with the theory because it explained a lot and made successful predictions. The "action at a distance" element of the theory was something that scientists hoped to explain in more detail at a later time (which they did).
But at no point was a supernatural agent introduced in any significant way (and it certainly was an a prior assumption).
hydro like i posted
April 19, 2008 - 22:19 ET byto Cleverpig perhaps the philosophy forum first?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
*laughing, clapping, and cheering*
April 20, 2008 - 02:10 ET by tracheostomyYES!!! Fly you beautiful idea, fly! Nothing can hurt you now. You've been tested and never been bested. Fly about and whisper in every ear!
It'll bring them no closer to salvation, and it will neither hasten or slow the coming of the King, but still. . .its beauty is in its truth.
Fly, you beautiful idea, fly!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
botg, The issue is
April 19, 2008 - 20:50 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
The issue is whether ID is a scientific theory. If it is, it should be taught in a science class. If not, it shouldn't.
Criticizing evolution doesn't address this.
† hydro
April 19, 2008 - 21:21 ET by Cool ArrowHow does evolution theory qualify as a scientific subject?
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, Maybe you can
April 19, 2008 - 21:26 ET by hydrodynDMCool Arrow,
Maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, it's an attempt to explain the origin and development of organic systems using nothing but naturalistic (or material) causes. That too mean means it falls within the category of science.
How well it achieves this is open to debate, of course.
Why - what about evolution do you consider unscientific?
† Hydro
April 19, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Cool ArrowDoes this mean the Creator is not "natural"?
Sorry, I've never witnessed "evolution" and I suspect, neither have you. But I respect your faith in it.
♣ a seal
Cool Arrow, No, the
April 19, 2008 - 21:40 ET by hydrodynDMCool Arrow,
No, the Creator doesn't count as "natural" in the way that science uses the term. But I think you know that so I'll take your questions as a friendly jibe.
I've also never witnessed the evolution of galaxies, stars or planets. Throw in the formation of mountain ranges or the interactions of subatomic particles, for that matter. Do you count Astronomy, Astrophysics, Geological Science and Particle Physics as unscientific?
I respect your faith as well. My issue has to do with the specifics of what defines a scientific theory.
what scientific basis do
April 19, 2008 - 21:45 ET bywhat scientific basis do you have to conclude that material(naturalistic) causes are the only ones? In fact we believe based on big-bang cosmology that there must be at least one cause not of materal origen.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, There is no
April 19, 2008 - 21:53 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
There is no "scientific basis" for concluding "that material (naturalistic) causes are the only ones." This kind of statement is exactly the kind of misunderstanding about science that I see that motivated me to put up that post in the forum section months ago.
Science has chosen to try to explain the world in naturalistic terms. That isn't the same as saying that there are no supernatural agents.
And no, nothing about "big bang" suggests that there is at least on supernatural agent. Just because science doesn't currently understand what happened at the time of the big bang doesn't mean it never will.
hydro let me expand on the
April 19, 2008 - 22:19 ET bylet me expand on the big-bang suggesting at least one supernatural agent. A supernatural agent by definition is outside the universe. Before the universe existed there must have existed a cause for the universe (unless you want to assert the universe was not caused) Since the universe did not exist the cause must be outside the universe. Thus the cause is, by definition, supernatural.
For this we can equate agent to cause and have no need to postulate any intelligence to the agent.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, Yea, I figured
April 19, 2008 - 22:20 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Yea, I figured that's what you were getting at after I posted my reply. And you might be right. But a supernatural agent in this sense isn't necessarily an intelligent one - as you point out. It just might be a materialistic one that follows laws we have no understanding of (and might never have an understanding of) since it's outside of our known universe.
Having said that, if the "cause" of the big bang is outside of our universe and so doesn't have to obey any of this universe's laws, then why should I think the idea of "cause and affect" applies to it?
You do know that the idea of "cause and affect" is a man made construct. On top of that, quantum mechanical interactions can exhibit non-causal behavior (in a certain sense) so there are already examples in this universe of this law being violated (again, in a certain sense).
hydro yes, though in a most
April 19, 2008 - 22:34 ET byyes, though in a most certain sense we can experience the effect in this instance. And this effect has very real physics properties to it.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, Yes, but calling
April 19, 2008 - 22:41 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Yes, but calling our universe an "effect" doesn't prove that there is a cause.
Not sure if you agree with that - but figured I'd point it out.
i'll go on the limb that
April 19, 2008 - 22:48 ET byi'll go on the limb that there is a cause, while it is not 'proven' to conclude otherwise is counterintuitive and really tends to a level of skepticism which would render all investigation impossible. (how do you prove what i see and touch actually exists) (is not all that we think or seem merely but a dream within a dream? EA Poe)
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, "...really tends to
April 19, 2008 - 22:56 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
"...really tends to a level of skepticism which would render all investigation impossible."
Yup. I personally don't think humans are capable of understanding things outside of our universe from a purely materialistic (or maybe otherwise) standpoint.
But that's just me.
"Cause and Effect" is a human idea - just like "Conservation of Energy" or "General Relativity". I don't see any compelling reason to think these things are accurate descriptions outside of our universe.
You know, folks, after
April 19, 2008 - 23:09 ET by Indiana JoeYou know, folks, after reading all this, I've come to realize something: you all are having a discussion that includes and compares both evolutionary and intelligent design theories!
And they said it couldn't be done!
Why - what about evolution
April 20, 2008 - 02:30 ET by PeskyDaneWhy - what about evolution do you consider unscientific?
Let's start with the lack of a fossil record.
PeskyDane, Criticizing
April 20, 2008 - 14:05 ET by hydrodynDMPeskyDane,
Criticizing evolution for its lack of supporting empirical evidence isn't the same as criticizing it for not being scientific.
A theory can be unscientific (as ID is since it incorporates supernatural agents), scientific but lacking in supporting evidence (like the geocentric model of the universe) or scientific and supported (to some degree) by empirical evidence (like Evolution and Relativity).
You can argue that the evidence for Evolution just isn't there and that the theory should be abandoned but that isn't the same as saying the theory fails to be a scientific one.
The point of this discussion has to do with scientific vs. unscientific, not scientific and supported by evidence vs. scientific but not supported by evidence.
Nothing is served by
April 20, 2008 - 14:24 ET by PeskyDaneNothing is served by parsing. As far as relativity goes, the reason why it is scientific is because it is testable. A clock going up on the space shuttle will slow down and become out of sync with the same clock on the ground.
If you set things up so that it is ever so convenient that your theory is untestable, then you have a philosophy. Not a science. I have no patience with evolutionary biologists who assert that the scientifc method does not apply to them.
BTW, you and I are going to agree that ID is not science. Therefore let's just teach the hear and now in science class instead of unprovable hypothesis with no practical application.
PeskyDane, So making the
April 20, 2008 - 14:50 ET by hydrodynDMPeskyDane,
So making the important distinction between what counts as a scientific theory and what doesn't is "parsing". Um, isn't that the heart of the debate over whether ID should be taught in science classes?
I'm glad we agree about the scientific status of ID, but it's your relegation of evolutionary theory to the same unscientific status that we can discuss.
Regarding the notion of testability - see my post to you above.
This column is getting too
April 21, 2008 - 01:08 ET by PeskyDaneThis column is getting too thin. I'm starting over below...
if someone with a
April 18, 2008 - 15:09 ET by Burgherif someone with a conservative or Judeo Christian viewpoint criticises Scientific Panthiest dogma... they are schmuck-head conspiracy theorist .
If science goes against judeo christian thought. they are brilliant deep thinkers
The Judeo-Christian thought
April 18, 2008 - 18:02 ET by blogonatorThe Judeo-Christian thought is what gave rise to the dominance of science. It could have only been born in such a great society.
Science goes where the evidence takes it. If it goes against some sacred and/or deeply held belief of an individual, that is their problem, not science.
Science has no business in the area of morality, the after-life, and the spirtual. If there are those trying to use science to destroy religion, they are not scientists. The religious should know better than anyone how ideas can become hijacked and politicized. That is unfortunate, but a fact of life.
Nice.
April 18, 2008 - 14:40 ET by Missouri ConservativeThese are the same people who gave rave reviews to Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko.
"women and minorities hardest hit"
A review from the NYT means
April 18, 2008 - 14:57 ET by ConservativeRexA review from the NYT means little or nothing, whether its good, bad or indifferent. Catsoulis doesn't understand the subject matter. She does understand the left wing talking points however, and after watching this movie she has some vague notion that she needs to be critical of it, but not really sure why.
Evolutionary biologist..now, that sure is a powerful title, along the lines of sanitary engineer. I am fairly certain that Dawkins is certifiably insane, but of course, that's only an opinion. If anyone is interested on the domestication of plant/animals, or the effects of humans on nature read anything from Jared Diamond. But I'd shy away from Dawkins, unless you want to come away from one of his books slightly dumber than when you started reading it.
Yes, Clay ...
April 18, 2008 - 15:08 ET by Dave Pierre... and the LA Times was just as bad today.
Check out this hatchet job on the film: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-expelled18apr18,0,5576513.story
The Times also published yet another anti-ID op-ed in the paper today; this one by the dim Richard Dawkins. Meanwhile, the Times, as far as I know, has never published a piece from an Intelligent Design proponent. The lack of balance and honesty at the Times on this issue is simply astounding. But I guess that's par for the course at the Times.
+_+_+_+_+
Frankenlies.com: Al Franken officially debunked
review of the review
April 18, 2008 - 15:16 ET byfound at the times:
20.April 18th, 2008
One of the sleaziest reviews to arrive in a very long time,JEANNETTE CATSOULIS is a conspiracy-theory ranter masquerading as movie reviewer.
- botgthegreat
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Any time that the NYT gets
April 18, 2008 - 15:12 ET by Tim the EnchanterAny time that the NYT gets their knickers in a twist about a movie usually means that it's well worth watching. Go Ben!
What did you expect?
April 18, 2008 - 15:20 ET by NosterrexI'm going to see the move tomorrow, and I'll make up my mind after I see it as to whether Catsoulis's comments are justified. I knew that this movie was going to be damned by many people, so I'm not at all surprised at the reaction of Catsoulis. It is only the begining. Atheism, just as Christianity, is a very personal and emotional topic. People are touchy about these issues. This movie will not change the minds of anyone. Those that already believe in ID will find the movie encouraging, and those that don't will not be persuaded.
Sadly the propaganda is in the schools
April 18, 2008 - 16:08 ET by exLibMy wife was a school teacher, but got under the skin of some middle-school students early on in about 2002 when she said GWB was a good president and a nice guy.
Parents complained and surprise, surpirse her contract was not renewed She had also casually mentioned that she was Christian and believed in God at some point, and also tried to play a Christmas song at Christmas time (she also had a hannaka song, as well as some other religious content for balance) which was roundly rejected.
The lack of tolerance to anyone with a right-of-center view in academia is astounding. Try reading the teacher's union magazine they send out is like reading a DNC pamphlet.
Sadly Ben Stein's attempts to tell the other side is like spitting in the wind. It will have little effect. However, maybe, just maybe it will start a trend and get some people with money a reason to make more conservative-based movies.
PS - I finally realized why there isn't much Conservative Comedy. It's not because Conservatives aren't funny, it's because the left can't laugh at itself the way the right can.
"PS - I finally realized
April 18, 2008 - 16:36 ET by Apache"PS - I finally realized why there isn't much Conservative Comedy. It's not because Conservatives aren't funny, it's because the left can't laugh at itself the way the right can. "
I had the exact same revelation a few years ago and I believe even Lauren Michaels said as much. You take a shot at a conservative and if it's funny they will still laugh. You take a shot at a liberal, you get rabid hate mail. Maybe that explains why John Stuart is such a pansy and can still find an audience.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Woul
April 18, 2008 - 15:40 ET by RickTaLifeAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Would that be propaganda piece as in "Sicko" or as in "Fahrenheit 9/11?" :-P
The emperor's new clothes and all that.
I've always found it
April 18, 2008 - 15:55 ET by fitzfongI've always found it humorous that many people who embrace Darwinism as it pertains to religion subsequently reject one of its tenets, natural selection, when it comes to the potential extinction of some worm.
Actually
April 18, 2008 - 16:07 ET by Matthew Sheffieldbelieving in evolution is not tantamount to being an atheist.
Lots of people I know are religious and believe in evolution.
Not really my point,
April 18, 2008 - 17:09 ET by fitzfongNot really my point, Matthew. I was not suggesting that atheism and belief in evolution are mutually inclusive (nor did I suggest that belief in God and in evolution are mutually exclusive). Essentially what I'm saying is that some who criticize Christians for denying evolution often cherry pick the aspects of Darwinism they find favorable to their atheist positions...while denying (or at least ignoring) other aspects of Darwinism that conflict with, for example, their "environmentalism".
Actually, evolutionary
April 18, 2008 - 20:38 ET by cleverpigActually, evolutionary science is very cognizant of the natural reality of extinction. There is a term "relict species" to describe populations that are diminished from their historic ranges not because of man-made disturbance but because of normal climactic and biotic changes. The California condor is one, as is the redwood.
This enters into the debate about whether or not we should do anything to save these species. The environmentalist point of view says we should because they are unique and it will be a loss to us and the world to not have them anymore. Anyone who's ever spent a quiet afternoon in a redwood forest understands that concept. But there is a definite faction in favor of not going to great lengths to save these species. It's not really as friendly a message, though, so I doubt it gets much public attention. With the condor we've gone to great lengths to try and save them. But while we are trying to prevent current stands of redwood from being cut down, no one is out there trying to expand their range back to what it used to be, because that just isn't realistic.
Natural vs. Manmade
April 19, 2008 - 11:30 ET by CobraMan"There is a term "relict species" to describe populations that are
diminished from their historic ranges not because of man-made
disturbance but because of normal climactic and biotic changes."
Why the distinction between "natural" and "manmade" extinction events? Aren't they actually one in the same?
I always thought that we EVOLVED here on earth and so it follows that if we, as a natural species on earth, displace other natural species, and that displacement leads to a species becoming extinct, then we're just dong what comes naturally, IE, continuing the process of evolution.
We ARE a part of nature and, like all other natural species, we will tend to promote the survival of related, symbiotic species while tending to push non-related, non-symbiotic species into extinction. Since that is how evolution works, how can our actions be any worse than the millions of other species that have caused the extinctions of other species throughout the history of life on earth?
Because we are aware of
April 19, 2008 - 20:43 ET by cleverpigBecause we are aware of what we do and have a choice. It's a moral thing. We can totally go your way and do whatever we want, but we will make that choice consciously and there are lots of people who think we shouldn't.
Science has nothing to say about those kinds of choices except to inform us of the possible consequences. You won't find much moral guidance in biology. A little, but not much.
Say what?
April 18, 2008 - 16:09 ET by angryafricanPeople claim Darwin for themselves, but I would advise people to rather read Darwin instead of what someone else thinks of Darwin. Darwin never questioned God. In fact, he ended by saying there must be one.
yep
April 18, 2008 - 16:18 ET by mbuelhttp://www.amazon.co...
and this book makes that point brilliantly.
LIBERALS DETEST
April 18, 2008 - 16:26 ET by reelman46The opposing side of any issue, the demand that questions be answered, the demand the real data with logic be used in answering and a series of follow-up questions.
When your life is based upon junior high emotions and "what you are told" then thinking is foreign to you... thus the mocking of questioners, topic-shifting and pointing at bad behavior to justify other bad behavior is all they have...except shouting you down and throwing pies by the arrogant intolerant.... thus the incredible respond to real relevant researched-data type questions that somehow were not screened out (as usual)... they are terrifying to the modern liberal (secular socialist)...
Conservatives, on the other hand, embrace dialog and welcome debate because they have the logic, the data and reality on their side.... so simple to see on a daily basis but millions just don't see the obvious patterns... last night they got a glimpse... and here we are amidst the uproar...which should never ever cause an uproar.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
That's ridiculous on soooo
April 18, 2008 - 17:28 ET by balboaThat's ridiculous on soooo many levels. Just a lot of rhetoric.
Really? Care to expand on
April 18, 2008 - 18:04 ET by Indiana JoeReally? Care to expand on your problems with this post? It IS pretty generalized, but he makes some points. You seem to disagree. So, let's hear YOUR "rhetoric" about all those "levels."
Honest, the one-line nit-picking is getting old.
It's hard not to say
April 18, 2008 - 18:14 ET by balboaIt's hard not to say SOMETHING about a post that claims:
Liberals base their life "upon junior high emotions" and "what you are told"
thinking is foreign to liberals
And on and on, along with the requisite glowing review of conservative thought. It's ridiculous and does nothing for this site.
I will agree that the post
April 18, 2008 - 21:30 ET by Indiana JoeI will agree that the post throws a lot of hackneyed thoughts around. But I think it's not that far off the mark.
Maybe it could be put more diplomatically, if one were interested in being diplomatic:
Liberals in general seem to have a problem when it's suggested that their motives are not the purest, that their answers are not the only ones. They tend to dislike having to explain or justify themselves, often preferring to look down upon and denigrate those who "just don't get it." At the same time, they want detailed defenses of any counter-point arguments, and many have a tendency to attack rather than debate (the "shouting you down and throwing pies by the arrogant intolerant" thingy).
Liberals HAVE been caught quite often "cherry-picking" data, or even completely skewing facts to bolster their arguments. I see it all the time, on this site, and out in the real world. Many self-described "liberals" I know really have no idea WHY they have certain opinions. There's an emotional side to it for a lot of people, they believe that they're "fighting the good fight." They've been told so, it must be true, because they're good people.
That pretty much says what I think the author of the post was saying... he just didn't bother to sugar-coat it.
I'll agree with your response to the portrayal of conservatives, btw. A bit too treacly for me, by far. OTOH, we really don't want to starve old people, enslave black people, abuse children at will and destroy the planet. Honest.
Actually, I've long thought that, by and large, both sides agree on much of what needs to be done. It's just the implementation where the disagreements are. Well, and global warming. ;^)
<Just btw, merely claiming a post is "ridiculous" with no further rebuttal doesn't do much for the debate either.>
or...
April 18, 2008 - 16:17 ET by mbuelthe polar bears. :)
Relating to the movie, you should check out Kyle Smith's review:
http://www.nypost.co...
He's conservative, but is critical of Stein's heavy handed approach of connecting eugenics to evolution. The two don't have to be connected, and early Eugenisicists only did so out of convenience, not because evolution proved them right.
It honestly would've been better had stein focused solely on the attack on true scientific thought, (which does exist) when it pertains to anything even SLIGHTLY religious. Per example, he could've pointed out this guy:
http://en.wikipedia....
He found evidence of a rapid flood in the scablands, and it was rejected by the "scientific" community of the time, because it was too religious.
He also could've covered the ad hom that takes place against "global warming deniers" in the scientific community, and how MANY scientists are afraid to stand against the machine that gives them funding.
My personal belief per evolution is the following:
1) It's scientifically proven.
2) The "gap", is in the "missing links".
What caused life to start? For some Atheist evolutionists, it was a random asteroid with life from another planet. (how did that life start?) For others, it's an impossible to prove crystalline to life effect.
What causes species to change into other species? Is it merely natural selection or is their a "guiding hand" involved?
It's called gradual darwinism...
April 18, 2008 - 19:48 ET by Syriusmbuel,
Check out this thread...
http://newsbusters.o...
There's quite a bit of information discussed. Since everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether scientifically supported or not, there is quite a bit of information which can link you to different debates and information. There's no reason to keep discussing or debating when it turns into a free for all. You'll see in the following responses how some on this site cannot stop from attacking me personally. I've got a thick skin. They are only words on a page. So, if you get the chance...enjoy! It was enlightening!
I'd wait for the "expelled" movie to come out on NetFlix in the next couple of weeks...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Sy: It's called gradual
April 18, 2008 - 20:01 ET by tracheostomySy: It's called gradual darwinism...
Thanks for the lesson. That was in fact, already covered in the video link I provided on this thread.
Sy: Since everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether scientifically supported or not, there is quite a bit of information which can link you to different debates and information.
Including a wonderful video lecture where the speaker is critical of consensus science. Too bad his presuppositions get the best of him, but his heart's in the right place. I recommend watching it.
Sy: There's no reason to keep discussing or debating when it turns into a free for all.
Riiiight. Better to keep the discussion going in one direction and everyone else swallow what you got to sell, right?
Sy: So, if you get the chance...enjoy! It was enlightening!
Very enlightening. I highly recommend everyone here read the thread completely. Bring the kids. Tell grandma.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
hey Syrius
April 18, 2008 - 20:01 ET byhow you be?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
=D
April 18, 2008 - 20:11 ET by tracheostomyBotg: how you be?
He's been endorsing your thread. Isn't that awesome?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
yes
April 18, 2008 - 20:24 ET byi saw that
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
There is plenty of info...
April 18, 2008 - 16:42 ET by Syrius...on previous threads about this issue. It continues to pop up on occasion. I'd suggest looking in the "Woodshed" for a great discussion and debate (it fell apart later when certain types decided to make assumptions based upon their feelings and stopped investigating the materials presented.) I'd suggest reading Dawkins 'The Blind Watchmaker" and "The God Delusion" for some background in having a discussion on evolution, time lines, creationism, and a host of other topics. If you just read one book, the Bible, as your only source, well, then, problems will occur in the debate and discussion...
If I'm not mistaken the discussion is on ID which does not focus on a Judeo-Christian theology. Though most would like to believe it does.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius i usually dont'
April 18, 2008 - 17:08 ET by BlazerSyrius I usually dont' reply to you, because yes....your that stoopid. But anyhoo, this particular comment sent my diaphragm into uncontrollable convulsion's of the comedic sort .."If you just read one book, the Bible, as your only source''. Excuse me but on top of the bible I also like to indulge in The National Enquirer and an assortment of comic book's, especially the "Archie" one's....so yes I'm very well read thank you. That comment was very Baracky Hussieny Osama-ish of you.
At any rate thank's for the laugh, and if you'll excuse me I have to finish polishing my Yugoslavian SKS. Alway's use the weapon's of the enemy, that way you'll never run out of ammo. I mean hell the Bible, exotic weapon's and drugstore comic book's is what I "cling" to, in fact I use an assault rifle as a woobie, kind of like Linus with his blanket, that's what our type does, as you know.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Shootin' & killin' & readin' & riting!
April 18, 2008 - 19:53 ET by SyriusBlazer,
Well, Golllll-eeee!
I'd refrain from using a high powered rifle as a woobie, you might "done blowd your head clean right off- if you sticks, um, youza good ol' big toe on da' trigger"!
Thanks for the response!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Sy,
April 18, 2008 - 17:01 ET by upcountrywaterUrey now that's some faith, ones' got to believe in something.
Darwin therory is 150 YEARS OLD. Does that bug you from a technological view point?
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Explain please...
April 18, 2008 - 19:59 ET by SyriusUpC,
Your point?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
<holding hand, making eye contact> Sy, play the link
April 18, 2008 - 20:16 ET by upcountrywateror slink,
geez;;
Then make a comment ,
think dudelette think
you can do it.
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
UpC, this is such an old thread....
April 18, 2008 - 20:24 ET by SyriusUpC,
Two months if I'm not mistaken...actually...
http://newsbusters.o...
The comments will only be rehashed from old threads and the same attacks will occur...
Ketch-Up!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Sy, Can't comment on the link eh?
April 18, 2008 - 20:47 ET by upcountrywater2 months, 2years ???
It's great youre linking to a site where you get whacked !LMAO
WATCH THE LINK, THEN COMMENT!!
It's bias and it's showdown time for the movie TODAY.
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Choose one day shipping at checkout!
April 18, 2008 - 17:14 ET by tracheostomySy: There is plenty of info on previous threads about this issue. It continues to pop up on occasion. I'd suggest looking in the "Woodshed" for a great discussion and debate. . .
I highly endorse whatever thread he's referring to.
Sy: . . .(it fell apart later when certain types decided to make assumptions based upon their feelings and stopped investigating the materials presented.)
Gee, I hope you're not referring to the thread where we deconstructed, "Methinks it is like a weasel," which actually quotes your pet Bibles. . .er, I mean. . .the books you're pimping. . .er--I mean. . .the books you're shilling.
Sy: I'd suggest reading Dawkins 'The Blind Watchmaker" and "The God Delusion" for some background in having a discussion on evolution, time lines, creationism, and a host of other topics.
Avaliable on Amazon right now at reduced prices of $15.95 and $17.82! Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25!
Sy: If you just read one book, the Bible, as your only source, well, then, problems will occur in the debate and discussion...
I agree completely. Good thing I avoided that book entirely when arguing on the thread in question.
Sy: If I'm not mistaken the discussion is on ID which does not focus on a Judeo-Christian theology. Though most would like to believe it does.
Agreed. The truth is you can attach any creation theology you want to ID, because it only indicates a creator. It doesn't identify it. I'm pretty quick to agree that Stein is taking some liberties there for controversy's sake.
But in the end, the name arbitrarily attached doesn't affect ID, making "God" a non-presupposition.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach, How do it "know"?
April 18, 2008 - 20:18 ET by SyriusPJ,
Good books, even when discounted! I'm sure you've read them! Ha! Not only is the Bible FREE, I think it can be found discarded in most hotel rooms! No respect!
According to the philosophy of a reformed augustine monergist, God allows you to be taught as you explore God's creation as a student, correct? Since God created Dawkins and his books, I would think you would be allowed to explore those books and be taught what he has created for you. You must open your ears in order to listen, PJ, God speaks volumes...
The deconstruction? You get pretty enraged when anyone goes back to an old thread. From your PMs, you forget about the threads after one week- no worries. Maybe we should do a Syrius Q2? Game?
As I have said before Stein is trying to make a quick buck...nothing wrong with that, correct?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Hey hey my my Sy
April 18, 2008 - 20:35 ET bylast round i quoted from your expert Dawkins and i got "read a book" back from you? Here's a place for you to get some quotes care to try your own advice S?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg...
April 18, 2008 - 20:40 ET by Syriusbotg,
You pose a question to me in the Woodshed and let other's do your work for you. My respect for you diminished after you vanished. Did you get to read the "Blind Watchmaker"? Without GD, PE does not exist...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
sy
April 18, 2008 - 21:00 ET byactually cleverpig and i had an exchange of ideas in that thread while you brought nothing to the table other than "read a book"
there were no ideas from you to respond to so i quoted from your beloved Dawkins directly. If you really knew about the debate you would concede that Dawkins and Gould were at odds as this point is rudimentary and well established. If ya can't add i ain't wasting time on you with algebra.
Yes Trach also dialogued with cleverpig without my input, so what? I am not egotistical enough to have to be in the middle of everything.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
I just looked at the old threads...
April 18, 2008 - 20:36 ET by SyriusPJ,
Why do you wait so long in forming your opinion? Waiting for an opening
I noticed the Ben Stein thread from 01/28/08...you didn't respond until a full day later with only 3 posts. Why, PJ?
Good Night...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Sy: Why do you wait so
April 18, 2008 - 20:41 ET by tracheostomySy: Why do you wait so long in forming your opinion?
I call it "thinking."
Sy: I noticed the Ben Stein thread from 01/28/08...you didn't respond until a full day later with only 3 posts. Why, PJ?
I call it "research."
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Lurking and more lurking...
April 18, 2008 - 20:55 ET by SyriusPJ,
I'd have expected a better response- more to the point...lol!
Good Night!
Syrius
Sy: According to the
April 18, 2008 - 20:38 ET by tracheostomySy: According to the philosophy of a reformed augustine monergist, God allows you to be taught as you explore God's creation as a student, correct?
To a point. To a very limited point. But according to the philosophy of a Reformed Augustinian Monergist, that's not how you reach the truth of God.
Or Reformed Augustinian Monergism for that matter. . .
You should have understood this a long time ago, Sy.
Sy: Since God created Dawkins and his books, I would think you would be allowed to explore those books and be taught what he has created for you. You must open your ears in order to listen, PJ, God speaks volumes...
No problem with that. None. What, you think this is some kind of feint or something? Dawkin's "weasel_program" was a riot. I also love how he abandons it with doublespeak when the model's inherent flaws are pointed out.
Sy: The deconstruction? You get pretty enraged when anyone goes back to an old thread.
Yet in any case, the "rage" in question isn't a valid argument either, correct? My anger comes from when you go back to old threads and attempt to "clean them up" after everyone's forgotten about them. You missed that important detail. . .the motivation behind my "rage."
But you haven't done that with the "Syrius Question" thread. At least not yet. Thus, no inconsistency of emotion on my part. I'm still angry and for all the right reasons.
Sy: As I have said before Stein is trying to make a quick buck...nothing wrong with that, correct?
I think you should take a closer look into the production history before you go slinging the "money" argument-to-motive there. You could start with the video link I posted in this thread as a matter of fact.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Very limited, indeed...
April 18, 2008 - 20:50 ET by SyriusPJ,
Your philosophy does not make you unique. I distilled into a couple of sentences...for I do understand and have for a long time, my friend. You have a long journey ahead...I'd wish you good luck but there's no need; for you will find the path on your own without anyone's help except your faith. Only the faith should be in yourself not on anyone or being or book for that matter.
Good Night...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Sy: Your philosophy does
April 18, 2008 - 21:07 ET by tracheostomySy: Your philosophy does not make you unique. I distilled into a couple of sentences...
1.) I never said it was unique.
2.) Saying you distilled it into a couple of sentences doesn't mean you accurately defined it. You're forgetting two key factors when you presume to understand my end of it.
Sy: . . .for I do understand and have for a long time, my friend. You have a long journey ahead...I'd wish you good luck but there's no need; for you will find the path on your own without anyone's help except your faith. Only the faith should be in yourself not on anyone or being or book for that matter.
That was very mysterious and profound of you, Syrius.
And your religion isn't anything new either. Like I tell the others here, faith must always depend on an outside object. Therefore, faith in yourself is merely "faith in faith" and thus. . .wholly redundant.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
An outside object as a means to strengthen your faith?
April 19, 2008 - 12:11 ET by SyriusPJ,
Surely you jest? An outside object...?!? The strength of one's faith is dependent on an outside object?!? The Roman Catholics enjoy having Jesus on a crucifix, Mary and Joseph as sculpture pieces. Icons, paintings, cathedrals, you name it they have it. For some in the Catholic faith these articles or objects bring them a sense of belonging to God. It's not whether the objects are actual manifestations of the beings they represent just a visual anchor to what may exist beyond this world. The deconstruction of Fut and his belief in the RCC was embarrassing to watch. He draws strength from his beliefs and is passionate about what he says. He continued to emphasize the power of understanding the teachings of the Church not the particular chapter and verse of the Bible. The context of lessons being taught as opposed to the actual wording of the Bible. You went to a Bible Institute, are in possession of a theological library and gained a tech school education to learn how to file for medical research types. You're telling everyone on this site you possess some interesting form of theological philosophy based upon a book that has been rewritten and translated over the course of 2000 years, yet you don't belong to a community to spread the good word. Wow! What else have you found along your journey to strengthen your belief and faith? A shiny rock? I'm done.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
a book that has been
April 19, 2008 - 12:27 ET bya book that has been rewritten and translated over the course of 2000 years -- what book would that be? if you attempt to make that lame claim about the Bible then you have taken to lies to make your points.
re faith in outside objects: "if Christ be not raised then our hope is futile" thus our faith IS in that which is outside us.
I'm done -- i agree you were done before you started, you had your mind made up and no logic or evidence was about to change it.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Sy: Surely you jest? An
April 19, 2008 - 17:38 ET by tracheostomySy: Surely you jest? An outside object...?!?
Yep. You can quote me on this. My goal on this site has always been one of de-mystifying faith. It's gotten quite a few here on the religious right angry with me as well. So, you'll have to get in the back of the line, I'm afraid.
Sy: The strength of one's faith is
dependent on an outside object?!?
Sounds wacky, don't it? It's not as hard a statement as you're making it out to be.
Sy: The Roman Catholics enjoy having
Jesus on a crucifix, Mary and Joseph as sculpture pieces. Icons,
paintings, cathedrals, you name it they have it.
I assert that they don't follow my definition of faith either. Besides, the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox (as I have attended and questioned both in-house) would tell you those are only "helps" or "assistants" to faith, but not the final objects of faith. Since I have a completely different and therefore de-mystified faith dynamic, these too are fundamentally rejected.
Just don't say I never went to the defense of the RCC or EO.
Sy: For some in the
Catholic faith these articles or objects bring them a sense of
belonging to God.
Bingo. "Sense" = subjective mysticism. Not the objective faith I am referring to. What I like about it is there is no mystery to demystified faith either. There's only one catch to it. Well, two really.
Sy: It's not whether the objects are actual
manifestations of the beings they represent just a visual anchor to
what may exist beyond this world.
Correct. The key word being, "what may exist."
Sy: The deconstruction of Fut and his
belief in the RCC was embarrassing to watch. He draws strength from his
beliefs and is passionate about what he says. He continued to emphasize
the power of understanding the teachings of the Church not the
particular chapter and verse of the Bible. The context of lessons being
taught as opposed to the actual wording of the Bible.
Correct. This diversion from divine revelation also serves as your cover by proxy. It keeps you safe as well, providing a straw-man dummy you can joust against. Religion's easy to attack (or to defend for that matter) when you're arguing on a mutable plane. As long as you keep the back-doors open, you have an easy escape if you get in trouble.
Sy: You went to a
Bible Institute, are in possession of a theological library and gained
a tech school education to learn how to file for medical research
types. You're telling everyone on this site you possess some
interesting form of theological philosophy based upon a book that has
been rewritten and translated over the course of 2000 years, yet you
don't belong to a community to spread the good word. Wow! What else
have you found along your journey to strengthen your belief and faith?
A shiny rock? I'm done.
LOL! One could always hope. Like I stated before, it's not as unique as it sounds. I couldn't simply answer "Christianity" to another person who asked me what my faith is, because most of the Christians here only assume what Christianity is, haven't actually studied a Bible, and don't remember much other than a sliver of a lesson or two from Sunday School or Youth Group.
Many so-called Christians here don't even know their particular soteriology has been tainted by the new Semi-Pelagianism, and error of Finney (and others), with their faith in synergistic salvation.
But I'll quit writing at this point, you prolly just skimmed this part anyway.
I also enjoyed you statement about "a book that has
been rewritten and translated over the course of 2000 years." That's quite the assumption there.
I guess Josh McDowell should have stuck with apologetics, because we're still hearing the same old assumptions.
http://www.carm.org/...
The most shocking part is many on the religious right will state the same thing about such a book.
So in the end Syrius, you are no more well informed than they are.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Sorry, PJ...
April 19, 2008 - 18:12 ET by SyriusPJ,
Before I leave...
The King James Bible relies mostly on Greek text collected & edited by Erasmus, 16th century, which relied upon a Byzantine collection gradually assembled in Constantinople between the 4th & 8th centuries. A few older texts exist in fragments, differ from one another and from the King James version; they are the Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and the Chester Beatty papyri. There are no known portions of the Bible which precede the 4th century. Great mistakes have been done over time. It has been collected over time, slowly, rewritten and mis-written, revised and worked by human beings for a very long time.The Church forbade research and reading of the bible by commoners or laymen. As I have mentioned before...you're basing your beliefs on the workings of men and their writings on the concept of God. Enjoy!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
There are no known
April 19, 2008 - 18:19 ET by Free StinkerThere are no known portions of the Bible which precede the 4th century.
I guess you never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They have most of the Old Testament among the scrolls.
Ah, the Dead Sea Scrolls -
April 20, 2008 - 21:54 ET by PeskyDaneAh, the Dead Sea Scrolls - now there's an inconvenient truth!
the John Rylands Papyrus
April 19, 2008 - 23:55 ET bythe John Rylands Papyrus P52 is most likely from the 2nd century
so Free has covered the old testament and i have covered the new testament.
want to guess about manuscripts from other writings of antiquity?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Everyone should go see this this week end if you can
April 18, 2008 - 17:29 ET by Dee BunkI'm going tonight. If we want more conservative docs made we have to let them know there is a market. This movie will be panned by all the critics no matter what. Their reviewing the politics not the movie.
The first weekend is the most important for helping a film do well. If you can't do that, then try to see it within the first two weeks. The first two weeks are where the movie gets the most money.
DB,
April 18, 2008 - 18:06 ET by upcountrywaterIf it's showing here, I will see it.
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Upcountry - it should be - it's in wide release which shocked me
April 18, 2008 - 18:09 ET by Dee BunkI was thinking I'd have to travel but it's in all the major theaters by me. It might not last long though so I hope you get the chance.
DB, I checked and it's in ONE location!
April 18, 2008 - 18:16 ET by upcountrywaterwell hay better than ZERO
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
I plan on going tomorrow
April 18, 2008 - 20:17 ET by Clear thinkerI plan on going tomorrow night to see the movie.
My wife would rather watch re-runs of Dancing with the Stars so I'm taking my 14 year old granddaughter to see it. I can't wait to hear her reaction to it.
"Abstain from McCain"
Scientific Debate squelched?
April 18, 2008 - 17:59 ET by pbthinkerScientific debate is being squelched on Darwinism and Global Warming, and all by the same crowd. This is how the liberals operate. Look at the election, Howard Dean doesn't want to count votes and let the primaries go on, he wants the electors to make their choice, right now. This is how liberals think. They believe they're right. If anyone questions that, and they don't have the right argument, they want to stifle the opposition because they believe they're right. There is little doubt these are the most dangerous people in the world.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
Just for fun, Rotten
April 18, 2008 - 18:24 ET by balboaJust for fun, Rotten Tomatoes has this movie at a whopping 9%:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/
That was great Bal!
April 18, 2008 - 18:30 ET by tracheostomyMoring: The film shows that Intelligent Design should be on the table for discussion. But if you're looking for ammo to argue your Darwinist friends under the table, look elsewhere.
I think everyone's going to be disappointed.
But then I'm starting to think that Ben Stein's goal is something other than what both sides are assuming.
EDIT: Or maybe not, as I was led to this fantastic link from the comments section!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Where is the film wrong?
April 18, 2008 - 18:31 ET by ToddonCapeCodBlithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.
Come on, Slimes! There really is no distinction between scientific and social Darwinism. They both hinge on a belief in an inferior form of the species. Hitler believed Jews were inferior species, and acted according to those beliefs.
Abortionists have talked themselves into believing "it's a fetus, not a baby" and have acted according.
There really is no
April 18, 2008 - 20:47 ET by cleverpigThere really is no distinction between scientific and social Darwinism
Wrong. Any evolutionary scientists will tell you that variation is the most important raw material for evolutionary success. If you create a homogenous population, as the eugenicists wanted, you are susceptible to any subsequent change in the environment. No variation means you lose.
Every heard of hybrid vigor? That one would have sent Hitler into conniptions.
You don't get it CP.
April 18, 2008 - 21:00 ET by tracheostomyYou don't get it CP. Eugenics was the ends; not the means.
Also with scientific Darwinism as the ruling objective to define social Darwinism, you are left with zero moral/ethical grounds for arguing against Eugenics as a practice.
Variation can be discarded at will. No one has the moral/ethical authority to tell you to accept it. Thus, the "superior race" scenario plays out once again.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Well hold on, you can't say
April 19, 2008 - 02:42 ET by cleverpigWell hold on, you can't say that scientific arguments can be used to support eugenics but can't be used to refute it. Scientifically, master races and all that nonsense just don't make any sense. Either you think science has some authority over morality, or you don't. If you do, then you take all of the science, not just the parts that fit your desires. If you don't, then who the hell cares about darwinism in the first place?
If the most fundamental part of a theory can be "discarded at will" then I hardly think it's fair to blame that theory for its misuse. Crazy people will always pick and choose the things they want to believe, you'd have a hard time designing a theory that was immune to misuse by despots. Hell, look at what people have done with the concept of a god!
Thought you had me there, huh?
April 19, 2008 - 04:31 ET by tracheostomyCP: Well hold on, you can't say that scientific arguments can be used to support eugenics but can't
be used to refute it.
Sure I can! Once you become a law unto yourself, then halfway through my so-called circular argument, your arbitrary "can" and "can't" actually can go out the window. Then what are you left with?
CP: Scientifically, master races and all that
nonsense just don't make any sense. Either you think science has some
authority over morality, or you don't. If you do, then you take all of
the science, not just the parts that fit your desires. If you don't,
then who the hell cares about darwinism in the first place?
*looking at watch*
Still waiting on your explanation of how science has "some authority over morality." I thought it was the other way around. Apart from the threat of outside force, please show me how your personal moral code is not purely optional.
CP: If the most fundamental part of a theory can be "discarded at will"
then I hardly think it's fair to blame that theory for its misuse.
The "variance" you refer to is simply ours to do with as we will. It is not in and of itself inherently "good" or "evil."
It just "is."
CP: Crazy people will always pick and choose the things they want to
believe, you'd have a hard time designing a theory that was immune to
misuse by despots.
According to your customized; borrowed ethical standard of what constitutes both, "crazy," and "despotic."
CP: Hell, look at what people have done with the concept
of a god!
That was already covered earlier in this thread.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
eugh, your smirk is
April 21, 2008 - 01:11 ET by cleverpigeugh, your smirk is bleeding through my computer screen. Just ask and answer, the foot tapping and cutsiness is aggravating.
All I'm saying is that evolution is not any more morally dubious than any other scientific theory-- which is to say that none of them have much to say about morality.
If you are Hitler, I'm sure you can find things in natural selection to justify your craziness, but the fact that you have to ignore large swaths of the theory in order to make it fit means that the theory isn't really the problem.
Now, you seem to be objecting to my characterization of nazis as "crazy" and "despotic..." Is that really where you want to go with this?
And you can stare at your watch all you want. I don't think science has authority over morality. Anyone who claims that natural selection is a justification for eugenics does. That's not me.
So the same intellectually
April 19, 2008 - 01:30 ET by riff_raffSo the same intellectually feeble leftists who tell us that natural selection and survival of the fittest are the natural order of evolution, are the same dolts that demand discriminatory EEOC programs and wealth redistribution?
And according to their biological evolutionary theory, shouldn't AIDS be considered just one of nature's way of keeping things in balance? Sort of like hurricanes, tornadoes and global warming?
My personal theory of evolution goes like this: most good looking, fertile chicks want a guy who is hard working, honest, faithfull and financially successful. In short, a conservative guy. Ultimately, they don't want some sensitive, broke, folk singer/poet/activist, who can't support the standard of living they desire. So naturally, over the course of centuries, the gene pool of liberal leftist democrats will eventually shrivel up and disappear. Just nature's way of setting things right.
riff_raff
April 19, 2008 - 02:06 ET by MrShyUltimately, they don't want some sensitive, broke, folk
singer/poet/activist, who can't support the standard of living they
desire.
Hey, I resemble that remark! :p
(Hmm, maybe I need to officially change my party affiliation registration... perhaps that's what's holding me back and why I'm still living more like a liberal ;))
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
As per Blonde's suggestion
April 19, 2008 - 17:45 ET by hydrodynDMAs per Blonde's suggestion (in a post above), below are a couple of links to topics in the "Off-Topic" forum section which deal with evolution and science.
The first is sort of a philosophical view of science in general. It was meant to address some of the misconceptions I often see regarding the nature of science and scientific theories.
The second is a post by mattm which deals with science and philosophy along with a debate on the merits of the views in that post.
Thanks, hD
April 19, 2008 - 17:50 ET by BlondeThey were both fascinating to read the first time around....so I shall go post a little blurb on each to bring them to the top of the forum lists....well worth revisiting, and worth reading for those who didn't see them on the first go round.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
B & hD
April 19, 2008 - 17:55 ET byperhaps i'll go about framing a "philosophy of science" thread?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Hey botg
April 19, 2008 - 17:57 ET by BlondeIt's gotta be a whole lot better than "hey you're a dumbass liar". Which is what I've seen alot of around here lately. :D
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
botg, I would definitely
April 19, 2008 - 17:57 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I would definitely look forward to reading (and, of course, commenting on) it.
I do always have to get the last word in ;)
really? “i am the
April 19, 2008 - 19:22 ET byreally?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
botg, Yes, really. What
April 19, 2008 - 19:32 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Yes, really.
What - did I come across as sounding sarcastic?
no
April 19, 2008 - 19:35 ET byno
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Blonde, Thanks! I
April 19, 2008 - 17:59 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
Thanks! I appreciate that.
I've gone back to collage
April 19, 2008 - 18:09 ET by rbosqueI've gone back to collage and am battling my left-wing global warming professor on this and evolution. I challenge anyone to sit in on a Biology class and not feel sick by the end of the class.
rbosque, Yea, that
April 19, 2008 - 18:13 ET by hydrodynDMrbosque,
Yea, that formaldehyde they keep the dissection frogs in is pretty gross smelling.
OK, hyd... So making the
April 21, 2008 - 01:32 ET by PeskyDaneOK, hyd...
So making the important distinction between what counts as a scientific theory and what doesn't is "parsing".
Too bad that's not what you did:
Criticizing evolution for its lack of supporting empirical evidence isn't the same as criticizing it for not being scientific.
Lack or empirical evidence... lack of empirical evidence... hmm... hmmm...
BTW, as I indicated in an earlier post, we CAN test the laws of relativity. We use mathematics and direct observation to measure the speed, distance, and various forces affecting the universe. We can accelerate particals in a super collider and test theories on the universe's origins. That's one of the reasons why scientists will readily admit that the perponderance of the evidence favors ID. There's nothing testable about the Darwin fantasy, and anyone who worships at this altar is not being scientific.
The point of this discussion has to do with scientific vs. unscientific, not scientific and supported by evidence vs. scientific but not supported by evidence.
No, the point of this discussion is to point out the arrogance of evolutionary biologist who think that the scientific method doesn't apply to them.
PeskyDane, Too bad
April 21, 2008 - 19:03 ET by hydrodynDMPeskyDane,
Too bad that's not what you did
I put out a necessary condition for what defines a scientific theory - no supernatural agents. That isn't a sufficient condition, so no, I didn't attempt to fully define what constitutes a scientific theory. But it's enough to serve as the basis for why I believe ID isn't scientific.
Lack or empirical evidence... lack of empirical evidence... hmm... hmmm...
That comment makes no sense as a reply to my statement. Being cute doesn't hide the fact that you seem unable to address the fact that supernatural agents can't be dealt with within scientific theories in a consistent manner. That has zilch to do with how good a theory evolution is. But please - keep ignoring that distinction.
That's one of the reasons why scientists will readily admit that the perponderance of the evidence favors ID.
Really? I'm sure some scientists do but I'm also sure they are in the minority so this statement doesn't really say much. And I'm not sure what the "That's" you are referring to is. Are you saying that ID makes testable predictions that can be checked in the same way that Relativity can? I ask since you were talking about those theories in the preceding sentences.
There's nothing testable about the Darwin fantasy, and anyone who worships at this altar is not being scientific.
I already addressed this in a post to you. You never bothered to respond so instead of typing it again, I'll just copy and past what I wrote to you before:
If you don't or can't respond to this and instead just want to keep repeating "evolution isn't testable, evolution isn't testable", let me know. It will save me the trouble of responding to you.
No, the point of this discussion is to point out the arrogance of
evolutionary biologist who think that the scientific method doesn't
apply to them.
And what would you call someone who hasn't worked a day in their life in the scientific community telling scientists that their work is unscientific. Arrogant, maybe?
Hydro,
April 24, 2008 - 15:06 ET by tracheostomyIn case you were wondering, I'm pretty much against your rather slavish devotion to inductive reasoning. I think you need to get on a balanced diet here and realize you're not running on real science.
I've been sent lectures here from liberals (see Syrius thread) that give a lot of "lip service" to real science, then completely reject it in practice. One of these speakers put Richard Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" on a pedestal, while at the same time relying on sloppy induction to back his claims on global warming and gradual Darwinism. Sad. Really sad.
Hypocrisy is probably the last valid sin of our culture. It's time to get your head out and realize that the scientific community got really damn lazy some 30 years ago and has been running on fumes ever since.
http://www.lhup.edu/...
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
tracheostomy, trach: In
April 24, 2008 - 18:30 ET by hydrodynDMtracheostomy,
trach: In case you were wondering, I'm pretty much against your rather slavish devotion to inductive reasoning.
I'll assume you mean this in regard to science and not in general. I'll assume this because I'm guessing you've noticed comments like the one I made to botg in a post above, where I said:
and that you took the time to read at least the first part of my post on Evolution. Both of these make it pretty clear that I don't give science the final word on epistemological matters. I'm figuring you would have taken to time to read what I've written before accusing me of being narrow minded.
Just about everyone who knows anything about science knows that there are problems with inductive reasoning. Not only isn't it truth preserving, but it generates apparent paradoxes (like the "grue paradox"). And yet, it is the basic reasoning upon which science is based and, despite your assertion to the contrary, science has advanced while using it.
trach: I think you need to get on a balanced diet here and realize you're not running on real science.
Well, since you mentioned induction in the previous sentence, I'll assume you mean that anyone who has the insane idea that it's OK for science to use inductive reasoning is not practicing "real science". If that is what you are saying, you'll really have to explain that one to me. While you're at it, why not suggest that we stop using mathematics in science as well.
Or maybe that was just a shot at something I said in a previous post. If so, it might help if you actually address some of the things in my previous posts (like my argument for why ID does suppose a supernatural agent or why supernatural agents pose a problem for deductive scientific models) as opposed to just insulting me.
And really - the whole condescending thing you're doing - save it. It doesn't faze me.
I really couldn't care less what some liberal (by the way, I'm not one) sent you regarding Feynman (who's techniques I've used in my research, by the way) or said about evolution (which I don't use in my research and so know next to nothing about) or about AGW (which I think is a crock). Unless you are mistaking me for that liberal, it has nothing to do with our conversation.
If you want to address what I've posted to you - or any of my other posts here - and criticize those directly and in detail - I'll be more than happy to respond in kind.
trach: It's time to get your head out and realize that the scientific
community got really damn lazy some 30 years ago and has been running
on fumes ever since.
OK...? And what exactly does this have to do with whether or not ID is a scientific theory? That was the topic of discussion, right?
Hydro: And really - the
April 25, 2008 - 00:51 ET by tracheostomyHydro: And really - the whole condescending thing you're doing - save it. It doesn't faze me.
It's not meant to. It is both a genuine and honestly condescending remark on my part. Yeah, I read your previous posts, including the ones you highlighted. I'm not impressed.
Hydro: I really couldn't care less what some liberal (by the way, I'm not one)
sent you regarding Feynman (who's techniques I've used in my research,
by the way) or said about evolution (which I don't use in my research
and so know next to nothing about) or about AGW (which I think is a
crock). Unless you are mistaking me for that liberal, it has nothing to
do with our conversation.
It has everything to do with our conversation. You blow it off based on whim. I'm not mistaking you for a liberal either. I'm saying that even liberals get the concept even if they fail to apply it.
It doesn't matter if you've used Feynman's techniques. I'd be impressed if you actually got off your high horse and actually read the commencement address. It totally applies to ID.
Hydro: If you want to address what I've posted to you - or any of my other
posts here - and criticize those directly and in detail - I'll be more
than happy to respond in kind.
That's your front. It all has to be done according to your rules. I'm not gonna fall for that.
Hydro: OK...? And what exactly does this have to do with whether or not ID
is a scientific theory? That was the topic of discussion, right?
I accuse you of deliberately making it all far more complicated than it has to be. I also accuse you of padding your posts with pseudointellectual blather and endless conjecture.
The mere idea of actually debating you truly disgusts me--because you count conjecture and theory as equal to reason and confirmation. There are things that are truly knowable and we cannot simply throw it all on the pile of your pop-culture knee-jerk "not necessarily" defense. It's almost as if some here were born without any "scientific integrity" to begin with, that Feynman is talking about.
If I throw out a tried and true scientific law or measurement to back my thesis Hydro, you can cover it with a chain of endlessly inductive "what if" scenarios of your own. That's a popular tactic in the consensus science field as well. Imagination and the unverified theory trumps proof. Always. Well, it's a crock of shit.
As for what I've written about ID, it's pretty obvious as well. I don't want to repeat myself and neither do you. There's nothing to debate, because you really want your strawman of the "a priori Judeo-Christian God assumption" to remain intact. God-forbid anyone finds out that this isn't actually the case.
God-forbid Jodie Foster is cast in her next movie as a scientist searching for messages from a higher intelligence in a human genome and then has a roll in the hay with Matthew McConaughey! This is truly the most blatant form of hypocrisy I have ever seen on a global scale.
I've read Dembski's debates and I know who "wins," because inductive reasoning is the dominant thought process in the community. The part that frustrates me is that the inductive camp not only rules
by virtue of the higher population, but they love running around
and acting asinine about it. Like here.
I was just talking about people like you with a few friends of mine. My theory is that deduction was long taught as both the superior method and had the final say over a given topic.
Example #1. "All triangles have 3 sides" can be proven through deduction. There is an actual law for it.
But what if somewhere along the way, a new crop of professors came along
and dropped that little piece of vital info; making both forms of reasoning relative
to each other.
Then for the next 10 years or so, they practiced and taught everyone to defer to what was most convenient. So then we get the following. . .
Example #2. "All triangles have 3 sides" can be argued and questioned through induction as long as the one doing the arguing has whatever amount of pride or status at stake. Who knows? Maybe his tenure is under threat. So he swallows his pride, throws away his integrity, and plays the silly song and dance, "Just for the sake of discussion of course." So he'll leap into the unknown and make it work for him; make it "as if" it were a valid argument.
"Well, I'm sorry you're so narrow-minded PJ, but we have not yet observed a non-3 sided triangle, so the assertion above isn't necessarily true."
SCREW YOU PAL!!! I'm sick of this BS game!
"Evolution of the gaps" is just that. <-- You're depending on inductive reasoning to fill in the blanks, make it look good, and get another research grant. It's the best damn science fiction ever written.
"God of the gaps" when applied to ID is a straw-man argument where the dominant scientific cheats of the day are accusing Dembski and Co. of the very thing the consensus science community does themselves!
Yet information theory can be mathematically demonstrated! Language is not random, nor is there any proof that it "could be" anything else.* The argument against the actual science of irreducible complexity is so silly, that even the demonstrations of how a flagellum or a mousetrap "may have/could have evolved" are comedy bits in and of themselves.
The three main supporting theses for ID have not actually been disproven, but argued through inductive reasoning and nothing more.
This is totally boneheaded, and all you're doing Hydro, is reserving your right to cheat. Debating you is nothing more than a street corner swindle. Get back to me when you wanna compare real data. Because I got it right here. And I'm not bringing it out if I'm gonna get rolled with another bunch of endless "may have/could have" stalling tactics. As if you'd even give any of it fair consideration to begin with.
-PJ
*Dawkins weasel program was such a joke that even Dawkins abandoned it when cornered.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
tracheostomy, trach: Yeah,
April 26, 2008 - 16:57 ET by hydrodynDMtracheostomy,
trach: Yeah, I read your previous posts, including the ones you highlighted. I'm not impressed.
It wasn't meant to impress you - it was meant to back up my assertion that I don't have a "slavish devotion to inductive reasoning". Which actually seems an odd thing to accuse me of, considering your comments in this post. In the previous post, you are accusing me of being dogmatic about a certain form of reasoning and in this one, you seem to accuse me of being too relativistic and uncommitted to any form of reasoning. Which is it?
trach: It doesn't matter if you've used Feynman's techniques. I'd be impressed if you actually got off your high horse and actually read the commencement address. It totally applies to ID.
OK, I read it. And? As the person who introduced that speech into this discussion, it's up to you to explain how you think it applies to ID.
trach: That's your front. It all has to be done according to your rules. I'm not gonna fall for that.
There is no way you are saying what I think you're saying. At some point, a miscommunication must have occurred. Because otherwise, it sounds to me like what you are saying is that you aren't going to "fall for" the idea that, in a argument, it's up to each person to directly address the other person's points and either agree or explain where they think they are wrong and why.
I know this can't be what you meant since a look at your other posts above shows that that is what you have been doing. In fact, I adopted your style of quoting the other person and then responding as an acknowledgment of this.
But on the off chance that I am reading you right - that you do actually mean to say that you don't feel any obligation in an argument to actually address the other person's points - then I find it kind of coincidental that you had no problem doing just that up until the point where I asked you to explain the error in my argument that ID does assume supernatural agents and how these kinds of agents can't be dealt with in scientific models.
By the way - do you want to address either one of those points?
trach: I accuse you of deliberately making it all far more complicated than it has to be.
Hate to break it to you trach, but things are that complicated. Nothing in my posts is particularly original to me. I'm just putting out ideas that have been around for decades, or even centuries.
trach: I also accuse you of padding your posts with pseudointellectual blather and endless conjecture.
Care to give some specific examples?
trach: The mere idea of actually debating you truly disgusts me--because you count conjecture and theory as equal to reason and confirmation. There are things that are truly knowable and we cannot simply throw it all on the pile of your pop-culture knee-jerk "not necessarily" defense.
I don't recall ever equating conjecture and theory with reason and confirmation - maybe you can point out where I did that. I do, however, accuse you of equating conjecture and theory and of equating reason and confirmation by virtue of the way you constructed that first sentence.
And really? Disgusts?
As I've mentioned, nothing I've put out there is particularly original to me, or new for that matter. Read guys like Descartes, Hume, Wittgenstein and Popper and you will see what I mean - unless they are too "pop-culture knee jerk" for you.
trach: It's almost as if some here were born without any "scientific integrity" to begin with, that Feynman is talking about.
Did you actually read that commencement speech? Here, let me quote something from it that you must have missed:
Sounds to me like Feynman is advocating a "not necessarily" approach to things as a way of making sure that you don't let some unwarranted assumption slip into your theories.
And by the way - I'm not the one on the "defense" here.
The rest of your post is, quite frankly, somewhat rambling and unfocused. So I'll just comment of a few statements. If there's something that you want me to comment on that I miss, let me know.
trach: Imagination and the unverified theory trumps proof.
You do know that scientific theories can't be proven, right? Because of that whole inductive thing which you seem to think has no place in science or something.
trach: As for what I've written about ID, it's pretty obvious as well. I don't want to repeat myself and neither do you. There's nothing to debate, because you really want your strawman of the "a priori Judeo-Christian God assumption" to remain intact. God-forbid anyone finds out that this isn't actually the case.
I never said "Judeo-Christian God" - I said "supernatural agent". And you still haven't explained - in detail as opposed to just stating - what's wrong with my argument.
trach: My theory is that deduction was long taught as both the superior method and had the final say over a given topic.
Ok, I can't believe that I have to explain this to you, but you do know that within a deductive system, there are a set of statements, which are accepted as true, called axioms, right? Within science, these axiomatic statements are derived from.......... wait for it.......... induction.
As an example, take Newton's law of gravity. The formula that tells you the strength of the gravitation force between bodies was derived - not from deduction - but from experiment and inductive reasoning. Once that formula is written down in a mathematical form, then you can use deductive reasoning (basically math) to derive consequences which then can be tested to check the formula.
I'm guessing your triangle example is meant as an example of someone trying to use inductive reasoning where deductive is obviously the appropriate approach. Two observations:
1) It's interesting that you used a math example and not a scientific one.
2) Triangles don't have 3 sides by virtue of deduction - they have three sides by virtue of the definition of the word "triangle". An actual example of deduction would be something like, given the axiom of Euclidean geometry, you can show that the angles with a triangle add up to 180 degrees.
trach: "God of the gaps" when applied to ID is a straw-man argument where the dominant scientific cheats of the day are accusing Dembski and Co. of the very thing the consensus science community does themselves!
OK, so for the third or fourth time, tell me where my argument on this is wrong.
Bringing up "information theory" or suggesting that "The three main supporting theses for ID have not actually been disproven" is irrelavent to my argument. I'm not arguing the merits of ID or evolutionary theory. My point - the one you refuse or are unable to address directly - has to do with supernatural agents.
And really - your big sales pitch for ID is that its three main theses (whatever they are) have not been disproven yet? Yea, that really shows some scientific integrity there.
trach: Get back to me when you wanna compare real data. Because I got it right here.
Given how much you're jumping around, I'm not really sure what your "data" is in support of - ID, that induction is crap, that evolution is crap, that Contact was a good movie...
Let me know.
Hey!
April 26, 2008 - 17:03 ET by BlondeContact was an okay movie....
I can't believe this didn't get taken back to your forum topic, which would have saved everyone alot of arguing, I think.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, Well, it seems
April 26, 2008 - 17:11 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
Well, it seems that trach wasn't very impressed with it. He (is trach a "he"?) hasn't told be exactly why, but I'm sure he has some reasons. Maybe he'll even share them with me.
And besides, we were already here... and you know how much of a hassle moving is.
Hydro: In the previous
April 28, 2008 - 02:35 ET by tracheostomyHydro: In the previous post, you are
accusing me of being dogmatic about a certain form of reasoning and in
this one, you seem to accuse me of being too relativistic and
uncommitted to any form of reasoning. Which is it?
Whatever trick works for the moment, right? No one ever assumed you'd be consistent. Oh wait, but that would signify you were trustworthy, wouldn't it?
Hydro: OK, I read it. And? As the person who introduced that speech into
this discussion, it's up to you to explain how you think it applies to
ID.
Aaaannnd now you play dumb. You're 3 for 3 now. Keep shuckin' and jivin'.
Hydro: There is no way you are saying what I think you're saying. At some
point, a miscommunication must have occurred. Because otherwise, it
sounds to me like what you are saying is that you aren't going to "fall
for" the idea that, in a argument, it's up to each person to directly
address the other person's points and either agree or explain where
they think they are wrong and why.
Durrh, I have no idea what you could possibly be talkin' about. . .
Touche.
Hydro: I know this can't be what you meant since a look at your other posts
above shows that that is what you have been doing. In fact, I adopted
your style of quoting the other person and then responding as an
acknowledgment of this.
So?
Hydro: But on the off chance that I am reading you right - that you do
actually mean to say that you don't feel any obligation in an argument
to actually address the other person's points - then I find it kind of
coincidental that you had no problem doing just that up until the point
where I asked you to explain the error in my argument that ID does
assume supernatural agents and how these kinds of agents can't be dealt
with in scientific models.
Right. It's always the other guy's responsibility to demonstrate. Take no responsibility for yourself. Just keep passing that buck. You don't give a rip about discussion or a real search for the truth.
Hydro: Hate to break it to you trach, but things are that complicated.
Nothing in my posts is particularly original to me. I'm just putting
out ideas that have been around for decades, or even centuries.
No, they're not. Don't patronize me. Guess you missed that little snippet of Feynman's speech. Or maybe you were just skimming over it. You know, the part about explaining it to the layman. Everything you're pulling is the typical stalling BS. You may as well of held up a big neon sign with that classic, "things are that complicated" line. Wow. If you're going to keep playing stupid, ask one of your pals here to sit you down and explain it to you. It's all there in front of you.
Hydro: [Trach: I also accuse you of padding your posts with pseudointellectual blather and endless conjecture.] Care to give some specific examples?
All anyone has to do is back-track it. Either I'm lying or I'm not. I'm gambling that the casual reader isn't as lazy as you're hoping.
Hydro: I don't recall ever equating conjecture and theory with reason and
confirmation - maybe you can point out where I did that.
Of course you don't. Like you'd actually admit it. Maybe you're actually convinced that all reason begins and ends at induction.
Hydro: I do, however,
accuse you of equating conjecture and theory and of equating reason and
confirmation by virtue of the way you constructed that first sentence.
Woo. You turned the tables on me! It's the "No, you" defense. LOL!
Hydro: And really? Disgusts?
Yah rly.
Hydro: As I've mentioned, nothing I've put out there is particularly
original to me, or new for that matter. Read guys like Descartes, Hume,
Wittgenstein and Popper and you will see what I mean - unless they are
too "pop-culture knee jerk" for you.
Yeah. You're trying to "enlighten" me hyar, aren't ya?
Hydro: Did you actually read that commencement speech? Here, let me quote something from it that you must have missed:
Sounds to me like Feynman is advocating a "not necessarily" approach
to things as a way of making sure that you don't let some unwarranted
assumption slip into your theories.
You first. Oh, by the way. He's talking about your theories. We're kinda waiting for you to actually do that. Why? Oh, because your theories came first. But nice cherrypick there regardless. Impressed.
Hydro: The rest of your post is, quite frankly, somewhat rambling and
unfocused. So I'll just comment of a few statements. If there's
something that you want me to comment on that I miss, let me know.
More patronization. Gawh, you're so deep.
Hydro: You do know that scientific theories can't be proven, right? Because
of that whole inductive thing which you seem to think has no place in
science or something.
Bingo. Gotta frame this statement. I so had you pegged at that old thread.
Hydro: I never said "Judeo-Christian God" - I said "supernatural agent".
And you still haven't explained - in detail as opposed to just stating
- what's wrong with my argument.
I can't. You can always make up an "out" like I said. What's so hard about that? There is no real truth. Just stretch induction out to its extremes, act as if the problem of induction is merely the annoyance you're convinced it is, and keep plugging away with your big cheat. Hey, whatever wins the debate, right? You don't even have a conscience to bother you about it to begin with anyway, right?
Hydro: Ok, I can't believe that I have to explain this to you, but you do
know that within a deductive system, there are a set of statements,
which are accepted as true, called axioms, right? Within science, these
axiomatic statements are derived from.......... wait for it..........
induction.
Ok, I can't believe that I have to explain this to you, but you do
know that you're assuming that above statement includes everything known. You're proposing that everything that was ever discovered was through induction. Oh wait. But I'm the idiot? Stop patronizing me and think outside your little ivory tower for 2 seconds.
Hydro: As an example, take Newton's law of gravity. The formula that tells
you the strength of the gravitation force between bodies was derived -
not from deduction - but from experiment and inductive reasoning. Once
that formula is written down in a mathematical form, then you can use
deductive reasoning (basically math) to derive consequences which then
can be tested to check the formula.
But it's not really a "law" because according to you, this so-called "law" is only accepted as true. I could argue and stall you about the law of gravity all day long. I could keep pushing you down all week with any assortment of stuck-up; arbitrary "say so" arguments on my part. Heck, I bet I could get some university professors to even back me up.
Hydro: I'm guessing your triangle example is meant as an example of someone
trying to use inductive reasoning where deductive is obviously the
appropriate approach. Two observations: 1) It's interesting that you used a math example and not a scientific one.
I find it equally interesting how you're so damn quick to separate the two. You ever think it was deliberate on my part? Oh yeah. Someone's misunderestimating me.
Hydro: 2) Triangles don't have 3 sides by virtue of deduction - they have
three sides by virtue of the definition of the word "triangle".
Hold up. I'm still LMAO right now. This right here sums it all up. Beautiful.
Hydro: An
actual example of deduction would be something like, given the axiom of
Euclidean geometry, you can show that the angles with a triangle add up
to 180 degrees.
Nope! Ok, I can't believe that I have to explain this to you, but you do
know that within a deductive system, there are a set of statements,
which are accepted as true, called axioms, right? You used the Euclidean axiom as an example of deduction to show. . .what? What? Something called a "triangle." But wait. That's how you shot my argument down. Because according to you, triangles don't have 3 sides by virtue of deduction - they have three sides by virtue of the definition of the word "triangle".
Therefore, you can't use the word "triangle" either. You looped it because you thought you could play some semantical BS.
But now no one knows who's telling the truth. And that's the way you wanna keep it. Obscure it. Complicate it. Keep it inconsistent so they have to dig to show the cheat up. God forbid you'd ever demystify it for the layman.
Hydro: OK, so for the third or fourth time, tell me where my argument on this is wrong.
Nope. I'll gladly give you the "win" here. And based on this drivel above. I'm doubly relieved you didn't sucker me.
Hydro: Bringing up "information theory" or suggesting that "The three main
supporting theses for ID have not actually been disproven" is
irrelavent to my argument.
Of course. Nothing to look into there. Don't be curious about that.
Hydro: I'm not arguing the merits of ID or
evolutionary theory. My point - the one you refuse or are unable to
address directly - has to do with supernatural agents.
Exactly which supernatural agent are you referring to again? You're reading this post. How can you be 100% absolutely sure another human being actually wrote it? Oh come on now. Don't be silly. Your system of reason states that the chance absolutely must be given serious consideration of the possibility that this very post is a random error or glitch in the system. According to your system of reasoning, neither you, nor science has scientific capacity or the tools to determine if this post was really designed by an intelligent being.
And if anyone tried to convince you that it was, you can accuse them of having the most unscientific and irrational fantasies imaginable. It's all because you're just surrounded by a bunch of knuckle-dragging morons, right?
Hydro: And really - your big sales pitch for ID is that its three main
theses (whatever they are) have not been disproven yet? Yea, that
really shows some scientific integrity there.
Is this the part where I tell you to read a book? Oh wait, maybe I made the whole thing up. Yeah. That's much more comfortable than verifying it yourself. Just sit on your ass and make everyone else do it while you patronize them.
Hydro: Let me know.
Yes massuh. Right away suh!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
tracheostomy, Since most
May 1, 2008 - 15:15 ET by hydrodynDMtracheostomy,
Since most of your comments to my previous post are little more than snide, personal insults, I’ll only comment on some of them.
trach: Right. It's always the other guy's responsibility to demonstrate. Take no responsibility for yourself. Just keep passing that buck. You don't give a rip about discussion or a real search for the truth.
Go back and look at my posts. I’ve made an effort to respond to your comments and I have made arguments to back up my positions. You seem unwilling to do the same and when I ask you to elaborate, you accuse me of somehow “passing the buck”?
trach: No, they're not. Don't patronize me. Guess you missed that little snippet of Feynman's speech. Or maybe you were just skimming over it. You know, the part about explaining it to the layman. Everything you're pulling is the typical stalling BS.
So just to get this straight - when I bring up people like Hume and Descartes, I’m stalling. When you bring up Feynman, not only is it up to me to read and interpret his words, but when I ask you to explain why you brought up his commencement speech, you refuse to elaborate and you accuse me of playing dumb. You’re a hypocrite.
trach: All anyone has to do is back-track it. Either I'm lying or I'm not. I'm gambling that the casual reader isn't as lazy as you're hoping.
So, in other words, you either can’t or you are the one too lazy to go back over my posts to find an example. Another example of hypocrisy?
trach: Bingo. Gotta frame this statement. I so had you pegged at that old thread.
I’m glad you have found something that you think is worthy of framing. Of course, you could have just look up something called the “Problem of Induction” – a topic that’s been discussed for over 200 years – and discovered it for yourself.
trach: I can't. You can always make up an "out" like I said. What's so hard about that? There is no real truth. Just stretch induction out to its extremes, act as if the problem of induction is merely the annoyance you're convinced it is, and keep plugging away with your big cheat. Hey, whatever wins the debate, right?
Finally, you admit that you can’t address my argument. Was that so hard? You could have said that at the start and saved us the trouble. Of course, your excuse for why you can’t – because I’m just oh so tricky in the way I argue points – you know, by bringing up points that have been around forever and that have been discussed by some of the most respected western philosophers – is laughable.
trach: You're proposing that everything that was ever discovered was through induction. Oh wait. But I'm the idiot? Stop patronizing me and think outside your little ivory tower for 2 seconds.
I never said that everything ever discovered is via induction. Quote me where I did.
Although my personal ideas of the origin of knowledge is pretty basic (compared to those who think about it a lot), I do think there are different kinds of knowledge along the lines of the “a priori” vs. “a posteriori” and “synthetic” vs. “analytic” lines.
trach: But it's not really a "law" because according to you, this so-called "law" is only accepted as true.
You’re quibbling about the meaning or use of the word “law”. You’re kidding, right?
trach: I could argue and stall you about the law of gravity all day long.
Which one – Newton’s, Einstein’s or Quantum Gravity? Despite your use of the definite article, I’m sure you know there’s more than one gravitational law around, right?
trach: I find it equally interesting how you're so damn quick to separate the two. You ever think it was deliberate on my part? Oh yeah. Someone's misunderestimating me.
Would you care to elaborate on what you mean? Oh, wait. No you won’t because somehow, me asking you to explain what you meant in your post is some sort of stalling tactic or an example of me playing dumb.
trach: You used the Euclidean axiom as an example of deduction to show. . .what? What? Something called a "triangle." But wait. That's how you shot my argument down. Because according to you, triangles don't have 3 sides by virtue of deduction - they have three sides by virtue of the definition of the word "triangle".
Therefore, you can't use the word "triangle" either. You looped it because you thought you could play some semantical BS.
I didn’t use deductive reasoning at all. I gave you an example of the kind of thing you could derive by using deductive reasoning. So I really have no idea what your point is here. Your suggestion that somehow I’m using circular reasoning (I’m guessing that’s what you mean by “looped”) because I’m using a definition? Again, I totally don’t get what you are saying. I would ask you to explain, but I know you won’t.
Look, if you honestly don’t get that a triangle is defined as having three sides – that a triangle has to be shown to have three sides via some deductive argument – ok, there’s one easy way for you to show me I’m wrong. Give me that deductive argument. Provide a link or a reference for that argument.
I find it somewhat shocking that you are arguing about thinks like deduction and induction when it’s clear that you really don’t understand what these words mean.
trach: Exactly which supernatural agent are you referring to again? You're reading this post. How can you be 100% absolutely sure another human being actually wrote it? Oh come on now. Don't be silly. Your system of reason states that the chance absolutely must be given serious consideration of the possibility that this very post is a random error or glitch in the system. According to your system of reasoning, neither you, nor science has scientific capacity or the tools to determine if this post was really designed by an intelligent being.
No, my “system of reasons” requires no such thing. The obvious answer is that a human wrote it since typing something on a website is the kind of thing a human is capable of and since I’m not obligated to view humans as supernatural agents, there’s no problem from my end. You, however, are obligated to accept supernatural agents since you are attributing the origin of life and/or the universe to a designer. But there I go again – giving you an argument thinking you will actually address it. I should know better by now.
trach: Yes massuh. Right away suh!
Wasn’t it you who said in your previous post: “Get back to me when you wanna compare real data.”? OK, so I got back to you with a request for some “real data”. I guess you were just joshin’.
Hydro: Go back and look at
May 2, 2008 - 15:49 ET by tracheostomyHydro: Go back and look at my posts. I’ve made an effort to respond to your
comments and I have made arguments to back up my positions. You seem
unwilling to do the same and when I ask you to elaborate, you accuse me
of somehow “passing the buck”?
Ah, yep. Pretty much. We pointed the way to our evidence and you assert it's just not there. Cheap tactics. Old tactics. We're all pretty tired of it by now. Like you're the first to pull this crap.
Hydro: So just to get this straight - when I bring up people like Hume and
Descartes, I’m stalling.
Should have said "faking" actually. I was playing nice. A little research reveals much.
Hydro: When you bring up Feynman, not only is it up
to me to read and interpret his words, but when I ask you to explain
why you brought up his commencement speech, you refuse to elaborate and
you accuse me of playing dumb. You’re a hypocrite.
No. Because you're not actually reading it. Either you're skimming or cherry-picking, but you just don't get it. Your asking "why" gave this away. It's right there in the text if you actually bothered to read it. Michael Crichton (another scientist no one wants to regard) wrote a great speech about consensus science based on Feynman's work.
Hydro: So, in other words, you either can’t or you are the one too lazy to go
back over my posts to find an example. Another example of hypocrisy?
Or maybe I don't wish to de-rail the thread by arguing to the person? *nudge* And yeah. As of right now, I actually am demonstrating two cases of this. See elsewhere on this thread, or play stupid again. It's all up to you.
You're stalling the thread by (1.) denying ID with varied "nuh-uh" statements, instead of showing the actual science that has demonstrated against it. The bacterial flagellum is a great one for example.
You're stalling the thread by (2.) arguing to the person. You can get the whole thing moving again super-easy by taking it off "us" and moving it back on-topic. The problem though, is you'd have to actually bring something specific to the table. I don't think you can. So you're stuck with regurgitating the same "it's just not there" statements over and over.
Hydro: I’m glad you have found something that you think is worthy of
framing. Of course, you could have just look up something called the
“Problem of Induction” – a topic that’s been discussed for over 200
years – and discovered it for yourself.
You seem to have no clue that I actually mentioned it in the same thread. Are you skimming again? This statement assumes I've never heard of it previous to this exchange. But I mention it in the same thread.
And yet somehow, the problem of induction is not a problem for you Hydro. You can work with Hume regardless of his little problem; almost as if you had some licence to completely disregard it yourself. Why don't you just chuck it in favor of deduction and stop stalling?
Oh wait. You can't. Because you stated: "You do know that scientific theories can't be proven, right? Because of that whole inductive thing which you seem to think has no place in science or something."
BEHOLD, ANOTHER PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!!!
And you'll just keep stalling with this crap until your opponents get tired out.
Hydro: Finally, you admit that you can’t address my argument. Was that so
hard? You could have said that at the start and saved us the trouble.
Of course, your excuse for why you can’t – because I’m just oh so
tricky in the way I argue points – you know, by bringing up points that
have been around forever and that have been discussed by some of the
most respected western philosophers – is laughable.
So then stop fronting with Hume as if his reasoning were valid, okay?
If some of the most respected Western philosophers have hit a 3-way dead end with it, you know you've lost clear direction and you really do have nothing to debate with in the first place. Even the very method of discussion you're utilizing is broken in 3 pieces with no way to put it back together. Get it? That's all I'm saying. Sure, it'll get you a lot of mileage with the college girls at your local Starbucks, but not here.
Hydro: I never said that everything ever discovered is via induction. Quote me where I did.
See above. My conclusions come from your arbitrary removal and disregard for deduction in favor of hyper-induction. You assert, "scientific theories can't be proven." Surely you didn't mean all scientific theories now, did you? *pulling on crowbar* C'mon. . .give just a little!
Hydro: Although my personal ideas of the origin of knowledge is pretty
basic (compared to those who think about it a lot), I do think there
are different kinds of knowledge along the lines of the “a priori” vs.
“a posteriori” and “synthetic” vs. “analytic” lines.
So the problem of induction isn't a problem for you, rrriight???
Hydro: You’re quibbling about the meaning or use of the word “law”. You’re kidding, right?
No. I'm dead serious. And you're stalling again by calling it a mere "quibble." See above. I'm not the one asserting, "scientific theories can't be proven." If they can't be proven, then in the end there are no true laws of nature, logic, or motion that we can build new theories upon, and all of this discussion is just empty chatter.
Hydro: Which one – Newton’s, Einstein’s or Quantum Gravity? Despite your
use of the definite article, I’m sure you know there’s more than one
gravitational law around, right?
You're fronting again. And stalling. Even though I am not a physicist, I do know that there cannot be three dominating gravitational laws at the same time and in the same place. One could be disproven or added to, and the other could still be a hypothetical "law." How do you know for sure?
Hydro: Would you care to elaborate on what you mean? Oh, wait. No you won’t
because somehow, me asking you to explain what you meant in your post
is some sort of stalling tactic or an example of me playing dumb.
I'm very clear and you stall by asking to elaborate. Did I stutter? I said I found it equally interesting how you're so damn quick to separate [math and science]. As if science were. . .wait-wait, what did you say again? Oh yeah, "scientific theories can't be proven." So math would necessarily have to be exiled to a separate camp, wouldn't it?
It's all starting to add up.
Hydro: I didn’t use deductive reasoning at all. [Then I don't have to regard it then, do I? -PJ]
I gave you an example of the kind of thing you could derive by using deductive reasoning. So I really have no idea what your point is here.
It's not deductive because you balked at the definition of triangle. And BTW, Descartes did it first. But you didn't recognize it.
Hydro: Your suggestion that
somehow I’m using circular reasoning (I’m guessing that’s what you mean
by “looped”) because I’m using a definition? Again, I totally don’t get
what you are saying. I would ask you to explain, but I know you won’t.
You haven't known me very long. This is a prime example of violation of an ethic in reasoning. You're not coming across as honest at all.
Hydro: I find it somewhat shocking that you are arguing about thinks like
deduction and induction when it’s clear that you really don’t
understand what these words mean.
That's right. Don't let anyone here try to de-mystify it for others. After all, that's how you keep your intellectual front. Thanks for not bothering to define it for the layman either. This is another classic example of the ethic that Feyman was talking about.
Hydro: No, my “system of reasons” requires no such thing. The obvious
answer is that a human wrote it since typing something on a website is
the kind of thing a human is capable of. . .
You have no proof of how that is as "obvious" as you state. You "just don't." Sure, it's obvious to you because of your a priori assumptions and beliefs that other people truly exist. According to your standard of proof, you cannot state what is obvious and what isn't. You're keeping the bar low on one intelligence and raising the bar on another.
Hydro: . . .and since I’m not obligated to
view humans as supernatural agents, there’s no problem from my end.
Yes there is. Because you inserted "supernatural agent," wheras the definition of such a thing is varied and ambiguous. A much better term would be "intelligent designer." This is a term that is much more narrow in scope.
Hydro: You, however, are obligated to accept supernatural agents since you are
attributing the origin of life and/or the universe to a designer. But
there I go again – giving you an argument thinking you will actually
address it. I should know better by now.
You sure assume a lot. You yourself just asserted how obvious it was that there was an intelligent designer behind the language in a post on the NB forums. It was a valid leading argument. But you refuse to see the "design" in other objects and willfully distort what we know of the nature of the designer by throwing Him, Her, It, or whatever into vague "supernaturalism."
Me: Intelligent design by man = an intelligent designer of design itself. <-- somewhat obvious and painfully redundant to boot.
You: Intelligent design by man = man designs only, or chance designs, or anything else designs other than a designer because "designer" absolutely has to be a supernatural agent. <-- The absurdity of this abounds.
Hydro: Wasn’t it you who said in your previous post: “Get back to me when
you wanna compare real data.”? OK, so I got back to you with a request
for some “real data”. I guess you were just joshin’.
No-no. You're doing it again. Hydro's game is the same as Syrius and Cleverpig. It is fundamentally dishonest on your part, unreasonable, and purely a waste of time.
Hyperskeptic: I don't believe X statement.
X-proponent: I do.
Hyperskeptic: There is no evidence to support it.
X-proponent: You're refusing to look.
Hyperskeptic: Bring it to me.
X-proponent: I resent having to spoon feed it to you, but. . .here you go. (provides links, names, dates, experiments, etc.)
Hyperskeptic: This is not evidence.
X-proponent: Only on your say-so. Your standard of evidence fluctuates and is dishonest.
Hyperskeptic: Ha-ha. Prove it.
X-proponent: Where's your counter-argument to my evidence?
Hyperskeptic: My counter-argument is that it is based on X-fallacy.
X-proponent: I have demonstrated that your fallacy is a substitute for the evidence we endorse. You simply refuse to see the evidence for what it is.
Hyperskeptic: Because you want me to embrace X-fallacy!
X-proponent: What a waste of time this is.
Hyperskeptic: Ha-ha.
*finis*
So I repeat, get back to me when
you wanna compare real data.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Another clear example of Hydro's, "do as I say, not as I do."
April 28, 2008 - 04:56 ET by tracheostomyHydro: As I've mentioned, nothing I've put out there is particularly original to me, or new for that matter. Read guys like Descartes. . .
And you can just stop right there Honey.
While you were doing all the egotistical name dropping, you completely violated rule #3 of 21, especially the fine print*.
By virtue of that alone, I cannot trust you. And I have no idea why anyone else would either.
-PJ
*What on earth could I possibly be talking about?
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
tracheostomy, If you think
May 1, 2008 - 15:24 ET by hydrodynDMtracheostomy,
If you think you are being cute or clever by making cryptic references, you’re not.
I mention people like Descartes and Hume and I’m an “egotistical” name dropper, but when you mention people like Feynman and Dembski, you’re not?
Care to explain that one to me?
hi Hydro,& NBers go see movie eXpelled no intelligence allowed
May 2, 2008 - 00:17 ET by upcountrywaterMore freedom in Poland than here.. It's not what you think it's about.. worth a view , really..
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
Hydro: If you think you
May 2, 2008 - 14:15 ET by tracheostomyHydro: If you think you are being cute or clever by making cryptic references, you’re not.
There's nothing cryptic about it. I gave you the exact reference! Now you're just playing stupid. You're ignoring rule #3 of 21 while endorsing the author of it.
Hydro: I mention people like Descartes and Hume and I’m an “egotistical”
name dropper, but when you mention people like Feynman and Dembski,
you’re not?
Care to explain that one to me?
Sure, no problem. Simple enough. Wow, I thought you'd figure it out on your own. If you're going to name-drop an author, it's assumed you're endorsing them (which you were). But then you would have had to have read them first, right?
I've read a couple works each of the 3 out of 4 names you've dropped there, and I'll be starting on #4 this week, not counting the basic primer on Hume I'm leafing through right now.
So let's quit the pseudointellectual fronting and get down to the facts these people discussed, instead of just name-dropping to look kewl.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07