Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth

[hrmwrm]

First, you are oversimplifying Dembski's claim and effectively mischaracterizing it. Here is what Dembski himself has said concerning his explanatory filter:

...it is not just the sheer improbability of an event, but also the conformity of the event to a pattern, that leads us to look beyond chance to explain the event.​

And even when you can rule out chance, you still also have to rule out natural regularity to be able to infer intelligent design. Only when an something is improbable, conforms to a specific, and cannot be plausibly attributed to natural regularity is design able to be logically inferred.

And that same logic is not "absurd" when it is used in other scientific endeavors, such as forensic sciences, archeology, cryptanalysis, etc. Why is the application of the same logic and processes used to infer intelligent design in other scientific endeavors, absurd when it is applied to the idea of speciation?



How? It is easy to label it as such, but without specifics, that critique is without substance and worthless.

Since you don't give any specifics, I am left to assume what you are talking about. Given the review by Pigliucci of Dembski's book that you cite in the "wall 'o' text" post you are spamming, I am assum you are talking about this line:

Although Dembski cloaks his logic with semi-obscure (and totally useless in practice) pseudo-mathematical jargon and symbolism, the essence of his argument is easy to understand.​

Maybe this passage from that rebuttal of Pigliucci's review that I posted would help clarify:

Pigliucci, in fact, makes only one criticism which is directed at the actual content of The Design Inference. It is that Dembski "cloak his logic with semi-obscure (and totally useless in practice) pseudo-mathematical jargon and symbolism." Presumably the bulk of the book (for instance, the demonstration of Caputo's rigging) is trivial and obfuscates with jargon that which should just be left to common sense. I have heard many of my students make similar criticisms of formal logic. They simply do not appreciate the importance of attempting to make precise and set on a rigorous foundation patterns of reasoning which appear common-sensical. Pigliucci fails to appreciate Dembski's attempt to do the same for the patterns of reasoning we employ when we attempt to discern whether an intelligent agent is responsible for certain phenomena we observe. Dembski's attempt may or may not fail (I am agnostic here) but his project is neither trivial, nor a gratuitous (or "pseudo") use of mathematical symbolism.​

Now this is nothing more then a red herring aimed at misdirection to set up a straw man. Dembski is not arguing that the present is not here. Demski is only concerned with weather the event in question occurred through chance, natural regularity or intelligent design. the improbability of something occurring is very relevant in determining from which of those processes the event occurred. It is only irrelevant if you are not interested in determining that; possibly simply wanting to assume that it is due to natural causes and leave it at that (speculation).



What "problem of induction"? All science is built on induction. To draw a conclusion from observed events (empirical research) is to use inductive reasoning.

You are actually attempting to justify trashing Dembski?! That is very telling.

FYI; his claims are only "extraordinary" if you have a prejudice against them. And, either way, that doesn't justify trashing him. But it would justify that prejudice

And that is what seems to be the case for you. Considering both the post you are spamming, the fact that you are mischaracterizing Dembski in this post (either intentionally, or due to a lack of understanding due to a lack of consideration of his ideas on your part), this...



...your blatant attempt to poison the well by smearing anyone who would "take him [Dembski] at his word" and the fact that you are making superficial smears of his idea (calling it "absurd" and a "a mathematical trick") in what appears to be another attempt to poison the well it seems that you have a prejudice against Dembski's ideas and are unwilling to consider them. Your understanding of his work only seems to come from people decidedly hostile to, and contemptuous of his work, suggesting an attempt to rationalize an out-of-hand dismissal of Dembski's work.

more specifically this point.

""For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable."
"Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact. "

or this one

In other places, Dembski fails to take up the arguments of critics, as in Dembski's mischaracterization of a program written by Richard Dawkins. Two out of three of the steps that Dembski says characterize the program are, in fact, Dembski's own invention, appearing nowhere in Dawkins's work. The sad thing is that criticism of precisely this point was made by me in email to Dembski back in October of 2000. It would have been easy for Dembski to fix, but it did not happen.

We have interpreted the Filter as sometimes recommending that you should accept
Regularity or Chance. This is supported, for example, by Dembski’s remark that “if E
happens to be an HP [a high probability] event, we stop and attribute E to a regularity.”
However, some of the circumlocutions that Dembski uses suggest that he doesn't think you
should ever “accept” Regularity or Chance.2 The most you should do is “not reject” them.
Under this alternative interpretation, Dembski is saying that if you fail to reject Regularity, you
can believe any of the three hypotheses, or remain agnostic about all three. And if you reject
Regularity, but fail to reject Chance, you can believe either Chance or Design, or remain agnostic
about them both. Only if you have rejected Regularity and Chance must you accept one of the
three, namely Design. Construed in this way, a person who believes that every event is the result
of Design has nothing to fear from the Explanatory Filter -- no evidence can ever dislodge that
opinion."

scientifically, he's a charlatan. you have to be scientifically illiterate or ignorant to believe his claims. i'm not poisoning the well on him. he's done that by himself. just take a look at the accredation of his critics as compared to himself. i think you'll see who's more believable.

my last word on id. it's been discussed and proven to be just another way of trying to put a "creator" into science.
science doesn't state if there is/isn't a creator. it just doesn't use it as an answer to understanding nstural events.
to just say "god did it" answers nothing.
and id creates no answers, only questions that it is incapable of answering.
it's nothing more than an attempt to return to the days before gallileo.
the only ones who cheer it are fundamentalists. which is actually funny.
if like you say shag, that the fossil record can be used to also promote id, and life starting at different intervals which is clear in the fossil record, that smacks in the face of genesis of life created all at once.
which is why i wonder why fossten is such a proponent of id. it would still shoot down the story of genesis.

 

[Marcus]

It is faith based. Underneath ID is a dirty little secret - it isn't about aliens directing the creation of humankind, it is about a divine entity - it is a way to get 'God' reintroduced into the fabric of our 'being'.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? Or simply conjecture in an attempt to rationalize your obvious prejudice? You are making assumptions with no logical basis in any facts.

ID is no more an attempt to "reintroduce God" then Darwinism is meant to promote Atheism.

Well, this little tidbit from one of your favorite authors and leading ID "researcher", Jonathan Wells, certainly looks that way:

At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.​

Can we please quit pretending that ID is anything other than a repackaged form of creationism? While it claims to not care who or what the "designer" is, once you work backwards logically, it can ONLY begin with a supernatural creator. That is, if we are indeed the result of an intelligence of some sort, then how did the designer come into being? Was "it" designed by an even more intelligent designer? If so, who designed it? And so on... After all, if you're going to demand an explanation of how life first came into being according to abiogenesis (despite the fact that it's irrelevant to evolutionary theory), it's only fair that you come clean on where the designer came from.

I really REALLY wish I could address all the red herrings and straw men arguments posted here but it would take hours to compose. This little vid does a fair job of addressing a few of them. Not that I expect it to change anyone's mind. That's a given. But even if you find it completely unconvincing, at least enjoy the music. Be sure to click the HQ button for the best sound.
YouTube - Top 10 List Why Anti-Evolutionists are WRONG

ID is, and can only be, a solution in search of a problem. As much as you (Shag) want to make it out to be some sort of objective alternative to evolution, the best it can do is to attempt to fill in the existing gaps in our knowledge (God of the gaps). This is, and always has been, a VERY risky strategy, because as our knowledge expands, it threatens to encroach on those areas ID purports to explain. Galileo anyone?

You decry the fact that evolutionary theory depends entirely on "methodological naturalism", yet you ignore the fact that biology, among others, is one of the natural sciences! There is no alternative but to use methodological naturalism! To accept supernatural causes as an explanation for what we don't (yet) understand effectively puts a stop to any further research. Or if we don't stop, we're forced to keep moving the goalpost as we learn more. It redefines science into pseudo-science. And that's not a reliable way to expand our knowledge.

But here's the thing: So far, supernatural forces are not needed as an explanation! The basic ideas of evolutionary theory have worked perfectly for everything we have discovered so far. Or more properly, the evidence has so far backed up evolutionary theory without exception, and there has been no evidence that it is wrong. And make no mistake, there are PLENTY of things that could nullify evolution as a valid theory. For example, the video mentions finding a pre-cambrian chicken. We have never found one. The fossil record has been perfectly consistent on this. The red herrings that Fossten constantly bring up are just that: red herrings and straw men.

Rather than going down that path again (boring, and the sources are out there for all to see), I'd like to hear some answers from Foss on these questions: If God created the universe, the earth, and every living creature exactly as described in Genesis, then why does the evidence overwhelmingly point to a long, slow evolution of stars, galaxies and ultimately life over billions of years? Is God trying to trick us? Is this a test of our faith? And simply saying that scientists have misinterpreted the data is a cop out. Evolutionary theory is far from the only scientific principle that says the earth is very old. The conclusions of cosmology, atomic theory, geology, to name a few, are all perfectly consistent when it comes to saying that the universe is billions of years old. How can this be explained?

I'll give you my answer. I believe in God, though certainly not in the way that would be acceptable to you, Foss. I just don't believe the Bible was ever meant to be a scientific textbook. I struggle with reconciling my faith and my rational mind every day. But I don't believe God had any intention of deceiving us. Rather than finding scientific discoveries at odds with God's plan, I see them as revealing it!

 

[fossten]

And I just find it interesting - family history - why people end up the way they are - random events, leading to where they are today - and shaping how they view life. How they have evolved. And the fact that viewpoints regarding faith are very much related to personal history.

No you don't. You were trying to point out what you thought were inconsistencies in things that we had said. Now you're backpedaling, and you still haven't responded to what I said. Keep up the dishonesty, it becomes you in the eyes of the weak minded.

 

[fossten]

Rather than going down that path again (boring, and the sources are out there for all to see), I'd like to hear some answers from Foss on these questions: If God created the universe, the earth, and every living creature exactly as described in Genesis, then why does the evidence overwhelmingly point to a long, slow evolution of stars, galaxies and ultimately life over billions of years? Is God trying to trick us? Is this a test of our faith? And simply saying that scientists have misinterpreted the data is a cop out. Evolutionary theory is far from the only scientific principle that says the earth is very old. The conclusions of cosmology, atomic theory, geology, to name a few, are all perfectly consistent when it comes to saying that the universe is billions of years old. How can this be explained?

Study the movement of the galaxies and extrapolate their movement backwards billions of years. According to evolutionary timelines, they would have not moved the distances they've moved. In response to this problem, evolutionary 'scientists' just made up a theory to explain it.

I'll give you my answer. I believe in God, though certainly not in the way that would be acceptable to you, Foss. I just don't believe the Bible was ever meant to be a scientific textbook. I struggle with reconciling my faith and my rational mind every day. But I don't believe God had any intention of deceiving us. Rather than finding scientific discoveries at odds with God's plan, I see them as revealing it!

The Bible isn't a scientific textbook. It is, however, scientifically accurate. I'd be curious to hear which specific things cause you to struggle with reconciling your faith and your reason. I haven't had those struggles. But I guess that's why it's called faith.

 

[Marcus]

Study the movement of the galaxies and extrapolate their movement backwards billions of years. According to evolutionary timelines, they would have not moved the distances they've moved. In response to this problem, evolutionary 'scientists' just made up a theory to explain it.

If you're talking about the "horizon problem" and so-called inflationary theory, then I agree. It's a convenient solution, but completely contrived and has little evidence to back it up. I don't accept it. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolutionary 'scientists', as you put it, aren't interested in the Big Bang. That's the job of cosmologists.

BTW, nice sig picture.

 

[Calabrio]

Creationism and ID are NOT the same.
ID is not a theological theory.

And neither argue that evolution doesn't exist, merely that random evolution isn't the origin of all life and species on earth.

And only creationism states what started the universe and life.

 

[Marcus]

Creationism and ID are NOT the same.
ID is not a theological theory.

And neither argue that evolution doesn't exist, merely that random evolution isn't the origin of all life and species on earth.

And only creationism states what started the universe and life.

ID was invented as a direct response to the courts saying creationism couldn't be taught in schools because creationism is theological. It is dishonest to deny that.

And both do indeed rely entirely on denying evolution. That creationism denies it is obvious. And the ONLY way for ID to be correct, it must eliminate evolution as a cause. Even if we pretend that ID's sole purpose isn't to attack evolution, it does, by definition, need to eliminate all natural explanations before it can be accepted. In other words, it depends solely on a negative proof (no natural causes, known or unknown, can explain the evidence). It offers no mechanism whatsoever for testing the theory on a positive basis. It makes no predictions, nor does it offer any way to falsify it, cornerstones of any valid scientific theory.

Oh sure, creationism and ID both concede that life "changes over time", because it's impossible to deny. But they're the one's who equivocate over definitions like "evolution" and "adaptation", despite the fact that adaptation is in fact a subset (or a direct result) of evolution. They accept that a wolf can be bred into a dog, but demand to see a tortoise turn into a giraffe, something which would be clear proof of a miracle and that evolution is wrong.

And let's get something else clear: Evolution is NOT random. The only part of evolution which is random is mutation. Natural selection, the driving force behind evolution, is anything BUT random.

People read or hear the word "mutation" and envision two-headed cows and whatnot. That is not what we're talking about here. Random genetic mutation is common! It's just that 99% of the time, it has no effect whatsoever (it is neutral). And when it does have an effect, it's almost always minor. If the mutation is harmful, it likely won't get passed on to the next generation. However, if the mutation is beneficial (or neutral), it has a better chance of getting passed on to the offspring. Again, and this is very important, the change is very likely small. But since it gets passed on, the following generations keep that beneficial mutation. More tiny mutations build up over the generations, some building on the original mutation, some are new. But the beneficial mutations always have a better chance to get passed on than the harmful ones. So inheritance of beneficial traits is absolutely NOT random. Tiny changes over short time build up into large changes over a long time. You do not see large changes over a short time, which is what creationists demand to see.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag - just because ID is riding the coattails of evolution should be a 'red light' to anyone who understands the science of evolution. Evolution stands on its own, without the mysticism of some odd designer that creates our destiny. Complexity isn't the result of some intelligence that has designed it to be that way.

Every time science makes another discovery regarding evolution - what happens to your ID theory? It gets 'disproven' bit by bit. Just as the story of creation was 'disproven' by the introduction of evolutionary theory. Why place a faith based belief under the microscope of science? If you told me it was your belief that God (or intelligent designer) sent us down this path, I would respect you, and your belief. The fact you drag this through the rigors of scientific proof is ridiculous. It is terrible science. It is basically saying - if we don't understand what happens here at this point in evolution, it must be because a 'intelligent designer' stepped in and guided us down this path. We would still be in the dark ages shag if science accepted that flawed logic.

Why ID? ID is a way to place man in God's image. You use the 'in God's image' reasoning a lot Shag in various threads, do you need to prove it with pseudo science?

Could ID be about aliens? Of course ID isn't about aliens - because if it was found to be that aliens planted the seed of mankind - who planted the seed to start the aliens? Why, God of course... Any discussion of ID goes back to divine intervention.

So, if it wasn't 'God', then what was it Shag? And doesn't every answer you give eventually led back to 'God'? Give me one that doesn't.

ID is only about God...

ID is bad science...
ID claims there is a 'designer.' Designer is never defined, nor are there any experiments that independently confirm the existence of such a designer or tell us something about that designer - there is no way to confirm the existence of that 'designer' other than by speculation, not science or scientific process.

ID is just speculating about things that can't possibly be confirmed or verified; it isn't science. Science is discovery, ID is just wishful thinking. Belief in such things is religion, not science.

My science is based in reality, it is ID that is based in some blind belief system that is not based in reality. Shag - you want faith based theories to hold the same place in the classroom as scientific process.

You don't understand that in science it is OK to state - 'we don't understand that yet' - you want to instead fill the holes with intelligent design and call it science. It isn't science, it is constantly being challenged and disproved. With every discovery, evolution takes steps forward, while ID loses ground. Just as creationism did in the past. It is why when a discovery such as Ida - on the 'missing link' thread comes up, people like Foss are quick to jump on it as 'phony'. IDer's know that continuing scientific discoveries push their 'science' further and further onto the back shelf of disproved theories, and shows what ID really is, religion disguised as science.

ID is bad science - and if you can't see that, then you are the one being obtuse, and this is a waste of time discussing this with you.

And thank you for once again labeling me as dishonest - I had been absent for a short time, how quickly you have reminded me why...

Oh, Marcus - evolution is 'random' - not in the type of randomness that constitutes a coin toss - that is totally different. It is just one of a myriad of reasons why there is no science behind ID. ID tries to look at the randomness of evolution and create direction - 'why end up at this human form?' There isn't any need to do that. That is what shag, foss and others of their ilk just don't understand. It is the story of the blind man and the skyscraper. Shag said he understood it - but obviously he doesn't...

The existence of the universe, and the nature of things in it, provide no evidence whatsoever for or against anything beyond, before, or transcending the universe.
Donald E. Simanek

 

[foxpaws]

No you don't. You were trying to point out what you thought were inconsistencies in things that we had said. Now you're backpedaling, and you still haven't responded to what I said. Keep up the dishonesty, it becomes you in the eyes of the weak minded.

Paritally, I was Foss - because I find it fascinating when people come up with past histories that fall in line with a discussion. I gave you an opportunity to clear it up, unlike what you and shag would do if I had an apparent inconsistency - you would first label me a liar and dishonest and a myriad of other derogatory things. I did none of that, I asked for clarification, without the 'hate' labeling you and shag and others feel is necessary.

But here, it could explain your odd viewpoint of Catholics in general - a past history - not easily overcome with logical thought, but perhaps based on emotions with regards to the past. Same as Shag's dislike of 'church' - once again, perhaps rooted in emotional upheaval.

Those are the parts I find more interesting, far more than the discovery of an inconsistency. What makes someone follow a path, especially an illogical one, when often they are logical in other areas? as I stated earlier...

And I just find it interesting - family history - why people end up the way they are - random events, leading to where they are today - and shaping how they view life. How they have evolved. And the fact that viewpoints regarding faith are very much related to personal history.​

And what haven't I responded to? This little quote?

Did you have an argument that was relevant to the topic?

I think my arguments have been relevant to the topic from way back in post 14 when I entered this discussion.

 

[Titan]

yes, and it would be interesting to know why people gravitate to one explaination over another, vehemently deriding opposing theories. What's so horrible about the concept of god, or the idea that we sprang from a line of mutations?

 

[foxpaws]

yes, and it would be interesting to know why people gravitate to one explaination over another, vehemently deriding opposing theories. What's so horrible about the concept of god, or the idea that we sprang from a line of mutations?

The only time it really comes into public debate is why would you teach ID in school? There is nothing horrible about the concept of God guiding our 'being' to this point. What there is an issue with is 'can you teach ID in public school?' Is there logical science behind that theory - the theory of an "intelligent being" taking an active part along the path of evolution? Or, is it a way to introduce religion into the public school system?

 

[Titan]

It seems to me many find the concept of god either offensive or perhaps frightening. Maybe they dislike the idea of be held responsible for their actions.

 

[foxpaws]

It seems to me many find the concept of god either offensive or perhaps frightening. Maybe they dislike the idea of be held responsible for their actions.

I know some atheists who view the belief of God as the definition of 'irresponsibility'. Credit God, blame the devil, ask for absolution, the ultimate 'get out of jail free' card.

It isn't the case for all people who believe in God - personal responsibility is very important to many, but to others....

 

[Titan]

and so no gods exist and we find ourselves here because of? ID, evolution,chaos theory, aliens............

Some folks also seem to think our being here has to be serving some purpose, other than paying tribute to elites with weapons. This idea isn't well served by evolution or ID. Pehaps the proponets of these theories can address this?

 

[shagdrum]

Well, this little tidbit from one of your favorite authors and leading ID "researcher", Jonathan Wells, certainly looks that way:

There are two types of fallacies in play here.

The first is a fallacious ad hominem circumstantial argument:

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible​

You are arguing that since Wells motives put him in a position of critiquing Darwinism, that ID (the scientific theory he is a proponent of) is discredited.

The second fallacy in play here is an association fallacy:

An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association​

The simply fact that someone's faith predisposes them to being against Darwinism doesn't mean that the scientific theory they subscribe to instead of Darwinism (ID) to is faith based.

If ID is somehow faith based and basically a "repackaged form of creationism" simply because many of it's proponents are Christians, then you have to also say that Darwinism is simply a tool to promote Atheism and inject Atheism into the classroom. Most of the proponents of, and thinkers behind Darwinism are Atheists.

Can we please quit pretending that ID is anything other than a repackaged form of creationism?

How about people here quite trying to perpetuate a blatant distortion of ID aimed and demonizing it. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that logically suggests that ID is in any way faith based or assumes a God. All that has been offered by anyone in all the threads discussing this are fallacious arguments, and speculation asserted as fact.

While it claims to not care who or what the "designer" is, once you work backwards logically, it can ONLY begin with a supernatural creator.

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread and other threads, drawing that conclusion goes well beyond the scope of ID. ID, itself doesn't claim that. The assertion ID makes, if true, could imply that, but any conclusion of a God goes well beyond the scope of ID.

Basically, you are taking the claim that ID makes, and making a huge logical leap that goes well beyond the scope of ID.

That is, if we are indeed the result of an intelligence of some sort, then how did the designer come into being?

Again, you are going beyond the scope of ID in an attempt to demonize it. All this has, again, been covered ad nauseum in other threads.

I really REALLY wish I could address all the red herrings and straw men arguments posted here but it would take hours to compose.

The context of this makes it clear that it is , by implication, directed at those of us defending ID. However, it is easy to make generalization to smear someone because you don't need to back it up and give specifics.

If you are going to accuse us of making red herring and straw men arguments. At least have the courtesy to give specifics so we can defend ourselves.

ID is, and can only be, a solution in search of a problem. As much as you (Shag) want to make it out to be some sort of objective alternative to evolution, the best it can do is to attempt to fill in the existing gaps in our knowledge (God of the gaps). This is, and always has been, a VERY risky strategy, because as our knowledge expands, it threatens to encroach on those areas ID purports to explain. Galileo anyone?

The whole "God of gaps" argument is a specious argument. It inherently mischaracterizes ID.

First, all science attempts to fill in the existing gaps in the reigning scientific paradigms. ID is no different, in that since. The biggest flaw in Darwinism is it's assumption of methodological naturalism when inherently makes Darwinism empirical (and thus unscientific), as well as making any conclusion in support of speciation through Darwinian evolution based on fallacious circular reasoning. To be able to claim that only natural causes you have to first prove that only natural causes could have caused it, not simply ruled them out beforehand.

Second, Darwinism attempts to fill in the gaps by assuming Darwinian evolution in the same way that it is argued that ID attempts to fill in the gaps with God. If the "God of gaps" argument is a legitimate critique of ID you would have to accept that it's inverse (replacing "God" with Darwinian evolution) is at least as valid of a critique against Darwinism.

You decry the fact that evolutionary theory depends entirely on "methodological naturalism", yet you ignore the fact that biology, among others, is one of the natural sciences!

This is another specious argument that has been covered in other threads already. You are equating "natural" with "naturalism". Natural is defined as, "Of, relating to, or concerning nature". Naturalism is defined as, "The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."

One is a state of being and one is a philosophical outlook. While related, they are not the same thing. By equating them, you are attempting to equivocate on the term natural to encompass naturalism.

There is no alternative but to use methodological naturalism! To accept supernatural causes as an explanation for what we don't (yet) understand effectively puts a stop to any further research.

There is an alternative; don't assume anything! Look for natural causes, but don't assume that those are the only things. If in doubt, you can apply the scientific practices used in other sciences to detect design to get some idea one way or the other.

The fact of the matter is that methodological naturalism in not a part of the definition of what a science is, but the atheists in the scientific community have been trying to get it enshrined as such to discredit ID as a science. Basically, They are trying to redefine science so as to exclude ID.

However, under any definition of what a science is, "empirically derived conclusions" are a necessity. If Darwinism assumes methodological naturalism, then any findings in support of Darwinian evolution are not empirical because the findings only support Darwinian evolution if Darwinian evolution is first assumed by methodological naturalism. The mechanism needing to be proven in order to prove Darwinian evolution is "random chance" leading to change. Since "random chance" is the only option as an explanation available due to the assumption of methodological naturalism, any conclusion is not empirical and is circular reasoning.

Even if you could make a case that it is necessary to assume natural causes in other natural sciences, because of what Darwinism asserts and attempts to prove, it is completely inappropriate to assume methodological naturalism in the case of Darwinism. That is because it makes any findings non-empirical (and thus non-scientific) and illogical.

But here's the thing: So far, supernatural forces are not needed as an explanation! The basic ideas of evolutionary theory have worked perfectly for everything we have discovered so far.

Simply because the theory can explain things, it should be accepted? So, if I can make an argument that can explain anything (within it's scope) it should be accepted? Ever hear of a tautology?

Your argument negates the need for any empirical verification. You are taking it out of the context of being a science.

Or more properly, the evidence has so far backed up evolutionary theory without exception, and there has been no evidence that it is wrong.

Actually there is no evidence that empirically supports Darwinian evolution. It only supports Darwinian evolution if you first assume methodological naturalism, making the finding un-empirical and circular.

 

[shagdrum]

Ladies and gentlemen, we now have the hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" 2.0!!!!

It has all the same benefits of the old hrmwrm "wall 'o' text"; cutting and pasting others arguments instead of making your own argument, including mostly information that is not directly related to the discussion but makes the post so large as to dishonestly avoiding substantive rebuttal by making it impractical to rebut all the distortions in it and, finally, frustrating any honest discussion by putting advocates of any position you disagree with on the defensive and changing the focus of the debate to the superficial and/or tangential (thus avoiding any substantive discussion of the position you are trying to trash); effectively disrupting on-topic discussion (trolling).

However, the 2.0 version of the hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" actually makes a distinction between what you say and what others are saying. In this way, your trolling isn't as obvious and it seems as if you are actually attempting to contribute to the debate while you disrupt it.

Sorry hrmwrm, I am still not going to respond to your "wall 'o' text" trolling. I refuse to read, let alone consider any point you make in these types of rude and disruptive posts. If you want to contribute to the debate, you are going to have to take the time and construct the argument. Not simply, cut and past others arguments as a substitute for effort on your part. These actions show a lack of respect for those of us who take the time to construct thoughtful posts. I refused to give your argument any type of substantive consideration when you act in this childish, petulant and contentious manner. Long-winded trolling is still trolling.

You make the argument, you give the specifics (or summarize them) then you make the conclusions. What you are doing is using others here for all your substance and then simply smearing Dembski as part of your simplistic conclusion.

In fact, in that first quote of Elsberry's article, you are cutting out the explainatory/substantive part of that critique you cite. Then you connect the first paragraph after the substance of the critique (which starts another critique building on the first one) without any indication that there was anything in between them. The fact that you didn't include the substance of the critique indicates that you either; A) don't understand the critique, B) are not interested in the substance of the critique but more in the fact that it is being made and being made by a supposed "expert" or, C) both. Either way, it is clear that you are more interested in making an implied appeal to authority argument then in actually offering a substantive critique of Dembski. Basically, you are only interested in trashing Dembski and not interesting in doing it through any honest and substantive critique.

...scientifically, he's a charlatan. you have to be scientifically illiterate or ignorant to believe his claims. i'm not poisoning the well on him. he's done that by himself. just take a look at the accredation of his critics as compared to himself. i think you'll see who's more believable.

Let's see, what fallacies we have here; ad hominem abusive, poisoning the well and appeal to authority?

It is rather interesting that all your articles on this are pretty consistent; they mischaracterize Dembski to set up a straw man argument as a means to dishonestly and deceitfully marginalize and discredit him, they often utilize fallacious arguments and smear Dembski personally and they serve to change the focus from the substance of what is being debated in these threads to focusing on the tangential.

Dembski was cited as a means of explaining what ID is. You came and changed the focus of the discussion to his credibility, thus frustrating any honest and accurate explanation of what ID is and effectively poisoning the well on Dembski. Your actions here (as well as in most other threads in this section that you post it) are aimed at trashing a point of view and frustrating any honest explanation and discussion if it. You are trying to perpetuate your distortion of ID here and frustrate any accurate explanation of it. That is trolling, which is all you seem to have to offer.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - just because ID is

Apparently I didn't make this clear in my last post responding to you; I am through debating this issue with you!!

While, I spelled out my reasons for that, I have no doubt that you either didn't read them, or are intentionally ignoring them (as I am now doing to all your posts on this issue), so I will reiterate; You have established a pattern of dishonesty and deception that makes any attempt at an honest discussion with you on this topic an exercise in futility.:Bang :Bang

You came into this thread perpetuating a distortion of ID based in a clear ignorance of what ID truly is. Every time that distortion is countered with logic, evidence, etc. you either; ignore that argument and/or evidence, mischaracterize, misdirect and/or employ any other of a number of dishonest, deceptive and flat out rude tactics in a blatant attempt to defend and rationalize your distortion.

These actions demonstrate that you are not interested in understanding ID but in defending and rationalizing your prejudice against ID. It further demonstrates that you are mainly attempting to trash ID here, and not have or allow any honest discussion here. You effectively change to focus of the discussion here from explaining ID to correctiong your distortions and countering your dishonesty.

In fact, this pattern is something you habitually demonstrate throughout the politics section of this forum.

And your comment that Foss and I don't give you a chance to defend your self as well as your implication that we are simply being "rude" and hateful is disingenuous and manipulative. It is a passive aggressive means to play on other peoples emotions by playing the "innocent" and "helpless" victim. Your blatant ignoring and/or mischaracterizing of counter arguments, misdirection and employment of other dishonest/deceitful arguing tactics and willfully changing the focus of the discussion to debating your distortions and countering your dishonesty instead of the making it about the issue (basically changing the focus of the discussion to you) are all just as rude as anything Fossten or I have done. There are only two differences; your rudeness is passive aggressive and indirect instead of straightforward and direct, and your rudeness is dishonest while what we say is honest (not to mention provably accurate).

In fact, your attempt here to play off the emotions of others by playing the victim here is rude as well due to being deceptive. Also, you are ignoring the fact that we almost always give you all the information necessary (or have done so enough in that past that it does need repeating) to make are conclusions about you disprovable. Your ignoring of that is also inherently rude due to being dishonest.

As I said earlier, your whole focus here is in trashing ID which dishonestly puts anyone who doesn't share your prejudice on the defensive and inherently changes the focus of the debate and frustrates any chance of an honest discussion. Passive aggressive, long-winded trolling is still trolling.

Frankly, due to the fact that this pattern in habitual for you throughout the politics section of this forum, I am strongly considering making the ignoring of you permanent and adding you to my ignore list. After all, that is meant to be a tool to maintain civility in the forum and there cannot be any civility when you rudely and deceptively force people who disagree with you on the defensive and frustrate any honest discussion by changing the focus of the debate to you and your dishonest and deceptive arguments.

 

[shagdrum]

It is clear that this thread has broken down. There is no chance for an honest discussion of ID here. Certain people are actively working to frustrate any honest explanation and discussion of ID by trashing ID and generally trolling in various fashions.

This is why I didn't want to reopen this can of worms in discussing ID. Certain people here have a blatant prejudice against ID and are unwilling to let others (who are actually interested in understanding and/or explaining what ID actually is) have an honest discussion. Any attempt has to be frustrated and ID has to be trashed. Discussions concerning ID always devolve into rhetorical "wars of attrition", dishonest, rude behavior and personal attacks. There can be no honest debate in that atmosphere.

 

[foxpaws]

Frankly, due to the fact that this pattern in habitual for you throughout the politics section of this forum, I am strongly considering making the ignoring of you permanent and adding you to my ignore list. After all, that is meant to be a tool to maintain civility in the forum and there cannot be any civility when you rudely and deceptively force people who disagree with you on the defensive and frustrate any honest discussion by changing the focus of the debate to you and your dishonest and deceptive arguments.

I would be honored... please do.

 

[fossten]

Paritally, I was Foss - because I find it fascinating when people come up with past histories that fall in line with a discussion. I gave you an opportunity to clear it up, unlike what you and shag would do if I had an apparent inconsistency - you would first label me a liar and dishonest and a myriad of other derogatory things. I did none of that, I asked for clarification, without the 'hate' labeling you and shag and others feel is necessary.

But here, it could explain your odd viewpoint of Catholics in general - a past history - not easily overcome with logical thought, but perhaps based on emotions with regards to the past. Same as Shag's dislike of 'church' - once again, perhaps rooted in emotional upheaval.

Emotional upheaval? A psychobabble codeword? Should we start referring to you as Dr. Foxpaws, PsyD? So in addition to being dishonest, you're now being arrogant and condescending, acting as though you can somehow diagnose me. You have absolutely no basis whatsoever on which to level such a claim. You're nothing but a demagogue.

You don't even know enough about Catholicism, having never been a part of it, to make a rational judgment about its nuances and doctrines.

Do yourself a favor - stick to topics you're familiar with and don't delve into areas where you will end up looking foolish. You're not as smart as you think you are.

 

[foxpaws]

He went from Catholic to atheist to Christian. That was all in high school. He's remained a Christian, completely apart from Catholicism, for the last 40 years. His own Catholic family has rejected him. They will tell you that there is a difference between what he believes and what they believe.

You don't even know enough about Catholicism, having never been a part of it, to make a rational judgment about its nuances and doctrines.

And you were a Catholic Foss? Did you became a Catholic on your own after your father rejected it when he was in high school? Or maybe you can tell me how you were a part of it? How else can you make rational judgments yourself regarding its nuances and doctrines?

Since my denomination was the first to break from the Catholics I spent a whole lot of time in parochial school on what makes us 'different' from Catholics. But, I certainly would differ to you, since at some point it appears that you, Foss, were personally part of Catholicism, you were a Catholic - right? That would be the only criteria that counts when discussing its nuances and doctrines. And certainly everything you have discussed about Catholics in the past has been nothing but completely rational - such as the idea that you don't think that Catholics are Christians.

Do yourself a favor - stick to topics you're familiar with and don't delve into areas where you will end up looking foolish. You're not as smart as you think you are.

Really - I am the one who looks foolish here Foss?

 

[hrmwrm]

How about people here quite trying to perpetuate a blatant distortion of ID aimed and demonizing it. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that logically suggests that ID is in any way faith based or assumes a God. All that has been offered by anyone in all the threads discussing this are fallacious arguments, and speculation asserted as fact.

i've shown many times the founder has directly stated he was looking for a way to put "god" back into creation. that is not SPECULATION. that is direct evidence. it becomes obvious who is being dishonest here.

Dembski was cited as a means of explaining what ID is. You came and changed the focus of the discussion to his credibility, thus frustrating any honest and accurate explanation of what ID is

if dembski has no credibility, there's not much use in using his reasoning to explain id. he is just one of the problems with id.

Sorry hrmwrm, I am still not going to respond to your "wall 'o' text" trolling.

liar. you did.

 

[fossten]

Really - I am the one who looks foolish here Foss?

Yeah. You really do. You made assumptions about my family and tried for a gotcha moment, and failed. Now you're trying to do damage control by arguing something you're ignorant about. You're continuing to make assumptions about my father. You're attacking me instead of arguing the topic. That is foolish. Keep it up.

 

[shagdrum]

i've shown many times the founder has directly stated he was looking for a way to put "god" back into creation. that is not SPECULATION. that is direct evidence. it becomes obvious who is being dishonest here.

I don't recall a statement saying exactly that. And, either way, it is fallacious ad hominem reasoning. The motives of those who created the theory are can only be considered relevant to the credibility of those people, not the theory of ID.

if dembski has no credibility, there's not much use in using his reasoning to explain id. he is just one of the problems with id.

His idea is one of the key concepts behind ID. To understand ID you have to understand those concepts. Any discussion of the credibility of the idea would come later because you first need to understand the idea before you can understand how a critique would be valid and applicable. The fact that you are working to frustrate that understanding of his idea shows that you are trying to make sure his idea is not perpetuated; frustrating any honest discussion of it.

And his credibility is irrelevant, logically, to the credibility of his idea. And all your sources are either primarily aimed at discrediting him (not his ideas) or tend to mischaracterize his ideas. The fact that you are more interested simply repeating any critique concerning him or his ideas and not so much in explaining and providing the substance of the critiques of only his ideas shows you are simply wanting to trash him and make sure his ideas are not considered; not in providing an honest, substantive critique of his ideas.

If you are going to make the critique, you explain the critique and how it is applicable. What you are cutting and pasting are mostly written for an audience of fellow scientists. You need to dumb it down and explain it so that everyone here can understand it.

The fact that you are not explaining it shows that you A) don't understand the critique, and/or B) you are more interested in providing a critique from and "expert" source then providing a substantive critique. It is not my job or anyone else's job to make sense of your critique. That is your job. If you cannot make it make sense for us then your critique is not valid in this forum and simply a dishonest means to to put those who disagree with you on the defensive and frustrate them in trying to counter your critique.

In fact, the fact that we are left to make sense of your critique suggests that your ultimate goal in not to provide an honest and substantive critique in an honest discussion, but to frustrate that honest discussion.

For instance, the passage you cite, presumable to reinforce your criticism of the "problem of induction" in Dembski's work, fails to explain exactly what the problem of induction is. It clearly assumes that the person reading it knows what the problem is and that an explanation is not necessary.

liar. you did.

Let me rephrase. I meant to say I wasn't going to respond to the substance in your "wall 'o' text" posts, which I didn't. I didn't challenge the critiques in it. I only commented on the dishonest/deceptive tactics you use.

If you are going to make a critique, then you need to make it, and make it in such a way that anyone here can understand it. Otherwise, your critique is only aimed at making a fallacious appeal to authority argument because it is clear that the substance of the critique is a secondary concern, at best.

To be able to make the critique you first need to understand the theory (not a mischaracterization of it) and understand the critique. Then be able to explain the critique and how is applies to the theory. Otherwise, you are rudely making those who disagree with you have to first make sense of your critique and it's applicability to the theory in question, which is a dishonest mens to avoid a counter of your critique because it shifts your burden of explaining the critique and making it relevant onto the shoulders of those disagreeing with you, this making it much more impractical and burdensome to provide a counter. I refuse to even consider these type of dishonest/deceptive posts of yours. I will only point out how they are dishonest/deceptive.

Despite all the words in your post, you still haven't met the burden of ensuring that we can understand the critique and how it is applicable. All it does is frustrate any honest discussion.

 

[fossten]

Trolls like hrmwrm aren't interested in honest discussion, only in pissing us off.