PvM posted Entry 1693 on November 19, 2005 12:34 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1688

The Seattle PI reports that Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, has observed the obvious namely that “Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be,…”

While the Catholic church obviously supports ‘intelligent design’, it also seems to realize that ‘Intelligent Design’ is scientifically vacuous.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #58851

Posted by Jack Krebs on November 19, 2005 1:36 PM (e)

PvM writes,

While the Catholic church obviously supports intelligent design’, it also seems to realize that ‘Intelligent Design’ is scientifically vacuous.

This is a critical distinction. Of course the Catholic Church believes that the intelligence (and benevolence) of God is responsible for the design and plan of the world, from its overall purpose and meaning to the specific nature of its physical components.

That is vastly different than the claims of the “Intelligent Design” movement: that somehow some things (the bacterial flagellum, for instance) can be scientifcially shown (although they have not done so)to have arisen through means other than natural events. The ID movement plays off of the confusion between these two meanings as much as they can, but Coyne understands the difference.

Comment #58853

Posted by David Heddle on November 19, 2005 1:55 PM (e)

Jack, if I understand him correctly, makes a very good point. There is no false dilemma. The Catholic Church is not stating that the choice for the faithful is between Behe/Dembski Intelligent Design and full-blown naturalisitc evolution, and only the latter is viable. The Church supports theistic evolution which is is a form of intelligent design (with a little ‘i’ and a little ‘d’.) After all, the Church would say that everything turned out according to God’s sovereign plan. Evolution may have been God’s means to his end, but the outcome, the Church would insist, was never in doubt, and that God cannot be excluded from from having acted at any step in the process.

Comment #58855

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on November 19, 2005 2:01 PM (e)

While the Catholic church obviously supports ‘intelligent design’, it also seems to realize that ‘Intelligent Design’ is scientifically vacuous.

Keep in mind that the Holy Roman Catholic Church is a very big tent, and not all the clowns are performing the same act.

So to speak.

Cardinal Schoenborn’s endorsement of ID last summer, his subsequent about-face, recents comments made by the pope, and recent comments made by Cardinal Poupard indicate that not everyone is on the same page.

My guess is that the current pope and his pal Schoenborn favor intelligent design because they confuse evolution with atheism. They might be even more outspoken if 1) they didn’t wish to directly contradict statements made by the preceding pope, who after all was extremely popular and is on the fast track to sainthood, and 2) they weren’t worried about upsetting Catholic scientists and the more enlightened participants under the big tent. Poupard and Coyne apparently have a better understanding of science than Benedict and Schoenborn.

It’s not easy being infallible.

Comment #58857

Posted by David Heddle on November 19, 2005 2:07 PM (e)

Infallibility is irrelevant, since these statements concerning evolution, ‘id’ and ID were not made ex cathedra.

Comment #58858

Posted by Russell on November 19, 2005 2:07 PM (e)

Evolution may have been God’s means to his end, but the outcome, the Church would insist, was never in doubt, and that God cannot be excluded from from having acted at any step in the process.

David may be coming around to my way of thinking, which I call “Whateverism”:

Define “God(s)” however you like, conceptualize (his/her/its/their) plan(s) however you like. Just don’t pretend it has anything to do with science or -especially- science education.

Comment #58860

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on November 19, 2005 2:36 PM (e)

David Heddle wrote:

Infallibility is irrelevant, since these statements concerning evolution, ‘id’ and ID were not made ex cathedra.

It is obvious that items (1) and (2) given concern the reticence of the current pope to speak against the stance of the previous pope and the understanding of Catholic scientists. The idea of popes contemplating the consequences of pronouncements is obviously relevant to the discernment of popes in using ex cathedra pronouncements sparingly. Infallibility is quite relevant, as a pope who speaks ex cathedra on an issue liable to empirical test is putting that bit of doctrine itself at risk. So it is quite to the point that the current pope has chosen not to issue an ex cathedra statement on evolutionary biology.

Comment #58862

Posted by Don on November 19, 2005 3:26 PM (e)

Most supporters of the Intelligent Design movement seem not to understand that ID is neither scientifically nor theologically sound.

ID rejects real science and bastardizes real faith. Between the two is where ID supporters are actually driving their wedge because they are using bad science to study their theology and using vacuous theology to impune science. It’s a lose-lose effort. Obviously.

Comment #58863

Posted by Antonio on November 19, 2005 3:42 PM (e)

Vatican of course is in favor of evolution and reject ID of any kind, speaking of science.
It reject evolutionism as philosophy or something like that.
They use a lot of words in any kind of way when it happens to talk about this, I’m not really sure I’ve understud it all.

Comment #58865

Posted by MrDarwin on November 19, 2005 4:12 PM (e)

It should surprise nobody that the pope, or any other Catholic or any other Christian believes that there is an intelligent agent behind the origin of the universe because that tends to be part of the definition of theism in general, and Christianity in particular, in the first place. But as Jack correctly notes, there is a big and very important distinction that we MUST reognize and MUST continue to point out between that philosophical and theological point, and the anti-evolutionary movement that is represented by the catchphrase “intelligent design”. As the Vatican astronomer points out, “intelligent design” is simply not a scientific idea. ID proponents are still crowing over the “support” they think they’ve been getting from the Catholic church, so I guess we just have to wait for the pope himself make some comment about the scientific validity of ID.

Comment #58866

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 19, 2005 4:23 PM (e)

ID proponents are still crowing over the “support” they think they’ve been getting from the Catholic church,

Why would they do that?
ID is nothing to do with religion, right?

Comment #58868

Posted by David Heddle on November 19, 2005 4:38 PM (e)

Stephen Elliott,

Many supporters of evolution also “crow” over support, as they see it, from the Catholic Church. Therefore the crowing is independent of the religion question.

Comment #58870

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 19, 2005 4:43 PM (e)

The Church supports theistic evolution

No shit.

Comment #58871

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 19, 2005 4:45 PM (e)

Many supporters of evolution also “crow” over support, as they see it, from the Catholic Church. Therefore the crowing is independent of the religion question.

What “religion question”. I thought ID was science and didn’t have a bloomin’ thing to do with religion.

Or are IDers just lying to us about that?

Comment #58872

Posted by Alan Fox on November 19, 2005 4:47 PM (e)

Dembski’s blog

Even worse, in my mind, is the fact that it DOES all boil down to the Pope’s position. Sorry, but I don’t care what the pope (a position not established in the Bible) says, I care about what the word says. And I don’t understand why most Catholics, it seems, think that what the Pope (and the lower hierarchy) says IS more important than what the Bible says. Sadly, the Catholic Church seems to put too much importance in what a man says as opposed to the Word.

Top Vatican scientists saying these sorts of things…it cannot be helping the overall Christian church in general. Doing, it seems, all you can to destroy the word of God to prop up a hierarchy that is anything but biblical seems to be the worst of ideas in this matter.

Comment by jboze3131 — November 18, 2005 @ 11:31 pm

Careful, Josh. Don’t stray too far into theological matters, or you might really offend someone.

Comment by crandaddy — November 18, 2005 @ 11:40 pm

Yes, Reverend Flank, I think they might be.

Comment #58875

Posted by puckSR on November 19, 2005 5:08 PM (e)

The Catholic Church is not supporting ID in any way. I was on Dembski’s blog, and he gave “full coverage” to the Pope’s statement.

The Pope was fully supporting theistic evolution. The very long standing belief of the Catholic Church is that the old testament is a fairy-tale of sorts.

The Pope was suggesting that God could possibly intervene..but did not actually claim that God did intervene.

I spent the last week commenting on Dembski’s blog, trying to learn something about ID…and that was pointless.

The opinion of the catholic church is very important, and not just from a religious standpoint. The catholic church has supported science for a very long time. The one rather notable exception was Galileo. They did however encourage literacy, and other intellectual pursuits.

The Jesuit order is completely committed to learning. The perceive that knowledge is the absolute study of God. God created “reality and knowledge”, therefore studying is a form of prayer and religious understanding.

Sorry to go off on a rant here, but jboze is really a hardcore religious fundamentalist, and living in West Texas, i see them a lot.

They have a problem accepting any form of religion that is not fundamentalist. In other words, they would rather convert from Fundamentalist Christian to Fundamentalist Muslim, rather than convert to a non-fundamentalist religion. its actually very sad.

Comment #58877

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 19, 2005 5:32 PM (e)

I spent the last week commenting on Dembski’s blog, trying to learn something about ID…and that was pointless.

How long did it take before you got kicked off?

(BTW, the fact that you can still see your messages doesn’t mean you HAVEN’T been kicked off — Dembski, that stalwart defender of, uh, open debate over ID, apparently uses some computer geek trick to make your messages visible to you but not to anyone else.)

In any case, IDers can’t tell you anything about ID. That’s mostly because ID doesn’t actually *consist* of anything. It’s just a code word for fundamentalist religious opinion, coupled with some regurgitated creation “science” arguments against evolution, from 30 years ago.

ID, in and of itself, simply has nothing to offer, other than “an unknown thing did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods – and it wasn’t evolution, so there.”

Comment #58878

Posted by Alan Fox on November 19, 2005 5:47 PM (e)

I almost feel sorry for kids like Josh, so ignorant of the world, so certain of their opinions, yet so inarticulate in expressing them, so fearful of confronting reality. Maybe he’ll grow out of it and begin to realise he has been a victim of the fundamentalist propaganda machine.

Comment #58879

Posted by Ben on November 19, 2005 6:01 PM (e)

(BTW, the fact that you can still see your messages doesn’t mean you HAVEN’T been kicked off —- Dembski, that stalwart defender of, uh, open debate over ID, apparently uses some computer geek trick to make your messages visible to you but not to anyone else.)

I’m torn between contempt for Dembski for trying something so sneaky and a grudging admiration that he came up with such a ingenious form of censorship.

Comment #58882

Posted by puckSR on November 19, 2005 6:15 PM (e)

well i think i got kicked off recently when i posted a comment about conspiracy theorists normally being crazy….something like that

actually i did get something of an ID theory out of them
…random mutation is insufficient for Evolution to have occured…….Some other mechanism must be present for mutation……We will refer to this mechanism as the Intelligent Agent……We will now infer all sorts of nonsense……We will also assume all other Evolutionary theory is wrong……We have disproven evolution……We call the bad evolution Darwinism, because Darwin developed the theory of random genetic mutation(huh?)…

Comment #58883

Posted by Chris Ho-Stuart on November 19, 2005 6:15 PM (e)

There are two arguments for design used by theists, and they are polar opposites of each other.

The argument used by the Discovery Institute and others is based on a putative inadequacy of natural processes. They argue that the natural world cannot give rise to the subtle complexity of living things, and so a designer must have intervened to give them their complex forms.

The other argument is used by Coyne, and also by a few non-Christian scientists like Paul Davies, and it is based on the adequacy of natural processes. They argue that the natural world is exquisitely well suited to the emergence of subtle complexity, including life and consciousness, and that this occurs because the natural world itself is finely tuned for this capacity.

The first argument looks to replace the findings of conventional science with an alternative science of some kind that is able to accommodate their theology. It sees design and natural processes as alternatives. It employs a variation of the God of the Gaps, looking to see a design in isolated aspects of the world that can stand in contrast to others aspects that are not designed.

The second argument sees conventional science as exploring a world set up at the deepest level by the designer. It shows up both as a form of deism, in which God set it going and has been hands off ever since; and in a form of Christian transcendent theism, where all natural processes are established and sustained by the divine will, for Whom all processes work together for His ineffable purposes.

The first argument is anti-science; and inevitably contributes to the chasm that has opened up between conventional science and popular religion.

The second argument is a conviction by faith that has driven the involvement of Christians within the sciences all down the centuries, in which the very order and regularity of the natural world is seen as divinely ordained law for the maintenance of the creation.

For the record, I do not endorse either argument. But the distinction has fascinated me. I think Jack Krebs has hit the nail on the head in comment 58841.

Comment #58884

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 19, 2005 6:20 PM (e)

I see, as always PT is taking quotes out of context. I wasn’t discussing science with my comemnt, I was discussing theology and the Catholic Churche’s seemingly ant-bible stance on many issues…wanting to proclaim that the Pope and others below him are somehow above the word. So, good try, but no cigar.

Alan Fox here seems to think he knows anything about me or my religious views, but I assure you- I don’t know him, and I haven’t discussed my religious views on the web, let alone to Mr. Fox.

PuckSr doesn’t know me or a thing about me either. So, he assumes things about me, then attacks me with this assumptions. I find it troubling when a church official thinks of a the bible as a fairy tale, and I’m sure even atheists would agree that such an idea is absurd. If you don’t accept the bible is anything but fairytales (this is hardly what Catholic believes, despite what Puck claims), then you’d be saying you’re basing your life on fairytales that you even BELIEVE are fairytales…I’m sure few would disagree that such an idea is stupid.

ID, of course, isn’t in the field of astronomy. What most of you guys fail to realize is that Coyne did a big presentation for the American Enterprise Institute where he said, in HIS particular field, design is EVERYWHERE and there’s no denying it. He went into a big presentation on all the design in astronomy and cosmology. Out of the realm of his specific field (biology), he attacks as not being science. You guys want to have your cake and eat it too…you can hardly quote Coyne who says the universe is totally designed from his study of astronomy, since it doesn’t dit with your views. He might speak out against ID in biology, but it isn’t his field…and within his field, he says design is everywhere, so he’s probably not the best guy to use to support your case of non-design!

It’s sad to see many here trying to claim that ID has nothing to do with religion. That’s true and it’s not true. Many things in science have to do with religion and worldview…by your complaints, you’d have to attack neodarwinism, considering the big names in that field are ALWAYS talking about God (Scott, Provine, Dawkins, Gould, etc)…and they have all turned the theory into an atheistic theory (dawkins famous comment for example.)

My comment was clearly based on a side topic of theology…which is clearly related to ALL science in that various branches of knowledge affect a persons worldview. Anyone can clearly go to UC and see that we weren’t speaking of science, we were having a discussion on religion. Does that mean that IDers are liars and it’s really about religion and not science? Well, let’s ask this question- PT here posts all the time about religion, religious groups, quotes from Dawkins (who despises religion and religious people), Myers (who also hates religion and religious people, going out of his way to attack and mock them nearly daily)….seeing all of that, that surely means the theory PT is pushing is a religion as well, no? Guilt by association- if it works on your attacks of me and others at UC…it surely fits here, or we have a double standard.

Like I said, good try boys, but no cigar…a number of topics are discussed at UC and with this thread we were discussing theology NOT science. Next time someone at PT here mentions ANYTHING about religion, we can post that NDE’s are liars and it’s really about religion…ok? Fair is fair. If you can distort discussions to suit your agenda, we’ll do the same.

Comment #58885

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 19, 2005 6:25 PM (e)

By the way…Alan Fox. Before you make personal insults toward me, how about you get your facts straight and actually figure out what I believe? It’s called using your head. And, I’m not a kid…but your rude tone exposes those flaws in your character (rudeness like this is actually the domain OF children, so we might easily assume that YOU are a child, no?) Then again, it’s par for the course when it comes to the vitriol of the comments I see everyday on this site.

Comment #58886

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 19, 2005 6:26 PM (e)

By the way…Alan Fox. Before you make personal insults toward me, how about you get your facts straight and actually figure out what I believe? It’s called using your head. And, I’m not a kid…but your rude tone exposes those flaws in your character (rudeness like this is actually the domain OF children, so we might easily assume that YOU are a child, no?) Then again, it’s par for the course when it comes to the vitriol of the comments I see everyday on this site.

Comment #58887

Posted by Alan Fox on November 19, 2005 6:41 PM (e)

I haven’t discussed my religious views on the web

Josh, I think you’ll find you have, but you are free to do so. Just don’t expect others to take you seriously until you have a little more experience. In my book twenty-four is young, and I envy your youth. What you believe does not concern me; what does concern me is the feeling I get that you would like to impose your beliefs on others.

Comment #58889

Posted by puckSR on November 19, 2005 6:48 PM (e)

jboze

You are a fundamental Christian…or at least you should be

Correct…technically the Catholic church does not view parts of the bible as “fairy-tales”…they do however believe that they are stories intended to be read for their moral and ethic purpose in a poetic sense. This sounds a lot like myth and fairy-tales. Wait, jboze, are you Catholic?…no? then shut up about it.

Pandasthumb is capable of discussing whatever they want, and they can still claim that the Theory of Evolution is non-theistic.

Unlike Dembski’s blog, this is just a bunch of people posting about how crazy the IDers are, it is not a site dedicated in any way to “proving” a non-theory.

Even DaveScot has taken you to task for your strange views on religion, so just drop it.

Comment #58892

Posted by Russell on November 19, 2005 7:11 PM (e)

I see, as always PT is taking quotes out of context.

Ah, the old generalized group denunciation. It would be interesting to do a survey and see who does this: Are evophiles just as guilty as evophobes? Is it just my bias that tells me that the out-of-context quote is a particular specialty of creationists (in which I include IDCists)?

“PT” doesn’t take quotes in or out of context. Individuals do. Is there some reason to believe PT bloggers and/or commenters have less integrity in this regard than others?

Comment #58893

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 19, 2005 7:15 PM (e)

ID, of course, isn’t in the field of astronomy.

Um, did someone explain that to Discovery Institute before they tried to pull a fast one by having a party in astronomer Gonzalez’s honor (ya know, the guy who wrote the book putting ID in the field of astronomy) at the Smithsonian …. . ?

Comment #58894

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 19, 2005 7:16 PM (e)

Before you make personal insults toward me, how about you get your facts straight and actually figure out what I believe?

Um, would you mind explaining to me why science should give a flying fig *what you believe*?

Comment #58895

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 19, 2005 7:18 PM (e)

Next time someone at PT here mentions ANYTHING about religion, we can post that NDE’s are liars and it’s really about religion…ok?

(yawn) You go right ahead and do that. Go tell the judge that evolution is just a big bad atheistic conspiracy.

Oh, wait, y’all ALREADY tried that ….

Google “Peloza v New Capistrano”.

(snicker) (giggle)

Comment #58896

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 19, 2005 7:20 PM (e)

It’s sad to see many here trying to claim that ID has nothing to do with religion. That’s true and it’s not true.

Um, I think that a judge in Pennsylvania is about to conclude that it’s NOT true.

And that the people who told him it WAS true were, well, just lying to him under oath.

Comment #58899

Posted by speck on November 19, 2005 7:30 PM (e)

I think I found the talk given by Father Coyne that Josh refers to…..

It can be found mid-page, on the right, under related material, here.

Father Coyne never once alludes to design in the cosmos and warns against “The Idolatry of Religious Belief” specifically referring to “The God of the Gaps”.

Josh, if this is not the talk you speak of please let me know.

Comment #58900

Posted by Flint on November 19, 2005 7:47 PM (e)

What most of you guys fail to realize is that Coyne did a big presentation for the American Enterprise Institute where he said, in HIS particular field, design is EVERYWHERE and there’s no denying it. He went into a big presentation on all the design in astronomy and cosmology.

Was this qualitatively different from (what appears to be) the general Catholic position that God designed nature? Certainly, at least as I understand it, there’s nothing illogical, nor is there the slightest need for dishonesty, about seeing everything around us as the result of divine intent. And so any astronomer can look at the universe as being exactly as God wanted it, resulting from forces God created for the purpose. In this view, Coyne sees design to be sure, but an understanding of God’s purpose can ONLY arise by observations and logical deductions as accurate as we can make them.

And this position is quite strikingly different from the generic ID techniques of denial, misrepresentation, distortion, and other carefully orchestrated mendacity for the purpose of force-fitting what the universe IS, into a narrowly literal and simplistic reading of what the universe *should be* in the opinions of those for whom knowledge is the enemy.

Sounds to me like Bozeman is saying Coyne fits snugly into this latter class within his specialty, and his babbling about biology falling into the first category only arises because Coyne doesn’t know squat about biology, so he gets it all wrong by falling for logic and evidence. Where he is most knowledgeable, I guess, he relies properly on scripture.

Comment #58903

Posted by Jeremy on November 19, 2005 7:53 PM (e)

Josh wrote:

I find it troubling when a church official thinks of a the bible as a fairy tale, and I’m sure even atheists would agree that such an idea is absurd. If you don’t accept the bible is anything but fairytales (this is hardly what Catholic believes, despite what Puck claims), then you’d be saying you’re basing your life on fairytales that you even BELIEVE are fairytales…I’m sure few would disagree that such an idea is stupid.

What you’re saying is that if you live your life by the Bible but don’t believe that it’s 100% true, then you are an idiot… and to fix this, YOU FORCE YOURSELF TO BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE. You make me sad Josh.

Lenny wrote:

Um, did someone explain that to Discovery Institute before they tried to pull a fast one by having a party in astronomer Gonzalez’s honor (ya know, the guy who wrote the book putting ID in the field of astronomy) at the Smithsonian … . . ?

What?! When was that? The Smithsonian institutions are just twenty minutes away from me by Metro… I would have gone. I bet the DI goes all out with the catering, way better than the frickin’ college cafeteria…

Comment #58905

Posted by speck on November 19, 2005 8:03 PM (e)

As I read read Coyne’s lecture it doesn’t seem that he sees design so much as he sees the interplay of chance and opportunity within “our fertile universe”. That there appears to be “structure” to the evolution of the universe can be understood through physical laws and the magnitude of possibilities within the universe, designer not necessary.

Comment #58906

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 19, 2005 8:13 PM (e)

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 19, 2005 06:20 PM (e) (s)

I see, as always PT is taking quotes out of context. I wasn’t discussing science with my comemnt, I was discussing theology and the Catholic Churche’s seemingly ant-bible stance on many issues…wanting to proclaim that the Pope and others below him are somehow above the word. So, good try, but no cigar…

Josh,
I believe in God. I consider myself a Christian. I have no problem with the theory of evolution (using the word “theory” in its scientific context).
Why are you unsettled by evolution?
Do you not think that God might just make life this way?
Would you rather believe that God is trying to trick us?
Can you not see the beauty in nature?

Comment #58907

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 19, 2005 8:23 PM (e)

The Catholic church does believe that that the designer does intervene in our lives: even on the sports field,
perhaps why catholic countries dominate the football world cup? (proper football that is Rev Dr Lenny)

Comment #58909

Posted by speck on November 19, 2005 8:58 PM (e)

I was referring solely to Coyne’s talk which seemed a very reasonable eplanation of the realm of science vice the realm of religion. But you have a point…. Catholics do have a multitude of medallions, patron saints, etc to turn to in the face of trouble.

But as George Carlin says, we’ve got Joe Pesci.

Comment #58910

Posted by PhilVaz on November 19, 2005 9:05 PM (e)

Ludwig Ott in his authoritative (even for traditionalists) Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (TAN Books, 1974, orig 1952) affirms these points as “De Fide” or infallible dogmas “of Catholic faith” :

–All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De Fide)

Ott points out that what is in view here by the First Vatican Council are those heresies of ancient pagan and gnostic-manichean dualism (where God is not responsible for the entire created world, since mere “matter” is evil not good, etc), along with modern materialism or pantheism (Ott, page 79). Biological evolution is not in view here. Further:

–God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
–The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
–The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
–God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
–God has created a good world. (De Fide)
–The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
–God alone created the world. (De Fide)
–God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
–God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

These are the specific De Fide statements found in Ott on “The Divine Act of Creation,” pages 79-91 and both Catholic creationists and theistic evolutionists would have no problem with these statements. The various Councils (Lateran IV, Vatican I, Florence, and others), the traditional statements of the Saints, Doctors, Fathers, and Scriptures are cited by Ott to document the Catholic dogma that God is ultimately the Creator of all things however He chose to do the creating (Genesis 1; Colossians 1:15ff; Hebrews 3; Psalm 19; etc)

“The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God’s causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God’s plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation. However, as regards man, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul [creatio hominis peculiaris Denz 2123]. Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures…..The question of the descent of the human body from the animal kingdom first appeared under the influence of the modern theory of evolution. The Biblical text does not exclude this theory. Just as in the account of the creation of the world, one can, in the account of the creation of man, distinguish between the per se inspired religious truth that man, both body and soul, was created by God, and the per accidens inspired, stark anthropomorphistic representation of the mode and manner of the Creation. While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible.” (Ott, pages 93-94, 95)

Originally published in the 1950s (the version I am using is 1974 by Tan Books) this is a very conservative “traditional” Catholic source for dogma. BTW, natural science is outside of the “faith and morals” which is the domain of the Catholic magisterium (or teaching office of the Church).

Phil P

Comment #58911

Posted by k.e. on November 19, 2005 9:26 PM (e)

News Flash…….

The DI introduces the “Weasle Theory” of Theology, The Universe, God and Everything and cleverly feeds this into the Renewal of Culture

From the Simpsons
Homer: “Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals … except the weasel.”

Comment #58912

Posted by k.e. on November 19, 2005 9:34 PM (e)

Dean

“The Catholic church does believe that that the designer does intervene in our lives: even on the sports field”

depending how you interpret that there is almost something “Zen” about it.

Comment #58914

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 19, 2005 10:24 PM (e)

Hi k.e.

“The Catholic church does believe that that the designer does intervene in our lives: even on the sports field”

depending how you interpret that there is almost something “Zen” about it.

.. this from the link in my original post…..

Handpainted resin statues on a solid wood base are the perfect gift for every young Catholic athlete. These statues portray Jesus actively participating with boys and girls in a variety of sports. A wonderful way to reinforce Jesus “as friend” in everyday activities.

the character depicted in these either appears to be one either one of those dads whose finest sporting achievement is proving to his kids that he is better than them at football, or someone you really wouldn’t want playing with your kids at all…
- I’m sticking with the ‘sound of one hand clapping’ as my window into Zen for the time being….

Comment #58915

Posted by hal on November 19, 2005 10:37 PM (e)

I see a few of you have had the same experiences as I have with Dembski’s blog. Post anything which questions “intelligent design”, no matter how polite or innocuous and you get your account suspended. It’s very telling that someone who wants to ensure that all viewpoints get equal time would operate their blog this way.

The comments on his blog over the past few days have been interesting and really show how devoted to religion the average intelligent design proponent is.

Comment #58919

Posted by k.e. on November 19, 2005 11:03 PM (e)

Hi Dean

Yes the Catholic Church surgically removed the “Christian Zen or Gospel of Thomas “ around 500 AD -just a bit too inconvenient when your collecting foreskins.

Comment #58920

Posted by k.e. on November 19, 2005 11:16 PM (e)

The only hope I see for Dembshi is (maybe a faint hope) him recanting on his deathbed.

Comment #58923

Posted by steve s on November 19, 2005 11:46 PM (e)

Thomas is a pretty interesting gospel. Tells much the same stories as the others, but leaves out the fairy tales.

So of course, it was banned as Heresy.

Comment #58927

Posted by k.e. on November 20, 2005 12:31 AM (e)

Steve S

Tells much the same stories as the others, but leaves out the fairy tales.

Yes the fairy tales…. every religion needs a bit of “Hollywood” otherwise ordinary people would be bored Sh*tless The stories get embellished and gilded until the true meaning is if not lost, buried under layers. The poetic symbols are there of course and if everyone “got them” it would put out the Priests out of a job, that of course with human nature being the way it is will never happen , besides where would the fun be in not unfolding hidden meanings.
Like the “Simpsons” they appeal on many different levels.

Comment #58929

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 20, 2005 12:48 AM (e)

i see more distortions of what i (and others) said. more petty and chidlish insults and attacks. thats the good ol’ PT we all know and love.

puckSR shows his ignorance once again by assuming he knows anything about me, let alone my religion. and then he goes on to attack IDers as crazy…then, he mentions DaveScot complaining about my odd religious views…tho I never gave DaveScot my religious views. te was upset because I said I believe in an immaterial soul (actually, I agreed with another poster who said he believed in the immaterial soul), and Dave said that we were both cranks, basically. that and I questioned how Dave could say Jesus is his role modelm yet he thinks the Bible is a book of fairytales, but all he knows of Jesus is IN the bible (so, his role model is a fairytale!) so, lets not talk about strange views on religion- dave who thinks a system of neural networks created all life and calls dualists (iike dembski) quacks…other than my post about believing the soul is immaterial, ive said nothing else to him about by beliefs.

Comment #58930

Posted by k.e. on November 20, 2005 1:03 AM (e)

Joshua
Your post tells us all we need to know about you.

Its called projecting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projecting

Take this pill and lie down

http://www.zenmeditation.org/chan_buecher_zen_beyond_leseprobe.html

Comment #58931

Posted by MaxOblivion on November 20, 2005 1:05 AM (e)

PuckSR, dont worry about uncommondecent, its well known they censor and ban any desenting view. Or ban anyone who posts a relevant but unwelcome fact.

Theres no point posting on that blog anyway as every comment gets ratified, it pretends that you have posted but the only one who can see your post is yourself because of the cookies, Only if you are deemed ‘convertable’ will you be allowed to continue to post.

Everyone who posts there is part of a big lie, funny thing is they know it and just dont seem to care.

Comment #58932

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 20, 2005 1:37 AM (e)

thanks for proving my basic point about this site and those who comment to the posts on it k.e. and max!

Comment #58934

Posted by speck on November 20, 2005 1:52 AM (e)

Josh, for someone who claims to take the moral high ground, you certainly seem to refute that here.

Comment #58935

Posted by Alan Fox on November 20, 2005 2:00 AM (e)

But capable enough to learn Dembski’s tricks with post deletions here. Rest assured, Josh. Your pearls of wisdom will remain on this site indefinitely.

Comment #58936

Posted by k.e. on November 20, 2005 2:02 AM (e)

Joshua

For you

By William Blake.

The Clod and the Pebble

“Love seeketh not itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care,
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a heaven in hell’s despair.”

So sung a little Clod of Clay,
Trodden with the cattle’s feet,
But a Pebble of the brook
Warbled out these metres meet:

“Love seeketh only Self to please,
To bind another to its delight,
Joys in another’s loss of ease,
And builds a hell in heaven’s despite

Comment #58937

Posted by Alan Fox on November 20, 2005 2:05 AM (e)

Sorry, link doesn’t work, try here and scroll to comment 7.

Comment #58938

Posted by Alan Fox on November 20, 2005 2:10 AM (e)

k. e. wrote:

The only hope I see for Dembshi is (maybe a faint hope) him recanting on his deathbed.

Ah, the Cathar “consolamentum”. A handy way to employ Pascal’s wager!

Comment #58939

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 20, 2005 2:13 AM (e)

Good one, Alan. You’re attacking me because I deleted a comment where someone basically said:

“You are a liar. All ID supporters are liars…William ‘I lie for Jesus’ is a liar, and he’s evil. He’s not a scientist, nor is Michael Behe. They are both effing idiots who hate science and trying to establish a national theocracy. Just like all you right wing nutjobs who are anti-science and hate progress…you are all trying to destroy the world too.”

Yeah- I’ll keep THAT sort of comment posted on my site. I shouldn’t have ANY rules at all, nor should Dembski for that matter…’we should all allow all comments no matter how hate-filled they are, no matter how many lies they contain, no matter how much inappropriate language is used. Gosh, I’m sorry for deleting such things. From here on out, I’ll even allow the BIG idiots who post “ur a c*ck sucking mother f**king idiot and you eat sh*t!!!!!” Great idea, Foxy. Great idea.

Comment #58940

Posted by Jeremy on November 20, 2005 2:20 AM (e)

Josh, regarding your disagreement with DaveScot over your belief in an immaterial soul:

Wasn’t that when you were going on about how we can’t measure someone’s brainwaves and tell if they’re happy or sad or angry? And didn’t you also say that since thoughts have no weight that they must exist somewhere else?

See, this is a microcosm of ID. YOU can’t explain how a brain works, so you just chalk it up to something supernatural.

Comment #58942

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 20, 2005 2:50 AM (e)

No, Jeremy, in that thread, I said nothing of brainwaves or happiness or sadness. I’ve never said anything about brainwaves and sadness…tho, I would say it is true that a doctor couldn’t tell you if you’re sad or happy, tho the definition of sadness and happiness are complicated to begin with, and you could possibly not fully know yourself which way you feel- maybe you feel partly happy and partly sad).

ID doesn’t make the claim that you can’t explain it, thus it must be supernatural. ID doesn’t say that the designer IS or ISN’T supernatural…for ID says NOTHING of the designer only the design. You’ll, of course, claim that’s a lie…but claiming something is a lie doesn’t make it a lie of course.

Read any of the books on ID, and you’ll be hard pressed to find, within the theory itself, any mention of the designer or who/what that designer is…only the design itself is looked at. The hallmarks of design.

On top of that, the word supernatural is used a lot but has numerous definitions…and many people who believe in God (since you’re attempting to turn ID into a theological claim) wouldn’t consider God supernatural at all, considering that God would have created the universe (nature) and would be a part of it and within it. And acts of God would not necessarily have to even violate any known laws of the universe…tho, again, if God created the universe and is thus part of it (natural), then no laws would really be supernatural.

Comment #58943

Posted by Tiax on November 20, 2005 2:54 AM (e)

Joshua Taj Bozeman wrote:

Read any of the books on ID, and you’ll be hard pressed to find, within the theory itself, any mention of the designer or who/what that designer is…only the design itself is looked at. The hallmarks of design.

We’d be hard-pressed to find anything in the ‘theory itself’ because there is no ‘theory’ of Intelligent Design.

Comment #58944

Posted by k.e. on November 20, 2005 2:55 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #58945

Posted by Alan Fox on November 20, 2005 3:04 AM (e)

Josh

It’s a beautiful sunny morning so I’m off hiking. But I quickly read through the above thread and can’t see where you have been gratuitously insulted.

That you are young is curable. You’ll grow out of it.

That you lack education, you can go to college.

That you lack experience, hopefully, you’ll gain that on the way.

And remember, frequent sex, even with yourself, will protect you against prostate cancer in later life.

Comment #58946

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 20, 2005 3:05 AM (e)

of course there isnt. dembski, behe, and others have written numerous books of comic strips, cooking recipes, and fix it yourself tips.

Comment #58947

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 20, 2005 3:09 AM (e)

Again, Alan Fox- thanks for proving my point yet again. Your childish immaturity is why you were banned from commenting on Dembski’s blog. Good thing that most of the comments here are childish rants…no chance of you being banned.

I do love childish rants that include statements “That you are young is curable. You’ll grow out of it.”

Kettle…meet pot.

Comment #58948

Posted by MaxOblivion on November 20, 2005 3:54 AM (e)

Josh simple question.

Does Dembski delete/censor comments to give the impression that everyone agrees with him, yes or no?

Think carefully before you answer…

Comment #58951

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 6:56 AM (e)

In the midst of all this talk about Dembski deleting comments, I’d like to point out that PT cannot take the high road on this issue. I have had two comments that were not offensive or off-topic “disemvowelled” by PZ Myers (The comments were critical of PZ’s post). PZ stated that the first one was mangled because I used the word “Gestapo” (note: I did not call any individual a Gestapo) A search of PT reveals that other comments have used that word without being mangled, and furthermore I personally have been likened, on PT, by other commenters, to Nazis, Taliban, and a child abuser without triggering any action by the powers that be. Furthermore, I resubmitted the post without the supposed offense and it was likewise mangled with a warning that any additional comment by me on his thread would receive the same treatment.

After that, I sent four emails to a collection of the PT leaders. Since the posts still bear my name, but do not reflect what I wrote, I politely asked that they be deleted. I acknowledged that (obviously) PT has a right to manage its site as it sees fit, but that, in fact, if Dembski deletes comments, well that is actually more in line with journalistic practices. Newspapers might decide not to print a letter, but they never print a letter they don’t like with all the vowels removed just to mock the writer.

From those four emails, I received one response (after the third email) from Reed saying they would look into this. After the fourth I got a response from PZ (whiched had been cc’ed to other PT leaders):

This is not a newspaper. What newspaper lets everyone who wants post
letters without editorial oversight? When we have a liberal policy of
allowing comments without restriction, unlike any newspaper, we have
to have different strategies for dealing with the garbage from
undisciplined cranks that gets through.

Heddle’s letter has been disemvoweled to make it clear that his kind
of abusive ranting will be policed. It is left in place as an example
to others. If commenters don’t like the fact that bad comments will
be edited, think twice before clicking on the ‘submit’ button.

To which I replied with a fifth email:

PZ,

That argument makes little sense, given that you are in fact, through the “disemvowling,” exercising the very editorial oversight that you claim is absent. Nor does the warning “If commenters don’t like the fact that bad comments will be edited, think twice before clicking on the ‘submit’ button” make any cogent point, since a newspaper, if it wanted to be as childish, could simply respond “letter writers should think twice about dropping that envelope in the mailbox, because if we don’t like it, we’ll mangle it and print it just to mock you.”

There is little I can do, of course. The one thing I can and will do is anytime a thread reaches a critical mass of commenters complaining about Dembski’s editorial policy, I will point out that PT’s, in my opinion, is worse and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.

If PT wants to behave professionally, it should follow accepted practices. It should delete comments it finds offensive, perhaps those that contain a trigger word (as PZ claimed was the reason for the mangling.) Or, they should ban the commenter.

Comment #58953

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 20, 2005 7:18 AM (e)

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 06:56 AM (e) (s)

In the midst of all this talk about Dembski deleting comments, I’d like to point out that PT cannot take the high road on this issue. I have had two comments that were not offensive or off-topic “disemvowelled”…

H’mmm,
I am not sure what comments of yours were disemvowled, but I am sure it could be frustrating.

In my experience on this site though, it is far more open and honest than any “creationist” site I have seen.

Surely you do not believe (or maybe you do) that PT exercises more control on posters than Dr. Dembski’s site?

Did you ever see the gist of “JAD’s” posts on here. He was very offensive at times, yet it took him ages to get himself banned.

Comment #58955

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 7:31 AM (e)

What I am saying is that PT could choose to (1) print JADs comments (by not deleting them) (2) delete his comments (3) ban him, or (4) mangle his comments as a form of public humiliation. Options 1-3 are accepted practices. Option 4 is not.

Comment #58956

Posted by k.e. on November 20, 2005 8:12 AM (e)

Heddle said

The one thing I can and will do is anytime a thread reaches a critical mass of commenters complaining about Dembski’s editorial policy, I will point out that PT’s, in my opinion, is worse and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.

Hahaha Don’t make me laugh.

William “Don Quixote” Dembski

Edits ANY critical comments and filters his Blog to make sure every comment suits him

Why?

Because he doesn’t want the world to know that he has been thoroughly debunked.

Really an infinitely long wave with zero information and CSI. What next an Anti Gravity machine.

He has joined the heaven of pseudoscientist’s and other Monsters from the ID living in a parallel universe behind the BBQ shop.

And guess what?

No matter what there will be a new one just around the corner mangling reality for profit

Here’s one now, using much the same hand waving from someone else who just didn’t get Claude Shannon.

http://people.qualcomm.com/karn/papers/vmsk/

… does he live in waco land?.

Comment #58957

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 20, 2005 8:21 AM (e)

ID doesn’t say that the designer IS or ISN’T supernatural

Umm, then why do IDers keep bitching and moaning about science’s presumed “naturalistic materialistic biases”?

Comment #58960

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 9:26 AM (e)

Comment #58955

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 07:31 AM (e) (s)

What I am saying is that PT could choose to (1) print JADs comments (by not deleting them) (2) delete his comments (3) ban him, or (4) mangle his comments as a form of public humiliation. Options 1-3 are accepted practices. Option 4 is not.

I accept number 4.

There is little I can do, of course. The one thing I can and will do is anytime a thread reaches a critical mass of commenters complaining about Dembski’s editorial policy, I will point out that PT’s, in my opinion, is worse and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.

Are you a total idiot? Go to Dembski’s site and say Anything critical. Anything. See how long you last. By comparison, you’ve posted your nonsense like “Sensitivity” for over a year.

Hey, remember Sensitivity? Those were the days. You said Sensitivity was “A ratio i.e. percentage change (duh)” and then dropped that like a hot potato when you realized that such a ratio could easily eliminate your beloved 120 OOM.

In PT’s year and a half history, they’re banned/disemvoweled fewer people than Dembski banned last week.

Comment #58961

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 9:32 AM (e)

Some creationist above:

ID doesn’t make the claim that you can’t explain it, thus it must be supernatural. ID doesn’t say that the designer IS or ISN’T supernatural…

Bill Dembski:

“The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

“Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory.”

Comment #58962

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 9:38 AM (e)

How about the creationists at Evolution News and Views? Not only did they turn off comments, they turned off the Trackbacks when those weren’t flattering.

Comment #58963

Posted by buddha on November 20, 2005 9:52 AM (e)

Hi PhilVaz, welcome back! It’s a pity you left out the only really relevant De Fide dogma from your list:

* God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason. (De Fide)

PhilVaz wrote:

BTW, natural science is outside of the “faith and morals” which is the domain of the Catholic magisterium (or teaching office of the Church).

So what is your interpretation of that Vatican I dogma?

Comment #58964

Posted by Ben on November 20, 2005 10:00 AM (e)

Bill Dembski:

“The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

“Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory.”

And let’s not forget these either:

Michael Behe: “But a Darwinist cannot invoke angels adding staples to traps, because the angels are on OUR side”

Hank - “Now, your purpose is not to identify the intelligent designer, but to point in that direction?”
Behe - “Yes. That’s exactly right. I wrote the book. I try to stay completely in my role as a scientist although I’m certainly a Christian and I BELIEVE THE DESIGNER IS GOD.”

Philip Johnson: “The objective…is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’”

Johnson: “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

“Johnson said he and most others in the intelligent design movement believe the designer is the God of the Bible.”

Dembski: “Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”

Dembski: “I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed. […] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he’s not getting it.”

Comment #58967

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 20, 2005 10:18 AM (e)

In the midst of all this talk about Dembski deleting comments

Um, Dembski DOES delete comments.

And I don’t recall hearing YOU saying a peep in protest about it, Heddle.

Why is that?

Comment #58968

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 20, 2005 10:21 AM (e)

Sure sucks to be you, doesn’t it Heddle. (yawn)

But while you’re here, screaming “Help help! I’m being censored!” to the entire world, perhaps you’d like to answer the simple question I’ve been putting to you for months now without any intelligible resposne:

*ahem*

What makes your religious opinions any more authoritative than anyone else’s, other than your say-so? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should to, say, mine or my next door neighbor’s or my car mechanic’s or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

Josh —- same question.

Comment #58970

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 10:34 AM (e)

About David Heddle’s dumb complaint, only one fact needs to be pointed out. Heddle said

There is little I can do, of course. The one thing I can and will do is anytime a thread reaches a critical mass of commenters complaining about Dembski’s editorial policy, I will point out that PT’s, in my opinion, is worse and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.

and nobody did anything to ban or censor him here. Whereas if he’d said

There is little I can do, of course. The one thing I can and will do is anytime a thread reaches a critical mass of commenters complaining about Panda’s Thumb’s editorial policy, I will point out that Dembski’s, in my opinion, is worse and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.

on Dembski’s site, Heddle would have been immediately deleted and banned.

Comment #58971

Posted by Keith Douglas on November 20, 2005 10:52 AM (e)

It is good to see the religious come out against ID, but I note that with a “hands off” god, there’s no Incarnation - deism is not Christianity. (Cf. the fundies trying to coop the US founding fathers …) Also, I note if those articles of faith is an accurate list, it has one area that is definitely in danger of being refuted - the finite age of the universe. (Unless we take “world”) to mean the Earth. The Catholics like the Big Bang because it has been misrepresented as being the origin of the universe, when it is better to say that it is the origin of our local hubble volume. (Even there, using york time makes for no first instant.) Finally, the “sustaining god” view is occaisonalism in a pretty face, whence makes nonsense concerning evil (god would be directly responsible for evil). I guess this is the official position: it just seems radically inconsistent.

Comment #58972

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 20, 2005 11:02 AM (e)

Posted by Keith Douglas on November 20, 2005 10:52 AM (e) (s)

It is good to see the religious come out against ID, but I note that with a “hands off” god, there’s no Incarnation - deism is not Christianity. (Cf. the fundies trying to coop the US founding fathers …) Also, I note if those articles of faith is an accurate list, it has one area that is definitely in danger of being refuted - the finite age of the universe. (Unless we take “world”) to mean the Earth. The Catholics like the Big Bang because it has been misrepresented as being the origin of the universe, when it is better to say that it is the origin of our local hubble volume.

Is there any evidence for that?
I have read something sounding roughly like your statement, but thought that right now there was actually no real evidence at all.
Sounds like p-brane theory; isn’t that still highly speculative?

Comment #58975

Posted by k.e. on November 20, 2005 11:28 AM (e)

And Josh
Just for interest sake what separates

Dembski
“I don’t actually have a theory, just a question to which I think the answer is God but I’ll call it science and try to fool the world.TM

from other pseudo-scientists like Anti Gravity Machine merchants, Infinite Energy Boffins, VSMK, Faith Healers,
Psycho Surgeons, Voo-doo

Or is he in some sick twisted game of trial and error to see how far he can push you before your brain explodes ?

http://www.nimbi.com/songs_of_experience_the_human_abstract.html

Comment #58976

Posted by ben on November 20, 2005 11:28 AM (e)

Could someone post the actual disemvowelled posts?

While I think PT would be best off only deleting/banning the most offensive and unconstructive posts and posters, I just don’t see how having two posts mangled by PT is somehow less acceptable than Dembski not merely deleting posts that are critical of him or his views but systematically editing every aspect of his and others’ posts to make it seem that he is both infallible and unopposed. I just don’t see that Heddle’s obsessive complaining about the ‘disemvowellment’ is justified, and his comparison to Dembski’s practices to PT’s is hypocritical at best. So he lost some vowels; he retains the right to participate here on a daily basis and he does.

Typical Dembskiist whining. Heddle thinks he’s with god so a wrong done him is worse than a wrong done anyone else, regardless of the relative wrongness.

Comment #58977

Posted by PZ Myers on November 20, 2005 11:42 AM (e)

Heddle’s protests are pointless. Newspapers have one set of practices to handle offensive comments (they just don’t publish them in the first place), but weblogs are different: commenters are given the privilege of adding notes to an article, and we have to deal with them after they’ve been posted. There is no analog to this in the print media.

Disemvoweling is a practice with solid precedent in weblogging.

wikipedia wrote:

Disemvoweling has since turned out to be a surprisingly effective tool for maintaining order in online venues. For some reason, the fact that their text is still present, even in severely altered form, seems to baffle trolls’ normal impulses. They’re significantly less likely to re-post disemvoweled arguments than deleted ones. They may cry censorship; but since the other participants can, if they wish, puzzle out the original message, and see for themselves why it was disemvoweled, the troll doesn’t get much sympathy. Also, disemvoweling gives the moderator the option of only suppressing the offensive bits of an otherwise valuable message. Not only does this preserve worthwhile material, but it makes it clear to everyone just where the line got crossed: a useful piece of clarification and public education.

Individual contributors have their own ways of dealing with comment trolling. I dislike deleting comments, because it can leave strange holes in the thread of the discussion, and because I believe all commenters should be accountable for their own words. Heddle, apparently, does not like having his still-decipherable but plainly rebuked comment left in plain sight. All I can say is, if you’re going to make a comment that you will regret afterwards, don’t click on the “post” button. And while other contributors here may make your offensive comments quietly disappear, [b]my[/b] personal preference will be to continue to leave them [i]in situ[/i] but eviscerated.

Comment #58978

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 20, 2005 11:49 AM (e)

“Disemvowelling” is the final warning shot fired across the bow.

If the highly hypocritical Mr. Heddle had any shred of decency left, he wouldn’t even dream of comparing PT, where he’s been allowed to hang himself with his own rhetorical rope several times already (the site’s search engine comes very handy to find some of Heddle’s oldies), to para-Stalinist sites like Dembski’s, where people are deceived into thinking that their posts have been kept while they have not.

Comment #58979

Posted by AR on November 20, 2005 11:53 AM (e)

On Jason Rosenhouse’s blog, Heddle has several times repeated that the author of an article in Skeptical Inquirer is “stupid.” Perhaps Heddle’s opinion is that the word “stupid” belongs in a serious debate and that he is entitled to judge other authors’ opinions from a position of superiority. Is he not aware that pointing fingers at other people and yelling “Stupid!” is a common tool of jesters? It may cause chuckles and the jester himself is looking stupid, which has the faintly comic effect the jester tries to create. In view of this, his complaints that PT applies an unaccepted method of disemvoweling offensive posts (and a post using the word Gestapo certainly is in such a category) sound unconvincing. If Heddle thinks that PT is worse than Dembski’s blog, he has an option: stop posting on PT where his comments usually are a nuisance, and post his diatribes on Dembski’s blogs where they may be more welcome.

Comment #58980

Posted by Mike Walker on November 20, 2005 11:56 AM (e)

I guess you could claim Dembski is following journalistic precedent if you include such esteemed and storied media outlets as Soviet-era Pravda or one of Joseph Goebbels’ favourite, Das Reich.

While I am not for the mutilation of anyone’s posts, it has happened only twice, and the last time was months ago. And at least you are free to make your displeasure about it known in public on this board – a courtesy which would not have been extended to you on Dembski’s under similar circumstances.

Dembski is, of course, free to establish whatever censorship rules he wants on his own blog, but when he deletes any comment that even have the whiff of disagreement or dissent to his core beliefs he loses all rights to claim any level of journalistic precedent or integrity.

Comment #58981

Posted by kay on November 20, 2005 12:31 PM (e)

Instead of disemvoweling, I would propose ROT-13ing a message. This way people who REALLY want to read it can flip it over.

Comment #58982

Posted by frank schmidt on November 20, 2005 12:43 PM (e)

This may be a first but I’d like to actually praise something DH said at the beginning of this thread:

david heddle wrote:

There is no false dilemma…Evolution may have been God’s means to his end, but the outcome, the Church would insist, was never in doubt, and that God cannot be excluded from from having acted at any step in the process.

This is generally agreed to by all the non-fundie posters on this site: Science, including evolution, makes no claim on non-natural events. Two consequences of this seem to have escaped Josh: (1) Genesis is not natural history. It’s a story about why humans keep f*****g things up. (2) Science says nothing about whether he or the Pope is correct on matters of faith and morals.

It seems that the best uses of PT would be to discuss (1) new data from evolutionary biology (2) the tactics of the creationists. If you want to discuss the existence of God, either go to a site dedicated to that purpose, or wait til the bar closes, or enroll in college and talk about it at 3:00 am when your date didn’t turn out like you hoped, and there’s nothing else to do besides sleep.

Comment #58984

Posted by PhilVaz on November 20, 2005 1:02 PM (e)

buddha quoting Vatican I: “God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.” (De Fide)

buddha: “So what is your interpretation of that Vatican I dogma?”

Is the dogma a scientific claim, or a faith claim? I say it is a faith claim. If it is cited in Ludwig Ott, I can look up the background he gives on it. Vatican I does teach God can be known by reason. No problem. We accept the cosmological and other arguments for God as good arguments (the Aquinas arguments, etc). Those are not scientific claims, but theological or philosophical claims. The full text of Vatican Council I on “faith and reason” is here

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

The relevant canons are these:

On God the creator of all things

1. If anyone denies the one true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema. (comment: this denies atheism)

2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema. (comment: this denies philosophical materialism)

3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema. (comment: this denies pantheism, that God is all)

There are more, but now onto your favorite Vatican I canon:

On revelation

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him: let him be anathema.

The context of your canon is under “revelation.” That is a faith issue, not a science issue. All this is saying is that faith and reason do not conflict, and that God can be known by reason from the “things that have been made.” This is a general statement reflecting the biblical teaching of Romans 1:19-21 (see also Wisdom 13 in Catholic Bibles which has parallel language).

Romans 1:19-21 “…since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened….”

You can call this “intelligent design” in the lower-case sense, but I don’t call it Intelligent Design in the Discovery Institute sense (an anti-evolution sense). I read this blog on occasion and generally agree and appreciate the fair views toward Catholicism by most of the participants here.

Phil P

Comment #58985

Posted by puckSR on November 20, 2005 1:07 PM (e)

Wow….you guys had quite the discussion last night.

Keith….i believe that Deism can be Christian…especially if one believes in a deterministic Universe. In the case of determinism, it would not matter when God “worked”, the result would still be the same.

Also, the big bang may not be the beginning of the Universe, but as long as we do not know what “kick-started” the universe….then that will be God’s intervention. The bad thing about an eternal universe….you could never prove it.

Josh…we do know your religious views to some extent.
Your inability to grasp the concept of Jesus without a literal bible interpretation is a direct indication of your FUNDAMENTALISM.
I know that your not Catholic….you severly misunderstand Catholicism.
I know your Christian…that is fairly obvious
So…Your a christian who believes in a literal bible. That would make you a Christian Fundamentalist….simple deduction my dear Watson.

Comment #58986

Posted by MaxOblivion on November 20, 2005 2:09 PM (e)

Josh, i’m still waiting an a answer to my simple question

Josh simple question.

Does Dembski delete/censor comments to give the impression that everyone agrees with him, yes or no?

Think carefully before you answer…

Comment #58988

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 2:19 PM (e)

Steve, you are still around? I reckoned you were finishing your Physical Review Letters article about how whether a physical constant is small or large depends on the units, as you alluded to here.

AR,

You have a point, that using the word “stupid” is unfortunate. However, it has no meaning relative to this question. If using “stupid” or similar insults were the issue, a great deal of PT and much of PZ’s blog would burst into flames. I seem to recall that Jason is also known to use that word. These are blogs for crying out loud, not Oxford debates.

Aureola:

“Disemvowelling” is the final warning shot fired across the bow.

No, here it was the first refuge of a coward. There was no prior warning, so the description as a “final warning” is, at best, misleading.

PZ:

All I can say is, if you’re going to make a comment that you will regret afterwards, don’t click on the “post” button.

I don’t think it is possible for you to miss the boat any more than you did. I don’t regret the post at all. If you hadn’t mangled it to give yourself a sense of power and to bolster your own ego, I wouldn’t be asking you to delete it out of some sort of buyer’s remorse.

Ben:

The actual disemvowelled posts are here and here. Note that they were not unmolested long enough to provide credibility to PZ’s argument about not wanting to leave confusing holes in the thread. The subsequent comments they generated were just guffaws about the disemvowelling, which is what, I suspect, PZ was seeking.

I will continue to bring this up whenever (and only) when I come across excessive whining about Dembski’s editorial policy. Or until I am banned from PT.

Comment #58990

Posted by PvM on November 20, 2005 2:37 PM (e)

Dear Heddle, your actions show that while whining about the disemvowelment by PZ on this blog, you fail to raise a similar objection to the actions by Dembski. As such, your whining seems to have little content.
I understand that you personally must feel somewhat silly for having been disemvoweled. Some may even argue that it improved your postings in both clarity and logic.
Now stop whining please and stop filling the threads with your ‘complaints’. When you can point me to a thread in which you complain on Dembski’s blog to his ‘editorial policies’, you at least have some credibility. Or may I assume we can extend your comments to conclude that Dembski’s editorial policies are worse that PZ’s? I assume that your comments thus apply even more strongly to Dembski’s poliocies

This thread is not about Heddle… Sorry…
Any more whining on this thread, from either side, about Heddle will be deleted. Heddle has been given an opportunity to whine, something people who post at Dembski’s blog seldomly are given.
But there are limits to my patience with attempts to derail threads with personal whines.

Comment #58991

Posted by Flint on November 20, 2005 2:39 PM (e)

I will continue to bring this up whenever (and only) when I come across excessive whining about Dembski’s editorial policy.

Hard to imagine what sort of whining could be “excessive” about a policy straight out of 1984 - delete every uncongenial post (even respectful, polite posts doing no more than seeking the “wrong” information), revoke posting privileges to anyone who questions Official Authority, and even trick posters into thinking their posts are visible when they aren’t. These policies are so profoundly antithetical to any real discussion as to make comparison with disemvoweling after repeated efforts at manifest trolling seem negligible by comparison.

But I’m kind of glad Heddle is permitted to stay here, repeating that trying to discourage the single handful of repeat offenders from being offensive (NOT for disagreeing) is somehow equivalent to the most flagrant censorship intellectual dishonesty permits. Heddle’s efforts in this regard show as clearly as Dembski’s efforts how prone True Believers are to life in a fantasy world.

Comment #58992

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 3:04 PM (e)

PvM,
I have no firsthand experience about Dembski deleting comments. I don’t visit and his blog very often and have only posted a few comments on his blog. In one case it could have been viewed as critical, since I complained, in effect, about Behe and Dembski being the only recognized spokesmen for ID. I said something along the lines of “I give ID talks and I never mention Behe or Dembski.” The post was not deleted, although I was attacked by Dave Scott.

So the best I can offer, in this litmus test you have applied to me, is to point to my blog where a few weeks ago a similar discussion developed over editorial policy. There I wrote, to GCT and Ed Darrell: If Dembski deletes rational comments merely because they offer an opposing viewpoint, then I think he is wrong.

Comment #58993

Posted by Mike Walker on November 20, 2005 3:28 PM (e)

Go ahead, PvM, delete away (and maybe even lock the thread). Since Heddle has just admitted he’s not even qualified to judge Dembski’s censorship policies this whole whine and discussion is pointless anyway.

This message will self-destruct in 30 seconds… but just in case I’m wrong, feel free to delete it anyway… :)

Comment #58994

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 20, 2005 4:17 PM (e)

No, here it was the first refuge of a coward.

No, Heddle, the first refuge of a coward is to refuse to answer direct questions and then run away.

Just like you do.

And Sal.

And Paul.

Comment #58997

Posted by William on November 20, 2005 4:45 PM (e)

The Vatican is a ‘city’ state. Catholicism is ‘universal’. All good Catholics know this. Speaking from experience, they have it beaten into their heads from baptism on. Christians are not Catholics but Catholics are Christians. Neither will argue this point.

Papa carries the Big Stick, regardless of who’s body is waving it from St. Peters. All religious figures pale in comparison to the the Catholic Pontif. Catholicism is the politically correct religion. It’s membership is the wealthiest and by far the most intelligently designed. Of all biblical proselytizers, Catholics have it down pat – keep the book shut and on the shelf. Go to confession and tithe.

Evolution does not threaten Catholicism; however it does scare the beejeevies out of its many ‘spin off’ faiths. Luther’s leap may have been principled, but it was not profitable and did nothing to save humankind from human greed.

Christians eagerly await a final damning blow to all evil (Catholics, Jews, Muslims, scientists…) delivered by their benevolent Lord and Master, Pat Robertson. Why don’t Catholics have a 700 Club? Not since Fulton J Sheen have they slipped to such ‘needy’ solicitation. Televangelists steadily suck nickels and dimes from the stupid while Benedict polishes his bullet-proof golf cart. Politics and religion don’t mix, not in the eyes of the faithful that is. Catholics know this.
That is irreducible complexity.

We are all born atheits, why make it harder?

Comment #58998

Posted by William on November 20, 2005 5:07 PM (e)

“If Dembski deletes rational comments merely because they offer an opposing viewpoint, then I think he is wrong.”

Dave Heddle

How would you know? You are one of the ‘flock’ so to speak. I have been “excommunicated” and “you’re outta here”d from The Divine Reverend Bill D’s chat room so many times, I now get notes upon registration; “cheatin, eh?”. I’ve run out of mail sites and pseudonyms, so I rant at the ADm just for sh*ts and giggles.

Yes, Uncommon Descent clips ‘quips’ that aren’t part of his design as well as re posting re-dated, not updated, old posts and no access to any personal profiles not linked to ARN, Design this, Design that. WordPress (BD’s blog editor) provides some pretty slick tools and he uses ‘em all. Posts appear and disappear. You always see your post, the counter disagrees and no one responds. Pray for me Dave> I just want to be read.

Comment #58999

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 5:21 PM (e)

Comment #58988

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 02:19 PM (e) (s)

Steve, you are still around? I reckoned you were finishing your Physical Review Letters article about how whether a physical constant is small or large depends on the units, as you alluded to here.

Your argument, before your brief sojourn into Sensitivity, was “Blah Blah Blah 120 OOM Proves intelligent design” It remains a fact that your 120 OOM is particular to a set of units. The units in question are called “reduced Planck units”. The same number is 10^-29g/cm3 in cgs units. The size of a number, by itself, does not tell us anything about how likely or unlikely it is, despite your spending a year trying to convince us it does.

It is also a fact that the allowable “fractional or percentage change (duh)” ratio, which you called Sensitivity, which you’ve never even clearly defined, but seems to be (delta cc)/cc, could be any number at all, for all we know, which also does nothing for you.

Even if you were right about those parts, you’d still be wrong, because it wouldn’t imply ID, because you don’t know what the odds are for life in the total space of possible physical laws and constants and such. You would just know how small the odds are with every other piece of physics held constant.

My advice is to quit trying to convince the scientific community of ID. It doesn’t accomplish anything. All you do is bore the crap out of people like me. ID isn’t science and doesn’t provoke any research, so you aren’t going to get anywhere. Do what IDers do best–write a book explaining your notions, and rake in the money from royalties, speaking fees, and ‘consulting’. Dembski recently made $200/hr. In a year of promoting your half-baked numerology on this site, have you convinced anyone, or made any money, or accomplished anything?

Comment #59000

Posted by Jim Harrison on November 20, 2005 5:28 PM (e)

The official catholic position on God’s role in evolution reminds me of the ideas of Conway-Morris. In both cases, divine design is like a murphy bed that doesn’t take up floor space during working hours. The assertion of teleology has no cash value at all. You only pull it out when you feel the need for edification. Pretty smart.

Comment #59001

Posted by Valz on November 20, 2005 5:30 PM (e)

I am glas that The Church is being more outspoken against ID and creationism. It seems that the Church also wants to draw a sharp line of division between Catholicism and fundamentalism.

I notice that fellow Catholic PhilVaz also posts here. I fully agree with his statement here…

PhilVaz wrote:

“You can call this “intelligent design” in the lower-case sense, but I don’t call it Intelligent Design in the Discovery Institute sense (an anti-evolution sense). I read this blog on occasion and generally agree and appreciate the fair views toward Catholicism by most of the participants here.”

Comment #59003

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 5:34 PM (e)

Steve s,

It remains a fact that your 120 OOM is particular to a set of units.

is it really your contention, I want to be sure before I comment further, that the number of orders of magnitude descrepancy between theory and observation for the cosmological constant depends on the units? Are you really saying that??

Comment #59004

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 5:35 PM (e)

I just posted

#

The editorial policies here with regard to deleting comments is worse than on science sites like Panda’s Thumb, and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.

Comment by stevie steve — November 20, 2005 @ 4:38 pm

at Dembski’s site. Let’s see how long it lasts.

Comment #59005

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 20, 2005 5:46 PM (e)

at Dembski’s site. Let’s see how long it lasts.

Do you have a way of getting around that setup where your comments stay visible on your own computer even after he deletes them?

Comment #59007

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 5:46 PM (e)

I’ll answer your question when you answer mine from months ago–what is the Sensitivity of the cosmological constant?

You don’t even have to give me a single digit of precision. Just an order of magnitude for this “fractional or percent change (duh)”

Comment #59008

Posted by Jeremy on November 20, 2005 5:50 PM (e)

Just FYI: You can tell if your posts aren’t being added if the Comments count remains unchanged after you hit the Post button.

Comment #59009

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 5:51 PM (e)

Do you have a way of getting around that setup where your comments stay visible on your own computer even after he deletes them?

Yes, I went to anonymizer.com.

w/r/t the status of the comment, it is already gone. If anyone disputes that I posted it, I will email you a screenshot. From my computer it is still visible.

Perhaps Mr. Heddle will notice that the comment I posted on Dembski’s blog, which is already history, is identical in essence to what Heddle posted here, which remains here.

Comment #59010

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 20, 2005 5:59 PM (e)

w/r/t the status of the comment, it is already gone. If anyone disputes that I posted it, I will email you a screenshot. From my computer it is still visible.

That was quick.

Does anyone here know whether Dembski has ever openly acknowledged this little, uh, trick of his?

His policy of deleting anyone who displeases him can at least be lamely rationalized by saying ‘well, it’s his blog’, but his business of making people think they haven’t been deleted is amazingly dishonest, especially for someone who postures as a Christian of superior morality and ethics…

Comment #59011

Posted by Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠ&Gamma on November 20, 2005 6:04 PM (e)

I seem to recall reading about the Communist Chinese implementing a system to make e.g. pro-democracy comments in weblogs visible to their posters but invisible to all others, making it appear that nobody else - NOBODY else - supported democracy.  Of course, the general public would never learn that anyone supported democracy either.

Strange that Dembski would adopt a tactic used by atheist totalitarians.  Or perhaps not.

Comment #59012

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 6:09 PM (e)

Steve,

Here is a write-up on the cc fine tuning. As I point out, the cc fine tuning is of two forms–one is the mystery of why it is 120 orders of magnitude smaller (in ANY system of units) than theory. One is in its actual value. For the latter, I’ll be more conservative than PT favorite Victor Stenger on the subject. He wrote: “If the vacuum energy had been just a hair greater at the end of inflation, it would be so enormous today that space would be highly curved and the stars and planets could not exist.” I’ll just say the fractional sensitivity is certainly much less that 1%.

Now, explain how those OOM depend on the units? If CC is 1 (theory) and 10^-120 (observation) in Planck units, what are the values in MKS, and how many OOM difference would there be?

Comment #59014

Posted by Josh Bozeman on November 20, 2005 6:32 PM (e)

You children have got to be kidding me. You’re complaining that Dembski deleted a comment where you went over JUST to cause trouble? Let’s look up the word maturity in the dictionary and try putting it into play.

You guys realize no one will take you seriously with this nonsense. And then, because (like any rational personal) he deletes your childish attempt at starting trouble, you guys compare him to fascists and nazis and communists. Again, I say, more hateful rhetoric from the children at PT.

I’m still wondering when the post on PT that claimed I (and 3 others commenting at UC) called for the murder of Muslims (no one called for the killing of Muslims) will be edited and apologized for (oh wait, it hasn’t, even after I pointed out the libel involved.)

Now, let’s complain about PT and the tendency to post lies and refuse to retract them. Let’s all play the games of children!

Comment #59015

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 6:43 PM (e)

Obviously if you compare two numbers in any given system, their relative size doesn’t change by switching to a different system. That’s obviously not what I was talking about. But in your OOM numerology you use 10^120 and 10^60 in different ways at different times. You have said before that 1 the number relative to the expected value proves ID 2 the size of the number itself proves ID 3 The fractional or percent change (duh) proves ID etc etc etc.

Here’s an example of your confused language.

Back in the day, David Heddle said:

The numbers like 10^-60 I quoted was NOT for a chain of probabilities, but a single parameter, the expansion rate of the universe. It is not a probability but a required precision.

Now anyone who knows about precision, accuracy, and scientific notation, would interpret this to mean that the value of the CC is fixed to the 60th decimal place when written in scientific notation.

Wikipedia says:

Significant digits

Scientific notation is useful for indicating the precision with which the quantity was measured. Including only the significant figures, the digits that are known to be reliable, in the mantissa implicitly conveys value’s precision. Any physical quantity in scientific notation is assumed to be precise to no fewer than the quoted number of digits of precision. However, where precision in such measurements is crucial, more sophisticated expressions of measurement error must be used.

As an example, consider the Earth’s mass as presented above in conventional notation. Since the representation gives no indication of the accuracy of the reported value, a reader could incorrectly assume that it is known down to the last digit displayed. The scientific notation implicitly shows it is known with a precision of 0.00005×1024 Kg, or 5×1019 Kg.

and a guy at the University of Toronto says

For example, if you’re an engineer and you want to record the pressure on a supporting beam of a bridge, and you measure it as 500034 but your instrument is only precise to +/- 600, you would not want to write “500034” because you really have no way of knowing, based on your measurement, what the last few digits are. On the other hand, you wouldn’t want to just round it to 500000, because that doesn’t convey the fact that you do precisely know the first few digits! Scientific notation (5.00 x 10^5) is the perfect way to express the number and give an idea of how precise it is.

Given that we don’t know One Single Digit of the cc written in scientific notation, your comment about it being precise to 10^-60 is nonsense.

You use these numbers many different ways. Sometimes you’re talking about the size of the number in Planck units. Sometimes it’s the size relative to the guessed value of 1 which a naive model would predict. Sometimes you say it’s the precision of the CC. What you never do, is come up with a decent argument.

I was going to wait to post this until you gave me a number for your Sensitivity ratio which supposedly proves ID. But we both know that there is no knowledge about what that ratio is, don’t we? What happened to the Sensitivity, dave? What’s the fraction?

Over and out.

Comment #59016

Posted by PvM on November 20, 2005 6:44 PM (e)

Josh wrote:

You children have got to be kidding me. You’re complaining that Dembski deleted a comment where you went over JUST to cause trouble? Let’s look up the word maturity in the dictionary and try putting it into play.

You guys realize no one will take you seriously with this nonsense. And then, because (like any rational personal) he deletes your childish attempt at starting trouble, you guys compare him to fascists and nazis and communists. Again, I say, more hateful rhetoric from the children at PT

Sigh. Josh oh Josh… Do you even realize how silly your claims really are? First of all, the comments Dembski delete may include what you consider ‘hateful rhetoric’ or ‘childish comments’ but the simple fact is that most anything critical of Dembski or ID is summarily deleted. Simple as that…

Just try the experiment yourself… Of course, ID creationists may see any attempt to show problems with ID to be ‘childish comments’ or ‘starting trouble’ but the simple fact is that ID cannot allow for a critical discussion of its weaknesses.

Now discuss the topic or I will close the thread and remove all offending comments

Comment #59017

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 6:48 PM (e)

Comment #59014

Posted by Josh Bozeman on November 20, 2005 06:32 PM (e) (s)

You children have got to be kidding me. You’re complaining that Dembski deleted a comment where you went over JUST to cause trouble?

Smarten up Josh. Unless Dembski was monitoring the comments at Panda’s Thumb so obsessively that he saw my statement of purpose for posting the comment within a few minutes of my posting it, he didn’t know that I went over there just to cause trouble. All he knew is that someone commented “The editorial policies here with regard to deleting comments is worse than on science sites like Panda’s Thumb, and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.”, and he censored it, whereas the same comment directed at Panda’s Thumb is left wholly unmolested.

Comment #59018

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 20, 2005 6:49 PM (e)

Posted by Josh Bozeman on November 20, 2005 06:32 PM (e) (s)

You children have got to be kidding me. You’re complaining that Dembski deleted a comment where you went over JUST to cause trouble? Let’s look up the word maturity in the dictionary and try putting it into play.

You guys realize no one will take you seriously with this nonsense. And then, because (like any rational personal) he deletes your childish attempt at starting trouble, you guys compare him to fascists and nazis and communists. Again, I say, more hateful rhetoric from the children at PT.

I’m still wondering when the post on PT that claimed I (and 3 others commenting at UC) called for the murder of Muslims (no one called for the killing of Muslims) will be edited and apologized for (oh wait, it hasn’t, even after I pointed out the libel involved.)

Now, let’s complain about PT and the tendency to post lies and refuse to retract them. Let’s all play the games of children!

Hi Josh,
Do you want to talk; or do you just want to post insults?
If you seriously want to chat, then I am willing to talk to you.

Do you feel threatened?

Why don’t you try to post a message as rude as you posted here on a creationist/ID site?

Comment #59019

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 6:50 PM (e)

I didn’t see PvM’s comment until after the page refreshed. I’m done.

Comment #59021

Posted by Josh Bozeman on November 20, 2005 7:15 PM (e)

PvM- you show your own dishonesty when you say “ID creationists” (of course a creationist thinks God created all things separately…Michael Behe has no problem with common descent), so that alone makes your claim bogus and you know it.

MANY people at UC post comments against ID (I can point to many of them in the first few posts on the front page).

Steve S- you were merely trying to cause trouble. That is, by definition, childish…deleting childish comments is rational as can be.

Mr. Elliot- I didn’t insult anyone. It is, by definition the act of a child, to attack others with names and lies. If you want to call someone Stalin, Hitler, a Nazi, etc. then you should be ready to be called children. Act like children, be properly labeled children. If speaking the truth is rude in your opinion, that’s your problem, not mine…

Comment #59022

Posted by Edin Najetovic on November 20, 2005 7:16 PM (e)

Josh, about your claim of being quoted out of context, really, there was a link there to that context before things were quoted here, so what’s your beef? And though things were read into your post perhaps prematurely, there can be little doubt as to what you mean by a sentence “Sorry, but I don’t care what the pope (a position not established in the Bible) says, I care about what the word says.”

The only context where this was irrelevated as a statement of faith would be a following sentence saying “HAH! Fooled you all, didn’t I?” but that is not forthcoming. For those who still want context, find it in one of the first posts.

As for ID, read the court hearings, read up on how Dembski doesn’t answer to opponents (there was a nice thread a LOOONG while ago where Dembski’s math was totally thrashed and he failed to come up with a suitable response aside from handwaving… done by a lady I think a year ago, anyone remember?)

And really, censorship on Dembski’s website extends to all forms of even in depth criticism. People have shown here what the depth of his nearly fascistic posting rules are. And then there’s the recent ‘street theatre’ fiasco where he deletes evidence of lying outright without even apologising.

Then there’s panda’s thumb. Yes, we’re rude. Yes, we’re harsh. Yes, we our moods are more sour than your average lemon. But at least we allow contrary opinions, even if they amount to no more than “ZOMG1!!12!! U guyz is STOOPID!” because anyone with brains knows that such a comment will not help you. So where is this censorship and closedmindedness people talk about? Bring us evidence, real empirical evidence, of any ID claim and it will be discussed. That can not be said for Uncommon Descent, though apparently fascist commentary is allowed there.

I fear I just wasted a good ten minutes of my life trying to explain this to you, but it’ll be refreshing to see how you’ll respond and which points you’ll ignore ;)

May your whiskers never wither,

-Edin Najetovic

Comment #59025

Posted by buddha on November 20, 2005 7:53 PM (e)

Vatican I wrote:

Chapter 2
On revelation

1. The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

2. It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it: In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.

[…]

Vatican I defines two sources of revelation: (1) natural reason; and (2) divine faith. These are also known as “general revelation” and “special revelation”.

PhilVaz wrote:

Is the dogma a scientific claim, or a faith claim?

Notwithstanding the various definitions of “faith”, it is defined as of “the faith” that “God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason”. This is a statement about “general revelation”. Now, “detecting design in nature” is not out of character for “general revelation”, and, indeed, the fifth way of Thomas Aquinas is the argument from design.

We accept the cosmological and other arguments for God as good arguments (the Aquinas arguments, etc).

The cosmological argument is not a good argument. If this is your standard for accepting an argument, I am surprised you do not also accept the argument from design, as Thomas Aquinas did.

The context of your canon is under “revelation.” That is a faith issue, not a science issue.

It is a “general revelation” issue. You may not like it, but Vatican I defined as of “the faith” that we might find in nature a proof of the existence of god. As yet no sound proof has been discovered. Perhaps Romans 1:19-21 was written for our descendents and not our ancestors, eh?

You can call this “intelligent design” in the lower-case sense, but I don’t call it Intelligent Design in the Discovery Institute sense (an anti-evolution sense).

Oh, but Intelligent Design need not be anti-evolution. William Dembski, the Thomas Aquinas of Information Theory, says it’s about “detecting design in nature”, and the Cosmological Intelligent Design adherents have non-biological proofs of god. Does the fine-tuning argument inspire you?

By the way, have you investigated the condemnation of civil liberties by Pius IX, since we last met?

Comment #59026

Posted by William on November 20, 2005 8:03 PM (e)

Michael Shermer debated William Dembski at Colby College the 16th of this month. There is no transcript. Father Dembski provided his apostles with little more than a wink and a nod.

Josh, Don’t project! Not everyone is up to mischief when posting an opposing view on ‘enemy’ sites. It’s obvious you are a bit emotional and unreasonably adversarial.

ID is out of your ‘strike zone’, evolution is out your ‘ballpark’ and Charles Darwin is way, way out of your league. When he was your age he was headed for the Galapagos and history – you’re headed to an Eminem concert. Saw your site. Don’t throw stones.

Comment #59027

Posted by Henry J on November 20, 2005 8:08 PM (e)

kay,
Re “ROT-13ing a message”
What’s that, putting it on a separate page and replacing the original with a link to that page?

Henry

Comment #59028

Posted by MrDarwin on November 20, 2005 8:18 PM (e)

I see that the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views” blog has produced a long essay denouncing Coyne and his comments about ID, but they still can’t bring themselves to tell their readers about the ouster of the pro-ID Dover school board…

Comment #59029

Posted by Joshua Bozeman on November 20, 2005 8:28 PM (e)

Another person who attacks me personally, tho knows nothing about me. Obviously someone needs to read if you claim you’ve seen my site…cosidering I rarely ever talk about my personal activities. And an eminem concert is surely not one them.

“ID is out of your ‘strike zone’, evolution is out your ‘ballpark’ and Charles Darwin is way, way out of your league. When he was your age he was headed for the Galapagos and history — you’re headed to an Eminem concert. Saw your site. Don’t throw stones.”

Keep showing the immaturity guys…

Comment #59030

Posted by buddha on November 20, 2005 8:30 PM (e)

buddha wrote:

Vatican I defines two sources of revelation […]

I should clarify that Vatican I defines two proximate sources of revelation, and that these have the same ultimate source, viz. god.

Comment #59031

Posted by Steverino on November 20, 2005 8:32 PM (e)

Heddle just loves to move the goalposts…requires less thought and less work.

The trademark of ID/Creation.

Comment #59032

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 8:47 PM (e)

Steve wrote:

Obviously if you compare two numbers in any given system, their relative size doesn’t change by switching to a different system. That’s obviously not what I was talking about.

I’m glad you are backing away from your previous statement:

It remains a fact that your 120 OOM is particular to a set of units.

even if you are not honest enough to admit you were wrong and want to pretend you were misinterpreted.

Now anyone who knows about precision, accuracy, and scientific notation, would interpret this to mean that the value of the CC is fixed to the 60th decimal place when written in scientific notation.

Now anyone who knows about precision, accuracy, and scientific notation, would interpret this to mean that the value of the CC is fixed to the 60th decimal place when written in scientific notation.

Not anybody who knows any physics, because the expansion rate of the universe is not trivially connected to the cosmological constant. There is, for example, a matter density (both normal and dark) that must be considered and plays an important role in the expansion rate.

Comment #59034

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 9:18 PM (e)

take it to the After the Bar Closes forum if you want to continue, as per PvM’s instructions. I made my case, and didn’t back away from anything, so I won’t be continuing it.

Comment #59036

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on November 20, 2005 9:21 PM (e)

David Heddle wrote:

[…] even if you are not honest enough to admit you were wrong and want to pretend you were misinterpreted.

I need to start buying my irony meters by the gross.

Comment #59038

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 9:33 PM (e)

Heddle, I made a thread at After the Bar Closes for you.

Wes, maybe you’re not using them safely. What you do is, before you take an irony measurement, you turn it up to the highest level, “Dembski”. As long as you don’t get a value in range, keep dropping the level, all the way down to the lowest setting, “Alanis Morissette”, if need be.

Comment #59042

Posted by PvM on November 20, 2005 9:39 PM (e)

Josh wrote:

PvM- you show your own dishonesty when you say “ID creationists” (of course a creationist thinks God created all things separately…Michael Behe has no problem with common descent), so that alone makes your claim bogus and you know it.

What claim? When I stated “Of course, ID creationists may see any attempt to show problems with ID to be ‘childish comments’ or ‘starting trouble’ but the simple fact is that ID cannot allow for a critical discussion of its weaknesses.” did I somehow indicate that I included Michael Behe into this? But how is acceptance of common descent somehow an indicator that one is not a creationist? Michael Behe surely seems to believe that ‘some aspects’ of life were explicitly ‘created’. What is so dishonest about using the term ID creationists? Isn’t creationism and intelligent design not used interchangably in of Pandas and People?

PS: Josh, when people showed your comments about Derbyshere to contain many misconceptions, you closed the thread… Is it so hard to learn about the facts?

Josh wrote:

Mr. Elliot- I didn’t insult anyone. It is, by definition the act of a child, to attack others with names and lies.

Such as the following ? “they have many posts by nick matske as well, and as ive mentioned before- this guy couldnt be honest if he had to. doesnt pz ‘anti-christian bigot’ myers contribute to the site as well?”

Comment #59044

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 20, 2005 9:40 PM (e)

Hey Josh, you haven’t answered my question yet. Why is your religious opinion any more authoritative than anyone else’s? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor’s, my car mechanic’s, or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

Heddle, same question.

Comment #59048

Posted by Josh Bozeman on November 20, 2005 10:26 PM (e)

PvM. Get real. Please. I closed the comments because I had 100 posts from the same person that read “Bill ‘I Lie For Jesus Dembski…blah blah blah.”

So, good try, but no luck with that one…I EXPLAINED why I deleted many comments and why I closed the thread, so you are, again, being dishonest.

ID creationists? That’s not dishonest? Yeah. Right. You want to call ID creationism all you want…go ahead, but it’s not, and to claim it is is, well…dishonest! (Ding ding ding!)

PZ Myers, the man who mocks religious people constantly? Who curses at people who post at his site? Who basically says that Christians are superstitious idiots. Hello- he’s the definition of hate-filled. How is that an insult?! Matske, who I have seen on TV many times, would sit down for interviews and sometimes even get called out for his numerous lies by the interview himself! So, calling Matske a liar, because he constantly lies in interviews is an insult as well?

It’s not an insult to point out someone’s hate-filled rants, nor is it insulting to expose someone who constantly lies.

Someone is, by definition, a liar when they go on TV time and time again tell lies (Matsek and Scott make a great time when it comes to lying about ID claims and those who make them!) Myers is the very epitome of religious bigotry. If you don’t want me to label him that, you should probably ask him to try to be civil for once in his life. If you don’t want me to label Matske a liar, ask him to stop lying when interviewed! If you don’t like the labels, which are merely proper descriptions that fit both men, then take it up with them.

Keep trying…

Comment #59050

Posted by Josh Bozeman on November 20, 2005 10:28 PM (e)

Rev-

I don’t care if anyone agrees with my religious views. I never said anyone had to agree with them.

Comment #59051

Posted by PvM on November 20, 2005 10:35 PM (e)

Josh wrote:

PvM. Get real. Please. I closed the comments because I had 100 posts from the same person that read “Bill ‘I Lie For Jesus Dembski…blah blah blah.”

Really? Just after someone started to correct the many errors in your comments, you had these ‘100 posts’… Did you close all the threads?

In fact your own comment suggests a slightly different scenario

7
a note to idiots- your comments wont be posted if you comment with nonsense such as “william ‘lie for jesus’ dembski”

idiots are, well theyre just idiots…and i wont bother with them.

if youre going to call someone a liar, have some actual evidence of lies being told. thats always helpful, huh? amazing concept, i know.

Comment by Josh — November 14, 2005 @ 4:52 am

Skeptic commented
Comment by Sceptic — November 15, 2005 @ 9:48 pm

Your final response
Comment by Josh — November 16, 2005 @ 12:27 am

Josh wrote:

ID creationists? That’s not dishonest? Yeah. Right. You want to call ID creationism all you want…go ahead, but it’s not, and to claim it is is, well…dishonest! (Ding ding ding!)

Why is it dishonest?

Your posting shows once again a certain unfamiliarity with the facts. That’s ok, this time you won’t be able to delete the postings or close the thread.

PS: Show us some of the ‘lies’ you believe Matzke or Scott have told?

Comment #59052

Posted by Josh Bozeman on November 20, 2005 10:52 PM (e)

I’m laughing over here. Show your mental powers won’t you…you’ll notice the comment of mine you pasted above was one of the VERY FIRST comments of the thread. So, what I did was mention many hateful comments from the start, but then I somehow closed the thread later on because someone was pointing out supposed errors in my comments?

No…one of the first comments I made was the one pasted above. I closed the thread for that reason- you can call me a liar for that if you want, I don’t really care what you think.

I have an unfamiliarity with the facts that ID IS NOT creationism? Hello! Creationism is the idea that all different forms of life (kinds, species, families, whatever) were CREATED thru many acts (usually of the supernatural kind). If you believe that one life form is the ancestor of all life on earth, you’re in no way a creationist. You keep calling it ID creationism, and you keep claiming that such an assertion is totally honest.

Good luck with that. Like many here at PT, you will continue to be honest about this and many other things. I actually would prefer you call ID creationism, for when the facts are exposed to people who know little of the issue, they’ll clearly see the difference between the two items that you continue to claim are one and the same!

I think it is you that’s lacking familiarity with the facts and with honesty itself…and you keep proving it more everytime you post a new comment.

Comment #59053

Posted by PvM on November 20, 2005 11:01 PM (e)

Josh wrote:

I’m laughing over here. Show your mental powers won’t you…you’ll notice the comment of mine you pasted above was one of the VERY FIRST comments of the thread. So, what I did was mention many hateful comments from the start, but then I somehow closed the thread later on because someone was pointing out supposed errors in my comments?

No…one of the first comments I made was the one pasted above. I closed the thread for that reason- you can call me a liar for that if you want, I don’t really care what you think.

It took you 2 days to close the thread? Indeed, the first comments you made were about the spam but at that time you did not close the thread.
You did close the thread immediately after Skeptic pointed out the many errors in your claims, you responded and closed the thread.

Josh wrote:

I have an unfamiliarity with the facts that ID IS NOT creationism? Hello! Creationism is the idea that all different forms of life (kinds, species, families, whatever) were CREATED thru many acts (usually of the supernatural kind). If you believe that one life form is the ancestor of all life on earth, you’re in no way a creationist. You keep calling it ID creationism, and you keep claiming that such an assertion is totally honest.

How can I disagree with the authors of “Of Pandas and People” (the textbook for ID creationism) for instance or the vaste amount of evidence showing how ID creationism is an accurate term to describe it.

Although I personally prefer to point out that ID is scientifically vacuous and theologically risky, I have come to the conclusion that the lack of scientific relevance, the poor understanding of evolutionar science are all indicators that ID is not about science but all about religion. Just read the Wedge if you disagree with me.
Now ID may pretend to be scientific but as we all know, that’s mostly smoke and mirrors. Even some ID proponents seem to have realized this.

I have perused your ‘book collection’ and am impressed by the amount of books dealing with the science of evolution or even the claims of the ID creationists. You have shown your unfamiliarity with evolutionary theory in your own thread.

Josh wrote:

I think it is you that’s lacking familiarity with the facts and with honesty itself…and you keep proving it more everytime you post a new comment.

Let he who throws the first stone…

I have supported your lack of familiarity with the facts.

You have made continuous claims of (dis)honesty but fail to support them.

Remember your own words Josh?

if youre going to call someone a liar, have some actual evidence of lies being told. thats always helpful, huh? amazing concept, i know.

Comment by Josh — November 14, 2005 @ 4:52 am

An amazing concept indeed my friend.

Comment #59055

Posted by Josh Bozeman on November 20, 2005 11:16 PM (e)

I closed it THE DAY I GOT 100 COMMENTS FROM THE SAME PERSON. Can you not read, or do you just HAVE to be dishonest? Again, I don’t care if you call me a liar or not…your lack of common sense when I explained the situation to you ten different ways is beyond amazing. Like I said, keep calling it ID creationism. Don’t deal with the issue- just plug your ears with your fingers and say “ID creationism” until you turn blue. And watch as the American people continue to overwhelmingly reject your bogus assertions that the two are one and the same.

As for lies from Scott and Matske, you can read my many comments on UC about them both, are on my own site, or any of the journal pages linked to my site.

Since I’ve got better things to do than explain for the 11th time why I closed the thread on my site, and I’m already tired of your dishonesty, I’ll just leave it at that.

Comment #59057

Posted by PvM on November 20, 2005 11:31 PM (e)

josh wrote:

I closed it THE DAY I GOT 100 COMMENTS FROM THE SAME PERSON. Can you not read, or do you just HAVE to be dishonest?

Sigh, Josh… Your unsupported accusations of dishonesty are tedious. You seem to treat your fellow people as if they were all “Lisa”. What I pointed out to you is that your claim seems to disagree with the actual timeline portrayed on your blog.

Josh wrote:

Again, I don’t care if you call me a liar or not…your lack of common sense when I explained the situation to you ten different ways is beyond amazing. Like I said, keep calling it ID creationism. Don’t deal with the issue- just plug your ears with your fingers and say “ID creationism” until you turn blue. And watch as the American people continue to overwhelmingly reject your bogus assertions that the two are one and the same.

Again your comments are at odds with the reality. First of all, I have not called you a liar (I do not like the word) second of all I have shown why I believe ID IS creationism. And you seem to realize this hence your non-sequitur to what you believe Amertican people do or do not believe.

As for lies from Scott and Matske, you can read my many comments on UC about them both, are on my own site, or any of the journal pages linked to my site.

As I expected, it’s much harder to support one’s assertions but I had some hope that Josh who stated himself

if youre going to call someone a liar, have some actual evidence of lies being told. thats always helpful, huh? amazing concept, i know.

Comment by Josh — November 14, 2005 @ 4:52 am

would actually present some evidence.

Since I’ve got better things to do than explain for the 11th time why I closed the thread on my site, and I’m already tired of your dishonesty, I’ll just leave it at that.

Sure Josh, sure… Let us know when you are willing to defend your claims or your scientific ignorance as portrayed on your own site.

Comment #59059

Posted by steve s on November 20, 2005 11:42 PM (e)

Creationist Josh says:

Don’t deal with the issue- just plug your ears with your fingers and say “ID creationism” until you turn blue. And watch as the American people continue to overwhelmingly reject your bogus assertions that the two are one and the same.

Ok, well, let’s see how the people feel about whether ID is creationism:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,” Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, “The 700 Club.”

“And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there,”

Ouch, make that Panda’s Thumb 1, Josh 0.

Comment #59060

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 20, 2005 11:48 PM (e)

I closed it THE DAY I GOT 100 COMMENTS FROM THE SAME PERSON. Can you not read, or do you just HAVE to be dishonest? Again, I don’t care if you call me a liar or not…your lack of common sense when I explained the situation to you ten different ways is beyond amazing. Like I said, keep calling it ID creationism. Don’t deal with the issue- just plug your ears with your fingers and say “ID creationism” until you turn blue.

I think I sense a bit of projection here…

And watch as the American people continue to overwhelmingly reject your bogus assertions that the two are one and the same.

Um, our Josh has a rather hard time answering questions put to him, doesn’t he? He’s ignored about 99% of the facts and questions thrown at him, and now he’s threatening to sic the ‘American people’ on us.

I suggest you get yourself some college classes as soon as possible. Learn something about evolution that doesn’t come from your pastor or some rightwing political websites. They might teach you that science is not decided by national polls, and that saying “I’m laughing over here” and “Get real” are not generally persuasive ways to discuss the merits of a theory.

Comment #59064

Posted by steve s on November 21, 2005 12:43 AM (e)

Josh might help us all understand how ID is not creationism, by explaining the perfectly logical and scientific reasons why one must be a christian to be an officer in the Intelligent Design/Evolution Awareness club.

Comment #59071

Posted by Alan Fox on November 21, 2005 2:54 AM (e)

Thanks Josh for joining in this experiment.I think you have made your our points very forcefully.

So you know a little about me, I’ll mention I live in France. Just check what “Renard” is in English.

Comment #59074

Posted by Mike Walker on November 21, 2005 3:10 AM (e)

How old is Josh? He writes like a 15 year old.

Comment #59087

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 21, 2005 8:02 AM (e)

I don’t care if anyone agrees with my religious views. I never said anyone had to agree with them.

That’s great. You didn’t answer my question, though. I’ll ask again:

What makes your religious opinions any more authortiative than anyone else’s. Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor’s, or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

If your religious opinions are no better than anyone else’s, then why are you here preaching them?

Comment #59090

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 21, 2005 8:07 AM (e)

You keep calling it ID creationism, and you keep claiming that such an assertion is totally honest.

Indeed. After all, DI itself says so.

From the Wedge Document:

FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation

Would you mind explaining to us what this “traditional doctrine of creation” is that the DI wants to “defend” and lists as one of its “five year objectives”?

Also, would you mind listing any of the ID arguments that are NOT just cribbed from 30-year old young-earth creationist tracts?

Or would you rather just wave your arms and whine a lot?

Comment #59091

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 21, 2005 8:09 AM (e)

And watch as the American people continue to overwhelmingly reject your bogus assertions that the two are one and the same.

Tell it to the recently-unemployed Dover school board. (snicker) (giggle)

Comment #59093

Posted by steve s on November 21, 2005 8:18 AM (e)

Also, would you mind listing any of the ID arguments that are NOT just cribbed from 30-year old young-earth creationist tracts?

I would actually avoid making that request, because you’ll probably just get back pages of “Blah blah Explanatory Complexity Filter for Irreducible Information Revised Definition 16 blah blah”

The only time that’s funny is when it’s Sal Cordova explaining to us why it’s not important that there’s no method for calculating the CSI in something because such and such analogy indicates there’s some amount of CSI there.

I’m still waiting for Behe to tell us what the IC system in the blood clotting cascade is, since he mangled it so badly in the Dover case.

Comment #59103

Posted by Keith Douglas on November 21, 2005 9:54 AM (e)

Stephen Elliott: From what I have read you don’t need branes to support what I said - that just clinches the point. Instead rather you just simply look at what the equations tell you, viz. that there was a massive state change. Remember tht singularities are in the equations, not in nature, so if your equations predict a singularity, they are incomplete. Alternatively, if you parameterize time towards the big bang in the “york time”, there is no first moment, as Stephen Hawking has popularized. Moreover, a genuine begining (as opposed to a quantum tunnelling, say) would also be in violation of conservation laws. Finally, letting “god” and “universe” be disjoint is a rhetorical trick after a fashion, since “universe” should more logically mean everything that exists. (I.e. to appeal to an ontologically distinct category is in fact special pleading.)

puckSR: Christianity (as currently understood - there is some debate over whether this was the Pauline and original understanding) as far as I can tell requires that “the word became flesh and dwelt amongst us”. I.e., the incarnation. This is what renders deism it not a species of deism. Put another way: deism requires god to never do anything to the universe again, after starting it. Hence “appearing in it” is out of bounds. Think of Jefferson and his non-supernaturalist New Testament. Now, you can get weird special cases like Newton, but he may have been just inconsistent. (I have never read what Newton actually thought of Jesus as N. was apparently an Arian and hence denied the doctrine of the trinity.)

Comment #59108

Posted by David Heddle on November 21, 2005 10:44 AM (e)

Keith Douglas,

There are no data that “cinch your point.” If you know of some, please provide peer-reviewed references. The current state of cosmology supports that our universe went through an inflationary period segueing into the traditional big bang model. That is what the data support, nothing more.

There are many inflationary big bang state-change models, some predicting multiverses. Not a single datum provides evidence that (a) another universe exists or (b) that the quantum (false) vacuum, pregnant with new universes (however that happened) is infinitely old.

The best you can say is that some models are consistent with things like parallel universes. Until one is detected, we are really talking about pure speculation. And if parallel universes are beyond detection (because of General relativity) then we are actually outside the realm of science.

Hawking got rid of a beginning (singularity) by using imaginary time. When he transforms back to real time, the beginning “problem” is still waiting for him.

A genuine beginning is not trivially precluded by conservation laws. First of all, we know that some were violated, such as CP (by a fine-tuned amount), which is why we have a matter universe. Secondly, even if conservation of energy is sacrosanct, it is impossible to rule out that the energy of the universe is zero.

Comment #59113

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 21, 2005 11:10 AM (e)

How old is Josh? He writes like a 15 year old.

Indeed. Actually, he’s 24, but he seems not to have been to any college. Check out his website. It isn’t anything I’d call interesting, but it tells you pretty much everything you’d want to know about him. His debating style seems to have been taken in its entirety from talk radio shows.

If your religious opinions are no better than anyone else’s, then why are you here preaching them?

I think he will reply that he’s not here preaching his religious opinions.

I’m mostly impressed with his premise (59048 above) that insulting names are taboo in debate unless you really believe the insults. Or at least, it’s not insulting if Josh believes the insults.

Comment #59114

Posted by lamuella on November 21, 2005 11:14 AM (e)

“I’m torn between contempt for Dembski for trying something so sneaky and a grudging admiration that he came up with such a ingenious form of censorship.”

somethingawful.com has been using it for ages for people who incur the specialized wrath of the moderators. They call it “hellbanning”

Comment #59125

Posted by k.e. on November 21, 2005 11:46 AM (e)

lamuella
“I’m torn….

Yes you have correctly identified the
Dembski “Weasel” school of ID/Science/Theology and blogging (Credit Dean Morrison)

Funny Simpson’s line = Homer: “Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals … except the weasel.”

Comment #59183

Posted by yorktank on November 21, 2005 3:43 PM (e)

Say all you want about Josh Bozeman, but he does hit the nail on the head with one of the sentences he wrote in a rant against PvM.

Josh Bozeman wrote:

Like many here at PT, you will continue to be honest about this and many other things.

Comment #59202

Posted by Alan Fox on November 21, 2005 4:37 PM (e)

On Uncommon descent in a rant about PZ Myers

Bill Dembski wrote:

I preserve it here for the record books.

Well, that will be a first.

Comment #59291

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 21, 2005 9:19 PM (e)

I would actually avoid making that request, because you’ll probably just get back pages of “Blah blah Explanatory Complexity Filter for Irreducible Information Revised Definition 16 blah blah”

Nothing new there. Creation “scientists” were blithering about “X Y and Z could not have happened by chance, so goddidit” decades ago. And stripped of its mathematical BS, that’s all Dembski’s “filter” says, too.

Comment #59292

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 21, 2005 9:22 PM (e)

I think he will reply that he’s not here preaching his religious opinions.

And yet, we keep hearing about them …. .

Comment #59326

Posted by puckSR on November 22, 2005 1:18 AM (e)

Keith Douglas:

I dont believe in a strict definition of any particular religion. I believe that Christianity can easily be interpreted as “following the teachings of Jesus”. Therefore i can be a deistic Christian

Also…as far as the “divine” spirit of Jesus, im not above stretching it.

If God created a man who was insane, but thought he was the son of God, and would teach the people what God wanted them to hear…what would be the real difference between God creating a mildly-crazed man who thought he was the incarnation of God……isnt it all the same as far as results are concerned.

Im not claiming that the belief is false, but that our understanding is flawed.

Comment #59347

Posted by MaxOblivion on November 22, 2005 7:08 AM (e)

Josh I am still waiting for you to answer my question. Are you avoiding it because you dont have the courage to answer it?

Josh, i’m still waiting an a answer to my simple question

Josh simple question.

Does Dembski delete/censor comments to give the impression that everyone agrees with him, yes or no?

Think carefully before you answer…

Comment #59389

Posted by KL on November 22, 2005 1:07 PM (e)

A question for Josh:

Just curious-what do you do for a living? (I just visited your website and hoped to get some info on your science background) Do you work? Go to school?

Comment #59543

Posted by Steverino on November 23, 2005 10:32 AM (e)

Josh,

I’d like to hear you comments regarding the testimony that came out in Dover stating that the term “Creation” was removed in the book, “Of Pandas and People”, and replaced with “Intelligent Design”.

Would this fact not sway you to believe that ID is really Creation??? And, that the supporters of ID know this???

Thank you…Steverino

Comment #59663

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 23, 2005 8:19 PM (e)

I’d like to hear you comments regarding the testimony that came out in Dover stating that the term “Creation” was removed in the book, “Of Pandas and People”, and replaced with “Intelligent Design”.

Would this fact not sway you to believe that ID is really Creation??? And, that the supporters of ID know this???

That, plus the fact that the DI’s own Wedge Document clearly states that seeing more churches defending “traditional doctrine of creation” is one of their “five year objectives”.

But alas, it appears that Josh simply doesn’t answer questions. Just like Donald. And Heddle. And Sal. And Nelson. And Dembski.