PvM posted Entry 3072 on April 16, 2007 06:08 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3062

Salvador Cordova (Young Earth Creationist)

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn’t cut it scientifically.

What a riot, as opposed to the scientifically defensible Young Earth variant or the scientifically vacuous Intelligent Design variant?

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.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Comment #170321

Posted by Karen on April 16, 2007 9:56 PM (e)

I would guess that in a “reality” you construct for yourself, you are free to decide what “cuts it.” The scientific community is irrelevant in a fantasy world.

Anyway, I’m curious about what the YECs think about the ice cores that scientists drill to study the atmosphere of the ancient earth. These ice cores have annual rings, faithfully record past events (e.g. the eruption of Mount Vesuvius) and there are clearly more than 10,000 of them! Does anyone know?

-Karen

Comment #170324

Posted by steve s on April 16, 2007 10:20 PM (e)

Of course, in Salvador’s defense, evolution leads to defunct journals which can’t find anything to publish for years at a time, while ID leads to thriving journals, bursting with new discoveries.

Comment #170327

Posted by PvM on April 16, 2007 10:36 PM (e)

Sal’s remarkably insightful comment points to a much larger problem with ID proponents, namely their inability to sceptically address either their own viewpoints or arguments which undermine their viewpoints.

There are some interesting studies done in this area. However seeing how ID proponents seem to also fall victim to global warming denial, suggests that there is a common thread. Is it a general disrespect for science, or just the prevailing scientific findings? Or is it a much larger problem where people who are more likely to accept poor science in one area will be more likely to accept poor science in other areas?

Comment #170332

Posted by PvM on April 16, 2007 10:45 PM (e)

Chris Mooney

Why does this matter? Well, the scientists whose views I detailed above fit firmly into the mainstream and were presenting consensus positions, not controversial ones. It would be a stretch to say that the theory of anthropogenic climate change has become as firmly established as, say, the theory of evolution, but there are telling similarities. Both views have won broad acceptance by the vast majority of scientific experts and now only come under fire from a small band of contrarian outliers. Moreover, the outliers aren’t contributing much real science at this point. With a few exceptions, they’re taking their case straight to journalists and public policymakers, an end run around the peer-review process. And of course, when the debate isn’t going their way, they cry persecution.

Source

Comment #170336

Posted by steve s on April 16, 2007 11:16 PM (e)

I was reading the latest Vanity Fair, and there’s an article about global warming denial. It struck me as so similar to evolution denial, I’m having the guys at Kinkos scan it and email it to me. I’ll post it at After the Bar Closes when I get it.

Comment #170342

Posted by lonestarlimey on April 16, 2007 11:31 PM (e)

I just started reading the new bio on Einstein (looks like it will be a great read) when a couple of things struck me. I remembered reading a few weeks ago Sal posting a comment at UD about how Darwin was not a real scientist because he did not develop any mathematical equations, whereas real scientists like Maxwell created a lot of them. Real scientists create mathematical equations!!

So here you have a 3rd tier patent clerk (Einstein) who decides to dispense with the theories of one of the greatest minds (Newton) and replace them with papers developed on the basis of some ‘mind experiments’ - no mathematical equations at all in his first 4 papers of his annus mirabilis, not even any ‘real’ experiments!. ID claims that Science will not allow ‘revolutionary’ theories to be heard . . the story of Einstein demonstrates everything that ID would like to be but never will be. It is possible for a ‘nobody’ with a fantastic idea that is testable and resolves open questions

Compare it to a 3rd tier mathematician who decides to dispense with the theories of one of the greatest minds (Darwin) and replace them with … well, need I go any further?

Comment #170363

Posted by raven on April 17, 2007 1:39 AM (e)

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn’t cut it scientifically.

Well, OK. BTW, where are the dinosaurs? They got on the Big Boat. They got off the Big Boat ca. 5,000 years ago. They seem to have gone missing since then. Darn it, we miss our dinosaurs.

We also seem to be missing the 99% of life known but now extinct as well.

And not to be a complainer but when the supercontinent broke up a few kiloyears ago, why did Australia get too many marsupials and not enough placentals?

Looks like poor post deluge planning to me. I think I got it right on another thread. This is willing suspension of disbelief on a permanent basis. Entering into a fantasy world on a permanent basis seems sort of harmless and this is a democracy. But whatever it is, it isn’t remotely close to science and has no business in science classes.

Comment #170421

Posted by Mark Duigon on April 17, 2007 8:10 AM (e)

Karen–Tree-ring dating has been used to calibrate radiocarbon dating back about 11,800 years. See, for example, Guilderson &al., 2005, “The boon and bane of radiocarbon dating” in Science 307(5708):362-364.

Comment #170444

Posted by Peter Henderson on April 17, 2007 9:32 AM (e)

Young Earth creations definitely do not like theistic evolutionists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/Default.a…

Richard Dawkins on YEC’s:

“Believing that the Earth is only 6-10,000 years old is the same as saying that the distance from here (Belfast) to San Fransisco is only to the end of the street. That’s how much in error they (YEC’s) are”.

A good analogy I thought !

Comment #170446

Posted by Peter Henderson on April 17, 2007 9:42 AM (e)

And not to be a complainer but when the supercontinent broke up a few kiloyears ago, why did Australia get too many marsupials and not enough placentals?

Here’s why:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/another_inani…

Comment #170452

Posted by raven on April 17, 2007 10:14 AM (e)

AIG:
Then we say, how many believe kangaroos once lived in the Middle East? All the hands now go up.

You see, when we think from a Biblical perspective, we know that all land animals must’ve once lived in the Middle East.

From the link:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/another_inani…

Yes, this says kangaroos and everything are from the middle east including the dinosaurs. It doesn’t “explain” why various clades ended up on different continents when the supercontinent broke up and the fragments sped away a few thousand years ago.

It doesn’t matter. When you pile up enough ad hoc explanations known as miracles, anything can be explained. This isn’t science. This is cult thinking. It wouldn’t matter except that these guys want to force it on everyone else in….biology classes.

Comment #170459

Posted by Raging Bee on April 17, 2007 10:54 AM (e)

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn’t cut it scientifically.

(But Pagan TE does? How about Norse TE?)

As a separate branch of science, there’s no such thing as “theistic evolution,” “Darwinian” or otherwise; there’s just evolution, which DOES “cut it,” as long as scientists don’t let their religious beliefs compromise the quality of their work. If a scientist has an opinion about a God (or three), that’s a completely separate issue from his/her work.

My own belief in Gods does not make me a “theistic technical writer.” It just makes me a tech writer with a religion.

Comment #170471

Posted by Karen on April 17, 2007 12:18 PM (e)

Mark Duigon wrote:

Karen–Tree-ring dating has been used to calibrate radiocarbon dating back about 11,800 years. See, for example, Guilderson &al., 2005, “The boon and bane of radiocarbon dating” in Science 307(5708):362-364.

Thanks for your reply Mark, but I was asking about ice cores, not tree rings. Ice cores go back in time much further than tree rings, and they also offer much more information about the past.

I’m wondering what YECs think of these, since they go back in time much further than 10,000 years.

Comment #170476

Posted by Doug S on April 17, 2007 12:38 PM (e)

Darwinian TE (Theistic Evolution) just doesn’t cut it scientifically.

He’s right! Last time I checked, TE’s never claimed to be scientific, at least not like ID or YEC. Theistic evolutionist is more of a world philosophy, where science is accepted as is, while leaving room for God in the complete world view. You may agree or disagree with the philosophy, but the arguments for or against it are not going to be scientific in nature, which makes it much different from ID or YEC (who pretend to have scientific arguments).

The ID and YEC crowds hate TE so much only because they continually tell their flock that agreeing to evolution is agreeing to atheism, which is demonstrably false by the fact that there are TE’s. If they acknowledged that one could believe both in evolution and God, their argument (to their followers) would be much weaker.

Doug

Comment #170489

Posted by harold on April 17, 2007 2:56 PM (e)

PvM -

“However seeing how ID proponents seem to also fall victim to global warming denial, suggests that there is a common thread. Is it a general disrespect for science, or just the prevailing scientific findings? Or is it a much larger problem where people who are more likely to accept poor science in one area will be more likely to accept poor science in other areas?”

The short answer is “it’s politics”.

Comment #170492

Posted by JS on April 17, 2007 3:12 PM (e)

Thanks for your reply Mark, but I was asking about ice cores, not tree rings. Ice cores go back in time much further than tree rings, and they also offer much more information about the past.

I’m wondering what YECs think of these, since they go back in time much further than 10,000 years.

In my experience, they mostly just ignore them. One particularly irritating advantage of the Gish Gallop is that it allows the creationist to quietly drop lines of discussion that s/he does not like by selectively responding to critiques.

- JS

Comment #170510

Posted by RBH on April 17, 2007 4:24 PM (e)

Never forget that Salvador is the fellow who was quoted in Nature as saying

The critical thinking and precision of science began to really affect my ability to just believe something without any tangible evidence

Sure thing, Sal.

Comment #170516

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on April 17, 2007 4:55 PM (e)

I’d like to thank PvM for metioning me. He and I have had our moments in the past, but I applaud his Theistic albeit un-orthodox Christian views.

PvM, thou art a prodigal. You are always welcome to return to the YEC roots you left.

But if you return, you must learn it the right way, not the AiG or ICR Dr. Dino Kent Hovind way, but the right way. You’ll learn YEC in the right way starting here:

www.creationscience.com

or

www.setterfiled.org

or

www.trueorigin.org

or

www.creationsafaris.com

Enjoy PvM, your former YEC family awaits the return of their prodigal son.

Comment #170518

Posted by Henry J on April 17, 2007 5:07 PM (e)

So, let’s see if I follow that - doing actual thinking interferes with his ability to avoid actually thinking?

Huh. Who’da thought it.

Comment #170521

Posted by John Krehbiel on April 17, 2007 5:12 PM (e)

I once read that an agnostic was an atheist without the courage of his convictions. I don’t agree, but it seems similar to what I think TE really is: Materialistic science (if that’s not redundant) with a crutch.

IOW, “I know that all of the evidence points to a natural, unguided process explaining all of Earth’s biological diversity, but I don’t care. Goddidit.”

Comment #170558

Posted by Scarlet Seraph, FOFOCD on April 17, 2007 10:49 PM (e)

Sal, nice to see you back. Are you ever going to go over to Mark Chu-Carrol’s blog where he shellacked your behind? You’ve left your entire point hang and swing in the wind while you hid out at UD.

How nice to see that you’re still brave enough to come here and get spanked again.

Comment #170582

Posted by Chris Noble on April 18, 2007 4:35 AM (e)

Has someone come up with a suitable name for this phenomena. It seems fairly common.

Somebody points out that ID is basically religion and ID proponents come back with some nonsense that evolution is a religion with Darwin as God.

Somebody points out that HIV “rethinkers” spout pseudoscientific nonsense and HIV “rethinkers” come back with sill arguments that most if not all of modern virology is pseudoscientific or that the “germ theory of disease” is pseudoscientific.

Among the list of “scientists” that doubt the link between HIV and AIDS there is an extremely high proportion of homeopaths, chiropractors, kinesiologists, orgone therapists and quacks like Hulda Clark.

Sure, there’s no evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS but orgone and homeopathic memory of water are all really really scientific with lots of evidence.

It reminds me of the back and forth twittering of inane 12 year-old schoolgirls.

Comment #170600

Posted by Karen Spivey on April 18, 2007 6:42 AM (e)

Hi Sal,

Glad you stopped by, because I have a question for you: as a YEC, what do you make of the annual rings we find in ice core samples? We can count the rings, and they go back in time more than 10,000 years.

Comment #170610

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on April 18, 2007 8:40 AM (e)

Re:

Posted by John Krehbiel on April 17, 2007 5:12 PM (e)

what I think TE really is: Materialistic science (if that’s not redundant) with a crutch.

IOW, “I know that all of the evidence points to a natural, unguided process explaining all of Earth’s biological diversity, but I don’t care. Goddidit.”

As far as I’m concerned, as long as a TE then follows that with (verbalized or not), “I’m still doing science as if Goddidn’tdoit”, I’m OK with TE.

Lots of people have …um…unconventional… ideas. As long as they don’t insist that these ideas have physical validity in the real world, and as long as they don’t insist that these ideas are taught as part of (in this case, science), who cares?

Comment #170611

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on April 18, 2007 8:41 AM (e)

Obviously, the preceding statement doesn’t apply to Sal. It was made in reply to the comment about TE.

Comment #170631

Posted by Raging Bee on April 18, 2007 10:46 AM (e)

IOW, “I know that all of the evidence points to a natural, unguided process explaining all of Earth’s biological diversity, but I don’t care. Goddidit.”

Actually, it’s more like: “Honest science, with no interference from any religious dogma (even my own) shows us the true nature of what, exactly, goddid.”

Comment #170632

Posted by Raging Bee on April 18, 2007 10:48 AM (e)

Hey, Sal, when are you going to apologize for equating my words with the surgical mutilation of innocent children? Does your Creator give you the strength to admit wrongdoing?

Comment #170640

Posted by PvM on April 18, 2007 11:38 AM (e)

Sal, welcome. I appreciate your invitation to return to YEC but I respectfully return to those dark times where I was forced to reject both God and science. I understand however why Bill may feel more comfortable surrounded by YECers, since they are the least likely to be involved in critical thinking.
As to the links you provided, I wonder why you believe that the ignorance of YEC of science, somehow improves at these sites. There is a vast amount of research and empirical data which shows YEC to be wrong about the age of the earth. As to their theological position. Well…

Comment #170643

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 18, 2007 11:53 AM (e)

While there is less fertile ground for my self-selected calling (to provoke thought) than in the pro-ID camp, I will give it a try. How is it going to solve anything if the instant reaction to people like Salvador visiting here is to belittle and attack?

I am not suggesting any compromise on science and/or logic, in fact I am suggesting that a reliance on it. The Kangaroo scenario is a perfect example. I had a recent exchange with Salvador T. Cordova at Telic Thoughts where we tentatively agreed to explore a common OMA Truth (“OMA” being my term for a rejection of Gould’s NOMA). I think it was a positive experience. I made a presentation that stipulated most of ID’s base assumptions including an Intelligent Designer. I feel it is logically consistent and “possible”. This put Salvador in the position of doing the same. I think it made an impact. He started to see things from my point of view and began trying to address weaknesses in his arguments without me saying anything.

Unfortunately, stubbornness and my weird set of ethics prevent me from continuing this conversation at Telic Thoughts. UD is out since I am unwelcome there. Panda’s Thumb would be a good place if the peanut gallery could refrain from throwing things at the guest speakers.

Just a thought.

Anyone interested in more details on my presentation or my OMA/NOMA thoughts can see it at…
http://dfcord.blogspot.com

Comment #170652

Posted by karen on April 18, 2007 12:14 PM (e)

Sal,

Where are you? Did you see my post (#170600), where I asked you a question?

Comment #170662

Posted by Pigwidgeon on April 18, 2007 12:48 PM (e)

You’re not seriously recommending those sites, are you, Sal? Sheesh, no wonder you’re such an idiot. They’re the most appalling antiscientific bullshit I’ve ever seen - just looking at the first link, I suspect about half of the Index to Creationist Claims is derived from this strawmanicide.

And you must have SEEN the refutations, surely. Does it not bother you that Walt Brown can be shown to be essentially lying in most places (by claiming that evolutionists claim X, or that Y /must/ be true)? Are you supporting lies in the name of Jesus, or do you feel the evolutionists have their refutations wrong?

Comment #170665

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 18, 2007 1:01 PM (e)

Hi Karen,
Do you expect an answer? If so, why?

Same goes for you Pigwidgeon. What’s the plan here? Are you trying to impress people with your wit? If so, who? Yourself?

Comment #170667

Posted by Raging Bee on April 18, 2007 1:08 PM (e)

How is it going to solve anything if the instant reaction to people like Salvador visiting here is to belittle and attack?

We’ve asked him numerous substantive questions, and taken lots of time to refute what substantive assertions he has made. His response has been to lie, obfuscate, and then run away. If you were not new here, you would know that he has earned every bit of ridicule he’s got here.

Comment #170706

Posted by Steviepinhead on April 18, 2007 4:30 PM (e)

I’m just pleased to see that–without at all descending into incivility–PvM’s exchanges with “polite” blather-mongers like Our Salacious Sal have acquired a distinct and wicked edge.

Kudos on ya, Pim.

Comment #170707

Posted by Pigwidgeon on April 18, 2007 4:34 PM (e)

TP: Sal is peddling pseudoscience. I am calling him on it.

Besides, I wasn’t being witty. I called him an idiot, that’s just a plain insult. :)

Comment #170708

Posted by David B. Benson on April 18, 2007 4:36 PM (e)

What Steviepinhead just said…

Comment #170731

Posted by Karen on April 18, 2007 7:06 PM (e)

ThoughtProvoker wrote:

Hi Karen

Hi TP

ThoughtProvoker wrote:

Do you expect an answer?

Yes

ThoughtProvoker wrote:

If so, why?

Because I asked a question.

Comment #170735

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 18, 2007 7:27 PM (e)

This put Salvador in the position of doing the same. I think it made an impact. He started to see things from my point of view and began trying to address weaknesses in his arguments without me saying anything.

bwahahahaha!

and if you believe you had any real impact on slaveador, i got a bridge ta sells ya.

one thing you need to learn right quick like is that the putative leaders of the ID movement have never changed their positions on anything in response to evidence or argument.

in fact, you see Sal posting links to YEC sites, and to even BE a supporter of YEC requires extreme and willfull ignorance of piles of evidence and argument.

to think you can have an influence on these people is hubris at best, and shows a real ignorance of how these “discussions” progress.

but then, I’m sure you’ve had this pointed out to you before.

Comment #170736

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 18, 2007 7:31 PM (e)

Hi all - Excuse the rant, but I believe it is topical since Salvador Cordova is the subject of the OP. While he is quite adept at seeing what he wants to see, I believe he still has the remains of a desire actually assemble the pieces of his wished-for reality.

I may be new to posting here, but I am not new to the issue. I just spent a six month tour of duty at Telic Thoughts (on an off) to understand things from their point of view, including Salvador’s. Telic Thoughts and Panda’s Thumb Blog have relatively equal policies with opposing slants. I tolerated TT’s peanut gallery jibes because I felt they had so little of substance to work with and are afraid. I don’t believe people participating at Panda’s Thumb have anything to fear, do you?

If you are interested, I could go Loki on you (pretend to be an IDer) and make some sound arguments without resorting to name calling and I won’t run away. However, I would think you would want earnest people presenting their side of the arguments.

If you want this Blog to be just another rallying point for Culture Warriors there is nothing I can do but request the URL where I can find people interested in discussing the problem as opposed to adding to it. Please post a comment or send e-mail to dfcord (at) hotmail.com. I would be very appreciative.

Comment #170737

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 18, 2007 7:36 PM (e)

If you are interested, I could go Loki on you (pretend to be an IDer) and make some sound arguments without resorting to name calling and I won’t run away. However, I would think you would want earnest people presenting their side of the arguments.

prove it.

none of the supporters of ID have EVER made a coherent, suportable argument.

so go ahead, play loki.

I’m genuinely curious if you truly understand the task you set for yourself.

Comment #170739

Posted by Raging Bee on April 18, 2007 7:45 PM (e)

I tolerated TT’s peanut gallery jibes because I felt they had so little of substance to work with and are afraid.

Does this mean that if the “jibes” had more substance, you’d be less tolerant of them?

Comment #170758

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 18, 2007 8:48 PM (e)

Hi All - First I’ll answer questions
To Sir_Toejam - no, I probably do not know what I just got myself into
To Raging Bee - I like a good intellectual fight, I don’t learn much from people who agree with me

AS AN ID’er (what follows is Loki)….

First of all there is a difference between ID “science” and the ID Movement.
The ID Movement is not playing by your rules because the rules have been totally manipulated to only allow materialistic thinking. In a way Dave Thomas’s recent post is titled correctly. ID, It is all your fault. The ID Movement, that is. You left no other choice.

For an example of the manipulation I am talking about, we can’t even call our “scientific” proposals “science”. That is why I put the word in quotes. The definition of science itself precludes anyone from offering an non-materialist alternative, no matter how plausible. Worse than that, even if it actually is empirically possible but sounds like it might not be, the knee-jerk reaction is to reject it in its infancy ala the peer review process.

This stems from Gould’s NOMA concept. If NOMA is accepted, there is Non-Overlapping_Magisteria. This means a Truth in one Magisteria (e.g. Science) is totally separated from Truths in other Magisteria (e.g. Religion). The idea being that no Magisteria is better or worse than any other. In other words, separate but equal. Sound familiar? Well, we are getting the short end of the stick just like a certain race did in early US history. We aren’t going to stand for it any longer.

For decades, strict materialism has been presented to our children as a government-sanctioned Truth.

Therefore, like the harm done with the previous “separate but equal” debacle, some kind of affirmative action is required. We need to remove the artificial barriers like the slanted definition of science and open up consideration of a COMMON Truth that is supported by direct evidence and not just biased expectations of materialistic scientists trained to only consider the empirical answers.

AS THOUGHT PROVOKER (end Loki)…

This is the start, there is more. Hints of things to come can be seen at http://dfcord.blogspot.com/

Provoking Thought

Comment #170764

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 18, 2007 9:03 PM (e)

First of all there is a difference between ID “science” and the ID Movement.
The ID Movement is not playing by your rules because the rules have been totally manipulated to only allow materialistic thinking. In a way Dave Thomas’s recent post is titled correctly. ID, It is all your fault. The ID Movement, that is. You left no other choice.

there are no less than TWO “scientific”, peer-reviewed journals specifically created to publish ID related articles.

guess how many articles those journals have published?

laughable.

when the IDers create their OWN DAMN JOURNALS and STILL don’t publish anything, how on earth can they then claim to be “repressed by the scientific establishment”?

ya gotta do better than that, there, chief.

Comment #170768

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 18, 2007 9:09 PM (e)

If NOMA is accepted

the moment that religious magisteria can produce testable predictions that result in the generation of actual results, that would make sense to equate the two as mechanisms for examining and explaining observable reality.

NOMA simply doesn’t work. not even philosophically speaking.

moreover, if you want separation, then tell it to the creationists.

I personally don’t know any scientists who have ever gone to a church to try to persuade them their doctrines are wrong.

I do know a LOT of creationists that have tried the reverse. both at academic institutions, in courts of law, and on the legislative front.

Comment #170790

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 18, 2007 10:22 PM (e)

Hi Sir_Toejam - My next comment (longer with more substance) will have to wait until tomorrow.

AS AN ID’ER (what follows is Loki)…

You wrote…
there are no less than TWO “scientific”, peer-reviewed journals specifically created to publish ID related articles.

And former slaves had their own schools too. Of course ID “science” can’t compete yet.
But this is mostly politics, what is important is recognizing the NOMA problem.

You also wrote…
NOMA simply doesn’t work. not even philosophically speaking.

I am glad to hear you admit that NOMA is and was a failure.
What are we going to do to repair the damage already done?
What will be considered the one, mutual OMA Truth? (OMA = Overlapping Magisteria)

What are going to be the new default assumptions?

Schrödinger then Wigner provide compelling reasons to presume a “conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics”
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_cause…

Why should we presume this is not the case?

While a lot of things have been mathematically modeled, three things continually remain elusive; time, consciousness and intelligence.

In our new search of a single, mutual OMA Truth, we must give equal weight to empirical and non-empirical possibilities.

AS THOUGHT PROVOKER (end Loki)

Hints of things to come can be seen at http://dfcord.blogspot.com/

Provoking Thoughts

Comment #170795

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 18, 2007 10:34 PM (e)

And former slaves had their own schools too.

huh? exactly how does that relate?

are you saying that IDers are the equivalent of freed slaves, just now trying to come to grips with relearning all of science???

that’s completely idiotic. I’m sure Behe would take offense at the implication.

there is NO repression. simply no results from the ID camp, and this is to be expected, since they can’t even generate the ability to test a predicition to begin with.

there is NO theory of ID.

there simply CAN’T be, without knowledge of the supposed designer.

the reason we can imply design in arceological artifacts is because we actually KNOW something about the putative designers, and can make predictions as to what the results of such design would look like.

with ID, they don’t even propose a specific designer, let alone know anything about how that designer might operate in the world at large.

hence, it’s a dead end before it even starts.

your comparison is so far off i can’t even help you figure out how to fix it.

Comment #170796

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 18, 2007 10:38 PM (e)

What are we going to do to repair the damage already done?

you mean the damage done by the attempts of the religious to impose illogic on scientific endeavor?

there is no way to repair the damage to either religion or science.

the religious should keep to their churches and give up on attempts to pervert science for their own ends.

period.

the politicians should stop pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to garner voting blocks.

that would be a start.

Comment #170797

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 18, 2007 10:43 PM (e)

we must give equal weight to empirical and non-empirical possibilities.

no problem.

you show me how to make practical and testable predictions out of non-empiracle possibilities, and you will have solved the problem all by yourself.

Comment #170798

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 18, 2007 10:45 PM (e)

oh, btw, i think you misunderstood my lack of support for NOMA.

there is only ONE magisteria that leads to an increase in our knowledge of the world around us.

that’s why NOMA doesn’t work; it’s irrelevant.

Comment #170883

Posted by Raging Bee on April 19, 2007 10:37 AM (e)

Well, we are getting the short end of the stick…

People who can’t face reality, can’t prove their assertions, can’t separate truth from lies, refuse to understand what others observe, and blindly insist that their “truth” is equal to everyone else’s “truth,” because they say so, will ALWAYS get the short end of the stick. Reality is a bitch, ain’t it?

Quit being a crybaby and get an education already.

Comment #170891

Posted by raven on April 19, 2007 11:07 AM (e)

Science uses methodological naturalism to understand the world. Formulate theories, collect data, analyze, falsify or prove, repeat. There is nothing to say that it cannot address or include supernatural forces.

But then they have to play by the rules. Formulate theories, collect data, and prove or disprove their assertions. The IDs don’t bother to do that. They could start by naming the Designer(s) and counting them, a central element in the “theory”.

Instead they refuse to say much about the central feature. The rest is just logical fallacies and bafflegab. “I can’t see how my foot evolved so god exists.” or “Genesis is literally correct so we must take most of modern biology, physics, geology, and paleontology and fold, spindle, mutilate, and ignore the data to fit a creation myth written by guys not all that far from the stone age.”

Scientifically ID is a sterile dead end that doesn’t lead anywhere. They were fools to try to take down science anyway. The collateral benefits are obvious to all who consider living in the 21st century preferable to fighting cave bears for a place to sleep.

Comment #170898

Posted by Frank J on April 19, 2007 11:28 AM (e)

Salvador:

If you are truly a YEC, then surely you have assetred somewhere that the various OECs, especially Behe’s version that includes common descent, also don’t “cut it scientifically.” Is that correct? If not, why not?

Comment #170909

Posted by Frank J on April 19, 2007 12:00 PM (e)

Salvador:

I was a Flat Earth Creationist up to age four. Should I return to those roots? If so, is there a “postmodern synthesis” alternative to the Flat Earth Society’s method?

Comment #170914

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 19, 2007 12:09 PM (e)

Science uses methodological naturalism to understand the world. Formulate theories, collect data, analyze, falsify or prove, repeat. There is nothing to say that it cannot address or include supernatural forces.

methodolical NATURALISM

SUPERNATURAL forces.

get it?

if it were testable, they’d be called natural forces.

you could say that the supernatural is merely a placeholder for what will end up becoming the natural once either the proper evalution of the observations is applied, or sufficient methods for testing have been developed.

but then, the supernatural just becomes a “god of the gaps” arugment, now, doesn’t it.

when you start of a missive with such an obvious logical contradiction, how do expect anyone to take you seriously?

Comment #170919

Posted by Karen on April 19, 2007 12:22 PM (e)

Hey, where did Salvador go?

Comment #170923

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on April 19, 2007 12:27 PM (e)

re: equating NOMA to “separate but equal”:

Equating NOMA and SBE confuses social institutions, a human-created reality, with the reality dictated by the universe. This is one small step away from the common failing of religious thinking, confusing subjective with objective. We see this in the “belief creates reality” crowd. (“The Secret”? Is that what it’s called now?) It’s an interesting point of view, and a valuable tool for coping with life, if not taken too far. Disbelieving in gravity does not enable you to fly. Believing in the supernatural does not make it real or scientific. OTOH, building one school instead of two and sending all children to the same school overcomes SBE (eventually). People build schools. People create the perception of reality that exists between their ears (what I like to call “taking a picture of the inside of your camera”). But the perception of reality and reality are not the same.

Comment #170925

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 19, 2007 12:30 PM (e)

(“The Secret”? Is that what it’s called now?)

thus spake Oprah, so you must be correct.

Comment #170940

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 19, 2007 1:26 PM (e)

Hi Sir_Toejam and others - In my travels I have noticed the OMA/NOMA situation is an issue for both sides of the Culture War. Of course both accuse the other of maliciously trying to force their version of the Ultimate Truth on everyone. (see Dawkins for one side, teaching creationism for the other). Both sides have people who are nervous about totally rejecting NOMA.

Prior to getting into this I would have said I embrace NOMA. Now I am not so sure. Either way, it is the elephant in the living room that can no longer be ignored.

AS AN IDer (the following is Loki)…

I wrote… “In our new search of a single, mutual OMA Truth, we must give equal weight to empirical and non-empirical possibilities.”

Sir_Toejam: “no problem.”

I am glad to hear it. Now, if we can only get the National Academy of Sciences to agree with you. If science, appropriately, gives equal weight to both empirical and non-empirical possibilities, ID will have won a major victory. This will open up a bright new era where courts are allowed to consider the real truth, not just what can be forced to be compliant with the materialistic religion.

Of course the victory won’t be complete until the practice matches the promise. For Example…

Sir_Toejam: “you show me how to make practical and testable predictions out of non-empirical possibilities, and you will have solved the problem all by yourself.

Asking for practicality is somewhat reasonable, especially if you agree the pursuit of truth is an inherently practical endeavor. However, by “testable” I suspect you mean testable by your limited, materialistic parameters using established techniques that presupposes everything that is, was or ever will be, resides in the empirical realm.

This is like asking that PI be shown to be a rational number.

At one time most thinking people assumed all numbers were rational numbers. They had faith that someday PI would be shown to be a rational number. The same thing with the square-root of two. The square-root of two eluded explanation until, eventually, it was realized that mathematics wasn’t internally consistent unless numbers outside of the rational number set were presumed to be true (i.e. inductive reasoning).

This is the crux of the ID argument. How long is science going to keep up the faith that the “rational” empirical answers will someday, somehow be found when obvious, non-empirical answers provide the best explanation. The “irrational” is must exist to explain the tough nuts that defy “rational” explanation.

What are these tough nuts?

Consciousness - Reality depends on a conscious observer link, what observed the universe’s origin?

Intelligence – Intelligence requires preexisting information and language for its creation and only intelligence can create information and language.

Time - Time causation breaks down with naked singularities. A definable concept of Time continues to elude being modeled.

Please understand that ID isn’t asking for anything to be artificially abandoned. When the best explaination is empirical, it is appropriate ot retain that answer. Similar to the fact that rational numbers do exist there are obviously empirical parts of the universe. For a lack of a better expert on the subject, I will accept most of what Steven Hawking describes here

However, I take some exception to how offhandedly he describes the multiverse “bubbles” implying they are mostly random. A multiverse doesn’t provide one iota of an explanation as to why our particular universe is so lucky. However, even Hawking concedes the fact that only the lucky universes survive beyond an early recollapse. What attributes are needed for a universe’s survival? Prime candidates would be a propagation of consciousness and intelligence.

Note, I said “propagation”. The best, reasonable explanation for these cosmic hard nuts is that intelligence and consciousness originate from outside the universe and outside the empirical realm.

In the above link, Hawking says “Despite having had some great successes, not everything is solved.” This includes modeling time itself. Hawking has faith that this puzzle will be solved sometime in the future. ID advocates question the presumption that the answer lies in the empirical realm.

ID is proposing that it is past time to rid science of the shackles that prevents us from presuming the best answer to hard questions as opposed to only those that fit into a mold shaped by materialist zealots.

AS THOUGHT PROVOKER (end of Loki)…

I will address the side issues and snipes in a following post.
Both in this and following comments I have borrowed ideas I learned at Telic Thoughts. I felt both MikeGene and Joy made some earnest arguments there, but neither have presented it as bluntly as I am with the Loki persona. Believe it or not, many ID proponents are interested in exploring ideas as opposed to preaching them.

Provoking Thought

Comment #170966

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 19, 2007 2:52 PM (e)

Hi All,

Excuse any bluntness I may exhibit but I already turned my lunch “hours” into two and a half.

AS AN IDer (The following is Loki)…

I wrote And former slaves had their own schools too. Of course ID “science” can’t compete yet.

are you saying that IDers are the equivalent of freed slaves,… that’s completely idiotic. I’m sure Behe would take offense at the implication.

MikeGene at Telic Thought concedes that ID isn’t science yet. Dr. Behe was clear that a redefinition of science was needed in order to consider ID science.

there is only ONE magisteria that leads to an increase in our knowledge of the world around us.

And that ONE magisteria just happens to be yours and not ours. Of course, that would be your opinion.

People who can’t face reality, can’t prove their assertions, can’t separate truth from lies, refuse to understand what others observe, and blindly insist that their “truth” is equal to everyone else’s “truth,” because they say so, will ALWAYS get the short end of the stick. Reality is a bitch, ain’t it?

Not really, we out-number you. A lot.
It is you who can’t face real Truth. It is you who refuse to see what others see. It is you who is force-feeding your “truth” to our children.

Scientifically ID is a sterile dead end that doesn’t lead anywhere. They were fools to try to take down science anyway. The collateral benefits are obvious to all who consider living in the 21st century preferable to fighting cave bears for a place to sleep.

We are past the fighting-cave-bear stage. It is time for enlightenment. Why do we continue this false compartmentalization? This is the only area where both science and courts intentionally blind themselves the questions of truth. Time to grow up.

Equating NOMA and SBE confuses social institutions, a human-created reality, with the reality dictated by the universe.

NOMA is a social institution. In the courts, in the schools, everywhere. The idea, the promise, was that no one belief would be crowned as “the reality dictated by the universe.” Materialism has the government’s seal of approval. Government officials in the form of Science Teachers present this as fact. When challenged, the courts say something like “we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation…”(Judge Jones, Dover). This is NOMA at work.

AS THOUGHT PROVOKER (end of Loki)

I don’t know how much longer this will continue (other than “forever”).

I might have to slow down entries, Real Life is getting in the way. I will try to comment at least once a day if interest keeps up.
See http://dfcord.blogspot.com/ for hints of coming arguments.

Provoking Thought

Comment #170977

Posted by Raging Bee on April 19, 2007 3:40 PM (e)

If science, appropriately, gives equal weight to both empirical and non-empirical possibilities, ID will have won a major victory. This will open up a bright new era where courts are allowed to consider the real truth, not just what can be forced to be compliant with the materialistic religion.

Lat’s apply this wonderful principle to criminal justice. The next time gunshots are heard and 23 students are found dead, perhaps investigators should give equal weight to both the empirical explanation (a person used a gun to shoot the students) and the non-empirical explanation (God caused the students to die, and made it look like they were shot, for reasons our lowly materialistic science can never comprehend, so who are we to question God’s will?). This will open up a bright new era where courts can exonerate accused criminals by saying their acts were really caused by incomprehensible supernatural agency (and maybe burn a witch or two to appease said agency).

How does that grab you, thought-boy? Is that what the “major victory” for ID looks like?

Comment #170979

Posted by Raging Bee on April 19, 2007 3:48 PM (e)

TP blithered thusly:

At one time most thinking people assumed all numbers were rational numbers. They had faith that someday PI would be shown to be a rational number. The same thing with the square-root of two. The square-root of two eluded explanation until, eventually, it was realized that mathematics wasn’t internally consistent unless numbers outside of the rational number set were presumed to be true (i.e. inductive reasoning).

This is the crux of the ID argument…

Minor point: the square-root of two did not elude explanation; it only eluded exact calculation.

Major point: ID is all about supernatural causation, which mathematicians never mentioned in relation to itrrational numbers (or anything else). So no, that math stuff has nothing at all to do with “the crux of the ID argument.”

You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about.

Comment #170981

Posted by Glen Davidson on April 19, 2007 4:01 PM (e)

You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about.

You do know that he (?) is playing IDist as a Loki troll? As such, well, how could he play the role and sound like he knows what he’s talking about?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Comment #171004

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on April 19, 2007 5:59 PM (e)

The idea, the promise, was that no one belief would be crowned as “the reality dictated by the universe.”

Crowned by whom? For how long? And to what end? The only way to answer these questions is to assume that an ultimate reality does not exist, and it’s all really just “belief.” If that is your POV, then science is indeed pointless. The scientific POV is that “the reality dictated by the universe” exists, and we should seek to understand it to the best of our ability. If this is an assumption, then so be it. It seems to work pretty well.

Comment #171005

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 19, 2007 6:11 PM (e)

You do know that he (?) is playing IDist as a Loki troll? As such, well, how could he play the role and sound like he knows what he’s talking about?

because he set himself up as someone who COULD play loki troll and create a legitimate discussion of ID without hyberbole. it doesn’t matter if he was blissfully unaware that it was an impossibility.

as I said, he hadn’t even an idea of what he was setting himself up for.

Comment #171007

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 19, 2007 6:25 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam: “no problem.”

I am glad to hear it. Now, if we can only get the National Academy of Sciences to agree with you. If science, appropriately, gives equal weight to both empirical and non-empirical possibilities, ID will have won a major victory. This will open up a bright new era where courts are allowed to consider the real truth, not just what can be forced to be compliant with the materialistic religion.

uh, you needed to move past the sarcasm, first, and address the actual point which came right after.

However, by “testable” I suspect you mean testable by your limited, materialistic parameters using established techniques that presupposes everything that is, was or ever will be, resides in the empirical realm.

so then you aren’t able to solve the problem either. go figure. no nobel prize for you.

This is like asking that PI be shown to be a rational number.

no, it’s nothing of the sort. I can empirically test the value of Pi. didn’t you take geometry in high school?

showing Pi to be a rational number would be like showing religion to be the product of car manufacturers.

completely unrelatated and irrelevant.

so far, your logic skills are flailing.

This is the crux of the ID argument.

no, it’s not.

in fact, ID proposes an entirely mechanistic explanation, it’s just that they can’t tell us where the mechanism applies itself, or how, or when. Dembski’s attempt at an explanatory filter is entirely useless.

*sigh*

you are not only a poor debater, but you don’t even know enough about the subject matter you choose to loki with in order to make your very first post on the subject sound even coherent.

you have a very long road ahead of you.

Please understand that ID isn’t asking for anything to be artificially abandoned. When the best explaination is empirical, it is appropriate ot retain that answer.

wrong again. IDists are constantly asking for the best explanation based on the empiracle method to not only be abandoned, but that the entire method used to reach it be abandoned as well.

I think you have spent so much time with them, your ability to process logic and think rationally has disintegrated to mush.

thought provoker?

hardly. more like class clown.

Comment #171009

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 19, 2007 6:34 PM (e)

Dr. Behe was clear that a redefinition of science was needed in order to consider ID science.

indeed, a redefinition that by his own admission, on the stand at Kitzmiller, would allow astrology to be considered science as well.

pathetic.

And that ONE magisteria just happens to be yours and not ours. Of course, that would be your opinion.

nope, it’s cold, hard fact. did you care to explain how religious magisteria have furthered our knowledge in in physics, biology and chemistry? did religious magisteria explain why the sky is blue and the grass green?

go on mr. wizard. do tell us what religion has taught you about how the world and the universe at large actually work. show us how this vast knowledge has lead to anything pragmatic.

I got reams at my fingertips to show the pragmatism of the scientific method (it hardly should even need to be mentioned). like the mere fact I can type this message and have you see it, for example. or does god/FSM lay claim to the invention of the ‘puter?

Comment #171020

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 19, 2007 7:32 PM (e)

Hi All,

Why the emotional responses?
Do you want me to stop? If so, why?

It is difficult to tone down the hyperbole in my Loki persona, but I will try.
However, hyperbole is not sarcasm. Most IDer’s really do feel the National Academy of Sciences’ definition of science is overly restrictive. It was a main defense argument in the Dover trial.

BTW, I am a “he”.

AS AN IDer (the following is Loki)…

It is time for some definitions (better late than never).

The American Heritage Science Dictionary
empirical (ěm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)
Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. 

I can empirically test the value of Pi. didn’t you take geometry in high school?

Neither PI nor the Square Root of Two can be empirically tested. It can be theorized, it can be approximated, but not tested. Rational numbers can be empirically tested. 2 + 2 = 4 can be tested by putting two stones next to two stones and counting four stones. Even 4 x 5/2 can be tested with four piles of five half stones combined to result in 10 whole stones.

Try making a square-root-of-two piles of square-root-of-two stones. It isn’t just very difficult, it is impossible.

This distinction was very important to the Pythagoreans. They assumed all numbers had to be rational, otherwise the number would be outside the empirical realm. They knew irrational numbers couldn’t be tested to an exact value. To Pythagoreans irrational numbers were supernatural. Then along came Hippasus. Using inductive reasoning he showed the supernatural had to exist. To the Pythagoreans it was like telling them the impossible was a requirement.

“Legend has it that the discovery was made at sea and that Hippasus’ fellow Pythagoreans threw him overboard.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippasus

You want to discount an Ultimate Observer because it can’t be emperically tested. Like it or not, an Ultimate Observer is a requirement. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_cause… Have you clicked on this link, yet?

We haven’t even gotten to the impossible-but-required issues of time and intelligence.

AS THOUGHT PROVOKER (end of Loki).

I thought it best to keep this one simple. I still have a proposal to offer after we get through these preliminaries. Actually, this is going better than I thought it would.

Provoking Thought

Comment #171022

Posted by David B. Benson on April 19, 2007 7:50 PM (e)

TP — I followed the link. Did you read the counterarguments?

experimentally unfalsifiable.

Therefore, by the Popperian criterion, not part of natural science.

Comment #171025

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 19, 2007 8:07 PM (e)

David B. Benson wrote:

TP — I followed the link. Did you read the counterarguments?

experimentally unfalsifiable.

Therefore, by the Popperian criterion, not part of natural science.

Yes, I read the counter arguments.

ID implies a scientific revolution so radical that Popper would be a minor stumbling block by comparison.

I find it interesting that Penrose supports the concept.

Regards,
TP

Comment #171028

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 19, 2007 8:25 PM (e)

Why the emotional responses?

oh give it up.

if you think these are emotional responses you also have a long way to go before you figure out how to play the victim card to good effect.

Most IDer’s really do feel the National Academy of Sciences’ definition of science is overly restrictive.

and all they (and you) have to do is support why it should change based on ANY reasonable evidence whatsoever.

it’s never happened, and it never will.

Comment #171029

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 19, 2007 8:30 PM (e)

Neither PI nor the Square Root of Two can be empirically tested. It can be theorized, it can be approximated, but not tested

so you’re saying i can’t measure the diameter of a circle empirically to determine if it is related by the value pi to the measured diameter?

fascinating.

funny, cause i actually do recall doing this as an excercise long, long ago in high school geometry.

dude, you’re simply not worth addressing further.

you have little idea what ID is, nor evolution.

how on earth do you expect to “provoke thought” if most of what you spew is utter nonsense?

suggest you take a long hard look at your approach.

Comment #171030

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 19, 2007 8:32 PM (e)

Actually, this is going better than I thought it would.

you are in serious denial. you should see someone about that; it’s highly suggestive of a potentially dangerous underlying psychological malady.

Comment #171031

Posted by John Krehbiel on April 19, 2007 8:33 PM (e)

Uh, Thought Provoker:

I can make a circle, measure the diameter and circumference, and divide the circumference by the diameter. If that’s not “relying on or derived from observation or experiment “ then what is?

The lack of precision in my measurements doesn’t make it less of an observation, it just sets limits to how closely I can approximate pi.

Comment #171032

Posted by David B. Benson on April 19, 2007 8:47 PM (e)

I am under the impression that Greek and Roman architects used 22/7 as a good-enough approximation to pi…

Comment #171033

Posted by fnxtr on April 19, 2007 8:51 PM (e)

Observer is only a requirement for perception, not existence.

Lay off the weed. Dude. Whoa.

Comment #171110

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 20, 2007 10:36 AM (e)

Hi All,

Since Sir_Toejam is dropping out of the conversation, I will refrain from using the Loki Persona.
(unless someone else is willing to take up where Sir_Toejam left off)

Sir_Toejam is essentially correct when he said “if you think these are emotional responses you also have a long way to go before you figure out how to play the victim card to good effect.” I played the “victim card” very early on purpose. In fact, I started with it. I am trying to convince you that it might be time to switch off your knee-jerk reactions and start looking for ,and thinking about, the grains of substance in what the other side is saying. Sure, it might be 99% BS. It might even be 99.9% BS but I believe there is something to be learned here. But it takes listening and thinking for yourself (as opposed to just thinking for your side of the Culture War).

Hopefully, everyone can see how saying “no problem” to the IDer’s request to consider the non-empirical answers equally with empirical answers quickly leads to unpalatable results. This isn’t anything profound or new. I suggest this is the fundamental reason the separation of church and state is a US policy. NOMA wasn’t just a logical argument, it was a practical necessity (of course it wasn’t called NOMA until Gould coined the term).

NOMA worked reasonably well as long as science didn’t claim to have all the answers. Science couldn’t explain the big questions like the origin of the universe or even the origin of life, especially human life. That changed. Darwin was just one of many blows to the already uneasy peace. I suspect that most people participating in this Blog believe science is on a roll and can’t be stopped. People on the other side of the Culture War believe the “roll” is just one big self-fulfilling delusion leading humanity to a state of spiritual bankruptcy without every really “knowing” anything.

Dawkins and Meyers have made their position clear. Very clear. While the “ID Movement” position is more amorphic (on purpose) I think this quote from Well’s probably sums up their core position…

Jonathan Wells wrote:

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

Note that, for Wells, the definition of “science” is the search for the one, single OMA Truth as opposed to what NAS says it is.

While it is hard to ignore the Culture War raging around us, I think someone should be trying to look for any possibility of an OMA Truth that includes both empirical and non-empirical answers.

I have some ideas on that (not Loki) but I have to run now.

I will comment and answer questions later.

Provoking Thought

Comment #171115

Posted by Science Avenger on April 20, 2007 11:41 AM (e)

Thought Provoker said:

I played the “victim card” very early on purpose. In fact, I started with it. I am trying to convince you that it might be time to switch off your knee-jerk reactions and start looking for, and thinking about, the grains of substance in what the other side is saying.

What you don’t seem to understand is that none of this is new to us, at least the parts that aren’t complete nonsense. It’s all been dismantled before.

Comment #171117

Posted by Science Avenger on April 20, 2007 11:50 AM (e)

To further make the point, every single statement in that Wells quote is false. For example, I’m sure it would come as quite a shock to the religious scientists who have been empirically validating evolution for decades to “learn” that evolution is “first and foremost a weapon against religion” and that the data is added after the fact.

Such a statement could only be believed by someone completely out of touch with reality. Putting that forth in a forum of people as knowledgeably about evolution as most of us are, is far more likely to provoke laughter than thought. You may dismiss that as an emotional response if it makes you feel better.

Comment #171183

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 20, 2007 5:54 PM (e)

Hi Science Avenger,
First of all Dr. Wells didn’t post his quote here, I did. Excuse me for not providing the link in my previous comment. It was from a “WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary”. For those who are not familiar with the this particular on-line “newssite”, let’s just say anyone left of Ann Coulter would probably find it overtly biased.

I realize a lot of this ground was covered in the Chamberlainites/Churchillians debates. I have the impression this is still an open issue, but I would be interested to hear that I am mistaken. However, I believe what I am talking about is slightly different than this.

What I am suggesting could be as valuable to the Churchillian warrior as to the Chamberlainite appeaser. Know your enemy, understand their definitions and arguments. Maneuver them into the “reasonable” position of answering their stated concerns but not giving them what they really want.

Reading an ID proclamation and then applying your definition of terms results in a knee-jerk reaction like “Such a statement could only be believed by someone completely out of touch with reality.” I have watched it from the other side, the exact reverse happens. The effect is similar to Palestinian Leaders making proclamations in Arabic to their own people with the English “translation” being something else entirely. The War continues.

My initial reaction to any IDer proclaiming that an Intelligent Designer is required to solve the Origin Of Life paradox is to ask “How does a Designer’s ability to learn and/or adapt help solve any paradox, much less OOL?” This usually leads into discussing the definition of the word “Intelligent”. They have to stop and think about it. Our best weapon is to get as many IDers to thinking for themselves, as opposed to following the siren sound of the ID Movement propaganda.

Belittling and attacking just feeds the stereotype that “Darwinists” have faith that they know everything and dogmatically refuse to listen to any alternative (i.e. a religion).

Provoking Thought

Comment #171186

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 20, 2007 6:20 PM (e)

Hi All,

I realize that most of what I have been saying has been philosophical in nature. I do have something more concrete to belittle and attack all you want. In fact, I would welcome it since I would like to continue enhancing it. It is purely empirical and includes an Intelligent Designer. I built it from pieces that have been embraced by ID proponents as “evidence” they could be right. I was going to try and convert it to rely on the non-empirical of my Loki act, but now it doesn’t look like I have to.

I tried posting it to Panda’s Thumb before but it was, appropriately, not allowed.

Please go to http://dfcord.blogspot.com/ and belittle, laugh and scorn to your heart’s content.

Note: this was worded for the Telic Thoughts audience, not Panda’s Thumb. I found their reaction interesting. I am interested in seeing what your reaction will be.

Regards,
TP (Thought Provoker)

Comment #171212

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 20, 2007 10:46 PM (e)

Hi Sir_Toejam and others,

I wrote “Neither PI nor the Square Root of Two can be empirically tested. It can be theorized, it can be approximated, but not tested.”

Sir_Toejam: so you’re saying i can’t measure the diameter of a circle empirically to determine if it is related by the value pi to the measured diameter?

I probably should have left this alone, but I thought it important to make sure I was communicating. Can you empirically test which, if either, of the following is PI?
3.1415926535897932384626433832795
3.1415926535897932384626433832796

“Empirically” does not mean using non-empirical methods like calculating an infinate series of fractions representing 4*ARCTAN(1).

I suspect what you did in high-school geometry was to test an approximation for PI, not the actual number PI. The Pythagoreans were absolutely certain that all numbers were empirically testable. They were wrong. Isn’t it possible that an assumption about the empirical testability of all of “reality” is wrong too?

Provoking Thought

Comment #171213

Posted by Science Avenger on April 20, 2007 10:47 PM (e)

Reading an ID proclamation and then applying your definition of terms results in a knee-jerk reaction like “Such a statement could only be believed by someone completely out of touch with reality.”

They are not “my” definitions. They are the definitions in common use among people who are intellectually honest about the subject. And it is not a “knee-jerk” reaction. It is a simple evaluation of the facts. I choose to withhold respect from people I deem intellectually dishonest, and people who speak as Mr. Wells does qualify in my opinion. I also respect the more conciliatory approach that some of my brethren in this little culture war choose to follow. I believe in the strength of heterogeneity in approach, because there is heterogeneity in our target audience. Some need a softer approach which doesn’t threaten any of their cherished beliefs. And some need a swift kick in the intellectual ass. You take yours, I’ll take mine.

Comment #171225

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 20, 2007 11:35 PM (e)

Science Avenger: I choose to withhold respect from people I deem intellectually dishonest, and people who speak as Mr. Wells does qualify in my opinion. I also respect the more conciliatory approach that some of my brethren in this little culture war choose to follow. I believe in the strength of heterogeneity in approach, because there is heterogeneity in our target audience. Some need a softer approach which doesn’t threaten any of their cherished beliefs. And some need a swift kick in the intellectual ass. You take yours, I’ll take mine.

Fair enough and I apologize if I was too critical of your comment. You are taking a firm stance and I respect it. I should have noticed that anyone who calls themselves “Science Avenger” would be taking an US-against-THEM position.

However, I am not suggesting appeasement; I suggest using their words against them. Present a better Intelligent Design proposal than they have. This isn’t hard considering they haven’t presented one. I have started this effort in the beginnings of a blog. I am looking for a home for this kind of thinking (I don’t think I can do it justice by myself).

While I respect your choice, it makes me nervous. Unfortunately, history hasn’t been kind to groups who are like “us”. Killing all the lawyers is an old joke, killing all the intellectuals is an old practice.

Provoking Thought

Comment #171304

Posted by Science Avenger on April 21, 2007 3:21 PM (e)

Perhaps your nervousness will subside a bit by noting that the “us” I think about are those that are intellectually honest, not those that necessarily agree with me. After all, sometimes I am the one in need of correction.

The intellectually dishonest are “them”, the real enemy, regardless of topic, because the big picture battle isn’t evolution vs creationism. It’s the reality-based view vs the faith-based view, be that faith in gods, the bible, the invisible hand, or Joe Peschi.

Comment #171306

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 21, 2007 3:56 PM (e)

Hi Science Avenger,

I agree that it is more ethical to be on the side of intellectually honesty. I humbly submit I would make a pretty formidable evangelist if I chose otherwise. I have had similar discussions in other blogs. I thought you might be interested in one I had years ago…

A long time ago someone (Miles) said…
“many academic institutions have the capacity to be more socially integrative without losing their focus on critical thinking, if they place a value on these issues.”

However, this leads me directly to my point (“…a capacity…if they place a value…”). The focus on critical thinking causes other issues to take a back seat, this includes survival. Miles’ quote betrays that social integration efforts will always be secondary to the main focus, critical thinking. “Socially integrative institutions of the right” are dedicated to group think. Creating their form of society is their focus, not a side line.

The dividing factor is which of the two groups has more resolve. A lack of certainty is inherent in minds open enough for critical thinking. Consider a rallying cry for ideals embodied in the quote… “The wisest of you men is he who has realized, like Socrates, that in respect of wisdom he is really worthless.” (from Plato’s Apology)

Compare this to “I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe- I believe what I believe is right.” (George W. Bush, Rome 2001).

While it may be interesting (and sometimes amusing) to watch people try to constrain reality into simple dichotomies (right/wrong, good/evil, etc.), the harm comes when people decide to create their version of this simplified reality.

Academia can study it. Academia can understand it. Academia could probably even predict why and when a revolution will happen. However, academia lack the blind devotion needed to, as a group, kill or be killed. Academia lack the certainty to know what to believe, much less truly believe what they believe is right. Academia minds are trained to be open to doubt. When pitted against people who are resolved and certain of their actions, the result is inevitable.

Please excuse this lengthy and pessimistic post, but I had to put my feelings (and frustrations) into words.

Comment #171308

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 21, 2007 4:17 PM (e)

To Steve Avenger and lurkers…

I don’t know how to edit my comments. Consider this a P.S. to my previsous one…

You might want to take a look at P.Z.Meyers latest…
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/we_ai…

It is topical to the discussion we are having.

Comment #171478

Posted by Raging Bee on April 23, 2007 10:20 AM (e)

Laughter Provoker wrote:

Present a better Intelligent Design proposal than they have.

Should we also present a better flat-Earth proposal than the Flat Earth society have?

Why should we help the IDiots by rephrasing their lies more effectively?

PS: I also notice you haven’t even attempted to address any of the points of my last post. Sorry if I’m hitting too close to home for your taste.

Actually, that’s a lie: I’m not sorry for that at all…

Comment #171487

Posted by Raging Bee on April 23, 2007 10:37 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #171489

Posted by RBH on April 23, 2007 10:42 AM (e)

Thought Provoker wrote

However, I am not suggesting appeasement; I suggest using their words against them. Present a better Intelligent Design proposal than they have. This isn’t hard considering they haven’t presented one. I have started this effort in the beginnings of a blog. I am looking for a home for this kind of thinking (I don’t think I can do it justice by myself).

I have. It’s here. For some inexplicable reason the IDists have never taken to it.

Comment #171758

Posted by Henry J on April 24, 2007 3:01 PM (e)

Re “For some inexplicable reason the IDists have never taken to it.”

Can’t imagine why. LOL

Comment #171798

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 24, 2007 7:41 PM (e)

Hi Raging Bee,

I didn’t answer directly out of politeness.

Which of your comments would you like to defend?

1. That if the NAS changed its definition of science it will mean the courts will “…exonerate criminals by saying their acts were really caused by incomprehensible supernatural agency…”

ane/or

2. That Pathagoreans were not religious in any way and never “…mentioned in relation to itrrational numbers (or anything else)…” higher planes of existence.

I considered your responses to be an emotional ones. If you would like to continue discussing either of them unemotionally, I will attempt to make the time.

Provoking Thought

Comment #171806

Posted by Raging Bee on April 24, 2007 9:14 PM (e)

Pity Provoker: I know that you know that you have grossly, and deliberately, misrepresented what I said. I’ll take that as an admission on your part that you have lost the argument, and are unable to respond to my arguments satisfactorily. Buh-bye.

Comment #171830

Posted by Thought Provoker on April 25, 2007 12:32 AM (e)

Hi Raging Bee,

Or should I say good bye. I hope you learned more from our interchange than I did.