Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design

[jordanriver]

In other news, Shuny still can't spell...

Endorse, not 'endorce'.....

maybe Shuny is Russian

[MaxVel]

maybe Shuny is Russian

Could be, if you type in a hurry you can easily make silly typos.

[klaus54]

Hey, could one of you "intelligent" YECs define "Intelligent Design" and how it differs from some form YECism?

K54

[Teallaura]

I agree, but... there is still no evidence for anything but this finite universe. If Shuny wants to make a claim that matter and energy are eternal I think it would be on him to produce the beef.

It's valid to point out that the person hasn't presented evidence in the expectation that they will address it - it's not valid to draw conclusions based on the lack of evidence (with the caveat that it may be valid after an exhaustive search but that would be in a limited number of cases).

For Shuny or anyone else to validate a claim they do indeed have to produce evidence when confronted (it's not necessary to produce evidence on point upon which both parties agree) or a logical proof that X is indeed the case (which is actually evidence but I know full well someone will argue otherwise... ).

[Teallaura]

Could be, if you type in a hurry you can easily make silly typos.

Yup. But if you're gonna be criticizing someone else it's a good idea to proofread before you hit 'reply' or 'post'.

[Teallaura]

What DO you understand?

1) The theory of evolution.

2) Geology

3) Biology

4) Astrophysics

5) Paleontology

Is there anything in science you DO understand?

I haven't seen any evidence.

Maybe you can go over to Mossrose's, she could bake you an apple pie, smack you over your fideistic skull with her dough roller at few times, and have a deep conversation about which of youse is more ignorant of science.

K54

Funny, I get the same impression from your posts. Lots of ad homs (as in the actual fallacy and not mere internet speak for name calling - although you surely do that, too) and plenty of snide asides but no substance whatsoever that I've seen.

Of course, it's possible you have made substantive posts I've missed - wouldn't want to argue from Ignorance, after all.

[klaus54]

Funny, I get the same impression from your posts. Lots of ad homs (as in the actual fallacy and not mere internet speak for name calling - although you surely do that, too) and plenty of snide asides but no substance whatsoever that I've seen.

Of course, it's possible you have made substantive posts I've missed - wouldn't want to argue from Ignorance, after all.

It's not really funny at all.

Especially if you're interested in truth.

So, how's 'bout you regaling us with YOUR definition of "Intelligent Design"?

Maybe then we could have an "intelligent" conversation.

But somehow I doubt it...

K54

P.S. I absolutely HATE it when ignoramuses make a mockery of Creation that God has laid out some plainly for H. sapiens to perceive.

I really and truly feel sorry for you and Mossrose and Cerebrum and "Mr." Black and Jorge and...

[Kbertsche]

Hey, could one of you "intelligent" YECs define "Intelligent Design" and how it differs from some form YECism?

K54

I am definitely NOT a YEC, but I'll answer your question, as it is an easy one.

ID was conceived by Phillip Johnson et al as a "big tent" group, which would take no official position on the age of the earth. ID focuses on evidence for design and evidence against macroevolution. ID does not focus on the age of the earth, and is composed of both YECs and OECs. I believe the YECs are in the minority; the founders and most of the early leaders are OEC, not YEC ( e.g. Johnson, Behe, Dembski).

[Irate Canadian]

P.S. I absolutely HATE it when ignoramuses make a mockery of Creation that God has laid out some plainly for H. sapiens to perceive.

I really and truly feel sorry for you and Mossrose and Cerebrum and "Mr." Black and Jorge and...

IIRC, Teal's not a YEC but simply wants a good conversation between the different factions. I don't see then need why you need to feel sorry for Mossrose and Cerebrum. They have a opposing view from you. That doesn't automatically exclude them from the conversation.

[phank]

I am definitely NOT a YEC, but I'll answer your question, as it is an easy one.

ID was conceived by Phillip Johnson et al as a "big tent" group, which would take no official position on the age of the earth. ID focuses on evidence for design and evidence against macroevolution. ID does not focus on the age of the earth, and is composed of both YECs and OECs. I believe the YECs are in the minority; the founders and most of the early leaders are OEC, not YEC ( e.g. Johnson, Behe, Dembski).

Not as easy as you think, I suspect. Johnson, a lawyer, came up with ID in direct response to the majority decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. His purpose was to keep the essence of creationism while omitting the "magic words" the Court seemed (to him) to define as connoting religion. That is, you can't mention any gods, or religious figures or scriptures. Essentially, ID came to mean that something undefined, at some undefined time, using mechanisms undefined, did something unspecified resulting in, you know, us. And further more that all of this undefined stuff is in principle inadmissible of any operational definition, so that it can't be tested in principle.

As usually used, ID has come to mean pretty much "I cannot believe life (or whatever) could have occured naturally, therefore god (uh, the Designer) must have done it." With the implicit understand that "naturally" means "entirely due to random chance" whereby any sort of process is simply disallowed - except POOF (assuming POOF is a process, of course).

In practice, ID is a fundamentally mendacious approach to misdefining evilution, which is decreed not to occur. And I think this is where the YEC confusion comes in. YECs and ID cdesign proponentsists share a rejection of evolution altogether, something OECs tend not to do.

[klaus54]

Not as easy as you think, I suspect. Johnson, a lawyer, came up with ID in direct response to the majority decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. His purpose was to keep the essence of creationism while omitting the "magic words" the Court seemed (to him) to define as connoting religion. That is, you can't mention any gods, or religious figures or scriptures. Essentially, ID came to mean that something undefined, at some undefined time, using mechanisms undefined, did something unspecified resulting in, you know, us. And further more that all of this undefined stuff is in principle inadmissible of any operational definition, so that it can't be tested in principle.

As usually used, ID has come to mean pretty much "I cannot believe life (or whatever) could have occured naturally, therefore god (uh, the Designer) must have done it." With the implicit understand that "naturally" means "entirely due to random chance" whereby any sort of process is simply disallowed - except POOF (assuming POOF is a process, of course).

In practice, ID is a fundamentally mendacious approach to misdefining evilution, which is decreed not to occur. And I think this is where the YEC confusion comes in. YECs and ID cdesign proponentsists share a rejection of evolution altogether, something OECs tend not to do.

It's notable that I agree more with Phank, the New Atheist, than with KB, Mossrose, and Teallaura.

"ID" in the Philip Johnson sense is scientifically unfalsifiable -- just like belief in the supernatural. In the Mossrose sense then it's a "religion".

If we can't even agree that Intelligent Design(tm) IS a religion and Evilution ain't, then all discussions are gonna end up like this.

K54

P.S. Not to offend anyone (heehee), but if anyone can show that SCIENTIFIC evolution is a RELIGION is going to earn 1,000 Klaus points.

[phank]

P.S. Not to offend anyone (heehee), but if anyone can show that SCIENTIFIC evolution is a RELIGION is going to earn 1,000 Klaus points.

This sounds like Kent Hovind's bet, especially if this must be shown to your satisfaction. After all, what precisely is a "religion"? Considering the bogglingly broad scope of preposterous nonsense people have sincerely believed throughout history (some of which can't be mentioned here even in this day and age, much less in Pakistan), about the only common thread is that people believe stuff -- and believe it with a fervor proportional to the preposterosity.

Does religion necessarily have to be non-falsifiable? No, lots of it has been falsified beyond any rational doubt, deterring the Believers not at all. Does religion necessarily rest on the LACK of evidence? Not at all - some beliefs exist despite evidence, and some are even supported by arguably some evidence. So does religion need to be organized? When a growing percentage of the population identifies themselves as "spiritual but not religious", what distinction is this really?

Bottom line: the word "religion" can mean whatever you BELIEVE it means. You could make a strong case that the belief that evolution is a religion, is itself a religion, in the sense that it's believed and religions can believe anything.

[klaus54]

This sounds like Kent Hovind's bet, especially if this must be shown to your satisfaction. After all, what precisely is a "religion"? Considering the bogglingly broad scope of preposterous nonsense people have sincerely believed throughout history (some of which can't be mentioned here even in this day and age, much less in Pakistan), about the only common thread is that people believe stuff -- and believe it with a fervor proportional to the preposterosity.

Does religion necessarily have to be non-falsifiable? No, lots of it has been falsified beyond any rational doubt, deterring the Believers not at all. Does religion necessarily rest on the LACK of evidence? Not at all - some beliefs exist despite evidence, and some are even supported by arguably some evidence. So does religion need to be organized? When a growing percentage of the population identifies themselves as "spiritual but not religious", what distinction is this really?

Bottom line: the word "religion" can mean whatever you BELIEVE it means. You could make a strong case that the belief that evolution is a religion, is itself a religion, in the sense that it's believed and religions can believe anything.

What's a "religion"?

I dunno. Tell me.

That's what's make the bet pompous bloviating.

K54

[Teallaura]

It's not really funny at all.

Especially if you're interested in truth.

So, how's 'bout you regaling us with YOUR definition of "Intelligent Design"?

Maybe then we could have an "intelligent" conversation.

But somehow I doubt it...

K54

P.S. I absolutely HATE it when ignoramuses make a mockery of Creation that God has laid out some plainly for H. sapiens to perceive.

I really and truly feel sorry for you and Mossrose and Cerebrum and "Mr." Black and Jorge and...

There's just one problem here - I don't have a position on YEC/OEC/TE/E/XYZ - ask Rogue, I don't debate them at all. You merely assume that you know something and argue from it - how is that an interest in the truth?

My point stands, you do not argue substantively that I have seen (case in point) and you are hypocritical to complain about what others believe - or not.

You are the thing you profess to hate. That is the truly sad bit - or you're just trolling, one of the two.

[Teallaura]

It's notable that I agree more with Phank, the New Atheist, than with KB, Mossrose, and Teallaura.

....

Little wonder, Teallaura's position is that you contribute nothing of substance. I'd be very surprised if you agreed; pleasantly surprised if you proved me wrong.

And you show a shocking lack of concern for truth given your previously stated position that you cared about truth.