Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Quiz for Intelligent Design Critics

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on. Even ID critics who have been repeatedly informed about what ID is seem to have a knack for forgetting this in later exchanges. It’s frustrating – and this from a guy who’s not even a defender of ID as science.

But I’m interested in progress on this front, and I think I’ve come up with a good solution: let’s have an ID quiz. And let’s put this quiz to critics, in public, so at the very least we can see whether or not they’re even on the same page as the ID proponents they are criticizing.

I want to stress here: the goal of this quiz isn’t to score points, or force ID proponents to concede controversial things – asking ‘Is there a complete and satisfactory origin of life theory?’ is an important question, but it’s not what I’m after here. I’m talking about the bare and basic essentials of Intelligent Design arguments, as offered by Dembski, Behe and others.

To that end, here’s the quiz I’ve come up with, just by recalling off the top of my head the systematic mistakes I see made:

1. Is Intelligent Design compatible with the truth of evolution, with evolution defined (as per wikipedia) as change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations?

2. Is Intelligent Design compatible with common descent, with common descent defined as the claim that all living organisms share a common biological ancestor?

3. Does Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents (Behe, Meyers, etc) propose to explain any purported incident of design by appeal to miracles or “supernatural” acts of any kind?

4. Does Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, argue that any given purported incident of design must have been performed by God, angels, or any “supernatural” being?

5. Is Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, compatible with atheism?

6. Does Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, rely on the bible, or any religious document? (as a source of evidence, etc)

7. Hypothetical scenario: a designer starts an evolutionary process. The designer arranges the environment and the organisms involved in the process in such a way so as to yield a particular, specified and intended result, with no intervention on the designer’s part aside from initially setting up the situation, organisms and environment. Is this an example of Intelligent Design in action, according to ID’s most noteworthy proponents?

8. Revisit 7. Stipulate that designer only used completely “natural” means in setting up the experiment and successfully predicting the result. Is this still an example of Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, in action?

9. An ID critic proposes that intelligent aliens, not God, may be responsible for a purported incident of Intelligent Design – for example, the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Has the ID critic proposed a scenario which, if true, would disprove Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents?

10. A creationist argues that evolution must be false, because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible. Has the creationist made an Intelligent Design claim?

This list could be tweaked or expanded, I’m sure. But I have a suspicion here: I think many ID critics, at least critics of public note, would be unable to pass the quiz I just outlined. Not just unable, but unwilling – because to answer it would be to obliterate some common misrepresentations of Intelligent Design, and for whatever reason, those misrepresentations are very important to people. And pardon the repeated inclusion of ‘as offered by its most noteworthy proponents’ bit – I’m being stuffy about that because I don’t want to see someone exploit a loophole and run off on a tangent.

Regardless, I offer this quiz for ID regulars – critics and supporters alike. Feel free to take it in the comments if you’re interested! I can already name a few ID critics on UD I think would successfully pass the test, and maybe some ID proponents would actually fail it. Perhaps we’ll see.

Comments
MF: Pardon me but I recently had to deal with alive" case of web stalking by the TSZ- ANTI-EVO- ATBC ilk, where the attempt was made to circulate my residential address. That is outright cyber-stalking, and it goes well beyond foolish talk and mere general nastiness. Joe, seems to have had people slander him to his superiors at work in an attempt to cost him his job. A decade ago, what was done to Sternberg coming out of NCSE and manifesting in inexcusable behaviour at the Smithsonian -- including false accusations of academic fraud/misrepresentation, false accusations of political and/or religious motivation, insinuating that he was a petty thief [change the locks!] and the like, is simply awful. Shat was done to Gonzalez cannot be justified, and the misleading of the public over what happened as discovered from tell-tale emails, is revealing. There is a wider slaughter of dissidents as Bergman documented. Yancey has shown an underlying prejudice problem that is serious. So, when Null spoke of pursuing or harassing people in real life, coming from the ilk you associate with, he was dead on target; and it also goes on up to much more serious cases. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
MF:
I am much more disturbed with implications that as an atheist I am somehow ammoral and associated with mass murder – a fairly common accusation here.
I'm pretty sure the implications made are not that you are somehow ammoral, but that you leave yourself with no warrant for morality, whether in yourself or others. This is especially problematic when, in practice, morality is largely about the behavior we expect or even require of others and not merely down to internal or personal preferences.Phinehas
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Sal, Read the paper, pages 23-25 1- T is two things. The first T is the pattern and the second T is the evolutionary event that produced it page 25 2- it is the est. complexity of the pattern, ie 10^20, page 25 3- Loosely from the BF's description 10^20- page 25 4- H is the unknown chance hypothesis 5- Unknown as no one knows if unguided evolution can produce a BF in a population that never had one- page 25 6- when it is very probable under H- page 23Joe
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Null #156
Sure you are. I mean you yourself keep talking about how it’s no big deal. You see no reason to ban someone for it, or avoid contact with people who do it.
There is a difference between no big deal and A-OK, isn’t there?  If someone drops litter on the street, turns up late for a dinner party, it is not a big deal but it is not A-OK. 
Be sure to pipe up with this reasoning the next time some feminist on twitter gets lambasted with comments like that. Actually, weren’t multiple female atheists run off the net due to male atheists engaging in that? Clearly they should have had thicker skin by your view.
There is a clear difference between people saying silly and obscene things in an internet debate and sending offensive tweets directly to the victim.  Do you honestly not recognise that?  I am not aware that their religious views came into the story. Were they atheists?
Trying very, very hard to change the subject, I see.
Depends what the subject is. Are we talking specifically about inappropriate language and sexual references or more generally about behaviour on the internet?
What, did you think I was bluffing about those standards?
No. So what? Mark Frank
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Null: Pardon, but this thread has been pulled way off track by repeated tangents. The focal issue is back in the original post, and it is highly illuminating that it seems that by and large Darwinist objectors to ID are studiously ignoring a very simple request: show, by filling out a short quiz, that you can accurately and fairly describe the basic case on the merits made by design thinkers. KF PS: I have had attempts to expose my family including minor children, and to do things like give out addresses. That crosses the line into cyberstalking and poses implicit threats that are ugly and menacing. The likes of too many of the more genteel objectors seem all too willing to be in such company. As to the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialist worldviews, that has been exposed for all to see at least since Plato in The Laws Bk X, 2350 years ago. As in, what worldview foundation IS can such an evolutionary materialist pose that properly grounds OUGHT as objectively binding? Where as a simple test, it is self evidently and undeniably, so objectively true and binding that it is wrong -- ought not to be done -- to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child. Likewise, should we see such a monster at such fell work, we are duty bound to intervene to save the victim. You can see for yourself what happened when this moral yardstick 1 was posed as a basic test here. (And kindly cf. here in context and with onward links re MF's previous twistabout accusation and toxic strawman argument tactics, for which he specifically owes me an apology.) Sorry, evo mat fails the basic moral yardstick test and so --whether or not this is palatable -- is patently morally bankrupt.kairosfocus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Here’s quiz on ID for you ID proponents: On page 21 of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence William Dembksi defines the context dependent specified complexity of T given H as –log2[M·N·?S(T)·P(T|H)] Consider the context of the bacterial flagellum. 1. What is T? 2. What is the function ?S ? 3. How is ?S(T) estimated? 4. What is H? 5. How is P(T|H) estimated? 6. M·N·?S(T)·P(T|H) is meant to be a probability. Under what conditions might the answer exceed 1?
Heck if I know. I fail. Perhaps my colleagues can provide numbers and calculations? I'm trying to be fair here and credit Mark for pointing out a difficulty with an ID argument, but on the other hand, I don't want my recognition of Mark's legitimate objection on the difficulty of carrying out a particular calculation to imply that we can some how generalize the difficulties Mark has found in one small piece of ID literature as somehow demonstrating there aren't alternative avenues to using math and science to make a design inference. Mark may have a point that the calculations are cumbersome and few ID proponents will be able to execute them. However, let's not pretend that's the only way to use math to make an ID inference. For example: Relevance of coin analogies to homochirality and symbolic organization in biology
one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID proponents to accurately represent what ID actually is,
I wouldn't say the inability is pathological, it's lack of education. I will point however, the pathological inability of some to answer a far simpler question than question of Dembski's math: Statistics Question for Nick Matzke NOTES Some of the alternate approaches for arguing in favor of design started with: Siding with Mathgrrl on a point. There were other essays that followed: The Fundamental Law of ID The paradox of almost definite knowledge in the face of maximum uncertainty, the basis of ID Illlustrating Embedded Specification and Specified Improbability with Specially Labeled Coins To recognize Design is to recognize the products of a like-minded processscordova
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Joe, I had no idea they did that. Really? One more reason to tend towards anonymity on the internet, I suppose. Sorry to hear it, but glad you apparently came out ahead. Mark,
I am not A-OK with it. I just don’t think it is that important, particularly elsewhere.
Sure you are. I mean you yourself keep talking about how it's no big deal. You see no reason to ban someone for it, or avoid contact with people who do it. Be sure to pipe up with this reasoning the next time some feminist on twitter gets lambasted with comments like that. Actually, weren't multiple female atheists run off the net due to male atheists engaging in that? Clearly they should have had thicker skin by your view.
I am much more disturbed with implications that as an atheist I am somehow ammoral and associated with mass murder
Trying very, very hard to change the subject, I see. What, did you think I was bluffing about those standards?nullasalus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Null
Mark Frank’s A-OK with sexual slurs and posting porn pics as insults in the course of a debate.
I am not A-OK with it. I just don't think it is that important, particularly elsewhere. It is rather pathetic but certainly not worth banning or sensing or even avoiding contact with those that choose to do it. I am much more disturbed with implications that as an atheist I am somehow ammoral and associated with mass murder - a fairly common accusation here.Mark Frank
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
nullasalus, When you have evos write to your place of employment spewing their lies, let me know. Yes that has happened to me and the best part is I came out with a much better job making almost double the money. And no, you are right in your standards. You would have left TSZ long before it got as heated as it did when I posted the tunie pic. I respect that and if you ban me from your threads there won't be any hard feelings- if I deserve it then so be it.Joe
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Lizzie has lost it:
And what was most offensive to me was the title Joe had given it.
Umm, I didn't give it a title. Or are you referring to "Here have some tunie"? The other title wasn't from me, duh.Joe
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
nullasalus, I don’t hurl insults over someone’s ID views. I retaliate when attacked and I don’t hold back. Lizze may say I posted porn- that is her opinion and not a fact- she is welcome to her opinion but is not welcome to her own facts. And it was NOT directed at Lizzie as she wasn’t part of the discussion at the time.
Joe, like I said - my standards are mine, and I adhere to them. Believe me, I know what it's like to deal with people who try to escalate things, who are frustrating, etc. And I am not immune to mockery, even namecalling - I engage in it when I think it's warranted. But I have a limit for that, and I'm a big believer in having standards of association. I outlined the limits I have - if you think I'm being too weak, I understand, but I adhere to those standards all the same. Mark,
As I said several times I don’t share the same approach as you. I don’t actually care too much what people do elsewhere. I just want to see if you stick to your standards.
Sure. Let the record show: Mark Frank's A-OK with sexual slurs and posting porn pics as insults in the course of a debate. That's right, folks, that's exactly the kind of community you can hope to join over at The Skeptical Zone! So remember: if you want to discuss things with people who will froth with hate, post your RL details on their sister forum if they get them, and worse... well, you just be sure to sign up there.
So Joe gets off with a warning? Or do you doubt he did it?
Joe gets a warning because it's the first I've heard of this, I didn't witness it myself, and the post is apparently gone. Also, what more do you want? I only have control over my own threads on UD and my own behavior. Watch and see if I knowingly join threads where someone who engages in that without apology is running the show. See if I tolerate them in my own threads. I have standards. Which is why I don't post at the freaking Skeptical Zone.nullasalus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
And I thought the link was to a selfie of OM....Joe
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Hey Mark, why are you being such a cry-baby? Why won't you atone for your lie?Joe
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
nullasalus, I don't hurl insults over someone's ID views. I retaliate when attacked and I don't hold back. Lizze may say I posted porn- that is her opinion and not a fact- she is welcome to her opinion but is not welcome to her own facts. And it was NOT directed at Lizzie as she wasn't part of the discussion at the time.Joe
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
#145 Null As I said several times I don't share the same approach as you. I don't actually care too much what people do elsewhere. I just want to see if you stick to your standards. So Joe gets off with a warning? Or do you doubt he did it?Mark Frank
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
I ‘appeared’ to do no such thing, and your restatement doesn’t help you – because I never agreed to that either. I’ve maintained that it’s ridiculous to talk about how many ID proponents ‘don’t understand’ Dembski’s equation, because it’s not as if ID critics are in a better state to do so. Pointing at someone at TSZ who you claim does understand it does little to advance the claim, anymore than my pointing at several UD regulars who would understand it, would. QED, as you’d say.
Looking back I am wrong about that one.  I apologise. You never conceded that ID proponents don’t know that much about ID as many critics. I still don’t see what is ambigous about claiming they don’t. You didn’t seem to find it ambiguous.
You’re trading on an ambiguity between my reasons for dismissing TSZ – the swampers behavior – and ‘any negative thing said about anyone’.
Let’s be clear what exactly did I write that was ambiguous?
You’re right, it doesn’t. But a metaphysical argument is not science. You pointed at the mere existence of a metaphysical argument as if that’s enough to excuse the claim that ID involves a commitment to the supernatural – but if that’s the case, then saying that evolution entails atheism (or theism!) is just as valid. There are metaphysical arguments to that effect as well.
As I said, it depends on the validity of the argument. You have not done anything to address the validity of Sobers argument.
So that alone suffices to show that ID inferences are not arguments from ignorance. If they infer intelligence, they are doing so on the basis of positive data – among other things, the accomplishments of intelligent agents.
As I said the debate about whether ID is an argument from ignorance is a long and detailed one. If you want to have that debate fine but may I suggest you start another OP.Mark Frank
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
To kairosfocus #139 I am not sure so please enlighten me : "Is TVH your abbreviation for me, TVARHEGYI or is it denoting somebody else ?" TVH, all materialists are atheists, but nor all atheists are materialists. Look up idealism for instance. But even more broadly, there are atheists who come in all sort of odd flavours out there, indeed some reportedly pray. KFtvarhegyi
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Mark Frank,
I suggest that this a pretty explicit sexual slur. What are you going to do Nullasus?
Why, that's easy Mark. Joe, I didn't see this thread, much less the picture. And let's be honest - what Mark here is doing is using you as a cover, reasoning that I'll be a hypocrite and not condemn you for engaging in the sort of behavior I've outlined. So I'm going to make this clear - and this goes for anyone in the thread. If it comes to my attention that you're throwing sexual slurs at people - male or female - over their ID views? I don't care if it's on UD. If it's a public blog that anyone can access and see, even obscure, I don't want you in any thread I host, and I won't take part in any threads you host on UD or elsewhere. Period. You throw out porn pics? Same deal. Now, my splendid company isn't necessary of value you to you - maybe you'll say 'Well to heck with you then, Null'. Your prerogative. But I have the standards I do. That's my response, Mark. Now the real question is: what are YOU going to do about the swamp? Or are we just going to establish that I have more civility and respect than you or your ilk at TSZ, and leave it at that?nullasalus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
And this was in the middle of a debate with Lizzie ...
That is a lie. Lizzie wasn't around. She didn't even know what it was until someone pointed it out to her. The comment was directed at OM. OM was the ass I was responding to. And nothing Mark spews will ever change that fact.Joe
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Luckily I didn’t write: ID proponents don’t know as much about ID as ID critics. What I wrote was: “ID proponents don’t know that much about ID as many critics”. You appeared to accept that many people on TSZ would understand my question and most ID proponents demonstrably do not. QED.
I 'appeared' to do no such thing, and your restatement doesn't help you - because I never agreed to that either. I've maintained that it's ridiculous to talk about how many ID proponents 'don't understand' Dembski's equation, because it's not as if ID critics are in a better state to do so. Pointing at someone at TSZ who you claim does understand it does little to advance the claim, anymore than my pointing at several UD regulars who would understand it, would. QED, as you'd say.
Sorry I still don’t see where the equivocation comes in. Equivocate means “use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.” What did I write that was ambiguous?
You're trading on an ambiguity between my reasons for dismissing TSZ - the swampers behavior - and 'any negative thing said about anyone'.
I don’t know why you call it a metaphysical argument. It is just an argument. But let us suppose it is metaphysical. Being metaphysical doesn’t make it invalid.
You're right, it doesn't. But a metaphysical argument is not science. You pointed at the mere existence of a metaphysical argument as if that's enough to excuse the claim that ID involves a commitment to the supernatural - but if that's the case, then saying that evolution entails atheism (or theism!) is just as valid. There are metaphysical arguments to that effect as well.
I always have a problem knowing for sure when something is irreducibly complex – but I sort of get the idea and the answer is yes. So what?
So that alone suffices to show that ID inferences are not arguments from ignorance. If they infer intelligence, they are doing so on the basis of positive data - among other things, the accomplishments of intelligent agents.nullasalus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
140 JWTL Thanks. As the entire comment was: Have some tunie And this was in the middle of a debate with Lizzie which was in no way related to medicine or vaginas. I suggest that this a pretty explicit sexual slur. What are you going to do Nullasus?Mark Frank
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
MF, ever had a car refuse to run because of a part that went bad, or been locked out by putting a wrong character on a pass word? If so, you understand irreducible complexity, a functional entity requiring a cluster of core parts each necessary to and together in proper array jointly sufficient for a given specific function. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
@MF:
Joe: I can remember that it wasn’t porn.
It was a "nasty vagina" -- a medical picture, not porn. I, too, am a fan of medical pictures. My browser-history is full of them.JWTruthInLove
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
TVH, all materialists are atheists, but nor all atheists are materialists. Look up idealism for instance. But even more broadly, there are atheists who come in all sort of odd flavours out there, indeed some reportedly pray. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
nullasalusFebruary 3, 2014 at 10:07 am
  And this, Mark, is flat out dishonesty.
I have maintained that neither most ID critics *nor* ID proponents would be able to describe the equation you gave. No, I didn’t accept that ‘ID proponents don’t know as much about ID as ID critics’. Not at all. I have maintained the opposite.
Luckily I didn’t write: ID proponents don’t know as much about ID as ID critics. What I wrote was: “ID proponents don’t know that much about ID as many critics”. You appeared to accept that many people on TSZ would understand my question and  most ID proponents demonstrably do not. QED.  
I point out that the swampers engage in personal attacks – they put up RL pictures of people they hate, laugh at them, mock them, sling sexual slurs at them, etc. I expressly point out the problem isn’t merely negative comments or criticizing someone’s thoughts.
What you did was a textbook example of equivocation. End of story.
Sorry I still don’t see where the equivocation comes in. Equivocate means “use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.” What did I write that was ambiguous?
Congratulations – you’ve conceded the argument. No, it doesn’t follow from ID that the bacterial flagellum needed to be designed by anything supernatural whatsoever. You’re not even disputing this – you’re falling back to what amounts to a metaphysical argument (And metaphysical arguments are not ID.) By the way? There exist metaphysical arguments (from Ed Feser, etc) that *mainstream evolutionary theory* ultimately necessitates the God of classical theism. So I suppose you’d accept evolutionary theory being described as a supernatural theory?
I don’t know why you call it a metaphysical argument. It is just an argument. But let us suppose it is metaphysical. Being metaphysical doesn’t make it invalid. If it is valid then it follows that if bacterial flagellum was designed the designer was supernatural. You can counter this by challenging the argument, but just to label it “metaphysical” proves nothing. Similarly if Ed Feser’s argument is valid then there is good reason to suppose the God of classical theism exists.
Answer my question: are intelligent agents demonstrably capable of creating irreducibly complex structures?
I always have a problem knowing for sure when something is irreducibly complex – but I sort of get the idea and the answer is yes. So what?Mark Frank
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
To nullasalus Under the "About" menu tab of the Uncommondescent.com website we find the following manifesto : "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project." I hope that I don't have to prove to you that the atheistic worldview includes and is compatible with materialistic ideology. Yes, there could be atheists who believe in God, reject evolution (Thomas Nagel), love ID, go to Sunday services, read and cherish the Bible, but that does not make the millions of other atheists and the philosophy itself compatible with ID. That should settle Quiz question #5tvarhegyi
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
What am I equivocating on? I took the quiz – got all the answers right according to your marking scheme. My point was simply that actually ID proponents don’t know that much about ID as many critics. You seem to accept that as well. End of story.
And this, Mark, is flat out dishonesty. I have maintained that neither most ID critics *nor* ID proponents would be able to describe the equation you gave. No, I didn't accept that 'ID proponents don't know as much about ID as ID critics'. Not at all. I have maintained the opposite. Like I said - don't play this kind of game with me. You're bad at it.
This was just to try and show you that really it isn’t a big deal. Personally I couldn’t care less what kind of personal language anyone uses on some other forum. Again I don’t see the equivocation.
I point out that the swampers engage in personal attacks - they put up RL pictures of people they hate, laugh at them, mock them, sling sexual slurs at them, etc. I expressly point out the problem isn't merely negative comments or criticizing someone's thoughts. What you did was a textbook example of equivocation. End of story.
Elliot Sober has done it very nicely thanks. It is not logically absolutely certain but it is a very reasonable conclusion.
Congratulations - you've conceded the argument. No, it doesn't follow from ID that the bacterial flagellum needed to be designed by anything supernatural whatsoever. You're not even disputing this - you're falling back to what amounts to a metaphysical argument (And metaphysical arguments are not ID.) By the way? There exist metaphysical arguments (from Ed Feser, etc) that *mainstream evolutionary theory* ultimately necessitates the God of classical theism. So I suppose you'd accept evolutionary theory being described as a supernatural theory?
Are you seriously going to moderate people on the basis of what they wrote elsewhere (except of course Joe)? Best of luck.
When they cross these lines and I become aware of it? Yep, sure am. I can choose who I associate with. So can you. The difference is I have standards.
My point was that this did not come up in your quiz. Arguing that ID is an argument from ignorance is not misrepresenting it.
Miller misrepresented ID on the supernatural front, period. End of story. And yes, ID is not an argument from ignorance - demonstrably. Answer my question: are intelligent agents demonstrably capable of creating irreducibly complex structures?nullasalus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
MF: You are again dodging the issue. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
Come on Joe – what was it? Or can’t you remember?
I can remember that it wasn't porn.Joe
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
Arguing that ID is an argument from ignorance is not misrepresenting it. Yes it is as the ignorance is all yours. And Elliot Sober is a crank.
Joe
February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 7

Leave a Reply