A Quiz for Intelligent Design Critics

_{January 31, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Come on Joe - what was it? Or can't you remember?Mark Frank_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

nullasalusFebruary 3, 2014 at 8:31 am
But instead of copping to it, you equivocate. Like with the quiz: I ask simple fundamental questions about ID, your counter is ‘Some ID proponents probably can’t explain this math equation that shows up in one of Dembski’s books!’
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.
I point out the swamp involves defacing RL pictures, sexual slurs, etc. You fire back that I pointed out Babinski showed up and couldn’t even answer my quiz.
I don’t remember mentioning Babinski except as the first quote in my list of quotes from the thread. My response was that no one on TSZ behaves worse than Joe. End of story. 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.
By all means, Mark, here’s your singular challenge: illustrate how the bacterial flagellum being designed necessitates a supernatural cause. If you can’t do this – and spoiler, you can’t – then Miller’s claim dies, and so does your defense of him.
Elliot Sober has done it very nicely thanks. It is not logically absolutely certain but it is a very reasonable conclusion. Given four entirely reasonable assumptions it follows.
Not at all, Mark. It simply requires moderation – it always did. Believe it or not, if you eliminate everyone who calls someone a ‘****sucker!’ or a slut from the ID conversation, you’ll still be left with abundant critics and proponents. You just won’t be left with many swampers.
Are you seriously going to moderate people on the basis of what they wrote elsewhere (except of course Joe)? Best of luck.
An argument from ignorance requires no positive evidence being brought to bear for a claim. Please Mark – tell me that ID proponents cannot point to any intelligent agents designing irreducibly complex things. If you concede that they can, then ‘argument from ignorance’ dies. They have positive evidence. They may be wrong, but they’re not shooting in the dark.
My point was that this did not come up in your quiz. Arguing that ID is an argument from ignorance is not misrepresenting it. The actual debate is lengthy and gets into quite a lot of detail rather quickly. If you want to go over it I suggest doing it elsewhere.Mark Frank_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

It wasn't porn.Joe_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

So what were you linking to?Mark Frank_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
Well you raised the issue of your 2 year old banning (see #100).
In response to Lizzie, who raised it first.
What do you think made Lizzie think you were linking to porn?
She's irrational, emotional and on an agenda.
There is a comment from you in Guano that just reads: Have some tunie followed by a comment from the moderator that the link was removed as NSFW (not safe for work). Is that the one?
Yup.Joe_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

#125 Joe
But nice to see it still bothers you chumps two years later. Talk about the need to get a life…
Well you raised the issue of your 2 year old banning (see #100). I am just relaxing having submitted my dissertation for upgrade this morning. What do you think made Lizzie think you were linking to porn? There is a comment from you in Guano that just reads: Have some tunie followed by a comment from the moderator that the link was removed as NSFW (not safe for work). Is that the one?Mark Frank_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Mark, As I stated, the problem with TSZ isn't 'They say negative things!' This isn't about a bit of taunting or mockery or dismissal. It's about the swampers and their habit of elevating it to the levels of very personal, RL hatred. But the thing is, I repeated this - you know it. But instead of copping to it, you equivocate. Like with the quiz: I ask simple fundamental questions about ID, your counter is 'Some ID proponents probably can't explain this math equation that shows up in one of Dembski's books!' I point out the swamp involves defacing RL pictures, sexual slurs, etc. You fire back that I pointed out Babinski showed up and couldn't even answer my quiz. Let Matzke be the one who sticks to misrepresentation. He's better at it than you are.
Miller is pointing out that a consequence of ID is a cause outside of nature, not as saying that this is what ID proponents claim (although I am sure they believe it to be true).
And Miller is lying. By all means, Mark, here's your singular challenge: illustrate how the bacterial flagellum being designed necessitates a supernatural cause. If you can't do this - and spoiler, you can't - then Miller's claim dies, and so does your defense of him.
I try to ignore personal comments and insults whether they be sexual/scatological or anything else or who makes them. Internet discussion is like that and anyone who wants to try and stem the tide is onto a losing cause.
Not at all, Mark. It simply requires moderation - it always did. Believe it or not, if you eliminate everyone who calls someone a '****sucker!' or a slut from the ID conversation, you'll still be left with abundant critics and proponents. You just won't be left with many swampers.
At no point did you include a question about whether ID was an argument from ignorance. I absolutely believe it is.
An argument from ignorance requires no positive evidence being brought to bear for a claim. Please Mark - tell me that ID proponents cannot point to any intelligent agents designing irreducibly complex things. If you concede that they can, then 'argument from ignorance' dies. They have positive evidence. They may be wrong, but they're not shooting in the dark.nullasalus_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Mark, I did not link to pornography. Yes Lizzie is mistaken- she usually is. But nice to see it still bothers you chumps two years later. Talk about the need to get a life...Joe_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

#122 Joe I am not sure which comment caused you to be banned but it was sufficient for Lizzie to introduce a new house rule explicitly forbidding linking to pornography and to write this OP: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=959 Are you saying this was all a figment of her imagination?Mark Frank_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

KF The comments I quoted in #113 are simply to compare to UB's collection and show what it looks like if you copy and paste all the personal comments from a typical internet debate. They are not intended to be a fair representation of anyone's views.Mark Frank_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

I never linked to pornography, Mark. And I supported that claim. Also that comment was directed at OM, not Lizzie. It isn't my fault that you guys are on an agenda that keeps you from actualizing reality.Joe_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Joe #118 I can't resist asking - are you saying that you never made a comment on TSZ that linked to a pornographic web site? That Lizzie just made up the idea?Mark Frank_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

F/N: Ironically, it is the other half of ID that does raise serious questions on a designer beyond rthe cosmos. But, by and large objectors, especially of the TSZ-ATBC-AntiEvo etc ilk, keep away from that. One wonders why. KF PS: Joe, kindly watch your language, it has begun to slip into terms that encourager emotional reactions and invite finger-pointing recriminations. PPS: MF, it is a fact that in my youth I had to deal with a uni campus full of marxist radicals, which gave me ample opportunity to see their tactics. Unfortunately, it is also a fact that I find a serious echo of those tactics on the part of too many Darwinist zealots today. It gets worse, I have the experience of exposing destructive religious sects and rescuing victims from about the same time. Too many tactics I am seeing from Darwinist zealots remind me uncomfortably of those tactics also. And it is quite plain that the Big Lie tactic is in routine use on your side of these issues, what else do you think I must conclude from willfully sustained misrepresentations promoted to the naive public as if they were the truth. Misrepresentations that have shaped at least one major and harmful court decision, in Dover PA. Misrepresentations that have been used to unjustly damage careers and reputations. Last but not least, I find too many people who should know and do better persistently enabling such behaviour, even in the teeth of correction, where even the focus of the original post in this thread is such a correction. And even more unfortunately, I find that I must ask you to address this matter yourself.kairosfocus_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Null: It seems Gregory is now hanging out at TSZ and has tried a counter-quiz, posed as a "simple" yes/no exercise. Unfortunately, from get-go it is loaded with complex question fallacies. The contrast to what Null has done is obvious. First shot quick comments on the way out the door: >> 1. Is the DI-led IDM>> --> Loaded, question begging. The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture is a significant design theory centre, especially on ID on the world of life, but it is not the head of a monolith, nor is it particularly active on the other half of design theory, Cosmological ID. >> making a concentrated, dedicated effort to distinguish good science from bad science by actively and publically rejecting the outdated ‘young Earth’ views of many undereducated, anti-science, evangelical Christians in the USA?>> --> Irrelevant. The design inference is an empirical, inductive logic based scientific investigatory exercise, not a movement in itself. --> And that is quite a string of accusations loaded into the"simple" Y/N question. >>2. Have IDM leaders Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski and Phillip Johnson *all* linked their own version of IDT to their personal Christian faith in public statements, interviews and/or articles?>> --> Loaded again in many ways and addresses a wide range of people with different bases. --> Johnson when he was active (he is now in old age) was a lawyer and analyst of argumentation with an eye to worldview assumptions. That has no relevance to whether or no he was a Christian. (Do you want us to drag in the common atheistical, evolutionary materialist ideologies and associations with things like the humanist movement on the part of many Darwinist advocates? Let us instead focus on issues and evidence and on reasoning.) --> Meyer is a philosopher of science with Geophysics background as well and significant knowledge of relevant history of science. --> On the part of Behe and Dembski, they have plainly distinguished their Christian worldview from the issue of scientific empirical warrant. The design inference rests on that warrant. As Gregory has been repeatedly told and just as repeatedly has ignored. >>3. Have several prominent Abrahamic theists (particularly those active in science, philosophy & theology/worldview conversations) openly rejected IDT on the basis of distinguishing Uppercase ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory (the Discovery Institute’s ‘strictly scientific’ theory) from lowercase ‘intelligent design’ (aka the non-scientific, theological/worldview ‘design argument’)?>> --> This issue of case is a Gregory hobby horse and is of little significance. The issue that is pivotal is the empirically grounded warrant for the inference to design on signs. >>4. Does it make sense for IDists to openly admit that IDT is more properly viewed as an interdisciplinary topic for ‘science, philosophy & theology/worldview’ discourse rather than as a ‘strictly scientific’ theory?>> --> The design inference is a matter of empirical warrant. If it can be shown that blind chance and mechanical necessity are sufficient to produce FSCO/I especially dFSCI, the design theory would be finished. Existence of a huypothetical movement and inferred grand cultural conspiracy would immediately collapse. --> Of course the problem here is that on billions of cases FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design and credible counter examples are nowhere to be found after hundreds of tries in aggregate. --> So the game is to change the subject asnd resort to conspiracy theorism, which is the underlying fallacy behind this string of questions. >>5. When the ‘Wedge Document’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) was leaked by the Discovery Institute, did it specifically stipulate that IDT was to be restricted *only* to natural-physical sciences?>> --> As Gregory knows or should know, origins science is inevitably linked to origins thought, one any side of the questions. --> It is highly significant that he has chosen to go to a notoriously biased site driven by ideologues to find a hatchet job. Apart from hysteria whipped up there is nothing of any remarkable significance in the Wedge fundraising document from years past. Nothing certainly by contrast with what we could find in say Dawkins' God Delusion and any number of other examples. >>6. Has anyone in the IDM come up with an IDT where the ‘Designer/designer(s)’ can actually be studied?>> --> Gregory here again wishes to change the subject from inference to design as process to debating on potential designers. >>7. Are any of “the most noteworthy ID proponents” (as ‘nullasalus’ calls them) atheists? If so, who (please don’t count David Berlinski; he is self-confessed “warm, but distant”)?>> --> And, so what? Is atheism a qualification to study science and inductive logic and apply it to cases of interest? >>8. Do any of “the most noteworthy ID proponents” (as ‘nullasalus’ calls them) outright reject the category ‘supernatural’ or not personally believe that the Uppercase ‘Designer’ behind the so-called ID in their IDT does not transcend the merely ‘natural?’ If so, who?>> --> Irrelevant again, and loaded projection. >>9. Does the DI receive a vast majority of its institutional funding from right-wing conservative evangelicals (e.g. Ahmanson, the Maclellan Foundation) in the USA?>> --> Again, irrelevant to the actual issue at stake, warrant. Do you want to invite counter arguments on capturing tax funding to push evo mat atheism as a new de facto establishment? >>10. Do any non-IDists (read: normal people) educated beyond the high school level actually accept the argument by some IDists that ‘aliens’ is really what they mean ; ) when they posit that IDT has *nothing* at all to do with their personal/community religious worldview?>> --> Loaded again, and the point is that design is different from designers, as Gregory knows or should know. Later. KF PS: MF, clipping comments out of context to complain makes you look like an innocent victim.kairosfocus_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

LKizzie can't even get the facts staright and that ismpathetic:
Joe G was banned here for posting a sexual slur, consisting of a link to a pornographic image with a misogyinistic title, and a message apparently directed at me (although it wouldn’t have mattered at whom).
Man you are dense. It was directed at OM, not Lizzie, just as I sad above. And what I posted was NOT pornographic. My Lizzie, way to try to rewrite history.
Nobody is banned for “getting into it with the evos” at TSZ.
That is what led to it. Again I see that yoiu ahve difficulty understanding what I post.Joe_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

MF "If that is all you can assemble" You're kidding, right? Only you can deadpan this well Mark.Upright BiPed_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank@113- Mark takes exception to our OBSERVATIONS. Look Mark it isn't our fault that our opponents are dishonest and misrepresent ID and IDists. People can only take so much of that crap before they are going to respond to it. Grow up you old cry-babyJoe_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
This is not a nasty personal insult?
Nope, it is an observation. You and your ilk, Lizzie included, need to focus on your lame position. You should say the heck with ID as the EF makes it very clear that if you ever demonstrate that natural selection is a real designer mimic, ID falls. But you cannot do that- you cannot support your dogma so you are forced to flail away at ID. Unfortunately you guys do so by misrepresenting ID.
I have my own approach and I believe I apply it consistently....
Yes you do-> ignore reality and misrepresent your opposition. Nice job, Mark.Joe_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
At no point did you include a question about whether ID was an argument from ignorance. I absolutely believe it is.
The ignorance is all yours, Mark. REally what is your position besides "an argument from ignorance"? You don't have any details. Heck most of your position relies on Father Time. And Mark, natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins, which science said it had.Joe_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

UB #108 If that is all you can assemble after two and half months then I have to say TSZ comes out pretty well. I collected this lot from this thread alone:
Babinski, you try way too hard to be a critic. You come off as a bit of an uninformed ass instead. Everyone, take a good look at Babinski. He won’t even answer the questions – he skips past them and flies headlong into panic mode, because answering the questions would be detrimental to his religion. I find that very cowardly and very disturbing- meaning I find our opponents to be very disturbed. So why do anti-IDists continue to think that their willful ignorance means something? They all know this or should know this. The issue is ideology not logic and evidence on induction. As it increasingly was with the Marxists a generation ago. I believe Kantian Naturalist is some form of a Marxist too so he is an ideologue first and not primarily a thinker. and that is why it is a useful squid ink obfuscatory argument resorted to by a certain class of objectors when all else fails to distract Considering you don’t seem to be able to tell when the Bible has been shoved in your face, I’m skeptical of your ability to accurately tell when you’ve won an argument If you doubt the bare existence of Joseph Smith, yep, I think it’d fair to call you either a lunatic or dramatically misinformed. Most ID critics prefer to ignore ID entirely and find it more effective for their nefarious purposes to aim their arrows toward the soft underbelly of the anti-Darwinian beast: TSZ’s Richie Cupcake Hughes has latched on to Mark Frank’s “ID quiz”. That went right over all of their pointy little heads. Richie Hughes proves that he is clueless: The only eleP(T|H)ants in the room are you, Joe F and Alan Fox. What those who play such tactics — having had reasonable opportunity to correct genuine misunderstandings — leave me with, is the impression that they are calculated slanderers and cold blooded liars, or enablers of such. In short, pretty much as the nihilistic bully-boy ideologies I confronted in my youth, and the somewhat older ones notorious for big lie tactics I read about. Look Lizzie is totally clueless wrt darwinian evolution, genetic algorithms and CSI. Lizzie is a prefect example of someone who doesn’t understand darwinism. And yet Lizzie and Joe have both mangled it. Lizzie doesn’t even understand the basics. Predictably, sadly, MF has drummed on with his talking points.
Mark Frank_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

A quiz for us at TSZ posted herecoldcoffee_{February 3, 2014
February
02
Feb
3
03
2014
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

Sorry that last comment should have referred back to Null #98 not Null #109.Mark Frank_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

#109 Null
If I see Joe throwing sexual slurs at Liddle, putting up picture of her RL self to deface, and half the things the swampers do when they’re particularly riled, I’m going to pull no punches and call him out on that immediately. Anyone who does that, not just Joe, will be disinvited from any thread I host until they apologize and knock it off – regardless of where they do it. This isn’t about merely saying that Liddle’s full of it. That’s not a nasty personal insult. That’s, half the time, putting it mildly.
Just to remind you what Joe actually wrote:
LoL! Discuss YOUR position you dumbass hack. Also Dembski's is NOT the absolutely key concept, you are full of shit.
This is not a nasty personal insult?
How about you, Mark? Will you commit to the same? Tip: if you do, you’ll be cutting yourself off from a lot of your TSZ friends. This is where you play up how mature and open-minded you are by tolerating that sort of scum-behavior.
I have my own approach and I believe I apply it consistently. I try to ignore personal comments and insults whether they be sexual/scatological or anything else or who makes them. Internet discussion is like that and anyone who wants to try and stem the tide is onto a losing cause. I only point out how foul-mouthed Joe is because it seemed to me that you were being hypocritical. In general it just leads me to ignore most of his comments.Mark Frank_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

#98 Null
It was on the quiz, Mark. Specifically questions 3 and 4. When Miller defines ID as saying, “It is what a philosopher might call the argument from ignorance, which is to say that, because we don’t understand something, we assume we never will, and therefore we can invoke a cause outside of nature, a supernatural creator or supernatural designer.”, he’s wrong. On multiple points, but definitely points 3 and 4 as per the quiz. The funny thing is, you knew as much – until I provided this quote. But now that you see Miller making this claim, now you’re changing your answer. Gotta have that united front against ID, right?
Millers claim falls into two parts: It is what a philosopher might call the argument from ignorance, which is to say that, because we don’t understand something, we assume we never will, At no point did you include a question about whether ID was an argument from ignorance. I absolutely believe it is. therefore we can invoke a cause outside of nature, a supernatural creator or supernatural designer Miller is pointing out that a consequence of ID is a cause outside of nature, not as saying that this is what ID proponents claim (although I am sure they believe it to be true). I agree with his deduction. The only conceivable designer would be something that does not conform to the laws of nature. It is a consequence of ID although not strictly part of its definition. So while its most noteworthy proponents never propose or argue that the designer is supernatural (which is what you asked in 3 and 4) they obviously believe it to be true and it is a consequence of ID.Mark Frank_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

I second Null's take on TSZ. I only add that I spent over two and a half months there on one of the five or six threads devoted to semiosis. I focused primarity on one opponent, as the remaining crew offered little more than constant insult and absurdity. And after that one opponent abandoned his two main points, Liddle closed the thread under the auspices that I had violated her rules. She wanted to "ensure that emotional baggage and assumptions about other posters’ motivations are rigorously excluded. Let’s conduct this in an academically rigorous way". I'm happy to let any reader decide for themselves if those were the qualities she was after:
“your effort seem like a naive and pretentious attempt to replace well-understood phenomena with something woo-woo … I find both UBP and WJM excruciatingly boring; and I suspect that the reason is that there is a remarkable similarity to other crackpots … one begins to wonder if there is any thought process there at all. I would suggest not … they hone their marketing shtick for their presentations to the gullible … There is another frequent correlation one sees among crackpotists; they often quote scripture from the Christian bible … has an instinctive hatred and distrust of science and any other perceived “competing authority” … don’t even appear to understand the question … a familiar characteristic of pseudo-science … you have no idea what you are talking about or what it is that you are attempting … Your obvious distain for age, experience, knowledge, and the female gender … YOU – I repeat – YOU were the one … you don’t have the slightest clue … You have no idea … you really have no clue … You have made no “material observations” … You have never taken a chemistry or physics class … comes from the socio/political culture of ID/creationism … The words don’t matter … bury his reification of ID/creationist misconceptions … an increasingly complex labyrinth of obfuscation and condescension … simply gussies it all up … an air-tight bundle of circular reasoning … Another would be ID “theorist” bites the dust … it too dissolves into nothingness … such lengthy, turgid prose … a quagmire of words … Crackpots never let go voluntarily; they will ride you to death” ... His language has another purpose, namely, to establish a sectarian version of the universe …this is what UB is trying to do … As is evident in all of UB’s communication, he has never freed himself from projection … his own inner demons onto others … The Semiotic Theory of Intelligent Scattering … It is curious that ID/creationists don’t jump on things … Making a caricature of science and then shooting it down with great fanfare has been the socio/political tactic of creationists … every ID/creationist does it, and their rube followers – such as UB here … Just make up stuff and simply assert that anyone who knows anything about science is stupid … the fundamentalists who are against everything secular and the educational dropouts who harbor intense hatreds for those who actually try to learn … his rants pretty much revealed that he is engaged in a game of revenge … impressions I sometimes get from UB’s turgid writing … UB doesn’t appear to have any sense of humor whatsoever …This isn’t an intellectual discussion for him … it’s a personal vendetta against all smart people... The argument from ignorance is no way to go through life … UPB, and most ID advocates have not studied the history of science, or have learned nothing from it …UPB is arguing that because the templating process involved in translation is so complicated, it isn’t templating … Creationists (a group which includes ID-pushers) explicitly reject … The magic threshold … Why, then, do Creationists think … I think it touches on their “designer” … UPB’s argument relies on the following premises: If you haven’t observed it, it doesn’t exist … Perhaps we should all adopt a worldview that doesn’t require this pathetic level of detail … Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory … The goal is NOT to understand how something came to be … FIRST, assume goddidit as the default … and POOF using our conclusions as our assumptions once again “proves” our conclusions … In all of these efforts, the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must … What do you do to support a lie? You lie!
Upright BiPed_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

It was an omen...Joe_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

I missed the first snap. Oh well; that's what Tivo's for...Optimus_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

@Optimus- Stopped watching when the first interception happened. Probably should have stopped after the first snap... ;)Joe_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Yes, calmer. And what is the proper amount of time or personal attacks before retaliation is acceptable?Joe_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

BTW - Go Hawks!!!Optimus_{February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply