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
Joe, I'm sure you didn't. Look, I've been around this site for years. Yes, you namecall. Yes, you do in fact go over the line at times - and every time I've seen you called out over that, you've backed off. I think you should stay calmer, I think you go for namecalling too fast. I'm being direct here. The thing is, Mark's comparing you to the swamp, which is a complete joke. I've seen that place. I didn't see much talk about me, but what I did see about others was damn vile. Now maybe I missed something you did - always possible - but like I said, there's just no comparison based on what I've seen. This isn't mere 'X is stupid! X has no clue! X should go back to school!' namecalling I've seen there, but pretty vile fueled-by-hate stuff. No thanks, not interested. I don't even care to bitch about them, but they scream for attention - not interested. I'll deal with whatever critics show up at UD, and ones I personally seek out. I have plenty of options for critics aside from TSZ, so why should I boter with 'em?nullasalus
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
The main point in this example is that ID is a negative case – evolution is not true therefore there must be a designer – this was not in your quiz and I entirely support Miller. As for whether the designer is supernatural or whether miracles are required – as I said in my answer to your quiz it is hard to see how the designer could be anything else. Miller’s case is a completely reasonable representation of ID and its consequences which I support. Creationism could mean almost anything.
That's bogus, and you should know that by now. It's incoherent to on the one hand affirm that ID doesn't make claims about the supernatural or appeal to Biblical authority but then conflate it with creationism.Optimus
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
If I see Joe throwing sexual slurs at Liddle,
I may have thrown everything else at her, but not that.
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.
I call her out just as I do all evos who misrepresent and over state their position and mangle ID, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, et al. She speaks from a postion of a scientist so I tend to go after those types a little harder. If she can't take it then perhaps she should learn and change. Or come up with a defense other than repeating herself in the face of referenced refutations of her claims. I was banned from TSZ for getting into it with the evos who refused to comment in good faith. Ooops, that was all of them but in this case it was the evos who were just attacking me and obviously had nothing to say. What I posted was not directed at Lizzie- it was directed at OM, aka OMagain, aka oldmaninskydidnotdoit- evo hooligan. And what I posted was spot-on for the situation.Joe
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
Mark Frank @ 96
It is absolutely fundamental to CSI and not at all complicated if you have actually read the literature. The point being that almost no one on this forum actually knows what they are talking about!
It's not necessary for having a reasonable grasp of the concept. Meyer's exposition of CSI in Signature in the Cell is lucid and very accessible without really getting into Dembski's formula.Optimus
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Mark,
The main point in this example is that ID is a negative case – evolution is not true therefore there must be a designer – this was not in your quiz and I entirely support Miller.
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?
It is absolutely fundamental to CSI and not at all complicated if you have actually read the literature.
Fascinating claims! I'm not interested, and it's irrelevant to the OP. Let every ID proponent on UD be completely ignorant of Dembski. Let them say they never read any of Dembski's books. It doesn't impact my OP in the least, because we're still left with critics mangling and misrepresenting ID on vastly easier to understand, more basic fronts.
So actually you don’t have a problem with TSZ – just with how the people on it behave elsewhere.
No, I do have a problem with TSZ, which includes how the people on it behave not only elsewhere, but towards the very people they desperately want attention from. Why, exactly, should I spend time talking with people with that amount of visceral hatred? Because what, I'm lacking people to discuss things with? This is the internet. I can't go to a single site without finding 50 people to argue with if I so choose. I don't need to tolerate TSZ's swampers to find debate.
Are you going to continue to associate with him?
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. 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.nullasalus
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
The main point in this example is that ID is a negative case – evolution is not true therefore there must be a designer...
And that is false. ALL design inferences have to eliminate necessity and chance. That is the nature of the beast, Mark. However that is only phase 1. Phase 2 is the positive case in which the design criteria has to be met.
It is absolutely fundamental to CSI and not at all complicated if you have actually read the literature.
No, it isn't complicated at all. Your position has nothing, therefor H = 0, and all is lost- for you. And sometimes the EF works just fine and we don't need the equation: The Explanatory Filter and Biology- the Ribosome . As for my posts elsewhere, well, the truth hurts, doesn't it. :razz:Joe
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Null
Every time ID is called ‘creationism’? Every time ID is presented as a theory that requires miracles, rejects evolution, etc? Here’s a stock case.
The main point in this example is that ID is a negative case – evolution is not true therefore there must be a designer – this was not in your quiz and I entirely support Miller. As for whether the designer is supernatural or whether miracles are required  – as I said in my answer to your quiz it is hard to see how the designer could be anything else. Miller’s case is a completely reasonable representation of ID and its consequences which I support. Creationism could mean almost anything.
“log2[M·N·?S(T)·P(T|H)]“‘s meaning and calculation is not freaking basic.
It is absolutely fundamental to CSI and not at all complicated if you have actually read the literature.  The point being that almost no one on this forum actually knows what they are talking about!
ATBc’s association with TSZ is close. I don’t think it’s much of an improvement to have people pretending to be courteous, and then to go there and really let loose. ATBc is rotten, and always has been. Note that my problem here is not ‘Oh no these CRITICS how dare they disagree’. It’s about their behavior towards people they disagree with.
So actually you don’t have a problem with TSZ – just with how the people on it behave elsewhere. Have you seen some of Joe’s posts elsewhere? Are you going to continue to associate with him?Mark Frank
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
@ MF Here's another for ya: http://ncse.com/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationismOptimus
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Null, thanks for the terrific post! My answers: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No 4. No 5. Yes 6. No 7. Yes 8. Yes (as ID makes no attempt to affirm supernaturalism) 9. No 10. NoOptimus
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Null: Notice, GP is a second main author of the expanded UD Weak Argument Correctives. Notice, too, the similarities and differences showing individual perspectives but a common clear core. KF PS: I took time to respond to MF above at 46, on his assertions (along lines that have been pointed out ever so many times and which are patently cogent . . . the use of a conservative bound to establish a threshold is a commonplace, where going from p to I values on the Dembski expression shows that we have an info beyond a threshold metric as was pointed out years ago). Predictably, sadly, MF has drummed on with his talking points.kairosfocus
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Can you provide some examples of this misrepresentation?
Every time ID is called 'creationism'? Every time ID is presented as a theory that requires miracles, rejects evolution, etc? Here's a stock case.
What is esoteric about knowing the meanings of the terms in the formula that defines CSI?
What's so esoteric about knowing the names of the proteins involved in mutations? How many typical people do you think could name a single one, even among boosters of evolution? I'm describing unbelievably basic mistakes. "log2[M·N·?S(T)·P(T|H)]"'s meaning and calculation is not freaking basic.
Interesting – are you perhaps thinking of ATBc? – I am not aware of any sexual slurs on TSZ.
ATBc's association with TSZ is close. I don't think it's much of an improvement to have people pretending to be courteous, and then to go there and really let loose. ATBc is rotten, and always has been. Note that my problem here is not 'Oh no these CRITICS how dare they disagree'. It's about their behavior towards people they disagree with. But hey, clearly you have no trouble calling them your friends. No doubt this is a testament to your tolerance. Tip: add some race supremacists to your phone address book. It's on a similar level.
It is a question of whether you are interested in hearing criticism or just want to be praised by your colleagues – I prefer hostile territory.
No, it's really not. See, that's the thing: there is no shortage of ID critics available. There's no need to associate with people who have very, very personal grudges not only against ID, but against individuals. ATBc is a cesspool that overflows with namecalling, personal insults, tough talk, defacing of RL pictures, and more - much to the tolerance and acceptance of many 'critics' on TSZ. Obviously so, since many of them are one and the same. Critics can be had in abundance, elsewhere. I see no reason to give TSZ attention - they are irrelevant. And, get your defense of them out of your system here, because I'm not going to let any future thread of mine turn into a TSZ discussion. But I haven't posted here in a while, so I'm letting this run loose aside from some general warnings.nullasalus
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
nullasalus,
Look Mark – once again, this is not about esoteric criticisms of highly technical aspects of Intelligent Design. This is about very basic representation of ID when it’s being discussed. That’s where I have seen systematic misrepresentation of ID – and I’ve seen it even among people who damn well know better. Nothing in my list of questions required one to conclude ID claims were correct – it’s just a matter of representing it accurately and charitably. A little along the lines of asking ‘Was Darwin inspired by atheism to spread evolution in order to undermine Christian moral teaching, according to mainstream proponents of Neo-Darwinism?’ If you can’t answer ‘No’ to that question, you’ve got a problem.
Can you provide some examples of this misrepresentation? What is esoteric about knowing the meanings of the terms in the formula that defines CSI?
Anyway, I really mean it about TSZ. I am singularly unimpressed with the bulk of their critics’ personal behavior, and most of their intellectual arguments. (I’m sure this will provoke some rage in their associated swamp, complete with expletives and sexual slurs. Par for the course.)
Interesting – are you perhaps thinking of ATBc? – I am not aware of any sexual slurs on TSZ.  There is probably a more lax attitude to expletives on TSZ  than here (although Joe does his best to balance things).  But there is no shortage of personal abuse here. I know. I get a lot of it. Just read this thread.
If UD regulars want to post there, they’re free to waste their time as they see fit. I have no interest in discussing them, even to knock them – I’m only responding here since you’ve brought them up. They’re simply unimportant.
It is a question of whether you are interested in hearing criticism or just want to be praised by your colleagues –  I prefer hostile territory. I respect those such as WJM who are prepared to expose their views to those who don’t agree.Mark Frank
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Using the Explanatory Filter to detect design in biology.Joe
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
gpuccio, I like your responses, particularly the miracle comments. I'm also grateful for the responses generally in this thread. I may post a revised list of questions soon, giving the UD community one more pass to be sure I've got a list of 10 questions that have clear answers with regards to representing the ID view. Then, we'll see who's willing to take the quiz.nullasalus
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Mark,
However, the point remains that many of your critics understand the ID literature better than most of the ID supporters.
And many critics of evolutionary theory understand it better than its supporters. Parroting 'evolution is true! Common descent is true!' doesn't magically make you well-informed about much of anything. The point is ID is misrepresented. I'm trying to take a very easy step to help solve that. And I don't even think ID is science. I'm just tired of the tiring misrepresentations.
You couldn’t be more wrong about TSZ. Anyone, including you, is completely free to be sceptical about anything and they will not be banned for that.
I didn't say otherwise. I'm sure they have a very lenient comment policy, and will so long as the upper echelons desperately crave attention and are not outnumbered by their opponents. Regardless, I find their swamper origins pretty foul. I hear Stormfront welcomes most commenters, but I still don't care to deal with the place.
When you refer to people being “chased off” UD the reasons vary but mostly they were offering arguments that Barry found unacceptable.
Yes, refusing to admit that the law of non-contradiction holds at all times wasn't something Barry would tolerate. I endorse him on that front. What's the point of arguing with people who will squirm when asked to affirm basic laws of logic?
One of the distinguishing characteristics of the ID population is paranoia.
It's also a characteristic of Christians in the middle east, gays in Russia, and pro-lifers in the Democratic party. Sometimes, people really are out to get you. Look Mark - once again, this is not about esoteric criticisms of highly technical aspects of Intelligent Design. This is about very basic representation of ID when it's being discussed. That's where I have seen systematic misrepresentation of ID - and I've seen it even among people who damn well know better. Nothing in my list of questions required one to conclude ID claims were correct - it's just a matter of representing it accurately and charitably. A little along the lines of asking 'Was Darwin inspired by atheism to spread evolution in order to undermine Christian moral teaching, according to mainstream proponents of Neo-Darwinism?' If you can't answer 'No' to that question, you've got a problem. Anyway, I really mean it about TSZ. I am singularly unimpressed with the bulk of their critics' personal behavior, and most of their intellectual arguments. (I'm sure this will provoke some rage in their associated swamp, complete with expletives and sexual slurs. Par for the course.) If UD regulars want to post there, they're free to waste their time as they see fit. I have no interest in discussing them, even to knock them - I'm only responding here since you've brought them up. They're simply unimportant.nullasalus
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
However, the point remains that many of your critics understand the ID literature better than most of the ID supporters.
Bull- however IDists understand evolutionism better than most of the evo supporters. Lizzie is a prefect example of someone who doesn't understand darwinism.
The regulars are for the most part scientifically oriented
And yet they cannot post any science that supports evolutionism. Strange, that.
I also think you will find the likes of Lizzie, Joe Felsenstein and KN can give quote detailed answers to questions on evolutionary theory –
And yet Lizzie and Joe have both mangled it. Lizzie doesn't even understand the basics. Heck I can give a better account of evolutionism than Lizzie can. And Dembski equation is meaningless for the reason Dembski provided in that paper- YOU can't produce a chance hypothesis nor any numbers for your positions. Might as well just plug in zeros for those.Joe
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
tvarhegyi, As Joe has pointed out, you are confusing atheism with materialism/naturalism. Not all atheists are materialists.William J Murray
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
tvar:
Atheists not only deny the existence of God but reject any intelligent agency in the origins of the universe, our solar system, as well as the origin and development of all living beings.
Referennce pleae- it sounds like you just made that up.
According to atheists the universe came into being by accident, most claim that it came from nothing.
That's materialism/ natiralism, not atheism.Joe
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
You couldn’t be more wrong about TSZ.
He is quite correct about TSZ. Look Lizzie is totally clueless wrt darwinian evolution, genetic algorithms and CSI. She has been corrected many times and she refuses to change. That alone says she has serious issues. Mike Elzinga loves to chastize us and yet he NEVER shows us how his position does things properly. TSZ is a joke- an evo stroke and echo chamber.Joe
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Nullasus #70 You couldn't be more wrong about TSZ. Anyone, including you, is completely free to be sceptical about anything and they will not be banned for that. Indeed a fair number of people from UD do comment there. When you refer to people being "chased off" UD the reasons vary but mostly they were offering arguments that Barry found unacceptable. In particular I was never clear why Lizzie was banned. No one gets banned from TSZ for offering arguments that are unacceptable - only for SPAM or being extremely rude and personal. (There was an incident when Barry was temporarily banned and this was recognised as being against policy and his ability to post was restored - his comment was actually quite personal and rude but not enough to merit a ban). One of the distinguishing characteristics of the ID population is paranoia. Many of you very quickly conclude you are being unreasonably persecuted when anyone raises an objection. In some cases it reaches almost epic proportions as ID is seen as some kind of bastion of all that is right and good against the flood of materialist/evolutionary/atheism or whatever.Mark Frank
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
VJ: Is Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, compatible with metaphysical naturalism? Objection to "naturalism". Is Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, compatible with the view that the cause of all activity of all intelligent agents can be reduced to physical causes? Objection to "physical". I would definitely say that it cannot be reduced to an algorithmic explanation, that does not include conscious representations as a cause.gpuccio
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
nullasalus: Maybe a little late, but I would like to give my answers. A couple of clarifications will help: a) I am not a fan of front loading theories, but I believe that they are legit ID theories, provided they satisfy the requirements about functional complexity (see next point). b) ID theory is a scientific theory, not philosophy. Therefore, it is not about Intelligent Design in itself, but about empirically detectable Intelligent Design. So, all my answers will be about ID theory as a scientific theory, and nothing else. That said, here are my answers: 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? Yes. First of all, that change certainly happens. Second, that change can be caused by design. The only point of ID theory is that change which is not designed cannot explain the appearance of new complex functional information. 2. Is Intelligent Design compatible with common descent, with common descent defined as the claim that all living organisms share a common biological ancestor? Absolutely Yes. 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? Maybe the answer is No, but it depends on how we define "miracles" and "supernatural". Those words are irremediably ambiguous. 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? No. But again, while God and angels are fine for me, I object to "supernatural". 5. Is Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, compatible with atheism? Definitely Yes. But it can certainly offer reasons for reflection to a sincere atheist. 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) Absolutely No 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? It depends. If we can show that the setting of the environment, and the setting of the organisms in the environment, or the organisms themselves (if they were not present in advance), exhibit complex functional information, then the answer is Yes, but then the design inference is limited to that setting. What happens after is no more a design event, if no new complex functional information appears. That would be a front loading ID theory (for which, IMO, there is absolutely no empirical evidence). 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? Again, objection to "natural". If "natural" means that there is no violation of physical laws as we know them today, the answer is Yes. But, if it means also that there is no violation of probabilistic laws, then the answer is No. Even if the events were designed, in that case, design would not be detectable, and so that theory is not a scientific ID theory. 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? Absolutely No, obviously. He has proposed an ID scenario. 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? Obviously No.gpuccio
February 2, 2014
February
02
Feb
2
02
2014
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT
Nullasalus #59 I agree that I misinterpreted your OP. However, the point remains that many of your critics understand the ID literature better than most of the ID supporters. I don’t know who James McGrath is, but I think you will find that most of the regulars on TSZ could answer my questions.  The regulars are for the most part scientifically oriented and the paper and the formula frequently feature in debates there. It is hardly maths intensive. Aside from taking a logarithm, which I did not ask about, the formula only requires multiplying  four quantities . The key point is what do the quantities mean and how are they estimated. I also think you will find the likes of Lizzie, Joe Felsenstein and KN can give quote detailed answers to questions on evolutionary theory – but the comparison is not really the point.Mark Frank
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
Atheists not only deny the existence of God but reject any intelligent agency in the origins of the universe, our solar system, as well as the origin and development of all living beings.
You're simply wrong, and I already gave you a great example: Nick Bostrom's simulation theory. I can point at John Gribbin's speculation about our universe (indeed, most universes) being designed as well - just by intelligent beings, not 'God'. That's why both Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins treat the idea that our universe is a simulation (and therefore designed) as distinct from the God question. Now, you can arguably make an argument that those beings would qualify as small-g gods - and I'd be sympathetic there. But you've got atheists all over the place who entertain the possibility as a live one, and clearly don't regard the truth of that matter as a threat to their atheism. Hell, Francis Crick is legendary for being a diehard atheist who still backed directed panspermia, which is arguably just another design view. You are confusing individual atheists with atheism. A lot of atheists tend to have political opinion X, but political opinion X is not part of atheism technically.nullasalus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Atheists not only deny the existence of God but reject any intelligent agency in the origins of the universe, our solar system, as well as the origin and development of all living beings. According to atheists the universe came into being by accident, most claim that it came from nothing. They still have no idea how the first living cell emerged, but they insist that Intelligent Design had nothing to do with it. According to them not a single plant, animal including human beings was designed, everything came into existence via materialistic Darwinian mechanisms. ID proponents claim the opposite. Where is the compatibility then ?tvarhegyi
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
tvar:
So do you agree that ID and atheism are compatible ?
They are not incompatible.- ID does not require God/ a deity and it does not require the supernatural. What definition of atheism are you using? Perhaps we are all just talking past each other.Joe
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
Null: You are right, it is time to come back full circle to whether typical objectors to design theory can pass a basic test of fairly and correctly presenting its basic points. KF PS: I do continue to note the differences between ID on the world of life and ID on evident cosmological fine tuning.kairosfocus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
TVH, you have been given an answer above, not only by me but by VJT -- who is a full bore philosopher. Kindly show some sign of attending to it. KFkairosfocus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Null:
Treating ID as ‘YEC, but sneaky!’ is a common move.
It is also willfully dishonest to willfully so caricature in order to gain an advantage rhetorically by misleading the naive about what ID actually is as presented, especially where correction is easily accessible as it is. and no, I don't buy the double-down twist-about accusations presented as conspiracy narratives on those sneaky ID Creationists in cheap tuxedos. Some design thinkers are creationists of various sorts, and they separate such beliefs from what ID is about. Others, simply are not, as the UD WACs take time to point out. 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. It looks like time to be pretty plain about how too many objectors to ID have been acting. Whether or not they want to spew up fuss and feathers about being told straight what they have been doing and the price some of the victims of their agit prop have paid. Perps simply do not have the moral standing of those they smear, lie upon or enable smearing and lying against. KF PS: The tactics of mangling and mocking Dembski's work in that 2005 paper simply don't impress me, save how they further show what we are dealing with; and note the issues I pointed out above on why such seriously miss the mark. And yes, what we are seeing is not pretty. But when the genteel are enabling or spreading destructive smears and lies that they have every duty of care to know and do better than, they have joined with ideological thugs. And I have no more sympathy for such than I do for those who willfully turned a blind eye to what the Communists did in S E Asia -- especially Cambodia -- when the agit-prop abandoned helpless millions to their tender mercies. Do I need to explicitly say, the killing fields of Cambodia? (BTW, such is much as is happening again in the ME as we speak. This time we are at nuke threshold, and the price to be paid is going to be predictably stiff, horrible beyond words.)kairosfocus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
To Joe, #57 and nullasalus #56
Sounds like a “no black swans” ‘argument’ to me.
So do you agree that ID and atheism are compatible ? If yes, can you give some examples of such compatibilities, the more the better ?tvarhegyi
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply