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
No sweat, Joe. Thanks for understanding.nullasalus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Sorry, got carried away. I have something for them I can post on my guest thread- you may like it too.Joe
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Joe, I have no great respect for TSZ. I like some of the individuals - KN and Neil Reckert are people who I can have a conversation with - but in general, the site is completely off my radar. That utterly obnoxious, tragically self-unaware site tagline in particular makes me roll my eyes. The thing is, when most of them were chased off here - originally for flat out failing to accept fundamental laws of logic, last I recall - I lost interest in discussing things with them. So I'd request you don't conduct back and forth conversations with them in any thread I'm hosting. That's not a knock on any gripe you have with them, I just have zero interest in extended conversations with that originate on that site. I'd rather let them (at least the bulk of swampers that make up their group) fade into obscurity along with their weird, personal hatred of ID proponents.nullasalus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Lizzie, The only eleP(T|H)ants in the room are you, Joe F and Alan Fox. Just because you can mangle the math doesn't mean it is flawed.Joe
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Richie Hughes proves that he is clueless:
Joe still maintains we should do his work for him.
LoL! By asking Richie to put up the numbers his position should have if it is science, he sez it is my work? How is it my work when it is Richie's position that lacks numbers? Heck I infer design for all bacterial flagellums because it matches the criteria- there isn't any evidence for any bacterial flagellum evolving via culled genetic accidents and it has a specification. Again, don't blame us because your position has nothing beyond personal agendas to form an inference from.Joe
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
I read the paper Mark, years ago. It doesn't explicity supersede the previous works. Also he tackled your quiz- and he shows why his technique isn't the best when no probabilities can be given.Joe
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
It would be easier to say what ID is if it actually produced anything.
No, Graham2. Pay attention, please. The issue here is simple: how do ID proponents - guys like Behe, Dembski, Meyer - actually define ID. What questions does ID ask? What approaches does it take towards science? Evolution? Common descent? Does it involve supernatural claims? Appeals to God? Mark Frank was able to answer the quiz correctly. Can you do it? Even granting that you can look at Mark's answers for yourself - could you bring yourself to answer those questions correctly? Let's see.nullasalus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
#62 Joe
From the abstract: This paper reviews, clarifies, and extends previous work on specification in my books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch.
Try reading the whole paper.Mark Frank
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
It would be easier to say what ID is if it actually produced anything. Youve had about 20 years now, and the impact on science is exactly zero. Until you actually produce something useful that defines what ID is, I think we are free to speculate.Graham2
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
This is too funny. TSZ's Richie Cupcake Hughes has latched on to Mark Frank's "ID quiz". Mark said he knew the answers to his quiz, so I said: Then tell us how to determine the probability wrt unguided evolution. If you know the answers to your questions you should be able to do that. That went right over all of their pointy little heads. Let me help them: YOURS is the chance hypothesis, Richie. And YOU cannot give us any numbers to plug in. We look to you to support the claims of your position. IOW to consider Dembski's equation wrt bacterial flagellum, well, you cannot provide a chance hypothesis- nor a necessity and chance hypothesis. There isn't any way to test any chance hypotehsis. And it's as if you are proud taht your position is a failure and you think your failure somehow refutes ID. BTW, see the paper, page 24- Dembski gave it a go wrt the bacterial flagellum... Hilarious.Joe
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
The paper I referred to, although quite old, is Dembski’s most recent definition of CSI and explicitly supersedes all previous definitions.
From the abstract: This paper reviews, clarifies, and extends previous work on specification in my books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Nothing on "explicitly supersedes".Joe
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Mapou, Well, that's actually part of it. Treating ID as 'YEC, but sneaky!' is a common move.nullasalus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
nullasalus:
I think most critics prefer to argue with ‘ID as they like to imagine it’ rather than ‘ID as its proponents actually present it.’
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: Young Earth Creationism, aka YEC. And why shouldn't they? It has worked beautifully for them.Mapou
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Mark Frank, No, the OP was not about 'how ID opponents don't understand ID'. Not entirely. It was about how ID opponents are typically incapable of fairly representing basic ID claims. Part of the reason I'm trying to assemble this list of questions is to send it off to ID critics to see if they can answer them correctly, knowing their replies would be made public. I think most critics prefer to argue with 'ID as they like to imagine it' rather than 'ID as its proponents actually present it.' As I said - how many ID *critics* do you think would be able to understand what you quoted? Do you think James McGrath, to give one example, could - without advance warning and study - comment meaningfully on Dembski's work? Or really, most other critics? Hell, do you think the average evolution supporter could respond meaningfully to detailed, math-intensive queries about mutation rates from pro-mainstream-evolution sources? But my post was not asking ID critics to properly understand and explain highly technical, math-heavy facets of ID. I asked them to give answers to fairly basic yes-or-no questions. There's simply no comparison there. Now, if you assembled a list along the lines of questions like... "True or false: Mainstream evolutionary theory maintains that complex orgasms and organisms are assembled over time by a combination of random mutation and natural selection", how many ID proponents do you think would be troubled?nullasalus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
#54 VJ
You are assuming that ID is tied to Professor Dembski’s definition of specified complexity in the paper you quote
I am not assuming anything. The OP was about how ID opponents don't understand ID. My point is simply to show that most of the ID supporters only have the vaguest idea as well. The paper I referred to, although quite old, is Dembski's most recent definition of CSI and explicitly supersedes all previous definitions. So here we have the definitive definition of a key concept by one of the leading lights in the field. Surely anyone who considers themselves knowledgeable about ID would have a firm understanding of it? It is true Dembski and Marks papers on LCI avoid talking about CSI. Suppose I prepared a similar set of questions about those papers (it would take a bit longer as it is some time since I studied them). How many ID supporters on this forum do you honestly think will be able to answer them?Mark Frank
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
As far as I can tell atheists categorically deny the existence of any intelligent agency in the universe, ID proponents affirm the possibility of it.
Sounds like a "no black swans" 'argument' to me.Joe
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
No mistake here! As far as I can tell atheists categorically deny the existence of any intelligent agency in the universe, ID proponents affirm the possibility of it.
They'd have to deny their own existence. I agree that a philosophically consistent materialist would probably have to walk this incoherent route - but individual atheists are not atheism, and atheism can be detached from materialism. It may not be popular, but again, I'm not interested in the individuals, but the idea. It's trivial to come up with examples of atheists who are at least open to the idea of the universe or particular parts of it being designed: subscribers to Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis and (from what I know of them) the Raelians.
Oh, no, the Bible and Jesus again. I always know I just won an argument when somebody shoves the Bible in my face.
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.
By the way I do not believe that if someone doubts the existence of Jesus he should be called a lunatic. I don’t believe the story in the Book of Mormons, am I a lunatic too?
If you doubt the bare existence of Joseph Smith, yep, I think it'd fair to call you either a lunatic or dramatically misinformed. Calm down, or leave the thread. I have little time, and less patience, for hysterical people.nullasalus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
nullasalus responded to my NO answer to #5
I think the mistake you’re making is with thinking ‘there would be no contest between the two camps’. Atheism is compatible with ID, but for activist atheists, it’s still regarded (for now anyway) as a rhetorical net loss. To use a comparison from religion – the existence of a historical Jesus is compatible with atheism. You can say Jesus existed but He performed no miracles, He wasn’t God, etc, etc. But there’s still a big contingent of more lunatic atheists who will insist ‘Jesus didn’t exist at ALL’ precisely because they’re so animated against Christianity that giving any ground whatsoever is avoided.
My comments #16, #31, nullasalus responses #17, #44 No mistake here! As far as I can tell atheists categorically deny the existence of any intelligent agency in the universe, ID proponents affirm the possibility of it. So with respect to ID, atheists say NO, ID proponents say YES. If this is compatibility then NO must be compatible with YES. I am afraid to ask if there are any circumstances when YES and NO are compatible. You might come up with one. There is no such a thing as a division within the atheist camps which could be classified as activist vs. nice. The only atheists who are not activists are the ones who are no longer with us. Oh, no, the Bible and Jesus again. I always know I just won an argument when somebody shoves the Bible in my face. Just pray tell me, what the Bible has to do with ID vs. atheism compatibility? What are you going to quote next? The Book of Mormons, the Koran? By the way I do not believe that if someone doubts the existence of Jesus he should be called a lunatic. I don't believe the story in the Book of Mormons, am I a lunatic too?tvarhegyi
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Hi Mark Frank, I'd like to make a quick comment on your questions. You are assuming that ID is tied to Professor Dembski's definition of specified complexity in the paper you quote. But the definition of information used by Dembski and Marks in their more recent paper, Life's Conservation Law, had nothing to do with specified complexity: it was simply anything that improves on a blind search. Dembski's point was that you cannot explain a system's ability to hit a target (say, conscious life) better than chance would, by going back in time. No matter how far back you go, you confront the dilemma: either the system itself is built with an internal bias to reach that goal, or something has to be added to it to bias it in that direction - and the level of bias required never decreases as you go back in time. That's why you can't start with a simple unbiased universe, and arrive at us. Some skeptics object that we don't have enough information to assess whether the emergence of life in our universe is improbable. If we define life broadly, in terms of "self-movement" for instance, then we can certainly argue that the emergence of life is probable. But if we define life more narrowly (and sensibly) in terms of the features that distinguish it most from other forms of matter - in particular, the possession of a genetic code, as well as a genetic program that specifies an organism's chemical make-up - then we can indeed say that the emergence of a system exemplifying these general properties is vastly improbable, in our cosmos. Hence going back in time does not solve the origin of life problem: the "bias problem" still needs to be addressed.vjtorley
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
while in reality neither atheism nor metaphysical naturalism is incompatible with ID.
There is always the possibility that intelligence formed in some other way than what we have witnessed. Maybe there is some combination of molecules that leads to a different type of entity that eventually designed our form of life. For example, one that is silicon based. One of the necessary conclusions of materialism is that there must be zillions of ways complicated systems could arise. There is no necessity they will say it must be DNA based though we know that system works. This is the only probabilistic argument that would work for them. If DNA is the only thing that can work then one has to examine the laws of nature that led to particular result. They will say that because DNA based life arose here it prevented any other form from arising. In other words the first form wins. This may not be the case in other areas of the universe. Which case one of these other inevitable forms arose and eventually created us. All this is compatible with ID and materialism. Since we have no examples of this other entity we can not speculate on how probable or improbable it is.jerry
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
vjtorley,
As kairosfocus points out, atheists come in a variety of flavors. Someone who accepted the reality of spirits but denied the reality of a Supreme Creator Spirit would be an atheist, for instance. In that sense, ID is quite compatible with atheism.
I recall that Dembski included options beyond even these. A demiurge, an ancient intelligent civilizations, aliens, a Matrix situation - contra some people in this thread, I'm not convinced that ID, according to its main proponents, even needs to run counter to physicalism. I think physicalism is just complete nonsense, of course, but superficially it looks like - so long as ID is concerned with proximate rather than ultimate causes - it's pretty easy to imagine 'physical' beings qualifying for just about every case of inferred ID.
Is Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, compatible with metaphysical naturalism?
Tough one. I think the answer is currently no, but - and here's the trick - there's no principled reason for that statement. I think what's gone on is that ID proponents have successfully identified atheists and metaphysical naturalists as their primary intellectual components, while in reality neither atheism nor metaphysical naturalism is incompatible with ID. But that gets into a more intellectual question. My concern is just in having ID explained as its proponents explain it, even if said proponents make a mistake.nullasalus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Hi nullasalus, Thanks for an excellent post. I think questions 5 and 8 are the only ones that need commenting on. As kairosfocus points out, atheists come in a variety of flavors. Someone who accepted the reality of spirits but denied the reality of a Supreme Creator Spirit would be an atheist, for instance. In that sense, ID is quite compatible with atheism. Many proponents of the cosmological design argument (e.g. Dr. Robin Collins) argue on scientific grounds that even a multiverse would still need to have been designed. While that takes us to a supernatural Designer who is not bound by the laws of Nature, it does not necessarily imply theism. A Designer who was not constrained by laws of any sort would not be a corporeal agent; however, such a Designer may or may not be unique, may or may not be infinite, and may or may not be an ex nihilo Creator. As for question 8: the critical question is how far back in time we go. Certainly if the act of arrangement is performed subsequent to the Big Bang, then the answer is clearly Yes. But what about the Designer's act of setting the initial conditions of the universe (or multiverse, if you believe in one), and of defining the laws of Nature? Such an act could hardly be called natural, as it defines Nature; but it is not a miracle either, as it violates no law of Nature. To my mind, the most interesting questions that might be asked are: Is Intelligent Design, as offered by its most noteworthy proponents, compatible with metaphysical 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? I addressed these questions over two years ago in my post, "The four tiers of Intelligent Design – an ecumenical proposal" at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-four-tiers-of-intelligent-design-an-ecumenical-proposal/ .vjtorley
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Null: you are precisely right, 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. Sad, really, but predictable. KFkairosfocus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
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. In most of these types of arguments ideology trumps everything and determines what one will assert to. I thought he wasn't commenting anymore on this stuff.jerry
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Joe: KN -- sadly -- is simply tossing up what he knows or full well should know, is false but is persuasive to the naive. If one can show that credibly one can show 500 bits of FSCO/I coming about by blind chance and mechanical necessity, the design inference would be dead. Period, and as is well known. The sorts of resorts we now see are because they know this is unlikely to be practically met for reasons as just explained. The flip side though is that per vera causa (roughly: first SHOW that a claimed cause, empirically is seen to give rise to a key effect before arguing that it is a best explanation), FSCO/I is a highly reliable sign of design backed up by billions of tests, formal and informal; The real problem is, FSCO/I easily gives the strong indication that cell based life and major body plan features are designed, just on genome requisites -- 100k - 1 mn bits for 1st life, 10 - 100+ mn dozens of times over for body plans. And, it also indicates cosmological design given the pattern of fine tuned physics pointing to setting up an operational point for cell based life. 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. The outcome will be the same sooner or later: ideological collapse on empirical failure, as the failure is more and more glaringly obvious: SHOW us blind chance and necessity creating FSCO/I or else yield that the best explanation is the commonly seen one, design. KFkairosfocus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, First off, congratulations. You answered every question correctly. You've got more guts than a number of your peers.
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.
Most ID proponents - in the sense of 'people in comboxes, non-professional supporters of ID' could not answer that question. And most ID *critics* in the same vein could not answer that question, and answers related to that question are absolutely not the basis on which ID is typically criticized. Could you imagine Richard Dawkins being made to answer that question in the middle of his denouncing ID? Or better yet, Zack Kopplin? It would be comedy. My questions were very (save for possibly #8) simple and basic - and they are precisely the questions that critics systematically mangle when describing ID.nullasalus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Joe: Actually, MF needs to actually read the paper with care to understand what it intends to argue. Then on the practical matter of detecting design through FSCO/I and measuring same, he and others who try that now favourite distraction need to understand that: 1 --> If you turn the 10^57 atoms of our solar system into observers 2 --> then give each a tray with a line of 500 fair H/T coins, 3 --> And toss and observe state of the 10^57 sets of coins every 10^-14 s [as fast as ionic chem rxns], with the resulting binomial distribution quite well known, 4 --> then in the reasonable time since origin of solar system . . . use 10^17 s, 5 --> You would sample about 1 straw to a cubical haystack 1,000 LY across as a ratio to population of 3.27*10^150 possibilities for 500 coins. 6 --> Such a config is a stronger blind search than can be constructed on the scope of the solar system and would dominate any genuinely blind search. 7 --> So, it is a more generous search than anything we could practically implement or the solar system -- our practical cosmos for chemical scale interactions -- could carry out, so a result for this dominates any actual really chance based blind search. 8 --> Where if you insist, simply scale up to 1,0000 bits and that covers the search potential of the observed cosmos. 9 --> And where also, mechanical necessity does not cause high contingency under similar enough initial circumstances, so combining the two boils down to chance writing the variations (especially in the chance variation less culling out by differential reproductive success scenario envisioned for Darwinist style models of evolution . . . in which chance writes the variations). 10 --> Under these circumstances of blind, minuscule fraction samples, it takes no genius to see that the samples will with all but certainty reflect the bulk of the distribution of possibilities, and will with all but absolute certainty miss rare clusters of possibilities. (There are several ways to see that, the simplest is go watch a video of a Quincunx Dalton Box with 5,000 beads poured and see how few make it to the far tails.) 11 --> So, we see why on analytical grounds, we should expect to see the result dominated by the cluster of coins at near 50-50 distribution in no particular order. As is abundantly vindicated empirically, e.g. by random text exercises that are nowhere near getting 72 ASCII characters in coherent English. (They have got up to about 24, a factor of 10^100 too short.) 12 --> In this context, the analysis backs up the observation. 13 --> And it is reasonable as a practical model to measure FSCO/I as: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold. Where S is a dummy variable defaulting to 0 and going to 1 for cases where there is good reason to infer functional specificity. 14 --> This expression, of course, makes the prediction that with high reliability cases of functionally specific complex info beyond 500 bits will be designed, which is on billions of cases reliable. 15 --> Where of course this comes from fitting in the dominant value and log reducing the Dembski expression MF and others love to play blind em with math games over. (Cf. here.) 16 --> In short MF et al know better or full well should know better. The Mathgrrl stolen identity sock puppet game played by Patrick May was nigh on four years ago now [if my memory that says 2010 is correct, if not it was 2011] -- and the final straw was when he could not correctly identify a log reduction that converted p-values into the more useful info metrics. (Where also, it is often fairly easy to get such info metrics directly, e,g. 500 fair coins stores 500 bits.) 17 --> But when all else fails they trot out this distractor to try to change the subject. 18 --> In this case, from the willfully continued deceitful misrepresentation of ID that is a too common standard rhetorical device of objectors. ___________ We cannot stop such from those tactics but we can expose them and red ring fence off those who insist on such tactics. Unfortunately, their name is Legion. KFkairosfocus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
Kantian Naturalist is confused:
ID is a dead-end of inquiry because it’s untestable, and it’s untestable because (among other things) it refuses to posit anything at all about the nature of the designer.
LoL! As if we need to know anything about the designer to test the design inference. Finding out about the designer comes AFTER you made the design inference and AFTER studying all the evidence. But anyway IDists have said exactly how to test and falsify ID. So why do anti-IDists continue to think that their willful ignorance means something? Also TSZ ilk are saying ID is too vague- LoL! take a look at evolutioism if you want to see vague...Joe
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
tvar,
By marking my “NO” answer to #5 as incorrect you claim that ID is compatible with atheism. I would say that if there is one issue both the atheists and ID proponents would agree it is that they are not compatible. Otherwise there would be no contest between the two camps. Atheists deny the existence of any intelligent agency in the origins of the universe, our solar system, Earth and all living beings. Can you explain where you are coming from ?
I think the mistake you're making is with thinking 'there would be no contest between the two camps'. Atheism is compatible with ID, but for activist atheists, it's still regarded (for now anyway) as a rhetorical net loss. To use a comparison from religion - the existence of a historical Jesus is compatible with atheism. You can say Jesus existed but He performed no miracles, He wasn't God, etc, etc. But there's still a big contingent of more lunatic atheists who will insist 'Jesus didn't exist at ALL' precisely because they're so animated against Christianity that giving any ground whatsoever is avoided.nullasalus
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Really Mark? Then tell us how to determine the probability wrt unguided evolution. If you know the answers to your questions you should be able to do that.Joe
February 1, 2014
February
02
Feb
1
01
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply