Answers for Judge Jones

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions.

Continue reading here.

Comments

---David Kellogg: "Nope. Dr. Dembski claims that statistics supports ID, but that doens’t make statistics tied to creationism." You are monumentally confused. The bottom line is that when Judge Jones declared that ID was tied to creationism, he implicated all expressions of ID right along with it, including "irreducible complexity." You disagree. First, after I explained that IC is a subset of ID, you stated, “IC is not a “subset” of ID. It’s an argument used by ID people.” That misses the point, of course, but I can argue that way as well. So, I explained further: ID is the general argument and IC is a specific argument supporting the general argument. If the general argument is tied to creationism, then the specific argument that supports and confirms the general argument is tied to creationism. Now, you start talking about statistics, which is something that supports the specific argument which supports the general argument. Sorry, David, but you have not yet demonstrated that you are capable of rational thought. Again, you write, "I would say a creationist is someone who thinks the science points to God." So, using YOUR definition, I asked you this: If someone believes that science points to God, and also believes in macro evolution, is that person a creationist? Now you say, "Don’t know. Don’t care." It was YOUR defintion, and it is your argument. Clearly, you have a big problem with logic. It is very serious.StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Must our adversaries always follow the irrational leadership of Barbara Forrest and Judge Jones. Why don’t they come up with something original?
Because we took a blood oath to Barbara Forrest in a hexagram at midnight. If by "original" you mean "made up quotes," you've got me beat.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

For JayM: ---A defining paragraph from the opening of On Pandas and People: “If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist. This is no different, really, than if we discovered life did result from natural causes. We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause.” If the book begins by denouncing creationism and affirming ID, how can it be converted from creationism to ID. If a book, which probably contains 60,000 words, undergoes editing to the tune of a mere 150 words, can the books main argument be changed by altering .0025 of its content. Must our adversaries always follow the irrational leadership of Barbara Forrest and Judge Jones. Why don't they come up with something original?StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

StephenB,
ID is the general argument and IC is a specific argument supporting the general argument.If the general argument is tied to creationism, then the specific argument that supports and confirms the general argument is tied to creationism.
Nope. Dr. Dembski claims that statistics supports ID, but that doens't make statistics tied to creationism.
So, if someone believes that science points to God, and also believes in macro evolution, is that person a creationist?
Don't know. Don't care.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Clive, what about JayM's actual point?David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

JayM, ------"We’re supposed to have the moral high ground. It doesn’t help the ID movement to have ID proponents making claims that are so easily demonstrated to be false." Everytime JayM, every single time you post, you argue against ID, and at the end of your post you claim to be a supporter of ID. I have never, not once, seen you agree with an ID supporter. You're credibility of being ID has worn very, very, thin. I do get a chuckle out of the pretense though, as if you think you're fooling anyone.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

On question 428, assume common descent.StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

----"No, that’s not what I said. I would not define a creationist as someone who believes in God. I would say a creationist is someone who thinks the science points to God." So, if someone believes that science points to God, and also believes in macro evolution, is that person a creationist?StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "IC is not a “subset” of ID. It’s an argument used by ID people." -----IC is not a “subset” of ID. It’s an argument used by ID people. ID is the general argument and IC is a specific argument supporting the general argument. If the general argument is tied to creationism, then the specific argument that supports and confirms the general argument is tied to creationism.StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

jerry,
First, if someone believes in God and believes that God has done something to this universe, at a minimal creating it, is then by your assessment this person is a creationist. So most of the world are creationists.
No, that's not what I said. I would not define a creationist as someone who believes in God. I would say a creationist is someone who thinks the science points to God.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Jerry, you have been holding out on us. David Kellogg says that you are a creationist. Have you been hanging out with Ken Ham again. -----DK: "jerry, I would probably say you are a creationist (as would Stephen Meyer). What distinguishes a creationist is not his/her views on God but his/her views on science. Meyers seems to agree, and he certainly isn’t looking to pigeonhole them or discriminate against them!"StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

"If IC is a subset of ID." IC is not a "subset" of ID. It's an argument used by ID people.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

"I would probably say you are a creationist (as would Stephen Meyer). What distinguishes a creationist is not his/her views on God but his/her views on science. Meyers seems to agree, and he certainly isn’t looking to pigeonhole them or discriminate against them!" Whoa, there is a lot to parse here. First, if someone believes in God and believes that God has done something to this universe, at a minimal creating it, is then by your assessment this person is a creationist. So most of the world are creationists. If the same person believes in God but believes this God never did anything that affected this world, then while believing in God this person is not a creationist. Otherwise there would be a physical effect without a naturalistic cause. God, what a mishmash! And what if this God lived in another of the infinite number of universes hypothesized by some and affected something in this universe. Is that in the province of science? I realize this is a digression but I wonder where this God is and why He cannot affect anything in this universe. Such a God is definitely not the Judeo Christian God. So maybe we should stop right here because we are touching on the nature of God and methodological naturalism and they are both worth a 1000 repeats of previous posts. Second, I do not think that Meyer was trying to pigeon hole them or discriminate against them but that others were. An interesting side step but it was very obvious so I am not sure what you accomplished with your choice of words to say Meyer was not discriminating.jerry_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

----David: "StephenB, you need to keep repeating your own words to me: I have to repeat them until you demonstrate to me that you are capable of rational thought. Quoting me: "I didn’t ask you about ID in gen[e]ral. I asked you specifically about “irreducible complexity.” Your interpretation of my question: "As you once recognized, what applies to “ID in general” does not necessarily apply to irreducible complexity. You are now saying the opposite." Are you cuckoo! That question did not imply that IC is not a subset of ID. It was a means of getting you to get specific and stop generalizing. Now, let's take if from the top: If all ID is tied to creationism, and if IC is a subset of ID, then IC is tied to creationism.StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

One correction:
Similarly, your post on what appears to be a cite from Meyer leaves the false impression in the closing bold that Meyer states that TBO are creationists. This is YOUR assertion, not Meyer’s.
No, that is Meyer's. Check the link. It's what Meyers says.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, Dean Kenyon was manifestly a creationist by the time he wrote the preface to TMLO. As he said (via wikipedia):
Then in 1976, a student gave me a book by A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. Many pages of that book deal with arguments against Biochemical Predestination, and I found myself hard-pressed to come up with a counter-rebuttal. Eventually, several other books and articles by neo-creationists came to my attention. I read some of Henry Morris' books, in particular, The Genesis Flood. I'm not a geologist, and I don't agree with everything in that book, but what stood out was that here was a scientific statement giving a very different view of earth history. Though the book doesn't deal with the subject of the origin of life per se, it had the effect of suggesting that it is possible to have a rational alternative explanation of the past.
David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Just before closing, what Meyer actually said in 1986: ____________________ . . . Thaxton attributes the popularity of the book's critique, in part, to "its interdisciplinary approach." Origin-of-life researchers have typically been chemists who, like the famous Stanley Miller, have attempted to synthesize life's chemical precursors in rarified (and somewhat contrived) experimental environments. Miller's "simulation" experiment in 1953 produced laboratory amino acids from simple molecules and electricity. By coordinating the insights of each scholar's specialty, the authors checked the assumptions of the laboratory chemist against present knowledge from other relevant sciences. They found, for instance, that "successful" simulation experiments like Miller's presumed a pre-life earth void of oxygen despite the geochemical evidence, suggesting an oxygen-rich early atmosphere. The authors, however, do not believe current theories of biochemical origins are simply flawed. Instead, they believe developments in a science called information theory demonstrate that natural chemical processes alone will never explain the origin of the first living cells. Information theory developed mathematical techniques in the 1970s to distinguish radio signals generated by random or repetitive natural phenomena from those that transmitted information in the form a code. Carl Sagan, for instance, has used information theory in his search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Sagan hoped to confirm the existence of intelligent life in space by collecting signals that displayed the mathematical characteristics of intelligent code or language. While Sagan is still looking, cell biologists are not. DNA researchers have found that the twisted helix of the DNA molecule exhibits the mathematical structure and complexity of written code or language. Like Sagan's imagined signals from space, DNA contains a message. Information theorists describe such coded messages, whether carried by radio signals or the sequences of chemicals in DNA, as a "specified complexity" because their meaning must be specified by intelligence. Thaxton and company use information theory to suggest that the messages transmitted by DNA in the cell must also have originated with an intelligent agent. Perhaps surprisingly, many other scientists agree. A prominent M.I.T.-trained information theorist who now edits a technical journal on the subject recently wrote Thaxton to confirm that the authors had properly applied information theory to their analysis of genetic code. Other top researchers, while not creationists, have recognized the connection between specified genetic complexity and intelligence. Fred Hoyle and Nobel laureate Francis Crick, who first discovered DNA, have opted for the so-called panspermia view of origins to explain the intelligent arrangements they see in the cell. Panspermia maintains that life was transported to earth by intelligent beings from space. Yet, as the Mystery of Life's Origin recognizes, such scenarios only transfer the question of life's ultimate origin to the cosmos. The book does not attempt to answer such questions, readily admitting that identifying the intelligence responsible for life's biochemical messages exceeds the purview of science. The Mystery of Life's Origin has done well to intimate that "we are not alone." Only revelation can now identify the Who that is with us. [And this last is plainly Meyer's conclusion] ___________________kairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

jerry, I would probably say you are a creationist (as would Stephen Meyer). What distinguishes a creationist is not his/her views on God but his/her views on science. Meyers seems to agree, and he certainly isn't looking to pigeonhole them or discriminate against them!David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Mr Kellogg: I was about to shut down when this page fully loaded, and so I noticed your latest. Will your distortions never end? Dean Kenyon was a key author of the major 1969 work, biochemical predestination, which argued the case that the chemistry of proteins was determinative of the formation of proteins and thus of life. In part on the evidence in the book, he concluded that he was wrong. [BTW, the book published some early protein sequencing studies partly carried out by one of the authors of TMLO with his collaborators]. If Mr Kenyon is a "creationist" today, that is not what he was in any materially relevant sense when he wrote Biochemical Predestination, and his material change in scientific views has to do with not Genesis interpretations but statistical studies on amino acid sequences in proteins, which were too close to random -- they are not quite flat random -- to fit his original thesis. Similarly, your post on what appears to be a cite from Meyer leaves the false impression in the closing bold that Meyer states that TBO are creationists. This is YOUR assertion, not Meyer's. Thast TBO do lean to the creator beyond the cosmos alternative is their worldview right [as it was Newton's in his general Scholium to Principia]. It does not precvgvent TMLO frpm being a work of scientific review, and it does not rpevent TMLO from founding a third way to evolutionary materilism-driven imposiion of methodological naturalism as censorship on otehrwise credible possibilities and trying to read form findings of science to statemets in genesis. in short, your assertions distort the truth, and boil down to saying just what Lewontin asserts: only materialism counts as "science." In that case, sir, science would have utterly lost its validity as an objective search for the truth about our world and becomes only an apologetics weapon for atheism. But, we are not at all shut up to that, and the authors of TMLO are a big part of why we know that and practice such through design theory. But, too, you have inadvertently exposed a lot of the agenda you represent. Which should serve to warn onlookers on what is really at stake here. GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, I highly recommend a reading of Dan Peterson's remarks here to further help set the record straight on what is going on behind the scenes at Dover and in the debate in this thread.kairosfocus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

StephenB, you need to keep repeating your own words to me:
I didn’t ask you about ID in gen[e]ral. I asked you specifically about “irreducible complexity."
As you once recognized, what applies to "ID in general" does not necessarily apply to irreducible complexity. You are now saying the opposite.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

StephenB, your failure of logic is in the phrase "If all ID is tied to creationism." ID is inextricably tied to creationism, but that does not mean that every part of ID and every argument used by ID is tied to creationism. Does Judge Jones ever say "All ID is teid to creationism"? Does he ever speak of all its constituent parts in the way you describe, or is that (again) just something you're making up?David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

---David: "StephenB, Judge Jones did not claim that IC was tied to religion. Nowhere. Didn’t happen. Please stick to the arguments that he made. Thanks." David, I am not talking about Judge Jones' lack of reasoning ability which is legendary. I am talking about your lack of reasoning ability. ---You write: "A house is a shelter. A floor is part of a house. A floor is not a shelter. See how that works?" I see how you think it works, but it doesn't apply. A shelter is not a subset of a house. IC is a subset of ID. IC is, in fact, an ID paradigm. Now, lets take it again from the top. Here it is again: If all ID is tied to creationism, If IC is a subset of ID, then IC is tied to creationism. So, if Judge Jones says that all ID is tied to creationism, then IC is tied to creationism.StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, Am I a creationists? I believe that some intelligence outside our universe created the universe. I believe there is no evidence from science that this is the Judeo Christian God but that science and logic indicate a God like intelligence exists and does not contradict the Judeo Christian God. I believe that an intelligence created life and probably guided the evolution of it in some places. This intelligence could be outside our universe or in it and if outside it could be the Judeo Christian God but there is no proof of this. Am I a creationist? And if so of what use is the term other than to pigeon hole people and their beliefs and create an a priori discrimination against them.jerry_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "IC is an argument used by ID. It is not the only argument or even a necessary one. IC fails as an argument for other reasons." What is is about a reasoned argument that you have such difficulty following. Here it is again: If all ID is tied to creationism, If IC is a subset of ID, then IC is tied to creationism.StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

I think Meyers provides a good working definition: a creationist, at minimum, is someone who thinks that science "points to a supernatural origin for life."David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Judge Jones did not claim that IC was tied to religion. Nowhere. Didn't happen. Please stick to the arguments that he made. Thanks.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

----Jerry to David Kellogg: "You do not have an opinion or a point of view?" No, I don't think he does. He only criticizes and lampoons other points of view. In all the time he has been here, I don't recall that he has ever presented a reasoned argument for anything.StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

IC is an argument used by ID. It is not the only argument or even a necessary one. IC fails as an argument for other reasons. A house is a shelter. A floor is part of a house. A floor is not a shelter. See how that works?David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

StephenB @368
Echidna Levy: —-”If it “did not happen” that will be a simple task, no? It’s a plain simple matter of fact. Two drafts, slightly different words. How can you even begin to disupte that?” The Barbara Forrest fantasy has been roundly refuted. If you have an interest in the facts, check out, “Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller account in eight parts.”
That doesn't refute the proven fact that OPAP was modified immediately after a Supreme Court decision disallowing the teaching of creationism in public schools, nor does it refute the proven fact that the change was a cut-and-paste that left the term "cdesign proponentists" a evidence. There is a video available on YouTube showing the actual text and references are available in the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. We're supposed to have the moral high ground. It doesn't help the ID movement to have ID proponents making claims that are so easily demonstrated to be false. JJJayM_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "I have said repeatedly that Judge Jones does not tie IC to creationism. He ties ID to creationism, and rightly so, but IC does not equal ID." Wbat kind of madness is this? IC is a subset of ID. So, if all ID is tied to creationism, then IC is tied to creationism. If all ID is not tied to creationism, then Judge Jones decision is meaningless. Are you capable of even basic logic?StephenB_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply