Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If You Want Good Science, Who Better to Ask Than Barret Brown?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Barrett Clown, oh pardon me, Barrett Brown, thinks he makes an argument against ID by humor and satire alone here at The Huffington Post. He is, after all, to be taken deadly seriously, he’s written for National Lampoon for goodness sakes and written a book about Dodo birds. Not really, Dodo birds were really just straw men, or, more accurately, scare crows. If satire counts for argument, then my blog post has done the same job that Barrett’s has. Revel in the irony that Barret would write about “bits of information” to prove his point;

Bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock album liner notes, which is why Dembski and company can’t get away with trying to portray ID as a scientific theory with no religious intent while having already admitted that same religious intent to sympathetic Biblical literalists. But that crowd doesn’t seem to understand this fundamental aspect of the Internet, that Google waits in watch of dishonesty. And thus it is that Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent is among the most interesting things that the Internet has to offer.

Barrett, you want to discuss information theory? I reckon a good penchant for satire gives all the credentials necessary. No, certainly not, you are right, bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock albums liner notes, they are compartmentalized in the DNA sequence in such a way that no VHS tape or liner note, however organized, could ever accomplish. No intelligence here folks, I mean, with Barrett, that is. Seriously, he is seriously serious in his satire, which is really just a way to be covertly passive/aggressive, nothing insincere here folks. If this counts for argument, then I am arguing by the same, and this post should be counted as just as valid. I’m intentionally avoiding much real argument and focusing on satire to prove a point, and the point is to expose the absurdity by being absurd in the same way. This guy cracks me up like we were in highschool. Except, I never liked guys like him in highschool, and have even less patience with them now.  Hey Barret, try to dig up some stuff on me buddy, for nothing proves an argument more than mockery and character assassination.

Comments
"As for the first two, I have no idea what you’re referring to." Both of those incidents are discussed in my Huffington Post article, which itself was the subject of this blog post. "3. Prophecy is like specified complexity, in that it matches a pre-existing pattern." Very well. "4. Because it is Divinely Inspired, but also contains truth of humanity’s perspective and historical truth. Not every word is a commandment, it doesn’t read like a cookbook, you should maybe study a bit more about interpretation. There are things in scripture that man crying out says, that was recorded; this is descriptive, not prescriptive." I'm obviously aware of the various interpretations that exist regarding Scripture. But it doesn't sound like you believe there to be any actual instances of prophecy in Scripture. "5. I cannot speak to the Wedge Document given that I’ve never read it. But if it advocated traditional Judeo-Christian creation, more power to them. It’s called freedom of religion, and that applies to everyone, not just atheists." It's incredible that you would advocate and assist an organization without taking five minutes to read a very controversial document that is a constant subject of debates in which you are prominently and repeatedly involved. I mean, I certainly don't want to tell you what to do or anything. "But if it advocated traditional Judeo-Christian creation, more power to them. It’s called freedom of religion, and that applies to everyone, not just atheists." What a strange response. I obviously advocate freedom of religion; my point is that the Discovery Institute has said one thing to the public and another thing in private, and not one of you has been able to tell me why. That's because there's no defense. "I didn’t mean nothing in terms of quantity, I’m sure you’ve written reams of it. I meant nothing in terms of quality or content. You don’t write against ID outside of empty rhetoric." You would have had to read my book to know if that's the case. And I know you didn't read my book.BarrettBrown
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
lamarck,
Who cares if ID is a vicious cabal? What’s that got to do with science?
Exactly. I'll be interested to see how he responds to Clive's questions in #53. As a Darwinist, no doubt Mr Brown accepts all beliefs, erm, provisionally. :Dherb
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
If atheism is a religion, does that make bald a hair color?RDK
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
Barret, sorry I'm so lowbrow, no need to respond. I see nothing from you above the boring "pop" debate level (wedge document etc). Who cares if ID is a vicious cabal? What's that got to do with science? You're now in the unfortunate position of being grilled on real science by several people at once and having no substantive answers. All the while you basically told everyone at huff post to come on over and watch.lamarck
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
BarrettBrown, -------"That you would accuse me of having written nothing on the subject and would do this in the comments section of a blog post concerning something I have written on the subject and in which you yourself make reference to an entire book I’ve written on the subject about which I’ve allegedly written nothing is, frankly, disingenuous beyond anything I’ve ever seen. You may very well be the most intellectually dishonest of any intelligent design advocate that I’ve ever encountered." I didn't mean nothing in terms of quantity, I'm sure you've written reams of it. I meant nothing in terms of quality or content. You don't write against ID outside of empty rhetoric.Clive Hayden
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
BarrettBrown, As for the first two, I have no idea what you're referring to. 3. Prophecy is like specified complexity, in that it matches a pre-existing pattern. Here are some prophecies: http://www.askapastor.org/proph.html 4. Because it is Divinely Inspired, but also contains truth of humanity's perspective and historical truth. Not every word is a commandment, it doesn't read like a cookbook, you should maybe study a bit more about interpretation. There are things in scripture that man crying out says, that was recorded; this is descriptive, not prescriptive. 5. I cannot speak to the Wedge Document given that I've never read it. But if it advocated traditional Judeo-Christian creation to be taught in church, more power to them. It's called freedom of religion, and that applies to everyone, not just atheists. I've answered your questions to the best of my ability. Now I have some for you. 1. You never answered my questions of what outcomes of evolution you are using when judging other outcomes of evolution? Whence comes the discernment? What standard given by evolution are you using to judge evolution as wrong in giving false worldviews? How can your judgments also not be subject to the same doubt? Do you have an infinite regress of evolutionary standards by which you judge the one before? 2. How can you say that there is any objective standard or moral law if there is no objective moral law giver? Is your morality based on just your personal feelings? Why should anyone agree with you on the grounds of moral personal preference? 3. How long have you been a comedian?Clive Hayden
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
Barret Brown: And exactly how is evolution separated from the atheistic worldview of Materialism? "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc... Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins. A Question for Barbara Forrest In fact, I've heard someone say, "Science is materialism." Yet science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method. For a quick overview here are a few: 1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 5. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. - 6. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 7. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 8. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - 9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 11. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 12. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - 13. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - Last, but certainly not least, as a Christian I would be very remiss if I failed to ask you to accept the free gift of eternal life from the living God who created this universe and all life in it. In fact, almighty God has made a very clear path for us "fallen human adults" to completely reconcile with Him so we may be able to stand before Him in heaven. We do this by humbly accepting what He has done for us through Christ on the cross so that we may be able to stand in the glory of the presence of almighty God in heaven (For our God is an all-consuming fire - Hebrews 12:29). In fact by accepting Christ into your heart, you will be cleansed spotless of your sins in the presence of almighty God. So how about it, Will you accept this priceless gift of Jesus Christ into your heart today so you may able to receive the priceless gift of eternal life in heaven? --- Revelation 3:20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.' John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. The Disciples - How They Died - Would A Man Die For Something He Knew Was A Lie? - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk0My7sKb7sbornagain77
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
"That is because you have written nothing, and nothing cannot be refuted." That you would accuse me of having written nothing on the subject and would do this in the comments section of a blog post concerning something I have written on the subject and in which you yourself make reference to an entire book I've written on the subject about which I've allegedly written nothing is, frankly, disingenuous beyond anything I've ever seen. You may very well be the most intellectually dishonest of any intelligent design advocate that I've ever encountered.BarrettBrown
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
"Would you care to discuss in detail the ways in which you violated all three of these logical prerequisites for rational discourse?" Nah. "Meanwhile, how about taking on the relevant question: How do you extract religion from 'irredicible complexity?' Where are the religious overtones in 'complex specified information?' Both of those concepts are components of intelligent design, which Dembski himself has associated with "religious overtones" on a number of occasions, most prominently in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Let me ask you a related question in response: what would it take to convince you that intelligent design has "religious overtones"? If this were indeed the case, how could I prove it? To Lamarck: Apologies, but I don't think it would be productive for me to spend my time in a discussion with someone who is convinced that the moon landings were faked.BarrettBrown
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Barrett Brown ------“The advocates of intelligent design cannot refute what I’ve written about their movement because there is nothing to refute.” That is because you have written nothing, and nothing cannot be refuted.Clive Hayden
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
camanintx, "The origin of life is as much a problem for the Theory of Evolution as the origin of matter is a problem for Newton’s Theory of Gravity, which is to say none." By the same logic, god or any ultimate cause has nothing to do with ID science, true or false?lamarck
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
RDK, ------"Because, Stephen, it seems that you’re the one who can’t tell the difference between inference and presupposition. Where is your inference coming from? Upon what scientific facts is ID based? How did you come to the conclusion that organisms were intelligently designed? Because of hieroglyphics? You’re only fooling yourself, Steve." Stephen is not fooling himself. He came to the conclusion that organisms were designed by a design inference after the knowledge of the complexity and vacuous explanation of Darwinian evolution was ascertained, not presupposed before. First things first, RDK. You're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. It's an inference that StephenB makes, that you presuppose was based on a presupposition, quite ironic, really.Clive Hayden
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
Clive,
For the sake of continuity, I’m going to delete this account. You can still post under RDK.
Thanks. I was looking forward to contributing after a long hiatus from this site, but I returned to find my account mysteriously placed on moderation.RDK
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
---Barrett Brown: "The advocates of intelligent design cannot refute what I’ve written about their movement because there is nothing to refute." It is not very difficult to refute your points. You make the classic error of ignoring the context of communication, confusing a presupposition with an inference, and misreading motives as methods. Would you care to discuss in detail the ways in which you violated all three of these logical prerequisites for rational discourse? Meanwhile, how about taking on the relevant question: How do you extract religion from "irredicible complexity?" Where are the religious overtones in "complex specified information?"StephenB
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
You say that proponents of evolution use illogical and evidence-deprived arguments. Can you give me some examples of any such arguments, and what specifically is illogical and evidence-deprived?
I did not once mention evolution. How could it not be clear that I'm referring to the Darwinian mechanism of random variation / mutation and natural selection? How many times must we explain this? No one at UD is denying that living systems have changed over time, and therefore have evolved. Illogical and evidence-deprived: Extrapolating bacterial antibiotic resistance and finch beak variation to explain the origin of all of biology, including information-processing machinery with error detection and repair, guidance, navigation and control in flying creatures, human consciousness, and everything else that has ever existed in biology. Dawkins refers to natural selection as a simple, elegant explanation that solves all mysteries in biology. It is certainly simple, but more importantly it is simplistic, and explains nothing but the trivially obvious. Extrapolating this to account for everything in biology is certainly illogical and evidence-deprived, and such an unsupported extrapolation would be greeted with laughter in any area of hard science.GilDodgen
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Thanks for the tip, Clive. A couple of questions: 1. Does depicting a judge as repeatedly farting constitute "mudslinging"? 2. How about reporting a fellow professor to Homeland Security based on the willful misunderstanding of a speech? 3. Perhaps you can explain what Dembski meant when he wrote that "Predictive prophecies in Scripture are instances of specified complexity and signal information inputted by God as part of his sovereign activity within Creation." Do you share this belief? What would be some good examples of predictive prophecies within Scripture? 4. Why should anyone hold an ounce of respect for a book that cheerfully advocates the ripping of babies from the wombs of their mothers, as in Hosea 13:16? 5. Why did the Discovery Institute secretly call for churches to resume the teaching of traditional Judeo-Christian creation mythology in its Wedge Document? Does the Discovery Institute believe that the myth is true, or do they simply advocate misinformation for the purpose of social engineering?BarrettBrown
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
MeganC, ------"So is this regarded as consensus science or consensus non-science?" We were making reference to Barrett Brown's mention of Judge Jones's court when we made reference to ID winning in the court of public opinion. Stay with the context Megan.Clive Hayden
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Barret, why don't you convince us you've got the answers then? What's the devastating response to genetic entropy which no one else has been able to produce? Do you realize Dawkins would be salivating for your revelations if he knew you had some answers? You also to alluded to CSI being disproven. You of course couldn't come out and say this but weren't above suggesting it to the easily mislead huffington post crowd. Turns out CSI isn't a problem for neodarwinists or what? ACTUALLY SAY SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT.lamarck
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Ardeekay, For the sake of continuity, I'm going to delete this account. You can still post under RDK.Clive Hayden
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee
I don’t know where the website is, but it is common knowledge that Crick was an advocate of Directed Panspermia. This was his solution to the problem of the origin of life in light of complex protein replicating systems. It seems to be an ID solution. It’s really a speculation though, but it does recognize the problem faced by the Darwinian explanation when faced with the origin of life.
The origin of life is as much a problem for the Theory of Evolution as the origin of matter is a problem for Newton's Theory of Gravity, which is to say none.camanintx
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
----deadman-932 “It is my understanding that Dembski was a theist first, then hit upon his argument regarding design…after already being a believer in a God that created all things, period. I haven’t seen anyone produce any example of “irreducible complexity” that is demonstrably devoid of presuppositional bias and/or fallacy-mongering illogic,” What Dembski was or is has absolutely nothing at all to do with his methods. For that matter, what you think you have seen about anyone producing “irreducible complexity” has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged relationship between irreducible complexity and religion. So, again, I ask the relevant question: How do you extract religion from irreducible complexity?” For that matter, what religious overtones or concepts do you find in “specified complexity?” Originally, I made the charge that Darwinists cannot distinguish motives from methods. You are confirming that fact. ----“Perhaps you can debate that with me at Theology Web, since you seem keen on making claims about such matters.” Why would I want to engage you there when I have you here? No one has silenced you on this forum. ----“I believe we all arrive at our own “inferences” or arguments regarding observed complex structures with presuppositional biases in place at some level of ideation. This is a standard observation in science that is widely accepted to influence not only what we “observe” but also, of course, the quality and nature of inferences drawn from what we observe through the filter of our preexisting biases.” I also made the charge that Darwinists cannot distinguish between a presupposition and an inference. You are confirming that fact as well. Have you read the FAQ on this site yet? Are you interested in preparing for a meaningful dialogue by learning the relevant facts? ----“Some people (you, StephenB?) may *claim* that it is possible to (1) reliably eliminate preexisting bias and then (2) eliably demonstrate that some irreducibly complex structure has some “more likely correct” inferred origin in an “Intelligent Designer” but I have yet to see that demonstrated.” Where have you looked? In precisely what way does the inference fail in your judgment? You are not being very specific or informative. ----“You can try that over at Theology Web, where there is a nicely structured environment with less potential of moderator bias, in my biased view.” Why do you feel the need to change venues? You are free to make your case right here. ----“Surely, you’d be willing to accomodate that change of venue so that you can show your argumentative skillzors” How would that help you establish an argument in support of your point of view?StephenB
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Ardeekay, RDK, Why did you spell out your name, and create a new account?Clive Hayden
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
I.D. is not anti-evolution. That's a myth started by those looking to conflate I.D. with Biblical creationism in a deceitful attempt at discrediting it. Arguments stand on their merits, not on labels created by dishonest people trying to salvage their failed world view. What I.D. is, is anti-blind watchmaker. We oppose the idea that life "poofed" into existence and we oppose the preposterous idea that a gradual series of copying errors created the mind-blowingly complex nano-machinery found in the most basic of living organisms. It's quite reasonable (although not unquestionable) that large scale macro-evolution has taken place. Evolution meaning that life has changed significantly over it's history. The question is, by what mechanism(s) did this change take place? Darwin proposed his hypothesis based on the ignorance of the Victorian era. His hypothesis failed miserably. It failed in the fossil record. It failed in the laboratory. It failed in any unbiased, realistic algorithm. I would say it's long dead, but the truth is it was never alive outside of the minds of the delusional. As for I.D., it's been around since the beginning of science, dating way back to the ancient Greeks. Believing in God leads one to believing that the universe would have an underlying order and rationality (and it does, what a coincidence...). This belief is the foundation, the backbone of science. I would say those people who reject God must also reject all science, including modern medicine, but unlike others I don't make absurd claims to support my beliefs. The modern I.D. movement began with the discovery of the intelligently designed, encoded structure of DNA. It was started by atheists James Watson and Francis Crick, and was furthered by yet another atheist, Sir Fred Hoyle. It wasn't until the early 90s that it gained a wider audience as more and more people realized how bankrupt abiogenesis and Darwinism were. Has the I.D. movement attracted many religious people? You bet your sweet *** it has. My counter-question to the designophobics is this: Why wouldn't I.D. attract the religious? It is, after all, a breathtaking scientific revolution which proves, as far as science can prove anything, that both our universe and life was designed, which leads us to that oh-so-scary "P" word - Purpose. Just as atheists and agnostics flocked to the now-falsified idea that pond scum and lightning created life (the Frankenstein hypothesis? *laughs*), theists and deists flocked to I.D. Of course, a hypothesis neither rises nor sinks based on its followers' world view(s). All that matters is the evidence. It doesn't matter what percentage of I.D. proponents are religious, whether 0%, 100%, or anything in between. All that matters is the evidence (I cannot stress this enough). The evidence says I.D. is true and those who deny it need to be institutionalized. Harsh but true. I'm sorry if that offends anyone reading this. What I find baffling are the attempts to censor any and all I.D. proponents. Is censorship the way to progression? Of course not. The way to progression is this: Ideas are challenged. If they withstand said challenge, they remain standing, stronger than ever. Science has progressed. If they can't withstand said challenge? Then they're discarded in the trash bin. So then, why is it that those who claim to love science so strongly support censorship in this situation? That throws up a huge red flag. It throws up a huge read flag for two reasons. First, it comes across as incredibly insecure. You're unwillingly admitting that Darwinism can't withstand the challenge of I.D. Secondly, it reveals that you have an irrational commitment to Darwinism, a commitment that easily exceeds the boundries of science. This is because Darwinism is your religion. "Poof" is your creation story, chance is your God, and Charles Darwin is your messiah. So goes Darwinism, so goes your religion. In this regard you're clearly no better than the Biblical creationists who cling to their young Earth views. Perhaps worse, as they at least admit to their faith, whereas Darwinists try and pass their faith off as science while sneaking it into the classroom. Before I go, I'd like to ask that all of you sign the Academic Freedom Petition. Let science be science again. Allow progression to take place. Don't cling to silly 19th ideas, ideas that haven't been intellectually fulfilling in over a century.ShawnBoy
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
BarretBrown, ------"It’s a strange objection coming from him; millions of ID sympathizers believe that the Book of Revelation is to be taken literally and will play out more or less as described. Perhaps Dembski thinks that these Biblical literalists are not “grown-ups”?" That is totally false, of all the books of the Bible, even literalists know that Revelation is heavily metaphorical. The more literal they are, the more they realize that they are literally encountering a real metaphor. It's called hermeneutics, it's called scholarship, you should check it out. And Lewis was right, scripture is for grown ups, not mudslinging children. Actually, that's an affront to children, who are usually and on the whole more respectful than you are.Clive Hayden
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
Shawnboy, "It traced the modern I.D. movement back to 1953 and Watson and Crick." I don't know where the website is, but it is common knowledge that Crick was an advocate of Directed Panspermia. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/dirpans.html This was his solution to the problem of the origin of life in light of complex protein replicating systems. It seems to be an ID solution. It's really a speculation though, but it does recognize the problem faced by the Darwinian explanation when faced with the origin of life.CannuckianYankee
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
What's this? An ID proponent quoted Wikipedia without exploding? What is the world coming to! Creationism:
Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity.
Intelligent Design, as defined by William Dembski:
The theory (sic) of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection
...so, the difference is that ID proponents still believe life, the universe, and everything is an "effect" of an intelligent cause, they're just a lot more...vague about it? Edit: Also, how does my apparent failure to tell the difference between ID and creationism disqualify me from ever making an intelligent statement...ever? Perhaps you should apply the Explanatory Filter in order to properly discern whether or not my statements are truly intelligently spewed.Ardeekay
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Re #21 Ardeekay, lamarck: "And whats the problem if ID is tied to creationism" Ardeekay: "Not just that they are tied, but that they are one and the same." From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism "Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity." From this Blog: https://uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." If you fail to tell the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design, then you really have nothing intelligent to say here.CannuckianYankee
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Slightly OT: A while back someone posted a website which featured a timeline on the history of I.D. It traced the modern I.D. movement back to 1953 and Watson and Crick. Does anyone know this website's address? I think it was here, although it may have been at another I.D. blog. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me out!ShawnBoy
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Megan, That was a test and you just passed, because man didn't go to the moon. See "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon", and other videos by Bart Sibrel, such as "Astronauts gone wild". It'll be a while before we can get through the van allen belt.lamarck
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
lamarck, Don't be silly; Deep Blue was built by IBM, IIRC and Mr Kasparov by Mikoyan-i-Gurevich. Man walked on the moon, eh? So when did this supposedly happen and WERE U THERE?MeganC
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
1 7 8 9 10

Leave a Reply