Sal Cordova Withdraws from the ID Movement

_{Barry Arrington

January 15, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

After spending the last few years pretending to be an ID proponent, all the while bashing every other ID proponent and disparaging most ID ideas, Salvador Cordova has finally come clean and formally withdrawn from the ID movement. Here. He did it over at The Skeptical Zone, of course, where he has found a home with more like-minded folks.

Comments

I will put in my two cents. I never thought that ID was science but that ID uses science, mathematics and logic to come to certain conclusions about reality. Like science there will never be a certainty about some key issues but an extremely high probability that something unobserved is true or that something else is not true. Science is nearly always about finding/detecting regularities (laws) in the world which we then want to explain and finally make predictions based on this new understanding. By definition, ID is about the suspension of regularities (laws) so there is no prediction or testing that is based on laws or regularities. Design is identified when the natural laws were over ridden or there is no possible natural laws that can explain a finding. I understand that some like Demski and others have developed some methodology to conclude that certain things were designed. Is that science? Or is it just a very elaborate logic supported by sophisticated mathematics. And then there is the various forensic sciences that determine that certain things were probably designed or the result of human action. But here it is usually the suspension of expected natural regularities that leads one to conclusions of human action. We also use our understanding of humans and human actions (sometimes animal actions) to assess whether certain findings were natural or not or what human motivations explains these findings.jerry_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Mapou @24:
If Cordova no longer thinks that ID is scientific, then he is essentially anti-ID.
No. That is taking it a bridge too far. Sal has expressed in the past a rather narrow view of what constitutes "science." Furthermore, he has indicated that whether or not something is considered "science" does not mean it isn't (a) true, and (b) useful. He has been very supportive of ID, its value as a path of investigation, and even its potential truth -- even if it is not "science" per his narrow definition. I personally disagree with him and think ID, at least the design inference, is very much grounded in and a part of what we can consider science. But it is not fair to say that he has gone off the rails and is anti-ID on that basis alone. Sal likes to think of himself as a maverick who stirs up lots of controversy and gets the ID crowd upset. :) Let's not feed into that perception. He isn't quite as radical as he would like us to believe. :) See, for example, Sal's post here: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/even-supposing-id-is-not-science-it-does-not-automatically-mean-it-is-religion-philosophy-or-metaphysics/ Incidentally, his thread goes off base rather quickly, as he implicitly buys into a flawed "repeatable and observable mechanism" as the litmus test for science. But my point being that even if Sal claims ID is not science, it doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't support ID or even think it is true. ----- Alright, I guess I'd better make my way over to TSZ and see what he actually said that set this thread off . ..Eric Anderson_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Shorter Mapou: I don't like those facts, so I will call you a name.drc466_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

How will ID survive the loss of the coin argument? No sophisticated program was ever written by coin flips, whether the coin was "fair" or "weighted". - David L. AbelMung_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Eric, If Cordova no longer thinks that ID is scientific, then he is essentially anti-ID. It does not matter that he believes in ID in his heart.Mapou_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Barry:
After spending the last few years pretending to be an ID proponent, all the while bashing every other ID proponent and disparaging most ID ideas . . .
Barry, I know you and Sal had quite a number of disagreements and that you were not impressed with his approach to things. However, I have appreciated his careful and thoughtful approach over the years, even if we didn't see eye-to-eye on everything. I don't think it is fair to say that he was "pretending" or that he was "disparaging."
. . . Salvador Cordova has finally come clean and formally withdrawn from the ID movement.
I haven't checked out the link yet, but I hope this is not true. Sal has made some important points and good contributions over the years. I would be indeed saddened if he feels he needs to "withdraw" from involvement with ID. I can understand withdrawing from active participation in online debates or from certain people who want to take ID into realms beyond the design inference. But I would not understand abandoning the design inference itself. I hope whatever Sal is planning on, he is taking a nuanced approach and distinguishing between the two.Eric Anderson_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

drc466 @20, You're a crackpot, in my opinion, and so is Cordova. Heck, the entire YEC movement is a Christian crackpot movement. Sometimes, I don't know which is worse: Christian crackpots or Darwinist crackpots. But then again, this is coming from the chief Christian crackpot of them all. Test all things, as the book says.Mapou_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

How will ID survive the loss of the coin argument? When I want to know if something is designed I flip a coin. Always have, always will.Mung_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Mapou @19,
He is obviously wrong since the fossil record and other evidence show that life has existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years.
To put it bluntly, bull. There is one, and only one, method of aging that is even capable of showing "hundreds of millions of years", and that is long-age radioactive decay. Which measurement method only shows the apparent aging of the material not the rock/fossils around it, is a single equation with multiple assumptions, and yields inconsistent results even from a single sample. (Consider, for example - if you were buried in a layer due to a large-scale local flood, what would radioactive aging show about your fossil layer? Congratulations, you're 100myo!) Contrasted to that is that fact that "hundreds of millions of years old fossils" repeatedly show still extant organic material and un-racemized amino acids, which would not be possible if the fossils really were millions of years old, let alone hundreds of millions. To which evolutionists and long-age ID-ists who declare fervent and religious belief in the mathematical equations of radioactive dating with its multiple assumption, respond by denying that the real-world lab measurements and mathematics behind organic decay is accurate, mumbling excuses about "biofilms" and "iron-rich pools" and "unknown methods of preservation". In case anyone is interested in my support for the above: Dinosaur Soft Tissue.drc466_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

vjtorley quoting Cordova:
I don’t know for sure what happened, but I believe God did it, and it is the God of the Bible partly because of the mtDNA evidence assigning humans, dogs, cattle to have genetic bottle neck at 10,000 years or less
What is this genetic bottleneck that Cordova is alluding to? He is obviously wrong since the fossil record and other evidence show that life has existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years. Someone needs to go through Cordova's mtDNA argument and find the error. There is something wrong with it, no doubt about it. I wish I had some free time to do this but I'm way too busy.
and thus nominally consistent with what would be required of to make Christ’s genealogy in Luke Chapter 3 literal.
This is what happens when people worship a book. It's a dangerous thing. Besides, it's a form of idolatry, IMO. The Bible exhorts the reader to test ALL things, which include the Bible itself, no? As a Christian, I use the Bible as a research book (search and you will find) among many other sources of knowledge. There is truth in all of them. But there are also lies, errors and inconsistencies. The "evil one" has his claws in everything.Mapou_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Sal:
I’m OK with calling ID science for man-made things….
It's the year 2525. Google BioLabs just succeeded in designing and constructing the first living organism using man-made genetic material. Cordova is resurrected and shown the results. If he's consistent in his logic, he would have to accept ID as a science and that living organisms on earth were intelligently designed. Of course, they weren't designed by humans. By whom then?Mapou_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Housekeeping note: I spoke to the webmaster, and it may be that the captcha arithmetic test doesn't now need to be refreshed so often. Wd appreciate feedback.News_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

vjtorley at 11, thanks for clarifying. If he's happier at TSZ, many will wish him the best.News_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Yarrgonaut: Of course design detection is science, and of course it does not depend on what we know, or know not, of the designer. Even one of our most motivated interlocutors once practically admitted that, if we found, on a far away planet, some arrangement on some wall which corresponds perfectly to one of Shakespeare's sonnets, he would be impressed and think of design. By some conscious agent who knows that sonnet, I would add. It needs not be some human. Indeed, we could be sure that humans never reached that planet before. Maybe aliens received information about Shakespeare's sonnets in some strange way and by some strange technology. Maybe God did it. Maybe Shakespeare's soul wanders in space, and can do miracles. The point is: we may not have any clue about the explanation, but still we cannot doubt the design. And if someone has doubts about the functional complexity of a single sonnet (I certainly haven't), let's say that the whole, perfect text of Hamlet is found on that wall, carved apparently by natural events. Who would opt for chance? Design detection not a science? That is really folly.gpuccio_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

I see what's going on here. Sal's ditching us to hang out with Ken Ham et al.Yarrgonaut_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Not only Sal is no longer here at UD, where is BA'77? Or did I miss something?Seqenenre_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

If we found alien etchings on carved into a rock on another planet, it would be instantly trumpeted as evidence for intelligent alien life despite knowing nothing about the alien designers of those etchings. To hold that a positive identification of design works well there, but not for Intelligent Design seems like an absurd double standard. Nonsense like FSM is ruled out easily because speculation and discussion about the designer is not what ID is about. It has nothing to do with empirical detection of design through an inference to the best explanation. This is some of the most elementary stuff about ID, and I would have expected Sal to know this. FSM presumably would be discussed in theology, where that joke would be easily shot down.Yarrgonaut_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Hi everyone, I'd like to help clarify Sal's present position. If you take the time to scroll through the comments on his post, it isn't too hard to find out what his views are. Regarding young-earth creationism, here's what Sal says:
Any such theories of God-did-it-by-evolution would appear to be falsified by evidence genetic entropy. God-did-it-by-special-creation seems more believable to me personally, but that’s not science, that’s a belief in miracles... I don’t know for sure what happened, but I believe God did it, and it is the God of the Bible partly because of the mtDNA evidence assigning humans, dogs, cattle to have genetic bottle neck at 10,000 years or less and thus nominally consistent with what would be required of to make Christ’s genealogy in Luke Chapter 3 literal.
And again:
Noah would be about, eh 4000-5000 years ago.... But note, the Bible suggest[s] mtDNA eve at 6000 years plus the other mammalian Eve to also have recent bottle necks. Confirmed for humans, cattle, dogs. Human Eve at 6,500 years as attested by review article by Lowe and Scherer. Bible suggest[s] ancestor of males was about 2000 years after Eve since Noah's sons (Y-chromsomes) were married to descendents of Eve, not Noah’s wife. A little inference from Abraham Modal Haplotype would be consistent with Noah around 4000 years ago. So one perspective of DNA evidence is at least consistent with the Genesis account. Maybe not convincing to the skeptics here, but if I were a betting man...hey I am a betting man.
Sounds like he's still a YEC to me, whatever his views on the status of ID as a science may be. Regarding Intelligent Design versus Darwinism, here's what he says:
...Darwin and Dawkins argue that natural selection accumulated complex features in living things so that they appear to be designed. If theory and evidence shows the net tendency is for natural selection to destroy rather than accumulate complex features, then why should natural selection be argued to be a BlindWatchmaker (Dawkins' term). A BlindWatch Destroyer is a more accurate description of what theory predicts (like Muller’s ratchet, Black Queen Hypothesis, Behe’s 1st Rule of Adaptation, etc.), and what is actually observed in the lab and field. That’s why I don’t believe Natural Selection accounts for complexity in the biosphere. If I weren’t a creationist, I’d probably be scraping for some sort of self-organization, some strange quantum fluctuation, teleological evolution, multi-verses etc. It’s because of the Blind Watch Destroyer, I find “God did it” a better explanation for the origin of complex life. I simply don’t believe natural selection can in principle be a Blind Watch Maker based on first principles, and the lab and field evidence bear this out. Thus complex life is a miracle, and miracles require a Miracle Maker. That’s my personal belief, it is not science. But I do think genetic entropy is science. It has theory backing up plus experimental and direct and indirect observational facts.
In other comments on his thread, Sal has been arguing hammer-and-tongs against the evolutionists, in defense of his claim that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Sounds like he's still an ID proponent to me, even if he doesn't think ID technically qualifies as a science at the present time. Who was it that said: "He that is not against us is for us"?vjtorley_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H at 7, Sal and Barry falling out doesn't explain Sal's sudden claims in the post above his comments to which you kindly linked. I would like to know as a matter of interest if Sal still considers himself a young earth creationist (YEC), as I am sure he did at one time. What role does that play in all this? It must play some role. How does it go down at TSZ, one wonders?News_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: Only one thing can rightly keep one "in the fold": the sincere conviction that the fold is right. If Sal has changed his mind, he can only follow his own convictions. As we follow ours. He has certainly made some good contributions here, and some others which could be debated. I wish him the best.gpuccio_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

When Sal left a email group (just recently), he wrote: "But I am continuing my investigation and promotion of ID." He follows that up with what he wrote at The Skeptical Zone. Yeah, it's a bit 'confusing'. Maybe there's more that he's not telling (?). Time will tell ...Jorge_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Denyse - I'm sure being compared to a Nazi Collaborator didn't help keep Sal in the fold.Bob O'H_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

It would be interesting if Sal Cordova could cite something other than general philosophical opinions for his change of views. For example, was he not a Young Earth Creationist? Is he not still? One feels there is more to this story something untold, but perhaps only he could tell it.News_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

How will ID survive the loss of the coin argument?Upright BiPed_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

Sal
I accept stonehenge was intelligently designed because I’ve seen humans make similar artifacts....
Sal
I’m OK with calling ID science for man-made things....
If you are OK with calling ID science for man-made things, then why did you just reject ID science for man-made things by saying that you accept design in stonehedge because you have seen humans make similar artifacts, indicating that it is not because you can detect design in it's features?StephenB_{January 15, 2016
January
01
Jan
15
15
2016
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

Its not a rejection that a creator did the creation but that it can't be scientifically showed. ID can't be put under the methodology that is used by science to make a conclusion. This is indeed opposite to the whole point of iD. ID is about being demonstrated by human investigation of nature. SC is wrong about this. The bible says creation proves a creator. Thats the proof. Excellent stuff. The creator is invisible but one sees his creation. mankind also has always said creation shows a thinking creator of great intelligence. The iD movement, some YEC, insist and am right that a creator can be proven by the complexity of creation. It really is so complex smart people will never create anything. Can't even tweek things to fix them as we know by our health problems. Hopefully SC is making a fine point as opposed to a rejection that the creator can't be proven by scientific investigation. Maybe just talking about details. I'm sure he clobbers evolution and those saying they prove creation was from chance. Yet ID is more. its about proving the creator from natures evidence. the fingerprints of gOD are TRULY on nature.Robert Byers_{January 15, 2016
January
01
Jan
15
15
2016
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

IMHO . . . Of course ID is not falsifiable. That's because it's not a theory, but a paradigm, a presumption of design that seems to speed rather than hinder scientific advancement. In contrast, the paradigm of random, undirected change is also not falsifiable, but this Darwinian paradigm seems to retard scientific advancement by assuming biological systems are most likely to have no purpose, such as "junk" DNA for example. Sal apparently choked on a red herring. -QQuerius_{January 15, 2016
January
01
Jan
15
15
2016
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

Cordova's reasoning is weak. He accepts Stonehenge was designed because he believes it could have been built by humans. Why? He says it's because he has seen humans build other things. Did he he see humans build Stonehenge? Nope. Methinks Sal is ready for his pull-ups.Mapou_{January 15, 2016
January
01
Jan
15
15
2016
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply