Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: No Evidence for a Designer/Glass Houses

Expand Messages
  • Susan Brassfield Cogan
    ... no kidding. ... that is true, at least for the ID publicists. Obviously all the foots oldiers think it s God and that they are defending God (as if God
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 1, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:47 PM 5/26/2007, you wrote:
      >NO EVIDENCE FOR A DESIGNER
      >
      > Clare: "ID demands _intelligence_."
      > Susan: "yeah, the intelligence of an entity who just happens to
      >have the skill set to create a universe. Gosh, who does that sound like?"
      >
      > It sounds like God to me. I suspect that virtually everyone would
      >think that God is the most likely candidate for the designer implied by ID
      >theory


      no kidding.


      >(although Phil is holding out for "self-design," whatever that might
      >be). The theory itself, however, makes no speculations as to the identity
      >and nature of the designer. Its entire focus is on design detection, not
      >designer detection.


      that is true, at least for the ID publicists.
      Obviously all the foots oldiers think it's God
      and that they are "defending God" (as if God
      needed it!). The "we don't speculate on the
      identity of the designer" is a ploy intended to
      evade the 1st Amendment. It's a deception. Since
      the Dover trial it's a deception almost nobody believes any more.

      > ID theory and its theistic implications are two different things
      >(just as Darwinism and its atheistic implications are two different
      >things).


      there is no ID theory.

      >This is really not a hard point to grasp, but for whatever reason,
      >you refuse to take hold of it. Thus you consistently and falsely describe
      >ID theory as religion rather than science.


      it is religion. You haven't shown us a shred of a
      hint of why we should regard it as science or
      even tried to make a case that it can be
      considered science. You focus on ad hominem
      against Darwin himself (As if Beelzebub couldn't
      come up with a valid scientific theory) and you
      talk about religious issues like "meaning" and
      "materialism." I haven't seen a single scientific
      thing about ID that has no reference to evolution-bashing.


      >Consider your description in
      >light of these facts: The core concepts of ID theory are specified
      >complexity, complex specified information, and irreducible complexity (much
      >like the core concepts of Darwinism are variation and natural selection).


      yet there is no definition of what "complex
      specified information" might be or how you can
      detect it. All the blather about it boils down to
      "See! It looks complex!" You know what a fairy ring is?

      http://fp.bio.utk.edu/Mycology/images/Chlorophyllum_molybdites.htm

      It is an example of specified complexity. So much
      so, that for centuries people assumed an
      intelligence was behind it. Of course, they knew
      nothing about the reproductive cycle of fungi. We
      do now. Bye-bye specified complexity. Fairy rings
      are a product of variation and natural selection.
      There are many, many examples of irreducible
      complexity Behe could have used in his book, but
      he didn't use them, because how they evolved is
      very well understood. All Behe did was suggest
      research projects for his colleagues. Behe didn't
      do the research himself because he needed a hole
      in our knowledge that he could stuff God into.
      "It CAN'T have evolved! God did it!" His
      irreducible complexity argument is identical to
      Gish's bombardier beetle argument which dates back to at least 1977.


      >Its tools include advanced probability theory, information theory,
      >recursion theory, stochastic process theory, biochemistry, biophysics,
      >molecular biology, microbiology, biology, paleontology, genetics, computer
      >science, the explanatory filter, and philosophy of science. If you want to
      >insist that ID is religion, then please identify which of those concepts,
      >or which of those tools, is religious rather than scientific.


      see above. They are a rehash of old creationist arguments

      >I've been a
      >Christian most of my life and I know what a religion looks like. ID looks
      >nothing like a religion to me (which is not to say that theists can't get
      >some theistic mileage out of the theory's theistic implications - much like
      >atheists can get some atheistic mileage out of Darwinism's atheistic
      >implications).


      ID is religion because there is nothing, nada,
      zilch that can ever prove it wrong. There is a
      huge list of things that could have (and didn't)
      prove evolution wrong. I've listed several
      before. The fossil record could have no pattern
      but just be a jumble with the same array of
      fossils in every strata. The DNA of all living
      things could be the same way. A jumble. The same
      DNA would be responsible for the eye from
      organism to organism. The same DNA would be
      responsible for a limb or a liver or a heart,
      with no pattern across species. But it's not how
      it is. There are 40 different kinds of eyes.
      Almost all mammals can manufacture vitamin C in
      their bodies from elephants to naked mole rats.
      Guinea pigs can't. Chimps can't. Humans can't. We
      three (and probably a few others) can't
      manufacture vitamin C. We have to eat it in food.
      Guinea pigs are native to South America. Humans
      and chimps both come from Africa. Not only did
      Chimps and humans originate in the same place but
      we resemble each other physically and
      behaviorally. Guess what? We, all three, have a
      broken vitamin C gene. But Guinea pigs have
      theirs broken in a different place and a
      different way. Humans and chimps have the SAME
      gene broken in the SAME place, in the SAME way.

      The truth is, if evolution were NOT true, if
      there was no evidence to support it, it might
      have been popular for a while among some 19th
      century atheists, but it would never have become
      the robust, worldwide theory it is today.


      > Clare: "Darwin's 'evolutionary theory' is a Weltanschauung hiding
      >behind the skirts of the institution of science."
      > Susan: "uh, yeah, agricultural and medical advances are based on a
      >worldview, not actual science. Gotcha. *Do* you take a flu shot every
      >year?"
      >
      > Medical advances owe nothing to Darwinism.


      hahahahah!!!!

      >The modern practice of
      >immunization, for example, originated in the 1790s, when English physician
      >Edward Jenner (who obviously knew nothing about Darwinism) developed the
      >smallpox vaccine. Similarly, Darwinism played no role in Alexander
      >Fleming's discovery of penicillin or in the subsequent purification of
      >penicillin into a clinically useful form (by Howard Florey and Ernst
      >Chain).


      Darwin plays a huge role in the use of
      antibiotics, though, because bacteria evolve so
      quickly. Penicillin is used very little today
      because most bacteria have evolved around it.
      Clare won't take last year's flu shot because she
      knows the viruses are constantly evolving.
      Evolutionary biologists are always watching for
      the new strains of virus so they know how to formulate this year's vaccine.

      I also heard recently that evolutionary biology
      is involved in the understanding of how cancer
      works. There was a nice piece on NPR about it.



      > Harvard biologist Marc W. Kirshner (himself a Darwinist) lamented
      >the uselessness of Darwinism in this way: "Over the last one hundred years,
      >almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except
      >evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology,
      >have not taken evolution into account at all."

      A Templeton guy. Actually a kind of creationist.


      > Echoing Kirshner, chemist Philip S. Skell (member, US National
      >Academy of Sciences)


      and a creationist


      > Susan: "The whole Hitler/Darwin thing is just propaganda. It's ad
      >homimem."
      >
      > Actually, it's not "ad hominem" (see above). No one here has argued
      >that the Darwin/Hitler link does anything to discredit the scientific
      >legitimacy of Darwinian evolutionary theory. The argument that has actually
      >been made (as you've been reminded repeatedly) is that Darwinism has had
      >(and continues to have) adverse moral and social effects that go far beyond
      >its scientific merits. The influence Darwinism exerted on Hitler and other
      >Nazi theorists demonstrates its adverse moral/social effects.



      There is no evidence at all that Darwinism has
      had "adverse moral and social effects." In fact
      if you look at the arc of the century and a half
      since Darwin you will see that the spread of
      humanism has hugely improved the morality of the
      world in general from the elimination of slavery
      to the criminalizing of spouse abuse. The only
      place you get genocide and mass murder these days
      is places where Darwin is not understood and
      education in general is very poor. The safest and
      most peaceful places on the planet are the places
      were Darwin is well taught and widely accepted.
      Compare anywhere in Alabama with anywhere in Sweden.


      >GLASS HOUSES
      >
      > Susan: "As it gets less religious a society gets more peaceful,
      >compassionate and
      >inclusive. The least religious countries in the world are the most peaceful
      >and have the lowest crime rates."
      >
      > To garner confirming evidence for your claim, you need only point
      >to the former Soviet Union, an officially godless state.


      I'm comparing Atlanta to Oslo. Those places still actually exist.


      >For decades, that
      >"peaceful, compassionate and inclusive" society was governed by a series of
      >kindhearted atheist dictators. The freedoms and prosperity enjoyed by the
      >Soviet people were the envy of oppressed peoples everywhere. The USSR was,
      >as everyone knows, a beacon of hope to a desperate world.


      I like to compare the USSR to 14th Century Europe
      when church and state were the same thing.
      Christianity has a long blood-soaked history. You probably shouldn't go there.

      Stalin had the ground perfectly prepared for him
      by the Russian Orthodox Church which had also
      trained him for his career. He had millions of
      people, all believers, who were accustomed to
      follow whatever the authority du jure told them
      to do. Freethinkers don't involve themselves in
      cults of personality but, boy-howdy, believers do.



      > Susan: "...you are in the camp that believes morality has no actual
      >intrinsic value."
      >
      > Actually, I believe no such thing. But since my attempts to explain
      >my thoughts on morality to you have been fruitless, there's no point in
      >repeating them. I've found no way to penetrate your willful
      >misunderstanding of the things I've said about morality.


      if morality is valuable in and of itself it is
      irrelevant whether God exists or not. Your
      argument appears to be: "No god, therefore no
      morality." It seems you are saying that if there
      is no god there is no point to morality.
      Obviously that is not the case. Morality is vital
      to our survival whether God exists or not.



      > Susan: "I have read a ton of ID literature. Including works by Behe
      >and Dembski. Gah. It's trash too."
      >
      > Get specific. What books by Behe and Dembski have you read? And if
      >you read them, why do you persist in making so many false claims about ID?

      I've read their essays on line. My husband buys
      and reads their books. I'm an old lady and have to watch my blood pressure.

      I make "false" claims about ID because I can see
      through their lies and flim-flam. Pity you can't.


      > Susan: "...you didn't hasten to add any merits ID has. Any
      >scientific advanced brought about because of it. Any research project
      >ongoing inspired by it. Nada. That is because it is not there."
      >
      > Actually, it is there, and I've previously pointed out research
      >inspired by ID. Nothing, it seems, makes it past the barrier you've erected
      >to keep all knowledge of ID out of your mind.


      you have? I missed it. What research is "inspired" by ID?


      > Susan: "(Dembski) has nothing at all new to offer."
      >
      > Assuming you're honest, a statement like this simply confirms that
      >you've either not read or not understood Dembski.


      his ideas are identical to the ideas of
      creationists from 30 years ago. He has nothing at
      all new to offer except some puffed up wording.
      He's renamed some old ideas and we are supposed
      to fall down in a swoon. Don't hold your breath
      while you wait for me to go along with it.

      Susan




      ----------
      Author of "Violet Crime" on Amazon Shorts
      "Imagine an insinuating saxophone and you will
      know what it was like to meet Violet HarrisÂ…"
      http://tinyurl.com/2a33u4


      Explore with me the worlds of my imagination:
      http://www.coganbooks.net
    • Alan-
      ... __ROTFL!! If darwinism is a theory , then the negation of it is a theory . Using, of course, the clear and articulated definition of darwinism that I
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 3, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >>...there is no ID theory...

        __ROTFL!! If "darwinism" is a "theory", then the negation of it is a
        "theory".

        Using, of course, the clear and articulated definition of "darwinism"
        that I have elaborated many times ad nauseum on this forum.

        If "darwinism" is "science", then so is "creationism", and much more so
        is the proposition that one might find patterns that suggest
        "intelligent design" in the study of natural phenomena.

        The principle is the same one upon which is predicated a
        multi-million-dollar project called SETI, the brainchild of one of the
        most famous atheists and scientists on the planet, one Carl Sagan!

        Never mind that the kind of structure that would imply intelligent
        design within SETI are so much more simplified that the kinds of
        structures studied in ID, that this denial of ID is all obviously
        backward to anybody open to truth!

        And the only objections they can come up with against applying the same
        principle to biology, or cosmology for that matter are:

        __1__Its proponents have religious motivations.

        __2__It is a religious idea.

        (When pressed for what makes the principle different for studying radio
        patterns of extraterrestrial origin, they plead based on the
        implications in biology or cosmology, and always want to discuss
        religious motivations)

        __3__The "authorities" forbid it!

        __4__When all else fails, impugn the messenger, and claim subterfuge.

        --Alan
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.