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

Introduction

Expand Messages
  • joshuaschroeder
    Hello all. After being ruled in violation of a number of CED rules while earlier creationists blatantly slandered me without criticism from SEJ, I left the
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all.

      After being ruled in violation of a number of CED rules while
      earlier creationists blatantly slandered me without criticism from
      SEJ, I left the group.

      It is nice to join this group.
    • distazo@aol.com
      J Schroeder: Hello all. After being ruled in violation of a number of CED rules while earlier creationists blatantly slandered me without criticism from SEJ, I
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        J Schroeder:
        Hello all.

        After being ruled in violation of a number of CED rules while
        earlier creationists blatantly slandered me without criticism from
        SEJ, I left the group.

        It is nice to join this group.

        John:
        Hi Joshua,
        Welcome to the group. It was fitting that Steve flubbed his line when he posted your farewell message to his group:

               I commend Joshua for doing the honourable thing
               and unsubscribing when he found he could not
               accept my Moderatorship of CED.

               In my defence I will only say (as I have said many
               times before) that if it wasn't for my `no nonsense'
               style of Moderating CED,

        *** highlighted text ****
               there would have long since been any CED for
               Joshua to have joined in the first place! ***
        *** end highlighted text ***

               Stephen E. Jones
               MODERATOR

        I'm sure Steve wanted us to believe the opposite of this, that there would have long since been *NO* CED for Joshua to have joined in the first place.  I'm not sure anyone here would agree with Steve that this is worth him defending.

        Fortunately, anti-CED will be around as long as it needs to be, so that anyone who wants to comment on Steve and his ILK over at CED is free to do so.

        I hope you enjoy your time here. Pull up one of Steve's inane or ridiculous posts and make yourself at home.  You have a large selection to choose from.

        John
      • joshuaschroeder
        Thanks for the welcome. I have started a new yahoogroup with the intent of discussing the origins of the Intelligent Design movement both in recent history
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for the welcome.

          I have started a new yahoogroup with the intent of discussing the
          origins of the Intelligent Design "movement" both in recent history
          and philosohpically. It is my contention that "Intelligent Design"
          has its roots in many distinct kinds of pseudoscience which, when
          meshed together, really frightens those who, unlike most in this
          group, are not familiar with science.

          One) the science of "intelligence" which is at best a speculative
          pseudoscience and at worst superstition has been adopted by the
          IDers precisely because it affords them no responsibility toward
          scientific rigor with respect to the subject of "intelligence".
          Indeed, there doesn't even exist a scientific definition for the
          subject based on dispassionate, empirical observation.

          Two) "Design" is used as a catch-all phrase to be an adjective
          describing any process that has a functional purpose. With such a
          broad definition, it is nearly impossible for the neo-creationists
          to be incorrect in their descriptions of scientific fact.

          Three) Advanced God-in-the-gaps-ism. This takes the form of the
          typical arguments from incredulity about the vast array of
          particulars that skeptical science does NOT have an answer for. By
          focusing on the lack of certain particulars, the other evidence can
          be ignored and God can be invoked as the justification for why
          science hasn't "figured it out yet" since they aren't using the
          correct theistic assumptions. Whenever an argument in support ofthe
          evolutionary paradigm is made, the neo-creationists try to change
          the subject to one that either isn't as well-developed or that is
          irrelevant with the arrogant challenge that if science can't figure
          thus-and-such out it cannot be trusted in general. Which brings me
          to

          Three)a) Fine-tuning and anthropic arguments implying theistic
          causation. This is an even more advanced for of God-in-the-gapsism
          because it relies on a contextual argument that fits into creation
          mythologies very nicely.

          Four) An inappropriate amalgamation of information science with
          system development that ignores larger contexts in expressly non-
          scientific fashions. I would first point out Dembski's horrendous
          work in this field, but more than that this can be seen as just
          another corruption of the second law of thermodynamics. The neo-
          creationists just don't want to admit that there is a well-defined
          relationship between entropy, order, and information and that, given
          this fact, the availability of free energy in massive amounts
          compared to the biosphere's order is not even statsitically
          significant.

          Five) A confusion between complexity and order which is actually a
          logical contradiction. The most complex of systems actually have the
          least information and therefore the least order. The equation of
          complexity=design is the tactic that Behe takes with the crucially
          irrelevant adjective "irreducible" tacked on in order to cover his
          bases so that if anyone actually makes the argument that was made in
          the previous sentence he can argue over what "irreducible" means
          rather than what "complexity" means. I imagine that if Behe and
          Dembski were to actually discuss their ideas dispassionately, you'd
          find that they would be in complete disagreement. However, don't
          count on this happening because, above all, neo-creationists don't
          worry too much about problems within their own formulations in order
          to put on the show that they aren't pseudoscientific in the Thomas
          Kuhn sense.

          Six) A foot-in-the-door approach to science which relies on holding
          onto scientific fact that they like while pushing an anti-scientific
          agenda against facts they don't like.

          Here is the homepage to join my group:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/intelligent_design/?yguid=41214144

          Anyone is welcome to join.

          (This post was cross-listed with the intelligent_design group).
        • jdbeadle@hotmail.com
          ... Welcome to Anti-CED. If you ever miss the ole SEJ style of moderation or long for some of that unfairness (albeit in a different) context... feel free to
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anti-CED@yahoogroups.com, "joshuaschroeder" <jschroed@p...>
            wrote:
            > Thanks for the welcome.
            >

            Welcome to Anti-CED. If you ever miss the ole SEJ style of
            moderation or long for some of that unfairness (albeit in a
            different) context... feel free to join Chicken_Talk and be scolded
            by their MODERATOR Senior E. Clucky. Not to be confused with me,
            JB, who is just a regular player and discusor of chickens. Senior
            E. Clucky's hero is SEJ and he tries his best to moderate
            Chicken_Talk like SEJ does CED. The only real rule at Chicken_Talk
            is to have the word "chicken" in your post... but Senior E. Clucky
            can be pretty anal about that one!

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