Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

[reggieM]

Unfortunately for the DI, their camouflage was not quite good enough and they lost as Dover.

I believe this was already mentioned once on this thread.

Judge Jones declared that ID is not science.

I mean, how much more authoritative can you get?

 

[edwest2]

Yes. The Discovery Institute has carefully designed their concept of “Intelligent Design” to avoid the legal decisions against teaching Creationism in science classes in US public schools. The design also incorporates enough resemblance to real science to make it appear to many non-scientists that ID is actually scientific when in fact it is not.

DI ID is a very good example of something that is designed, and also deliberately camouflaged to be something it is not.

Unfortunately for the DI, their camouflage was not quite good enough and they lost as Dover. Since then they have basically dropped ID and moved on to “Teach the Controversy”, having manufactured a false controversy to start with.

rossum

And here it is again. A call to man the barricades of the public classroom. What is coming next? Backpack searches to ensure that some student doesn’t bring in ID literature?

Yes, it took a while to eject God from the classroom and any threat must be opposed. That said, I am all for ID as a valid scientific theory. And contrary to the stereotype, I’m not advocating putting it into the public school science classroom. It wouldn’t hurt, I think, to examine it further.

May I recommend:

uncommondescent.com/

For the record, I have not and will not donate any money to any Institute like the Discovery Institute.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

I believe this was already mentioned once on this thread.

Judge Jones declared that ID is not science.

I mean, how much more authoritative can you get?

I forgot.

 

[rossum]

how do we know it [design] when we see it?

When we can see designer(s) who had the means and opportunity to design the object in question and there is evidence that they actually did it.

If I find an aluminium cylinder block in a palaeolithic deposit I can be sure that is was not designed by palaeolithic man because they did not have the means to design (or to manufacture) it.

If I find a stone arrowhead in a pre-Columbian American deposit I can be sure that it was not designed by New Zealand Maoris because they did not have the opportunity to do so.

If I find a pebble in a 50 BCE deposit in Italy I cannot be sure that it was designed by the Romans because it shows no evidence of having been designed.

The proposed ID designer(s) lack any means, since the ID side has never provided any evidence as to what they can or cannot do. The proposed ID designer(s) lack any opportunity, since the ID side has never provided any evidence as to when or where they operated.

The ID side does claim to have some evidence of bare design, but so far this evidence is unconvincing and can be explained by alternative mechanisms. In particular the mathematical calculation of CSI for various proposed designed biological entities is sorely lacking. ID needs to do a lot more basic research before it can even come close to being considered science. Currently it is not science.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I believe this was already mentioned once on this thread.

Judge Jones declared that ID is not science.

I mean, how much more authoritative can you get?

Judge Jones was asked by both sides to decide whether or not ID was science. Both sides presented their evidence and the ID side lost.

If you have more evidence to present then you are at liberty to go to court and present it.

rossum

 

[Betterave]

So I point out that your argument has no content and you give me more of the same nonsense? You don’t even ATTEMPT to respond to my specific criticisms of your views? And you consider yourself to be rational?

You guys are hilarious. Really - there’s abundant, overwhelming evidence that ID is not considered ‘science’ by scientists, or by your pope. But no - your personal opinions are somehow more valid than this irrefutable evidence. You know better than all these scientists, you know better than the pope*. Silly old scientists, silly old popey - can’t they see the truth?

Silly Wanstronian, I never said I knew better than these people, I simply asked you for an argument for your position with some substance. Wishful thinking on my part.

This lack of rationality is actually quite common in people - if the evidence doesn’t match your personal opinion, the evidence must be wrong (think homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki etc.). Sadly for you, the reality is very different - the evidence is what it is, it’s objective, publicly accessible and consistent. And by continuing to deny the FACTS, you just expose your closed-mindedness and lack of rational thought, for all to see. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Which FACTS, buddy? The fact that you are arrogant and closed-minded and haven’t presented anything close to a substantive argument yet, just a bunch of stupid straw- mans?

Still - we already knew that evidence is irrelevant to theistic belief - why should things change now?

I can’t see any point continuing in this thread - the ID arguments have been demolished again, and yet you continue to deny the facts. You’re wrong, but too arrogant to admit it. What’s the point in continuing to debate with people who’ll argue that black is white?

Well the reason that I continue to argue with you is because IT IS POSSIBLE that you may get over your arrogant closed-minded dogmatism and actually offer an intelligent response to my criticisms of your views - although, granted, it may not be likely.

*Not that I think the pope provides a particularly good example of rational thought.

Yeah, same for that bonehead John Henry Newman, right?

 

[buffalo]

When we can see designer(s) who had the means and opportunity to design the object in question and there is evidence that they actually did it.

If I find an aluminium cylinder block in a palaeolithic deposit I can be sure that is was not designed by palaeolithic man because they did not have the means to design (or to manufacture) it.

If I find a stone arrowhead in a pre-Columbian American deposit I can be sure that it was not designed by New Zealand Maoris because they did not have the opportunity to do so.

If I find a pebble in a 50 BCE deposit in Italy I cannot be sure that it was designed by the Romans because it shows no evidence of having been designed.

The proposed ID designer(s) lack any means, since the ID side has never provided any evidence as to what they can or cannot do. The proposed ID designer(s) lack any opportunity, since the ID side has never provided any evidence as to when or where they operated.

The ID side does claim to have some evidence of bare design, but so far this evidence is unconvincing and can be explained by alternative mechanisms. In particular the mathematical calculation of CSI for various proposed designed biological entities is sorely lacking. ID needs to do a lot more basic research before it can even come close to being considered science. Currently it is not science.

rossum

So it is agreed that design exists and can be detected. What is the issue then if it is studied further? Isn’t that what science does?

 

[buffalo]

Judge Jones was asked by both sides to decide whether or not ID was science. Both sides presented their evidence and the ID side lost.

If you have more evidence to present then you are at liberty to go to court and present it.

rossum

The Truth About the Dover Intelligent Design Trial - Responses to Dover Ruling

 

[buffalo]

Dover in Review, Part 1: Is Judge Jones an activist judge?

 

[edwest2]

Judge Jones was asked by both sides to decide whether or not ID was science. Both sides presented their evidence and the ID side lost.

If you have more evidence to present then you are at liberty to go to court and present it.

rossum

I think the point about Judge Jones is that he is a Judge, not a scientist. In the game called Keep God Out Of The Classroom, the playing piece called a Judge is maneuvered to block the far right conspiracy.

In fact, whenever the alleged far right conspiracy appears, the preferred move is to go to court.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

If an obviously manufactured object is found on Mars, for example, do we automatically conclude it was not designed because no designer can be located?

God bless,
Ed

 

[lao_tzu]

Greetings.

A better description of ID is “creationism dressed up for court.”

The truly insurmountable objection to ID in the science classroom is fundamental: no curriculum. In order to teach ID, there has to actually be ID to teach. Beyond its aspirational definition, no such theory exists. An appeal to phenomena that “can be” better explained by appeal to an intelligent designer is no substitute for extant better explanations. At best, there are arguments against current hypotheses of biological evolution. And that’s at the very best. What’s missing are arguments for intelligent design to fill up classtime.

I am envisioning a class in support of Christianity made up solely of criticisms of the Qur’an, where a young Hindu at the back of the classroom timorously raises his hand, asking “When do we learn about Christianity?”

As ever, Jesse

 

[buffalo]

Greetings.

A better description of ID is “creationism dressed up for court.”

The truly insurmountable objection to ID in the science classroom is fundamental: no curriculum. In order to teach ID, there has to actually be ID to teach. Beyond its aspirational definition, no such theory exists. An appeal to phenomena that “can be” better explained by appeal to an intelligent designer is no substitute for extant better explanations. At best, there are arguments against current hypotheses of biological evolution. And that’s at the very best. What’s missing are arguments for intelligent design to fill up classtime.

I am envisioning a class in support of Christianity made up solely of criticisms of the Qur’an, where a young Hindu at the back of the classroom timorously raises his hand, asking “When do we learn about Christianity?”

As ever, Jesse

How about this? Only empirical science in the science classroom. ID and evolution in the philosophy class.

 

[Betterave]

Greetings.

A better description of ID is “creationism dressed up for court.”

The truly insurmountable objection to ID in the science classroom is fundamental: no curriculum. In order to teach ID, there has to actually be ID to teach. Beyond its aspirational definition, no such theory exists. An appeal to phenomena that “can be” better explained by appeal to an intelligent designer is no substitute for extant better explanations. At best, there are arguments against current hypotheses of biological evolution. And that’s at the very best. What’s missing are arguments for intelligent design to fill up classtime.

I am envisioning a class in support of Christianity made up solely of criticisms of the Qur’an, where a young Hindu at the back of the classroom timorously raises his hand, asking “When do we learn about Christianity?”

As ever, Jesse

Where are you getting your information from? (What you offered was pure assertion and it seems clear that you are mistaken about the conceptual structure of the ID argument.)

 

[wanstronian]

Won’t give a rational answer will you?

What’s irrational about not wanting to get drawn into an argument which will end in you being unable to prove anything, whilst still believing that you have?

Tell you what, why don’t you just iterate the whole argument for ID, as you see it. Then I can just point out the flaws at the end, instead of getting drawn into a tedious dialogue.

 

[buffalo]

What’s irrational about not wanting to get drawn into an argument which will end in you being unable to prove anything, whilst still believing that you have?

Tell you what, why don’t you just iterate the whole argument for ID, as you see it. Then I can just point out the flaws at the end, instead of getting drawn into a tedious dialogue.

I was proceeding, but you would not answer the questions.

 

[wanstronian]

Since you are hones enough to acknowledge that design exists (the other guy won’t), how do we know it when we see it?

I won’t admit it? Talk about dishonest representation of your opponent. You just weren’t specific.

Don’t blame me for not wanting to play patsy to your bad arguments. Just present the whole argument and stop fooling around.

 

[edwest2]

Greetings.

A better description of ID is “creationism dressed up for court.”

The truly insurmountable objection to ID in the science classroom is fundamental: no curriculum. In order to teach ID, there has to actually be ID to teach. Beyond its aspirational definition, no such theory exists. An appeal to phenomena that “can be” better explained by appeal to an intelligent designer is no substitute for extant better explanations. At best, there are arguments against current hypotheses of biological evolution. And that’s at the very best. What’s missing are arguments for intelligent design to fill up classtime.

I am envisioning a class in support of Christianity made up solely of criticisms of the Qur’an, where a young Hindu at the back of the classroom timorously raises his hand, asking “When do we learn about Christianity?”

As ever, Jesse

I see, so books like Signature in the Cell don’t exist? I suggest you pick up a copy.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

I won’t admit it? Talk about dishonest representation of your opponent. You just weren’t specific.

Don’t blame me for not wanting to play patsy to your bad arguments. Just present the whole argument and stop fooling around.

OK - we will start again.

Does design exist? Yes or No

 

[wanstronian]

Ok, you seem to be saying that there are no credentialed, legitimate scientists who support ID as science.

I didn’t say that. Stop misrepresenting me. Oh, I forgot, that’s the only way you have a chance in this argument.

Again, I already posted a journal that features scientists who support ID.

Here’s David Abel and Kurt Thurston’s peer reviewed paper on the science of Intelligent Design:

tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47

This article does not mention Intelligent Design at any point. ID may have hijacked some of the science here and falsely stated that it supports the hypothesis, but if so, it’s a lie.

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
discovery.org/a/2640

I could go through all these, but don’t have the time. However:

• The first one appears in a compilation document edited by - surprise! - ID activists
• The second one does not discuss biological evolution or ID at all, and has been co-opted by the DI under false pretenses.
• The third one is a journal edited by Richard Sternberg, a noted ID advocate. From Wikipedia: “He was the editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington who controversially handled the review and editing process of the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal advocating intelligent design. The journal subsequently declared that the paper “does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings” and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.” See this link for the statement.

And so it goes on. Nothing of any credibility here, I’m afraid.

You already saw the atheist, Bradley Monton who supports Intelligent Design:
Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design

He doesn’t support it - in fact he believes it’s false. (Have you actually checked out any of the BS you’re linking here?)

Here’s an atheist/scientist who opposes Intelligent Design but argues that ID is legitimate scientific research:

csicop.org/si/show/design_yes_intelligent_no_a_critique_of_intelligent_design_theory_and_neocr/However, Behe does have a point concerning irreducible complexity. It is true that some structures simply cannot be explained by slow and cumulative processes of natural selection. From his mousetrap to Paley’s watch to the Brooklyn Bridge, irreducible complexity is indeed associated with intelligent design.

Dembski is absolutely correct that plenty of human activities, such as SETI, investigations into plagiarism, or encryption, depend on the ability to detect intelligent agency.

… irreducible complexity is indeed a valid criterion to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent design …

Wow - that whole article is dedicated towards showing why ID is a crock, yet you still have the gall to cherry-pick a few sentences and present them out of context. You really are desperate!

Here’s a partial list of scientists supporting Intelligent Design

biologicinstitute.org/people/

The Biologic Institute is underwritten by the Discovery Institute. Need I say more?

So again, your opinion conflicts with scholars who are far more credentialed in science than you are.

But, dumbkopf, I’m not stating it’s my opinion against theirs (even if your list was as robust as you seem to think it is). It’s you who is saying that, **you **who is building an argument on lies. I have listed several organisations (and there are plenty more) who represent hundreds of thousands of scientists and teachers who say that ID is not science. I gave you the quotes, I gave you the links. Check them out. It is **they **who demolish your piddling list, not I alone. Grow up - if you can’t win an argument honestly, then stop arguing. I’d hate to have to lie to win an argument - clearly you’re not troubled by such considerations.