E_muse

I agreed with your point that what constitutes intelligence should be defined and that attacking evolution is not proof of design. I used Koons as an example of a ID theist who has said this. I said:

I have now provided a link to an article by him which presumably represents what, for him at least, provides some evidence of proof for ID.

As quite a strong agnostic/ex-fundamentalist I wouldn't find an ID hypothesis easy to defend. However, I would try in order to kick start the type of debate Bubba was looking for. I thus have given a link which provides a case in point of what an ID proponent would argue so that it can be openly critiqued and Bubba in particular could examine it for himself.

Principia

OK, E_muse, fair enough. It seems to me that you are playing a devil's advocate position, then, given your strong agnostic stance? In any case, the ensuing discussion has pretty much escaped the focus that pz and others were looking for -- that is, biological data for the support of ID. After all, the ID movement's dominant focus is on the theory of evolution, wouldn't you agree? Koons aside, what other positive evidence is there?

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

E_muse

I would tend to disagree. It hasn't escaped the focus of the initial request. Bubba was the one who initially request an arguement. He said (as I'm sure you're aware):

Bubba seemed to say that he was looking for any evidence for an ID arguement.

When 'pz' was displeased with some of the responses he simply said:

Again, nowher did pz state that this should be biological although I have pointed out above that I think the initial question would have been better off in EoG forum.

If you want an ID arguement from biology then I'm sure I could dig something up but I'm not really sure I can be bothered after this. I haven't seen a great deal of rational arguement springing from anything I've posted and the only responses from pz have been terse one liners that dismiss certain arguements as 'stupid' or creationists as 'ignorant', or when you present a philosophical arguement says 'Bleh'. It also seems from his above comment that he wishes to nurture a pack-dog mentality where people with opposing views are invited to get ripped apart rather than helped to see the opposite side of an arguement. And this is from a moderator?

Oh well. So much for being an online community dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, understanding and tolerance.

I shall take my search elsewhere.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

pz

Quite right. It's not evidence. It's rationalization, it's fantasy, it's playing games with infinitely malleable logic to arrive at a desired conclusion. You created a subject line that specifically says "EVIDENCE for ID", yet you demonstrate over and over again that you don't seem to understand what evidence actually is. Yeah, right. You promise us a nice ham and swiss on rye sandwich, and when we complain that you've only served us a squirt of mustard on a slice of Wonder bread, you accuse us of intolerance. Buh-bye.

Clutch

E_muse,

Please, for the third time, I ask you
So far you've done everything to avoid this.

And now, when the calls to provide it have become focussed and explicit, you apparently have conveniently decided to be too offended (by something that happened earlier, on a different thread) to stay and answer.

I think this should be known as "Vanderjecting from a crashing thread".

Albion

Speaking of which, is Vander still around?

E_muse

If you see my answer to Principia above this will make sense.

As an ex-fundamentalist/agnostic I have attempted to present some arguements that fundamentalists might present to enable Bubba (and others) to critique the arguements openly (and so I can learn more about why they are fallacious).

However, when I come onto a Philosophical Forum and a moderator says, "Bleh, philosophy", calls people idiots, invites others to rip opponents apart and only replies with terse one liners whilst demanding that his opponents present something of substance then I feel that I'm wasting my time. This is all under the umbrella of a site that seeks to offer tolerance and uphold the dignity of all mankind!

It just makes a mockery of the whole objective of this site and I've got better things to do than feed some collective intellectual bloodlust! I want to learn, not just have opinion and insult thrown at me.

E_muse

No. I put EVIDENCE for ID? leaving the question open and thus inviting discourse hoping that the issue would actually get discussed rather than watch a group of atheists pat each other on the back about how smart they are and how dumb their opponents must be.

I'll say it again.... I am an ex-fundamentalist/agnostic who has sought to provide the types of arguements presented by IDers so that I can examine the arguements.

However, all I have felt is the contempt with which this site holds those who hold opposing views. It's just that I can spend my time somewhere else actually learning something rather than hearing personal opinion and invective thrown out as though it is meant to be taken as fact without further embellishment.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

pz

Then you ought to understand that presenting idle speculation as if it were evidence is going to be treated dismissively.

And by the way, although biological evidence is preferable to me, I have no problem with you presenting evidence from physics or chemistry. That stuff from Koons is not evidence of any kind, however. Do you understand that yet? The site doesn't hold views. Some people on this site do hold that empty armwaving like that of Koons ought to be recognized for what it is, and will properly express their contempt for the claim that it constitutes evidence of any kind. Or do you think that you ought to be allowed to say what you will, but that everyone who disagrees with you ought to just shut up?

By the way, weren't you leaving?

Principia

E_muse, before the last 3 posts of yours, where did you explain that your motives were 'to examine the arguements' or 'to provide the types of arguements presented by IDers?' Your tone and style was consistent with someone advocating a particular stance, so I don't understand your faulting others for taking you to task. But, no matter.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>