Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 10-04-2002, 11:01 PM

But Filo, he's waiting for the weekend....

rebelnerd · 10-04-2002, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
But Filo, he's waiting for the weekend....

He must run on biblical time then, one day is like a thousand years....

Filo

KnightWhoSaysNi · 10-05-2002, 06:30 AM

It looks like we have another "scigirl" who's great at stickin' it to the creationists! (jealous, scigirl?

) She's certainly mopped the floor with them.

I like this quote in response to Jason:

Incidentally, I wonder what their mods axed out from her post. Did anyone see it?

Quote:

Jason wrote:
The ironic part of this is, of course, that Darwinists themselves are limiting scientific discovery with their insular outlook, perversely preferring the sanctity of ego-stroking rectitude over Truth (scientific). Paradigmatic inertia is the enemy of Thought.

Deanna:
My goodness, the pot is calling the kettle burned, here.

Tell me, instead, how your amorphous "design" can make a biotech some money. I can counter with how evolutionary theory is already doing that. Let's get down to the bottom line, here.

Evolutionary theory works, and [moderated, see private messages for explanation]

So, Jason, as you decided to jump in, I offer you these challenges:

- Show me, with one example, and have data to back it up, a unique prediction that intelligent design can make for biological systems that evolutionary theory cannot make in kind. I have several of the converse to offer.

- Make a prediction for the behavior or characteristics of any genome we will observe that is currently in sequencing, with ideas behind "intelligent design". Feel free to add mathematical equations if necessary.

- Make a prediction on human mutational patterns based on "intelligent design" that evolutionary theory does not also independently predict. That is, is there anything that "intelligent design" can predict on the variation in human alleles as we see them today?

- Make a prediction on the arrangement of the genomes of bonobo, gorrilla, orang, etc. etc. in terms of their similarities to the human genome. se intelligent design to argue why these genomes must or must not be highly similar. Cite why differences in these genomes must or must not be dependent or interdependent. Use computer analysis to back up your claims.

I can come up with more, because these are studies that if they're not completed or being done now, will be done eventually. If you expect "intelligent design" is such a whiz-bang theory, then I expect you will have NO trouble in attacking any of those problems with mathematical rigour and gusto, like evolutionists have, can, and will. Enjoy

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]

Clutch · 10-05-2002, 07:33 AM

Deanna M. Taylor! I think I'm in love.

What a lucid and forceful way of capturing a systematic feature of the dependence structure of protein/expression relationships (if I'm understanding correctly) that is predicted by the incremental and contingent process of evolution, but must be utterly down to god's whim on ID. (Like everything on ID.)

Clutch · 10-05-2002, 07:39 AM

And love the way Dembski is playing to type, a la the old joke:

Creationist: Notice the missing link between these two fossils.

Paleontologist: Actually, this recently discovered fossil is an intermediary between the two you mention.

Creationist: Hah! Look, now there's two links missing!

Another gorgeous line of thought: A poster mentions Behe's claim that there is no literature on the evolution of the immune system. Points out elements of a very large literature on that very topic, supply references, links and abstracts. IDology chorus: Stop "literature bombing"!

S2Focus · 10-05-2002, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
But Filo, he's waiting for the weekend....

But wait -- isn't he being paid a salary to be a full-time ID "theorist"? It would seem to me that Dembski should have plenty of time to participate in a thread that *he started*, on a discussion board sponsored by an organization that *he founded*. After all, what else is there for a salaried, full-time ID "theorist" to do? (As far as I can tell, research and teaching loads for ID "theorists" are pretty minimal.)

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: S2Focus ]

RufusAtticus · 10-05-2002, 09:19 AM

I'm guessing that the missing material is along the lines of "ID does not work."

Albion · 10-05-2002, 09:46 AM

Quote:

But wait -- isn't he being paid a salary to be a full-time ID "theorist"? It would seem to me that Dembski should have plenty of time to participate in a thread that *he started*, on a discussion board sponsored by an organization that *he founded*.

Wouldn't you think? But this seems to be the way he operates. He started a thread a while back at ARN attacking another ID supporter, and then didn't bother to come back and defend his position. But since the gist of his post was that research is now irrelevant to the ID Wedge project and they're going straight for propaganda (sorry, publicity), I suppose that he's being consistent by making statements designed to stake out a position and then not engage in discussion.

Coragyps · 10-05-2002, 01:13 PM

FWIW, my daughter just forwarded the following, titled "God or Luck?" from the e-newspaper at Tulane:

Quote:

Who do you think you are? An act of God or just another monkey's uncle?
Two evolutionists will argue whether random mutation or an "Intelligent
Designer" is responsible for life as we know it in "God or Luck?" Oct. 7 at
7:30 p.m. in the University Center's Kendall Cram Room. Baylor University
professor Bill Dembski will take the Intelligent Design stance against
Tulane's aptly named professor Steven Darwin. Free and open to all fully
upright walking primates.

Two evolutionists? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

RufusAtticus · 10-05-2002, 04:21 PM

Well most "pure" IDers are technically evolutionists in the classcial sense, where "evolutionists" accept universal common descent, and "creationists" believe in special creation. That is why IDers usually argue against Darwinism, not evolution.

However, most of the politcal support for IDiot ideas comes from creationists.

In reality, the ID movement rus the gambit from evolutionists (but anti-Darwinists) to hard-core special creationists.

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

10-05-2002, 04:21 PM	#40
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Well most "pure" IDers are technically evolutionists in the classcial sense, where "evolutionists" accept universal common descent, and "creationists" believe in special creation. That is why IDers usually argue against Darwinism, not evolution. However, most of the politcal support for IDiot ideas comes from creationists. In reality, the ID movement rus the gambit from evolutionists (but anti-Darwinists) to hard-core special creationists. [ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2002, 11:01 PM	#31
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	But Filo, he's waiting for the weekend....

10-05-2002, 07:33 AM	#34
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Deanna M. Taylor! I think I'm in love. What a lucid and forceful way of capturing a systematic feature of the dependence structure of protein/expression relationships (if I'm understanding correctly) that is predicted by the incremental and contingent process of evolution, but must be utterly down to god's whim on ID. (Like everything on ID.)

10-05-2002, 07:39 AM	#35
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	And love the way Dembski is playing to type, a la the old joke: Creationist: Notice the missing link between these two fossils. Paleontologist: Actually, this recently discovered fossil is an intermediary between the two you mention. Creationist: Hah! Look, now there's two links missing! Another gorgeous line of thought: A poster mentions Behe's claim that there is no literature on the evolution of the immune system. Points out elements of a very large literature on that very topic, supply references, links and abstracts. IDology chorus: Stop "literature bombing"!

10-05-2002, 09:19 AM	#37
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I'm guessing that the missing material is along the lines of "ID does not work."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.