I'll explain it to you. If you're intellectually dishonest but you keep your dishonest views to yourself, no problem. If you get together with other intellectually dishonest people and mumble your nonsense to each other, again no problem. If you come on to a public message board and start spouting your theories, you get shouted down. Isn't that our responsibility - to shout down crackpot views? Or should we all just avert our eyes and pretend we don't notice? That has been tried before, but the results weren't too good, right? Not sure if this is an Anglo thing or, as you seem to suggest, something that doesn't interest Francophones. I have no opinion on that. Let me be perfectly clear. This has nothing to do with ID. I am not so stupid as to assume that a belief in God, something that is shared by billions, makes a person intellectually dishonest. I am referring specifically to the pattern of assertion, evasion and personal attacks that have been put forward by the OP on this thread. You can have a belief informed by faith. Absolutely no problem. Just don't come on here and claim that your belief is based in fact. Facts like - magistrates are materialized out of pure potentiality and the earth is exactly 1,967,467,531 years old and you know the ontogenetic history of every species that ever existed on the planet and can predict the ontogenetic development of every species that exists now and will exist in the future. If you decide to do this, get ready to be shouted down.
"If you come on to a public message board and start spouting your theories, you get shouted down." Thank you very much for encapsulating what you and others are doing here. This is not a debate, nor an exchange of ideas and points of view, it is a mob like effort to shout down a point of view that is not favored. Attempting to "shout down" others is not a rational act, it is not a logical approach to discussion or debate....it is the act of those who need to control what others are saying in attempts to silence them. The responsibility of reasonable people is to calmly present reason and counter arguments, not try to "shout down" or apply techniques to silence those with a different point of view. That you support and participate in an effort to "shout down" the point of view of others is as far from the work of scientists as I can think of. It is immature at a minimum, and more that likely revelatory of some pathological condition where different points of view are found untenable. You have major control issues. Issues that cannot be addressed in this setting. I leave you to psychologists and other mental health professionals who can perhaps treat your condition, assuming you ever come to grips with it.
A perfect example of your technique. You willfully failed to cut and paste the entirety of my post, thus distorting its contents so that it would fit into your world view. A great example of the kind of intellectual dishonesty I was talking about. Yes, we will shout down superstition and evasion, not when it is kept to yourself, or shared with your weak- minded friends, but when you come on on to a public message board and post it as fact. I noticed that for probably the 10th time, you failed to address the issues I raised that specifically cited the assertions you have made re: ID and evolution, The post in question is the first one on this page, 59. We await your response. However, I can give the reader a sense of what it might be. "I don't like that question" My new favourite "My theory doesn't require specifics" (!!! - a good one, you must admit) "This is a personal attack" (notice that the post I cited asks a very specific question about statements the OP has made). "I don't think that question is worth answering" (my old favourite). "You need psychological help" (apparently a new favourite of the OP. After a while pure denial becomes untenable since the posts we are talking about are there for all to see). By the way, have you talked to Baron about your post count? 17 posts a day for 540 days? 175 posts in the last 54 hours? Couldn't be right, could it?
We tried that. It didn't work and you persisted in posting your garbage and claiming that it's fact. Every time we presented counter arguments, your response was "I don't like that question" "I don't think that question is worth answering" ""My theory doesn't require specifics" (this one is my new favourite). Every time we asked you for any type of backup or evidence for the claims, your response was "I think my assumptions are reasonable" So we asked you to admit that your beliefs are faith based and have no basis in fact. You wouldn't answer reasonably presented counter-arguments. Why? Obviously because you can't. This isn't the first time you've had this problem on a public message board, is it Z? You post on a few other message boards, don't you? Has this ever happened before, either here on ET or on any other message boards? Are we all crazy?
Further Thoughts On Intelligent Design Dean After looking at our recent discussion on Intelligent Design (see below) I noted one striking feature: No one said what they thought would happen if children in the science classroom were allowed to be told that there are unexplained problems in current evolutionary theory, or if they heard that some people â even some smart people! â believe there might be some sort of intelligent design behind much of what we see in biology. So far the strongest answer I've heard (it's the only answer I ever seem to hear, really) is that such a statement is "not science." To which I can only reply, "a belief to the contrary is not science either. Now, is a science classroom a good place for critical inquiry, or is it not?" Those who vigorously assert that any examination of the question of intelligent design behind life is, ipso facto, a "religion" and therefore has no place in the public schools or any science classroom have yet to convince me of their case. And yes, I've spent plenty of time reading the Talk.Origins archives, and I'm familiar with the Panda's Thumb people, and yes, I'm still an atheist, thank you very much. But let me tell you: I'm one atheist (and I don't think I'm alone) who takes a rather dim view of taking the concept of "separation of church and state" to such hysterical extremes that critical voices are silenced in, and books banned from, the classroom. Via Matt Rosenberg, I recently came across two interesting articles. The first was a piece by Jonathan Witt explaining why he thinks science supports the notion that life may be designed by some external force. I think he's probably wrong but I certainly don't think he's an idiot, nor do I think he has a subversive "hidden agenda." In the same paper, we also have an interesting piece by Huntington F. Willard, director of the Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy at Duke University. In it, he vigorously opposes any dissent from evolutionary theory being allowed into science classes. In reading Huntington's entire piece from top to bottom, two things struck me most powerfully: 1) He does not name one negative consequence of allowing such examination a place in the classroom, and 2) All of his arguments against it seem based on fear. Indeed, his entire thrust (if I make it out correctly) is that this is a "worrisome step" in the "wrong direction." Worrisome to whom? And what exactly is the worry? That a 6th grader, upon hearing "some people question whether natural selection can fully explain all we see of life on Earth" will suddenly plung a wooden stake into his agnostic classmate's heart? That soon we'll see scientists subjected to mass auto-de-fe in America? Look at any decent text on logical fallacies (this one at the atheistic "infidels.org" will do) and you'll find that Slippery Slope is among the most common logical fallacies that anyone â scientist or layman â can fall prey to. So I ask: what precisely is it that Dr. Willard and his intellectual compatriots fear? Phrased another way: what exactly would the Theory Of The Dangers Of Intelligent Design Discussions In The Science Classroom predict? One proposed solution to all this that I've heard almost makes sense. At least it seems like a nice compromise position upon first examination: let's have such questions raised in philosophy classes, or classes on comparative religion. But let me ask you this: Who out there would like to see a philosophy teacher, or a theology teacher, taking the school's science books and explaining the flaws she sees in the materials presented? Do you actually think that would be better than just letting the kids do their critical questioning in the science class? Inevitably someone in these discussions asks whether we should teach witchcraft, shamanism, astrology, or voodoo in the classroom. My response is, "show me who's proposing witchcraft in the classroom and we'll discuss their ideas." In the meantime, the question before us remains unchanged: is the science classroom a good place for exploring, questioning, and raising objections to a reigning scientific paradigm, or is it not? Here's Esmay's Maxim, which I've just made up on the spot: any scientific theory, no matter how well-founded or widely accepted, which cannot stand up on its own two legs and face questioning from a young mind without running like a scared puppy to the courts for protection deserves all the kicking around it can get. http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1103285777.shtml
Yep... looks like Z has had enough of the challenges to his claim that his faith-based beliefs should be treated as facts and that changes in school curricula should be informed by his personal opinions... Z, I'll just remind you and the reader of one of the last 8-10 questions you haven't answered, questions that specifically cite claims you have made regarding ID and evolution based on your personal belief system. This is from page 59 of this thread. _________________________________ How do you know? Is it because you think it's "reasonable to assume it"? Or is this one of those theories of yours that 'doesn't require specifics', as you said to kjkent in this thread? In fact, this seems to be untrue. We have seen dramatic changes in human lifespan over the past 20,000 years. Who is to say that all of it is because of technology? Z, has it occurred to you that we have only been observing these processes in a codified way for a short period of time, in terms of the development of the myriad species that have populated the earth since the beginning of time? How many species have lived and died since life began? Were you there to observe their lifespans to make sure that mutations didn't cause changes in life span? I said earlier that the lifespan of humans is bound to change over extremely long time frames. I mentioned 200,000 years. What about 1,000,000 years Z? Are you saying that you know that in 1,000,000 years, human lifespan will not have changed significantly through genetic mutation? Is that what you are saying? If so, why do you believe this? I asked you this once before. but for some reason we didn't get an answer...
WND Commentary Darwinism on defense Posted: December 19, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc. Among the most influential men of the 20th century were a pair of 19th-century scholars: Charles Darwin and Karl Marx. Recent years have not been kind to either. Marxism-Leninism, the ideology that welded together and drove the Soviet empire, has been discredited by the horrors it produced and the colossal failure of Marxist theory when put into practice. Comes now Darwin's turn. In his 1859 "The Origin of Species" and other works, Darwin posited his thesis that man is not the work of any Creator, but a being that evolved from lower forms of life out of the primordial ooze. In his "Politically Correct Guide to Science," Tom Bethell, who Tom Wolfe calls "one of our most brilliant essayists," has, in 36 pages, gathered and briefly described a few of the difficulties that Darwinists are facing in defending their dogmas against skeptics. For generations, scientists have searched for the "missing link" between ape and man. But not only is that link still missing, no links between species have been found. As Bethell writes, bats are the only mammals to have mastered powered flight. But even the earliest bats found in the fossil record have complex wings and built-in sonar. Where are the "half-bats" with no sonar or unworkable wings? Their absence does not prove â but does suggest â that they do not exist. Is it not time, after 150 years, that the Darwinists started to deliver and ceased to be taken on faith? In the Galapagos Islands, which Darwin visited in HMS Beagle in 1835, his later disciples discovered, after a drought, that the beaks of finches expanded 5 percent to help them crack the dried and hardened seeds â i.e., Darwinian adaptation. But when the rains returned, researchers found the beaks returned to normal size. No one denies "micro-evolution" â i.e., species adapting to their environment. It is macro-evolution that is in trouble. The Darwinian thesis of "survival of the fittest" turns out to be nothing but a tautology. How do we know existing species were the fittest? Because they survived. Why did they survive? Because they were the fittest. While clever, this tells us zip about why we have tigers. It is less a scientific theory than a notion masquerading as a fact. For those seeking the source of Darwin's "discovery," there is an interesting coincidence. Darwin and his collaborator Alfred Russel Wallace both read Thomas Malthus' famous "An Essay on the Principle of Population." Malthus theorized that since the production of food grew by small annual increments, while population was almost doubling with each generation, the struggle for food would lead to conflicts and wars in which only the strongest would survive. Bethell is not alone in suggesting Darwin smuggled Malthus' mid-Victorian political economy into biology. As Bertrand Russell observed, Darwin's theory is "essentially an extension to the animal and vegetable world of laissez-faire economics." Marx's ideas also seem to have a Malthusian root. Marx predicted that the great wealth spawned by capitalism would be accumulated by fewer and fewer capitalists. And as it was, the constant expansion and immiseration of the proletariat would lead to a workers' revolution in which the expropriators would be expropriated. This was catnip for anti-capitalists. But American capitalism proved Marx dead wrong. While U.S. capitalism did indeed create plutocrats, the years 1865 to 1914 saw historic gains in the incomes and well-being of workers. By World War I, to the rage of Lenin, even Marxists theoreticians were saying the old boy's theories needed some serious revision. There are other questions Darwinists need to answer. If believing that Christ raised people from the dead is a matter of faith â and it is â is not the Darwinist claim that nature created life out of non-life a matter of faith? If it is science, why can't scientists replicate it in microcosm in a laboratory? If scientists know life came from matter and matter from non-matter, why don't they show us how this was done, instead of asserting it was done, and calling us names for not taking their claims on faith? Clearly, a continued belief in the absolute truth of Darwinist evolution is but an act of faith that fulfills a psychological need of folks who have rejected God. That picture on the wall of the science class of apes on four legs, then apes on two legs, then homo erectus walking upright is as much an expression of faith as the picture of Adam and Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Hence, if religion cannot prove its claim and Darwinists can't prove their claims, we must fall back upon reason, which some of us believe is God's gift to mankind. And when you consider the clocklike precision of the planets in their orbits about the sun and the extraordinary complexity of the human eye, does that seem to you like the result of random selection or the product of intelligent design? Prediction: Like the Marxists, the Darwinists are going to wind up as a cult in which few believe this side of Berkeley and Harvard Square. Pray for them this Christmas season, and enjoy yourself with a reading of Bethell's fine and funny little book. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47973
Hi Z So I guess this means you have stopped responding to questions about the claims you are making re: ID and evolution? If you wouldn't mind, could you post here and officially refuse to respond to challenges to any of the faith-based assertions you are positing as facts? You have said in the past "I refuse to answer those questions" and "My theory doesn't require specifics" but is this a permanent policy decision on your part? If so, why are you still posting here? BTW... was that last post really a Pat Buchanan piece?? Also, you need to contact Baron about your post counter. It shows that you have posted 9500 times in 540 days for an average of more than 17 posts a day every day. It also shows you have made 150 posts in the past 54 hours. Including sleep, how many posts is that per hour? That couldn't be right, could it? You said I'm the one with 'obsessive-type' psychological problems... right? I'm the one who has control issues... right?
Being Weak does Not Disqualify Intelligent Design Yes, it is a weak idea, but it is still science. Updated: 11/18/2005 Although I believe Darwinian evolution to be the far stronger theory, Intelligent Design (ID) is still a valid scientific hypothesis despite what some in the pro-evolution camp say. I believe that ID should be included in grade-school textbooks because it is a common question raised by students, and common questions should be anticipated by good teaching materials. However, the problems with ID, such as being difficult to test, should be pointed out in the textbooks. Keep in mind that my argument here for including ID in textbooks does not depend on attacking evolution. I am ignoring versions of ID that attack Darwinian evolution. (Some feel that evolution is so strong as to "end the contest". I disagree with that level because it has not been observed actually happening on a large scale.) The two biggest counterarguments I've encountered are: * ID is not science because it cannot be tested * Proponents of ID are biased by an agenda Regarding not being "testable", such cannot be summarily ruled out. Just because we have not encountered or thought of a good test yet does not rule out the potential of testability. For example, an intelligent designer could have left clues or puzzles in the DNA of animals (including extinct ones to rule out current human interference). Regarding religious bias, bias by itself does not make an idea invalid or non-scientific. If relativity were proposed by Adolph Hitler instead of Albert Einstein, would that make it less scientific or less useful as a theory? If a Darwin-influenced cult was formed with a stated goal of making sure evolution was taught in classrooms, would the new existence of such bias be a reason to label the theory of evolution "religion" and thus remove it? Science should test ideas, not human motives. One of the problems with the evolution-versus-ID debate is the definition of science. I have encountered very "tight" definitions of science in various debates and fairly loose ones elsewhere. String Theory, worm-holes, reverse time-travel, and multiple universes of the Anthropic Principle are current ideas that many consider "science", yet so far appear difficult to test. In being difficult to test, ID is not alone. In fact, other universes of the Anthropic Principle do not have to be detectable at all in order to be an anthropic "influence". The other "trials" may have been in the past or simply unreachable to us. Detection would be merely a bonus. This is similar to the DNA pattern detection hypothesis raised above. Lack of detection of other universes does not rule out anthropic influence. Similarly, lack of DNA intelligent pattern detection does not rule out ID. Below are answers to various criticisms I have encountered over my suggestion. At the very bottom of this write-up is the working version of ID assumed here. A list of frequently-used abbreviations is also given below the definition. 1. Intelligent Design is infinitely malleable, and thus not testable and thus not science. Being intelligent and perhaps powerful does necessarily make something infinitely powerful. The version of ID being used here (see bottom) does not presume supernatural ability. The Multiple Universe hypothesis also tends to be very open since it does not provide the source of the multiple universes, nor require that they necessarily be visible or detectable in any way. Some suggest that the newer math can also be tweaked to match about anything new observed. Our ability to throw equations at the problem has perhaps exceeded our ability to test them. The eleven or so dimensions of String Theory (ST) are suspicious in this regard. Is a flexible personality significantly more difficult to test than flexible equations created by thousands of math professionals (personalities themselves)? It is simply another way to apply "intelligent design". 2. The other hard-to-test ideas like MU and String Theory are not currently in textbooks, so why should ID be? As stated above, commonly raised questions should be anticipated and addressed in textbooks. ID or ID-like questions are common in the classroom. I have seen it myself. Sticking your head in the sand with regard to sticky issues is not the way to educate. 3. The other hard-to-test ideas like MU and String Theory are not considered "science" either by some because they have yet to be tested. Thus, using them to suggest ID should be included is misleading. The definition of "science" appears to not yet have a consensus. Some use a tight definition, and some use a loose definition. Even if evolutionists tighten the "official" definition in order to exclude ID, the prior history of loose usage still stands (unless all the libraries burn down). It may appear disingenuous to change the definition of science just to win the ID textbook battle. If "yet to be tested" is a reason to exclude an idea, then we would have to exclude the likes of relativity from being considered a "scientific idea" until the point of being tested. (The first test was an eclipse observation). To me that is plain silly. If relativity was not considered "science" until the moment it was tested, then what should it have been called before the test took place? It was not religion. 4. Real scientists spend time trying to test their ideas, not waste their time only promoting the ideas. ID proponents are not spending time testing ID. This implies that science should grade on effort alone. Maybe it was okay for kindergarten, but science should focus on the ideas and evidence, not on effort being spent to obtain evidence. What if ID proponents created a DNA Pattern Study Institute (see above) and staffed it with statistical exports sifting DNA for intelligence-looking patterns? (It could be considered the DNA version of SETI, a group that looks for alien radio and laser signals.) If ID is not science while its proponents are allegedly lazy, does that status change as soon as the institute starts it work? That is a really silly boundary of definition.