When the Moon is in the 7th House...

It's March 17. This site is two weeks and one day early, right?

I don't know if it's the silliest, but it's very silly. Follow the link through to the Stock Market Compass site they run, and it hits you smack between the eyes:

"TRADITIONAL FINANCIAL ASTROLOGY IS DISAPPOINTING"

You don't say. Apparently, this is because true financial astrology must take into account:

Planetary Geometry including the declinations
Heliocentric Astrology including the latitudes
Chiron
The four major asteroids
Planetary Synchronization

Otherwise you're just mucking about, obviously.

That said, I think their currency birth charts take the biscuit.

Hmm...reminds me of the "jesussave.us" site, which most of you took to be a real site when it was an obvious hoax. I think you folks should do a write-up of this site

http://www.geocities.com/dickieattenborough/

...because it is obviously true. Or maybe the DI should write a nice satirical piece on it to show just how idiotic Darwinism can be!

The REALLY good stuff is the financial analysis software they offer through one of the links they provide. The thought that anyone would invest a penny, much less their savings, on the advice of these wackos makes my stomach turn.

Hmm . . . reminds me of the "jesussave.us" site, which most of you took to be a real site when it was an obvious hoax.

— Garret

I think you folks should do a write-up of this site http://www.geocities.com/dickieattenborough/ . . . . . . because it is obviously true.

Creationism has long since passed the point where I can be sure of the difference between satire and sincerity. Do I infer correctly that Garrett is saying Magi Science is an obvious hoax?

I think the correct inference is that Garrett is saying that "Darwinism" is idiotic because sometimes some people guess wrong about whether creationists are being satirized deliberately by others, or inadvertently by themselves. Or whatever, it doesn't matter, "Darwinism" is idiotic.

But then again, maybe Garrett is writing a brief parody of creationists, and learning just how impossible this is to do.

I agree that Magi Astrology is an improvement on Intelligent Design creationism, in the same way that Superman was improved when his creators allowed him to fly instead of merely jumping great distances.

IDers may bristle at some comparisons, but I think comparison to vitalism is spot on.

This highlights the fundamental error behind the concept of the Discovery Institute. The DI is based on the idea that a sophisticated presentation which hides the obvious religion can disguise christianity enough to sneak past the constitutional guards. The flaw is that the loud entourage of scientifically daft people proclaiming jesus will certainly tip off the guards off. For this reason, it's only a matter of time before a case establishes that ID is creationism combined with jargon and evasion, and impermissible in science class.

[blockquote]If Magi Astrology really works, then Darwinism does not work.[/blockquote]

Since we know p -> q also means that ~q -> ~p we know that this site at least got one thing logically right. Since "Darwinism" works, therefore Magi Astrology does not work. That sounds correct and true to me. It is amazing what you can prove when you don't have to stick to science!

I think that one of the problems is that these lunatics have to be dealt with. If you ignore them then they are unopposed when they preach their garbage. if you deal with them you infer ligitimacy to their argument.

I am at a loss as to what we can do. The evidence exists. This is not like the 'does god exist' argument. Evolution is FACT, and it has been proven over and over again, and reinforced over and over again. From what I have seen and read there is no room for argument over the ligitimacy of evolution.

Yet here we have supposedly educated individuals spewing garbage. It really makes me worry about the survivability of our species.

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution? As a well published scientist I find this site full of immature rhetoric.

No I will not reveal my identity. Your "scorched earth" policy discourages a civil discourse as you seek to ruin the careers of your critics. I'm not ready to be a martyr for truth yet.

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution? As a well published scientist I find this site full of immature rhetoric.

— Evolving Apeman

No I will not reveal my identity. Your "scorched earth" policy discourages a civil discourse as you seek to ruin the careers of your critics. I'm not ready to be a martyr for truth yet.

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution? As a well published scientist I find this site full of immature rhetoric.

I would have thought that a "well published scientist" such as yourself would know the correct spelling of "illegitimate." I guess that shows what I know . . .

As worthy of ridicule as these "ID advocates" are, isn't this post unfair to the real ID advocates.

Take someone like Behe. He's a degree holding, peer-review published (though not necessarily articles concerning ID) scientist. However wrong scientifcally his arguments may be, you must admit that he's of a different stripe than these fellows.

"...we have discovered a way to disprove Darwinism by using good astrology."

What's wrong with you people? It's GOOD astrology. I will be studying it in depth so I can introduce my Astronomy students to GOOD astrology next semester!

Michael Finley:

If you read here long enough, you'll see that Behe and Dembski get a great deal of column inches, while the likes of Gish and Hovind get almost none. And this is the case because Behe (and to some degree Dembski) ARE legitimate scientists or related (math), presumably know how to search and understand the literature (though Behe has claimed not to be able to find any of the many thousands of articles that existed at the time he said he couldn't find them). They are also considered dangerous because they are the tip of the Wedge, people with actual degrees out there at the state of the art fighting with desperation (and tons of obfuscational jargon) to force scientific reality to meet the requirements of their faith.

And the disturbing thing these people illustrate is that knowledge and education are not necessarily proof against sheer blinding faith. Knowledge and education in the hands of the faithful are used just as any other tool, to justify and support the faith whatever it takes. In this regard, they are no different stripe. Creationism is the ineradicable sine qua non for ALL these people, the only difference is their chosen targets of distortion and misrepresentation.

As worthy of ridicule as these "ID advocates" are, isn't this post unfair to the real ID advocates. Take someone like Behe. He's a degree holding, peer-review published (though not necessarily articles concerning ID) scientist. However wrong scientifcally his arguments may be, you must admit that he's of a different stripe than these fellows.

— Michael Finley

And the disturbing thing these people [allegedly 'legitimate' scientists] illustrate is that knowledge and education are not necessarily proof against sheer blinding faith.

This is a website of the Christian Guardians Fellowship. The Christian Guardians Fellowship is a worldwide organization of Christians who have joined together to protect Christianity against all who assault it, especially atheists who believe in Darwinism.

© 2005 by The Magi Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Magi Astrology is a trademark and service mark of THE MAGI ASSOCIATES, INC. Magi Society is a registered trademark of THE MAGI ASSOCIATES, INC.

The Magi Society was founded in 1625 by a small group of Shao Lin monks. The society is now a worldwide organization and has produced three of the most important books ever published on astrology. The primary purpose of the Magi Society is to continue to conduct scientific research to improve and expand our knowledge of astrology and to teach it to our members and the world. The Magi Society is also dedicated to helping bring about a universal acceptance of the validity of astrology. The Magi Society has taken on a leadership role in the battle against opponents of astrology. Among astrological organizations, the Magi Society's members are the best educated. At the present time, most of the society's members are college graduates. The percentage of the Magi Society's members that have post graduate degrees is more than three times that of the national average. As evidenced by the extraordinary research that went into our first three books, and the vast new knowledge of astrology revealed in our books, it is obvious that all of the Members of the Board of Governors of the Magi Society are among the very best scientific astrologers in the world.

I agree with Steve. The issue is not that these guys are representative of ID in general, or that ID can be hijacked by this kind of cranks. After all, darwinian principles have also been historically misinterpreted and misused by all sorts of nutjobs. However, for anyone knowledgeable of evolutionary theory, it is usually easy to explain why a particularly cranky interpretation is erroneous, and reject it.

ID, on the other hand, cannot do so, because they have painted themselves in a corner to appease their large Creationist constituency. So, they can't say "Magi Astrology is bunk, as there is no evidence for it", because then they would have to apply the same standards to, say, the age of the Earth issue, and conclude YEC is bunk too. Instead, they have to hilariously hedge their bets using "clarifying" statements like the following (from the IDEA Center site):

"Does IDEA take a position on the age of the earth?
The age of the earth is not an issue related to intelligent design theory, nor is it necessarily related to the validity of evolutionary theory, nor does this author believe it is even related to the validity of the Bible. For this reason, IDEA finds no reasons from its mission statement to make any statements about the age of the earth. This is an important question, however, and if you are struggling with it or are interested in learning more about this issue, we suggest you contact various authorities from various sides of the question, and come to your own conclusions. IDEA has resources which can provide information, and please feel free to contact us at "info@ideacenter.org" for help. (IDEA Center FAQ at www.ideacenter.org)

Thus, the IDEA Center has always made it explicitly clear that the age of the earth is something that has nothing to do with our organization, so we make no statements about it. This adopted position has always been ultra-clear on our website, and we hope that there are no misconceptions about our position on the age of the earth from this point forward."

It's just a matter of standards. If the ID club can admit YEC as scientifically legitimate, so are Raelism and Magi Astrology.

GWW:

You go to your church and I'll go to mine. I've read too much of Dembski's nonmathmatical preaching, his witnessing his faith in Christ, to think it's all a put-on for the sheer adulation of it. I accept that he and Behe are sincere believers, who are using their own specialties like any other believer, as a tool to buttress their faith. People with blind faith in fact DO run around preaching that faith with whatever tools and knowledge they have to hand. That particular faith is a particularly pushy and intolerant flavor, and those pushing it hardest are not those having a crisis. On the contrary, doing so is inherent in the doctrine itself.

However, I do agree that the intellectual difference between these guys and our forum trolls is both insignificant and irrelevant. In fact that was my point -- that knowledge makes no difference to faith. Otherwise competent scientists like Behe and knuckle-draggers like davescot share common ground in matters of faith, a land where evidence is irrelevant, integrity is lost, and (in the wonderful words of Russell's lyrics) "lying's a virtue when you're lying for God."

I would have thought that a "well published scientist" such as yourself would know the correct spelling of "illegitimate." I guess that shows what I know . . .

The age of the earth is not an issue related to intelligent design theory, nor is it necessarily related to the validity of evolutionary theory, nor does this author believe it is even related to the validity of the Bible.

Yeah, I was wondering if this page would come with a pitch for money. Yes, indeedy, it's the "members only" section spiel. Kind of like porn pages.

Cheers,

David Heddle makes a good point. Spelling on this site has been rather uniformly lousy. I suggest a hypothesis: When the software doesn't permit editing after posting, no amount of proofreading will permit errors to be noticed until after they are posted.

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

— Evolving Apeman

Evolving Apeman wrote: Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

It appears that ID is starting to become the catch-all for any crazy anti-evolution idea that one comes up with. It's the term of choice for cranks of all stripes. And it's the fault of people like Behe for running a PR campaign like they have yet failing to be clear on just what ID is and isn't.

Actually, I think it's an intrinsic flaw of ID itself. Because it is at base simply an "I can't believe that evolution (or *fill-in-the-blank*) did this", it must allow any alterative explanation "equal time", at least as far as the "merits" of the ID "argument" goes.

Cheers,

"Thus, the IDEA Center has always made it explicitly clear that the [law of gravity] is something that has nothing to do with our organization, so we make no statements about it. This adopted position has always been ultra-clear on our website, and we hope that there are no misconceptions about our position on the [law of gravity] from this point forward...."

"... and for my next step forward, watch me step off this building."

Cheers,

Flint wrote,

Behe and knuckle-draggers like davescot share common ground in matters of faith, a land where evidence is irrelevant, integrity is lost, and (in the wonderful words of Russell's lyrics) "lying's a virtue when you're lying for God."/

I just need a clarification. Is all faith "a land where evidence is irrelevant, integrity is lost, and ... 'lying's a virtue when your'e lying for God.'"? Or did you just mean Behe and DaveScot's (and those like them) faith? I hope you meant the latter, because I don't think the former kind of statement is respectful to people of faith, and would certainly repel anyone of faith who was browsing through the site. I really can't see a reason anyone would want to do that.

This attachment to ID by the guardians is similiar to the attachment
to evolution by SETI, astrobiology, or panspermia. Darwinists typically do not deny these ideas, just that they have nothing to do with evolution.

From the site: "The Gospels tell us that before Christ was born, three wise men from the East..." Well, not exactly. No where does the Bible say how many Magi there were. So already they're not off to a very good start.

Also: "That's right, the Magi were astrologers." Well, at least astrology has a theory and testable hypotheses.

Nate said, "The thought that anyone would invest a penny, much less their savings, on the advice of these wackos makes my stomach turn." Well, since the choices are random, they might be no worse than your typical market analyist. Come to think of it, they might be better.

EricJP, you said, "Yet here we have supposedly educated individuals spewing garbage. It really makes me worry about the survivability of our species." Well, don't worry, the Chinese will save us.

May I suggest to everyone that we try to express ourselves in a more civil manner? There is no need to call people morons, whores, etc. There certainly are more subtle and effective ways to get a point across.

As a general rule, we have tried to be quite liberal with issues of freedom of expression here, but the PT board is getting a little impatient with some characters. Some people have already seen their posting privileges suspended, and post deletions/editing and further suspensions are not out of the questions.

Thanks

No where does the Bible say how many Magi there were.

Katarina:

Good question. I'm not religious, but if I were, I think I'd be fascinated by how reality works because it would be an insight into how God actually did/does things. The very last thing I would wish would be to get my facts wrong or have any serious misunderstanding, because I would be undermining my own faith and doing God an injustice.

So I don't regard faith in general as any kind of barrier to clear understanding and accurate knowledge. Instead, I'm talking about what I consider some people's faith in the infallibility of their interpretation of scriptural material. And so I'd agree that I meant the latter, that our trolls and Behe and Dembski all share this requirement of personal infallibility, and this is what informs and drives their mendacity.

Joel: This attachment to ID by the guardians is similiar to the attachment to evolution by SETI, astrobiology, or panspermia. Darwinists typically do not deny these ideas, just that they have nothing to do with evolution.

As a general rule, we have tried to be quite liberal with issues of freedom of expression here, but the PT board is getting a little impatient with some characters.

To deny Intelligent Design is to deny evolution. Without the former there never could have been the latter and there very definitely WAS the latter.

To assume that macrevolution (true speciation and the formation of the higher categories) is in progress today is without foundation and is unsupported by any and all experimental and observational methods.

Phylogeny, like ontogeny, has been an auto-generated, front-loaded, self-terminating phenomenon which has, also like ontogeny, proceeded with no reference to the environment in which it has taken place, driven by purely endogenous forces which remain at present unknown. Phylogeny, like ontogeny, differentiated most rapidly in the beginning, slowed with time and ended with cessation and extinction comparable with the death of the individual.

Of course that is just my opinion.

John A. Davison

I feel GWW's pain. I was banned from PZ's blog for posting too much dogma on a thread where everyone kept asking me theological questions. (GWW applauded my ban, which was a bit sad, or maybe a bit ironic.) On PT, I sense the sword of Damocles about to fall.

GWW:
You are not the only offender, other posters are being "followed", and some have been permanently banned.

Now, as a general rule, I personally don't mind a bit of "color", but I think people should ask themselves whether their posts would still be worth posting after they are purged of statements that may reasonably be considered insulting by the people it refers to. If they are, then it is often the case that the offensive language actually gets in the way of conveying the message, and getting rid of it would be an improvement. If they aren't, well then don't post them.

There are several reasons for this, such as to maintain the discussions as substantive as possible (which is already an effort due to the various trolls), and to make the site "safe" enough to be used as a resource for younger students and their teachers. These are some of the reasons this site exists for, and anyone who wants the site to succeed should understand it, and cooperate.

All of us may make "off" remarks, at times. We just ask that people try to exert some restraint, whenever possible.

I feel GWW's pain. I was banned from PZ's blog for posting too much dogma on a thread where everyone kept asking me theological questions. (GWW applauded my ban, which was a bit sad, or maybe a bit ironic.) On PT, I sense the sword of Damocles about to fall.

-- apologies if this is posted twice. I got the dreaded PT server hiccup.

"I hope you meant the latter, because I don't think the former kind of statement is respectful to people of faith, and would certainly repel anyone of faith who was browsing through the site. I really can't see a reason anyone would want to do that."

Speaking only for myself, I don't care in the slightest if "people of faith" are repelled by criticism of their faith. You are welcome to believe any foolish superstitions you wish, just don't expect me to respect your folly as a valid point of view.

John Davison and David Heddle,

Unlike most of the trolls here, you two seem to be intelligent, reasonable folk.

Can either of you tell me of any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illEgitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

Surely the ID movement has something out there. The trolls at this forum won't tell me cause they are afraid.

And yes, Stephen Stralka, I realize that asking a question like this is equivalent to asking an abortionist at Planned Parenthood where to go to give up a child for adoption.

John Davison and David Heddle,

Unlike most of the trolls here, you two seem to be intelligent, reasonable folk.

Can either of you tell me of any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illEgitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

Surely the ID movement has something out there. The trolls at this forum won't tell me cause they are afraid.

And yes, Stephen Stralka, I realize that asking a question like this is equivalent to asking an abortionist at Planned Parenthood where to go to give up a child for adoption.

Thought the following from IDEA was rather amusing, r.e. age of the earth:

"This is an important question, however, and if you are struggling with it or are interested in learning more about this issue, we suggest you contact various authorities from various sides of the question, and come to your own conclusions."

Who would the YEC authorities be? A couple of blokes who happen to have PhDs but are not trained geochronologists and have signed up to a manifesto stating that any evidence contradicting a literal interpretation of the bible is wrong. Great.

To not have a position on this issue (non issue actually) is blatant intellectual dishonesty, moreover anyone who believes the earth is young is by default scientifically clueless. Therefore to be afforded even a basic level of respect, they need to state acceptance of an old earth - its the only game in town.

GWW applauded my ban, which was a bit sad, or maybe a bit ironic

I just need a clarification. Is all faith "a land where evidence is irrelevant, integrity is lost, and . . . 'lying's a virtue when your'e lying for God.'"?

— Katarina

John Davison ..., Unlike most of the trolls here, you ... seem to be intelligent, reasonable folk.

Evolved Apeman,

In my opinion the best ID site is Hugh Ross's.

Speaking only for myself, I don't care in the slightest if "people of faith" are repelled by criticism of their faith. You are welcome to believe any foolish superstitions you wish, just don't expect me to respect your folly as a valid point of view.

people should ask themselves whether their posts would still be worth posting after they are purged of statements that may reasonably be considered insulting by the people it refers to.

Just so I'm clear Andrea: I'm not brushing your last post off.

I'm just wondering if a more internally consistent clarification of the standards for commenting can be articulated. I realize that such a standard may be nearly impossible to formulate in a group-run blog, as a practical matter.

GWW,

May I make a suggestion? Just be friendly, as a general rule. You know, politeness, good manners, and all. It is not Andrea's job to teach you the specifics. You are smart. You can figure it out.

Surely the ID movement has something out there. The trolls at this forum won't tell me cause they are afraid.

— Evolved Apeman

GWW: Please just use common sense. There is no need for us to draw a line in the sand so that you can see how close you can get without crossing over it. The vast majority of people here don't have a problem with not being offensive; try to be one of them.

There is no need for us to draw a line in the sand so that you can see how close you can get without crossing over it. The vast majority of people here don't have a problem with not being offensive; try to be one of them.

Alas! The Jesus Saves sight "has exceeded it's allocated data transfer", so I'm waiting for a miracle to restore it.

And yes, Stephen Stralka, I realize that asking a question like this is equivalent to asking an abortionist at Planned Parenthood where to go to give up a child for adoption.

— Evolving Apeman

I think the rules here are a mix of common sense and reason. Don't let your language get in the way of your message, which is what happens all too often. One may think another a nefarious schemer, an evil menace, or just a simple dolt for the ideas they offer, but use those labels and no one will read the rest of what you write. Attack the words, not the person. Good practice is akin to the old rule that one is better off attacking what one does than what one says. Words are cheap and frequently worthless. Actions are just the opposite and that's where attention belongs. Of course on a blog, words are all we have, so dissecting the ideas expressed is more effective than calling the writer "stupid." Frankly, I'm turned off by any comment the minute I see personal pejoratives surface, whether from the worst of the trolls or PT's own blogmasters.

This whole discussion reminds me of a news story I heard today or yesterday in the car (I googled for a URL but could find none). It seems that the City of London (UK) has decided to experiment with removing all road signs and markers for selected blocks or intersections in the center of London. The thesis they're testing is that drivers and pedestrians have become so dependent on signage that everyone assumes a sign gives him or her the absolute right to some action and will charge ahead without regard for anyone who may not recognize the same sign. The notion is that drivers will be more civil and considerate of others, if they have to guess what their rights are. They seem to be assuming that everyone will recognize the public roads as a commons and use them accordingly, but, as Garrett Hardin argued in his classic essay, such an approach is unlikely to work. Rules are necessary, sometimes, even on the commons that PT represents.

. . . asking a question like this is equivalent to asking an abortionist at Planned Parenthood where to go to give up a child for adoption.

Evolved Apeman has asked my opinion and so I now offer it without the prior approval of certain members of this forum.

Intelligent Design is obvious to anyone with half a brain. I regard it as a given, necessary to understand anything about the living or the non-living world. The universe was designed and preprogrammed by an intelligence far beyond our capacity to comprehend. All of evolution took place driven by internal preprogrammed blueprints which were in no way modified by the environment in which that evolution took place. Just as the development of a human being is predetermined entirely by the controlled release (derepression) of the information stored in the fertilized egg, so also evolution unfolded by the derepression of information stored in its original sources which were probably several in number. There is absolutely no reason to assume a single origin for life and many reasons to think otherwise. Leo Berg postulated thousands of primary forms. The simple truth is that no one knows for certain except of course the Darwinians who know everything for certain. If you don't believe it, just watch the reaction to this post.

I have summarized this view of evolution in a paper in press in Rivista di Biologia, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis."

Thank you for your question Evolved Apeman. Asking questions is the sign of an inquiring mind. I hope you find my response to be of some value.

John A. Davison

And yes, Stephen Stralka, I realize that asking a question like this is equivalent to asking an abortionist at Planned Parenthood where to go to give up a child for adoption.

One may think another a nefarious schemer, an evil menace, or just a simple dolt for the ideas they offer, but use those labels and no one will read the rest of what you write.

dissecting the ideas expressed is more effective than calling the writer "stupid."

I'm asking for consistent treatment and reasonableness or better explanations of what's going on here.

— GWW

But here I simply stated my opinion (which no one has argued is unreasonable) that the DI charlatans are "fame whores." And I referred to the IDEA center authors as "morons."

What else is going to get my banned? "Charlatan"? "Dissembling"? "Peddler"? "Scummy"? "Disgusting"? "Despicable"? "Loathesome"?

Just as the development of a human being is predetermined entirely by the controlled release (derepression) of the information stored in the fertilized egg, so also evolution unfolded by the derepression of information stored in its original sources which were probably several in number.

Why is it so difficult?

Why not just describe what's wrong with someone's ideas rather than resort to colorful labels?

Maybe GWW is Scott Paige afterall.

For what it is worth, I have no connection with Discovery Institute or any other organization. I don't believe in joining organizations as they tend to limit ones perspective and I sure wouldn't want that to happen. Besides they want nothing to do with me which is just fine too. I'm checking out soon. What do I care?

John A. Davison

Maybe GWW is Scott Paige afterall.

For what it is worth, I have no connection with Discovery Institute or any other organization. I don't believe in joining organizations as they tend to limit ones perspective and I sure wouldn't want that to happen. Besides they want nothing to do with me which is just fine too. I'm checking out soon. What do I care?

John A. Davison

Maybe GWW is Scott Paige afterall.

For what it is worth, I have no connection with Discovery Institute or any other organization. I don't believe in joining organizations as they tend to limit ones perspective and I sure wouldn't want that to happen. Besides they want nothing to do with me which is just fine too. I'm checking out soon. What do I care?

John A. Davison

But here I simply stated my opinion (which no one has argued is unreasonable) that the DI charlatans are "fame whores." And I referred to the IDEA center authors as "morons."

Keanus, regarding signs on roads: There is a Dutch fellow who advocates eliminating signs -- among other things, they're confusing. He's developed a system that is devised to make every driver responsible, and it seems to work. There has been at least one story in the New York Times about this guy since October, and I think there may have been two.

The reporter describes the faith this guy has in the method. In one town where he's eliminated all signs and lane lines, to demonstrate, he got a busy roundabout (traffic circle) at rush hour, and walked backwards into traffic. No screeching of brakes, no crunching of fenders, no cursing and hefflefingers. Cars went around him. He was safe.

I suspect this has more to do with chaos theory than evolution theory.

I suspect this has more to do with chaos theory than evolution theory.

(heading off-topic) I think the "no signs" thing will only work for a little while, but gradually, mistakes will happen. it only takes 1 drunk driver, 1 person falling asleep at the wheel, 1 person talking on their cell phone, 1 teenager playing with the radio (I speak from personal experience on THAT one ;-) ), to totally miss what the others around you are doing and cause an accident.

Right now, its so "new" that people HAVE to pay attention. Things change when people get comfortable with it. get comfortable, get lazy, and carelessness will cause problems. At least with the signs in the common situation, there's usually a clear indication of who wasn't paying attention and caused the accident.

As I see it, like good economic theory, it relies on "enlightened self-interest", which is very good in the short-term. However, the "enlightened" part disappears rather quickly in this country and unfettered self-interest causes problems for society.

Back to the original topic . . .
On a talks.origins thread, I almost asked what the chances were that dust particles floating in space would form the shape of a human face by random, natural forces alone. (See the Witch Head Nebula) It was meant as sarcasm. Now I see that not every ID group would have caught that.
And as an aside to the Apeman: After years of Planned Parenthood helping my wife and I avoid pregnancy, they gave us helpful hints on the quickest way to conceive when we were ready to start a family. We tried to explain this to the protesters we walked past, but they were too busy chanting. They even tried to convince us that Planned Parenthood wanted to harm our unborn daughter.

Back to the original question, finding the silliest claim on the magi site: I was going to look, but I couldn't even get past where they asked why Michael Jordan's parents were not great athletes.

I respect atheists, but I always find it irritating when they use this site to comment on why people who believe in something that cannot be proven empirically are foolish, childish, or worse. I just think a general criticism of faith is unfounded, and unproductive.

UFOlogy is good science!!!

I've got the probe to prove it ;-)

lee

Why? I'm a Christian and I don't think a criticism of faith is unfounded at all. And if you cannot prove something empirically, philosophically, etc it's unlikely to be true or even exist. So I disagree I feel faith is as open to criticism as anything else. I have often wondered why it should be shielded from view.

— Uber

When I talk about faith, I think of the following definition: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. If you look it up under dictionary.com, it is definition under #2. Generally if you have faith, than you hope that your predictions about it will come true, but you don't have the certainty they will.

As worthy of ridicule as these "ID advocates" are, isn't this post unfair to the real ID advocates. Take someone like Behe. He's a degree holding, peer-review published (though not necessarily articles concerning ID) scientist. However wrong scientifcally his arguments may be, you must admit that he's of a different stripe than these fellows.

Can either of you tell me of any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illEgitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution? Surely the ID movement has something out there. The trolls at this forum won't tell me cause they are afraid.

i already recommended Charlie Wagner's blog. When that gets old, he can check out this anti-evolution website:

www.fixedearth.com

Science relies on "material evidence" and something akin to "logical proof". It may be dissappointing, but the kind of faith described in the definition has no place in science, biology or otherwise. Nor does it belong in engineering, architecture, bookkeeping or any number of other human enterprises.

Air Bear,

I agree with you 100%. That is why I like this site. I appreciate what people on this site can teach me about science. I only write about what I know, and if I am getting on people's nerves I am sorry. But I also know that faith is at the heart of the issue with people who promote ID. It should not mix with science, I am a believer in that, and even ID people pretend to believe that.

What I am concerned about is that when bloggers on this site are disrespectful of people of faith who come to learn more about the evolution they are told is bogus, they can find some pretty harsh words on most days. That is mostly why I comment, I respect what you guys are doing, but whenever I refer someone to this site, they tell me it's obviously run by people who think faith is stupid. I wish I could change that, but no one listens to me.

Also Air Bear, thanks for speaking for GWW, but I have to admit that I appreciate what GWW adds to this site. If I laugh at his insults to others (I DO!), than why should I not expect to be insulted once in a while. I know he just wants to get religious discussions out of here. If that is the consensus, I can accept it.

Comment #21011 Posted by Katarina on March 18, 2005 09:52 PM ... I know he just wants to get religious discussions out of here. ...

— Katarina

Comment #21011 Posted by Katarina on March 18, 2005 09:52 PM ... I know he just wants to get religious discussions out of here. ...

— Katarina

sorry for the double post. I heard 2 clicks when I hit the post button ... didn't expect 2 posts to go through.

I know this site is dedicated to addressing the scientific claims of ID/Creationism. Scientifically, the belief that there is no God cannot be proven, and neither can the belief that there is a God. Since neither atheism nor theism belong in a purely scientific discussion, people who want to see this site succeed, in my opinion, should not attack either view in general.

If you look at my previous posts, that is the main message I have been trying to get accross. Even my personal story is meant to demonstrate that faith is based on feelings and intuition, not rational thought. Atheism is just as void of empirical proof as theism is, therefore people who want this site to serve its purpose should not try to prove that their atheistic view is the only scientifically valid one. It is not scientific at all.

Scientifically, the belief that there is no God cannot be proven,...

Atheism is just as void of empirical proof as theism is, therefore people who want this site to serve its purpose should not try to prove that their atheistic view is the only scientifically valid one. It is not scientific at all.

Emanuele,

I am not making a claim, I simply have a belief. So do many others. I am not trying to prove it to anyone, nor do I think it's provable. I am just trying to help protect people like me, only who do not yet accept evolution, from being offended when they try to find something out about evolution on PT. Can you honestly deny that people who post comments on this site do not attack the very concept of holding a belief that cannot be empirically validated? C'mon, don't try to pretend you don't know why I am concerned, or do you really not see it?

I am not asking you to believe what I believe. I am asking -no, begging- that you and others here who see the site as more than just their own club, not attack my beliefs, since you cannot prove the opposite is true.

Is that a lot to ask?

Neither formal religion nor Darwinism ever had anything to do with evolution which is a thing of the past anyway.

John A. Davison

Atheism is just as void of empirical proof as theism is, therefore people who want this site to serve its purpose should not try to prove that their atheistic view is the only scientifically valid one. It is not scientific at all.

Katarina:

You may not be making a claim right now (however, your two sentences I quoted in my previous post were claims, and incorrect claims at that); but most of the people who come to PT and loudly dismiss evolution because it goes against their faith and therefore is false make huge claims, completely unwarranted.

If we want to discuss evolution from a scientific standpoint, faith has no role to play. Anyone dragging out their faith as if it belonged in a scientific discussion is derailing the conversation, and should expect to be challenged. I don't see how this might be construed as disrespectful.

I don't think I can talk to deaf people.

So I don't regard faith in general as any kind of barrier to clear understanding and accurate knowledge. Instead, I'm talking about what I consider some people's faith in the infallibility of their interpretation of scriptural material. And so I'd agree that I meant the latter, that our trolls and Behe and Dembski all share this requirement of personal infallibility, and this is what informs and drives their mendacity.

Katarina, they aren't deaf; it's just they're hearing only what they can argue against.

I haven't a clue what Oriana means when she says your "claims" are incorrect. Perhaps she is privy to some research no one else has. I wonder that if we were to discuss evolution from an ontological standpoint, would science then have no role to play?

Steve's arguement for the (non?)existence of Santy Claws also seems too vague to smell. If he's argueing against St. Nicks existence, I would ask if that is true then how come he has any knowledge of him? Perhaps a more rigorous definition of existence is in order.

e.g.; If dreams are unreal, does that mean we don't really dream?

I, for one, believe (there's that awful word again) that it is just as necessary to confront anti-evolutionary advocates on ontological grounds as it is to defend the science. After all, intellectually, that is their home, and as some jock said, the best defence is a good offence. I applaud you for raising these kinds of questions, and encourage you to continue to shake the tree.

P.S. My opinion is that there is no fundamental connection between faith and belief.

luminous beauty:

Katarina's remark that "An atheistic view is not scientific at all" is a claim, and it is incorrect. The last time I checked, science was making no remarks about the existence of gods. None whatsoever.

Katarina's other passage was not an explicit claim but a perfectly clear implication was that "someone is trying to prove scientifically the non-existence of God". This, too, is incorrect, as far as I know. Do you have evidence of the contrary?

And I certainly believe that discussing evolution from an ontological point of view can include science; it's just that the other way around simply doesn't work.

Finally, FYI, Emanuele is an Italian masculine name.

Emanuele:

My sincere apologies for the gender confusion.

vis~a~vis the ontological confusion, my reading of science making no claims about the existence of gods agrees with rather than contradicts the claim that atheism is not scientific.

As to the second point, I'm pretty sure there have been those here who assert atheism using science as a support for their belief. It's not a significant enough question for me to research.

While I agree questions of existential meaning have little to do with biological research (excepting ethical ones), they are both fundamental to enquiry in cognitive science. It is all too human to get lost in the specificity of a particular arguement and forget the broader context.

We suggest that supporters of Intelligent Design devote some of their efforts to improve and advance Intelligent Design Theory so that it can: Make accurate predictions. (Darwinism cannot make accurate predictions.) It is quantifiable and able to be tested and thereby validated. (Darwinism is not quantifiable.)

vis~a~vis the ontological confusion, my reading of science making no claims about the existence of gods agrees with rather than contradicts the claim that atheism is not scientific.

Yes, it's sometimes accurate to call a moron a moron. But does it advance your case?

Just as I suspected. We're defining our terms differently. Some take "Science is atheistic" to mean "Science proves that there is no god", or perhaps "belief in god is incompatible with science". Others take it to mean science - like, say, plumbing - is done without reference to god(s). (FWIW, I subscribe to the latter view.)

Russell:

We may be defining our terms differently, but "atheism" and "Strong Atheism" have very clear technical definitions, and we should not use one when the other is being commented upon. That's a source of considerable confusion, but I've never seen an atheist misuse these words.

Emanuele:
Sorry. I made my comment before your last one - in which Strong Atheism was introduced - appeared. I think it's pretty clear now.

Emanuele:

"Atheism is, at a minimum, the lack of a belief in god"

Though I'm aware of the denotative distinctions between "atheism" and "strong atheism", that is not a philosophical circle I personally travel in. I prefer the more traditional term "agnostic" for those who have no strong view and the term "non-theocentric" for those whose philosophy encompasses both theistic and atheistic views as relative. This seems better suited to describe the conceptual universe of the matter at hand without wallowing in the indeterminate territory of the excluded middle.

"That's a source of considerable confusion, but I've never seen an atheist misuse these words."

The misuse may be in insisting on one's narrow technical definitions without taking into account the broader connotations one's words invoke in the mind of another.

luminous beauty:

Agnostic is definitely not a "more traditional" term for "those who have no strong view". The traditional term is atheist.

Agnosticism answers the question, "Do you KNOW whether god(s) exist(s)?" by saying "No, I don't." As such, it is an alternative to Strong Atheism, not to atheism.

Atheism answers another question: "Do you believe in god(s)?" by saying "No, I don't."

There are theistic agnostics ("I don't know but I believe") and atheistic agnostics ("I don't know but I remain unconvinced"). I am one of the latter, incidentally.

The misuse is in insisting in not using the correct definitions of words. Saying "atheists deny that God exists", for instance, is clear misuse. If it is done in good faith, one can gently point the mistaken person to the writings of most atheist thinkers of the past centuries; if, despite the correction, the mistake is not acknowledged, then it is an outright misrepresentation.

I suggest you take a look at what real atheists have said and written: for an excellent overview, try

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm

I am sorry I did not acknowledge Flint's reply to my question regarding his comment. Flint, thank you for your considerate reply.

Emanuele, you seem to be very well acquainted with atheism, I have to admit that I did not know the difference between strong atheism and atheism, nor did I know there were different kinds of agnosticism. Not that it really has any relevance to my original problem, but thank you for teaching me something, nevertheless.

I agree that unproven beliefs should not be mixed with scientific inquiry. That has been my stand all along. If this site is dedicated mainly to scientific discussion, I also agree that faith should not be dragged into it unless it is to talk about research, and I will refrain from now on. However, the twin research was done by interviewing people, well, I am a person and my testimony is just as valid as those interviews can be, as long as I am honest, and I was. I told my story in order to show that yes, I do suspect religion is in our genes, because my father is very religious - only not as defined by his belief in a deity, but by his patriotism and (bullheaded) committment to reason and empirical evidence as the only "valid" source of knowledge.

My view is similar to Russell's, that what is at root religious and science simply do not mix. Science is a limited way of knowing. Agnosticism comes the closest to being supported by whatever scientific tools are able to reveal about reality. I am not sure what to say about atheism any more, since Emanuele will whoop my butt with his definitions, but I still say that since you cannot prove there is no God, there is no reason to challange someone merely for beleiving that there is one.

Luminous Beauty,

Thank you sincerely for defending my argument this whole time that I was away. But maybe we should just let Emanuele have his little club and enjoy it without intruders like myself. What is important to me is learning things I did not know, and what is important to Emanuele is showing how much he knows. So I will leave the Emanueles to write about what they know, and I will listen without being offended at the occasional treatment of personal faith as childish foolishness. I am not just being sarcastic, I really will continue to listen, as I have done since this site came out.

Katarina,

There is no such thing as this imaginary little "club" you keep talking about. It is not important to me to show off how little I know, but it is important to defend the dignity of my position. If I were to define faith for you, you would probably be just as POd as I was to have atheism (mis)defined by people who are not atheists. It is not a matter of reading dictionaries, it is a matter of self-definition.

And I am sorry, but these sneery sound bites (the little club... the showing off... etc) are childish, although I doubt they have anything to do with your faith.

Yes. If you are an atheist speaking to other atheists it is an effective tool of communication to define the terms of debate in a fashion that makes it easier to assert your view. It enables simple and coherent transmission of information within the cultural grouping of individuals that agree that with definition.

Unfortunately, there is no prohibition in nature for the individuals in the group that asserts the opposite view not to define the correct usage as either affirming or denying God, and to define correct belief as the nearest the human mind can get to perfect knowledge. Or something.

Immanuele:

Yes. If you are an atheist speaking to other atheists it is an effective tool of communication to define the terms of debate in a fashion that makes it easier to assert your view. It enables simple and coherent transmission of information within the cultural grouping of individuals that agree that with definition.

Unfortunately, there is no prohibition in nature for the individuals in the group that asserts the opposite view not to define the correct usage as either affirming or denying God, and to define correct belief as the nearest the human mind can get to perfect knowledge. Or something.

luminous beauty:

You are of course right, there is no prohibition in nature against misrepresentations, strawman fallacies, and out-and-out mockery of minority groups.

Using for atheists a definition that atheists do not accept and that does not represent the way atheists write, speak and think about themselves is exactly this.

Try the age-old experiment of reversing positions, and imagine the outrage if an atheist presumed to define theists using descriptions that theists themselves do not use, accept or justify, based not on what theists write and say, but on a fantasy of his/her own making.

I stand my ground. I have yet to see any person of faith mistreated on PT because of his/her faith (as opposed to his/her factual mistakes or outright lies, when that is the case), certainly not by the main contributors, but even by the most vociferous commenters.

Get a dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic

I think your definition of agnostic theists pretty much encompasses all god believers in a way most god believers would find unsatisfactory, and god believers do see atheists in terms that are not those of atheists. Good grief, you both have fundamentally different definitions of "belief". My concern is not so much mistreatment, but mis-communication. To blithely dismiss other people's definition of the terms of their own understanding of their personal beliefs as equivalent to "misrepresentations, strawman fallacies, and..." is itself a strawman arguement and a misrepresentation. I'll let you decide for yourself if the implicit sarcasm rose to the level of "mockery".

For most believers, I think, god is a unifying symbol for their moral aspirations. As such it is true because it offers a clear and satisfactory moral purpose in life. It provides for at least the possibility of altruism. It isn't irrational for them believe that is superior to rational self-interest.

luminous beauty:

I said nothing about how theists chose to define themselves. I said, very clearly, that "atheists" do not write or say what many dictionary definitions, usually written by theists, claim they do.

For a change, try reading a dictionary that gives the correct definition of atheism:

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/atheism.html

Yes, the insistence that atheists must accept contrived and false definitions made up by someone else is at best a misrepresentation (putting words in our mouths, so to speak), and at worst a mockery of a minority group. "What do you know? The Dictionary says you are a wicked God-denier, so there!"

The fact that a lie may be ancient does nothing to redeem it.

"Emascule Oregano":

I won't offend luminous beauty by associating your unbelievably sophomoric post with her, but I cannot avoid noticing that someone who disagrees with me thought it fit to make mocking wordplays with my name.
Very mature indeed.

I have yet to see any person of faith mistreated on PT because of his/her faith (as opposed to his/her factual mistakes or outright lies, when that is the case), certainly not by the main contributors, but even by the most vociferous commenters.

— Emanuele

For most believers, I think, god is a unifying symbol for their moral aspirations. As such it is true because it offers a clear and satisfactory moral purpose in life. It provides for at least the possibility of altruism. It isn't irrational for them believe that is superior to rational self-interest.

— luminous beauty

I have yet to see any person of faith mistreated on PT because of his/her faith (as opposed to his/her factual mistakes or outright lies, when that is the case), certainly not by the main contributors, but even by the most vociferous commenters.

— Emanuele

For most believers, I think, god is a unifying symbol for their moral aspirations. As such it is true because it offers a clear and satisfactory moral purpose in life. It provides for at least the possibility of altruism. It isn't irrational for them believe that is superior to rational self-interest.

— luminous beauty

I forgot to mention that it was NOT I who used your name for ridicule, I meant to apologize only for my childish remarks about "clubs" and "showing off." Just to make it clear.

Sorry AGAIN for my double post! When will I learn.

Katarina:

Apologies accepted. Thanks for noticing that I have yet to resort to name-calling or similar behaviour. I got your point perfectly, but I still think that it is erroneous.

And as to the three-year-old who stole his parents' computer and wrote under that unfunny name, rest assured that I never thought it might have been you. It simply didn't look like your style.

I hope this is not a double post...

Katarina:

Apologies accepted. Thanks for noticing that I do not use the "argument by name-calling".

I understood your point right from the start, but I still think it is erroneous.
Faith is an integral part of what many of us are; as such, it clearly cannot be checked at the door as a raincoat. However, it should not be used as an argument in a scientific discussion (i.e., "this is so because my faith tells me so!").

If someone does try to use faith as if it were part of the evidence, that someone is not doing science. This may sound like a blanket statement to you, but it is not an attack on faith; merely an attack on a misuse of faith.

And rest assured that I never for a moment thought that the three-year-old who stole his parents' computer and posted that pathetic joke on my name was you. You don't sound like the kind of person who would do that.

I'm glad our argument is resolved, and from your most recent comment, I think we are on the same page, after all. My position is, and remains that faith should not be used as an argument in a scientific discussion. Anyone who uses it to justify a scientific claim should be challanged on those grounds, on this site, or any other.

...and of course, it was. Damn!

By the way, I just noticed that the above mentioned 3yo seems to be the same juvenile who every once in a while posts messages faked as coming from Great White Wonder.

I said nothing about how theists chose to define themselves

I said nothing about how theists chose to define themselves

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000308.html

luminous beauty:

Get this: practically no thinking atheist claims to know for a fact that god{s} do not exist.

This dismantles your nice theory ab ovo. Say what you want, but if atheists don't claim knowledge but mere unbelief any remark to the contrary is a misrepresentation.

Please go and read what real atheists say, instead of imagining what they should say according to your definition. I already gave you a link to a very good primer on what atheists say and don't say; I suggest you try it.

Since "your understanding of atheism" is not based on the real things that atheist thinkers have written and said... what is it if not a fantasy?

Just for a record - I happen to be an atheist, and I definitely WOULDN'T say that I KNOW for a fact that god doesn't exist. I am an agnostic in the sense that I don't have the knowledge (and I don't even particularly desire it), but an atheist because I don't have the belief. Plus, maybe a hint of antitheist, since I find world without god to be more compelling and more "right" than world that would include god (depends on specific god, really).

Marek14,

I am happy to hear that you too wouldn't say that you know for a fact that god doesn't exist. I am sorry for misrepresenting any atheist position. I wouldn't expect anyone whose position is that of not-knowing, yet not-believing, to challange anyone whose position is that of not-knowing, yet believing. Since neither is really in the position to KNOW. That was really my point all along, but I really did not intend to misrepresent what it means to be an atheist, it was just an accident.

Yes, Emanuele it is a fantasy. It is just that. It is only my subjective personal observation and opinion bouncing harmlessly off your formidable fortress of knowledge of atheist thought.

I'm glad practically no thinking atheist claims to know for a fact that god(s) do not exist. My florid and untrustworthy, fantastical imagination might make me suggestible to wager that such an individual would bear an uncanny resemblance to a certain JAD. Wait...I think I might have....I might have seen...uh... something........uh...........no...uh....no, I guess not. Darn, genius is hard.

I just can't shake the inkling, though, that there is some latent irony in the idle unfounded speculation that without thinking theists who do believe in god(s) there would be no thinking atheists DISCLAIMING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF MERE UNBELIEF. (I'm sorry, I thought it might be just stupid enough to be clever.) (Too stupid? OK)

I kid. Really. I don't want you to think I'm in any way attacking the basis of your..ah, er....unbelief system. (I'm sorry, again)

I'm going to have to stop, now. I can't think seriously anymore. What's happening? (I truly am sorry)

Yes, Emanuele it is a fantasy. It is just that. It is only my subjective personal observation and opinion bouncing harmlessly off your formidable fortress of knowledge of atheist thought.

I'm glad practically no thinking atheist claims to know for a fact that god(s) do not exist. My florid and untrustworthy, fantastical imagination might make me suggestible to wager that such an individual would bear an uncanny resemblance to a certain JAD. Wait...I think I might have....I might have seen...uh... something........uh...........no...uh....no, I guess not. Darn, genius is hard.

I just can't shake the inkling, though, that there is some latent irony in the idle unfounded speculation that without thinking theists who do believe in god(s) there would be no thinking atheists DISCLAIMING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF MERE UNBELIEF. (I'm sorry, I thought it might be just stupid enough to be clever.) (Too stupid? OK)

I kid. Really. I don't want you to think I'm in any way attacking the basis of your..ah, er....unbelief system. (I'm sorry, again)

I'm going to have to stop, now. I can't think seriously anymore. What's happening? (I truly am sorry)

luminous beauty:

I'm sorry if you need to nurture your little fantasy of what atheists write and say. Out in the real world, there are atheists who have written and said at length what they think, records of their thoughts exist, and anybody not intellectually lazy or in bad faith would have had very little difficulty finding out. You have failed even to acknowledge the primer on atheist thought that I gave you.

You prefer to dismiss real atheists in favour of a very convenient fantasy you pull out of your preconceptions. Sorry if you see this as a low blow, but this attitude is exactly the same displayed by JAD and DaveScot in regard to the Theory of Evolution.

A couple points: post 21014 is not mine. This is the second time my ID has been hijacked and the second time I've pointed it out.  Will the powers-that-be remove that users posting privileges immediately?  That would be fair and reasonable.

— GWW