Dembski holds debate on ID as science, forgets to invite scientists

Come off it Matt. I've debated you guys in all settings, most of them quite hostile: Pennock and Miller at the American Museum of Natural History in 2002, Pigliucci at the New York Academy of Sciences in 2001, and Miller and Elsberry at the World Skeptics meeting in 2002 (at which some skeptics commended me for having the guts to show up). I'll take any of you on at any time in any venue.

I had nothing to do with the publicity for this event. If you've got a problem with it, contact Chad Kifer at ISI: CKifer@isi.org. He's responsible.

If audiences at generally-publicised events are critical of your ideas, Bill, and the only way to attract an audience weighted the other way is for someone to deliberately ensure that the event is invisible to a general audience, then maybe that should tell you something about the quality of your ideas.

William Dembski:

At the very least, then, you should resent Kifer's efforts to make you appear cowardly and foolish.

"I'll take any of you on at any time in any venue."

Excellent!

When can we expect the scientific theory of intelligent design to "take on any of [us]" in the venue of peer-reviewed scientific journals?

How ironic, this post complaining about not getting invited, preceded by a post complaining about getting invited.

What is the evidence that the ID crowd "deliberately" ensured that the event was "invisible" to a general audience?

What is the virtue in debating that which is self-evident and without which nothing about the mechanism of evolution will ever be disclosed. The sober realization is that Intelligent Design is the only conceivable starting point from which all progress has been and continues to be made.

"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1929

I am so pleased to have my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis anticipated wnen I was but an infant fifteen months old.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Come off it Matt. I've debated you guys in all settings, most of them quite hostile: Pennock and Miller at the American Museum of Natural History in 2002, Pigliucci at the New York Academy of Sciences in 2001, and Miller and Elsberry at the World Skeptics meeting in 2002 (at which some skeptics commended me for having the guts to show up). I'll take any of you on at any time in any venue.

Come off it Matt. I've debated you guys in all settings, most of them quite hostile: Pennock and Miller at the American Museum of Natural History in 2002, Pigliucci at the New York Academy of Sciences in 2001, and Miller and Elsberry at the World Skeptics meeting in 2002 (at which some skeptics commended me for having the guts to show up). I'll take any of you on at any time in any venue.

— William Dembski

Dr. Dembski,

I have a question for you. Why do you not allow comments on your site? Also, why don't you come around here more often and make rebuttal points in the comments section? I am sure everyone here would welcome it. I am sure that if you allowed comments on your blog, everyone here would love to offer their comments there.

A debate is just as public over the internet, and a direct exchange would be really exciting for us all.

Katarina makes an excellent point.

Why won't the DI fellows "take on" anyone in the "venue" of the comment section of their own blog?

Is this really reflective of creationists' approach toward open debate? What Would (the) Isaac Newton (ofinformationtheory) Do?

If anyone does contact Kifer, please ask for his permission to share his response with us.

A question on Information Theory:

How does "information" exist in the natural universe?

It would seem to me that information is nothing more than the human perception of the environment. Information [as possessed by humans] changes all the time without any change to the actual universe at all. The only thing that has changed been our perception of the universe, the universe has not changed.

Without a mind to perceive, I would propose that there is no such thing as information at all.

Comments?

[...] Miller and Elsberry at the World Skeptics meeting in 2002 [...]

— William Dembski

[...] All of this is highly speculative, and accounts for cell biologist Franklin Harold's (2001, 205) frank admission: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." When I challenged Ken Miller with this quote at the World Skeptics Conference organized by CSICOP summer 2002 (for a summary of the conference see http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-09/conference.html), Miller did not challenge the substance of Harold's claim. Rather, he merely asserted that Harold had been retired a number of years. The implication I took was that Harold was old and out of touch with current biological thinking and therefore could be ignored (in which case one has to wonder what the editors at Oxford University Press were thinking when they agreed to publish Harold's book). I wish that at the skeptics conference I had followed up more forcefully on Miller's glib dismissal of Harold. Perhaps Miller will see my response here and clarify why Harold's retirement has anything to do with the substance of Harold's claim. Still Spinning Just Fine

— William Dembski

There's a debate at Harvard on Friday over the legal issues of teach ID in schools, for anyone in the area interested in that sort of thing.

Link.

Dr. Dembski, thanks for posting at Pandasthumb. I have two questions for you: Which event(s) did the designer cause? And why do you you believe that the designer caused said event(s)? I have seen few, if any, peeople who refer to themselves as "proponent of intelligent design" clearly indicate which event(s) they think the designer caused. The kind of claim I have in mind is one that we can have a good idea of whether to accept it or not. For instance, did the designer turn dust directly into two elephants (one male and one female)?

Also, self-replicating molecules evolved (through reproduction) into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth. For instance, all mammals are descendents of the very same cell that was on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Do you agree with that? If not, why not? Some of the data that has enabled me to determine that can be found in Ernst Mayr's book What Evolution Is.

I'll agree that Bill was certainly not to blame for the selective publicity that nevertheless rebounded entirely to his advantage. I'll admit that he may even have been completely unaware of it.

But I hope he'll concede that the results of this debate show how vacuous it is to judge an idea's value by its score on the applause meter.

This episode also demonstrates why serious scientists are mostly loathe to debate ID advocates. Now that Lee Silver has been burned by the ID public relations machine, I imagine he too will be joining the ranks of the reluctant.

"Notably absent was any publicity that might have resulted in the attendance of scientists, or even of unscreened Princeton students."

Wow, that's an understatement...i'm a post-doc a Princeton and this is the first I've heard of it. granted, I don't follow the schedule of events as closely as students do, but surely I should have caught wind of an appearence by the "Isaac Newton of information theory"?

What a shame...I would have loved to attend.

I'll take any of you on at any time in any venue.

Mr. Dembski why not just admit that the designer is god? You know it, everyone else knows it, god supposedly knows it. Why be so vague? Isn't there some quote that says something about the truth setting you free? Is it ok with your god to deny the truth? Isn't that just lying by omission? Surely you do not believe that aliens came over here and planted the seeds of life. Please answer the questions in the posts above about where the designer acts or has acted. Even if your idea about a designer is true it does nothing to refute evolution. Does the designer act every single minute of the day? Where is the point of interaction? It seems that as you start tracing back where the designer acts or has acted you have to eventually get to the beginning of life. And, as has been pointed zillions of times, evolution has nothing to do with the beginning, only what happened afterward. And if the designer (god) can create such wonderous marvels as plants, animals, people, planets, stars etc. And if can interact with the world by causing floods, locust swarms and creating language, why not just magically put some words down on paper? Why has every single religious document that has ever been presented been written by a human? They may say that god "told" them to write it down but why? Why go through a human when you can create life and control the weather? Why not just write it yourself? god supposedly wrote the ten commandments into stone, but of course those are not around now. Did he lose his pen? He is omnimpotent but cannot write his own bible, torah, koran? Please address some of these questions, either here or your own post. Give people a real reason to believe that ID has some scientific merit. Build up your own idea, not tear down someone else's. You can tear down a million theories but it does not add one brick to your own wall.

Anyone else with info on how ID answers these questions please feel free to answer.

Thanks

I'd like to make it clear that I don't begrudge the ID folks their talks in front of friendly audiences. There's only so much hostility anyone can take, and I know that I would not want to always be putting myself out in front of a crowd that was predisposed to disagree with me. I admire people like Paul Nelson who can do this to the extent that they do.

BUT it would be wise to limit the conclusions drawn from the reaction of a friendly audience. And dancing in the end-zone is simply bad sportsmanship, if the field is so tilted in your favor.

Also, it seems a rather shabby trick for the organizers of a debate to intentionally (and without the knowledge of the participants) stack the audience in favor of one of the debaters.

Finally, the organizers of the debate used the Princeton name and Princeton facilities but cheated the Princeton community out of the opportunity to see Dembski in person. I'll certainly be drafting a note of complaint to the facilities department, in addition to the one I'm writing to the organizers of the debate.

And I have to ask: what were the motivations of these organizers? Were they trying to provide a staged (and therefore meaningless) victory for Dr. Dembski? Did they simply want to invoke the Princeton name for use in later PR campaigns? Or was it just horrendously sloppy planning that excluded the Princeton campus from participation?

Until such time as we get an answer, I'd suggest that Bill stop making rhetorical hay out of what has been an event of dubious legitimacy.

(Also, I'm of course waiting to see the recorded footage before I concede that Bill has any right to be claiming "victory" in the first place!)

I'll agree that Bill was certainly not to blame for the selective publicity that nevertheless rebounded entirely to his advantage. I'll admit that he may even have been completely unaware of it.

I am a Princeton student and I *was* at the debate. Just so you know, I am giving a first-hand account here.

First off, the debate was at our Woodrow Wilson School (international/public affairs type department building), so that already created a non-science atmosphere. Both Dr. Dembski and Dr. Silver appeared to be somewhat frustrated at not being able to assume the audience's knowledge of actual science. Dr. Dembski resorted to just quoting many different sources in a non-scientific context and Dr. Silver only gave very vague accounts of various instances of selection we have observed.

The audience was EXTREMELY one-sided (I believe all of the questions asked except two were blatantly pro-ID or at least anti-evolution)-- to the extent that one audience member actually stood up and said, "This is a question for Dr. Silver. Why do you hate God? Everything you have said tonight is dripping with your deep hatred of God. What did God do to you?"

The audience was by far non-Princeton students. I can count approximately 12 actual students in the audience (8 of whom I directly brought along myself because I had heard by coincidence from a professor SIX hours before the debate that there was going to be one in the first place!) The event was most definitely NOT advertised anywhere on campus and the majority of the audience was actually older adults (from the community, or elsewhere, I'm not sure, but they weren't professors or grad students).

The organizer/moderator of the debate (not sure who the professor is, but he's not in the bio department here) appears to be pro-ID himself. I say this based on encounters with him in the cafeteria and listening to him talk with one of my friends. Just as a side note, another friend was at a Women in Sciences panel a few weeks ago and recognized him as the audience member who asked rather antagonistic questions to the panel. I do not believe Dr. Dembski himself was responsible for the INCREDIBLY poor advertisment of the debate (e.g. there was NO mention of the debate ANYWHERE on any website or poster or flyer at Princeton---in order to double-check the time and location, I had to google up Dr. Dembski's website to find the information).

I felt the Professor Silver could have done a better job making the points he wished to express clear to the audience, but I think this was largely due to the lack of science-oriented audience. (Prof. Silver tried to use examples of artificial selection to demonstrate how selection as a mechanism can create diversity; but he never really made it clear that this was his point--so the pro-ID audience took that as "evidence" for how intelligence is needed to create diversity.) But at the same time, Dr. Dembski completely ignored every attempt Prof. Silver tried at asking him to give an exact specific mechanism for his "ID theory"--hence the actual topic of the debate: Is ID SciencE? was never even broached.

I have a semi-friend who is a huge fan of Dr. Dembski (I am definitely not), but both of us (and the other 6 of us who came to the debate) agreed that the debate itself was rather poorly done and that this was a result largely of both sides not being able to assume science knowledge in the audience.

I'd say in the end, the debate really did nothing and said nothing we didn't already know. Dr. Dembski failed to elucidate an actual mechanism for how an Intelligent Designer would bring about changes (Does the Designer manually change bases with some powers that he has to work on a microscopic level? Does the Designer wave a magic wand? Does the Designer expose many different organisms to extreme radiation to cause mutations in their DNA and then only pick the ones closest to the direction "evolution" should take? Seriously, we *still* have no proposed mechanism.). Professor Silver largely failed to explain to the audience the biological evidence for natural/non-artificial selection leading to new or more complex species (I could get what he was trying to say, but that is only because I am a molecular biology student and because I have some interest in the ID debate or lack-thereof.)

I have two questions for you: Which event(s) did the designer cause?  And why do you you believe that the designer caused said event(s)? 

"And I have to ask: what were the motivations of these organizers? Were they trying to provide a staged (and therefore meaningless) victory for Dr. Dembski? Did they simply want to invoke the Princeton name for use in later PR campaigns? Or was it just horrendously sloppy planning that excluded the Princeton campus from participation?"

Isn't posssible that the motivation was simply to get a scientist on the stage to begin with?

I'm sure they will use this as ammunition against the boycott in kansas.

cheers

fallmists,

Thanks for your enlightening account. It explains a lot. BTW, I sympathise with you, I have associates and family members who are otherwise very bright, but for some reason fall into the ID faulty reasoning. I don't understand it, but luckily Dembski's critics have gutted him so thoroughly that all I have to do is point to their books/articles, and if my friends are not too lazy to read, they eventually see the light.

I am sorry you have a professor there who sympathises with the ID crowd. That is quite, quite sad.

...Bill Dembski, a seminary professor.

Well, the professor is not a biologist (actually I don't think he's even a professor in any of the sciences), so that is ok. (Wait, actually I just looked him up and he's a lecturer in the politics department.)

Dembski says claims:
Thursday evening (April 7, 2005), I debated Lee Silver at Princeton University. The debate, titled "Intelligent Design: Is It Science?" was sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which recently published my book Uncommon Dissent. About 200 people attended the debate (from idthefuture

I am checking up on this, but we are almost certain that there were not 200 people there. The debate was held in am auditorium that is not large and it wasn't even filled to capacity. Haha, although, there *was* a police officer in addition campus safety!

I'll get back to this tomorrow after I stop by the auditorium and check the max capacity number.

Robertson Hall - headquarters of the Woodrow Wilson School .... The main floor of Robertson Hall contains the graduate and undergraduate program offices, student mailboxes, a lounge atrium, and the George P. Shultz '42 Dining Room. Dodds Auditorium, a 200-seat amphitheater with modern audio-visual technology, is also on the main level of the building.

...but luckily Dembski's critics have gutted him so thoroughly that all I have to do is point to their books/articles, and if my friends are not too lazy to read, they eventually see the light.

— Katarina

Michael Finley wrote:

Is Baylor's Institute for Faith and Learning a Baptist seminary?

Perhaps you haven't heard about Dembski's new employer.

From http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=19115:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. announced Sept. 16 the establishment of the Center for Science and Theology along with the appointment of renowned philosopher of science William A. Dembski as its first director.

.............

The careful reader will note that the words Baptist and Seminary are both present in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I understand that Dembski is not held in high regard around here, but at least give the man credit for being a university professor of "the conceptual foundations of science", and a mathematician.

The reason I ask is that Dembski's actual argument (e.g., The Design Inference) is rather technical

and the specialized critiques of it (e.g., Sober) are equally technical.

Oops, looks like I jumped the gun by about 6 weeks.

Dembski will be "Carl F.H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science" at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as of June 1.

Apologies to Associate Research Professor Dembski.

Well, the professor is not a biologist (actually I don't think he's even a professor in any of the sciences), so that is ok. (Wait, actually I just looked him up and he's a lecturer in the politics department.)

— fallmists

...without the math (say by reading a little Brian Greene). Which is to say, I really don't understand them at all...

Steven the average person on the street is considered fair game for ID advocates since they know that so called average people never bother to verify anything religious fruit loops say. Also these shams are used by ID advocates to boast that audience crowds overwhelimgly are swayed by ID debators.

Had one of these nits one time try to use a misquote of Niles to show that ID and Creationist debators where the best debators on the planet and respected by evolutionists. Thing is the quote said the exact opposite. The nit never responded back not even to deny when this was pointed out to them. Even though this nit objected strenously to my statement that creationists routinely misquote people.

consider pages of mathematical formulas intended to show that the maximum number of angels that can dance simultaneously on a pinhead cannot exceed 83 ... The pages of formulas could all be completely consistent, following mathematical rules to the letter. The conclusion remains total nonsense.

I don't think you're going to get very far with Bill Dembski. He's already admitted in numerous articles and interviews that he thinks intelligent design is a way to "win back the culture for Christ." But, of course, he'll probably then retreat immediately by saying that the identity of the designer isn't anything crucial to the science of intelligent design. Then you can ask him where the science in intelligent design is. And he'll flip around with some things that science doesn't know yet, some things it does but he doesn't know it does, and throw out this idea that design wins out because nothing else can be found that will satisfy the astronomical improbability of it all being just so. He'll continue to infer design in systems that science doesn't know enough about until, or even after, science has presented reasonable non-design mechanisms to explain them, at which point he'll move on to something new.

Sorry, guys, there's Gish's law (for every missing link filled there are two more missing links), and then there's Dembski's law: for every scientific discovery that begs new questions and exposes a lack of understanding, there's a niche for some nihilistic intellectual movement like intelligent design.

Discovery Institute events page
Upcoming events:

April 19, 2005
Heritage Foundation hosts Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D.
12 noon
The Heritage Foundation Lehrman Auditorium

April 19, 2005
Live Debate: Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination?
NPR program Justice Talking
7:30 PM at The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia
featuring Dr. Paul Nelson and Dr. Niall Shanks
free and open to the public

April 21, 2005
George Gilder's "Silicon Eye"
Lecture and Book Signing with the Author
7:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 21st in Benaroya's Illsley Ball Nordstrom Recital Hall

May 5, 2005
CDR Steve Bristow, United States Navy
apparently nothing to do with Intelligent Design Creationism

The audience was EXTREMELY one-sided (I believe all of the questions asked except two were blatantly pro-ID or at least anti-evolution)— to the extent that one audience member actually stood up and said, “This is a question for Dr. Silver. Why do you hate God? Everything you have said tonight is dripping with your deep hatred of God. What did God do to you?”

— fallmists

April 19, 2005 Live Debate: Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination? NPR program Justice Talking

Do your friends have professional training in statistics? The reason I ask is that Dembski's actual argument (e.g., The Design Inference) is rather technical, and the specialized critiques of it (e.g., Sober) are equally technical.

— Michael Finley

One has to wonder what actions would qualify someone as a "frothing at the mouth fundamentalist" in William Dembski's mind.

Maybe he's just spent too much time with his Discovery Institute pals. Compared to them, that audience member probably sounded like a godless communist.

Everything you have said tonight is dripping with your deep hatred of God.

William,

Isn't this what ID is really about?

"Even many Christians who have been raised and indoctrinated in a secular mindset ... will say, 'Look, we're just going to have to accept the science of the day and try to make our peace with it theologically,'" Dembski said. "And there is no peace theologically ... ultimately with this view [Darwinian evolution]. But they accept it. And so, this idea of intelligent design becomes very threatening."

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20574

Why not just be honest and say that ID is a waste of time scientifically but it makes you feel better about your religious beliefs?

Stuart

Why do you hate God? Everything you have said tonight is dripping with your deep hatred of God.

fallmists, do you agree with Mr. Dembski's assessment of that particular audience member's questions?

Demski says: This became especially clear when one young man asked Silver, "Why do you hate God?" This young man, who I assume was a Princeton student, asked the question not as a "frothing at the mouth fundamentalist" but as a psychiatrist might in trying to understand a case study. He asked the question very calmly, indicating that he genuinely wanted to understand Silver's motivations.

386sx; I don't agree with Dembski's assessment at all because I *know* this particular young man, who happens to be an rather well-known evangelical Christian on campus (who wears anti-abortion slogan shirts with photos of "bloody aborted babies" at times). Certainly not as a psychiatrist, more like a priest who's been taught that evolution is incompatible with a belief in God.

Though, if you don't talk to him about religious/political issues, he's a rather nice guy.

we are all basically nice unless we feel threatened, yes?

As I have said before, Intelligent Design Creationism is hollow marketing ploy to advance a political and religious agenda. They have no real scientific agenda. Your sure don't want scientists to spoil the event by asking a lot of embarrassing questions and siding with the lone opposition. It helps be able to pick on only one person. I'm afraid Dr. Silver and Princeton helped their marketing efforts.

One never knows whether Dembski checks back in after making one of his drive-by taunts, but as I picture him reading Fallmists's account of the event I can't help but hear, running through his head, the refrain of the song that was popular a few years ago... "I wish the real world would just quit hassling me"

Posted by William Dembski on April 13, 2005 10:57 AM I'll take any of you on at any time in any venue.

I understand that Dembski is not held in high regard around here, but at least give the man credit for being a university professor of "the conceptual foundations of science", and a mathematician.

Dembski holds debate on ID as science, forgets to invite scientists

Note to self: If invited to debate a wing-nut at an event organized by a wing-nut organization, just say no. What was Silver thinking?

First Berlinski, now Dembski. Wow you guys are just giddy with joy. You even had to take a cheap shot at both of them to get their replies. I think we should let them get back to their research. I'd be glad to entertain any well thought out coherent questions about the science vs. darwinism debate.

Three well-thought-out questions for Evolving Apeman:

1) What are you evolving into?

3) Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

3) Are you Great White Wonder's:
a) Evil Twin
b) Alter ego?
c) Greatest Admirer?

"I think we should let them get back to their research"

uh, what research would that be, exactly? that's the point, yes?

"I think we should let them get back to their research."

And just how is it that the rest of us are impeding their research? Why do we need to "let" them get back to it? On th contrary, we've been pleading with them to actually do some research for as long as there's been an Intelligent Design movement. If anything, IDists have impeded the research of real scientists by lighting fires that we have to go and put out, or through political lobbying that makes congressmen less able or willing to fund science. Perhaps we should just leave them alone and "let them get back to being a shoehorn for slipping religious dogma into public education."

As for the student with an enormous political axe to grind, Eric Rudolph is probably a very nice guy, too, unless of course you're a Jew, have any tie to abortion, or happen to have darker skin.

It would seem to me that information is nothing more than the human perception of the environment.

Information [as possessed by humans] changes all the time without any change to the actual universe at all.

The only thing that has changed been our perception of the universe, the universe has not changed.

Without a mind to perceive, I would propose that there is no such thing as information at all. Comments?

"Is that statement always true, but only true when I'm perceiving it? And besides, if no one's perceiving it, how do you know there's an environment when all minds are absent? "

if a tree falls in the forest...

And besides, if no one's perceiving it, how do you know there's an environment when all minds are absent?

"I think we should let them get back to their research"

Three well-thought-out questions for Evolving Apeman: 1) What are you evolving into? 3) Which came first - the chicken or the egg? 3) Are you Great White Wonder's: a) Evil Twin b) Alter ego? c) Greatest Admirer?

Dembski's response That should silence a few cries of "foul play"

So far, The talking points raised here almost match what's described in "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank's article on Debates . Although keeping it quiet on a college campus and invited only the converted is a new wrinkle - just padding a line on a theologic resume saying one had debated in the heart of the "liberal" camp?

keeping it quiet on a college campus and invited only the converted is a new wrinkle

I was the one who debated Dembski last Thursday night. I did it mostly for the experience (and to be able to write about it), because I knew that no one in the audience would change their mind. I told the Dembski people that I would ONLY debate if the agreed-upon question was "Intelligent Design: Is it Science?" They agreed. I didn't provide any evidence for biological evolution, because that wasn't part of the question (and the audience wouldn't have understood the evidence anyway). But as we all know, ID is a smoke-screen for the Christian god of the Bible, who was supposed to have created each living thing as it exists today. So, I directed my talk toward a critique of the Christian god. I provided some visuals to demonstrate that there are lots of living things that God didn't create. A striking example is corn, which was bred out of an inedible weed. Also, God was supposed to have put seeds in the ground for each plant, but bananas don't produce seeds -- another conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe it was these examples that led to the challenge, "why do you hate God?" The questioner clarified that he was talking about the Biblical god. I said I didn't hate God. What I didn't say was that it makes no sense to hate a fictional character. But, quietly, I was happy with the question because it demonstrated exactly what this debate is all about. If there was one goal that I had, it was to challenge the claim that ID is science. Natural selection should have been a side issue according to the question put to debate. I suspect that most people in the audience would have agreed that their beliefs are based on faith -- not science -- because that's what their religion is all about.

The fact that a public debate was held on the topic "ID - is it Science?" itself answers the question. Such debates do not, and can not, answer such questions. Even debates at scientific conferences which involve experts do not decide such issues - although they may raise interesting ideas.

If ID were science then there would be experiments, simulations, predictions, etc. This all seems so obvious that it is beyond belief that any of this could be taken seriously.

Dembski is a showman pure and simple. Anyone who could state in the preface to a book that they are not a "fan of notation" and then proceed to fill the book with the sort of nottaion Dembski uses could be assumed to be either (a) a nerd or (b) to have a twisted sense of humor. But when it turns out that the notation serves no useful purpose beyond making the treatise look scholarly then it becomes clear what sort of a scientist or mathematician Mr Demski really is. By their fruit ye shall know them.

...since science isn't decided by "debate".

— Mr. Frank

A debate is an exchange of arguments. Scientific questions, along with every other sort of rational question, are decided by arguments.

Mr Finley,

Scientific theories are certainly established through "debate" in the sense of discussion and argumentation in which facts and predictions are provided and established. This is done primarily in teh scientific literature and the "debate" involves reproducing (or not) the findings of others. However, "Debates: in the usual sense of a speaking competition between two oppoenents or teams cannot decide science. Since we are talking about such a debate - between Dembski and Silver - it is a bit disingenous - but typical - to confuse the issue

If you really think that whatyou say makes sense then let's have a public debate on Cold Fusion at Princeton. If the people who support Cold Fusion win the debate then our energy problems are solved, right?

whoops - I accidentally posted Finley's last name in and so replaced my own in the previous post.

To all of you who spent valuable time taking me to task on whether predictions followed from the hypothesis of common design, please critic my latest rumination on the same topic. I'm sure this will be moved to the Wall, but better to start out on a more recent thread.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=425e8db19206ffff;act=ST;f=14;t=10

No, scientific questions are decided by evidence.

— Flint

There's scientific debate based on evidence, and then there's the politically-charged debates relished by IDers. Don't equivocate.

There's scientific debate based on evidence, and then there's the politically-charged debates relished by IDers. Don't equivocate.

— Glen Davidson

Likewise, a productive, reasoned exchange can occur in a moderated debate setting (e.g., Buckley's Firing Line).

— Michael Finley

Dr. Elsberry,

What constitutes being "settled" in either case?

Is an issue settled if a peer-reviewed journal article claims that it's settled? Is there no difference between publishing an article and proving a conclusion? Surely there is, or the mere appearance of Meyer's article in a peer-reviewed journal would have established ID as scientific fact.

I can anticipate the response: "The vast majority of scientists and articles..." Majority rule in science, right? What settles a debate, then? The reception of arguments by the "audience" (of readers or hearers). Obviously some audiences are better than others, but there is no reason to believe that one medium of debate is, in principle, superior to another.

"I told the Dembski people that I would ONLY debate if the agreed-upon question was "Intelligent Design: Is it Science?""

Good strategy. ID proponents spend 99% of their energy attacking evolution. The real issue, and their weakest point among many weak points, is that ID is not science. They suggest that if evolution fails as an idea the only alternative is a creative, designing God. In other words, that science isn't adequate to answer the question of origins. None of them really believe that intelligent design is science. They know it for what it is, even if they won't acknowledge the truth.

The real issue ... is that ID is not science.

— GT(N)T

They suggest that if evolution fails as an idea the only alternative is a creative, designing God.

In other words, that science isn't adequate to answer the question of origins.

None of them really believe that intelligent design is science.

Dr. Elsberry, What constitutes being "settled" in either case?

— Michael Finley

What a silly comment. A debate is an exchange of arguments. Scientific questions, along with every other sort of rational question, are decided by arguments.

— Michael Finley earlier

Amusing to see Dembski posturing with "I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue." He could start at ARN where all he usually manages is a drive by post to start a thread, and then the occasional offhand response. His record at his home ground of ISCID is hardly much better.

I suspect he knows that in a written Internet debate he'll get trounced.

There is no reason to exclude negative, empirical arguments from "science." If a theory cannot explain a natural fact, it counts against the explanatory power of the theory.

First, no mention is made of God (e.g., by Behe or Dembski). It is always an unknown designer. Second, it is never claimed that a designer is the only alternative, just that it is the best of the remaining possibilities (all of which are currently unformulated).

Only if science is synonymous with neo-Darwinian evolution.

[As he peers into men's souls].

Evolving Apeman: Dembski's response That should silence a few cries of "foul play"

Dembski says that the ISI chairman says: Countless flyers were posted on campus

That is most certainly the most blatant lie EVER.

HAHAHAHA! Exactly *where* were these flyers? I'm a molecular bio major. I go to classes in the bio buildings. I take chemistry. I am in the chemistry buildings. My friends are physics and math majors. They have classes in the physics in math buildings. Not a single one of us saw any flyers, *including* the one of us who is a self-proclaimed "fan" of Dembski. *I* told him about the debate after hearing about it 6 hours beforehand from one of my professors (who heard an hour before that by email from his department). As I mentioned before, there was no mention of the debate anywhere on campus; I had to go to Dembski's website to find the location and time of the debate. Give me a break.

Russ Nieli, who moderated the debate and has taught at Princeton since the 80s, didn't think the debate was stacked.

From observation/interaction with him, Prof. Nieli also apparently thinks quite positively about Behe's books.

Dr. Elsberry,

Asking more questions without answering mine. Why am I not surprised.

It's not Dr. Finley (and I'm not patronizing you by calling you 'Dr.', if that's your suggestion; I can call you 'Wes' if we're on a first name basis, 'Mr. Elsberry', or simply 'Elsberry' if you prefer).

An argument (i.e., a reasoned position) presented by a scientist is no less an argument if it is spoken or written. And the criteria for an argument being "settled" or "decided" (these are synonymous here, despite your sarcastic retraction) are the same in both instances, viz., being accepted by the audience (of hearers or readers). As I said before, some audiences are better than others, but that is beside the point.

Dembski writes:

Here is a brief review of the debate by a Princeton grad student in astrophysics who was there (he emailed it to me -- does he count as a "normal Princeton student"?): I really appreciated Dembski's style and directness. His opponent was a pretty stereotypical evolutionist[...]

Oh wait, is that the astrophysics student who stood up and "patiently" explained to Professor Silver that his hypothesis that a remote control was created in a factory is an obvious example of "Design Inference"? Usage of the phrase "stereotypical evolutionist" doesn't sound unbiased to me.

Actually, it sounds like yet another member of the majority pro-ID audience I mentioned earlier.

fallmists:

You are starting to grasp the creationist methodology. Yes, his claims are a lie. But they serve a dual purpose: they satisfy those who desire to believe, and they provide a sort of trail. Later on, you will find people perhaps even including Dembski citing this lie as "proof" that he was not lying! How much do you wish to bet that Russ Nieli "remembers" seeing those flyers, but can't quite recall exactly where, only that they were "all over"?

Second, magical claims are not "alternative explanations" in any scientific sense. Pretending they are is dishonest.

I'll give Finley the benefit of the doubt that he really cannot tell the difference between a tool and something built with that tool.

Pretending that a non-scientific doctrine (i.e. not testable in principle) is also scientific is dishonest.

This is false on a couple of counts. First, no mention is made of God (e.g., by Behe or Dembski). It is always an unknown designer.

Just a quick response to Dembski's charge of "petulance" among the "anti-ID blogosphere."

My criticism of Dembski is not that he was responsible for the targeted advertising that led to a stacked debate audience.

My criticism is that Dembski seems to think this particular audience's reactions had something to do with his success or failure at defending the proposition that ID is science.

This is not a new criticism, of course. The behavior of the ISI is standard operating procedure within the ID bubble and its religiously motivated echo chamber.

And I concur with fallmists: no flyers were evident, at least in the usual campus locations. Maybe Dr. Nieli or some ISI representative can provide us with details about where they were placed, so that we can look for similar flyers in the future.

"Posted by Lee Silver "

I'm ashamed of the crowd at PT. I just started catching up this morning, and noticed that Dr. Silver actually took the time to stop by and post his very thoughts on the actual debate under discussion.

Did anyone bother to thank him, or even acknowledge his contribution??

nope.

Did anyone bother to ask him any direct questions, since he WAS one of PRINCIPLES?

nope.

you let a great resource just walk away.

*sigh*

well, I say, thanks for stopping by and letting us know what your thoughts on the debate were, Dr. Silver.

If you are still lurking about, I have some questions:

Did any of the audiences questions reflect any thought given to the evidence supporting evolutionary theory at all? or was it truly more pews than benches?

did you speak with any of the audience, or Dembski, after the "debate"?

what did they have to say then?

What did your dept. think of the debate? did any of them attend?

I could ask quite a few more, but i'll stop there for now.

cheers

Great White Wonder,

"Unknown" means unknown, i.e., I don't know who it is. The ID hypothesis is that there is a designer, but that we currently don't know anything about the designer other than that he/she/it is a designer. And for the purposes of, e.g., Dembski's or Behe's arguments, the identity of the designer is irrelevant.

There is a difference between advocating an unknown designer for the purposes of an empirical argument, and believing that designer to be God for religious reasons. It's an easy distinction.

Only if methodological naturalism is assumed a priori. And pretending that we havn't already had this discussion and dismissed that possibility is dishonest.

I'd like to correct a common but mistaken belief about ID's claims. Michael Finley writes that "[t]he ID hypothesis is that there is a designer." This is not exactly true. The creationist belief is that there is a designer (specifically one that exists outside of the world as it was created). "Intelligent Design" asserts that, not only is there a designer, but that the designer's presence is empirically detectable by naturalistic means. It is this bold assertion (that ID methodology exists to detect the presence of "a designer") that makes ID's profession of complete ignorance of the designer's identity seem somewhat convenient. (Convenient it most certainly is, for those who hope to hide the theological content and motivation of ID.)

And toejam: you're right, we should extend our thanks to Dr. Silver, especially since he took time out from a very busy schedule to chat with us.

"Unknown" means unknown, i.e., I don't know who it is.

"for the purposes of, e.g., Dembski's or Behe's arguments, the identity of the designer is irrelevant"

laughable.

irrelevant? really? I rather doubt those funding the ID movement, the DI website, or any of the other dis-information sites about ID would agree that the identity of the "creator" is irrelevant.

I haven't seen any ID postulates that the creator is allah, for example.

If a the identity of the creator is so irrelevant, what is your motivation for believing ID has any credibility?

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Let me help you guys out. As a scientist I can tell that the watch I found on the ground didn't assemble itself (yeah I know the example isn't original but its still good). It takes a desperate atheist with self-fulfilling argument to delude himself that a natural process assembled the complexity of life.

The arguments that demolish macro-evolutions are actually quite simple and have existed for years. If only we could get a spark of integrity in the empty rhetoric of our nihilistic colleagues.

Now back to working on my paper for Nature entitled, "Macro-evolution: The anti-theory of circular reasoning". I'm going to request some ID proponents to review this landmark article, since they don't a priori assume naturalism. I wonder if it will get a fair review?

As a scientist

I can tell that the watch I found on the ground didn't assemble itself (yeah I know the example isn't original but its still good). It takes a desperate atheist with a self-fulfilling argument to delude himself that a natural process assembled the complexity of life.

Apeman,

(a) It isn't a good analogy because machines made out of metal parts cannot assemble themselves. It is a consequence of kinetic barriers. Fluid phase processes generally have smaller kinetic barriers and multiple pathways - the dynamics of molecular self-assembly in fluid phases is totally different to the watch analogy.

(b) If your analogy held it would still be flawed; if the watch had a designer then that designer must have had a designer too. Of course you agree for you *** just know *** that the watch's designer was a human. So you are postulating an infinite hierarchy of designers, and not a single designer. That's fine - just try selling ID as polytheism.

Good luck with your paper to Nature. Unfortunately not only do such papers have to be technically reasonable they also have to be original. So I think you're screwed.

As a scientist I can tell that the watch I found on the ground didn't assemble itself (yeah I know the example isn't original but its still good). It takes a desperate atheist with self-fulfilling argument to delude himself that a natural process assembled the complexity of life.

— EA

The arguments that demolish macro-evolutions are actually quite simple and have existed for years.

— EA

If only we could get a spark of integrity in the empty rhetoric of our nihilistic colleagues.

— EA

Now back to working on my paper for Nature entitled, "Macro-evolution: The anti-theory of circular reasoning". I'm going to request some ID proponents to review this landmark article, since they don't a priori assume naturalism.

— EA

no apologies necessary, i'm sure.

seems we are all just having fun throwing rocks at the troll.

any chance at substantive discussion seems long gone.

Even tho i've only been posting here a relatively short time, this seem the standard ontogenesis of pretty much any thread at PT.

I have to admit, it is an enjoyable lunchtime activitiy.

>:)

cheers

I didn't provide any evidence for biological evolution, because that wasn't part of the question (and the audience wouldn't have understood the evidence anyway). But as we all know, ID is a smoke-screen for the Christian god of the Bible, who was supposed to have created each living thing as it exists today. So, I directed my talk toward a critique of the Christian god.

— Lee Silver

But as we all know, ID is a smoke-screen for the Christian god of the Bible, who was supposed to have created each living thing as it exists today.

— Lee Silver

I wish you had posted that after Silver popped in. I would have liked to have seen the response.

oh well.

Wesley, who is the person relating the history of evo devo in the beginning of the Q&A session?

thanks.

With friends like Dr. Silver, I don't need enemies.

William Dembski has reminded us that the emerging Intelligent Design movement has a four pronged approach to defeating naturalism: (1) A scientific/philosophical critique of naturalism; (2) a positive scientific research program (Intelligent Design) for investigating the effects of intelligent causes; (3) rethinking every field of inquiry infected with naturalism and reconceptualizing it in terms of design; (4) development of a theology of nature by relating the intelligence inferred by intelligent design to the God of Scripture (Moreland 1999, citing Dembski 1998.

I did it mostly for the experience (and to be able to write about it), because I knew that no one in the audience would change their mind.

also, after listening to the Q&A session, It's obvious you had quite a different audience, to say the least!

" did a pretty good job of communicating to the audience that "intelligent design" had not yet demonstrated that it had scientific standing"

moreover, you did a decent job of answering how science is able to "tease out" and address design issues without any reference to ID, using the ancient tool example.

Posted by Michael Finley on April 14, 2005 10:27 AM (e) (s) Mr. Frank wrote: . . . since science isn't decided by "debate". What a silly comment. A debate is an exchange of arguments. Scientific questions, along with every other sort of rational question, are decided by arguments.

To all of you who spent valuable time taking me to task on whether predictions followed from the hypothesis of common design, please critic my latest rumination on the same topic.

Asking more questions without answering mine. Why am I not surprised.

There is a difference between advocating an unknown designer for the purposes of an empirical argument, and believing that designer to be God for religious reasons. It's an easy distinction.

It takes a desperate atheist

I concur that "intelligent design" is more like "intentional deception", but I think Silver is way out of line in his self-reported approach to dealing with the issue.

Finley, Comment 24921 awaits your reply whenever you regain consciousness.

There is a difference between advocating an unknown designer for the purposes of an empirical argument, and believing that designer to be God for religious reasons. It's an easy distinction.

"Speaking of "not answering questions", I am still waiting for you to produce a scientific theory of ID that can be tested using the scientific method.

What seems to be the problem?"

he's waiting for Dembski to do it first.

In a victory for pranksters at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a bunch of computer-generated gibberish masquerading as an academic paper has been accepted at a scientific conference. Jeremy Stribling said Thursday that he and two fellow MIT graduate students questioned the standards of some academic conferences, so they wrote a computer program to generate research papers complete with "context-free grammar," charts and diagrams. The trio submitted two of the randomly assembled papers to the World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI), scheduled to be held July 10-13 in Orlando, Florida. To their surprise, one of the papers -- "Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy" -- was accepted for presentation.

I don't see any steps of the scientific method listed anywhere in your sermon.

— The Tireless Blowhard

...do you or do you not believe that we can make no reasonable conjecture about the nature of the mysterious alien beings who designed all the "irreducibly complex" life forms that ever lived on earth?

— Great White Wonder

Sorting through your double-negatives, I believe you mean to ask me whether I have a scientific conjecture about the nature of the hypothesized designer. The answer is no.

I have long deplored (and opposed) the verbal domination of the anti-ID movement by atheists with their own irrelevant agenda. It doesn't help us fight IDers. It DOES help the IDers fight US. And I see no need to help them in this way.

— Rev Dr/

"That's because you're amazingly obtuse."

that's not an answer. I must be obtuse as well, I sure don't see it.

could you repeat it for us obtuse children, please?

I really would like to see you use the scientific method.

really.

plz?

my previous comment is directed at MF, just to clarify.

Do you believe that it is impossible to make reasonable conjectures about the nature of the mysterious alien beings who designed all the "irreducibly complex" life forms that ever lived on earth?

— Great White Wonder

Wesley writes:
"The June 17th, 2001 debate in the CTNS/AAAS "Interpreting Evolution" conference at Haverford College is well-documented." [...] "I didn't seek to offend religious believers, but took Dembski to task for problems in his arguments. And by my reckoning, I did a pretty good job of communicating to the audience that "intelligent design" had not yet demonstrated that it had scientific standing."

I was there and can confirm Wesley's description. Bill Dembski did come somewhat clean in admitting that there was a lot of unfinished work to be done to demonstrate ID's claims (his, in particular). I don't think much progress has happened since then, but you'd never know it from reading the DI's blurbs.

I believe that it is impossible to make "reasonable" (i.e., supported by rational argument that does not use revealed truths as premises) conjectures about the nature of the designer.

"This leads to a difficult logical puzzle. The only way we can identify human design is from direct personal experience with human design --- and even then, we get it wrong sometimes. If no possible relationship can be drawn between the designer and His designs, then no possible suspicion of design could arise in the first place. That relationship is all that can exist to lead to the conclusion of design"

the problem is, as is readily apparent, "logic" fails when applied to creationism. therefore, i expect any creationist to simply ignore or obfuscate your argument. regardless of whether it strikes the mark or not.

*sigh*

Re "If there are any supernatural mechanisms involved in any aspect of reality science investigates, then I think you will find universal agreement that science lacks the tools to even notice this, much less explain it."

I'd think it would cause sporadic unpredictable anomalies that would be noticed unless they're too subtle.

Henry

"I'd think it would cause sporadic unpredictable anomalies that would be noticed unless they're too subtle."

feel free to review the literature and see if that might be true, Henry.

what would you be looking for, specifically? cases where anomalies were excluded from the data? You would then have to eliminate all other possible reasons for excluded outlier or anomolous data from these studies.

You might be on to something, but it will take you at least a year or two to tease out any patterns.

on the other hand, real science takes time and dedication. I say, go for it! you never know...

cheers

Re "what would you be looking for, specifically?"

That's the ID advocates' problem. :)

Re "on the other hand, real science takes time and dedication."

Guess that means the ID advocates have their work cut out for them, so they'd better put aside the polictics and start researching something. (Ha ha.)

Henry

yup. the above should take them a couple of years or so, before they figure out there is nothing there. kinda like dembski's mathematical "proof".

What is the virtue in debating that which is self-evident and without which nothing about the mechanism of evolution will ever be disclosed. The sober realization is that Intelligent Design is the only conceivable starting point from which all progress has been and continues to be made. "Everything is determined . . . by forces over which we have no control." Albert Einstein, Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1929 I am so pleased to have my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis anticipated when I was but an infant fifteen months old. How do you like them apples? John A. Davison

Posted by Michael Finley on April 14, 2005 07:27 PM (e) (s) The Tireless Blowhard wrote: I don't see any steps of the scientific method listed anywhere in your sermon. That's because you're amazingly obtuse.

Sorting through your double-negatives, I believe you mean to ask me whether I have a scientific conjecture about the nature of the hypothesized designer. The answer is no.

Short of the tautologous point that it/they is/are designer(s), yes I believe that it is impossible to make "reasonable" (i.e., supported by rational argument that does not use revealed truths as premises) conjectures about the nature of the designer.

If ID was simply religion, most people wouldn't care about it. In the world today, there are over 10,000 different religions and that's counting Christianity as one religion (with 33,800 sects, many of which hold beliefs that are contradictory to each other). See http://www.adherents.com/ I, for one, enjoy talking to people about their spiritual beliefs (as an amateur anthropologist) and I have traveled to 52 countries to do just this. (Pictures at my website http://24.225.233.42/biotechspirit/indexBioSpirit.html ) But evangelical Christians are not content to just hold beliefs and let others hold different beliefs. Evangelical Christians believe that they must convert everyone else in the world to their own form of Christianity, in order to maximize their own chances of getting into heaven. The New Testament predicts a battle in which Jesus' angels fight against the Devil's spirits (demons) in both heaven (inside the firmament -- the hard canopy at the top of the blue sky) and on earth. When Jesus wins, all dead bodies get resurrected and the archangel Micheal decides who goes to heaven. If you don't go to heaven, you get thrown into a lake of fire!!!
So even if you didn't suffer during your first death, you will suffer in your second. When a 10 year child gets this kind of indoctrination, he is likely to be shaking in his boots to do the right thing. After my debate, I was surrounded by 10 year children who were like zoombies telling me that I was seriously mistaken -- There is just one God and it is Jesus. I asked several children how they knew this, and their faces turned blank. Like zoombies, they repeated the phrase over again, "there is just one God and it is Jesus."

ID is driven by Christian evangelicalism. I admit, not every ID person is an evangelical, but evangelicalism is its main driving force. Those people believe that they are the troops of Jesus fighting the Devil, and so, any tactic -- whether it requires stealth, cheating, or lying -- is justified morally. If they get you to argue science, they've scored a victory. If you argue religion, they get all huffy and puffy -- Dembski accused me of "using the G-word," as if that was off-bounds. Brilliant tactic on his part. Don't succumb! The G-word, not science, is what it's all about. THE REASON THIS MATTERS is because they want to take-over science teaching in the public schools. The best way to combat them is to pull the religious veils off their faces and expose them for who they are. If you've got a better tactic, I'd like to hear it.

Evangelical Christians believe that they must convert everyone else in the world to their own form of Christianity, in order to maximize their own chances of getting into heaven. The New Testament predicts a battle in which Jesus' angels fight against the Devil's spirits (demons) in both heaven (inside the firmament --- the hard canopy at the top of the blue sky) and on earth. When Jesus wins, all dead bodies get resurrected and the archangel Micheal decides who goes to heaven.

THE REASON THIS MATTERS is because they want to take-over science teaching in the public schools. The best way to combat them is to pull the religious veils off their faces and expose them for who they are.

The decline in respect for science is largely due to superfluous unverifiable claims being taught as dogma in schools.

Lee,

One more thing. Debating us trolls in a public forum only feeds the fire. Ignoring us is the official policy here at Pandas Thumb. We ignorant masses shouldn't be given an opportunity to hear a debate. The high priests of Darwinism should decide what is included in the textbooks regarding origins.

Evolving Apeman,

Something has always baffled me about middle-of-the road evolution deniers, so I will ask you, since you are paying attention at the moment. What is the reason that micro-evolution cannot build up to macro-evolution?

Katarina: What is the reason that micro-evolution cannot build up to macro-evolution? I already pursued that question with the Apeman. Let me just save you a lot of wild-goose chasing. In the end, he admitted there is no scientific reason to believe there is any barrier between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution.

Katarina,

1. No reasonable starting point for macro-evolution. Abiogenesis is simply assumed to have occured. Amazingly, scientiest can't reproduce what occured in nature in the laboratory.

2. The changes in complexity, function, behavior that occurs with micro-evolution is fairly unimpressive compared to the claims of macro-evolution. In otherwords, how do you equate antimicrobial resistence to a bacteria evolving into a human?

3. It is a hypothesis that can't be observed or tested in a rigorous way. It is largely defended with rhetoric and as an "anti-theory of the gaps"

4. If we believe macro-evolution as a chance driven process occured, than we should be consistent with the implication that all human behavior is amoral and simply the product of evolution. Emperically, transendence, morality, and good&evil exist. However, the acceptance of macro-evolution is based on the assumption of philophical naturalism.

Evolving Apeman,

What do you think about the talkorigins FAQs describing instances of speciation? Doesn't that demonstrate macroevolution?

The best way to combat them is to pull the religious veils off their faces and expose them for who they are. If you've got a better tactic, I'd like to hear it.

— Lee Silver

To Evolving Apeman: THis is my last post on this site. I need to prepare for another debate on the Princeton campus on Monday with another group of religious right members who oppose embryo stem cell research. So bye-bye. Before I go, I must that I am suprised you haven't read Revelation chapters 12 and 19.

Revelation, Chapter 12
12:7
And there was *war in heaven*: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
12:8
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
12:10
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
12:11
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12:12
Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19:11
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
19:12
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
19:14
And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
19:16
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
19:17
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
19:18
That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19:19
And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
19:20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
19:21
And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Thank you, Dr. Silver, for your contributions to this discussion. Being an inveterate FlipFlopper, I see merit to both the Elsberry and the Silver positions. On the whole, I come down tactically on the Elsberry side, philosophically on the Silver side.

Good luck with the stem cell thing.

1. ...Amazingly, scientiest can't reproduce what occured in nature in the laboratory.

The best way to combat them is to pull the religious veils off their faces and expose them for who they are. If you've got a better tactic, I'd like to hear it.

— Lee Silver

I think that it was the sentiments expressed by Elsberry and at least one other poster that kept some of us from commenting on Lee Silver's earliest post. We'd rather not criticize Silver's tactics, but wouldn't praise them either.

Silver seems to think that the best tactic is to rip the religious veils off of the ID faces, when those "veils" are only made of fishnet. It's like the OJ defense team, they knew OJ was guilty like the rest of us, but they had a legalistic deniability that allowed them to say, "Prove it". That's all that the religious DI presents as well, the bald-faced declaration that they are not espousing religious doctrine, no matter how little that species of dishonesty covers.

If no one listened, then well and good, they'd simply fail. But creationism/IDism is thick with denial, and just about every creationist/ID tactic dreamed up is taken over by the "faithful". One need only read posters here, like Finley, to see how egregious the denial and word games are, and to recognize that they're not about to be persuaded by better thinking. And these are the more educated ones, granted, with more training in obfuscation, but also the ones who really should know better. Your average creationist/ID hopefully listening to the "experts" really does not recognize the egregious tactics of the IDists, and is not going to be dissuaded by pointing to the religiosity of ID proponents. That religiosity is an advantage, not only in the eyes of many of not only the "faithful", but also to the casually religious.

In an audience of psychologically and sociologically knowledgeable members, exposing the religious mission behind ID should be successful. In the audience portrayed in the reporting of the debate, the likely response is, "thank God real science agrees with what God wrote in his word."

We're generally not trying to persuade the religiously committed? Well OK, but we do have to appeal to the fence-sitters, at least, in a democracy. And taking on the (Judeo?)Christian God isn't going to cut it, except with the academic choir. Regardless of that, Americans actually have quite a favorable attitude toward science, no matter how much pseudo-science they buy into, so that any tactic actually designed to persuade the fence-sitters is almost certainly going to highlight the proper practices of science and the results gained from scientific methods.

Every last ID poster I've encounted at PT fails to understand the basics of science, which is following the chain of causality (no, I'm not interested in Hume's criticisms of causality at this point, since he, too, understood its value as interpretation in the practice of the science of his day) back to any putative "cause". These people think that a "cause" is whatever is ultimately responsible, and not what can be shown through the chain of efficient causes to be responsible. I'd like to see them tried in court on such wretched methodolgy and hear them scream about the injustice, but until then, they'll never understand what the rules of evidence entail.

But these are people who have learned how not to think properly, in order to maintain their prejudices. They are not the average person poorly educated in science, yet willing to learn about what constitutes proper science. Many of the average persons will watch Court TV, and notably "Forensic Files", and may have some knowledge of proper procedure. Many who don't will nevertheless be happy to learn. It may not be easy in a short presentation to outline how science/justice is committed appropriately, but I suspect that it can be done, and perhaps even is being done by some.

This is what I'd focus on, the universally accepted procedures used to find out who or what is responsible for a given phenomenon. Evangelicals and fundamentalists have a stake in the rules of evidence just like the rest of us, and the more open-minded among them may be persuaded to let science be taught according to the rules of evidence (as construed in science), and not insist on leaving out all of the necessary steps for determining the causes of biological phenomena. I think that this is a better tactic than taking on any purported "ultimate cause" such as God, since there is no way of using the rules of evidence to show that this being does or does not exist (although more chthonic "supernatural beings" like those found in Homer could theoretically be investigated), and it is really only this impossibility that science is interested in. We want simply to use and teach methods based in the rules of evidence (differently construed in science than in criminal forensics, but the principles are largely the same), and not to pronounce on "ultimate causes" that remain beyond scientific investigation.

1. No reasonable starting point for macro-evolution.  Abiogenesis is simply assumed to have occured.  Amazingly, scientiest can't reproduce what occured in nature in the laboratory.

2. The changes in complexity, function, behavior that occurs with micro-evolution is fairly unimpressive compared to the claims of macro-evolution.  In otherwords, how do you equate antimicrobial resistence to a bacteria evolving into a human?

3. It is a hypothesis that can't be observed or tested in a rigorous way.  It is largely defended with rhetoric and as an "anti-theory of the gaps"

4. If we believe macro-evolution as a chance driven process occured, than we should be consistent with the implication that all human behavior is amoral and simply the product of evolution.  Emperically, transendence, morality, and good&evil exist.  However, the acceptance of macro-evolution is based on the assumption of philophical naturalism.

"Please leave debating ID advocates to the professionals. Or if you are determined to do so anyway, ask for assistance before the debate."

This is a really obnoxious comment. I am be wrong, but I suspect that I have studied and written about religious beliefs, of people from around the world, to a much greater extent than you have. (I have a book coming out on the topic.) You and I are simply coming at this issue from different directions. Christian evangelicals are rather unique among all the people I've talked to in their absolutism concerning a literal interpretation of the Bible. American evangelical LEADERS are also unique because they are dishonest about their goals (unlike Muslim or Hindu or Jewish fundamentalists in other countries). This is why it is so important to unveil evangelical leaders. If they admitted that their beliefs were based on faith -- end of debate.

" If you want to drive a wedge between an audience of evangelical Christians and the professionals in the ID movement . . ."

I think you are deluding yourself to think that such a wedge could ever be driven between evangelicals and their ID priests, with the use of any argument. If you have evidence that you've ever been successful at doing this, I'd like to hear it. But that's not the goal, or at least it's not my goal as one who is involved in science policy. The goal is to make sure that level-headed policymakers (a rare commidity in the current adminstrator) understand that ID is faith-based and not science. Policymakers in previous adminstrations were not raving atheists, they were mostly middle-of-the-road Americans in terms of religious beliefs. But they understood that creationism is not science. Also, the only people enraged by my talk were Protestant fundamentalists. How do I know this? I post here the full and complete email note that I got from the moderator Russ Nieli, a person who is quite open about his Catholicism. Interpret it as you want. This really is my last post.

Lee,
Thursday's debate was a great event all around. I think that you and
Dembski engaged the audience to a degree that is unsuual here at Princeton.
I can't remember the last time at Princeton that substantial portions of the
listeners stayed for the better part of an hour after the discussion to
engage, dispute, support, question, and agree with the invited speakers as
they did with you and Dembski. It was great that both of you stayed so long
and were so patient with your questioners.

As I was walking the two ISI representatives out to their car, they seemed
extraordinarily pleased with the entire night's performance.

I perhaps benefited the most (I still believe that in our overall picture of
reality we must take account of both a natural selection principle and a
higher order telos, but I am not sure how these two principles relate to the
emergence of life from non-life).

On behalf of all involved, let me say "many thanks".

Best,
Russ Nieli

You're right, though, anything which can't easily exist in the lab, can't exist in nature. Like sustained nuclear fusion. I guess it doesn't exist in the sun.

How about a whole world of varied environments for millions of years? That would be pretty hard to duplicate in a lab, I think.

As I was walking the two ISI representatives out to their car, they seemed extraordinarily pleased with the entire night's performance.

"Please leave debating ID advocates to the professionals. Or if you are determined to do so anyway, ask for assistance before the debate." This is a really obnoxious comment. I am be wrong, but I suspect that I have studied and written about religious beliefs, of people from around the world, to a much greater extent than you have. (I have a book coming out on the topic.)

— Lee Silver

Also, the only people enraged by my talk were Protestant fundamentalists. How do I know this? I post here the full and complete email note that I got from the moderator Russ Nieli, a person who is quite open about his Catholicism. Interpret it as you want. This really is my last post.

— Lee Silver

Russ Nieli, who moderated the debate and has taught at Princeton since the 80s, didn't think the debate was stacked. Here is what he wrote to me in a email:

— William Dembski

yes I believe that it is impossible to make "reasonable" (i.e., supported by rational argument that does not use revealed truths as premises) conjectures about the nature of the designer.

Your pseudo-philosophical BS bores the crap out of me....

— The Tireless Blowhard

Dr Silver,

I have to say that I tend to agree with you on the connection between ID, God and religion. While it is true that evolution or science cannot disprove God's existence, nor does it try to, or want to, we are not really dealing with God versus non-God. We are dealing with religion. Science does fly in the face of many fundamental religious concepts which, to many believers, define God. It is, therefore, not possible in most cases to separate doctrine and dogma from God. The IDers do it largely as a ruse and the theist evolutionists may try to pull the same trick.

Now, as a political strategy Dr Elsberry's may very well be the best but I'd hate to see scientists argue for a single hard and fast strategy for dealing with ID. Certainly, it is almost ludicrous to argue that there is a "professional" way to deal with ID, best handled by professionals, and that other attempts by "nonprofessionals" should be avoided. As far as I know academic freedom still exists, although I'm not certain it's still a free country.

Here's an example; one reason why Democrats often fare less well than Republicans is that Democrats tend to be much more educated, open minded and non-conformist. (JAD - how do you like them apples?). Should Democrats try to emulate the Republicans by insisiting on conformance to certain talking points etc?

Similarly, any and all legitimate ways of doing battle with fake science are welcome. Sure, we can criticize tactics but it's unhelpful to try to argue that only one set of tactics are acceptable or professional. There is a remarkable tendency for one to become like one's enemy.

Finley, please state your hypothesis in the form of a falsifiable statement.

Further, your idea is erroneous. What is entailed in your group "intelligent designers"? The only intelligent designers you know of are humans. To extent human preference for making similar design (and that's not even proven) to non-humans is not a good practice. It would be like using your voting example and then expanding from African American men to all Americans. I think you can tell how your prediction would come out in that case.

you need a third approach: show that the ID advocate on stage with you has been lying to his followers. Show misquote after misquote; demonstrate error after checkable error, and make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves. Evangelicals do want to take Christ's message to the world, but they also have a deep loathing of liars. Of the three approaches, the last one requires the most preparation and care in delivery.

Finley, please state your hypothesis in the form of a falsifiable statement.

— GCT

What is entailed in your group "intelligent designers"? The only intelligent designers you know of are humans. To extent human preference for making similar design (and that's not even proven) to non-humans is not a good practice.

The fact that the only known intelligent designers are human is irrelevant.

— Michael Finley

My deduced prediction from the hypothesis of a common designer is that the organisms on planet Earth will be basically similar to each other. That prediction can be directly verified.

— Finley

My deduced prediction from the hypothesis of a common designer is that the organisms on planet Earth will be basically similar to each other. That prediction can be directly verified.

Finley, comment 25130 awaits an answer.

Why are you running away and engaging in silly discussions about "predicates" and "subjects"?

You've got some serious explaining to do. Stop blowing smoke.

Mr Finley,

http://www.ramdac.org/fallacies.php

If you want honest literary philosophy, look to de Saussure. Quine will also do, but Saussure is better at recognizing that words change with context all of the time, predicate or not.

Finley sounds like Kripke or some other such circular "thinker", operating off of the wholly unwarranted assumption that words mean the same thing no matter what. Science cannot be and is not done with such simplistic thinking.

This is the unbridgeable divide between science and good philosophy on the one hand, and the gibberish that metaphysicians get rewarded for saying, on the other hand. You can't get those committed to circular linguistic reasoning to think outside of their narrow realm. And it is partly this that keeps bad "science" like ID going, the blinkered tautologies of wretched philosophies. Of course Finley has his affirmation that this is good thinking from those "in authority", and so the fallacious reasoning has yet another circle of certainty in it.

You're not going to convince Finley, because he can't think like a scientist or an open-minded philosopher. In metaphysical "philosophy" it really only makes sense that intelligence makes intelligence, and thus the answer already resides in the question. Where does intelligence come from? Why, from intelligence, and there is no questioning of what actually is meant by "intelligence". All avenues for discovering anything, except their closed little world, are cut off.

So you may as well ignore such dead-ends and those for whom closed mindedness is "truth", unless you just like arguing with the latter. Nothing gets through to them except what they already "know".

The fact that the only known intelligent designers are human is irrelevant. Predicates do not have different meanings (i.e., are not equivocal) just because they are predicated of different subjects. For example, does the predicate "bipedal" change meanings if we predicate it of an unknown, non-human subject? Of course not. Why then do you suppose that the predicates "intelligent" and "designer" change meanings?

Here's an example; one reason why Democrats often fare less well than Republicans is that Democrats tend to be much more educated, open minded and non-conformist. Should Democrats try to emulate the Republicans by insisiting on conformance to certain talking points etc?

We merely need to tell the truth simply, forcefully and repeatedly.

Unfortunately, Dr. Silvers "arguments" that "God didn't create corn" and "bananas don't have seeds" are not included among those key points, for good reason.

Remember how that neurologist destroyed Joe Scarborough on TV?

Glen Davidson,

If the dispute is over the concept of meaning, etc., then any adequate evaluation of my argument will require a good deal of the philosophy of language.

I must confess that I'm not too familiar with de Saussure, but I am willing to give him a look. Quine's behaviorist theory of meaning is so passe; it's gone the way of behaviorism generally, i.e., down. I think your quick dismissal of Kripke's notion of rigid designation is not worthy of you. This topic wants a long discussion, and there are few on this board that could follow it. But I'm game if you are.

Only recognize that, given a certain philosophical position, my argument holds. And your proposed critic is a philosophical critic. Therefore, the forum has been moved from "science" proper to the philosophy of language.

Make that "critique."

Not that one implies the other but once you insist - as Dr Elsberry seems to be insisting - that there exists only a single strategy then there is a tendency to sacrifice what is actually one's core principles.

Lakoff argues basically that [telling the truth simply, forcefully and repeatedly] is ineffective

Also, it's almost impossible to demonstrate to a non mathematical ID lay person that Dembski is wrong.

The fact that Silver got asked why he hates God shows that he struck a nerve, which is good.

My overall point is that once we develop closed minds then our case is lost

Sure, you can devastate Dembski in public but how many people will conclude that he was devasted?

IMHO multiple approaches are needed.

I could make an excellent case that the tradional Christian God cannot exist. At least excellent to me.

Finley, comment 25130 awaits an answer.

Cat got your tongue?

It's a straightforward question.

Perhaps the time has come to admit defeat, Finley. Does the term "defeat" have "meaning" to you? What about "coward"?

For the record, I don't hold grudges against trolls who take us for a bogus ride and then admit they are full of crap. So you needn't feel ashamed.

What is the virtue in debating that which is self-evident and without which nothing about the mechanism of evolution will ever be disclosed. The sober realization is that Intelligent Design is the only conceivable starting point from which all progress has been and continues to be made.

"Everything is determined . . . by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1929

I am so pleased to have my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis anticipated when I was but an infant fifteen months old.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Dear John: As an Irishman (only visited the US twice so don't confuse me with hyphenated Americans) I salute you. My culture has always admired those who can talk entertainingly but you are the best producer of hot air I have ever come across. Never before have I encountered someone who can quote Einstein so irrelevantly.
FYI Einstein was talking about the question of determinism in physical laws. This has nothing to do with the question of whether the universe was created , never mind whether any particular part of the universe was made or "just growed".

Furthermore Einstein had no problem with the concept that a process could be "random" in a universe with determinate physical laws. Here "random" means that an individual process is unpredictable in practice, not necessarily in theory. Hence his work on what became known as Bose-Einstein statistics. The biochemical randomness involved in mutations are "random" only in this sense.

Not to mention Einstein's work on random walks and Brownian motion.

Davison should retire and let somebody who hasn't relieved themselves of the burden of independent thought get a job.

(me) Lakoff argues basically that [telling the truth simply, forcefully and repeatedly] is ineffective (GWW) Please show me where Lakoff "basically" makes the argument you described.

Also, within traditional liberalism you have a history of rational thought that was born out of the Enlightenment: all meanings should be literal, and everything should follow logically. So if you just tell people the facts, that should be enough --- the truth shall set you free. All people are fully rational, so if you tell them the truth, they should reach the right conclusions. That, of course, has been a disaster.

(me) The fact that Silver got asked why he hates God shows that he struck a nerve, which is good. (GWW) No, it's not good, certainly not necessarily good.

My opinion is that, in the context of this discussion, this is a poor example to pick out of the hat to illustrate your point that politics isn't simply about "simply telling the truth and providing actual evidence."

Also, I'd be interested in hearing your understanding of how the Disclaimery Institute has chosen to "frame" the debate about "intelligent design" and where I or Wesley have adopted that frame or suggested adopting that frame as a means of responding to the Disclaimery Institute. Then compare the Disclaimery Institute's chosen frame with Dr. Silver's actions.

While we have to attack ID with facts we also have to attack the incorrect religious notions of those who promote it. If that means showing that their reading of the Bible of their concept of God is wrong then so what?

Look at any dictionary and you'll see that Kripke's rigid designations fit nothing encountered in language. If we start with empiricism, we can dismiss Kripke out of hand--as well as the notion that predication doesn't change with the subject. A word like "induction" means nothing like the same thing in the physics of electricity and in biological signaling pathways.

Quine's discussions (at least the later ones) of language in science remain adequate. I don't know about any behavioristic phase of his, but he has written pieces cognizant of the context of meaning in science. I did disagree with him to an extent over his sense that science is a field being subtly altered by myriad facts, when a few facts in science can cause radical changes (more in the past than at present, it seems). I included Quine, though, primarily because he's on the analytic side, so that I wouldn't be pointing only at the continental side that I prefer and know rather better.

The great thing about Saussure is that he recognizes that the signified has an impact on the signifier, even if his two-sided sign doesn't seem to me to be a very good analogy for it. Derrida seemed not to think so either, but mistakenly threw away the signified. Or more accurately, he said that the signified is already in the place of the signified.

Nietzsche completes Saussure, or vice versa. Actually, Nietzsche could probably be said to anticipate most of what Saussure said, but the latter thinker was needed to flesh out a good mechanical analogy for language--which actually remains a good deal more fluid than Saussure supposed. Nietzsche knew the fluidity of language well, but didn't come up with the proper teaching model for his view (he also didn't come up with the two-sided sign that Saussure did, either, which is good IMO). Nietzsche exceeded Saussure most of all in noting the psychological aspects of signage.

Be that as it may, I don't come to this forum to discuss linguistics any more than I have to. I brought up Saussure because he probably has the best combination of accessibility and a fairly good concept of language, and Quine because I couldn't think of a better analytic philosopher right off. Searle won't do, nor Austin. Ayer probably isn't that bad, but I've been more impressed with what I've read of Quine. Bakhtin has a good dialogical conception of language, however he's hardly on the map in the US.

The fact of the matter is that few here need a course or a debate about language and the philosophy of language. If they don't know linguistic theory, they nevertheless do just fine. It's only when metaphysical philosophers come in to muddy the waters using their authorities and incorrect notions about predication, that I feel the need to put in some comments about philosophy and language.

What you appear not to know is that scientists often have to agree on a definition in an area that they are studying. The predicate changes from subject to subject, from situation to situation. "Intelligent" and "designer" do not mean any one thing, so that when AI is being discussed, for instance, there has to be a definition of "intelligence" agreed upon by the various participants in the AI community. "Intelligence" changes meaning whether we're talking about "animal intelligence" or "human intelligence", and it is generally recognized that such meanings can't even be fixed very well by convention, let alone by "rigid designation".

If one reads scientific papers one not uncommonly comes across a specific definition set for a scientific term in that paper, so that meaning can be clear in that paper. That's just the way that language is. This really isn't up for debate any more than ID is, because we insist on using "natural language" and will not credit impositions from metaphysics placed upon use.

No, I'm not interested in debating language any more than I have to, let alone crediting metaphysical beliefs about language for any kind of debate. The problem is that we point to use (well, I brought in some names of sources, since others were pointing to use), and you want to debate philosophy. I don't want to debate philosophical ideas of language, I only want to do philosophy with language as it is used by actual humans, including scientists.

There is no reason to get mired in obviously incorrect theories of language. What scientists and some philosophers want to do is to find reasonable models of language and to move on from there, and not to begin at all with ancient ideas about meaning and language which have proven not to be useful. IDists and metaphysicians insist on the priority of their received ideas, and we'd be intellectually dishonest even to give those received ideas any more credit than it takes to knock them down in, say, a philosophy class.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot convince people used to dealing with scientific language that "intelligence" has only one set of unequivocal predicates. Even if they don't know exactly what is being said there, they know that "intelligence" has a whole range of meanings, as does "designer", and that "designer" means nothing unless it can actually be shown to have predicates, or alternatively, if predicates are assigned to "designer".

This is where it stands: either we start out recognizing that words do not have unchanging unequivocal meanings, and then do science and proper linguistic philosophy, or we begin with unsound assumptions like we find in Kripke's writings, and come up with a lot of well-reasoned deductions from our faulty premise(s). The two beginnings are not compatible and not comparable.

Like ID and actual science, there is nothing of consequence to debate, rather the empirical side simply has to point out how unwarranted the metaphysical position is. Those who use metaphysical assumptions to understand the world rarely make the leap to understanding in a more fluid and adaptive manner, at least after their schooling is done. And because they think that words have single sets of predicates they also think that the world must be constructed through rigid designation in order to justify their worldviews. The interplay of words, meaning, and contexts in a fluid and fluctual manner does not occur to many people, and for much the same reason they cannot understand the codes and "meanings" of the genome to also be in flux.

Finley, comment 25130 awaits an answer.

— Great White Wonder

I included Quine, though, primarily because he's on the analytic side, so that I wouldn't be pointing only at the continental side that I prefer and know rather better.

— Glen Davidson

Look at any dictionary and you'll see that Kripke's rigid designations fit nothing encountered in language. If we start with empiricism, we can dismiss Kripke out of hand---as well as the notion that predication doesn't change with the subject.

Quine's discussions (at least the later ones) of language in science remain adequate. I don't know about any behavioristic phase of his, but he has written pieces cognizant of the context of meaning in science. I did disagree with him to an extent over his sense that science is a field being subtly altered by myriad facts, when a few facts in science can cause radical changes (more in the past than at present, it seems).

The fact of the matter is that few here need a course or a debate about language and the philosophy of language. If they don't know linguistic theory, they nevertheless do just fine. It's only when metaphysical philosophers come in to muddy the waters using their authorities and incorrect notions about predication, that I feel the need to put in some comments about philosophy and language.

"Intelligent" and "designer" do not mean any one thing, so that when AI is being discussed, for instance, there has to be a definition of "intelligence" agreed upon by the various participants in the AI community. "Intelligence" changes meaning whether we're talking about "animal intelligence" or "human intelligence", and it is generally recognized that such meanings can't even be fixed very well by convention, let alone by "rigid designation".

No, I'm not interested in debating language any more than I have to, let alone crediting metaphysical beliefs about language for any kind of debate. The problem is that we point to use (well, I brought in some names of sources, since others were pointing to use), and you want to debate philosophy. I don't want to debate philosophical ideas of language, I only want to do philosophy with language as it is used by actual humans, including scientists.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot convince people used to dealing with scientific language that "intelligence" has only one set of unequivocal predicates. Even if they don't know exactly what is being said there, they know that "intelligence" has a whole range of meanings, as does "designer", and that "designer" means nothing unless it can actually be shown to have predicates, or alternatively, if predicates are assigned to "designer".

Lakoff is not making the argument that you claimed he was making. You need to look carefully at what I wrote with attention to the placement of the word "simply".

(WE) Show misquote after misquote; demonstrate error after checkable error, and make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves. Evangelicals do want to take Christ's message to the world, but they also have a deep loathing of liars. Of the three approaches, the last one requires the most preparation and care in delivery.

According to you, we "have to attack the incorrect religious notions" of Bill Dembski. Thus far, you have provided zilcho evidence to support that claim --- ZILCHO.

I want to know (1) why it is necessary to attack the incorrect religious notions" of Bill Dembski if we want to keep his bogus theory out of public schools

I want to know (2) how we show that Bill Dembski's "concept of God is wrong."

Make a point, and I'll respond to it.

So what are we even talking about?

You didn't provide evidence for your opinion about telling the truth simply being enough

What bothers me is the idea (seemingly advanced by Wesley) that Silver is somehow not even entitled to debate ID-ers without his blessing - as though the supposed professionals have a monopoly.

GWW We merely need to tell the truth simply, forcefully and repeatedly.

How does this not translate into "telling the truth simply, forcefully and repeatedly" not being enough.

Hypothesis: an intelligent designer specially created the diversity of life on planet Earth. Prediction deduced from hypothesis via above principle: every organism on this planet is basically similar to each other. It then becomes a matter of empirical verification of the prediction.

...was there an explanation hiding in there somewhere that explains why it's not ridiculous to generalize anything at all from the only "designers" we know (H. sapiens) to the hypothetical Big Designer in the Sky, and why my analogy doesn't render all this philosophizing just one giant wankfest?

— Russell

Tireless Blowhard,

I've already given the answers. There is no point in giving them again, because you'll simply ignore them and ask the same question... again.

Go blow down another strawman, and leave me alone.

You'll note that Dembski doesn't dare attempt to argue with Flank or steve or yours truly about his sad pathetic "theory" and its appropriateness in for public school science classrooms. He will end up knocked on his ass immediately and he will never be able to get up for the simple reason that we wouldn't let him get up. Remember how that neurologist destroyed Joe Scarborough on TV? That is just a tiny tiny taste of what Dembski or any of the other Dislaimery Institute mountebanks will get when the surprising moment arrives and they face me on the public airwaves. I look forward to it.

But if you tell me that the word "intelligence" has another meaning in another context, I will ask what that other meaning is. And if you cannot tell me, I must conclude that either you don't know the meaning or that there is no other meaning. In either case, the suppossed equivocal term is meaningless for both of us. So what are we even talking about?

Which is to say, you have a rival philosophical position, a rival metaphysical position. You have you're "authorities" and I have mine (though neither of us is making an argument from authority; we are both prepared to visit the arguments). It seems to me that you disparage metaphysics while at the same time engaging in it.

So, why does an intelligent designer hypothesis point to similarity at the molecular level yet vast diversity at the organism level? You can't have it both ways. This is simply an example of special pleading.

If the dispute is over the concept of meaning, etc.,

Re "what would you be looking for, specifically?"

That's the ID advocates' problem. :)

Re "on the other hand, real science takes time and dedication."

Guess that means the ID advocates have their work cut out for them, so they'd better put aside the polictics and start researching something. (Ha ha.)

Henry

As the great Louis Armstrong famously said when asked "What is Jazz?", if you don't already know, you wouldn't understand the answer.

While we have to attack ID with facts we also have to attack the incorrect religious notions of those who promote it.

That's basically what I'm wondering. Look, with all your Kripkes, Wittgensteins, analytical school, continental school, meaninglessvocitudes . . . was there an explanation hiding in there somewhere that explains why it's not ridiculous to generalize anything at all from the only "designers" we know (H. sapiens) to the hypothetical Big Designer in the Sky, and why my analogy doesn't render all this philosophizing just one giant wankfest?

Posted by Michael Finley on April 15, 2005 06:03 PM (e) (s) Tireless Blowhard,

I've already given the answers. There is no point in giving them again, because you'll simply ignore them and ask the same question . . . again. Go blow down another strawman, and leave me alone.

It's a shame that I have to use Nietzsche even to do this, yet it is a lot better than referring to Heidegger

Just a correction here that probably nobody else cares about at all. I shouldn't have written "nomadological science," but "nomadic science". I bastardized the already problematic term "nomadology". Just accurate records and all that.

Nietzsche was a far better football player, too, as this Packer fan will attest.

I of course could make the "prediction" that the designer, loving wondrous diversity, would have made EACH AND EVERY HUMAN utterly differet ---- some with three arms, some with two heads, some with blue skin ---- everybody different. And when we test my, uh, "prediction" by observation, lo and behold, we find that my prediciton is falsified. Ergo, there is no Designer.

"Wait a minute! No two people are the same, not even identical twins"

I think he was referring to "macro evolved" humans as opposed to "micro evolved" humans.

;)

Re "what would you be looking for, specifically?" That's the ID advocates' problem. :)

Wesley, who is the person relating the history of evo devo in the beginning of the Q&A session?

— sir_toejam

I think ID as a movement is giving the philosophers an undeserved bad name, particularly the postmodernists. They aren't all masturbatory obscurantists, though we have been treated to an obscene wank-a-thon by the ID crowd. There are those (even on this blog) who are willing to engage in a meaningful dialogue between philosophy and science, a la Bahktin and Lakoff, rather than waste everyone's intelligence by playing word games.

So, we know that ID is not a science. Furthermore, I think ID should not be referred to as a coherent philosophy, either. Instead, I think what ID is--at the core of its Machiavellian heart--is just really bad poetry, really bad art. That's right, the discourse employed by proponents of ID is a form of conceptual word-art. And a poor one at that.

By way of evidence I offer the following snip of generic dialogue, which hopefully sounds familiar to many participants in this discussion:

X: So, tell me. How does ID engage the physical world via scientific method to make hypotheses, experiments, and predictions?

Y: ID makes many predictions.

X: Like what?

Y: Well, if I see a watch lying on the ground, I KNOW it was designed by an intelligent "someone," not the product of spontaneous self-assembly. Ergo, I can hypothesize that watches as well as watch-like things of similar complexity were designed, and designed intelligently. And I can use my hypothesis to predict that any other artifact designed by the self-same intelligence will bear the distinct hallmark of His STYLE, His signature joi de vivre, n'est pas? (Snort.)

That's why when you see through those silly superficial differences, you discover that all living animals are comprised of a limited number of observed body types, or "themes" as I like to call them. But not just animals, I say from the humble E. coli bacteria that inhabit my arse to the sublime music of the spheres themselves... The great chain being is clearly the product of intelligent design. The alternative, I'm afraid, is statistically quite implausible.

Moreover, unless we acknowledge the certainty of 'Intelligent Design,' fewer and fewer people will live moral lives. There will be no reason why anyone should keep themselves in check, no reason to resist, ahem, certain impulses. (Cough.) I KNOW I couldn't. There will be blood in the streets, I tell you.

Consequently, we ID conceptual artists would like to present our theories in public science classrooms and fund experiments that test the scientific prediction that macro-level body plans, including tissues, organs, etc. are finite, complex specifications as specified by the unknown intelligent specifier, i.e. the great Kahuna Himself, and not the product of a Godless open system of evolution, some glorified algorithmic search engine.

X: You are wrong. Or, worse yet, you are not even wrong. Here is why: there is nothing hypothetical about your hypothesis, nothing predictable about your predictions. There is no way to test any assertion whatsoever about unknown supernatural designers. That's why honest theists appeal to faith and not science.

And for these reasons I'm not even going to try to convince you how ordinary organic molecules can form autocatalytic systems in ways that bits of spring and glass cannot, because I realize that there is no way I can argue with someone, no matter how well-spoken, who not only cannot admit that watches and living beings are fundamentally different kinds of things, but will not offer up any falsifiable evidence as to why I should pretend otherwise.

Y: I can recommend some good philosophy texts to help you untangle your metaphysical biases, as you obviously have problems with the meaning of the word meaning.

X: What do you mean?

Y: Exactly!
---

It appears that at least one Lakoff-styled "frame" for this conflict has clearly emerged as an effective tool for highlighting the difference between what scientists DO and what ID conceptual artists DO. That's why Lenny and GWW have been so successful here.

1. Remind all within earshot that science is about the common world of shared observations about the physical world.
2. As such, science is a precious human tool that allows us to test our ideas, And test and test and test.
3. Every child had a right to master the scientific method without being hassled by those who find aspects of science to be philosophically, politically, aesthetically, or religiously uncongenial.
4. ID is not science.
5. ID offers no testable hypotheses, much less a full theory.
6. ID is politics, plain and simple.
7. ID conceptual artists will tell you otherwise, and they are lying. Their lying is, in fact, part of the art.

Dembski is a brilliant mathematician.

Michael Finley, according to your arguments, it's fair to infer characteristics of the Intelligent Designer by comparison to humans (the only known intelligent designers).

You argue that if an individual is known to be a member of a group, and if it's also known that most members of a group possess a given characteristic, then the specified individual probably possesses that characteristic as well. Further, you argue that the more prevalent a given characteristic is in the group, the more likely the individual is to share that characteristic.

If I promise to follow the rules, can I play a round in your game? Here goes.

I note that every known, observable human possess the following characteristics:

"unable to perform abiogenesis."
"unable to direct evolution through non-naturalistic means."
"unable to create new species through non-naturalistic means."
"unable to live long enough to have directed evolution for the past few hundred million years."

So, since 100% of the group "intelligent designers" possesses these characterisitics, we can, by your rules, infer with certainty that the Intelligent Designer also possesses these characteristic.

In other words, playing by your rules, I can prove that the Intelligent Designer is unable to be the Intelligent Designer.

So, do I win?

You'll note that Dembski doesn't dare attempt to argue with Flank or steve or yours truly about his sad pathetic "theory" and its appropriateness in for public school science classrooms. He will end up knocked on his ass immediately and he will never be able to get up for the simple reason that we wouldn't let him get up.

Remember how that neurologist destroyed Joe Scarborough on TV?

That was priceless. I have to appreciate this guy calling frauds frauds..

What a delightful example of fools making way for one another. The lot of you (with a few notable exceptions) are as dense as you are dogmatic. You are utterly unable to reasonably consider a contrary position. May natural selection have mercy on your souls, for your minds are surely a lost cause.

What a delightful example of fools making way for one another. The lot of you (with a few notable exceptions) are as dense as you are dogmatic. You are utterly unable to reasonably consider a contrary position. May natural selection have mercy on your souls, for your minds are surely a lost cause.

Michael Finley:

I admire your arrogance. How likely is it that you have spotted a flaw in scientific thinking that no one else has?

Here is a simplified attempt to show you how things really are:

1) All scientific knowledge is provisional. This is because there are things we do not know.
2) When we have one or more scientific theories trying to explain the same things we try to get them to disagree about some aspect of reality - in other words to make conflicting predictions. When we find a disagreement we look at reality to see which are correct, and discard any that are wrong. (In this case the advocates of Intelligent Design claim we already have certain facts that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory and which require something extra, namely an intelligent designer. Biologist disagree and keep knocking down any such specific claims).
3) Suppose there are two theories that can never make conflicting predictions. Then, because we have limited intelligence, we apply Ockhams' Razor and use the simpler theory. This is a practical reason for using the simpler theory.
4) Suppose there are two theories that can never make conflicting predictions, one of which uses assumptions (a,b,c) and the other assumptions (a,b,c,d). Then whenever one of their common predictions is verified by looking at reality, we can say that there is evidence to support assumptions a, b and c but not d, because the first theory does not need assumption d. The most we can say about d is that there is no evidence against it.

So far so simple. Your problem is that you are discussing the situation in point 4) when the debate on ID is about the situation in point 2).
Now you will point out correctly that any set of facts can be explained by an infinity of theories, and that therefore no set of facts can prove that only one of these theories is correct. True but completely irrelevant to this debate, because the IDers say that some of the facts cannot be explanied by evolution.
Even if you persist in your erroneous thinking, you cannot save ID, because in terms of your thinking ID makes the same errors as evolution.

What a delightful example of fools making way for one another. The lot of you (with a few notable exceptions) are as dense as you are dogmatic. You are utterly unable to reasonably consider a contrary position. May natural selection have mercy on your souls, for your minds are surely a lost cause.

Russell,

Your comments are just more of the same. Nowhere am I attacking the scientific validity of evolution, and therefore, nowhere am I attempting "to show a serious logical flaw in decades of biology, and millions of peron-hours of serious thought and hard work." What I have been trying to do is make a verifiable prediction from the hypothesis of an intelligent designer. And if it turned out to have some modicum of reasonableness to it, it would say nothing of the already verified hypothesis of common descent. It would merely add, in this instance (viz., the unity of life), an alternated explanation.

That you, and most everyone else, never seems to understand what I'm up to is proof positive that no one is interested in understanding. All that matters around here is making the latest rhetorical zinger at whatever straw man can be easily erected.

Make that "alternative explanation."

PaulP,

The ID movement is concerned with attacking the viability of neo-Darwinian mechanisms. What in my above posts has led you to believe I am up to the same thing? I am not attacking evolution at all, I am trying to see if an alternative hypothesis to common descent (the "fact" of evolution, as opposed to the theory) can explain the same natural facts, e.g., the unity of life.

Of course my hypothesis makes the same predictions as common descent with respect to the unity of life. Both involve a common origin, and I am arguing from that to the probability of common results.

But anyone who carefully reads my posts knew that already... which is to say, no one.

It would merely add, in this instance (viz., the unity of life), an alternat[ive] explanation.

And you think that, in those millions of person-hours of serious thought and hard work, we haven't considered alternative explanations. I repeat: a little humility would be in order.

— Russell

Please provide a single reference for such consideration.

— Michael

I am trying to see if an alternative hypothesis to common descent (the "fact" of evolution, as opposed to the theory) can explain the same natural facts, e.g., the unity of life. Of course my hypothesis makes the same predictions as common descent with respect to the unity of life.

— Michael Finley

Unless it is written in code, comment #25292 does provide any references for the consideration of alternative hypotheses. Do you have a decoder ring, or did you have something else in mind?

The "ship of fools." I like that. It draws interesting parallels between my "shipmates" here at PT, and those of the "stargazer" on the "ship of state" (see Plato's Republic, Book VI, 488a-489a).

Comparisons aside, your invitation for me to jump ship is merely par for the course. Either I should grin and bare the endless obfuscation of Tireless Blowhard and Co., accepting misunderstanding as refutation, or I should simply leave. Thank's for the suggestion, but I think I'll do neither.

If no one can handle my argument on the merits, the field appears to be mine.

If you are truly interested in testing your idea scientifically, you need to make predictions with multiple possible outcomes, only some of which are consistent with your hypothesis.

— qetzal

Replace "premise" in the 5th sentence with "hypothesis."

You obviously have enough knowledge and intelligence to write coherently and grammatically, and you throw around philosopher's names and ideas quite readily, suggesting you have a fair amount of education. ...It makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that you are either being selectively obtuse, or entirely disingenuous.

— qetzal

qetzal,

That's a back-handed compliment if ever there was one. Apparently, I'm intelligent enough to either be blinded by my own commitments or a complete liar. Thanks.

The hypothesis is that "an unknown, intelligent designer specially created the diversity of life on planet Earth." The prediction from this hypothesis is that "the diversity of life on planet Earth will possess structural similarities." If that prediction were verified, the hypothesis would be verified according to a probability. If it were not, it would not.

...you need to make predictions with multiple possible outcomes, only some of which are consistent with your hypothesis.

The hypothesis is that "an unknown, intelligent designer specially created the diversity of life on planet Earth." The prediction from this hypothesis is that "the diversity of life on planet Earth will possess structural similarities."

Nowhere am I attacking the scientific validity of evolution

That probability is an intuitive expectation, but it could be experimentally verified by sampling the products of different designers and categorizing them according to similar traits.

I've already done so, but will gladly do it again. The hypothesis is that "an unknown, intelligent designer specially created the diversity of life on planet Earth." The prediction from this hypothesis is that "the diversity of life on planet Earth will possess structural similarities." If that prediction were verified, the hypothesis would be verified according to a probability. If it were not, it would not. The prediction is derived from the premise from the probability that the products of a common designer are similar to each other. That probability is an intuitive expectation, but it could be experimentally verified by sampling the products of different designers and categorizing them according to similar traits.

Oh, and I should add that I also know what pattern of results naturalistic evolutionary theory predicts for the designer discrimination data I hope to gather on biological phenomena. Does Finley? Can he figure out how that pattern should differ from that implied by his single designer conjecture and from that implied by Multiple Designers Theory? I can.

RBH

Heck, there are hearings coming up in Kansas in May regarding including ID in the state science standards curricula...well publicized in the media, and the Kansas Citizens for Science (three or four people in a basement) are organizing a BOYCOTT of the debate.

Scientists from KU and K State and other area univerities are supporting the BOYCOTT.

However, in these circumstances I would call it a forfeit

Re qetzal's #25266, "[...] So, do I win?"

ROFL

Henry

Kansas Citizens for Science (three or four people in a basement)

The "ship of fools," full steam ahead.

The prediction from this hypothesis is that "the diversity of life on planet Earth will possess structural similarities." If that prediction were verified, the hypothesis would be verified according to a probability. If it were not, it would not. The prediction is derived from the premise from the probability that the products of a common designer are similar to each other

— Michael Finley

Jim Wynne,

It's quite obvious that you havn't read the entire thread.

If I can make probable predictions about unknown American, black voters, then I can make the same sort of predictions about unknown intelligent designers. It's really as simple as that.

The only criticism has been "'Intelligence' and 'designer' mean something different when applied to unknown 'intelligent designers'." Anyone who makes such a claim should be able to give the different meanings for these terms. As no one has done that, there must not be different meanings for these terms.

If I can make probable predictions about unknown American, black voters, then I can make the same sort of predictions about unknown intelligent designers. It's really as simple as that.

EXACTLY THE SAME logic tells me that if I can make probable predictions about the creations of E. coli, I can make the same sort of predictions about the creations of Leonardo da Vinci. It's really as simple as that.

— Russell

It's quite obvious that you havn't read the entire thread.

— Michael Finley

If I can make probable predictions about unknown American, black voters, then I can make the same sort of predictions about unknown intelligent designers. It's really as simple as that.

— Michael Finley

The only criticism has been "'Intelligence' and 'designer' mean something different when applied to unknown 'intelligent designers'." Anyone who makes such a claim should be able to give the different meanings for these terms. As no one has done that, there must not be different meanings for these terms.

— Michael Finley

Me: EXACTLY THE SAME logic tells me that if I can make probable predictions about the creations of E. coli, I can make the same sort of predictions about the creations of Leonardo da Vinci. It's really as simple as that. Finley: And what predictions are those?

Creations of E. coli: They will be made of atoms The products of one E. coli cell will be essentially indistinguishable from another E. coli They will generally be structures useful for the survival and replication of E. coli or waste by-products of metabolism

Creations of Leonardo da Vinci They will be made of atoms* *(unless, of course, they are ideas)

PaulP, The ID movement is concerned with attacking the viability of neo-Darwinian mechanisms. What in my above posts has led you to believe I am up to the same thing? I am not attacking evolution at all, I am trying to see if an alternative hypothesis to common descent (the "fact" of evolution, as opposed to the theory) can explain the same natural facts, e.g., the unity of life. Of course my hypothesis makes the same predictions as common descent with respect to the unity of life. Both involve a common origin, and I am arguing from that to the probability of common results.

When we have one or more scientific theories trying to explain the same things we try to get them to disagree about some aspect of reality

Now you will point out correctly that any set of facts can be explained by an infinity of theories, and that therefore no set of facts can prove that only one of these theories is correct

RE: PaulP's comments.
I've pointed out, too, that while Finley has made it clear he's trying to see if "the unity of life" can be equally well explained by his alternative hypothesis, he's made a conscious decision to examine that body of data in isolation from the "nested hierarchy", and all other bodies of data. Two points about this:
(1) In real life, scientists will be looking for hypotheses that can accommodate as much of all the available evidence as possible, and
(2) The distinction between these two bodies of data is arbitrary and artificial.

To Michael Finley:

In case I left you with an out:

To succeed, your alternative must either make more accurate predictions (since we do not yet have all the facts) or in the event that it does not make any predictions different to those of science, it must be conceptually simpler.

Which of these is true about your version?

Michael Finley,

Earlier, I used your approach to "prove" that the Intelligent Designer must be incapable of creating life or guiding evolution on Earth.

If you seriously believe that your approach and conclusions are valid, please explain what's wrong with mine. Did I misapply your approach? If so, how?

I've read this one, and others where you have offered the same lame argument, and it's been answered. Shall I supply links? Or is this just pseudocool intellectual game playing, wherein your argument changes depending on the thread?

— Jim Wynne

"Probable predictions"? What the hell does that mean? So ... you think that making political predictions based upon the past performance of certain demographic groups somehow supports the idea that the products of a designer whose powers are --- by definition --- unknown are prima facie evidence of the nature of the designer? Do you mean to say that you really can't see the tautology?

My intelligent designer isn't bound by your narrow (and hopelessly predictable) definition of "intelligence."

Not a hell of a lot. Let's give it a try, see how it goes...

— Russell

In other words, so what if you can come up with another hypothesis? There are many other hypotheses that would fit the same known facts. My post was meant to show you how scientists work in real life. They hypothesize and test. If the hypothesis fails they come up with another. And so on until everything is known. If at that point someone suggests another hypothesis that can explain all facts, then Ockham's Razor will be used to choose between them.

— PaulP

I've pointed out, too, that while Finley has made it clear he's trying to see if "the unity of life" can be equally well explained by his alternative hypothesis, he's made a conscious decision to examine that body of data in isolation from the "nested hierarchy", and all other bodies of data.

— Russell

Nested hierarchies are categories of similarities, while the unity of life concerns what might be called "transcategorical" similarities. And while the division is artificial, the two are not necessarily related. And I can hardly be expected to argue on multiple fronts when the single front I've chosen has been repeatedly misunderstood.

Your comments concerning the products of E. Coli and Leonardo are too ridiculous to warrant serious consideration.

Suffice it to say, E. Coli doesn't qualify as an intelligent designer, and therefore, doesn't produce anything in the relevant sense; and the relevant features of Leonardo's products have nothing to do with their atomic properties.

Finley's general category of producers: Intelligent Designers Finley's data: the products of intelligent designers Finley's sample of producers: a single group - humans Finley's hypothetical producer: the Big Designer(s) in the Sky The task: what can we generalize from the products of producers we know to those of the one we don't?

Russell's general category of producers: carbon-based life forms Russell's data: products of carbon-based life forms. Russell's sample of producers: E. coli (and remember: E. coli is the only example of a carbon-based life form we can consider) Russell's hypothetical producer: Leonardo da Vinci (for the sake of argument, we're going to "predict" what kinds of things Leonardo could make; i.e. assume you know nothing about what he actually did make) The task: knowing everything we can know about what E. coli makes, let's predict the properties of the things Leonardo will make.

Tireless Blowhard,

There is absolutely nothing of value between your "...uh's...", , and crass insults (e.g., "wank his weinie"). With enemies like you, I don't need any allies. I salute you.

Russell,

That's all well and good, but you're obviously equivocating on "produce," and if the equivocation is removed, your silly comparison falls to the ground.

Look. I'm using a well-established inductive argument form: If x percent of group y possesses property z, then there is an x percent probability that an unknown member of group y possesses property z.

If you reject the above argument form, you reject the science of statistics along with it. Therefore, assuming you accept the above argument form, it is up to you to demonstrate why I cannot use it for the values y = "intelligent designers," and z = "produces products similar to each other."

you're obviously equivocating on "produce,"

Probable predictions. You know, what statisticians and pollsters do. The "political" part of the example is irrelevant. Are you not able to discriminate between the details and the form of an argument? And I think you need to look the word "tautology" up in the dictionary.

— Michael Finley

The definition of "intelligence" I am using is the garden-variety one of everyday English. If you have another to offer for non-human subjects, please define it. If you can't, then there's no reason to suppose there is another definition. Put up, or shut up.

— Michael Finley

Perhaps you need to brush up on English grammar and usage. "Probable predictions" means that the act of prediction is probable, not that the basis of the prediction is probability.

— Jim Wynne

...the task is made a bit more difficult when, for example, the arguer uses tautology and defends it by accusing the opponent of not knowing what "tautology" means.

I can, for an unknown, non-human designer, define "intelligence" however I want to, because we have no way of knowing whether the garden variety is apropos.

I suspect there's some technical philosophical definition of "equivocate" that I'm not quite catching here, in which case I'd be grateful for enlightenment.

— Russell

As you can see, I am on the side of the actual meanings of words, while you are making up meanings as you go.

If you seriously believe that your approach and conclusions are valid, please explain what's wrong with mine. Did I misapply your approach? If so, how?

— qetzal

"Thus, the question is, given my hypothesis, what can be expected to follow?"

by far the more interesting question would be:

"what WOULDN'T be expected to follow?"

which is what i am sure several of the participants here have tried to make clear at one point or another.

Great White Wonder,

You nailed it. This is my initiation, but not to a cult. I'm being hazed into posting on Panda's Thumb. Some fraternities force pledges to drink alot, mine makes you argue incessantly about evolution on the internet. We're wild baby.

As for my comments about the nature of the designer, you'll notice (...well, maybe not you) that I did allow for the intelligent designer to be intelligent and a designer. Shocking isn't it. And since those are the only traits I've been discussing, I've been true to my word.

To Michael Finley:

You are too busy decorating the 100th floor of your intellectual edifice to notice that you forgot to build the foundations properly.

You do not understand Ockham's Razor. If you can explain something with a theory that makes assumptions a b and c then there is no reason to introduce assumption d. Ockham's Razor says get rid of d, not for aesthetic reasons but simply because all assumptions must have evidence to support them. And any evidence that supports your theory does not support d.

We are not asking you to win the game, merely to play by the rules. But then you once accused science of committing the fallacy of "affirming the consequent". So we have evidence you do not understand the game you are trying to play.

My hypothesis is that "an unknown intelligent designer specially created the diversity of life on planet Earth." Implicit in the hypothesis is that the intelligent designer be capable of specially creating the diversity of life on planet Earth (an implication that could be made explicit)

Look. I'm using a well-established inductive argument form: If x percent of group y possesses property z, then there is an x percent probability that an unknown member of group y possesses property z.

— Michael Finley

Tireless Blowhard,

There is absolutely nothing of value between your " . . . uh's . . . ", , and crass insults (e.g., "wank his weinie"). With enemies like you, I don't need any allies. I salute you.

If you reject the above argument form, you reject the science of statistics along with it. Therefore, assuming you accept the above argument form, it is up to you to demonstrate why I cannot use it for the values y = "intelligent designers," and z = "produces products similar to each other."

Mr. Finley:

Your inductive logic leads us to an inescapable conclusion:

Since 100% of known intelligent designers are human beings, there is a 100% probability that any unknown intelligent designer is also a human being.

(In your words, if all known elements of set y "intelligent designers" share property z "being human", we can assume that any unknown element of set y will also share property z).

Therefore, your hypothesis means that someone among us is/was capable of creating the wealth of life on Earth.

Simple, elegant...

Your inductive logic leads us to an inescapable conclusion: Since 100% of known intelligent designers are human beings, there is a 100% probability that any unknown intelligent designer is also a human being.

Perhaps you could reassure me of your grasp of vocabulary by outlining my use of tautology.

— Michael Finley

I am on the side of the actual meanings of words, while you are making up meanings as you go

— Michael Finley

You do not understand Ockham's Razor.

— PaulP

But then you once accused science of committing the fallacy of "affirming the consequent". So we have evidence you do not understand the game you are trying to play.

Great White Wonder,

You need to acquaint yourself with the notion of a qualification. When I spoke of "impossibilities," I qualified it at the same time. It amounts to say, I can't do anything except x, y/i], and z/i]. The "except" introduces a qualification.