Vatican official refutes intelligent design

While the Catholic church obviously supports intelligent design', it also seems to realize that 'Intelligent Design' is scientifically vacuous.

Jack, if I understand him correctly, makes a very good point. There is no false dilemma. The Catholic Church is not stating that the choice for the faithful is between Behe/Dembski Intelligent Design and full-blown naturalisitc evolution, and only the latter is viable. The Church supports theistic evolution which is is a form of intelligent design (with a little 'i' and a little 'd'.) After all, the Church would say that everything turned out according to God's sovereign plan. Evolution may have been God's means to his end, but the outcome, the Church would insist, was never in doubt, and that God cannot be excluded from from having acted at any step in the process.

While the Catholic church obviously supports 'intelligent design', it also seems to realize that 'Intelligent Design' is scientifically vacuous.

Infallibility is irrelevant, since these statements concerning evolution, 'id' and ID were not made ex cathedra.

Evolution may have been God's means to his end, but the outcome, the Church would insist, was never in doubt, and that God cannot be excluded from from having acted at any step in the process.

Infallibility is irrelevant, since these statements concerning evolution, 'id' and ID were not made ex cathedra.

— David Heddle

Most supporters of the Intelligent Design movement seem not to understand that ID is neither scientifically nor theologically sound.

ID rejects real science and bastardizes real faith. Between the two is where ID supporters are actually driving their wedge because they are using bad science to study their theology and using vacuous theology to impune science. It's a lose-lose effort. Obviously.

Vatican of course is in favor of evolution and reject ID of any kind, speaking of science.
It reject evolutionism as philosophy or something like that.
They use a lot of words in any kind of way when it happens to talk about this, I'm not really sure I've understud it all.

It should surprise nobody that the pope, or any other Catholic or any other Christian believes that there is an intelligent agent behind the origin of the universe because that tends to be part of the definition of theism in general, and Christianity in particular, in the first place. But as Jack correctly notes, there is a big and very important distinction that we MUST reognize and MUST continue to point out between that philosophical and theological point, and the anti-evolutionary movement that is represented by the catchphrase "intelligent design". As the Vatican astronomer points out, "intelligent design" is simply not a scientific idea. ID proponents are still crowing over the "support" they think they've been getting from the Catholic church, so I guess we just have to wait for the pope himself make some comment about the scientific validity of ID.

ID proponents are still crowing over the "support" they think they've been getting from the Catholic church,

Stephen Elliott,

Many supporters of evolution also "crow" over support, as they see it, from the Catholic Church. Therefore the crowing is independent of the religion question.

The Church supports theistic evolution

Many supporters of evolution also "crow" over support, as they see it, from the Catholic Church. Therefore the crowing is independent of the religion question.

Even worse, in my mind, is the fact that it DOES all boil down to the Pope's position. Sorry, but I don't care what the pope (a position not established in the Bible) says, I care about what the word says. And I don't understand why most Catholics, it seems, think that what the Pope (and the lower hierarchy) says IS more important than what the Bible says. Sadly, the Catholic Church seems to put too much importance in what a man says as opposed to the Word. Top Vatican scientists saying these sorts of things...it cannot be helping the overall Christian church in general. Doing, it seems, all you can to destroy the word of God to prop up a hierarchy that is anything but biblical seems to be the worst of ideas in this matter. Comment by jboze3131 --- November 18, 2005 @ 11:31 pm Careful, Josh. Don't stray too far into theological matters, or you might really offend someone. Comment by crandaddy --- November 18, 2005 @ 11:40 pm

The Catholic Church is not supporting ID in any way. I was on Dembski's blog, and he gave "full coverage" to the Pope's statement.

The Pope was fully supporting theistic evolution. The very long standing belief of the Catholic Church is that the old testament is a fairy-tale of sorts.

The Pope was suggesting that God could possibly intervene..but did not actually claim that God did intervene.

I spent the last week commenting on Dembski's blog, trying to learn something about ID...and that was pointless.

The opinion of the catholic church is very important, and not just from a religious standpoint. The catholic church has supported science for a very long time. The one rather notable exception was Galileo. They did however encourage literacy, and other intellectual pursuits.

The Jesuit order is completely committed to learning. The perceive that knowledge is the absolute study of God. God created "reality and knowledge", therefore studying is a form of prayer and religious understanding.

Sorry to go off on a rant here, but jboze is really a hardcore religious fundamentalist, and living in West Texas, i see them a lot.

They have a problem accepting any form of religion that is not fundamentalist. In other words, they would rather convert from Fundamentalist Christian to Fundamentalist Muslim, rather than convert to a non-fundamentalist religion. its actually very sad.

I spent the last week commenting on Dembski's blog, trying to learn something about ID...and that was pointless.

I almost feel sorry for kids like Josh, so ignorant of the world, so certain of their opinions, yet so inarticulate in expressing them, so fearful of confronting reality. Maybe he'll grow out of it and begin to realise he has been a victim of the fundamentalist propaganda machine.

(BTW, the fact that you can still see your messages doesn't mean you HAVEN'T been kicked off ---- Dembski, that stalwart defender of, uh, open debate over ID, apparently uses some computer geek trick to make your messages visible to you but not to anyone else.)

well i think i got kicked off recently when i posted a comment about conspiracy theorists normally being crazy....something like that

actually i did get something of an ID theory out of them
...random mutation is insufficient for Evolution to have occured....
...Some other mechanism must be present for mutation...
...We will refer to this mechanism as the Intelligent Agent...
...We will now infer all sorts of nonsense...
...We will also assume all other Evolutionary theory is wrong...
...We have disproven evolution...
...We call the bad evolution Darwinism, because Darwin developed the theory of random genetic mutation(huh?)...

There are two arguments for design used by theists, and they are polar opposites of each other.

The argument used by the Discovery Institute and others is based on a putative inadequacy of natural processes. They argue that the natural world cannot give rise to the subtle complexity of living things, and so a designer must have intervened to give them their complex forms.

The other argument is used by Coyne, and also by a few non-Christian scientists like Paul Davies, and it is based on the adequacy of natural processes. They argue that the natural world is exquisitely well suited to the emergence of subtle complexity, including life and consciousness, and that this occurs because the natural world itself is finely tuned for this capacity.

The first argument looks to replace the findings of conventional science with an alternative science of some kind that is able to accommodate their theology. It sees design and natural processes as alternatives. It employs a variation of the God of the Gaps, looking to see a design in isolated aspects of the world that can stand in contrast to others aspects that are not designed.

The second argument sees conventional science as exploring a world set up at the deepest level by the designer. It shows up both as a form of deism, in which God set it going and has been hands off ever since; and in a form of Christian transcendent theism, where all natural processes are established and sustained by the divine will, for Whom all processes work together for His ineffable purposes.

The first argument is anti-science; and inevitably contributes to the chasm that has opened up between conventional science and popular religion.

The second argument is a conviction by faith that has driven the involvement of Christians within the sciences all down the centuries, in which the very order and regularity of the natural world is seen as divinely ordained law for the maintenance of the creation.

For the record, I do not endorse either argument. But the distinction has fascinated me. I think Jack Krebs has hit the nail on the head in comment 58841.

I see, as always PT is taking quotes out of context. I wasn't discussing science with my comemnt, I was discussing theology and the Catholic Churche's seemingly ant-bible stance on many issues...wanting to proclaim that the Pope and others below him are somehow above the word. So, good try, but no cigar.

Alan Fox here seems to think he knows anything about me or my religious views, but I assure you- I don't know him, and I haven't discussed my religious views on the web, let alone to Mr. Fox.

PuckSr doesn't know me or a thing about me either. So, he assumes things about me, then attacks me with this assumptions. I find it troubling when a church official thinks of a the bible as a fairy tale, and I'm sure even atheists would agree that such an idea is absurd. If you don't accept the bible is anything but fairytales (this is hardly what Catholic believes, despite what Puck claims), then you'd be saying you're basing your life on fairytales that you even BELIEVE are fairytales...I'm sure few would disagree that such an idea is stupid.

ID, of course, isn't in the field of astronomy. What most of you guys fail to realize is that Coyne did a big presentation for the American Enterprise Institute where he said, in HIS particular field, design is EVERYWHERE and there's no denying it. He went into a big presentation on all the design in astronomy and cosmology. Out of the realm of his specific field (biology), he attacks as not being science. You guys want to have your cake and eat it too...you can hardly quote Coyne who says the universe is totally designed from his study of astronomy, since it doesn't dit with your views. He might speak out against ID in biology, but it isn't his field...and within his field, he says design is everywhere, so he's probably not the best guy to use to support your case of non-design!

It's sad to see many here trying to claim that ID has nothing to do with religion. That's true and it's not true. Many things in science have to do with religion and worldview...by your complaints, you'd have to attack neodarwinism, considering the big names in that field are ALWAYS talking about God (Scott, Provine, Dawkins, Gould, etc)...and they have all turned the theory into an atheistic theory (dawkins famous comment for example.)

My comment was clearly based on a side topic of theology...which is clearly related to ALL science in that various branches of knowledge affect a persons worldview. Anyone can clearly go to UC and see that we weren't speaking of science, we were having a discussion on religion. Does that mean that IDers are liars and it's really about religion and not science? Well, let's ask this question- PT here posts all the time about religion, religious groups, quotes from Dawkins (who despises religion and religious people), Myers (who also hates religion and religious people, going out of his way to attack and mock them nearly daily)....seeing all of that, that surely means the theory PT is pushing is a religion as well, no? Guilt by association- if it works on your attacks of me and others at UC...it surely fits here, or we have a double standard.

Like I said, good try boys, but no cigar...a number of topics are discussed at UC and with this thread we were discussing theology NOT science. Next time someone at PT here mentions ANYTHING about religion, we can post that NDE's are liars and it's really about religion...ok? Fair is fair. If you can distort discussions to suit your agenda, we'll do the same.

By the way...Alan Fox. Before you make personal insults toward me, how about you get your facts straight and actually figure out what I believe? It's called using your head. And, I'm not a kid...but your rude tone exposes those flaws in your character (rudeness like this is actually the domain OF children, so we might easily assume that YOU are a child, no?) Then again, it's par for the course when it comes to the vitriol of the comments I see everyday on this site.

By the way...Alan Fox. Before you make personal insults toward me, how about you get your facts straight and actually figure out what I believe? It's called using your head. And, I'm not a kid...but your rude tone exposes those flaws in your character (rudeness like this is actually the domain OF children, so we might easily assume that YOU are a child, no?) Then again, it's par for the course when it comes to the vitriol of the comments I see everyday on this site.

I haven't discussed my religious views on the web

jboze

You are a fundamental Christian...or at least you should be

Correct...technically the Catholic church does not view parts of the bible as "fairy-tales"...they do however believe that they are stories intended to be read for their moral and ethic purpose in a poetic sense. This sounds a lot like myth and fairy-tales. Wait, jboze, are you Catholic?...no? then shut up about it.

Pandasthumb is capable of discussing whatever they want, and they can still claim that the Theory of Evolution is non-theistic.

Unlike Dembski's blog, this is just a bunch of people posting about how crazy the IDers are, it is not a site dedicated in any way to "proving" a non-theory.

Even DaveScot has taken you to task for your strange views on religion, so just drop it.

I see, as always PT is taking quotes out of context.

ID, of course, isn't in the field of astronomy.

Before you make personal insults toward me, how about you get your facts straight and actually figure out what I believe?

Next time someone at PT here mentions ANYTHING about religion, we can post that NDE's are liars and it's really about religion...ok?

It's sad to see many here trying to claim that ID has nothing to do with religion. That's true and it's not true.

I think I found the talk given by Father Coyne that Josh refers to.....

It can be found mid-page, on the right, under related material, here.

Father Coyne never once alludes to design in the cosmos and warns against "The Idolatry of Religious Belief" specifically referring to "The God of the Gaps".

Josh, if this is not the talk you speak of please let me know.

What most of you guys fail to realize is that Coyne did a big presentation for the American Enterprise Institute where he said, in HIS particular field, design is EVERYWHERE and there's no denying it. He went into a big presentation on all the design in astronomy and cosmology.

I find it troubling when a church official thinks of a the bible as a fairy tale, and I'm sure even atheists would agree that such an idea is absurd. If you don't accept the bible is anything but fairytales (this is hardly what Catholic believes, despite what Puck claims), then you'd be saying you're basing your life on fairytales that you even BELIEVE are fairytales...I'm sure few would disagree that such an idea is stupid.

— Josh

Um, did someone explain that to Discovery Institute before they tried to pull a fast one by having a party in astronomer Gonzalez's honor (ya know, the guy who wrote the book putting ID in the field of astronomy) at the Smithsonian ... . . ?

— Lenny

As I read read Coyne's lecture it doesn't seem that he sees design so much as he sees the interplay of chance and opportunity within "our fertile universe". That there appears to be "structure" to the evolution of the universe can be understood through physical laws and the magnitude of possibilities within the universe, designer not necessary.

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on November 19, 2005 06:20 PM (e) (s) I see, as always PT is taking quotes out of context. I wasn't discussing science with my comemnt, I was discussing theology and the Catholic Churche's seemingly ant-bible stance on many issues...wanting to proclaim that the Pope and others below him are somehow above the word. So, good try, but no cigar...

The Catholic church does believe that that the designer does intervene in our lives: even on the sports field,
perhaps why catholic countries dominate the football world cup? (proper football that is Rev Dr Lenny)

I was referring solely to Coyne's talk which seemed a very reasonable eplanation of the realm of science vice the realm of religion. But you have a point.... Catholics do have a multitude of medallions, patron saints, etc to turn to in the face of trouble.

But as George Carlin says, we've got Joe Pesci.

Ludwig Ott in his authoritative (even for traditionalists) Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (TAN Books, 1974, orig 1952) affirms these points as "De Fide" or infallible dogmas "of Catholic faith" :

--All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De Fide)

Ott points out that what is in view here by the First Vatican Council are those heresies of ancient pagan and gnostic-manichean dualism (where God is not responsible for the entire created world, since mere "matter" is evil not good, etc), along with modern materialism or pantheism (Ott, page 79). Biological evolution is not in view here. Further:

--God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
--The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
--The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
--God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
--God has created a good world. (De Fide)
--The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
--God alone created the world. (De Fide)
--God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
--God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

These are the specific De Fide statements found in Ott on "The Divine Act of Creation," pages 79-91 and both Catholic creationists and theistic evolutionists would have no problem with these statements. The various Councils (Lateran IV, Vatican I, Florence, and others), the traditional statements of the Saints, Doctors, Fathers, and Scriptures are cited by Ott to document the Catholic dogma that God is ultimately the Creator of all things however He chose to do the creating (Genesis 1; Colossians 1:15ff; Hebrews 3; Psalm 19; etc)

"The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God's causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God's plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation. However, as regards man, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul [creatio hominis peculiaris Denz 2123]. Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures.....The question of the descent of the human body from the animal kingdom first appeared under the influence of the modern theory of evolution. The Biblical text does not exclude this theory. Just as in the account of the creation of the world, one can, in the account of the creation of man, distinguish between the per se inspired religious truth that man, both body and soul, was created by God, and the per accidens inspired, stark anthropomorphistic representation of the mode and manner of the Creation. While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible." (Ott, pages 93-94, 95)

Originally published in the 1950s (the version I am using is 1974 by Tan Books) this is a very conservative "traditional" Catholic source for dogma. BTW, natural science is outside of the "faith and morals" which is the domain of the Catholic magisterium (or teaching office of the Church).

Phil P

From the Simpsons Homer: "Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel."

Dean

"The Catholic church does believe that that the designer does intervene in our lives: even on the sports field"

depending how you interpret that there is almost something "Zen" about it.

"The Catholic church does believe that that the designer does intervene in our lives: even on the sports field" depending how you interpret that there is almost something "Zen" about it.

Handpainted resin statues on a solid wood base are the perfect gift for every young Catholic athlete. These statues portray Jesus actively participating with boys and girls in a variety of sports. A wonderful way to reinforce Jesus "as friend" in everyday activities.

I see a few of you have had the same experiences as I have with Dembski's blog. Post anything which questions "intelligent design", no matter how polite or innocuous and you get your account suspended. It's very telling that someone who wants to ensure that all viewpoints get equal time would operate their blog this way.

The comments on his blog over the past few days have been interesting and really show how devoted to religion the average intelligent design proponent is.

Hi Dean

Yes the Catholic Church surgically removed the "Christian Zen or Gospel of Thomas " around 500 AD -just a bit too inconvenient when your collecting foreskins.

The only hope I see for Dembshi is (maybe a faint hope) him recanting on his deathbed.

Thomas is a pretty interesting gospel. Tells much the same stories as the others, but leaves out the fairy tales.

So of course, it was banned as Heresy.

Steve S
"
Tells much the same stories as the others, but leaves out the fairy tales.
"

Yes the fairy tales.... every religion needs a bit of "Hollywood" otherwise ordinary people would be bored Sh*tless The stories get embellished and gilded until the true meaning is if not lost, buried under layers. The poetic symbols are there of course and if everyone "got them" it would put out the Priests out of a job, that of course with human nature being the way it is will never happen , besides where would the fun be in not unfolding hidden meanings.
Like the "Simpsons" they appeal on many different levels.

i see more distortions of what i (and others) said. more petty and chidlish insults and attacks. thats the good ol' PT we all know and love.

puckSR shows his ignorance once again by assuming he knows anything about me, let alone my religion. and then he goes on to attack IDers as crazy...then, he mentions DaveScot complaining about my odd religious views...tho I never gave DaveScot my religious views. te was upset because I said I believe in an immaterial soul (actually, I agreed with another poster who said he believed in the immaterial soul), and Dave said that we were both cranks, basically. that and I questioned how Dave could say Jesus is his role modelm yet he thinks the Bible is a book of fairytales, but all he knows of Jesus is IN the bible (so, his role model is a fairytale!) so, lets not talk about strange views on religion- dave who thinks a system of neural networks created all life and calls dualists (iike dembski) quacks...other than my post about believing the soul is immaterial, ive said nothing else to him about by beliefs.

Joshua
Your post tells us all we need to know about you.

Its called projecting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projecting

Take this pill and lie down

http://www.zenmeditation.org/chan_buecher_zen_beyond_leseprobe.html

PuckSR, dont worry about uncommondecent, its well known they censor and ban any desenting view. Or ban anyone who posts a relevant but unwelcome fact.

Theres no point posting on that blog anyway as every comment gets ratified, it pretends that you have posted but the only one who can see your post is yourself because of the cookies, Only if you are deemed 'convertable' will you be allowed to continue to post.

Everyone who posts there is part of a big lie, funny thing is they know it and just dont seem to care.

thanks for proving my basic point about this site and those who comment to the posts on it k.e. and max!

Josh, for someone who claims to take the moral high ground, you certainly seem to refute that here.

But capable enough to learn Dembski's tricks with post deletions here. Rest assured, Josh. Your pearls of wisdom will remain on this site indefinitely.

Joshua

For you

By William Blake.

The Clod and the Pebble

"Love seeketh not itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care,
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a heaven in hell's despair."

So sung a little Clod of Clay,
Trodden with the cattle's feet,
But a Pebble of the brook
Warbled out these metres meet:

"Love seeketh only Self to please,
To bind another to its delight,
Joys in another's loss of ease,
And builds a hell in heaven's despite

Sorry, link doesn't work, try here and scroll to comment 7.

The only hope I see for Dembshi is (maybe a faint hope) him recanting on his deathbed.

Good one, Alan. You're attacking me because I deleted a comment where someone basically said:

"You are a liar. All ID supporters are liars...William 'I lie for Jesus' is a liar, and he's evil. He's not a scientist, nor is Michael Behe. They are both effing idiots who hate science and trying to establish a national theocracy. Just like all you right wing nutjobs who are anti-science and hate progress...you are all trying to destroy the world too."

Yeah- I'll keep THAT sort of comment posted on my site. I shouldn't have ANY rules at all, nor should Dembski for that matter...'we should all allow all comments no matter how hate-filled they are, no matter how many lies they contain, no matter how much inappropriate language is used. Gosh, I'm sorry for deleting such things. From here on out, I'll even allow the BIG idiots who post "ur a c*ck sucking mother f**king idiot and you eat sh*t!!!!!" Great idea, Foxy. Great idea.

Josh, regarding your disagreement with DaveScot over your belief in an immaterial soul:

Wasn't that when you were going on about how we can't measure someone's brainwaves and tell if they're happy or sad or angry? And didn't you also say that since thoughts have no weight that they must exist somewhere else?

See, this is a microcosm of ID. YOU can't explain how a brain works, so you just chalk it up to something supernatural.

No, Jeremy, in that thread, I said nothing of brainwaves or happiness or sadness. I've never said anything about brainwaves and sadness...tho, I would say it is true that a doctor couldn't tell you if you're sad or happy, tho the definition of sadness and happiness are complicated to begin with, and you could possibly not fully know yourself which way you feel- maybe you feel partly happy and partly sad).

ID doesn't make the claim that you can't explain it, thus it must be supernatural. ID doesn't say that the designer IS or ISN'T supernatural...for ID says NOTHING of the designer only the design. You'll, of course, claim that's a lie...but claiming something is a lie doesn't make it a lie of course.

Read any of the books on ID, and you'll be hard pressed to find, within the theory itself, any mention of the designer or who/what that designer is...only the design itself is looked at. The hallmarks of design.

On top of that, the word supernatural is used a lot but has numerous definitions...and many people who believe in God (since you're attempting to turn ID into a theological claim) wouldn't consider God supernatural at all, considering that God would have created the universe (nature) and would be a part of it and within it. And acts of God would not necessarily have to even violate any known laws of the universe...tho, again, if God created the universe and is thus part of it (natural), then no laws would really be supernatural.

Read any of the books on ID, and you'll be hard pressed to find, within the theory itself, any mention of the designer or who/what that designer is...only the design itself is looked at. The hallmarks of design.

Alan wrote

Ah, the Cathar "consolamentum". A handy way to employ Pascal's wager!

Well he is a mathmatician :) And even though he knows the probability is very small that he will find God under a rock, he knows that a life of sin will keep the royalties flowing in.
Bacanalian almost. Save the repenting until the very last seconds.

Josh

It's a beautiful sunny morning so I'm off hiking. But I quickly read through the above thread and can't see where you have been gratuitously insulted.

That you are young is curable. You'll grow out of it.

That you lack education, you can go to college.

That you lack experience, hopefully, you'll gain that on the way.

And remember, frequent sex, even with yourself, will protect you against prostate cancer in later life.

of course there isnt. dembski, behe, and others have written numerous books of comic strips, cooking recipes, and fix it yourself tips.

Again, Alan Fox- thanks for proving my point yet again. Your childish immaturity is why you were banned from commenting on Dembski's blog. Good thing that most of the comments here are childish rants...no chance of you being banned.

I do love childish rants that include statements "That you are young is curable. You'll grow out of it."

Kettle...meet pot.

Josh simple question.

Does Dembski delete/censor comments to give the impression that everyone agrees with him, yes or no?

Think carefully before you answer...

This is not a newspaper. What newspaper lets everyone who wants post letters without editorial oversight? When we have a liberal policy of allowing comments without restriction, unlike any newspaper, we have to have different strategies for dealing with the garbage from undisciplined cranks that gets through. Heddle's letter has been disemvoweled to make it clear that his kind of abusive ranting will be policed. It is left in place as an example to others. If commenters don't like the fact that bad comments will be edited, think twice before clicking on the 'submit' button.

PZ, That argument makes little sense, given that you are in fact, through the "disemvowling," exercising the very editorial oversight that you claim is absent. Nor does the warning "If commenters don't like the fact that bad comments will be edited, think twice before clicking on the 'submit' button" make any cogent point, since a newspaper, if it wanted to be as childish, could simply respond "letter writers should think twice about dropping that envelope in the mailbox, because if we don't like it, we'll mangle it and print it just to mock you."

Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 06:56 AM (e) (s) In the midst of all this talk about Dembski deleting comments, I'd like to point out that PT cannot take the high road on this issue. I have had two comments that were not offensive or off-topic "disemvowelled"...

What I am saying is that PT could choose to (1) print JADs comments (by not deleting them) (2) delete his comments (3) ban him, or (4) mangle his comments as a form of public humiliation. Options 1-3 are accepted practices. Option 4 is not.

Heddle said The one thing I can and will do is anytime a thread reaches a critical mass of commenters complaining about Dembski's editorial policy, I will point out that PT's, in my opinion, is worse and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.

ID doesn't say that the designer IS or ISN'T supernatural

Comment #58955 Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 07:31 AM (e) (s) What I am saying is that PT could choose to (1) print JADs comments (by not deleting them) (2) delete his comments (3) ban him, or (4) mangle his comments as a form of public humiliation. Options 1-3 are accepted practices. Option 4 is not.

There is little I can do, of course. The one thing I can and will do is anytime a thread reaches a critical mass of commenters complaining about Dembski's editorial policy, I will point out that PT's, in my opinion, is worse and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.

ID doesn't make the claim that you can't explain it, thus it must be supernatural. ID doesn't say that the designer IS or ISN'T supernatural...

"The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory."

How about the creationists at Evolution News and Views? Not only did they turn off comments, they turned off the Trackbacks when those weren't flattering.

BTW, natural science is outside of the "faith and morals" which is the domain of the Catholic magisterium (or teaching office of the Church).

Bill Dembski: "The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory."

In the midst of all this talk about Dembski deleting comments

Sure sucks to be you, doesn't it Heddle. (yawn)

But while you're here, screaming "Help help! I'm being censored!" to the entire world, perhaps you'd like to answer the simple question I've been putting to you for months now without any intelligible resposne:

*ahem*

What makes your religious opinions any more authoritative than anyone else's, other than your say-so? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should to, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

Josh ---- same question.

There is little I can do, of course. The one thing I can and will do is anytime a thread reaches a critical mass of commenters complaining about Dembski's editorial policy, I will point out that PT's, in my opinion, is worse and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.

There is little I can do, of course. The one thing I can and will do is anytime a thread reaches a critical mass of commenters complaining about Panda's Thumb's editorial policy, I will point out that Dembski's, in my opinion, is worse and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent.

It is good to see the religious come out against ID, but I note that with a "hands off" god, there's no Incarnation - deism is not Christianity. (Cf. the fundies trying to coop the US founding fathers ...) Also, I note if those articles of faith is an accurate list, it has one area that is definitely in danger of being refuted - the finite age of the universe. (Unless we take "world") to mean the Earth. The Catholics like the Big Bang because it has been misrepresented as being the origin of the universe, when it is better to say that it is the origin of our local hubble volume. (Even there, using york time makes for no first instant.) Finally, the "sustaining god" view is occaisonalism in a pretty face, whence makes nonsense concerning evil (god would be directly responsible for evil). I guess this is the official position: it just seems radically inconsistent.

Posted by Keith Douglas on November 20, 2005 10:52 AM (e) (s) It is good to see the religious come out against ID, but I note that with a "hands off" god, there's no Incarnation - deism is not Christianity. (Cf. the fundies trying to coop the US founding fathers ...) Also, I note if those articles of faith is an accurate list, it has one area that is definitely in danger of being refuted - the finite age of the universe. (Unless we take "world") to mean the Earth. The Catholics like the Big Bang because it has been misrepresented as being the origin of the universe, when it is better to say that it is the origin of our local hubble volume.

And Josh
Just for interest sake what separates

Dembski
"I don't actually have a theory, just a question to which I think the answer is God but I'll call it science and try to fool the world.^TM"

from other pseudo-scientists like Anti Gravity Machine merchants, Infinite Energy Boffins, VSMK, Faith Healers,
Psycho Surgeons, Voo-doo

Or is he in some sick twisted game of trial and error to see how far he can push you before your brain explodes ?

http://www.nimbi.com/songs_of_experience_the_human_abstract.html

Could someone post the actual disemvowelled posts?

While I think PT would be best off only deleting/banning the most offensive and unconstructive posts and posters, I just don't see how having two posts mangled by PT is somehow less acceptable than Dembski not merely deleting posts that are critical of him or his views but systematically editing every aspect of his and others' posts to make it seem that he is both infallible and unopposed. I just don't see that Heddle's obsessive complaining about the 'disemvowellment' is justified, and his comparison to Dembski's practices to PT's is hypocritical at best. So he lost some vowels; he retains the right to participate here on a daily basis and he does.

Typical Dembskiist whining. Heddle thinks he's with god so a wrong done him is worse than a wrong done anyone else, regardless of the relative wrongness.

Disemvoweling has since turned out to be a surprisingly effective tool for maintaining order in online venues. For some reason, the fact that their text is still present, even in severely altered form, seems to baffle trolls' normal impulses. They're significantly less likely to re-post disemvoweled arguments than deleted ones. They may cry censorship; but since the other participants can, if they wish, puzzle out the original message, and see for themselves why it was disemvoweled, the troll doesn't get much sympathy. Also, disemvoweling gives the moderator the option of only suppressing the offensive bits of an otherwise valuable message. Not only does this preserve worthwhile material, but it makes it clear to everyone just where the line got crossed: a useful piece of clarification and public education.

— wikipedia

"Disemvowelling" is the final warning shot fired across the bow.

If the highly hypocritical Mr. Heddle had any shred of decency left, he wouldn't even dream of comparing PT, where he's been allowed to hang himself with his own rhetorical rope several times already (the site's search engine comes very handy to find some of Heddle's oldies), to para-Stalinist sites like Dembski's, where people are deceived into thinking that their posts have been kept while they have not.

On Jason Rosenhouse's blog, Heddle has several times repeated that the author of an article in Skeptical Inquirer is "stupid." Perhaps Heddle's opinion is that the word "stupid" belongs in a serious debate and that he is entitled to judge other authors' opinions from a position of superiority. Is he not aware that pointing fingers at other people and yelling "Stupid!" is a common tool of jesters? It may cause chuckles and the jester himself is looking stupid, which has the faintly comic effect the jester tries to create. In view of this, his complaints that PT applies an unaccepted method of disemvoweling offensive posts (and a post using the word Gestapo certainly is in such a category) sound unconvincing. If Heddle thinks that PT is worse than Dembski's blog, he has an option: stop posting on PT where his comments usually are a nuisance, and post his diatribes on Dembski's blogs where they may be more welcome.

I guess you could claim Dembski is following journalistic precedent if you include such esteemed and storied media outlets as Soviet-era Pravda or one of Joseph Goebbels' favourite, Das Reich.

While I am not for the mutilation of anyone's posts, it has happened only twice, and the last time was months ago. And at least you are free to make your displeasure about it known in public on this board -- a courtesy which would not have been extended to you on Dembski's under similar circumstances.

Dembski is, of course, free to establish whatever censorship rules he wants on his own blog, but when he deletes any comment that even have the whiff of disagreement or dissent to his core beliefs he loses all rights to claim any level of journalistic precedent or integrity.

Instead of disemvoweling, I would propose ROT-13ing a message. This way people who REALLY want to read it can flip it over.

There is no false dilemma...Evolution may have been God's means to his end, but the outcome, the Church would insist, was never in doubt, and that God cannot be excluded from from having acted at any step in the process.

— david heddle

buddha quoting Vatican I: "God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason." (De Fide)

buddha: "So what is your interpretation of that Vatican I dogma?"

Is the dogma a scientific claim, or a faith claim? I say it is a faith claim. If it is cited in Ludwig Ott, I can look up the background he gives on it. Vatican I does teach God can be known by reason. No problem. We accept the cosmological and other arguments for God as good arguments (the Aquinas arguments, etc). Those are not scientific claims, but theological or philosophical claims. The full text of Vatican Council I on "faith and reason" is here

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

The relevant canons are these:

On God the creator of all things

1. If anyone denies the one true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema. (comment: this denies atheism)

2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema. (comment: this denies philosophical materialism)

3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema. (comment: this denies pantheism, that God is all)

There are more, but now onto your favorite Vatican I canon:

On revelation

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him: let him be anathema.

The context of your canon is under "revelation." That is a faith issue, not a science issue. All this is saying is that faith and reason do not conflict, and that God can be known by reason from the "things that have been made." This is a general statement reflecting the biblical teaching of Romans 1:19-21 (see also Wisdom 13 in Catholic Bibles which has parallel language).

Romans 1:19-21 "...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened...."

You can call this "intelligent design" in the lower-case sense, but I don't call it Intelligent Design in the Discovery Institute sense (an anti-evolution sense). I read this blog on occasion and generally agree and appreciate the fair views toward Catholicism by most of the participants here.

Phil P

Wow....you guys had quite the discussion last night.

Keith....i believe that Deism can be Christian...especially if one believes in a deterministic Universe. In the case of determinism, it would not matter when God "worked", the result would still be the same.

Also, the big bang may not be the beginning of the Universe, but as long as we do not know what "kick-started" the universe....then that will be God's intervention. The bad thing about an eternal universe....you could never prove it.

Josh...we do know your religious views to some extent.
Your inability to grasp the concept of Jesus without a literal bible interpretation is a direct indication of your FUNDAMENTALISM.
I know that your not Catholic....you severly misunderstand Catholicism.
I know your Christian...that is fairly obvious
So...Your a christian who believes in a literal bible. That would make you a Christian Fundamentalist....simple deduction my dear Watson.

Josh simple question. Does Dembski delete/censor comments to give the impression that everyone agrees with him, yes or no? Think carefully before you answer...

"Disemvowelling" is the final warning shot fired across the bow.

All I can say is, if you're going to make a comment that you will regret afterwards, don't click on the "post" button.

Dear Heddle, your actions show that while whining about the disemvowelment by PZ on this blog, you fail to raise a similar objection to the actions by Dembski. As such, your whining seems to have little content.
I understand that you personally must feel somewhat silly for having been disemvoweled. Some may even argue that it improved your postings in both clarity and logic.
Now stop whining please and stop filling the threads with your 'complaints'. When you can point me to a thread in which you complain on Dembski's blog to his 'editorial policies', you at least have some credibility. Or may I assume we can extend your comments to conclude that Dembski's editorial policies are worse that PZ's? I assume that your comments thus apply even more strongly to Dembski's poliocies

This thread is not about Heddle... Sorry...
Any more whining on this thread, from either side, about Heddle will be deleted. Heddle has been given an opportunity to whine, something people who post at Dembski's blog seldomly are given.
But there are limits to my patience with attempts to derail threads with personal whines.

I will continue to bring this up whenever (and only) when I come across excessive whining about Dembski's editorial policy.

PvM,
I have no firsthand experience about Dembski deleting comments. I don't visit and his blog very often and have only posted a few comments on his blog. In one case it could have been viewed as critical, since I complained, in effect, about Behe and Dembski being the only recognized spokesmen for ID. I said something along the lines of "I give ID talks and I never mention Behe or Dembski." The post was not deleted, although I was attacked by Dave Scott.

So the best I can offer, in this litmus test you have applied to me, is to point to my blog where a few weeks ago a similar discussion developed over editorial policy. There I wrote, to GCT and Ed Darrell: If Dembski deletes rational comments merely because they offer an opposing viewpoint, then I think he is wrong.

Go ahead, PvM, delete away (and maybe even lock the thread). Since Heddle has just admitted he's not even qualified to judge Dembski's censorship policies this whole whine and discussion is pointless anyway.

This message will self-destruct in 30 seconds... but just in case I'm wrong, feel free to delete it anyway... :)

No, here it was the first refuge of a coward.

The Vatican is a 'city' state. Catholicism is 'universal'. All good Catholics know this. Speaking from experience, they have it beaten into their heads from baptism on. Christians are not Catholics but Catholics are Christians. Neither will argue this point.

Papa carries the Big Stick, regardless of who's body is waving it from St. Peters. All religious figures pale in comparison to the the Catholic Pontif. Catholicism is the politically correct religion. It's membership is the wealthiest and by far the most intelligently designed. Of all biblical proselytizers, Catholics have it down pat -- keep the book shut and on the shelf. Go to confession and tithe.

Evolution does not threaten Catholicism; however it does scare the beejeevies out of its many 'spin off' faiths. Luther's leap may have been principled, but it was not profitable and did nothing to save humankind from human greed.

Christians eagerly await a final damning blow to all evil (Catholics, Jews, Muslims, scientists...) delivered by their benevolent Lord and Master, Pat Robertson. Why don't Catholics have a 700 Club? Not since Fulton J Sheen have they slipped to such 'needy' solicitation. Televangelists steadily suck nickels and dimes from the stupid while Benedict polishes his bullet-proof golf cart. Politics and religion don't mix, not in the eyes of the faithful that is. Catholics know this.
That is irreducible complexity.

We are all born atheits, why make it harder?

"If Dembski deletes rational comments merely because they offer an opposing viewpoint, then I think he is wrong."

Dave Heddle

How would you know? You are one of the 'flock' so to speak. I have been "excommunicated" and "you're outta here"d from The Divine Reverend Bill D's chat room so many times, I now get notes upon registration; "cheatin, eh?". I've run out of mail sites and pseudonyms, so I rant at the ADm just for sh*ts and giggles.

Yes, Uncommon Descent clips 'quips' that aren't part of his design as well as re posting re-dated, not updated, old posts and no access to any personal profiles not linked to ARN, Design this, Design that. WordPress (BD's blog editor) provides some pretty slick tools and he uses 'em all. Posts appear and disappear. You always see your post, the counter disagrees and no one responds. Pray for me Dave> I just want to be read.

Comment #58988 Posted by David Heddle on November 20, 2005 02:19 PM (e) (s) Steve, you are still around? I reckoned you were finishing your Physical Review Letters article about how whether a physical constant is small or large depends on the units, as you alluded to here.

The official catholic position on God's role in evolution reminds me of the ideas of Conway-Morris. In both cases, divine design is like a murphy bed that doesn't take up floor space during working hours. The assertion of teleology has no cash value at all. You only pull it out when you feel the need for edification. Pretty smart.

"You can call this "intelligent design" in the lower-case sense, but I don't call it Intelligent Design in the Discovery Institute sense (an anti-evolution sense). I read this blog on occasion and generally agree and appreciate the fair views toward Catholicism by most of the participants here."

— PhilVaz

It remains a fact that your 120 OOM is particular to a set of units.

# The editorial policies here with regard to deleting comments is worse than on science sites like Panda's Thumb, and furthermore follows no journalistic precedent. Comment by stevie steve --- November 20, 2005 @ 4:38 pm

at Dembski's site. Let's see how long it lasts.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine from months ago--what is the Sensitivity of the cosmological constant?

You don't even have to give me a single digit of precision. Just an order of magnitude for this "fractional or percent change (duh)"

Just FYI: You can tell if your posts aren't being added if the Comments count remains unchanged after you hit the Post button.

Do you have a way of getting around that setup where your comments stay visible on your own computer even after he deletes them?

w/r/t the status of the comment, it is already gone. If anyone disputes that I posted it, I will email you a screenshot. From my computer it is still visible.

I seem to recall reading about the Communist Chinese implementing a system to make e.g. pro-democracy comments in weblogs visible to their posters but invisible to all others, making it appear that nobody else - NOBODY else - supported democracy.  Of course, the general public would never learn that anyone supported democracy either.

Strange that Dembski would adopt a tactic used by atheist totalitarians.  Or perhaps not.

Steve,

Here is a write-up on the cc fine tuning. As I point out, the cc fine tuning is of two forms--one is the mystery of why it is 120 orders of magnitude smaller (in ANY system of units) than theory. One is in its actual value. For the latter, I'll be more conservative than PT favorite Victor Stenger on the subject. He wrote: "If the vacuum energy had been just a hair greater at the end of inflation, it would be so enormous today that space would be highly curved and the stars and planets could not exist." I'll just say the fractional sensitivity is certainly much less that 1%.

Now, explain how those OOM depend on the units? If CC is 1 (theory) and 10^-120 (observation) in Planck units, what are the values in MKS, and how many OOM difference would there be?

You children have got to be kidding me. You're complaining that Dembski deleted a comment where you went over JUST to cause trouble? Let's look up the word maturity in the dictionary and try putting it into play.

You guys realize no one will take you seriously with this nonsense. And then, because (like any rational personal) he deletes your childish attempt at starting trouble, you guys compare him to fascists and nazis and communists. Again, I say, more hateful rhetoric from the children at PT.

I'm still wondering when the post on PT that claimed I (and 3 others commenting at UC) called for the murder of Muslims (no one called for the killing of Muslims) will be edited and apologized for (oh wait, it hasn't, even after I pointed out the libel involved.)

Now, let's complain about PT and the tendency to post lies and refuse to retract them. Let's all play the games of children!

The numbers like 10^-60 I quoted was NOT for a chain of probabilities, but a single parameter, the expansion rate of the universe. It is not a probability but a required precision.

Significant digits Scientific notation is useful for indicating the precision with which the quantity was measured. Including only the significant figures, the digits that are known to be reliable, in the mantissa implicitly conveys value's precision. Any physical quantity in scientific notation is assumed to be precise to no fewer than the quoted number of digits of precision. However, where precision in such measurements is crucial, more sophisticated expressions of measurement error must be used. As an example, consider the Earth's mass as presented above in conventional notation. Since the representation gives no indication of the accuracy of the reported value, a reader could incorrectly assume that it is known down to the last digit displayed. The scientific notation implicitly shows it is known with a precision of 0.00005×1024 Kg, or 5×1019 Kg.

For example, if you're an engineer and you want to record the pressure on a supporting beam of a bridge, and you measure it as 500034 but your instrument is only precise to +/- 600, you would not want to write "500034" because you really have no way of knowing, based on your measurement, what the last few digits are. On the other hand, you wouldn't want to just round it to 500000, because that doesn't convey the fact that you do precisely know the first few digits! Scientific notation (5.00 x 10^5) is the perfect way to express the number and give an idea of how precise it is.

You children have got to be kidding me. You're complaining that Dembski deleted a comment where you went over JUST to cause trouble? Let's look up the word maturity in the dictionary and try putting it into play. You guys realize no one will take you seriously with this nonsense. And then, because (like any rational personal) he deletes your childish attempt at starting trouble, you guys compare him to fascists and nazis and communists. Again, I say, more hateful rhetoric from the children at PT

— Josh

Comment #59014 Posted by Josh Bozeman on November 20, 2005 06:32 PM (e) (s) You children have got to be kidding me. You're complaining that Dembski deleted a comment where you went over JUST to cause trouble?

Posted by Josh Bozeman on November 20, 2005 06:32 PM (e) (s) You children have got to be kidding me. You're complaining that Dembski deleted a comment where you went over JUST to cause trouble? Let's look up the word maturity in the dictionary and try putting it into play. You guys realize no one will take you seriously with this nonsense. And then, because (like any rational personal) he deletes your childish attempt at starting trouble, you guys compare him to fascists and nazis and communists. Again, I say, more hateful rhetoric from the children at PT. I'm still wondering when the post on PT that claimed I (and 3 others commenting at UC) called for the murder of Muslims (no one called for the killing of Muslims) will be edited and apologized for (oh wait, it hasn't, even after I pointed out the libel involved.) Now, let's complain about PT and the tendency to post lies and refuse to retract them. Let's all play the games of children!

I didn't see PvM's comment until after the page refreshed. I'm done.

PvM- you show your own dishonesty when you say "ID creationists" (of course a creationist thinks God created all things separately...Michael Behe has no problem with common descent), so that alone makes your claim bogus and you know it.

MANY people at UC post comments against ID (I can point to many of them in the first few posts on the front page).

Steve S- you were merely trying to cause trouble. That is, by definition, childish...deleting childish comments is rational as can be.

Mr. Elliot- I didn't insult anyone. It is, by definition the act of a child, to attack others with names and lies. If you want to call someone Stalin, Hitler, a Nazi, etc. then you should be ready to be called children. Act like children, be properly labeled children. If speaking the truth is rude in your opinion, that's your problem, not mine...

Josh, about your claim of being quoted out of context, really, there was a link there to that context before things were quoted here, so what's your beef? And though things were read into your post perhaps prematurely, there can be little doubt as to what you mean by a sentence "Sorry, but I don't care what the pope (a position not established in the Bible) says, I care about what the word says."

The only context where this was irrelevated as a statement of faith would be a following sentence saying "HAH! Fooled you all, didn't I?" but that is not forthcoming. For those who still want context, find it in one of the first posts.

As for ID, read the court hearings, read up on how Dembski doesn't answer to opponents (there was a nice thread a LOOONG while ago where Dembski's math was totally thrashed and he failed to come up with a suitable response aside from handwaving... done by a lady I think a year ago, anyone remember?)

And really, censorship on Dembski's website extends to all forms of even in depth criticism. People have shown here what the depth of his nearly fascistic posting rules are. And then there's the recent 'street theatre' fiasco where he deletes evidence of lying outright without even apologising.

Then there's panda's thumb. Yes, we're rude. Yes, we're harsh. Yes, we our moods are more sour than your average lemon. But at least we allow contrary opinions, even if they amount to no more than "ZOMG1!!12!! U guyz is STOOPID!" because anyone with brains knows that such a comment will not help you. So where is this censorship and closedmindedness people talk about? Bring us evidence, real empirical evidence, of any ID claim and it will be discussed. That can not be said for Uncommon Descent, though apparently fascist commentary is allowed there.

I fear I just wasted a good ten minutes of my life trying to explain this to you, but it'll be refreshing to see how you'll respond and which points you'll ignore ;)

May your whiskers never wither,

-Edin Najetovic

Chapter 2 On revelation 1. The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. 2. It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it: In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son. [...]

Is the dogma a scientific claim, or a faith claim?

We accept the cosmological and other arguments for God as good arguments (the Aquinas arguments, etc).

The context of your canon is under "revelation." That is a faith issue, not a science issue.

You can call this "intelligent design" in the lower-case sense, but I don't call it Intelligent Design in the Discovery Institute sense (an anti-evolution sense).

Michael Shermer debated William Dembski at Colby College the 16th of this month. There is no transcript. Father Dembski provided his apostles with little more than a wink and a nod.

Josh, Don't project! Not everyone is up to mischief when posting an opposing view on 'enemy' sites. It's obvious you are a bit emotional and unreasonably adversarial.

ID is out of your 'strike zone', evolution is out your 'ballpark' and Charles Darwin is way, way out of your league. When he was your age he was headed for the Galapagos and history -- you're headed to an Eminem concert. Saw your site. Don't throw stones.

kay,
Re "ROT-13ing a message"
What's that, putting it on a separate page and replacing the original with a link to that page?

Henry

I see that the Discovery Institute's "Evolution News and Views" blog has produced a long essay denouncing Coyne and his comments about ID, but they still can't bring themselves to tell their readers about the ouster of the pro-ID Dover school board...

Another person who attacks me personally, tho knows nothing about me. Obviously someone needs to read if you claim you've seen my site...cosidering I rarely ever talk about my personal activities. And an eminem concert is surely not one them.

"ID is out of your 'strike zone', evolution is out your 'ballpark' and Charles Darwin is way, way out of your league. When he was your age he was headed for the Galapagos and history --- you're headed to an Eminem concert. Saw your site. Don't throw stones."

Keep showing the immaturity guys...

Vatican I defines two sources of revelation [...]

Heddle just loves to move the goalposts...requires less thought and less work.

The trademark of ID/Creation.

Obviously if you compare two numbers in any given system, their relative size doesn't change by switching to a different system. That's obviously not what I was talking about.

It remains a fact that your 120 OOM is particular to a set of units.

Now anyone who knows about precision, accuracy, and scientific notation, would interpret this to mean that the value of the CC is fixed to the 60th decimal place when written in scientific notation.

Now anyone who knows about precision, accuracy, and scientific notation, would interpret this to mean that the value of the CC is fixed to the 60th decimal place when written in scientific notation.

take it to the After the Bar Closes forum if you want to continue, as per PvM's instructions. I made my case, and didn't back away from anything, so I won't be continuing it.

[...] even if you are not honest enough to admit you were wrong and want to pretend you were misinterpreted.

— David Heddle

Heddle, I made a thread at After the Bar Closes for you.

Wes, maybe you're not using them safely. What you do is, before you take an irony measurement, you turn it up to the highest level, "Dembski". As long as you don't get a value in range, keep dropping the level, all the way down to the lowest setting, "Alanis Morissette", if need be.

PvM- you show your own dishonesty when you say "ID creationists" (of course a creationist thinks God created all things separately...Michael Behe has no problem with common descent), so that alone makes your claim bogus and you know it.

— Josh

Mr. Elliot- I didn't insult anyone. It is, by definition the act of a child, to attack others with names and lies.

— Josh

Hey Josh, you haven't answered my question yet. Why is your religious opinion any more authoritative than anyone else's? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

Heddle, same question.

PvM. Get real. Please. I closed the comments because I had 100 posts from the same person that read "Bill 'I Lie For Jesus Dembski...blah blah blah."

So, good try, but no luck with that one...I EXPLAINED why I deleted many comments and why I closed the thread, so you are, again, being dishonest.

ID creationists? That's not dishonest? Yeah. Right. You want to call ID creationism all you want...go ahead, but it's not, and to claim it is is, well...dishonest! (Ding ding ding!)

PZ Myers, the man who mocks religious people constantly? Who curses at people who post at his site? Who basically says that Christians are superstitious idiots. Hello- he's the definition of hate-filled. How is that an insult?! Matske, who I have seen on TV many times, would sit down for interviews and sometimes even get called out for his numerous lies by the interview himself! So, calling Matske a liar, because he constantly lies in interviews is an insult as well?

It's not an insult to point out someone's hate-filled rants, nor is it insulting to expose someone who constantly lies.

Someone is, by definition, a liar when they go on TV time and time again tell lies (Matsek and Scott make a great time when it comes to lying about ID claims and those who make them!) Myers is the very epitome of religious bigotry. If you don't want me to label him that, you should probably ask him to try to be civil for once in his life. If you don't want me to label Matske a liar, ask him to stop lying when interviewed! If you don't like the labels, which are merely proper descriptions that fit both men, then take it up with them.

Keep trying...

Rev-

I don't care if anyone agrees with my religious views. I never said anyone had to agree with them.

PvM. Get real. Please. I closed the comments because I had 100 posts from the same person that read "Bill 'I Lie For Jesus Dembski...blah blah blah."

— Josh

7 a note to idiots- your comments wont be posted if you comment with nonsense such as "william 'lie for jesus' dembski" idiots are, well theyre just idiots...and i wont bother with them. if youre going to call someone a liar, have some actual evidence of lies being told. thats always helpful, huh? amazing concept, i know. Comment by Josh --- November 14, 2005 @ 4:52 am Skeptic commented Comment by Sceptic --- November 15, 2005 @ 9:48 pm Your final response Comment by Josh --- November 16, 2005 @ 12:27 am

ID creationists? That's not dishonest? Yeah. Right. You want to call ID creationism all you want...go ahead, but it's not, and to claim it is is, well...dishonest! (Ding ding ding!)

— Josh

I'm laughing over here. Show your mental powers won't you...you'll notice the comment of mine you pasted above was one of the VERY FIRST comments of the thread. So, what I did was mention many hateful comments from the start, but then I somehow closed the thread later on because someone was pointing out supposed errors in my comments?

No...one of the first comments I made was the one pasted above. I closed the thread for that reason- you can call me a liar for that if you want, I don't really care what you think.

I have an unfamiliarity with the facts that ID IS NOT creationism? Hello! Creationism is the idea that all different forms of life (kinds, species, families, whatever) were CREATED thru many acts (usually of the supernatural kind). If you believe that one life form is the ancestor of all life on earth, you're in no way a creationist. You keep calling it ID creationism, and you keep claiming that such an assertion is totally honest.

Good luck with that. Like many here at PT, you will continue to be honest about this and many other things. I actually would prefer you call ID creationism, for when the facts are exposed to people who know little of the issue, they'll clearly see the difference between the two items that you continue to claim are one and the same!

I think it is you that's lacking familiarity with the facts and with honesty itself...and you keep proving it more everytime you post a new comment.

I'm laughing over here. Show your mental powers won't you...you'll notice the comment of mine you pasted above was one of the VERY FIRST comments of the thread. So, what I did was mention many hateful comments from the start, but then I somehow closed the thread later on because someone was pointing out supposed errors in my comments? No...one of the first comments I made was the one pasted above. I closed the thread for that reason- you can call me a liar for that if you want, I don't really care what you think.

— Josh

I have an unfamiliarity with the facts that ID IS NOT creationism? Hello! Creationism is the idea that all different forms of life (kinds, species, families, whatever) were CREATED thru many acts (usually of the supernatural kind). If you believe that one life form is the ancestor of all life on earth, you're in no way a creationist. You keep calling it ID creationism, and you keep claiming that such an assertion is totally honest.

— Josh

I think it is you that's lacking familiarity with the facts and with honesty itself...and you keep proving it more everytime you post a new comment.

— Josh

if youre going to call someone a liar, have some actual evidence of lies being told. thats always helpful, huh? amazing concept, i know. Comment by Josh --- November 14, 2005 @ 4:52 am

I closed it THE DAY I GOT 100 COMMENTS FROM THE SAME PERSON. Can you not read, or do you just HAVE to be dishonest? Again, I don't care if you call me a liar or not...your lack of common sense when I explained the situation to you ten different ways is beyond amazing. Like I said, keep calling it ID creationism. Don't deal with the issue- just plug your ears with your fingers and say "ID creationism" until you turn blue. And watch as the American people continue to overwhelmingly reject your bogus assertions that the two are one and the same.

As for lies from Scott and Matske, you can read my many comments on UC about them both, are on my own site, or any of the journal pages linked to my site.

Since I've got better things to do than explain for the 11th time why I closed the thread on my site, and I'm already tired of your dishonesty, I'll just leave it at that.

I closed it THE DAY I GOT 100 COMMENTS FROM THE SAME PERSON. Can you not read, or do you just HAVE to be dishonest?

— josh

Again, I don't care if you call me a liar or not...your lack of common sense when I explained the situation to you ten different ways is beyond amazing. Like I said, keep calling it ID creationism. Don't deal with the issue- just plug your ears with your fingers and say "ID creationism" until you turn blue. And watch as the American people continue to overwhelmingly reject your bogus assertions that the two are one and the same.

— Josh

As for lies from Scott and Matske, you can read my many comments on UC about them both, are on my own site, or any of the journal pages linked to my site.

if youre going to call someone a liar, have some actual evidence of lies being told. thats always helpful, huh? amazing concept, i know. Comment by Josh --- November 14, 2005 @ 4:52 am

Since I've got better things to do than explain for the 11th time why I closed the thread on my site, and I'm already tired of your dishonesty, I'll just leave it at that.

Don't deal with the issue- just plug your ears with your fingers and say "ID creationism" until you turn blue. And watch as the American people continue to overwhelmingly reject your bogus assertions that the two are one and the same.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club." "And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there,"

I closed it THE DAY I GOT 100 COMMENTS FROM THE SAME PERSON. Can you not read, or do you just HAVE to be dishonest? Again, I don't care if you call me a liar or not...your lack of common sense when I explained the situation to you ten different ways is beyond amazing. Like I said, keep calling it ID creationism. Don't deal with the issue- just plug your ears with your fingers and say "ID creationism" until you turn blue.

And watch as the American people continue to overwhelmingly reject your bogus assertions that the two are one and the same.

Josh might help us all understand how ID is not creationism, by explaining the perfectly logical and scientific reasons why one must be a christian to be an officer in the Intelligent Design/Evolution Awareness club.

Thanks Josh for joining in this experiment.I think you have made your our points very forcefully.

So you know a little about me, I'll mention I live in France. Just check what "Renard" is in English.

How old is Josh? He writes like a 15 year old.

I don't care if anyone agrees with my religious views. I never said anyone had to agree with them.

You keep calling it ID creationism, and you keep claiming that such an assertion is totally honest.

FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES * Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation

And watch as the American people continue to overwhelmingly reject your bogus assertions that the two are one and the same.

Also, would you mind listing any of the ID arguments that are NOT just cribbed from 30-year old young-earth creationist tracts?

Stephen Elliott: From what I have read you don't need branes to support what I said - that just clinches the point. Instead rather you just simply look at what the equations tell you, viz. that there was a massive state change. Remember tht singularities are in the equations, not in nature, so if your equations predict a singularity, they are incomplete. Alternatively, if you parameterize time towards the big bang in the "york time", there is no first moment, as Stephen Hawking has popularized. Moreover, a genuine begining (as opposed to a quantum tunnelling, say) would also be in violation of conservation laws. Finally, letting "god" and "universe" be disjoint is a rhetorical trick after a fashion, since "universe" should more logically mean everything that exists. (I.e. to appeal to an ontologically distinct category is in fact special pleading.)

puckSR: Christianity (as currently understood - there is some debate over whether this was the Pauline and original understanding) as far as I can tell requires that "the word became flesh and dwelt amongst us". I.e., the incarnation. This is what renders deism it not a species of deism. Put another way: deism requires god to never do anything to the universe again, after starting it. Hence "appearing in it" is out of bounds. Think of Jefferson and his non-supernaturalist New Testament. Now, you can get weird special cases like Newton, but he may have been just inconsistent. (I have never read what Newton actually thought of Jesus as N. was apparently an Arian and hence denied the doctrine of the trinity.)

Keith Douglas,

There are no data that "cinch your point." If you know of some, please provide peer-reviewed references. The current state of cosmology supports that our universe went through an inflationary period segueing into the traditional big bang model. That is what the data support, nothing more.

There are many inflationary big bang state-change models, some predicting multiverses. Not a single datum provides evidence that (a) another universe exists or (b) that the quantum (false) vacuum, pregnant with new universes (however that happened) is infinitely old.

The best you can say is that some models are consistent with things like parallel universes. Until one is detected, we are really talking about pure speculation. And if parallel universes are beyond detection (because of General relativity) then we are actually outside the realm of science.

Hawking got rid of a beginning (singularity) by using imaginary time. When he transforms back to real time, the beginning "problem" is still waiting for him.

A genuine beginning is not trivially precluded by conservation laws. First of all, we know that some were violated, such as CP (by a fine-tuned amount), which is why we have a matter universe. Secondly, even if conservation of energy is sacrosanct, it is impossible to rule out that the energy of the universe is zero.

How old is Josh? He writes like a 15 year old.

If your religious opinions are no better than anyone else's, then why are you here preaching them?

"I'm torn between contempt for Dembski for trying something so sneaky and a grudging admiration that he came up with such a ingenious form of censorship."

somethingawful.com has been using it for ages for people who incur the specialized wrath of the moderators. They call it "hellbanning"

Funny Simpson's line = Homer: "Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel."

Like many here at PT, you will continue to be honest about this and many other things.

— Josh Bozeman

I preserve it here for the record books.

— Bill Dembski

I would actually avoid making that request, because you'll probably just get back pages of "Blah blah Explanatory Complexity Filter for Irreducible Information Revised Definition 16 blah blah"

I think he will reply that he's not here preaching his religious opinions.

Keith Douglas:

I dont believe in a strict definition of any particular religion. I believe that Christianity can easily be interpreted as "following the teachings of Jesus". Therefore i can be a deistic Christian

Also...as far as the "divine" spirit of Jesus, im not above stretching it.

If God created a man who was insane, but thought he was the son of God, and would teach the people what God wanted them to hear...what would be the real difference between God creating a mildly-crazed man who thought he was the incarnation of God......isnt it all the same as far as results are concerned.

Im not claiming that the belief is false, but that our understanding is flawed.

Josh, i'm still waiting an a answer to my simple question Josh simple question. Does Dembski delete/censor comments to give the impression that everyone agrees with him, yes or no? Think carefully before you answer...

A question for Josh:

Just curious-what do you do for a living? (I just visited your website and hoped to get some info on your science background) Do you work? Go to school?

Josh,

I'd like to hear you comments regarding the testimony that came out in Dover stating that the term "Creation" was removed in the book, "Of Pandas and People", and replaced with "Intelligent Design".

Would this fact not sway you to believe that ID is really Creation??? And, that the supporters of ID know this???

Thank you...Steverino

I'd like to hear you comments regarding the testimony that came out in Dover stating that the term "Creation" was removed in the book, "Of Pandas and People", and replaced with "Intelligent Design". Would this fact not sway you to believe that ID is really Creation??? And, that the supporters of ID know this???