John Wise: Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters

ID is a scientific theory, as is neo-Darwinism, but both have serious philosophical implications.

The strong correlation between neo-Darwinism and atheism is undeniable. Dawkins, for example, bases his atheism primarily on the ND theory of evolution.

Some ID opponents try to argue that science and philosophy are independent -- but how can we wall our beliefs off from empirical data? I am skeptical when people claim to believe in God, even though their philosopy says the universe is dead and mindless.

Religion is not a reason to believe in ID. It's ridiculous to accept a scientific theory just because it supports your prefered philosophy.

But ID suggests that the universe is alive and intelligent, and is therefore compatible with spiritual philosophies.

Science is a method for improving our understanding, so how can we avoid applying it to philosophy and religion? It's impossible to separate our beliefs about the world from our scientific investigations.

I am reminded of an experience I had during a recent "debate" on biology and religion; when asked the question (near the end) whether they believed in the separation of church and state, both of my opponents answered "no".

That is the heart of issue, isn't it, and perhaps worth raising at the beginning rather than at the end of future debates.

Oh, great, a troll made the first comment. Now I have to scroll past it every time I check out the comments on this post. Way to go, troll.

whether they believed in the separation of church and state, both of my opponents answered "no".

Good science doesn't give a flying, one way or another, about being 'compatible with spiritual philosophies'.

Grow up.

One can easily tell the difference between scientists and the ID/creationists just by looking at their typical behaviors in putting forth their ideas.

If a scientist believes he/she has something exceptionally significant to contribute to the scientific enterprise, he/she will submit it, along with evidence, to the most prestigious scientific journal and expect to receive critical review from peers who know the scientific issues. Any scientist submitting an important idea to the community knows he/she is expected to know the issues being addressed and what is the current state of knowledge. He/she expects to be held scientifically accountable and welcomes this responsibility.

On the other hand, the ID/creationists dodge peer review, seeking instead kangaroo courts with creationist "judges" or choreographed debates in front of naive audiences. They enlist political followers to introduce bills in Congress or state legislatures, seek to change the composition of school boards and boards of education, complain about closed-minded scientific cabal and activists judges blocking their ideas, attempt to change the definitions of science and evidence to encompass their ideas, game the peer review system, pollute the public understanding of the current state of science by tossing out barrage after barrage of misinformation and misconceptions about scientific evidence and theory. When caught, they try to pull a chameleon act in order to appear they have changed even though they are playing the same game. Evidence never counts for them or their ideas. They don't see scientists as colleagues keeping them honest, but as enemies who keep them from achieving their objectives. This kind of crap has been going on since at least the 1960s and shows no sign of changing.

All of these ID/creationist behaviors fit nicely the patterns associated with other fakers and abusers of science.

The suggestion that the Universe is alive with intelligence is not a theory.

That is, as you wrote, realpc, a suggestion.

If you, realpc, can describe the theory of ID to us then you will win the Nobel Prize for ID because, so far, even the so-called ID propontents have not been able to do it.

I'll even be helpful and suggest that you start with a quantifiable definition of "design." What is design and how can we measure it?

We'll go from there.

Hurry, realpc, because I'm holding my breath.

Hint: contact Paul Nelson. You can find him at the nearest Waffle House.

But ID suggests that the universe is alive and intelligent...

— realpc

Now I am confused. What is a troll?

Now I am confused. What is a troll?

ID is a scientific theory, as is neo-Darwinism, but both have serious philosophical implications.

Ah Intelligent Design, explaining everything and predicting nothing, compatible with any philosophy that makes no concrete predictions, defined not by what it is, but by what it is not, and wholly unconcerned with the source of the design it supposedly studies, in journals that can't find enough contributors to continue being pubished. IDers are the kid who claims he can fly, but only if no one is watching, and who could beat everyone up if he could only be bothered with such a "pathetic" task.

Just try imagining a scientist studying an alien artifact having no interest whatsoever in the nature of the alien that designed it. That is the absurdity of calling Intelligent Design "science", and is easily understood by anyone exposed to it. It is good that people like Mr. Wise emphasize this.

Thanatos, that was priceless.

realridiculoustroll wrote:

The strong correlation between neo-Darwinism and atheism is undeniable.

Too late, I already denied it, based on both my personal beliefs and the wisdom of the believers I've met throughout my life.

It's also a bit late to tell it to the Catholics, Lutherans, and all the other denominations -- Christian and non-Christian -- who explicitly accept evolution and have reconciled it with their beliefs. As long as you believe that at least one God created the Universe, the question of HOW he/she/they do it is rather minor.

Dawkins, for example, bases his atheism primarily on the ND theory of evolution.

So what? If Dawkins based his atheism on germ theory, would that make germ theory wrong?

I am skeptical when people claim to believe in God, even though their philosopy says the universe is dead and mindless.

Who, specifically, are you talking about? Of all the people I've heard saying the universe is "dead and mindless," most of them have been Christians trying to tell me that nothing had any value but their God and his plan for all Mankind.

The question has been asked, "how can we wall our beliefs off from empirical data?"

The answer is to look, experiment, record, look again, experiment, tell someone, let them look, listen, discuss, experiment and accept what you have found. The secret to doing this involves resisting the urge to decide what the answer should be before completing the above in favor of observing what the answer actually is, or most reasonably resembles.

Ah, "reasonably." Here, grasshopper; this is what you must discover.

ID is a scientific theory, as is neo-Darwinism

Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces.

Their evidence is philosophical, not scientific.

If we call ID science, we will have to redefine science to include supernatural causes and effects.

I agree that it does not have to conflict with our faith and understanding of the spiritual domain. We need to consider everything before engagin into battle.

What's the difference between philosophical evidence and scientific evidence? Either there is sufficient evidence to justify a conclusion or there isn't.

Slighty off topic (but not really) I just got my PNAS Early Edition email this morning and I see that the papers that are a result of the Colloquim entitled "In The Light of Evolution I: Adaptation and Complex Design" are not available. I am sure some of the papers will be touching upon this subject to some degree, for instance "Darwin's Greatest Achievement: Design Without A Designer". I haven't had a chance to go through them all yet but if you have access to PNAS online I suggest you check them out. A good opportunity to see what REAL science has to say about the appearance of design and complexity in the natural world and exactly how it arises.

Unlike ID "theory" which just points to it and yells that it must mean there is a designer all the whole plugging their ears so they won't hear the scientific explanations.

Richard, what constitutes evidence, if there are no constraints placed on them? For ID, _everything_ constitutes evidence of design. How do you dispute them?

Anti Atheist -

I see you've gotten back on. Stick to one name.

Meanwhile, you're repeating the same stale stuff.

Anti Atheist -

If your issue is with atheism, why are you wasting your time here? A good fraction of the pro-science posters aren't atheists. That was mentioned just above

"Sure, intelligent design gets into politics."

An extreme understatement, but I'm glad you see the link.

"As if materialism and naturalism don't? Dialectical Materialism, anyone?"

Throwing out a high school poli sci words doesn't amount to an argument. I'm not aware of any creationists or pro-science posters here who are outright Marxists, nor would it be relevant to the major topics under discussion if they were.

If your issue is with Marxism, why don't you go to a Marxist site?

"What is hilarious is the pretense that the atheists have no agenda here; and what is nauseating is their use of science as a front for their OWN agenda."

Again, sheer nonsense. By the way, I'm not an atheist. Atheists are a diverse group, some of whom support various agendas.

You don't even take the trouble to say what the "agenda" you claim exists actually is, either, making it nonsensical.

Since you haven't explained what the mysterious agenda is, or who you claim is advancing it, it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that "science" is being used as a "front" for it. Nor do you clarify the ambiguous terminology "used as a front". Nor does any of this have anything to do with the fact that the evidence supports the theory of evolution, and ID is vacuous.

Your post is basically a string of high school political science terms, paranoid in tone but indecipherable, and not related to the topic at hand.

"What is hilarious is the pretense that the atheists have no agenda here; and what is nauseating is their use of science as a front for their OWN agenda."

And just what IS the 'evil darwinist atheist agenda' then, anti?

Richard Wein -

I can't agree that the following statements constitute an "ill-considered mantra"...

"Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces."

"Their evidence is philosophical, not scientific."

They are both imperfect statements, but only mildly so. Lenny Flank used to point out that science can and does study subjects considered "supernatural" from time to time, but within the bounds of the scientific method.

But of course, science can't study something as supernatural as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other entity who has the power to do anything at any time for no apparent reason, and disguise its presence. There's no way to differentiate between the wind blowing the curtain, versus the FSM moving the curtain, but simultaneously creating the exact illusion that it was the wind, at just the degree of precision required to fool the scientists' instruments. And it's well known that the FSM does that all the time.

The point you made about evidence is a valid one, but if people accept a non-disprovable propostion out of faith, and don't claim to have any evidence, it's moot. Also, it begs the question of what is meant by "evidence". Philosophy and mathematics can evaluate many positions for which physical measurements are by definition out of the question.

Wise is 100% right, for this reason - If two people correctly accept the theory of evolution, based on knowledge and understanding of the evidence, and reject ID, based on recognition of its fraudulent and illogical nature, then that is that. Attempting to shift the debate to other issues, such as their possible disagreement on irrelevant (to the topic) religious matters, is changing the subject.

If someone tells you that the theory of evolution is not in conflict with their own religious or spirtitual beliefs, then you can just believe them, which is what I usually strongly recommend.

Or, you can stop what you're doing and take the trouble to gain a thorough understanding of their beliefs, if they're even willing to share them with you, which is a logical prerequisite to the argument that said beliefs are in conflict with the theory of evolution. (If, in the course of your careful studies, you find some core component of the belief that is in clear conflict with the theory of evolution, you can stop right there, I suppose. Such a conflict would pretty much have to be a dogmatic statement about the physical world.)

This second approach can be a daunting task. For example, Ken Miller is a Catholic. Catholic theology is dense and sophisticated, and dates back hundreds of years. You'd have to devote yourself to many years of study, in my view, to have the slightest hope of finding some unknown aspect of Catholic theology that puts it in clear contradiction of the theory of evolution. Sounds like a waste of time to me.

In my experience, most people who insist on a relgious belief that contradicts the theory of evolution are already delighted to admit that it does so.

The anti atheist: What is hilarious is the pretense that the atheists have no agenda here;

The anti atheist troll: Dialectical Materialism, anyone?

It's not ID's allegedly supernatural conclusion that makes it unscientific. It's the lack of any supporting evidence.

— Richard Wein

"Anti atheist, you aren't accusing scientists of being commies are you?"

I asked this the other day to a troll on the Dawkins forum. You're not the same guy are you, anti?

It's not ID's allegedly supernatural conclusion that makes it unscientific. It's the lack of any supporting evidence.

— Richard Wein in #174576

Richard, what constitutes evidence, if there are no constraints placed on them? For ID, _everything_ constitutes evidence of design. How do you dispute them?

Wise's article is nice, but it does assert that Judge Jones issued his opinion in Kitzmiller in September 2005. That's, er, wrong.

Bill Gascoyne -

I guess that depends on the semantics of "supernatural".

If it means "being able to do anything anytime" like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then no study can rule out supernatural involvement, because we know that He/She can (and does) commonly intervene in an arbitrary and deceptive way.

If it just means "possessing powers over the the physical world that are beyond current human explanation, but maybe measurable", then there could be scientific evidence for the supernatural (hasn't been any yet, but that's not the same thing).

Count Dracula is supernatural, but we can conceivably do experiments to document the fact that he rises from the grave, transforms himself into a bat, causes people he bites to become vampires with similar powers, and we rule out alternate hypotheses for those phenomenae. We don't blame volcanoes on Count Dracula, because unlike the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he can't just make a volcano erupt any time he feels like it.

In the case of ID, it doesn't really matter. ID basically consists of screeching that some perfectly explainable, physical phenomenon is impossible for some convoluted "philosophical" reason, and than saying that since we can see that it happened anyway despite being impossible, some magic designer must have done it.

What evidence could be presented that would not, by the very nature of that evidence, re-classify the phenomenon in question from "supernatural" to "natural?" IOW, doesn't the existence of real evidence for a phenomenon disqualify that phenomenon as "supernatural?"

If it just means "possessing powers over the the physical world that are beyond current human explanation, but maybe measurable",

Darth Robo asked:
"And just what IS the 'evil darwinist atheist agenda' then, anti?"

The EAC doesn't want to be answerable to God for their perversions, so they promote evolution because if we are all just animals, we can have sex with anyone or anything we want. Plus atheists want to be able to rape and murder at will, because they enjoy that kind of thing, and without God there is no morality. And if we don't have souls, we aren't really responsible for our actions, so we can't be punished for our crimes. The two wedges the atheists are using to achieve their reprehensible ends is teaching children they are monkeys and promoting the homosexual agenda in order to destroy christian families, because once gays can get married, everyone will want to marry multiple partners, their parents and siblings, children and animals.

Don't laugh, lots of people really believe this stuff.

Well, that depends on how you define "supernatural". If you define it the way implied by your post, then the statement that science cannot deal with supernatural causes becomes effectively a tautology (science cannot deal with causes for which there's no scientific evidence), and therefore not of any interest.

What is hilarious is the pretense that the atheists have no agenda here; and what is nauseating is their use of science as a front for their OWN agenda.

Don't laugh, lots of people really believe this stuff.

Bill Gascoyne -

Obviously, I agree that things which cannot be scientifically explained in the present may be so explained in the future. A natural reaction, no pun intended, to documenting that Dracula turned himself into a bat, would be to try to understand how it could happen within the known framework of scientific reality.

Nevertheless, it is common for people to refer to entities with limited, currently inexplicable powers as "supernatural". Many reasonable people I've met (I'd say "otherwise reasonable" but I might be deservedly taken to task) have believed in entities like ghosts, gods, etc, described them as supernatural, and also believed that they were probably explicable by as-yet-to-be-discovered scientific aspects of the universe (and hence could also be conceived of as "potentially natural", I suppose).

Here's a source, such as it is, which seems to validate either way of defining the word "supernatural" in English usage.

http://www.answers.com/topic/supernatural

For the record this is an amusing semantic and "philosophical" topic, but, as I said before, not terribly important for the core issues of this forum. ID does not consist of assigning definable supernatural causes for unexplained events, but rather, consists of the far more risible process of assigning vague, hinted-at magical causes to events that anyone can see have natural explanations.

I wish I were still surprised at how blatant and dishonest creationist trolls were at trying to connect science with things they find distasteful.

It's no longer enough for them to loudly claim that evolution is atheism. Partly because everyone knows it's not, and partly because atheism is slowly (very slowly) losing its political stigma.

So they have to go one step further and link it to the far edge of politics. Having failed so comedically to link it to eugenics and naziism, they are trying again in the opposite direction with communism.

I wonder how long before they say evolutionary biologists sunk the titanic, or bombed the world trade center.

Richard Wein --- All the academic philosophers of my acquaintance or reading (a few) are more inclined to doubt anything and everything than the many academic scientists of my acquaintance or reading.

And most of what is posted on these threads regarding philosophy is fairly bad...

realpc. You are a troll. Go back to your hole in the ground and disappear.

"I am skeptical when people claim to believe in God, even though their philosopy says the universe is dead and mindless."

My understanding of biblical creation is that god made the universe - the one (god) is an intelligent agency, the other (universe) is an inert artifact. Did I miss a papal declaration that the universe has godlike intelligence? If not the pope, what about Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc. - which is the latest convert to a paganistic pantheism?

Forgive me if I offer "philosophical" rather than scientific thought, but I am skeptical of ID's sudden embrace of new age pablum.

Now I am confused. What is a troll?

Dawkins, for example, bases his atheism primarily on the ND theory of evolution. So what? If Dawkins based his atheism on germ theory, would that make germ theory wrong?

caution!
the ultramassive black hole has returned.
don't feed it

Neo-Darwinism is the only theory of evolution which denies any meaning or purpose in nature

— realpc

Thanatos --- Oops! I won't do it again.

caution!
the ultramassive black hole has returned.
stop feeding it,
you don't really want to find out ,first hand,what a singularity is.

it started already
it crashed my browser halfway sending the alarm signal
it started already
run for your lifes!!!!!!

Forgive me if I offer "philosophical" rather than scientific thought, but I am skeptical of ID's sudden embrace of new age pablum.

— tourettist

I am proud to be a troll, if it means a non-conformist who does noe always agree with the group.

I'm proud to play the idiot, if it means I can yank the chains of enough people on a given forum board.

Vyoma,

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I regret feeding the troll.

I am proud to be a troll, if it means a non-conformist who does noe always agree with the group.

No, that's not what it means. A non-conformist who doesn't always agree with the group is called a "gadfly".

A "troll" is a lonely sort of individual who has to pester other people in order to get attention. (This pestering often takes the form of telling easily-debunked lies, and then repeating those lies even after having been patiently corrected.) It's not something to be proud of. Indeed, it's quite shameful.

Here's a good article about Troll Syndrome: http://www.linuxlad.org/trolls.php

Dawkins is one example of the strong and obvious tendency for atheists to be neo-Darwinists and for neo-Darwinists to be atheists.

Dawkins is one example of the strong and obvious tendency for atheists to be neo-Darwinists and for neo-Darwinists to be atheists.

I can understand the former but the latter is just begging the question.

"there seems to be a clear correlation between education on one side, and skepticism and atheism on the other."

I am not the wizard who takes drugs, first of all. I'm a computer scientist and a rational skeptic. Someone here made the irrational observation that the wizard and I must be the same person, since we are both skeptical about neo-Darwinism and also about AIDS drugs. As if there can only be two individuals in the entire world who are skeptical about both of those things.

Anyway, yes there is a correlation between education in certain subjects and atheism. That's because of the indoctrination students receive in, for example, psychology, biology, sociology, philosophy and literature. It's cultural and emotional, not rational.

"Brights" enjoy feeling intellectually superior. Of course, they are intellectually superior to religious believers who have never questioned what they learned as children in Sunday school. Brights enjoy demolishing the Christian fairy tales, which is all they know about religion.

It's much more challenging, as well as time-consuming, to be a real skeptic. Most people don't have time to explore the evolution controversy in depth, or any of the other difficult philosophical questions. Actually, most don't care.

So you stick with your Sunday school indoctrination, or your college indoctrination. Either way, you get to feel superior and all-knowing.

So you stick with your Sunday school indoctrination, or your college indoctrination. Either way, you get to feel superior and all-knowing.

there is a correlation between education in certain subjects and atheism. That's because of the indoctrination students receive in, for example, psychology, biology, sociology, philosophy and literature.

Most people don't have time to explore the evolution controversy in depth, or any of the other difficult philosophical questions.

It's much more challenging, as well as time-consuming, to be a real skeptic.

I'm a computer scientist and a rational skeptic.

You don't act rational, therefore you're lying. Mindlessly repeating the same old lies and word-games, despite having being patiently corrected, is not "rational."

I am talking about competing theories of evolution.

In science, there are no "competing theories of evolution." There is only one theory, and everything else is a pack of lies made up by non-scientists for dishonest non-scientific purposes.

Also, you're lying again, and what you're really talking about is obvious in your own posts: your nonsensical blithering has absolutely nothing to do with the science of evolution or biology.

PS: You quoted a question of mine, but did not answer it -- further proof that you're a coward, a lightweight, and an airhead.

I'm a computer scientist and a rational skeptic.

realpc,

Being a skeptic does not mean not believing anything anyone else says. Being a skeptic means not taking anyone else's word for anything. Being a skeptic means looking at the evidence yourself and coming to your own conclusions based on the evidence. Being a skeptic does not mean making up your own explanations and ignoring all the evidence.

That is why so many people here have issues with your claims. Many of us have spent a lifetime studying the evidence. It is silly for you to insist that we are all just "sticking with our indoctrination". It is also silly for you to suggest that none of us know anything about religion. I would go so far as to suggest that it is precisely those who simply reject all conventional wisdom that do so as an excuse to feel superior and all-knowing.

All of us want to be open-minded. Perhaps all of us think we are. However, being really open-minded means that sometimes you have to admit that someone else might know what they are talking about. SOmetimes the evidence has already been examined. Sometimes the evidence is really quite compelling to anyone who is familiar with it.

I know you think that education is just brain-washing. But some of us really did learn to question our deepest beliefs. Some of us were really forced to reevaluate everything we had ever been taught. Some of us are true skeptics. That is why we demand evidence for every claim, even those we want to believe in. That is why making stuff up is not acceptable to us. I hope you can understand our frustration when we have examined evidence that you have not. I also hope that we will have the patience to examine any evidence that you might care to submit.

David Stanton,

I have been very patiently trying to explain the semantic problems in the evolution controversy. Yes, the evidence is undeniable, but it's evidence for evolution, NOT for the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution.

I believe in science, and education, and skepticism. That is why I have been so interested in this subject, for my whole adult life.

I am an educated scientist. I do not think that education is "just brain-washing." But there is always some indoctrination involved whenever we learn anything. We become initiated into a tribe, and we very much want to believe the mythology.

Neo-Darwinism and scientific atheism are part of a general mythology. Mythologies are invisible to their believers, because they are "obviously true." You don't realize you have been indoctrinated. Your biology professor explained the ND theory of evolution as if it had been proven. Professors in other subject areas imply that science and religion are incompatible, and that scientific discoveries show that the god hypothesis is unnecessary.

College used to be only for the upper classes, and now it's a way for anyone to improve their status. College is much more than a way to expand your intellect and acquire knowledge. Of course we know that education improves our economic status. But we don't know, or we don't express publicly, that education can move us from one social class into another.

That is the amazing reality of modern American life. Just four years can transform your social identity. And eight years, with a professional or graduate degree, lifts you even higher.

I got an education for all three reasons -- to learn, to get a better job, to improve my social status. But I never really belonged in that exalted enlightened club because I questioned scientific atheism.

It took years for me to question the atheism I learned in college. Gradually, I lost the sense of superiority. Maybe religious believers weren't all credulous idiots. It took a very long time. I read a lot, much more varied than what you read in college.

I am a skeptic, and I am scientific. I believe in evolution. I do not believe the ND theory of evolution. I do not believe AIDS drugs are good for AIDS patients, in the long run.

I have a lot of confidence in my ability to think for myself. If a theory seems weak to me, I question it, and I don't care if I disagree with 95% of the experts.

As soon as a majority of experts believe something, all the rest start to go along. No one can publish a dissenting paper because all the expert referees go with the majority position.

I thought very long and very hard before a became skeptical of the scientific establishment. I wanted to think science was special and above politics. In some ways, I still have faith in science, because the truth does tend to come out, even if it takes hundreds of years. I believe that scientific materialism will be overturned, maybe soon.

But science is very political, as is every type of human institution. So we can appreciate science, yet be skeptical of it at the same time.

realpc wrote:

"You don't realize you have been indoctrinated. Your biology professor explained the ND theory of evolution as if it had been proven. Professors in other subject areas imply that science and religion are incompatible, and that scientific discoveries show that the god hypothesis is unnecessary."

Not even close. No professor ever taught me anything as if it were definately proven and no professor ever suggested in any way that science and religion were incompatible. Nor would it have been apporpriate for them to do so. Nor would I have let them get away with it if the3y had tried. Nor do I do any such thing to my students now.

I was presented with evidence. I looked at the evidence. I drew my own conclusions. I didn't care what anyone else thought. I still don't. I was never asked what I believed on any exam. I was never asked what I believed by any professor. I could not tell you what religion any of my professors practiced, nor do I care. I couldn't tell you what they personally believed, that was not relevent to their job.

"As soon as a majority of experts believe something, all the rest start to go along. No one can publish a dissenting paper because all the expert referees go with the majority position."

There is some truth to this. Grant funding and publication are subjected to peer review, which can be less than perfect. However, this would only affect published work, not private opinion. Ideally, dissenting views would receive a fair hearing and stand or fall based on the evidence. This is in fact how many scientific revolutions were started. Science is not perfect, no human enterprise is. But science has proven to be the most successful method of describing the natural world. It sure beats the indoctrination only, no evidence matters approach.

It trolleth thusly: Yes I know it's human nature to prefer consensus, but scientific progress depends on controversy. That's the trouble with science nowdays --- dissenters in every field are ostracized and ridiculed.

"Science is not perfect, no human enterprise is. But science has proven to be the most successful method of describing the natural world. It sure beats the indoctrination only, no evidence matters approach."

I agree. I have faith in the scientific method. I am grateful to live in a modern age in a non-authoritarian society. I love being able to think for myself and wonder about everything.

I do not believe in scientific materialism, having given it a lot of thought. But it's a difficult question and no one has the answer. I guess my main point is that we don't have the answer. To me, that's all ID is really saying -- we don't know the cause of evolution. It's a mystery, and in my opinion it always will be. But we'll have to wait a few more centuries and see.

I have been very patiently trying to explain the semantic problems in the evolution controversy.

They're YOUR semantic problems, arising from YOUR choice of words, and YOUR misunderstanding and misuse of those words; and have nothing at all to do with the actual science being done.

Yes, the evidence is undeniable...

Argument over. Thank you. Time to move on.

...but it's evidence for evolution, NOT for the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution.

You never described the difference between the two. Just like you never described how to measure and quantify that "information" and "complexity" you were going on about earlier.

realpc,

So, the scientific method is good, evidence is good and empiricism is good but you draw the line at materialism. OK, I guess what you need is immaterial science and supernatural empiricism. Let me know how that works out for you.

I strongly suspect that this is why you have so much trouble convincing anyone of anything around here. I also suspect that this is why you had so much trouble in your education. Maybe you were constantly trying to convince your professors of your own personal views. Maybe that is why they felt it necessary to discuss such issues with you.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, you are perfectly free to believe that no one knows the "cause" of evolution. You are perfectly free to wait centuries for the real answer. Meanwhile, poor misguided materialistic science will forge on, addressing questions that can be answered by empirical methods. If you choose to ignore that evidence, you are free to do that as well.

I agree. I have faith in the scientific method. I am grateful to live in a modern age in a non-authoritarian society. I love being able to think for myself and wonder about everything.

To me, that's all ID is really saying --- we don't know the cause of evolution.

But it's a difficult question and no one has the answer.

Given the ignorance you've shown in your previous posts, you're not in a position to judge what the rest of us know or don't know.

It's a mystery, and in my opinion it always will be.

Well, yeah, if you keep on refusing to learn anything new, or admit that someone else may know something you don't, it probably always will be a mystery...TO YOU.

But we'll have to wait a few more centuries and see.

Sez who? There's plenty of people, such as Einstein and Darwin, who didn't wait, but actually got off their asses, learned something, and CONTRIBUTED to our ever-growing store of knowledge and understanding, while people like you droned on all their useless lives about how no one knows nothin' 'bout nothin'. Lucky for us they didn't listen to pompous know-nothings like you telling them they had to wait for...what are we supposed to be waiting "a few more centuries" for, again? How will we know when to stop waiting and do something?

I can see what Science Avenger meant by "total stagnation." Obscurantist drivel like realpc's hasn't changed in millenia.

The Troll revealed: To me...

Bee Raged: I can see what Science Avenger meant by "total stagnation." Obscurantist drivel like realpc's hasn't changed in millenia.

"I strongly suspect that this is why you have so much trouble convincing anyone of anything around here. I also suspect that this is why you had so much trouble in your education. Maybe you were constantly trying to convince your professors of your own personal views."

You guessed completely wrong. I got two different graduate degrees, one in a small private college and the other (a PhD) in a big university. In the small college I said exactly what I believed in my papers and that was fine. Some of the professors were non-materialists and they liked what I had to say. At the university, I saw right away that it was an authoritarian environment. Professors got upset at any hint of a disagreement with the status quo. I had to be very careful and politically correct if I wanted to graduate. I didn't have trouble with professors and I didn't argue with them, since they had all the power.

I still learned a lot, and it was definitely not a waste of time. But I also began to see that science is political after all.

Science and materialism are NOT the same thing. It's just part of the current mythology that science cannot be non-materialist. You can be a naturalist and a scientist and still consider the possible existence of fields, forces and substances that are not yet understood. As one example, what about the "implicate order" ideas of the physicist David Bohm?

consider the possible existence of fields, forces and substances that are not yet understood

Science and materialism are NOT the same thing. It's just part of the current mythology that science cannot be non-materialist. You can be a naturalist and a scientist and still consider the possible existence of fields, forces and substances that are not yet understood.

The Troll revealed: At the university, I saw right away that it was an authoritarian environment. Professors got upset at any hint of a disagreement with the status quo. I had to be very careful and politically correct if I wanted to graduate. I didn't have trouble with professors and I didn't argue with them, since they had all the power. I still learned a lot, and it was definitely not a waste of time. But I also began to see that science is political after all.

"If the learned authorities threaten to fail one for espousing nonsense, it must be a politically correct conspiracy. The possibility that one's views truly are nonsense, have been considered and rejected"

No one ever threatened to fail me, since I was a straight A student and did legitimate research. I just never mentioned my interest in parapsychology, which had nothing to do with my research anyway.

Parapsychology continues to progress and has not been "considered and rejected." The people who reject it usually have not considered it at all.

All of the professors in that graduate program were atheists. After I graduated I continued corresponding with one of them, and I was no longer afraid to express my interest in parapsychology, since I had already graduated. I was not surprised at his response -- his mind was utterly closed on the subject. Just like everyone here.

At least check out Dean Radin's web site, for example. Recent research shows that people can sense the future. It's pretty cool:

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-knew-you-were-going-to-read-this.html

Parapsychology continues to progress and has not been "considered and rejected." The people who reject it usually have not considered it at all.

"no one can stand at a Vegas gaming table and win win win. Or go to the Masters and make Tiger Woods miss putt after putt."

You really don't understand what parapsychology is about. Why not read that article I linked?

....check out Dean Radin's web site, for example. Recent research shows that people can sense the future. It's pretty cool...

one in a small private college

— realpc

All of the professors in that graduate program were atheists. After I graduated I continued corresponding with one of them, and I was no longer afraid to express my interest in parapsychology, since I had already graduated. I was not surprised at his response --- his mind was utterly closed on the subject. Just like everyone here.

"I knew the "scientists" involved had declined to publish their research in legitimate peer-reviewed journals"

You haven't noticed the catch 22? In order to be a legitimate journal, by your definition, it has to reject parapsychology.

realpc --- Wrong again. In the 1960s at least one paper appeared in The Proceedings of the IEEE.

What was eventually realized was that the statistics were incorrectly done. Once proper statistical methods were used and controls on data established, all evidence for parapsycological phenomena evaporated.

I'd say you are about 45 years out of date. Do some reading...

The Troll gratuitously asserted thusly: You really don't understand what parapsychology is about. Why not read that article I linked?

You haven't noticed the catch 22? In order to be a legitimate journal, by your definition, it has to reject parapsychology.

Wrong again. In the 1960s at least one paper appeared in The Proceedings of the IEEE. What was eventually realized was that the statistics were incorrectly done. Once proper statistical methods were used and controls on data established, all evidence for parapsycological phenomena evaporated.

I wasn't clear. I only read the one paper. But I certainly followed the criticisms for all the other papers (measured in dozens, not even hundreds). Bad statistics leads to bad conclusions.

There is so far no statistically valid experiments demonstrating parapsychological phenomena. Like I said.

It spat: ONE PAPER turned out to be wrong, so all the thousands of other papers must be wrong also???

ONE PAPER turned out to be wrong, so all the thousands of other papers must be wrong also???

All of the professors in that graduate program were atheists. After I graduated I continued corresponding with one of them, and I was no longer afraid to express my interest in parapsychology, since I had already graduated. I was not surprised at his response --- his mind was utterly closed on the subject. Just like everyone here.
but no!, my mind was open,but no! my mind is open,
but no! ,it was free,it is free,because I was free,
because I am free,cause my mind is constanlty flowing,
cause my being, I am flowing , in the fields that you the enslaved,
in the fields that you the self-enslaved,
in such fields you the poor-minded will never reach,
in the fields that you the unwilling will never experience;
and alas for you the unlucky,
and alas for you the left back ,alas for you the ones that know not the truth;
since the truth is with me,and since I am the truth;
I have come to be one with the One and I have come to be one with the Many,
I have come to know God, I have been known to God,
and have found that the search was great,and have found that the quest was glorious,
I have found that the hunt was flawless ,I have found that the hunt was unimportant;
cause I am God,cause I'm the Universe,cause we the free are all God,
cause we the free are all, the Universe;
and the Universe is One,and the Universe is Many,
and we are many and we are one,and so I have come to learn the beauty,
so I have learned the future ,so I have become the beauty,
so I have learned the past,cause the Universe is alive,
cause the Universe is intelligent
cause the flowers are the beauty,cause the living water is the divine,
cause the rocks know their telos,cause the sand hears my talk,
cause the stars know their calos,cause the galaxies around me speak the truth,
cause the nebulae before me is beauty, cause the nebulae talk to me,
cause the clouds before me is beauty,
cause the clouds around me speak to me,c...
hey, realpc, have you seen my joints?I know I've put them right by your bed but I can't seem to find them...

I spent one of the last evenings of September 2002 attending a lecture by Dean Radin, author of "The Conscious Universe", on the Upper East Side, Manhattan. Radin told about the Global Consciousness Project, which is described as:

Correlational research cannot prove causality, as well all know, or should know. Dean Radin knows that. But scientists learn from observing correlations, as well as from controlled experiments.

Radin does controlled experiments also, which of course is completely omitted from this skeptic's article.

And no one here noticed the controlled experiments described in the premonition article. Subjects had physiological responses to stimuli before seeing them.

It's easy to seem like a smart skeptic if you only criticize ambiguous correlational data. But that's why parapsychologists also do carefully controlled experiments.

Controlled experiments are difficult to design and analyse well, and their result can be ambiguous. But the goal of scientists is, usually, to do experiments that give clear answers. And that is the goal of parapsychologists.

So if you want to be a real skeptic, look at the controlled experiments done by Radin and the handful of other practicing parapsychologists. You will find many that you cannot explain away.

Robert Park is a good skeptic, but he also cheated when it came to parapsychology. He never mentions any of the experiments that can't be explained away as fraud or error. He probably hasn't even bothered to look at the 100+ years of parapsychology literature.

Robert Park is a good skeptic, but he also cheated when it came to parapsychology. He never mentions any of the experiments that can't be explained away as fraud or error. He probably hasn't even bothered to look at the 100+ years of parapsychology literature.

More by Robert Park

PEAR Experiments debunked, or why to be careful when dealing with statistics.

What does "non-materialist" mean?

Is gravity "materialist"?

How about electromagnetism?

The strong nuclear force?

Sodium/potassium ion-channel chemical reactions?

If so, why? If not, why not?

What would a non-materialist science look like?

What would it look for?

How would it explain its findings, if any?

How would any of this distinguish it from a materialist science?

Thank you.

What does "non-materialist" mean? Is gravity "materialist"? How about electromagnetism? The strong nuclear force? Sodium/potassium ion-channel chemical reactions? If so, why? If not, why not? What would a non-materialist science look like? What would it look for? How would it explain its findings, if any? How would any of this distinguish it from a materialist science? Thank you.

— fnxtr

What does "non-materialist" mean? Is gravity "materialist"? How about electromagnetism? The strong nuclear force? Sodium/potassium ion-channel chemical reactions? If so, why? If not, why not? What would a non-materialist science look like? What would it look for? How would it explain its findings, if any? How would any of this distinguish it from a materialist science? Thank you.

— fnxtr

sorry for double posting

I got two different graduate degrees, one in a small private college and the other (a PhD) in a big university. In the small college I said exactly what I believed in my papers and that was fine. Some of the professors were non-materialists and they liked what I had to say. At the university, I saw right away that it was an authoritarian environment. Professors got upset at any hint of a disagreement with the status quo. I had to be very careful and politically correct if I wanted to graduate.

— realfalse

RealPC writes... I'm a computer scientist

realpc is best described by these lyrics by Billy Bragg:

His lack of humility defies imaginiation --
He hangs around like a fart in a Russian space station.

From what I've read of him here, this describes both his attitude, and the freshness and "substance" of his ideas.

The degrees were in different subjects. I know it's hard to believe someone could study more than one thing.

I don't have a reason to lie about any of this.

Neither did Michael Martin.

The Troll dissembled thusly: I don't have a reason to lie about any of this.

The quality of trolls around here--meaning, mostly, their entertainment value, with some peripheral potential for educating the audience--has really dropped lately.

And given such stellar alumnae as Larry Farfromsane and Dr. Michael Maroon, that's an awful low bar to limbo under.

But such as realpc, Grady, Joe G, and AntiAtheist appear to have reached a new low in trolling technique.

Way to slither, guys!