Louisiana: Repeal the Creationism Law

Huzzah - and the High School Senior who is leading that Grass Roots campaign is a credit the the Lousiana Public School system -

Too bad most biology teachers couldn't teach ID/creationism as it really is.
Today we're going to contrast evolution and creationism.
1. How does ID/creation work? We don't know. There is no testable hypothesis for ID/creationism. The designer did it....somehow.
2. When did it happen? We don't know but the creationists do think all the dating methods are wrong but provide no scientific evidence to that effect.
3. What is the evidence? There isn't any because ID/creationists can't even tell you how to design an experiment to test it.

There that lesson took 20 minutes

Now on to evolution where we'll spend this week talking about the history and the evidence and next week talking about the mechanisms and the experiments. (wish I could spend more time on it but 2 weeks is all we can manage in the curriculum)

The proponents of ID/c don't really want them taught along side evolution because then the students would actually see how poor the comparison is.

The problem with today's biology courses boils down to:
1. Too many biology teachers are afraid of the controversy. (I got preached against in one of the local churches every year when evolution came up)
2. The drive to composite science is short changing the ability of science teachers to really focus on their specialty. This means new science teachers will have a few biology, chemistry and physics courses with no focus on any one thing.
3. Sorry to insult some of you, but far too many biology teachers are coaches whose biology training consists of physiology and kinesiology courses. I could tell multiple horror stories about this form of student abuse. I will say I have met a few coach/teachers who really did know their stuff but most were clueless and knew little more than what was in the same text the students used. Case in point I taught with a coach who didn't know mitochondria and mitochondrion were simply two forms of the same word and marked mitochondrion wrong when the answer given in the text was mitochondria. Can you imagine how this teacher handled evolution?
I just wish teachers were free to tell the truth about ID/c.

Mary H said: Too bad most biology teachers couldn't teach ID/creationism as it really is...There that lesson took 20 minutes

and the High School Senior who is leading that Grass Roots campaign is a credit the the Lousiana Public School system

It used to be the ICR's idea that teaching anything that took time away from the teaching of evolution was a leg up, and if you taught 20 different views on the same subject, leaving only 5% of the time for real science, so be it, for it diluted teaching evolution. The dishonesty institute only wants to teach it's brand of creationism, but it's pure nonsense as we all know.

The dishonesty institute is currently applauding, and I'm sure back-door supporting, the efforts in five states, where there are so-called "academic freedom of speech" working their way through the legislatures: Oklahoma, Tennessee, New Mexico, Kentucky, and Missouri.

The dishonesty institute is currently applauding, and I’m sure back-door supporting, the efforts in five states, where there are so-called “academic freedom of speech” working their way through the legislatures: Oklahoma, Tennessee, New Mexico, Kentucky, and Missouri.

backwards we go into the future.

eric said:

Mary H said: Too bad most biology teachers couldn't teach ID/creationism as it really is...There that lesson took 20 minutes

I'd argue that was still 20 minutes poorly spent. There is some pedagogical value in going over failed/bad/alternate scientific theories. But if you're going to do so, you're much better off spending class time discussing a real historical example. Such as geocentrism, ether theory, N-rays, plum pudding atomic models, etc... Or you might have kids study the 1850's tracking of cholera and how it changed ideas about how disease was transmitted.

Wheels said: The danger there is that you have to be careful to distinguish between those ideas and the popular argument "SCIENCE USED TO SAY THE EARTH WAS FLAT! SCIENCE USED TO SAY THE SUN WENT AROUND IT! SCIENCE USED TO SAY ______, AND IT WAS WRONG! SCIENCE IS ALWAYS CHANGING THEREFORE IT'S NEVER RIGHT!"

Thanks everyone!

I feel it is a good development, a high school student is taking on the fundies. It seems to be a good solution for a vexing problem. The fundies do all sorts of things like quote mining, lying, claiming false equivalences, argument from ignorance, appeal to authority etc etc. But if a serious scientists sets down to refute them, the very act is used to argue, "look, look some real dyed-in-the-wool scientist is actually taking us seriously! So there must be something in what we say".

Since most of the argument does not really need a serious scientist to refute, it is quite a nice solution to get a high school student to take them on. There will not be any "credential inflation" by being challenged by such a student.

This student Zack Kopplin also seems to be doing somethings right, by keeping all the real scientific arguments in a separate page, provide a link to it, and come back and keep the main argument readable and comprehensible to people of general background.

So it is nice to hear a positive story from that part of America.

Zack Kopplin said: Thanks everyone!

It's like Bobby Jindal realized Sarah Palin was looking even crazier than he is, and he had to catch up.

I'd love to see a teacher try to teach evolution, for and against, and Genesis or ID, for and against. But if any teacher tried the latter in a fundamentalist community, he'd be tarred and feathered. And they'd be the first to invoke the First Amendment to stop him. So much for "teach the controversy".

**Prognostications de Kopplin**

The Sensuous Curmudgeon says of Mr. Kopplin, "he's formidable", but I don't think he's reached that point yet, not at all.

When challenged, he still seems VERY heavily dependent on the usual evo-suspects to deflect (not necessarily refute, nor even necessarily answer, but merely deflect) a given challenge.

At this time, imo, Kopplin would NOT be ready to participate in a televised debate or a cross-examination legislative public hearing about the specific merits/demerits of the LSEA law that he passionately seeks to repeal.

He has done some homework on the standard evo-talking points and on which evo-website offers what, but that seems to be all.

If you asked Kopplin, for example, to show you the SPECIFIC words or phrases wherein LSEA itself is unconstitutional, or even the SPECIFIC words or phrases in the LSEA law that permits teaching Dembski's Intelligent Design hypothesis in the schools, Kopplin would be lost. Quickly.

(But that's not to dump on nor belittle him. You can look at this thread alone, and actually see that the grown-up evolutionists are totally UNABLE to address the same two specific issues as well!!)

The fact is that the usual, "standard" evolutionist talking points (and websites) will only take you so far on certain issues. The LSEA law itself (and the zero court challenges of that law so far) provides the proof of that pudding.

***

But, Kopplin does have one domino in his pack: the "high school taking on the fundies" angle does play to some of the Net media. David vs. Goliath imagery always sells to a degree, especially when "the fundies" are painted as Goliath and a young passionate firebrand is painted as David.

So there'll be a bit more good publicity for awhile from evolution-sympathetic media sources--especially since the NCSE and other grown-up Darwinists have simply run out of gas in Louisiana--no joke--and are now looking for ANY news to cheer them up. Kopplin is the only cheerio they can look to at this time.

But what happens after this run of publicity? Well, I don't think it'll result in any repeals. But it may serve as a wake-up call to complacent non-Darwinists down South. Eternal vigilance and all that. The war never stops. Especially when you see passion like that of Kopplin's.

A bit of speculation: Kopplin may well have a bright future ahead working for the NCSE, or as a pro-evolution politician or administrator or writer. He might be a possible leading light of the next evo-generation if all goes well, and if he doesn't accidently get converted to ID or something while in college. (Mwahahahah!!)

***

On the other hand, The 2011 CSC Summer Seminars for college juniors, seniors and graduate students is already cranking up for the Seattle summertime.

So, while older evolutionists will naturally want to acclaim the young evo-warrior Kopplin, I believe there will be some well-prepared, youthful, and equally professional and passionate non-Darwinists waiting for Kopplin someday.

FL

Hey, Zack! You rock! Keep up the good work.

So, tell us again, FL, how and why is Intelligent Design supposed to be a science?

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook 6 supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks 7 and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, 8 and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, 9 parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the 10 State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

...if he doesn’t accidently get converted to ID or something while in college.

...The(sic) 2011 CSC Summer Seminars for college juniors, seniors and graduate students is already cranking up for the Seattle summertime.

Because the argument is used that a mousetrap is an example of "irreducibile complexity," I was curious as I've heard that there are some 4000 plus types of mousetraps. So I started to search the web, I've found many mouse trap inventions, etc., but haven't yet been able to verify the number of patents, U.S. patents that is, for I'm sure there are unique foreign inventions as well. Anyway, I ran across this article:
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Mousetrap.html#Comments_form

What struck me is how ID terminology has snuck into this article, wherein it begins with the statement:

Scientists describe the mousetrap as a device that is "irreducibly complex." The mousetrap cannot be made more simply and still function, and, at the same time, it is so simple and does its job so well that it gives the illusion of being a profound achievement.

Scientists? You're kidding me. Which scientists use this term? I only know of creationists/id'ers who use it.

What is it with FREEDOM that evolutionists so dislike?
its the most reasonable and winning stance to be for freedom in all things of disagreement in America?!
I welcome any so-called grassroots move here. The attention is more valuable to the issue then some minor details in a small state.
Its about truth, discovery of truth, and throwing over error.
Creationism being censored is silly.
Anyways as i've said before here to censor an opinion on matters dealing with conclusions and discovering conclusions is saying there is a official state opinion on what is not the right conclusion.
In this case therefore the state is saying religious doctrines are false.
In fact the censorship is based on the matter of religion.
Time has come today.

Dear Mr. Byers,

The "state" has never said that religious doctrines are false. The Constitution prohibits that. In fact, the Constitution also prohibits the "state" from saying that religious doctrines are true. The Constitution says that the "state" can not teach religious doctrines in public schools as if they were scientific facts. That's it.

What part of that is difficult to understand?

Conflict only comes about when Creationists lie, and claim that their religious doctrines are scientific facts, or are "supported" by scientific facts, when in truth they are not. Freedom and censorship have nothing to do with it. Beyond the Constitutional requirement to avoid religious entanglements, it's merely a waste of time and tax payer money for the "state" to lie to students.

But perhaps by "FREEDOM", you are arguing that the "state" has the freedom to lie to students? You're several years behind the times. Fox News already argued that case in federal court, and won. The Constitution does not require anyone, even the "state", to tell the truth. The freedom of speech means that you, yes even you, have the Constitutional right to lie as much as you want.

But then, you already knew that, didn't you.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: Zach's fact sheet doesn't say that the LSEA is facially unconstituational, but rather that its intent is to permit the teaching of creationism (under its various disguises). Dembski doesn't have a hypothesis of "intelligent design", and referencing a non-existent concept within the text of the LSEA is a level of stupid that even its authors seem to have eschewed rather than embraced. However, the text isn't that much better than specifically listing non-existent bafflegab:

from the Louisiana law: scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

Floyd A. Lee says: February 17, 2011 at 4:34 PM Sincere thanks to Mr. Kopplin for allowing comments and responses. (1) If the Louisiana Science Education Act violates any Supreme Court rulings (including “Edwards”), it seems very odd that evolutionists haven’t filed suit already. (2) Multiple major incompatibilities exist between evolution and Christianity. While giving due respect to previous Supreme Court decisions, the existence of such incompatibilities would naturally be of interest and importance. Here’s a summary: http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/contra_mundum/2010-05-22/two_religions_part_two

Zack Kopplin says: February 17, 2011 at 5:27 PM A couple things. There must be a plaintiff brave enough to come out, and put their name on the legal papers. Once they do that, they will face threats and harassment, and their kids in school may face even worse. Court cases take time, if we cannot succeed with the repeal, the law will eventually be declared unconstitutional, it just may take years and years. Second, evolution and Christianity are not incompatible. I would suggest you visit the NCSE’s list of religious organizations endorsing evolution, http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion.

FL said: ...I believe there will be some well-prepared, youthful, and equally professional and passionate non-Darwinists waiting for Kopplin someday.

Paul Burnett said:

FL said: ...I believe there will be some well-prepared, youthful, and equally professional and passionate non-Darwinists waiting for Kopplin someday.

Waiting with what? Reasoned discourse and actual scientific research disproving evolution and proving intelligent design creationism? Or the more customary "Southern hospitality" of tar and feathers, axe handles and burning crosses and worse? Which would you advocate, Floyd?

What is it with FREEDOM that creationists so dislike?
its the most reasonable and winning stance to be for freedom in all things of disagreement in America?!
I welcome any so-called grassroots move here. The attention is more valuable to the issue then some minor details in a small state.
Its about truth, discovery of truth, and throwing over error.
Evolution or ignored being censored is silly.
Anyways as i've said before here to not censor the facts on matters dealing with conclusions and discovering conclusions is saying there is a official state opinion on what is the right scientific conclusion, just as there should be with all matters of science.
In this case therefore the state is saying religious doctrines are not science.
In fact the censorship creationists advocate is based solely on the matter of religion not science.
Time has come today (for what no one knows).

Mary H said: Too bad most biology teachers couldn't teach ID/creationism as it really is. [edit...] I just wish teachers were free to tell the truth about ID/c.

Zach’s fact sheet doesn’t say that the LSEA is facially unconstituational, but rather that its intent is to permit the teaching of creationism (under its various disguises).

Dembski doesn’t have a hypothesis of “intelligent design”...

FL barged into this blog

As I mentioned elsewhere,

There is no state, country, or school board that has a law that says Newton must be taught and teachers are free to mention alternatives to Newton (which surprisingly actually exist).

There is no state, country, or school board that has a law that says that the pros and cons of redox reactions must be taught.

There is no state, country, or school board that has a law that says teachers have the academic freedom to teach the argument against volleyball.

So, why are things like sex education, evolution, AGW, and cloning different?

Because these topics offend a miniscule (but annoyingly vocal) segment of the population.

FL, to answer you questions (which I shouldn't have to do, as you have been educated in the US and I was taught this in government)...

To bring suit, one must have standing. The ACLU and similar organizations are SUPPORTING organizations. Unless there is an actual person that is 'harmed' in the area that the law exists, then there is no standing to bring suit. If the law isn't used, then no one will ever have standing to bring suit. Duh...

As far as the rest, there still is no science of ID.

OgreMkV said: To bring suit, one must have standing.

FL said:

Zach’s fact sheet doesn’t say that the LSEA is facially unconstituational, but rather that its intent is to permit the teaching of creationism (under its various disguises).

Yeah, he "says" intent, but he doesn't prove intent. And you and I both know that both the NSCE and the ACLU would have camped out at the nearest courthouse if they even had a smidgen of evidence to establish any such intent. So no use pretending, hm?

Dembski doesn’t have a hypothesis of “intelligent design”...

Oh yes he does, and it's a good one.

DS said: What is it with FREEDOM that creationists so dislike?

mrg said:

OgreMkV said: To bring suit, one must have standing.

My memory may be playing tricks on me, but I have the recollection that FL has been REPEATEDLY told this ABSOLUTELY EVIDENT fact for several YEARS, and keeps on trying to make a fuss over it. The evidence suggests a learning disability at work here.

FL is just pissed because even a high school student can match his pathetic level of detail.

DS said: FL is just pissed because even a high school student can match his pathetic level of detail.

Kevin B said: Has anyone ever done an analysis to come up with a plausible date that the first American Religious War would have broken out, in the absence of the 1st Amendment?

dogmeat said: If you allot twenty minutes to the "debate" you'll find that a week has gone by and students are still making idiotic, unfounded arguments that they firmly believe utterly and completely refute evolution. Disproving one leads to the next, and the next, and the next. Repeat until the end of the unit, semester, school year...

I still say, let it happen. Let them get their pathetic little laws passed, then let's take the clowns to court and hammer them until the truth comes out.

OgreMkV said: I still say, let it happen. Let them get their pathetic little laws passed, then let's take the clowns to court and hammer them until the truth comes out.

Stanton said:

OgreMkV said: I still say, let it happen. Let them get their pathetic little laws passed, then let's take the clowns to court and hammer them until the truth comes out.

Like what happened at Dover?

Zack Kopplin -

Good work.

It is better for everyone if the law is repealed.

Zack Kopplin said: Thanks everyone!

To bring suit, one must have standing.

They intend to crowd out any teaching of evolution by sandbagging, changing the subject, and simply making it permissible for fundamentalist students to keep disrupting class without consequences.

OgreMkV said:

Stanton said:

OgreMkV said: I still say, let it happen. Let them get their pathetic little laws passed, then let's take the clowns to court and hammer them until the truth comes out.

Like what happened at Dover?

Yep. It apparently wasn't enough though. It needs to happen in dozens of places so the precident is so clear that no one would dare to bring woo into the science classroom.

FL said:

To bring suit, one must have standing.

It's been almost three years now. How come you still having problems finding anybody with standing?

FL said: It's been almost three years now. How come you still having problems finding anybody with standing?

Stanton said:

FL said:

To bring suit, one must have standing.

It's been almost three years now. How come you still having problems finding anybody with standing?

Then how come Intelligent Design proponents lost miserably at Dover?

FL said:

Dembski doesn’t have a hypothesis of “intelligent design”...

Oh yes he does, and it's a good one. (See the 1999 book Intelligent Design, published by IVP).

william e emba said:

FL said:

Dembski doesn’t have a hypothesis of “intelligent design”...

Oh yes he does, and it's a good one. (See the 1999 book Intelligent Design, published by IVP).

Remind us again what IVP stands for.

DavidK said: Scientists describe the mousetrap as a device that is “irreducibly complex.” The mousetrap cannot be made more simply and still function, and, at the same time, it is so simple and does its job so well that it gives the illusion of being a profound achievement. Scientists? You’re kidding me. Which scientists use this term? I only know of creationists/id’ers who use it.

Inherently vacuous postulation?

Then how come Intelligent Design proponents lost miserably at Dover?

Zack, I'm proud of you. I am also glad to say that we won't need your assistance in New Mexico this year. HB 302 was tabled for this session.

It was quite interested to hear FL's fellow travelers deny that the bill was about religion.

InterVarsity Press has been publishing excellent Christian books for more than 50 years... * IVP Books offers general-interest books in categories like Christian living, discipleship, evangelism, missions, apologetics and cultural critique. * IVP Academic offers books designed for research and classroom use in areas such as biblical studies, theology, philosophy, science and psychology. * IVP Connect offers study guides, multimedia curriculum and foundational resources for churches. Our Purpose As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of Life.

JohnK said: About InterVarsity Press (IVP website)

InterVarsity Press has been publishing excellent Christian books for more than 50 years... * IVP Books offers general-interest books in categories like Christian living, discipleship, evangelism, missions, apologetics and cultural critique. * IVP Academic offers books designed for research and classroom use in areas such as biblical studies, theology, philosophy, science and psychology. * IVP Connect offers study guides, multimedia curriculum and foundational resources for churches. Our Purpose As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of Life.

No religious motivation there. No sir.

FL said:

To bring suit, one must have standing.

It's been almost three years now. How come you still having problems finding anybody with standing?

Robert Byers said: What is it with FREEDOM that evolutionists so dislike? its the most reasonable and winning stance to be for freedom in all things of disagreement in America?! I welcome any so-called grassroots move here. The attention is more valuable to the issue then some minor details in a small state. Its about truth, discovery of truth, and throwing over error. Creationism being censored is silly. Anyways as i've said before here to censor an opinion on matters dealing with conclusions and discovering conclusions is saying there is a official state opinion on what is not the right conclusion. In this case therefore the state is saying religious doctrines are false. In fact the censorship is based on the matter of religion. Time has come today.

FL said:

Zach’s fact sheet doesn’t say that the LSEA is facially unconstituational, but rather that its intent is to permit the teaching of creationism (under its various disguises).

Yeah, he "says" intent, but he doesn't prove intent. And you and I both know that both the NSCE and the ACLU would have camped out at the nearest courthouse if they even had a smidgen of evidence to establish any such intent. So no use pretending, hm? Simply stated, if the grown-ups can't line up the crosshairs on LSEA after all this time, you know the young Mr. Kopplin ain't there yet. Imo, he needs to acknowledge the strengths of LSEA--for they do exist--as well as discuss what he believes are its weaknesses. ***

Dembski doesn’t have a hypothesis of “intelligent design”...

Oh yes he does, and it's a good one. (See the 1999 book Intelligent Design, published by IVP). And although LSEA does NOT go there, (hence its current survival), the fact is that thorough knowledge of the ID hypothesis will help Mr. Kopplin even as an evolutionist. (Otherwise he get snapped up like catfish bait when he does his first TV debate.) FL

Darth Robo said: FL, what's the "scientific theory" of ID? Why is it no-one can answer this simple question?

FL thinks that the anthropic principle is the entirety of ID.

JimNorth said: Chill, dude. It took nearly 4.5 billion years for the Dover lawsuit to materialize. Three years is barely a ripple in time...

FL can’t help you with that. For several years, he lied about having a “three plank theory” that explained exactly how and why Intelligent Design was scientific, and not religious in nature, but deliberately avoided mentioning any details at all.

FL said: Unless, of course, you visit the "FL Debate Thread" at ATBC, a 100-page debate spanning over a month. You have to do a little back-searching, but you'll find it all in there, in the latter part of the debate thread. Of course, you may or may not agree with the information presented therein about why the ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis. That's understandable, either way. FL

FL said: However, for me, it's a bit more disturbing that Stanton deliberately chose not to offer you that location and information. It's hard to believe he would tell an outright lie like that, but...I guess I'm convinced. When it suits him, it suits him. Or maybe he's just sorta got a bad memory, you know, not too many gigabytes residing in the ole hard drive anymore. Anything's possible, it seems. Anyway, search there for that issue if you wish. You'll find it there somewhere. I'll probably reprise it again sometime, but not till I've got sufficient time to enjoy another marathon gang fight. FL

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: Unless, of course, you visit the "FL Debate Thread" at ATBC, a 100-page debate spanning over a month. You have to do a little back-searching, but you'll find it all in there, in the latter part of the debate thread. Of course, you may or may not agree with the information presented therein about why the ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis. That's understandable, either way. FL

We don’t even have to waste time slogging through your pile of bullshit over at AtBC.

You are the one who has forgotten already that you were nailed repeatedly on several threads about your feigning knowledge of science and religion.

You have no idea what is and is not science; and the same can be said about your “expertise” on matters of religion.

Everything - everything - you have claimed about ID/creationist “science” is fake.

FL said:

Zach’s fact sheet doesn’t say that the LSEA is facially unconstitutional, but rather that its intent is to permit the teaching of creationism (under its various disguises).

Yeah, he "says" intent, but he doesn't prove intent. And you and I both know that both the NSCE and the ACLU would have camped out at the nearest courthouse if they even had a smidgen of evidence to establish any such intent. So no use pretending, hm? Simply stated, if the grown-ups can't line up the crosshairs on LSEA after all this time, you know the young Mr. Kopplin ain't there yet. Imo, he needs to acknowledge the strengths of LSEA--for they do exist--as well as discuss what he believes are its weaknesses. ***

Dembski doesn’t have a hypothesis of “intelligent design”...

Oh yes he does, and it's a good one. (See the 1999 book Intelligent Design, published by IVP). And although LSEA does NOT go there, (hence its current survival), the fact is that thorough knowledge of the ID hypothesis will help Mr. Kopplin even as an evolutionist. (Otherwise he get snapped up like catfish bait when he does his first TV debate.) FL

For some reason, that “three plank theory” thing reminds me of the three seashell thing in Demolition Man.

I guess that's at least partly because both are labels for a concept that was never actually worked out in detail.

FL said:

FL can’t help you with that. For several years, he lied about having a “three plank theory” that explained exactly how and why Intelligent Design was scientific, and not religious in nature, but deliberately avoided mentioning any details at all.

Unless, of course, you visit the "FL Debate Thread" at ATBC, a 100-page debate spanning over a month. You have to do a little back-searching, but you'll find it all in there, in the latter part of the debate thread. Of course, you may or may not agree with the information presented therein about why the ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis. That's understandable, either way. However, for me, it's a bit more disturbing that Stanton deliberately chose not to offer you that location and information. It's hard to believe he would tell an outright lie like that, but...I guess I'm convinced. When it suits him, it suits him. Or maybe he's just sorta got a bad memory, you know, not too many gigabytes residing in the ole hard drive anymore. Anything's possible, it seems. Anyway, search there for that issue if you wish. You'll find it there somewhere. I'll probably reprise it again sometime, but not till I've got sufficient time to enjoy another marathon gang fight. FL

Waster-of-spirit FL's debate thread is here on AtBC. Skipping to the end, FL was pushing "The Privileged Planet" as a cosmological ID hypothesis. William Paley presented a recognizable precursor of that argument in natural theology and did it in 1802.

Stanton said: I always wonder why FL has never been able to say where in the Bible Jesus said it was okay to lie.

Henry J said: For some reason, that “three plank theory” thing reminds me of the three seashell thing in Demolition Man. I guess that's at least partly because both are labels for a concept that was never actually worked out in detail.

Dale Husband said: Stanton has nothing to prove. You do. LINK TO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT YOUR THEORY AND SHOW IT RIGHT HERE!

Paul Burnett said:

Stanton said: I always wonder why FL has never been able to say where in the Bible Jesus said it was okay to lie.

Recall the famous quote from Martin Luther: "What harm would it do if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church? A lie without necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie- such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." Or Ignatius Loyola: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to be white is really black if the hierarchy of the church so decides." That's what the lawyers call established precedent. Floyd's in good company when he's Lying For Jesus(TM).

Henry J said: For some reason, that “three plank theory” thing reminds me of the three seashell thing in Demolition Man. I guess that's at least partly because both are labels for a concept that was never actually worked out in detail.

Waster-of-spirit

FL said:

Waster-of-spirit

"Waster-of-spirit"? Now, you boys know I been called a lotta nasty uncivilized names here at the Pandas Saloon and the ATBC House-of-Ill-Repute, but Dead-Bloody-Darn-Garnit, I will NOT stand for being called a "Waster Of Spirit" by ANYONE!!! Them's fightin' words baby!! (Meanwhile, sincere thanks to Dr. Elsberry for doing what Stanton, Ogre, Dale, Yadayada, could have done themselves. I could have done it too, -- for I still quietly visit the ATBC often -- but the ATBC boys kinda soured me on having to do all their google-work all the time. Anyway, what's presented there is scientifically falsifiable via observation, and the falsification criteria are clearly specified. If Karl Popper had been there, he would have concluded that ID is a scientific hypothesis.) And one more thing: I didn't cut off the debate. Could have explained some things more but the guy with the button ran out of gas. (Not out of time, just out of gas.) FL

FL said:

Waster-of-spirit

"Waster-of-spirit"? Now, you boys know I been called a lotta nasty uncivilized names here at the Pandas Saloon and the ATBC House-of-Ill-Repute, but Dead-Bloody-Darn-Garnit, I will NOT stand for being called a "Waster Of Spirit" by ANYONE!!! Them's fightin' words baby!!

(Meanwhile, sincere thanks to Dr. Elsberry for doing what Stanton, Ogre, Dale, Yadayada, could have done themselves. I could have done it too, -- for I still quietly visit the ATBC often -- but the ATBC boys kinda soured me on having to do all their google-work all the time.

Anyway, what's presented there is scientifically falsifiable via observation, and the falsification criteria are clearly specified.

If Karl Popper had been there, he would have concluded that ID is a scientific hypothesis.)

And one more thing: I didn't cut off the debate. Could have explained some things more but the guy with the button ran out of gas. (Not out of time, just out of gas.)

FL, what’s the “scientific theory” of ID? Why is it no-one can answer this simple question?

Wesley R. Elsberry said: Waster-of-spirit

Oh, one more thing about LSEA, in response to Dr. Elsberry. The director of the Louisiana ACLU (at that time), had already publicly admitted that the LSEA’s wording was NOT unconstitutional.

What you–and Mr. Kopplin–have been waiting for THREE YEARS, is for somebody–anybody at all, anywhere–to effectively violate the LSEA law, so that THEN you might have a chance to attack in court.

But it’s never happened. Not even once. Another poster pointed out that NCSE has even been politely suggesting to a few eager beavers not to step up for now.

That should tell the lurkers something about the massive constitutionality of this LSEA law. Three years baby, and not ONE school board, not ONE schoolteacher, has given the NCSE and ACLU a single court shot.

FL said: Okay, let me get caught up just a bit more, and then take a break. Darth Robo specifically asked,

FL, what’s the “scientific theory” of ID? Why is it no-one can answer this simple question?

This question is now answered, and Darth Robo now has a specific link he can go look to find it, and find clear reasons that the cosmo-ID hypothesis is indeed a scientific hypothesis. Not religion, just science. I leave that search to him.

But is there more than one species of ID hypothesis? Of course. There's the clear cosmological ID hypothesis of "The Privileged Planet" book, but there's also a clear biolgical version too. Like William Dembski's. Now, I don't want to belabor this, but I am so personally convinced that Stanton... (snip) *** So, with Darth Robo's question already answered, I'm going to re-present Dembski's 3-point ID hypothesis, the one that appears in his 1999 book that Dr. Elsberry specifically said he has read. Again, this will be a second direct answer to Darth Robo's specific question, but obviously it will apply directly to Stanton's "three-plank" complaint as well. And as such, that will at least settle the immediate issue. ***

Again, The LSEA law absolutely does NOT go there (the ID hypothesis), so this presentation will have nothing to do with the LSEA. This presentation is just to make sure beyond all doubt of back-searches, on anybody's part, in this or any other forum, that this particular ID hypothesis version has been presented. That's all. *** Oh, one more thing about LSEA, in response to Dr. Elsberry. The director of the Louisiana ACLU (at that time), had already publicly admitted that the LSEA's wording was NOT unconstitutional. What you--and Mr. Kopplin--have been waiting for THREE YEARS, is for somebody--anybody at all, anywhere--to effectively violate the LSEA law, so that THEN you might have a chance to attack in court. But it's never happened. Not even once. Another poster pointed out that NCSE has even been politely suggesting to a few eager beavers not to step up for now. That should tell the lurkers something about the massive constitutionality of this LSEA law. Three years baby, and not ONE school board, not ONE schoolteacher, has given the NCSE and ACLU a single court shot. We both agree that "intent doesn’t get 'proven' on a blog", but Mr. Kopplin clearly fails to include that little caveat on what he's calling a "Fact Sheet." Another significant error on his part. ***

Okay, on the next post, let's answer Darth Robo's question for a second time and in a new direction. FL

FL, Waster of Spirit lied: Okay, let me get caught up just a bit more, and then take a break. Darth Robo specifically asked,

FL, what’s the “scientific theory” of ID? Why is it no-one can answer this simple question?

This question is now answered *longwinded babblegab snipped*

J. Biggs said: What a cop-out. The answer is there darth, just parse through 100+ pages to find it. Sorry, but that is really lame. But I have come to expect that from you.

J. Biggs said: I will never understand why (FL) would crow when you so miserably failed in even addressing the points raised in Dr. Elsberry's post let alone in refuting them.

(Evolutionist on another discussion board).... Let's see this 3-point ID hypothesis again, and why it represents a legitimate scientific enterprise. (Me) .....Well said. So let's begin. Here's the main point: the 3-point ID hypothesis is falsifiable via obserservation. The 3-point ID hypothesis is science.

1. Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes cannot explain specified complexity. 3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity. ---Dembski, Intelligent Design, page.

1. Specified Complexity (a definite kind of information, it's like the sentences in your post or mine) and/or Irreducible Complexity (a special case of Specified Complexity, it can be visualized like the parts of a mousetrap all working together as a system to acheive a specific purpose), are well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes cannot explain SC and/or IC. 3. Intelligent causation best explains SC and/or IC. --my adaptation

"Nevertheless, intelligent design is not so flexible that it cannot be falsified. The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable. In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents. Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information."

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. The claim "No human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim. On the other hand, "All humans live forever" is falsifiable since the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong (excluding metaphysical assertions about souls, which are not falsifiable). Moreover, a claim may be true and still be falsifiable; if "All humans live forever" were true, we would never actually find a dead human, and yet that claim would still be falsifiable because we can at least imagine the observation that would prove it wrong. Some statements are only falsifiable in theory, while others are even falsifiable in practice (i.e. testable). For example, "it will be raining here in one billion years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so. --Wikipedia

"Peer-review literature life-origin literature presupposes that, given enough time, genetic instructions arose via natural events. Thus far, no paper has provided a plausible mechanism for natural-process algorithm-writing. Only 200 million years separated the end of Earth's bombardment (by meteors) from the presumed first appearance of life on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. Following cooling, it is difficult to understand how natural processes could have generated the following aspects of life in such a short time: 1) a genetic operating system with which to record programming instructions: 2) the programs themselves for production or assembly of every individual building block, biochemical pathway, and metabolic cycle for even the simplest protometabolism to develop, and 3) a coding system with which to translate triplet codon language into polyamino acid language."

Floyd, I read the entire FL thread Wesley linked to. Yyou presented no theory of ID at all.

Remember that bearers of false witness such as yourself are, according to you, eternally damned. You should keep that in mind the next time you lie quite so openly. After all, anyone could check your claim that the thread contained a theory of ID. I did, and it didn't.

Why do you continue to engage in behavior that you know will damn you forever? Why are you rushing so blithely into Satan's embrace?

As Dante noted: Hell is a choice. Out of compassion, why have you chosen Hell over Christ?

God lives you. Come back to him. Trust God once more. I will pray that you fi d Christ before you die; your soul clearly hungers for Him.

Oh, and Floyd? Specified Complexity is not well defined and has never been measured. Even Dembski has been unable to do so.

And might I note, Floyd, that without SC, Dembski has no argument?

Game, set, and match to us, I'm afraid.

That was pathetically easy.

Actually, just for fun, I oughta go ahead and hand-type theistic evolutionist Michael Denton's specific falsification criteria for HIS version of the cosmological ID hypothesis (from his own book "Nature's Destiny.) He, too, believes that the hypothesis IS scientifically falsifiable.

See, here's the deal boys. You're so used to slapping each other on the back and saying, "ID isn't science!" "Dover, Dover!" "ID isn't science", that most of you don't even bother keeping up with what's going on today. You hide behind the Elsberrys and the Millers, and the Judge Jonesies, expecting THEM to keep the lid on somehow.

Some of you even think we don't read what the big evo-boys among you put out, that we only keep track of what biblical creationists and ID supporters put out. You think you can shut down a potential challenge with a simple link to some years-old NSCE or TalkOrigins screed. or simply by shouting "Dover Dover" like some magic mantra.

Hint: It ain't working that way anymore. ID, YEC, OEC, Theistic Evolution, they've ALL been marching on since Dover. (By the way, when I say "Theistic Evolution", I mean the good ones like Francis Collins, Michael Denton, Gordon Mills. The rest? Don't ask.)

Point is, there's been clear progress on all sides since Dover. Louisiana and Texas succeeded where Kansas did not, and their stuff is staying in place.

Evolutionism dominates the national and world scene, but there's reason for optimism on most of the sides.

Except yours, of course.

FL

1. Specified Complexity (a definite kind of information, it’s like the sentences in your post or mine) and/or Irreducible Complexity (a special case of Specified Complexity, it can be visualized like the parts of a mousetrap all working together as a system to acheive a specific purpose), are well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes cannot explain SC and/or IC. 3. Intelligent causation best explains SC and/or IC. –my adaptation

Tex said:

DavidK said: Scientists describe the mousetrap as a device that is “irreducibly complex.” The mousetrap cannot be made more simply and still function, and, at the same time, it is so simple and does its job so well that it gives the illusion of being a profound achievement. Scientists? You’re kidding me. Which scientists use this term? I only know of creationists/id’ers who use it.

There are many things in biology that are irreducibly complex, meaning that if just one part is lost then the whole thing ceases to function. If this were not true, then geneticists would have a much more difficult time spotting any mutants that were defective in just a single gene. Herman Mueller used the term 'interlocking complexity' to mean much the same thing in the middle of the last century, so biologists have been aware of this concept for a long time, You probably are correct in thinking that modern scientists shy away from the term because Behe has corrupted it, and that is a shame (like everything else he does.) However, just because something possesses interlocking or irreducible complexity doesn't mean that it can't evolve. See this post at TalkOrigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

1. Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.

2. Undirected natural causes cannot explain specified complexity.

3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.

OgreMkV said: FL

1. Specified Complexity (a definite kind of information, it’s like the sentences in your post or mine) and/or Irreducible Complexity (a special case of Specified Complexity, it can be visualized like the parts of a mousetrap all working together as a system to acheive a specific purpose), are well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes cannot explain SC and/or IC. 3. Intelligent causation best explains SC and/or IC. –my adaptation

FL, I know you don't know what science is or how it works, so I'll explain. Point 1 is not a hypothesis. This is a general description of a phenomenon. This is an explanation you would use to a 4th grader, not to a collection of scientists and researchers. I would suggest you add in a significant amount of details that are testable. Point 2, bald assertion. This doesn't support your contention, it's what you are trying to support (and failing). Point 3, bald assertion. This doesn't support your contention, it's what you are trying to support (and failing). So, all you've done is... well nothing. But thanks for playing, no go away... waster-of-spirit.

You presented no theory of ID at all.

This is your great explanation, FL? No wonder you keep lying about this: If I wrote something as nonsensically stupid as that, I'd lie about it, too.

Are you aware that your explanation still does not explain why Intelligent Design is a science?

You bring up Specified Complexity, yet, you did not define it, and you still haven't demonstrated how Intelligent Design can be used to do science.

You are not only a Waster of Spirit, FL, but you're also a Waste of Time and Space, too.

FL said:

You presented no theory of ID at all.

Hmm. Even Dr. Elsberry pointed out that I called attention to "The Privileged Planet" cosmological ID hypothesis, at ATBC. There was at least an ID hypothesis offered. Looks like you kinda missed it there, yes?

Well, you keep on praying for me Malchus. I do need it, I admit. Meanwhile, keep working on the reading comprehension skillss!

FL, can you or can you not distinguish the complexity between an organism, protein, gene, or system that has been intelligently designed and one that has not been designed and instead evolved?

If you can't do this, then there is no point to any further discussion about ID. If you can't tell the difference between one and the other, then you can't even understand what the differences are and neither you nor anyone else is in a position to claim one over the other.

BTW: Privileged Planet is handily refuted by any number of facts. 1) The 'life zone' of a planet can be altered by the composition of its atmosphere. 2) The universal constants that are required for life can be altered by up to 30% without changing the probability of life arising. 3) This is just another puddle/hole argument. There is nothing to compare against.

As such, your 'argument' for ID was dismissed decades before you even put it to words, decades before what's-his-name Gonzales put it to words (or whoever wrote PP). It was a waste of your effort in writing it and our time in reading it and refuting it. Fortunately, some of us enjoy making sure that you continue to look like an idiot.

My stance is that critical thinking should be taught, and if that makes the anti-evolutionists upset, so be it. I want intelligent design to be taught in a fair-minded way, and this will mean presenting the strongest arguments for and against intelligent design. If--as most atheists think--the arguments against intelligent design are stornger than the arguments for, then the students who think critically and objectively about the arguments will come out against intelligent design. So yes, this will make some religious parents upset--but it waill also make some atheist parents upset, because they don't want intellligent design to come up at all. But this is what's best for the students. I want all the students--especialyy the committed atheists and the committed theists--to fell challenged. By teaching critical thinking well, the students should be led to not only question authority, but also to question their own beliefs, and the reasoning processes that got them to their beliefs. This will make some religious parents upset, but I am not endorsing the teaching of intelligent design in school to coddle parents' religious views. I'm endorsing it because I think that would best further the intellectual development of the students. If a student brings up the topic of intelligent design, I down't want the student just told to "discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy" (as is the policy in California public schools.) I want the topic discussed in an intellectually sophisticated way that will further the academic development of the students. ---Bradley Monton, "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design", 2009, page 153.

(Just a note--having to break off pretty quick, so I'm typing fast. Apologies for any typos that appear in the Monton quotation or any other of my posts.)

FL said: Again, a reminder: the Louisiana Science Education Act does NOT endorse nor call for any teaching of any intelligent design hypothesis. Period. At all.

OK, FL, so support ID. Since you want it taught in high school and (at least in Texas) high school science courses must be at least 40% lab activity. Provide me with a 2 day lab that will show positive supporting evidence for ID.

My big question of course, if there is an 'controversy' then why do you want the battle fought in high schools? Shouldn't the scientific consensus be made before it is taught? Perhaps you ID people should decide on the age of the Earth? Or whether the designer is a deity or a time-travelling alien cell-biologist? Or perhaps how to calculate CSI and IC and all that other crap that is critical to ID BEFORE the subject is taught in schools.

As an example, The Three Domain system, something that nowdays is fairly uncontroversial took almost 20 years to go from peer-reviewed research to high school text books. Why don't you guys get your crap together and figure it out, then talk about getting in high schools.

Of course, this is just another list of hard questions from me that FL won't answer, because he has no answer for them. He can't have an answer for them, because if he commits one way or another, ID suddenly becomes either religion or testable and either way, it fails as a science.

Here's another: FL, can you or can you not distinguish the complexity between an organism, protein, gene, or system that has been intelligently designed and one that has not been designed and instead evolved?

FL is simply applying the Relious Method of acquiring knowledge - just repeat what you WISH were true, over and over until you're convinced it IS true. He has no clue what ID is (since it really isn't anything), or what SC is (since all known specifications have been applied post facto by Believers who already "know" what's designed). He has no idea what "scientific" means, because the notion of testing is foreign to him, and the notion of a hypothesis failing the test and having to be rejected terrifies him.

FL thinks science works just like religion, because this is all he knows. Just recite the words, keep doing it, and Believe.

FL said:

You presented no theory of ID at all.

Hmm. Even Dr. Elsberry pointed out that I called attention to "The Privileged Planet" cosmological ID hypothesis, at ATBC. There was at least an ID hypothesis offered. Looks like you kinda missed it there, yes? Well, you keep on praying for me Malchus. I do need it, I admit. Meanwhile, keep working on the reading comprehension skillss! FL

Oh, one more thing about LSEA, in response to Dr. Elsberry. The director of the Louisiana ACLU (at that time), had already publicly admitted that the LSEA’s wording was NOT unconstitutional.

Zach’s fact sheet doesn’t say that the LSEA is facially unconstitutional, but rather that its intent is to permit the teaching of creationism (under its various disguises).

OgreMkV said: Here's another: FL, can you or can you not distinguish the complexity between an organism, protein, gene, or system that has been intelligently designed and one that has not been designed and instead evolved?

Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy. Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it.

your guys know what FL's ID theory is: I'm too stupid to understand science so godditit.

nmgirl said: your guys know what FL's ID theory is: I'm too stupid to understand science so godditit.

FL appears to be running that “appear-to-be-staying-in-the-game” shtick. This is where creationists keep tossing out bullshit as though they are knowledgeable about all topics and are “extremely nimble” on their feet by coming up with extemporaneous refutations on the spot. It is designed to impress an audience of rubes (and senior cult leaders) by “demonstrating” that the creationist “debater” can take on and confound multiple demons at the same time.

FL is evidently playing to an audience; if not in reality, then in his own mind as he imagines preparing for such a time when he becomes a supreme leader in his cult.

In this game, the “wise and terrifying” warrior defeats multiple enemies while interpreting enemy behavior and arguments to his audience. (I’m not kidding about this; I have actually observed this shtick many times, and have seen instructions on how it is to be conducted) “Pastor” Bob Enyart revels in this shtick.

It was – and maybe still is – one of the training requirements for quad preachers back in the 1970s and 80s. These preachers had a gathering of young followers around them while a senior member of the cult stood in the background looking on, and would step in from time to time when the warrior protégé got nailed on the spot. The young preacher was clearly being evaluated for the prospect of being anointed for a major position in the cult.

FL clearly doesn’t know, doesn’t want to know, and is intensely proud of his ignorance. It’s the taunting game and the practice that will be used in his cultish church. These preacher wannabes get their street fighting training on campus quads – and these days on the internet.

AiG is running an “Answers Academy” to train its young high school and college kids. You can get some sense of the “instructional program” by watching the videos over there. You can also tune in to some of the religion channels on TV to see the game being played on the streets of some city as the cameras follow along.

These senior cult leaders run this shtick just as intensely as NFL coaches do when watching the plays of previous games in preparation for an upcoming game.

FL will repeatedly get mauled by people who know things; but the people in his cult won’t know and won’t care. They are already too emotionally damaged and dependent; and they already belong to FL. And the cult senior staff is evaluating his gift of gab as well as this “accuracy” on cult dogma.

This is the nasty underbelly of FL's fundamentalist cult. Like all cult leader material, FL is power hungry and seeks a high level position in his cult; and that definitely is not Christian by any standard.

And it is all built on lies and flamboyant fakery.

Zach,

A belated thank you for your heroic efforts and I hope these are ones which will inspire your fellow high school students in Louisiana and elsewhere who are under daily assault on behalf of religiously-derived pseudoscientific nonsense that should be viewed correctly as the mendacious intellectual pornography that it is.

nmgirl said: You guys know what FL's ID theory is:

OgreMkV said: Here's another: FL, can you or can you not distinguish the complexity between an organism, protein, gene, or system that has been intelligently designed and one that has not been designed and instead evolved?

Scott F said:

OgreMkV said: Here's another: FL, can you or can you not distinguish the complexity between an organism, protein, gene, or system that has been intelligently designed and one that has not been designed and instead evolved?

Forget about something as complex as "evolved". Let's keep it simple. Can FL (or Dembski for that matter) look at a snow flake (or any other crystalline structure) and tell if it was "designed" or if it grew without intelligent influence? Can it even be done in principle? Clearly a snow flake has "Specified Complexity" if anything does. And just as clearly, it is within human capacity to both design and create a snow flake from scratch. So FL, given a snow flake, how can one tell if it was "designed" or not?

If I recall correctly, when Dembski first published his Filter, he faced innumerable challenges to apply his filter to a wide variety of things that Dembski could not know in advance were or were not designed. It was pointed out to Dembski by countless people that the only VALID test of his filter was to apply it blind like this. And as I recall, Dembski simply ignored every request, and never did apply his Filter to anything in real life. Yet creationists continue to point to the EF as "scientific proof" of design.

The way one knows whether snowflakes are individually hand-crafted by Divine Inspiration, is to agree on the Official Answer beforehand, the same way they agree on the Official Interpretation of the Official Selections of scripture.

And it makes a demented sort of sense. If you haven't decided on the right answer in advance, how can you tell if you're right or wrong!?. This is a standard critique of science - that because the answer isn't predetermined, science makes too many errors, while the Crock Of Ages never changes.

FL said:

You presented no theory of ID at all.

Hmm. Even Dr. Elsberry pointed out that I called attention to "The Privileged Planet" cosmological ID hypothesis, at ATBC. There was at least an ID hypothesis offered. Looks like you kinda missed it there, yes? Well, you keep on praying for me Malchus. I do need it, I admit. Meanwhile, keep working on the reading comprehension skillss! FL

FL said: Again, a reminder: the Louisiana Science Education Act does NOT endorse nor call for any teaching of any intelligent design hypothesis. Period. At all.

If I recall correctly, when Dembski first published his Filter, he faced innumerable challenges to apply his filter to a wide variety of things that Dembski could not know in advance were or were not designed.

Having Dembski run through phenomena of unknown causation doesn’t put his “explanatory filter” in the slightest risk.

FL said:

Waster-of-spirit

"Waster-of-spirit"? Now, you boys know I been called a lotta nasty uncivilized names here at the Pandas Saloon and the ATBC House-of-Ill-Repute, but Dead-Bloody-Darn-Garnit, I will NOT stand for being called a "Waster Of Spirit" by ANYONE!!! Them's fightin' words baby!!(snip)FL

Stanton said: What google-work? If you want to shut all of us up, why don't you just provide a link to the post where you summarized how Intelligent Design is allegedly a science and not a religion? But you can't because you never did, and you're too cowardly and dishonest to ever admit it.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Seems easy enough, surely a lot easier than arguing all the time that he did too post his theory.

Flint said:

Having Dembski run through phenomena of unknown causation doesn’t put his “explanatory filter” in the slightest risk.

I thought Dembski wrote that false positives were not possible using his filter. You seem to be saying (and I agree) that they'd be fairly common. I suspect it would as easily produce false negatives. But if these don't put the filter at risk, what does?

Wesley R. Elsberry said: If we don't already know the causal category, whatever Dembski's procedure spits out at the end can't contribute to either a "false positive" or "false negative" finding; Dembski could always claim that whatever his procedure finds is accurate. A false positive would be when Dembski's procedure indicates "design", but we know that either "chance" or "regularity" suffice as a causal category.

Ah, I understand. So you're saying Dembski can apply the "filter" of putting on a blindfold, spinning until he's dizzy, and pointing at random, saying "THAT is designed." And how would anyone say otherwise? There really isn't any filtration happening here, he's simply giving a fancy name to rationalizing foregone conclusions. He can even argue that any chance or regularity are themselves the products of design in any given instance.

Flint said: Ah, I understand. So you're saying Dembski can apply the "filter" of putting on a blindfold, spinning until he's dizzy, and pointing at random, saying "THAT is designed." And how would anyone say otherwise? There really isn't any filtration happening here, he's simply giving a fancy name to rationalizing foregone conclusions. He can even argue that any chance or regularity are themselves the products of design in any given instance.

Mike Elzinga said: In the world of ID/creationism, one isn’t famous until one is called Dr. Dr. Dr., is cited as an eminent authority by trolls on the internet, becomes an “intellectual giant” in the world of sectarian word-gaming, and gives credit to students for posting “challenges” on hostile internet discussion forums. Then one is a famous guru. Or not.

Any of us, except FL and that Canadian moron, could spend three paragraphs and give a good outline of the modern theory of evolution and possibly address phylogenetic analysis of gene and protein sequence data.

However, in a hundred times that volume, and time, no creationist is even close to describing a "theory" of intelligent design creationism. Of course, because such a beast doesn't exist. It's like asking them to describe where and how we could capture a unicorn. They always run away.

I've always liked the Behe answer when pushed to explain, well, anything. It's always "read my book" and when you point out that you've read his book and it's not there, Behe replies, read it more closely, never offering that one or two sentence answer to your question.

Yes, it only works in the dark. When you're not looking. At night. During an eclipse.

John Kwok said: Absolutely priceless, Mike. Thanks for your sterling observation which I endorse most enthusiastically.

I was always puzzled by the supposed explanatory power of the "EF". If one asserts that the entire universe and all things in it were created (ie "designed") (especially if they were created 6,000 years ago), then the "EF" becomes trivial: everything is "designed". By definition, there is nothing in the universe that wasn't "designed".

Well, nothing that has "SC", anyway. There's the obvious exception for the various piles of detritus left over from explosions, fires, and erosion. I don't suspect that even the "EF" would find those to be "designed".

Scott F said: There's the obvious exception for the various piles of detritus left over from explosions, fires, and erosion. I don't suspect that even the "EF" would find those to be "designed".

Mike Elzinga said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Seems easy enough, surely a lot easier than arguing all the time that he did too post his theory.

But that wouldn't waste enough spirit.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: Absolutely priceless, Mike. Thanks for your sterling observation which I endorse most enthusiastically.

:-) I suppose it would also be usefull to point out that one enhances one’s position in ID/creationism by demonstrating that one is a versatile “Renaissance Man” by composing fart symphony in three “movements” featuring a federal judge as the lead “singer” along with a cast of dozens singing in harmony.

Scott F said: I was always puzzled by the supposed explanatory power of the "EF". If one asserts that the entire universe and all things in it were created (ie "designed") (especially if they were created 6,000 years ago), then the "EF" becomes trivial: everything is "designed". By definition, there is nothing in the universe that wasn't "designed".

Scott F said: I was always puzzled by the supposed explanatory power of the "EF". If one asserts that the entire universe and all things in it were created (ie "designed") (especially if they were created 6,000 years ago), then the "EF" becomes trivial: everything is "designed". By definition, there is nothing in the universe that wasn't "designed". Well, nothing that has "SC", anyway. There's the obvious exception for the various piles of detritus left over from explosions, fires, and erosion. I don't suspect that even the "EF" would find those to be "designed".

cronk said: Wouldn't that mean the designer would be designed as well?

Scott F said: I was always puzzled by the supposed explanatory power of the "EF". If one asserts that the entire universe and all things in it were created (ie "designed") (especially if they were created 6,000 years ago), then the "EF" becomes trivial: everything is "designed". By definition, there is nothing in the universe that wasn't "designed". Well, nothing that has "SC", anyway. There's the obvious exception for the various piles of detritus left over from explosions, fires, and erosion. I don't suspect that even the "EF" would find those to be "designed".

JASONMITCHELL said:

Scott F said: I was always puzzled by the supposed explanatory power of the "EF". If one asserts that the entire universe and all things in it were created (ie "designed") (especially if they were created 6,000 years ago), then the "EF" becomes trivial: everything is "designed". By definition, there is nothing in the universe that wasn't "designed". Well, nothing that has "SC", anyway. There's the obvious exception for the various piles of detritus left over from explosions, fires, and erosion. I don't suspect that even the "EF" would find those to be "designed".

well who specifies SC? anything can be specified, anything can have a 'fuction" - that's why he says there are no 'false' positives! since EVERYTHING is designed ....everything is designed (unless he says its not then its not) don't you see how logical that is?!

Does FL merely fail to understand Popper, or has he managed to invoke Popper without reading Popper? It doesn’t make much difference, he is still out to lunch on the issue. Clue for FL: for “falsifiability” to apply, you have to be able to express what *must* be *true* if your hypothesis is true, not what must not be false. This apparently is hugely tricky for religious antievolutionists, because I have yet to see one of them demonstrably “get” this point.

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows. 1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations. 2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory. 3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. 4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. 5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. 6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.") 7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.") ---Karl Popper, "Science as falsification" http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents. Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information.

Can FL (or Dembski for that matter) look at a snow flake (or any other crystalline structure) and tell if it was “designed” or if it grew without intelligent influence? Can it even be done in principle?

Take, for example, the structure of a snowflake. The intricate beauty of a snowflake has led many a believer to exclaim upon the wisdom of the creator. Yetthe snowflake's structure is nothing mysterious or supernatural. It is explained by the natural laws that govern the crystallization of water as it freezes. The argument from design claims that the order we see around us cannot have arisen by natural causes. The snowflake seems to refute that claim. It demonstrates that at least some kinds of order can arise by natural causes. And if matter alone can give rise to order in some instances, why not in all others as well? Why do we need to appeal to an intelligent being any more to explain the origin of the world? We need only continue to search for natural causes. Many materialists today use this argument.{13} What is coming to light through the application of information theory is there are actually two kinds of order. The first kind (the snowflake's) arises from constraints within the material the thing is made of (the water molecules). We cannot infer an intelligent cause from it, except possibly in the remote sense of something behind the natural cause. The second kind, however, is not a result of anything within matter itself. It is in principle opposed to anything we see forming naturally. This kind of order does provide evidence for an intelligent cause. http://www.leaderu.com/science/thaxton_dna.html

All that, and yet no evidence that supports ID. sad.

Hint for FL: If anything can be ID, then ID is useless.

Can you or can you not tell the difference between something that is designed and something of the same type that is not designed?

If you can't do that, then all your bluster and commentary is a waste of time. This is the central premise behind ID (despite what they may say). If there are somethings designed and somethings not, then at the very least, an ID proponent could explain what the difference is, at least in principle.

BTW: You need to go back to ATBC and talk to JoeG. He seems to think that ID is not religious. You might want to set him straight.

And Waster of Spirit, FL, still can't explain why Intelligent Design is a science, can't explain how to do science with Intelligent Design, and still can't show us any evidence that he even understands science, let alone show us any evidence of Intelligent Design.

(Dembski’s phrasing of “undirected natural causes” excludes natural selection, since natural selection is constrained and thus guided by local environmental conditions and factors like co-evolution. If Dembski wishes to redefine “guided” as “guided by an intelligent agent”, he needs to do so explicitly.) ---Elsberry, "Dances with Popper"

"Evolution has no goal." -- Jerry Coyne "Evolution has no goal." -- Talk Origins website "Evolution has no goal." -- Biology 391 Online, "Organic Evolution", University at Tennessee-Martin "...(A) completely mindless process. The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past." -- Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition (textbook).

Can you or can you not tell the difference between something that is designed and something of the same type that is not designed?

Fl, please remember that even if you disprove evolution right here, right now, it still doesn't mean that ID is correct. Only positive evidence that supports ID can help your case.

Where is it?

Why do you avoid the hard questions?

FL said:

Can FL (or Dembski for that matter) look at a snow flake (or any other crystalline structure) and tell if it was “designed” or if it grew without intelligent influence? Can it even be done in principle?

Absolutely. In fact, PhD chemist Charles Thaxton spepointed that one out years ago; a classic explanation. Its rather surprising (or maybe not!) that you missed it.

Take, for example, the structure of a snowflake. The intricate beauty of a snowflake has led many a believer to exclaim upon the wisdom of the creator. Yetthe snowflake's structure is nothing mysterious or supernatural. It is explained by the natural laws that govern the crystallization of water as it freezes. The argument from design claims that the order we see around us cannot have arisen by natural causes. The snowflake seems to refute that claim. It demonstrates that at least some kinds of order can arise by natural causes. And if matter alone can give rise to order in some instances, why not in all others as well? Why do we need to appeal to an intelligent being any more to explain the origin of the world? We need only continue to search for natural causes. Many materialists today use this argument.{13} What is coming to light through the application of information theory is there are actually two kinds of order. The first kind (the snowflake's) arises from constraints within the material the thing is made of (the water molecules). We cannot infer an intelligent cause from it, except possibly in the remote sense of something behind the natural cause. The second kind, however, is not a result of anything within matter itself. It is in principle opposed to anything we see forming naturally. This kind of order does provide evidence for an intelligent cause. http://www.leaderu.com/science/thaxton_dna.html

You also said, "Clearly a snow flake has “Specified Complexity” if anything does." Please explain why you believe that. (Please make sure that what you're referring to is Dembski's "specified complexity." If you go by that, then you'll see that the snowflake doesn't quite fit.)

FL said:

Can you or can you not tell the difference between something that is designed and something of the same type that is not designed?

Sure. In fact, you might want to read Finding Darwin's God by evolutionist Ken Miller. Simply put: If you can show that Evolution-Did-It, then you falsify Intelligent-Design-Did-It. That's the one rule that ALL you evos subscribe your souls to. Or simply go back to my other post and read chemist Charles Thaxton's explanation of why the snowflake is NOT designed. Many examples exist. You can find a lot of examples in this are if you'll just choose to do your own homework in this area, Ogre. Willing to do that yet? FL

OK, evolution did it. In the Library, with the wrench.

Seriously, what do you think those million plus peer-reviewed works over the last 100 odd years mean? Nothing? Since you didn't say prove, then you're right, it's what should be done. It's also been done.

Evolution is fact and descriptive. Evolution is observed. Speciation is observed. Uncontrovertable genetics links exist between wildly divergent species. There are massive genetic similarities between closely related species. Interestingly, the differences become larger, the less similar species are to each other. The fossil record describes macro-evolution. Evolution is predictive, Tiktalik shows this is true.

Thanks FL. I assume you will accept this and move on now. I can provide peer-reviewed references for everything I've said. Can you?

By the way, Floyd, I read the entire 100+ page thread that Elsberry directed me to.

There is no scientific theory or hypothesis of ID contained in that thread. Anywhere.

You should own up to your sins, Floyd. The damnation you fear so much is waiting for you.

He seems to think that ID is not religious.

Scott F said: I was always puzzled by the supposed explanatory power of the "EF". If one asserts that the entire universe and all things in it were created (ie "designed") (especially if they were created 6,000 years ago), then the "EF" becomes trivial: everything is "designed". By definition, there is nothing in the universe that wasn't "designed". Well, nothing that has "SC", anyway. There's the obvious exception for the various piles of detritus left over from explosions, fires, and erosion. I don't suspect that even the "EF" would find those to be "designed".

FL said:

He seems to think that ID is not religious.

Hmm. Look at the 3-point ID hypothesis I offered earlier. Does it assume or require any religious-book claims or doctrines from anybody? Does it offer any Bible or Koran or Talmud verses? Does it offer any Zen koans? It doesn't. The 3-point Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis, and the Privileged Planet cosmo-ID hypothesis, is SCIENCE....not religion.

I was under the impression that ID meant "intelligent design". That's religion, plain and simple. ANYTHING said to require, involve, imply, or otherwise reference anything supernatural or magical is religion. And if we remove that, we're left with ordinary well-understood natural evolutionary processes.

I pray for you to avoid eternal damnation, since your continual dishonesty is clearly a tool of the Devil.

Lemme see ... Thaxton's argument is basically "DNA looks like a computer program and there's information in a computer program that requires a programmer, but snowflakes don't look like a computer program and they don't have information. DNA is like Mount Rushmore, which is Designed, while snowflakes are like a mountain, which is not."

Hmm. But what if I write a computer program to draw snowflakes? It's an old silly BASIC demo, uses a fractal sorta algorithm. Obviously the program that draws these snowflakes has information in it, and obviously these virtual snowflakes are Designed. We couldn't just expect a computer to draw them properly by accident, could we? Obviously an intelligence has to produce them.

The virtual snowflakes are, of course, a crude impersonation of the real thing, so I don't understand how we could rule out Design in the case of a snowflake. Don't the rules of crystallization that produce the snowflake amount to a set of "instructions" for their assembly?

Of course, it can be (and will be) argued that DNA looks much more like a program written by a programmer. Just as certainly as an eye looks like a camera. Or a bird looks like an airplane. Or a pig looks like a piggy bank. But then again, if humans end up imitating nature, does that imply nature imitates humans? In a word, no.

FL said:

He seems to think that ID is not religious.

Hmm. Look at the 3-point ID hypothesis I offered earlier. Does it assume or require any religious-book claims or doctrines from anybody? Does it offer any Bible or Koran or Talmud verses? Does it offer any Zen koans? It doesn't.

The 3-point Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis, and the Privileged Planet cosmo-ID hypothesis, is SCIENCE....not religion.

FL said:

I pray for you to avoid eternal damnation, since your continual dishonesty is clearly a tool of the Devil.

Your prayers are appreciated as always, Malchus. Old Scratch got no chance with you watching my back!! FL :)

mrg said: Lemme see ... Thaxton's argument is basically "DNA looks like a computer program and there's information in a computer program that requires a programmer, but snowflakes don't look like a computer program and they don't have information. DNA is like Mount Rushmore, which is Designed, while snowflakes are like a mountain, which is not." Hmm. But what if I write a computer program to draw snowflakes? It's an old silly BASIC demo, uses a fractal sorta algorithm. Obviously the program that draws these snowflakes has information in it, and obviously these virtual snowflakes are Designed. We couldn't just expect a computer to draw them properly by accident, could we? Obviously an intelligence has to produce them. The virtual snowflakes are, of course, a crude impersonation of the real thing, so I don't understand how we could rule out Design in the case of a snowflake. Don't the rules of crystallization that produce the snowflake amount to a set of "instructions" for their assembly? Of course, it can be (and will be) argued that DNA looks much more like a program written by a programmer. Just as certainly as an eye looks like a camera. Or a bird looks like an airplane. Or a pig looks like a piggy bank. But then again, if humans end up imitating nature, does that imply nature imitates humans? In a word, no.

FL said:

I pray for you to avoid eternal damnation, since your continual dishonesty is clearly a tool of the Devil.

Your prayers are appreciated as always, Malchus. Old Scratch got no chance with you watching my back!! FL :)

One of the great and insurmountable flaws of Dembksi's claims. Intelligent design can never be "ruled out", given an omniscient, omnipotent creator.

So do you admit using your faith in Jesus as an excuse to lie to us and slander us for not worshiping you as a Godhead of science?

God could have created the entire world in the last millisecond exactly as we see it. AND WE CANNOT TEST THAT THIS CONJECTURE IS FALSE.

FL said:

God could have created the entire world in the last millisecond exactly as we see it. AND WE CANNOT TEST THAT THIS CONJECTURE IS FALSE.

On the other hand, I've never seen ANY assertion by Dembski (not Intelligent Design, not Design Revolution, nor No Free Lunch, nor any of the other books) that "God could have created the entire world in the last millisecond exactly as we see it." In fact Dembski isn't a young earth creationist at all. He's old earth. FL

FL said:

So do you admit using your faith in Jesus as an excuse to lie to us and slander us for not worshiping you as a Godhead of science?

Gosh....nobody's ever referred to me as a possible Godhead Of Science before. Sorta flattering. Unfortunately, I'll get written up for big disciplinary action by the REAL Triune Boss if I don't immediately put credit where it belongs. There's only one Godhead of Science, and that's the One who created (not evolved, but supernaturally created) the heavens and the earth and the humans. FL

Of course Dembski doesn't claim that EVERYTHING is Designed. Exactly the opposite, since his argument requires distinguishing, somehow, between natural things that are Designed and things that aren't.

However, the fact that there's no way to rule out the possibility that ANYTHING in nature might have been
designed, even moments ago, it gives him a marvelous amount of wiggle room -- which perfectly suits his style of argument.

Dembski will not admit to being anything other than a YEC.

“True, young-earth creationism remains the majority view in the SBC, but it is not a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy within the SBC. I’m an old-earth creationist and the two SBC seminaries at which I’ve taught (Southern in Louisville and Southwestern in Ft. Worth) both were fully apprised of my views here in hiring me.” –Dembski, quoted from Josh Rosenau’s “Thoughts From Kansas” blog, Jan. 8, 2010.

Floyd, I guess you didn't read the article I posted. It logically examines the fact that the designer MUST be a deity. Oh, and everyone who's a ID proponent publicly says it is Christianity.

Here, I'll post it again, so you can show how much of an intellectual coward you are by not reading it: http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/why-intelligent-design-must-be-religious/

With empirical irrefutability the situation is a little different. The simplest examples of empirically irrefutable statements are so-called strict or pure existential statements. Here is an example of a strict or pure existential statement: ‘There exists a pearl which is ten times larger than the next largest pearl.’ If in this statement we restrict the words ‘There exists’ to some finite region in space and time, then it may of course become a refutable statement. For example, the following statement is obviously empirically refutable: ‘At this moment and in this box here there exist at least two pearls one of which is ten times larger than the next largest pearl in this box.’ But then this statement is no longer a strict or pure existential statement: rather it is a restricted existential statement. A strict or pure existential statement applies to the whole universe, and it is irrefutable simply because there can be no method by which it could be refuted. For even if we were able to search our entire universe, the strict or pure existential statement would not be refuted by our failure to discover the required pearl, seeing that it might always be hiding in a place where we are not looking. Popper, 1985, pp.212-213.

This attack would not disturb me. My proposal is based upon an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability; an asymmetry which results from the logical form of universal statements. For these are never derivable from singular statements, but can be contrdicted by singular statements. Consequently it is possible by means of purely deductive inferences (with the help of the modus tollens of classical logic) to argue from the truth of singular statements to the falsity of universal statements. Such an argument to the falsity of universal statements is the only strictly deductive kind of inference that proceeds, as it were, in the 'inductive direction'; that is, from singular to universal statements. Popper, 2002. p.19.

FL said:

So do you admit using your faith in Jesus as an excuse to lie to us and slander us for not worshiping you as a Godhead of science?

Gosh....nobody's ever referred to me as a possible Godhead Of Science before. Sorta flattering.

Unfortunately, I'll get written up for big disciplinary action by the REAL Triune Boss if I don't immediately put credit where it belongs.

There's only one Godhead of Science, and that's the One who created (not evolved, but supernaturally created) the heavens and the earth and the humans.

FL said:

Dembski will not admit to being anything other than a YEC.

Are you sure...?

“True, young-earth creationism remains the majority view in the SBC, but it is not a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy within the SBC. I’m an old-earth creationist and the two SBC seminaries at which I’ve taught (Southern in Louisville and Southwestern in Ft. Worth) both were fully apprised of my views here in hiring me.” –Dembski, quoted from Josh Rosenau’s “Thoughts From Kansas” blog, Jan. 8, 2010.

FL

Dembski said he was an old-earth advocate some time ago. However, he's modified his public pronouncements more recently in order to keep his job. Apparently, his current boss either doesn't remember or doesn't care about Dembski's previous full disclosure; anything that isn't straight YEC seems to be a firing offense there. So now Dembski says that he will "bow to the text".

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3595/discovery_institute%E2%80%99s_bill_dembski_recants/

Wesley

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

Dembski will not admit to being anything other than a YEC.

Are you sure...?

“True, young-earth creationism remains the majority view in the SBC, but it is not a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy within the SBC. I’m an old-earth creationist and the two SBC seminaries at which I’ve taught (Southern in Louisville and Southwestern in Ft. Worth) both were fully apprised of my views here in hiring me.” –Dembski, quoted from Josh Rosenau’s “Thoughts From Kansas” blog, Jan. 8, 2010.

FL

FL scores one point for proving Malchus wrong about whether or not Dembski is a YEC or an OEC. He still has a lot of catching up to do. Right now, the score is: Evolutionists - millions, maybe more YECs, including FL - dozens, maybe fewer.

FL said: Unfortunately, I'll get written up for big disciplinary action by the REAL Triune Boss if I don't immediately put credit where it belongs. There's only one Godhead of Science, and that's the One who created (not evolved, but supernaturally created) the heavens and the earth and the humans. FL

mrg said: Hmm. But what if I write a computer program to draw snowflakes? It's an old silly BASIC demo, uses a fractal sorta algorithm. Obviously the program that draws these snowflakes has information in it, and obviously these virtual snowflakes are Designed. We couldn't just expect a computer to draw them properly by accident, could we? Obviously an intelligence has to produce them. The virtual snowflakes are, of course, a crude impersonation of the real thing, so I don't understand how we could rule out Design in the case of a snowflake. Don't the rules of crystallization that produce the snowflake amount to a set of "instructions" for their assembly?

FL said:

Can FL (or Dembski for that matter) look at a snow flake (or any other crystalline structure) and tell if it was “designed” or if it grew without intelligent influence? Can it even be done in principle?

Absolutely. In fact, PhD chemist Charles Thaxton spepointed that one out years ago; a classic explanation. Its rather surprising (or maybe not!) that you missed it.

The first kind (the snowflake’s) arises from constraints within the material the thing is made of (the water molecules). We cannot infer an intelligent cause from it, except possibly in the remote sense of something behind the natural cause. The second kind, however, is not a result of anything within matter itself. It is in principle opposed to anything we see forming naturally. This kind of order does provide evidence for an intelligent cause.

Scott F said: Dear Mr. Byers, The "state" has never said that religious doctrines are false. The Constitution prohibits that. In fact, the Constitution also prohibits the "state" from saying that religious doctrines are true. The Constitution says that the "state" can not teach religious doctrines in public schools as if they were scientific facts. That's it. What part of that is difficult to understand? Conflict only comes about when Creationists lie, and claim that their religious doctrines are scientific facts, or are "supported" by scientific facts, when in truth they are not. Freedom and censorship have nothing to do with it. Beyond the Constitutional requirement to avoid religious entanglements, it's merely a waste of time and tax payer money for the "state" to lie to students. But perhaps by "FREEDOM", you are arguing that the "state" has the freedom to lie to students? You're several years behind the times. Fox News already argued that case in federal court, and won. The Constitution does not require anyone, even the "state", to tell the truth. The freedom of speech means that you, yes even you, have the Constitutional right to lie as much as you want. But then, you already knew that, didn't you.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said: Dear Mr. Byers, The "state" has never said that religious doctrines are false. The Constitution prohibits that. In fact, the Constitution also prohibits the "state" from saying that religious doctrines are true. The Constitution says that the "state" can not teach religious doctrines in public schools as if they were scientific facts. That's it. What part of that is difficult to understand? Conflict only comes about when Creationists lie, and claim that their religious doctrines are scientific facts, or are "supported" by scientific facts, when in truth they are not. Freedom and censorship have nothing to do with it. Beyond the Constitutional requirement to avoid religious entanglements, it's merely a waste of time and tax payer money for the "state" to lie to students. But perhaps by "FREEDOM", you are arguing that the "state" has the freedom to lie to students? You're several years behind the times. Fox News already argued that case in federal court, and won. The Constitution does not require anyone, even the "state", to tell the truth. The freedom of speech means that you, yes even you, have the Constitutional right to lie as much as you want. But then, you already knew that, didn't you.

Well you got something right and wrong. AMEN. The constitution says the state cannot say religious things are true OR they are not true. AMEN. This is my point here. Yet in saying that a particular view on origins is banned when the subject is about the truth of the origins under discussion THEN the state is saying that view is false. Here thats the God/Genesis view. Thats my reasoning point here. I think a keeper. Your wrong about the constitution saying religious things can't be taught as science. It says no such thing or close to it. Wasn't on the minds of the folks back then. Not the point here. I never lose with my legal argument here. You can't beat it. If the state censors an opinion on any subject where its about the discovery and conclusions of truth of same subject THEN the state is making an official opinion on the accuracy of the censored opinion. In short the State is saying this opinion is false. If its a religious opinion then its breaking the very law invoked for the censorship in the first place. This is the future argument for legal change on the matter of origins in public institutions. Pretty sure!

Robert Byers said: Your wrong about the constitution saying religious things can't be taught as science. It says no such thing or close to it. Wasn't on the minds of the folks back then. Not the point here. I never lose with my legal argument here. You can't beat it. If the state censors an opinion on any subject where its about the discovery and conclusions of truth of same subject THEN the state is making an official opinion on the accuracy of the censored opinion. In short the State is saying this opinion is false. If its a religious opinion then its breaking the very law invoked for the censorship in the first place. This is the future argument for legal change on the matter of origins in public institutions. Pretty sure!

Dale Husband said: Byers, you are an idiot.

mrg said:

Dale Husband said: Byers, you are an idiot.

"Well, DUH." I cannot fathom why anyone pays attention to a fellow who obviously spent a good deal of his youth in remedial education. --------

Robert Byers, it has been pointed out to you many times that teaching a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, aka "Young Earth Creationism," is illegal and unconstitional in the United States it a) forces the government to endorse one particular religion over others, and b) is not science in any shape or form.

Your "knowledge" of US law, if we can take pity on you and call it that, is laughably wrong, speaking volumes of your willful stupidity. It is, perhaps, even worse than your woefully pathetic "knowledge" of science (I also noticed you have, once again, failed to explain how Creationism is supposed to be a science).

I always wonder why you take such an interest in meddling in American education if you are honest in claiming to be a Canadian citizen.

Then again, I also wonder why the administrators have not seen fit to do to you here, like Professor Myers did to you when you wore out everyone's patience at his blog with your constant, breathtaking inanity and astonishing stupidity.

School was only one day a week... and only for an hour. Probably why his theology is as poor as his science. But heck, he's almost kinda talking about science, let's not discourage him.

Hey FL... so explain in detail, why the designer doesn't have to be a meddling deity. And while you're at it, explain how you can tell the difference between a meddling deity, one that started the universe and walked away, a time-traveling cell-biologist, and evolution.

Since this is the central conundrum of ID, I suggest you think on it. If you can't tell the difference in the question above (or which snowflake is designed and which is not), then ID is useless.

"The more times you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets."

This particular dead cat was flat enough to begin with.

Scott F said: Assuming this could be done, how then could a "rendered" (ie "created") snow flake be distinguished from a "natual" snow flake?

mrg said:

Scott F said: Assuming this could be done, how then could a "rendered" (ie "created") snow flake be distinguished from a "natual" snow flake?

Yeah, but that doesn't get around the objection of "snowflakes are complex, but they don't have FUNCTIONAL complexity. Their organization does not support a FUNCTION." "So?" "OK, let me rephrase. They don't have SPECIFIED complexity. Their organization is not SPECIFIED." "So exactly how is this different from saying something is Designed by simply defining it is as Designed (Specified) in the first place?" "None. You got a problem with that?" "If you're not concealing that it's doubletalk, I don't have any problem believing it's doubltalk."

SWT said: Sheesh, think this stuff through.

Robert Byers said: The constitution says the state cannot say religious things are true OR they are not true. AMEN. This is my point here. Yet in saying that a particular view on origins is banned when the subject is about the truth of the origins under discussion THEN the state is saying that view is false.

Science Avenger said: I don't know how to make it simpler.

Kind of a toughie there.

Flint said: What's interesting is, there's no way to get Byers to understand that his religious convictions aren't the only possible context.

mrg said: What's interesting is the determination of people to argue with a clearly handicapped individual more deserving of pity than mockery. There's no way one could convince RB that two plus two equals four.

rossum said: On the other hand there is a reasonable chance you could convince him that pi = 3.0 exactly. :)

Where, oh where, has FL run off too.

No challenge to weak to run away from.

AFAIK, the ability to construct an actual snow flake is just a thought experiment at the moment.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Scott F said

AFAIK, the ability to construct an actual snow flake is just a thought experiment at the moment.

It's been possible for decades. Where's FL?

There is no possible way that FL, Thaxton, Dembski, Behe, Abel, and all those other ID pushers can comprehend the link between snowflakes and matter-matter interactions in general.

Their entire world view is based on word-gaming; and word-gaming has absolutely nothing to do with how nature works.

The only thing suggested by FL’s comments is that it might just be possible within the skulls of these characters that there are absolutely no matter-matter interactions taking place whatsoever. Nothing ever happens in there.

That would be an interesting breakthrough in physics all by itself. However, a more likely explanation is far more mundane; namely that all grey matter interactions are being nullified by interactions with sectarian dogma.

There was a time many, many years ago that I couldn’t imagine that anyone could muster such profound and persistent stupidity. FL makes it look easy.

One of the interesting things about "specified complexity" is that, once the constraints concerning definitions are concerned, it basically defines biosystems, and so the game amounts to saying no more than "biosystems are Designed" -- that is, restating the fundamental creationist dogma in an elaborate way and presenting it as a proof.

Point game and match to mrg! Even if the specified complexity domain is extended beyond just life, it comes down to what mrg said.

DavidK said: Because the argument is used that a mousetrap is an example of "irreducibile complexity," I was curious as I've heard that there are some 4000 plus types of mousetraps. So I started to search the web, I've found many mouse trap inventions, etc., but haven't yet been able to verify the number of patents, U.S. patents that is, for I'm sure there are unique foreign inventions as well. Anyway, I ran across this article: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Mousetrap.html#Comments_form What struck me is how ID terminology has snuck into this article, wherein it begins with the statement: Scientists describe the mousetrap as a device that is "irreducibly complex." The mousetrap cannot be made more simply and still function, and, at the same time, it is so simple and does its job so well that it gives the illusion of being a profound achievement. Scientists? You're kidding me. Which scientists use this term? I only know of creationists/id'ers who use it.

Caligula said: Ken Miller showed up at the Dover trial with a mousetrap that had the catch and bait hook removed. It only had the spring and clasp. He was wearing it as a tie clip. The mousetrap was not irreducibly complex, with half its parts removed, it still worked to another purpose.

Stanton said: Of course, with the way Behe snottily dismissed all those papers on immune system evolution during Dover as being somehow unimportant, one gets the impression that this failure to explain may actually be a deliberate refusal to explain.

Science Avenger said:

Robert Byers said: The constitution says the state cannot say religious things are true OR they are not true. AMEN. This is my point here. Yet in saying that a particular view on origins is banned when the subject is about the truth of the origins under discussion THEN the state is saying that view is false.

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit again. I cannot fathom why such a simple point keeps eluding you. Banning a view from discussion is NOT the same as saying it is false, any more than excluding a competitor from a contest implies that he would lose, or excluding a color from a painting means it is ugly. It's real simple: 1) The constitution says the state cannot say religious things are true OR they are not true 2) The constitution does NOT ban the state from saying anything that implies some religious belief somewhere is untrue, for what should be obvious reasons. 3) Creationism is a religious thing 4) Evolutionary theory is not a religious thing. 5) Therefore, a state school cannot say creationism is true or untrue, ie, cannot discuss it. 6) The state school can discuss scientific theories like evolution regardless of any implications for any religious views. I don't know how to make it simpler.

the state can’t, by the law invoked for banning the bible, say the bible is false

Robert Byers, Creationism is not a science, and the Bible is not a science textbook: those are the reasons why Creationism is illegal to teach in a science classroom in the US.

You are a lying moron if you think banning Creationism from a science classroom is tantamount to making an opinion illegal.

You still haven't explained to us why Creationism deserves to be taught in place of science in a science classroom.

we've gon around and around w/ RB - we're not likely to change his standing on these issues. It is educational to see the pathology of the evagelist- not only do they want to use my tax dollars to "witness" to a captive, juvenile, audience - they profess (honestly believe?) that classroom material that offends thier sectarian view is illegal. I'm curious if Robert believes that history lessons that contradict his interpretation of the Bible - would be illegal? Is teaching that archeological evidence shows that the civilizations in Mesopotmia or Mehenjo-daro predate the creation of the earth by his rekoning, are those lesson illegal? How about a history lesson about ancient Egypt that doesn't agree with Exodus?

He (and those that think like he does) just don't see that it is GOOD that the Constitution prohibits preaching in the classroom - I'm sure he/ and his would be among the loudest protesting teaching Hindu or Bhuddist or Catholic religion beliefs as science in thier local schools.

Mike Elzinga said: There is no possible way that FL, Thaxton, Dembski, Behe, Abel, and all those other ID pushers can comprehend the link between snowflakes and matter-matter interactions in general. Their entire world view is based on word-gaming; and word-gaming has absolutely nothing to do with how nature works. The only thing suggested by FL’s comments is that it might just be possible within the skulls of these characters that there are absolutely no matter-matter interactions taking place whatsoever. Nothing ever happens in there. That would be an interesting breakthrough in physics all by itself. However, a more likely explanation is far more mundane; namely that all grey matter interactions are being nullified by interactions with sectarian dogma. There was a time many, many years ago that I couldn’t imagine that anyone could muster such profound and persistent stupidity. FL makes it look easy.

Robert Byers said: Well you got something right and wrong. AMEN. The constitution says the state cannot say religious things are true OR they are not true. AMEN.

John_S said: You're beating, as usual, a dead horse.

I wonder whether you can trick him into saying his own name backwards. That works for at least one other fictive imp.

Shebardigan said: I wonder whether you can trick him into saying his own name backwards.

mrg said:

John_S said: You're beating, as usual, a dead horse.

No offense meant, matey, but considering the person you're trying in all futility to get through to, I have to judge that an ironic comment.

John_S said: When you believe God gives you permission to lie (or fly planes into buildings), you're free to do it.

mrg said:

John_S said: When you believe God gives you permission to lie (or fly planes into buildings), you're free to do it.

Permission? They are not lying because they are incapable of understanding the notion of a fact. They are simply playing a word game whose only objective is to win, and all rules are adjusted to that end. As the saying goes: "A liar knows the facts in order to misrepresent them. A bullshitter doesn't care about the facts."