Reply to: RE: ID vs.?
>If that is the case, then Cliff sure does gives a good imitation of it! The >fact is
>that if Cliff is truly a Darwinist, then he would *have* to have *everything*
>"against the idea of ID" because if ID were true, then Darwinism, as a
>general theory, would be false.
Here's your big mistake: I'm not a Darwinist. I agree with all the criticism of ID that natural selection can't be the only mechanism by which life evolved. I feel that another theory is necessary to answer that question and that natural selection can only have a real impact on diversity and the origin of species past the cellular level. I have seen one study that would suggest that I am on the right track. So, all of your accusations of me being either a bad Darwinist or a bad Christian is ill founded. I suggest you study your subject a little more closely before you start making wild assumptions.
>Cliff was introduced to this List by Susan as a Christian. In fact Cliff, >in his >Metaviews response to Dembksi implied that he was "a good Christian":
>So I presume that this "some supernatural deity" that Cliff believes "the >universe was created by" is in fact the Christian God?
I've never implied that I am a good Christian. I leave such decisions to God, as He is the only one who can truly know what is in the hearts and minds of people.
>It is a tautology to speak of a "belief based upon faith". If Cliff has a >"belief" it must be based on *evidence*.
I hope that was a typo. Beliefs are based on faith. They can be implied by evidence. But in the end, they can only be based and supported on personal faith.
>And if Cliff has a belief in creation by "some supernatural deity", based on >the evidence of nature, then Cliff has made a design inference. And it is a "scientific" inference, even if not formulated rigorously. It is the task of the ID movement to give scientific rigour to such design inferences.
Yes, I've made a design inference that is only supported by faith. My belief in God has been implied by many of the same arguments made by the ID proponents, but until the inference has empirical evidence to show that there has to be a supernatural intelligent designer, then it is only based on faith. It is the task of the ID movement to give scientific rigor and so far they are failing.
>Not if Cliff wants to be a consistent Darwinist he wouldn't be. Darwinism is >the claim that a "mindless procedure could produce design without a >designer":
Considering I'm not a Darwinist, your point is moot. I would like to add that I am insulted by your attempt (and that of Johnson, Dembski, and Dawkins) to put everyone into little catagories. It may shock you, but the world is not black and white. There will be very little discussion as long as everyone is forced to take unequivocal sides. It is convenient for leaders of a movement to say "You are either with me or against me". In this way they can generate an army of followers with a well-defined enemy to hate. Drop the pidgeon holes and you might find the world a more interesting place.
>What does Cliff think Mike Behe's irreducible complexity hypothesis
>is? He has proposed it as a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and
>his scientific critics have in fact subjected it to scientific >criticism:
Behe is the one member of the ID leadership who I have any respect for as a scientist. He has proposed his IC idea. It is a hypothesis that can be tested. There are those in the scientific community that are testing it. If I had the experience and resources, I would test it myself. However, as others have pointed out, IC does not equal ID. It only says that today we see structures that have such specific functions that without one, the others cannot function. In fact the research that is demonstrating that life could have evolved by a mechanism other than natural selection also demonstrates the evolution of IC systems. When I find the article I will post here. Though I think someone already has.
>Cliff probably thinks that "science" *is* just applied "naturalistic" >philosophy" or maybe he doesn't even realise that modern science is based >on a philosophy that is itself outside of science?
What is science? I mean pure, unrefined science without any other philosophy. Johnson, Dembski, and Meyer have never explained that. If it is simply that all data must be empirical, then ID still fails. If it is that all scientific explanations must be logical, then the Flat Earth idea is still just as valid. If it is that all scientific ideas must be rooted in the Bible, then welcome to Dark Ages. I hope you like witch burnings and plagues.
Naturalistic science has only been around about 200 years. And look at all the discoveries and inventions that have come since then. You're damn right I want to keep naturalistic science. Until someone poses a better philosophy of science, then I'm going to fight to keep naturalistic science. Of course, Johnson, Dembski, or Meyer have yet to explain what they want to replace naturalistic science with. I would think that all of these "intelligent" men would realize that people aren't just going to give up a good thing without some clue as to what is coming next. It would be similar to someone asking me to give up on the US Constitution without telling me what is going to be the next American system of government.
>How exactly are they doing that (even if they wanted to-which they don't)? >It is the *Darwinists* who are in power and have the full support of the >government, the law, the educational authorities, the scientific journals and >the mainstream media.
Study history. Whenever a religious movment takes over a society, the first thing they do is take away the rights of others. Don't believe me? Ask women in Iran. Ask Native Americans (if you can find any). Ask midwives in the Middle Ages. In science any one can say anything as long as they have the data to back it up. ID has no data. If they are restricted from being a science, then it is on that fact alone. If you read Johnson's articles and books, it is clear that the aim of the ID movement is to force the Christian God back into the classroom, courtroom, and legislature. Maybe that's the kind of Christianity you want to follow, but not me.
>Is Cliff trying to claim that mainstream science does not give briefings
>to Congressmen? And what exactly is wrong, in a democracy, with briefing
>Congressmen?
Yes of course mainstream science does give briefings to Congressmen. But, their briefings are to teach the legislators about new findings and inventions in science. They do not try to persuade legislators that fringe ideas should be taught in the science classroom. There is nothing wrong with briefing Congressmen. There is something wrong with calling ID science when there is no data to back it up. There is something very wrong with briefing Congressmen to convince them that ID is science in hopes that they will pass legislation that will help dissolve the separation of church and state.
>Berthajane later acknowledged that this was a poor choice of words,
>but what she meant by 'McCarthyistic' is Cliff's `guilt by association'
>argument that because "Johnson, Dembski, Meyer, Pearce...are
>... evangelical Christians" that "should give it away", i.e. that the
>ID movement is just a creationist front.
The ID movement is just a creationist front and a very effective one at that. They have done an excellent job of fooling many people into thinking that the movement is going in one direction when in fact the leadership has very different ideas in mind. Considering you seem to think that the "aliens did it" is an idea seriously being considered by the ID leadership, then they've obviously fooled you.
>What does Cliff think Darwin's Black Box is and Behe's irreducible
>complexity claims on his ARN web pages are - chopped liver? Other
>scientists like Jerry Coyne have no problem finding it and critiquing
>it.
No, chopped liver tastes quite good when fried with onions. Behe's IC is a hypothesis to be tested. It does not add up to empirical data. If you knew anything about science or chopped liver, then that would be obvious to you.
>There is no requirement in science that researchers need to pass other >people's tests, especially if it is testing claims they are not making.
If people want their ideas to be accepted by the scientific community, then they damn well better pass other people's tests. That is the process of science. Someone proposes an idea and others try to knock it down. If the idea can pass various tests to the point that most people are satisified then the scientific community starts to take the idea seriously. The ID community wants the scientific community to just accept whatever they say without any criticism. That isn't going to happen. They are making an incredible claim and they are going to have to come up with some incredible evidence to back it up.
>ID researchers like Behe have proposed tests of irreducible complexity for >several molecular biological systems. If Cliff wants to falsify them, he can >try.
As I said, if I had the experience and resources, I would. Instead, all I can hope is that others who are more qualified try it.
>I have explained the context of that in Behe's Darwin's Black Box. There >Behe was pointing out that the detection of design would not compel belief >that the design was caused by a supernatural Designer. He says that >"persons with philosophical commitments against the supernatural" (p.248) >would be able to posit a number of alternatives, including Directed >Panspermia and time-travel. Behe was not saying that any IDers would >claim this, although they could.
And look at the writing of Johnson, Dembski, Pearcey, and every other ID researcher and you won't find any serious mention of aliens or panspermia or time travel. They talk about God a whole lot though.
>There is simply *no way* that ID can, by its methods, like the Explanatory >Filter, or Irreducible Complexity, do any more than detect *design*.
They don't even do a good job of that. On the ARN website, I posted a simple test that Dembski's filter should pass. I'll post it here so any of you can try. Given a crystal, a prokaryotic cell, an eukaryotic cell, and a pocket calculator tell me which is intelligently designed and which isn't. Tell me what factors were considered and why those factors are important. Also tell me what data was collected to address those factors. This is a simple test that I would have to assume that Dembski has already done considering that he has claimed that design is empirically detectable. On the ARN website, I only got philosophical arguments with no data, excuses as to why the test can't be passed, and accusations to pass other tests against Darwinian evolution. There is nothing wrong with posting tests for Darwinian evolution, but if they can't pass my test, then how am I supposed to take them seriously? This is the equivalent of a science fair project for ID.
>
>It is up to philosophy and theology to take it further and make "claims on >the nature of the designer" e.g. that it was "God".
Are Dembski, Johnson, and Meyer philosophers, scientists, or both? Are they going to be the new leadership of the world and tell all of us ignorant souls what is and isn't designed and the True nature of the Designer? I already have a pope. I don't want another one.
>Well, "the Discovery Institute" don't have a monopoly on "scientific >research on intelligent design."
Right now, they are the only ones doing all the talking. If you don't believe me, then count all the people writing and speaking on ID and then count how many of them are Discovery Institute fellows. I'm guessing it's about 99%. And considering the huge funding they are getting from ultraconservative Christians like Ahmanson, then that's the only message that is going to get out. If you are serious about the ID movement and you seriously consider that all possibilities of the nature of the designer should be considered, then I suggest you get out there and try to get your message across.
>If Cliff would *really* "love to see some real scientific research on >intelligent design being conducted" and if he "would be thrilled if the basic >hypothesis of ID was shown to be scientifically valid" then Cliff himself >could start his own ID research.
I'm not going to test someone else's idea for them. Let's see Dembski and Behe put their money where their mouth is.
>Cliff is perfectly free to "not ...accept the ID movement" I am sure with >the ID movement's blessing. I have said before that the ID movement
>does not need to convince committed Darwinists of design (that
>probably cannot be done), but they only need to convince a large
>part of the majority of the general public who already believe in
>design.
No, they need to convince the scientific community. Science isn't decided by a majority vote. And considering that the majority of Americans don't understand basic scientific concepts, I'm glad of it. That's why ID has failed so far. They have only tried to convince the public and not the scientific community. If they could convince scientists, then there would be an immediate response and ID would be taught in the classrooms and scientists would be meeting with Congressmen. However, the ID movement knows they are just blowing hot air and that their arguments are nothing but a religous appeal.
>I have commented before on this List how easily evolutionists assume >that their creationist / IDer opponents are not merely intellectually in >error (i.e. wrong) but are also *morally* in error (i.e. "lied"). Guess what, Steve? You don't know what you're talking about. I have personally had conversations and meetings with Dembski and Gordon (another Discovery Institute fellow) and they have lied to me. I'm not talking about generalisations like the one Dawkins is making. I mean real down to earth, bald faced lies.
I'm tired of being nice. You need to get a clue. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know how science or the scientific community operates. I don't think you really even understand ID except that they're against Darwinian evolution which offends you on religious grounds. I doubt that you've really thought most of about what you've written on the list serv, because you often contradict yourself and have faulty logic. You certainly don't know anything about me, though you are quite willing to throw around accusations. I would really prefer if you were to go off and read and think about the subjects discussed here before you type anything else.
But I have one more question: how do I get myself removed from this list?
Cliff H
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 08 2000 - 12:51:01 EDT