768 thoughts on “I lost my faith in ID”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
You must be logged in to post a comment.
At least you could be a tad less arrogant about being so ignorant. Just so you know: your ignorance doesn’t make it so.
Entropy,
It’s a book of stories and history. You are making a false claim. I am not going to argue against a false claim.
Entropy,
O Magain is making a false claim. I know you realize this so why are you even bring itup?
There is no blind watchmaker model for complex adaptions. If there was there would not be anything to discuss. The design argument would go away.
Are you guys so threatened by the design argument that you are reverting to stretching evolution beyond what you can demonstrate empirically?
Why not just let both arguments work together? Evolutionary theory does not explain life’s diversity. Evolutionary theory and design provide a complete theory. Evolution for simple adaptions and ID for complex adaptions.
Fuck Bill you couldn’t be more ignorant and arrogant if you tried.
The design argument won’t ever go away because it isn’t a scientific argument to begin with. It’s religious apologetics pushed by the deliberately dishonest scoundrels of the DI and swallowed uncritically by ignorant fools like you.
Of course you’re not going to argue. All you have going for it is your imagination. Your subjective opinion.
You should really think it thrice every time you feel like claiming that there’s no mechanism for this or that, or that science, of which you understand very little, proves evolution wrong. Maybe stop altogether making claims against natural phenomena that you don’t understand. It gets tiresome trying to explain to you time and again the mistakes in the ID bullshit, the backwards philosophy, etc, only to see you back with the very same, uncorrected, claims. Stop it. Show some respect, not just for others but for yourself. You know how much you fail to read. You know how much goes way over your head. So, at least argue with that self-awareness.
Fixed it you you Bill. 🙂
Entropy,
The is real evidence which I have argued. Your counter has no evidence and is purely subjective. You claim the Bible is a fairytale. Whats a fairytale is your claim, Thats all I have to say until you surface an evidence based argument. I am willing to argue for the credibility of Christianity but not against someone repeating unsupported claims.
When you guys make false claims meant to deceive I am going to call you on it. This has nothing to do with my understanding it has to do with you claiming you have something you don’t. These issues have been well litigated here. It’s the same tactic as you claiming fantasy, not supporting the claim and repeating the assertion.
If you want to come to common understanding or some we’ll discussed disagreement that we agree to respect and understand each others position as we have done in the past. I am no longer going to engage in discussion where you are defending Ideology based on false, misleading or unsupported claims when you should know better. Evolution is a great theory it is just limited in what it explains regarding life’s diversity.
(facepalm) Bill all you’ve been doing for YEARS is repeating the same unsupported ID-Creationist bullshit claims. You’ve ignored every last attempt by people to teach you some actual science in favor of regurgitating your ignorant religious based nonsense. So do cry us a river about how everyone else BUT you is defending Ideology based on false, misleading or unsupported claims.
The theory isn’t what is limited Bill. It’s your pitiful willful ignorance of the theory which prevents you from engaging in any meaningful discussion.
You do, Bill:
What can you demonstrate empirically about the Intelligent Design?
The text books would be more or less the same as now then, when talking about simple adaptations.
When, however, we get to complex adaptations and the part regarding Intelligent Design what will the textbooks say?
From literally everything you’ve said so far the ID section regarding complex adaptations would be ‘a mind like ours did it’ and nothing more.
A single sentence on a single page that can be applied to literally everything and everything.
If you really believe that Evolutionary theory and design provide a complete theory then the work on the first part, evolution, has already been done. We’re waiting for something substantial from your side. I.E. the specifics of how ID accounts for complex adaptations in the same way we know the specifics of how evolutionary theory accounts for micro adaptations.
If you can’t say any more then ‘a mind did it’ you have to realize that ID is not ready yet, right?
So, I ask once more. How long before ID is ready? A year?
Ten years?
Fifty years?
How long till ID’s ‘explanation’ about complex adaptations is accepted by 99% of theistic biologists?
You have to recognise the asymmetry of the data on each side. You have ‘a mind’ and I have realms of scientific peer reviewed work.
What will the ID part of textbook say colwed? ‘A mind did it’ as both the chapter title and the contents of the chapter?
?
Oh I dunno.
Are you a critical swallower?
Says you.
Says everyone. Apart from people like you who are just contrary for the sake of it.
Do you seriously think colewd has a point?
But then again, someone who can’t describe how decisions are made in phoodoo world, believes that the FBI uses PSI and so on being impressed by colewd is not that surprising.
Ask your mother, she has the relevant experience.
You keep getting this backwards. It’s not whether I can prove your arguments/evidence wrong. It’s whether your “arguments/evidence” are sufficient for the claim. They just aren’t. So, it doesn’t matter if I cannot convince you that your beliefs are wrong. That’s not the goal. It’s you who imagined to have something better than what I was exposed to back when I was a believer. Guess what? You have nothing better. It’s much worse. So, naturally, you’ll fail to convince me. The evidence, if we could call it that, is subpar. You have to be truly credulous to buy into any of it. I cannot be that credulous, specially when it’s supposed to convince me about the existence of astoundingly absurd magical beings, performing an astoundingly absurd tale.
What exactly did i say that was meant to deceive?
We have repeatedly supported our claims. You keep ignoring the full answers. I suspect this is because you do not understand them. The part about what science gives versus what your position gives is twofold:
1. Science does give us satisfactory, even if not superdetailed, answers.
2. Even if we were far from having any scientific explanations, fantasy doesn’t cut it. Ignorance is ignorance. Ignorance is not evidence of absurd magical beings.
See those two? OK, take a good look before repeating that science doesn’t give us a complete answer because: it wouldn’t matter if that was the case, and that’s not the case.
Respect goes both ways Bill. You did not show any engagement with the answers. That’s not respect.
I, and others here, dealt with your “evidence” for Christianity, prophecies, etc. I know that sounds great to you. Well, it doesn’t cut it. Can I explain those “amazing” prophecies? Yes. They’re built in. They’re vague enough to make them fit whatever and whomever you might want. There’s tampering. It happened long ago, so it’s easy to fix, fit, rearrange. There’s evidence that even Josephus was tampered with, which is easy to believe given the absurdity of what this is supposed to support, etc. It’s very easy to be skeptical of your evidence. We don’t need to prove that it’s all false. All we need is enough skepticism and knowledge of human nature to know that the fables are too absurd to be true, and that it’s easy to tamper with ancient tales. That such possibilities don’t prove it all wrong to you doesn’t matter. t’s enough for me to reject your evidence as insufficient.
So, you might call that subjective, but then again, isn’t your lack of skepticism subjective as well? Isn’t it even worse, since you refuse to be skeptical of absurd fables?
I think you can figure it out.
yeah colwed, that nobody has “dispoven” your fables has no bearing on science, with regard to evolution or otherwise.
Apparently it’s good enough that we can’t prove that Intelligent Design did not do it as according to you that’s what it would take for ID to vanish.
Nobody ever will do that. There will always be a gap. Always a further retreat.
It’s really about what’s just been said. What you are doing with Intelligent Design is not science. If you want to say that you god created the universe, great. If you want it taught in university around the world in partnership with evolution explaining the micro while ID explains the macro then you’ve got a lot of work to do as right now you literally have only the phrase “a mind like ours did it” to put in the textbooks. And that’s going to look somewhat lame after the first part where they had to work out what not to include, we know so much.
So stop fucking pretending what you are doing is science and face up to the fact that “mind did it” is not going to convince anybody outside of UD.
Kantian Naturalist,
Why do you think they are equivalent claims? Some of the purposely arranged parts in the cell according to Behe are evidence of design. He has established a criteria for design detection that he articulates between 4 and 25 minutes into this presentation. This is process based on inductive reasoning.
And you complain about circular reasoning?
Entropy,
Beat me to it!
🙂
It’s just a poorer version of Paley. Wow look at all that complexity. Must have been “designed”! And that’s it.
Just a moment.
They may look purposely arranged to you. But that’s not evidence that some agent arranged them for a purpose.
The appearance of intelligent design is coming from how you are looking at it.
Alan Fox,
I can misrepresent arguments also and defeat them. I do know when I am doing this its poor argument technique and does nothing to understand or shake out to value of an argument.
I watched the video. Behe doesn’t offer any idea beyond “must have been designed”. I might have missed something and you are welcome to point out what there was in Behe’s talk that I missed. Joshua Swamidass would have done better to have stayed at home.
Alan Fox,
Interesting: your filter completely changed the argument. He came up with a specific criteria for design detection. Can you articulate it?
“according to Behe”. 😀
According to the rest of science Michael “the Jar Jar Binks of biology” Behe is a religiously motivated charlatan who has not provided a single iota of positive evidence for his ID-Creationist claims. He certainly has never provided any evidence for any purposely arranged parts in a cell.
You mean his completely circular “the purposely arranged parts show a cell was designed, the cell was designed so it has purposely arranged parts” stupidity?
Nope, can you? Or at least indicate which bit of Behes’s talk you are referring to.
No, he can’t. All Bill knows is Behe is an “authority” so Behe must be right about God being the Designer.
Alan Fox,
Start 13 minutes in. It takes 12 minutes.
colewd,
I already watched this. Maybe it would help if you tried explaining what you mean by “He came up with a specific criteria for design detection.” (It’s a criterion BTW, Criteria is plural)
Neil Rickert,
I have a large number of example when we see purposely arranged set of parts that agent(s) were involved.
It’s clearly evidence.
You are making a duck duck dog argument. Your intuition is sometimes wrong therefor its always wrong. This is false. Most of the time our intuition is correct.
Biology looks designed for a reason because it was designed for a reason is the most logical conclusion in my opinion. Behe is giving us a criteria to make this judgement.
I watched the segment you noted Bill (minutes 13 – 25), and there was nothing specific about it at all. There was nothing quantitative about it either, which is strange, given the claim that Behe made.
😉
Alan Fox,
The criteria is a purposeful arrangement of parts. Before you debate it you need to make sure you understand the details of the criteria which takes 12 minutes to review. This includes understanding the levels of design detection.
Criterion is, criteria are!
Bill, bear in mind I think debate is not a method for testing hypotheses. I’m only interested in whether Behe is proposing some other explanation for biological diversity that is testable. And “design detection” is untestable..
How does one distinguish between the purposeful arrangement of parts and the apparently purposeful arrangement of parts? Quantitatively? Could you provide the quantitation that Behe alludes to, but fails to provide?
DNA_Jock,
You can’t. ID is just the claim that evolution can’t explain X therefore design.
DNA_Jock,
Thanks for watching it.
I am coming to the conclusion that if you don’t want an argument to be true you will never understand it no matter how intelligent you are as I have lots of respect for your intellect.
I have a book club with all highly intelligent participants and we read and compared the blind watchmaker to Darwins black box. Although there were a couple to atheists in the group the agreement was unanimous that Behe had the easier argument to make. All were able to articulate his argument.
I was hoping he would explain the bit about the wood shavings. That struck me as a very promising teaser. Could you expand on that, Bill?
Alan Fox,
Ah yes, the God of the Gaps that my Chaplain warned me about in the 70’s, but Bill here seems to be retreating to the even more pathetic, “It looks designed to me, so it is” whilst simultaneously claiming that he is NOT making that argument WTF?
Alan Fox,
Nice straw-man. Are you really making this claim after debating this for almost a decade?
Since no one has ever established any purposeful arrangement of parts in biological systems I guess we’re done here. By Bill’s / Behe’s criterion there is no evidence of the ID-Creation of biological life.
DNA_Jock,
Has It every occurred to you if you have to misrepresent and argument to defeat it that the argument may have credibility and be of interest?
You really cannot spot the circular argument here, can you?
Here’s the difference between us, Bill.
You maintain that anybody who delves into the details will inexorably arrive at your way of thinking, whether it’s about Isaiah or protein sequence space, and yet you resolutely refuse to engage on said details.
It’s a bloody obvious tell.
I really don’t care one way or another. You, on the other hand…
We articulated Behe’s argument just fine Bill. We also showed you repeatedly how it’s fallacious and flat out wrong. If you were honest you wouldn’t ignore the fatal flaws in Behe’s circular logic people have been pointing out to you. At a minimum you would discuss the flaws or try to provide a counterpoint. But alas you’re not capable of intellectual honesty when it comes to your pet ID-Creationist hero Behe. All we get from you is the childish “if you don’t agree with Behe’s claim then you must not understand it!”
Behe said it, Bill believes it, that settles it. 😀
Has it ever occurred to YOU if you have to lie and claim people misrepresented an argument as an excuse to dodge the many flaws the argument has that the argument may have NO credibility and be of NO interest?
Entropy,
This is a valid observation but you can get there from a bottom up analysis relieving it of its circularity. It turns out his use of purpose vs function is very interesting.
Test it against this definition of purpose.
If your are able to take a break with your filter look at complex adaptions like the flagellum and test it. Take into account that bacteria are our partners.