Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
Well, if materialism can’t be tested then there’s no way to show that it’s wrong, is there?
Freudian slip?
Materialism isn’t even wrong…
Canadian slip…
Actually, ID does require intervention, at least once. If there was nothing (except “the designer”), and “the designer” decided to design and and carry out the creation of the universe, “the designer” intervened in the nothing and changed it to something.
Such as?
Correction: there should be a period after the words “go through”, not a question mark.
ID is totally religion, and atheism is not a religion.
I.D. is about the intervention of non-material intelligence in the physical world. In Behe’s case, the biological world in particular. You’re asking me to reference something which is central to all his claims. Ask him.
You test hypotheses, like the one I gave you, against observations. Dembski and Wells claim that there is empirical evidence for non-materialistic Intelligent Design in this world. If this can be observed and reasonably confirmed, then you can not only test materialism, you could potentially reasonably falsify it. How long are you going to continue to call yourself an I.D. supporter without grasping this simple point which is central to the I.D. movement? Ask your heroes about it, and you’ll find that they agree with me.
That’s not exactly what you said. They are dualists. They do not regard intelligence itself as material. What you’ve described above is exactly what they believe, but the intelligent design itself (the thinking) is non-material. Acting on material things in this world is exactly what I mean by intervention.
I’ve told you how Dembski, Wells, Behe, and dr who think that materialism can be tested. Against observations. You look for empirical evidence that contradicts (or supports) its claims.
What on earth do you think I.D. is all about?
Reference please.
And strange that you still cannot say how to test materialism.
Strange that you cannot say how to test it- as in provide an example related to biology.
Tell me how to test the claim that living organisms arose from non-living matter via necessity and chance- what observations support that?
Bald assetions mean nothing.
No one on this planet can make a case that ID is totally religion.
180 degrees wrong Joe. If materialism, as you say, is that matter, energy, necessity, and chance are all that there is in the universe and you offer up a premise that either excludes that (as some in ID do) or offers additional components (such as what you’d like to do) then by your own definition such cannot be or include materialism.
Materialism does not exist as a subset of some other philosophy or world perspective Joe. Either matter and energy (and necessity and chance) are all there is or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then there’s no such thing as materialism at all.
That’s the problem with your claim and the reason that such a claim is completely contrary to anything Dembski has ever stated.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Keep on wishing Joe!
he can’t- no one can
Materialism is the premise that matter, energy, necessity and chance are all that is required. And the EF mandates that necssity and chance, ie materialism, be eliminated before considering a design inference. That means the design inference goes through materialism.
Nope, it is exactly correct.
that isn’t just what I say, Robin.
LoL! If materialism is as I posted and ID includes matter, energy, necessity and chance, well that is the same as I posted about materialism.
Obviously it does.
Again materialism = matter, energy, necessity and chance
ID = matter, energy, necessity, chance and at least one designer to design.
And BTW the EF treats them as if they were the only things that exist- ie it treats matter, energy, necessity and chance as if they were all that existed.
So that means the design inference goes through materialism.
And Dembki agrees with me. If you doubt that just send him an email and ask.
Robin,
We add information and a designer because we went through materialism and found it very void of content.
Yes “eliminate” is the same as go through. Ya see the EF has three decision nodes to “go through” in order to have design as the result. Two of those decision nodes represent materialism.
And once you have gone through the decision nodes you have eliminated them.
Absolutely wrong. The only way that statement could even possibly be correct is if ID did not include anything but matter, energy, necessity, and and chance. In other words, it could only be correct if ID = materialism. Is that what you are saying Joe? Because if so, then Dembski still disagrees with you.
Once again Joe, basically you are arguing that ID is anything – physicalism, monism, atheism, dualism, empiricism, etc., which then makes ID meaningless. Fine with me, Joe. ID = meaningless. I’m good with that. If that’s how you want to roll, great. I mean, everyone else knows this is true anyway…’bout time you got on board.
So does atheism, physicalism, monism, dualism, empiricism, etc. according to you. Your point is meaningless as shown.
Well, then you have one of two options:
1) The above does not include materialism since materialism can’t include the designer component. If 1, then ID can’t go through materialism.
2) The above does include materialism, in which case it also includes – and goes through – empiricism, atheism, physicalism, dualism, monism, etc, etc as all those philosophies (and many others) also include matter, energy, necessity, and chance. If so, then Dembski disagrees with you.
Basically Joe, your argument is self-defeating either way.
LOL! Wrong Joe. The as Dembski notes “intelligence” is an alternative to chance and necessity, it doesn’t include them.
Wrong again. LOL!
HA! I’m not doing you’re homework for you Joe.
Tell you what…I’ll make this easy for you – you just post a quote from Dembski, citing the source, where he says that ID goes through materialism and I’ll concede the whole thing. Until you do, you claim is just plain false.
Good luck!
Robin,
If materialism = matter, energy, necessity and chance AND ID = matter, energy, necessity, chance, information and a designer, then it is obvious that materialism is a subset of ID.
Do you know what a “subset” is Robin? Apparently not.
And I have asked Dembski- that is how I know I am right. OTOH you can’t even follow the reasoning. IOW I did my homework and you are totally clueless.
So ONE MORE TIME-
Materialism = matter, energy, necessity and chance being all there is.
The EF gives materialism the first shot at answering the question as necessity and chance are the first two decision nodes.
And the EF treats them as if they were the only things that exist- ie it treats matter, energy, necessity and chance as if they were all that existed. You can argue that all day and it will not change the fact that necessity and chance are the first two decision nodes and they are treated as if that was all that existed.
And to get to the design inference we have to first go through the first two nodes and the first two nodes = materialism.
And yes designers use necessity- ie laws of nature when designing. They can also take into account chance events or random actions.
But anyway, Robin, it is obvious that you do not understand ID and you think you know more about ID than someone who has read just about everything written about ID by ID proponents.
No, materialism is contrary to ID, according to you IDiots. You push immaterialism.
Citation please. Reference please. Your words to dembski and dembski’s own words to you please.
Does “chance” include random stuff?
Whose decision? And what’s the official time limit on that “first shot”?
So what?
Meh.
Are chance events different from random actions? State some examples of chance events and random actions in an animal, a plant, an asteroid, a planet, a solar system, and a universe.
Are you referencing yourself as an authority? Isn’t that a no-no according to you?
joe,
Do you agree with all of the statements by dembski that are quoted here:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski
Notice that, among other things, dembski says:
“From our vantage, materialism is not a neutral, value-free, minimalist position from which to pursue inquiry. Rather, it is itself an ideology with an agenda. What’s more, it requires an evolutionary creation story to keep it afloat. On scientific grounds, we regard that creation story to be false. What’s more, we regard the ideological agenda that has flowed from it to be destructive to rational discourse. Our concerns are therefore entirely parallel to the evolutionists’. Indeed, all the evolutionists’ worst fears about what the world would be like if we succeed have, in our view, already been realized through the success of materialism and evolution. Hence, as a strategy for unseating materialism and evolution, the term “Wedge” has come to denote an intellectual and cultural movement that many find congenial.”
Entirely parallel things don’t go through each other. They never meet or intersect. And “unseating” or eliminating something isn’t the same as adding a designer god to it.
I said: “I.D. is about the intervention of non-material intelligence in the physical world.”
And you ask me for a reference! Do you disagree with my statement?
What’s strange is that you appear to disagree with Dembski & Wells that there are ways to test materialism against observations, and yet you present yourself as an I.D. ist.
Haven’t you read Behe? Do you disagree with his observations?
If you’re regarding intelligent intent as the opposite of necessity and chance, then you can easily make the observation that intelligent animals can’t precede life. However, if you weren’t disagreeing with Dembski, Wells, and Behe, you might want to claim that there are observations that support the existence of non-material intelligent design operating on this planet, in which case you would also have to agree that the “chance and necessity” hypothesis is testable.
Joe, is materialism testable, in your view, or is there no evidence for non-material I.D., in your view? You can’t have it both ways.
Strange that you still cannot tell anyone how to test materialism. I have asked you about this and you have refused to answer. I have asked for an example and you have refused to provide one.
And no, I do not disagree with Wells nor Dembski nor Behe.
But anyway good luck proving that materialism if materialism is untestable then so is ID.
One more time-
The first two nodes of the EF represent materialism. In order to reach the design inference node we have to first go through materialism’s nodes.
And we do NOT push immaterialism- we push DESIGN.
Read “The Design Inference”- read “Signature in the Cell”- read “No Free Lunch”- read the wedge doc. They all support my claims.
VOIDH!
Exactly!
One more time-
The first two nodes of the EF represent materialism. In order to reach the design inference node we have to first go through materialism’s nodes.
Children understand this- so what is Robin’s issue?
As you’re on seaking terms, please have him clarify publically.
Sure, no doubt it’s like when you asked KF on UD if he agreed with you and he simply ignored your question because he did not want to call you out in front of the others!
Joe said:
Then after KF ignores him he says:
And nobody else in the thread bothered to respond. So, Joe, looks like you are all alone on this one!
Why don’t you ask KF again Joe?
Not sure I understand. Is that addressed to me or is that addressed to Joe to get Dembski to clarify publically?
Sorry – I linked to the wrong post. I was trying to refer to Joe’s chat with Dembski.
How would one falsify it? Information with no substrate? How’d that work?
You don’t need to chat with Dembski- just read his books.
As I said- The first two nodes of the EF represent materialism. In order to reach the design inference node we have to first go through materialism’s nodes.
Children understand this- so what is Robin’s issue? I know what Richie’s issues are.
Of course you disagree with them. The testability of materialism is central to their arguments.
LoL! You aren’t in any position to make such a claim. And obvioulsy you have no idea how to test materialism.
Dr Behe is OK with testing ID this way:
“Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”- Darwin’s Black Box
We don’t care if materialism cannot be tested.
“Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” – dembski
“The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ…. And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view…. It’s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world.” – dembski
“I think the opportunity to deal with students and getting them properly oriented on science and theology and the relation between those is going to be important because science has been such an instrument used by the materialists to undermine the Christian faith and religious belief generally.
This is really an opportunity to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ. That’s really what is driving me.” – dembski
“But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed…And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done – and he’s not getting it.” – dembski
“Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.” – dembski
“If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.
Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him
My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.” – dembski
“Theism (whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) holds that God by wisdom created the world. The origin of the world and its subsequent ordering thus results from the designing activity of an intelligent agent—God. Naturalism, on the other hand, allows no place for intelligent agency except at the end of a blind, purposeless material process. Within naturalism, any intelligence is an evolved intelligence. Moreover, the evolutionary process by which any such intelligence developed is itself blind and purposeless. As a consequence, naturalism makes intelligence not a basic creative force within nature but an evolutionary byproduct. In particular, humans (the natural objects best known to exhibit intelligence) are not the crown of creation, not the carefully designed outcome of a purposeful creator, and certainly not creatures made in the image of a benevolent God. Rather, humans are an accident of natural history.” – dembski
“This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.” – phillip e. johnson (the “founder” of the ID movement)
“The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that “In the beginning was the Word,” and “In the beginning God created.” Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.” – johnson
“If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this. … We call our strategy the “wedge.”” – johnson
“We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.” – johnson
“We’re not trying to prove the character of God through science. That’s a bad idea. What I’m trying to do is clear away the misunderstandings, the debris that prevent people from accepting that God who wants to accept them.” – johnson
“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” – johnson
“I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.” – johnson
“Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.” – william lane craig (asshole IDiot)
“I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel… Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.” – craig
More later.
“Behe, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates William A. Dembski and David Berlinski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[45] Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms “Darwinism”. In the book, Coulter thanks Behe, Dembski and Berlinski for their assistance with this section.” (from Wikipedia)
“Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.” – Judge John Jones (Dover trial)
“As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.” – Judge Jones
“First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to ‘change the ground rules’ of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.” – Judge Jones
“”ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that ‘irreducibly complex’ systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.” – Judge Jones
“Behe received $20,000 for testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns. The case was filed by Association of Christian Schools International, which argued that the University of California was being discriminatory by not recognizing science classes that use creationist books.[62] The 2005 filing claimed that University of California’s rejection of several of their courses was illegal “viewpoint discrimination and content regulation prohibited by the Free Speech Clause.”[63] In 2007, Behe’s expert witness report claimed that the Christian textbooks, including Biology for Christian Schools, are excellent works for high school students. He defended that view in a deposition.[64][65] In August 2008, Judge S. James Otero rejected Behe’s claims, saying that Behe “submitted a declaration concluding that the BJU [Bob Jones University Press] text mentions standard scientific content. … However, Professor Behe ‘did not consider how much detail or depth’ the texts gave to this standard content.”[63] Otero ruled in favor of the University of California’s decision to reject courses using these books. (from Wikipedia)
Also see:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/09/behe_and_the_california_creati.php
Is it just me or does everybody else see Joe’s posting from the 13th as the last in the list of posts on this thread, on every page?
As it’s awesome. If it’s not a feature, please keep it in.
Don’t “fix” it.
I thought he just posted that as a response to everything. I didn’t notice any change from normal and expected behavior.
I see it too. The same thing occurs in other threads at times. For some reason a particular post keeps showing as the last post.
Quoting Judge Jones is a sign of desperation-
How about these:
He goes on to say:
In his book “Signature in the Cell” Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:
He goes on say pretty much the same thing I hve been saying for years- ID doesn’t say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information. After all the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
The book [Of Pandas and People] argues that the origin of new organisms is “in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent.” (from Wikipedia)
And you and other IDiots constantly argue against materialism, which means that you’re pushing immaterialism (i.e. a supernatural sky daddy god). Who do you think you’re fooling?
LoL! Quote-mining from wikipedia is your “argument”?
But yes, IDists say that information is neither matter nor energy. However it is obvious that the design is material, ie physical.
Can it exist without matter or energy? If not then it is a property.
Can energy and matter exist without information? If not then neither are a property, according to your “logic”.
But yes, information can exist without energy and matter.
Can energy and matter exist without information? If not then neither are a property, according to your “logic”.
But yes, information can exist without energy and matter.
Apparently you missed the quote marks. Do a search for those words and you’ll see where they originally came from.
And here is the Wikipedia page I referred to. Maybe you can show that I erroneously or dishonestly quote mined it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
Prove it.
Is information immaterial?
Where did information originally come from?
How and where is it stored?
Who or what originally designed/created it?
There’s no reason why the statement has to be reversible. All sports are pastimes, but not all pastimes are sports.
How does information exist withot energy and matter? Can you give some examples please.
Yes it does, and so does your war against materialism, and your pushing of immaterialism.
How do matter and energy exist without information?