One question for ID bigwigs?
slothrop
A guy I work with is involved in a big mega-church here in Chicago,
and they are going to have some "high-level speakers" (his words)
involved in an ID/evolution debate at their church next week. So my co-
worker asks me if I had a question or two that he would take to the
presentation, knowing that I sit here at work reading T.O.
I was going to bring up something more philosophy-of-science related,
such as the materialism inherent in the scientific method, but wanted
to know if anyone had any more technical questions that would be
better to ask such luminaries.
So if you had one question to ask a proponent of ID who claimed to
know what he was talking about, what would you ask? (And I mean
seriously, I'm not gonna write "Why are you guys such liars?" or
"How'd that Dover thing turn out?")
thanks,
slothrop
Timberwoof
<41cd396a-da6d-4f4c...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
slothrop <slothr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Since neither the Discovery Institute nor anyone else has published any
substantial work in this field in the past half-dozen years, since none
of it has been reviewed by other competent scientists, and since none of
it has contributed in any way to the benefit of science, technology, or
society as a whole, why are you trying to teach it to high school
science students?"
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what零 accepted by
the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
There is only one question that matters:
"What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how can we
test it using the scientific method?"
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Inez
> On Jul 24, 1:46 pm, slothrop <slothrop1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A guy I work with is involved in a big mega-church here in Chicago,
> > and they are going to have some "high-level speakers" (his words)
> > involved in an ID/evolution debate at their church next week. So my co-
> > worker asks me if I had a question or two that he would take to the
> > presentation, knowing that I sit here at work reading T.O.
> > I was going to bring up something more philosophy-of-science related,
> > such as the materialism inherent in the scientific method, but wanted
> > to know if anyone had any more technical questions that would be
> > better to ask such luminaries.
> > So if you had one question to ask a proponent of ID who claimed to
> > know what he was talking about, what would you ask? (And I mean
> > seriously, I'm not gonna write "Why are you guys such liars?" or
> > "How'd that Dover thing turn out?")
>
> There is only one question that matters:
>
> "What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how can we
> test it using the scientific method?"
I like Mr. Flank's question better than mine, but I think it might be
interesting to ask how "Information" is defined by the ID folks and
how they measure it.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I suspect the ID hack's "answer" to BOTH of our questions will be "we
don't advocate teaching ID theory -- all we want to do is teach the
controversy about the problems with evolution".
To which the obvious question would be "when did you STOP advocating
ID as an alternative scientifivc theory, and why?"
The answer to that question, of course, starts with a "D" and ends
with an "O-V-E-R".
And he won't want to talk about that . . . .
jensp...@hotmail.com
> "What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how can we
> test it using the scientific method?"
Precisely. It's my exprience that this questing will stop any ID
proponent.
Then after a pause to recovery they will start saying somthing that
doesn't answer the question. And when pressed for an answer they will
get angry to the verge of physical attack.
They idea is to never get sidetracked by what the are saying but keep
insisting they answer the question. It's quite funny.
J.O.
Inez
them even using the words "Intelligent Design." If they don't have a
theory and don't want one, what meaning does the term have?
raven1
What, in a sentence or three, is the theory of ID?
What testable predictions does it make?
What would falsify it?
How does one differentiate between naturally occurring complexity and
design, other than Argument from Personal Incredulity?
DJT
How about:
"If you were allowed to teach "Intelligent Design" in classrooms
tomorrow, what would you teach?
DJT
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
It DOESN'T have any meaning, now. In the wake of Dover, the IDers are
utterly desperate to AVOID using the words "intelligent design theory"
-- indeed they now try to pretend that "intelligent design theory"
never even happened, and their current "teach the controversy" crap
doesn't have ANYTHING to do with "intelligent design theory", no
sirree Bob.
It's just another example of their crashing dishonesty.
Cubist
>...if you had one question to ask a proponent of ID who claimed to
> know what he was talking about, what would you ask? (And I mean
> seriously, I'm not gonna write "Why are you guys such liars?" or
> "How'd that Dover thing turn out?")
'Somehow, somewhere, somebody intelligent did something.' ?"
Mark VandeWettering
"Who is doing research in ID and what are they doing?"
> thanks,
> slothrop
hersheyh
How does the theory of intelligent design differ from 'teach the
controversy' or 'some unspecified, but intelligent, something did
something somehow by some unspecified mechanism at some unspecified
place and time'? And if it differs, how do you test it and what is
your research program for doing so?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Dude, you stand in the presence of a master.
;)
B Richardson
phillip brown
What potential practical applications do they see coming out of ID?
Was the recent avian flu outbreak the result of the ID fiddling with
the avian flu virus? depending on the answer, follow up with 'How do
they know?' or 'How could we find out?'
Did the ID create HIV?
Is all biochemistry inherently designed?
that should keep them going for a while
phillip brown
louis14
Where's the ID-based flu vaccine?
Ron O
These types of sensible questions will not work in the environment
that they will be asked. The dishonest ID perps will just lie. They
may obfuscate the issue, but they will not answer the questions. They
know that they cannot. The plain and simple fact is that the guys
that perpetrated the teach intelligent design scam have admitted that
they came up short. Philip Johnson has admitted it, and even Meyer
that runs the ID scam out of the Discovery Institute has admitted that
teaching ID is "premature" at this time. Every ID supporter has to
face the fact that they guys that perpetrated the ID scam have a new
creationist scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. Same
guys, just dropping ID out of their vocabulary when they talk about
the new scam. Sure they still hawk ID, but they know it is worthless
for what they want to do.
Any ID supporter has to push the issue in the face of this reality.
Just take Sean Pitman as an example. It is so bad that he will not
even acknowledge that he ever claimed to have the science to teach
about intelligent design. When confronted by his claim he just runs
or barks out something irrelevant and runs.
If these guys are up front and honest about it they will inform the
cogregation that ID hasn't made the grade at this time, but there are
people seriously working on it. If they can get the last part out
without laughing. If they aren't honest about the reality of ID, it
would be my opinion that they are fair game to ask the simple
question: "If ID is all it is cracked up to be as good science, why
are the same guys that perpetrated the teach ID creationist scam
running a switch scam that does not mention that ID ever existed?"
Word it anyway you want, but it amounts to the same thing. The bait
and switch is being run on any creationist rube still stupid or
ignorant enough to swallow the ID junk.
If they deny the facts, ask them if they would support the local
school board teaching the science of intelligent design. If they
answer in the positive, just get your local school board to teach the
science of intelligent design and watch how fast the switch scam gets
run in.
There is no winning in this situation. The intelligent design
advocates either lie or they admit that they haven't got what they
claimed.
Ron Okimoto
TomS
<41cd396a-da6d-4f4c...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, slothrop
stated..."
Several people have mentioned my favorite, "what is the theory
of intelligent design?" What is intelligently designed? When?
How? (By "how", I just mean some simple things: whether
things were designed "from nothing" or were just changed from
earlier, undesigned things; whether they were changed according
to fixed rules or whether anything could happen; and so on.)
What is *not* intelligently designed and what is the difference?
But I'd also like to hear the response to questions whether
some of the most complex things in the world of life were
purposefully designed: The relationships between living things.
Whether the complex, specified evidence for billions of years
of life was purposefully designed that way. Whether the
complex, specified evidence of the tree of life was purposefully
designed that way. Whether the complex, specified similarities
between the bodies of humans and the bodies of chimps and other
apes was purposefully designed that way.
I wouldn't be so much interested in "what is the evidence for
intelligent design?", because I know that that would just be
an opportunity to avoid answering the question, and instead
drag out all the old stuff *against* evolution. No reason to
let the creationists set the agenda.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Robert Carnegie
Let's see...
"Isn't intelligent design about putting aside your Christian faith
before you look at scientific evidence, and if so then how can you
justify doing that?"
"Did you know that the Catholic Church holds that people who believe
that God's mysteries can be explained scientifically are anathema
people?" (It just came up here. I'm presuming this is correct.)
"Scientists go to work in white coats, and sometimes they get science
on their coats. Do you own a white coat, and may we see if you have
got any science on it?"
Of course these are questions to embarrass the ID speakers. If you
are more interested in profiting from the conversation immediately,
you could try, "Did you lock your car?"
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> >
> These types of sensible questions will not work in the environment
> that they will be asked. The dishonest ID perps will just lie. They
> may obfuscate the issue, but they will not answer the questions. They
> know that they cannot.
Well of COURSE. That's the whole POINT of asking them. Let them
demonstrate it in public.
:)
Victor Eijkhout
> knowing that I sit here at work reading T.O.
I'm shocked! Shocked!
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
slothrop
Thanks for all the replies! Very helpful...
slothrop
TomS
<66599550-a81f-49be...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, 'Rev Dr'
Lenny Flank stated..."
>
>On Jul 25, 7:48 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> These types of sensible questions will not work in the environment
>> that they will be asked. The dishonest ID perps will just lie. They
>> may obfuscate the issue, but they will not answer the questions. They
>> know that they cannot.
>
>
>Well of COURSE. That's the whole POINT of asking them. Let them
>demonstrate it in public.
>
>:)
OK, I realize that you have a smiley there, but ...
Politicians have known for a long time that it is extremely
easy and profitable not to answer direct questions. The only
surprising thing about this is how easy it is to get away
with this.
One problem is how to ask a question which is so clear and
simple and obvious, that it becomes difficult or embarrassing
not to answer the question.
Another problem is how to ask a question which does not
become an opportunity for going into a set speech on the
topic that they want to talk about. "Don't let the
opponent set the agenda."
I think that any question which asks about "what is the
evidence" is too much of a set-up for the creationists to
make their usual complaints about evolution, without it
being obvious that they are not offering evidence *for*
anything. The creationists have been doing this for so
long now, and they have so much practice at it, that such
a question is an ideal opportunity for them. Anyway, that's
my opinion.
Richard Clayton
Lots of clever responses to this thread, but in my opinion they're
missing one very important thing: In a typical pro-creationism or pro-
ID presentation, the creationists control the playing field. Debates
are not much better, as the audience is typically packed with people
sympathetic to creationism (particularly when they take place in a
mega-church, as above) and the format favors sound bites over in-depth
discussion.
Challenges like "What is the scientific theory of intelligent design,
and how can it be tested?" or "what research is being done in the
field of ID?" are insightful, but nothing will stop the creationist
from responding with a glib, superficial, and fundamentally dishonest
response. The first question, for example, could be answered with
something like "ID proposes that maybe, just MAYBE, we aren't all
meaningless atoms colliding, that there is a VALUE to human life!"
Sure, it's an inane lie, but the audience would eat it up.
Frank J
Tried to post this before TO went down. Hope it's not too late:
Given that it's a megachurch, I'll bet that the "IDer" is either a YEC
or an OEC who denies common descent. So the question I would ask is:
The only major ID advocate who has provided more than the fuzziest of
detail about his alternate "theory" , above and beyond the usual
arguments against "Darwinism," is Michael Behe. He agrees that life
has a ~4 billion history, and that humans share common ancestors with
many, possibly all, other species. Do you agree with him?
I would stay away from "philosophy of science" as it gives them much
more opportunity to spin. With my question, they either have to (1)
concede enough evolution to make their audience uncomfortable, (2)
concede that there are hopeless disagreements amond anti-evolutionists
ot (3) show blatant evasion tactics.
Granted, none of that will affect the hard-line fundamentalists, but
some of the more reasonable ones will take notice.