Yo, Pagano, remember that time Behe admitted the Intelligent Designer was god?

[zencycle]

Just because it's so funny to watch pagano whiff at fast balls, then stare in wonderment into left field thinking he actually hit the ball, let's do a quick review of the testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:

Under cross examination, Behe said:

"I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is in fact God."

This testimony was in response to being questioned about an article he wrote for Biology and Philosophy (November 2001, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 683–707) titled "Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution".

In "Reply", he sets up his conclusion that goddidit by starting with this:

" By “intelligent design” (ID) I mean to imply design beyond the simple laws of nature. That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are there other reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have been intentionally arranged, just as there are reasons beyond the laws of nature for concluding a mousetrap was designed? In my book, and in this article, whenever I refer to ID I mean this stronger sense of design-beyond laws."

Hmm..."beyond the laws of nature"....Then he moves into the actual identity of the designer:

"Currently we have knowledge of only one type of natural intelligent designer even remotely capable of conceiving such structures as are found in the cell, and that is a human. Our intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex. Extrapolating from this sample of one, it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture."

Gee, a 'supernatural designer'...followed by the big reveal....

" Perhaps intelligent design in biochemistry is some sort of an explanation,
but is it a “scientific” explanation if the designer is likely to be God? I
contend that it is."

wait...what? it's a scientific explanation that the designer is god?!?!?!?

But wait...there's more!

"if one thinks that the most plausible designer of life is God, then
is the hypothesis of intelligent design tantamount to invoking a miracle?
I think there are actually two questions here: 1) does [intelligent design] imply a miracle probably happened? and 2) if so, does [intelligent design] concern the miracle itself? Yes to the first, no to the second.

There you have it, folks. Behe admits god is the designer, and states intelligent design is therefore tantamount to a miracle.

Now Tony, we all know what you're going to write next:

'but but but....none of his research concluded god!'

While his research was in fact based on proving irreducible complexity rather than the existence of god, you made a blanket statement:

> These attempts to link ID Theory to God, Creationism or Religion in
> general are misbegotten, flawed and failed. They don't even get off the
> ground.

So, first we have the original developer of ID (Phillip Johnson) state flatly that the purpose of ID was to " remove the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."

Now we have Behe admitting that he thinks god _is_ the designer, that it's actually a scientific explanation proven by his reasoning, and the ID proves a miracle happened.

So Tony, the only person trying to say there is no link between ID Theory and god, creationism, or Religion is you. Anyone with any credibility in the ID field (if that's even possible) has firmly stated ID = creationism = religion.

Next I'll do a little research to find where Dembski makes the same claims, which will even further drive you into a tizzy of denial, whiffing at fastballs and staring whistfully off into left field when the ball is right behind you.

Tony Pagano - lying shitbag troll since age 11.

[John Harshman]

On 3/6/18 2:46 PM, zencycle wrote:
> Just because it's so funny to watch pagano whiff at fast balls, then stare in wonderment into left field thinking he actually hit the ball, let's do a quick review of the testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
>
> Under cross examination, Behe said:
>
> "I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is in fact God."
>
> This testimony was in response to being questioned about an article he wrote for Biology and Philosophy (November 2001, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 683–707) titled "Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution".
>
> In "Reply", he sets up his conclusion that goddidit by starting with this:
>
> " By “intelligent design” (ID) I mean to imply design beyond the simple laws of nature. That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are there other reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have been intentionally arranged, just as there are reasons beyond the laws of nature for concluding a mousetrap was designed? In my book, and in this article, whenever I refer to ID I mean this stronger sense of design-beyond laws."

No, that doesn't work for you, unless you think that design of a
mousetrap requires god. He's specifically excepting anything designed
from being due to the laws of nature. He's not trying to imply anything
supernatural there at all. Human design, alien design, divine design,
all so far the same. God doesn't enter into it until the next bit.

[zencycle]

It's relevant as context for the next bit. I was trying to make sure latecomers to the thread wouldn't have to go thread-chasing.

"If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture."

" Perhaps intelligent design in biochemistry is some sort of an explanation,
but is it a “scientific” explanation if the designer is likely to be God? I
contend that it is."

Q.E.D.

[jillery]

Serious question: What's the functional difference between divine
design and God's design?

IIUC Behe and other ID advocates distinguish between human design,
unguided natural design, and Intelligent Design. For ID to do what
its advocates advocate it does (did), it would necessarily be
supernatural, else it would necessarily be unguided natural design.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 14:46:21 -0800, zencycle wrote:


> Just because it's so funny to watch pagano whiff at fast balls, then
> stare in wonderment into left field thinking he actually hit the ball,
> let's do a quick review of the testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area
> School District:

************************INTRODUCTION***********************************
1. This is a slight improvement on Zencycle's last argument in that he
he focuses on the person of Behe who has actually offered an ID Theory.
Nonetheless it's easy for me to prevail because no one in the forum has
actually bothered to read "Darwin's Black Box."

2. To continue: While Zencycle produces Behe, the man, stating that God
is implicated (at some point in a chain of reasoning) Zencycle never
actually produces a quote where Behe says his theory directly concludes
"God."

3. As I pointed out in Zencycle's previous thread (Subject: "Answering
Paganos idiotic bluff call") Behe's theory no more directly implicates
God than does Darwin's theory directly implicate atheism. "God" and
"atheism" are surely logical conclusions, respectively, at some point in
a chain of reasoning but not directly from either theory. If Zencycle
can grasp this then he'll know more about ID Theory then the rest of his
brethren combined.

4. In order for Zencycle to show that Behe's ID Theory directly
implicates God he must produce premises from the theory itself to show
what the theory actually concludes. How can you accuse a theory of
concluding something unless you actually produce the theory's premises
and see for yourself what it concludes? As such everything below from
Zencycle doesn't hit its mark. I'll answer below but it will largely be
a waste of time.
**********************************************************************

>
> Under cross examination, Behe said:
>
> "I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I
> think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is in
> fact God."

1. Behe never denies that at some point, in some chain of reasoning
("from other perspectives"), that God is the designer. But he doesn't
say that "God" is a direct conclusion of his theory.

2. Dawkins, Provine and others say explicitly that the Darwinian Theory
lead them to conclude atheism. This doesn't mean that Darwinian Theory
directly concluded atheism. Until Zencycle understands this he wastes
his time and energy.

>
> This testimony was in response to being questioned about an article he
> wrote for Biology and Philosophy (November 2001, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp
> 683–707) titled "Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's
> Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution".
>
> In "Reply", he sets up his conclusion that goddidit by starting with
> this:
>
> " By “intelligent design” (ID) I mean to imply design beyond the simple
> laws of nature. That is, taking the laws of nature as given, are there
> other reasons for concluding that life and its component systems have
> been intentionally arranged, just as there are reasons beyond the laws
> of nature for concluding a mousetrap was designed? In my book, and in
> this article, whenever I refer to ID I mean this stronger sense of
> design-beyond laws."
>
> Hmm..."beyond the laws of nature"....Then he moves into the actual
> identity of the designer:

1. The issue is not that "God" is concluded, but "where" in the chain of
reasoning He is produced as a conclusion.

2. In a nutshell Behe's theory argues that "irreducibly complex" systems
(like the bacterial flagellum) are beyond the reach of the laws of
nature, random chance or a combination. From these premises the only
deductive conclusion that can be drawn is that "intelligent design" is
the only mode of causation left to explain their existence. His theory
can go no further. Any conclusion of God comes from the addition of
premises outside his theory.

3. Darwin made the reverse argument. He argued that if it could be
shown that the laws of nature, random chance or their combination could
explain the apparent design in biological systems then design could be
ruled out. He produced such a naturalistic mechanism allowing him only
one deductive conclusion----design was not necessary. His theory could
not go further. However others like Dawkins could certainly add a few
premises which would then allow a conclusion of atheism.

>
> "Currently we have knowledge of only one type of natural intelligent
> designer even remotely capable of conceiving such structures as are
> found in the cell, and that is a human. Our intelligence depends
> critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly
> complex. Extrapolating from this sample of one, it may be that all
> possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which
> themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural
> designer must get into the picture."
>
> Gee, a 'supernatural designer'...followed by the big reveal....

1. The problem for Zencycle is that all the premises about what "types
of intelligent designers" are possible aren't found in Behe's theory but
OUTSIDE of it.

2. Behe clarifies this in his final sentence by saying that only "at
some point" in a chain of reasoning is a supernatural designer brought
into the picture. Unfortunately there are no premises inside his theory
to do this. There is no doubt that his theory is in the chain of
reasoning however the conclusion of "God" is drawn outside of his theory.

3. Similarly Darwin's theory lacks any of the premises necessary to
conclude atheism. There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is in the chain
of reasons leading to atheism; however, the conclusion of atheism occurs
outside of Darwin's theory.

snip.



1. I've snipped the rest of Zencycle's post because my answers would
merely be repeated or similar.

2. In order for Zencycle to sustain an accusation that Behe's "Theory"
concludes God, he must open "Darwin's Black Box and produce the premises
from the book which lead directly to God.

3. I have the source and the necessary premises to conclude God are not
in it. But if you're serious this is what you must do. In the process
you'll learn and then know as much as I and more than the rest of your
brethren combined.

[zencycle]

Right...so you clip the part where Behe specifically states "is it a “scientific” explanation if the designer is likely to be God? I
contend that it is." 'cause that kind of ruins your whole argument.

And here you are moving goalposts again...tsk tsk tsk. At fist you made a comment about ID in general, then you wrote you didn't mean in general, you meant Behe himself never concluded god, now you write - 'oh, meant in his book'. All this shows is that you are backing further into your indefensible corner, and the fact that you keep tossing Darwinism into a discussion having nothing to do with it are merely more attempts at distraction.

I've directly refuted every one of your claims in in the face of you constantly retreating by moving the goalposts backwards (which you curiously characterize as _me_ backpeddaling), so, no, you don't get to tell me what I 'must do'.

So lets recap your antics.....When you wrote:

"These attempts to link ID Theory to God, Creationism or Religion in general are misbegotten, flawed and failed. They don't even get off the ground."

you didn't actually mean 'id theory...in general', even though you specifically used the term 'in general', so general comments about the purpose of ID theory from the guy that created do not apply, and you were actually writing specifically about Behe and Dembski, even though you never mentioned them in that thread (moving goalposts duly noted). Right?

And when Behe specifically wrote in his 'Reply' that his research in ID theory led him to believe that god was the designer , that still doesn't prove any link between ID theory and god, because Behe's white papers of book never mentioned god. Right?

And when Demski wrote a book that claimed -in the title of his book - that ID theory was the link between science and theology, and even stated in an interview:

"As for the apologetic value of ID, I see it mainly as a ground-clearing operation, getting rid of the obstacles that naturalism has placed in the way of people coming to take the possibility of God as a live option."

that somehow, in your deluded mind, still leaves your comments 'dembski never concluded god is the designer' and " These attempts to link ID Theory to God, Creationism or Religion in general are misbegotten, flawed and failed. They don't even get off the ground." valid. Right?

(BTW - I noticed you failed to muster even a comment on that thread. Have you finally realized the catcher is behind you holding the ball you so spectacularly whiffed?)

You know, based on the stellar ineptitude of the shitbag currently in the oval office, it's likely that his press secretary Sanders will be on her way out soon, just like everyone else who has had the misfortune of associating themselves with the shitbag in chief. They could really use a guy like you who can maintain a blatant lie directly in the face of contradicting evidence to take her place. And what's one more bloviating bag of shit in the cesspool that the white house has become anyway?

You've proven to everyone that you can't maintain a position, even while moving the goalposts. Such is the case with IDiots - constant backpeddling, moving the goalposts, and non-related distractions. We're done here. You're still a lying shitbag little troll.

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>
> Serious question: What's the functional difference between divine
> design and God's design?

There isn't one

>
> IIUC Behe and other ID advocates distinguish between human design,
> unguided natural design, and Intelligent Design. For ID to do what
> its advocates advocate it does (did), it would necessarily be
> supernatural, else it would necessarily be unguided natural design.

And that is specifically what behe states: "at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture."

[jillery]

To be accurate, and to pre-emotively refute a pseudo-skeptical
criticism, your quote above is preceded by "If so,". However, Behe's
conditional refers to various facts not in evidence, specifically that
the human brain depends on IC, and so not relevant to the fact of his
conclusion.

So Behe explicitly recognized ID's Designer is necessarily
supernatural. So did R.Dean, although he's currently hesitant to
admit it. To the best of my knowledge, no supporter of ID believes
otherwise.

Some assert the possible existence of pre-human intelligent agents.
But that only adds another metaphorical turtle, the origins of said
agents. It's epistemologically better and more honest to drop all
such ignorance-based speculations, and admit nobody knows the ultimate
origin of all things, and almost certainly will never know for
certain.

So IDists recognize ID requires a god, although not necessarily any
specific God as described by any specific ancient text, which refutes
Pagano's specific criticisms of your comments.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 9:30:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 03:57:41 -0800 (PST), zencycle
> >

> >And that is specifically what behe states: "at some point a supernatural
> >designer must get into the picture."
>
>
> To be accurate, and to pre-emotively refute a pseudo-skeptical
> criticism, your quote above is preceded by "If so,".

Behe attempts to cloak his god conclusion by dressing the issue up as a hypothetical with "if so", but he follows it up with:

"it is not plausible that the original
intelligent agent is a natural entity."

> Some assert the possible existence of pre-human intelligent agents.
> But that only adds another metaphorical turtle, the origins of said
> agents.

Douglas Hofstadter discussed meta-meta-meta.....agents in "Gödel, Escher, Bach:", albeit in the context of recursion theory.

> It's epistemologically better and more honest to drop all
> such ignorance-based speculations, and admit nobody knows the ultimate
> origin of all things, and almost certainly will never know for
> certain.

Which is a great deal more honest than the intellectually bankrupt ID 'theory'.

> So IDists recognize ID requires a god, although not necessarily any
> specific God as described by any specific ancient text, which refutes
> Pagano's specific criticisms of your comments.

Except that ID theory is was created by, and almost exclusively promoted by christians. They dishonestly claim - as pagano does - that the theory either isn't about the christian god or any god at all, yet they all claim to accept god as the creator (but of course it wasn't ID 'theory' that led them to that, obviously ;) )

[jillery]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:44:49 -0800 (PST), zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 9:30:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 03:57:41 -0800 (PST), zencycle
>> >
>> >And that is specifically what behe states: "at some point a supernatural
>> >designer must get into the picture."
>>
>>
>> To be accurate, and to pre-emotively refute a pseudo-skeptical
>> criticism, your quote above is preceded by "If so,".
>
>
>Behe attempts to cloak his god conclusion by dressing the issue up as a hypothetical with "if so", but he follows it up with:
>
>"it is not plausible that the original
>intelligent agent is a natural entity."
>
>> Some assert the possible existence of pre-human intelligent agents.
>> But that only adds another metaphorical turtle, the origins of said
>> agents.
>
>Douglas Hofstadter discussed meta-meta-meta.....agents in "Gödel, Escher, Bach:", albeit in the context of recursion theory.
>
>> It's epistemologically better and more honest to drop all
>> such ignorance-based speculations, and admit nobody knows the ultimate
>> origin of all things, and almost certainly will never know for
>> certain.
>
>Which is a great deal more honest than the intellectually bankrupt ID 'theory'.
>
>> So IDists recognize ID requires a god, although not necessarily any
>> specific God as described by any specific ancient text, which refutes
>> Pagano's specific criticisms of your comments.
>
>Except that ID theory is was created by, and almost exclusively promoted by christians.

My impression, and it's just an impression, is that ID is popular with
fundamentalist factions of Islam and Judaism and Christianity.

>They dishonestly claim - as pagano does - that the theory either isn't about the christian god or any god at all, yet they all claim to accept god as the creator (but of course it wasn't ID 'theory' that led them to that, obviously ;) )

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 02:09:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

And although we only have a sample of one (Kalkidas), I
suspect it's also popular among some "fundamentalist"
Hindus; it simply lends itself to fundamentalism of *any*
stripe which involves a "creator" deity.

>>They dishonestly claim - as pagano does - that the theory either isn't about the christian god or any god at all, yet they all claim to accept god as the creator (but of course it wasn't ID 'theory' that led them to that, obviously ;) )
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Ron Dean]

This is not the case! Those of us who accept intelligent design as valid
believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence to affirm the ID
hypothesis. But there is no known evidence which points to the identity
of the designer.
Those people who believe the designer is the Christian God base this
opinion strictly on faith. That's as far as I'm concerned is the
difference: ID is based on evidence, not faith, but there is no evidence
denoting the Identity of the designer only faith.
>
>

[freon96]

That's probably not the issue. Either ID is true or it is
not, we don't have to agree on the details, we don't even
have to know, reality is real regardless.

If one believes that ID implies God(s) then they will plugin
whichever God(s) they already accept. If one understands ID
to mean intelligent design then the issue isn't which God(s)
is responsible but that it happened at all. The problem of
the identity of the intelligent designer is premature,
important only to those having some agenda irrelevant to the
question.

First we would have to agree that intelligent design is a
plausible explanation. Since that explanation isn't
seriously discussed, agreement is impossible.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/7/18 9:03 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 3/7/2018 5:44 PM, zencycle wrote:

>> [...]

>> Except that ID theory is was created by, and almost exclusively
>> promoted by christians. They dishonestly claim - as pagano does - that
>> the theory either isn't about the christian god or any god at all, yet
>> they all claim to accept god as the creator (but of course it wasn't
>> ID 'theory' that led them to that, obviously ;) )
>>
> This is not the case! Those of us who accept intelligent design as valid
> believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence to affirm the ID
> hypothesis. But there is no known evidence which points to the identity
> of the designer.
> Those people who believe the designer is the Christian God base this
> opinion strictly on faith. That's as far as I'm concerned is the
> difference: ID is based on evidence, not faith, but there is no evidence
> denoting the Identity of the designer only faith.
>>

I think it is safe to say that you believe there is evidence for
intelligent design not because there is evidence (which there isn't),
but because religious beliefs require you to believe in design.

Those who accept Bigfoot as valid believe that there is sufficient
scientific evidence to affirm the Bigfoot hypothesis. That evidence
turns out to be faked photographs and footprints, hair that turns out to
come from dogs, sightings of distant bears standing upright, and other
such "evidence" which is not, by any stretch of the imagination,
evidence for a hominid Bigfoot creature. But the believers still regard
it to be scientific evidence. Not because it is evidence, but because
they are believers. The case for ID is no different.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/7/18 9:33 AM, freon96 wrote:
> [...]

> First we would have to agree that intelligent design is a
> plausible explanation. Since that explanation isn't
> seriously discussed, agreement is impossible.

I have discussed it many times. You just don't like the conclusion, so
you put the discussion out of your mind.

[freon96]

Since you don't accept the existence of bigfoot, all other
ideas you don't accept are of the same kind. This is handy
in that it relieves you of any obligation to think about
stuff you don't believe; your disbelief continues with no
possibility of challenge. Resorting to ridicule proves your
resistance to thought.

Bigfoot's existence has nothing to do with the possibility
of design in nature of course, so your attempt to compare
them discredits whatever else you might say. I'm being
charitable in pointing all this out since, it is possible
you don't understand the inherent idiocy of your remarks.
Now you know.

Bill

[jillery]

Your willingness to post truisms never ceases to amaze.

>If one believes that ID implies God(s) then they will plugin
>whichever God(s) they already accept. If one understands ID
>to mean intelligent design then the issue isn't which God(s)
>is responsible but that it happened at all. The problem of
>the identity of the intelligent designer is premature,
>important only to those having some agenda irrelevant to the
>question.
>
>First we would have to agree that intelligent design is a
>plausible explanation. Since that explanation isn't
>seriously discussed, agreement is impossible.
>
>Bill

Since ID is not a plausible explanation, it would be impossible to
discuss an agreement about it.

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:03:55 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course, since your belief there is sufficient scientific evidence
to affirm the ID hypothesis is also based on faith, you make no
meaningful distinction between yourself and those who believe the
designer is the Christian God.

[freon96]

What do you find implausible about ID?

Bill

[RonO]

The intelligent design scam is just a creationist scam that the
creationists are running on themselves. You know this as fact, so why
keep pretending that it was about the science? Where is the ID science
in the "best" evidence for IDiocy? Why run and try to misdirect the
argument?

The political scam was to pretend that science was the issue. They
apparently have stopped pretending because the ID perps don't even claim
that their "best" evidence is scientific evidence for IDiocy.

Really, make up some science out of the "best". Just putting up junk
that didn't make the best list is stupid until you can demonstrate that
it is better than the best or make some type of scientific argument out
of the IDiot "best".

> Those people who believe the designer is the Christian God base this
> opinion strictly on faith. That's as far as I'm concerned is the
> difference: ID is based on evidence, not faith, but there is no evidence
> denoting the Identity of the designer only faith.

Every single ID perp that sold you the ID/creationist scam know that the
big IDer is the Judeo Christian God of the Bible. Most of them have
admitted that. Where have you been?

What do you not understand about the current reality? There never was
any ID science. 5 of the top 6 "best" evidences for IDiocy failed the
Scientific creationists in their political ploy over 30 years ago and
the 6th one failed the ID perps in Dover and is just the "flagellum is a
designed machine" scientific creationist argument with IC thrown in on top.

So why keep lying about what IDiocy is at this time. There obviously is
no ID science worth calling science. Use the "Best" to demonstrate
otherwise. The ID perps could have put up this same list when the ID
scam outfit started over 22 years ago.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_feO9fmgROE/WGk3OrKPAwAJ

Ron Okimoto
>>
>>
>

[Mark Isaak]

Your point that I could be biased is, of course, valid. Your remark
that "this is handy in that it relieves you of any obligation to think
...", however, is baseless insult. I have several times changed my
opinions on issues as more evidence accumulated, and I am willing to do
so on the subjects of both Bigfoot and ID should the evidence so
indicate. But I have looked at and thought about the evidence on both
those subjects, and the evidence is strongly against each. If you have
evidence that says otherwise (vague feelings don't count), feel free to
present it. But I doubt you have any evidence for Bigfoot, and I know
you don't have any for ID.

[freon96]

I have perfected my indifference to bigfoot and UFOs and
most claims of the paranormal but I haven't seen any good
arguments against ID so it remains an open question (for
me). What most folks call evidence seems more like
confirmation bias and prejudice, something that matches what
we believe already.

The vehemently partisan blather that passes for reasoned
opinion is not the stuff of science but many posters believe
it is. Since this is the substance of the anti-ID diatribes,
any rational criticisms are lost in the noise.

Bill

[jillery]

What do you find plausible about ID?
What do you think is a good argument *for* ID?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 07 May 2018 15:06:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

You seem to have missed the crucial point regarding the lack
of evidence, which requires non-acceptance to anyone capable
of thinking rationally. (Note: "lack of acceptance" is *not*
equivalent to "unthinking rejection".) Does ignoring the
main point in favor of a strawman (no ridicule was posted)
prove your resistance to thought?

>Bigfoot's existence has nothing to do with the possibility
>of design in nature of course, so your attempt to compare
>them discredits whatever else you might say.

The lack of evidence for both is the similarity. Stop trying
to deflect the issue by posting irrelevant opinions.

> I'm being
>charitable in pointing all this out since, it is possible
>you don't understand the inherent idiocy of your remarks.
>Now you know.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 07 May 2018 19:41:46 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

Just curious...does the same apply to ghosts? There are no
really good arguments against them, either, beyond a lack of
objective evidence.

> What most folks call evidence seems more like
>confirmation bias and prejudice, something that matches what
>we believe already.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, biased and
wrong as they may be.

>The vehemently partisan blather that passes for reasoned
>opinion is not the stuff of science but many posters believe
>it is. Since this is the substance of the anti-ID diatribes,
>any rational criticisms are lost in the noise.

Wrong again; it's about the lack of evidence for both, not
"partisan blather" (unless, of course, you consider
requiring evidence for a claim to be "partisan blather"). So
do you have some actual objective evidence to present, or
are you just slinging mud, as usual?

[freon96]

So equating the notion of bigfoot with ID is legitimate? The
whole point was to insert ridicule into the discussion was
it not? You seem to believe that an absence of evidence for
some hypothesis means that it must be false which belief
seems as ridicule worthy as anything else said here.

Most theories of the sciences rely heavily on hypotheses
that rely on evidence that can only be inferred from
indirect and speculative evidence. The "objective" evidence
that is claimed to underpin these theories is not direct or
tangible or observable, it is a hint or suggestion of what
may, possibly be real. What we call evidence is that which
confirms our biases.

Bill

[freon96]

You included a belief in ghosts to ID - the ridicule
continues. The thing about ridicule is that it exists to
preclude all further discussion. The thing ridiculed is not
worth thinking about. It has a kind of juvenile feel to it,
like when some pouty teenager says, "whatever".

ID is rejected (ridiculed) because it requires a Designer.
Since this is sufficient cause to declare, "No evidence!",
no further discussion is necessary. It also has the happy
consequence of establishing naturalistic philosophy as the
default worldview. What a neat and very tidy mechanism for
creating orthodoxy.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

How about if you ignore the ridicule, and simply describe what you think is good evidence that the world (or life) was designed?

[freon96]

It's been amply demonstrated that ridicule is the standard
response to things people don't want to think about. Since
it has been decided that ID isn't worth thinking about, it
won't be.

I've proposed several lines of evidence over the years but,
while ridiculed, they haven't been discussed. One proposal
is that our existence as intelligent observers makes what we
observe a consequence of our perception. Through our
physical senses, we create the phenomena we sense which
makes nature just a way of seeing rather than a thing in
itself.

If we thought about it (no one here will of course), we
would recognize that our existence is on a continuum. We
experience time and space and "things" based on our place on
the continuum. We assume that the scale of our existence is
the only one, what appears to us as real is really real. We
know better on one level, but we only believe what we
experience.

We exist in a very limited bubble of possible experiences
while telling ourselves that our knowledge is sufficient to
know it all. We are a complex of ideas and impressions that
neither exist objectively nor explain our existence. We are
not the same as nature, we're a kind of emanation of nature
that we insist is all there is.

This is not the kind of phenomenon we can attribute solely
to nature, it's something that is beyond and other than
nature in the normal sense. It could be magic bequeathed to
us from some undiscovered dimension. It could be a computer
simulation or telepathic aliens but it isn't nature in any
sense that science might recognize.

The scale and scope of our awareness can't be reduced to
mindless particles and insensible forces. This doesn't prove
the existence of a Designer of course, but it does create a
question worth considering. Since any naturalistic
explanation will be hopelessly absurd, we need to consider
other options. Or, far more likely, we can just ridicule the
whole concept.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

I don't find dissatisfaction with naturalism to be positive evidence for design.

[jillery]

And when you posted that proposal, others replied that it doesn't
explain how things happened before we were around to observe them. I
don't recall that you "discussed" that criticism. Will you do so now?

>If we thought about it (no one here will of course), we
>would recognize that our existence is on a continuum. We
>experience time and space and "things" based on our place on
>the continuum. We assume that the scale of our existence is
>the only one, what appears to us as real is really real. We
>know better on one level, but we only believe what we
>experience.
>
>We exist in a very limited bubble of possible experiences
>while telling ourselves that our knowledge is sufficient to
>know it all. We are a complex of ideas and impressions that
>neither exist objectively nor explain our existence. We are
>not the same as nature, we're a kind of emanation of nature
>that we insist is all there is.

And when you posted that proposal, others replied that it doesn't
explain how you exclude yourself from this alleged
universal-except-for-you ignorance. I don't recall that you
"discussed" that criticism. Will you do so now?

>This is not the kind of phenomenon we can attribute solely
>to nature, it's something that is beyond and other than
>nature in the normal sense. It could be magic bequeathed to
>us from some undiscovered dimension. It could be a computer
>simulation or telepathic aliens but it isn't nature in any
>sense that science might recognize.

And when you posted that proposal, others replied that it could be
lots of things, But to propose a cause without evidence and which
suggests no constrained effects, provides epistemological dead-end. I
don't recall that you "discussed" that criticism. Will you do so now?

>The scale and scope of our awareness can't be reduced to
>mindless particles and insensible forces. This doesn't prove
>the existence of a Designer of course, but it does create a
>question worth considering. Since any naturalistic
>explanation will be hopelessly absurd, we need to consider
>other options. Or, far more likely, we can just ridicule the
>whole concept.

And when you posted that proposal, others replied that you can't
reasonably claim to *know* that our awareness can't be caused (not
reduced to) by mindless particles and insensate forces, especially
when you deny the veracity of equivalent intuited knowledge in others.
I don't recall that you "discussed" that criticism. Will you do so
now?

[freon96]

Naturalism works for some questions but it doesn't work well
as a universal explanation for everything. The sciences find
it a useful approach and some find it a satisfying
philosophy but it's incomplete as the One True Way.

The way the universe has configured itself favors non-
sentient spheres and gas clouds, that's kind of the default.
Living things are (based on the evidence) rare.

Intelligent observers are even more scarce. Intelligent
observers with dexterous hands, opposable thumbs and a whole
array of really useful means of manipulating their
environment are singular.

This gap between the particle structure of physical stuff
and the totally unlikely capabilities of humans, isn't
explained through naturalism. This is obvious but can be
easily ignored, the universe won't care.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Yes, I understand that you think naturalism is inadequate to explain some things. But that is not evidence for a designer.

[freon96]

This started as a response to someone who implied that ID
can't be true because it requires a God(s). It's black or
white: a God(s) exists and has some part in the universe
(ID) or there is no God(s) and nature creates itself. I
didn't invent this dichotomy, in fact I reject it entirely.

Most posters here accept the fallacy of mutually exclusive
alternatives so, for them, ID is impossible. Too dogmatic
for my tastes. I can accept that nature can, maybe, account
for physical phenomena but I can't ignore the, apparently
magical, existence of intelligent human observers. Two
questions, two answers.

Bill

[RonO]

What happened to your claim that you were no longer an IDiot? If
nothing really exists why even claim to have seen anything that pertains
to IDiocy?

If the 6 "best" that the ID perps put up is not convincing evidence
against the ID scam, what is convincing evidence?

Really, make something out of the 6 "best".

Ron Okimoto

[freon96]

jillery wrote:

> On Tue, 08 May 2018 16:53:38 -0500, freon96
> <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Bill Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 3:35:03 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Mon, 07 May 2018 19:41:46 -0500, the following
>>>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by freon96
>>>> > <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>>> >
>>>> >>Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 5/7/18 1:06 PM, freon96 wrote:
>>>> >>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> On 5/7/18 9:03 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> On 3/7/2018 5:44 PM, zencycle wrote:

>>>> >>>>>>> [...]Ron O

>>>> >>>>>>> Except that ID theory is was created by, and
>>>> >>>>>>> almost exclusively promoted by christians. They
>>>> >>>>>>> dishonestly claim - as pagano does - that the
>>>> >>>>>>> theory either isn't about the christian god or
>>>> >>>>>>> any god at all, yet they all claim to accept
>>>> >>>>>>> god as the creator (but of course it wasn't ID
>>>> >>>>>>> 'theory' that led them to that, obviously ;) )
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> This is not the case! Those of us who accept
>>>> >>>>>> intelligent design as valid believe that there
>>>> >>>>>> is sufficient scientific evidence to affirm the
>>>> >>>>>> ID hypothesis. But there is no known evidence
>>>> >>>>>> which points to the identity of the designer.
>>>> >>>>>> Those people who believe the designer is the
>>>> >>>>>> Christian God base this opinion strictly on
>>>> >>>>>> faith. That's as far as I'm concerned is the
>>>> >>>>>> difference: ID is based on evidence, not faith,
>>>> >>>>>> but there is no evidence denoting the Identity
>>>> >>>>>> of the designer only faith.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>

>>>> >>>>> I think it is safe to say Ron Othat you believe

The point was that intelligent observers are a departure
from the development of the universe prior to their
emergence.

>
>

>>If we thought about it (no one here will of course), we
>>would recognize that our existence is on a continuum. We
>>experience time and space and "things" based on our place
>>on the continuum. We assume that the scale of our
>>existence is the only one, what appears to us as real is
>>really real. We know better on one level, but we only
>>believe what we experience.
>>
>>We exist in a very limited bubble of possible experiences
>>while telling ourselves that our knowledge is sufficient
>>to know it all. We are a complex of ideas and impressions
>>that neither exist objectively nor explain our existence.
>>We are not the same as nature, we're a kind of emanation
>>of nature that we insist is all there is.
>
>
> And when you posted that proposal, others replied that it
> doesn't explain how you exclude yourself from this alleged
> universal-except-for-you ignorance. I don't recall that
> you
> "discussed" that criticism. Will you do so now?

I never excluded myself. How could I?

>
>
>>This is not the kind of phenomenon we can attribute solely
>>to nature, it's something that is beyond and other than
>>nature in the normal sense. It could be magic bequeathed
>>to us from some undiscovered dimension. It could be a
>>computer simulation or telepathic aliens but it isn't
>>nature in any sense that science might recognize.
>
>
> And when you posted that proposal, others replied that it
> could be
> lots of things, But to propose a cause without evidence
> and which
> suggests no constrained effects, provides epistemological
> dead-end. I
> don't recall that you "discussed" that criticism. Will
> you do so now?

That's just argumentative. ID doesn't preclude any current
point of view except atheism.

>
>
>>The scale and scope of our awareness can't be reduced to
>>mindless particles and insensible forces. This doesn't
>>prove the existence of a Designer of course, but it does
>>create a question worth considering. Since any
>>naturalistic explanation will be hopelessly absurd, we
>>need to consider other options. Or, far more likely, we
>>can just ridicule the whole concept.
>
>
> And when you posted that proposal, others replied that you
> can't reasonably claim to *know* that our awareness can't
> be caused (not reduced to) by mindless particles and
> insensate forces, especially when you deny the veracity of
> equivalent intuited knowledge in others.
> I don't recall that you "discussed" that criticism. Will
> you do so now?

It must be intuited knowledge; something that becomes
obvious if thought about.


Bill

[freon96]

I never claimed to be a proponent of ID so I never had to
deny it. This attempt to discredit my posts probably works
for some folks here however. What I have said is that I find
the hypothesis plausible. This is, partly, because I find
some serious limitations to the doctrine of naturalism. To
me there is room for discussion.

>
> If the 6 "best" that the ID perps put up is not convincing
> evidence against the ID scam, what is convincing evidence?
>
> Really, make something out of the 6 "best".

Atheism is not an argument.

Bill

[RonO]

How long have you supported the ID scam? Weren't you an IDiot on ARN
before the ID perps started running the bait and switch scam? That was
over 16 years ago. You are the IDiot on TO that claimed that he knew of
some ID researchers other than the ones at the Discovery Institute that
had the real ID science, but you never put up any evidence that any
legitimate IDiots were doing any legitimate ID science anywhere. How
can you lie like you did above when you have that kind of history here?

You are also the IDiot that started to claim that nothing really exists,
so your claims about serious limitations of naturalism are so far out
from that, that how can you seriously make such a claim. How can
someone like you find any serious limitations in something that doesn't
even exist for you? The reason that you were an IDiot all those years
is because you wanted your religious beliefs to be equivalent to the
science. IDiocy came up short. Any limitations to what you call
naturalism should first be applied to why you wanted to claim legitimacy
for something that was never science. What is not as good as your own
not good enough? That is what you are stuck with.

Well, it may be that the 6 "best" did something if it snapped you out of
your "nothing really exists" routine. The 6 "best" are just as bogus as
they were before the ID scam unit at the Discovery Institute existed.
IDiots should be outraged at what the Discovery Institute admitted to 6
months ago, but it is likely that any iDiots that are left already knew
that the game was up years ago. Why didn't any of you wonder why the ID
perps never clearly stated what they had years ago? Why weren't there
any protests about the bogus junk 6 months ago. Look at Pags. He was
the only IDiot that stood up and claimed that the junk was bogus and
that it wasn't really the "best" that IDiocy had. Isn't it sad that an
IDiot as lost as Pags was the only IDiot to try to claim that there was
something better, and that the ID perps were wrong?

6 months with no retraction by the Discovery Institute and look what you
are claiming. Lying about the past isn't going to change the present.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 08 May 2018 20:20:56 -0500, freon96 <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>>It's been amply demonstrated that ridicule is the standard
>>>response to things people don't want to think about. Since
>>>it has been decided that ID isn't worth thinking about, it
>>>won't be.
>>>
>>>I've proposed several lines of evidence over the years
>>>but, while ridiculed, they haven't been discussed. One
>>>proposal is that our existence as intelligent observers
>>>makes what we observe a consequence of our perception.
>>>Through our physical senses, we create the phenomena we
>>>sense which makes nature just a way of seeing rather than
>>>a thing in itself.
>>
>>
>> And when you posted that proposal, others replied that it doesn't
>> explain how things happened before we were around to
>> observe them. I don't recall that you "discussed" that criticism. Will
>> you do so now?
>
>The point was that intelligent observers are a departure
>from the development of the universe prior to their
>emergence.

And it was pointed out before that intelligent observers can't be a

"departure" from the development of the universe prior to their

emergence, that we couldn't create anything before we existed.

>>>If we thought about it (no one here will of course), we
>>>would recognize that our existence is on a continuum. We
>>>experience time and space and "things" based on our place
>>>on the continuum. We assume that the scale of our
>>>existence is the only one, what appears to us as real is
>>>really real. We know better on one level, but we only
>>>believe what we experience.
>>>
>>>We exist in a very limited bubble of possible experiences
>>>while telling ourselves that our knowledge is sufficient
>>>to know it all. We are a complex of ideas and impressions
>>>that neither exist objectively nor explain our existence.
>>>We are not the same as nature, we're a kind of emanation
>>>of nature that we insist is all there is.
>>
>>
>> And when you posted that proposal, others replied that it
>> doesn't explain how you exclude yourself from this alleged
>> universal-except-for-you ignorance. I don't recall that you
>> "discussed" that criticism. Will you do so now?
>
>I never excluded myself. How could I?

Since you asked, when you claim others "know it all" but your sweeping
claims are excluded, that's how you exclude yourself. You're welcome.

>>>This is not the kind of phenomenon we can attribute solely
>>>to nature, it's something that is beyond and other than
>>>nature in the normal sense. It could be magic bequeathed
>>>to us from some undiscovered dimension. It could be a
>>>computer simulation or telepathic aliens but it isn't
>>>nature in any sense that science might recognize.
>>
>>
>> And when you posted that proposal, others replied that it
>> could be lots of things, But to propose a cause without evidence
>> and which suggests no constrained effects, provides epistemological
>> dead-end. I don't recall that you "discussed" that criticism. Will
>> you do so now?
>
>That's just argumentative.

Actually, proposing a cause without evidence is argumentative.
Pointing out its vacuity is a responsible observation.

>ID doesn't preclude any current point of view except atheism.

Your comment above is an unresponsive claim. The point you made is
that our perceptions are from beyond nature. How do you know this?
How are you not another one of those who "know it all"?

>>>The scale and scope of our awareness can't be reduced to
>>>mindless particles and insensible forces. This doesn't
>>>prove the existence of a Designer of course, but it does
>>>create a question worth considering. Since any
>>>naturalistic explanation will be hopelessly absurd, we
>>>need to consider other options. Or, far more likely, we
>>>can just ridicule the whole concept.
>>
>>
>> And when you posted that proposal, others replied that you
>> can't reasonably claim to *know* that our awareness can't
>> be caused (not reduced to) by mindless particles and
>> insensate forces, especially when you deny the veracity of
>> equivalent intuited knowledge in others.
>> I don't recall that you "discussed" that criticism. Will
>> you do so now?
>
>It must be intuited knowledge; something that becomes
>obvious if thought about.

Your comment above is an unresponsive claim. The point you made is
that our awareness can't be caused by mindless particles and insensate
forces. Other people have thought about that and came to conclusions
contrasting yours. How is your intuition any better than theirs?

[Ron Dean]

On 5/7/2018 12:33 PM, freon96 wrote:
> Ron Dean wrote:
>
>> On 3/7/2018 5:44 PM, zencycle wrote:

>>> Except that ID theory is was created by, and almost
>>> exclusively promoted by christians. They dishonestly
>>> claim - as pagano does - that the theory either isn't
>>> about the christian god or any god at all, yet they all
>>> claim to accept god as the creator (but of course it
>>> wasn't ID 'theory' that led them to that, obviously ;) )
>>>
>> This is not the case! Those of us who accept intelligent
>> design as valid believe that there is sufficient
>> scientific evidence to affirm the ID hypothesis. But there
>> is no known evidence which points to the identity of the
>> designer. Those people who believe the designer is the
>> Christian God base this opinion strictly on faith. That's
>> as far as I'm concerned is the difference: ID is based on
>> evidence, not faith, but there is no evidence denoting the

>> Identity of the designer only faith.
>
> That's probably not the issue. Either ID is true or it is
> not, we don't have to agree on the details, we don't even
> have to know, reality is real regardless. >

The point is we examine evidence as presented by scientist and
interpret this evidence as implying intelligent design.
The discoveries of precise values for several cosmological
constants are seen as evidence of a tuner. The enormous
complexity and information contained in DNA is far greater
than complexity or information under any other condition.
The fossil record is not one predicted by Darwin of gradual
change over vast spans of time, but rather the record shows
that sudden appearance of new species followed by long
periods of stasis. The ancient origin of homebox genes, the
"highly conserved" nature of these master control genes and
the universality throughout the animal kingdom suggest
purpose and planning.We can point to such evidence produced
science as the basis for the ID hypothesis. By contrast
there is no scientific evidence anyone can point to as evidence
for the identity of the designer.

>
> If one believes that ID implies God(s) then they will plugin
> whichever God(s) they already accept. If one understands ID
> to mean intelligent design then the issue isn't which God(s)
> is responsible but that it happened at all. The problem of
> the identity of the intelligent designer is premature,
> important only to those having some agenda irrelevant to the
> question.
>

But as I pointed out it entirely a matter of belief and faith.

>
> First we would have to agree that intelligent design is a
> plausible explanation. Since that explanation isn't
> seriously discussed, agreement is impossible.
>

It is discussed by scientist. Many are skeptical, but there are
a few who are open to the possibility.
>
> Bill
>

[Bill Rogers]

My disagreement is that I don't see the existence of humans as magical. For me, unexplained things are just unexplained things. Evidence for a designer would require positive evidence for the existence and work of the designer, not just the observation that some things are currently unexplained.

[Mark Isaak]

Problem is, absolutely anything and everything can be interpreted as
implying intelligent design. The bacterial flagellum is complicated?
Intelligent design! Thousands of people die from bacterial infection
via food poisoning? Intelligent design! The Earth supports life?
Intelligent design! Venus does not support life? Intelligent design!
A bird dropping fell at a certain spot on my windshield? Intelligent
design!

"Can be interpreted as implying" does not make something evidence. You
need an a priori declaration of what objective, detectable traits
distinguish intelligent design from not intelligent design. Since such
a standard is theologically repugnant, I don't see intelligent design
ever appearing as science.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/8/18 4:46 PM, freon96 wrote:
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> It's been amply demonstrated that ridicule is the
>>> standard response to things people don't want to think
>>> about. Since it has been decided that ID isn't worth
>>> thinking about, it won't be.

"I believe it because it is ridiculous."

So what? A recipe for tollhouse cookies does not work well as a
universal explanation for everything, either. Do you, therefore, want
to do away with tollhouse cookie recipes (and, for the same reason, all
other recipes)?

Never mind, I know your answer already. You want to invalidate any
information which shows any indication of being useful.

[Mark Isaak]

Why do you think I would want to ridicule Bigfoot? I rather enjoy the
folklore around it. My point is simply that Bigfoot, like ID, does not
get any support from evidence, only from non-evidence-based belief.

[freon96]

Bill Rogers wrote:

...

>> This started as a response to someone who implied that ID
>> can't be true because it requires a God(s). It's black or
>> white: a God(s) exists and has some part in the universe
>> (ID) or there is no God(s) and nature creates itself. I
>> didn't invent this dichotomy, in fact I reject it
>> entirely.
>>
>> Most posters here accept the fallacy of mutually
>> exclusive alternatives so, for them, ID is impossible.
>> Too dogmatic for my tastes. I can accept that nature can,
>> maybe, account for physical phenomena but I can't ignore
>> the, apparently magical, existence of intelligent human
>> observers. Two questions, two answers.
>>
>> Bill
>
> My disagreement is that I don't see the existence of
> humans as magical. For me, unexplained things are just
> unexplained things. Evidence for a designer would require
> positive evidence for the existence and work of the
> designer, not just the observation that some things are
> currently unexplained.

There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age assumes
omniscience so we always have an answer. We may disagree
with or reject an answer yet accept that answers are
inevitable. This is based on the certainty that all that
exists is of the same kind, stuff that can be investigated
with the same techniques and assumptions.

We don't know if any of this is true, we believe it and
ignore any challenge to this doctrine. We have confirmed
that most of what we observe is physical, something we can
tinker with. We have also appended a philosophical tenet
that requires us to believe that is all there is. It is this
philosophy that informs our conclusions.

We also know that the part of us that experiences things is
not tangible, not accessible to the instruments we use to
quantify nature. It's stuff of a different kind. My
experience is that mind and body are not the same.
Intelligent observation is not a physical phenomenon but
something additional, something beyond mere measurement.

It isn't our environment that we believe we investigate but
our perception of it and that is determined by what we think
we know before any investigation.

Bill

[freon96]

Does that mean that everything you believe is based entirely
on tangible, verifiable evidence? You feel no uncertainty or
ambiguity about anything? Why do you believe that some
things are believable and others are not? What are your
criteria?

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 08 May 2018 13:23:10 -0500, the following appeared

No, Sparky, the point was that *neither one has any
objective evidence in support*. I don't know how many times
this has to be noted before you can grasp it.

>Most theories of the sciences rely heavily on hypotheses
>that rely on evidence that can only be inferred from
>indirect and speculative evidence. The "objective" evidence
>that is claimed to underpin these theories is not direct or
>tangible or observable, it is a hint or suggestion of what
>may, possibly be real. What we call evidence is that which
>confirms our biases.

You obviously have rather unique ideas of the meanings of
the words you casually sling around, such as "speculative",
"tangible" and "observable".

The fact that you ignore the objective evidence which is
presented doesn't make it non-objective, except to someone
who's made the claim that *everything* is subjective.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 08 May 2018 14:31:47 -0500, the following appeared

It's not "ridicule"; it's another example of something for
which fairly widespread belief exists, but no objective
evidence does. Try to understand that.

> The thing about ridicule is that it exists to
>preclude all further discussion. The thing ridiculed is not
>worth thinking about. It has a kind of juvenile feel to it,
>like when some pouty teenager says, "whatever".
>
>ID is rejected (ridiculed) because it requires a Designer.

No, ID is rejected because there's no evidence anything in
nature was designed, and especially not by anyone even as
competent as humans.

>Since this is sufficient cause to declare, "No evidence!",

No, the lack of evidence does that quite well all by itself.

>no further discussion is necessary. It also has the happy
>consequence of establishing naturalistic philosophy as the
>default worldview. What a neat and very tidy mechanism for
>creating orthodoxy.

As far as I'm able to determine from your posts, any
agreement among scientists is prima facie evidence of a
desire to create dogma; the idea that they may agree due to
the preponderance of evidence is completely ignored. And
since your pet conjectures have no objective evidence in
support there is obviously collusion to suppress them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 9 May 2018 08:23:43 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

I made that point to him (again). Let's see if he ignores it
(again).

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> This started as a response to someone who implied that ID
> >> can't be true because it requires a God(s). It's black or
> >> white: a God(s) exists and has some part in the universe
> >> (ID) or there is no God(s) and nature creates itself. I
> >> didn't invent this dichotomy, in fact I reject it
> >> entirely.
> >>
> >> Most posters here accept the fallacy of mutually
> >> exclusive alternatives so, for them, ID is impossible.
> >> Too dogmatic for my tastes. I can accept that nature can,
> >> maybe, account for physical phenomena but I can't ignore
> >> the, apparently magical, existence of intelligent human
> >> observers. Two questions, two answers.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > My disagreement is that I don't see the existence of
> > humans as magical. For me, unexplained things are just
> > unexplained things. Evidence for a designer would require
> > positive evidence for the existence and work of the
> > designer, not just the observation that some things are
> > currently unexplained.
>
> There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age assumes
> omniscience so we always have an answer.

Huh? You may assume omniscience, most of the rest of us don't.

>We may disagree
> with or reject an answer yet accept that answers are
> inevitable. This is based on the certainty that all that
> exists is of the same kind, stuff that can be investigated
> with the same techniques and assumptions.

No; the assumption is that only stuff that can be investigated with naturalistic techniques can be investigated with naturalistic techniques - and that seems a fairly good assumption.

>
> We don't know if any of this is true, we believe it and
> ignore any challenge to this doctrine.

Not sure what doctrine you are attributing to "we." But since you seem to attribute lots of stuff to posters here that they've never actually said I rather doubt it matter what exactly ou mean by "this doctrine."

>We have confirmed
> that most of what we observe is physical, something we can
> tinker with. We have also appended a philosophical tenet
> that requires us to believe that is all there is. It is this
> philosophy that informs our conclusions.

Once again, speak for yourself.

>
> We also know that the part of us that experiences things is
> not tangible, not accessible to the instruments we use to
> quantify nature.

You may know that, though I don't know how you could, but "we" don't know that.

>It's stuff of a different kind. My
> experience is that mind and body are not the same.
> Intelligent observation is not a physical phenomenon but
> something additional, something beyond mere measurement.

OK, you are a dualist. That philosophical bias determines how you interpret evidence.

>
> It isn't our environment that we believe we investigate but
> our perception of it and that is determined by what we think
> we know before any investigation.

Exactly. What you think you know, about the non-physical nature of your experience, determines what sort of evidence you can see, and how you interpret it. I cannot help you if you are locked in by your philosophical biases.

>
> Bill

[freon96]

The point was that, by comparing two things as being equal,
each has the attributes of the other. If one of those things
is universally rejected as absurd, the other becomes
likewise absurd. Hence, ridicule by association. My point
was about ridicule which non-ridiculous people will see with
little effort.

>
>>Most theories of the sciences rely heavily on hypotheses
>>that rely on evidence that can only be inferred from
>>indirect and speculative evidence. The "objective"
>>evidence that is claimed to underpin these theories is not
>>direct or tangible or observable, it is a hint or
>>suggestion of what may, possibly be real. What we call
>>evidence is that which confirms our biases.
>
> You obviously have rather unique ideas of the meanings of
> the words you casually sling around, such as
> "speculative", "tangible" and "observable".
>
> The fact that you ignore the objective evidence which is
> presented doesn't make it non-objective, except to someone
> who's made the claim that *everything* is subjective.

I pointed out, in this thread, that existence is not some
"thing" but rather an accumulation of pseudo-things like
divisible "particles". We can point to no one "thing" that
has actual existence, something that is so fundamental,
indivisible and basic that it is really real. What we see
are clouds of these composite entities that, as the scale
increases, acquire an appearance of substance. Reality as we
experience it just ain't there.

Bill

[freon96]

Does this qualification apply in all cases? Shouldn't we
therefore, abandon searches for life elsewhere? How about
intelligent life? How about SETI and the belief that
advanced technological might communicate with us? A complete
absence of evidence hasn't slowed anyone down.

The difference is that a search for ET is considered
scientific so evidence isn't really necessary. Evidence is
believed to possibly exist because the worldview of those
believing in ET allows it. It is, therefore, a belief in
things unseen making it indistinguishable from ID.

>
>>no further discussion is necessary. It also has the happy
>>consequence of establishing naturalistic philosophy as the
>>default worldview. What a neat and very tidy mechanism for
>>creating orthodoxy.
>
> As far as I'm able to determine from your posts, any
> agreement among scientists is prima facie evidence of a
> desire to create dogma; the idea that they may agree due
> to the preponderance of evidence is completely ignored.
> And since your pet conjectures have no objective evidence
> in support there is obviously collusion to suppress them.

What I consistently said is that the philosophy upon which
science depends, is prima facie evidence that bias
influences what will be considered credible. You can't see
the bias because it's too obvious, like the nose on your
face.

Bill

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 May 2018 02:26:04 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

How nice of you to again present your alleged evidence for ID.

Of course, some scientists claim the values of the cosmological
constants, the complexity and information of DNA, punctuated
equilibrium in the fossil record, the origins of master control genes,
are evidence of ID, but most do not, particularly not the ones you
have cited in the past, ex. Gould, Rees.

>> If one believes that ID implies God(s) then they will plugin
>> whichever God(s) they already accept. If one understands ID
>> to mean intelligent design then the issue isn't which God(s)
>> is responsible but that it happened at all. The problem of
>> the identity of the intelligent designer is premature,
>> important only to those having some agenda irrelevant to the
>> question.
> >
>But as I pointed out it entirely a matter of belief and faith.

And as I pointed out, so is your belief in your scientific evidence.

>> First we would have to agree that intelligent design is a
>> plausible explanation. Since that explanation isn't
>> seriously discussed, agreement is impossible.
> >
>It is discussed by scientist. Many are skeptical, but there are
>a few who are open to the possibility.

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the
Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl
Sagan.

[freon96]

It seems significant that you, and others, talk about
anything except the original point, to wit: the question of
ID. What next, my grammar or spelling?

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Not sure what you're complaining about. I asked you about your evidence for ID. You listed things for which you feel there's no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. I countered that I do not see the lack of a current satisfactory naturalistic explanation for something as evidence of a designer. You, yourself, then brought up (unsupported) claims that "we," whoever "we" are so convinced of our own omniscience that we dogmatically stick to some doctrine (guess you mean philosophical naturalism, but you didn't say explicitly), and that "our" philosophical biases prevent us from seeing evidence for anything else. I simply countered that your own philosophical biases as a dualist determine that you will see any evidence only in a way that supports your pre-existing beliefs - that's the sort of claim you yourself make all the time.

If the discussion veered away from evidence for ID the fault is yours; I only answered points you, yourself, raised. Any time you want to talk about specific, positive evidence for a designer, as opposed to listing things currently unexplained by science to your satisfaction, go ahead. But if you go off on a tangent, don't come round complaining that nobody sticks to the subject.

>
> Bill

[Ron Dean]

One problem I have with critics pf Intelligent design is that they
assert issues and circumstances which does not represent the views of
those who accept the ID hypothesis. Such views would never be advanced
nor defended by IDist.

>
> "Can be interpreted as implying" does not make something evidence.  You
> need an a priori declaration of what objective, detectable traits
> distinguish intelligent design from not intelligent design.  Since such
> a standard is theologically repugnant, I don't see intelligent design
> ever appearing as science.
>

As far as I concerned ID has nothing to do with theology. It doesn't
rely of theology, it does not proclaim theology, it doesn't represent
theology.

[Ron Dean]

On 5/7/2018 4:38 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:03:55 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

> Of course, since your belief there is sufficient scientific evidence
> to affirm the ID hypothesis is also based on faith, you make no
> meaningful distinction between yourself and those who believe the
> designer is the Christian God.
>
I presented you with what I consider evidence advanced by scientist
which I consider the ID hypothesis the best explanation of the evidence.
This evidence is not based on faith. Conversely, there is no known
evidence which points to the idenitity of the designer, so anyone who
believes the designer is the Christian God bases the upon faith not
evidence.

[Mark Isaak]

You're probably right, but that only means that the IDists are
antiscientific in willfully ignoring equivalent evidence if it does not
directly support their views. I can't imagine any valid argument that
would make people think Earth was designed and Venus wasn't, or that the
bacterial flagellum was designed but its efficiency in making the
bacterium a successful parasite wasn't.

>> "Can be interpreted as implying" does not make something evidence.
>> You need an a priori declaration of what objective, detectable traits
>> distinguish intelligent design from not intelligent design.  Since
>> such a standard is theologically repugnant, I don't see intelligent
>> design ever appearing as science.
>>
> As far as I concerned ID has nothing to do with theology. It doesn't
> rely of theology, it does not proclaim theology, it doesn't represent
> theology.

Your concern has been noted and filed as a distant outlier.

[Mark Isaak]

Everything I am willing to publish formally is based on tangible,
verifiable evidence, or at least I strongly attempt to make it so. I
try to apply the same standards to my informal writing, but with more
laxity (i.e., sometimes I get careless). I believe some things are
believable and others are not because some things fit with evidence and
some do not, and I have looked at lots of evidence from lots of
different angles.

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 May 2018 20:42:46 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

That the evidence was collected by scientists is not in dispute.

That you claim it's evidence for ID is not in dispute.

That it is actually evidence for ID is in dispute.

There is a huge gap between your evidence and your claim, which you
bridge with faith, just like those who claim the Designer is the
Christian God.

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 May 2018 20:28:42 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

As long as you presume a Designer with supernatural abilities, you
make a theological argument about ID. That it's not a Christian
theology in particular doesn't make any more difference than the name
of your presumptive Designer.

[Freon96]

There are features of the universe that boggle the mind. For
thousands of years just about everything in nature was
believed to be miraculous. If nature can present itself as
miraculous then we know it can appear that way whether it is
not. You don't see it because your own beliefs forbid it but
that's not really binding on the universe.

Bill

[Ron Dean]

On 5/7/2018 6:50 PM, RonO wrote:

> The intelligent design scam is just a creationist scam that the
> creationists are running on themselves.  You know this as fact, so why
> keep pretending that it was about the science?  Where is the ID science
> in the "best" evidence for IDiocy?  Why run and try to misdirect the
> argument?
>
> The political scam was to pretend that science was the issue.  They
> apparently have stopped pretending because the ID perps don't even claim
> that their "best" evidence is scientific evidence for IDiocy.
>
> Really, make up some science out of the "best".  Just putting up junk
> that didn't make the best list is stupid until you can demonstrate that
> it is better than the best or make some type of scientific argument out
> of the IDiot "best".

>
>> Those people who believe the designer is the Christian God base this
>> opinion strictly on faith. That's as far as I'm concerned is the
>> difference: ID is based on evidence, not faith, but there is no
>> evidence denoting the Identity of the designer only faith.
>

> Every single ID perp that sold you the ID/creationist scam know that the
>  big IDer is the Judeo Christian God of the Bible.  Most of them have
> admitted that.  Where have you been?
>
> What do you not understand about the current reality?  There never was
> any ID science.  5 of the top 6 "best" evidences for IDiocy failed the
> Scientific creationists in their political ploy over 30 years ago and
> the 6th one failed the ID perps in Dover and is just the "flagellum is a
> designed machine" scientific creationist argument with IC thrown in on top.
>
> So why keep lying about what IDiocy is at this time.  There obviously is
> no ID science worth calling science.  Use the "Best" to demonstrate
> otherwise.  The ID perps could have put up this same list when the ID
> scam outfit started over 22 years ago.
>
I understand this is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I just
happen to disagree with you.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_feO9fmgROE/WGk3OrKPAwAJ
>
> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[RonO]

Read the Dover court transcripts. Who was the Intelligent design
proponent's intelligent designer in all cases (Hint: they were all
Christians)? The agnostics didn't show up to testify and Denton isn't
an agnostic he is a deist that thinks that his god got things rolling
with the big bang, and Berlinski talks about the Judeo Christian God as
if there is no doubt that it exists, and claims that he never bought
into the ID scam junk. Don't you believe ID perps like Dembski when
they claim that the only way to understand this stuff is through Jesus
Christ? Philip Johnson admitted to being an old earth Biblical
creationists. He was a born again Christian. Lying to yourself about
something this stupid isn't just stupid at this point. Why lie to
yourself? It doesn't change reality.

5 of the 6 best IDiot pieces of junk evidence failed as creation science
over 30 years ago and all the major creation scientists were young earth
Biblical creationists. Kenyon (one of the first IDiot fellows at the
Discovery Institute) is a young earth creationists who wrote up some of
the legal briefs for the supreme court creationist case that ended in
failure for the creationists over 30 years ago.

Lying to yourself about reality doesn't change reality, and it
definitely doesn't change how bogus the 6 best IDiotic pieces of junk
evidence are. Running from reality isn't going to change anything. You
have to either drop the ID creationist scam and start over, or you have
to build on what you have and try to make it into something worth
defending. Running in denial isn't doing anything.

Ron Okimoto

>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/_feO9fmgROE/WGk3OrKPAwAJ
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:15:02 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>
> This started as a response to someone who implied that ID
> can't be true because it requires a God(s).

Tell us where you read that in this thread, bill. I started this thread, and I don't remember anything of the kind

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:25:02 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>
> The point was that intelligent observers are a departure
> from the development of the universe prior to their
> emergence.

The expansive and vast evidence regarding evolutionary consciousness and intelligence completely refute that claim

> That's just argumentative. ID doesn't preclude any current
> point of view except atheism.

That's 100% incorrect.
a) ID purists will claim ID does _not_ infer any god, just an intelligent designer. If ID does not infer god, it _cannot_ preclude atheism.

b) ID precludes evolution. Granted, the IDiots will acquiesce to instances of evolution when even they can't refute the evidence, but at some level they will always revert to claiming a lack of evolutionary evidence proves design.

[Glenn]

"zencycle" <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8255c533-769f-4d06...@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>>
>> Serious question: What's the functional difference between divine
>> design and God's design?
>
> There isn't one
>
>>
>> IIUC Behe and other ID advocates distinguish between human design,
>> unguided natural design, and Intelligent Design. For ID to do what
>> its advocates advocate it does (did), it would necessarily be
>> supernatural, else it would necessarily be unguided natural design.

>
> And that is specifically what behe states: "at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture."
>

It is considered naughty to quote-mine and lie, sweety.

http://vedicilluminations.com/downloads/Intelligent-Design/Behe_reply_to_my_critics.pdf

[jillery]

Mind-boggles and miracles don't need supernatural. An appreciation for
nature and one's place in it work even better. Scientific
explanations are more inspiring than ID's wishful thinking. Just
sayin'.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:25:41 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

It is considered naughty to cite without identifying the relevant
quote, and if necessary, to describe the point said quote is supposed
to illustrate. Since you have trouble understanding how to do that, I
illustrate how using your cite above:

********************************
Extrapolating from this sample of one [humans], it may be that all
possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures
which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a

supernatural designer must get into the picture.

I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation,
although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible
that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. The chemistry
and physics that we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural
intelligence depends on physical organization, then the organization
seems likely to have to be enormously complex and stable over
reasonable periods of time. While simpler systems may perform the
tasks that irreducibly complex systems perform in terrestrial life,
they would likely perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so
that the complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be
achieved. Thus in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a
natural entity.

I should add that there is nothing in the previous reasoning to rule
out the hypothesis that we terrestrials were designed by a natural
designer which was itself designed by a supernatural designer, or that
there was a series of designers between the supernatural one and us,
or some variation of this. It simply means that at the beginning of
the chain, input from beyond nature was required.
***********************************

The above quoted material conclusively illustrates Behe's opinion that
his ID Designer is supernatural, and so your claim of a quote mine is
falsified.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/9/18 5:42 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >
> I presented you with what I consider evidence advanced by scientist
> which I consider the ID hypothesis the best explanation of the evidence.
> This evidence is not based on faith.

Your willingness to call that crap "evidence", many would say, is
equivalent to faith.

> Conversely, there is no known

> evidence which points to the identity of the designer, so anyone who

> believes the designer is the Christian God bases the upon faith not
> evidence.

Without knowing anything about a designer, is it impossible to infer
design. I agree that the knowledge need not be detailed -- e.g., one
can know "human" without knowing "Alexander Graham Bell" or "storm god"
without knowing "Zeus" -- but with absolutely nothing known about a
designer, there can be nothing to indicate design. We all know that
stuff reached an arrangement somehow. Knowing design means you know
how, which means you know how the designer operates. Since, by your own
admission, you don't know how the designer operates, you cannot
logically conclude design.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 09 May 2018 11:05:29 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

>There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age assumes
>omniscience so we always have an answer.

Say WHAT?!?

Where on Earth did *that* howler come from?

Only religions claim to have all the (meaningful) answers;
science does not, and never has.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 09 May 2018 11:43:42 -0500, the following appeared

The comparison was regarding the equality solely of the
absence of evidence for both. And BTW, Sparky, Bigfoot is
not "universally rejected as absurd"; there are plenty of
believers in its existence; see below. Your "universal
rejection" is a strawman.

>>>Most theories of the sciences rely heavily on hypotheses
>>>that rely on evidence that can only be inferred from
>>>indirect and speculative evidence. The "objective"
>>>evidence that is claimed to underpin these theories is not
>>>direct or tangible or observable, it is a hint or
>>>suggestion of what may, possibly be real. What we call
>>>evidence is that which confirms our biases.
>>
>> You obviously have rather unique ideas of the meanings of
>> the words you casually sling around, such as
>> "speculative", "tangible" and "observable".
>>
>> The fact that you ignore the objective evidence which is
>> presented doesn't make it non-objective, except to someone
>> who's made the claim that *everything* is subjective.
>
>I pointed out, in this thread, that existence is not some
>"thing" but rather an accumulation of pseudo-things like
>divisible "particles". We can point to no one "thing" that
>has actual existence, something that is so fundamental,
>indivisible and basic that it is really real. What we see
>are clouds of these composite entities that, as the scale
>increases, acquire an appearance of substance. Reality as we
>experience it just ain't there.

So you assert, repeatedly. And like the assertion that ID
exists in nature, that's *all* it is, a statement of
personal belief. And as for "absurdity", there are probably
more people who believe in Bigfoot than those who agree with
your above assertion:

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/additional-resources/83
https://www.cnet.com/news/bigfoot-sasquatch-patterson-gimlin-film-1967-sightings-2017/
https://nypost.com/2016/05/24/unicorns-are-just-the-first-of-many-fictional-creatures-that-are-probably-real/

....and more.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 09 May 2018 12:31:56 -0500, the following appeared

Scientifically? Of course.

> Shouldn't we
>therefore, abandon searches for life elsewhere? How about
>intelligent life? How about SETI and the belief that
>advanced technological might communicate with us? A complete
>absence of evidence hasn't slowed anyone down.

It also hasn't made any scientist say that life exists
elsewhere; the farthest they'll go is that, given what we
know of life, it *should* exist anywhere it's possible for
it to do so.

>The difference is that a search for ET is considered
>scientific so evidence isn't really necessary. Evidence is
>believed to possibly exist because the worldview of those
>believing in ET allows it. It is, therefore, a belief in
>things unseen making it indistinguishable from ID.

Then why has not one ID proponent done more than point to
various things they can't explain and declare "therefore
ID"? No research, no nothing but assertions based on
personal religious belief.

>>>no further discussion is necessary. It also has the happy
>>>consequence of establishing naturalistic philosophy as the
>>>default worldview. What a neat and very tidy mechanism for
>>>creating orthodoxy.
>>
>> As far as I'm able to determine from your posts, any
>> agreement among scientists is prima facie evidence of a
>> desire to create dogma; the idea that they may agree due
>> to the preponderance of evidence is completely ignored.
>> And since your pet conjectures have no objective evidence
>> in support there is obviously collusion to suppress them.
>
>What I consistently said is that the philosophy upon which
>science depends, is prima facie evidence that bias
>influences what will be considered credible. You can't see
>the bias because it's too obvious, like the nose on your
>face.

And all you *can* see is bias, since you dislike the actual
process of learning about reality, and apparently think that
those like Aristotle were scientists, and that their
ruminations were scientific inquiries.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 05:58:30 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

Bill sees implications in discussions in which none of the
sort he sees actually exist.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:25:41 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

The full paragraph:

"The problem is the following. Currently we have knowledge
of only one type of natural intelligent designer even
remotely capable of conceiving such structures as are found
in the cell, and that is a human. Our intelligence depends
critically on physical structures in the brain which are
irreducibly complex. Extrapolating from this sample of one,

it may be that all possible natural designers require
irreducibly complex structures which themselves were

designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer

must get into the picture."

Note the "must".

Also note that zencycle's quote, which you styled as "quote
mined", captures the Behe statement quite accurately.

Also note that one term critical to his argument,
"irreducibly complex", has repeatedly been demonstrated to
have essentially zero meaning in the way used by Behe and
other ID proponents. Behe's sleight-of-hand conflates "won't
function as it currently does" with "can't have been
produced by small successive steps, each of which was
functional", and asserts that the former is the only
criterion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 11:33:29 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Prior post acknowledged.

[Freon96]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2018 11:05:29 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age
>>assumes omniscience so we always have an answer.
>
> Say WHAT?!?
>
> Where on Earth did *that* howler come from?
>
> Only religions claim to have all the (meaningful) answers;
> science does not, and never has.

The implication made by most posters here is exactly that.
We don't know it all, but we will. This exactly what many
here are saying. Feign indignation if it pleases you, but
these are the ideas you defend.

Bill

[Freon96]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2018 11:05:29 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age
>>assumes omniscience so we always have an answer.
>
> Say WHAT?!?
>
> Where on Earth did *that* howler come from?
>
> Only religions claim to have all the (meaningful) answers;
> science does not, and never has.

People always explain their environment. Everything has and
has always had an explanation attached. It's just something
people do. We are even more zealous in our compulsion to
explain everything now. Every phenomenon requires an
explanation and will acquire one since the absence of one
seems intolerable.

So, "There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age
assumes omniscience so we always have an answer." is an
accurate observation. The omniscience is implied because
this progress in knowledge has no other logical end. I see
all this as simple hubris and somewhat neurotic but I don't
expect anyone to agree.

Bill

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hgp8fd17jg6si5v0d...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:25:41 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"zencycle" <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8255c533-769f-4d06...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Serious question: What's the functional difference between divine
>>>> design and God's design?
>>>
>>> There isn't one
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIUC Behe and other ID advocates distinguish between human design,
>>>> unguided natural design, and Intelligent Design. For ID to do what
>>>> its advocates advocate it does (did), it would necessarily be
>>>> supernatural, else it would necessarily be unguided natural design.
>>>
>>> And that is specifically what behe states: "at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture."
>>>
>>It is considered naughty to quote-mine and lie, sweety.
>>
>>http://vedicilluminations.com/downloads/Intelligent-Design/Behe_reply_to_my_critics.pdf
>
>
> It is considered naughty to cite without identifying the relevant
> quote, and if necessary, to describe the point said quote is supposed
> to illustrate. Since you have trouble understanding how to do that, I
> illustrate how using your cite above:

No it is not naughty. I leave it to readers to read and make up their own mind, instead of trying to indoctrinate, as you do.

That depends on whether you are honest about what the subject is, ID or Behe's personal opinion.
In my opinion, your response demonstrates conclusively that you are not honest.

Your quoted material demonstrates conclusively that Behe does not ascribe to the claim:

"For ID to do what its advocates advocate it does (did), it would necessarily be
supernatural, else it would necessarily be unguided natural design."

Behe above: "there is nothing in the previous reasoning to rule out the hypothesis that we terrestrials were designed by a natural designer"

[zencycle]

On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> "zencycle" <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8255c533-769f-4d06...@googlegroups.com...

> >

> It is considered naughty to quote-mine and lie, sweety.
>
> http://vedicilluminations.com/downloads/Intelligent-Design/Behe_reply_to_my_critics.pdf

It's considered naughty to jump into the middle of a thread and pretend to know what you're talking about. That quote was cited and referenced previously, and it isn't a lie at all. It directly addresses the point that asshat pagano made.

Shove that up your ass, "sweetie".

[zencycle]

OK, just so we have this straight - You claim that the quote:

" it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture. "

is _not_ evidence that Behe ascribes to:

"For ID to do what its advocates advocate it does (did), it would necessarily be supernatural, else it would necessarily be unguided natural design."

Sure....cognitive dissonance much?

And while you're on the subject of intellectual dishonesty, you rather blatantly snip:

"there is nothing in the previous reasoning to rule out the hypothesis that we terrestrials were designed by a natural designer"

Which takes out the context of :

" it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture. "

Tell us, sweetie, exactly what part of "at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture." is it that you don't understand?

I smell another pagano sock puppet.....

[Glenn]

"zencycle" <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:059dd256-b1cc-4fc9...@googlegroups.com...

You're an immature jerk. And certainly a coward.

[Glenn]

"zencycle" <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:db13ca1c-ae1a-4d81...@googlegroups.com...

You smell your own stinking asshole. There are several Behe quotes in that article that would in your imagination be contradictive, and you'd avoid them,
using only the ones that suit you. It does no good to argue with idiots like you.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 11:35:31 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hgp8fd17jg6si5v0d...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 May 2018 07:25:41 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"zencycle" <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8255c533-769f-4d06...@googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Serious question: What's the functional difference between divine
>>>>> design and God's design?
>>>>
>>>> There isn't one
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IIUC Behe and other ID advocates distinguish between human design,
>>>>> unguided natural design, and Intelligent Design. For ID to do what
>>>>> its advocates advocate it does (did), it would necessarily be
>>>>> supernatural, else it would necessarily be unguided natural design.
>>>>
>>>> And that is specifically what behe states: "at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture."
>>>>
>>>It is considered naughty to quote-mine and lie, sweety.
>>>
>>>http://vedicilluminations.com/downloads/Intelligent-Design/Behe_reply_to_my_critics.pdf
>>
>>
>> It is considered naughty to cite without identifying the relevant
>> quote, and if necessary, to describe the point said quote is supposed
>> to illustrate. Since you have trouble understanding how to do that, I
>> illustrate how using your cite above:
>
>No it is not naughty.

It absolutely is naughty. Your bald assertions as easily disproved.

>I leave it to readers to read and make up their own mind, instead of trying to indoctrinate, as you do.

Your indoctrinating disqualifies you from complaining about others'
alleged indoctrinating. Tu quoque back atcha.

It's also dishonest to move your goalpost. You made an accusation of
a quotemine. That is the only claim your post made. I proved there
was no quotemine and so your accusation is false. Too bad you lack
the personal integrity to admit your error.

And right here would have been a good place for you to have identified
what you think I wrote which is dishonest. That you did not suggests
you know you cannot, and are just making up crap because you have
nothing intelligent to say.

>Your quoted material demonstrates conclusively that Behe does not ascribe to the claim:
>"For ID to do what its advocates advocate it does (did), it would necessarily be
>supernatural, else it would necessarily be unguided natural design."
>
>Behe above: "there is nothing in the previous reasoning to rule out the hypothesis that we terrestrials were designed by a natural designer"

Now that's a quotemine of the worst sort. In the exact same quote,
Behe goes on to say:

"...which was itself designed by a supernatural designer, or that

there was a series of designers between the supernatural one and us,
or some variation of this. It simply means that at the beginning of
the chain, input from beyond nature was required."

So Behe makes it quite clear he understands that in order to avoid an
infinite regress, he recognizes the first Designer must be
supernatural.

And the last three sentences of each of his paragraphs I quoted
explicitly agree with the claim you say he doesn't ascribe to.

You really should learn how to read written English before you post.

[jillery]

There's a difference between "we will" and "we can". Based on your
posts, my impression is you won't.

[jillery]

To the contrary, I absolutely agree that your comments are simple
hubris and somewhat neurotic. Sleep well.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:37:22 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Since you have shown yourself incapable of citing quotes
intelligently, or reading written English with any reasonable
comprehension, you're unqualified to judge who is an idiot.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/10/18 10:51 AM, Freon96 wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 May 2018 11:05:29 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age
>>> assumes omniscience so we always have an answer.
>>
>> Say WHAT?!?
>>
>> Where on Earth did *that* howler come from?
>>
>> Only religions claim to have all the (meaningful) answers;
>> science does not, and never has.
>
> People always explain their environment. Everything has and
> has always had an explanation attached.

You are making that up.

> It's just something people do. [...]

It is something people often do. Not always.

> So, "There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age
> assumes omniscience so we always have an answer." is an
> accurate observation.

Not only is that delusional as an observation, it does not follow from
what you wrote earlier.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 12:18:51 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 May 2018 11:05:29 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age
>>>assumes omniscience so we always have an answer.
>>
>> Say WHAT?!?
>>
>> Where on Earth did *that* howler come from?
>>
>> Only religions claim to have all the (meaningful) answers;
>> science does not, and never has.
>
>The implication made by most posters here is exactly that.

The implications you imagine are not seen by most others.

>We don't know it all, but we will. This exactly what many
>here are saying. Feign indignation if it pleases you, but
>these are the ideas you defend.

So you think that "we know everything" is equivalent to
"we're doing the research by which we hope to learn
everything learnable"?

Interesting "implication"...

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 12:51:23 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 May 2018 11:05:29 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age
>>>assumes omniscience so we always have an answer.
>>
>> Say WHAT?!?
>>
>> Where on Earth did *that* howler come from?
>>
>> Only religions claim to have all the (meaningful) answers;
>> science does not, and never has.
>
>People always explain their environment. Everything has and
>has always had an explanation attached. It's just something
>people do. We are even more zealous in our compulsion to
>explain everything now. Every phenomenon requires an
>explanation and will acquire one since the absence of one
>seems intolerable.
>
>So, "There is nothing that is unexplained; the modern age
>assumes omniscience so we always have an answer." is an
>accurate observation.

No, it is not; no scientist thinks that way. If they did,
all research would cease as being meaningless.

> The omniscience is implied because
>this progress in knowledge has no other logical end. I see
>all this as simple hubris and somewhat neurotic but I don't
>expect anyone to agree.

Addressed elsethread; your interpretation is a rather unique
one.

[Freon96]

I don't recall applying my comments to practicing
scientists. If that's how they are understood, they are
misunderstood, possibly misrepresented. My remarks apply
first to posters here, then to the general public.

People are routinely misled by the science popularizers in
the mass media. Scientists should correct the exaggerations
but don't. Maybe laymen are considered to dim to follow any
clarifications so why bother ...

Bill

[zencycle]

You have a strange definition of 'coward'. I'm defending my position with credited quotes and rational reply, and a few retorts to your initial insult of 'sweetie'. You're the one who hasn't attempted defense of your position, only resorted to further name calling (which again, you initiated). So, who's the coward?

You've been refuted by at least two others in this thread, and your only response is that whine about how we're being jerks. Who's the real immature jerk, then?

Grow up, little man, you're out of your league here.

[zencycle]

On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 5:40:02 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >
> You smell your own stinking asshole. There are several
> Behe quotes in that article that would in your imagination be
> contradictive, and you'd avoid them, using only the ones
> that suit you. It does no good to argue with idiots like you.

Gee, that's funny, You're the one taking a quote out of context, while accusing me of doing it, and your reply is that my asshole stinks?

Besides that, I don't see any where that behe contradicts himself, and I clearly pointed that out. You're the one saying he has contradicted himself.

You are quite clearly not up this. Go fire up your gameboy and let us adults have a conversation.

[Ron Dean]

On 5/9/2018 9:09 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/9/18 5:28 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 5/9/2018 11:09 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 5/8/18 11:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

>>>> On 5/7/2018 12:33 PM, freon96 wrote:
>>>>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/7/2018 5:44 PM, zencycle wrote:

>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 9:30:04 AM UTC-5, jillery
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 03:57:41 -0800 (PST), zencycle
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And that is specifically what behe states: "at some

>>>>>>>>> point a supernatural designer must get into the
>>>>>>>>> picture."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> To be accurate, and to pre-emotively refute a
>>>>>>>> pseudo-skeptical criticism, your quote above is preceded
>>>>>>>> by "If so,".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Behe attempts to cloak his god conclusion by dressing the
>>>>>>> issue up as a hypothetical with "if so", but he follows
>>>>>>> it up with:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "it is not plausible that the original
>>>>>>> intelligent agent is a natural entity."
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Some assert the possible existence of pre-human
>>>>>>>> intelligent agents. But that only adds another
>>>>>>>> metaphorical turtle, the origins of said agents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstadter discussed meta-meta-meta.....agents in
>>>>>>> "Gödel, Escher, Bach:", albeit in the context of
>>>>>>> recursion theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's epistemologically better and more honest to drop
>>>>>>>> all such ignorance-based speculations, and admit nobody
>>>>>>>> knows the ultimate origin of all things, and almost
>>>>>>>> certainly will never know for certain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is a great deal more honest than the intellectually
>>>>>>> bankrupt ID 'theory'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So IDists recognize ID requires a god, although not
>>>>>>>> necessarily any specific God as described by any
>>>>>>>> specific ancient text, which refutes Pagano's specific
>>>>>>>> criticisms of your comments.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that ID theory is was created by, and almost
>>>>>>> exclusively promoted by christians. They dishonestly
>>>>>>> claim - as pagano does - that the theory either isn't
>>>>>>> about the christian god or any god at all, yet they all
>>>>>>> claim to accept god as the creator (but of course it
>>>>>>> wasn't ID 'theory' that led them to that, obviously ;) )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not the case! Those of us who accept intelligent
>>>>>> design as valid believe that there is sufficient
>>>>>> scientific evidence to affirm the ID hypothesis. But there
>>>>>> is no known evidence which points to the identity of the
>>>>>> designer. Those people who believe the designer is the
>>>>>> Christian God base this opinion strictly on faith. That's
>>>>>> as far as I'm concerned is the difference: ID is based on
>>>>>> evidence, not faith, but there is no evidence denoting the
>>>>>> Identity of the designer only faith.
>>>>>

>>>>> That's probably not the issue. Either ID is true or it is
>>>>> not, we don't have to agree on the details, we don't even
>>>>> have to know, reality is real regardless.
>>>
>>>> The point is we examine evidence as presented by scientist and
>>>> interpret this evidence as implying intelligent design.
>>>
>>> Problem is, absolutely anything and everything can be interpreted as
>>> implying intelligent design.  The bacterial flagellum is complicated?
>>> Intelligent design!  Thousands of people die from bacterial infection
>>> via food poisoning?  Intelligent design!  The Earth supports life?
>>> Intelligent design!  Venus does not support life?  Intelligent
>>> design! A bird dropping fell at a certain spot on my windshield?
>>> Intelligent design!

>
>> One problem I have with critics pf Intelligent design  is that they
>> assert issues and circumstances which does not represent the views of
>> those who accept the ID hypothesis. Such views would never be advanced
>> nor defended by IDist.
>
> You're probably right, but that only means that the IDists are
> antiscientific in willfully ignoring equivalent evidence if it does not
> directly support their views.  I can't imagine any valid argument that
> would make people think Earth was designed and Venus wasn't, or that the
> bacterial flagellum was designed but its efficiency in making the
> bacterium a successful parasite wasn't.
>
Here I see the assumption that we have all knowledge. Perhaps Jupiter
serves a purpose: it gathers so much or the space debris, meter, comment
etc which actually protects the planet to a considerable degree. Can you
show that Venus etc doesn't serve a purpose or that parasite have no
purpose.
>
>>> "Can be interpreted as implying" does not make something evidence.
>>> You need an a priori declaration of what objective, detectable traits
>>> distinguish intelligent design from not intelligent design.  Since
>>> such a standard is theologically repugnant, I don't see intelligent
>>> design ever appearing as science.
>>>
>> As far as I concerned ID has nothing to do with theology. It doesn't
>> rely of theology, it does not proclaim theology, it doesn't represent
>> theology.
>
> Your concern has been noted and filed as a distant outlier.
>
Whatever that means!

[Ron Dean]

On 5/9/2018 9:56 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2018 20:42:46 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2018 4:38 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:03:55 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

>>> Of course, since your belief there is sufficient scientific evidence
>>> to affirm the ID hypothesis is also based on faith, you make no
>>> meaningful distinction between yourself and those who believe the
>>> designer is the Christian God.

>>>
>> I presented you with what I consider evidence advanced by scientist
>> which I consider the ID hypothesis the best explanation of the evidence.

>> This evidence is not based on faith. Conversely, there is no known
>> evidence which points to the idenitity of the designer, so anyone who

>> believes the designer is the Christian God bases the upon faith not
>> evidence.
>
>

> That the evidence was collected by scientists is not in dispute.
>
OK
>
> That you claim it's evidence for ID is not in dispute.
>
OK
>
> That it is actually evidence for ID is in dispute.
>
It's perfectly understandable why most scientist reject design, since it
is not the result of naturalistic forces. But is this sufficient or
justified?
I don't know, but certainly, long before Darwin, many perhaps most,
scientist accepted design as a reality. And as I've pointed out before:
after having had to study Paley's "Evidence", Darwin set out to
undermine and replace Paley's God of purpose, planning and design with
mindless, aimless randomness and chance - the exact opposite of Paley
argument.
>
> There is a huge gap between your evidence and your claim, which you
> bridge with faith, just like those who claim the Designer is the
> Christian God.
>
There is a significant difference. I am convinced that the evidence
I've pointed to is just as appropriate to design as naturalism. So, I
claim this _evidence_ as the basis upon which I drew my conclusion, this
is not_ faith. No one claims to have evidence that points to the
Christian God, so there is only faith.

[Ron Dean]

On 5/9/2018 9:56 PM, jillery wrote:

> On Wed, 9 May 2018 20:28:42 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/9/2018 11:09 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 5/8/18 11:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2018 12:33 PM, freon96 wrote:

>>>>> That's probably not the issue. Either ID is true or it is
>>>>> not, we don't have to agree on the details, we don't even
>>>>> have to know, reality is real regardless.
>>>
>>>> The point is we examine evidence as presented by scientist and
>>>> interpret this evidence as implying intelligent design.
>>>
>>> Problem is, absolutely anything and everything can be interpreted as
>>> implying intelligent design.  The bacterial flagellum is complicated?
>>> Intelligent design!  Thousands of people die from bacterial infection
>>> via food poisoning?  Intelligent design!  The Earth supports life?
>>> Intelligent design!  Venus does not support life?  Intelligent design! A
>>> bird dropping fell at a certain spot on my windshield?  Intelligent design! >
>> One problem I have with critics pf Intelligent design is that they
>> assert issues and circumstances which does not represent the views of
>> those who accept the ID hypothesis. Such views would never be advanced
>> nor defended by IDist.
>>>

>>> "Can be interpreted as implying" does not make something evidence.  You
>>> need an a priori declaration of what objective, detectable traits
>>> distinguish intelligent design from not intelligent design.  Since such
>>> a standard is theologically repugnant, I don't see intelligent design
>>> ever appearing as science.
>>>
>> As far as I concerned ID has nothing to do with theology. It doesn't
>> rely of theology, it does not proclaim theology, it doesn't represent
>> theology.
>
>

> As long as you presume a Designer with supernatural abilities, you
> make a theological argument about ID. That it's not a Christian
> theology in particular doesn't make any more difference than the name
> of your presumptive Designer.
>
Where is the idea that the designer employs any supernatural powers
found in ID? Logic and the laws of physics, have always been utilized in
every development. Because of this fact, we are able to observe, test
and come to considerable understanding as to how, maybe even why, the
designer proceeded as it did to accomplish everything we see and
understand. Even though the designer is rejected by many, Logic, and
the laws of physics are employed by us in our study and research.

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>

[Ron Dean]

There is little doubt that Darwin had an objective, a goal and a purpose
in mind. This is _not_ the scientific method. (This was accidentally
sent before I had completed my post.)

[Burkhard]

You posted that crap before, and it was resoundingly disproved then - if
I recalled correctly, you had mixed up the Paley books, the timeline of
Darwin's studies and research, and also the structure of his argument.

It was from the beginning a hatchet job on your side, making wild,
unsupported character assassination, fulled by your won projections,
while bungling every single bit of science in it.

The first tie round one could have attributed it to sheer ignorance i
your side but bringing it up again month after it was thoroughly
debunked is plain dishonest.

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 May 2018 21:14:26 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

Since you asked, I remind you that both you and Behe admitted ID's
Designer is necessarily supernatural. You're welcome.

>Logic and the laws of physics, have always been utilized in
>every development. Because of this fact, we are able to observe, test
>and come to considerable understanding as to how, maybe even why, the
>designer proceeded as it did to accomplish everything we see and
>understand. Even though the designer is rejected by many, Logic, and
>the laws of physics are employed by us in our study and research.

You claim above that you and others have established a line of
reasoning which connects observations of material phenomena to the
conclusion of ID. And yet, despite my repeated challenges to you to
do so, you have never posted it. Like other ID advocates, you claim
you have done so, but to the best of my recollection you have not.
Instead, you have always failed to connect the dots between your
alleged evidence and your expressed conclusion. Will you connect the
dots now?

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 May 2018 20:51:14 -0400, Ron Dean <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>

I agree most scientists reject Design, but not because it's supposed
to be from supernatural forces. Instead, they reject Design because
it's a meaningless explanation, as are almost all explanations which
invoke supernatural cause.

>I don't know, but certainly, long before Darwin, many perhaps most,
>scientist accepted design as a reality. And as I've pointed out before:
>after having had to study Paley's "Evidence", Darwin set out to
>undermine and replace Paley's God of purpose, planning and design with
>mindless, aimless randomness and chance - the exact opposite of Paley
>argument.

I agree there was a time when most scientists accepted Design, that
the reason nature is fundamentally orderly is because God establishes
order out of chaos and form out of void, as described in Genesis. But
Darwin did not set out as you say to undermine God, but instead to
figure out how God does it.

I agree Darwin ultimately identified how chaos and void yields order
and form without the need of God's guiding hand, but he was not the
first to do so. Darwin applied the principles of Hutton's geological
uniformitarianism to biology. And before Hutton and Lyell, Newton and
Laplace showed that heavenly bodies don't require God's steadying
hand.

And Darwin wasn't the last, either. As the principles of science were
applied to the study of material cause and effects, it was established
that all of them are explicable without invoking an interventionist
God. So as more was learned, historical Design gave way to modern
Naturalism. Design is just an argument from ignorance.

>> There is a huge gap between your evidence and your claim, which you
>> bridge with faith, just like those who claim the Designer is the
>> Christian God.
>>
>There is a significant difference. I am convinced that the evidence
>I've pointed to is just as appropriate to design as naturalism. So, I
>claim this _evidence_ as the basis upon which I drew my conclusion, this
>is not_ faith. No one claims to have evidence that points to the
>Christian God, so there is only faith.

Once again, it's not sufficient to merely claim something is evidence
for Design. You have to show it, or at least explain how to show it.
Your posts remind me of a classic Sydney Harris cartoon. Your claim
is like the equations written on the sides of a blackboard, with the
gap inbetween filled with the phrase "then a miracle occurs". My
response is like the caption, "I think you should be more explicit
here in step two." Without you being more explicit, your claim is a
claim of faith, a God of the gaps argument, just like those who claim
the Designer is a Christian God.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.