Open Access article on the history of creationism and intelligent design

[RonO]

This paper looks at the history of the anti-evolution creationists.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-021-00341-x

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

"Although it is well known that biblical literalism, a major component
of the creationist movement, originated in the USA"

The above is arguable wrt Christian Creationism, however, both Judaism
and Islam have sects which reject evolution specifically and science
generally on the basis of literal Biblical interpretations. The
problem is not confined to a particular religion, but instead to those
with fundamentalist doctrines that a particular interpretation of the
Bible/Koran/Torah is the Word of God/Yahweh/Allah.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 15:57:48 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

Back in 2009, Lenny Frank Jr., who was a regular contributor here,
published the book 'Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design
Movement in America'. Not exactly a best seller but I thought it well
written and, as a non-USian, it gave me great insight into the origins
(no pun intended) of Creationism in the USA and how it morphed into
ID.

It's still available on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/Deception-Design-Intelligent-Movement-America-ebook/dp/B00292BQPK/

https://tinyurl.com/28twsrb9

[gary...@cox.net]

Man! That was as bad as any I have read. The authors seem to have not read core studies and build only on "popular" science.

Always good to have another log for the fire. Thanks for the heads up!

[Glenn]

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 2:00:10 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

> This paper looks at the history of the anti-evolution creationists.
>
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-021-00341-x
>

It's crap, ID is not "creationism" and "supernatural" is not in the ID literature.

Atheists would have us believe that IDers are bible-thumping fundamentalists, which is absurd.

Here's a timeline of the modern ID movement:

https://www.discovery.org/a/3207/

[RonO]

I read somewhere that the Presbyterian Church was the first major
religious organization to push anti-evolution and push for banning it in
the public schools. It wasn't very successful in the North East, but
Southern religious organizations were more successful. I was surprised
to find out that some North Eastern states did ban biological evolution.

Now the Presbyterians accept biological evolution as being consistent
with their beliefs.

Thaxton and Kenyon had been scientific creationists before they became
part of the ID scam unit at the Discovery Institute. Kenyon wrote up
some of the creationist legal briefs for the Supreme court case. There
was the famous name change in Of Pandas and People after the loss of
scientific creationism in the supreme court. The first federal court
case that the scientific creationists lost was in Arkansas and it was
pointed out by the Judge that there were no suitable teaching materials
to teach any scientific creationism. All the creationist literature was
full of Bible verses and Biblical mythology. Kenyon and Thaxton started
to remedy that lapse by writing a creationist source without the Bible
verses and mythology, and it turned into Of Pandas and People. The NCSE
used to have the initial announcement for the start of producing Pandas
that claimed that it would be a creationist textbook.

The Supreme court stated that creation science could be taught as long
as some real science was produced, but that there didn't seem to be any
such creation science in existence. The ID perps didn't have to change
the name of what they were doing. All they had to do was come up with
some legitimate science, but they obviously never did come up with any
legitimate science, so changing the name of what they were doing was the
best that they could do.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Glenn drank the cool aid years after the bait and switch started to go
down on any IDiot that needed the ID science. How can anyone lie to
themselves to this extent after the ID perps started their religious web
sites after Dover and Meyer just published the God Hypothesis.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

The God Hypothesis is not ID, and the fact that evolutionists can have religious beliefs does not demonstrate that evolution is religion, or that their religious beliefs drives their claims about evolution. Some evolutionists claim that evolution is how God creates. Some evolutionist's religious beliefs do drive their claims about evolution. That doesn't make evolution theory a religion either.

You aren't lying to yourself, you are deluded and believe your falsehoods. Like me drinking Kool-aid. Nothing I have said or say will sway you from your apparent idiocy, though. That is apparently driven by your atheism.

[RonO]

Knock, knock Glenn there never was any ID science. The ID that you
think exists never existed. The ID perps only made the claims that you
swallowed, but they never produced any IDiocy. Just put up the
fictional ID science and demonstrate reality for yourself.

The God Hypothesis was all the ID perps ever had. They claim that their
Top Six are included in the book. I haven't read it, but the claim came
from your evolution news site. That you can lie to yourself about
something so stupid is just sad.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

So because Behe accepts common descent, evolution is religous.

[jillery]

To be precise, SCOTUS applies the Lemon Test, which consists of three
parts:

1) The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.

2) The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance
nor inhibit religion.

3) The statute must not result in an "excessive government
entanglement" with religion.

If any one of the above are violated, the statute is unconstitutional.

I am not a lawyer, but ISTM even if a religious teaching was
associated with "real science", such a teaching would still violate
the Lemon Test, while a religious teaching that was part of a
comprehensive comparison of religions would satisfy the Lemon Test
without requiring any kind of science.

[RonO]

No, the supreme court noted that science could be taught as science no
matter what any religious factions claimed. We do not take globes out
of the schools because there are flat earth creationists that claim that
it supports the vast majority of existing creationists that do not
believe in a flat earth any longer. Pagano couldn't get the solar
system mobiles removed from the ceilings of classrooms because they
support the heliocentric heretics. You can't prohibit teaching age of
the earth and Big Bang science just because there are Big Bang and old
earth creationists.

The IDiots made a big deal about that judgement during the Dover trial.
That is why the defense asked the judge to rule as to whether IDiocy
was science or not. If IDiocy was science, they noted, that it could
not be excluded from science education.

All the ID perps had to do was come up with some real science in order
to get their creationism taught in the public schools, but that
obviously never happened. They knew that they didn't have the creation
science so they changed the name of what they were doing as some type of
stop gap political scam, but when it came time to put up or shut up they
started running the bait and switch.

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

Definitly yes on the latter, the former is..complicated.

The 1. amendment jurisprudence has been extremely cautious when it comes
to establishing criteria for what counts as a religion or a religious
belief. There is some good reason behind this - one could otherwise
easily sidestep the protection of religious liberty by saying that it
only applies to "proper" religions, and that the practice in question,
while superficially looking like a religion, does not qualify. Some of
the US religious rights nutcases have claimed e.g. that Islam is not a
religion, but a secular political movement, and hence not subject to
constitutional protection. (same folks, ironically, who sometimes claim
"Darwinism" is in fact a religion)

Hence also some of he decisions in favour of Pastafarianism and the FSM,
blessed be its noodly apendages. But that can make your first prong
tricky. Creationists could pull e.g. a "reverse FSM', declare a "1.
Church of Darwin, with weekly readings of chapters from the ToE, his
image displayed with votive candles etc. Depending on how zealously the
first prong is enforced, that could make teaching evolution difficult.
Not impossible mind, but possibly without mentioning Darwin by name,
without pointing out how a recent discovery confirms one the older
predictions etc etc

So I think some flexibility is mutually beneficial here

[RonO]

So because you are stupid and willfully ignorant this is all that you
can come up with. Ask yourself why you are still an IDiot. It is for
religious reasons, and not any rational science because you refuse to
put up any ID science, and you have been running from the Top Six for
nearly 4 years. You know enough by now to understand what Johnson told
you after Dover, and that there is no ID science worth talking about.
IDiocy was always about supporting creationist religious beliefs. The
bait and switch scam only allows the ID perps to keep lying to the rubes
like you because you want to be lied to. You know that you are never
going to get any ID science.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:38:24 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I absolutely agree flexibility on this point is mutually beneficial.
ISTM the Lemon Test is part of SCOTUS' effort to thread that needle.
IIUC the Lemon Test applies to legislation that provides special
privileges and/or exemptions on religious grounds. IOW the
legislation itself makes an assertive positive claim of religion. The
Lemon Test doesn't care if the claim is actually religious. Instead,
it only measures the right of government to entangle itself with the
claim. I acknowledge there may be other tests which establish claims'
religious bona fides.

Also, given SCOTUS recent support for religious claims, I wouldn't be
surprised if it reinterprets application of the Lemon Test, or
overturns it altogether.

[jillery]

I acknowledge I may have misunderstood what you meant by "real science
was produced", and I acknowledge I could have phrased my own
"associated with real science" more precisely.

To say a religion is consistent with, or approves of, one or more
scientific claims, is not what I inferred your "real science was
produced" to mean. If that were so, then Roman Catholic doctrine
could be taught as science just because Georges Lemaître first
proposed the Big Bang.

Instead, I understood you to mean that a religion identified
affirmative evidence of its distinctive doctrine. In the case of ID,
it's not enough that Behe says he accepts Common Descent, as that's at
best merely consistent with ID, and isn't affirmative evidence for it.
Instead, ISTM it would require evidence of the existence, past or
present, of a purposeful intelligent agent which was the cause of some
phenomena which can't be explained by unguided natural processes.

[RonO]

If flood geology had amounted to anything as science it could have been
taught in the science classroom. The religious claims would still be
excluded. All they could teach would have been what they found out
about flood geology. If they wanted to teach more than that they would
have to do it in a comparative religion class so that they could avoid
the state supported religious aspect. They could teach what they found
out, but they couldn't use Bible verses to do it. It was noted in the
Arkansas decision that even if creation science was science there were
no suitable science sources with the creation science. All the creation
science junk was laced with Bible verses and Biblical mythology, and
that would not be acceptable.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

It's a truism that if flood geology had amounted to anything *as
science*, then yes, flood geology could have been taught in the
science classroom. Teaching flood geology *as science* is not the
same thing as teaching flood geology as evidence of Creationism. It's
the latter that's the equivalent of what cdesign proponentsists are
still trying to do.

>> Instead, I understood you to mean that a religion identified
>> affirmative evidence of its distinctive doctrine. In the case of ID,
>> it's not enough that Behe says he accepts Common Descent, as that's at
>> best merely consistent with ID, and isn't affirmative evidence for it.
>> Instead, ISTM it would require evidence of the existence, past or
>> present, of a purposeful intelligent agent which was the cause of some
>> phenomena which can't be explained by unguided natural processes.

[RonO]

Of Pandas and People would not have passed as legitimate creation
science, and would not have been able to be taught in the science
classrooms. That is why they had to change the name in order to
continue to support their creationist political goals.

The name change didn't make any difference. It still didn't pass as
science when they called it intelligent design.

Ron Okimoto

[Zen Cycle]

Talk about drinking the Kool-Ade - that link doesn't even _mention_ Phillip Johnson. Here's a little history for you sparky, stuff your precious discovery institute won't admit to.

from https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/-tr7NV7utqM/m/h7h3TOLCCQAJ
**************************************
On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Show us where the literature on ID mentions God.

let me guess, your mother used to do your homework for you, right?

First, there's this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full

"[William Paley's] Natural Theology is a sustained argument for the existence of God based on the obvious design of humans and their organs, as well as the design of all sorts of organisms, considered by themselves, as well as in their relations to one another and to their environment. The argument has two parts: first, that organisms give evidence of being designed; second, that only an omnipotent God could account for the perfection, multitude, and diversity of the designs."

then this:

From an LA times article:
Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator
March 25, 2001|TERESA WATANABE | TIMES RELIGION WRITER

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/25/news/mn-42548

"Our work will alert people to the possibility that God is real rather than a projection of the mind," declared Phillip Johnson, a UC Berkeley professor emeritus of law whose 1991 book, "Darwin on Trial," laid the foundation for the emerging movement [of intelligent design]......
"We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise," Johnson said. In challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory, the professor, who is a Presbyterian, added, "We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."

And before you start down the path of 'creationism and intelligent design are divergent theories'

In Robert B. Stewart's book 'Intelligent design', stewart writes "Most observers, both within and without the ID community, recognize University of California Berkeley law professor Phillip E, Johnson as the father of ID, and his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial [...] as a landmark moment in the history of the movement."

and this:

From a Focus on the Family interview with Dembski in 2007:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071217212817/http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm

"4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?
I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

then, In "Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Michael Behe writes:

" 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."

(Find your own link, little boy, We've done enough of your homework for you. Google search is your friend.)

Then of course there's the ID movement's anti-hero, William Dembski. Dembski not only reduces the field of information theory to an idiom, he clearly states his intent of publishing his theory was to invoke the christian gospel.

"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him."
- William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, p. 210

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

I think it's time for you to go back to your xbox
************************************************************
Then there's this excellent compilation by Robert Camp:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/rElbhbjar_4/m/qAZjrhoZCgAJ

Which includes such gems as:
Percival W. Davis (Co-author of Of Pandas and People)
“Of course my motives were religious. There’s no question about it.” - Critics See
Disguised Creationism. Wall St. J. 1994

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in
the image of a benevolent God." - William Dembski , Church & State Magazine,
July/August 2000.

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's
about religion and philosophy." - Phillip Johnson World Magazine, November 30, 1996

“Admitting that the entire purpose of the Wedge strategy is religious:
"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the
reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and
naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends
I have developed a strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the
"wedge." - Phillip Johnson Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, pp. 91-92

You see sparky, ID always _was_ and _is_ about injecting god into science, all the way back to Paley. Get a clue.

[Ernest Major]

I was under the impression that ID was religious was now admitted by the
Discovery Institute. See Stephen Meyer's new book "Return of the God
Hypothesis". The author seems to be happy to quote a reviewer writing
"It persuasively shows that the God Hypothesis is the best explanation
of the fine-tuned, information-laden universe."

--
alias Ernest Major

[Zen Cycle]

True, but my point was more that glen's link for the history of ID was woefully lacking, and his assertion that ID isn't invoking the supernatural is blatantly false.

[Bill]

If, as most here believe, science is about discovering Truth, then it should
be open to every method and technique leading to that end. If, on the the
other hand, the point is to protect the dominant orthodoxy, then Truth
emerges accidentally and then only occasionally.

The dominant orthodoxy is Naturalism, the tenet that nature is self
contained, self sufficient and fully self explanatory is fundamental. By
this doctrine, there can be no non-natural explanations for anything. Even
with this restriction there are alternatives: the mainstream conventional
wisdom and the crackpots. We can tell them apart because they are mutually
exclusive and only one view can be correct.

The existence of God(s) has always been fundamental to human knowledge about
reality and basic to all religions. Since the dominant orthodoxy assumes,
before all else, that nature is all there is, the existence of God(s) is
either impossible or irrelevant so such a being cannot affect nature.

There is no evidence that this belief is justified by science or even can
be; it's just a belief in the infallibility of the dominant orthodoxy, a
species of faith. This thread is about competing assumptions, conclusions
that can't be validated. All we really have is a popularity contest.

Bill

[Glenn]

No. Fine-tuning and information-laden hypotheses are not religion nor religious, at least no more than some other scientific hypotheses.
Stephen Meyer has never said that ID is religion, and ID is not based on religious texts or religious belief, nor makes claims about the identity of the 'designer". What atheists claim about ID being "pseudo" science is philosophical, not "scientific".

The God Hypothesis goes beyond ID, but Meyer has never made a secret of his religious beliefs. Whether the God Hypothesis is religion in disguise, or "pseudo"science, is debatable, but Meyer does not support his explanation with Biblical text or philosophy, but with science. The Universe is indeed "fine-tuned" and "information-laden", and even many agnostics and atheists have agreed to that in some form or another.

But it is quite obvious that the God Hypothesis goes beyond ID. Whether it is a scientific explanation for ID is a reasonable question, but it does not demonstrate that ID is a religious belief.

IDers do not hide their personal religious beliefs. Neither do some evolutionists, which believe God created life by evolution.
But the ID hypothesis itself does not "invoke" the "supernatural", anymore than does evolutionary theory "invoke" evidence of "naturalism".
In fact, there are more atheists that disguise their religious beliefs than IDers, especially if you regard naturalism to be religious belief.

Phillip Johnson was a lawyer, and was not part of crafting the science of ID. There are many outspoken atheists that are "members" of evolutionary theory, or members of actual institutions that support evolution, that are believers in naturalism, and that there is no God. This should not have to be constantly repeated before critics are able to grasp the obvious, that because a theory has religious implications does not mean that the theory is religious or "pseudoscience". It should be obvious that claims concerning what individuals *believe* does not invalidate the science.

[Glenn]

Charitably, you are under the assumption that ID is religious. Phillip Johnson was never a part of the science of ID, and consequently not part of the scientific history of ID, which is what I posted. You reacted to that as if you didn't even read it. And it wouldn't matter if you had, you simply believe whatever someone claims what you don't want to believe, that they are lying. What doesn't fit your preconceived beliefs, you ignore that F.C.S. Schiller was not a creationist, for example, yet he was on "the way back to Paley". I doubt you can make a convincing argument that Michael Polanyi in 1967, was a Christian or a creationist, or that his claims of irreducibly complex machines were religiously inspired.

The "Wedge" was claimed to follow Johnson's 1991 book.

From my previous cite, entitled "A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design", from 1984

'Polanyi’s work also influenced the seminal 1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton (Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Iowa State University), Walter Bradley (Ph.D., Materials Science, University of Texas, Austin), and Roger Olsen (Ph.D., Geochemistry, Colorado School of Mines). Thaxton and his co-authors argued that matter and energy can accomplish only so much by themselves, and that some things can only “be accomplished through what Michael Polanyi has called ‘a profoundly informative intervention.’”7

The book was written under the auspices of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), and as the book neared completion, Thaxton and the FTE’s president, Jon Buell, approached origin-of-life researcher Dean Kenyon, author of a leading monograph in the field, Biochemical Predestination, and a professor of biology at San Francisco State University. They feared that Kenyon would reject their argument. Instead, he found the book “an extraordinary new analysis of an age-old question” and volunteered to write the Foreword.

Eventually the book was placed with The Philosophical Library of New York, publisher of numerous Nobel laureates, and became the best-selling advanced college-level work on chemical evolution.8 Sales were fueled by favorable reviews in prestigious venues like the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine as well as positive responses from leading scholars. For instance, it received kudos from Klaus Dose in his major review article on origin of life studies, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers.” "

https://www.discovery.org/a/3207/

[Glenn]

Most people here don't give a shit about truth or the real value of science. It's all toys for them to play their atheistic games with.

>
> The dominant orthodoxy is Naturalism, the tenet that nature is self
> contained, self sufficient and fully self explanatory is fundamental. By
> this doctrine, there can be no non-natural explanations for anything. Even
> with this restriction there are alternatives: the mainstream conventional
> wisdom and the crackpots. We can tell them apart because they are mutually
> exclusive and only one view can be correct.
>
> The existence of God(s) has always been fundamental to human knowledge about
> reality and basic to all religions. Since the dominant orthodoxy assumes,
> before all else, that nature is all there is, the existence of God(s) is
> either impossible or irrelevant so such a being cannot affect nature.
>
> There is no evidence that this belief is justified by science or even can
> be; it's just a belief in the infallibility of the dominant orthodoxy, a
> species of faith. This thread is about competing assumptions, conclusions
> that can't be validated. All we really have is a popularity contest.
>

In practice yea. In principle , no. Reason and logic is all we have to try to make sense out of the reason of our existence, and the existence of something rather than nothing. Science has largely been taken over by those that throw around concepts such as infinity like babies playing with rag dolls. They think that their naturalistic philosophies have been supported and that other philosophies are "pseudo" scientific. It is hilarious to hear how and what they argue and the claims that they make almost daily in the "scientific" arena. It's also funny to hear some of them making arguments against such as the big bang theory being resisted because of atheist philosophies.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:20:04 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Zen Cycle wrote:
>
<snip to the point>
>
>>...my point was more that glen's link for the history of ID was

>> woefully lacking, and his assertion that ID isn't invoking the
>> supernatural is blatantly false.
>

>If, as most here believe, science is about discovering Truth...
>
Science doesn't deal in "Truth", it deals in evidence.
Truth-with-a-capital-T is a religious concept. The only ones
here who think otherwise (such as, apparently, yourself) are
those who know little or nothing about science, and believe
it to be equivalent to a religious belief.
>
--

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

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 12:45:12 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:20:04 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Zen Cycle wrote:
> >
> <snip to the point>
> >
> >>...my point was more that glen's link for the history of ID was
> >> woefully lacking, and his assertion that ID isn't invoking the
> >> supernatural is blatantly false.
> >
> >If, as most here believe, science is about discovering Truth...
> >
> Science doesn't deal in "Truth", it deals in evidence.
> Truth-with-a-capital-T is a religious concept. The only ones
> here who think otherwise (such as, apparently, yourself) are
> those who know little or nothing about science, and believe
> it to be equivalent to a religious belief.
> >

So many times we've heard claims about what science is and does or doesn't. One should think twice by now about making such claims.

"Science" isn't an "it". Philosophical assumptions are an unavoidable part of "science". Science does not always
"deal in evidence", whatever "deal with" means to you. Many people have and still do regard science as the pursuit of truth, which is about discovering Truth. Individual belief can and does influence science. Materialism is just as much a "religion" as belief in God. And it is obvious to anyone that has even a modicum of knowledge about the history of science that philosophy has, does and will continue to influence science.

Bob is one poster here that seems to think the knows what reality is. In reality, he "deals" with his own "Truth".

[jillery]

You really should stop posting arguments based on what "most here
believe". You may think you know what others believe, but you don't.
You may think your conclusions are based on what they say, but they
aren't. Charitably, what you say others say are mangled caricatures,
and your conclusions are delusional mountains raised from imaginary
molehills.

But don't feel bad. These are common problems among pseudoskeptics,
so you have lots of company.

>The dominant orthodoxy is Naturalism, the tenet that nature is self
>contained, self sufficient and fully self explanatory is fundamental. By
>this doctrine, there can be no non-natural explanations for anything. Even
>with this restriction there are alternatives: the mainstream conventional
>wisdom and the crackpots. We can tell them apart because they are mutually
>exclusive and only one view can be correct.
>
>The existence of God(s) has always been fundamental to human knowledge about
>reality and basic to all religions. Since the dominant orthodoxy assumes,
>before all else, that nature is all there is, the existence of God(s) is
>either impossible or irrelevant so such a being cannot affect nature.
>
>There is no evidence that this belief is justified by science or even can
>be; it's just a belief in the infallibility of the dominant orthodoxy, a
>species of faith. This thread is about competing assumptions, conclusions
>that can't be validated. All we really have is a popularity contest.
>
>Bill
>

[Glenn]

They are common problems of yours and other's here, like your hopeful buddy Ron, who is only a little more delusional than you.

[Zen Cycle]

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 2:40:12 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

> >
> No. Fine-tuning and information-laden hypotheses are not religion nor religious, at least no more than some other scientific hypotheses.

Bullshit:

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

> Stephen Meyer has never said that ID is religion, and ID is not based on religious texts or religious belief, nor makes claims about the identity of the 'designer".

Billshit:

"[William Paley's] Natural Theology is a sustained argument for the existence of God based on the obvious design of humans and their organs,"

- http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full

> What atheists claim about ID being "pseudo" science is philosophical, not "scientific".

You keep trying this an argument about atheism. It isn't. The vast majority of ID opponents are theistic.

>
> The God Hypothesis goes beyond ID, but Meyer has never made a secret of his religious beliefs. Whether the God Hypothesis is religion in disguise, or "pseudo"science, is debatable,
> but Meyer does not support his explanation with Biblical text or philosophy, but with science.

Questionable biased science relying ona 'god of the gaps' argument - whether explicitly stated or not.

> The Universe is indeed "fine-tuned" and "information-laden", and even many agnostics and atheists have agreed to that in some form or another.

Which doesn't lead to the conclusion of an external intelligent force. ID does that.

> But it is quite obvious that the God Hypothesis goes beyond ID. Whether it is a scientific explanation for ID is a reasonable question, but it does not demonstrate that ID is a religious belief.

ID is a belief based on religion.

>
> IDers do not hide their personal religious beliefs. Neither do some evolutionists, which believe God created life by evolution.
> But the ID hypothesis itself does not "invoke" the "supernatural", anymore than does evolutionary theory "invoke" evidence of "naturalism".
> In fact, there are more atheists that disguise their religious beliefs than IDers, especially if you regard naturalism to be religious belief.

There you go again, claiming that atheism is a religion (hint: it isn't)

>
> Phillip Johnson was a lawyer, and was not part of crafting the science of ID.

Bullshit:

In Robert B. Stewart's book 'Intelligent design', stewart writes "Most observers, both within and without the ID community, recognize University of California Berkeley law professor Phillip E, Johnson as the father of ID, and his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial [...] as a landmark moment in the history of the movement."

> There are many outspoken atheists that are "members" of evolutionary theory,

How does one become a member of a theory?

> or members of actual institutions that support
> evolution, that are believers in naturalism, and that there is no God. This should not have to be constantly repeated before
> critics are able to grasp the obvious, that because a theory has religious implications does not mean that the theory is
> religious or "pseudoscience".

Do you actually ever read what you write?

"because a theory has religious implications does not mean that the theory is religious "

wow.....

> It should be obvious that claims concerning what individuals *believe* does not invalidate the science.

True, except when that belief prejudices a conclusion.

[Zen Cycle]

Not that they are lying, only that they are wrong. Besides that, your attempt to parse out the "science" of ID is as feeble as any other attempt to disassociate the religious roots of ID from the common practice of it.

> What doesn't fit your preconceived beliefs, you ignore that F.C.S. Schiller was not a creationist, for example, yet he was on "the way back to Paley". I doubt you
> can make a convincing argument that Michael Polanyi in 1967, was a Christian or a creationist, or that his claims of irreducibly complex machines were religiously inspired.

Maybe not religiously inspired, but demonstrably false.

>
> The "Wedge" was claimed to follow Johnson's 1991 book.
>
> From my previous cite, entitled "A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design", from 1984
>
> 'Polanyi’s work also influenced the seminal 1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton
> (Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Iowa State University), Walter Bradley (Ph.D., Materials Science, University of
> Texas, Austin), and Roger Olsen (Ph.D., Geochemistry, Colorado School of Mines). Thaxton and his co-authors
> argued that matter and energy can accomplish only so much by themselves, and that some things can
> only “be accomplished through what Michael Polanyi has called ‘a profoundly informative intervention.’”7

And there it is..."goddidit". When a scientist makes a statement that ostensibly states further research is futile becasue something "can only “be accomplished through a profoundly informative intervention", they are no longer practicing science.

>
> The book was written under the auspices of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), and as the book neared completion, Thaxton and the FTE’s president, Jon Buell, approached origin-of-life researcher Dean Kenyon, author of a leading monograph in the field, Biochemical Predestination, and a professor of biology at San Francisco State University. They feared that Kenyon would reject their argument. Instead, he found the book “an extraordinary new analysis of an age-old question” and volunteered to write the Foreword.
>
> Eventually the book was placed with The Philosophical Library of New York, publisher of numerous Nobel laureates, and became the best-selling advanced college-level work on chemical evolution.8 Sales were fueled by favorable reviews in prestigious venues like the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine as well as positive responses from leading scholars. For instance, it received kudos from Klaus Dose in his major review article on origin of life studies, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers.” "
>
> https://www.discovery.org/a/3207/

One book, that's all ya got?

[Glenn]

I'm not defending anything except truth and facts. You make up crap and try to put a pretty bough on top. It isn't fact.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 2:30:12 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 2:40:12 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>
> > >
> > No. Fine-tuning and information-laden hypotheses are not religion nor religious, at least no more than some other scientific hypotheses.
> Bullshit:
> "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
> - William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

That is just his opinion and an analogy, not meant to be a scientific claim. You're too immature and blinded by bias to handle it.

You ignore what you responded to with "bullshit". And you know what ID is represented to be.

So when Francis Collins says God creates thru evolution, that he means evolution is religious. That is an example of bullshit.

And you are no doubt aware of the explanations many scientists have given for life and the Universe. None of them to you are bullshit, because they don't imply a conscious entity capable of creating. Maybe you get that by looking in the mirror and not seeing intelligence.

I'll not spend much time on arrogant fools such as yourself.

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 5:30:12 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 4:25:12 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

> > On 9/27/2021 3:14 PM, Glenn wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 2:00:10 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> > >> This paper looks at the history of the anti-evolution creationists.
> > >>
> > >> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-021-00341-x
> > >>
> > > It's crap, ID is not "creationism" and "supernatural" is not in the ID literature.
> > >
> > > Atheists would have us believe that IDers are bible-thumping fundamentalists, which is absurd.
> > >
> > > Here's a timeline of the modern ID movement:
> > >
> > > https://www.discovery.org/a/3207/
> > >

> > Glenn drank the cool aid years after the bait and switch started to go
> > down on any IDiot that needed the ID science. How can anyone lie to
> > themselves to this extent after the ID perps started their religious web
> > sites after Dover and Meyer just published the God Hypothesis.
> >
> The God Hypothesis is not ID, and the fact that evolutionists can have religious beliefs does not demonstrate that evolution is religion, or that their religious beliefs drives their claims about evolution. Some evolutionists claim that evolution is how God creates. Some evolutionist's religious beliefs do drive their claims about evolution. That doesn't make evolution theory a religion either.
>
> You aren't lying to yourself, you are deluded and believe your falsehoods. Like me drinking Kool-aid. Nothing I have said or say will sway you from your apparent idiocy, though. That is apparently driven by your atheism.

Perhaps you could provide a list of leaders in the "ID movent"
that aren't theists and who haven't said that they don't believe that
the designer is not God.

It would be very helpful, and surprising for some.

There are no gods unless we create them.

[Glenn]

Why?

>
> There are no gods unless we create them.

And you are an atheist that believes in evolution, as are the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. Ergo...

[jillery]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:55:21 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

You're entitled to your mindless and baseless opinions.

[jillery]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:01:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>So many times we've heard claims about what science is and does or doesn't. One should think twice by now about making such claims.

I would suggest you follow your own advice, but your posts suggest you
haven't yet thought once,

[jillery]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 18:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Because.

>> There are no gods unless we create them.
>
>And you are an atheist that believes in evolution, as are the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. Ergo...

OTOH the vast majority of those who believe in God also recognize
evolution as fact.

Do we really need to swap cites?

[Burkhard]

Nobody here says science is about discovering capital T truth. You keep
claiming that people do, even after they reject that characterization,
and you have never been able to document your claim, despite being
challenged to do so, which really makes repeating it an exercise in
dishonesty

If, on the the
> other hand, the point is to protect the dominant orthodoxy, then Truth
> emerges accidentally and then only occasionally.

That is the fallacy of the excluded middle, and rather typical for the
type of epistemological nihilism that you espouse: start with an
unrealistic "ideal" of science and knowledge that absolute nobody claims
is achievable. Measure scientific practice against this made up ideal.
Unsurprisingly conclude it doesn't meet it. And then reject the ability
of scientific research to give is better and better theories altogether
and resort to postmodern arbitrariness.

The argument fails, because it the problem from the word go

[Zen Cycle]

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 6:55:12 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

> I'm not defending anything except truth and facts. You make up crap and try to put a pretty bough on top. It isn't fact.

ID has no basis in fact. The facts do not support any intelligent intervention. Simply that some people have come to a conclusion that something "can only be accomplished through a profoundly informative intervention", doesn't make it a fact. That - in fact - is a lazy cop-out. Until someone can identify this "intelligence" that you _claim_ is responsible for the "design" that you claim is too complex to have been acheived with the "intelligent" intervention with verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable rigor, you're the one presenting bullshit as fact.

[Zen Cycle]

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 6:55:12 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 2:30:12 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 2:40:12 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > No. Fine-tuning and information-laden hypotheses are not religion nor religious, at least no more than some other scientific hypotheses.
> > Bullshit:
> > "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
> > - William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
> That is just his opinion and an analogy, not meant to be a scientific claim. You're too immature and blinded by bias to handle it.
>
> You ignore what you responded to with "bullshit".

How is it possible to respond to something, yet ignored it? Again, do you actually take time to read what you write?

> And you know what ID is represented to be.

I know what ID _is_. It isn't science.

> So when Francis Collins says God creates thru evolution, that he means evolution is religious. That is an example of bullshit.

Yes, the statement "when Francis Collins says God creates thru evolution, that he means evolution is religious" is an example of bullshit.

>
> And you are no doubt aware of the explanations many scientists have given for life and the Universe.
> None of them to you are bullshit, because they don't imply a conscious entity capable of creating.

That's correct. If someone comes up with a plausible and verifiable identification of some conscious entity that could have created life, I'll give it some consideration. To this point, no one has.

> Maybe you get that by looking in the mirror and not seeing intelligence.
>
> I'll not spend much time on arrogant fools such as yourself.

Says the guy presenting bullshit as scientific fact.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:44:36 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:20:04 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Zen Cycle wrote:
>>
><snip to the point>
>>
>>>...my point was more that glen's link for the history of ID was
>>> woefully lacking, and his assertion that ID isn't invoking the
>>> supernatural is blatantly false.
>>
>>If, as most here believe, science is about discovering Truth...
>>
>Science doesn't deal in "Truth", it deals in evidence.
>Truth-with-a-capital-T is a religious concept. The only ones
>here who think otherwise (such as, apparently, yourself) are
>those who know little or nothing about science, and believe
>it to be equivalent to a religious belief.
>>

No response, as usual when the refrigerant has leaked out.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 6:25:13 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 6:55:12 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 2:30:12 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 2:40:12 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > No. Fine-tuning and information-laden hypotheses are not religion nor religious, at least no more than some other scientific hypotheses.
> > > Bullshit:
> > > "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
> > > - William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
> > That is just his opinion and an analogy, not meant to be a scientific claim. You're too immature and blinded by bias to handle it.
> >
> > You ignore what you responded to with "bullshit".
> How is it possible to respond to something, yet ignored it?

Mary had a little lamb.

>Again, do you actually take time to read what you write?

Always, before it is posted. Sometimes twice.

[Zen Cycle]

Thank you for finally admitting your intellectual level.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:44:36 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:20:04 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>
>><snip to the point>
>>>
>>>>...my point was more that glen's link for the history of ID was
>>>> woefully lacking, and his assertion that ID isn't invoking the
>>>> supernatural is blatantly false.
>>>
>>>If, as most here believe, science is about discovering Truth...
>>>
>>Science doesn't deal in "Truth", it deals in evidence.
>>Truth-with-a-capital-T is a religious concept. The only ones
>>here who think otherwise (such as, apparently, yourself) are
>>those who know little or nothing about science, and believe
>>it to be equivalent to a religious belief.
>>>
> No response, as usual when the refrigerant has leaked out.
>>

To many here, science is the equivalent to religious belief but they don't
see it so they don't believe it. Science, as understood by most here, is
based on the philosophy of Naturalism, an assumption that is beyond proof by
science. The Truth is revealed by what is believed to be true prior to any
investigation. This belief includes the pretense of being above the excesses
of belief.

Bill

[Glenn]

There's a good example.

[Mark Isaak]

You realize the only person you are trying to convince is yourself, right?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Glenn]

Are you trying to convince others of that claim?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:52:07 -0500, the following appeared

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

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:44:36 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:20:04 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>
>>><snip to the point>
>>>>
>>>>>...my point was more that glen's link for the history of ID was
>>>>> woefully lacking, and his assertion that ID isn't invoking the
>>>>> supernatural is blatantly false.
>>>>
>>>>If, as most here believe, science is about discovering Truth...
>>>>
>>>Science doesn't deal in "Truth", it deals in evidence.
>>>Truth-with-a-capital-T is a religious concept. The only ones
>>>here who think otherwise (such as, apparently, yourself) are
>>>those who know little or nothing about science, and believe
>>>it to be equivalent to a religious belief.
>>>>
>> No response, as usual when the refrigerant has leaked out.
>>>
>
>To many here, science is the equivalent to religious belief
>

You keep making that claim, but since it's basically a
statement of your personal belief, and by your assertion
cannot be true, it seems a bit pointless.

>
> but they don't
>see it so they don't believe it. Science, as understood by most here, is
>based on the philosophy of Naturalism, an assumption that is beyond proof by
>science. The Truth is revealed by what is believed to be true prior to any
>investigation. This belief includes the pretense of being above the excesses
>of belief.
>

OK, so now you've stated what you believe to be true (which
again, by your assertion, cannot be what is *actually* true,
since it's just your belief, but you repeatedly ignore that
little problem when pontificating about what you think
others believe):

Science is about belief, not objective evidence.
Science is actually religion.
Nothing can be shown to be true.

That about sum it up?

Of course, none of those are correct, and the scientific
method was designed expressly to negate the influence of
belief without evidence, but I suspect you will never
acknowledge that, no matter how much evidence is presented.

[Glenn]

Of course, all of this is just Bob's personal opinion, so none of it can be true.

[jillery]

Don't be too hard on the child. He appears to be incabable of
understanding the difference between responses, which are coherent
comments to the point, and mindless noise.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 18:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

I can't answer for youngblood but it would be helpful and surprising
for me as I'm not aware of any. The fact that you don't give any
examples seems to confirm that there are none that you are aware of.

>>
>> There are no gods unless we create them.
>
>And you are an atheist that believes in evolution, as are the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. Ergo...

Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.

[Abner Mintz]

Martin wrote:
> Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
> to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
> applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.

For some theists their belief that their specific religion is the only true religion is so ingrained that they literally cannot acknowledge any other religion as even existing - they regard everyone not of their specific faith as being an atheist because they don't believe in the One True God (TM). Other theists hate atheists so much that they use it as a kind of ultimate insult - they know it isn't true, but they want to hurt someone else by using the worst possible insult they can. It is quite possible that you are not being accused of literally not believing in a god, but rather of being an ultimate evil beyond all others!

Considering the source, I wouldn't take it seriously. It's rather like Marjorie Taylor Greene declaring that every single Democrat in congress is an atheist - there's no real thought behind it, just a desire to lash out at someone they hate.

[Glenn]

On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:55:12 AM UTC-7, Abner Mintz wrote:
> Martin wrote:
> > Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
> > to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
> > applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.

So what is my personal worldview? You'd need to know that.

> For some theists their belief that their specific religion is the only true religion is so ingrained that they literally cannot acknowledge any other religion as even existing - they regard everyone not of their specific faith as being an atheist because they don't believe in the One True God (TM). Other theists hate atheists so much that they use it as a kind of ultimate insult - they know it isn't true, but they want to hurt someone else by using the worst possible insult they can. It is quite possible that you are not being accused of literally not believing in a god, but rather of being an ultimate evil beyond all others!
>
> Considering the source, I wouldn't take it seriously. It's rather like Marjorie Taylor Greene declaring that every single Democrat in congress is an atheist - there's no real thought behind it, just a desire to lash out at someone they hate.

So it is not "quite possible" as you describe, it is certain to you, since this last is a direct accusation. You've convinced yourself, or wish to convince others, that I am one of what you refer to as "they".

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 08:50:58 -0700 (PDT), Abner Mintz
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Martin wrote:
>> Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
>> to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
>> applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.
>
>For some theists their belief that their specific religion is the only true religion is so ingrained that they literally cannot acknowledge any other religion as even existing - they regard everyone not of their specific faith as being an atheist because they don't believe in the One True God (TM). Other theists hate atheists so much that they use it as a kind of ultimate insult - they know it isn't true, but they want to hurt someone else by using the worst possible insult they can. It is quite possible that you are not being accused of literally not believing in a god, but rather of being an ultimate evil beyond all others!
>
>Considering the source, I wouldn't take it seriously.

Don't worry, I don't and I doubt that there are many here who take
Glenn at all seriously .

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:55:12 AM UTC-7, Abner Mintz wrote:
>> Martin wrote:
>> > Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
>> > to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
>> > applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.
>
>So what is my personal worldview? You'd need to know that.

I can't possibly *know* your worldview if you refuse to share it; all
I can do is make my best guess from the things you post here. As I
have told you many times, if my best guess is wrong, you can easily
correct that by explaining what your worldview actually is and why you
think a particular argument is valid or relevant. The fact that you
continually decline to do so simply reinforces my existing
conclusions.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 12:05:13 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:55:12 AM UTC-7, Abner Mintz wrote:
> >> Martin wrote:
> >> > Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
> >> > to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
> >> > applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.
> >
> >So what is my personal worldview? You'd need to know that.
> I can't possibly *know* your worldview if you refuse to share it; all
> I can do is make my best guess from the things you post here. As I
> have told you many times, if my best guess is wrong, you can easily
> correct that by explaining what your worldview actually is and why you
> think a particular argument is valid or relevant. The fact that you
> continually decline to do so simply reinforces my existing
> conclusions.

That's your problem, not mine. Without knowing my personal worldview, you can't possibly make such claims. It's a no-brainer, and even "sciency".

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/3/21 12:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:55:12 AM UTC-7, Abner Mintz wrote:
>>> Martin wrote:
>>>> Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
>>>> to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
>>>> applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.
>>
>> So what is my personal worldview? You'd need to know that.
>
> I can't possibly *know* your worldview if you refuse to share it; all
> I can do is make my best guess from the things you post here. As I
> have told you many times, if my best guess is wrong, you can easily
> correct that by explaining what your worldview actually is and why you
> think a particular argument is valid or relevant. The fact that you
> continually decline to do so simply reinforces my existing
> conclusions.

I have come to the conclusion that Glenn knows full well that his
worldview is not merely unsupportable, but that it really sucks. (And
Glenn, before you complain, keep in mind that you are the person who
went to great lengths to lead me to that conclusion.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net

"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[Glenn]

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 7:50:13 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/3/21 12:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:55:12 AM UTC-7, Abner Mintz wrote:
> >>> Martin wrote:
> >>>> Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
> >>>> to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
> >>>> applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.
> >>
> >> So what is my personal worldview? You'd need to know that.
> >
> > I can't possibly *know* your worldview if you refuse to share it; all
> > I can do is make my best guess from the things you post here. As I
> > have told you many times, if my best guess is wrong, you can easily
> > correct that by explaining what your worldview actually is and why you
> > think a particular argument is valid or relevant. The fact that you
> > continually decline to do so simply reinforces my existing
> > conclusions.
> I have come to the conclusion that Glenn knows full well that his
> worldview is not merely unsupportable, but that it really sucks. (And
> Glenn, before you complain, keep in mind that you are the person who
> went to great lengths to lead me to that conclusion.)
> --

It is sometimes hard for me to understand how people can say things like this. It may be that some believe or assume that other's have a worldview in some ways similar to their own, in which "similarity" includes those opposite to their own view.
I don't pretend to know anyone's complete worldview, but I maintain that everyone has one, and that it is religious in nature. And that includes atheists.
I suspect Mark disagrees with that last, and would see the two propositions as incompatible.

But to get right down to it, I think Mark is just practicing made up ad hom above. It is fairly obvious though that Mark thinks worldviews are "supportable", which is an interesting claim in it's own right. This may indicate that Mark regards his own worldview as 'supportable".

So I would ask Mark to describe my worldview, as he is in the same position as Martin by assuming they know what that worldview is, or at least part of what it consists of.

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/3/21 8:22 AM, Glenn wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 7:50:13 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/3/21 12:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:55:12 AM UTC-7, Abner Mintz wrote:
>>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>>> Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
>>>>>> to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
>>>>>> applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.
>>>>
>>>> So what is my personal worldview? You'd need to know that.
>>>
>>> I can't possibly *know* your worldview if you refuse to share it; all
>>> I can do is make my best guess from the things you post here. As I
>>> have told you many times, if my best guess is wrong, you can easily
>>> correct that by explaining what your worldview actually is and why you
>>> think a particular argument is valid or relevant. The fact that you
>>> continually decline to do so simply reinforces my existing
>>> conclusions.
>> I have come to the conclusion that Glenn knows full well that his
>> worldview is not merely unsupportable, but that it really sucks. (And
>> Glenn, before you complain, keep in mind that you are the person who
>> went to great lengths to lead me to that conclusion.)
>> --
> It is sometimes hard for me to understand how people can say things like this. It may be that some believe or assume that other's have a worldview in some ways similar to their own, in which "similarity" includes those opposite to their own view.

Most of your original posts say nothing. Even when responding to
substantive comments, your response usually boils down to either "You're
wrong" or "Guess" or nothing at all. You have done this so often that I
rarely bother to read what you write. If you have changed in the last
six months, I probably would not have noticed.

This current post of yours is a welcome exception.

> I don't pretend to know anyone's complete worldview, but I maintain that everyone has one, and that it is religious in nature. And that includes atheists.
> I suspect Mark disagrees with that last, and would see the two propositions as incompatible.

Your position construes "religion" so broadly that it has no meaning.
But granting that meaninglessness, I do agree with you.

> But to get right down to it, I think Mark is just practicing made up ad hom above. It is fairly obvious though that Mark thinks worldviews are "supportable", which is an interesting claim in it's own right. This may indicate that Mark regards his own worldview as 'supportable".

Extensive parts of worldviews are supportable. If your worldview
includes the belief that injecting bleach will improve the health of
COVID-19 patients, or that a Jewish cabal is aiming death ray satellites
at you, or that Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian alien species, then I
submit that those parts of your worldview are not supportable.

> So I would ask Mark to describe my worldview, as he is in the same position as Martin by assuming they know what that worldview is, or at least part of what it consists of.

That's for you to say, but you won't. It is your dedicated refusal to
reveal your worldview which makes me think you are ashamed of it.

[Glenn Sheldon]

And do you really think this spiel boils down to more than what you claim my posts do? It's just made up ad hom.
Did you actually respond to my comment?

>
> This current post of yours is a welcome exception.
> > I don't pretend to know anyone's complete worldview, but I maintain that everyone has one, and that it is religious in nature. And that includes atheists.
> > I suspect Mark disagrees with that last, and would see the two propositions as incompatible.
> Your position construes "religion" so broadly that it has no meaning.
> But granting that meaninglessness, I do agree with you.

I can't parse that. You agree with what you agree is meaningless? Or you agree with me that it is meaningless? Sheesh.
I may use "religion" in a way that you think has no meaning, but you aren't the sole authority of the definition and use of words.
Webster's definition: "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity."
So apparently some people do not insist on the definition of the word "religious" to necessarily include "deity".
An ultimate reality can be considered as a worldview, manifesting faithful devotion to that worldview can be seen as being religious.
Maybe it is just me, but I would think that faithful devotion to follow any real worldview. Conscious devotion is not necessary.
Was your comment necessary? Was my response necessary?

> > But to get right down to it, I think Mark is just practicing made up ad hom above. It is fairly obvious though that Mark thinks worldviews are "supportable", which is an interesting claim in it's own right. This may indicate that Mark regards his own worldview as 'supportable".
> Extensive parts of worldviews are supportable. If your worldview
> includes the belief that injecting bleach will improve the health of
> COVID-19 patients, or that a Jewish cabal is aiming death ray satellites
> at you, or that Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian alien species, then I
> submit that those parts of your worldview are not supportable.

I'm not sure that those are examples of worldviews. But even if so, "parts" of worldviews are not worldviews.

> > So I would ask Mark to describe my worldview, as he is in the same position as Martin by assuming they know what that worldview is, or at least part of what it consists of.
> That's for you to say, but you won't.

No, that isn't for me to say. You have made claims that suggest you know, and claim to know that I know my worldview is unsupportable.
No worldview, by definition, is "supportable" in any scientific sense. And your claim 'I have come to the conclusion that Glenn knows full well that his
worldview is not merely unsupportable, but that it really sucks" is like saying that I know full well that I don't exist. It is simply an insult, similar to claiming that I am lying or fooling myself. If I knew that how I view the word and reality is wrong and "sucked", I would think I would change that worldview.

>It is your dedicated refusal to
> reveal your worldview which makes me think you are ashamed of it.
> --

You can't say that I have a dedicated refusal, and implying that I am ashamed of it is just silly.
Really, you sound like an ignorant arrogant child. I don't recall you ever "revealing your worldview", so should I think you have not because you are ashamed of it? Usually only personal experience allows us to judge others. Have you experience shame of your worldview, or even part of your worldview, that you haven't changed?


Do you think your worldview is supportable?

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 07:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 12:05:13 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:55:12 AM UTC-7, Abner Mintz wrote:
>> >> Martin wrote:
>> >> > Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
>> >> > to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
>> >> > applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.
>> >
>> >So what is my personal worldview? You'd need to know that.
>> I can't possibly *know* your worldview if you refuse to share it; all
>> I can do is make my best guess from the things you post here. As I
>> have told you many times, if my best guess is wrong, you can easily
>> correct that by explaining what your worldview actually is and why you
>> think a particular argument is valid or relevant. The fact that you
>> continually decline to do so simply reinforces my existing
>> conclusions.
>
>That's your problem, not mine.

Well, you are the one who is doing all the whining about people
drawing wrong conclusions about your worldview.

[Glenn]

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 2:35:13 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 07:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 12:05:13 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:55:12 AM UTC-7, Abner Mintz wrote:
> >> >> Martin wrote:
> >> >> > Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
> >> >> > to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
> >> >> > applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.
> >> >
> >> >So what is my personal worldview? You'd need to know that.
> >> I can't possibly *know* your worldview if you refuse to share it; all
> >> I can do is make my best guess from the things you post here. As I
> >> have told you many times, if my best guess is wrong, you can easily
> >> correct that by explaining what your worldview actually is and why you
> >> think a particular argument is valid or relevant. The fact that you
> >> continually decline to do so simply reinforces my existing
> >> conclusions.
> >
> >That's your problem, not mine.
> Well, you are the one who is doing all the whining about people
> drawing wrong conclusions about your worldview.

You claim to be a fan of science, and clearly put science above religious belief, yet you behave in the same manner as do many if not most of the atheists here, in coming to conclusions as you identify above. Hard to say how many times I have responded with similar claims, "you don't know that". Probably thousands of times over the years. It never has any effect on any of you. Your reaction here is I'm "whining". That's your problem, not mine. That is my conclusion. I don't have to prove your conclusion, you do.
In the matter of my regarding you as being an atheist, you defend by making claims. People lie, Martin. And unbelievers and disbelievers have been known to go to Church. These are not evidences that you are not an atheist. I've provided you with what I consider are evidences of what I label
"atheism". Should I conclude that you are an atheist because you have not described yourself as a "creationist"?

[jillery]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 08:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 2:35:13 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 07:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 12:05:13 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 8:55:12 AM UTC-7, Abner Mintz wrote:
>> >> >> Martin wrote:
>> >> >> > Funny, I believe in God yet you still insist I'm an atheist. You seem
>> >> >> > to have your own definition of the word which basically amounts to it
>> >> >> > applying to anyone who disagrees with your personal worldview.
>> >> >
>> >> >So what is my personal worldview? You'd need to know that.
>> >> I can't possibly *know* your worldview if you refuse to share it; all
>> >> I can do is make my best guess from the things you post here. As I
>> >> have told you many times, if my best guess is wrong, you can easily
>> >> correct that by explaining what your worldview actually is and why you
>> >> think a particular argument is valid or relevant. The fact that you
>> >> continually decline to do so simply reinforces my existing
>> >> conclusions.
>> >
>> >That's your problem, not mine.
>> Well, you are the one who is doing all the whining about people
>> drawing wrong conclusions about your worldview.
>
>You claim to be a fan of science, and clearly put science above religious belief, yet you behave in the same manner as do many if not most of the atheists here, in coming to conclusions as you identify above.

The process of science is independent of religious beliefs, and so
aren't necessarily incompatible with each other.

"coming to conclusions" is a matter of logic. Scientific conclusions
are based on material evidence, as contrasted to religious
conclusions, which are based on Revealed Truth. Conclusions can be
logical yet factually incorrect.

>Hard to say how many times I have responded with similar claims, "you don't know that". Probably thousands of times over the years. It never has any effect on any of you. Your reaction here is I'm "whining". That's your problem, not mine.

You understanding of "know" changes from "this is what I want to
believe" when you speak of what you know, to "prove that with absolute
certainty" when you speak of what others know.

>That is my conclusion. I don't have to prove your conclusion, you do.

And you have to prove your conclusions. Bad enough you don't express
coherent conclusions. Worse that you don't even try to prove
anything. And you're proud of both.

>In the matter of my regarding you as being an atheist, you defend by making claims. People lie, Martin. And unbelievers and disbelievers have been known to go to Church. These are not evidences that you are not an atheist. I've provided you with what I consider are evidences of what I label "atheism".

Not in this topic. To the best of my recollection, you haven't
provided evidence of anything, ever. Instead, you baldly assert
repeatedly. Not sure you even know what qualifies as evidence, or
what "atheism" means.

> Should I conclude that you are an atheist because you have not described yourself as a "creationist"?

Since you asked, that would be an illogical conclusion. But that
never stopped you posting same before. You're welcome.

>> >Without knowing my personal worldview, you can't possibly make such claims. It's a no-brainer, and even "sciency".
>> >> >
>> >> >> For some theists their belief that their specific religion is the only true religion is so ingrained that they literally cannot acknowledge any other religion as even existing - they regard everyone not of their specific faith as being an atheist because they don't believe in the One True God (TM). Other theists hate atheists so much that they use it as a kind of ultimate insult - they know it isn't true, but they want to hurt someone else by using the worst possible insult they can. It is quite possible that you are not being accused of literally not believing in a god, but rather of being an ultimate evil beyond all others!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Considering the source, I wouldn't take it seriously. It's rather like Marjorie Taylor Greene declaring that every single Democrat in congress is an atheist - there's no real thought behind it, just a desire to lash out at someone they hate.
>> >> >
>> >> >So it is not "quite possible" as you describe, it is certain to you, since this last is a direct accusation. You've convinced yourself, or wish to convince others, that I am one of what you refer to as "they".

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/3/21 5:15 PM, Glenn Sheldon wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 4:40:13 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:

[snip stuff I have insufficient interest in to bother with]

>> It is your dedicated refusal to
>> reveal your worldview which makes me think you are ashamed of it.
>> --
> You can't say that I have a dedicated refusal,

I can say what I see. I have seen what looks for all the world like a
dedicated refusal.

> and implying that I am ashamed of it is just silly.

It is a hypothesis which explains the observation. You have done
nothing to make me reconsider it, not even proposing a plausible
alternative.

> Really, you sound like an ignorant arrogant child. I don't recall you ever "revealing your worldview", so should I think you have not because you are ashamed of it? Usually only personal experience allows us to judge others.

Nobody ever (well, hardly ever) reveals their entire worldview all at
once. But if you have read my posts over the years, you should by now
have a pretty good idea of it. And yes, it has changed (though not,
that I am conscious of, significantly in the past decade).


Here's an exercise for you: Simply list five things you value most.
Value is hard to quantify, so they don't need to be the absolute top
five, but they should all be near the top of your list. Please.

> Have you experience shame of your worldview, or even part of your worldview, that you haven't changed?
>
> Do you think your worldview is supportable?

Yes.

[Glenn]

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 9:20:13 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 10/3/21 5:15 PM, Glenn Sheldon wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 4:40:13 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> [snip stuff I have insufficient interest in to bother with]
> >> It is your dedicated refusal to
> >> reveal your worldview which makes me think you are ashamed of it.
> >> --
> > You can't say that I have a dedicated refusal,
> I can say what I see. I have seen what looks for all the world like a
> dedicated refusal.

There are many reasons why people 'refuse" to do things. Maybe you hadn't thought about that, and put yourself in my shoes. Doesn't mean though that I am ashamed of my worldview. It isn't logic that determines your regard, but your preconceived notions and biases.
I could be refusing just to see you say silly things like this. Take that and run with it at your pleasure.

> > and implying that I am ashamed of it is just silly.

> It is a hypothesis which explains the observation. You have done
> nothing to make me reconsider it, not even proposing a plausible
> alternative.

I see this mindset a lot here. Have you observed anyone being ashamed of their worldview? Or are you using "observation" in a trivial, subjective way.
I doubt you have even considered such things, regardless of the subject.

You're entitled to your own opinion, just realize if possible that opinions are not scientific observations. Personally, my opinion is that it is quite strange for you to make such claims yet don't bother to actually say what you have heard that makes you think I am ashamed of my worldview, or even what you think my worldview consists of.

I'm not stupid, Mark. It's a no-brainer. You think I am what you consider to be a "creationist' with many of the "trimmings" that realizes the fallacies of my beliefs, and am ashamed but won't admit it. You see me create a new thread, and assume my intent. You see me disagree or be critical of some part of evolutionary theory and create assumptions about what I believe. I've been aware of this for as long as I have been posting to talk.origins.

Are you ashamed that you believe there is no God?

> > Really, you sound like an ignorant arrogant child. I don't recall you ever "revealing your worldview", so should I think you have not because you are ashamed of it? Usually only personal experience allows us to judge others.

> Nobody ever (well, hardly ever) reveals their entire worldview all at
> once. But if you have read my posts over the years, you should by now
> have a pretty good idea of it. And yes, it has changed (though not,
> that I am conscious of, significantly in the past decade).
>

It may very well be that you and I have completely different understandings of what constitutes "worldview". I really, sincerely, tell you in all honesty that I have no idea what your worldview is. And I've read your posts for decades. I doubt you can even describe your worldview. Some are not consciously aware of their worldview, and would struggle to identify it in sufficient detail.

>
> Here's an exercise for you: Simply list five things you value most.
> Value is hard to quantify, so they don't need to be the absolute top
> five, but they should all be near the top of your list. Please.

This would only open criticism from you and most others here. And I doubt you would feel comfortable being asked the same, for a variety of reasons, not necessarily for the specific reason identified. I doubt that you have put any thought into any outcomes other than those that would fit your preconceived notions. in any event, what makes you think that identifying what people value would produce insight into their worldview?
Honesty
Fairness
Kindness
Forgiveness
Equality

Does that help?

> > Have you experience shame of your worldview, or even part of your worldview, that you haven't changed?
> >
> > Do you think your worldview is supportable?
> Yes.
> --

Do you regard philosophical ideas to be "supportable" in any scientific sense? I mean, hell, a bank robber can claim that they can support why they rob banks. Does that mean bank robbery is "supportable" in any meaningful sense?

Part of my worldview that I am keenly aware of is the belief that there is more to life and the Universe than what has been described by science.
I don't pretend, or delude myself, into thinking that I understand it, but the belief comes from a near death experience. What I am sure about is that it changed me. I can't even say to myself, and do not say to myself, that the experience was real. So to be accurate, I can't even say that I believe it was real. But I do believe it was real, in the form of faith. Is that a sufficient enough peek at part of my worldview to satisfy you for now, or would you like me to babble on endlessly about it?

[Mark Isaak]

On 10/4/21 12:05 PM, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 9:20:13 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 10/3/21 5:15 PM, Glenn Sheldon wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 4:40:13 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> [snip stuff I have insufficient interest in to bother with]
>>>> It is your dedicated refusal to
>>>> reveal your worldview which makes me think you are ashamed of it.
>>>> --
>>> You can't say that I have a dedicated refusal,
>> I can say what I see. I have seen what looks for all the world like a
>> dedicated refusal.
>
> There are many reasons why people 'refuse" to do things. Maybe you hadn't thought about that, and put yourself in my shoes. Doesn't mean though that I am ashamed of my worldview. It isn't logic that determines your regard, but your preconceived notions and biases.

I tried to think of other options, and shame was the one I could think
of that fit best. As for putting myself in your shoes, you go out of
the way to make that difficult. I don't even know if you have shoes.

> I could be refusing just to see you say silly things like this. Take that and run with it at your pleasure.
>
>>> and implying that I am ashamed of it is just silly.
>
>> It is a hypothesis which explains the observation. You have done
>> nothing to make me reconsider it, not even proposing a plausible
>> alternative.
>
> I see this mindset a lot here. Have you observed anyone being ashamed of their worldview? Or are you using "observation" in a trivial, subjective way.
> I doubt you have even considered such things, regardless of the subject.
>
> You're entitled to your own opinion, just realize if possible that opinions are not scientific observations. Personally, my opinion is that it is quite strange for you to make such claims yet don't bother to actually say what you have heard that makes you think I am ashamed of my worldview, or even what you think my worldview consists of.
>
> I'm not stupid, Mark. It's a no-brainer. You think I am what you consider to be a "creationist' with many of the "trimmings" that realizes the fallacies of my beliefs, and am ashamed but won't admit it. You see me create a new thread, and assume my intent. You see me disagree or be critical of some part of evolutionary theory and create assumptions about what I believe. I've been aware of this for as long as I have been posting to talk.origins.

You are a creationism supporter, which makes it likely that you are a
creationist. Beyond that, all I know is that you are (or have been,
until this post) abnormally secretive about your views.

> Are you ashamed that you believe there is no God?

I can't be, because I do not believe there is no God.

>>> Really, you sound like an ignorant arrogant child. I don't recall you ever "revealing your worldview", so should I think you have not because you are ashamed of it? Usually only personal experience allows us to judge others.
>
>> Nobody ever (well, hardly ever) reveals their entire worldview all at
>> once. But if you have read my posts over the years, you should by now
>> have a pretty good idea of it. And yes, it has changed (though not,
>> that I am conscious of, significantly in the past decade).
>>
> It may very well be that you and I have completely different understandings of what constitutes "worldview". I really, sincerely, tell you in all honesty that I have no idea what your worldview is. And I've read your posts for decades. I doubt you can even describe your worldview. Some are not consciously aware of their worldview, and would struggle to identify it in sufficient detail.

There is a real world. We know nothing about it with absolute
certainly, but we are effectively certain about a great number of
things. And less and less certain about a far greater and greater
number of things. Usually, it is possible to become more certain about
particular things. I find it fun to do that.

>> Here's an exercise for you: Simply list five things you value most.
>> Value is hard to quantify, so they don't need to be the absolute top
>> five, but they should all be near the top of your list. Please.
>
> This would only open criticism from you and most others here. And I doubt you would feel comfortable being asked the same, for a variety of reasons, not necessarily for the specific reason identified. I doubt that you have put any thought into any outcomes other than those that would fit your preconceived notions. in any event, what makes you think that identifying what people value would produce insight into their worldview?
> Honesty
> Fairness
> Kindness
> Forgiveness
> Equality

Far from criticism, I see you behaving maturely in this post.

My list (and I made it before seeing yours) is:
Honesty
Kindness
Commitment to self-correction and growth
Fairness
Curiosity

> Does that help?

Yes, thank you.

>>> Have you experience shame of your worldview, or even part of your worldview, that you haven't changed?
>>>
>>> Do you think your worldview is supportable?
>> Yes.
>> --
> Do you regard philosophical ideas to be "supportable" in any scientific sense? I mean, hell, a bank robber can claim that they can support why they rob banks. Does that mean bank robbery is "supportable" in any meaningful sense?

Some philosophical ideas, especially in metaphysics, are supportable (or
not) scientifically. Others, especially in ethics, are supportable
based on social considerations. The bank robber, for example, could not
support that his actions are good for society as a whole. I would
regard aesthetic ideas as generally unsupportable.

> Part of my worldview that I am keenly aware of is the belief that there is more to life and the Universe than what has been described by science.

I think all scientists share that view.

> I don't pretend, or delude myself, into thinking that I understand it, but the belief comes from a near death experience. What I am sure about is that it changed me. I can't even say to myself, and do not say to myself, that the experience was real. So to be accurate, I can't even say that I believe it was real. But I do believe it was real, in the form of faith. Is that a sufficient enough peek at part of my worldview to satisfy you for now, or would you like me to babble on endlessly about it?

That is a good to know, thank you. You need not "babble on endlessly"
about it, but I hope you will not close your life off from others in the
future.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:59:23 -0700, the following appeared

From Bill: "There's so little worth responding to here.".

Q.E.D.