tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post7664676812809401442..comments2024-03-18T03:29:09.653-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Coyne vs. Plantinga, Bambi vs GodzillaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-53081772287396562952013-01-19T09:02:11.091-08:002013-01-19T09:02:11.091-08:00Rereading this interesting conversation after noti...Rereading this interesting conversation after noticing some traffic this morning . . . <br /><br />Brian: I explained earlier in this thread why Holocaust denial and flat-earthism make poor parallels to ID, even as abstract theories. I think you need to internalize such distinctions, to talk intelligently about the subject. But of course, that would ruin your pose. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-59432596527490283342012-03-05T04:44:55.446-08:002012-03-05T04:44:55.446-08:00‘You're prepared to discuss ID the way someone...‘You're prepared to discuss ID the way someone is prepared to discuss the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics, when their entire exposure to quantum physics can be summed up as "I watch a lot of Futurama"’<br /><br />This analogy is incorrect since my exposure to biology and evolution is greater than “I watch a lot of Futurama”. Moreover, the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is, or is nearly, the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, and is considered respectable even by most phycisists who disagree with it - which puts it in a VERY different position to ID. In any case, since you mention it, I am personally pretty sceptical of the Copenhagen interpretation.<br /><br />I am prepared to discuss ID to the extent to which I think it is worth discussing i.e. somewhere around the level of astrology, Holocaust Denial or flat-earthism.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-79211815241805209752012-03-03T02:42:22.022-08:002012-03-03T02:42:22.022-08:00I can assure you that if I started angrily denounc...<i>I can assure you that if I started angrily denouncing ID in the “circles” in which I move, people would not give me a pat on the head or a cookie. I’m in Dublin</i><br /><br />I was under the impression that you had access to this newfangled contraption called "the internet", via which people from all over the world can go online. Not sure how I came to that conclusion. ;)<br /><br />Please tell me you thought both the cookie and pat on the head were literal. That would just make my day.<br /><br /><i>at least I have HEARD of ID and am prepared to discuss it,</i><br /><br />You're not prepared to discuss it. That's been the theme of this entire lengthy strand of comments. You're prepared to denounce it, you're prepared to flip out and scream about how terrible and horrible ID proponents are, you're prepared to very quickly google something if you're up against the wall. But discuss it? No. <br /><br />You're prepared to discuss ID the way someone is prepared to discuss the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics, when their entire exposure to quantum physics can be summed up as "I watch a lot of Futurama" and "I saw Deepak Chopra talk about this on youtube once." A conversation with such a person can last weeks, granted - too many people love to talk about, at length and with authoritative manner, that which they don't understand.Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-90879478778650911182012-02-29T09:40:28.540-08:002012-02-29T09:40:28.540-08:00Actually, we can’t just write off the prospects fo...Actually, we can’t just write off the prospects for Intelligent Design theory here in Ireland. I looked it up and found the following information:<br /><br />“Nelson McCausland, Northern Ireland's born-again Christian culture minister, who believes that Ulster Protestants are one of the lost tribes of Israel, has written to the Ulster Museum’s board of trustees urging them to reflect creationist and intelligent design theories of the universe's origins. The Democratic Unionist minister said the inclusion of anti-Darwinian theories in the museum was ‘a human rights issue’.”<br /><br />So there is hope – with people like Nelson McCausland on-board, ID might have a bright future amongst the lost tribes of Israel here in Ireland :-)Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-84112125228580993512012-02-29T09:30:06.249-08:002012-02-29T09:30:06.249-08:00“Yes, I know that in certain circles you get a pat...“Yes, I know that in certain circles you get a pat on the head and a cookie for showing how much you hate ID and think ID proponents are stupid”<br /><br />I can assure you that if I started angrily denouncing ID in the “circles” in which I move, people would not give me a pat on the head or a cookie. I’m in Dublin, where virtually nobody knows anything about ID – it is not on people’s radars. For example, I am not acquainted with a single person who has ever even heard of Michael Behe or the Discovery Institute. If I started going on about ID (positively or negatively), people would most likely look at me in a bewildered fashion, as if I had nine heads, before gently suggesting that maybe a long around-the-world cruise might do my mental health no harm. In fact, you should be giving me points for my amazing open-mindedness about all this – at least I have HEARD of ID and am prepared to discuss it, unlike anyone else I know : - )Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-44914461805483324562012-02-29T08:54:13.760-08:002012-02-29T08:54:13.760-08:00So, by your own criteria, David Irving is more qua...<i>So, by your own criteria, David Irving is more qualified than you to make a judgements about the Holocaust and he has more of a right to hold firm views about it. By your own criteria, his views about it are more likely to be valid than yours.</i><br /><br />No, by 'my criteria', someone who has read David Irving's books - someone who has actually bothered to read up on his claims, find out what he's saying, and why he's saying it - is in a better position to *dismiss David Irving* than someone who hasn't even bothered to read any of David Irving's books, and largely is relying on second-hand or even third-hand information about him, but who feels really strongly about it all.<br /><br />That's the point you don't get. Yes, I know that in certain circles you get a pat on the head and a cookie for showing how much you hate ID and think ID proponents are stupid, and the fact that you don't even know what those proponents are saying (and indeed, show evidence that you mangle what they claim) isn't really viewed as a problem. Surprise! You've been fooled. It's actually a really rotten way to reason.<br /><br />Again, I get it: the idea that you'd have to say 'I never read what this person said, so I'm not in the best position to judge. I've heard they say (X) and I've heard people I trust say (Y), but that's as far as I can go' really sucks. What fun is it if you can't act outraged and angry at people before bothering to read what they said, right? Why should knowledge of a person's argument and claim at all come into play regarding how animated and angry and loud you get in your denunciation of them?<br /><br />That style of thinking is self-evidently inane. Wrap yourself up in it if you like. Just don't be surprised when the whole "But don't you see? Reading what other people say is counterproductive to understanding why they're wrong!" hack-logic is dismissed when you're not in the 'you get a cookie' crowd.<br /><br />David,<br /><br />I think it depends tremendously on how one goes about it. There's a tremendous difference between, say... saying, "I have neither the time nor interest to look into claim X made by person Y, or even to understand what person Y is really claiming. Based on what I know, I think they're wrong, but that's all I can say or care to say." and "I have neither the time nor interest to look into claim X made by person Y, or even understand what person Y is really claiming. But they are absolutely stupid and their arguments don't work and they're utterly unreasonable for taking the positions I kinda-sorta think they do, and suggesting that I should bother to read up on their claims or to even understand what they're claiming before reacting like this is a pointless waste of time."<br /><br />Yes, I think there's a problem with saying, essentially, 'Behe and Dembski are not only wrong, they're morons, and they're totally unreasonable and (so on and so on). Have I read their books or know their arguments and reasoning beyond the briefest google search? What the heck does that have to do with anything?' And of course, this doesn't just apply to Behe and Dembski.<br /><br />I know some people feel all warm and fuzzy and delighted at themselves for having a visceral reaction and angrily denouncing What Their Group Targets despite knowing next to nada about it, but I don't think it's acceptable. And whatever differences Brian may have with the group otherwise, this kind of behavior and attitude is rife in the Cult of Gnu.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-69853699407018067452012-02-29T06:06:31.118-08:002012-02-29T06:06:31.118-08:00I don't think either one of you is entirely wr...I don't think either one of you is entirely wrong, here. <br /><br />Yes, in some circumstances it is legitimate to completely dismiss claims one has not studied in detail. That is Aristotle's point, and Origen makes a similiar point, when he admits to Celsus that not all Christians have studied up on Christian evidences -- some are not smart enough, and most just don't have time. So for most things, we rely on what people we respect claim. And that is legitimate, and it helps us navigate the world. (Navigation itself depending on maps that the navigator has usually not independently checked -- this is the first time he's been by this reef, possibly.) <br /><br />However, when one meets people who seem intelligent, and seem to know what they're talking about, and don't seem too wide-eyed and loony, I think you have to back off a bit on the vehemence of your assertions. At that point, you have to earn your right to dogmatize, or tone it down. <br /><br />Intellectually, even, I don't think ID is in the same position as Holocaust denial, at all. We know that the Holocaust occurred, because we have the testimony of millions of survivors. No one knows directly, or can prove conclusively, that God has not meddled in biology. (Mike Gene makes this point with great subtlety.) Even if we take the anti-Behe response at face value, we only "know" that 10 proteins in the TTPS system (sp?) served as a platform for the 40-protein bacterium flagella system. That's (at most) one step in the middle of the pond (and Behe counters that argument), it's not a highway to heaven. (I pressed Behe on this point, because I DO think it's one possible step in the middle of the pond. But I can't say his reply is necessarily wrong, nor, I think, can anyone else.) <br /><br />Same with flat-earthism. Have you ever flown in an airplane? I have. I've SEEN the curviture of the earth. But I've watched biological entities all my life, been one, in fact, without SEEING any proof that God or some angel or ET didn't play some role in biological design. <br /><br />Matter of fact, the contrary supposition, even with NDE, even with genetic evidence that I accept, even with 99% of biologists ranged on the other side, still seems awful hard to believe.<br /><br />But I don't know. Origins are a fascinating and difficult field, even (I have observed) for the truest believers. <br /><br />It comes down to Confucius, again. "To know what you know, and know what you don't know -- this is wisdom / knowledge."David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-34995947187584648812012-02-29T05:47:46.967-08:002012-02-29T05:47:46.967-08:00If someone has researched a topic carefully and re...If someone has researched a topic carefully and read a lot about it, it does not mean that their views about it carry any weight, or that their judgement about it is at all reliable. This is pretty self-evident. The point has been demonstrated, so I don’t know why we are still discussing it. <br /><br />David Irving has read an awful lot more books about Nazism and the Holocaust than you have. Indeed, Irving has spent decades of his life researching and examining primary sources related to this topic, going to all the most important libraries, wading through thousands of archives. He has uncovered completely new documents about WWII. He has written 30 books on the subject. Renowned historians, like Hugh Trevor-Roper (professor of history at Oxford University) have commended David Irving for his "indefatigable, scholarly industry". A.J.P Taylor, another famous professor of history at Oxford University, has praised Irving’s "unrivaled industry" and "good scholarship”. Sir John Keegan, a best-selling professional historian, has said that Irving "knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War", and has claimed that Iriving’s book, Hitler's War, is "indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round".<br /><br />So, by your own criteria, David Irving is more qualified than you to make a judgements about the Holocaust and he has more of a right to hold firm views about it. By your own criteria, his views about it are more likely to be valid than yours.<br /><br />But for one small problem. David Irving is convinced that the Holocaust NEVER HAPPENED.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-5346904478390519282012-02-29T05:39:12.591-08:002012-02-29T05:39:12.591-08:00So there you go – contrary to what you have both b...<i>So there you go – contrary to what you have both been arguing, it is not at all the case that people who have read the books about a particular topic are better qualified to make reliable judgements about it, or to hold reliable views about it.</i><br /><br />Let's run with this logic, Brian.<br /><br />Who's more likely to have a reasonable opinion about evolutionary biology? The person who has studied evolutionary biology for years, reading all manner of books and detailed technical manuals about the subject? Or the person who has never read a book about evolutionary biology?<br /><br />Well, clearly the person who never read a book about evolutionary biology. The person who spent years reading books about evolutionary biology probably is an evolutionary biologist, and thus has a financial, intellectual and personal stake in the subject, and thus come to the table with a wildly biased view.<br /><br />Utter nonsense, of course (I'll spare repeats for everything from philosophical atheism to physics), but there's your logic. And that's really not even the worst excess of your reasoning: apparently, you can 'just tell' what's true or false in advance of reading up on anything, according to... either some personal nigh-infallibility, or an assumption that you've talked with people who are nigh-infallible.<br /><br />Worse, not only can you 'just know' what the right view is about something, without ever having read up on it - you can even tell if the view(s) being advocated are, despite being ultimately wrong, even reasonable. That's rich. And it sounds an awful lot like the following: "Man, I sure like to angrily condemn things I disagree with, or which rub me the wrong way. But actually reading stuff and understanding what people I dislike have to say is very boring or even difficult and I don't want to do that. So, I'll just say that reading such things is beneath me and not necessary, but appeal to how strongly I feel about it all anyway. This will do the trick." And I bet it does, for people who already agree with you and could care less about accurately representing what they attack, much less being correct.<br /><br />But really, go for it. Your defense here condemns your reasoning on these matters better than any barb from me - at this point you're defending the combination of 'angrily, furiously condemning people you disagree with - even going so far as to insult the writers personally - despite having made no effort to even read what they're saying beyond a weak google search, and noting that other people dislike them for some reason'. <br /><br />And so long as you want to keep throwing around holocaust denial references, I suggest this: people who didn't know anything about the people persecuted in the holocaust except what their friends and supposed experts angrily insisted was the case, and who didn't think it was important to actually learn about the people who were being condemned from the people themselves (who they were, what they actually believed and practiced)... well, you tell me what effect they had on the event at the time.<br /><br />Whatever you do, don't read any books about that subject! They're likely written by people who have devoted an inordinate amount of time to reading up on the history of the holocaust, which would apparently undermine the value of their writings.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-37701341520585477962012-02-29T03:21:28.548-08:002012-02-29T03:21:28.548-08:00Crude paraphrases me like this: “I'm absolutel...Crude paraphrases me like this: “I'm absolutely, positively sure they're not only wrong, but utterly stupid and evil, on the order of being comparable to holocaust deniers'.”<br /><br />I want to clarify this, for fear that there might be some misunderstanding about it. I wasn’t comparing ID proponents to holocaust deniers in any moral sense. Clearly, there is no moral comparison to be made here. I was just using holocaust denial to illustrate a point. Although, to the extent that most professional historians view holocaust denial with the same level of respect that most professional biologists view Intelligent Design, there IS a legitmate comparison to be made here, from an intellectual perspective, though not a moral one – intellectually speaking, ID is no more respectable than holocaust denial.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-80665958572900380672012-02-29T02:29:43.518-08:002012-02-29T02:29:43.518-08:00David and Crude,
You both seem to be making the p...David and Crude,<br /><br />You both seem to be making the point that someone who has read the most well-known books about ID is more qualified, or more likely to be qualified, to make a reliable judgement about ID than someone who has not read any of those books. What could be more obvious than this, right? Somebody who has gone to the trouble of actually reading the most important books about a particular topic is surely in a better position to have confident views about it than someone who has not read those books? Well, actually, no. That is not necessarily the case at all. In fact, the point you have both being trying to make is completely untrue and entirely bogus, as I will now conclusively demonstrate (hold on to your seats!):<br /><br />Let’s start with an easy one for you guys: Who is more likely to make a reliable judgement about the Book of Mormon, someone who has actually read the Book of Mormon from start to finish OR someone who has never even read a single page of the Book of Mormon? The answer, amazingly, is: someone who has never read a single page of the Book of Mormon. How is this possible? Because someone who has read the Book of Mormon from start to finish is very likely to be a believing Mormon, and therefore to believe (incorrectly) that the Book of Mormon is the revealed word of God. In contrast, someone who has never read a single page of the Book of Mormon is likely to hold the (correct) view that it is NOT the revealed word of God. So there you have it – someone who knows NOTHING AT ALL about the Book of Mormon is much more likely to make a reliable judgement about it than someone who knows all about it! Who’d have thunk it?<br /><br />Who is more likely to have reliable views about Scientology, someone who has read, absorbed and pondered all the central texts of Scientology, or some random person on the street who knows virtually nothing about Scientology? The answer, again, is that the random person on the street who knows virtually nothing about Scientology is much more likely to make a reliable call on Scientology, than the person who is an expert on all the central texts of Scientology.<br /><br />Let’s go on. Who is more likely to have reliable views about UFOs, someone who has read all the books about UFO sightings, or someone who has never read a single book about it? Answer: someone who has never read a single book about it, because someone who has read a lot of books about it is likely to be a crackpot who thinks that there have been lots of established UFO sightings.<br /><br />Let’s try a slightly more tricky one: who is more likely to have reliable views about Holocaust Denial, someone who has read all the books advocating Holocaust Denial, OR someone who has never read a single book advocating Holocaust Denial, but lots of books about the Holocaust and WWII? The answer: the person who has never read a single book advocating Holocaust Denial. Why? Because a person who has read all the books advocating Holocaust Denial is more likely to be a Holocaust Denier than someone who has read no books about it. <br /><br />Now, who is more likely to have reliable views about Intelligent Design, someone who has read all the books by leading ID proponents, or someone who has never read those books, but who has read quite a few books about biology and evolution? The answer: the person who has never read any books advocating intelligent design, but who has read lots of books about biology, is more likely to have reliable views about Intelligent Design. <br /><br />So there you go – contrary to what you have both been arguing, it is not at all the case that people who have read the books about a particular topic are better qualified to make reliable judgements about it, or to hold reliable views about it.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-18649580469741690952012-02-28T19:18:08.638-08:002012-02-28T19:18:08.638-08:00Brian,
You claim to have read a bunch of books ab...Brian,<br /><br /><i>You claim to have read a bunch of books about ID, but given that you don't appear to have even read, or at least taken in, the posts I have written during this very discussion, I have to wonder what exactly "read" means in this case.</i><br /><br />Yeah, I have little doubt that what it means to "read up on what you're criticizing" eludes you, considering your behavior in this thread, on this topic. You're the one who matched 'I haven't even really read what they said' with 'But I'm absolutely, positively sure they're not only wrong, but utterly stupid and evil, on the order of being comparable to holocaust deniers'.<br /><br />Yeah, pardon me if I'm not impressed with your reasoning skills on this front.<br /><br /><i>And what have i said that is crazy? </i><br /><br />Your general reaction and tone? The hilarious overreaction to the very topic? The lack of understanding? Oh boy, I see you said the words 'irreducible complexity' finally - I'm glad to know that Google works on your computer. ;)<br /><br /><i>There are thousands of crank theories about stuff out there and it would take more than a life-time to exhaustively 'investigate' them all.</i><br /><br />As a matter of fact, if I haven't read up on a theory or idea, I tend to keep my mouth shut about it. I certainly don't run around comparing its proponents to holocaust deniers or the obviously deluded. Especially if I <b>can't even coherently state what they actually take themselves to be proposing</b>.<br /><br />I know, I know - it's a crazy belief I have. This idea that A) if I declare a group of people to be wrong, hilariously wrong, and wicked besides, I should actually read what they have to say first or moderate my comments, and B) just because someone agrees with me, it doesn't mean their agreement was the result of particularly rational insight, or indeed, any insight at all. I happen to disagree with, say... Lubos Motl about the status of String Theory. If you told me Motl is wrong on String Theory because he's a right-winger who denies the reality of global warming, yeah, don't be surprised if I say your rejection of String Theory was pathetic. It's not like I'm a member of the ID Haters club, and all you have to do is say "ID Sucks!" to join.<br /><br />David,<br /><br /><i> To be fair, I have seen Brian back up his views on other subjects well, from time to time. He has almost convinced me that radical Muslims are not going to overrun Western Europe as quickly as I thought, for instance.</i><br /><br />No doubt he has. I'd absolutely concede that Brian sets himself apart from the general Cult of Gnu antics. But here? On this subject? He's flipped. He's literally taking the position that it's A-OK to compare ID proponents to holocaust deniers, *without even having read their books or being able to coherently state what they see themselves as advocating*, apparently on little grounds beyond 'I just know they must be wrong' and 'I feel real, real strongly about this'.<br /><br />Meanwhile he's shocked that I find that kind of "reasoning" deplorable, because hey, I reject ID too so clearly that means everything must be okay? This reeks of the sort of reasoning where what matters most is getting people to say "I accept evolution". Sure, they may not be able to coherently describe natural selection, they may think the X-men constitute a stellar fictional example of Darwinism, but they said they accept evolution so they get a cookie. It's bad reasoning.<br /><br />But, out of respect for you, I'll dial it back. Really, I don't have to say the emperor has no clothes here, because he's naked and spinning around while screaming his head off.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-21411897477325983712012-02-28T14:31:19.611-08:002012-02-28T14:31:19.611-08:00Crude: To be fair, I have seen Brian back up his v...Crude: To be fair, I have seen Brian back up his views on other subjects well, from time to time. He has almost convinced me that radical Muslims are not going to overrun Western Europe as quickly as I thought, for instance. Nor does he always toe the "New Atheist" line. I found the comments about ID all the more remarkable, because the only topic he usually sounds like that on, is politics.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-73756145961098975692012-02-28T13:34:04.790-08:002012-02-28T13:34:04.790-08:00"You have a nasty habit of pretending you'..."You have a nasty habit of pretending you've handled something, when then only thing you're handling is yourself."<br /><br />What do you mean "pretend"? Directly after I said "Thus far, no one has scientifically established that any biological phenomenon has been designed by an intelligent agent" I immediately went on to say, "except maybe for stuff that humans have done through genetic engineering, artificial selection etc." What exactly did I not handle here? Where is the pretence? Where is the nastiness? Where is the onanism? Remind me again why the good people at Monsanto would like a word with me about all this? You claim to have read a bunch of books about ID, but given that you don't appear to have even read, or at least taken in, the posts I have written during this very discussion, I have to wonder what exactly "read" means in this case.<br /><br />And what have i said that is crazy? The fact that you have read a lot of books about ID and rejected it, is not a reason to take it seriously. And despite what you think, I am familiar with the central ideas (irreducible complexity, specified complexity, yahdahyahdahyahdah) and don't find them convincing. And neither do you. So where does that leave us? <br /><br />"'mah pappy dun told me ain't nothin' worth nothin' in them thar ID books"<br /><br />What the hell does this mean? There are thousands of crank theories about stuff out there and it would take more than a life-time to exhaustively 'investigate' them all. How many books about astrology have you read? Or ufos? Or Scientology? Well, unless you've read every book written about them all, I sure hope you don't have any views about them, because that would mean you've made up your mind about these things without properly "investigating" them, even though you know nothing, nada, nyet about any of them! How closed-minded of you!Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-57562950699400385162012-02-28T13:28:58.285-08:002012-02-28T13:28:58.285-08:00Ok david, in order to try and bring this to some s...Ok david, in order to try and bring this to some sort of conclusion, I'll concede that Behe's argument is probably better than that of your average astrologist or flat-earther, based on the fact that you find something commendable in his argument :-)Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-30112169859041315472012-02-28T12:32:20.440-08:002012-02-28T12:32:20.440-08:00I've already dealt with this faux-argument. Ne...<i>I've already dealt with this faux-argument. Next.</i><br /><br />You have a nasty habit of pretending you've handled something, when then only thing you're handling is yourself. So to speak. ;)<br /><br /><i>I've given my reasons why I do not take ID seriously and you have not pointed out anything incorrect in anything I have said.</i><br /><br />"What you've said" has mostly been a crazy, angry rant. It falls on its own terms. And anyone who's actually bothered to read what ID Proponents themselves have to say is going to see as much. The fact that you are utterly incapable of describing the claims of ID proponents as they see them speaks volumes. You haven't read their books. You haven't bothered to read what they think. You compare them to holocaust deniers, announce that you don't need to read anything to know they're wrong, and that's that. It's hilarious.<br /><br />Go ahead, keep up with the internet wharblegarble, the atheist equivalent of 'mah pappy dun told me ain't nothin' worth nothin' in them thar ID books' - all I wanted to do is verify that you haven't a clue about ID, and man, that's been verified in spades. It's every bit as sad as watching a hardened creationist scream about the falsity of evolution, and when you ask them what 'natural selection' means they insist that they don't need to know. Brilliant.<br /><br />Since you've been grasping for comparisons like this, let me offer one: the fact that I reject ID, yet I think your reasoning is ridiculous, should give you pause about whether you know much of anything about the topic. So far your "best" argument here is that it's so obvious ID (which you can't even define) is wrong, that you don't need to know anything about it, much less read the writings of scientists you're certain are incorrect. How rational! ;)<br /><br />David,<br /><br />I think Behe's criticisms of Darwinism are valid and reasonable - but merely criticizing neo-Darwinism isn't sufficient to make one an ID proponent. (Otherwise James Shapiro and Lynn Margulis, among others, are ID proponents.) It's where Behe starts to not just infer design, but argue that this inference is scientific, that I pause. I don't think inferences for or against design are scientific.<br /><br />Brian can remain in complete ignorance of what he screams about if he so chooses. He's just one guy on the internet, and sadly, that sort of "I dun even gots ta read 'bout it ta know I dun believe in alla that" attitude is all too common.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-58023217500076321242012-02-28T12:11:57.719-08:002012-02-28T12:11:57.719-08:00Brian: I've also read books endorsing a purely...Brian: I've also read books endorsing a purely materialistic explanation for the origins of life, and I can't find my way intellectually to settling for that, either. Guess you'd better put skeptical theories of evolution on your black list, too.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-19640168496114914192012-02-28T11:39:58.910-08:002012-02-28T11:39:58.910-08:00Both you and crude are more sympathetic to ID than...Both you and crude are more sympathetic to ID than I am and have read lots of books by its leading proponents, and even with this, neither of you are ID advocates and both of you are very careful to make that absolutely clear. Well, if EVEN YOU GUYS aren't advocates, despite the fact that you know all about it, and are sympathetic to it, then, as far as I am concerned, that is YET ANOTHER REASON not to take it seriously, along with all the other reasons I have.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-60920864619429390942012-02-28T11:15:40.704-08:002012-02-28T11:15:40.704-08:00Brian: You seem to have missed the fine shading, h...Brian: You seem to have missed the fine shading, here. Neither Crude nor myself is, in fact, an advocate of ID. Our difference appears to be that both of us have more respect for (in my case) Michael Behe, than you do. Also that we seem to know more about the subject. (And also, yes, that we may be more open to it, somewhat.) <br /><br />Unlike Crude, I think Michael Behe advances what is, in fact, a clear and reasonable scientific argument. He may be wrong. My objections are more theological, believe it or not -- but they are not insurmountable. <br /><br />So I'm at odds with all the world on this -- I'm friendly on scientific grounds, unfriendly on theological grounds.<br /><br />As for scientific evidence, again, Michael Behe is the go-to guy, not me. And no, I don't mean court transcripts, or garbled quotes from court transcripts, or even hostile attacks out of context of his rebuttals of said attacks. I'm cool with a robust scientific debate on both sides. I've already explained why Flat Earthism is a bogus parallel.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-50084837534666384732012-02-28T11:02:17.248-08:002012-02-28T11:02:17.248-08:00" I won't torture you over the issue"..." I won't torture you over the issue"<br /><br />That's kind of you! You have all this scientific evidence for intelligent design, but you are keeping it to yourself out of a merciful desire not to torture me! Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-33081603994966513662012-02-28T10:58:10.135-08:002012-02-28T10:58:10.135-08:00Crude, "The good people at Monsanto would lik...Crude, "The good people at Monsanto would like a word with you."<br /><br />I've already dealt with this faux-argument. Next.<br /><br />I've given my reasons why I do not take ID seriously and you have not pointed out anything incorrect in anything I have said. Nor have you given me any reason to take ID seriously. In fact, in perhaps your one substantive comment about this so far, you have given me a reason NOT to take it seriously. You have stated that ID is not science, in your view. So if it's not science, then what exactly is it? And why should I take it any more seriously than astrology, holocaust denial, UFO sightings, alternative medicine and so on? <br /><br />As I said previously, you don't need to read a lot of books by holocaust deniers to know what it is and to know that it's bunk - you just need to know a bit about history. You don't need to read a lot of books about flat-earthism to know that it's bunk - you just need to know a bit about geology. And you don't need to read a lot of books about ID to know that the whole thing is drivel - you just need to know some biology. So unless you can give me a good reason for thinking that ID is in someway different from all these other crank theories, I am fully justified in holding the views about it that I do. Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-12979949968465440822012-02-28T10:43:50.071-08:002012-02-28T10:43:50.071-08:00All right, Brian, I won't torture you over the...All right, Brian, I won't torture you over the issue. Seems like a lot of certainty based on a lot of confessed ignorance, but at least you're more reasonable in admitting a looser epistemology than some atheists of my acquaintance. As Aristotle said, we do depend on the "old, wise and skilful" in our polis for much of what we "know," or think we know. So I won't try to argue you out of the lynch mob.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-59113452217677304912012-02-28T10:32:53.521-08:002012-02-28T10:32:53.521-08:00David, I don't know for sure that no one has g...David, I don't know for sure that no one has good scientific evidence for the theory that butterflies were designed by a committee of leprechauns and fairies ... Maybe someone does have good evidence and i don't know about it. And I don't know for sure that no one out there has good scientific evidence that this or that biological entity was intelligently designed. But if the evidence exists, then I don't know about it. Also, nearly all professional biologists agree that no such scientific evidence is known. That's not conclusive, but it's a pretty strong basis to go on. So, unless you or Crude can provide some good scientific evidence that a biological entity was created intelligently (leaving aside the human examples I referred to earlier, of course) then I am fully justified in saying that no such evidence exists. <br /><br />And if we have no good scientific evidence to back up a claim, then the claim has no scientific validity (even if the claim happens to be true).Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-6161871062662704042012-02-28T09:30:42.940-08:002012-02-28T09:30:42.940-08:00Brian: I would have to question both your premises...Brian: I would have to question both your premises (or one of them) and your conclusion. First, how do you know no one has found any good scientific evidence for that? I assume you're better-informed than Crude thinks, but you'd have to be marvellously well-informed to be able to assert that with due authority. <br /><br />And second, it's not at all00 obvious that your conclusion follows from your premises. <br /><br />Crude: Yes, I know, Gonzalez is also contributing a chapter. But usually those kinds of arguments are kept on a different shelf.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-65815394351516081602012-02-28T09:21:04.505-08:002012-02-28T09:21:04.505-08:00Brian,
You haven’t argued why anything I said in ...Brian,<br /><br /><i>You haven’t argued why anything I said in my last post was “wrong”, so I’ll just ignore that.</i><br /><br />You provided a long, barely cohesive ramble, and didn't provide anything close to a definition of "ID" as its own proponents claim it to be. Yes, it's wrong. I know, because I've actually read the writings of ID proponents. If you think you're right, more power to you.<br /><br /><i>Thus far, no one has scientifically established that any biological phenomenon has been designed by an intelligent agent, </i><br /><br />The good people at Monsanto would like a word with you.<br /><br />Let me ask again: "The ID movement has some identifiable, prominent leaders - William Dembski, Michael Behe, etc. What would be an example of the central ID claim in their view? Can you even get within the ballpark on this one?"<br /><br />I'm guessing, in response to my last question, no. Even with David's quick summary, you have zero idea - none, nyet - what ID proponents actually say, what their basic claims are, much less what Behe or Dembski in particular say. What you mostly know can be summed up as this: "A lot of Christians like them and they criticize Darwinism. Grr. GRR!!!" ;)<br /><br />David,<br /><br /><i>But it's easy to define ID: it is simply the assertion that biological forms give evidence of having been designed, at least in part, by (an) intelligent agent (s). And I think that covers all the ID theorists.</i><br /><br />Actually, I think even this claim isn't completely accurate. ID, as far as I'm aware, doesn't limit itself to biological forms - hence Guillermo Gonzalez and the emphasis on cosmology, etc. But yeah, most of what you hear about ID relates to biology.<br /><br />I'll give a fuller definition after Brian attempts an answer. Because as near as I can tell, as I've said, he knows next to nothing about ID other than he knows he should dislike it and it for whatever reason drives him bonkers.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com