RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: A thread for Richard Kepler, to share the evidence for ID.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2010,14:01   

Richard has been debating on the Amazon thread.

He's an ID supporter with much to say.

He also has a blog:

And here are a few quotes to get started. I've invited him over on the Amazon thread.

In the end, testing hypotheses about natural selection chiefly appear in the form of sizing up the credentials and value of the journal a publication propositions about it are found in. In other words, it is not really used in research designs that include recognized and respected research methodology such as sampling methods and tests of the null hypothesis. It is more a background rationale to describe the general trends of evolution. It is also used more as a general tendency in nature, serving to orient and outline the broader aspects of and higher-level integrations found in the evolutionary model.

This is a very regretful state of affairs in evolutionary studies. It is probably one reason why evolutionists and their lobbying bodies fight so hard to discredit and silence the critics of evolution. The real problem lies not in those critics who are professional in their conduct, but with a model that is hiding or denying a pitfall: the fact that at least one of their mechanisms as has been defined and promoted is a philosophical and theoretical term, and not anywhere near becoming an empirical, scientific one. And this same methodological state of affairs has existed for a long time. Evolutionists don't seem able to realize or to face up to questions of reasonable doubt generated from the American public about this observation. The lack of methodological rigor may be making evolutionary science an exception, a science of a different sort, similar to what the social sciences and history are.

The despised injection of brain matter that would constitute adding insights from artificial intelligence and ID into evolutionary theory in order to give it a needed shot is categorically rejected without due consideration. Any directivity sufficient to provide strong (as opposed to weak) causes of increased biological complexity is currently rejected out-of-hand by evolutionists. They won't countenance causal discussions or observable physical causes because of their blindly hypocritical, unnaturalistic committment to time as cause. No criticisms or adjustments to evolutionary theory supported by nonloyalists are allowed because of wildly charged emotionalism. The merits of AI and ID's arguments cannot not even discussed in an adultlike, rational manner. An atmosphere of dogmatism and a climate of professional fear that it built clouds all discussion. It has beseiged evolutionary science for decades. Partisanism and dogma are the root causes behind it.

Most strategies used by the status quo to deny legitimacy and prevent institutional access to individuals holding radically new views constitute such examples of shallow-minded thinking, evidently at the point they perceive they are loosing too many constituents. That is the same point in time you see a large number of derisive statements cropping up. Ostensibly, it is for the purpose of reigning in the faithful by employing very simple thus easily politicized sketches outlining a group's essential, though self-admittedly cryptic, positions and dogma. It's by-product is discrimination legally speaking, the unfair treatment of individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, age, or intellectual position.

What should we make of this current state of affairs? I suggest the following approach: ID, take heart and bide your time! The current evolutionist strategy is dangerously short-sighted. As long as this kind of treatment is levied against you in the form of tangible economic effect and levelled against you in public instances of harangue that bring very evident professional anguish, then historically speaking- you cannot lose! Persecution and defamation historically have never succeeded, at least in the long run. What you should really fear is winning under the wrong circumstances, or perhaps 'winning' at all.

If evolutionists actually wanted to kill your position and do so effectively, they would gobble it up. That is, they would insincerely welcome it for a time. Once in real control, sitting back in their chairs in academic departments, they would quietly sidetrack its arguments, water down its import, and defuse all its insights about evolution. That would leave them in control and you demoralized- in a quandry! You actually should rejoice that your intellectuals and scientists are still powerfully in control of the development of your arguments and viewpoint, and not converted evolutionists such as I.

Richard, could I suggest that you start off with your single most persuasive instance of positive evidence for ID? Or perhaps you could give an example of something that ID can explain that "evolutionists" cannot? Or something that ID explains better then any alternative?


I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings


Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2010,15:05   

He'll never show up here, OM. He's reduced to posting the same old stuff about bigotry and such over and over on Amazon, and getting his ass kicked around pretty good by you, me, Scott, and Smokey/JAM. All of his ID proponentsist buddies have abandoned the thread, maybe because they are embarrassed by his behavior and that of cake-boy.

Unless he really is as delusional as he acts, he can't possibly imagine that his crap will get a better reception over here...

Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2010,18:57   

Kepler.  You mean Dick?


Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,01:18   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 29 2010,17:57)
Kepler.  You mean Dick?

Dick he is...


Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,09:34   

Perhaps you could invite Johannes Kepler instead?

Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11


Posts: 441
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2010,13:42   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 31 2010,09:34)
Perhaps you could invite Johannes Kepler instead?

I still say that looks like the actor Pete Postlethwaite.

  5 replies since Oct. 28 2010,14:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]