RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Is ID Dead?, Pat says yes, PZ says no< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,10:29   

Lately the babblings of the IDers have been particularly pathetic and weak, and I've taken to calling this the Long Twilight of Intelligent Design. Everybody can see that ID has been a catastrophic failure, even some of its supporters.

PZ and Pat are having something of a disagreement, though.

Here's Pat's take

And here's PZ's take

   
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,10:49   

I rather like:

William Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog has, since the Dover decision, been turned over to a small group of bathrobed basement activists whose writing indicates they are increasingly disassociated from reality. Dembski himself has made a series of bizarre charges against a range of scientists which he has later had to retract, but the lesson, it seems, is never learned.

Like zombies, this small cadre of intelligent design activists will live on, but the opportunity to win others to their ranks has now passed, and nowhere is that fact clearer than in the inward-looking writing of the ID activists themselves.


--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,10:58   

Steve,

Sadly, I agree completely with PZ.

Why sadly? Because this isn't a fight we are ever going going to stop fighting. There are always going to be religious people who wish to take their religious faith as a superior model of reality than the actual evidence (i.e. actual reality).

One point I have been thinking about a lot recently is the "making your own institutions" that PZ mentioned. Religious identity is so intimately tied to cultural and personal identity that for many people these three are inseperable. Take the person out of the gigachurch (although I think the next factor up, the terachurch, is more appropriate. Terror indeed) and show them the problems with this heightened religiosity and it's like you are telling them they are not a citizen of their country or a proper person or even themselves.

I'm buggered if I know what the answer is. But the idea of setting up our own institutions is a good one. Show people that their social and personal and cultural identity isn't dependant on adherence to a specific dogma, faith or religious belief.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,12:41   

ID is dead as a mackerel, and has no hope whatever of resurrection.  Not a chance.

The anti-evolution movement, though, is like cancer.  It will never go away.  Ever.

However, without the political support given to it by the Republicrat Party, the anti-evolution fundies are nothing but a sewing circle.  And within a few days, the Republicrats will get the most thorough thrashing they've ever received, and will be in no shape to give the fundies anything -- not even the lip service they've BEEN giving them.

So the way to kill the fundie movement, permanently, as an effective political movement, is simple ----- separate them from the Republicrat Party.  The anti-evolutioners then become as harmless (if kooky) as the geocentrists and the flat earthers are.

Of course, I, unlike PZ, do not see the very existence of religion itself as any sort of threat.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,14:38   

they're both right about the issues, and PZ is wrong about Pat's take.

PZ is focusing on the root, the creatio-fundieism that spawned ID to begin with, which is indeed not going to go away.

Pat is focusing specifically on the latest incarnation, which, like creation science, is rapidly being tossed to the loonie bin as a strategy.

I'm not sure why PZ missed that Pat was focusing strictly on ID, but both of their arguments are essentially correct when taken in context.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,17:29   

There are dangers in assuming that ID and its fundamental reaction against science (not Pat's position, btw, but one could mistake it as his (her?) position) are dead, but there are also dangers in thinking that an important weakening of this most recent incarnation of creationism has not occurred.  PZ is risking cynicism in not fully acknowledging the pathetic state to which ID proper has come.

The value of Dawkins' fairly singular approach is more than a little apparent now, I think.  UD expends a considerable amount of its remaining strength in fighting Dawkins' atheism, rather than even pretending to be doing or promoting science.  Whether one thinks that fundamentally Dawkins is right or wrong, he has done his part to smoke out the biases driving ID in its inception down to the present time.  IDists cannot help but react against the atheism that I think is mostly beside the point in science, because, of course, nothing in ID had anything to do with science when properly done.

What I am wondering is if ID might have put questions into the minds of a significant number of YECs.  No matter how badly IDists understood science, many at least did not deny the plain facts of geology, and several even noted that the evidence shows that evolution has happened.  It could be that ID has done some good after all, as it whimpers away into a lingering death (probably a living death, as some will no doubt cling to it until death, like many losers do).

Naturally it could only have a generally positive effect if it were to die, or to become completely marginalized.  I am hoping that for a while into the future, ID will poison the well for "critical evaluation", since such an admirable-seeming subterfuge might work much better than it has recently if "critical evaluation" were not the only "science" that ID ever attempted to engage in.  Possibly the living corpse of ID may be used to crush the anti-evolutionists' desires to nickel and dime evolution to death by using any "argument" (no matter how well it has been answered) they can throw at it.

Let us not forget that huge numbers of schoolchildren are taught little or nothing about evolution, thanks to the various sorts of anti-evolutionists.  I don't think that ID has had much to do with it, however the endless ignorance and reaction against science that bred ID continues to fester by blanking out biology's most important theory.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,18:02   

Quote
The value of Dawkins' fairly singular approach is more than a little apparent now, I think.  UD expends a considerable amount of its remaining strength in fighting Dawkins' atheism, rather than even pretending to be doing or promoting science.  Whether one thinks that fundamentally Dawkins is right or wrong, he has done his part to smoke out the biases driving ID in its inception down to the present time.  IDists cannot help but react against the atheism that I think is mostly beside the point in science, because, of course, nothing in ID had anything to do with science when properly done.


Hmm.  I think your conceptualization of Dawkins' latest effort makes sense, but do we really know if this was the intent and specific strategy?  

anybody have independent evidence indicating that Dawkins actual intent was to attract fundy wrath like flies to, um, well you know?

or is the result simply an expected and happy circumstance?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2006,20:32   

In the creationism debate, nothing ever really dies. We're still seeing the second law of thermodynamics gibberish. We're still reliving arguments from the 1840s.

Looking at it this way, ID can't die and will never really go away, just like young earth creationism and flood geology and "creation science" will never go away, even decades after they've become as discredited as they could possibly be.

However, while none of these things will ever die, they have each in their way become irrelevant.

And I do think ID has become irrelevant. Its time has been spent. The next threat from the creationist camp will be something different, and ID itself can be put out to pasture with flood geology and all the other creationist strategies that have been tried and failed. This doesn't make the creationism vs evolution struggle is over or even any less relevant. It just means the direction of that struggle will be changing.

The discovery institute, meanwhile, still has the potential to do some damage, I think.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,03:57   

All "intelligent design" ever was: a new label for good old fashioned creationism, after an attempt to throw the more obvious embarrassments and constitutional problems overboard.

"Intelligent design" - the most recent resurgence of anti-science - is now pretty well discredited; even Ken Blackwell, religious right candidate for Governor of Ohio, knows it's a bad move to associate with these guys. I think Wells, Johnson, Dembski, Behe and the Discovery Institute are finished. The next resurgence - and surely there will be one - might have to wait for a new label and a new generation of apologists.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Fross



Posts: 71
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,05:37   

YEC and OECism is fossilized. (ironically killed by I.D. sucking away the attention)

I.D. is dead.

"Teach the Controversy" is still alive.

--------------
"For everything else, there's Mastertard"

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,11:06   

Quote
Hmm.  I think your conceptualization of Dawkins' latest effort makes sense, but do we really know if this was the intent and specific strategy?  


I doubt it that it was his intent and specific strategy, at least with respect to the creationism wars themselves.  However, Dawkins may very be aware of specific strategies by some groups (notably, some environmental groups) to create outlier organizations which tend to legitimize the groups previously considered to be "radical".  He may himself be trying to be one of those outliers for atheism.

It's not for me to know his mind, though, and I tend to take him at face value (since it's easier)--that apparently he tries to use reason on those who do not use reason very well, especially where religion is concerned.  He knows the problem with that approach, but he seems not able to prevent himself from using tactics that do not directly work on most people.

But I value his approach as bait for the promoters of the "new science" of Paleyism, which was all that I meant in my earlier post.  I have never thought that most of us ought to be like Dawkins, or even that we should all be non-religious.  However, the ID-type of religionists will label all of us as intolerant materialists without the slightest bit of evidence, which is why it is so welcome to me to have someone around who positions himself as being fairly intolerant of religion, like Dawkins (for instance, I could not imagine the government stepping in between parents and children in the matter of religion as Dawkins suggests).  It becomes all the harder to project the lie that we're simply trying to destroy religion when we act so differently from the one who (apparently, at least) really is out to destroy religion, rather than to try to moderate religion via reason and science as I would like to do.

I've always thought it was counter-productive for the rest of us to try to inhibit PZ Myers, Dawkins, and Dennett, since if we succeeded in shutting them up the only non-theists to paint as intolerant of religion would be us.  And however absurd that accusation is, in the absence of any well-known militant atheists such a claim would be plausible enough to many naive individuals.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,11:39   

Quote
Anybody have independent evidence indicating that Dawkins actual intent was to attract fundy wrath like flies to, um, well you know?


I think it was to attract more agnostic/liberal believer butterflies to the atheist nectar, and away from the flame. ;)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,13:03   

In one sense, Creationism and its offshoots will never die so long as people associate evolution with an uncaring universe.

In an intellectual sense, I think ID is dead because the scientists were able to show progress in explaining "irreducible" systems, and one of the creators of the "No-Free-Lunch Theorem" publicly ridiculed Dembski's maths. It's the same type of problem the YEC folks have: the last few decades have been a boon for evolution. Look at the all the neat transitional fossils that have been found, and the discovery of pseudogenes, SINE and LINE insertions that have clarified many ancestral lines. The tipping point will come when people realise how useful macroevolutionary ideas are in technical research. People listen to results.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,14:05   

Quote
In one sense, Creationism and its offshoots will never die so long as people associate evolution with an uncaring universe.


but will the need to think that the universe personally cares for one fade?

I think so.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,15:28   

Quote
Creationism and its offshoots will never die so long as people associate evolution with an uncaring universe.
My instinct would be to sugggest to people that feel that way that they grow up.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,17:05   

Quote (Fross @ Nov. 01 2006,11:37)
"Teach the Controversy" is still alive.

No, that's dead too.  It died in Ohio.


So did "teach the controversies about global warming, and . . . uh . . . stem cell research . . . um . .  and oh yeah, evolution".


My hunch is that they will give up on evolution completely, and launch into some anti-big-bang thingie instead.  Shades of Heddle's "comsological ID".


But as I've noted before, without the political support of the Republicrat Party, it doesn't matter WHAT the fundies say -- they become just another harmless bunch of nutters that nobody pays any attention to.  Like the geocentrists or the flying saucer/alien abduction  kooks.

And very soon, the Republicrat Party will not be in any position to help the fundies with anything.

If ever there was a chance to separate the fundies from the Republicrat Party, now is the time. . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,18:07   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 01 2006,17:39)
Quote
Anybody have independent evidence indicating that Dawkins actual intent was to attract fundy wrath like flies to, um, well you know?


I think it was to attract more agnostic/liberal believer butterflies to the atheist nectar, and away from the flame. ;)

Um, really? Because personally, the more I hear people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers go nuts obsessing over the whole religion thing, the more convinced I become to describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist in public. Even though I don't see much meaningful difference between the two words.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,18:37   

Can I ask a simple question and get a simple
answer?

Based on your experiences and observations in
life, what, if you were a betting person, are the
chances that God is dead or that there never
was one?  50/50, 10 to one,
100 to 1, 1000 to one, million to one?

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,19:11   

Quote
I've always thought it was counter-productive for the rest of us to try to inhibit PZ Myers, Dawkins, and Dennett, since if we succeeded in shutting them up the only non-theists to paint as intolerant of religion would be us.  And however absurd that accusation is, in the absence of any well-known militant atheists such a claim would be plausible enough to many naive individuals.


over the last few months, I've come to essentially the same conclusion.  Extremists, agree or not with their individual positions, do tend to move the discussion forward at least, and do tend to absorb the brunt of opposition.

in fact, one could make a good argument that extremists on both sides are moving this along to a resolution faster than if they weren't around.

I'm pretty sure the end result will be something I can live with (hopefully not just a projection of rationalism), so speeding it along can only be a good thing.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
cdesign proponentsist



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,19:20   

I believe that misunderstandings cannot be killed except by the individual who holds the belief (How many pages of AFDave would you like to prove this point?) which means that ID and creationism can’t be called dead until we get kids who have only had a basic K-12 public education able to point out why the supernatural is considered out-of-bounds of scientific testing.

Yes, ID is now intellectually pathetic and cloistered, but it always was. I think it’s the post-Dover “Here’s a 135 page smack down from a conservative religious judge” euphoria that makes their idiocy seem more harmless, but we have to remember why they were a culture threat: emotional arguments supporting what a large number of people already believed in, a veneer of scientific authority, low entry qualifications, and a well-funded PR group. Those factors remain (even the veneer of scientific authority as the oblivious denizens of UD have shown) which leads me to believe that ID remains culturally viable. And since it's based on God-in-the-gaps and impossible-to-calculate probability estimates (which I believe to be two of the most seemingly plausible and easy-to-grasp creationist arguments for non-scientists), I also don't see it being irrelevant until those fallacies are obvious to the majority of the population.

So basically, they’ll have to change their legal angle (probably a more bottom-up than top-down method of getting it into schools like student evangelizing), but they’re pitifully unable to come up with new ideas or let old ones die, and this one seems profitable, so we’ll see ID pop up again.

--------------
"Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons." -Dembski

The ID epiphany: Nothing in ID makes sense until you accept they're trying to look stupid.

  
nuytsia



Posts: 131
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2006,23:06   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Nov. 01 2006,23:05)

My hunch is that they will give up on evolution completely, and launch into some anti-big-bang thingie instead.  Shades of Heddle's "comsological ID".


I'm not so sure? The big bang doesn't upset the religious as much, as it still seems kind of magical.
It's evolution that gets people mad enough to rush into schools waving bricks shouting "do I look like a monkey?".

As cdesign points out, that's the real problem. As long as that culture exists, there's the opportunity for money and power. My guess - same old arguments in a shiny new suit. Tailoring by the DI? (after all it's been pretty lucrative so far hasn't it?)

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,03:21   

Quote
Based on your experiences and observations in
life, what, if you were a betting person, are the
chances that God is dead or that there never
was one?  50/50, 10 to one,
100 to 1, 1000 to one, million to one?

Why would you assume that, to the extent one might consider the existence of the supernatural, one would focus exclusively on a singular entity?  Or that one would describe the entity or entities using the proper noun "God" that gives away that you're unable to consider anything but the assumed existence of the one entity you are obsessed with?  How could a god or gods, had it/they once existed, now be dead?  What or who would kill a god?  Since there is no empirical evidence for a god or gods ever having existed, what could constitute evidence of their death?

Oh yeah, you wanted a simple answer.

One.

Zero, based on your experiences and observations in
life, what, if you were a betting person, are the
chances that Osiris is dead or never was?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,03:59   

Toothbrush:

"Oh yeah, you wanted a simple answer.

One."

You were sorta vague. Are you betting that
there is, or is not an Intelligent Designer?

Gatta go.  I'm goin' fishin'.

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,04:13   

Nothing vague about it.  Probability is expressed as a value between 0 and 1.

50/50 = 0.5, 1 in a million = .000001, etc.

How about my question?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,04:38   

Quote
Um, really? Because personally, the more I hear people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers go nuts obsessing over the whole religion thing, the more convinced I become to describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist in public.


Perhaps atheism, like evolution, works through populations, mcc! Individual preferences will vary; and they will change as the Dawkins/Dennett brouhaha continue to percolate through the culture. Let's wait and see. You might change your mind.

Evolution literacy works through populations, too. One can apply the metaphor of Dawkins' gene-level arms' race to this whole evolution vs. creationism fight. They are competing strategies, but creationism doesn't lead to survival; its believers are waiting for a Rapture that won't happen. Sooner or later they'll have to figure out how to live on this planet, and guess who already has answers about that?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,05:36   

Quote

and one of the creators of the "No-Free-Lunch Theorem" publicly ridiculed Dembski's maths.


I had a running correspondence with David Wolpert, starting with a request for him to look over Dembski's "Can Evolutionary Algorithms Generate Specified Complexity?" (IIRC), which was an early place where Dembski invoked NFL theorems. Wolpert sent me back a scathing assessment of Dembski's foray into NFL theorems. Later, I suggested to Wolpert that it would be useful if he reviewed Dembski's "No Free Lunch". That review, of course, got published in a pretty high-profile spot.

<made in canada>I think that went well.</made in canada>

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,08:31   

Russell:
   
Quote
My instinct would be to sugggest to people that feel that way that they grow up.


I understand what you're saying, but that may not be enough. Here's a guy who articulates the religious conservative viewpoint against evolutionary biology pretty well:

   
Quote
I think it is also worth noting that many atheists and agnostics are constantly reassuring religious believers that evolution doesn’t threaten our religious beliefs. “Have no fear,” they say, “evolution doesn’t contradict any religion at all; you can accept evolution and still be an orthodox Christian. The only thing science disproves is a literal six-day creation; other than that, there’s absolutely no conflict whatsoever. Move along, nothing to see here.” An example of Derbyshire doing this can be found toward the end of this article. Yet now, in the article you linked to, he is pretty much stating baldly that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with orthodox Christianity, and that accepting the former necessitates rejecting the latter.

I’ve always doubted that those unbelievers are sincere when they reassure religious believers, since when they talk among themselves, it’s very common to hear evolution given as one of the primary reasons they don’t believe in God. It brings to mind how Yassir Arafat was known to say conciliatory things to the Western world in English, then turn around and say the complete opposite to his own people in Arabic. I think most people who reassure religious believers that evolution doesn’t threaten them are really just hoping that if they can get people to accept evolution first, their conservative religious beliefs will topple later, paving the way to acceptance of liberal social goals like same-sex marriage and abortion-on-demand. Of course, this doesn’t explain Derbyshire, who is not particularly invested in such goals. I think Derbyshire is just such a pessimist that he gains some kind of perverse schadenfreude out of the prospect of people admitting, against everything they formerly believed, that there’s no meaning or purpose in life. [my emp]


You may think this guy is blowing this out of proportion, but let's be honest: at least some of you think this way. Many lefty evo supporters really do use biology as a Trojan Horse for anti-conservative doctrines, and that's why conservatives like me have to be more vocal in defense of science. You can accept science and still embrace traditional morality.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,08:43   

Quote
...and that's why conservatives like me have to be more vocal in defense of science...


You seriously have to be shitting me. You're not a defender of science, you're a message board troll.

Geocentrism?
"Fine tuning"?
Guts to gametes?

Science these things are not. Nobody's buying this latest act GoP.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,10:52   

Louis, don't you cause enough trouble at home?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,14:29   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 02 2006,10:13)
Nothing vague about it.  Probability is expressed as a value between 0 and 1.

50/50 = 0.5, 1 in a million = .000001, etc.

How about my question?


I know what .5 is and I know what .ooooo1 is.

I asked a simple question and expected a

simple answer.  What are the probabilities

there is a designer?  Could there be a

createor?  I believe, if ID is dead, God is

dead, but what I believe doesn't matter.

I can only deal with  one question at a time.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2006,23:34   

Dude, reach around to the back of your neck, just above the hairline.  You'll feel a small on/off switch.  Now, I know you can't see it, but it is labeled "brain on/off switch."  I don't know exactly how yours is set up, but from what you've contributed to this board so far I think we all can agree that yours is currently in the off position.  So flick the switch to the opposite position (I know your brain is still warming up from a long dormancy so I'll just tell you that the opposite of "off" is "on," which means you have just turned your brain "on."  Got it?).  OK, now that that's done, ponder my simple question:

How in the h3ll could anyone answer a question about a probability calculcation any more simply than saying,

ONE?

Do you only recognize English statements that contain chapter and verse citations?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,01:15   

Hey Gimpy,

Most amusing. Tell me is this you?

Louis

(edited to remove and EXTREMELY offensive link I thought might be a good idea but on reflection decided against)

--------------
Bye.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,01:43   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 03 2006,05:34)
Dude, reach around to the back of your neck, just above the hairline.  You'll feel a small on/off switch.  Now, I know you can't see it, but it is labeled "brain on/off switch."  I don't know exactly how yours is set up, but from what you've contributed to this board so far I think we all can agree that yours is currently in the off position.  So flick the switch to the opposite position (I know your brain is still warming up from a long dormancy so I'll just tell you that the opposite of "off" is "on," which means you have just turned your brain "on."  Got it?).  OK, now that that's done, ponder my simple question:

How in the h3ll could anyone answer a question about a probability calculcation any more simply than saying,

ONE?

Do you only recognize English statements that contain chapter and verse citations?

Oh, I found the switch and you were right.

I'm not a mathematician but I think that what
you are saying, and I don't want to put words
in your mouth, is, One = certainty, without a
doubt.
Like if someone was driveing down the street
and saw a sign in a yard that said, "God lives
here" and they honked at the man sitting
on the porch and gave him the finger, there's
certainty,one, that he would be no more.  Right?

2Ki 2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,01:50   

While I don't condone needless harming of innocent beasts, I will make the exception here.

GoP get out your inflateable sheep sick her under your arm...put on some lippy, high heels and your best summer frock and head off to Vegas...get out and live..find yourself a nice wrestler...heck a whole tag team of them and GET IT ON.

Go boy! You know you want to...chicken.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Ra-Úl



Posts: 93
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,04:37   

ke:

I usually like your style and your taste in literature, but must you encourage GoPppy to come to my town? What have I done to you to deserve this sort of tratment? Ask him to go to another cesspool of sin and degradation. We get our supply of weird from advertising in some of the finest publications and more reputable TV sleazefests.

Ra-Ul (no time for tildes today)

--------------
Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

  
Moorit



Posts: 21
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,05:52   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 31 2006,18:41)
ID is dead as a mackerel, and has no hope whatever of resurrection.  Not a chance.

Sadly and respectfully, I have to disagree.  The whole ID mess never really dies.  It just gets repackaged with a great big, "NEW & IMPROVED!!" label stuck on it and a snappy new name.  Those who buy this sort of product never seem to notice that it's the same old, stinky pigshite.  "Teach the Controversy" has just changed to the "Controversial Issues Template.''  After that gets it metaphorical head slammed in the door a few times, it'll just change its name again.  Probably something like, "Modeling Other Methods" or some such thing to suck in the gullible all over again.

Moorit

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,13:02   

Paley, you seem to think that someone here actually gives a flying f#ck what you think.  About anything.

No one does.  (shrug)


Well, maybe Zero does.  Why don't you two go off and have a nice chat with each other?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,13:09   

Quote (Moorit @ Nov. 03 2006,11:52)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Oct. 31 2006,18:41)
ID is dead as a mackerel, and has no hope whatever of resurrection.  Not a chance.

Sadly and respectfully, I have to disagree.  The whole ID mess never really dies.  It just gets repackaged with a great big, "NEW & IMPROVED!!" label stuck on it and a snappy new name.

You should have gone on to quote my very next sentence:

"The anti-evolution movement, though, is like cancer.  It will never go away.  Ever."

;)

But as I noted before, the only reason anyone pays any attention at all to the anti-evolutioners is because of the political support they get from the Republicrat Party.

Remove that source of political support, and the anti-evolutioners turn into yet another group of loud but harmless nutters, just like Paley's fellow geocentrist morons, the flying saucer fans, and the "moon landing is fake" kooks.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,16:43   

Well, what WILL the next face of anti-evolution be? Straight creationism got smacked down in the courts, and creationism with a cheesy pseudo-scientific veneer (ID), also got smacked down. 'Teach the controversy' is DOA, so what's left? The folks at UD are showing us what the social future of anti-evolution is, namely creationism with scientific pretensions and a lot of semiliterate wingnutty whining about Dawkins, PZ Myers, and anyone not as full o' Jeebus as they are. That's enough to keep UD a sort of grotesque spectacle, but it doesn't exactly translate to a coherent agenda. I think Dembski and Regnery can continue to repackage the same bullshit only for so much longer before everyone wanders off. Is there any other direction for them to go?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,17:39   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 02 2006,20:29)
I asked a simple question and expected a

simple answer.

You asked a gibberish non-question with no conceivable answer.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,18:51   

Ra-Úl said:

Quote
ke:

I usually like your style and your taste in literature, but must you encourage GoPppy to come to my town? What have I done to you to deserve this sort of tratment? Ask him to go to another cesspool of sin and degradation. We get our supply of weird from advertising in some of the finest publications and more reputable TV sleazefests.


oh ....sorry Ra-Úl, but just think you could insult him in 4 different languages. BTW thanks to you I found the urbandictionary.com when you pointed out deadmans ..er naughty mexican. Boy do they know how to swear!!

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,04:47   

Quote
Well, what WILL the next face of anti-evolution be? Straight creationism got smacked down in the courts, and creationism with a cheesy pseudo-scientific veneer (ID), also got smacked down. 'Teach the controversy' is DOA, so what's left? ...Is there any other direction for them to go?


I say, let's not wait around for them to think of one. Let's feed them one. Then we can control their PR campaign and, at the appointed time (everyone synchronize your watches), deflate it by remote control.

I have a really creepy idea for ID's next step that came to me while I was brainstorming for some fiction that I was writing under deadline. It would be fun to get the Dembster and Friends high on it and watch them try to skateboard over a lake.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,05:15   

Salome (Bring me the head of WAD) said:
Quote
I say, let's not wait around for them to think of one. Let's feed them one. Then we can control their PR campaign and, at the appointed time (everyone synchronize your watches), deflate it by remote control.


The Inflateable Designer ?

The proportion of inflation is measureable and in direct proportion to WAD's ego.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,05:49   

Salome here (bring me a wad of WAD):

 
Quote
The Inflateable Designer ?


Oh, I get it, kind of like a moonwalk for grownups! [Grownups?] Brilliant idea. Let's trojan[~grin~]-horse them right back.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2006,11:05   

Quote (mcc @ Nov. 03 2006,23:39)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 02 2006,20:29)
I asked a simple question and expected a

simple answer.

You asked a gibberish non-question with no conceivable answer.

Most agree, ID is dead.  Was God ever I AM?  Is God

dead?  

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2006,00:15   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 04 2006,17:05)
 
Quote (mcc @ Nov. 03 2006,23:39)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 02 2006,20:29)
I asked a simple question and expected a

simple answer.

You asked a gibberish non-question with no conceivable answer.

Most agree, ID is dead.  Was God ever I AM?  Is God

dead?  

Zero

Front page today:
Florida Today (my newspaper)

Having trouble staying alive?  Call Ditech.com

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps....006

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2006,12:39   

bump

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2006,16:16   

ID is dead, "creation science" will of course spawn another incarnation.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2007,17:00   

More 'ID is Dead' info:

Quote
This morning Red State Rabble did a Google search on the terms "Guillermo Gonzalez" and "tenure." The search returned a paltry 65 results. Of those, 21 are from the Discovery Institute. Seven right-wing or religious websites such as Town Hall and Baptist Press also picked up the Discovery news release. Science blogs and the Chronicle of Higher Education published six, mostly skeptical, reports. The news of Gonzalez' tenure denial was picked up by just three local television stations: two in Iowa and one in Illinois. Six other reports -- five of them in the Des Moines Register -- round out the coverage.

To put news coverage of Gonzalez' tenure denial in perspective, the 64 hits returned by Google were nearly matched by 62 hits for a story about an elderly Chinese woman who says her cat "grew wings" after being sexually harrassed.


http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2007/05/controversy-that-wasnt.html

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2007,21:47   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 05 2006,00:15)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 04 2006,17:05)
   
Quote (mcc @ Nov. 03 2006,23:39)
   
Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 02 2006,20:29)
I asked a simple question and expected a

simple answer.

You asked a gibberish non-question with no conceivable answer.

Most agree, ID is dead.  Was God ever I AM?  Is God

dead?  

Zero

Front page today:
Florida Today (my newspaper)

Having trouble staying alive?  Call Ditech.com

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps....006

Zero

The site I referred to is no longer valid but I had
copied it.


I thought it most ironic that it was published the
next morning after my post.

Zero



--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2007,21:50   

ah, thanks for reminding me, 0.

this:

Quote
You asked a gibberish non-question with no conceivable answer.


was both correct and humorous, and I forgot to express my appreciation.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2007,23:28   

Damn, who left Zero out of his cage?  Now he's gonna crap on the floor again.

:angry:

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2007,23:34   

Inability to generate sustainable market share

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2007,02:02   

As an issue for science classes in public schools, I think ID is as dead as creationism and scientific creationism thanks to Kitzmiller.  Not quite the same coffin nail as a Supreme Court decision but enough to shut down the Disco Inst's influence in Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, etc.

That said, I remember hearing Garner Ted Armstrong 30 years ago, "The World Tomorrow" on AM radio, yammering on about evolution and putting forth the same creationist arguments we read about today.

So, maybe "dead" is the wrong description.  How about "neutralized?"  As long as we can continue to promote and strengthen good science education should we care how many gullible boobs Ken Ham fleeces at his Bible Diorama and Tire Emporium?

As for the Disco Inst, all you have to do is a Google Trends search to see that they have totally flat-lined.  Re: Gonzalez, news agencies are not picking up the story.  Even WingNut Daily has been conservative on the Gonzalez story, no pun intended.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2007,02:35   

all ID EVER was was a political tool.  that ID has failed is no more important that saying 'creation science' failed as a court tactic in the previous generation.

creationism most certainly has NOT been flattened, or did you all forget the myriad attempts to change science curriculums at the state levels in Ohio, and several other states, far POST Kitzmiller.

the numbers for those claiming creationist positions have not really changed in this country in over 20 years.

you can just gander at the Gallup poll data and see for yourself; it's summarized nicely in that article on evolution that made the cover of the Nov. 2004 nat geo, for example.

youre deluding yourselves if you think Kitzmiller killed any thought the creationists have of trying to change the science curriculum.

they'll just try to do it using local level governors and senators instead of the courts.

ask yourself if Kitzmiller changed the mind of AFDave.

not hardly.

if anything, the more these people lose, the more they feel persecuted, and thus the more likely they are to try even more desperate shit.

I do hope eventually the meme will breed itself out, but considering that we are still dealing with basic social aspects of racism and homophobia in this country, we still have quite a ways to go before we can safely say creationism is "done".

so, as when this thread was started, I do agree that ID is "done" as a political/legal strategy, but the things that drove its creation to begin with remain.

I certainly am not the only one with this opinion either, even in this thread:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=37668

Quote
all you have to do is a Google Trends


which is entirely meaningless.  I think we even had a discussion about why it was meaningless when Dembski tried to claim that the rising searches during Kitzmiller were an indication of real interest in subscribing to ID.

think about it.  those statistics have no real bearing whatsoever on real interest in ID.  It was just hyped in the news for a period, so you had a lot of people scratching their heads and asking, "what the fuck is ID, anyway".

which quickly died down as soon as the media dropped talking about it all the damn time.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2007,07:44   

Quote (Ichthyic @ May 29 2007,02:35)
I do hope eventually the meme will breed itself out, but considering that we are still dealing with basic social aspects of racism and homophobia in this country, we still have quite a ways to go before we can safely say creationism is "done".

I'm pretty sure you're not saying this but I just wanted to clarify...are you linking racism and homophobia with creationism?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2007,09:01   

Quote (skeptic @ May 29 2007,07:44)
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 29 2007,02:35)
I do hope eventually the meme will breed itself out, but considering that we are still dealing with basic social aspects of racism and homophobia in this country, we still have quite a ways to go before we can safely say creationism is "done".

I'm pretty sure you're not saying this but I just wanted to clarify...are you linking racism and homophobia with creationism?

I would suggest there is a very high correlation between homophobia and creationism. Perhaps even Racism too. Please note correlation is association, not causation.



Love the sinner, not the sin, etc.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2007,12:00   

So, in essence, people who are prone to creationism are prone to homophobia?  The kind of ignorant generalization just begs for evidence.  Do you have any?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2007,12:34   

Lordy Skeptic! That's just NOT what he said!

1) Correlation =/= causation. If there is a correlation (for which we've yet to see evidence, but as a betting man, I'll bet it's there! ) then it implies nothing about how related these phenomena might be.

2) I call "Egregious misreading of what Icthyic said"! Are racism and homophobia generally socially acceptable in the USA? Nope, AFAIK. Is creationism generally socially acceptable in the USA? Yep, AFAIK. Icthyic's point is not that they are linked but that even socially unacceptable ideologies take time to wither and die in societies, ideologies that are not socially unacceptable are going to take even longer to die. The "Antiracist" and "Antihomophobic" campaigns have been around longer or had more high profile public  effort than the"Anticreationist" campaign has. All Icthyic is saying "don't expect this to be gone soon".

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2007,14:21   

Quote
I'm pretty sure you're not saying this but I just wanted to clarify...are you linking racism and homophobia with creationism?


you should try reading posts for content, instead of buzzwords.

I didn't go into as much detail in that specific post as I did elsewhere, so let me spell it out for you:

the PATTERN is the same.  The fight against racism and homophobia, and those who maintain those delusions, is very similar to that against creationism and HIV denialism.

and mainly that's because the people maintaining these positions exhibit extremely similar arguments and behaviors, and yes, are often the same people (go check out some of the extreme xian fora, like the one for Christian Exodus, for example).

are they connected?

you tell me.

this goes along with what I've been saying for years:

this behavior has less to do with religion, and more to do with an already existing underlying psychology.

very much like some folks are predisposed towards becoming much more easily addicted to things like alcohol or cocaine, religion simply acts as an enabler.  the more extreme, the more likely they will glom onto it.

I think this best explains the similarity in the forms of denial and projection common to the various phenomena I listed.

It's also why direct action alone will unlikely result in long term progress, just like the "war on drugs" has failed.  

You have to treat the addictive behavior, not just remove the enabler.

In challenging creationists directly, it is hoped that at least one might be able to get them to recognize they aren't processing data rationally, and maybe then they might start realizing that there is some underlying issues they need to deal with.

that would be the best outcome, but even if that doesn't happen, it is hoped that casual observers might start to see the patterns themselves, and manage to avoid becoming addicted to these memes.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
  58 replies since Oct. 31 2006,10:29 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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