#5 of Our Top-Ten Evolution Stories of 2013: Introducing a New Intelligent Design Curriculum, Discovering Intelligent Design
#6 of Our Top-Ten Evolution Stories of 2013: How "Freethought" Bullies Threatened College into Cancelling Intelligent Design Course
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 03 2014,16:45)Maybe he spent too much time in engineering/programming land and this is all some weird "theory of operation", as in "The actuator A is rotated by the gear B and releases cog C allowing platen D to slide forward".
Except that, instead of a mechanical system, he's just making shit up.
That does seem to be the heart and soul of it.
Maybe he spent too much time in engineering/programming land and this is all some weird "theory of operation", as in "The actuator A is rotated by the gear B and releases cog C allowing platen D to slide forward".
Except that, instead of a mechanical system, he's just making shit up.
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 03 2014,10:42)Martinez has also claimed he is currently writing a book that disproves evolution, once and for all... (snip)
Him too? Won't he have to duke it out with Paul Nelson for bookstore space? I mean, eventually...
Yo, Goo Goo! You need to grasp better straws.
Gads, whatta hoot!
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 03 2014,12:41)It's no longer what appears on page 1 of this thread. But hey, arrows going one way or the other, salmon dying after laying their eggs (or, for the species that don't all die, immediately bugging off) versus defending their young, things supposedly being self-similar even when they lack actual physical similarities, it's all water under your bridge, right?
This is the first one I put together, a relatively long time ago, that has long since been updated by the other much more detailed illustration I just posted:
Gary, aside from your mere use of the term, what justifies calling your work a 'theory of intelligent design'? Particularly, what justifies using the word 'design'?
There is no discussion of design or designer in your work.
There is no process of design.
There is (the illusion of) emergence from level to level and a (faked up) picture of reciprocal causation (another badly flawed phrase that does not mean what you need it to mean for you to use it as you do). There is no intelligent design. Nor any 'unintelligent' design.
So what justifies lumping yourself in with the design proponents? What warrants calling this "theory" by a name that suggests that it in any way relates to design?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 01 2014,00:50)...
This is why you need to understand, and use, a proper version control system, Gary.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2014,13:12)To help better reflect the mindset Guenter explains:
Depending on the direction in which one reads the next sentence, intelligence is a fractal property or/and an emergent property: ...Intelligent ecologies contain intelligent populations,which contain intelligent organisms, which contain intelligent cells, which contain intelligent compartments, which contain...and so forth.
I added detail to the second paragraph of the Introduction to the theory. And the first paragraph should be a little easier to conceptualize:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness.
This causative process begins at the atomic behavior of matter level, where force-guided molecular self-assembly causes emergence of molecular intelligence, which causes emergence of cellular intelligence, which causes emergence of multicellular intelligence. The systematics of an intelligence system always exists in itself, to self-model from. There is no “reinventing the wheel” the same system works well at any intelligent causation level. As in a fractal, a systematic algorithm/process has properties that inherently causes the emergence of fractal-similar designs at successive size scales. Each intelligence level may have one or more compartments/lobes/chromosomes/territories working together as one “brain” to control one body, entity.
I think Alfred Wallace would like it better that way too.
It used to read:
Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities learn how to collectively combine to create a new intelligent entity, at one or more levels of increasingly complex organization, producing emergent self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness.
This causative process begins at the atomic behavior of matter level, where force-guided molecular self-assembly causes emergence of molecular intelligence, which causes emergence of cellular intelligence, which causes emergence of multicellular intelligence. As in a fractal, a systematic algorithm/process produces multiple emergent fractal-similar designs at successive size scales.
No, Gary, this explains nothing about your 'theory' nor its many flaws, errors, and contradictions.
'Intelligence is an emergent property'? Why, how stunningly original! No one has ever thought that before! [/snark]
Problem is, your 'theory' neither discusses nor explains emergence. What emerges? From what? And most especially how?
Yes, I know, you think your tiresome diagram actually 'explains' all that, but of course, it does not.
Nor does your 'theory' present any notion of 'design' -- only a pathetic and limited approach to at best a single facet of intelligence that remains entirely unable to perform or account for design.
Your notion of 'molecular intelligence' is still entirely bogus, fraudulent to the max. Likewise for your notion of 'cellular intelligence', at least in your more frequent uses.
Adding a bunch of buzzwords -- like 'fractal', which your notions aren't, and 'emergent', which your 'theory' isn't -- doesn't improve your 'theory' in the slightest.
It is still a heap of words thrown together because they sound impressive and they give you a tingly feeling of self-importance.
It's not the intro to your 'theory' that needs work, badly flawed though it is. It is the 'theory' itself, the body of the work, that desperately needs to be discarded, reconceptualized, supported with evidence, and written with an eye to referencing both the evidence and supporting work you've relied upon.
It would help if you understood the meanings of the words you abuse. It would then help if you would use the standard and accepted meanings, or at least pointed out, and justified, where and how you've modified the standard definitions and why.
But of course, all that requires some understanding of science, and it is now abundantly clear that you are clueless. You know just barely enough to go wandering around through works you find or are referred to, cherry-picking words and phrases to add to the crow's collection of bright and shiny terms you wrongly think constitute a theory.
Once again, if you actually had a theory, you would be able to use it to explain phenomena commonly considered to be intelligent acts. You can't. You would be able to make predictions of evidence yet to be found. You can't.
Your 'theory' explains nothing, predicts nothing, and contradicts itself internally and contradicts the work of the fields you claim to be building on.
Epic fail, you miserable pathetic little fraud.
Martinez has also claimed he is currently writing a book that disproves evolution, once and for all... It's been 8 years, dammit. We're still waiting.
It's no longer what appears on page 1 of this thread. But hey, arrows going one way or the other, salmon dying after laying their eggs (or, for the species that don't all die, immediately bugging off) versus defending their young, things supposedly being self-similar even when they lack actual physical similarities, it's all water under your bridge, right?
This is what appears on that page:
Six in ten Americans accept human evolution, while a third hold that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.
The distinguished scholar of science and religion Ian Barbour died on December 24, 2013, at the age of 90, according to Carleton College (December 27, 2013).
A great article by Tom Bethell in ENV...
From Nature Magazine...If our planet were just a little closer to the Sun, a runaway greenhouse effect would render it unliveable, a climate model suggests. The simulation, which helps to define the inner edge of a star system?s 'habitable zone', drastically reduces the fraction of Sun-like stars that might harbour a rocky planet suitable for life, according to some scientists. But others note that the model, although detailed, might be too restrictive because it applies only to Earth-like planets on which water is abundant.
Of course we are also asked to believe that the right planet, just at the right distance from its star, will naturally generate life from non-living chemicals...
What happened here is that a group of adults can?t have a class taught by a qualified person on a topic that interests them in a suitable public venue because an individual is allowed to shut it down?just by scaring people by making a scene.
In the 19th century, Christians responded to the challenges of Darwinian evolution in many and diverse ways?from hostility to reconciliation. Read about the reactions of theologians, scientists, pastors, authors, bishops, and politicians?and learn how Darwinism eventually became a symbol of warfare between science and Christianity in this issue of Christian History magazine.
Click HERE to read...