ID/Creationism challenge

[chipmunk stew]

Yes, it makes some specific claims about features covered by the claim, but it doesn't anywhere limit the claim to just those features or specific claims, which is as you'd expect from either standpoint....

Forgive my bluntness, but you're being silly.

The central claim of ID pseudotheory is not in any shape or form talking about human intelligence and activity, even if a literal reading of the claim as summarized by the Discovery Institute and quoted in Wikipedia could be stretched to encompass it.

While ID proponents for the most part studiously avoid identifying the Designer, they are very clearly not talking about humans. This can be seen, for example, in their arguments that use human activity as an *analogy* for the activity of the Designer.

edit: And as to "the points" that you are referring to in the rest of your post, your point is that humans do stuff, and for some reason you think we should consider this a validation of some central kernel of truth about ID. I think you're just being argumentative for the sport, personally.

 

[sphenisc]

Forgive my bluntness, but you're being silly.

That's okay, I think it's silly for you to argue against a literal interpretation of the claim, so you'll have to forgive mine.

The central claim of ID pseudotheory is not in any shape or form talking about human intelligence and activity, even if a literal reading of the claim as summarized by the Discovery Institute and quoted in Wikipedia could be stretched to encompass it.

If a literal interpretation can be stretched to encompass it then, yes, it does include human intelligence and activity : that's the point of a defining statement, to encompass all the things which match the term defined.

While ID proponents for the most part studiously avoid identifying the Designer, they are very clearly not talking about humans. This can be seen, for example, in their arguments that use human activity as an *analogy* for the activity of the Designer.

Again, what ID proponents do is not the issue.

edit: And as to "the points" that you are referring to in the rest of your post, your point is that humans do stuff, and for some reason you think we should consider this a validation of some central kernel of truth about ID.

I think I've made my reasoning clear, and I don't really think you've had problems following it - so I think you're the one being argumentive. But so it goes.

 

[Dinwar]

Even if you wish to ignore the historic fact that ID started as an attempt to force religion into the science coriculum, ID still fails as science. It has no mechanism, and therefore makes no predictions. EVEN IF ID IS TRUE the current state of the concept is wrong, because it makes no predictions. One cannot say "This structure on this organism will exibit these traits", the way we can with evolution. One cannot say "These forces will do this to these bits of matter", the way we can with physics. ALL ID can do is point to data other sciences have found and say "That looks designed!"

The reason for this is that, like chipmunk stew stated, ID advocates refuse to discuss the designer in question. Without knowing WHAT supposedely designed life we cannot know HOW it designed life, and therefore cannot make predictions about the natural world using this theory.

So either present a designer or admit that your theory can make no predictions.

As far as "designer" meaning "human", I suggest you look at the history of the movement. The desginer in ID is obviously not a human. It can't be--humans weren't around when most of the structures ID advocates point to (flagella, eyes, cosmological constants, wings) arose. Unless you're arguing for time-traveling humans?

 

[aggle-rithm]

ALL ID can do is point to data other sciences have found and say "That looks designed!"

And it has to ignore all the data that should evoke the cry: "That looks POORLY designed!"

 

[aggle-rithm]

Unless you're arguing for time-traveling humans?

Hey, there you go! Another hypothesis that explains everything and nothing in one fell swoop!

I LOVE those!

 

[chipmunk stew]

That's okay, I think it's silly for you to argue against a literal interpretation of the claim, so you'll have to forgive mine.

Your interpretation of a single quote plucked by some Wikipedia editor from a specific ID proponent's website about what ID is, is not the central claim of ID.

Your interpretation is simply an obvious, uncontroversial observation about human activity.

Activities such as dog breeding do not fall under the umbrella of ID.

You obviously know this but for some reason are being intentionally obtuse.

 

[chipmunk stew]

If a literal interpretation can be stretched to encompass it then, yes, it does include human intelligence and activity : that's the point of a defining statement, to encompass all the things which match the term defined.

All this comment means is that the Discovery Institute generated a poorly-defined summary about what ID is.

 

[sphenisc]

Even if you wish to ignore the historic fact that ID started as an attempt to force religion into the science coriculum, ID still fails as science. It has no mechanism, and therefore makes no predictions. EVEN IF ID IS TRUE the current state of the concept is wrong, because it makes no predictions. One cannot say "This structure on this organism will exibit these traits", the way we can with evolution. One cannot say "These forces will do this to these bits of matter", the way we can with physics. ALL ID can do is point to data other sciences have found and say "That looks designed!"

The reason for this is that, like chipmunk stew stated, ID advocates refuse to discuss the designer in question. Without knowing WHAT supposedely designed life we cannot know HOW it designed life, and therefore cannot make predictions about the natural world using this theory.

So either present a designer or admit that your theory can make no predictions.

You clearly don't read my posts - I've told you who the designer is, I've given you her name, and I pointed out you claim was false last time you made it. You're failure to absorb that information and to continue arguing against things I haven't said is, to quote chipmunk stew, silly.

As far as "designer" meaning "human", I suggest you look at the history of the movement. The desginer in ID is obviously not a human. It can't be--humans weren't around when most of the structures ID advocates point to (flagella, eyes, cosmological constants, wings) arose. Unless you're arguing for time-traveling humans?

I've told you the history of the movement is irrelevant. Repeating the information doesn't make it any more so.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If ENCODE contradicted Darwinism, then how come its findings were put to use by Darwinists, and did not further any research into Intelligent Design?

He responded to one of my posts by claiming that encode had indicated that pseudogenes have been discovered to serve biological functions. I pointed out to him that research conducted using the ENCODE data had suggested the possibility that some pseudogenes may serve some a biological function (a prospect that is certainly in keeping with evolutionary theory), but that this conclusion is uncertain and controversial and there has been, as yet, too little research conducted in this area to confirm his claim. He has avoided responding.

 

[sphenisc]

Your interpretation of a single quote plucked by some Wikipedia editor from a specific ID proponent's website about what ID is, is not the central claim of ID.

Did IQ's drop sharply while I was away? I already said the quote has about 42,000 hits. Yet I have failed to come across anyone pointing what I consider to be a flaw in it. Either my interpretation is flawed, or my research is flawed, or there is an actual problem with it and it should at least be recognised and probably addressed. I'd like to know which is the case.

Your interpretation is simply an obvious, uncontroversial observation about human activity.

Which is what I said at the beginning.

Activities such as dog breeding do not fall under the umbrella of ID.

Then they shouldn't be included in the definition.

You obviously know this but for some reason are being intentionally obtuse.

Again I find arguing for a non-literal interpretation, rather than simply stating it's flawed, intentionally obtuse...in what other context would you do that?

 

[Dinwar]

You clearly don't read my posts - I've told you who the designer is, I've given you her name, and I pointed out you claim was false last time you made it. You're failure to absorb that information and to continue arguing against things I haven't said is, to quote chipmunk stew, silly.

Yes I did. You're attempting to re-define a well-established concept to suit your purposes. Full stop. The history of the movement IS vital--it started off as an INCREADIBLY dishonest attempt to cram religion into science, and that continues to be the ONLY way serious ID advocates use it. That makes you a fringe crank of a fringe crank group (recursive crackpottery?). Your entire argument is based on the flimsy and unsupportable assertion that poor wording on the part of the Discovery Institute allows you to claim that ID is something we see in modern species, when in fact ID advocates argue for ANCIENT design.

So you want to ignore the history of the movement, its arguments, its advocates, and everything else about it other than a poorly worded definition. Fine, have fun--but calling your concept ID is false.

Again I find arguing for a non-literal interpretation, rather than simply stating it's flawed, intentionally obtuse

No, you're arguing that ID can be twisted into whatever shape you want. Have fun with that. I'm sure the other ID advocates would LOVE it.

 

[sphenisc]

All this comment means is that the Discovery Institute generated a poorly-defined summary about what ID is.

Great, that not only confirms my impression, but soothes my cognitive dissonance. However it is appears to be widely a used and unchallenged summary. Do you have a constructive suggestion which would improve it and be acceptable to both sides?

 

[sphenisc]

Yes I did. You're attempting to re-define a well-established concept to suit your purposes. Full stop.

I think I was a little young at the time to be the one who came up with that definition. Unless you're arguing for time-traveling humans?

The history of the movement IS vital--it started off as an INCREADIBLY dishonest attempt to cram religion into science, and that continues to be the ONLY way serious ID advocates use it.

Hey look! The same argument again! And guess what, it's still irrelevant!!

That makes you a fringe crank of a fringe crank group (recursive crackpottery?).

And ad homs are still a fallacy.

Your entire argument is based on the flimsy and unsupportable assertion that poor wording on the part of the Discovery Institute allows you to claim that ID is something we see in modern species, when in fact ID advocates argue for ANCIENT design.

If I'm an ID advocate then your claim is falsified - again. The poor wording allos me to do exactly that. And I've used it to support my assertion, so you're wrong again.

So you want to ignore the history of the movement, its arguments, its advocates, and everything else about it other than a poorly worded definition.

As they're irrelevant to the point I was making, (did I mention that?), then yes I'll ignore them. If it's poorly worded then you might want to suggest a way of improving it which is likely to be acceptable to both sides.

Fine, have fun--but calling your concept ID is false.

Only, as far as I can see, if the definition is flawed.

No, you're arguing that ID can be twisted into whatever shape you want.

When I can twist it into the shape of Kelly Brook I'll let you know.

Have fun with that.

Why..uh..thank you.

I'm sure the other ID advocates would LOVE it.

I don't think they'd be the only ones.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Great, that not only confirms my impression, but soothes my cognitive dissonance. However it is appears to be widely a used and unchallenged summary. Do you have a constructive suggestion which would improve it and be acceptable to both sides?

Maybe change "...certain things..." to "...certain fundamental things..."? Or "...specific fundamental things..."? I don't know. I'm of the belief that the ID proponents couch it in broad, fuzzy terms intentionally, not because they mean to include human activity in the definition, but because they want plausible deniability that they're talking about God (because they want ID taught in school, and if they admit it's about God, they admit it's just creationism in science-y clothing and therefore inadmissible in a public school science room.)

I think the reason the definition as it stands goes unchallenged is because most people recognize the implication that the Designer is meant to be God, even if they deny that publicly as irrelevant to the (pseudo)theory.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Out of interest, sphenisc, if you are defining "Intelligent Design" as merely an obvious, uncontroversial observation about human activity and you class yourself as a proponent of the theory because of it, then what use do you have for this classification of yourself? Do you consider yourself to hold the same beliefs as the Discovery Institute? Are you purposely identifying yourself with them in this way?

 

[Dinwar]

Hey look! The same argument again! And guess what, it's still irrelevant!!

When you actually want to discuss the concept of intelligent design, as it is consistently presented by its advocates, rather than whatever it is you've decided to call that name (equivocation, by the way), let us know. Until then, all you're doinig is playing word games.

 

[sphenisc]

When you actually want to discuss the concept of intelligent design, as it is consistently presented by its advocates, rather than whatever it is you've decided to call that name (equivocation, by the way), let us know. Until then, all you're doinig is playing word games.

I'm quite capable of doing both at once. There was an interesting discussion about the nature of evidence going on before this little diversion - not my problem if you choose to go down one route rather than the other.