Monday, September 16, 2013

What does it mean?

A redated post.

What does it mean to say "ID is only disguised creationism?" Creationism, I take it would be

C) The species in existence today were specially created by God, and were not produced by any evolutionary process.

Whereas Intelligent Design is committed to

ID) The species in existence today, including man, were, in part, produced by a process distinct from the processes described in neo-Darwinian theory (random variation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) in that these processes included the work of an intelligent designer.

But C and ID are really equivalent, because

P) In the proposed high school textbook, Of Pandas and People, numerous references to a creator were changed to refer to an intelligent designer, once the Supreme Court upheld the anti-creationism decisions.

But C and ID are not equivalent, and P does nothing to show that C and ID are equivalent. The changes, clearly, changed the meanings of the statements. Plato clearly believed in ID but not C, and a case could be made the Hume did so as well.

So when people say that ID is just disguised C, what do they mean?

48 comments:

Jim Lippard said...

The "ID" on trial in Dover was represented by Of Pandas and People, which was the only published description of ID specifically named by the ID Policy. That book was originally written about "creationism" and "creation science", but was changed to "intelligent design"--with the exact same definition once given to the other terms--in 1987 after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.

Further, most of the arguments of creationism are specific attacks against evolution. Those same arguments are used as a major component of the arsenal of ID advocates.

There are many kinds of creationism (I think your "C" is probably the most common use of the term, but some draw it even more broadly); most ID advocates express themselves in a way not to distinguish among them with the explicit intention of creating a "big tent." Robert Pennock refers to ID as IDC, intelligent design creationism, and considers it a subset of creationism.

When people say ID is disguised C, they mean that the people espousing ID privately espouse C (as is the case with a couple of the Dover defendants and a number of the Discovery Institute Fellows) but publicly refrain from endorsing the specifics of C in favor of the vaguer ID.

Jim Lippard said...

Rush Limbaugh is not ordinarily someone I expect to say something accurate, but here's his answer to your question, and I think he's pretty much right on the money:

"The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals because it ostensibly does not involve religious overtones, that there is just some intelligent being far greater than anything any of us can even imagine that's responsible for all this, and of course I don't have any doubt of that. But I think that they're sort of pussyfooting around when they call it intelligent design.

"Call it what it is. You believe God created the world, and you think that it's warranted that this kind of theory for the explanation for all that is be taught."

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/12/limbaugh_on_the_dover_ruling.php

Rasmus Møller said...

I see Victor trying hard, well _insisting_ on the _meaning_ of ID vs. the meaning of disguised creationism.

Is it fair, from Jim Lippard's answer, to conclude that Jim has an issue with the _people_ promoting ID, not with the idea of ID itself?

Bilbo said...

Hi Jim,

(1) If ID is a subset of Creationism, what are the other subsets and how are they different?

(2) Rush says that people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Mike Gene favors the hypothesis that the first living cells were intelligently designed billions of years ago and evolved via neo-Darwinian processes into the life forms we see today. Is this the biblical version of creation?

(3) Sir Fred Hoyle believed the first cells were intelligently designed billions of years ago and were ejected into outer space and eventually landed on our planet. Is this the biblical version of creation?

(4) Professor Michael Behe believes in the common descent of all living species. Is this the biblical version of creation?

Bilbo said...

Link to Fred Hoyle and the Origins of ID.

unkleE said...

I'm not a believer in ID, but I understand there are many different approaches to ID. Yes, some proponents may be Creationists in disguise, but other are not. I understood, same as Bilbo, that "Professor Michael Behe believes in the common descent of all living species. Is this the biblical version of creation?"

The confusing of the two views seems to be an arguing tactic to make things easier for the pro-evolutionist. I believe ID isn't scientific and I accept evolution, but I think this arguing tactic is reprehensible.

Crude said...

The confusing of the two views seems to be an arguing tactic to make things easier for the pro-evolutionist. I believe ID isn't scientific and I accept evolution, but I think this arguing tactic is reprehensible.

I've seen all kinds of gimmicks. 'ID says that it's impossible for some things to evolve (no), so God (no) had to work a miracle (no) to spontaneously poof them into existence (no).'

The problem isn't so much believing that ID proponents are 'creationists in disguise', to me. It's that this is used as an excuse for completely misrepresenting their arguments. The actual ID claims and arguments, whatever their value, are extremely modest in tone. So modest, that animated critics feel the need to make them outlandish when they represent them - bringing in God, the supernatural, 'omnibenevolence', etc.

LadyAtheist said...

From the Discovery Institute's website: Discovery Institute is an inter-disciplinary community of scholars and policy advocates dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued. Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West.

Crude said...

Yes, LadyAtheist. That doesn't change what their arguments are, nor magically make misrepresentation of their arguments 'okay'.

Dawkins is an apologist for 'mild' pedophilia and an evangelical atheist. That does exactly zero damage to any arguments for evolution he offers, nor does it justify misrepresenting his arguments because 'well this is what he must REALLY mean'.

BeingItself said...

Are you guys completely unaware of The Wedge Strategy? From the get-go, ID was just a ruse to foist Evangelical Christianity into the science classroom. It was never about science. It has always been stealth creationism.

Crude said...

Are you guys completely unaware of The Wedge Strategy?

Say the Wedge Strategy exists. Say it was exactly what you claim it to be. This doesn't impact the arguments as offered up and outlined by ID proponents, anymore than PZ Myers' "Acceptance of evolution is a great way to convert people to atheism!" thoughts invalidate evolutionary arguments, even arguments that originate with Myers himself.

Chris said...

Folks,

Please forgive my ignorance on this matter. With regard to "theistic evolution"- isn't this a contradiction in terms?
As I understand it, when someone invokes "evolution", aren't they are a talking about an unguided process- chance and necessity?
So, when one says that God works through evolution, wouldn't that be like saying a "guided- random" process?

Ilíon said...

"Ceationism, I take it would be

C) The species in existence today were specially created by God, and were not produced by any evolutionary process.
"

Actually, that's not what the creationists -- not even the 6-day creationists -- say/believe.

B. Prokop said...

"With regard to "theistic evolution"- isn't this a contradiction in terms?"

Chris,

No, no, and again NO!

"Evolution" is silent on the matter of being either guided or unguided. Now certain a-scientific philosophical musings by antireligious spokespersons (e.g., Dawkins, etc.) have layered over the scientific theory of evolution with their own beliefs (about the unguided nature of the process), and unfortunately confused a lot of people.

Apparently, you are amongst them. And there is nothing wrong with that. You are to be commended for admitting to some ignorance in the matter (unlike certain others on this site). A person can believe in God, can even be a "Bible-believing" Christian, and also accept evolution as established science. He can also reject it if he so desires. Acceptance of evolution is irrelevant to belief in God.

I personally have no problem whatsoever with evolution. I do however have a gigantic problem with the idea of the process being somehow unguided, or with the notion of life being an accidental, incidental, or random development of no significance. But all those concepts are not even science - they're philosophy (or perhaps theology).

im-skeptical said...

"Say the Wedge Strategy exists. Say it was exactly what you claim it to be ..."

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

Good reading - straight from the horse's mouth.

Mike Darus said...

It would be great if the proponents of Evolution WERE silent about guided and unguided; but they aren't. They are usually very vocal even though it here where the fossils do not speak.

This conversation is getting close to the conversation I keep hoping for: when can the evolutionist admit they have crossed the line from science to metaphysics? Is it possible to extricate the jumps into philosophy from the true science?

Chris said...

Bob,

Thank you for the response and apologies for my laziness. So, "evolution" simply refers to the fact that life has changed over time? Does it also mean that all living things have a common ancestor?

A related question- How does the AT tradition account for the immaterial form of the human rational animal? Is a supernatural intervention necessary to bring about a living thing that has free-will and intellect?



jdhuey said...

@Chris,

It is important to keep in mind that the idea of evolution just means that the various species in the world developed from pre-existing species, per se, the concept doesn't depend on a specific mechanism. There have been many proposed methods over the years, some scientific but wrong; and others, not scientific and 'not even wrong'. The currently accepted scientific theory on how evolution works is what is sometimes called the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (often the neo-darwinian systhesis). This wikipedia article does a good job of discussing the terminalogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

B. Prokop said...

No Apologies necessary, Chris. You're asking good questions.

So, "evolution" simply refers to the fact that life has changed over time?

I would answer that with a "yes". There are honest debates amongst biologists as to the precise mechanisms of this process, but there can be no rational doubt that life on Earth today is different than it was aeons ago.

Does it also mean that all living things have a common ancestor?

No, it doesn't. That is one of the very things about which there is no real consensus. There are for instance some biologists who maintain that the life we find about deepwater sea vents is unrelated to other terrestrial lifeforms.

How does the AT tradition account for the immaterial form of the human rational animal? Is a supernatural intervention necessary to bring about a living thing that has free-will and intellect?

Hoo boy! Have you ever jumped into the deep end of the pool. There are probably thousands of comments on that issue to be found on this website alone, and nobody agrees with anybody else. There's even less agreement amongst the "professionals".

jdhuey said...

Chris,

I going to quibble with what B. Prokop just said. Aside from those lifeforms he mentions, there is an overwhelming consensus that all life today comes from a common ancestor. Prior to the advent of modern genetics and biochemistry, there was honest (if minor) debate on the topic. However, since the 1970's there has been no real debate (except for the aforementioned extreme lifeforms)at all.

Again, that conclusion is a consequence of HOW evolution works, not THAT evolution happened.

Crude said...

Regarding the state of neo-Darwinism - I've never seen a poll or the like stating its popularity as 'the' evolutionary theory, even among evolutionary biologists.

But, here's one voice of dissent on that matter.

RD Miksa said...

Just as an aside, it is also important to note that ID, technically, is even compatible with the Blind Watchmaker version of neo-Darwinian evolution (BWNDE).

After all, an IDer could legitimately argue that BWNDE and the origin of life are two separate issues, and so while the current best explanation for the origin of the first living thing was that that thing was intelligently designed, BWNDE took over after that to create the remainder of living organisms after that point.

Now I am not saying that most IDers would admit this, nor I am saying that there are not serious philosophical problems with trying to say that "science says that evolution was an unguided process". What I am saying, however, is that it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE.

This is a fact that is too often forgotten.

Take care,

RD Miksa

B. Prokop said...

I must admit to a complete lack of "professional expertise" in this area. 100% of what I do know comes from either talking to those who do, or from popularizations. And the latter is largely confined to the astronomical side of things. I have a great interest in the debate over whether life exists somewhere outside of the Earth. From a personal perspective, I would be amazed if life wasn't commonplace in the universe, but I am a huge skeptic when it comes to there being any extraterrestrial intelligence elsewhere in the Milky Way galaxy. (As to whether any exists outside of our home galaxy, I couldn't care less.)

I bring this up, because I come across articles in astronomy-related publications (such as Sky and Telescope, for instance) which routinely discuss the idea of multiple origins for life on the Earth (to include the idea that the various worlds "contaminate" each other via their lifeforms hitching rides on meteoroids. There is a lot of controversy at present as to whether he have already discovered fossil evidence of life on Mars in Martian meteorites recovered in Antarctica.

So the idea of a common ancestor is not "settled wisdom" despite jdhuey's assertion. If it is, then there's still an unusual amount of speculation going on otherwise among the professionals.

Chris said...

Bear with me folks,

So, theistic evolution could be described as an intrinsic teleology whereas ID could be described as an extrinsic teleology?

From the perspective of those who oppose them, are the ID arguments inadequate, or, are they impossible to prove in principle?

jdhuey said...

@B. Prokop

Well, I have to plead ignorance of the astronomy-related controversies but I don't think that there is any real conflict between us on this topic. There may or may not have been multiple origins of life, with or without 'contamination' from extraterrestrial sources, the only thing that is clear from genetics and biochemistry (and other evidence) is that all of the normal life forms (and possibly even those extreme life forms) on Earth have a single common ancestor. Now there may have been multiple life forms before the common ancestor but nothing alive today is related to them. It could also be that the single common ancestor resulted from sharing genetic information or perhaps just sharing biochemistry with those other 'life forms' but none of those speculative possibilities is inconsistent a single common ancestor.

B. Prokop said...

jdhuey,

Agreed.

B. Prokop said...

As for "the perspective of those who oppose them", you'll have to ask Skep. I'm not going to try to read their minds.

As for "are [ID arguments] impossible to prove in principle?", I guess it depends on what you regard as proof. ID proponents will point to a biological feature and label it "irreducibly complex". Opponents will counter that they simply haven't discovered the independent utility of the feature's subcomponents as yet, but are confident that they will be eventually (ironically, a sort of "atheism of the gaps" argument).

Personally, I don't care for the entire ID controversy. If any design is apparent, it is for the universe as a whole, so why are we quibbling over some insignificant trifle as a bacterial flagellum?

im-skeptical said...

"After all, an IDer could legitimately argue that BWNDE and the origin of life are two separate issues, and so while the current best explanation for the origin of the first living thing was that that thing was intelligently designed, BWNDE took over after that to create the remainder of living organisms after that point."

That's not remotely compatible with ID, which is not about the origin of life, but rather about how things today came to be "designed" the way they are.

"it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE."

I don't think so. How can "intelligent design" be logically compatible with "blind" evolution? Guided vs unguided. Not both.

Crude said...

Chris,

From the perspective of those who oppose them, are the ID arguments inadequate, or, are they impossible to prove in principle?

It's going to depend on what you mean by 'oppose them'.

I don't think ID is science - that places me in pretty firm opposition to mainstream ID proponents. But I also don't think ID arguments are worthless. In fact, I think they're pretty interesting. Note, however, that ID arguments do not prove the existence of God, or even "God's" design, by their own standards. At best, if they succeed, they infer the act of an intelligent cause. And this inference is in principle defeatable pending evidence.

Now, 'theistic evolution' is broad. Very broad. And some aspects of it intersect with ID thought. It ranges from 'nothing is guided but God still arranged it all somehow' to 'everything is guided but science doesn't deal with guidance' to other positions.

There is no single 'theistic evolution' view. The gulf between, say... Stephen Barr and Karl Giberson is considerable.

Also, this?

That's not remotely compatible with ID, which is not about the origin of life

This is absolutely, positively incorrect.

ID is a multi-domain idea - it deals with evolutionary biology, the origin of life, cosmology, and more. Their proponents argue that one can scientifically infer design in a variety of areas. The OoL is absolutely one area they focus on.

Crude said...

Bob,

Personally, I don't care for the entire ID controversy. If any design is apparent, it is for the universe as a whole, so why are we quibbling over some insignificant trifle as a bacterial flagellum?

The BF is an example, not the sole claimed 'IC' structure around. If the ID argument about ICness is valid, then there are abundant examples of design. I think that's pretty fascinating, if it is in fact the case.

I've seen some (minor) ID proponents likewise argue, 'If the designer isn't the God of Christianity, then ID is uninteresting'. Again, baffling to me. I find empirical evidence for design a million times more fascinating than common descent 'you're the Xth cousin of a carrot' nonsense. I find design, period - engineering and the like - vastly more interesting than science.

Scientific theories are often discarded. But if a machine works, it (pardon my language) goddamn works.

im-skeptical said...

"This is absolutely, positively incorrect."

At the heart of the "science" of ID is Behe's concept of irreducible complexity and Danbski's CSI. You can quibble about how they touch upon or draw from areas of science that relate in some way, just as all fields of real science don't exist in isolation, but are part of a larger framework. But ID is "about" the origin of life in much the same way that evolution is - that is to say, not so much.

im-skeptical said...

Dembski

Crude said...

At the heart of the "science" of ID is Behe's concept of irreducible complexity and Danbski's CSI.

Skep, here's what you said:

That's not remotely compatible with ID, which is not about the origin of life, but rather about how things today came to be "designed" the way they are.

But ID is about the origin of life - and your statement is absolutely, positively incorrect. How ID, in whole or part, relates to science in general is irrelevant.

ID is 'about' the origin of life, cosmology, evolution, and more. It'd be forgivable to think ID isn't about cosmology - life sciences get the most press from them. But the OoL? It's kind of a major focus.

im-skeptical said...

"But the OoL? It's kind of a major focus."

So tell us - what is ID's explanation of the origin of life?

Crude said...

So tell us - what is ID's explanation of the origin of life?

My, what a blatant and clumsy attempt at shifting the topic.

Their inference is that - shock of shocks - life's origin was likely intelligently designed, based on what we know.

The point is that 'ID is not about the origin of life' is false. This isn't some obscure factoid - Nagel endorsed a book by Meyer which dealt with the topic, leading to a whole lot of public angst at the time.

im-skeptical said...

"My, what a blatant and clumsy attempt at shifting the topic."

I can't tell you anything at all about what ID says about the origin of life (maybe because they have nothing to say about it, perhaps?), so I'll parry to Nagel's endorsement of a book. Take that!

Admit it crude, you're wrong, as usual.

Crude said...

I can't tell you anything at all about what ID says about the origin of life (maybe because they have nothing to say about it, perhaps?)

Uh.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

From the back cover, with emphasis added:

In Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer has written the first comprehensive DNA-based argument for intelligent design. As he tells the story of successive attempts to unravel a mystery that Charles Darwin did not address—how did life begin?—Meyer develops the case for this often-misunderstood theory using the same scientific method that Darwin himself pioneered. Offering a fresh perspective on one of the enduring mysteries of modern biology, Meyer convincingly reveals that the argument for intelligent design is not based on ignorance or "giving up on science," but instead on compelling, and mounting, scientific evidence.

Now, here's what you said earlier. This time, with emphasis added.

That's not remotely compatible with ID, which is not about the origin of life, but rather about how things today came to be "designed" the way they are.

Skep, I've purposefully been civil here. I corrected a mistake you made in saying that ID isn't involved with the question of the OoL - a pretty extreme mistake, since again, this wasn't exactly obscure. But since you apparently decided that my being civil was a sign that you should double down, I'll tweak up my reply from the previous "Skep, you're incorrect." to, "Skep, you're not only incorrect, but as usual you're a goddamn moron."

im-skeptical said...

"Skep, I've purposefully been civil here."

No, you're a troll who disagrees with everything I say. The book you refer to is clearly creationist. It attributes life to a supernatural creator. That's not what ID science is about (at least not according to the so-called ID "scientists"). Now we all know they're theists/creationists masquerading as scientists, but if they want to stick to their "science" of ID, they need to stay away from creationism, because that ain't science.

So which is it? Theistic creationism or ID science? You can't have it both ways (and neither can they).

Crude said...

No, you're a troll who disagrees with everything I say.

No, Skep. I am someone who points out your errors when you make them. If you're sick of this, *stop making errors*.

In particular, *stop making obvious errors* and *stop acting as if you're an expert about things you know jack shit about*. Newsflash: if your knowledge of a subject almost exclusively comes from skimming Cult of Gnu advocacy sites and reading the first entry on Google whose title you agree with, you're not an expert. Act accordingly.

The book you refer to is clearly creationist. It attributes life to a supernatural creator.

Signature in the Cell, page 338:

The theory of intelligent design does not claim to detect a supernatural intelligence possessing unlimited powers. Though the designing agent responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity, the theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine that. Because the inference to design depends upon our uniform experience of cause and effect in this world, the theory cannot determine whether or not the designing intelligence putatively responsible for life has powers beyond those on display in our experience. Nor can the theory of intelligent design determine whether the intelligent agent responsible for information in life acted from the natural or the “supernatural” realm. Instead, the theory of intelligent design merely claims to detect the action of some intelligent cause (with power, at least, equivalent to those we know from experience) and affirms this because we know from experience that only conscious, intelligent agents produce large amounts of specified information. The theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine the identity or any other attributes of that intelligence, even if philosophical deliberation or additional evidence from other disciplines may provide reasons to consider, for example, a specifically theistic design hypothesis.

So much for that claim.

Here's your problem, Skep.

You act like someone who believes that merely being an atheist is sufficient to make one more intelligent than any given theist, better informed about any topic involving religion, and more by default. Guess what? Yelling online about your love for reason and science doesn't magically make you well informed, nor particularly intelligent. Being very hostile towards religion and theism doesn't either. Nor does voting for the 'right' party, disliking the 'wrong' people, or more.

Is it finally getting through to you? Or do we need to have this conversation five more times? And in retrospect, did you really think it was a good idea to cover up ONE obvious mistake about ID with ANOTHER?

When I tell you you're not as smart as you think you are, that's not 'Crude being mean because you're an atheist'. That's Crude telling the cold, hard truth.

im-skeptical said...

crude,

Just once, try to understand what I'm saying rather than reacting viscerally the way you always do. The passage you cited is the ID party line, where they disavow knowledge of how life was created, which is exactly what I've been saying. The book overall strongly hints at supernatural creation.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/signature_in_the_cell.html

The ID folks have to walk a fine line. They are theistic creationists. Everybody knows that. But in their role as "ID scientists", they have to deny their creationism in order to foist their pseudo-science on the public schools. Their official line is that they don't make any claim about who created life, and how it was done. That's what the big debate was all about.

BeingItself said...

Crude,

OF COURSE that's what Meyer says in his book. But behind closed doors these IDiots say to each other "but of course we all know the designer is Yahweh".

RD Miksa said...

Dear BeingItself,

OF COURSE (insert name of famous atheist/proponent of neo-Darwinian evolution here) says that evolution is entirely compatible with God's existence and with main religions. But behind doors these EVOatheists say to each other "but of course we all know that neo-Darwinian evolution shows that there is no God or designer.". (And some are actually quite overt about making this claim).

So does the disingenoiusness that many proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution exhibit suddenly negate their arguments/points as you seem to suggest it does when ID advocates do it?

RD Miksa

Note: Sent from phone...sorry for any errors.

Crude said...

Just once, try to understand what I'm saying rather than reacting viscerally the way you always do. The passage you cited is the ID party line, where they disavow knowledge of how life was created, which is exactly what I've been saying.

How about you quit lying?

First you said ID has nothing to do with the OoL. That alone proves one thing: you know jack about ID. It's a little like talking dismissively about that anti-christian crazy muslim, Sam Harris.

Then you said that Meyers' book - which you apparently hadn't even heard of before I brought it up in this thread - was 'clearly creationist' and how it wasn't compatible with ID because it attributed life to a supernatural creator. Oops! No, the book's pretty damn clear, and says exactly what I said about ID.

So now the claim is that, well of COURSE the book doesn't say this. What you meant was that they 'really think' the designer was God, but they can't say this. Also, nevermind the direct quote I gave absolutely shooting down the idea that Meyer suggests ID proves God's existence, or relies on God's existence, to make the points it does. It's irrelevant, because a website you googled for about a book you apparently didn't even know existed before yesterday, and which you certainly didn't read, suggested that Meyers provides evidence that points towards a non-naturalistic origin of life - even though I straight up quoted the exact terms of ID as he presents them in the same book.

You are done, Skep. You've engaged in multiple, clear incidents of bullshitting and lying in a single thread, when all you had to do was back down and admit that no, you actually don't know all that much about ID. But thanks. You've given me a conversation I can link and point to to justify my 'Skep is an ignorant slow-wit, and lies when he's cornered' claims when they come up, just as I can repeatedly drop straight evidence of Linton as a plagiarist who knowingly lacks even basic knowledge about what he discusses.

BeingItself,

OF COURSE that's what Meyer says in his book.

Skep didn't think that, until I provided a quote proving as much. 'Of course.'

But behind closed doors these IDiots say to each other "but of course we all know the designer is Yahweh".

Christ, you're as bad as Skep. Guess what? Meyer's belief in God is not a secret, much less hidden. Nor is Behe's. Nor is Dembski's. They quite openly say they believe the designer is God. But /this does not make the ID arguments themselves theistic or even religious/.

The funny thing is, if they WERE arguing that ID proved God, the very first objection to them would be that their arguments and reasoning falls dramatically short of God, and that if the argument were successful, the best they could conclude would be an intelligent designer.

Their claim is that their arguments are not religious or theistic. Apparently, that's not even disputed. The problem is they believe the designer is God (even if, explicitly, owing to more and different reasons than the ID argument), so that must mean their arguments prove God's existence, despite not only what they say, but the clear terms of their arguments. Or perhaps, even if the arguments are not religious, you fear they would support belief in theism at least indirectly, and on those terms alone it must be judged as foul.

Gosh, I wonder if that type of thinking could at all be considered fallacious?

im-skeptical said...

"First you said ID has nothing to do with the OoL"

I said it isn't about OoL. Their official stance is that they don't claim any particular kind of creation or OoL theory. Just like the passage you quoted from Meyer says. They focus on evidence of design, but that's not the same as having a theory of OoL.

"Then you said that Meyers' book ... was 'clearly creationist' and how it wasn't compatible with ID because it attributed life to a supernatural creator."

I did not say that it wasn't compatible. Meyer, in discussing materialist theory of OoL, attempts to show that it is impossible (with a bunch of out-of-his-ass probability numbers), and thereby leaves open only a supernatural option. But any explicit mention of supernatural creation would indeed be incompatible with the official position of the IDists.

"Oops! No, the book's pretty damn clear, and says exactly what I said about ID."

The book gives the official ID position, as you pointed out, and that's exactly the point that I was making in the first place. ID does not have a theory of OoL. However, the book also clearly leads the reader (implicitly) to a supernatural creationist position.

"You are done, Skep. You've engaged in multiple, clear incidents of bullshitting and lying"

Speak for yourself. I tried to explain and clarify my point. You refuse to hear what I say, or you just don't understand. It's fine to debate about something, but instead of arguing against what I actually say, you always try to change my meaning or twist my words into something that I didn't say, turning everything into a strawman and then attacking it. This happens over and over. You are nothing but a troll.

Crude said...

I said it isn't about OoL. Their official stance is that they don't claim any particular kind of creation or OoL theory.

No, you said: "That's not remotely compatible with ID, which is not about the origin of life, but rather about how things today came to be "designed" the way they are."

And later: "I can't tell you anything at all about what ID says about the origin of life (maybe because they have nothing to say about it, perhaps?), so I'll parry to Nagel's endorsement of a book. Take that!"

You claimed that ID had nothing to say about the origin of life. I cited otherwise, and you called what you thought was a bluff and doubled down on the claim. Now, since - as usual - I've pinned your hide to the wall, you're trying to lie your way out of it. Because otherwise, gosh, you look pretty fucking dumb, don't you?

I did not say that it wasn't compatible. Meyer, in discussing materialist theory of OoL, attempts to show that it is impossible

A) No, he doesn't try to show it's impossible. He tries to show that, given what we currently know, it's incredibly unlikely (note: this isn't 'impossible') to have happened without the effort of an intelligent agent.

B) You, earlier: "The book you refer to is clearly creationist. It attributes life to a supernatural creator. That's not what ID science is about (at least not according to the so-called ID "scientists")."

Except it doesn't attribute life to a supernatural creator. In fact, the book explicitly points out ID *cannot* do this. Yes, you said it wasn't compatible because the book 'was clearly creationist'. Now it apparently IS compatible, it's just that he's being sneaky.

You can't even keep your own words straight.

The book gives the official ID position, as you pointed out, and that's exactly the point that I was making in the first place.

No, your point was that the book was 'clearly creationist' and 'attributes life to a supernatural creator'. Now, hot on the heels of being shown as not only pig ignorant of what you talk about, but a liar, you're gambling that you're crafty enough to BS your way out of the situation. Surprise! It's not working.

You are nothing but a troll.

Yes, I'm one of those trolls who reads what you say, quotes your statements, points out how they're wrong, quotes your FURTHER statements and how THEY are wrong, and then why you start lying about what you said, quotes your statements again to point out the obvious inconsistencies.

As I said - my job is done here. I now have a picture perfect example of you speaking out of your ass about a subject you know nothing about, compounding it with even more ignorance, and then lying poorly in an attempt to get out of it. You can't climb out of the hole you dug for yourself - it can only get deeper. Bitch about it, cry about it, look around for sympathy - but trust me when I say, your shortcomings have been made crystal clear in this thread. It will be referred to in the future.

Thanks for the gift. ;)

im-skeptical said...

And after trying to clarify my points, still you twist the meaning of what I have said. This is obviously deliberate. Not surprising. You are after all, so dishonest that you can't bring yourself to make a fair representation of what I say.

Crude said...

You are after all, so dishonest that you can't bring yourself to make a fair representation of what I say.

I know, me and my monstrous 'quoting you in full, multiple times' tactics, and criticizing the clear meaning of your words. It's almost as bad as my 'refusing to believe obvious horseshit meant to mask you trying to paper over your mistakes after the fact' methods.

Your understanding of "fair representation" means "never pointing out when you said pig ignorant stuff, and turning a blind eye to your bullshitting". If you want that, wait for someone like Linton to show up. You're on the same side as him, so you can count on him running defense for you no matter how obviously dumb or wrong your replies are, so long as you do the same for him.

Again, my advice? In the future, don't blather on as if you know about stuff based on your visceral effing reactions to the topic and your skimming over posts by whatever angsty Gnus you idolize lately. Either proceed cautiously, asking questions from those who know better, or study the source until you at least have a grasp of it. That may take a couple years, at your pace.

im-skeptical said...

Or it could be that you are just plain stupid. Why don't you just go on arguing against your imagined strawman opponent? I'll leave you to it.