Monday, October 07, 2013

Justice Scalia says Satan is real.

Here.  The Louvin Brothers would have agreed.

203 comments:

1 – 200 of 203   Newer›   Newest»
B. Prokop said...

The Stones' Their Satanic Majesties Request album cover was better. And speaking of the Stones, there's always THIS.

Bilbo said...

I'm curious, Vic. Would you agree with Scalia, also?

Cale B.T. said...

Because the thread on same sex marriage is getting a little long, I'm going to post some comments on this one.


To Ingx24,

Thanks for replying to my ethical challenge on this thread http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/an-ethical-claim-from-hector-avalos.html

Curiously enough, you were actually going to be the original target for that comment when you were doing your blog posts on morality but I never got around to it.

You wrote:
“I think the reason necrophilia is morally wrong is because it desecrates a person's corpse. It's disrespectful and offensive to the person whose body it is, and could be considered rape since they are unable to consent. The idea that there is a way certain faculties are "supposed" to be used (as opposed to how they are normally used, or to the way that it is most advantageous to use them) doesn't really make sense to me.”

I agree that the act obviously is profoundly disrespectful and that is another aspect of why it is immoral.
But, what if the soon-to-be-dead person said “I personally place no value on my corpse and don’t see this as disrespectful, and I have signed a consent form”?

This situation would remove the aspect of disrespect and lack of consent which you mentioned, but surely the living participant would still nevertheless be committing an immoral act.

Furthermore, to cultivate fantasies around this idea so as to stimulate oneself wouldn’t actually desecrate a corpse, but this is also an immoral act.

It seems that the immorality of these two further examples would explained by referring to the proper use of the body, though.
How do you respond?

Cale B.T. said...

To im-skeptical, thanks for your reply to my ethical scenarios. As far as I can see, you took option 1. and denied the examples are in fact immoral. You wrote:

"I'll take a stab at this. No. In my opinion, ethics relates to decisions we make that affect other people in some way. What we do with our own body is not anyone's concern unless it affects them in some way. Therefore, it is not an ethical issue.”

A while ago, I read an article about a former editor of a “men’s magazine” in the UK. He recalled that when he was asked “Would you approve if your own daughter posed in your magazine?” he would say something like “It’s her choice.” not because those were his actual thoughts on the matter, but because he realised would have been exposed as a massive hypocrite if he had said otherwise.

So, im-skeptical, if your own adult son or daughter came to you and said: “Dad, I’m having certain urges and considering whether I should copulate with the dead. Do you think I would be doing anything immoral if I acted on those urges?” would you seriously stand there, put on your ever-so-liberated-and-sophisticated facade like the magazine editor, and say “Sure, it’s your body, right? This is just not an ethical issue.”?

Would you really, in good conscience, affirm that?

Victor Reppert said...

There seems to be signs of Satan in many places.

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin—a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

-Chesterton

Cale B.T. said...


For Papalinton, I have three questions.

1. When RD Miksa mentioned incestuous marriages as an example of a marriage which ought not to be pursued, you wrote:

“There is a real and adverse genetic imperative with the progeny of such close relationships, empirically verified. Not so with homosexual relationships”

So, if, say a father-daughter couple were both sterilised, nullifying the possibility of producing genetically damaged children, would you still oppose their marrying? If so, then why?

Might it be the case that this relationship might have a significant affective component, but ought not to be pursued because of the very nature of who the participants are to each other?

2. You said to Crude “your beliefs about the great sin and abomination [biblical words] of being born homosexual is a delusion. Being born a homosexual is no more different than being born autistic. Both are the result of genetic happenstance. And the only distinction between the two that characterizes the radically different forms of maltreatment, public humiliation and vilification by the religious? Homosexuality is an affront to christian psychosexual sensibilities.”

Crude doesn’t believe that having a same-sex attraction is sinful. Nor is this a teaching of the Catholic Church. Do you retract your assertion?

3. As can be seen above, Im-skeptical and ingx24 gave answers to the ethical challenge I presented in the previous thread. I’m still interested in hearing your answer.

Cale B.T. said...

And finally to BenYachov.

You’ve described papalinton as somebody who has gone from one narrow fundamentalism to another. This is unlikely, as he was a member of the Uniting Church, one of Australia’s most liberal protestant denominations.

Thanks for your great blog Prof. Reppert!

Crude said...

Cale,

Crude doesn’t believe that having a same-sex attraction is sinful. Nor is this a teaching of the Catholic Church. Do you retract your assertion?

Thanks for catching that. I tend to ignore the plagiarist's comments unless someone responds to them and quotes a particularly inane part.

You're right - I expressly denounce that view, it's not the Church's view, I've stated this unequivocally in the past, and I've never said otherwise. But the problem is that Linton isn't only fairly slow, he's also a flat out liar. Documented, of course.

Still, the defense is welcome. I don't have much faith in the conversation you're trying to have with him, but I admire your spirit all the same.

Bilbo said...

I protest people posting off-topic comments here.

Meanwhile, yes, sin is real. But you've side-stepped my question, Vic.

Cale B.T. said...

Please forgive me just this once, Bilbo.

Victor Reppert said...

Bilbo: How would you explain it otherwise?

Dan Gillson said...

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe in the devil than in a omnibenevolent God. (Crude and I had a tortuous--not torturous--conversation about that.) Joe Hoffmann has an interesting take on being human and the existence of evil.

im-skeptical said...

With apologies to Bilbo and all,

"So, im-skeptical, if your own adult son or daughter came to you and said: “Dad, I’m having certain urges and considering whether I should copulate with the dead. Do you think I would be doing anything immoral if I acted on those urges?” would you seriously stand there, put on your ever-so-liberated-and-sophisticated facade like the magazine editor, and say “Sure, it’s your body, right? This is just not an ethical issue.”?"

No, I wouldn't. But the real issue is not what you make it out to be. There has already been some discussion of the ethical aspects of this, and I generally agree with what has been said. A corpse is not yours to do with what you will, unless perhaps you have been granted explicit permission before the person dies.

But I would be disturbed if my son had such urges. Why? It's not the same as the religious aversion to homosexuality, which is based more on scripture and tradition than reason. Gay people can have a happy and healthy relationship. That's not the case with a corpse, and from what I know about people who do have these urges, every one of them is genuinely mentally unsound. Some kill people to have sex with them. Others have deep social interaction problems, or serious psychological issues. At the risk of sounding like a religious anti-gay activist, I'd say that necrophiliacs are truly disturbed, and need help.

And I resent the tendency of religious people to equate homosexuality with all manner of deviant behaviors.

Papalinton said...

Cale B T
"1. When RD Miksa mentioned incestuous marriages ......So, if, say a father-daughter couple were both sterilised, nullifying the possibility of producing genetically damaged children, would you still oppose their marrying? If so, then why?"

There are very substantive reasons for father-daughter couples not to have progeny. If they deliberately undertook sterilization as a means and the sole purpose for marrying one must vigorously question their ethical standard and moral behaviour and society must then adjudicate as to whether an honest action has been taken. I suspect not and I would err on advising that their action is unethical and does not comply with the spirit [and I use that word in the most advised and non-religious sense] and intent of either the law or the convention.

"2. You said to Crude “your beliefs ...... Crude doesn’t believe that having a same-sex attraction is sinful. Nor is this a teaching of the Catholic Church. Do you retract your assertion?"

Who said anything about crude's belief about same-sex attraction being sinful. That is a deliberate and mischievous red herring and is irrelevant to the discussion. In does non one good to care about what crude thinks because he has demonstrably enacted his religious-inspired and unrelenting bigotry. This is about his objection to SSM, the next step following his definition of sinless same-sex attraction. This is about his abuse and misconstrual of the evidence that simply overrides what that evidence, as little as there is, that indicates same-sex couples can be fit and proper parents and should be recognised as such within the community. Who cares about the teaching of the Church? Are the teachings of the church really all that good in in resolving the reality of homosexuality in our community? Is this the very same church that concealed widespread global pedophilia and pederasty by priests, men of the cloth, men sworn to Jesus Christ, of defenseless children at their most vulnerable, as they were buggered behind the Alter of God? Another child sacrifice to the Glory of God as He watched on in silent amusement?

"3. As can be seen above, Im-skeptical and ingx24 gave answers to the ethical challenge I presented in the previous thread. I’m still interested in hearing your answer."
I probably wont. I had completely forgotten about it. For me it would have been for one of two reasons. It was inconsequential and therefore irrelevant. Or, I was too tired to combat the theological drivel underlying the challenge.

Here is an interesting challenge for you of my own:
You will have kept up with the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse no doubt, in which the Catholic Church is playing the star role. Anyone with a modicum of decency and self-respect would be interested. Here is an ethical problem that is at the heart of the Vatican's treatment of child-sex abuse committed by priests. The Church believes firmly that child-sex abuse is not a crime but a sin, under Canon Law. To date Canon Law has clearly taken precedence over secular civil criminal law. In the eyes of the church it is best able to deal with priestly child sexual abuse. There are countless documented instances of this strategy. You are a priest and with the words ringing in your ears, "Oh My God! Oh My God! I'm coming! I'm coming!" you happen across another priest on top of your brother's son. Do you report it to your Bishop who deals with it according to Canon Law, as they have done it now seems the case for centuries, or contrary to your commitment to the Church do you go straight to the police? What do you do? And if you are not a Catholic, replace the role with the clergy of your denomination.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...

Who said anything about crude's belief about same-sex attraction not being sinful? And is it relevant to the debate?

Crude said...

As usual, when caught flat out telling bald faced lies, Linton's reply is... to lie some more.

Quoting Linton again, addressing me:

"your beliefs about the great sin and abomination [biblical words] of being born homosexual is a delusion."

I ask anyone reading this to search not only this thread, but any thread I have ever taken part in, for me saying that 'it is a great sin and abomination [to be] born homosexual', much less that having same-sex attraction is itself a sin and an abomination. Ladies and gentlemen, you will search in vain.

Because Linton is not content to be a plagiarist and a liar. He now stoops to gross slander against someone out of hate and fear - over, of all things, petty blog comments disputes. And when caught outright in his slander, he refuses to retract. Instead, he lies further, and obfuscates.

Linton, just when I wouldn't have thought you could sink any lower, you manage to underperform even my expectations of you. Ethically and morally speaking, sir - you are slime. And insofar as you identify as an atheist and a secular humanist, you are an embarrassment to both.

Thank you again, Cale, for calling my attention to what he says. As I said, I usually ignore his comments unless someone else reports them. I see he's taken advantage of that in a way befitting him.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...

Crude:
As usual, when caught flat out telling bald faced lies, Linton's reply is... to lie some more.
Quoting Linton again, addressing me:
"your beliefs about the great sin and abomination [biblical words] of being born homosexual is a delusion."
I ask anyone reading this to search not only this thread, but any thread I have ever taken part in, for me saying that 'it is a great sin and abomination [to be] born homosexual', much less that having same-sex attraction is itself a sin and an abomination. Ladies and gentlemen, you will search in vain."


Crude on Feser"s Blog

August 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Dguller: If they had a single homosexual encounter with someone, then would the Catholic church rescind the adoption?


Crude: I'm pretty sure the Catholic church can't 'rescind the adoption', ........ 

Now, approving of the sin* [i.e.sodomy], ] justifying it, making it into a full-blown lifestyle? Well, now we've got a problem to consider. [my bolding]

sin*: Crude:"For one thing, take a look at the replacement rates in western civilizations that have taken on a modern attitude towards sexuality. That alone suggests it's not a non-issue. Further, 'homosexuality' may or may not be something that can spread in a population (here we get into questions on biological factors, etc) -- but 'sodomy' is." August 8, 2012 at 7:17 PM.


August 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM
Dguller: Then if thwarting the natural tendency to procreation for the sake of a higher good is permissible for the clergy, then why not extend the same idea to homosexual relationships?


Crude: Because even on a Thomist understanding, there is a radical difference between refusing to engage in a sexual act, and engaging in a corrupted sexual act. [My bolding]

August 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM
Crude: Like I said - fuck you. And you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting I or anyone else in this thread thinks of people with same sex attraction as being subhuman or inferior to the rest of humanity, merely in the hopes of scoring debating points. I hope anyone who has praised your sense and demeanor in the past on this thread sees your exchange, and adjusts their view of you accordingly due to it.


Dguller: It doesn’t matter what you think or don’t think. All that matters is what the system that you happen to endorse actually implies. You can think whatever you want, but Thomist metaphysical principles are quite clear that with respects to our sexual nature, those who engage in homosexual sexual acts are less human than those that engage in heterosexual sexual acts. This also applies to heterosexuals who engage in sex outside of marriage, who use contraception, who enjoy oral and anal sex, and so this does not exclusively apply to homosexuals, but they are just one example of a group of human beings who have a corrupted expression of their sexual nature. After all, “to choose in line with the final causes or purposes that are ours by nature is morally good; to choose against them is morally bad” (TLS, p. 137), and that “where sex is concerned – acting contrary to them cannot fail to be of serious moral significance” (TLS, p 149).



The evidence speaks for itself.

B. Prokop said...

Crude,

You shouldn't by now be surprised at whatever depths Mr. Wilson shows himself capable of sinking to. The dog that hasn't barked so far in this discussion about SSM is that Linton, whilst donning the hypocritical airs of "tolerance", etc., is the same person who advocates for the tactics and mannerisms of the self-styled Westboro Baptist Church and praises those who use them! Linton loses all claim to any moral high ground here by his steadfast refusal to condemn those who copycat the WBC's hateful actions, instead excusing such behavior when he agrees with the cause.

Crude said...

Bob,

You shouldn't by now be surprised at whatever depths Mr. Wilson shows himself capable of sinking to.

Yep. And I see the idiot and liar is playing his usual game - I have nowhere obscured my view that *engaging in certain sexual acts* can be immoral. (By the by? It's immoral for heterosexuals doing so too, and I say as much elsewhere and in the past.) That's a matter of record, and I've never denied it. But I nowhere, not in a single instance, have said that *being born with same-sex sexual attraction is a sin and an abomination*. Not in what the idiot quotes, not in any threads here - not anywhere. Period.

He, at this point, is probably gunning for the "Duh, me Linton. Me too goddamn stupid to read and understand." award again - it's a lesser crime than what I accused him of. It's not working. He's already got the liar and plagiarist reputation down cold. Now, we can add 'resorts to slander when he's desperate' to that list, and 'tries to cover up THAT with more lies' as well. And he hasn't got a shred of evidence in his favor, because not only does none exist, but plenty of evidence to the contrary exists.

Linton loses all claim to any moral high ground here by his steadfast refusal to condemn those who copycat the WBC's hateful actions, instead excusing such behavior when he agrees with the cause.

Pretty much. In fact, arguably worse - the WBC may be a nasty, small group with wretched views, but I don't recall any incidents of plagiarism or out and out lying on their part. Save, of course, for the slander - which Linton happily engages in, with exactly zero evidence.

But yeah, they pretty much are the same in a lot of ways, aren't they? Filled with hate. Don't really argue or reason - they show up and yell at people, trying to get a rise out of them. Few tricks beyond slander and repeating themselves, or quoting things they don't show much evidence of understanding.

Peas in a pod. ;)

Papalinton said...

Satan? Satanism? The word is synonymous with Catholic Church. Just to refresh people's memory, this travesty in Brazil involving a 9-year old girl who was raped and the Holy Mother Church's satanic response? Or read about it HERE or HERE

Chesterton should have looked inwards rather than outwards in search of the real Satan.

Crude said...

I'll add one more comment to what I've already said.

Linton is a plagiarizer - he lies about his knowledge and plagiarizes to cover up gaping holes. That's happened in the past, as a matter of record. That alone is also enough to establish him as a liar. Now, we have a very clear case of blatant slander - an accusation for which Linton has nada, zero, nyet evidence for.

This is on top of his usual tactics of bluffing, of threadjacking, of trying desperately to change the topic whenever conversations don't go his way (as, you'll notice, he's doing /in this thread/). He cannot hold a conversation without mocking or insulting who he's talking with, including the blog's host.

Victor, I do not like to put you on the spot. But if you're reading, I ask you sincerely - what value is there in keeping him around here? I understand the logic of 'well, he makes the Cult of Gnu look bad'. But at this point you have an archive full of evidence for that to call upon at a whim. You, quite reasonably, have gotten rid of Kilopapa, and prune his hate-schpiel when it shows up here. Is THIS particular 'Papa' really all that better?

Your blog, your rules. But I ask sincerely all the same. This isn't about mere disagreement, or even animated disagreement. This is about what amounts to 'Kilopapa, with more words and less intellectual honesty'.

B. Prokop said...

Crude,

Better yet, it's past time to revive the Paps Challenge. I for one will sign on (in the word's of Seinfeld's Kramer), "Starting... now!"

Post away, Linton. You'll get no response from me.

And for the record, for once I actually agree with Justice Scalia (and that hardly ever happens!). I also believe there is a literal Satan (along with his minions), active in this world.

Papalinton said...

Bob, crude, your whining is irrelevant and inconsequential to the discussion. Just another bout of tar and feathering.

Crude, "I have nowhere obscured my view that *engaging in certain sexual acts* can be immoral." You may have convinced yourself but don't try and downplay your unrestrained bigotry. What were your actual words again?

"Now, approving of the sin [i.e.sodomy], justifying it, making it into a full-blown lifestyle? Well, now we've got a problem to consider." No, not just your normal, average every-day immoral act. But Sodomy. We've got a problem, not just any problem, but a really big existential problem.

" ... and engaging in a corrupted sexual act." No, not just an immoral sexual misdemeanour, but a .... FULL-BLOWN LIFESTYLE.... CORRUPTED .. SEXUAL.. ACT.

As D Guller, who is a practicing physician, astutely noted: It doesn’t matter what you think or don’t think. All that matters is what the system that you happen to endorse actually implies. You can think whatever you want, but Thomist metaphysical principles are quite clear that with respects to our sexual nature, those who engage in homosexual sexual acts are less human than those that engage in heterosexual sexual acts."

To end on a light note, L. Jack Huberman, Canadian-Jewish-American writer, says it best:

'The main debate seems to be whether the Rapture occurs before the beginning of the Tribulation or the end. Personally, I believe the Rapture comes after the Seduction and during the Consummation, which of course is followed by the Resurrection and Repenetration"

Crude said...

Bob,

Better yet, it's past time to revive the Paps Challenge. I for one will sign on (in the word's of Seinfeld's Kramer), "Starting... now!"

Well, I agree with the challenge. (Who thought it up? Was it myself? someone else? I definitely stuck to it for ages.) The problem I have now is, lying was bad enough. Plagiarism was rotten. Threadjacking, general stupidity, insincerity... all bad.

But now we're at the point where, out of hate and a desperate bid for attention, Linton is reduced to slander. He engages in it, cannot back it up, and doubles down when called out. This is exactly what 'Kilopapa' engages in - and he is out of here, unwelcome. So I'm going to submit my humble request to Victor that he consider imposing consistency in this case.

There is no shortage of atheists, agnostics and irreligious with whom we can have conversations with on here. I had ones with Hyper, with Dan, with all manner of others - and of course, disagreements with other Christians and theists too. I recall Feser had it with these same antics. I've been here for God knows how many years now, and Linton is pretty well as bad as or worse than the guys who've actually gotten the axe here (Perezoso and Kilo).

Victor's got the final say, but I feel it's entirely sensible to say come on - enough's enough.

B. Prokop said...

Just remember the Second Law of Internet Conversation: "Do not feed the troll!" (The First Law is about not mentioning Hitler.)

Papalinton said...

Crude
"Victor, I do not like to put you on the spot. But if you're reading, I ask you sincerely - what value is there in keeping him around here? I understand the logic of 'well, he makes the Cult of Gnu look bad'. But at this point you have an archive full of evidence for that to call upon at a whim. You, quite reasonably, have gotten rid of Kilopapa, and prune his hate-schpiel when it shows up here. Is THIS particular 'Papa' really all that better?"

Fair go. All I have done is take up your challenge, " I ask anyone reading this to search not only this thread, but any thread I have ever taken part in, for me saying that 'it is a great sin and abomination [to be] born homosexual', much less that having same-sex attraction is itself a sin and an abomination. Ladies and gentlemen, you will search in vain."

You have been exposed. Just accept it with Christian humility. An appeal to the Webmaster to strike off someone who obviously disagrees with your worldview is really a sign of weak character and someone who seeks to stifle debate. Just because you don't to hear or like what I say is not a criterion for censorship. Of course the other way of stifling debate would be to take up Bob's suggestion. Like a bunch of schoolgirls [lovely creatures that they are they can and do engage in such antisocial behaviour given their adolescence ] playing no talkies with someone they have collectively decided to ignore. It is a common form of inverse social bullying, tacit intimidation. If you choose to play childish games, who am I to stop you. You are a master of your own childishness.

If Victor chooses to exercise censorship on your behalf that is a matter for his conscience.

Dan Gillson said...

I second Crude's request. Linton doesn't wish to argue in good faith. It's time to give him the boot.

grodrigues said...

@Cale B. T.:

Late to the party, and with appologies to Bilbo, but I would like to comment on this:

"I think the reason necrophilia is morally wrong is because it desecrates a person's corpse. It's disrespectful and offensive to the person whose body it is, and could be considered rape since they are unable to consent. The idea that there is a way certain faculties are "supposed" to be used (as opposed to how they are normally used, or to the way that it is most advantageous to use them) doesn't really make sense to me.

I agree that the act obviously is profoundly disrespectful and that is another aspect of why it is immoral."

I am sorry, but this makes no sense. Why is it disrespectful? The person is dead, so it has either ceased to exist or not. In the first horn it makes absolutely no sense to say that the person owns the body, because the person is no more. Lack of consent fares no better; under the rule of law, persons can determine the fate of their belongings, body included, after their death (within certain constraints); but this has nothing to do with "desecration" or "disrespect", and lack of consent can only be construed in the same sense as lack of consent for other, material possessions. But of course, this legal arrangement is of no help to the usual idiots, because the possession of the person's belongings passes to its inheritors, so what is to stop an inheritor to do with the body of the deceased as it pleases?

In the second horn, ingx24 is a substance dualist. The accidental tie between person and body is severed at death, so once again, in what sense is the body the body of the person? On what grounds can the person lay claim to a body that is just pasture for maggots?

im-skeptical said...

"I second Crude's request. Linton doesn't wish to argue in good faith. It's time to give him the boot"

Earlier, certain people were castigated in this forum for suggesting that an argument was bigoted. The cry went out that playing the 'bigotry card' was inhibiting free expression. When I objected to that I was told I was defending intellectual bullies. By none other than the master of crude logic.

Now we have the real intellectual bullies actively trying to suppress the speech of others. Who will stand up and call these people what they are?

Dan Gillson said...

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the first amendment bars me from selecting the company I wish to keep. I never knew that the freedom of association entailed by the first amendment meant that a group of people who have freely got together to debate about philosophy or religion cannot take collective action to remove a buffoon from their midst!

B. Prokop said...

"Now we have the real intellectual bullies actively trying to suppress the speech of others. Who will stand up and call these people what they are?"

I'm not suppressing anyone's free speech, nor am I calling for it. Mr. Linton can post away, for all I care. However, you seem to be wanting to compel my speech. I choose (freely) to not respond to a particular person's postings. Who are you to tell me that I must? Now that would be intellectual bullying!

im-skeptical said...

"Who are you to tell me that I must? Now that would be intellectual bullying!"

Don't worry, Bob. I didn't demand (or expect) anything from you.

Papalinton said...

As I assess it, Dr Reppert has the choice of censoring me and banning me from the site, in which case, as the evidence clearly indicates the accumulative case from this and Dr Feser's site, he will be be protecting a known bigot in his midst. Or, by not banning me he will be allowing the continued presence of a contributor who has impugned the bigot. I say impugned because crude did not say that being born homosexual is a sin and an abomination.

Which is the lesser of two evils? Protecting a known bigot who rails against SSM solely on the basis of the act of sodomy to which he violently objects, or banning one who has sought to protect a vilified and persecuted but decent minority in our society and who believes that there is nothing, not one impediment that should disallow gays and lesbians to marry and live as a couple in today's society.

As I said earlier, Dr Reppert's choice will be a matter for his conscience.

B. Prokop said...

Skep,

I apologize for my perhaps over-the-top posting there. In my (pitiful) defense, I objected to the charge of bullying, but that was no excuse for my "So are you" response.

Dan Gillson said...

Linton,

Why is whether or not you're banned a reflection of Dr Reppert's character and not your actions? If you're banned, it would seem to me that it would be due to your actions, e.g., bloviating, triumphalizing, plagiarizing, etc. It seems to me that you clearly don't want to disagree in good faith. If Dr Reppert agrees with me, why should you be allowed to comment here?

im-skeptical said...

"Why is whether or not you're banned a reflection of Dr Reppert's character and not your actions? If you're banned, it would seem to me that it would be due to your actions, e.g., bloviating, triumphalizing, plagiarizing, etc. It seems to me that you clearly don't want to disagree in good faith. If Dr Reppert agrees with me, why should you be allowed to comment here?"

Wow! And you think crude conducts his discussions in good faith? His lies, misrepresentations, and sheer hypocrisy don't bother you at all? Is this Pharyngula?

Dan Gillson said...

Your problems with Crude are yours, Skep. I didn't force you to do battle with Crude. You did that of your own accord and on your own terms. I'm sorry that you can't lie in the bed you've made, but don't try to pull me into your conflict with Crude.

im-skeptical said...

Dan,

I'm not asking you to take up my conflict with crude. But his words and actions are out there for all to see. He never misses an opportunity to accuse Linton of plagiarism, even though (as far as I am aware) it was a single incident from quite some time ago, that he has confessed and expressed his regret repeatedly. Character assassination is crude's stock in trade, and truth means nothing to him. So go ahead and tell us how Linton doesn't deserve a voice in this forum.

The voices I hear are speaking loud and clear.

Dan Gillson said...

Firstly, let's get one thing straight: no one here deserves to have their voice heard in this forum. Dr Reppert can host whomever he chooses, meaning that he can ban whomever he wants, for whatever reasons he can imagine. Hell, he doesn't even need a reason. He can be as ban-happy as he wants to be. It doesn't infringe on anyone's civil rights. So quit indulging in first amendment rhetoric. (E.g. "Suppression of speech", "deserv[ing] a voice.")

Secondly, Crude's opinions of you are based on undisclosed facts, just like your opinions of Crude. Insofar as each of your opinions are based on undisclosed facts, meaning that what you each say and do is available for public scrutiny, I can form my own opinions about your recrudescent conflict. I needn't be committed to either of your interpretations about each other. I don't think that Crude engages in character assassination, nor do I think that the truth means nothing to him. Likewise, I don't think that you're the bumbling idiot that Crude makes you out to be. You can shut the fuck up now about Crude, because I don't care.

Thirdly, Linton doesn't want to argue in good faith. Therefore, he doesn't deserve a voice in this forum.

Dan Gillson said...

I meant "aren't based on undisclosed facts" in both instances I used the phrase.

im-skeptical said...

I will STFU.

Dan Gillson said...

Okay, good. Thank you. Sorry to have been brazen and impatient.

Crude said...

Well, at least my request crosses the atheist-theist divide in one case.

Yeah, I do repeatedly cite the plagiarism, because it's relevant and instructive. I certainly cite, right now, the slander - only the latest incident of it (previously I cited his accusing Bob of 'lying for Jesus'.) I cite lies, I cite blatant topic switching, trolling, and more. I can cite a wall to wall record of shitting up threads, and yes, that lack of arguing in good faith.

We're not talking about mere testiness, or throwing out an insult in the heat of an argument, or even now and then screwups and temper losing and whatnot. We're not talking about a single mistake, or even a handful. We're talking about an establish, nigh universal pattern.

I was going to say that I can't be the only one tired of his antics, but I'm not - at least Dan is too. I ignored Linton for a long time (aka the Linton Challenge, which I extended way past the original time frame), but now when I do that I find out he's telling bald-faced slander.

As Dan said - Victor's place, Victor's rules, and I'll respect him and his decision either way. But I'm also suggesting, come on. Enough is goddamn enough. Let's axe this guy and move on. He'll find another place to ruin quickly, I assure you, if you're worrying about him lacking an adequate habitat.

B. Prokop said...

Unfortunately lost amid all of this housekeeping re DI is the OP. What should we as citizens think about the religious beliefs of our government officials? I know that the constitution speaks of "no religious test", but that in no way prohibits individual voters from making one.

The problem is, however, when people make a person's religion either a disqualifier or a selling point without full knowledge and context. How many people realize that Eisenhower, a president I greatly admire, was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and apparently never repudiated his upbringing? I know a lot of people who automatically assume that any Mormon politician is going to be a conservative, but fail to realize that Harry Reid is a Mormon. Same goes for evangelicals. All too often they are tarred with the brush of the "religious right", but as yet our only evangelical president has been Jimmy Carter!

As far as Antonin Scalia, his believing in the literal reality of Satan actually raises him a notch in my view (and he and I disagree on most things politically).

Papalinton said...

Justice Scalia says Satan is real and Michelle Bachmann tells us we are now in God's End Times.

Ya gotta just shake your head and laugh.

Crude said...

Bob,

Unfortunately lost amid all of this housekeeping re DI is the OP.

Part of the reason for the talk about housekeeping is the fact that the conversations are routinely wrecked and sidetracked by trolls. It's not just a case of one bad event, but a long, long string of events. So I hope Victor considers what's been requested - let kilopapa and papalinton receive the same treatment.

As for the OP, I'm not sure anyone was talking about a religious litmus test for such beliefs in the sense you seem to think. Too intellectually vile for most to defend or propose anyway. As for the devil, I think that would invite a very long conversation about what a 'literal devil' would be.

im-skeptical said...

"Part of the reason for the talk about housekeeping is the fact that the conversations are routinely wrecked and sidetracked by trolls."

You got that right.

B. Prokop said...

"I'm not sure anyone was talking about a religious litmus test for such beliefs"

No one was. I just decided to introduce the issue. Mainly because the only reason anyone's talking about Scalia's views on the devil is because he's on the Supreme Court. Otherwise, who would care? There's a (usually) unspoken subtext to all such conversations, in that "some people" (we all know who) think that actually believing in what you profess is somehow "scary".

Crude said...

Skep,

Like it or not, I've not plagiarized, etc. And I, demonstrably, can have long, detailed conversations with people I disagree with (including atheists) that stay on topic, and most importantly, stay civil during it, while staying civil myself. The fact that I call you out and Linton for your failings doesn't remove my track record. Nor does it save Linton's.

Kilopapa has gone. It's time for Linton to follow the same path.

Bob,

There's a (usually) unspoken subtext to all such conversations, in that "some people" (we all know who) think that actually believing in what you profess is somehow "scary".

I suppose that's true. Really though, I think most people - even many atheists - would prefer 'believes in the devil' (common, but not necessary, with theists) to 'believes there is no free will' (common, but not necessary, with atheists) in a government position. The former is extremely common, and in and of itself doesn't pose a problem other than 'well, that's eccentric'. The latter provides prima facie justification for treating people as things.

Blue Devil Knight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blue Devil Knight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Crude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blue Devil Knight said...

Crude I stand by my comment at your blog, the complimentary one, not the one I deleted.

My ill-advised attempt at exaggerated frivolous smack talk was....just awful...not funny...More offensive and hypocritical...so I deleted it. Sorry to have contributed to the noise.

im-skeptical said...

"The fact that I call you out and Linton for your failings doesn't remove my track record."

You got that right. Who was the troll that derailed this thread by talking about censoring people? Review all the threads that have gone off track. Who's always in the middle of it, and who usually starts it by attacking somebody's legitimate comments? And who's now passing the blame off on others, and telling us how civil he can be (to people who meet his approval)? Hmmm - I wonder, who that could possibly be?

Crude said...

BDK,

Okay, if that was a joke, then I misunderstood it. I can delete my response to you if you want - it apparently came through while I deleted it.

Skep,

Who was the troll that derailed this thread by talking about censoring people?

I responded to slander I was made aware of, in this thread. If you were made aware of a tolerance for child-beating in this thread, Skep, would you keep your mouth shut because 'it's off-topic'? I figured it was time someone at least made the gesture of saying enough is enough with Linton, for reasons stated.

Review all the threads that have gone off track. Who's always in the middle of it, and who usually starts it by attacking somebody's legitimate comments?

I've already indirectly linked one thread, and once again, it speaks better of me than not only Linton, but you. I was civil, I corrected you, and you took the civility apparently as a sign that you were correct. Then you lied when you were cornered. What a surprise - I reacted strongly to that.

And who's now passing the blame off on others, and telling us how civil he can be (to people who meet his approval)?

The funny thing is, 'my approval' is routinely met by atheists, agnostics, non-Catholics and more. Demonstrably. Go ahead, dispute this - I'll bury you with evidence, and I've already provided some. Meanwhile, I have my standing challenge regarding Linton. Care to take it up?

I predict silence.

Blue Devil Knight said...

I would appreciate it crude I regretted it immediately and deleted it within minutes. :O

Crude said...

I would appreciate it crude I regretted it immediately and deleted it within minutes. :O

Handled.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Thanks I owe you one.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

"I've already indirectly linked one thread, and once again, it speaks better of me than not only Linton, but you. I was civil, I corrected you, and you took the civility apparently as a sign that you were correct. Then you lied when you were cornered. What a surprise - I reacted strongly to that."

Oh, that thread. That's one deluded way of seeing it. The other way is to recognize that you were wrong right from the beginning.

1. There IS a wedge strategy.
2. It's STUPID to think that you can (coherently) believe in both ID and blind evolution at the same time. (Unless you just don't understand what ID is about, or evolution, or both.)
3. The IDists are creationists, but they do not publicly claim to be so, because that would undermine their strategy. ID "theory" is about design, but does not take a position on the origin of life. According to them, it might have been aliens. Who knows? It's not about OOL - it's about design.
4. No matter how stupid you insist that I am, I'm still more scientifically than than you.

You have NEVER admitted being wrong, even when I've pointed out FACTS to prove it. Every time we've been in one of those little disputes, you've come away from it saying, "I crushed you on that one". No matter how wrong you are. And you still are.

crude says: "Christian have done themselves a lot of harm by trying to remain civil and respectful with people who not only grant them neither, but who don't really merit either. If you act respectful and even praiseful of a jackass who insults and belittles your faith and others' faith, you're not 'being the bigger man'. You're enabling intellectual bullying. Knock it off, please - even if you prefer to do it with more grace than myself."

That says it all.

Papalinton said...

Crude has displayed the features of a bigot. An anti-homosexual crusader opposed to SSM. His commentary on Dr Feser's site about anal sex [an act that would only occur in the privacy of one's home and life, and even then we would never be privy to it whether it occurred or not whether they were gay or otherwise (and we know heterosexuals, both of female and male persuasion do actively engage in anal sex] is not of anyone's concern or business, least of all his. Would he allow gay men to marry for love but who refrained from sodomy? Would he withdraw his objection to SSM if that were the case? And how would one know if they did it or not? And how would one suggest it be policed? I suspect these answers are perhaps moot because I think he sees no likely scenario where he would accept SSM under any circumstance.

What seems to be the predominant driver of his objection, and it is made so very clear in his comments on anal sex on Dr Feser's site, is not so much about anal sex per se but even the thought, the possibility of it occurring. In fairness, one should review the context in which crude's statements about sodomy here at DR FESER'S SITE inform his perspective on SSM and gives an understanding of the rationale for his objection. It is interesting to note the concordance of Dr Feser's view about homosexual marriage, apparently based as it is on philosophical grounds but clearly predicated on religious grounds in his recently published book, The Last Superstition. Dr Feser's account of homosexuality is particularly strident and some commentators have noted and indeed questioned its merits. Dguller, a physican who comments on the blog specifically challenged crude on his view of homosexuality as it relates to the Thomist view.

On the matter of his saying that being born homosexual was a sin and and abomination, I will reiterate. You were impugned. I am obligated to publicly acknowledge that you have been impugned. This I have done.

That acknowledgement does not in any fashion mitigate the claim of his unreasonable and bigoted reaction which can only result in denying decent, law-abiding, honest and good people, a minority section of our community, a pass to participate in significant social rites of passage that are both important to and what defines us as a community.

Those that subscribe to crude's argument about his objection to SSM, as baseless as it is, and proven to be motivated by his personal reaction to anal sex, together with the spurious and irrelevant claim that a child can only have a mother and father model of parenting, a claim that infers a strike against the possibility of a married homosexual family structure, is a benign enabler, but an enabler nonetheless, of the most unseemly excesses of anti-social behaviour towards a group of citizens who want to enjoy aspects of community life, without the bile and recrimination, that others take for granted as their right.

Those that have sat on their hands on this site, on this issue particularly, have tacitly agreed to and approved his rationale for his objection to homosexual marriage. Who on this site is going to stand up against the vilification and persecution of gays? Severely handicapped people can get married with blessing. Severely autistic people can get married. Priests gladly officiate marriages in jail for psychopathic killers. People who cannot have children are free to marry. Catholics are welcomed into the church to get married, [divorced,] remarried, [divorced], and re-remarried, the serial monogamists. What is the reason again for why gays can't marry and look after children as parents and a family unit?

We know absolutely, crude will not be one of the advocates. He has already told us so in no uncertain manner.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Crude said...

1. There IS a wedge strategy.

Never denied it. I said it was irrelevant to the arguments, even granting it was true, as well as its interpretation. Strike one.

2. It's STUPID to think that you can (coherently) believe in both ID and blind evolution at the same time. (Unless you just don't understand what ID is about, or evolution, or both.)

I never claimed as much, and have made the same point myself before. I point out that claiming that evolution is 'blind' in the relevant sense is laughably non-scientific, and it's easy to show as much. Here's a news flash: when Jerry Coyne tells you that science shows evolution is unguided (as in, not controlled, orchestrated, foreseen, etc by God, gods, or a powerful being, etc), he's deluding you.

Strike two.

3. The IDists are creationists,

Irrelevant to their arguments. Strike three.

ID "theory" is about design, but does not take a position on the origin of life.

That's going to be news to the ID proponents who argue insistently that the OoL was an ID event. Strike four.

4. No matter how stupid you insist that I am, I'm still more scientifically than than you.

Man. It's like you're trying to tell me something here, but it's not coming through. It's... missing something.

Wait, wait, I know. Here it is.

Your problem, Skep, is what it always is: you think being an atheist and an amateur google scholar makes you very smart and scientifically informed. It doesn't. It just makes you prone to saying things like 'ID proponents don't say anything about the Origin of Life, it's all about evolution', and when you're corrected, you just dig in your heels. Until the news links and book quotes are withering you - at which point you try to change what you said in the past.

You have NEVER admitted being wrong, even when I've pointed out FACTS to prove it.

I admitted in this very thread that I misunderstood a comment by BDK, an atheist, and happily volunteered to erase a comment where I quoted him making a comment he retracted. Your 'facts' are usually anything but. Remember when you quoted some lunatic Mystery Babylon site as an authoritative historical source, unknowingly? That was the best.

And it's funny how this 'Crude never admits he's wrong' line comes up, and when I point out all the times I've admitted being wrong - when I /in the same thread/ admit that I made a mistake - it inevitably turns into 'Crude admits he's wrong just to prove wrong the people who say he never admits he's wrong. That's just how crafty he is.'

That says it all.

It really does, and I stand by every word. If it makes you feel better, you're not really a bully. More of a wannabe bully. You don't have the rhetorical skill or the other traits, and let's face it - being caught with your pants down as many times as you have has sapped your confidence. You won't be bullying anyone for a while, outside of a pack.

By the way - I notice you're not responding to my Linton challenge. Apparently, you are utterly incapable of defending him, and thus your silence helps accuse him. He really is the equivalent of Kilopapa, with more verbiage. Hopefully, that's a problem we can all get past soon. (Though I will respect Victor no matter what he decides. His blog, his rules.)

Papalinton said...

Dan Gillson says this: "I second Crude's request. Linton doesn't wish to argue in good faith. It's time to give him the boot."

It seems the manner of the argument, the niceties, not the substance of it, is his criterion for substantive argument. The presentation is more important than the substance.

In this debate he has stolidly sat on his hands, neither defending nor calling into question crude's motives or reasoning. One must truly ask, what value or worth his philosophy if it serves not in the protection or defense of a much egregiously maligned and vilified sector in our community who simply want respect, acknowledgement of their differences and a recognition that they too can be good and decent parents? What value his ethical and moral standing? We know crude is a bigot.

Gillson talks of good faith. Where is his good faith towards a group of decent people in our community, a member of which could so easily be your or my son or daughter, through no fault of their own, but certainly through an inherited fault [if one wishes to call it that] of our parental pool of genes that made them so.

He talks of good faith? What a bald-faced hypocrite.

Crude said...

By the way, that challenge is open to anyone. Let me repeat it, since the original comment was removed.

Here is a recent conversation I had with BDK, on my own little blog. We disagreed with each other about atheist and theist behavior. He was not censored. He was not insulted. There was no tangent. I readily admit that, in the case of liars, slanderers, and just plain wannabe bullies, I can be one hell of a bastard. I certainly make mistakes. But I also note that I can disagree with atheists, materialists, agnostics, non-Catholics, non-Christians and more, but still have civil conversations with them. That link produces one. I can produce more, with ease. I even have agnostics on my blogroll.

Now: defenders of Linton are invited to provide an example of Linton having an extended, civil conversation with a theist about atheism/theism. I've shown I can do it. Most people here have shown they can, whatever our individual failings at times. Linton, meanwhile, is - and again, this is shown with evidence I am only too happen to provide - a liar, a plagiarist, and a slanderer. Kilopapa, writ large and more verbose.

As I said before: I predict silence.

Papalinton said...

"By the way - I notice you're not responding to my Linton challenge."

The bigot seeking protection for his anti-homosexual views from open and challenging scrutiny.

How does he do it? By coercing others into his web of censorship.

How does a bigot earn respect?

im-skeptical said...




crude 1: "Say the Wedge Strategy exists. Say it was exactly what you claim it to be..."

crude 2: "Never denied it."

crude 1: "it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE."

crude 2: "I never claimed as much, and have made the same point myself before"

crude 1:
"
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.
"

crude 2: "That's going to be news to the ID proponents who argue insistently that the OoL was an ID event. Strike four."


" you think being an atheist and an amateur google scholar makes you very smart and scientifically informed. It doesn't."

No, but having education does.

"I admitted in this very thread that I misunderstood a comment by BDK, an atheist"

OK, but never to me.

"By the way - I notice you're not responding to my Linton challenge."

So?

Papalinton said...

Would you be happy I came to your website so that we can iron out our differences, frankly?

Crude said...

Skep,

Quotes 1 and 2 don't contradict each other. How in the world do you think they do?

Quotes 3 and 4? You seem confused. Are you quoting his?

What I am saying, however, is that it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE.

Because if so, you're quoting RD Miksa. I can think of a way to justify his claim, but if you're quoting me there, I want a link, thank you.

Quotes 5 and 6 are completely consistent. Again, where exactly are you seeing the inconsistency?

By the way, let's get something out in the open here. You just launched, of your own free will, a three-pronged assault at me to show me I was wrong in the past. If I deflect all three of these charges, I strongly suggest - if you can admit it to yourself - that you start considering that my criticisms of your behavior may be well rooted.

OK, but never to me.

Have you considered the reason is that you haven't really given me a reason to? What, you think I'm supposed to meet some quota and ever 20 posts you make, you get one 'Crude admits he's wrong' free?

Try finding me actually making a real error. Not one you're convinced I've made if you kinda-sorta squint, tilt your head, and change a few words.

So?

So you spoke up in his defense, and yet you are incapable of defending him on this point. I'm not asking for something amazing. I repeat: I think no one will provide it.

Papalinton said...

The reference I noted in an earlier comment, at October 09, 2013 at 9.46 PM, about Dr Feser's site in which crude speaks his objection to homosexuality, particularly his personal response and reaction to anal sex is actually documented HERE, the site at which the Physician, Dr D Guller also sought to take him to task about his misinterpretation of the Thomist perspective on homosexuality and sodomy. You might wish to also noted the form of personal angst and the aggressive language and name-calling by crude directed at Dr Guller as well other commenters who disagree with him. There is a pattern of behaviour, a pathology that simply does not match with his rhetoric of the last few comments that crude has posted here about how nice he is.

From that Dr Feser site that I had inadvertently cited at my previous comment of October 09, 2013 9:46 PM, HERE it is again I have lifted another all too typical crude interaction with a commenter confirming his penchant for belittling those that disagree with him.:

---------------------------
Hunt said...
Quote Crude:"Dawkins was targeting 'raising a child in a religion' and teachings of hell with his statements. They are idiotic, they are stupid, and everyone knows it."



Hunt: "Yeah, well perhaps you didn't get the memo, but Dawkins doesn't believe in Hell, so having the opinion that teaching a child that he might go to a place to be tortured forever doesn't actually sound idiotic or stupid. Telling your children about your own personal beliefs is fine, allowing them to make up their own minds. Like it or not, you do not know God exists. Telling them horror stories based on your own frightened psyche is not okay. That is abuse, pure and simple."
August 7, 2012 at 3:48 AM


Crude said...
Quote Hunt: "That is abuse, pure and simple.

"

Crude: "No it's not, you sad little man. It was stupidity detached from scientific reality when Dawkins said it, and it's the same when you say it. ..... 
" [my bolding]
August 7, 2012 at 4:45 AM

Hunt's response without resort to person abuse:

Hunt said...
Quote Crude: "No it's not, you sad little man. It was stupidity detached from scientific reality when Dawkins said it, and it's the same when you say it."

Hunt: "

Well, go ahead and live in your own little world, meanwhile in reality, telling children that nightmares are real remains abuse. Get used to it."
August 7, 2012 at 5:24 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------

CONT.

Papalinton said...

CONT.

What is equally disconcerting and saddening is the aiding and abetting of crude by Ben Yachov:

goddinpotty said...
Quote: "Never mind that there are arguments given for that morality in the book."

goddinpotty: "

Not really. I checked each index entry for "same-sex marriage", and didn't find anything I would call an argument. Maybe I missed something, so since I have the book around, you can supply a page reference.



It's also absurd to cast the same-sex marriage debate in terms of sexual morality. It's about people wanting to make a lifetime commitment to each other and have that socially recognized -- if they just wanted to screw around, what would be the point of fighting for marriage, of all things?"

Ben Yachov’s response:
BenYachov said...
"They are having some productive discussions on Same Sex vs Trad marriage issue over at Leah's Unequally Yoked blog.



(BTW shout out to Crude you are Da Bomb over there).



We all know goddinpotty isn't interested in having a discussion on the philosophy of marriage. He just wants to change the subject & hijack the thread.



Hunt's dogmatic arguments on not teaching dogmas to children are an epic fail.



Get over it Potty.

 My general non-binding but obvious correct advice.



Leah's blog is the place to be for discussions on the hot sweaty man on man love & it's moral implications."

August 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM

------------------------------------------

I know that Leah, a recent convert to Catholicism is a very strong advocate for same sex marriage despite her Catholicism. It would have been interesting to know what is meant by Ben's "

(BTW shout out to Crude you are Da Bomb over there)." But unfortunately the Patheos site web server was not able to access that Same Sex vs Trad marriage OP at Leah's blog.

So tell us Ben, why is crude Da Bomb over there on Leah's site? Also what is the intention of your message " ... on the hot sweaty man on man love & its moral implications." as you have lasciviously characterized it?


Papalinton said...

Here it is again: DR FESER"S BLOG.

It makes for extraodinarily interesting reading on the behaviour of crude, contrary to his claim: "But I also note that I can disagree with atheists, materialists, agnostics, non-Catholics, non-Christians and more, but still have civil conversations with them."

It is an extra-extra-long debate with almost 800 comments in total. Crude features in the first 150 or so through which Dr D Guller vigorously and steadfastly challenges his anti-homosexual stance and most particularly crude's particular interpretation of the Thomist perspective on homosexuality. Needless to say, following a massive hissy-fit and a demand for some form of contrition or something or whatever, he launches what can only be described as an undisguised and unprincipled threat that he will never again engage with Dr Guller should he not retract or rescind his line of argument that so offended crude. Needless to say crude takes no further part in the discussion for the next 600 comments, in which Dr Guller singlehandedly debates the balance of Dr Feser's coterie of admirers. Threats, personal abuse and swearing metered out by crude on Dr Guller did not dissuade him one jot from continuing the debate. But some of crude's companions did make comment on crude's behaviour:

 Eduardo said...
Whoa man, calm down. 

No need to curse the guy until you knock his hair black!



Having a nervous breakdown helps no one including you Crude
August 9, 2012 at 4:24 PM

BenYachov said...
.............
Crude,


I know I am the last person to say this.


I understand how you feel. If someone made a crack about Autism and my kids I would say worst than you but roll it back please. 

dguller isn't likely saying this to be a punk. He really thinks he is trying to be just towards gays and fighting forces that treat gays unjustly.


He is a good guy and you know an Atheist who earns that respect from me likely deserves it.
August 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM

It is interesting to read the balance of the comments and the advice given to crude to lay off, or calm down.

Crude's claim?: "But I also note that I can disagree with atheists, materialists, agnostics, non-Catholics, non-Christians and more, but still have civil conversations with them. That link produces one. I can produce more, with ease. I even have agnostics on my blogroll."

This OP at Dr Feser's site is by no means an isolated incident. I am reluctant to provide additional examples but will do so should the circumstance warrant it.

Incidentally, I have posted on two occasions at Crude's blog a request for us to iron out our differences in a civilized manner. On both occasions I know, and have copied the advice, that my messages have been successfully transmitted and received and will be posted subject to moderation. Both messages have as yet to be posted in the comments section. Both remain with the moderator of crude's blogsite at the time of writing this combox.

The past should be the past and am prepared to look forward.




Dan Gillson said...

Linton,

Firstly, thanks for using "good faith" equivocally. It gave you a convenient way to assassinate my character, and a way to shift the topic of discussion off of the fact that Crude and I don't think you're welcome here. You've gone out of your way to prove not only my point that you don't want to argue in good faith (how the fuck do you think I mean that, you dolt?), but also Crude's point that you'll resort to slandering and lying when your back is up against the wall. Way to go, idiot.

Secondly, your misplaced sense of nobility is obnoxious. Your commenting on a blog, not fighting the good fight. You're like Don fuckin' Quixote, Linton; a delusional old man on a moral crusade. No wonder why you'll resort to such lows: the good must always triumph! You'll do anything to make sure that the good comes out on top: you'll lie, slander, plagiarize, troll, obfuscate, triumphalize … you'll do all sorts of evils in the name of the good. (And he calls me a hypocrite!)

Thirdly, kindly find your way to the door and don't come back.

B. Prokop said...

Dan,

Do not feed the troll.

Papalinton said...

Dan
Well what is your position on SSM, on homosexuality in general? Are you for or against? To snipe at me from the sidelines is a cowardly and spineless action. To snipe from the sidelines without contributing to and being involved in the discussion is uncivil and unwarranted. You actions are of the proverbial football hooligan that throws full beer bottles at the player on the field that offends you with the hope that one strikes it target and draws blood.

There was no misconstrual of 'good faith' on my part. What you contrive as 'good faith' is anathema to decency and civility.

You know where and how I stand on the matter of giving gays a fair crack at a life left alone to enjoy without the religiously-inspired hatred and vilification that for the most part masquerades as a 'secular' argument against, a secular argument offered by none other than a known believer in and a practitioner of Catholic orthopraxy and orthodoxy, in this instance, Kolansnki.

Where do you stand, Dan?

Papalinton said...

"Dan,
Do not feed the troll."


"Et tu, Brute?"

Dan Gillson said...

Linton,

1. My god, you need help. What does good faith mean in the phrase argue in good faith. Is how I'm using the phrase good faith different than how you're using it. (Hint: yes. Another hint: the context in which the phrase good faith appears is completely different) You are equivocating vis-à-vis the phrase, good faith.

2. Yes, we know damn well where you stand, Linton. After all, you make quite a display of your moral crusade. However, I notice that you don't dispute the fact that you'll engage in all sorts of malfeasance in the name of (what you think is) the good. The end justifies the means, right? It was perceptive of Bob that he noticed that you'll endorse the tactics of the WBC, so long as they are subordinate to your ends, not to the e-e-e-e-vils religion.

3. How is where I stand vis-à-vis SSM relevant to the fact that this blog would be better off without you? You're shifting the topic, proving once again that you don't actually want to argue in good faith.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

> it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE

Sorry - that was RD. Still pretty stupid.

But -

"Quotes 1 and 2 don't contradict each other."

Your denial of the wedge strategy was not explicit, so I expect that you would now try to worm out of it on a technicality.

"Quotes 5 and 6 are completely consistent. Again, where exactly are you seeing the inconsistency?"

No, you just don't understand the words you quoted. The "theory" of ID says nothing about HOW life started, or who did it, or even whether it was supernatural. It's not about OOL.

I didn't hear any comeback on me education level. Care to admit you were wrong on that one? I didn't think so

" What, you think I'm supposed to meet some quota and ever 20 posts you make, you get one 'Crude admits he's wrong' free?"

No, but a modicum of humility and honesty would go a long way. You have none.

Oh, and your little spiel about being the heroic defender of the faith is a lie, too. As I recall, the very first time I heard from you, it was you disparaging my beliefs, not the other way around. You were then as you are now, just crude.

You're like a little, vicious mutt latched on to the ankle of someone who's trying to walk along. Too small to be any real harm, but extremely annoying. And you just won't let go.

Papalinton said...

In final comment from me on SSM, it is evident that any debate, argument, whatever you wish to call it, is over. It is moot. Community after community, region after region, State after State, are simply setting aside the old and musky religious arguments about same-sex marriage. People are voting with their feet, at the ballot box, in the courts and in the public square. Gay marriage is a fact, gay marriage is a reality. Gay marriage is now accepted as conventional social order. It has taken humanity 2,000 years to get there, but get there it has. No amount of whining, crying foul, spitting the dummy or anything that Dr Feser has to say on homosexuality is relevant or of worth. They are all passé. The groundswell of movement at the grassroots is compelling. The old antiquated and disruptive nature of anti-homosexual conduct is no longer an acceptable code of behaviour.

Crude said...

Skep,

Let's review here.

You took three shots at me, claiming what I said was inconsistent.

One quote wasn't even from me, so that goes down.

Another quote isn't inconsistent: I never denied there was a wedge strategy or document. You yourself admit this, pretty much, but say that pointing this out is 'a technicality'. The sentence you quote was my saying that it doesn't matter if there is a wedge document/strategy - it doesn't affect the arguments.

The best part is, you accuse me of technicalities - and then turn right around and argue that ID 'isn't about the OOL', despite quoting from a book whose entire purpose is to apply ID reasoning to the OOL. Because "The "theory" of ID says nothing about HOW life started, or who did it, or even whether it was supernatural. It's not about OOL." Pity that's irrelevant, since ID's entire schpiel is the 'scientific' inference of design. It is with the OOL the same what it is with everything else.

You took three swipes at me. All missed.

So when your complaint is, 'Crude never admits he's wrong.' and then that morphs into 'Well, Crude never admits to ME that he's wrong about something.', here's something to consider: you apparently aren't very good at catching me saying something wrong. You're overeager, you misread, you try to find contradictions between what I say and *what you hope or believe that I think*, not something else I said. Bad move.

I didn't hear any comeback on me education level. Care to admit you were wrong on that one?

When did I deny your 'education level'? I have no idea what it is, and don't really care - getting a degree or taking classes doesn't determine your intelligence. And if you think otherwise, feel free to let me know. Then we can compare your accomplishments to Mike Behe and William Dembski (Hint: Dembski, if I recall right, has multiple degrees.), and you can just admit you're dumber than they are. In fact, in the case of Dembski, you can admit most of his critics are dumber than he is.

As I recall, the very first time I heard from you, it was you disparaging my beliefs, not the other way around.

You may want to check that out, Skep. Also, was I disparaging your Cult of Gnu atheism? Careful there. The party line is you guys have no beliefs. ;)

Again: you took three shots at me, all missed. So not only does your criticism of me become highly suspect, but my criticism of you is bolstered. And best of all: you refuse, flat out refuse, to meet the very simple challenge I have raised with regards to Linton.

Don't you think the fact that you can't meet my request - provide me a link on here to an extended argument Linton had with a theist over atheism/theism, where he remained civil - is a bit screwed up? I mean, if even THAT is not possible, for as long as he's been here... isn't that one more reason to axe him, on TOP of all the evidence and reason I've provided?

Crude said...

Dan,

Firstly, thanks for using "good faith" equivocally. It gave you a convenient way to assassinate my character, and a way to shift the topic of discussion off of the fact that Crude and I don't think you're welcome here. You've gone out of your way to prove not only my point that you don't want to argue in good faith (how the fuck do you think I mean that, you dolt?), but also Crude's point that you'll resort to slandering and lying when your back is up against the wall. Way to go, idiot.

Secondly, your misplaced sense of nobility is obnoxious. Your commenting on a blog, not fighting the good fight. You're like Don fuckin' Quixote, Linton; a delusional old man on a moral crusade. No wonder why you'll resort to such lows: the good must always triumph! You'll do anything to make sure that the good comes out on top: you'll lie, slander, plagiarize, troll, obfuscate, triumphalize … you'll do all sorts of evils in the name of the good. (And he calls me a hypocrite!)


Well said, and again this is pretty key. The problem with Linton isn't one incident, or several incidents. It's the norm, a lack of good faith, a history of lying, plagiarizing, slander and abuse. I'd disagree that he even thinks he's on a moral crusade - I think that's merely the latest, strained defense he has of his actions. ('If I make it a moral issue then I can say what I want and it just makes me a hero! Wait, Bob says that makes me just like the WBC? Oops...') But yeah, it's a rotten situation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: He's just a more verbose Kilopapa.

im-skeptical said...

"Again: you took three shots at me, all missed."

Says the one who never admits he's wrong (at least not to me).

Face it, crude. You can't even count to four.

Crude said...

Says the one who never admits he's wrong (at least not to me).

Once again, Skep - the fact that I admit I'm wrong to others should at least give you pause. The fact that of your three 'gotcha!' moments just now contained 1 quote that wasn't even from me, 1 quote you admit isn't a contradiction but you angrily says is 'a technicality', and 1 is clearly you being in error... it's not really encouraging for your case.

Face it, crude. You can't even count to four.

Sure I can. 0, 1, 2, 3. We're talking arrays, right?

(Programming joke, kid. Don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out.)

B. Prokop said...

Is that anything like "There are only 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't."?

RD Miksa said...

Skep said:

"Sorry - that was RD. Still pretty stupid."

Good, I am glad that error was clarified as I was just about to do it myself.

And Skep, quick fact: don't think that just because you cannot understand a point, then that makes the point stupid. Remembering that will get you far in life.

RD Miksa

Crude said...

Bob,

Is that anything like "There are only 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't."?

Ha. A bit simpler.

In a lot of languages, in context, you count from 0. If you have 4 members of an array, the members are numbered 0, 1, 2, 3. That's all.

im-skeptical said...

"And Skep, quick fact: don't think that just because you cannot understand a point, then that makes the point stupid. Remembering that will get you far in life."

Please enlighten us. How is ID compatible with blind evolution? I can't wait to hear this.

Crude said...

And another reminder that my challenge re: Linton hasn't been met. Not a single taker, it seems.

Fun fact? Kilopapa would fail it too.

B. Prokop said...

"How is ID compatible with blind evolution?"

Take out the word "blind", and you have no problem.

im-skeptical said...

"Take out the word "blind", and you have no problem."

I'll grant you that, but blind evolution was what RD said was compatible with ID. That doesn't make sense.

B. Prokop said...

Perhaps he typed it by mistake? I make typos all the time.

Crude said...

Bob,

While RD Miksa can speak for himself, I'll offer my own thoughts.

For one, ID is a broad topic, and covers various areas of inference - cosmology, biology, etc. I think Miksa himself gave the example where the Origin of Life could be an ID event, yet evolution from that point on was unguided. So, there's one example.

Inferences in cosmology - say, fine-tuning - may be another. If the ID inference works there, then you have ID being true, without any reference to evolution itself.

The point Miksa may be making is that ID is a broad topic that covers various areas and questions. You don't need every since ID inference to be true for ID to be true in some cases. (In fact, as far as I know, ID proponents disagree about some things. Michael Behe, for example, accepts common descent. Other ID proponents may reject it.)

B. Prokop said...

Crude,

I personally have never understood why a Christian would have any problem whatsoever with evolution. All it does it give an explanation as to how things are done, but says nothing as to why such events are occurring.

Now Darwinism is another matter entirely. The insistence that there are a-scientific consequences to evolution is where things went off the rails. We wouldn't be having these controversies over ID today had biologists stuck to science in describing evolutionary processes and left off making stupid a-scientific statements using words like unguided and blind. These are, after all, concepts that no amount of empirical data could ever either prove or disprove. And isn't that an essential feature of "science"?

im-skeptical said...

"I think Miksa himself gave the example where the Origin of Life could be an ID event, yet evolution from that point on was unguided."

But that's specifically contrary to the "theory" of ID, which is not about "ID events", but about the design of things, which specifically "couldn't" have come about by evolution. That's that the ID "theory" says. If you understood it, you would know that. But you obviously don't.

Crude said...

Skep,

But that's specifically contrary to the "theory" of ID, which is not about "ID events", but about the design of things, which specifically "couldn't" have come about by evolution.

No, Skep. You are wrong on multiple points.

Intelligent Design involves making inferences to design in the world, including the origin of life. Hence: Thus, we infer that the ultimate origin of biological information is best explained as proceeding from the design of an intelligent agent or agents.

They also embrace, endorse and make these inferences with cosmology.

What you don't seem to understand is that ID is a big idea. It doesn't just deal with evolution - it deals with various topics. What's more, not everyone in the ID movement agrees with each other about these arguments or inferences. Dembski, I recall, rejects common descent. Behe embraces it.

Second, you make the usual mistake of saying the ID position is that something 'could not have come about by evolution'. What they maintain is that our current knowledge of evolution can make such and such's development unlikely, but this may change if new information is discovered. Similar, but importantly different claim: it's the difference between saying 'We showed X is impossible', 'We showed X is improbable', and 'We showed X, given current understandings, is improbable.'

Really, your central problem here seems to be that you think ID is an evolution-only idea. It's not. At the same time, an inference of ID in one area does not necessitate the truth of an ID inference in another area. One can be right, and one can be wrong. In which case, it's pretty easy to see what's meant by the claim that evolution can be 'unguided', but ID can still be true: it would just mean making an ID inference in a domain apart from evolution.

And note: I'm being pretty polite about this, and you're cursing, sputtering and insulting. Gee, and I wonder why I talk down to you at times?

B. Prokop said...

"but about the design of things, which specifically "couldn't" have come about by evolution"

Now I honestly don't know what ID proponents would say about your statement, but why couldn't design "come about" by means of evolution? Shoot, that's the way design comes about in industry (through an iterative, evolutionary development, as described HERE). Why not in life?

Crude said...

Bob,

Now I honestly don't know what ID proponents would say about your statement, but why couldn't design "come about" by means of evolution?

Thanks, you reminded me of a point I forgot to bring up.

ID isn't incompatible with 'evolution', full stop. That's probably why RD Miksa specifically spoke about 'unguided, blind watchmaker' evolution. If you have a guided evolutionary process, ID would be utterly compatible with that.

And I agree about your sentiments regarding evolution. I went to a Catholic school, and there was zero controversy about teaching it. I had zero idea why anyone would think the bare fact of evolution could be a problem for belief in God, etc. It was only later I started to realize that the 'evolution' billed as such is typically a mix of a scientific claim with weird, non-scientific, metaphysical baggage. (I think some arguments can be made from bare scientific evolution to such and such inferences about design and God, but they are not scientific themselves, nor are they necessarily obvious arguments.)

grodrigues said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grodrigues said...

@B. Prokop:

"Now I honestly don't know what ID proponents would say about your statement, but why couldn't design "come about" by means of evolution?"

Of course, it can. A little bit of thinking immediately yields one scenario where in one sense life was designed down to the last detail, and in another sense, it came about evolution -- and depending on a couple of details, even "blind", "unguided" evolution.

RD Miksa said...

Good Day to All,

As usual, Crude hits the nail on the head. I do not have much more to add to what he said.

All I will add is the following: we must look very carefully at what I said. And what did I say specifically...

"...it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE [Blind Watchmaker Neo-Darwinian Evolution]."

Notice the words "logically possible."

1) I did not say that believing in both ID and BWNDE is what is normally done in practice.

2) I did not say that believing in both ID and BWNDE is what most major ID proponents do.

3) And if we want to be really, really, really technical, I did not say that believing in ID THEORY and BWNDE is possible.

And so, given the examples that Crude and others already provided, it is obvious that "it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE."

Take care,

RD Miksa

Cale B.T. said...

"The "theory" of ID says nothing about HOW life started, or who did it, or even whether it was supernatural. It's not about OOL."

Right back in the 1970’s you had people like physical chemist Arthur Wilder-Smith giving design arguments from the origin of life.

See, for example, his books “The Creation of Life” and “The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution”.

One of seminal moments in the ID movement was a book published in 1984 called “The Mystery of Life’s Origin”. In 1996, materials scientist Walter Bradley, one of the authors of “Mystery” contributed a chapter to an anthology which dealt with the subject of intelligent design. His chapter was titled “Nature: Design or Designoid?” and in it, he again presented a design argument from the origin of life. It really is trivially easy to show that you are incorrect on this point.

Cale B.T. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cale B.T. said...

Papalinton,

In answer to your question about clerical abuse, I hope that I’d go to the police in that situation.

I’m not trying to be insulting, but I genuinely had trouble understanding your reply to my question about incestuous marriage. Did you say that an incestuous couple who *deliberately* sterilised themselves and then wanted to marry would be running contrary to the spirit of the law? If this was what you meant, what would you say about an incestuous couple seeking marriage who are sterile, but not deliberately? There would be no risk of genetically damaged children, but, as before, isn’t this a relationship isn’t which ought not to be pursued because of the very nature of who the participants are?

You referred to my original challenge that I posted as being mischievous, malign in intent and composed of theological drivel, but ingx24 and im-skeptical somehow managed to understand it and answer it.

You’ve frequently make the claim on this blog that teleology is nothing but an illusion, and I attempted to provide a counterexample. I’ve reposted my challenge on my blog here
here, so feel free to answer it at your leisure. I’m genuinely interested in your answer.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Skep,

In all seriousness and sincerity, do you now understand why "it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE."

Or is something still unclear?

Take care,

RD Miksa

im-skeptical said...

"Really, your central problem here seems to be that you think ID is an evolution-only idea. It's not."

"but why couldn't design "come about" by means of evolution?"

"ID isn't incompatible with 'evolution', full stop."

The "theory" of ID is about "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information". These are Dembski's and Behe's contribution to the dumbing down of science. It specifically says that the creatures we have TODAY could not have come about by evolution. ID is absolutely opposed to the idea of Darwinian evolution. That's what the theory is all about, and that's what I've been trying to tell crude. Irreducible complexity - couldn't possibly have happened by gradual steps.

Now if crude insists on taking issue with everything I say (just as a matter of principle), he will often find himself on the wrong side of the issue. Here's something he has never managed to wrap his little head around: he may well know more about philosophical topics than I do, but I know more about science, hands down.

"In all seriousness and sincerity, do you now understand why "it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE."

Or is something still unclear?"

No. It is NOT possible. What's unclear is your muddled understanding of ID. the B part of that means BLIND, as in unguided - resulting from random events - not designed. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

B. Prokop said...

" ID is absolutely opposed to the idea of Darwinian evolution"

Once again, a single word in your statement is key. Take out the word Darwinian, and the sentence could read "ID is absolutely compatible with evolution" and be completely factual.

Dan Gillson said...

I'm going to weigh in on the dispute:

Miksa may be right that it is logically possible to believe in ID and BWNDE, insofar as each term can be defined in a such way that makes it possible to believe in each without contradicting the logical rules of a system. However, it certainly isn't epistemically possible. The belief that the world is the result of blind chance rules out the believing in the possibility that the world was designed by a designer, and vice versa.

im-skeptical said...

Cale B.T.

"he again presented a design argument from the origin of life. It really is trivially easy to show that you are incorrect on this point."

What you don't understand is the theory of ID. Sure, proponents of ID believe in more things than just that theory. They can make arguments from design, etc. But the "theory of ID", as a "scientific theory", is narrower in scope, and it covers specific topics. crude speaks of "ID events", but those events are not explained by the theory, they are incidental to the theory. It's like saying the theory of gravitation is about star formation. Certainly gravity is involved in forming a star, but the theory gravitation is not about star formation in its own right. What's happening here is this ID "theory" is being conflated with related topics. It's not about OOL, but it's related.

RD Miksa said...


OK, let’s go through this in detail.

QUESTION: Is it logically possible to believe in both ID and Blind Watchmaker Neo-Darwinian Evolution (BWNDE)?

ANSWER: Yes.

Why?

Because BWNDE is obviously a distinct issue from either the origin of life, or the existence of the solar system, or the existence of the universe.

Furthermore, BWNDE does not start UNTIL the first replicator exists.

Thus, it is logically possible to believe that there are signs of intelligent design (meaning irreducible complexity and CSI…all the things Skep mentioned) in the first replicator, but then believing that AFTER the intelligently designed first replicator existed, then BWNDE took over the creation of life from there.

Or, it is logically possible to believe that there are signs of intelligent design (CSI) in the existence of the solar system and/or universe (fine-tuned CSI), but to then believe that BWNDE is the force responsible for the creation of life on Earth after the first replicator.

Or, it is logically possible to believe that there are signs of intelligent design in both the universe/solar system (fine-tuned CSI), and the first replicator (irreducible complexity / CSI), but then to believe that BWNDE is the force responsible for the creation of life on Earth after the first replicator.

So yes, it is obvious that it is logically possible to believe in ID and BWNDE.

Next, notice what I said earlier: “And if we want to be really, really, really technical, I did not say that believing in ID THEORY and BWNDE is possible.”

So technically, Skep is still incorrect.

However, to give Skep some credit, he has a slight argument that some definitions of ID “THEORY” SEEM to specifically target BWNDE. For example, here is one definition from www.intelligentdesign.org: “Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

So the last part at least SEEMS to target BWNDE specifically. But even here there is difficulty for Skep’s point, for even this definition does not really negate my point. Why? Watch:

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe (FINE-TUNING) and of living things (THE FIRST REPLICATOR) are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Nothing mentioned about BWNDE there, and yet I matched the definition perfectly.

Furthermore, there are other definitions of ID that do not even SEEM to target BWNDE. For example, William Dembski defines ID as: “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” (www.uncommondescent.com – Glossary: “ID”) and also as “Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.” Nothing mentioned about BWNDE evolution there.

And the Access Research Network, an ID Resource, in response to the question “What is ID?” answers with the following: “Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence.” Again, nothing about BWNDE there.

So again, let’s review what I said:

"...it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE [Blind Watchmaker Neo-Darwinian Evolution]."

Again, notice the words "logically possible."

1) I did not say that believing in both ID and BWNDE is what is normally done in practice.

2) I did not say that believing in both ID and BWNDE is what most major ID proponents do.

3) And if we want to be really, really, really technical, I did not say that believing in ID THEORY and BWNDE is possible.

And so, given the examples that I provided, it is obvious that "it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE.”

Now, is that finally clear?!

Take care,

RD Miksa

RD Miksa said...

And just to be absolutely clear, ID Theory is a "big-tent" idea, and ID proponents do not agree with each on all topics.

Thus, one ID Theory could be that, as I mentioned, the universe, solar system, and first replicator were designed, but the BWNDE took over from there.

That is one potential "ID Theory", and yet it is completely compatible with BWNDE.

So again, it is logically possible to believe in ID and BWNDE.

If it is not clear at this point, then I give up!

RD Miksa

Dan Gillson said...

It's clear, Miksa, that it's logically possible to believe in ID and BWNDE, but it's also clear that in order to make such a belief logically possible, you have to shift the goal posts.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Dan,

“The belief that the world is the result of blind chance rules out the believing in the possibility that the world was designed by a designer, and vice versa.”

Yes. But it would be logically possible, for example, to believe that the world was the result of blind chance, which then led to an Intelligent Entity, and then this Intelligent Entity designed us (or just the first replicator).

So it is logically possible to believe that the world is the result of blind chance, but also that we were the product of intelligent design.

Anyway, just something I thought would be worth mentioning.

Take care,

RD Miksa

RD Miksa said...

Dan,

Not sure why you would need to shift the goal-posts? Can you elaborate.

Thank you in advance.

Take care,

RD Miksa

im-skeptical said...

RD,

Here's the problem with what you say:

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe (FINE-TUNING) and of living things (THE FIRST REPLICATOR) are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

The words in parentheses are YOUR words, inserted into the quote. ID examines the features of LIVING THINGS, not of first replicators. The theory is all about explaining how they came to have the features they have NOW, not when life started. In fact they say that life could NOT have evolved to today's complex forms from simple replicators. ID theory is incompatible with evolution theory.

What you're describing might be compatible with a coherent theistic view, but it is not what Behe and Dembski call ID. It might be close to what Bob believes, but Bob has the good sense not to be an IDist. Sure, you can invent any theory you like and call it ID, but if we're talking about "the theory of ID", it means something specific. It means what its proponents at DI claim. That's what we all understand when we talk about it.

Dan,

"Yes. But it would be logically possible, for example, to believe that the world was the result of blind chance, which then led to an Intelligent Entity, and then this Intelligent Entity designed us (or just the first replicator)."

You might believe something like that. But it's not compatible with ID theory, because they (presumably) would say that the intelligent entity could not have evolved. That's what they argue against.

Dan Gillson said...

Miksa,

In the epistemic mode, where possibilities are ruled in or out based on what one knows, ID and BWNDE are incompatible ideas. In the logical mode, where possibilities are ruled in or out based on whether or not they comply with the rules of the system, ID and BWNDE can be defined to be compatible notions. In the logical mode, it's possible to believe in ID and BWNDE if you redefine the terms, i.e., shift the goal posts. In the epistemic mode, if one believes (for a moment, discount the question as to whether or not beliefs are knowledge) that life is the product of blind chance, one's knowledge rules out the possibility that life was purposefully designed at any stage.

RD Miksa said...

Now Skep,

Read what you said:

"Sure, you can invent any theory you like and call it ID, but if we're talking about "the theory of ID", it means something specific. It means what its proponents at DI claim. That's what we all understand when we talk about it."

Now read what I also wrote and which you failed to quote:

Furthermore, there are other definitions of ID that do not even SEEM to target BWNDE. For example, William Dembski defines ID as: “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” (www.uncommondescent.com – Glossary: “ID”) and also as “Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.” Nothing mentioned about BWNDE evolution there.

And the Access Research Network, an ID Resource, in response to the question “What is ID?” answers with the following: “Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence.” Again, nothing about BWNDE there.

So please, no selective quoting.

Thank you.

RD Miksa

im-skeptical said...

An additional note on Dan's comment:

The idea of being created by some alien race is something that ID proponents claim as a possibility, but it is logically incoherent to argue that they arose naturally, because the theory says that can't happen. Think about it - if this alien race could have evolved or come to exist by natural means, so could we. That blows the whole theory. The ID theory leads inevitably to one inescapable possibility: god did it.

im-skeptical said...

RD,

I'm not the one doing the selective quoting. I'm trying to impress on you that ID actually does have a generally accepted meaning, and it's not compatible with evolution.

http://livinglifewithoutanet.com/2011/06/03/are-evolution-and-intelligent-design-compatible/

And this one comes from DI itself. The whole article gives you a good overview of what ID is all about. Note particularly Part A, #3.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_is_the_the075281.html

Crude said...

Skep,

The "theory" of ID is about "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information". These are Dembski's and Behe's contribution to the dumbing down of science. It specifically says that the creatures we have TODAY could not have come about by evolution.

No, it doesn't. In Behe's case, it says that *particular biological organisms* are *extremely unlikely* to come about via *known Darwinian processes*. And, as the links you yourself have provided have shown, ID does not limit itself to evolutionary theory.

That's what the theory is all about, and that's what I've been trying to tell crude. Irreducible complexity - couldn't possibly have happened by gradual steps.

No, Skep. Irreducible complexity CAN happen by gradual steps, by Behe's own view. It would simply require guidance. It's not the 'gradual' that is seen as the real problem overall.

What's more, you've been trying to tell me that ID 'isn't involved with the origin of life' and is concerned exclusively with evolution. Your own links speak against that. I take it you now retract?

Here's something he has never managed to wrap his little head around: he may well know more about philosophical topics than I do, but I know more about science, hands down.

The funny thing is, Skep? You don't. And I certainly know more about ID than you - as this conversation indicates.

I'm trying to impress on you that ID actually does have a generally accepted meaning, and it's not compatible with evolution.

And then you link to a site which is ID-hostile and intent on smearing it? The "generally accepted meaning" you're talking about comes from everyone BUT ID proponents. And the link you give contradicts you at multiple points.

You have been led astray by the atheist websites you improperly give credence to.

im-skeptical said...

"Irreducible complexity CAN happen by gradual steps."

Irreducible complexity can't happen by gradual steps - BY DEFINITION.

There is no use arguing with the terminally stupid.

Crude said...

Dan,

In the epistemic mode, where possibilities are ruled in or out based on what one knows, ID and BWNDE are incompatible ideas. In the logical mode, where possibilities are ruled in or out based on whether or not they comply with the rules of the system, ID and BWNDE can be defined to be compatible notions. In the logical mode, it's possible to believe in ID and BWNDE if you redefine the terms, i.e., shift the goal posts.

I don't think this works. What terms are being redefined, what goalposts are being shifted? It's demonstrable that 'ID' covers multiple topics - it deals with inferring design in nature broadly, whether in biology, the origin of life, cosmology, etc. Now, granted, if someone accepted that 'blind evolution' was the rule with regards to evolution, that would rule out ID inferences regarding the bacterial flagellum, etc. But it wouldn't rule out ID elsewhere, which is all Miksa is saying. What's the problem?

Skep,

The idea of being created by some alien race is something that ID proponents claim as a possibility, but it is logically incoherent to argue that they arose naturally, because the theory says that can't happen. Think about it - if this alien race could have evolved or come to exist by natural means, so could we.

1) The theory does not say 'it can't arise naturally'. It says it can't arise without design. Likewise, ID doesn't say 'this couldn't come to exist by natural means', unless you want to regard design as, what - supernatural activity?

2) ID only deals with evolution on our planet. They make no inferences about the designer - again, by their own statements. When it comes to the origins of whatever could have possibly been responsible for design ID identifies, the formal ID response is to shrug their shoulders and claim ignorance.

3) Even in terms of logic, there are other possibilities in play: "An endless chain of designers." "The aliens existed eternally." "Radically different form of life with a different set of rules." Etc.

ID claims to be able to conditionally infer design based on what we know. When it comes to topics we're collectively in the dark out, ID proponents say nothing.

Crude said...

Skep,

Irreducible complexity can't happen by gradual steps - BY DEFINITION.

There is no use arguing with the terminally stupid.


"No, Skep. Irreducible complexity CAN happen by gradual steps, by Behe's own view. It would simply require guidance. It's not the 'gradual' that is seen as the real problem overall."

You are clearly, obviously, utterly wrong. Put aside for a moment that "can't happen" is, once again, technically wrong - it's ruled as being extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Behe doesn't play the 'impossibility' game.

You are really making the case here that 'irreducible complexity' means 'this can't come into being gradually - even if an intelligent agent is guiding things'? You think the ID position is that irreducibly complex things have to appear fully formed? They can't be assembled, gradually, over a period of time, through intelligent intervention? Fucking seriously?

Obligatory side note: Still noting that the Papalinton challenge has not been met. Looks like everyone, even his defenders, realize what he is.

im-skeptical said...

"No, Skep. Irreducible complexity CAN happen by gradual steps, by Behe's own view. It would simply require guidance. It's not the 'gradual' that is seen as the real problem overall."
- crude

"You are really making the case here that 'irreducible complexity' means 'this can't come into being gradually - even if an intelligent agent is guiding things'? You think the ID position is that irreducibly complex things have to appear fully formed? They can't be assembled, gradually, over a period of time, through intelligent intervention? Fucking seriously?"
- crude

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."
- Behe

B. Prokop said...

"would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution"

Again, Skep, why do you persist in overlooking the word "Darwinian" in this statement? ID and straight-up evolution are not in conflict with each other - not in the least. They are very much in conflict with "blind, unguided, or Darwinian" evolution.

Crude said...

Skep,

Quoting Behe:

An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

No shit. Do you know why it matters that 'any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional'? Because he's talking about what is or isn't going to be visible to selection. It doesn't matter to an intelligent agent of a precursor is nonfunctional, so long as the end result will work!

I repeat: are you seriously making the claim that the ID position is that 'irreducibly complex things cannot come into existence gradually, even if directed by an intelligent agent'? Do you realize that, if this were the case, *intelligent design would refute intelligent design*, because it's trivial to gradually assemble an irreducibly complex structure USING intelligence?

Crude said...

Bob,

Again, Skep, why do you persist in overlooking the word "Darwinian" in this statement? ID and straight-up evolution are not in conflict with each other - not in the least. They are very much in conflict with "blind, unguided, or Darwinian" evolution.

Because at this point, Skep has subconsciously decided to show he's the living embodiment of projection. He accuses me of being unable to admit I'm wrong, despite doing so multiple times. So in response, he keeps on making inane statements and refusing to admit when he's caught out as wrong.

This bit with 'it has to be gradual, it doesn't matter of an intelligent agent is guiding anything' is hilarious.

B. Prokop said...

What I cannot understand is how someone can fail to realize that the various modifiers (unguided, blind, Darwinian) put on the word evolution are not science!!! They are philosophical viewpoints grafted onto what ought to be a straight-up "just the facts, ma'am" description of the development of life on Earth. (And here is where I believe you and I disagree, Crude...) The same goes for ID - it is a philosophical look at how life arose and developed, and is completely compatible with evolutionary mechanisms.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Skep,

Before I begin, I have to say this: as a human being, I sincerely and truly have no animosity or hatred towards you. In fact, as weird as it sounds, as a human being, I love you. Yet that is why it pains me so much when you seem to mangle the evidence right in front on you.

Look: You claimed that the links you provided would show me that it is not logically possible to believe in ID and BWNDE. And yet, when I genuinely and truly read the links in full, this is what I found.

Link One (which is the link that is relatively hostile to ID: “http://livinglifewithoutanet.com/2011/06/03/are-evolution-and-intelligent-design-compatible/”
First quote: “The study of abiogenesis is NOT the study of evolution, and has no bearing on evolutionary theory. Even if there was an intelligent origin to life, the mention of it is out of place in the discussion of evolution.

This proves my point exactly! The first replicator could have been designed, and then BWNDE could have taken over from there. Your very link seems to prove my very point: ID (design of the universe and/or first replicator) is logically compatible with BWNDE!

But perhaps not, for earlier, the link says: ““Many agnostics suggest that some intelligent entity is responsible for abiogenesis — the original “spark of life,” from which all current life evolved. This is much more possible than ongoing interference with evolution. However, this is not Intelligent Design.”

Wrong. Stephen Meyer wrote a whole book about how abiogenesis and the code in the first life is best explained by ID.

The link continues: “It doesn’t rely on “irreducible complexity [IR].””

This is just confused. ID is not just about IR. Furthermore, it is factually wrong, for the first replicator (abiogenesis) could be IR and thus met the criteria while still not touching BWNDE.

So your first link either supports my position, or defines ID improperly, or is just factually wrong. Not a promising start.

Link Two: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_is_the_the075281.html
And what does Link Two say:

Well, in its conclusion, it says the following:

“This article has discussed what the theory of intelligent design isn't, and what it is:

• It isn't merely a negative argument against evolution.

•It is a positive argument based upon finding high levels of complex and specified information
•It is a scientific theory that argues that the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause, especially when we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence.


And here, quoted in full, is the part you wanted me to read specifically:

“3. ID is NOT a theory of everything: ID is a scientific theory of design detection, that's all -- not a full-blown theory of everything. It focuses on how we can detect the working out of purpose in biology, physics, cosmology, and other scientific fields. Anyone expecting or demanding that intelligent design should explain everything that happened in the history of life and the cosmos will be disappointed. That's not what ID was intended to be. If you want to find out how old a rock is, ask a geologist. If you want to know how old a star is, consult experts in the field of astronomy or cosmology. Those fields provide perfectly good answers to such questions. But if you want to know whether something was designed or not, turn to the study of intelligent design. If you demand that advocates of the "theory of ID" give you a full chronology of everything, you're asking the wrong question of the wrong people just as much as if you asked theorists of neo-Darwinism for such a chronology.”

Now Skep, as I read it, nothing in this second link refutes a single thing that I said! Nothing!

So, can you now finally accept that it is logically possible to believe in ID and BWNDE?

Admitting this is really not that big of a deal, so what is the problem?

RD Miksa

Crude said...

Bob,

They are philosophical viewpoints grafted onto what ought to be a straight-up "just the facts, ma'am" description of the development of life on Earth. (And here is where I believe you and I disagree, Crude...)

I have no idea what you think I think here, Bob. No need to pursue it if you don't want, but suffice to say I'm off on my own little island when it comes to ID.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Bob,

"What I cannot understand is how someone can fail to realize that the various modifiers (unguided, blind, Darwinian) put on the word evolution are not science!!! They are philosophical viewpoints grafted onto what ought to be a straight-up "just the facts, ma'am" description of the development of life on Earth.

Agreed, but I am trying to point this fact out in a "for the sake of argument" type of way. Sort of an "EVEN IF evolution were blind and unguided, that would not negate ID" argument. After all, some people just cannot let go of the idea that evolution MUST BE blind and unguided. Thus, if we can show such people that ID is logically compatible with unguided evolution, that is a step forward in the discussion.


The same goes for ID - it is a philosophical look at how life arose and developed, and is completely compatible with evolutionary mechanisms.

Disagree. If other design detection sciences (archeology, etc.) are science, ID is science.

Take care,

RD Miksa

RD Miksa said...

Skep said:

.The idea of being created by some alien race is something that ID proponents claim as a possibility, but it is logically incoherent to argue that they arose naturally, because the theory says that can't happen. Think about it - if this alien race could have evolved or come to exist by natural means, so could we. That blows the whole theory. The ID theory leads inevitably to one inescapable possibility: god did it.

Obviously incorrect. Just because some natural force could create intelligent beings somewhere else does not logically guarantee that it could do so here. At the same time, even if natural forces could have created us here, does not mean they did; natural forces may have had the potential to create all of life, and yet aliens may have created us nonetheless and beat the natural forces to our creation.

And there are multiple other ways to take apart your claim.

RD Miksa

im-skeptical said...

Bob,

"ID and straight-up evolution are not in conflict with each other - not in the least."

What is this 'straight-up evolution' you refer to? Generally, non-Darwinian evolution de-emphasizes natural selection as the major factor that drives change, in favor of other mechanisms (mutation, genetic drift). If you are referring to any gradual process of change, it is still incompatible with IC by Behe's own definition (which says that an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system). Any kind of gradual evolution is incompatible with IC.

Some people believe in a non-gradual form of evolution, which might be compatible with IC, but then that's not really evolution - it's just creationism.

Crude said...

If you are referring to any gradual process of change, it is still incompatible with IC by Behe's own definition

Again, you're under the impression that merely being 'gradual' is the problem here. There's a reason Behe is matching 'gradual' specifically with unguided 'Darwinian evolution'. Because guidance can trivially get one over the hump - but guided evolution is not Darwinian evolution.

Everyone here can see your error, Skep. Why can't you?

im-skeptical said...

"guided evolution is not Darwinian evolution."

Agreed, but gradual evolution is not compatible with IC, whether it is guided or not. Take it up with Behe. It's his definition, not It's very clear. "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly ... by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system". No mention of whether it is guided. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand IC, and you don't understand ID theory.


RD,

I will address your comments soon. No time right now.

B. Prokop said...

"What is this 'straight-up evolution' you refer to?"

It is a description of how various species came into existence, and an attempt to piece together a coherent timeline of life over the past several billion years.

What it is not, is any attempt to describe why this is occurring. It's plain, at least to me, that placing such modifiers as "blind", "unguided", or even "intelligently designed" is where one departs from science and enters into (the very legitimate, but still a-scientific) realm of philosophy.

After all, "real" science is supposed to be capable of being disproved. You cannot do that with any of the modifiers I listed above. (You can't "prove" them either.)

Crude said...

Skep,

Agreed, but gradual evolution is not compatible with IC, whether it is guided or not. Take it up with Behe. It's his definition, not It's very clear. "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly ... by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system". No mention of whether it is guided. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand IC, and you don't understand ID theory.

The context of the quote - which you apparently have not read, and are merely quoting from - is pretty goddamn clear, and the fact that Behe does not mention guidance in your own quote doesn't help you. But you know what? I'm willing to call your bluff on this.

You just said, 'Take it up with Behe.' I happen to know Michael Behe's email address. We've corresponded several times. I *can* and *will* take it up with Behe.

So let's set the terms. I write to Behe. I ask him if his stance is that 'irreducibly complex systems' are unable to come into existence by gradual modifications *even with intelligent intervention*. If he says, 'Yes, even an intelligent agent guiding it could not produce this result', I concede happily. If he says "No, that's ridiculous. The point of the example is that blind, known Darwinian processes are incapable of producing this", then you concede you don't know jack shit about ID.

Call my bluff, Skep. Hint: I'm not bluffing. You are.

Crude said...

Context of the book, that is.

Crude said...

And before you reply, Skep, keep this in mind: the entire point of intelligent design is to try and infer instances and acts of design, period. They don't identify specific method, they don't identify the nature of the creator.

Yet you are saying that they rule out certain kinds of methods on the part of intelligent designers, because - in a quote where Behe is obviously and clearly targeting a Darwinian evolution, particularly Darwinian evolution conceived as blind and unguided - he mentions that slight modifications would not suffice, because they would not be functional. And the context of why 'functionality' matters is because it provides something for selection to act on.

Once again: test me on this. If Behe replies, we will quickly see whether my half dozen 'You have extremely poor reading comprehension' claims will get yet another vindication.

im-skeptical said...

RD,

I must apologize for being unkind. Sometimes I forget who I'm dealing with. It is possible to discuss issues upon which we disagree in a civil manner. You have never been impolite, and I owe you the same respect.

What can I say about those two links, except that when I read them, I thought, "here it is in black and white - a direct refutation of what crude is claiming. And from both sides, too. They both agree that ID is not compatible with evolution." Now to my great surprise, I see that you can read those words - right there, in black and white - and interpret them in the opposite way from what I think they say. Now I know that crude will disagree, but I'm not exactly stupid. I can read. I did quite well in school, and I've been successful in my professional career. I am well aware what the general notion of ID is.

"This proves my point exactly! The first replicator could have been designed, and then BWNDE could have taken over from there."

Yes, it could have been like that, but that's not ID. Again, read the second link. They tell you what ID is and isn't. And that's not what it is.

"Now Skep, as I read it, nothing in this second link refutes a single thing that I said! Nothing!"

But the words you quoted right before that refute what you said. ID is not about how life began. It's about finding evidence of design in the things we find in our world. "ID is a scientific theory of design detection, that's all." They look at things that we see in the world, and try to infer that they must have been designed. They don't say who or how or when or why, because that's not what ID is about.

"So, can you now finally accept that it is logically possible to believe in ID and BWNDE?"

No. Because I understand what both of those things are.

Crude said...

Skep,

Now I know that crude will disagree, but I'm not exactly stupid. I can read. I did quite well in school, and I've been successful in my professional career.

I never said you weren't successful, or that you didn't get good grades in school. What you seem to not realize is that both of those things are compatible with being pig-ignorant, and having poor reading comprehension - and you absolutely have that going on. And worse, when you're caught making mistakes - at least against a hated theist - you have a tendency to double down.

But the words you quoted right before that refute what you said. ID is not about how life began. It's about finding evidence of design in the things we find in our world. "ID is a scientific theory of design detection, that's all." They look at things that we see in the world, and try to infer that they must have been designed. They don't say who or how or when or why, because that's not what ID is about.

Except ID is about inferring design - /including with regards to the origin of life/. You may think you're still disputing this, but frankly? You're not. This is open and shut. Evidence has been provided by multiple parties at this point, straight from ID proponents themselves. All that's going on at this point is everyone is getting a lesson in what you do when you're caught in an obvious wrong.

You can't even claim 'Oops, I thought you guys meant ID had a theory that explained the origin of life! Misunderstanding!', because we've collectively been very clear about what ID's involvement re: the OoL is.

And I still await your reply to my Behe challenge. Put up or shut up time - let's see what Behe has to say about irreducible complexity via successive slight and gradual changes, when intelligence is factored in.

Dan Gillson said...

Skep, you misattributed a comment to me. I never said anything about being created by an alien race. I said stuff about logical and epistemic modes.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Skep,

I said: "This proves my point exactly! The first replicator could have been designed, and then BWNDE could have taken over from there."

You replied: “Yes, it could have been like that, but that's not ID.

From Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell (Pg. 347 – Hardcover):

“Since the intelligent design hypothesis meets both the causal adequacy and causal existence criteria of a best explanation, and since no other competing explanation meets these conditions as well—or at all—it follows that the design hypothesis provides the best, most causally adequate explanation of the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life on earth.”

And

“So the discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA.

So clearly, what I said above is true: the first replicator could have been intelligently designed, and then BWNDE could have taken over from there. So again, it is logically possible to believe in both ID and BWNDE.

You said: “Again, read the second link. They tell you what ID is and isn't. And that's not what it is.

And here, from the second link: “It [ID] is a scientific theory that argues that the best explanation for some natural phenomena is an intelligence cause [perhaps only the origin of life, but nothing after that], especially when we find certain types of information and complexity in nature which in our experience are caused by intelligence.”

You said: “But the words you quoted right before that refute what you said. ID is not about how life began. It's about finding evidence of design in the things we find in our world. "ID is a scientific theory of design detection, that's all." They look at things that we see in the world, and try to infer that they must have been designed. They don't say who or how or when or why, because that's not what ID is about.

Skep, for the sake of argument, let’s say you are right here (and look at the evidence above, which shows that you are not, and that ID clearly is about how life began…Stephen Meyer wrote a whole book about it!). However, again, even if, for the sake of argument, we assume you are right, your point still does not refute what I am saying. Why? Because say I could detect design, right now, in the universe (fine-tuning) and the solar system, and I could believe that those things were designed, yet at the exact same time still believe in the truth of BWNDE.

So, again, can you now finally accept that it is logically possible to believe in ID and BWNDE?

Anyway, this will likely be my last post about this issue, because I do not find it all that interesting, and I also think that it is fairly obvious.

Take care,

RD Miksa

im-skeptical said...

Dan,

Right. Sorry.

im-skeptical said...

RD,

I'll try one more time.

"ID clearly is about how life began"

We seem to be stuck on semantics. ID is about detecting the existence of intelligent design in things. It's not about HOW life began. That's what they were saying in the article I kinked. The "science of ID" is about making that detection. Yes, they INFER that the first living thing must have been designed. It doesn't address HOW it happened. It doesn't give a theory of the origin of life, other than saying that it must have been designed. Any theory of the origin of life would address how it happened, but ID doesn't do that. It leaves that as an exercise for the student.

Life must have been designed, but we're not officially creationist, so you figure out for yourself how that might have happened. We walk you down the path and leave you standing in the doorway. It's up to you to walk through it. That's their position. And that's why I say that ID is not about the origin of life.

Crude said...

We seem to be stuck on semantics.

^^^

You can't even claim 'Oops, I thought you guys meant ID had a theory that explained the origin of life! Misunderstanding!', because we've collectively been very clear about what ID's involvement re: the OoL is.

grodrigues said...

@B. Prokop:

"They are very much in conflict with "blind, unguided, or Darwinian" evolution."

Even this has to be properly qualified.

grodrigues said...

@B. Prokop:

"What I cannot understand is how someone can fail to realize that the various modifiers (unguided, blind, Darwinian) put on the word evolution are not science!"

Sorry for stating the obvious: a glaring misunderstanding of science.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Skep,

For the sake of argument, consider that if our only difference is from semantics, then this is a relatively insignificant concern.

So forget ID 'Theory' for a moment. Think of the matter like this:

It is logically possible for me to believe in BWNDE while at the same time believing that the first replicator (before evolution started) was designed (irreducible complexity / CSI) and / or that the universe was designed.

This is all that I am saying.

And note: I could be an atheist and believe this.

Anyway, last comment from me about this topic.

Take care,

RD Miksa
(From cellphone)

im-skeptical said...

Bob: "The same goes for ID - it is a philosophical look at how life arose and developed, and is completely compatible with evolutionary mechanisms."

But just 'straight up' evolution - that's real science, right?

It seems crude would have you believe that ID posits that evolution actually did produce all the structures we see in nature. But it was the "guided" variety of gradual evolution instead of natural selection. (Actually, I don't really know what he thinks. He seems to be much more interested in tripping me up than explaining what he thinks.)

I have attempted to explain what IC implies. And I don't deny that ID accepts the idea evolution, but they do say it has limits, beyond which it requires a designer to put together functioning structures (as opposed to by a gradual evolutionary process). Here's what Behe says about the irreducibly complex flagellum of e coli:

"Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts -- a paddle,a rotor, and a motor -- it is irreducibly complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum, like the cilium, therefore faces mammoth hurdles."

That's why he infers that it was designed as a system. "I have proposed that a better explanation is that such systems were deliberately designed by an intelligent agent." The intelligent designer (somehow) must have put the parts together, apparently intact. Note that this irreducibly complex system, according to IC theory, can't result from lesser parts coming together gradually. That what the "irreducible" part if IC means.

Interestingly, Behe seems to see guided evolution as the process for macro-evolutionary change - the development of new phyla, for example. But as far as I can tell, IC applies at lower levels - the development of new functional structures that are not modifications or variants of existing structures.

im-skeptical said...

RD,

"It is logically possible for me to believe in BWNDE while at the same time believing that the first replicator"

Yes, that part I never took issue with.

Crude said...

It seems crude would have you believe that ID posits that evolution actually did produce all the structures we see in nature. But it was the "guided" variety of gradual evolution instead of natural selection.

What Crude would have you believe is that Intelligent Design infers design in various things, but that how 'design' was responsible is a radically open question. The problem with gradual darwinian evolution with regards to an IC structure is that said structure is a complicated collection of interlocking parts of a bare minimal arrangement, and below that minimum you have a structure that does not work at its task - and thus selection cannot select it for said task. There is, according to Behe, a considerable problem in trying to assemble this gradually without direction because, without that minimum arrangement, there is no functionality (at least, not the functionality of the IC structure itself) and therefore nothing for evolution to select.

What YOU have taken away from this that the problem here is the gradualism. Not the goddamn lack of intelligence.

The intelligent designer (somehow) must have put the parts together, apparently intact.

No, no, a million times, no.

Think about it, Skep. You are basically saying that Behe is claiming that an IC structure can't be assembled, because at any point in its assembly prior to its completion it would not be functioning. That is idiotic, and it would be refuted by an effing couch from Ikea. The problem with gradualism is the lack of intelligence. Right or wrong, that's Behe's focus.

Actually, I don't really know what he thinks. He seems to be much more interested in tripping me up than explaining what he thinks.

What a load of baloney.

A big portion of your problem, Skep, is that you do not ask questions when you're confused or ignorant. You just assert what you vaguely suspect to be the case as actually BEING the case - or worse, you take these lunatic fringe atheist sites' claims as gospel, instead of questioning them.

im-skeptical said...

crude,

Why don't we get to the bottom of this? It seems we have a different interpretation of what Behe says (in Darwun's Black Box) regarding irreducible complexity.

I quoted his definition of the term, which on its face, seems to say that things can't gradually evolve into an irreducibly complex structure.

Yo are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that they couldn't do so be natural selection, but they could by means of guided evolution.

Now I haven't read all of Behe's material so I might be missing something, but I think my interpretation is consistent with the way most people read it. And I've been trying to find something that supports your interpretation. Maybe I'm not very good at that.

I'm perfectly willing to change my understanding of this if I can find appropriate evidence to justify it. I just can't seem to find it. I know he says it is possible for this to happen be indirect means, but he never says what that is (in the book), and he also says it is very unlikely, so surely that's not what you are referring to.

So why don't you help me out? Just show me where Behe says that guided evolution produces irreducibly complex structures.

Crude said...

Now I haven't read all of Behe's material so I might be missing something, but I think my interpretation is consistent with the way most people read it. And I've been trying to find something that supports your interpretation. Maybe I'm not very good at that.

What I'm asking you to do is look at the context Behe is speaking in. His criticism about 'slight changes' not being possible only makes sense in the context of Darwinism. The point isn't that you can't make a series of 'slight' changes result in an IC system, full stop. A typical example of an IC system that an intelligence creates is going to involve a series of slight modifications. Engines are not usually created fully formed, for example - they are assembled from parts, and those parts are crafted from materials. It doesn't matter if these changes are made in 10 days or 10 million years, so long as the process carries out. There's your series of slight changes making an IC system.

But that's not a counterexample to Behe, because he's looking for a series of slight changes /for a blind, unguided system/. Intelligent systems are not being denied here - why in the world would they be denied by Behe? Why would he be asserting that an *intelligent agent* - keeping in mind that among those possible agents you're including everything from aliens to gods to God - couldn't accomplish a given engineering task? The point is that Darwinian evolution is not supposed to have a guiding intelligence at all. (This, btw, is the point where I disagree with ID. That very inference about guiding intelligences is unscientific - even though it's negative - and if that's denied, a good portion of ID logic gets shifted in category. But, I digress.) Instead evolution typically proceeds by slight gradual changes over a period of time that get selected for, or neutral jumbles.

THAT is precisely why Behe argues that an IC system is going to be trouble for the standard evolutionary view. If such and such an IC structure requires *at a minimum* say.. 30 pieces to be in place in such and such a way in order to function, that's a lot of serendipity that has to take place before the IC structure can even exist to be selected. Because - and this is key - you cannot have selection operating on the IC structure before it exists, since evolution does not 'look ahead' (that would just be a very vulgar teleology.) So a series of gradual, slight, successive changes won't work here. Selection is not going to positively operate on a broken structure (and if part of that structure is doing some other task, then selection is pulling whatever parts of it AWAY from that goal.)

Here's a good bit of practice. I've explained this view before, including the rationale of why slight, successive changes over a period of time cannot work given Behe's view - and that's because he's targeting an evolutionary view that is supposed to be unguided. I think my explanation makes clear sense. Now, if you disagree, do this: explain Behe's reasoning as to WHY slight, successive changes can't make an IC system. I can do that given my rationale. But can you do so, while at the same time maintaining this holds even in the case of a designing agent? (Note: Behe can still be wrong, but if you can't even explain what his reasoning would be for him to say what you interpret him as saying, that's a good sign that your interpretation is wrong.)

im-skeptical said...

I'm looking for evidence that Behe agrees with your interpretation, and I still can't find it.

Here's an article in Evolution News ans Views that discusses the controversy over the e coli flagellum:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

"Just as Darwinian "explanations" of the eye may, at first, appear convincing to the uninitiated, largely unacquainted with the sheer engineering marvel of the biochemistry and molecular basis of vision, so too do the evolutionary "explanations" of the flagellum rapidly become void of any persuasiveness when one considers the molecular details of the system. When one couples the above details with demonstrations of the sheer impotence of neo-Darwinism to produce novel protein folds and novel protein-protein binding sites, do you really think that this system can be cobbled together by virtue of slight, successive modification, one small step at a time?"

It seems very clear that they reject a gradual process of evolution as a way of producing IC objects. FULL STOP. Once again, please show me where Behe supports your interpretation.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Skep,

From the Wikipedia article on "Irreducible Complexity" (and note that Wikipedia is no friend of ID):

"The term "irreducible complexity" was coined by Behe, who defined it as applying to:

A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition)

Supporters of intelligent design argue that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection. Although they accept that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, they claim that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer must have created life or guided its evolution.


More to follow.

Crude said...

It seems very clear that they reject a gradual process of evolution as a way of producing IC objects. FULL STOP. Once again, please show me where Behe supports your interpretation.

Do you notice that each and every example you provide where 'slight, successive modification' is regarded as problematic, it is specifically in an 'unguided' evolutionary context?

I've already shown where Behe supports my interpretation - in the very quotes that you gave. That's why saying 'full stop' doesn't work in your favor here - because Behe's claims are taking aim at 'unguided Darwinian evolution' in your own examples. You are in the position of arguing, amazingly, that Behe thinks irreducible complexity is a problem for intelligent design.

I've already asked you to explain why slight, successive modifications *even in the case where an intelligent agent is controlling the process* is problematic by Behe's reasoning - because he's speaking in context of Darwinian evolution. I've already explained how it can be problematic in said context. Your challenge is to explain why Behe thinks it's problematic in an intelligent, guided context.

And if you can't do that, you're going to have to explain why it doesn't matter. I think the closest you're going to be able to come here is 'Well Behe is just dumb, he doesn't realize that if evolution is guided in the relevant sense then of COURSE it can easily create IC structures'. And if you say that, I'll ask: do you really think ID proponents are arguing *against* that claim? Do you really think 'Well if evolution is guided all the ID problems go away' would be a response to ID proponents that a single ID critic would want to make, when 'guided evolution' would entail the falsity of 'Darwinian evolution' as popularly conceived?

I am being civil here. But you are trying to fight on ground that you simple cannot stand on. I know, I know - anti-ID websites have told you otherwise. Surprise: they misled you. Quite possibly on purpose.

RD Miksa said...

From the Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe (Soft-Cover, pg 232):

"Those who worry about 'interference' [of the designer in life] should relax. The purposeful design of life to any degree [which thus must include IC systems] is easily compatible with the idea that, after its initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the intended playing out of natural laws. The purposeful design of life is also fully compatible with the idea of universal common descent, one important facet of Darwin's theory. What the purposeful design of life is not compatible with, however, is Darwin's proposed mechanism of evolution--random variation and natural selection--which sought to explain the development of life explicitly without recourse to guidance or planning by anyone or anything at any time."

RD Miksa said...

And here, straight from Behe's mouth:

I [Michael Behe] recently received an email asking if the correspondent correctly understood my views about intelligent design and God. Since I sometimes get similar questions, I'm posting this correspondence for anyone who is interested.

Q: I understand your current position to be that design is detectable in nature, and that design detection is not merely a theological gloss upon the scientific facts, but is actually an activity appropriate for science. I further understand you to be saying that design detection in itself is neutral regarding the way that the design found its way into nature. Thus, if the bacterial flagellum is designed, it *could* be that God took a regular bacterium and miraculously "tweaked" it, or it *could* be that God "front-loaded" the evolutionary development of the bacterial flagellum [an IC system], in a manner similar to that suggested by, say, Michael Denton. Design detection as a science cannot rule on these things; all that it can show is that Darwinian mechanisms, all by themselves, could not have produced integrated structures such as the flagellum. If there was not direct intervention (tweaking, guiding, steering, etc.) or advance planning ("front-loading"), neo-Darwinian processes would never have been able to produce all the complex varieties of living things that we see today. Have I got your current position correct?

Me [Michael Behe]: Yes, that's exactly right.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/god_design_and_contingency_in028181.html#sthash.iqT6TQAh.dpuf

Crude said...

Geez, Miksa. You're resourceful.

RD Miksa said...

Just happy to help...lol!

Have a good night.

RD Miksa

im-skeptical said...

Thank you RD, for providing evidence that crude couldn't. It is quite perplexing that they choose to use words that seem to contradict their own position. The last quote I cited is a good example of that. I'm sure you can see how one would get the idea that it rejects evolution altogether. After all, that's what it seems to say. Now, I suspect that Behe's own ideas of the mechanisms of intelligent design may have 'evolved' over time.

RD Miksa said...

Dear Skep,

In fairness to you, even the other interviewer (from the last quote) had the same confusion:

Q: Then there is the question whether your views have changed over the years. Someone I know claims that in your early writings and early conference appearances, you said directly, or gave the strong impression, that some things (A, B, C ...) were brought about by wholly natural processes, whereas other things (X, Y, Z ...) were brought about by design (the implication being that "designed" in your early thought was opposed to "natural"). My acquaintance's picture of Behean evolution would then be something like this: evolution in the early oceans chugs along on its own, via neo-Darwinian and other stochastic processes, as various sorts of marine worms and sponges and so on develop. But then, during the Cambrian Explosion, God takes a direct hand and literally reshapes marine worms into 30 or so new phyla, after which things go on by natural means again, until the next limit is reached, and God has to disrupt the normal flow of nature again (maybe to create land animals, or mammals, or birds, or man). Thus, there would be a jerky, stop-and-start sort of evolution, with chance/natural law causes alternating with fits of miracles. So, looking at any given creature, science would have to say things like: "Human lungs -- evolved by blind mechanisms from primitive air bladder; human camera eye -- required special intervention from intelligent designer; bacterial cell walls -- evolved by blind chemical mechanisms; bacterial flagellum -- was made by a bolt of divine lightning." Etc. Given this understanding of your views, one can see why my acquaintance or other TEs would characterize ID as "God of the gaps" reasoning. My question is: Was it *ever* your view that ID *required* such a jerky view of evolution, and more generally that it required miraculous intervention (breaking the causal nexus, violating the laws of nature)? Or was it always the case that your view *allowed for* jerky, stop-and-start evolution, and *allowed for* miraculous intervention, but did not *require* these things?

But Behe responds...

Me [Michael Behe]: My views have not changed over the years but, as I think for most people, the more you chew over a topic, and the more you discuss it with other folks, the more one realizes there can be depths of nuance that one might not at first blush have realized.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/god_design_and_contingency_in028181.html#sthash.iqT6TQAh.RURp8BYL.dpuf

Good night all!

RD Miksa

im-skeptical said...

crude,

Yes, it makes more sense for Behe to believe that than simply saying that things were zapped into existence. Nevertheless, Behe refrains from stating what he believes because ID still has to make a pitch that it not based on theology. Their scientific position is already extremely weak without adding theistic belief into the mix.

It is interesting that over time, Behe's position seems to be converging more and more with a real scientific view. If he believes in evolution and speciation and all the natural processes that drive them, his view becomes utterly indistinguishable from a scientific view, except that he rejects certain natural processes (ie. natural selection). So the next step is for him to face up to the scientific fact that natural selection exists. It's observable. And his theory of IC has been thoroughly debunked. By science.

Crude said...

Skep,

Yes, it makes more sense for Behe to believe that than simply saying that things were zapped into existence. Nevertheless, Behe refrains from stating what he believes because ID still has to make a pitch that it not based on theology. Their scientific position is already extremely weak without adding theistic belief into the mix.

It has nothing to do with Behe's theistic beliefs, nor does the example I gave require theism. It requires a knowledgeable, possibly powerful agent.

It is interesting that over time, Behe's position seems to be converging more and more with a real scientific view.

My recollection is that Behe was a theistic evolutionist before becoming an ID proponent - which would represent him shifting 'away' from the mainstream consensus view. Likewise, I recall that his acceptance of common descent has remained from the start.

Considering you've just gone literally days, misreading what snippets of quotes you had of Behe, I'm going to express skepticism at your knowledge of his intellectual trajectory, to say nothing of your interpretation of it.

So the next step is for him to face up to the scientific fact that natural selection exists. It's observable.

Behe does not deny that natural selection exists. In fact, it's crucial for him to make his case, because he relies on what it's capable of - including in observed situations (see his comments on Lenski's work) in order to make a lot of his arguments.

Likewise, Behe does not 'reject certain natural processes'. He accepts their existence, but finds them to be insufficient to accomplish certain particular things - but sufficient to accomplish other things.

Should I take your goalpost shifting and topic changing to mean 'Okay, between what Crude has said and what Miksa has provided, apparently I, Skep, was completely effing wrong about Behe's views on irreducible complexity.'?

im-skeptical said...

You can't take yes for an answer, can you? How Republican of you. I asked for evidence, because it's not just empty words that I like to toss around.

Crude said...

Skep,

You can't take yes for an answer, can you? How Republican of you.

Your tendency to regard every conversation as a battleground that must be won, lest your imagined and hated ideological enemies gain ground, is part of the reason you make one easy mistake after another. It's that part of you which tells you 'be stubborn, interpret this poorly, rely on that idiotic Cult of Gnu website you frequent as an authority - you don't need to check anything out before you argue and make a decision!'

I asked for evidence

It was amply provided, and honest to God, not that hard to figure out to begin with.

And the funny thing? Hot on the heels of it being made utterly evident that you don't even understand what ID's own proponents are saying, you fall back to 'But I'm sure they're all wrong anyway! Science! I said science!' I'm sure that provides some mental comfort.

Let's face it, Skep. What really stings about my comments and criticisms isn't how mean they are. It's how accurate they are. As I said - your atheist sites have betrayed you, yet again. And you're starting to realize it.

Anyway, back to programming for me. Meditate on this for a while, will you?

grodrigues said...

@Crude:

[to im-skeptical]:

"Your tendency to regard every conversation as a battleground that must be won, lest your imagined and hated ideological enemies gain ground, is part of the reason you make one easy mistake after another."

Very apropos, Bill Vallicella in a recent post reminds us that Harry Frankfurt in his classic On Bullshit defines the essence of bullshit as a disregard for the truth, an indifference to how things really are. To quote from Vallicella:

"Now if the bullshitter does not care about truth, what does he care about? He care about himself, about making a certain impression. His aim is to (mis)represent himself as knowing what he does not know or more than he actually knows."

im-skeptical said...

crude,

I hope this is the last time I speak to you, because you're not worth speaking to.

"Your tendency to regard every conversation as a battleground that must be won, lest your imagined and hated ideological enemies gain ground, is part of the reason you make one easy mistake after another."

You're talking about yourself. Time after time, you come after me like a little attack dog, and you don't let up when you're wrong, which you usually are.

I said that according to the concept of IC, complex things don't come about by evolution. I didn't make that up - it's what they say, and I showed you examples of it. You make the inference that they actually do believe it happens by evolution. But the ID people never say that. I asked for evidence and you couldn't find any - because they never say it.

"It was amply provided, and honest to God, not that hard to figure out to begin with."

If you had been able to find a case of Behe saying this, I'm sure you would have been all over it. You couldn't find it because Behe doesn't say it. You infer it. That's what the DI people want. Of course it's easy to infer, just like I said earlier. But they don't say it. Finally, RD found an interview where someone asked him about the mechanisms of this 'design', and he admitted that it was one of several possibilities. But he still doesn't say it outright.

So don't tell me how "completely effing wrong" I was. When I saw that he made this admission, I accepted it, I didn't deny it. And you're still acting like total dick. If that's the game you want to play, I'll ask you again: Show me where Behe actually says this.

"Hot on the heels of it being made utterly evident that you don't even understand what ID's own proponents are saying, you fall back to 'But I'm sure they're all wrong anyway!"

I understand DI's position perfectly well. They say things don't evolve by Darwinian evolution and they come up with this IC crap to make their case. If they ever admit that there really is an evolutionary process, they've undermined IC. It comes down to evolution by natural selection vs evolution by divine guidance, and the concept of IC is essentially moot. Don't forget - divine guidance is not their official position. It's up to people like you to infer the divine guidance (presuming, of course, that you prefer to ignore science).

"Anyway, back to programming for me. Meditate on this for a while, will you?"

I'll be happy to ignore you. I hope you'll return the favor.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...

You should read how Dr Behe tied himself in knots under question in the Dover School Board vs. Kitzsmiiler Trial on ID

Michael Behe was in the witness box on Days 10,11 and 12. What a shambolic performance it was. The full transcript of the Trial is HERE. The way it is set out makes for really easy reading.

It will sweep away any pretense of ID being anything other than a religious concept. And you easily see why Judge Jones came to that conclusion. No rocket science here. No biological science here. In fact no science whatsoever under ID.

Just read it. Just read it.

RD Miksa said...

Just a point (tentatively offered as I do not have the book in front of me): In his most recent book, Behe makes it clear that BWNDE could have somehow brought about an IC system--he admits it would be impossible to prove that this could not happen--he just argues that it is completely unreasonable to believe that it did without an intelligent input at some point. However, this does not negate that evolution could not have done so as long as intelligence was involved at some point.

Behe gives the example of a designer who can see all possible worlds and choose to actualize one of them. Such a designer could thus pick (use his intelligence) to actualize the one world in which evolution, against all astronomically improbable odds, somehow produced IC systems. Thus, you have intelligent design (in the choice) and evolution bringing forth IC systems.

I will find the reference later tonight if someone wants it.

RD Miksa
(from cellphone)

RD Miksa said...

And thus, Behe's position does not even need intelligent guidance, for it is compatible with nothing more than intelligent 'choice.'

It truly can be a minimalist position if desired.

B. Prokop said...

I do hope that crude and skep are of opposite genders, because any two people who argue with each other as much as they do really ought to get married!

im-skeptical said...

"I do hope that crude and skep are of opposite genders, because any two people who argue with each other as much as they do really ought to get married!"

Ha! That's good. But she'd be filing for divorce and trying to take all my money.

Papalinton said...

"Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology."


See <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-theory-courtroom-told.html#.Ulr-4RxU3vg+>HERE</a>

Papalinton said...

See HERE

Crude said...

Skep,

You're talking about yourself. Time after time, you come after me like a little attack dog,

Aka, 'I insist that something is the case and you dare to disagree and point out how I'm wrong, HOW DARE YOU!'

Yes, Skep. When you say something wrong, I dispute you. Get used to it.

I said that according to the concept of IC, complex things don't come about by evolution. I didn't make that up - it's what they say, and I showed you examples of it.

No - according to the concept of IC, IC things are extremely unlikely to come about without intelligent intervention, based on what we know. I've explained to you the relevant concepts, and Miksa has provided direct quotes showing you're wrong.

As I said before - that you're wrong is not under dispute, and hasn't been for a while. Now, this is all about 'how Skep reacts when he's shown to be wrong'. The answer isn't encouraging.

And you're still acting like total dick.

I was entirely polite and patient with you. Then, when you were showed to be wrong, you didn't just admit it - you then jumped to various other claims, about Behe's intellectual trajectory and about the state of 'science' on this matter. And really, I just laughed at you because it's clear you don't know a thing about ID - but you know it's what your ENEMIES like and grr... ENEMIES! Therefore, FIGHT! Etc, etc.

And now your response seems to be 'Well if Crude's going to be mean to me once I bullshit and am shown to be wrong, then I'm just not going to ever admit I'm wrong! That'll show him!' Wonderful. Keep this in mind: I don't really care what you admit. I care what can be demonstrated. And man, you have been demonstrated to be wrong - repeatedly. In this thread alone.

I understand DI's position perfectly well.

The only way this can be possible at this point is if you're consciously lying left and right when you discuss ID. You just got done talking about how Behe denies natural selection and huffily insisting 'natural selection exists', when Behe's whole point is that NS DOES exist - but look at what it's capable of.

About the only thing you understand about ID is that, if it were accurate, you'd find it threatening. So you damn sure better dispute it. But of course the only thing you know about it comes from webpages that basically amount to 'MississippiAtheist817's God Sucks Blog & Sometimes Lolcat Picture Archive'. The odds of you actually spending a lot of time reading books or sites you disagree with are low. Scary stuff, that.

I'll be happy to ignore you.

No, I said I was going to program then. I'm not ignoring you totally. You're in Linton's category now - I don't bother paying attention to you, unless you A) make such a dumb mistake that it'd be fun to make hay of, and B) I'm not doing anything else at the time. B varies heavily, but A? A happens practically every day.

Because you're being used by atheists who mislead you, and you're afraid to admit it to yourself.

Back to programming again. You have fun with that whole 'I won't admit I'm wrong even when I clearly am! That'll show 'im!' strategy. ;)

Crude said...

Oh, and regarding Behe and Astrology, one should really consult what Behe actually said on that front. It's generally not a good idea to accept the implied summaries of known plagiarists who routinely discuss things they don't comprehend. ;)

Papalinton said...

"Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told."

An account from Dr Michael Behe. Se HERE. This is same site referred to above.

R D Miksa, in your own words how do you account for this revelation from Behe that Astrology would become a legitimate scientific pursuit under his definition of ID? Are you also admitting that Astrology is a bona fide field of scientific research?

As a research institute, does the Discovery Institute receive any government funding under the science of Intelligent Design? Why not? Do you think there is a conspiracy against ID becoming internationally recognized as a legitimate field of science? By whom?

The highly problematic nature of ID is the its basic premise, Irreducible Complexity, does not meet the criterion of being properly basic. Every instance put up as an example of irreducible complexity has been deconstructed, every one so far.

Papalinton said...

Lehigh University disowns Dr Michael Behe:

See HERE.

His thinly disguised personal religious account underpinning ID was sufficient an embarrassment to the University that they had to inform the international community that the institution has not and never has endorsed ID as science.

Unequivocal. It seems the only reason for continued employment of Dr Behe is his security as a tenured employee, in other words a permanent appointment which they cannot withdraw.

Remember this fiasco? "The Michael Polanyi Center (MPC) at Baylor University was the first center at a research university exclusively dedicated to intelligent design study. It was founded in 1999 "with the primary aim of advancing the understanding of the sciences," in a religious context[1] and is named for Michael Polanyi. All of the center's research investigated the subject of intelligent design. The center was relegated in late 2000 to a minor program within the Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning and fully dissolved in 2003. Wiki

How about this fiasco?:

"From: William Grassie
Reply To: William Grassie
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 5:54 PM
To: metanews@META-LIST.ORG
Subject: [METANEWS] Dembski relieved of duties as Polanyi Center
Director

Date: 10/19/00 11:32 AM
From: Larry Brumley
DEMBSKI RELIEVED OF DUTIES AS POLANYI CENTER DIRECTOR

William Dembski was relieved of his duties as director of Baylor
University's Michael Polanyi Center today.
. He will remain associate
professor in conceptual foundations of science within the university's
Institute for Faith and Learning.

The action follows by two days the release of a peer review committee's
report on the Polanyi Center that affirmed the academic work of the center
while calling for the appointment of a faculty advisory committee and the
dropping of the Polanyi name.

"The theme of the report emphasized the need for the individuals associated
with the center to work in a collegial manner with other members of the
Baylor faculty," said Dr. Michael Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith
and Learning, which houses the center. "Dr. Dembski's actions after the
release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director."



HERE

Just another in a litany of debacles that characterizes ID.

Sheesh!

Papalinton said...

The four-year existence of The Michael Polanyi Center (MPC) for the study of ID at Baylor University underscores the reality that even a christian institution could see the game was up for ID. Period.

im-skeptical said...

It doesn't bother me that these people wrap their religion in fake science, but teaching it to children in the guise of science should be regarded as a crime, since it genuinely (and possibly permanently) degrades their understanding of science.

Papalinton said...

" ... but teaching it to children in the guise of science should be regarded as a crime, since it genuinely (and possibly permanently) degrades their understanding of science."

Perhaps not a crime per se but certainly as a selection criterion for employment opportunities in and the teaching of science and be elevated to a central feature for inclusion at interviews, performance assessments, academic performance reviews and similar conditions of employment and engagement. There are many other academic avenues open to discussing ID and other insane ideas through literature, philosophy, history, sociology, anthropology, through Depts of theology and religious study etc. The faculty of science is not the appropriate discipline to engage in pseudo-science.

Crude said...

It doesn't bother me that these people wrap their religion in fake science, but teaching it to children in the guise of science should be regarded as a crime, since it genuinely (and possibly permanently) degrades their understanding of science.

I agree. How many years in prison should Jerry Coyne get? Five? Ten, perhaps? ;)

grodrigues said...

"It doesn't bother me that these people wrap their religion in fake science, but teaching it to children in the guise of science should be regarded as a crime, since it genuinely (and possibly permanently) degrades their understanding of science."

This one is a keeper for posterity.

im-skeptical said...

"This one is a keeper for posterity."

Your previous comment was about bullshit. ID is a prime example. Put it in your little scrapbook of things you don't understand.

Crude said...

Skep,

Your previous comment was about bullshit. ID is a prime example. Put it in your little scrapbook of things you don't understand.

That is an extremely bold taunt, considering your performance in this thread.

By the way, let's scroll back to something I said earlier:

So let's set the terms. I write to Behe. I ask him if his stance is that 'irreducibly complex systems' are unable to come into existence by gradual modifications *even with intelligent intervention*. If he says, 'Yes, even an intelligent agent guiding it could not produce this result', I concede happily. If he says "No, that's ridiculous. The point of the example is that blind, known Darwinian processes are incapable of producing this", then you concede you don't know jack shit about ID.

You, in a cowardly fashion, did not respond to my challenge despite multiple requests. How about you do so now?

By the way? Behe responded. Do you think he supports your interpretation, or everyone else's - including mine?

Crude said...

I see Skep has abandoned this thread. That hardly matters - Behe's response can be used to put one more nail in this particular coffin.

Asked of Behe:

"Sorry if this is an extremely dumb question, but I was hoping you could clarify something for me. You write...

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."

My question is this. You say that an irreducibly complex system cannot by produced [...] by slight, successive modifications. Obviously, you're targeting here blind, undirected systems, right? I mean, intelligent agents, or processes instituted by / overseen by intelligent agents, would be able to create an irreducibly complex system by a series of slight changes, right?"


Behe's reply:

Yes, you're right, I'm talking about undirected processes. Intelligent agents can do things unintelligent mechanisms cannot. Best wishes.

mjb


This isn't news to anyone here. I think, in the end, it isn't even news to Skep - multiple people explained why he was wrong, why his reading was obviously incorrect, why his claim didn't even make sense, and I think it ultimately took root. Evidence was cited and arguments were given. But apparently Skep thought that 'take it up with Behe' would end it - as if it would allow the question to remain in limbo, and even if he was wrong, he could at least save face by claiming that Behe would say he was right, against all odds and evidence.

No, Skep. You are exactly what I said - pig-ignorant of ID, and most of what you talk about. And half the reason you're pig-ignorant is because you get - happily, uncritically get - your information about what you dislike from third party, hostile Cult of Gnu sources. Best of all, you don't even care, because you couldn't care less about either science or reason. It's all a matter of fighting the people you dislike, and being on the 'same team' as people fighting them.

im-skeptical said...

crude, you're not very bright. This response (if it is in fact a response from Behe to a question from you) only repeats what was already established. Behe admits that guided evolution is a possibility. It certainly does not establish that it is the only possibility. It does not establish that this is the mechanism he claims to be in effect for intelligent design. Notice how careful he is never to say such a thing. And I also notice that you didn't put the question to him directly.

I asked you to show me where he says this is the mechanism by which irreducible complexity is achieved. You haven't. Because he never says it (nor does he deny it). That is nothing but an assumption on your part.

Crude said...

Skep,

I asked you to show me where he says this is the mechanism by which irreducible complexity is achieved.

You, earlier:

Agreed, but gradual evolution is not compatible with IC, whether it is guided or not. Take it up with Behe. It's his definition, not It's very clear. "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly ... by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system". No mention of whether it is guided. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand IC, and you don't understand ID theory.

This entire conversation has been you insisting that Behe's definition of IC rules out an IC system coming about by 'slight, successive changes', even if an intelligent agent guided or orchestrated it. Everyone knew this was wrong. You used a single quote from Behe, in a book you quite likely never read, in a context you pretty well made up entirely, to argue that Behe's definition of IC ruled out an intelligent agent using 'slight, successive changes' to make an IC result.

So Behe was contacted, and oops, you were wrong. As usual. Because you're a very slow man who takes false confidence from your atheism. And now you've been reminded of that, again.

I asked you to show me where he says this is the mechanism by which irreducible complexity is achieved.

What you did was make a claim, repeatedly throughout this thread - in the face of quote after quote, explanation after explanation, of how you were wrong. You said, 'Take it up with Behe.' It was taken up with Behe, and Behe's answer is clear: you are wrong. Because your knowledge of ID amounts to, 'Ah read summa dat onna atheist site. Sure looks legit! DERP.'

ID makes no claims about particular mechanisms - ID acknowledges a spread of possible explanations, and simply focuses on what ID infers they have in common: an intelligent source.

As I've already said: this isn't about getting you to admit you're wrong. That's not happening, because you falsely think you can BS your way out of things. This is about demonstrating that you're wrong to everyone else. And guess what, Skep? Mission accomplished. Again.

Thanks for the laughs. ;)

im-skeptical said...

Listen, DERP boy. Behe defined IC the way he did. The definition says what it says. If he thinks IC means no gradual evolution except for the guided kind, then his definition should say that. And he still doesn't say that that's how IC structures are made. He only says it's a possibility. My whole argument has been about what he says, not about what you infer from it, or what Behe believes privately.

"ID makes no claims about particular mechanism"

That was my point from the very beginning, and that's what started this whole row. Remember? ID science is about detection of design, not about OOL, and not about how the design is achieved. DERP.

Crude said...

Im-Derpy,

Listen, DERP boy. Behe defined IC the way he did. The definition says what it says. If he thinks IC means no gradual evolution except for the guided kind, then his definition should say that.

It. Did.

See, here's Behe's problem: he wrote a book for people who didn't have massive problems comprehending clear language in a reasonable context. Most people - including, by the way, a good share of atheists - were entirely capable of figuring out that when he was talking about the problems of slight, successive changes producing an IC structure, he was talking about 'unguided' Darwinian mechanisms.

But not Im-Derpy. No, you slammed your hands on your table, smashing your graham crackers and getting crumbs all over your bib and football helmet, insisting that *even if an intelligent agent was involved* that slight changes couldn't result in an IC structure. It was explained to you repeatedly why this was not just wrong, but obviously wrong. You were given quotes, you were given explanations. And, stupidly, you dug in your heels and said 'take it up with Behe' - not realizing that someone effing *would*.

And what a shock: you were wrong. Again. About something godawful simple to figure out, that you should have conceded days ago when it was explained to you the first time. But no, you're a special little boy, so you needed special attention. As usual.

My whole argument has been about what he says, not about what you infer from it, or what Behe believes privately.

No, idiot. Your 'whole argument' has been about what Behe meant when he wrote a very simple statement in a very easy to grasp context. You spent goddamn days in delusion, and now can't even bring yourself to flat out say you were wrong. You're trying to find every whichway to back out of having said what you did - but oops, there's the quote, and more are available.

You fucked up. Again. As usual. After days of having it explained to you HOW you fucked up. And all because, what? Because you were certain that the equally idiotic atheists whose words you invest in faith in HAD to be right, because they're atheists? How's that act working out for you?

That was my point from the very beginning, and that's what started this whole row. Remember? ID science is about detection of design, not about OOL,

*ID infers design even with regards to the OOL*, you nitwit. No one has ever denied that ID is about inferences - you were the one who tried to insist that ID 'had nothing to say about' the OOL. Remember that bit? And then you said 'this was clearly a creationist book and Meyer was saying ID shows God did it', then I quoted him saying the exact opposite?

Christ almighty. The only question at this point is if you're the regular kind of very stupid, or the particular variety that manages to convince itself that lying about your misunderstandings is itself a real effing crafty move, when you can't lie for crap.

Im-Derpy, at his goddamn finest.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...

Skep has bare-knuckled crude right out of the ring. He has lost his marbles from the accumulative effects of leather poisoning about the head. Don't you just love cognitive dissonance?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 203   Newer› Newest»