Why Isn't ID Considered Blasphemy?

[Dale]

From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating. The problem
is, this implies that the designer is some kind of temporal being who was
unable to design evolution to work without occasional intervention. This
seems like a blasphemous proposition to me, to say that God not All-Knowing
and All-Powerful, so I don't understand why religious types like these guys
so much, unless it's that they just haven't thought things through. And why
should that surprise me?

The other kind of person who thinks they believe in Intelligent Design
really just believes in spontaneous Creation. They use the terminology of
ID, but they have even less understanding of it than its originators. When
these people say it's obvious life is intelligently designed, they just mean
it had to have been created in situ by an intelligent being, i.e., God.
Actually, this view is more reasonable that the true ID view, since it
doesn't involve the contradiction of a low-achieving God. It only involves
the rejection of all scientific research relating to the age of the Earth,
which is easy to do if you are careful to maintain ignorance thereof.

This latter type of ID proponent is glad to be able to use the ID framework
and patina of respectability (however thin), when they ought to be
denouncing ID even more strenuously than they denounce evolution.

[Jim Guillory]

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating. The problem
is, this implies that the designer is some kind of temporal being who was
unable to design evolution to work without occasional intervention. This
seems like a blasphemous proposition to me, to say that God not All-Knowing
and All-Powerful, so I don't understand why religious types like these guys
so much, unless it's that they just haven't thought things through. And why
should that surprise me?

Intelligent design is not a real scientific theory. Its a cover for
creationism, with the word 'God' removed so that it can sneak past the US
courts. So none of its various adherents are particularly concerned about
what the 'secular' theory of ID claims, because they will junk the whole
science facade as soon as they can get evolution removed from the schools.
Then they can teach their religion instead (either in or out of the
schools).
What scam artist was ever concerned about the logical coherence of his
scam?

Regards,
Jim

[Dylan]

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of

Punctuated

Post by Dale
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating. The problem

....

Post by Dale
From what I've read, punctuated equilibrium (punk-eek) is a scientific

hypothesis championed by Eldridge and the late Gould, and it is subject
to scientific testing. Intelligent design (ID) isn't. The
arch-theologian of ID, William Dembski, claims to have devised a way to
test it, but mathematicians and scientists have been unable to make his
test work and have convincingly debunked it as unworkable and
fraudulent (not that Dembski himself is a fraud; I've talked with him
personally and think he's sincere and really a rather nice guy, just
self-deluded).

....

Post by Dale
is, this implies that the designer is some kind of temporal being who was
unable to design evolution to work without occasional intervention. This
seems like a blasphemous proposition to me, to say that God not All-Knowing
and All-Powerful, so I don't understand why religious types like these guys
so much, unless it's that they just haven't thought things through. And why
should that surprise me?
The other kind of person who thinks they believe in Intelligent Design
really just believes in spontaneous Creation. They use the

terminology of

Post by Dale
ID, but they have even less understanding of it than its originators. When
these people say it's obvious life is intelligently designed, they just mean
it had to have been created in situ by an intelligent being, i.e., God.
Actually, this view is more reasonable that the true ID view, since it
doesn't involve the contradiction of a low-achieving God. It only involves
the rejection of all scientific research relating to the age of the Earth,
which is easy to do if you are careful to maintain ignorance thereof.
This latter type of ID proponent is glad to be able to use the ID framework
and patina of respectability (however thin), when they ought to be
denouncing ID even more strenuously than they denounce evolution.
--
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who put people into
categories, and those who don't.

[Frank J]

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of

Punctuated

Post by Dale
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating. The problem
is, this implies that the designer is some kind of temporal being who was
unable to design evolution to work without occasional intervention. This
seems like a blasphemous proposition to me, to say that God not All-Knowing
and All-Powerful, so I don't understand why religious types like these guys
so much, unless it's that they just haven't thought things through. And why
should that surprise me?
The other kind of person who thinks they believe in Intelligent Design
really just believes in spontaneous Creation. They use the

terminology of

Post by Dale
ID, but they have even less understanding of it than its originators. When
these people say it's obvious life is intelligently designed, they just mean
it had to have been created in situ by an intelligent being, i.e., God.
Actually, this view is more reasonable that the true ID view, since it
doesn't involve the contradiction of a low-achieving God. It only involves
the rejection of all scientific research relating to the age of the Earth,
which is easy to do if you are careful to maintain ignorance thereof.
This latter type of ID proponent is glad to be able to use the ID framework
and patina of respectability (however thin), when they ought to be
denouncing ID even more strenuously than they denounce evolution.
--
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who put people into
categories, and those who don't.

Not sure what you mean by "spontaneous Creation." If you mean
independent abiogenesis of species or individuals, I'd agree that most
IDers lead the audience to infer that, so as not to upset the
creationists. But when pressed by those who know something about
evolution, IDers sometimes concede that what they personally have in
mind is some kind of designer-"punctuated" evolution. Having followed
the ID strategy for 8 years, with a tendency to "read between the
lines," I'm convinced that most major IDers privately accept evolution,
but mirepresent it any way, disrepecting God and bearing false witness
in the process. Mainstream religions do not. They do think that God
creates individual *souls* instantaneously, but for bodies He uses
evolution, "natural" laws and all.

Mainstream religion has quietly discarded the mutually contradictory
creationisms, and has mostly refused to embrace the newer ID strategy.
I wish that they were more vocal and denouncing creationism and ID, but
I can understand their fears; it's not their specialty to begin with,
and if their words are taken the wrong way (very likely given common
public misconceptions) they could lose membership.

[Walter Bushell]

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the

age of

Post by Dale
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of

Punctuated

Post by Dale
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating. The

problem

Post by Dale
is, this implies that the designer is some kind of temporal being who

was

Post by Dale
unable to design evolution to work without occasional intervention.

This

Post by Dale
seems like a blasphemous proposition to me, to say that God not

All-Knowing

Post by Dale
and All-Powerful, so I don't understand why religious types like

these guys

Post by Dale
so much, unless it's that they just haven't thought things through.

And why

Post by Dale
should that surprise me?
The other kind of person who thinks they believe in Intelligent

Design

Post by Dale
really just believes in spontaneous Creation. They use the

terminology of

Post by Dale
ID, but they have even less understanding of it than its originators.

When

Post by Dale
these people say it's obvious life is intelligently designed, they

just mean

Post by Dale
it had to have been created in situ by an intelligent being, i.e.,

God.

Post by Dale
Actually, this view is more reasonable that the true ID view, since

it

Post by Dale
doesn't involve the contradiction of a low-achieving God. It only

involves

Post by Dale
the rejection of all scientific research relating to the age of the

Earth,

Post by Dale
which is easy to do if you are careful to maintain ignorance thereof.
This latter type of ID proponent is glad to be able to use the ID

framework

Post by Dale
and patina of respectability (however thin), when they ought to be
denouncing ID even more strenuously than they denounce evolution.
--
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who put people into
categories, and those who don't.

Not sure what you mean by "spontaneous Creation." If you mean
independent abiogenesis of species or individuals, I'd agree that most
IDers lead the audience to infer that, so as not to upset the
creationists. But when pressed by those who know something about
evolution, IDers sometimes concede that what they personally have in
mind is some kind of designer-"punctuated" evolution. Having followed
the ID strategy for 8 years, with a tendency to "read between the
lines," I'm convinced that most major IDers privately accept evolution,
but mirepresent it any way, disrepecting God and bearing false witness
in the process. Mainstream religions do not. They do think that God
creates individual *souls* instantaneously, but for bodies He uses
evolution, "natural" laws and all.
Mainstream religion has quietly discarded the mutually contradictory
creationisms, and has mostly refused to embrace the newer ID strategy.
I wish that they were more vocal and denouncing creationism and ID, but
I can understand their fears; it's not their specialty to begin with,
and if their words are taken the wrong way (very likely given common
public misconceptions) they could lose membership.

Even if their words are taken in the right way, they will lose
membership as they undoubtedly include YECs and OECs as members so it is
necessary to fudge.

[Frank J]

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the

age of

Post by Dale
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of

Punctuated

Post by Dale
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating. The

problem

Post by Dale
is, this implies that the designer is some kind of temporal being who

was

Post by Dale
unable to design evolution to work without occasional

intervention.

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Dale
This

Post by Dale
seems like a blasphemous proposition to me, to say that God not

All-Knowing

Post by Dale
and All-Powerful, so I don't understand why religious types like

these guys

Post by Dale
so much, unless it's that they just haven't thought things

through.

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Dale
And why

Post by Dale
should that surprise me?
The other kind of person who thinks they believe in Intelligent

Design

Post by Dale
really just believes in spontaneous Creation. They use the

terminology of

Post by Dale
ID, but they have even less understanding of it than its

originators.

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Dale
When

Post by Dale
these people say it's obvious life is intelligently designed, they

just mean

Post by Dale
it had to have been created in situ by an intelligent being, i.e.,

God.

Post by Dale
Actually, this view is more reasonable that the true ID view, since

it

Post by Dale
doesn't involve the contradiction of a low-achieving God. It only

involves

Post by Dale
the rejection of all scientific research relating to the age of the

Earth,

Post by Dale
which is easy to do if you are careful to maintain ignorance thereof.
This latter type of ID proponent is glad to be able to use the ID

framework

Post by Dale
and patina of respectability (however thin), when they ought to be
denouncing ID even more strenuously than they denounce evolution.
--
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who put people into
categories, and those who don't.

Not sure what you mean by "spontaneous Creation." If you mean
independent abiogenesis of species or individuals, I'd agree that most
IDers lead the audience to infer that, so as not to upset the
creationists. But when pressed by those who know something about
evolution, IDers sometimes concede that what they personally have in
mind is some kind of designer-"punctuated" evolution. Having

followed

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Dale
the ID strategy for 8 years, with a tendency to "read between the
lines," I'm convinced that most major IDers privately accept

evolution,

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Dale
but mirepresent it any way, disrepecting God and bearing false witness
in the process. Mainstream religions do not. They do think that God
creates individual *souls* instantaneously, but for bodies He uses
evolution, "natural" laws and all.
Mainstream religion has quietly discarded the mutually

contradictory

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Dale
creationisms, and has mostly refused to embrace the newer ID

strategy.

Post by Walter Bushell

Post by Dale
I wish that they were more vocal and denouncing creationism and ID, but
I can understand their fears; it's not their specialty to begin with,
and if their words are taken the wrong way (very likely given common
public misconceptions) they could lose membership.

Even if their words are taken in the right way, they will lose
membership as they undoubtedly include YECs and OECs as members so it is
necessary to fudge.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

It's ironic that these religions preach courage and sacrifice for long
range goals, but don't often practice what they preach. So for some
religious leaders, the temporary risk of losing YECs and OECs to
competitors is not worth it.

For most though, I think that its less a case of fearing the YEC and
OEC membership than one of knowing that they aren't scientists, so they
prefer to stick to subjects that they know more about, which are the
subjects that the religion itself is about, saving souls and such. The
other thing is the "what do you say when children are present?"
problem. Even prime time TV resists addressing the poor aeronautical
capability of reindeer. Heck, I to am choosing the words carefully in
the rare event that an unusually bright 6 year old may be reading!

[TomS]

"On Mon, 09 May 2005 05:25:26 GMT, in article

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating. The problem
is, this implies that the designer is some kind of temporal being who was
unable to design evolution to work without occasional intervention. This
seems like a blasphemous proposition to me, to say that God not All-Knowing
and All-Powerful, so I don't understand why religious types like these guys
so much, unless it's that they just haven't thought things through. And why
should that surprise me?
The other kind of person who thinks they believe in Intelligent Design
really just believes in spontaneous Creation. They use the terminology of
ID, but they have even less understanding of it than its originators. When
these people say it's obvious life is intelligently designed, they just mean
it had to have been created in situ by an intelligent being, i.e., God.
Actually, this view is more reasonable that the true ID view, since it
doesn't involve the contradiction of a low-achieving God. It only involves
the rejection of all scientific research relating to the age of the Earth,
which is easy to do if you are careful to maintain ignorance thereof.
This latter type of ID proponent is glad to be able to use the ID framework
and patina of respectability (however thin), when they ought to be
denouncing ID even more strenuously than they denounce evolution.

There are a couple of features of ID which seem rather
suspicious.

One of them is the idea that the "designer(s)" can't be
distinguished from "space aliens" (or even "fallen angels" or
"some sort of new-age force").

Although this is never made quite explicit in the argument
from design, it seems to me that the argument relies upon the
idea that a designer is compelled to work within certain
constraints of the medium being used.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing that has happened in
the last few hundred million years which bears the mark of any
activity by design.

It isn't clear whether the concept of a designer is more
like an absentee divinity of deism, or a kind of demiurge of
gnosticism.

[Walter Bushell]

Post by TomS
"On Mon, 09 May 2005 05:25:26 GMT, in article

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating. The problem
is, this implies that the designer is some kind of temporal being who was
unable to design evolution to work without occasional intervention. This
seems like a blasphemous proposition to me, to say that God not All-Knowing
and All-Powerful, so I don't understand why religious types like these guys
so much, unless it's that they just haven't thought things through. And why
should that surprise me?
The other kind of person who thinks they believe in Intelligent Design
really just believes in spontaneous Creation. They use the terminology of
ID, but they have even less understanding of it than its originators. When
these people say it's obvious life is intelligently designed, they just mean
it had to have been created in situ by an intelligent being, i.e., God.
Actually, this view is more reasonable that the true ID view, since it
doesn't involve the contradiction of a low-achieving God. It only involves
the rejection of all scientific research relating to the age of the Earth,
which is easy to do if you are careful to maintain ignorance thereof.
This latter type of ID proponent is glad to be able to use the ID framework
and patina of respectability (however thin), when they ought to be
denouncing ID even more strenuously than they denounce evolution.

There are a couple of features of ID which seem rather
suspicious.
One of them is the idea that the "designer(s)" can't be
distinguished from "space aliens" (or even "fallen angels" or
"some sort of new-age force").

Yes, and the Raelians have had the door slammed in their faces
repeatedly. If you're a god fearing fundamentalist Christian, that is
one of the last groups to which you want to expose your children.

Maybe Barney designed the human race.

Post by TomS
Although this is never made quite explicit in the argument
from design, it seems to me that the argument relies upon the
idea that a designer is compelled to work within certain
constraints of the medium being used.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing that has happened in
the last few hundred million years which bears the mark of any
activity by design.
It isn't clear whether the concept of a designer is more
like an absentee divinity of deism, or a kind of demiurge of
gnosticism.

[Niels van der Linden]

As far as I can tell, ID and religions don't have any scientific evidence
base whatsoever. Therefore I don't get what all the fuss is about here (for
8 years already? wow). I could just as well demand that Santa Claus and his
elves be taught in schools??

I think it's time for a "theory, not truth"-sticker in Bibles and Korans.

Niels

[Stanley Friesen]

Post by Niels van der Linden
As far as I can tell, ID and religions don't have any scientific evidence
base whatsoever. Therefore I don't get what all the fuss is about here (for
8 years already? wow).

It is the political power of the anti-science religious extremists. If
every effort is not made to block them, they will quickly take over our
education system.

[eNo]

Dale,

Actually, there do appear to be some fracture lines between the YEC and
ID supporters. See this link:

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm

[T Pagano]

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Pagano replies:
Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.

I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?

I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

Post by Dale
The problem
is, this implies that the designer is some kind of temporal being

Pagano replies:
This is a non sequitur. How exactly would an Omnipotent God's free
will choice to create by some method other than purely naturalistic
evolution imply that He is temporal? Dale couldn't make this a sound
conclusion if his life depended on it.

Post by Dale
who was
unable to design evolution to work without occasional intervention.

Pagano replies:
The fact that ID theorists don't dispute current pet theories of
evolution is not equivalent to saying that they actively presuppose
the truth of a molecules-to-man-evolution. As a result why would they
hypthesize God intervening in such a process?

Ignoring the fact that no principle creationist or ID theorist
proposes any such punctuated hypothesis, how does an Omnipotent God's
free will choice to design by occassional intervention imply His
inability to take some other course of action. Again this is another
conclusion Dale couldn't make valid if his life depended on it.

Post by Dale
This
seems like a blasphemous proposition to me, to say that God not All-Knowing
and All-Powerful, so I don't understand why religious types like these guys
so much, unless it's that they just haven't thought things through. And why
should that surprise me?

Pagano replies:
Dale's conclusion-----that God was unable to take a certain course of
action-----was arrived at via false premises and a fallacious
argumentative leap from those premises. This collapses everything
else.

Post by Dale
The other kind of person who thinks they believe in Intelligent Design
really just believes in spontaneous Creation.

Pagano replies:
Dembski's ID theory has nothing to do with theories of creation or
evolution.

Dale is yet another atheist who obviously hasn't read anything by
Dembski or his contemporaries and argues from complete ignorance.

Post by Dale
They use the terminology of
ID, but they have even less understanding of it than its originators. When
these people say it's obvious life is intelligently designed, they just mean
it had to have been created in situ by an intelligent being, i.e., God.

Pagano replies:
Unfortunately ID theorists do not claim that life is designed. If you
have sources which show otherwise please offer them to the rest of us.

Michael Behe, for example, has asserted that a few particular
Irreducibly Complex biological systems---not life in general----cannot
be explained by neoDarwinism. Behe has hypthesized---not
asserted----that intelligent design is a reasonable possibility.

Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one. It is not even denied by the rabid atheist Dawkins.
The question is whether the obvious appearance of design is real or
illusory. ID theory offers a mathematically rigorous test to
determine mode of causation.

Post by Dale
Actually, this view is more reasonable that the true ID view, since it
doesn't involve the contradiction of a low-achieving God. It only involves
the rejection of all scientific research relating to the age of the Earth,
which is easy to do if you are careful to maintain ignorance thereof.

Pagano replies:
What "true" ID view is Dale referring to?

There are no absolute clocks on the earth or anywhere else. All
modern secular research assumes the long age in advance it does not
test the assumption. All discordant ages uncovered by such research
are discarded.

Post by Dale
This latter type of ID proponent is glad to be able to use the ID framework
and patina of respectability (however thin), when they ought to be
denouncing ID even more strenuously than they denounce evolution.

Pagano replies:
Judging by the fallacious reasoning and complete ignorance of
Dembski's ID theory I would bet that Dale doesn't what he's talking
about.


Sheeesh...

Regards,
T Pagano

[John Harshman]

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

As I interpret this response, it means that ID theorists don't have any
theories, so their theories can't be criticized.

[snip the rest]

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:23:09 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

As I interpret this response, it means that ID theorists don't have any
theories, so their theories can't be criticized.

Pagano replies:
Harshman's silence concerning the untestability of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism is a tacit admission of its
untestability.

Every "sword" the atheists and secularists wield against creationism
and ID theory are equally deadly to their own purely naturalistic
framework. Except somehow those atheists don't apply the same rules
to their own framework.

Because Harshman is unable to answer the charge of untestabliltiy he
has been reduced to the same childish, ignorant illogic exhibited by
Dale. It is a strong indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

The evolutionist levy is springing more leaks than the atheists have
fingers. What will Harshman do now?

Regards,
T Pagano

[John Harshman]

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:23:09 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

As I interpret this response, it means that ID theorists don't have any
theories, so their theories can't be criticized.

Harshman's silence concerning the untestability of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism is a tacit admission of its
untestability.

No it isn't, just so you know.

Post by T Pagano
Every "sword" the atheists and secularists wield against creationism
and ID theory are equally deadly to their own purely naturalistic
framework. Except somehow those atheists don't apply the same rules
to their own framework.
Because Harshman is unable to answer the charge of untestabliltiy he
has been reduced to the same childish, ignorant illogic exhibited by
Dale. It is a strong indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

I don't actually find any charge of untestability anywhere in the post I
was responding to. Is this some kind of meta-challenge? Was it made
strictly through prayer? Whatever, it doesn't seem to have made it
through to the actual posting stage.

Post by T Pagano
The evolutionist levy is springing more leaks than the atheists have
fingers. What will Harshman do now?

That's "levee". Harshman will wait for you to explain what the heck you
think you are talking about.

[b***@hotmail.com]

<snip>

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
Because Harshman is unable to answer the charge of untestabliltiy he
has been reduced to the same childish, ignorant illogic exhibited by
Dale. It is a strong indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

I don't actually find any charge of untestability anywhere in the post I
was responding to. Is this some kind of meta-challenge? Was it made
strictly through prayer? Whatever, it doesn't seem to have made it
through to the actual posting stage.

<rolls eyes>

Well, of course. That's because your typically restricting
youself to the intellectually bankrupt secularist atheistic
neo-Darwinist naturalistic means of posting and reading posts.

<snip>

--
John Drayton

[Richard Clayton]

Post by AC
<snip>

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
Because Harshman is unable to answer the charge of untestabliltiy

he

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
has been reduced to the same childish, ignorant illogic exhibited

by

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
Dale. It is a strong indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

I don't actually find any charge of untestability anywhere in the

post I

Post by John Harshman
was responding to. Is this some kind of meta-challenge? Was it made
strictly through prayer? Whatever, it doesn't seem to have made it
through to the actual posting stage.

<rolls eyes>
Well, of course. That's because your typically restricting
youself to the intellectually bankrupt secularist atheistic
neo-Darwinist naturalistic means of posting and reading posts.

In other words, if you'd just use Pagano's supernaturalistic scientific
methodology, you'd find that your enemies say what you wish they would
say instead of what they actually DID say.

[rich hammett]

Post by Richard Clayton
In other words, if you'd just use Pagano's supernaturalistic scientific
methodology, you'd find that your enemies say what you wish they would
say instead of what they actually DID say.

Plus, that methodology seems to CREATE enemies.

In fact, I am a pure creationist when it comes to believing
in Tony's enemies. He has created all of them!

rich

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:57:14 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:23:09 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

As I interpret this response, it means that ID theorists don't have any
theories, so their theories can't be criticized.

Harshman's silence concerning the untestability of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism is a tacit admission of its
untestability.

No it isn't, just so you know.

Post by T Pagano
Every "sword" the atheists and secularists wield against creationism
and ID theory are equally deadly to their own purely naturalistic
framework. Except somehow those atheists don't apply the same rules
to their own framework.
Because Harshman is unable to answer the charge of untestabliltiy he
has been reduced to the same childish, ignorant illogic exhibited by
Dale. It is a strong indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

I don't actually find any charge of untestability anywhere in the post I
was responding to. Is this some kind of meta-challenge? Was it made
strictly through prayer? Whatever, it doesn't seem to have made it
through to the actual posting stage.

Oopps. Wrong thread but nonetheless true. See the Creation Theory -2
thread for Harshman's tacit admission of the untestable nature of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism.

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
The evolutionist levy is springing more leaks than the atheists have
fingers. What will Harshman do now?

That's "levee". Harshman will wait for you to explain what the heck you
think you are talking about.

Thanks for the correction. Harshman must be worried about the "levee"
comment otherwise he would have just ignored it.

Regards,
T Pagano

[AC]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 02:19:51 GMT,

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:57:14 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:23:09 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

As I interpret this response, it means that ID theorists don't have any
theories, so their theories can't be criticized.

Harshman's silence concerning the untestability of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism is a tacit admission of its
untestability.

No it isn't, just so you know.

Post by T Pagano
Every "sword" the atheists and secularists wield against creationism
and ID theory are equally deadly to their own purely naturalistic
framework. Except somehow those atheists don't apply the same rules
to their own framework.
Because Harshman is unable to answer the charge of untestabliltiy he
has been reduced to the same childish, ignorant illogic exhibited by
Dale. It is a strong indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

I don't actually find any charge of untestability anywhere in the post I
was responding to. Is this some kind of meta-challenge? Was it made
strictly through prayer? Whatever, it doesn't seem to have made it
through to the actual posting stage.

Oopps. Wrong thread but nonetheless true. See the Creation Theory -2
thread for Harshman's tacit admission of the untestable nature of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism.

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
The evolutionist levy is springing more leaks than the atheists have
fingers. What will Harshman do now?

That's "levee". Harshman will wait for you to explain what the heck you
think you are talking about.

Thanks for the correction. Harshman must be worried about the "levee"
comment otherwise he would have just ignored it.

You just keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

[Ken Shaw]

When will you be completing the rebuttal of the Talkorigins.org
websites's demolition of ID? You could of course just admit you can't
and I would leave you alone.

Ken

[Bobby D. Bryant]

Post by Ken Shaw
When will you be completing the rebuttal of the Talkorigins.org
websites's demolition of ID? You could of course just admit you can't
and I would leave you alone.

It that the one where he analized the first three sentences in detail
and then ran out of steam?

[Ken Shaw]

Post by Bobby D. Bryant

Post by Ken Shaw
When will you be completing the rebuttal of the Talkorigins.org
websites's demolition of ID? You could of course just admit you can't
and I would leave you alone.

It that the one where he analized the first three sentences in detail
and then ran out of steam?

It was mostly a literary criticism of the introduction of one of the
articles. He decided that since I waited for him to actually make a
substantive point he had won and slunk away for a couple of months
hoping I would forget or go away. He clearly didn't know me very well.

Ken

[Deadrat]

Post by Bobby D. Bryant

Post by Ken Shaw
When will you be completing the rebuttal of the Talkorigins.org
websites's demolition of ID? You could of course just admit you can't
and I would leave you alone.

It that the one where he analized the first three sentences in detail
and then ran out of steam?

Analized. Is that where his analysis is just something blown out his ass?

Deadrat

Post by Bobby D. Bryant
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

[John Harshman]

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:57:14 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:23:09 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

As I interpret this response, it means that ID theorists don't have any
theories, so their theories can't be criticized.

Harshman's silence concerning the untestability of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism is a tacit admission of its
untestability.

No it isn't, just so you know.

Post by T Pagano
Every "sword" the atheists and secularists wield against creationism
and ID theory are equally deadly to their own purely naturalistic
framework. Except somehow those atheists don't apply the same rules
to their own framework.
Because Harshman is unable to answer the charge of untestabliltiy he
has been reduced to the same childish, ignorant illogic exhibited by
Dale. It is a strong indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

I don't actually find any charge of untestability anywhere in the post I
was responding to. Is this some kind of meta-challenge? Was it made
strictly through prayer? Whatever, it doesn't seem to have made it
through to the actual posting stage.

Oopps. Wrong thread but nonetheless true.

OK, I accept you explanation that it wasn't a lie, but an error on your
part.

Post by T Pagano
See the Creation Theory -2
thread for Harshman's tacit admission of the untestable nature of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism.

You're going to have to point it out to me explicitly, because I can't
find it. And I supposedly wrote it. Perhaps part of the problem is that
you haven't explained what you mean by "transformational claims of
neoDarwinism". Why not take the opportunity to do that?

Post by T Pagano

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
The evolutionist levy is springing more leaks than the atheists have
fingers. What will Harshman do now?

That's "levee". Harshman will wait for you to explain what the heck you
think you are talking about.

Thanks for the correction. Harshman must be worried about the "levee"
comment otherwise he would have just ignored it.

Harshman will still wait (perhaps till hell freezes over?) for you to
explain what the heck you think you are talking about.

[Bobby D. Bryant]

Post by John Harshman

See the Creation Theory -2 thread for Harshman's tacit admission of
the untestable nature of the transformational claims of
neoDarwinism.

You're going to have to point it out to me explicitly, because I
can't find it. And I supposedly wrote it. Perhaps part of the
problem is that you haven't explained what you mean by
"transformational claims of neoDarwinism". Why not take the
opportunity to do that?

I don't think defining terms is part of the creatinist agenda.

[Richard Clayton]

Post by Bobby D. Bryant

Post by John Harshman

See the Creation Theory -2 thread for Harshman's tacit admission of
the untestable nature of the transformational claims of
neoDarwinism.

You're going to have to point it out to me explicitly, because I
can't find it. And I supposedly wrote it. Perhaps part of the
problem is that you haven't explained what you mean by
"transformational claims of neoDarwinism". Why not take the
opportunity to do that?

I don't think defining terms is part of the creatinist agenda.

Certainly not part of Tony Pagano's agenda, anyway. I'm still waiting
for that definition of a "nascent" form...

[Bobby D. Bryant]

Post by Richard Clayton

Post by Bobby D. Bryant

Post by John Harshman

See the Creation Theory -2 thread for Harshman's tacit admission of
the untestable nature of the transformational claims of
neoDarwinism.

You're going to have to point it out to me explicitly, because I
can't find it. And I supposedly wrote it. Perhaps part of the
problem is that you haven't explained what you mean by
"transformational claims of neoDarwinism". Why not take the
opportunity to do that?

I don't think defining terms is part of the creatinist agenda.

Certainly not part of Tony Pagano's agenda, anyway. I'm still
waiting for that definition of a "nascent" form...

Weasel words are the technobable of evolution denial.

[Ron O]

Post by Richard Clayton

On Fri, 13 May 2005, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

See the Creation Theory -2 thread for Harshman's tacit admission of
the untestable nature of the transformational claims of
neoDarwinism.

You're going to have to point it out to me explicitly, because I
can't find it. And I supposedly wrote it. Perhaps part of the
problem is that you haven't explained what you mean by
"transformational claims of neoDarwinism". Why not take the
opportunity to do that?

I don't think defining terms is part of the creatinist agenda.

Certainly not part of Tony Pagano's agenda, anyway. I'm still

waiting

Post by Richard Clayton
for that definition of a "nascent" form...

What an optomist. I hate to tell you this, but the glass isn't even
half full here.

Ron Okimoto

[John Wilkins]

Post by Ken Shaw

Post by Richard Clayton

On Fri, 13 May 2005, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

See the Creation Theory -2 thread for Harshman's tacit admission

of

Post by Richard Clayton

Post by John Harshman

the untestable nature of the transformational claims of
neoDarwinism.

You're going to have to point it out to me explicitly, because I
can't find it. And I supposedly wrote it. Perhaps part of the
problem is that you haven't explained what you mean by
"transformational claims of neoDarwinism". Why not take the
opportunity to do that?

I don't think defining terms is part of the creatinist agenda.

Certainly not part of Tony Pagano's agenda, anyway. I'm still

waiting

Post by Richard Clayton
for that definition of a "nascent" form...

What an optomist. I hate to tell you this, but the glass isn't even
half full here.
Ron Okimoto

*I'm* still waiting for him to tell us what he means by "neo-Darwinism", a
request I made some years back, repeatedly, and until he delivers it, I am not
responding to anything he says.

[John Vreeland]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:53:08 +1000, John Wilkins

Post by John Wilkins

Post by Ken Shaw

Post by Richard Clayton

On Fri, 13 May 2005, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

See the Creation Theory -2 thread for Harshman's tacit admission

of

Post by Richard Clayton

Post by John Harshman

the untestable nature of the transformational claims of
neoDarwinism.

You're going to have to point it out to me explicitly, because I
can't find it. And I supposedly wrote it. Perhaps part of the
problem is that you haven't explained what you mean by
"transformational claims of neoDarwinism". Why not take the
opportunity to do that?

I don't think defining terms is part of the creatinist agenda.

Certainly not part of Tony Pagano's agenda, anyway. I'm still

waiting

Post by Richard Clayton
for that definition of a "nascent" form...

What an optomist. I hate to tell you this, but the glass isn't even
half full here.
Ron Okimoto

*I'm* still waiting for him to tell us what he means by "neo-Darwinism", a
request I made some years back, repeatedly, and until he delivers it, I am not
responding to anything he says.

Probably a good idea, but if everyone did that I wouldn't have
realized that he doesn't even understand the evidence for Common
Descent. That was an eye-opener for me because it turns out that lots
of people don't understand it, and how can you even begin to discuss
Darwinism if you cannot use Common Descent as a foundation for
discussion? Well, you can, but it is less compelling.

That said, I thought I recalled Pagano stating that nD was Darwinism
coupled to Mendelian genetics. I know I asked him that question years
ago but....no. Here is Dave Horn from 1998: (for thread search for
X-Deja-AN: 359305596). This was a year before I ran into the same
problem.

Here Pagano once again tries to avoid common
understanding in discussion by appealing to his
own failure to properly understand or define
commonly-understood terms used in the specific
disciplines or with respect to the specific pieces
of evidence under discussion. Pagano has
complained before that "labels always have
fuzzy 'outer regions," but ignores the fact that if
we can get someone like him to tell us what he
means by "transitional" (or "neoDarwinism"), we
can usually find out where the confusion might
be with respect to those terms and can issue a
correction, after which meaningful discussion is
possible. Only in Pagano's peculiar little world,
then, is correct definition and understanding of
terms a means by which discussions get cloudy
or unclear.

__
To be inerrant is to never know the truth.
John Vreeland - replace "eye-tripoli" with the appropriate tetragrammaton

[Steven J.]

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:57:14 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:23:09 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

As I interpret this response, it means that ID theorists don't have any
theories, so their theories can't be criticized.

Harshman's silence concerning the untestability of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism is a tacit admission of its
untestability.

No it isn't, just so you know.

Post by T Pagano
Every "sword" the atheists and secularists wield against creationism
and ID theory are equally deadly to their own purely naturalistic
framework. Except somehow those atheists don't apply the same rules
to their own framework.
Because Harshman is unable to answer the charge of untestabliltiy he
has been reduced to the same childish, ignorant illogic exhibited by
Dale. It is a strong indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

I don't actually find any charge of untestability anywhere in the post I
was responding to. Is this some kind of meta-challenge? Was it made
strictly through prayer? Whatever, it doesn't seem to have made it
through to the actual posting stage.

Oopps. Wrong thread but nonetheless true. See the Creation Theory -2
thread for Harshman's tacit admission of the untestable nature of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism.

Harshman did not quite admit that.

Regarding one of the "transformational claims of neoDarwinism," Harshman has
posted repeatedly on how it has been tested, how it could be falsfied, and
how it has been confirmed. His citation of comparisons of human and other
ape DNA are the most frequent examples, but he has frequently posted on the
nested hierarchy in general as both test and evidence of common descent.

Regarding the ability of mutation and natural selection to effect
transformations, Harshman has noted that it is very hard to test hypotheses
about any cause of evolution of populations known only from scattered
fragmentary fossils. He has said this explicitly, not "tactitly." But that
is not a concession that these mechanisms are inherently untestable -- one
can test them, for example, in living populations in the wild or in
laboratory conditions.

Post by T Pagano

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano
The evolutionist levy is springing more leaks than the atheists have
fingers. What will Harshman do now?

That's "levee". Harshman will wait for you to explain what the heck you
think you are talking about.

Thanks for the correction. Harshman must be worried about the "levee"
comment otherwise he would have just ignored it.

Perhaps, instead, he worries about *you*, and hopes to rescue you from the
soul-shrivelling bonds of creationist drivel. The missionary impulse
strikes us all from time to time.

Post by T Pagano
Regards,
T Pagano

-- Steven J.

[John Vreeland]

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:23:09 GMT, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

As I interpret this response, it means that ID theorists don't have any
theories, so their theories can't be criticized.

Harshman's silence concerning the untestability of the
transformational claims of neoDarwinism is a tacit admission of its
untestability.
Every "sword" the atheists and secularists wield against creationism
and ID theory are equally deadly to their own purely naturalistic
framework. Except somehow those atheists don't apply the same rules
to their own framework.
Because Harshman is unable to answer the charge of untestabliltiy he
has been reduced to the same childish, ignorant illogic exhibited by
Dale. It is a strong indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.
The evolutionist levy is springing more leaks than the atheists have
fingers. What will Harshman do now?

Is Harshman ignoring Pagano? I hope not, I enjoy reading his
comments.

But Pagano's demonstrated inability to understand the evidence for
evolution--specifically, how experiments can be performed in
evolution, and more dramatically, what a nested hierarchy is and why
it is important--makes his own comments pointless and tedious.

Pagano's seemingly willful inability to understand the evidence for
evolution is only significant to him and other like-minded
individuals, but has no influence on people who are actually willing
and able to think.


__
John Vreeland
If you cannot ever admit to being wrong, then you will never be right.

[AC]

On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:34:13 -0400,

Post by John Vreeland
Is Harshman ignoring Pagano? I hope not, I enjoy reading his
comments.

This seems to a standard claim of Pagano's. Unless some question has been
lost in the traffic in these parts, I don't remember John not answering
Pagano. Pagano just likes to play rhetorical games, by claiming that people
here aren't responding to him. It's a pretty pathetic trick.

[Ray Martinez]

PAGANO:

Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one. It is not even denied by the rabid atheist Dawkins.
The question is whether the obvious appearance of design is real or
illusory.

MARTINEZ:

Very good point.

The entire reason Dawkins wrote "Blind Watchmaker" was to explain why
ID is an illusion.

IOW, ID is obvious just like the Bible says:

Romans 1:20

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

Blind Watchmaker = recognition of ID assigned to a dunce called chance
= required atheist philosophy.

Ray Martinez

[josephus]

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one. It is not even denied by the rabid atheist Dawkins.
The question is whether the obvious appearance of design is real or
illusory.
Very good point.
The entire reason Dawkins wrote "Blind Watchmaker" was to explain why
ID is an illusion.
Romans 1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
Blind Watchmaker = recognition of ID assigned to a dunce called chance
= required atheist philosophy.
Ray Martinez

Ray, this is an obtuse explanation. It does not even match the topic.
It might make sense, maybe, but probably not.
josephus

[Alexander]

Post by josephus

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one. It is not even denied by the rabid atheist Dawkins.
The question is whether the obvious appearance of design is real or
illusory.
Very good point.
The entire reason Dawkins wrote "Blind Watchmaker" was to explain why
ID is an illusion.
Romans 1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
Blind Watchmaker = recognition of ID assigned to a dunce called chance
= required atheist philosophy.
Ray Martinez

Ray, this is an obtuse explanation. It does not even match the topic.
It might make sense, maybe, but probably not.
josephus

Also interesting in that I was still under the impression that ID made no
claim about the 'who' of the Designer. Are we to understand that Ray
believes it obvious that the designer in ID is the Christian God?

In which case perhaps Ray could hassle the DI to admit this as they still
seem rather coy about the whole deal.

[T Pagano]

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one. It is not even denied by the rabid atheist Dawkins.
The question is whether the obvious appearance of design is real or
illusory.
Very good point.
The entire reason Dawkins wrote "Blind Watchmaker" was to explain why
ID is an illusion.

Pagano replies:
Exactly. We ought to be beating this drum at every opportunity.
Pagano replies:
I agree.

Post by T Pagano
Romans 1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
Blind Watchmaker = recognition of ID assigned to a dunce called chance
= required atheist philosophy.
Ray Martinez

[Bobby D. Bryant]

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?

If you're claiming that there was a designer in prehistory, you're
reconstructing prehistory.

The fact that they don't reconstruct any more information is hardly a
plus for their "theory".

Post by T Pagano
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

I'm not aware of any creationist theorists who have published any theory
at all.

Post by T Pagano
Dembski's ID theory has nothing to do with theories of creation or
evolution.

Dembski doesn't have an ID theory. All he has is a pretend existence
proof for some undefined something or another, which he happens to
identify with the evangelical Christian God.

Post by T Pagano
Dale is yet another atheist who obviously hasn't read anything by
Dembski or his contemporaries and argues from complete ignorance.

Speaking of which, when are you going to admit that you've never read
_No Free Lunch_, even though you pontificate about it regularly?

Post by T Pagano
Unfortunately ID theorists do not claim that life is designed. If you
have sources which show otherwise please offer them to the rest of us.
Michael Behe, for example, has asserted that a few particular
Irreducibly Complex biological systems---not life in general----cannot
be explained by neoDarwinism.

And for some reason YECs take comfort in those assertions.

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one. It is not even denied by the rabid atheist Dawkins.
The question is whether the obvious appearance of design is real or
illusory. ID theory offers a mathematically rigorous test to
determine mode of causation.

Yeah, right.

Post by T Pagano
Judging by the fallacious reasoning and complete ignorance of
Dembski's ID theory I would bet that Dale doesn't what he's talking
about.

Thank you, Mr. Pot.

[b***@noguchi.mimcom.net]

Post by Bobby D. Bryant

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?

If you're claiming that there was a designer in prehistory, you're
reconstructing prehistory.
The fact that they don't reconstruct any more information is hardly a
plus for their "theory".

Post by T Pagano
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

I'm not aware of any creationist theorists who have published any theory
at all.

Post by T Pagano
Dembski's ID theory has nothing to do with theories of creation or
evolution.

Dembski doesn't have an ID theory. All he has is a pretend existence
proof for some undefined something or another, which he happens to
identify with the evangelical Christian God.

Post by T Pagano
Dale is yet another atheist who obviously hasn't read anything by
Dembski or his contemporaries and argues from complete ignorance.

<snip space>

Post by Bobby D. Bryant
Speaking of which, when are you going to admit that you've never read
_No Free Lunch_, even though you pontificate about it regularly?

I expect he'll get to admitting that after he admits that he's never
actually read Hume.

Post by Bobby D. Bryant

Post by T Pagano
Unfortunately ID theorists do not claim that life is designed. If you
have sources which show otherwise please offer them to the rest of us.
Michael Behe, for example, has asserted that a few particular
Irreducibly Complex biological systems---not life in

general----cannot

Post by Bobby D. Bryant

Post by T Pagano
be explained by neoDarwinism.

And for some reason YECs take comfort in those assertions.

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one. It is not even denied by the rabid atheist

Dawkins.

Post by Bobby D. Bryant

Post by T Pagano
The question is whether the obvious appearance of design is real or
illusory. ID theory offers a mathematically rigorous test to
determine mode of causation.

Yeah, right.

Post by T Pagano
Judging by the fallacious reasoning and complete ignorance of
Dembski's ID theory I would bet that Dale doesn't what he's talking
about.

Thank you, Mr. Pot.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

[b***@noguchi.mimcom.net]

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of

Punctuated

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.

Excellent. Then there's no point in teaching it in science class
alongside the theory of evolution, since it's not a competing theory.

Post by T Pagano
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?

Excellent, no need to teaching along with geology or cosmology or
paleontology.

Post by T Pagano
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

Post by Dale
The problem
is, this implies that the designer is some kind of temporal being

This is a non sequitur. How exactly would an Omnipotent God's free
will choice to create by some method other than purely naturalistic
evolution imply that He is temporal? Dale couldn't make this a sound
conclusion if his life depended on it.

Post by Dale
who was
unable to design evolution to work without occasional intervention.

The fact that ID theorists don't dispute current pet theories of
evolution is not equivalent to saying that they actively presuppose
the truth of a molecules-to-man-evolution. As a result why would they
hypthesize God intervening in such a process?

Right on. They have no theory of evolution or creation, as you said
above. Why should they go into the details?

Post by T Pagano
Ignoring the fact that no principle creationist or ID theorist
proposes any such punctuated hypothesis, how does an Omnipotent God's
free will choice to design by occassional intervention imply His
inability to take some other course of action. Again this is

another

Post by T Pagano
conclusion Dale couldn't make valid if his life depended on it.

Of course an omnipotent God could do whatever She wanted during
creation or evolution, but since ID is not a theory of either, then
there's nothing to say here either.

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
This
seems like a blasphemous proposition to me, to say that God not All-Knowing
and All-Powerful, so I don't understand why religious types like these guys
so much, unless it's that they just haven't thought things through. And why
should that surprise me?

Dale's conclusion-----that God was unable to take a certain course of
action-----was arrived at via false premises and a fallacious
argumentative leap from those premises. This collapses everything
else.

You're right of course. An omnipotent God can sleep wherever He wants.

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
The other kind of person who thinks they believe in Intelligent Design
really just believes in spontaneous Creation.

Dembski's ID theory has nothing to do with theories of creation or
evolution.

Excellent. I'm delighted you keep saying this. No need to teach ID as
an "alternative" to evolution.

Post by T Pagano
Dale is yet another atheist who obviously hasn't read anything by
Dembski or his contemporaries and argues from complete ignorance.

Post by Dale
They use the terminology of
ID, but they have even less understanding of it than its

originators. When

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
these people say it's obvious life is intelligently designed, they just mean
it had to have been created in situ by an intelligent being, i.e., God.

Unfortunately ID theorists do not claim that life is designed. If you
have sources which show otherwise please offer them to the rest of us.

Excellent again. ID theorists do not claim that life is designed. No
need to offer ID as an "alternative" to abiogenesis.

Post by T Pagano
Michael Behe, for example, has asserted that a few particular
Irreducibly Complex biological systems---not life in

general----cannot

Post by T Pagano
be explained by neoDarwinism. Behe has hypthesized---not
asserted----that intelligent design is a reasonable possibility.

OK. They think there's a good naturalistic explanation for life in
general, but that a few specific complex biological systems could not
be explained by one particular theory of evolution. They suggest
intelligent design as a hypothesis. Fine. Their next move is to present
some positive evidence in favor of design (as opposed to what they
think is evidence against "neoDarwinism."

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one. It is not even denied by the rabid atheist

Dawkins.

Post by T Pagano
The question is whether the obvious appearance of design is real or
illusory. ID theory offers a mathematically rigorous test to
determine mode of causation.

So, even with a mathematically rigorous test to determine mode of
causation, ID theorists, in your own words above, make no claims to a
theory of evolution or creation, concede that most biological systems
could have evolved by "purely naturalistic means," and merely
hypothesize that in the case of the few especially complex biological
systems which they think cannot be accounted for by neoDarwinism,
intelligent design might be an explanation. They have a mathematically
rigorous test to determine mode of causation, and the boldest claim
they can make is that in a small subset of complex biological systems
intelligent design may have been involved? But they can't really be
sure, and they have no theory of how those especially complex systems
might have been created or evolved anyway.

It seems that an appropriate lesson plan for ID theory as an
alternative to evolution would be to say "Some people think that some
parts of some living things are too complicated to have evolved.
They've no idea how they got here, but they think intelligence had
something to do with it." Still leaves a lot of class time to teach
evolution.

I wish you'd go testify in Kansas.

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
Actually, this view is more reasonable that the true ID view, since it
doesn't involve the contradiction of a low-achieving God. It only involves
the rejection of all scientific research relating to the age of the Earth,
which is easy to do if you are careful to maintain ignorance

thereof.

Post by T Pagano
What "true" ID view is Dale referring to?
There are no absolute clocks on the earth or anywhere else. All
modern secular research assumes the long age in advance it does not
test the assumption. All discordant ages uncovered by such research
are discarded.

Post by Dale
This latter type of ID proponent is glad to be able to use the ID framework
and patina of respectability (however thin), when they ought to be
denouncing ID even more strenuously than they denounce evolution.

Judging by the fallacious reasoning and complete ignorance of
Dembski's ID theory I would bet that Dale doesn't what he's talking
about.
Sheeesh...
Regards,
T Pagano

[Niels van der Linden]

Post by b***@noguchi.mimcom.net
It seems that an appropriate lesson plan for ID theory as an
alternative to evolution would be to say "Some people think that some
parts of some living things are too complicated to have evolved.
They've no idea how they got here, but they think intelligence had
something to do with it." Still leaves a lot of class time to teach
evolution.

It doesn't seem appropriate at all. Without a grain of proof, their
"intelligence had something to do with it" doesn't deserve any classtime
whatsoever. The same goes for any kind of 'religious science'.

[b***@noguchi.mimcom.net]

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by b***@noguchi.mimcom.net
It seems that an appropriate lesson plan for ID theory as an
alternative to evolution would be to say "Some people think that some
parts of some living things are too complicated to have evolved.
They've no idea how they got here, but they think intelligence had
something to do with it." Still leaves a lot of class time to teach
evolution.

It doesn't seem appropriate at all. Without a grain of proof, their
"intelligence had something to do with it" doesn't deserve any

classtime

Post by Niels van der Linden
whatsoever. The same goes for any kind of 'religious science'.

Good Lord, man; context, irony; I know it's not always obvious without
body language, but still.

[Niels van der Linden]

Post by b***@noguchi.mimcom.net
Good Lord, man; context, irony; I know it's not always obvious without
body language, but still.

It was obvious. However, using the words "appropriate" and "Still leaves a
lot of class time to teach evolution" only encourages the ID crowd.

[b***@noguchi.mimcom.net]

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by b***@noguchi.mimcom.net
Good Lord, man; context, irony; I know it's not always obvious without
body language, but still.

It was obvious. However, using the words "appropriate" and "Still leaves a
lot of class time to teach evolution" only encourages the ID crowd.

Indeed, that's a good argument for not making unmarked snips of the
posts you reply to. The ID crowd is so good at quote mining that trying
to insure that nothing you say can be taken out of context is a waste
of time. You'll never say anything at all.

[AC]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 13:07:45 +0200,

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by b***@noguchi.mimcom.net
Good Lord, man; context, irony; I know it's not always obvious without
body language, but still.

It was obvious. However, using the words "appropriate" and "Still leaves a
lot of class time to teach evolution" only encourages the ID crowd.

Good grief. Go to aisle 8 and grab a sense of humor.

[VoiceOfReason]

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of

Punctuated

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology ...

This is a rather bizarre statement. I take it you haven't read the
news from Kansas lately?

Post by T Pagano
... because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.

Based on the definition of a scientific theory, there is no ID
"theory."

[Boikat]

Post by Dale

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question

the age of

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of

Punctuated

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology ...

This is a rather bizarre statement. I take it you haven't read the
news from Kansas lately?

The sole inhabitant of Planet Pagano has never heard of this "Kansas" place
of which you speak.

Post by Dale

Post by T Pagano
... because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.

Based on the definition of a scientific theory, there is no ID
"theory."

Pagano knows that. He's just having a bit of fun with his word games.

Boikat

[AC]

On Mon, 09 May 2005 23:44:27 GMT,

Post by T Pagano

Post by Dale
From what I've read, Intelligent Design proponents don't question the age of
the Earth, and their explanation of evolution is some kind of Punctuated
Equilibrium kind of idea with a designer doing the punctuating.

Most of the ID proponents don't involve themselves in or dispute
theories of evolution or cosmology because ID theory is not a
competitor of those theories.

That's right. They keep pretty mum on those topics so as not to kick down
their Big Tent.

Post by T Pagano
I'm not aware that any of the principle ID theorists have offered any
sort of theory of evolution. Why would they since ID theory does not
concern itself with historical recontructions of prehistory?

ID doesn't seem to concern itself with anything other than somehow,
somewhere something is wrong with evolution.

Post by T Pagano
I'm not even aware of any creationist theorists who have published any
theory resembling the notion presented here by Dale.

I'm not aware of any Creationist theorists at all.

<snip>

[Ken Shaw]

Still waiting for that rebuttal.

Ken

[Mark Isaak]

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one.

Get real! Based on their appearance, biological entities are
obviously not designed. No objective person familiar with both design
and biology could possibly say otherwise (unless the "design" they are
referring to is the evolutionary design of genetic algortithms or the
equivalent).

Consider an ant. Its mouthparts and antennae are modified legs.
That's how evolution works: it replicates existing parts and tinkers
with them. Consider an airplane. If its design was anything like
biological entities, the antennas and cargo doors on the airplane
would be modified landing gear. But airplanes are designed, so the
parts can be designed separately or adapted from something more
appropriate such as land-based radio antennas and automobile shock
absorbers. The end result is that the various parts of airplanes look
more like parts of other things than they look like other parts of
airplanes.

Consider ants as a whole. There are thousands of species, but they
all fall squarely within the group of ants. The ants themselves,
along with bees and wasps, fall naturally within another distinct
group. That group, together with other well-demarcated groups, forms
a larger group, and so on. And the ants themselves naturally form a
nested hierarchy of smaller groups within groups. Now consider
airplanes. It is not so clear here where to draw the lines around
groups. Do you include the Space Shuttle as an airplane, for example?
How about helicopters, gliders, model airplanes, cruise missiles? And
how do you divide airplanes into subgroups? Propeller-driven vs. jet
seems a logical choice, but there are lots of characteristics, such as
instrumentation, which does not follow this division. This will be
true no matter what division you use. This is not the pattern you see
in ants.

Consider how an ant grows. It starts from a single cell produced by
another ant. That cell reproduces many times. All the cells contain
the same information for development, but chemical signals along the
axes of the egg cause different bits of information to be expressed.
The signals responsible for this differentiation are so complex that
we understand only a few of them. The same genetic instructions,
presumably under the influence of different signals, produce queens,
soldiers, and workers, which are often very different in form and
function. Consider how an airplane grows. The parts come from all
over. The people who produce the parts do not have the blueprints for
the whole plane, but only for what they work on, so no part is too
complex. Many of the manufacturers make parts for other kinds of
airplanes and even for non-airplane products. A master set of
blueprints guide the assembly of the final plane, but only that plane.
Of course the plane, unlike an ant, may be refitted after it is built.

Why do some people still say life looks designed? Consider ants which
*are* designed, such as those in Disney's "A Bug's Life". Those ants
have four limbs, like people, not the six of real ants. Their mouths
open top to bottom, not side to side. Their eyes and facial muscles
express human emotions. In short, they are anthropomorphized. That
is what people do to make things fit better into their world. Most
people do not understand the mechanisms of how ants grow, much less
how they could have evolved to that point. To fit the origin of ants
into the world they understand, they anthropomorphize; they resort to
the only explanation they have available, which is design. If they
knew more about the biological world, they would see that design make
no sense as an explanation.

Go to the ant; consider its ways and be wise.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

[Niels van der Linden]

Post by Mark Isaak
To fit the origin of ants
into the world they understand, they anthropomorphize;

I have the same problem with Star Trek (and the likes). It *bugs* me every
time.

How ironic it is that *knowing man* still doesn't accept he's nothing
special, even after 200.000 years.

Niels

[w***@hotmail.com]

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by Mark Isaak
To fit the origin of ants
into the world they understand, they anthropomorphize;

I have the same problem with Star Trek (and the likes). It *bugs* me every
time.
How ironic it is that *knowing man* still doesn't accept he's nothing
special, even after 200.000 years.

Au contraire...I strong feel that if science has told us nothing else,
it's just *how* special we are. But the assumption that the human body
plan is somehow the only thing intelligent life could use shouldn't
flow from that. To be honest, I don't think that's the reason Sci-Fi
movie makers use human-looking aliens anyway - the reality is they're
much easier and cheaper to do and easier for audiences to relate with.
The few times aliens are explicitly unlike any known Earth-based
lifeform is usually to make them scarier.

[Niels van der Linden]

Post by w***@hotmail.com

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by Mark Isaak
To fit the origin of ants
into the world they understand, they anthropomorphize;

I have the same problem with Star Trek (and the likes). It *bugs* me

every

Post by Niels van der Linden
time.
How ironic it is that *knowing man* still doesn't accept he's nothing
special, even after 200.000 years.

Au contraire...I strong feel that if science has told us nothing else,
it's just *how* special we are.

Special in achievement and intelligent-wise compared to the rest of our
known fellow-life. However, special in a sense that we are anything like an
ultimate achievement of evolution or that we are god-created or that our
life should have a higher purpose: no, no, the no-est of the no's.

Post by w***@hotmail.com
But the assumption that the human body
plan is somehow the only thing intelligent life could use shouldn't
flow from that.
To be honest, I don't think that's the reason Sci-Fi
movie makers use human-looking aliens anyway - the reality is they're
much easier and cheaper to do and easier for audiences to relate with.

Duh. However, it is one of the weakest points of the shows. After dozens of
man-height, man-shaped, two-legged, two-eyed, English-speaking aliens, one
might actually get the idea that there was a god and she created life after
it's own image.

Post by w***@hotmail.com
The few times aliens are explicitly unlike any known Earth-based
lifeform is usually to make them scarier.

I do recall Star Trek Entreprise of having marine and insectoid (still
man-height) aliens.

Niels

[Henry Flam]

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by w***@hotmail.com

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by Mark Isaak
To fit the origin of ants
into the world they understand, they anthropomorphize;

I have the same problem with Star Trek (and the likes). It *bugs* me

every

Post by Niels van der Linden
time.
How ironic it is that *knowing man* still doesn't accept he's nothing
special, even after 200.000 years.

Au contraire...I strong feel that if science has told us nothing else,
it's just *how* special we are.

Special in achievement and intelligent-wise compared to the rest of our
known fellow-life. However, special in a sense that we are anything like an
ultimate achievement of evolution or that we are god-created or that our
life should have a higher purpose: no, no, the no-est of the no's.

Post by w***@hotmail.com
But the assumption that the human body
plan is somehow the only thing intelligent life could use shouldn't
flow from that.
To be honest, I don't think that's the reason Sci-Fi
movie makers use human-looking aliens anyway - the reality is they're
much easier and cheaper to do and easier for audiences to relate with.

Duh. However, it is one of the weakest points of the shows. After dozens of
man-height, man-shaped, two-legged, two-eyed, English-speaking aliens, one
might actually get the idea that there was a god and she created life after
it's own image.

Post by w***@hotmail.com
The few times aliens are explicitly unlike any known Earth-based
lifeform is usually to make them scarier.

I do recall Star Trek Entreprise of having marine and insectoid (still
man-height) aliens.
Niels

I remember that in the first season of Star Trek Spock dealt with an
alien that was a rock. It was due to the acting ability of Leonard Nimoy
that the viewer was convinced, of the presence an alien that had no form
that the viewer could apprehend, and yet it was an extremely moving TV
experience.

[Andrew Arensburger]

Post by w***@hotmail.com
To be honest, I don't think that's the reason Sci-Fi
movie makers use human-looking aliens anyway - the reality is they're
much easier and cheaper to do and easier for audiences to relate with.

Joe Straczynski, the creator of "Babylon 5" said as much in
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 at one point. Yes, it may be good science to
have a human talking to a giant clam, but it's bad TV.

[Niels van der Linden]

Post by Andrew Arensburger
Yes, it may be good science to
have a human talking to a giant clam,

Not exactly: a clam has little use of intelligence.

Post by Andrew Arensburger
but it's bad TV.

Well, I don't know. If someone put some good thought and effort into an
intelligent race from a different planet. If they can make up endless
stories in space, why not this? It would certainly help humanity get a
better understanding if an alien race would someday show up.

Niels

[rich hammett]

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by Andrew Arensburger
Yes, it may be good science to
have a human talking to a giant clam,

Not exactly: a clam has little use of intelligence.

Post by Andrew Arensburger
but it's bad TV.

Well, I don't know. If someone put some good thought and effort into an
intelligent race from a different planet. If they can make up endless
stories in space, why not this? It would certainly help humanity get a
better understanding if an alien race would someday show up.

I think scifi has done a good job, even on TV, of addressing
a lot of the issues that may arise. Most issues are the
same as dealing with Others on earth, as well, so series
like Star Trek:TOS dealt with them well, too.

The physical form of the Others is only a tiny part of the
issues we'd have to deal with.

rich

[Andrew Arensburger]

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by Andrew Arensburger
Yes, it may be good science to
have a human talking to a giant clam,

Not exactly: a clam has little use of intelligence.

Feel free to replace the clam with some obviously nonhuman
intelligent being.

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by Andrew Arensburger
but it's bad TV.

Well, I don't know. If someone put some good thought and effort into an
intelligent race from a different planet. If they can make up endless
stories in space, why not this? It would certainly help humanity get a
better understanding if an alien race would someday show up.

I think that depends on what you're trying to do. If you want
the alien to be mysterious and awe-inspiring, then by all means, go
for a really alien look. But if you want to have a conversation, we
humans are wired to respond to faces and body language.
In B5, Kosh didn't have a face, but he was supposed to be
teddibly mysterious; all of the characters the viewers were supposed
to empathize with (Delenn, G'Kar, Londo, etc.) had faces.
In the Star Wars series, Jabba has an alien body but is
basically all face. Ditto a lot of the muppets. Boba Fett doesn't have
a face (though he has a body), and comes across as being inscrutable,
perhaps not even quite human.
In "The Lady and the Tramp", the protagonists had nonhuman
bodies, but Disney's animators anthropomorphized the faces.

Basically, what it seems to boil down to is that you can have
good intellectual scenes with decided nonhuman characters, but not
emotional ones.
I suppose you could have good TV with, say, cats, who express
emotion with their tails and ears rather than eyes, mouth, and
posture. But there'd be a long and shallow learning curve for those
viewers who don't already know the "code", and the makers would have
to try hard to be consistent. IOW, it may not be impossible, but it
doesn't seem easy.

[Niels van der Linden]

Post by Andrew Arensburger
Basically, what it seems to boil down to is that you can have
good intellectual scenes with decided nonhuman characters, but not
emotional ones.

I've watched considerable Japanese anime now and I've grown accustomed to
their expressions. Yes, it takes some time, but it was well worth it.

Post by Andrew Arensburger
I suppose you could have good TV with, say, cats, who express
emotion with their tails and ears rather than eyes, mouth, and
posture.
But there'd be a long and shallow learning curve for those
viewers who don't already know the "code", and the makers would have
to try hard to be consistent. IOW, it may not be impossible, but it
doesn't seem easy.

Well, if you think about it. If a species is to flourish intelligently
(which has a lot to do with creativity (Homo neanderthalensis made the same
tools for hundreds of thousands of years vs Homo sapiens where technology
snowballed), you'll need skilled hands or some alternative to make tools and
eventually write. Also: there is a reason why humans have the largest facial
muscle count of all animals. What I'm trying to say is: you can indeed
expect quite some similarity with humans on a high abstract level, but the
actual implementation will likely be quite different.

Let's suppose we have the intelligent species snamuh. They are 3 meters
tall, green, upright-snoils (some weird form of lions), have little bodily
hair, have their faces up-side-down (compared to humans, so you wouldn't be
able to recognize their emotions naturally) and their expressions and
writings are Japanese. Now, why wouldn't you be able to make a plausible
plot with that.

[Andrew Arensburger]

Post by Niels van der Linden
Let's suppose we have the intelligent species snamuh. They are 3 meters
tall, green, upright-snoils (some weird form of lions), have little bodily
hair, have their faces up-side-down (compared to humans, so you wouldn't be
able to recognize their emotions naturally) and their expressions and
writings are Japanese. Now, why wouldn't you be able to make a plausible
plot with that.

A plausible plot shouldn't pose a problem. An intellectually
stimulating and satisfying plot wouldn't be a problem either, as long
as we can assume that the Snamuh can talk to us about math, physics,
politics, history, etc., and perhaps even art and music.
But their expressions and body language would be inscrutable
to the viewer, at least initially. In a scene with two humans talking,
we get information not just from the words spoken, but also from their
tone, pacing, inflection, etc., as well as from the posture and
gestures of the people talking. These cues give us information as to
whether something is meant seriously, sarcastically, or in jest;
whether the person is confident, scared, insane, etc.
In a scene between a human and a Snamuh, this information
would either be missing, or supplied by other means (e.g., a speech
translation device that uses intonation and pacing).
Body language would be unintelligible to viewers, at least
initially. It might become intelligible eventually (the way that you
learned to read anime expressions), but a) that would take time (and
most viewers would probably lack the patience to learn this
deliberately, though they might pick it up over time), and b) the
series makers would have to be consistent about it (it's hard to learn
a pattern when there's no pattern to be learned[1]). This would take
effort on the part of the producers, directors, actors, etc.
And that's not even considering the possibility of alien
emotions.
I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it would be
difficult, and that for most people the effort wouldn't be worth it,
that is, most viewers wouldn't appreciate the effort put in by the
makers.

[1] Actually, it isn't, as you can tell by the number of people who
believe in astrology and other superstitions. But I hope you
understand what I mean.

[Martin Hutton]

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one.

Get real! Based on their appearance, biological entities are
obviously not designed. No objective person familiar with both design
and biology could possibly say otherwise (unless the "design" they are
referring to is the evolutionary design of genetic algortithms or the
equivalent).
Consider an ant. Its mouthparts and antennae are modified legs.
That's how evolution works: it replicates existing parts and tinkers
with them. Consider an airplane. If its design was anything like
biological entities, the antennas and cargo doors on the airplane
would be modified landing gear. But airplanes are designed, so the
parts can be designed separately or adapted from something more
appropriate such as land-based radio antennas and automobile shock
absorbers. The end result is that the various parts of airplanes look
more like parts of other things than they look like other parts of
airplanes.
Consider ants as a whole. There are thousands of species, but they
all fall squarely within the group of ants. The ants themselves,
along with bees and wasps, fall naturally within another distinct
group. That group, together with other well-demarcated groups, forms
a larger group, and so on. And the ants themselves naturally form a
nested hierarchy of smaller groups within groups. Now consider
airplanes. It is not so clear here where to draw the lines around
groups. Do you include the Space Shuttle as an airplane, for example?
How about helicopters, gliders, model airplanes, cruise missiles? And
how do you divide airplanes into subgroups? Propeller-driven vs. jet
seems a logical choice, but there are lots of characteristics, such as
instrumentation, which does not follow this division. This will be
true no matter what division you use. This is not the pattern you see
in ants.
Consider how an ant grows. It starts from a single cell produced by
another ant. That cell reproduces many times. All the cells contain
the same information for development, but chemical signals along the
axes of the egg cause different bits of information to be expressed.
The signals responsible for this differentiation are so complex that
we understand only a few of them. The same genetic instructions,
presumably under the influence of different signals, produce queens,
soldiers, and workers, which are often very different in form and
function. Consider how an airplane grows. The parts come from all
over. The people who produce the parts do not have the blueprints for
the whole plane, but only for what they work on, so no part is too
complex. Many of the manufacturers make parts for other kinds of
airplanes and even for non-airplane products. A master set of
blueprints guide the assembly of the final plane, but only that plane.
Of course the plane, unlike an ant, may be refitted after it is built.
Why do some people still say life looks designed? Consider ants which
*are* designed, such as those in Disney's "A Bug's Life". Those ants
have four limbs, like people, not the six of real ants. Their mouths
open top to bottom, not side to side. Their eyes and facial muscles
express human emotions. In short, they are anthropomorphized. That
is what people do to make things fit better into their world. Most
people do not understand the mechanisms of how ants grow, much less
how they could have evolved to that point. To fit the origin of ants
into the world they understand, they anthropomorphize; they resort to
the only explanation they have available, which is design. If they
knew more about the biological world, they would see that design make
no sense as an explanation.
Go to the ant; consider its ways and be wise.

Nominated for May POTM

Post by Mark Isaak
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

[Niels van der Linden]

Post by Martin Hutton
Nominated for May POTM

I agree that it is a nice example of design vs evolution, however: is this
really where it has come down to? After ten years of talk.origins, having to
explain evolution in a way a 12-year-old could understand?

In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important now (as is
done by Dawkins very intriguingly).

Niels

[Martin Hutton]

On 10-May-2005, "Niels van der Linden"

Post by Niels van der Linden

Post by Martin Hutton
Nominated for May POTM

I agree that it is a nice example of design vs evolution, however: is this
really where it has come down to? After ten years of talk.origins, having
to explain evolution in a way a 12-year-old could understand?

It appears that it is necessary to "talk science" at a 7th grade
level...or less.

From the repeated creationist misconceptions I have seen on
this and other forums I have my doubts that 12 yr old prose is
sufficiently simple.

Post by Niels van der Linden
In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important
now (as is done by Dawkins very intriguingly).

That doesn't address the problem of the average American
wingnut whose psyche, for the past 60 years has been
barraged by compelling advertising. The sound bite and
simple solution "to all problems" seems to have conditioned
many out of the practice of rational thought.

[Ray Martinez]

LINDEN:

In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important now
(as is
done by Dawkins very intriguingly).

MARTINEZ:

Whats "intriguing" about age-old atheist insults of theists ?

Atheists in the 19th century made the same Dawkins rants.

Where's the evolution in the argument ?

RM

[shane]

Post by Niels van der Linden
In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important now (as is
done by Dawkins very intriguingly).
Whats "intriguing" about age-old atheist insults of theists ?
Atheists in the 19th century made the same Dawkins rants.
Where's the evolution in the argument ?
RM

Are you and Poly the same person? Last week she was making the same
claim that people in the 18th Century used Dawkins' arguments. Does time
really run backwards for you? I mean, we know your thinking is backward,
but your concept of time as well?

[TomS]

"On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:38:52 +1000, in article

Post by shane

Post by Niels van der Linden
In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important now (as is
done by Dawkins very intriguingly).
Whats "intriguing" about age-old atheist insults of theists ?
Atheists in the 19th century made the same Dawkins rants.
Where's the evolution in the argument ?
RM

Are you and Poly the same person? Last week she was making the same
claim that people in the 18th Century used Dawkins' arguments. Does time
really run backwards for you? I mean, we know your thinking is backward,
but your concept of time as well?

I do know that people in the 18th century used Behe's
argument about "irreducible complexity". Not using that name,
and not against evolution (which wasn't known about then).

They used that, and others of the standard arguments, against
*develpment* of the embryo. For example, the thing about "chance",
about "spontaneous generation", about "atheism" and "immorality",
as well as Bible quotations. (They didn't use the "2nd law of
thermodynamics", but I suspect that's only because thermodynamics
had not yet been developed.:-) )

[Wakboth]

Post by TomS
"On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:38:52 +1000, in article

Post by shane

Post by Niels van der Linden
In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important now
(as is
done by Dawkins very intriguingly).
Whats "intriguing" about age-old atheist insults of theists ?
Atheists in the 19th century made the same Dawkins rants.
Where's the evolution in the argument ?
RM

Are you and Poly the same person? Last week she was making the same
claim that people in the 18th Century used Dawkins' arguments. Does time
really run backwards for you? I mean, we know your thinking is backward,
but your concept of time as well?

I do know that people in the 18th century used Behe's
argument about "irreducible complexity". Not using that name,
and not against evolution (which wasn't known about then).
They used that, and others of the standard arguments, against
*develpment* of the embryo. For example, the thing about "chance",
about "spontaneous generation", about "atheism" and "immorality",
as well as Bible quotations. (They didn't use the "2nd law of
thermodynamics", but I suspect that's only because thermodynamics
had not yet been developed.:-) )

It's really telling that the Creationist side is still using the same
arguments they did 150 years ago.

-- Wakboth

[catshark]

Post by shane

Post by TomS
"On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:38:52 +1000, in article

Post by shane

Post by Niels van der Linden
In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important

now

Post by TomS

Post by shane

Post by Niels van der Linden
(as is
done by Dawkins very intriguingly).
Whats "intriguing" about age-old atheist insults of theists ?
Atheists in the 19th century made the same Dawkins rants.
Where's the evolution in the argument ?
RM

Are you and Poly the same person? Last week she was making the same
claim that people in the 18th Century used Dawkins' arguments. Does

time

Post by TomS

Post by shane
really run backwards for you? I mean, we know your thinking is

backward,

Post by TomS

Post by shane
but your concept of time as well?

I do know that people in the 18th century used Behe's
argument about "irreducible complexity". Not using that name,
and not against evolution (which wasn't known about then).
They used that, and others of the standard arguments, against
*develpment* of the embryo. For example, the thing about "chance",
about "spontaneous generation", about "atheism" and "immorality",
as well as Bible quotations. (They didn't use the "2nd law of
thermodynamics", but I suspect that's only because thermodynamics
had not yet been developed.:-) )

It's really telling that the Creationist side is still using the same
arguments they did 150 years ago.

Irreducible complexity goes back at least as far as Georges Cuvier in the
late 1790s, though he proposed it at a macro level. Cuvier actually had a
scientific reason for proposing it. As a morphologist, he proposed that
animals were complexly adapted to their environments (what he, and Darwin
after him, called their "conditions of life") in ways that made it possible
to take a few bones of an animal and largely "reconstruct" it based on
"necessary" atributes for, say, carnivores (sharp teeth and claws, short
intestines, etc.). He had some confirmation for his proposal, as he was
able to do it on a number of occasions with species known only from
fossils, with his reconstructions borne out by later fossil finds.

Interestingly, you sometimes see creationists mocking scientists,
particularly in connection with their Nebraska Man distortions, for
claiming they can reconstruct animals from a single bone. The source of
this canard is Cuvier's supposed ability to do just that (even though,
IIRC, Cuvier himself never made the claim). Cuvier was, however, a staunch
anti-evolutionist.

[TomS]

"On 11 May 2005 13:06:55 -0700, in article

Post by shane

Post by TomS
"On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:38:52 +1000, in article

Post by shane

Post by Niels van der Linden
In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important

now

Post by TomS

Post by shane

Post by Niels van der Linden
(as is
done by Dawkins very intriguingly).
Whats "intriguing" about age-old atheist insults of theists ?
Atheists in the 19th century made the same Dawkins rants.
Where's the evolution in the argument ?
RM

Are you and Poly the same person? Last week she was making the same
claim that people in the 18th Century used Dawkins' arguments. Does

time

Post by TomS

Post by shane
really run backwards for you? I mean, we know your thinking is

backward,

Post by TomS

Post by shane
but your concept of time as well?

I do know that people in the 18th century used Behe's
argument about "irreducible complexity". Not using that name,
and not against evolution (which wasn't known about then).
They used that, and others of the standard arguments, against
*develpment* of the embryo. For example, the thing about "chance",
about "spontaneous generation", about "atheism" and "immorality",
as well as Bible quotations. (They didn't use the "2nd law of
thermodynamics", but I suspect that's only because thermodynamics
had not yet been developed.:-) )

It's really telling that the Creationist side is still using the same
arguments they did 150 years ago.

That's almost *300* years ago. In the century before Darwin.

It's the same arguments, only that in the 18th century, it
wasn't evolution that was seen as a threat, it was development.
So the arguments were brought up against development.

I have frequently remarked that many of the arguments that
the anti-evolutionists have made are really arguments against
something other than evolution. I suggest as an exercize for
the reader: Whenever you hear an argument against evolution,
check to see whether it is also an argument against development
(or genetics, or reproductive biology, or some other facet of
biology). In many cases, if it were a sound argument, it would
be better used as an argument against development. And it is
interesting that this is not only an "exercise for the reader",
in several cases the argument actually was used, in the 18th
century, as an argument against development.

In other words, the parody of "scientific storkism" is not
too far off the mark.

[Wakboth]

Post by TomS
"On 11 May 2005 13:06:55 -0700, in article

Post by Wakboth
It's really telling that the Creationist side is still using the same
arguments they did 150 years ago.

That's almost *300* years ago. In the century before Darwin.

Whoops. My bad; I saw 18th century, and thought we were talking about
the 1800s.

Post by TomS
It's the same arguments, only that in the 18th century, it
wasn't evolution that was seen as a threat, it was development.
So the arguments were brought up against development.
I have frequently remarked that many of the arguments that
the anti-evolutionists have made are really arguments against
something other than evolution. I suggest as an exercize for
the reader: Whenever you hear an argument against evolution,
check to see whether it is also an argument against development
(or genetics, or reproductive biology, or some other facet of
biology). In many cases, if it were a sound argument, it would
be better used as an argument against development. And it is
interesting that this is not only an "exercise for the reader",
in several cases the argument actually was used, in the 18th
century, as an argument against development.
In other words, the parody of "scientific storkism" is not
too far off the mark.

[AC]

On 10 May 2005 20:06:53 -0700,

Post by Niels van der Linden
In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important now (as is
done by Dawkins very intriguingly).
Whats "intriguing" about age-old atheist insults of theists ?
Atheists in the 19th century made the same Dawkins rants.
Where's the evolution in the argument ?

No content. No rebuttal. Just cheap, worthless posturing.

[VoiceOfReason]

Post by AC
On 10 May 2005 20:06:53 -0700,

Post by Niels van der Linden
In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important now
(as is
done by Dawkins very intriguingly).
Whats "intriguing" about age-old atheist insults of theists ?
Atheists in the 19th century made the same Dawkins rants.
Where's the evolution in the argument ?

No content. No rebuttal. Just cheap, worthless posturing.

But still entertaining. :-D

[Bill Hudson]

Post by VoiceOfReason

Post by AC
On 10 May 2005 20:06:53 -0700,

Post by Niels van der Linden
In my opinion, the behavioural study of theists is more important

now

Post by AC

Post by Niels van der Linden
(as is
done by Dawkins very intriguingly).
Whats "intriguing" about age-old atheist insults of theists ?
Atheists in the 19th century made the same Dawkins rants.
Where's the evolution in the argument ?

No content. No rebuttal. Just cheap, worthless posturing.

But still entertaining. :-D

Really? Then you have a weird sense of "entertainment". I find
Martinez much less entertaining than Dylan. Dylan I can have a
conversation with. Martinez, not so much.

[T Pagano]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:20:10 GMT, Mark Isaak

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one.

Get real! Based on their appearance, biological entities are
obviously not designed. No objective person familiar with both design
and biology could possibly say otherwise (unless the "design" they are
referring to is the evolutionary design of genetic algortithms or the
equivalent).

Isaak wastes capital arguing against a premise that is indisputable;
but perhaps he misunderstands it or believes it extends farther than
it does.

I am NOTarguing that biological entities appear designed therefore
they are designed. I simply aver that a reasonable objective look
at ANY biological entity----even the single celled organism----would
allow for an intuitive inference-by-analogy that the biological entity
APPEARS designed. Nothing more and nothing less. Furthermore the
inference-by-analogy is so compelling that the APPEARANCE OF DESIGN is
is obvious. Biology texts and peer reviewed reports often find it
unavoidable to use "design language" when describing such entities.

Whether one looks at the cellular level or the systems level or at
their precision connection, interaction and function, these entities
more closely resemble something like the designed Boeing 747 rather
than the result of any naturalistic event we might actually observe.
Even Richard Dawkins admitted in "The Blind Watchmaker" that
biological entities do APPEAR designed. My assertion did not go
beyond appearances. This essentially crashes Isaak's rebuttal but
let's pursue it briefly...

Post by Mark Isaak
Consider an ant. Its mouthparts and antennae are modified legs.
That's how evolution works: it replicates existing parts and tinkers
with them.

Even if we were to assume that this were true how did the legs come to
exist in the first place? The initial condition of neoDarwinism is a
self replicating molecule for which there are no EXISTING parts.

All that secular investigators have observed beginning with Darwin is
the change in relative frequency of existing structures and systems.
Everthing else is an unwarranted extrapolation and story telling.

Finally even if Isaak's if-so story about the emergence of the ant's
mouthparts were true it would not be an argument against the
appearance of design being obvious but an argument that the obvious
appearances were not real.

Post by Mark Isaak
Consider an airplane. If its design was anything like
biological entities, the antennas and cargo doors on the airplane
would be modified landing gear. But airplanes are designed, so the
parts can be designed separately or adapted from something more
appropriate such as land-based radio antennas and automobile shock
absorbers. The end result is that the various parts of airplanes look
more like parts of other things than they look like other parts of
airplanes.

The evolutionary algorithm that Isaak offers is an if-so story not
something which has actually been observed or empirically tested. It
simply proceeds too slowly and the fossil record which is a sampling
of biological populations over a sufficiently long enough time frame
exhibits stasis not ubiquitous transformation. As such, Isaak can
hardly use this if-so story as justification to throw out the obvious
basis of resemblence between the biological entity and the designed
object.

Again, even if Isaak's if-so story were true it would not be an
argument against the obvious APPEARANCE of design it would be argument
that the appearance is illusory.

The rest is snipped as more of the same.

Try again....

Regards,
T Pagano

[Bobby D. Bryant]

On Sat, 14 May 2005, T Pagano <***@address.net> wrote:

8<

Post by T Pagano
I am NOTarguing that biological entities appear designed therefore
they are designed. I simply aver that a reasonable objective look
at ANY biological entity----even the single celled organism----would
allow for an intuitive inference-by-analogy that the biological entity
APPEARS designed.

8<

Post by T Pagano
All that secular investigators have observed beginning with Darwin is
the change in relative frequency of existing structures and systems.
Everthing else is an unwarranted extrapolation and story telling.

This from a guy who claims that an analogy shows that biology is
designed?

[Steven J.]

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:20:10 GMT, Mark Isaak

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one.

Get real! Based on their appearance, biological entities are
obviously not designed. No objective person familiar with both design
and biology could possibly say otherwise (unless the "design" they are
referring to is the evolutionary design of genetic algortithms or the
equivalent).

Isaak wastes capital arguing against a premise that is indisputable;
but perhaps he misunderstands it or believes it extends farther than
it does.

Something can be a fact, although disputed (creationists dispute facts all
the time), but how can it be *indisputable* although disputed?

Post by T Pagano
I am NOTarguing that biological entities appear designed therefore
they are designed. I simply aver that a reasonable objective look
at ANY biological entity----even the single celled organism----would
allow for an intuitive inference-by-analogy that the biological entity
APPEARS designed. Nothing more and nothing less. Furthermore the
inference-by-analogy is so compelling that the APPEARANCE OF DESIGN is
is obvious. Biology texts and peer reviewed reports often find it
unavoidable to use "design language" when describing such entities.

And Isaak is not responding to such an argument. He is arguing that, by
analogy to known designed things, life looks undesigned. What designer
would use different wing designs for swallows and insect-eating bats, but
similar wing designs for insect-eating bats and fruit bats? What designer
would use one "box-camera" eye design in all vertebrates, and a different
design for all cephalopods? What designer would make a bee's stinger by
modifying an ovipositor? Life doesn't look assembled from standardized,
use-appropriate parts, but everything is jury-rigged and improvised from
structures that serve different purposes in other species. It's all very
complicated and impressive, but it doesn't look like anything we'd expect
from known design processes.

Yes, it is true that adaption is often compared to design, and called
"design," especially when the adaptions resemble actual human designs. But
Isaak is arguing that this usage is misleading, and that he does not, in
fact, see life as looking as though it was planned and blueprinted and
manufactured.

Post by T Pagano
Whether one looks at the cellular level or the systems level or at
their precision connection, interaction and function, these entities
more closely resemble something like the designed Boeing 747 rather
than the result of any naturalistic event we might actually observe.
Even Richard Dawkins admitted in "The Blind Watchmaker" that
biological entities do APPEAR designed. My assertion did not go
beyond appearances. This essentially crashes Isaak's rebuttal but
let's pursue it briefly...

Oddly, you disagree with Dawkins on Dawkins's area of expertise (zoology and
evolution), yet agree with him when he engages in amateur philosophizing. I
do not mean to despise amateur philosophizing; I do too much of it myself to
allow that. But surely Mark Isaak is as entitled to his amateur
philosophical views as Dawkins is?

Post by T Pagano

Post by Mark Isaak
Consider an ant. Its mouthparts and antennae are modified legs.
That's how evolution works: it replicates existing parts and tinkers
with them.

Even if we were to assume that this were true how did the legs come to
exist in the first place? The initial condition of neoDarwinism is a
self replicating molecule for which there are no EXISTING parts.

Atoms don't exist? Alert the media (they'll need to find something new to
print the news with)! But presumably legs arose in an already-existing
bilaterian, three billion years or more after that first self-replicating
molecule. But this does not address Mark's point: however the legs arose,
modifying legs does not seem to be the way a designer would go about
designing mouth parts.

Post by T Pagano
All that secular investigators have observed beginning with Darwin is
the change in relative frequency of existing structures and systems.
Everthing else is an unwarranted extrapolation and story telling.
Finally even if Isaak's if-so story about the emergence of the ant's
mouthparts were true it would not be an argument against the
appearance of design being obvious but an argument that the obvious
appearances were not real.

Tony, pay attention: the ant's mouthparts are inferred to be modified legs
because they look like modified legs, and embryologically are similar to
legs, and because minor changes to regulatory genes cause legs to replace
them. That is, they obviously appear to be modified legs, whether that is
their true evolutionary history or not, and therefore, the ant does not
appear to be designed as known designers would design it.

Post by T Pagano

Post by Mark Isaak
Consider an airplane. If its design was anything like
biological entities, the antennas and cargo doors on the airplane
would be modified landing gear. But airplanes are designed, so the
parts can be designed separately or adapted from something more
appropriate such as land-based radio antennas and automobile shock
absorbers. The end result is that the various parts of airplanes look
more like parts of other things than they look like other parts of
airplanes.

The evolutionary algorithm that Isaak offers is an if-so story not
something which has actually been observed or empirically tested. It
simply proceeds too slowly and the fossil record which is a sampling
of biological populations over a sufficiently long enough time frame
exhibits stasis not ubiquitous transformation. As such, Isaak can
hardly use this if-so story as justification to throw out the obvious
basis of resemblence between the biological entity and the designed
object.

You seem to be responding to some argument other than the one Isaak has
advanced. His argument does not depend on evolutionary algorithms, on the
facticity of the "neoDarwinian mechanism," or even on the reality of common
descent. It depends only on the difference between the traits of things
known to be designed, and the traits of life.

Post by T Pagano
Again, even if Isaak's if-so story were true it would not be an
argument against the obvious APPEARANCE of design it would be argument
that the appearance is illusory.

Again, you misunderstand the argument.

Post by T Pagano
The rest is snipped as more of the same.

Aren't all your posts just more of the same?

Post by T Pagano
Try again....
Regards,
T Pagano

-- Steven J.

[Mark Isaak]

Post by T Pagano
On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:20:10 GMT, Mark Isaak

Post by Mark Isaak

Post by T Pagano
Lastly, the appearance of design in biological entities IS obvious and
denied by no one.

Get real! Based on their appearance, biological entities are
obviously not designed. No objective person familiar with both design
and biology could possibly say otherwise (unless the "design" they are
referring to is the evolutionary design of genetic algortithms or the
equivalent).

Isaak wastes capital arguing against a premise that is indisputable;

Indisputably false, you mean? You said the appearance of design is
denied by no one. I deny it, and with good reason.

Post by T Pagano
I am NOTarguing that biological entities appear designed therefore
they are designed. I simply aver that a reasonable objective look
at ANY biological entity----even the single celled organism----would
allow for an intuitive inference-by-analogy that the biological entity
APPEARS designed.

And I say again, you are wrong. A reasonable objective look at
biological entities allows no such conclusion. The appearance of
design comes only from *not* looking objectively, from starting with
your conclusion preformed, or from looking at an extremely simplistic
level that ignores most of the evidence.

Post by T Pagano
Furthermore the inference-by-analogy is so compelling
that the APPEARANCE OF DESIGN is obvious.

Then why is it so obvious, based on the appearance of life, that life
is not designed?

Post by T Pagano

Post by Mark Isaak
Consider an ant. Its mouthparts and antennae are modified legs.
That's how evolution works: it replicates existing parts and tinkers
with them.

Even if we were to assume that this were true how did the legs come to
exist in the first place?

Doesn't matter for the argument against design. Your question is like
saying, "Automobiles do not look designed, because where does the iron
come from in the first place?"

Post by T Pagano
[snip evidence of undesign in life, and Pagano's talking around it]
The rest is snipped as more of the same.

I note you snipped the part which was not more of the same, but which
explained at least part of why people see design where it does not
exist. I guess my post was too hard on your beliefs for you to read
it all the way through?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

[Dylan]

Why isn't ID considered blasphemy? It is. I consider it blasphemy by
reason of the Bible which assumes God's existence and never argues it.