Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 115 (264476)
11-30-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
11-30-2005 1:27 PM


Re: Of Pandas and People
Tim wrote:
Additionally, you can judge both actions and words in terms of their context. In this particular context, scientific creationism was declared illegal, then they "scientific creationism" with "intelligent design" as a form of repackaging the same old ideas as if they were something new. Doing so was dishonest, and about as obviously so as the pick-pocket I mentioned in my previous paragraph. In the pick-pocket's favor, I might add, he committed only two acts -- but the editors committed the same dishonest act more than 200 times.
Faith wrote:
Repackaging a book is not the same as stealing your wallet. What's your point anyway, that ID is *REALLY* creationism in disguise? But of course it's creationism as far as much of the scientific thinking goes so why shouldn't a textbook be easily adapted to express their views? What's dishonest about that? They are not being dishonest about their main point which is that the physical world itself shows that there had to be a designer, or about not naming the designer since it is the science they want to focus on. They aren't fundamentalists who DO want to see the Creator named and obeyed in the teaching of Biblical creationism.
Sometimes words speak as loudly as actions. Indeed, sometimes words are actions, such as when a country declares war.
Since "scientific creationism" was ruled unconstitutional, it should be fairly clear what the purpose of substituting the words "intelligent design" for "scientific creationism" was, particulary when the phase substitution occurred on the very heals of the decision. To win the case at Dover, they had to distinguish their "theory" from "scientific" creationism. Similarly, when the Discovery Institute or other organizations argue on its behalf that it is constitutional to teach "intelligent design," they are doing so on the premise that "intelligent design" is not "scientific" creationism. In acknowledging that "intelligent design" is a form of creationism, you are showing more honesty than the leading proponents and organizations of the intelligent design movement.
Faith wrote:
I continue to believe you are wrong to comment at all on the motives or anything personal. Answer their arguments.
Don't worry -- we will get to their arguments. However, you still seem to be having some difficulty acknowledging the fact that the repackaging of the old theory of "scientific creationism" as a new theory called "intelligent design" was an act of dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 11-30-2005 1:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 11-30-2005 2:18 PM TimChase has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 77 of 115 (264492)
11-30-2005 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by TimChase
11-30-2005 2:02 PM


Re: Of Pandas and People
I made a case for why it isn't dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by TimChase, posted 11-30-2005 2:02 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by TimChase, posted 11-30-2005 2:29 PM Faith has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 115 (264498)
11-30-2005 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
11-30-2005 2:18 PM


Re: Of Pandas and People
Tim wrote:
Sometimes words speak as loudly as actions. Indeed, sometimes words are actions, such as when a country declares war.
Since "scientific creationism" was ruled unconstitutional, it should be fairly clear what the purpose of substituting the words "intelligent design" for "scientific creationism" was, particulary when the phase substitution occurred on the very heals of the decision. To win the case at Dover, they had to distinguish their "theory" from "scientific" creationism. Similarly, when the Discovery Institute or other organizations argue on its behalf that it is constitutional to teach "intelligent design," they are doing so on the premise that "intelligent design" is not "scientific" creationism. In acknowledging that "intelligent design" is a form of creationism, you are showing more honesty than the leading proponents and organizations of the intelligent design movement.
Faith wrote:
I made a case for why it isn't dishonesty.
You argued, "But of course it's creationism as far as much of the scientific thinking goes so why shouldn't a textbook be easily adapted to express their views?" The question is, do you still stand by this argument? If so, [it would seem that] this isn't "making a case" so much as a case of rationalization.
P.S. I intended to include the text in the brackets, but in the rush to go to lunch and feed the crows it appears that I forgot to include it. My mistake.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-30-2005 03:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 11-30-2005 2:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 12:15 PM TimChase has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 79 of 115 (264503)
11-30-2005 2:40 PM


On imputing motives
Tim is right when he suggests that reading involves imputing motives. A lot of our language for discussing is related to the intentions of the people involved. I can read mathematics without any concern for motives or intentions. I cannot read "Gone with the Wind" that way, for those intentions are essential to the story.
Faith is correct, that the ascribing of intentions can sometimes be offensive. Where possible, we should be as charitable as possible when imputing motives, so as to minimize the likelihood of being offensive. But we are human, and won't always succeed in being properly charitable.
On the question of ID, there are some people who believe that a science can be developed for determining intelligent design. There are others who are taking political action to insert ID into the science curriculum, even though no satisfactory science of ID has yet been demonstrated. It seems to me that it is reasonable to impute different motives to those two groups.
That said, let's not spend too much time arguing about the propriety of ascribing intentions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by TimChase, posted 11-30-2005 3:42 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 12:58 PM nwr has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 115 (264526)
11-30-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nwr
11-30-2005 2:40 PM


Re: On imputing motives
Even charity must have limits -- otherwise morality becomes hollow. However, in the interest of charity, I would be willing to move on if Faith is willing to do so.
A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents
This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-30-2005 06:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 11-30-2005 2:40 PM nwr has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 115 (264581)
11-30-2005 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
11-28-2005 3:38 PM


14th overturns 1st?

Off Topic. DO NOT reply in this thread.

Faith writes:
The fourteenth amendment was either badly worded, is wrongly interpeted itself, or unconstitutional in itself as it effectively reversed the intention of the first amendment.
1st amendment writes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The 14th has five parts, but the only one that seems relevant here is the first. The quote is from: 14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
14th amendment 1st section writes:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I don't understand why you say the 14th reverses the 1st. Please enlighten me.
This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 11-30-2005 07:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 11-28-2005 3:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 115 (264585)
11-30-2005 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
11-30-2005 1:27 PM


Of honesty and dishonesty
Faith writes:
But of course it's creationism as far as much of the scientific thinking goes so why shouldn't a textbook be easily adapted to express their views? What's dishonest about that?
I wish to agree with TimChase in slightly different words.
Of course it’s dishonest. The teaching of Creationism was declared in violation of the constitution because it was trying to teach religion in public schools. ID is nothing but warmed over Creationism in weak attempt to pretend it is not about god. As I recall many phrases from creationism were found in ID as word for word identical.
It is dishonest because they a trying to promote what was declared wrong by making a few technical changes while it fundamentally retains the same meaning.
ID says goddidit by saying (someone_supernatural_and_magical_but_we_don't_know_who)didit. Then claims its not saying goddidit.
I claim that creationists and IDest are both dishonest. They both want religion taught in public schools. But neither will fess up to that and recognize that they are in contradiction to the constitution. They are knowingly trying to circumvent the constitution via the back door rather that facing the differences and openly challenging the constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 11-30-2005 1:27 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by TimChase, posted 11-30-2005 11:37 PM bkelly has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 115 (264624)
11-30-2005 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by bkelly
11-30-2005 9:16 PM


Re: Of honesty and dishonesty
Why We are Avoiding the Discussion of "The Separation of Church and State"
bkelly wrote:
Of course it’s dishonest. The teaching of Creationism was declared in violation of the constitution because it was trying to teach religion in public schools. ID is nothing but warmed over Creationism in weak attempt to pretend it is not about god. As I recall many phrases from creationism were found in ID as word for word identical.
It is dishonest because they a trying to promote what was declared wrong by making a few technical changes while it fundamentally retains the same meaning.
In terms of how the constitution is currently interpreted, it may very well be the case that the teaching of creationism would continue to be regarded as unconstitutional. However, just as a number of creationists were attempting to do on an earlier thread, it would be possible to argue that this interpretation is invalid and should be overturned. This would be the honest approach. How successful it would be is a completely different matter.
However, that thread came to an end, and this thread is no longer dealing with the issue of whether or not the constitution should be interpreted as establishing a "Separation of Church and State." The question of whether or not such a separation should exist is not covered in this thread's essay, and evidently resulted in little more than some sort of flame war which would suck the oxygen out of any attempt to rationally discuss or debate the points in the essay. This is the reason why we are no longer dealing with the issue of the "Separation of Church and State" itself. Any such discussion can be taken to the coffee shop, or if people would care to suggest it as a new topic and the management is obliging, then the discussion could have its own thread once again.
In any case, I will be taking a break until some time tomorrow, then I will post a short analysis (assuming nothing else happens in between), and shortly thereafter I will try to get the discussion going again -- assuming people are interested.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 12-01-2005 12:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by bkelly, posted 11-30-2005 9:16 PM bkelly has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 115 (264741)
12-01-2005 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TimChase
11-30-2005 2:29 PM


Re: Of Pandas and People
If you want to make the case that the new ID text is merely the warmed-over creationist text there's nothing wrong with that and in itself it can be an argument for your side against the ID side by simply demonstrating that the principles of creationism are still in play.
What's wrong is when you get into interpreting the motives involved. And again, IDers do honestly want to keep the focus on science as their claim is that science itself demonstrates a designer and can be understood in terms of design as opposed to evolution, and they don't want to get into the particulars about the designer and I see nothing dishonest in any of that.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-01-2005 12:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TimChase, posted 11-30-2005 2:29 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 12:42 PM Faith has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 115 (264747)
12-01-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
12-01-2005 12:15 PM


Analysis of the Discussion so Far
1. First, if anyone thinks that I was being the least bit rude to Faith at any point, I would like to remind them that the discussion of the paper was sidelined from posts 2-32, then when wrote (after AdminNWR stepped in), "Funny thing... I seem to remember Faith making the same kind of arguments regarding the Separation of Church and State three or four months ago. The more things change, the more they remain the same, I guess," (Message 35), I was pointing out that she really didn't seem capable of discussing anything else, such as the essay which was supposed to be the focus of this thread. She then responded, "Of course. It was true then and it's true now," (Message 36) thus taking pride in her rudeness and incivility, rather than showing the appropriate degree of shame. Then the "discussion" continued off-topic until AdminNWR stepped in again in post 51, and even then, Buzsaw attempted to divert the discussion in post 54.
2. Faith chose the first topic of debate, what she was most comfortable in debating: whether or not I had the right to accuse intelligent design proponents of dishonesty.
See messages:
#58 by Faith: Message 58
#59 by Tim: Message 59
3. Faith admitted for the first time that she didn't know enough to argue in defense of intelligent design early on and chose to instead stick to her point that I should not accuse intelligent design proponents of dishonesty.
See message:
#62 by Faith: Message 62
4. Faith admitted the fact that she could not defend intelligent design once again a little later.
See message:
#68 by Faith: Message 68
5. When it first became evident that Faith would need help in defending intelligent design itself, Buzsaw stepped in. However, Buzsaw participated in the debate only once. I believe it became apparent to him that I knew at least one easily exploitable contradictions in the approach being taken by the intelligent design movement in attempting to mix science and religion in an "inclusive" approach. Actually, right off the top of my head, I knew three. However, there are at least two other possibilities.
See messages:
#63 by buzsaw: Message 63
#64 by Tim: Message 64
#67 by Tim: Message 67
6. The central part of the debate over whether I could ascribe motives to the leading proponents of intelligent design went from posts 69-80. I will analyze only a small part of that in this post and leave the rest for people to analyze on their own.
7. nwr attempted to bring a certain degree of civility back into the discussion with post #82 -- since I had "forced" Faith into choosing between admitting the dishonesty of the leading proponents and organizations of intelligent design, or being labelled dishonest herself. He instead wanted to us to move on in our discussion from whether or not it was appropriate to ascribe motives. He was correct in doing so, since as a matter of maintaining the form of civility required by the function of this forum, I should have included the words "it would seem that."
See messages:
#78 by Tim: Message 78
#79 by nwr: Message 79
8. However, on one important point, nwr made a mistake. One does impute motives even in mathematics in the sense that one assumes that the individual who writes mathematical equations is attempting to communicate the literal meaning of math represented by the equations. However, the ascription of any additional motives requires more, and to a large extent I successfully provided the required evidence, although we could have gone into it in more depth. (See posts 67-80, particularly 67.)
See message:
#79 by nwr: Message 79
9. Faith then tried once again to bring back the subject of imputing motives in post 84.
See message:
#84 by Faith: Message 84
Note to Faith: If you wish to discuss something beyond my imputing motives to the leading proponents or organizations of the intelligent design movement, we should move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 12:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 12:48 PM TimChase has not replied
 Message 89 by AdminNWR, posted 12-01-2005 1:13 PM TimChase has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 115 (264750)
12-01-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by TimChase
12-01-2005 12:42 PM


Re: Analysis of the Discussion so Far
Note to Faith: If you wish to discuss something beyond my imputing motives to the leading proponents or organizations of the intelligent design movement, we should move on.
I have been waiting for you to move on for pages. it is you who have been keeping the side issues alive.
And yes, I may not have anything to say about your main points, I don't know, I don't participate in all threads after all, but calling you on the side issues is not out of order.
Gee, Tim, you USED to be so nice. I can see why you tried hard to cultivate it as it isn't your natural state is it?
P.S. Imputing motives OUT LOUD is bad manners at the very least, whether it is habitual of us to do so to ourselves or not. You don't seem to consider that you could be wrong about somebody's motives and that is what is REALLY out of order.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-01-2005 12:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 12:42 PM TimChase has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 115 (264751)
12-01-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nwr
11-30-2005 2:40 PM


Re: On imputing motives
Good post, just a couple questions.
I cannot read "Gone with the Wind" that way, for those intentions are essential to the story.
To the characters, of course, but to the author?
As for imputing motives to IDers it is not only rude and arrogant but counterproductive as the task of their opposition is to show their ARGUMENTS wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 11-30-2005 2:40 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 1:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 91 by nwr, posted 12-01-2005 1:32 PM Faith has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 115 (264758)
12-01-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
12-01-2005 12:58 PM


Moving On...
My essay necessarily deals with the motives behind the intelligent design movement. At the same time, I believe I violated the form of civility required by this forum in post 78 (Message 78) then corrected it in the same post.
I would be more than happy to "move on," as you put it, but what I have said regarding the motives of the leading proponents and organizations of the intelligent design movement is essential to the essay and my position. Personally, I would prefer to discuss a question I raised regarding the relationship between science and religion in post 65 (Message 65) which never got a reply.
If you have sufficient knowledge of intelligent design or know of someone who does, lets continue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 12:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 115 (264759)
12-01-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by TimChase
12-01-2005 12:42 PM


My view of "On Topic"
A little clarification is appropriate here.
The topic was ID. The OP already raised the question of whether ID is an attempt to get around restrictions due church/state separation issues. Discussion of that is on topic.
The thread started to go astray in the second half of Message 3, when that message argued that the constitution was being wrongly applied.
In my opinion, ordinary discussion needs to be tolerant of a little digression here and there. Thus Message 3 was not necessarily a problem. Likewise, I did not see a serious problem in Message 6, since that was a rebuttal of the second half of Message 3.
Shortly after that, it became clear that the thread was being dominated by discussions on constitutional interpretation. It was clear by then that it had gone beyond an allowable digression into being seriously off-topic.
In summary, my view is that minor digressions can be tolerated. Major digressions (those that come to dominate the discussion) are a problem and should be avoided. Those who feel a strong need to continue with a digression should open a separate thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 12:42 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 1:31 PM AdminNWR has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 115 (264760)
12-01-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by AdminNWR
12-01-2005 1:13 PM


Re: My view of "On Topic"
Agreed.
The relationship between religion and science should be on topic for this discussion. Therefore the question of whether the belief in God is a religious belief should be on topic as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AdminNWR, posted 12-01-2005 1:13 PM AdminNWR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024