Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 91 of 115 (264761)
12-01-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
12-01-2005 12:58 PM


Re: On imputing motives
quote:
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?
You are correct, that I was talking of the intentions of the characters.
quote:
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.
Ideally, and particularly in the science fora, our discussions should be about evidence, facts, tentative facts, etc.
In the meantime we should not forget that sometimes threads become dominated by creationists imputing motives to evolutionists (Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet., Peppered Moths and Natural Selection for example).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 12:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 2:02 PM nwr has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 92 of 115 (264765)
12-01-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by nwr
12-01-2005 1:32 PM


Re: On imputing motives
I don't see any motives [AbE: being discussed] in the OPs of those threads. Can you link to specific posts that show that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I can certainly imagine it happens, but I haven't been following those threads. I don't like it any more if creationists do it than if evolutionists do it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-01-2005 02:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by nwr, posted 12-01-2005 1:32 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 2:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 94 by nwr, posted 12-01-2005 2:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 95 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 3:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 115 (264771)
12-01-2005 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
12-01-2005 2:02 PM


Re: On imputing motives
I did a quick check:
Pakicetus was never thought to be aquatic. If anything, it is thought to be semi-aquatic.
Care to back that up? Please document that.
Here are quotes that prove otherwise, or they prove that evolutionists stated Pakicetus was aquatic or semi-aquatic. If they didn't think that, were they lying?
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/RawMsgTxt.cgi?action=view...
I am sure we could find more. In anycase, "lying" implies motive as opposed to simply being mistaken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 94 of 115 (264773)
12-01-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
12-01-2005 2:02 PM


Re: On imputing motives
I don't see any motives [AbE: being discussed] in the OPs of those threads.
You won't find it in the OPs. You will find it in the discussion. The two issues are ones that creationists (including several creationist web sites) use to argue that evolutionists are deceptive.
Consider this text
In the context of this thread, the peer-review stuff is immaterial. This thread is about the slant evos put on the data they present to the public and students, and imo, using faulty artistic renditions designed to sway the reader that Pakicetus was aquatic when he was not, and there was insufficient evidence to even make a valid claim that he was, is misleading and deceptive.
in Message 173.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 4:36 PM nwr has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 115 (264783)
12-01-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
12-01-2005 2:02 PM


Re: On imputing motives
You might want to try this particular search on Google:
"site: evolutionists lying".
I get back 871 results.
site: evolutionists lying - Google Search

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 115 (264807)
12-01-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by nwr
12-01-2005 2:52 PM


OPs and imputing motives
I don't see any motives [AbE: being discussed] in the OPs of those threads.
You won't find it in the OPs. You will find it in the discussion. The two issues are ones that creationists (including several creationist web sites) use to argue that evolutionists are deceptive.
Actually, you will, some of it more obvious than others...
On the evolutionist side, you will find:
ID an attempt to undermine science...
Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
http://EvC Forum: Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design -->EvC Forum: Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
The ID movement is an attempt to undermine science by saying that natural processes are not sufficient to produce what we see in nature, i.e. supernatural miracles are required (or aliens, or some other intelligent interference). They may hold up "irreducibly complex" systems as evidence that some sort of interference or help was needed along the way. Theistic evolutionists accept that natural processes are sufficient (though they may believe God could intervene in a more direct manner if he wanted to) and that irreducibly complex systems do have a natural explanation.
On the id-proponent side, you will find:
Evolution and godlessness conflated...
Simple evidence for ID
http://EvC Forum: Simple evidence for ID -->EvC Forum: Simple evidence for ID
To quote a preacher I once listened to, "scientists and professors may have a lot of facts, but I see no wisdom in them." While they see a process driven in part by randomness and godlessness, others see a creator behind all of these wonders.
Outright fraud mentioned by the following ID proponent...
ID and the bias inherent in human nature
http://EvC Forum: ID and the bias inherent in human nature -->EvC Forum: ID and the bias inherent in human nature
A similar situation exists today with evolution. Discussion of other theories and/or weaknesess of evolution are simply not tolerated. True cause of the debate: worldviews in conflict....
If honest mistakes were all we had to worry about that would be one thing. But we also have to worry about the possibility of outright fraud.
You do not have a pure heart if you do not believe the following author...
Intelligent Design and Ultimate Absolute Truth
http://EvC Forum: Intelligent Design and Ultimate Absolute Truth -->EvC Forum: Intelligent Design and Ultimate Absolute Truth
So here is the truth, whether I, or anyone else choose to believe it and live accordingly, or not, and definitely not because I say so, but because the creator of all things reveals HIS absolute truth to those who seek it with a pure, sincere heart:
In any case, if you are dealing with "intelligent design," you are dealing the interface between science and religion and therefore with ideology, and therefore, you are dealing with motives. If you have evidence for motives, you should be able to present it. However, at the same time, I believe it is in the interest of this forum to remain civil for the discussion of ideas.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 12-01-2005 05:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nwr, posted 12-01-2005 2:52 PM nwr has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 97 of 115 (264818)
12-01-2005 5:05 PM


Aaargh. Most of all that cited in the above four posts is not properly speaking accusation of foul motives, except the accusation of lying. That one I've experienced a lot from the evos. Often when I've made an argument that doesn't hold together properly by their standards I've been accused of lying. The question Tim quotes from an evo to a creo whether the creo thinks evos are lying is also very common -- that's an accusation of the creo not the evo, however, as creos are more likely to think evos are sincerely bamboozled by their own theory than that they are lying -- if they ever think that. The evo suspects the creo thinks that, deduces it from the creo's complaints about evo thinking, but the creo doesn't think evos are stupid OR lying ordinarily, simply so caught up in the ToE and the habit of thinking everything through it that they can't see the other point of view. That's not lying. Analyzing a person's anti-god assumptions is also not imputing motives. Imputing motives means believing the opponent is consciously acting to deceive, not merely having difficulty getting the argument put together properly, which is usually what it is on both sides. None of the above is imputing motives as I meant it, except of course conscious lying.
But haven't we finally done this to death? Isn't there more to the OP you wanted to pursue?

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 5:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 115 (264822)
12-01-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
12-01-2005 5:05 PM


Lets Move On Then...
... But haven't we finally done this to death? Isn't there more to the OP you wanted to pursue?
As I have said on multiple occasions, I would be more than happy to move on...
Message 88
Message 90

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 12-01-2005 5:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 115 (264870)
12-01-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by TimChase
11-29-2005 10:01 PM


Re: Nice Try...
TimChase writes:
1. Would you admit that the good majority of proponents of Intelligent Design fully believe that the intelligent designer is God, and that by bringing intelligent design into the classroom, they would be bringing God into the classroom?
I'll try again. God is a generic word in the original Biblical manuscripts denoting deity. The Biblical proper name of the Biblical god is Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh. So if you're referring to a classroom in the US the majority in the class would consider god to be the Biblical god, Jehovah, Jehovah being his proper name in the English language. God is not the meaning of Jehovah, which means, 'the existing one.' The Muslim god's name, Allah does actually mean "god," so to answer the first half of your question literally, the answer is no, because literally, as per definition, you're asking whether the majority in the US class would consider the designer to be Allah. The answer to that, of course is no for the first half of your two part question.
Had you asked whether the designer would be the Biblical god or the god, Jehovah, to the first half of your two part question, I'd have answered straight out, 'yes.'
buzsaw writes:
Edited to add that in a class of mixed ID proponents, the student could apply the ID argument to their respective personal persuasion as to the designer.
The above is an edit in from my last message. What I was trying to convey also is that ID does not necessarily need to apply to a god. A secularist person might apply the designer to Captain Marvel or Batman. In debate and classroom discussion where there are mixed proponents of ID, the designer need not be designated or specified. The discussion and/or debate would be concerning whether or not a designer would be involved, leaving the application as to the designer up to the individual. That is not to say, imo, that discussion on the merits of any given designer would be out of order.
So to answer the second half of your two part question, no, no specific designer need, necessarily, to be introduced into the classroom by including ID into the curriculum.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by TimChase, posted 11-29-2005 10:01 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 8:43 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 102 by TimChase, posted 12-02-2005 12:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 115 (264894)
12-01-2005 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Buzsaw
12-01-2005 6:48 PM


Re: Nice Try...
Glad you are here. Hope you don't mind, but I just finished up eighteen days straight of work, so I will be responding tomorrow morning. I am going to have something to eat and go to bed. I apologize for the delay and appreciate your participation.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 12-01-2005 08:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2005 6:48 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2005 11:50 PM TimChase has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 115 (264931)
12-01-2005 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by TimChase
12-01-2005 8:43 PM


No Rush
TimChase writes:
Glad you are here. Hope you don't mind, but I just finished up eighteen days straight of work, so I will be responding tomorrow morning. I am going to have something to eat and go to bed. I apologize for the delay and appreciate your participation.
No problem atol, friend. I'm slow at respnding myself often, being a business sole proprietor with no employees and other responsibilities.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by TimChase, posted 12-01-2005 8:43 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by TimChase, posted 12-02-2005 1:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 115 (265045)
12-02-2005 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Buzsaw
12-01-2005 6:48 PM


Batman
buzsaw writes:
TimChase writes:
1. Would you admit that the good majority of proponents of Intelligent Design fully believe that the intelligent designer is God, and that by bringing intelligent design into the classroom, they would be bringing God into the classroom?
buzsaw writes: I'll try again. God is a generic word in the original Biblical manuscripts denoting deity. The Biblical proper name of the Biblical god is Jehovah/YHWH/Yahweh. So if you're referring to a classroom in the US the majority in the class would consider god to be the Biblical god, Jehovah, Jehovah being his proper name in the English language. God is not the meaning of Jehovah, which means, 'the existing one.' The Muslim god's name, Allah does actually mean "god," so to answer the first half of your question literally, the answer is no, because literally, as per definition, you're asking whether the majority in the US class would consider the designer to be Allah. The answer to that, of course is no for the first half of your two part question.
As I understand it, there are some disagreements about whether the name should be transliterated as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh," although in accordance with the Tetragrammaton of "yod-heh-vav-heh" (YHWH), "Yahweh" would seem to be more correct (if by this we mean the original, rather than some corruption by latter day Christian scholars), which I take it means "no-name"(which is indeed presumably the purpose of employing the Tetragrammaton) but of course there are many other ways of refering to God.
buzsaw writes: Had you asked whether the designer would be the Biblical god or the god, Jehovah, to the first half of your two part question, I'd have answered straight out, 'yes.'
buzsaw writes: Edited to add that in a class of mixed ID proponents, the student could apply the ID argument to their respective personal persuasion as to the designer.
The above is an edit in from my last message. What I was trying to convey also is that ID does not necessarily need to apply to a god. A secularist person might apply the designer to Captain Marvel or Batman. In debate and classroom discussion where there are mixed proponents of ID, the designer need not be designated or specified. The discussion and/or debate would be concerning whether or not a designer would be involved, leaving the application as to the designer up to the individual. That is not to say, imo, that discussion on the merits of any given designer would be out of order.
So to answer the second half of your two part question, no, no specific designer need, necessarily, to be introduced into the classroom by including ID into the curriculum.
I myself am rather fond of Batman (the older, more serious cartoon version), but some how he just wouldn't do as the intelligent designer for me. Besides, I am rather fond of him being like you or me, with limitations and all -- makes him more heroic if he is facing the same kinds of dangers that you or I would face in his situation.
However, in Message 61, I had asked two questions, and you responded to both in Message 63.
The first was:
1. Would you admit that the good majority of proponents of Intelligent Design fully believe that the intelligent designer is God, and that by bringing intelligent design into the classroom, they would be bringing God into the classroom?
You responded:
1. Which God? Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, et al? God, perse is not a religion. The students of various religions may apply the designer to whatever they wish. It's a given that any designer of the universe would be a supreme intelligent and powerful being. In our nation, most proponents of ID worship and believe in the god, Jehovah to be the supreme designer and the Biblical record to be the history of origins. If this were set up in Iraq, I suppose Allah would be that designer god and the Quran the record book. In India perhaps the designer would be Brahma.
Now one point which would seem to be rather important is the sentence, "It's a given that any designer of the universe would be a supreme intelligent and powerful being." This doesn't seem to be descriptive of Batman or Captain Marvel. Is this statement incorrect, or is it a statement which somehow doesn't apply to "intelligent design"?
My second question was:
2. Is intelligent design a form of creationism?
You responded:
2. ID would be a form of creationism, yes.
Is this statement also incorrect? If so, I am not exactly sure why some earlier thread was so concerned with a particular constitutional issue. However, if both statements were in need of correction, I could certainly understand -- I make mistakes quite often, and appreciate the opportunity to correct them -- that is assuming we have moved on from the earlier debate I was having with Faith regarding the appropriateness of the sentence, "Like many others, I take the view that by the 'intelligent designer,' the vast majority of proponents of this idea are disingenuously referring to God in a way that is intended to get around the Separation of Church and State, whether their ambitions reach any further or not."
This message has been edited by TimChase, 12-02-2005 12:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2005 6:48 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 12-02-2005 11:49 PM TimChase has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 115 (265052)
12-02-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw
12-01-2005 11:50 PM


Re: No Rush
buzsaw wrote: No problem atol, friend. I'm slow at respnding myself often, being a business sole proprietor with no employees and other responsibilities.
I myself am a former philosophy major, but am currently doing computer programming. Unfortunately, while I was part of an eight-man team, I am now the eight-man team. But this job was getting old even before that. The good news is that they are supposed to be bringing someone in soon as a temp. The bad news is that he will be entirely unfamiliar with the code base. Oh well.
Anyway, also please feel free to take your time. I doubt anyone will mind if this thread continues for a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2005 11:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 115 (265177)
12-02-2005 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by TimChase
12-02-2005 12:41 PM


The Intelligent Designer
TimChase writes:
As I understand it, there are some disagreements about whether the name should be transliterated as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh," although in accordance with the Tetragrammaton of "yod-heh-vav-heh" (YHWH), "Yahweh" would seem to be more correct (if by this we mean the original, rather than some corruption by latter day Christian scholars), which I take it means "no-name"(which is indeed presumably the purpose of employing the Tetragrammaton) but of course there are many other ways of refering to God.
Jehovah=modern English translation of Hebrew YHWH, pronounced YAHWEH.
My point in this was that ID in the classroom does not introduce Jehovah, the Christian/Jewish Biblical god into the classroom if that proper name of the Biblical god's name is not mentioned in the discussion. No specific god needs necessarily to be introduced into the discussion, even if the majority in the room are Christians. The intelligent designer could be simply referred to as "the intelligent designer," leaving the students to apply that according to what they wish. I was using Batman, et al, rather facetiously, but to make the point that the ID application need not be made in cases where there is adversity to reference to a god.
TimChase writes:
My second question was:
2. Is intelligent design a form of creationism?
You responded:
2. ID would be a form of creationism, yes.
Is this statement also incorrect? If so, I am not exactly sure why some earlier thread was so concerned with a particular constitutional issue. However, if both statements were in need of correction, I could certainly understand -- I make mistakes quite often, and appreciate the opportunity to correct them -- that is assuming we have moved on from the earlier debate I was having with Faith regarding the appropriateness of the sentence, "Like many others, I take the view that by the 'intelligent designer,' the vast majority of proponents of this idea are disingenuously referring to God in a way that is intended to get around the Separation of Church and State, whether their ambitions reach any further or not."
1. Why is my statement incorrect?
2. We've gone full circle and you still aren't getting it. Please go back and read me. I've explained why no god needs necessarily be introduced into the classroom discussion to discuss ID vs Evolution, et al.
3. We've been admonished by admin to keep church and state out of the thread so I won't get into that except to say that I disagree with your understanding of this.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-02-2005 11:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by TimChase, posted 12-02-2005 12:41 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by TimChase, posted 12-03-2005 3:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 115 (265283)
12-03-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
12-02-2005 11:49 PM


Looking Back, Moving Forward
buzsaw writes:
My point in this was that ID in the classroom does not introduce Jehovah, the Christian/Jewish Biblical god into the classroom if that proper name of the Biblical god's name is not mentioned in the discussion.... I was using Batman, et al, rather facetiously, but to make the point that the ID application need not be made in cases where there is adversity to reference to a god.
With respect to "Jehova," no problem -- I just find the original ("YHWH") interesting -- I believe it has some significance in a number of contexts -- but it really is a side issue. No need to bother with it.
However, one point I raised which was significant was the following. You had originally stated in relation to the first question, "It's a given that any designer of the universe would be a supreme intelligent and powerful being."
Now the reason why I bring this up isn't because I am concerned with any constitutional principle or its interpretation. It is just that I wanted to provide you with the opportunity to take a different course if that is what you chose -- as this is what seemed to be suggested by the use of "Batman" and "Captain Marvel," and that likewise, someone who is secular wouldn't have to regard the "intelligent designer" as God -- but given both that you do not see a problem with that statement and with "intelligent design" being regarded as a form of creationism we can move forward more quickly. In logic, we are bringing God into the classroom but just not doing so explicitly, and similarly (as your response to the second question indicates), "intelligent design" is simply a form of creationism. Beyond this, my actual concern was fairly immaterial -- I simply didn't want to re-open the discussion of the issue of honesty (which you yourself essentially avoid by being direct) -- largely because I had found that rather painful after a while. For this reason, I doubt that we will have to deal with the issue of honesty except insofar as it is related to the kind of systemic and psychological causation which is involved.
So lets move forward....
It is well-known (at least by those who follow it) that the intelligent design movement is largely divided into Christian young earth creationists and the old earth creationists -- since we are moving forward quickly, we don't really need to worry about the fringe groups (e.g., the Raelians -- who hold that space aliens created life on earth, or the few Islamic proponents of intelligent design who might exist).
However, as one quick indication of this, I will cite the following:
"'You must unify your own side and divide the other side,' Johnson said. He added that he wants to temporarily suspend the debate between young-Earth creationists, who insist that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and old-Earth creationists, who accept that the Earth is ancient. This debate, he said, can be resumed once Darwinism is overthrown. (Johnson, himself an old-Earth creationist, did not explain how the two camps would reconcile this tremendous gap.)"
Missionary Man
TV Preacher D. James Kennedy And His Allies Are Targeting Public School Children For Evangelism
By Rob Boston
Church & State
April 1999
Wayback Machine4/http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs4995.htm
Now that isn't something which we need to debate, but nevertheless, it is something which I regard as symptomatic of a more fundamental problem which exists in the intelligent design movement -- and this is a tension between its attempt to appear scientific and the essentially religious nature of the ideology.
In essence, the old earth creationists (who are willing to admit that the earth is perhaps as old as 4.5 billion years) are being pulled in the direction of science -- at least in comparison to the young earth creationists (who hold that the earth is not much older than roughly 10,000 years) who are holding firm with a more literal interpretation of the Bible.
Now this is not to say that the old earth creationists are actually being scientific, but rather, they are permitting science to determine more of the content of their beliefs. The real tension, however, is between the objectivity required by science and the faith required by religion. This tension is created by the very attempt to make God an object of both domains. For the belief in this God to be scientific, it must be falsifiable by reference to evidence. However, for the belief in this God to be a matter of faith, it must be something which one believes in independently of evidence. The standards of science and standards of religion must necessarily come into conflict to the extent that God belongs to both domains.
Do you see this?
This message has been edited by TimChase, 12-03-2005 03:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 12-02-2005 11:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by TimChase, posted 12-04-2005 3:18 AM TimChase has not replied
 Message 107 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-04-2005 1:47 PM TimChase has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024