Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Word About Our Moderation Policy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some commenters have raised questions regarding the propriety of recent posts and UD’s moderation policy. UD’s moderation policy is fairly simple: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opening this site up to nasty juvenile name-calling fests like one see so often at Panda’s Thumb.  But if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.

What about the “God-bashing” and the defenses of God that have appeared in these pages? God can take care of Himself. We at UD feel no need to protect Him from defamation. Bash away. Those who are offended by (or disagree with) the bashing are welcome to post such defenses as they deem appropriate. There are limits, however. This site is not intended to be a forum for extensive religious debates. Religious issues inevitably come up from time to time and people should feel free to discuss them from both sides when they do. But the moderators will exercise their judgment and gavel discussions that stray too far a field from the purpose of this site for too long.

I personally find the God-bashing disturbing. So why do I allow it? As one of my colleagues has aptly said, the wiser course, when someone attacks God is to let those UD commenters who are theists respond to the charges. Our readers will then be in a position to see: (1) that UD, unlike the Darwinists, doesn’t ban or censor ideas; and (2) that theism in general and Christianity in particular is quite capable of defending itself against lies, distortions, illogical arguments, and misunderstandings. Our role is not to censor ideas but to provide a forum where hard questions can be discussed calmly, fully, and fairly, and we trust that when that happens truth will prevail.

Certainly there is risk to this approach. Some will reject truth and embrace error. But the consequences of pursuing the alternative course – ignoring or even running from the hard questions – would be far worse.

Finally, some have asked whether we should even discuss “peripheral issues” at UD, such as Darwin’s racism or the implications of ID for the theodicy. This site is devoted not only to scientific theories of origins, but also to the metaphysical and moral implications of those theories. Plainly BOTH Darwinism and ID have implications beyond the science. Certainly Darwinsts like “intellectually fulfilled” atheist Richard Dawkins understand the metaphysical implications of Darwinism and talk about those implications ad nauseum. What hypocritical balderdash for anyone to suggest a double standard prohibiting those of us with a different point of view from doing the exact same thing from our perspective – and we will continue to do so.

Comments
kairosfocus @275
there was an analysis of the Dover lit claims at the time, and they showed that there was not the sort of substance implied by the courtroom stunt
Do you have a cite to that analysis? Thanks, JayMJayM
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Hazel: I cannot comment in details on the present state, but I have had a brush or two with the mod pile. [Sufficiently so that I was on first names, instant recognition basis with the key troubleshooter from Akismet. Hi, M , if you are watching!] The lengths of delay involved were not of comparable order. And, Sev has subsequently commented, remarking that he was busy elsewhere. Fair enough. I have responded. [Pardon formatting error.] GEM of TKI PS to Dr S: there was an analysis of the Dover lit claims at the time, and they showed that there was not the sort of substance implied by the courtroom stunt: putting up a pile of unexamined articles and books on the table unattested to by live expert in court, and suggesting that it was irrefutable evidence on plaintiff's point. (That is, naked appeal to blanket authority. Like piling up the Church Fathers and challenging Luther with the pile. At least at Wurms, there was no cheap histrionics like that -- Charles V appealed to consensus, not to a pile of books on the table. But, no claimed consensus or individual expert is better than their/ his facts, logic and starting assumptions -- which are exactly what is at issue now.) There is a very specific set of challenges: to empirically find CSI and IC that have arisen by chance + necessity. That has simply not been met. The only observed source of these is intelligence. Concluding that CSI (esp. FSCI/FSC] and IC are reliable signs of design is well-warranted by the actual empirical evidence.kairosfocus
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Maybe the moderators could inform as to whose comments are being kept in moderation and why and for how long.critter
March 24, 2009
March
03
Mar
24
24
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Over in another thread, kairosfocus writes,
PS: Severski et al — why the silence for days now?
It may be that, despite the opening post by Barry, that a number of people have been banned, either outright or by keeping their comments in moderation so long that discussion isn't worthwhile. Of course, it could be that other aspects of life have become more important or interesting than posting here.hazel
March 24, 2009
March
03
Mar
24
24
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Joseph:
Richard Simons: So he merely wants a hundred million years of evolution to be demonstrated in the lab? So you admit that your position is untestable. Thank you.
What on Earth gave you that idea? What I am saying is that the method by which Behe differentiates between guided and non-guided evolution can't be used in practice. In addition, even if it could be done, it would still fail to distinguish between guided and non-guided evolution. All it would do would demonstrate that evolution was possible. He (and no doubt you) would claim the fact that it was done in a laboratory would demonstrate that intelligence was required. Whenever I say that guided and non-guided evolution can't be distinguished, you crow about me admitting that my claim is wrong or untestable. However, it is your claim that they can be distinguished and your claim that is untestable. I will repeat: there is no practical method for distinguishing guided from non-guided evolution.
I remember a literature BLUFF the lawyers pulled at Dover.
In what way was it a bluff? Are you suggesting that they were merely mock-ups of books and papers and that the contents did not support the titles on them?
And when someone asks for evidence of cumulative selection it is always a good thing to present one that will support YOUR position.
It did. I also chose one that would be familiar to most reasonably educated people.
One more time: If living organisms arose from non-living matter via unguided processes I would expect to see _________. Failure to see _________ would be a step towards disconfirming my position.
One more time? I can't find where you asked for this previously. However, I have repeatedly said there is no practical method for distinguishing between guided and non-guided evolution. If you wish to make some assumptions about the guiding principal, then there are some predictions that could be made. For example, if it were concerned with economy then features that worked well would be copied from one organism to another and all medium to large flying creatures would have the same basic design of wing. Pandas would have a proper thumb and we would not have appendices that became diseased every now and then. If the guiding principal were generally benevolent, I would expect to see features in one organism that benefit another with no benefit to the organism having the feature. If organisms were created from scratch, I would not expect it to be possible to group them into nested hierarchies that can be based on a wide variety of features yet remain in agreement.
And yet testable predictions have been made by ID. I have provided some.
Keeping repeating this does not make it true.
For example “descent with modification”- what is it, EXACTLY, that gets modified?
The phenotype, which in itself is a reflection of the genotype (including mitochondrial etc genotypes).
So as I said all you really have are magical mystery mutations acting over vast amounts of time. IOW your position is untestable so don’t comnplain about ID, especially given your lack of knowledge about it.
The theory of evolution has been thoroughly tested for the past 150 years and passed all tests. The only part that is untestable is the same part of the explanation for lightning that is untestable: is the route for evolution or the route for lightning guided? As far as we can tell, in both cases the answer is no. If IDers think otherwise, they have to provide us with a suitable test that would differentiate between the two and then carry out the test.Richard Simons
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Richard Simons, Seeing that you think that neither CSI nor IC have been rigorously defined, please provide the evolutionary terms tat have been rigorously defined so that we can compare. For example "descent with modification"- what is it, EXACTLY, that gets modified? Or do you still only have a general answer of "its genome"? That is worthless scientifically. So as I said all you really have are magical mystery mutations acting over vast amounts of time. IOW your position is untestable so don't comnplain about ID, especially given your lack of knowledge about it. I provided you with a list of books. Read them.Joseph
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
The main claim I have been making is that ID is unable to make any testable predictions and is completely vacuous. And yet testable predictions have been made by ID. I have provided some. However it is obvious that an accumulation of genetic accidents is void of predictive power. It is also obvious that ALL you have is father time, mother nature and magical mystery mutations. Totally empty...
Joseph
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
One more time: If living organisms arose from non-living matter via unguided processes I would expect to see _________. Failure to see _________ would be a step towards disconfirming my position.Joseph
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Richard Simons:
So he merely wants a hundred million years of evolution to be demonstrated in the lab?
So you admit that your position is untestable. Thank you.
Why is he not willing to accept the evidence that has been gathered in the last 10 years?
Because those studiesd don't do anything beyond speculation.
Remember how at Dover he denied that there were any studies even as he was peering around a stack of them?
I remember a literature BLUFF the lawyers pulled at Dover. And when someone asks for evidence of cumulative selection it is always a good thing to present one that will support YOUR position. If the ONLY evidence you have is that for YEC then it is obvious that you don't have anything. IOW CONTEXT is very importatnt.Joseph
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
OOPS: 300 - 500 k BASES of DNA, or 600 - 1,000 k bits. 600 k bits is ~ 10^180,000 possible configurations.kairosfocus
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT
Now, on a few points: 1] Dr S, 346: Think over what the ‘Weasel’ program is designed to demonstrate and consider the significance of it regarding probabilistic estimates of likelihood. This has been the subject of two lengthy recent threads [one ongoing], and it has come to a consensus on the analysis thanks to H's contribution and Mr Berlinski's remarks as excerpted by UB. Namely, Weasel shows targetted search that -- by Mr Dawkins' own statement -- rewards mere proximity to target of NON-FUNCTIONAL "nonsense" phrases. It most likely (per preponderance of evidence) does that by virtue of T3, i.e. implicit latching or quasi-latching depending on match of per letter per string mutation rate within a generation and programmed generation size. But, natural selection -- insofar as it has a coherent and non tautological meaning -- is inherently about differential CURRENT functionality, and rewarding of improved function. So, selection without filtering for functionality first, begs the question of getting to the required function where that function depends crucially on functionally specific and complex information, such as we see in language, computer programs and DNA. As such, Weasel is an instantiation of intelligent design using active information so that it does not address the principal concern of ID and ID-leaning analysis since the 1980's: getting to shorelines of islands of functionality in large configuration spaces. My cited challenge is an example of that, the challenge to generate a reasonable sale ASCII text string with a contextually responsive English sentence is a case in point, the OOL issue is an example of that, and the origin of body plan level biodiversity is an example of that. And, the probabilistic analysis you dismissed with sniping over style, is specifically about that issue. Observe onlookers: so soon as his challenge to get to FSCI [or CSI, the superset; or Irreducible Complexity] without resorting to intelligent direction of contingencies has been put on the table, evolutionary materialism advocates routinely and predictably divert to other issues. That should tell us something, something very telling. 2] [the challenge to generate FSCI example is} completely useless as it ignores selection entirely Just the opposite. Credible first life starts at 300 - 500 k bits of DNA information, and body plan level diversification at phylum or sub phylum level starts at 10's - 100's of millions of novel base pairs. Until such innovations are integrated and functioning, differential survival and reproductive success in the current generation becomes an irrelevant and question-begging assertion. In short, there is something very wrong with the logic of models that assume that probabilistically implausibly easy to get to steps in function are then chained together to give the sort of scale of complexity that we see in life forms, from first life up to the major body plans. That his idea is often sold to us by using Weasel, which explicitly rewards mere proximity to target of non-functional nonsense phrases, is further telling on the underlying problems with the evolutionary materialistic paradigm. That I and others refuse to beg the question of getting to FSCI is not a cogent objection to our point; but just the opposite. 3] I am still waiting to see a clear example of the determination of CSI in a natural situation or a clear definition. Yes, I have read Dembski’s paper. No, it is not useable. This meme has long passed its sell-by date. First, FSC is the technical form of FSCI, and is equally a subset of CSI. Durston et al have both rationalised a substantial metric based on H (of both info theory and statistical thermodynamics), that is closely related to the Dembski metric of 2005, and have published a table of 35 values of same, for proteins and related molecules. In the peer reviewed literature. For instance:
Flu PB2, with 608 amino acid residues [aa], which has 1,692 sequences with 2,628 bits in the null state, they measured and calculated FSC 2,416 Fits, and FSC density 4.0 Fits/aa.
I take it for granted that proteins are a phenomenon in the world of biological nature . . . Please, update your remarks in that light. 5] What then of FSCI? As for FSCI, which is a deliberately simple version of that technical level material, as a practical measure we commonly see bits at work all over the place. That is, functional bits. Once we recognise that there is a function based on particular configurations of bits, especially in an algorithmic or linguistic context, we can then ask: (i) how many bits of capacity? (ii) is it observed to be or credibly vulnerable to modest perturbation by random noise? (iii) how much redundancy/ compressibility without effective loss of function? The first two identify that he information functions and that it sits in an island of functionality. Based on the third questions we can identify the core number of bits to carry out the function, but this step is often not necessary. For, if the function uses at least 1,000 bits, that has specified a contingency space in excess of 10^301 i.e. ten times the square of the number of quantum states of the atoms in our cosmos across its reasonable lifespan, we know that the whole observed universe acting as search engine could not scan as much as 1 in 10^150 of the config space. In short, such functionality is maximally unlikely to be achieved by any random walk based search. But, we know by commonplace observation, that intelligent designers routinely produce entities at or above that threshold of FSCI. So, we can measure FSCI as a rough and ready metric based on being functional, vulnerable to perturbation of that functionality based on noise corruption of required information, and on number of functional bits used. Both DNA and derivative proteins can be measured in this way. (All of this BTW, is in the WACs and glossary above, much less my always linked.) Therefore we have a mathematical general context, a conceptual framework [T & A's orderly, random and functional sequence complexity, with roots going all the way back to Orgel in 1973], and three levels of metrics : (i) Dembski's 2005 metric, (ii) Durston's 2007 metric, and (iii) the crude one that is in fact how we commonly look at the capacity of DVD's, CD's computer memories, programs, documents, and PC screens etc etc. Pardon: a "no-brainer," that. ____________ In short, evidently, selective hyperskepticism is at work yet again. And, that is very relevant to moderation policy, when we ever so commonly see distractions from the focus of the threads at UD, based on selectively hyperskeptical challenges to basic and frankly not that hard to figure out ID concepts, terms, metrics and facts. Onward moderation policy must be able to address such distractions, and to deal firmly with insistence on diversions through refusal to reckon with reasonable response and calling back to the focus. When it comes to abusive behaviour here or elsewhere, that isn't even an issue on what should be done: insistent abuse (as opposed to simple stumblings into poor behaviour, acknowledged and turned from) is strong proof of intent to disrupt and/or of ungovernable incivility. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
Onlookers: A preliminary point: I have remarked on the overnight "all quiet on the western front" aftermath of my corrective comments on the ill-judged use of a dismissive remark against me in another thread, which on closer examination of context turns out to be dripping with blood slander and excusing of public lewdness. I trust that the commenters here and at Anti Evo will now correct their embrace of such tainted dismissive rhetoric in that light. (NB: In my considered opinion, this also shows that uncivil conduct in other forums is relevant to whether we should entertain participants who so indulge elsewhere, here at UD.) GEM of TKI PS: Dr Simmons, I see your remark at 346. I simply note to you that Mr is ALSO strictly correct, save where it is used to denigrate. Which it has not been by me. (I am a little uncomfortable simply calling people by their names, much less their first names. I will deal with matters on the FSCI/CSI red herring issue for this thread -- which is on moderation policy not debates over ID concepts -- shortly. I will ignore sniping on writing style [which must always be judged by context, nature of subject matter, focus and intent . . . ], which now seems to be an increasing resort.)kairosfocus
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
Joseph:
When you ask questions like: So tell me, how much CSI does a human have? It is obvious to me that you are clue-less.
And I keep asking for enlightenment. Do I take this to mean that you do not have an answer?
I take you didn’t hear that whick Miller described has NOTHING to do with Behe was talking about.
I believe you are referring to Behe's third or fourth definition of irreproducible complexity. I was thinking of his second (an irreproducibly complex system is one which cannot perform its original function if a component is removed).
You mean like the steady improvement in the yield of wheat varieties over the past 100 years? By artificial selection- ID.
The original question did not specify whether by ID or not.
What is the falsifiable prediction of the premise that living organisms arose from non-living matter via unguided processes?
IDers give us nothing to distinguish guided from non-guided processes. This is what I've been complaining about all along. Your (IDers) inability to produce anything is why biologists say that ID is vacuous.
If your anti-ID position is true then we should observe __________. If we do not observe __________ our theory is at risk of disconfirmation. I don’t know what else to tell you Richard.
Try filling in the blanks, or describe an experiment that could potentially disconfirm ID.
And in reality all that entails is for YOU to actually support your cliams.
The main claim I have been making is that ID is unable to make any testable predictions and is completely vacuous. I think you have provided adequate support for my claims. You probably think I have claimed that evolution is unguided, but I have done no such thing as that would be foolish. What I do claim is that it is impossible to determine whether evolution is guided or not, but I have seen no evidence to support the belief that it is guided. More-over, I am unable to think of any feasible test to refute the claim (various claims descended from this are refutable, however).
The way science operates a “god” would be superfulous.
If things started to operate in a completely unpredictable manner then the possibility of a god or gods would have to be considered but yes, for all practical purposes they are ruled out. Now do you see a reason why ID is not considered to be science?
Also “wheat evolving into wheat” would confirm the YEC position of variations within a kind. Is that the ONLY evidence you guys have- the evidence that supports YEC?
Completely irrelevent to the point being made, which was merely responding to the assertion that cumulative changes were not possible.
Falsifying ID-Dr Behe responds: One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997 A very basic concept.
So he merely wants a hundred million years of evolution to be demonstrated in the lab? Why is he not willing to accept the evidence that has been gathered in the last 10 years? Remember how at Dover he denied that there were any studies even as he was peering around a stack of them? I've seen a number of people making similar claims - "show me a way in which X could have happened and I'll reject ID". Then, when they are shown a feasible route they either change to "show me that it did happen that way" or to "show me that it wasn't guided". A third possibility is that they will retreat to "OK. How about Y?"Richard Simons
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Falsifying ID-Dr Behe responds:
One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He's wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997
A very basic concept.Joseph
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Could you do the same about John, critter?
Yes, I can, my alphabetical friend. While John's antipathy towards Dave is well known, the comment on his blog which I refer to makes no mention of Dave, but is only about Barry. Further, in this comment he lumps Uncommon Descent in with Pharyngul and the Panda's Thumb. That is truly uncalled for.crater
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Actually, if Dr. Davison his held to the same standard as Reciprocated Bill, he would not be allowed back because he has been very critical of our host on his personal blog. Critter, I didn't jump on this thread to "contrast and compare". But now that you brought it up... Reciprocating Bill, unlike John, has never once spoken good of UD, UD's moderators or anything "ID" related for that matter. Reciprocating Bill, unlike John, has contributed nothing to ID in any sort of way, except in light of the usual negative and repetitive, predictable recursive feedback. I am confident that I can gather up quite the library of external links pointing to reciprocating bill's outright despise for ID and UD in general. Could you do the same about John, critter? Recipricating Bills intentions are quite obvious. We don't need to apply CSI on that one. If John A. Davison truly had a grudge on someone, we all know who that would be. In light of that, understand that his comments targeted towards BarryA should be taken with a grain of salt. I believe even Barry Arrington understands this more then you.ab
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Clive, How about one of those "contact us" links as I suggested above? Some way beyond trying to post to get in touch with the admins? DavidDavid Kellogg
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Hermagoras, I won't give you my email, but if you'd like to post a comment with whatever link you're referring to, I'll take a look. I'm just trying to keep things civil. It's not constructive to belittle or vilify whoever you're discussing with, and that goes for everyone. The vile tone of those at Panda's Thumb is really not necessary. It won't score anyone who comments there any points when they want to have commenting privileges here and say such insulting things about us who give the privileges.Clive Hayden
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden @352
No double standard. Barry’s moderation policy was one of no name calling and no disrespect, both of which RB was guilty, by his own admission.
Barry's policy seems to apply only to behavior here on UD, not anywhere on the Internet. I offer as evidence of this his statement that PZ Myers would be welcome here, when we all know how Myers refers to ID proponents on his own blog. RB has not violated the policy in his posts here. Upright BiPed, Joseph, and Jerry, on the other hand, are routinely rude to anyone who doesn't toe the Dembskian line. There is a double standard. JJJayM
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Hi Clive, If you could do a favor and make sure comment 348 is brought into Barry Arrington's attention that would be awesome. Thanks in advance!ab
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Joseph, "And if you don’t answer that question I will take that to mean you are an intellectual coward." Do not taunt, Joseph. This threatening language will not be tolerated.Clive Hayden
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Clive, if RB was insulting, he was not insulting here. My points about inconsistency stand. Barry would let PZ Myers post here despite his insults to others at his own site. You would not. Further, others are far more insulting than RB. Would you like to review what one pro-ID commenter here has said about me on his blog? Give me your email and I'll send you the link. I would prefer not to broadcast such filth on UD.David Kellogg
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
And do a search for posts by Upright Biped on this thread, and compare him to RB, please. Who has been more rude and disrespectful?hazel
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Joseph has called people names and been disrespectful. Why isn't he on moderation?hazel
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Hermagoras, Yes, RB has been banned for discourtesy, you are right. No insulting behavior is allowed by anyone, on either side of the debate.Clive Hayden
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington, if your moderation policy is truly honest, you’d reinstate John A. Davison back into participation mode here on this fine weblog.
Actually, if Dr. Davison his held to the same standard as Reciprocated Bill, he would not be allowed back because he has been very critical of our host on his personal blog. See herecrater
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Richard
To use your kind of arguments back to you, no-one has ever shown that the path taken by lightning was not guided. Who caused the electrons to gather together in the first place? What determines just when the lightning takes place if it is not guided? What is an electron anyway if it is not a manifestation of a higher power? Science has merely demonstrated part of the process through which the gods act.
The way science operates a "god" would be superfulous. I would have expected someone of science who is NOT on an agenda to know that. Also "wheat evolving into wheat" would confirm the YEC position of variations within a kind. Is that the ONLY evidence you guys have- the evidence that supports YEC?Joseph
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
JayM, No double standard. Barry's moderation policy was one of no name calling and no disrespect, both of which RB was guilty, by his own admission.Clive Hayden
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Richard Simons, When you ask questions like:
So tell me, how much CSI does a human have?
It is obvious to me that you are clue-less. What have I read on the subject? 3 years worth of biology-intensive college courses. Plus at least 100 books written on the subject by the likes of Gould, Dawkins, Jones, Darwin, de Beer, Lagrasse et al.
Remember when the mammalian blood-clotting system was the poster-child for ID?
It still is. I take you didn't hear that whick Miller described has NOTHING to do with Behe was talking about. I believe it is on Behe's Amazon blog.
You mean like the steady improvement in the yield of wheat varieties over the past 100 years?
By artificial selection- ID.
Notice how some people are unable to grasp the basic concept that a scientific hypothesis must make falsifiable predictions,
What is the falsifiable prediction of the premise that living organisms arose from non-living matter via unguided processes? What is the falsifiable prediction pertaining to the bacterial flagellum arising from a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents? IOW how can we test the premise that A) Living organisms arose from non-living matter via unguided processes and B) that the bacterial flagellum arose via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Ya see I know for a gfact that in your scenario there A) is no way to predict what mutations will occur at any point in time and B) there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. IOW your position is nothing but an after-the-fact narrative based on an extreme world-view. Lightning- it was once thought to be from the “gods”. Now science has demonstrated there aren’t any “gods” hurling lightning bolts.
Oh no.
Yes Richard. What I said is quite correct.
Science has merely demonstrated part of the process through which the gods act.
And yet no scientist is promoting that idea. So I will ask you: If your anti-ID position is true then we should observe __________. If we do not observe __________ our theory is at risk of disconfirmation. I don't know what else to tell you Richard. IDists have put it in writing what it would take to falsify ID. And in reality all that entails is for YOU to actually support your cliams. Imagine that...Joseph
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
"I have been promoting Intelligent Design all my professional life and every evolutionary paper I have published assumes ID as its starting point. Intelligent Design is transparent in every aspect of the universe and never should have been presented as a subject for debate. Both religious fanaticism and Darwinian atheism are incurable congenital predispositions as is now well established by the studies on separated identical twins. William Wright's 'Born That Way' (1998) summarizes this literature which is why it is listed on the side board of my weblog under Important Books. (jadavison.wordpress.com) I now request that I be allowed to resume my participation at Uncommon Descent as a mortal enemy of the Godless Darwinian paradigm which still dominates a debate which should never have been begun. There is no role for debate in science. There is only discovery. John A. Davison, Professor Emeritus of Biology, University of Vermont. Mailing address: L4 Grandview Drive, South Burlington, VT 05403 email - nosivadaj@msn.com" Barry Arrington, if your moderation policy is truly honest, you'd reinstate John A. Davison back into participation mode here on this fine weblog. I'm an occasional poster at UD, an ID proponent who understands ID, its goals and intentions as much as anyone else. If John A. Davison does not act accordingly with UD's moderation policy, than I was wrong and should be banned too. Please take this under consideration. Thanks!ab
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3 13

Leave a Reply