A Word About Our Moderation Policy

_{Barry Arrington

March 12, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

David Kellogg:
Does accumulation mean selection?
Selection is a process of accumulation. Anyone with any knowledge of the theory of evolution would have understood that simple premise.Joseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Jerry, My examples are not facetious. They are real, solid and concrete examples. They are real. They are also more than what ID has available for falsification. From: 266 Joseph 03/20/2009 1:52 pm Frank: To help you there Jerry, here are a few things that will falsify Evolution: 1: Dogs giving birth (unaided) to cats How would that falsify evolution? Simple. Dogs are from the Family Canis, cats are from Felidae. That there are no "lines" would invalidate Evolution. Is the a tenet in the theory that sates “dog cannot give birth to cats”? Not specifically but even in times of rapid speciation, offspring will not be all that different from their parents. They could possibly look quite different from their ancestors more than 5 generations earlier, but not their parent. 2: A Rabbit fossil found with the same age as the T-Rex fossil it is in. Point to the passage from the ToE that states “rabbits cannot exist with T-Rex”. Rabbits did not exist over 65 MY ago. Mammals may have but rabbits evolved long after the Dinosaurs died out. 3: Terrestrial flowering plant fossils found older than 500MY But the ToE doesn’t say anything about a timeline thing shave to happen in. You are correct there's no timeline but 500MY ago, save for lichen and a few other things hiding from the sun. The thing is, again, there are precursor species to flowering plants. For a flowering plant to come before them for no reason (space aliens planting some) Evolution would be invalidated. So what would falsify ID? Exactly what IDists have been saying forever- the SAME thing that has falsified design inferences throughout our history- reduce and simplify. But those have never been identified nor has any rigorous test for what is and is not designed been made that works. That is demonstrate that nature, operating freely can acount for it- whatever is being investigated. Could you give an example of what is designed and how you know how it was?FrankH_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
When I look at the history of knowledge, I find example after example of design explanations (like that for the Giant’s Causeway) collapsing in the face of naturalistic explanations.
EXACTLY! That is what I just posted!!!!! Therefor how does one refute the design inference? By demonstrating nature, operating freely can account for it. There it is and I bet you STILL won't understand the point. Oh well...Joseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Does accumulation mean selection?David Kellogg_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

RB's pretty clear to me, Joseph. I'll give you one translation: for "entailment" read "logical implication." They're not exactly equivalent, but they're close enough. Frank is also pretty clear, and I think correct. When I look at the history of knowledge, I find example after example of design explanations (like that for the Giant's Causeway) collapsing in the face of naturalistic explanations. What seemed like an explanation suddenly disappeared, and it turned out that there was no explanation at all: they just didn't know. From this take the lesson that we should always be suspicious of design explanations for the natural world.David Kellogg_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

RB:
Joe requested a prediction based upon the accumulation of genetic errors. He claims he means “selection” when he says “accumulation,” but of course “accumulation” does not at all imply selection.
Gee Bill, HOW do those genetic accidents ACCUMULATE? My query doesn't restrict you. It entails ALL processes of accumulation therefor masking it EASIER for you.Joseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, I will give you the opportunity to practice FSCI. You look at what Reciprocating Bill wrote and transcribe his comments into your computer and then you translate them into common speak for us dumb ID supporters. That way you can start to understand the FSCI process which you say you think is wooly and we can see if Reciprocating has anything of note to say. It is a win win situation. We both learn something. You see Reciprocating Bill gave the store/farm/ranch away when he started spouting drift. If you get my drift. So I do not care a pimple on an elephants rear if entailment is good philosophy. I am only interested in sensible conversation and Bill disqualified himself when he got down to the nitty gritty. So here is your opportunity to shine and for you to be the ribosome between Reciprocating Bill and us dumb IDer's. I would not suggest you do the same with Frank since his input might be rejected by your computer automatically as garbage and be left nothing to put out but garbage. I understand some computers have standards.jerry_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Joseph, this is a serious question, as I really want to understand your thinking: was the design inference for the Giant’s Causeway valid before people understood how basalt columns were formed?
The design inference was definitely arrived at before people understood how basalt columns were formed. And that inference was unrefuted until people understood how basalt columns were formed. The same goes for ALL inferences. Tomorrow's observations may over-turn them. So what? Do we stop making inferences and hide in our homes?Joseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 262
“What positive, testable predictions follow from ID theory, such that empirical test of those predictions put ID at risk of disconfirmation?”
I have described this in detail on this thread. I have described this in detail on this thread. So I suggest you re-read what has been written. One novel complex capability arising through natural means would be greeted with a roar by those who support a naturalistic approach to evolution. So far none has been documented. I proposed an approach on how such could be documented and you give me gibberish.
Discovery of a complex novelty arising by means of natural selection would represent observation of an entailment of current evolutionary theory. Failure to observe same when theory compelled us to expect same would represent a failure to observe an entailment of evolutionary theory. Such failures on the part of a theory that competes with ID do not represent confirmation of an entailment of ID. While it would reduce confidence in the competing theory, it would not warrant an increase confidence in ID, because it provides no way to distinguish between "ID is also wrong" and "ID is correct." To make the latter distinction requires ID to specify necessary entailments such that were we to fail to observe those entailments, ID or a tenet of ID would be at risk of disconfirmation. This is what you are patently unable to supply.
As I said the very fact that you admitted to an irrelevant understanding of evolution makes you suspect as a judge of what is relevant or not. How anyone who claims to understand this debate would have brought up drift or the idea of deterioration is beyond me.
Joe requested a prediction based upon the accumulation of genetic errors. He claims he means "selection" when he says "accumulation," but of course "accumulation" does not at all imply selection. Therefore I described the likely outcome of an increase in mutations (accumulation of mutations in the English sense of "accumulation," not the Joeish sense) absent the impact of selection. My description is correct: amassing mutations absent selection would result in increased variability, drift, and ultimately the reduction of the average fitness of the population as a whole. Do you dispute this? If so, what would you predict would occur under those circumstances?Reciprocating_Bill_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

So is that a yes or a no?David Kellogg_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, If RB thinks his request is being dismissed then he should provide some examples from his position so we can then compare.Joseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Joseph, this is a serious question, as I really want to understand your thinking: was the design inference for the Giant's Causeway valid before people understood how basalt columns were formed?David Kellogg_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Jerry @267
These are all not serious commenter here.
The only people not acting seriously are you and Joseph. RB is demonstrating considerable restraint by continuing to ask his very clear question while getting no evidence of good faith in return from the two of you.
For awhile I thought that Reciprocating Bill was serious but it became clear after awhile that he too was spouting nonsense.
If by "spouting nonsense" you mean "asking a simple question that Jerry and Joseph either cannot or will not answer" then I agree with you.
My guess is that these people are in fact clueless or that they are just having fun feigning stupidity so as to disrupt the conversations here. If they are clueless, then it says something about what is out there in the general population and who feel they can come here and comment. They certainly cannot comment on anything sensible or logical.
This is why you, specifically, Jerry are a detriment to the ID movement. RD has been asking the same question, simply, politely, and patiently, throughout this thread and you refuse to answer it. Instead of admitting you can't, you then go off on these baseless attempts at character assassination. No wonder we're not taking seriously by mainstream scientists -- people like you make it easy to ignore us. Either answer the question by producing a positive prediction that could falsify ID theory or admit that you can't. Anything else at this point is dishonest. JJJayM_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Each and EVERY time someone has pointed out something with only “apparent” design- ie lightning, giant’s causeway, the movement of the stars and planets- whatever it was, the way the design inference was refuted was by demonstrating that nature, operating freely is sufficient.
can be reduced to this: If I can’t figure it out and I’m smart, it must have been designed.
So you didn't understand what I said. English is not a very good language for you, is it? Think about it Frank: How did science refute the design inference pertaining to lightning? By demonstrating that nature, operating freely can account for it. And that means if someone reaches a design inference based on the criteria laid out in "Darwin's Black Box", all YOU or anyone else has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it! However the BEST you can do is twist reality because you can't deal with reality.Joseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

The concept of entailment has been part of epistemology since Aristotle's Prior Analytics. Language such as RB uses is pretty typical of twentieth-century analytic philosophy of science. RB sometimes speaks kind of stridently, I think in frustration that his requests (which are not really burdensome) are being dismissed. It's simply not true that his langauge is not typical of the philosophy of science. It may not be typical of the traditions with which jerry is familiar, but it's right in the msinstream of standard academic philosophy.David Kellogg_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

jerry, you are right but now I have them. their purpose is to test the mederation policy by getting one of us to go off on a cussing rant.Joseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Frank:
So how does one separate designed from non-designed systems again?
Exactly how I have been telling you.
Also, as it is obvious that bees design things that look complex, would you say that’s “Intelligently Designed”? What about a Beaver Damn?
Can nature, operating freely create a beaver dam? No. Beavers are intelligent agencies- they leave evidence of their involvement behind.Joseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Frank:
Why not? Forensic experts find the “design” to identify the perp.
HOW? By going over the evidence!!!! Study/ research- IOW the "who" is SEPARATE from the fact someone did something. For the REASON I provided plus other valid reasons.
Your reason is not objective, it is subjective. Also, what “other” reasons?
The reason I gave is a fact of life- There isn't any way to know the designer, IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT OBSERVATION OR DESIGNER INPUT, until you have studied the design What part of that don't you understand? the other reasons were provided in the link you obviously didn't visit. That said ID does NOT prevent people from asking those questions.
But it seems to want to freeze them out.
Only to outsiders without a clue. It is just that ID was not formulated to do so. So ID was specifically designed to be limited? Just as the theory of evolution is specifically limited to living organims. ID is ONLY about first detecting and then studying the design.
But couldn’t there be multiple designers? If so, how would ID handle designers of different competencies and abilities?
I have already told you yes there could be/ have been multiple designers and ID does NOT care.
Again, Forensics look for the “signatures” in the “design” to identify those responsible. Why is ID being treated differently?
But they don't always identify the perp even though they have determined intent. And sometimes- perhaps even most of the time- it is something unscientific that catches the bad guy. With forensics FIRST the identify the design- THEN they try to figure out the designer BY STUDYING THE CLUES. Hey wait- JUST LIKE IDJoseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Well Jerry, This: Each and EVERY time someone has pointed out something with only “apparent” design- ie lightning, giant’s causeway, the movement of the stars and planets- whatever it was, the way the design inference was refuted was by demonstrating that nature, operating freely is sufficient. can be reduced to this: If I can't figure it out and I'm smart, it must have been designed. That's not a refutation of anything and I'll admit that I am surprised as I think you already knew that. So how does one separate designed from non-designed systems again? Also, as it is obvious that bees design things that look complex, would you say that's "Intelligently Designed"? What about a Beaver Damn? So ID has lots to answer for before it can even be called a theory. So far, all I believe you can call ID is the "ID Hypothesis".FrankH_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Joseph, These are all not serious commenter here. For awhile I thought that Reciprocating Bill was serious but it became clear after awhile that he too was spouting nonsense. My guess is that these people are in fact clueless or that they are just having fun feigning stupidity so as to disrupt the conversations here. If they are clueless, then it says something about what is out there in the general population and who feel they can come here and comment. They certainly cannot comment on anything sensible or logical.jerry_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Frank:
To help you there Jerry, here are a few things that will falsify Evolution: 1: Dogs giving birth (unaided) to cats
How would that falsify evolution? Is the a tenet in the theory that sates "dog cannot give birth to cats"?
2: A Rabbit fossil found with the same age as the T-Rex fossil it is in.
Point to the passage from the ToE that states "rabbits cannot exist with T-Rex".
3: Terrestrial flowering plant fossils found older than 500MY
But the ToE doesn't say anything about a timeline thing shave to happen in.
So what would falsify ID?
Exactly what IDists have been saying forever- the SAME thing that has falsified design inferences throughout our history- reduce and simplify. That is demonstrate that nature, operating freely can acount for it- whatever is being investigated.Joseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

"To help you there Jerry, here are a few things that will falsify Evolution: 1: Dogs giving birth (unaided) to cats. 2: A Rabbit fossil found with the same age as the T-Rex fossil it is in. 3: Terrestrial flowering plant fossils found older than 500MY Stuff like that. So what would falsify ID?" Yes, your examples would cause quite a stir but no one in ID or any other scientific endeavor expects to find anything like that. So this is at best a facetious example and may reflect on the originator more than anything. If only outlandish examples such as these are proffered then no one would take the science seriously. What falsifies the current synthesis is its inability to show how the information necessary for new complex capabilities arose. That is the ongoing issue discussed in evolutionary biology. I suggest you read the Brosius article to get a feel for what serious evolutionary biologists are looking at.jerry_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Richard Simons and Reciprocating Bill-Something to think about: You have asked what would disconfirm/ falsify the design inference, ie intelligent design. Time and again I have told you to falsify/ disconfirm the design inference- ie intelligent design- all you have to do is to reduce and simplify. That is show that nature, operating freely- ie no agency involvement- can account for it. And every time both of you have refused to acknowledge that rather simple fact of life. So here it is as plainly and simple as I can put it: Each and EVERY time someone has pointed out something with only “apparent” design- ie lightning, giant’s causeway, the movement of the stars and planets- whatever it was, the way the design inference was refuted was by demonstrating that nature, operating freely is sufficient. THAT is the way it is. Deal with it.Joseph_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

From: 262 jerry 03/20/2009 1:32 pm “What positive, testable predictions follow from ID theory, such that empirical test of those predictions put ID at risk of disconfirmation?” I have described this in detail on this thread. So I suggest you re-read what has been written. One novel complex capability arising through natural means would be greeted with a roar by those who support a naturalistic approach to evolution. So far none has been documented. I proposed an approach on how such could be documented and you give me gibberish. That you could have responded in such a way instead of answering the question in a positive light, aka "Alright guys, this would falsify ID as would this.....", speaks volumes. It is a common tactic of posters in over their head to announce, "I already showed that", without so much as a mention of what they claim to have done. Please show me up and provide where you showed that in this thread. If several examples were documented then this would go a long way to falsifying any ID proposition about intelligence needed in the evolution of these capabilities. As there are no examples of ID being documented (there are? Please go ahead and show me up by posting them) we'll never know. As I said the very fact that you admitted to an irrelevant understanding of evolution makes you suspect as a judge of what is relevant or not. How anyone who claims to understand this debate would have brought up drift or the idea of deterioration is beyond me. Strawman. I guess that is easier than responding to RB's question.FrankH_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

"What positive, testable predictions follow from ID theory, such that empirical test of those predictions put ID at risk of disconfirmation?" I have described this in detail on this thread. So I suggest you re-read what has been written. One novel complex capability arising through natural means would be greeted with a roar by those who support a naturalistic approach to evolution. So far none has been documented. I proposed an approach on how such could be documented and you give me gibberish. If several examples were documented then this would go a long way to falsifying any ID proposition about intelligence needed in the evolution of these capabilities. As I said the very fact that you admitted to an irrelevant understanding of evolution makes you suspect as a judge of what is relevant or not. How anyone who claims to understand this debate would have brought up drift or the idea of deterioration is beyond me.jerry_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

To help you there Jerry, here are a few things that will falsify Evolution: 1: Dogs giving birth (unaided) to cats. 2: A Rabbit fossil found with the same age as the T-Rex fossil it is in. 3: Terrestrial flowering plant fossils found older than 500MY Stuff like that. So what would falsify ID?FrankH_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Jerry @258
I thing you have demonstrated that you lack the knowledge to contribute to this discussion.
On the contrary, RB has demonstrated a solid understanding of how science is practiced.
Whatever your requests may amount to in every day English, and by the way I have a background in science, they could be applied to evolutionary biology and macro evolution.
This sentence doesn't even make sense. Based on your voluminous posts on UD, your understanding of science and the scientific method seems sorely lacking. If you're trying to say that evolutionary biologists don't follow the scientific method, you are demonstrating gross ignorance of hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers. You should educate yourself instead of continuing to contribute to the idea that ID is primarily supported by people who don't know anything about modern biology.
You hide behind some terms as “the absolute basics of scientific epistemology.” I have had courses in the philosophy of science and read and watched videos on it and never saw anything meaningful discussed that used terminology such as this. Come down to earth.
You should request your money back for those courses and videos, because what RB is saying would be recognized by any scientifically literate high school student.
Your invoking drift and deterioration was an attempt to be specific and these terms have no meaning in the debate which indicates that you do not understand it. So I suggest you go back to basics and read up on this topic and come back here when you can be more relevant.
RB has been continuously asking for one thing and one thing only: for you to demonstrate that ID is a scientific theory. In order to do that, all you have to do is state the theory, describe one or more predictions that follow directly from the theory, and specify a feasible test of those predictions that, were it to fail, disprove the theory. That is the very core of the scientific method. You could have simply answered the challenge when it was first posed. Your refusal to do so suggests that you are not just unwilling, but unable. As I've said before, I don't think ID is mature enough to meet this minimal standard yet, although I suspect Behe's work will get us there. In the meantime, we need to be brutally honest with ourselves and our detractors about the real state of ID research. JJJayM_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 258 So, I gather you have no sensible response to the following: Describe entailments of ID theory. Then describe an empirical test of those entailments such that ID theory is placed at risk of disconfirmation. Since you seem to need more elementary terminology: What positive, testable predictions follow from ID theory, such that empirical test of those predictions put ID at risk of disconfirmation?Reciprocating_Bill_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Reciprocating_Bill, I thing you have demonstrated that you lack the knowledge to contribute to this discussion. Whatever your requests may amount to in every day English, and by the way I have a background in science, they could be applied to evolutionary biology and macro evolution. You hide behind some terms as "the absolute basics of scientific epistemology." I have had courses in the philosophy of science and read and watched videos on it and never saw anything meaningful discussed that used terminology such as this. Come down to earth. Your invoking drift and deterioration was an attempt to be specific and these terms have no meaning in the debate which indicates that you do not understand it. So I suggest you go back to basics and read up on this topic and come back here when you can be more relevant.jerry_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

From mine, tags fixed as I can't edit it: Like I stated, nothing in ID goes after the designers. Why not? Forensic experts find the "design" to identify the perp. For the REASON I provided plus other valid reasons. Your reason is not objective, it is subjective. Also, what "other" reasons? That said ID does NOT prevent people from asking those questions. But it seems to want to freeze them out. It is just that ID was not formulated to do so. So ID was specifically designed to be limited? ID is ONLY about first detecting and then studying the design. But couldn't there be multiple designers? If so, how would ID handle designers of different competencies and abilities? Again, Forensics look for the "signatures" in the "design" to identify those responsible. Why is ID being treated differently?FrankH_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply