Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Answers for Judge Jones

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions.

Continue reading here.

Comments
----David: "But silly me: I think quotation marks along with “as Judge Jones put it” creates the expectation of a quote. Apparently you don’t share that view." My view is that individuals should read for context and try to understand what the author is saying. It will happily go on the record saying that Judge Jones singled out ID in general, AND IC in particular, as linked to creationism. When I read transcripts or decisions, I try to understand the argument that is being made. That way, if I get a detail wrong, and we all do, I won't be very far off track. On the other hand, you look for details but you miss the argument. So, you don't make small errors, you make big errors. Your view is that if an author's words can be twisted and taken out of context to fit your agenda, then they should be twisted and taken out of context. Under the circumstances, you miss what is actually being said. Notice, for example, that when I cited Scott's quote, I presented the whole thing. When you referred to it, you took out a chunk that you liked and left out the rest. That is the kind of thing that I am talking about. ----"A student in my writing class who treated sources as carelessly would likely fail." A student in my class who makes irrational arguments would be sent back to logic 101.StephenB
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
David Kellogg, ------"Interesting that Dr. Dembski doesn’t mention the much earlier Darwin’s Black Box — perhaps because so many of its examples came (the flagellum, the bombardier beetle) came from creationism." Why is that interesting?Clive Hayden
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
JayM, ------"However much distaste you have for Barbara Forrest, claiming that “cdesign proponentists” never existed does nothing for your credibility and provides more ammunition for ID opponents." ID opponents such as yourself.Clive Hayden
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
JayM, ------"I don’t argue against ID, Clive, I argue against poor arguments from ID supporters. That’s far more supportive of the eventual goal of making ID credible than is participating in an echo chamber where criticism of people on “our side” is strongly discouraged." You never have any arguments in favor of ID. Never. All I ever see from you are arguments against ID. It doesn't matter that you posit them in terms of "constructive criticism" and "just wanting to help". If you really want to help, then make some of your own arguments in favor of ID, instead of always criticizing others who make actual ID arguments. Otherwise, your pretense is exposed.Clive Hayden
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, as usual, most of your stuff is not worth responding to, but this is:
To sustain this, Mr Meyer’s 1986 Eternity article was twisted to make it out that Meyer labelled Thaxton et al creationists. This is of courser not true,
Yes it is. Here's the quote again:
Given the authors' academic credentials, one would ordinarily expect such a hearing. Bradley, a materials engineer, and Olsen, a geochemist, hold professorships at prestigious technical universities. Chemist Thaxton has completed post-doctoral work at Harvard University in the history of science and at Brandeis in molecular biology. What makes the attention The Mystery of Life's Origin has received so unusual is that its authors believe evidence now points to a supernatural origin for life. The authors are creationists.
Every word in that quote is Meyer's.David Kellogg
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
----From Scott Andrews: "Here is the quote in which Jones calls IC creationism. I don’t have a horse in this. Call it a public service." ----"Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is “aware of the history and context of the community and forum” is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism… ----In addition, creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID." ---"He does not use the term IC, but refers to the argument regarding the complexity of the bacterial flagellum, which is unmistakably IC. He thereby singles out IC as a reason for confusing ID and creationism. He does not connect IC to creationism only through IC’s role in ID." Yes, of course. Judge Jones made it clear at every turn that ALL ID is linked to creationism. Scott, you are probably the only non-partisan person that has ever appeared on this site. Please stay around for a while.StephenB
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
I was clearly referring to Judge Jones’ decision that all ID is linked to creationism and I was asking how irreducible complexity can fit into that scheme.
A student in my writing class who treated sources as carelessly would likely fail. But silly me: I think quotation marks along with "as Judge Jones put it" creates the expectation of a quote. Apparently you don't share that view.David Kellogg
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
7 --> In particular, Mr Kenyon, a then leading OOL researcher, was dismissed because he is a "Creationist." Well, this is what he has to say for himself on how he came to abandon his biochemical predestination thesis:
The experimental results to date have apparently convinced many scientists that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life will be found, but there are significant reasons for doubt. In the yeara since the publication of Biochemical Predestination I have been increas- ingly atruck by a peculiar feature of many of the published experi- ments in the field . . . . In most cases the experimental conditions in such studies have been so artificially simplified as to have virtually no bearing on any actual processes that might have taken place on the primitive earth . . . . Other aspects of origin-of-life research have contributed to my growing uneasinees about the theory of chemical evolution. One of these is the enormous gap between the most complex "prohcell" model systems produced in the laboratory and the simpleat living cells. Anyone familiar with the ultrastructural and biochemical complexity of the genus Mycoplasma, for example, should have eerious doubts about the relevance of any of the various laboratory "protoceHs" to the actual historical origin of cells. In my view, the possibility of closing this gap by laboratory simulation of chemical events likely to have occurred on the primitive earth is extremely remote . . . . Finally, in this brief summary of the reasons for my growing doubts that life on earth could have begun spontaneously by purely chemical and physical rneana, there is the problem of the origin of genetic, i-e,, biologically relevant, information in biopolymers. No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have ori- ginated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides. Evidence for some degree of spontaneous sequence ordering has been published, but there is no indication whatsoever that the non-randomness is biologically significant. Until such evidence is forthcoming one cer-tainly cannot claim that the possibility of a naturalistic origin of life has been demonstrated. In view of these and other vexing problems in origin-of-life research, there has been a need for some years now for a detailed, systematic analysis of all major aspects of the field. It is time to re-examine the foundations of this research in such a way that all the salient lines of criticism are sirnultaneousIy kept in view. The Mystery of Life's Origin admirably fills this need. The authors have addressed nearly all the problems enumerated above and several other important ones as well. They believe, and I now concur, that there is a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life . . . [pp. vi, vii]
8 --> All of this careful technical work and soul-searching have been swept away with a shout "creationist" and a wave of the hand. All, in the absence of any of the characteristic creationist themes. 9 --> You will understand why I find that sort of distraction, distortion and closed mindedly arrogant dismissal grossly disrespectful and revealing of precisely the sort of contumely that is the typical fate of elites given over to hubris. If DK has any decency he will apologise, and will at length get around to actually dealing wiht issues on teh merits. On track record, sadly, i have but littel expectation that hat will happen. 10 --> But, maybe, possibly, for once, DK will pleasantly surpise me. _______________ In the meanwhile, we have a clearly laid out live example of the kind of attitude and failure of reason that went into Judge Junes' unjust judgement. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Onlookers: Let us observe a common pattern of Darwinists: distractions, distortion, demonisation. or, more colourfully: dragging a red herring to pull us away formt eh track of truth, leadingt out to a strawman soaked in oil of ad hominem, then igniting it to cloud, confuse, poison and choke the atmosphere with polarisation. So, let us get back to basics: 1 --> ACLU/Judge Jones -- tendentiously -- rule that ID is "religion" not "science": and to do so one step in their case was to twist the writings and testimony of Mr Behe, a leading ID researcher. We see also that these worthies have labelled irreducible complexity (a key sign of intelligence) by direct implication "creationism." 2 --> When we took time to point out -- at last count in 396 following up from 303 and even earlier -- how (in terms of the logic involved) a priori Lewontin-style materialism can so bias leaders of science and other institutions that hey are unable to take an objective or fair view of the degree of warrant for the inference to design, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE ON THE LOGIC. So, the point below stands uncontested (but with many an attempt to distract our attention):
if one at first accepts P and sees that P => Q, but is committed to F where F => NOT-Q, then one will be inclined to reject P by inferring F => NOT-Q, NOT-Q so NOT-P. But if NOT-P then implies absurdities, F is in deep trouble. I hold — and I believe I can justify: — that Evolutionary Materialism and the imposition of its handmaiden, methodological naturalism, on science, censors science from being an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) search for the truth about our world based on empirical evidence and reasoned discussion among the informed. [Note, I do not say "the certificated" and/or "the credentialled."]
3 --> Similarly, as 388 - 89 documents, when an appeal to authority was made, per Padian, Miller and Fuller, it turned out that the first two were hardly credible as objective sources nor did they make sound arguments. AND, Fuller was somehow transmuted from the one side of the ledger to the other. For, what he did was to show that science is an institution with a self-perpetuating elite, which makes it very vulnerable to all the defects of an entrenched nobility. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF CONTEXT IN WHICH DOMINANCE BY CLOSED MINDED AND ABUSIVE ELITES MAY MAKE "CONSENSUS" WORTHLESS. 4 --> Along he way, Pandas came up for mention, and so soon as the fact that Pandas was not in fact the defining work on design theory came up, but the 1984 TMLO, suddenly this work was transmuted into a tissue of "creationist" propaganda. (And, while we are at it, "creationist" suddenly means anyone who has a theistic view on ultimate origins, not those who specifically wish to hold that science provides support for a particular interpretation of the Bible and usually challenge the geodating schemes on those grounds, as well as the idea of macroevolution on those grounds. In short, "science" has now become a synonym for "materialism" -- just as Mr Lewontin and Mr Sagan said in 1997.) 5 --> To sustain this, Mr Meyer's 1986 Eternity article was twisted to make it out that Meyer labelled Thaxton et al creationists. This is of courser not true, as I showed, but more to the point: IT IS CLEAR FROM HOW THE BOOK WAS DISMISSED THAT PRESUMED BY DK ET AL THAT IF ONE HOLDS "CREATIONIST" [= THEISTIC] VIEWS, ONE CANNOT DO "SCIENCE" AND SCIENTIFIC WORK BY SUCH A ONE IS INVALID AND CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS, SO SOON AS THE LABEL IS APPLIED. 6 --> Note, TMLO begins by addressing Miller-Urey type experiments and their findings, explores the likely geoconditions in the projected remote past of our planet on conventional dating principles, and addresses the thermodynamics and related information theory issues on the proposed spontaneous formation of life, then addresses the proposals that various forces and factors catalysed life on non-chance constraints (including Dean Kenyon's famous Biochemical Predestination thesis of 1969). WITHOUT A SINGLE ANALYTICAL STEP ALL OF THIS IS DISMISSED BECAUSE THESE MEN CAN BE LABELLED "CREATIONISTS." (And that, by men who are as a rule committed to a prior materialism, i.e. atheism. "Sauce for the goose . . . ") [ ... ]kairosfocus
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
----Earlier I wrote, "Tell me how the methodology of “irreducible complexity” is, as Judge Jones put it, coupled with “creationism and religious antecedents” ---David: "Any reader who did not have access to the decision would think that was a quote: that the referent was to IC. But in fact that’s not true. It is, in short, a made-up quote. You are taking that statement out of context. Earlier I wrote, "I will ask you the same question that I asked Rob: How do you get religion from “irreducible complexity?” I was clearly referring to Judge Jones' decision that all ID is linked to creationism and I was asking how irreducible complexity can fit into that scheme. It was a question, not a statment of Jones direct quote. It was a reflection of the logical extention of Jones' decision that ALL ID is linked to creationism. By the way, that problem persists. If all of ID is linked to creationism, then IC is linked to creationism.StephenB
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
In addition, creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID.
That is true.David Kellogg
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Here is the quote in which Jones calls IC creationism. I don't have a horse in this. Call it a public service.
Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism... In addition, creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID.
He does not use the term IC, but refers to the argument regarding the complexity of the bacterial flagellum, which is unmistakably IC. He thereby singles out IC as a reason for confusing ID and creationism. He does not connect IC to creationism only through IC's role in ID.ScottAndrews
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
----David Kellogg: "Sure it’s a creationist text [Of Pandas and People]. Of course, the body of it is a critique of origin of life chemistry as understood circa 1981. The forward is by a young earth creationist. ---"The epilogue clearly marks their position as creationist." What is it that was said in the epilogue that warrants that opinion? Which definition of creationism are you using?StephenB
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
StephenB, I wrote this:
StephenB, please produce a quote in which Judge Jones says IC is linked to creationism. BS about subsets is beside the point. I will not respond to made up quotes.
StephenB responded:
I did not say that he said that. You need to respond to what is written and not what you hope was written.
I was referring to what was written. I was referring to this [from 331]:
Tell me how the methodology of “irreducible complexity” is, as Judge Jones put it, coupled with “creationism and religious antecedents”
Any reader who did not have access to the decision would think that was a quote: that the referent was to IC. But in fact that's not true. It is, in short, a made-up quote. Who is responding to the text? Me. Who is responding to what he wishes Jones had written. You.David Kellogg
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
jerry, thanks for your response. One of the interesting things about "creationism" is that many in the young-earth creationist community have tried to exclude others (including the venerable old-earth creationists) from creationism. See Chris Toumey, God's Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World for a sociological exploration of that phenomenon. Your view works for you, but it's worth noting that it diverges from many others including some who would define themselves as creationists.
Meyer was using the term in 1986 and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then and he may want to refine his classification.
Agreed! For example, he might be much less likely to define them as creationists after a certain Supreme Court decision in 1987. :-)David Kellogg
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
----David Kellogg: "StephenB, please produce a quote in which Judge Jones says IC is linked to creationism. BS about subsets is beside the point. I will not respond to made up quotes." I did not say that he said that. You need to respond to what is written and not what you hope was written. If said that if ID is tied to creationism, as Judge Jones said, the IC is also implicated since it is subset of ID. That is a logical fact. You shouldn't make things like that up. ----"As to who is and is not a creationist, I took Stephen Meyer’s definition as pretty good. I still think it’s pretty good, but as I have said before, I don’t think questions of definition are answerable in absolute terms: I think they are best framed in pragmatic terms." So, are you saying that Steven Myers definition of creationism [where did you get that by the way] is the same as the one Judge Jones used, or are you saying that Judge Jones used the wrong definition and therefore decided badly, or are you saying that you like both Judge Jones definition, when it persecutes ID, but you also like Steven Myers definition if it allows you wiggle room in another context. Or, are saying that you don't know Judge Jones' definition of creationism, but whatever it is, it must have been good if it helped him rule against ID? Do you, in fact, know what you are saying?StephenB
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
If questions about definition are not answerable in absolute terms, and if the definition of science is not answerable in absolute terms, then how is it that Judge Jones and yourself can declare that ID is not science?
A good question! I can't speak for Judge Jones's view of definition, but a pragmatic account of definition does not seek to answer the question "What is X?" for all time. Debates about "what is X?" are better if we acknowledge that we are really asking "What is the most useful way of thinking about X?" rather than "What is X really?" (See Edward Schiappa, Defining Reality: Definition and the Politics of Meaning). Definitions of science change; there's no getting arounnd that. So do definitions of life, death, wetlands, climate, etc. Even if it were not true of "facts" (though I think it is), it's certainly true of obviously social practices such as science. A definition is a collective decision about what counts as X at a particular time and place. As Schiappa notes, "When we define a situation, that definition becomes a form of social influence by implying what are or are not appropriate responses to it." In a sense, that would acknowledges that Jones's decision was social, but so are all decisions and all definitions.David Kellogg
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
StephenB @436
A defining paragraph from the opening of On Pandas and People: . . . If the book begins by denouncing creationism and affirming ID, how can it be converted from creationism to ID.
See the two references I provided above. "cdesign proponentists" is the smoking gun. How do you propose to refute it?
If a book, which probably contains 60,000 words, undergoes editing to the tune of a mere 150 words, can the books main argument be changed by altering .0025 of its content.
No, it cannot. That is Forrest's point. The authors of Of Pandas and People clearly consider "intelligent design" to be a synonym for "creationism." That is certainly not the position of all ID proponents, but it was enough to lose in Dover and it can't be swept under the rug as you attempt to do. However much distaste you have for Barbara Forrest, claiming that "cdesign proponentists" never existed does nothing for your credibility and provides more ammunition for ID opponents. JJJayM
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden @433
We’re supposed to have the moral high ground. It doesn’t help the ID movement to have ID proponents making claims that are so easily demonstrated to be false.
Everytime JayM, every single time you post, you argue against ID, and at the end of your post you claim to be a supporter of ID. I have never, not once, seen you agree with an ID supporter. You’re credibility of being ID has worn very, very, thin. I do get a chuckle out of the pretense though, as if you think you’re fooling anyone.
I don't argue against ID, Clive, I argue against poor arguments from ID supporters. That's far more supportive of the eventual goal of making ID credible than is participating in an echo chamber where criticism of people on "our side" is strongly discouraged. StephenB's claims are manifestly false. Of Pandas and People _was_ modified in response to a Supreme Court ruling regarding the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The evidence of the change, "cdesign proponentists", exists. Barbara Forrest didn't make it up. How about calling some of the regulars here, like StephenB, on their behavior that clearly undermines the ID movement rather than attempting to quash valid criticism? JJJayM
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
David Kellogg @445 I'm not familiar with it. I just saw a massive number of posts on whether or not the judge said it and I thought the info might help. It makes me wonder why Behe didn't choose a different example, but I'm sure there were reasons. I read some of your citation, including the relevant section. It's what I suspected - creationism said 'the flagellum is organized and complex, God must have made it.' Reasonable, but not scientific. ID, on the other hand, proposed scientifically why design was the best explanation and did not attempt to infer the biblical God from that evidence. (It's easy to see how the ACLU and the judge both overlooked those details.)ScottAndrews
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
"Do you disagree with Stephen Meyer that the authors of TMLO are creationists?" A couple things: First, I am willing to define creationist. I am sure it will have problems for all the reasons I have been bringing up. Here goes: A creationist is one who believes that all species were created by God within the last several thousand years (pick a number between 6,000 and 100,000.) Some believe natural laws led to modifications of these species over time that causes variants of the original species to exist. But some believe that all the species are essentially in tack. A non creationist would not hold that position while still holding that one or more gene pools might have been directly created. So there is sort of a working definition of a creationist that we can use to start with. Notice I exclude those who believe that God created species maybe millions of years ago and let things run their course till now. I also avoid the origin of human beings because that is a different issue involving mostly theology. There are those who believe that life, the suite of life's varieties and then humans arose from natural means and that God then infused a soul into humans at some point in the relatively recent past. That I believe is a separate issue and if one insists that no such thing happened and that all those who believe it are creationists then that term would then include all the TE's who accept Darwin and a natural origin of life. Second, I have no ideas what the religous beliefs of the TMLO authors are. If one of them or all of them believe that the Judeo Christian God created life then they are like a lot of others in history and not that much different. To refer to them as creationists to me distorts the idea of what that term has come to mean. Meyer was using the term in 1986 and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then and he may want to refine his classification. Or maybe he knows each author more personally than any of us do and still feels the term applies. Either way it does not have zippo to do with their arguments in their book.jerry
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
---David Kellogg: "As to who is and is not a creationist, I took Stephen Meyer’s definition as pretty good. I still think it’s pretty good, but as I have said before, I don’t think questions of definition are answerable in absolute terms: I think they are best framed in pragmatic terms." If questions about definition are not answerable in absolute terms, and if the definition of science is not answerable in absolute terms, then how is it that Judge Jones and yourself can declare that ID is not science?StephenB
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
---Scott Andrews: "I’m observing this back-and-forth on whether it can be inferred that the judge thought IC was creationism. You seem to understand that Judge Jones thought that ID was creationism. ----"I don’t agree with the general-to-specific argument (statistics are also a component of ID - are statistics creationism?) but it’s not relevant." Of course statistics are not creationism any more than is specific argument which they support, any more than is the general argument that they both support. None of it is creationism. However the general to specific argument is quite valid. What is ID, after all, except the argument that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." If that is tied to creationism, then all specific arguments that support and confirm it are also tied to creationism. Statistics have nothing to do with it. Statistics is not an argument. To say statistics is an argument is like saying that words are arguments. They are used to make arguments, but they are not arguments. If all of ID is tied to creationism, then obviously no part can not be tied to creationism. Again, this is basic logic.StephenB
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews: Well, the argument for the complexity iof the flagellum was originally a creationist idea, as Dr. Dembski acknowledges in a turf war with Henry Morris (who Dr. Dembski calls a "great man"):
I've focused here on my own contributions to ID. But the work of my ID colleagues falls in this same pattern of, on the one hand, refurbishing old ideas and, on the other, charting new research paths. Morris aptly notes that Dick Bliss used the bacterial flagellum "in his talks on creation a generation ago." Yet, for an analysis of the probabilistic hurdles involved in trying to evolve the protein parts of a flagellum by purely materialistic means so that the parts properly mesh (i.e., so that their interfaces are compatible, which is a necessary condition for the parts to work together to form a functioning protein machine), you will need to look to the ID literature and, specifically, to a 2004 article in Protein Science by Michael Behe and David Snoke.
Interesting that Dr. Dembski doesn't mention the much earlier Darwin's Black Box -- perhaps because so many of its examples came (the flagellum, the bombardier beetle) came from creationism.David Kellogg
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
StephenB:
ID is the general argument and IC is a specific argument supporting the general argument. If the general argument is tied to creationism, then the specific argument that supports and confirms the general argument is tied to creationism.
I'm observing this back-and-forth on whether it can be inferred that the judge thought IC was creationism. I don't agree with the general-to-specific argument (statistics are also a component of ID - are statistics creationism?) but it's not relevant. While not using the term "irreducible complexity," the judge refers to Behe and Minnich's explanation of the complexity of the flagellum and compares it to creationism. (Search "flagellum" - it appears once.) The reasoning the judge referred to was IC. Hence, the judge says that IC = creationism. (I've lost track of what bearing that information has on anything.)ScottAndrews
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Clarification: "I will not respond to made up quotes" doesn't mean that I won't point out, as I have before, that they're made up.David Kellogg
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
jerry and StephenB, you're very interested in my definition of a creationist. But you haven't provided one yourselves. Do you disagree with Stephen Meyer that the authors of TMLO are creationists?David Kellogg
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
StephenB, please produce a quote in which Judge Jones says IC is linked to creationism. BS about subsets is beside the point. I will not respond to made up quotes. As to who is and is not a creationist, I took Stephen Meyer's definition as pretty good. I still think it's pretty good, but as I have said before, I don't think questions of definition are answerable in absolute terms: I think they are best framed in pragmatic terms.David Kellogg
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
"a creationist is someone who thinks the science points to God." What if the person thinks that science makes it likely that the universe was created by a powerful intelligence? Is that person a creationist? Is a person who uses the fine tuning argument to say that the universe was probably created by a powerful intelligence a creationists? Note I say probably not absolutely. Maybe we can get a consistent understanding of what is a creationist and then we can agree to use that here.jerry
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
---Davidd Kellogg: "Because we took a blood oath to Barbara Forrest in a hexagram at midnight." OK, if you say so, but I would still like you to address the points @438.StephenB
June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
1 9 10 11 12 13 26

Leave a Reply