“Interesting” isn’t it when the objectors to ID “suddenly” take an interest in substantial points from the Weak Argument Correctives and Glossary? For instance, just above, CIT wants to parse the definition of Intelligence, and one of those for Design Theory. (Pardon my suspicions for a moment, let’s pause and speak to the point just above.)

CIT evidently wants to understand what ID is as the study of SIGNS of intelligence. Well . . .

1 –> ID is not the study of intelligence itself (an unobservable . . . ) but of its characteristic signs, from which one infers and empirically supports the presence of the signified.

2 –> This is similar to how (ever since J J Thomson’s work in 1897 or so) we do not directly observe electrons and other more exotic particles — can you show me a photograph of an electron? — but are quite confident of their presence from signs of their interactions that leave observable traces such as bubble chamber tracks or dots on oscilloscope screens; and onward, infer to other constructs, e.g. I used to illustrate the Lorentz Force by setting an old [!] CRO to XY mode and using a hand-rotated bar magnet to deflect and pull the dot around with it in a circle, to explain Induction Motors and TV deflection yokes, etc. (Have you ever seen “energy” or “time” either?)

3 –> In short, it is a commonplace in science to have integrative constructs or concepts that are not directly observed but are viewed as well substantiated on inference to best explanation of clusters of observed phenomena and characteristic signs.

4 –> just so, we know [from personal experience and observation] that intelligences exist and act into the world, producing artifacts with characteristic traces, which of course manifest the purposefulness of intelligence, i.e reflect that intelligences plan and implement such towards goals. ID sets about studying such traces, so that from the resulting credible signs of intelligence, we may infer from sign to intelligence in cases where we do not directly observe an intelligence at work. FSCI is of course one such sign, and in the more technical form, FSC, has been not only quantified but at least one list of 35 measured values in functional bits [= "fits"] has been published for families of proteins [cf WAC 27 for the link to Durston et al].

But, such technical matters are in reality a distraction from something far more serious that has emerged in this pivotal thread, and has formed its main focus. [SG, kindly observe from the original post, the link to the HuffPo hit piece, the prominence given therein to a false accusation of "lying" as the context for his VHS video reference -- cf 104 - 5 for a detailed expose -- and then let us return to the main focus for the thread.]

For, this thread has revealed:

a –> The real context for the last sentence of the Touchstone 1999 article [cf esp 104 - 5 above] that Mr Brown at HuffPo et al [and behind him, Ms Forrest etc.] have latched onto. (That is, as WAC 7 highlights, having outlined ID theory and techniques c. 1999, WmAD was making some explicitly philosophical and theological remarks as he projected onward and outward from the technical scientific matters. Far from “lying” or concealing a hidden tyrannical theocratic agenda [cf. WAC's 7 - 8], he was providing a corrective to the smuggling in of a priori, Lewontinian materialism into science, education and other key institutions of our civilisation.)

b –> The slander-based, demonising incivility embedded in the false accusation of lying and hidden tyrannical theocratic agendas, once it begins to snowball, is destructive to the culture of mutual respect that is foundational to our liberties. And, when I pointed this out, I found myself promptly threatened with and/or actually reported to the US Homeland Security Dept, to put me on a terror-threat watch list. In short, the thread contains a live example of slander and destructive tyrannical incivility — from the evolutionary materialist side. [I have taken initial steps to lodge an official complaint.]

c –> HuffPo reveals that the common taunt that UD is censoring and suppressive of dissent — for all the problems we have had here — is too often hypocritical, sometimes even evidently cynically so. Here, Mr Brown made much of how his comments were moderated and held up for a few hours, but in fact at his own thread, dissenting comments by other participants in this thread were not only sharply constricted as to length, but were held up for a day or in many cases simply never appeared, no explanation. So, if one is serious about having a civil discussion on the merits, UD is the place to do it.

d –> moreover, the thread also shows that he WAC’s [and glossary] do in fact form a key point of departure for addressing serious questions on design theory, by cutting away a lot of thorny, noxious brushwood based on misunderstandings — often based on naively thinking that the critics of ID have given a true and fair view of what they are attacking [a problem that holds all the way up to Judge Jones' Dover decision . . . ] — so that a more serious discussion can ensue. (And SG, that is a vital and even positive contribution.)

GEM of TKI

Caman,

Then give me an example of ID postulating that a designer is determined to act in a certain way.

Referring to the glossary here on UD:

Intelligence – Wikipedia aptly and succinctly defines: “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.”

Since ID is “the science that studies signs of intelligence,” wouldn’t design itself be a sign that something planned to act in a certain way?

Onlookers:

It’s a good thing I decided to pass back.

Yes, they’re depending on you.

Recall, the main issue on the table is deliberate slander…

I don’t get that when I read Clive’s article. Do you control the issues on the table? Sometimes UDers start new threads to address “pivotal” issues arising in other threads. Why don’t you log in to UD as a white-box user and move this side discussion, which you are sure trumps the original in importance, to the top of the blog?

Then give me an example of ID postulating that a designer is determined to act in a certain way.

What definition of intent are you using?

Pronunciation: \in-?ten(t)-sh?n\
Function: noun
1: a determination to act in a certain way

Can a tracker follow the deer’s tracks while not worrying about intent or what if any properties the deer possesses? Are you saying we must assume a deer’s tracks are the product of a deer or that we must not?

We are talking about intelligent design, aren’t we? Tracks left by deer are hardly design, much less intelligent.

It’s a good thing I decided to pass back.

SG’s comments just above underscore the precise pattern of problems I have highlighted.

Recall, the main issue on the table is deliberate slander, and that a secondary issue is threatening a participant with malicious report to the Homeland Security Dept; and maybe it was more than “just” a threat too.

As to the ethical import of evolutionary material-ISM, ever since Plato, as already cited, the system of thought has been A-moral.

Spell that: is-ought gap, as in from a material is, you cannot derive an ethical ought.

(As Elizabeth Anscombe long ago corrected Hume en passant, one cannot derive the ought from the is, save when the ought is inherent in the import of the fundamental reality. That is a key advantage of theism, never mind all the current carping at deontological ethics etc [the Euthryphro dilemma being especially long since past sell-by date): the inherently good God commands that which is good and for our own good, which we can see through the light of conscience-guided reason and the pursuit of virtue, is indeed not arbitrary. [My 101 level discussion is here, including on why I do not go along with relativism on ethics.] And, the heart of sound sustainability of development analysis is the ethics of equity.)

G’day again

GEM of TKI

What is your estimate of the number of onlookers in comment 286? Keep it in mind that this thread no longer appears on the UD home page.

So, so long as our innate, inescapable sense that justice is binding, matters greatly and is far more than “might makes right” speaks true, we can see that since philosophical naturalism and/or materialism reduces to amorality — and thus reduces ethics to might makes right — it patently reduces itself to absurdity.

Your view of ethics strikes me as parochial, as do those of many religious people. Have you ever taken a philosophy course in the topic?

I have known some atheists who were highly ethical. If you have not, you need to get out more. Furthermore, I have known quite a few Christians who were quite unethical, regarding their salvation as a “get out of jail free” card — i.e., they believed that their professions of faith would get them to heaven, no matter how little regard they showed for the Golden Rule.

Not only so, but the persistent pattern of deflective arguments above to turn this tread from a decisive point through distractions to issues long since adequately answered in the Weak Argument correctives is chillingly revealing in the light of Plato’s analysis.

Don’t you think this is just a bit of a stretch, going from the “weak argument correctives” (where, by the way, are the correctives for the weak arguments IDers so often trot out?) to Plato and “might makes right.” The only person exercising might here at UD is Clive Hayden.