Poof! The ID energy question

ID proponents often portray ID critics as “materialists”, and recently someone asked whether a force was “material”.  Well, if a force isn’t “material” then there are no “materialists”.  So yes, is the answer to that question.  A force that can move matter is a material force.  A force that can’t move matter isn’t a force at all.

And this matters for the Intelligent Design argument, because when we infer that an object has been intelligently designed, we are also inferring that it was fabricated according to that design. And to fabricate an object, or modify it, the fabricator has to accelerate matter, i.e. give its parts some kinetic energy it did not otherwise possess, by applying a force.

Continue reading

The Inadequacy of ALL scientific models.

Kairosfocus discusses this comment of mine at UD:

Elizabeth: That’s not what “undermines the case for design” William.What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer.

If current models are inadequate (and actually all models are), and indeed we do not yet have good OoL models, that does not in itself make a case for design.It merely makes a case for “our current models are inadequate”.

Even if it could be shown that some oberved feature has no possible evolutionary pathway, that wouldn’t make the case for design.What might would be some evidence of a design process, or fabrication process, or some observable force that moved, say, strands of DNA into novel positions contrary to known laws of physics and chemistry.

And it would be interesting.

I’m not going to discuss things at UD until Barry makes it clear that he will not retrospectively delete, wholesale, posts by posters he subsequently decides to ban. It makes discussion pointless.  In any case, comments are closed on that thread.

But I will respond to one thing in Kairosfocus’ post here:

Continue reading

the son of liddle gods

Let’s try this again.

In a recent post here at TSZ Elizabeth Liddle made the following statement:

What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer.

HERE

Odd, I thought. Surely she knows better. All that time spent over at UD and never a case for a designer? Is this claim believable? I thought not.

Continue reading

CSI-free Explanatory Filter…

…Gap Highlighter, Design Conjecture

Though I’ve continued to endear myself to the YEC community, I’ve certainly made myself odious in certain ID circles. I’ve often been the lone ID proponent to vociferously protest cumbersome, ill-conceived, ill-advised, confusing and downright wrong claims by some ID proponents. Some of the stuff said by ID proponents is of such poor quality they are practically gifts to Charles Darwin. I teach ID to university science students in extra curricular classes, and some of the stuff floating around in ID internet circles I’d never touch because it would cause my students to impale themselves intellectually.
Continue reading

On liddle gods and THE BIG DESIGNER IN THE SKY

In a recent post here at TSZ Elizabeth Liddle made the following statement:

What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer.

Odd, I thought. Surely she knows better. All that time spent over at UD and never a case for a designer?

This was later followed by yet another comment from Elizabeth:

I haven’t really taken to the “atheist” label, much although I don’t reject it – but it [the atheist label] implies that my non-belief in god or gods is something categorically different from my non-belief in unicorns or toothfairies, or in the proverbial orbiting teapot.

It’s not, of course, Elizabeth would say. But it is categorically different. For example, no one believes orbiting teapots design anything, and an orbiting teapot would be an instance of design, not an instance of a designer.

As this has now become a topic of discussion in the original thread I think it deserves it’s own thread. Well, not just that, I also think Elizabeth is being dishonest [EDIT: but not deliberately misleading: dishonest, defn. not worthy of trust or belief].

Continue reading

The apparently absent,…

…non-interactive, invisible, silent, hidden, indifferent, concealed Designer

I cringed when I heard an IDist say something to the effect, “we use forensic science all the time to infer design, and this same science demonstrates an Intelligence made life”. The problem is forensic science identifies designs made by humans (or something human like). People generally believe some designer made Stonehenge because they see humans making comparable designs all the time. Many IDists don’t seem to appreciate invoking a never-seen designer poses a challenge for accepting design in biology.
Continue reading

Irish Voters Do the Right Thing….

…Church Was On the Wrong Side, As Usual

http://www.theguardian.com/global/live/2015/may/23/counting-underway-for-irelands-referendum-on-marriage-equality

Ireland becomes first country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote

Irish voters have decisively voted in favour of marriage equality, making Ireland the first country to do so through the ballot box. Only one of the 43 constituencies voted against the proposal – Roscommon-South Leitrim – while the yes vote exceeded 70% in many parts of Dublin. The no campaigners have paid tribute to their opponents, and the archbishop of Dublin has said the result should be a wake-up call for the Catholic church in Ireland.

[title shortened by Lizzie]

ID in E-prime

I’d like to start a thread about the proposition that features of the universe indicate that a designer designed and created it for a purpose.

We have had many such discussions on this blog previously, but I propose that in this thread we abide by a new rule: we will conduct the discussion solely in the form of English called E-prime:

E-Prime (short for English-Prime, sometimes denoted É or E′), a prescriptive version of the English language, excludes all forms of the verb to be. E-Prime does not allow the conjugations of to bebe, am, is, are, was, were, been, being—the archaic forms of to be (e.g. art, wast, wert), or the contractions of to be—’m, ‘s, ‘re (e.g. I’m, he’s, she’s, they’re).

Continue reading