The Twilight of Intelligent Design (Open thread)

Sunset

It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar. He doesn’t even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer’s book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.

Most of the static websites are moribund. UD has banned virtually all dissenters. The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds. The biologic institute inflates its “selected publications” with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn’t seem to have much to say.

The big guys won’t come out to debate. The small ones mostly won’t leave heavily censored sites. Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as “news”.

And all the threads are about religion. Or tossing coins.

I don’t know why I hadn’t seen it before.

It’s dead.

Posted at “After the Bar Closes on Jan. 05 2014,16:37 by Febble (Elizabeth Liddle)

Does anyone feel like extending or disputing Lizzie’s analysis? What other burning topics are others bothered by? Climate change? Unchecked exploitation of finite resources? Habitat destruction and extinction? I guess many commenters were drawn to this blog by a shared scepticism over “Intelligent Design”. Do we have any other shared interests? Now that ID has declined into insignificance, has TSZ lost it’s raison d’être?

300 thoughts on “The Twilight of Intelligent Design (Open thread)

  1. Wjm:
    As I said, one need not be able to build a car in order to be able to drive a car.

    But one needs to assume a materialistic viewpoint to build or fix one.

  2. And if you can’t build that bridge to what you are sure is the truth and, like UD, are stood on the edge of the river 10 years later still arguing about what exactly a bridge is then at some point they will have to accept it is not ever going to get built.

    All bridges that ever were built were constructed using design, though.

    Seems to analogize William’s “point,” anyway.

    Glen Davidson

  3. Ah, yes, and we can only design because a universe amenable to such can only be the product of a rational mind.

    case closed. last one out turn out the lights!

  4. OMagain,

    I like that paper and what they’re trying to do. I actually personally prefer the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM. I don’t think they are offering a 41-world concept as an actual description of reality, but rather only because it is the most efficient world-scenario that produces some known quantum effects and may serve as a bridge to a new theory.

    From the conclusion:

    Other matters for future investigation include how spin and entanglement phenomena such as teleportation and Bell-inequality violation are modeled in the MIW approach. The latter will require studying the case of worlds with configuration spaces of at least two dimensions (corresponding to two one-dimensional systems), and will also allow analysis of the quantum measurement problem (where one system acts as an “apparatus” for the other). This may help clarify the ontology and epistemology of any fundamental new theory based upon the MIW approach to quantum mechanics.

    Those Bell-inequality violations are exactly the very thing I’ve been talking about via the local realism issues. They currently have no answer for them via their model. IOW, the 41-world model they created predicts some known QM effects very well while maintaining a discrete, classical world perspective, but fail to account for the very issues I’ve said disprove materialism.

    Now, if it had been 42 worlds, then you’d have something.

  5. velikovskys said:

    But one needs to assume a materialistic viewpoint to build or fix one.

    Not at all. The difference between materialism and non-materialism philosophical viewpoints is that materialism claims that all there is, is material. Non-materialist perspective doesn’t hold that a material realm, with identifiable material laws and tendencies, doesn’t exist, but rather that it isn’t all there is.

    A non-materialist can easily design build a car without assuming the materialist position or materialist-necessary concepts. A materialist, however, has no right to utilize non-materialist conceptions (even though they do), because their worldview excludes them.

    The non-materialist view doesn’t exclude a material world with material tendencies, it just holds it as a subset of the whole of what is available.

  6. Wow! Talk about your ‘god-of-the-gaps’ reliants…

    “God controls the motion of the planets”
    (…until it’s shown to be a material process)

    “God controls the winds!”
    (…until it’s shown to be a material process)

    “God controls the color of the sky!”
    (…until it’s shown to be a material process)

    “God colors each panel of every wing on every butterfly! ”
    (…until it’s shown to be a material process)

    “BUT WAIT! THERE ARE STILL A FEW UNEXPLAINED AREAS IN QM!”

    Careful with that razor William, or pretty soon the god you keep insisting on is going to turn out to be nothing more than a gluon…

  7. Robin,

    I haven’t made any cause or claim about any god in the QM discussion, only that the QM research of the past 100 years disproves materialism (inasmuch as science “disproves” anything).

    Disproving materialism isn’t significant evidence in support of “god”. Nice non-sequitur, though.

  8. I have to say I’m a little disappointed that nobody mentioned the pic in the OP.

    Anyway, Happy Holiday, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all commenters and readers of this blog.

  9. WJM

    Ok, choose an example of anything in the universe and explain it with consciousness-centric view..

  10. WJM

    “A non-materialist can easily design build a car without assuming the materialist position”

    How would that be exactly?

    “The non-materialist view doesn’t exclude a material world with material tendencies, it just holds it as a subset of the whole of what is available.”

    What’s in the rest of the set?

  11. What’s in the rest of the set?

    Intelligent design, obviously. Have you not been paying attention?

    I mean, Dembski stipulates that design is the set-theoretic complement of chance and necessity. As he sets up the vocabulary — following Plato’s discussion in Timaeus — there are only three ways that something can come to be or to exist: (1) by chance; (2) by necessity (exceptionless laws of nature); (3) design.

    The whole point of the explanatory filter and complex specified information is to motivate the argument that (i) life is characterized by complex specified information; (ii) complex specified information is very likely the result of design because (iii) chance cannot produce complex information and (iv) necessity cannot produce specified information; therefore (v) it is overwhelmingly likely that life is the product of design.

    This is why ID advocates don’t care too much about fighting neo-Darwinian accounts of speciation — though some of them do — whereas abiogenesis is their Waterloo. If complexity theory were to show that design is not necessary for complex specified information, ID would be dead. This is also why Arrington periodically lampoons “emergence” (which he obviously doesn’t understand and doesn’t care to) — the more plausible emergentism, the less attractive design theory.

  12. Kantian Naturalist wrote:

    If complexity theory were to show that design is not necessary for complex specified information, ID would be dead.

    Dembski’s argument used to work that way, and many of the denizens of UD still think that this is his argument. Defined the old way, CSI could be put into genomes by natural selection. All natural selection had to do was pick out, and fix, the best base out of 4 at 250 sites, and voila, CSI.

    However, since 2005 or 2006 Dembski has redefined CSI as only being present when there is enough specified information which cannot be produced by chance and/or necessity. So then by definition chance and necessity cannot ever produce CSI.

    Unfortunately, that leaves us with no methodology for concluding that Design is present. Only after we conclude that it is present do we get to designate it as CSI.

  13. Robin said:

    “god”…”ID”…meh. Potato, potahto…

    ID was not an aspect of the QM discussion either.

  14. Yeah…ok William…But since you could change your beliefs at any moment to suit your needs, how do you know ID wasn’t part of your discussion?

    But fine…”consciousness” then. Those horse riding lessons still aren’t doing much for your driving ability…

  15. since 2005 or 2006 Dembski has redefined CSI as only being present when there is enough specified information which cannot be produced by chance and/or necessity. So then by definition chance and necessity cannot ever produce CSI.

    Unfortunately, that leaves us with no methodology for concluding that Design is present. Only after we conclude that it is present do we get to designate it as CSI.

    More proof that ID is dead: not even Dembski thinks it’s a scientific theory anymore. Is Abrahamson going to demand a refund?

  16. William, I have a completely off-topic question.

    You are willing to debate here. As does Phoodoo and Mung (occasionally). And I will admit that, from what I have seen, you have been civil.

    But your fellow UD compatriots (Barry, Gordon, Louis, etc.) never venture here. Why is that? It can’t be because they are banned, which is a constant complaint against UD, although I have not heard that you have used this tactic. Gordon has even gone as far to deny that he even has that authority, which is obviously false.

    Many here would gladly debate at UD, but they have been banned because they disagree with Gordon or Barry. And none of the banned people have come close to the level of offenders and abuse that Joe uses on a daily basis.

    So, I guess my question is, why is Joe still allowed to comment at UD? It certainly can’t be because he is good at presenting the ID viewpoint.

  17. acartia_bogart,

    Do you really think I have the answers to any of those questions?

  18. William, I will settle for your opinion. I realize that you don’t speak for ID, any more than I speak for materialism. But we both have opinions about them.

    I am just curious as to why you think that UD feels it necessary to stifle and censor all but a token handful of dissenting voices. It certainly can’t be due to offensive language or abusive behaviour because their are certainly examples from the ID proponents (eg., Barry, Gordon, Louis and, of course, Joe) who can get away with any amount of abusive antics.

    Again, I am just interested in your opinion about this.

  19. For a movement like ID to be claimed to be in the twilight of its story this is a very posty thread. A very lingering twilight indeed.

  20. Robert,
    People are still writing books about Hitler and he’s been dead over 50 years.

    ID is not a “movement”. It’s one blog and a couple of people writing books aimed at the lay-person. There are more people talking about ID supporters then there are active ID supporters!

  21. William,

    They currently have no answer for them via their model. IOW, the 41-world model they created predicts some known QM effects very well while maintaining a discrete, classical world perspective, but fail to account for the very issues I’ve said disprove materialism.

    I look forwards to reading your formal response to their paper where you detail those failures. Where will you be submitting it? I will keep an eye out.

  22. acartia_bogart,

    At the top of UD, it says “Serving the intelligent design community.” Nowhere do I see it promoted as a debate site for anti-ID advocates to be able to come and swamp out pro-ID discussion with anti-ID messaging, negative characterizations, narrative and talking points.

    If you want to be able to stay and interact, you have to be cognizant of the fact that the site is supposed to serve the ID community (of which Joe and the others you list are part of, including myself) and not the anti-ID community. Antagonizing members of that community is going to get you tossed out, even if the pro-ID members are misbehaving as well, because the site is set up to serve them and not you.

    Is this fair to anti-ID advocates? It’s not intended to be. It’s a clubhouse (so to speak) for members and not a 3rd party, neutral debate facility. It’s rather easy to stay on at UD even if you are an anti-ID advocate; all it takes is self-control and respect for the nature of the site. IMO, the only ones that get banned are those who want to get banned because it serves their narrative.

    Have people gotten banned from UD simply by being extremely annoying? IMO, yes. Why? Because the site serves ID advocates and reserves the right to ban **anyone** they feel is detrimental to that stated mission.

    It’s really easy to not get banned at UD if you want to stay on there and contribute.

    As to why ID advocates do not come here, I imagine that they don’t come here for pretty much the same reason I have to limit my exposure. It’s a pretty toxic atmosphere for anyone whose views don’t largely conform to the status quo of the resident tribe here. The nature of the site and the lack of moderation facilitates abusive commentary.

    I’m not saying this site should be set up differently, or that UD is set up better, I’m just pointing out that the sites are set up to serve different functions. This is not what I would consider a “neutral debate site”; but is more long the lines of an open-door free-for-all. Which is fine for that purpose, but you should recognize the distinction.

    A debate site would have formal rules and stringent moderation. ID advocates seek out and often enter into such debate venues, such as at college campuses or other hosted debate events with anti-ID advocates. What they don’t often do is spend time at free-for-all sites like TSZ where anti-ID mudslinging is the norm.

    So, I don’t think it’s fair to say that ID advocates are afraid of open debate when they won’t come here to debate and kick out unruly guests at UD. TSZ is really far too hostile towards ID views to expect advocates of those views come here to subject themselves to what goes on here – and, ID proponents are usually only too happy to engage in debate in a more formal, moderated debate venue.

  23. OMagain said:

    I look forwards to reading your formal response to their paper where you detail those failures. Where will you be submitting it? I will keep an eye out.

    They admit in their own paper their experiment did not address Bell-inequality violations – I even bolded that admission when I quoted their paper. That’s the very reason why I quoted that section and bolded “Bell-inequality violations” in that sentence.

  24. WJM:

    Have people gotten banned from UD simply by being extremely annoying? IMO, yes. Why? Because the site serves ID advocates and reserves the right to ban **anyone** they feel is detrimental to that stated mission.

    The truth is always troublesome for those that need to deny it.

  25. William,
    Funny how you do talk to me sometimes, but other times what I write can be dismissed as a rant.

    I’ve noticed a pattern to what you choose to respond to. Have you?

  26. OMagain said:

    I’ve noticed a pattern to what you choose to respond to.

    Does the pattern contain CSI?

  27. William,

    Does the pattern contain CSI?

    It might, or it might not. Shame there’s literally no way to tell!.

  28. OMagain said:

    It might, or it might not. Shame there’s literally no way to tell!.

    One wonders then why you would notice a pattern that is functionally indistinguishable from a random pattern?

  29. William:
    “At the top of UD, it says “Serving the intelligent design community. Nowhere do I see it promoted as a debate site for anti-ID advocates to be able to come and swamp out pro-ID discussion with anti-ID messaging, negative characterizations, narrative and talking points.”

    True, but Barry has repeatedly said that the site welcomes dissenting views. So, one of you is being a little disingenuous. But I do like how the ID crowd dismisses evidence by calling it narrative and talking points.

    “Antagonizing members of that community is going to get you tossed out, even if the pro-ID members are misbehaving as well, because the site is set up to serve them and not you.”

    It is true that there is occasionally some antagonizing going on, but it has been my experience that the antagonism on the ID side far outweighs the antagonism on the anti-ID side (http://uncommondescentmyass.blogspot.ca/2014/10/behaviour-of-ud-commenters.html)

    “It’s rather easy to stay on at UD even if you are an anti-ID advocate; all it takes is self-control and respect for the nature of the site. IMO, the only ones that get banned are those who want to get banned because it serves their narrative.”

    Now you are just closing your eyes to the facts. I was banned once for refusing to answer one of Barry’s baited, loaded questions. I tried to continue to participate civilly and constructively but his every response to one of my comments was to call be a coward for not answering his question, finally calling me a pathetic snivelling coward right before banning me. On another occasion, I committed the UD crime of criticizing Joe’s abusive and offensive language. I was jumped all over by Mr. Mullings, and then banned. So I think that you might have to re-think your statement above.

    “As to why ID advocates do not come here, I imagine that they don’t come here for pretty much the same reason I have to limit my exposure. It’s a pretty toxic atmosphere for anyone whose views don’t largely conform to the status quo of the resident tribe here. “

    William, what toxic atmosphere are you talking about? From what I have seen here, your views have been vigorously questioned, but in a level of civility that the ID proponents at UD never display. Your point here also does not hold water because ID opponents are more than willing to engage in debate at UD, in spite of the abuse that they almost always experience.

    “The nature of the site [TSZ] and the lack of moderation facilitates abusive commentary.”

    Have you ever read any of Joe’s comments? If that is what UD considers moderation, I much prefer the moderation on this site.

    “So, I don’t think it’s fair to say that ID advocates are afraid of open debate when they won’t come here to debate and kick out unruly guests at UD. TSZ is really far too hostile towards ID views to expect advocates of those views come here to subject themselves to what goes on here – and, ID proponents are usually only too happy to engage in debate in a more formal, moderated debate venue.”

    William, how can anyone interpret it any other way? ID opponents are not afraid to enter a pro-ID venue such as UD and discuss the issues (when they are allowed), yet very few ID proponents will enter a pro-evolution site such as this and discuss the same issues. The UD site is far more hostile to ID opponents than this site is towards ID proponents. And with respect to your last line above, this is true with one small caveat. They are happy to engage in these moderated debates in places like christian colleges, or Ken Ham’s arc park (or whatever it is called), not exactly neutral territories.

  30. William,
    An excellent question.

    What’s your answer?

    And care to put a value on the CSI in any particular comment, if any? Or are you in the “it can be shown to be present but an exact value cannot be calculated” camp?

  31. acartia_bogart,

    William, what toxic atmosphere are you talking about? From what I have seen here, your views have been vigorously questioned, but in a level of civility that the ID proponents at UD never display.

    I often wonder about this myself. Perhaps William could point to a few specific examples of what he means.

    As I’ve noted before, simply asking for supporting evidence for (on the face of it) baseless claims is toxic to your average ID supporter.

    I mean, KF is on record as saying he will *never* post here because of me. How convincent, I wonder what his excuse is for not posting anywhere other then UD on ID is?.

    But William, a couple examples of someone generating a pretty toxic atmosphere would be helpful – perhaps it’s me we are talking about and I’d like to change that if I can! 😉

  32. take 2.

    acartia_bogart,

    William, what toxic atmosphere are you talking about? From what I have seen here, your views have been vigorously questioned, but in a level of civility that the ID proponents at UD never display.

    I often wonder about this myself. Perhaps William could point to a few specific examples of what he means.
    As I’ve noted before, simply asking for supporting evidence for (on the face of it) baseless claims is toxic to your average ID supporter.

    I mean, KF is on record as saying he will *never* post here because of me. How convincent, I wonder what his excuse is for not posting anywhere other then UD on ID is?.

    But William, a couple examples of someone generating a pretty toxic atmosphere would be helpful – perhaps it’s me we are talking about and I’d like to change that if I can! 😉

  33. I disagree with the contention that this site is “toxic” to theists or to supporters of intelligent design, but I do acknowledge that Uncommon Descent and The Skeptical Zone are intended to serve very different purposes. UD is, as William put it, their club-house. Critics of ID should comport themselves as guests, and when one can longer comport themselves respectfully, one ought to leave. That’s what I did. I wasn’t banned; I left because I felt I could no longer respect someone who believes that intelligent design is a good empirical explanation of biological phenomena. Leaving the clubhouse and not looking back seemed like the right thing to do, and not least for the sake of my own mental hygiene.

    Interestingly, and perhaps because TSZ and UD exist in the same tiny corner of the blogosphere, there’s been very little contribution here from theists who do not support ID or creationism. The BioLogos crowd, for example, have taken no notice of us. Personally I’d like to get Steven Talbott involved in our conversations. He’s been referred to by folks at UD a few times, and I find his work fascinating.

  34. OMagain:

    Perhaps William could point to a few specific examples of what he means.

    That would be a first.

  35. Robert Byers:

    For a movement like ID to be claimed to be in the twilight of its story this is a very posty thread. A very lingering twilight indeed.

    We can all talk for [insert home nation here]. So what?

    For a theory claimed to be in the last 15 years of its life, evolution seems to be doing remarkably well, and bearing fruit. Actual, published fruit. ID has pretty much shot its bolt.

    (BTW, I posted a resposne to your last attmpt to justify ‘Flood geology’ back in the Meyer thread where we started).

  36. Kantian Naturalist: Interestingly, and perhaps because TSZ and UD exist in the same tiny corner of the blogosphere, there’s been very little contribution here from theists who do not support ID or creationism.

    I think Steve Schaffner’s posts would count as fitting those criteria.

  37. acartia_bogart said:

    True, but Barry has repeatedly said that the site welcomes dissenting views.

    Welcoming dissenting views doesn’t mean allowing dissenters to do whatever they wish. The site still primarily serves the ID community.

    It is true that there is occasionally some antagonizing going on, but it has been my experience that the antagonism on the ID side far outweighs the antagonism on the anti-ID side

    So? I already said it’s not intended to be a fair system.

    Now you are just closing your eyes to the facts. I was banned once for refusing to answer one of Barry’s baited, loaded questions.

    You’re a pretty smart fella. I imagine you could have figured out a way to keep yourself from being banned had that been your intent.

    Have you ever read any of Joe’s comments? If that is what UD considers moderation, I much prefer the moderation on this site.

    I didn’t say that UD was moderated like a formal debate site. UD is moderated in accordance with what it is – a site that serves the ID community and at the discretion of Mr. Arrington. Keep that in mind and you should be fine; expecting it to be moderated some other way even in light of the historical record is, IMO, the hallmark of someone whose intent is to be banned in order to serve their own narrative.

    They are happy to engage in these moderated debates in places like christian colleges, or Ken Ham’s arc park (or whatever it is called), not exactly neutral territories.

    Have you ever known an ID figure to turn down a formal debate with any anti-ID personality at a neutral location? Or a formal, moderated debate at **any** location? From what I remember, it’s always been the other way around because anti-ID advocates didn’t want to give ID advocates the exposure.

    If most debates are on ID-friendly turf, whose fault is that? Many college campuses are intolerant of events featuring ID personalities and attempt to have them shut down; christian venues are eager for such debates.

    The UD site is far more hostile to ID opponents than this site is towards ID proponents.

    Even if we postulate it as a given that ID advocates prefer formally moderated debate and sites that are moderated for their benefit over visiting sites with essentially no moderation and are anti-ID, so what? They are not under any obligation to subject themselves to non-moderated hostility in order to debate just because you are willing to subject yourselves to pro-ID hostility/moderation to do so. Does that make them afraid? Or does it just make them smart?

  38. William: “Even if we postulate it as a given that ID advocates prefer formally moderated debate and sites that are moderated for their benefit over visiting sites with essentially no moderation and are anti-ID, so what? “

    Paraphrasing Gordon ((Kairosfocus) Mullings, that is very telling. If the ID proponents are uncomfortable debating people who actually understand the subject, the problem might just be with the defensibility of their viewpoint.

    If you have another explanation, I am open to your proposals.

  39. And, William, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas. And I do mean this sincerely.

  40. acartia_bogart

    Paraphrasing Gordon ((Kairosfocus) Mullings, that is very telling. If the ID proponents are uncomfortable debating people who actually understand the subject, the problem might just be with the defensibility of their viewpoint.

    That’s not even a approximate paraphrasing of what I said. It’s pretty close to being the opposite of what I said.

    If you have another explanation, I am open to your proposals.

    I offered you one in the very material you quoted from. Apparently, your internal narrative that seeks to characterize IDists as “uncomfortable” and “afraid” (a theme you and other anti-ID advocates revisit often) is immune to alternative perspectives. It appears necessary for you to see ID advocates a certain way.

    One can invent all sorts of narratives to “explain” the actions and behaviors of others. You say it’s very “telling”; “telling” in what sense? About what? The emotional state or the character of ID proponents? It certainly doesn’t have any significant impact on whether or not ID is a valid scientific theory, any more than the racism of Darwin or the neo-Christian semi-occultism of Newton made any difference to the value of their theories.

    At the end of the day, so what? What is the narrative worth in terms of the ID debate? So what if your narrative is true? So what if ID advocates are “afraid” of debating Darwinists? That doesn’t bolster the Darwnist argument; it doesn’t bolster the materialist argument; that doesn’t detract from the ID argument; that doesn’t detract from theistic arguments. It serves no purpose other than reinforcing your narrative, an important aspect of which seems to be that IDists are afraid, or uncomfortable, or hypocrites, or have some other set of character flaws that make absolutely no difference to to the substance of the debates.

    Whether or not ID advocates are “afraid” of debating Dawinists has no substantive value whatsoever to any of the arguments at hand. Why suicide-bomb yourself all over UD in an effort to point out the character flaws of ID advocates, especially the guy who runs the blog?

  41. I appreciate the sentiment, but we don’t do Christmas. It’s just another day to us.

  42. Neil Rickert

    I think Steve Schaffner’s posts would count as fitting those criteria.

    So do I. (Some might argue they don’t count as contributions, however.)

  43. William:
    “That’s not even a approximate paraphrasing of what I said. It’s pretty close to being the opposite of what I said.”

    I wasn’t paraphrasing you, I was paraphrasing Gordon (Kairosfocus) Mullings.

    ” It appears necessary for you to see ID advocates a certain way.”

    No. I see ID advocates in many different ways. I see you as honestly trying to present your views in a civil way. I see Barry thinking that he is being astute, when he’s not. I see Mullings as a person impressed by his own vocabulary, but with no substance. I see Joe as a total embarrassment for whichever side he supports.

    ” It certainly doesn’t have any significant impact on whether or not ID is a valid scientific theory, “

    I agree. But it is not up to evolutionists to prove that ID is not a valid scientific theory. It is up to ID proponents to prove this. And it will be difficult to do this by banning all dissenting opinions.

    “Why suicide-bomb yourself all over UD in an effort to point out the character flaws of ID advocates, especially the guy who runs the blog?”

    Can you provide examples of this? The only one whose character flaws I pointed out was Joe’s. Low hanging fruit if I ever saw them. But don’t mention “fruit” around Joe, given his homophobic attitude.

    All of my other comments were relevant to the discussion. But feel free to try to prove me wrong.

  44. William,

    Apparently, your internal narrative that seeks to characterize IDists as “uncomfortable” and “afraid” (a theme you and other anti-ID advocates revisit often) is immune to alternative perspectives.

    Except it’s true! Why does KF not want to publish his work on FSCO/I? He says it’s because there’s no point because academia is run by Jackbooted Darwinists who will never let such work be published.

    Seems like fear to me. But tell me, what alternative perspective is there?

    It serves no purpose other than reinforcing your narrative, an important aspect of which seems to be that IDists are afraid, or uncomfortable, or hypocrites, or have some other set of character flaws that make absolutely no difference to to the substance of the debates.

    I think it’s precisely because of the character flaws that the debates are as they are.

    You, for example, will only engage on topics where you think you have the upper hand. You won’t reference specific support for your specific claims and you’ll often make what seems like one argument and then when called on it turn around and explain that you were actually talking about something else (for example, when you claimed that FSCO/I was calculable and it turned out you were simply re-iterating someone elses claim that FSCO/I was calculable) and so don’t need to defend that original claim.

    I explained much of this already in my previous rather lengthy rant. You do not want to or are simply unable to engage on the technical level where terms are agreed and hence progress can be made.

    But what these “character flaws” ultimately add up to is an inability for you and your ilk to progress your case. If you are unwilling or unable to deal with counter arguments you’ll never progress past that point in the view of the outside world. Unless you engage on the technical arguments, enjoy the talking shop.

    Hence why it’s not really a problem to KF that FSCO/I cannot be calculated, and also why it has not made any progress in the wider scientific world, which would love to have such a metric available. His “flaw” is that he thinks he should be able to bypass the normal process where FSCO is “shown to have utility” and just get FSCO/I taught in schools (or used in labs or whatever he thinks it can be used for).

    Whether or not ID advocates are “afraid” of debating Dawinists has no substantive value whatsoever to any of the arguments at hand.

    That’s right! And that’s why you have no substantive arguments! Your flaws prevent it.
    A debate would be point, counterpoint and so on. You personally are unable to do that. You will “become satisfied with the current state of the debate” and walk off. That’s not debating, that’s just arrogance.

    If you actually think you are capable of such a real debate, rather then the side-shows you put on here, then I call you on that now. There are debate sites specifically set up for structured argument, where your failure to respond to a point is clear to all.

    If you think yourself capable of such, pick your topic….

    But of course, you are not going to do that as all you are saying is something else to what you ostensibly seem to be saying.

    Merry just another day.

  45. Steve Schaffer, I appreciate your contributions here — though they are too infrequent for my taste.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.