I expect that most here have heard about the situation at Ball State University (in Muncie, Indiana), where a physics professor was apparently including some Intelligent Design in a science class. There was a public fuss. And, more recently, the president of Ball State wrote a letter to the faculty about the situation. It seems to have been a classy letter. She described the issue as one of academic integrity, rather than one of academic freedom as a few commentators had suggested. She apparently agreed that there were first amendment issues, as others suggested. But she saw academic integrity as the main issue. Incidentally, I also thought academic integrity was the issue.
The ID people don’t like what she wrote, because she was blunt about ID not being science. Over at UD, vjtorley has a post “An open letter to BSU President Jo-Ann Gora” where he raises some questions that he would like the Gora to answer. I’m giving my answers here, rather than in a comment at UD, because I think the issues warrant more discussion, and I’m sure others here will want to join in.
Defining ID
Vincent’s first question starts with “how do you define ID”. It specifically asks about fine tuning.
My answer: It is not up to Ball State to define ID. They are reacting to a movement which has been very noisy about what it advocates.
On fine tuning: It does not matter to me whether “fine tuning” is specifically designated as ID. The relevant issues are that:
- “fine tuning” is a religious apologetics argument, and
- it has no scientific content. If the apologetics were removed, it would be philosophy, not science and not philosophy of science.
He also brings up the question of whether the cosmos could be a giant computer simulation. But that, too, I see as philosophy and not science.
Bad science
Vjtorley’s second section opens with:
Would you agree that the discussion of a bad scientific theory – even one whose claims has been soundly refuted by scientific testing, such as aether theories in physics, the phlogiston theory in chemistry, and vitalism in biology – can be productive and genuinely illuminating, in a university science classroom?
To me, this seems a misdirection. ID has never shown any scientific value. By contrast, phlogiston led to a research program of measuring the mass of combustion products. It was the beginnings of modern chemistry, though that very research led to the downfall of phlogiston.
I would class the aether as an hypothesis, rather than a theory. It was a background assumption but played no direct role in research with the exception of the Michelson-Morley experiment. But it did provide a useful background for discussing apparent wave-like phenomena in light transmission. Perhaps it’s role is similar to that of origin-of-life questions in biology. The physics itself did not depend on anything about aether, just as biology does not depend on how life originated. As far as I can tell, ID does not offer anything comparable.
I don’t know much about the history of vitalism, so I won’t comment about that.
Fred Hoyle
The next section begins with:
If you answered “Yes” to question 2, as I expect you did, then I shall assume that for you, the decisive reason for keeping intelligent design out of the science classroom is that it is essentially religious in nature. As you wrote in your email: “Teaching religious ideas in a science course is clearly not appropriate.”
It then goes on to discuss Fred Hoyle’s ideas.
Honestly, Vincent, this is absurd. Nobody would have heard of Hoyle’s view of evolution, if he were not already famous for his astrophysics. An famous astronomer says something laughably dumb about biology, and you really think that’s worthy of time in a biology class?
Now I hope you can see where I’m heading with this line of inquiry. If the discussion of the flaws in intelligent design theory belongs in a university science classroom, it logically follows that discussion of the theory itself belongs in a university science classroom.
Sigh! Creationists and ID proponents are still confusing “theory” and “hypothesis”. ID was never a theory. At best, it is an hypothesis, and a rather bad one at that. Compare it to phlogiston, which was a genuine theory and did lead to useful empirical research. The research we see coming out of the ID community seems to be little more than a search for gaps in which to put your “god of the gaps.” You don’t even need an ID hypothesis for that kind of research.
Richard Smalley
The next section is about Richard Smalley. The whole section reads like apologetics. I am wondering why vjtorley thinks that an apologetics argument would persuade people that ID is not religion.
So my question to you is: if a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry thought that intelligent design belongs in the category of “science”, what makes you so sure that it belongs in the category of religion?
Another non-biologist says something stupid about biology. It should be obvious that this is not useful to discuss in a science class.
Viewpoint endorsement
The Ball State statement said that particular viewpoints should not be endorsed, even in humanities classes. Vjtorley begins his question with:
I’d now like you to consider the hypothetical case of a humanities or social science lecturer at your university who is asked a very direct, personal question by a student: “Do you believe in intelligent design?”
If a student asked me that in class, I would decline to answer and rule it off-topic. If he asked me informally out of class, perhaps I would answer. But, in my opinion, this sort of viewpoint endorsement does not belong in the classroom. I agree with president Gora that this is an issue of academic integrity.
It wouldn’t take a lot of keystrokes to list some earth shzttering research conducted by ID advocates and censored by bullies.
Probably best not to mention Sewell, Axe, Dembski.
And here it is. William, what is it that you think I am terrified of, exactly?
If you make a claim and I find the evidence you provide for that claim persuasive then I’ll be convinced. It’s as simple as that. I grew up in a religious environment. It’s not like it’s a massive shift to something brand new.
If evidence that some deity of some kind existed came to light then it would cause me to seriously rethink my position. I’m not terrified of the idea that some remote deity of some kind exists or created the universe or life etc. No big deal really. I just don’t see any reason to think that given the evidence that we have. But I guess you have to convince yourself that the “others” are terrified of the truth as that helps you process why your arguments are so unconvincing – it’s not your poor arguments, it’s that the terror of there being a supreme being that we might have to answer to is so overwhelming that I can’t concentrate long enough to understand them. This despite the fact that I don’t believe in such a deity in the first place.
Or perhaps you think the censors are terrified that if the truth and evidence get’s out then Darwinism will crumble into dust? All ID proponents do is publish books. All you do at UD is talk about ID. Well, Darwinism really as there’s nothing to talk about with regard to ID but you know what I mean. So if there is a global censorship cabal how come you get to say your piece in OP’s here and at UD? And those books, the books! So many books, so little peer reviewed work!
So if you want to claim that life, the universe and everything is designed be my guest. I’ve got no problem with that. Believe what you want (and, as we know, you do).
However if you want to claim that the sparseness of protein space proves that life could only have been started with a helping hand, the hand of that aforementioned deity, then you’ll have to do better then Axe’s “dogs don’t turn into cats” argument. And the 747 thing is not really helping all that much really. And so on, for the rest of the ID arguments. They’ve all been disassembled. All you’ve left is people like Upright making their “mapping” arguments while avoiding the elephant in the room of “well, how did it happen then Upright? Design? Ok, thanks for that, not much use, but thanks…”.
And Axe, as petrushka notes, seems to have no trouble publishing his work despite the bullying threats you claim hamper ID work. Why is that do you suppose?
If you make a persuasive argument then you will persuade people. If you back that up with evidence, they’ll stay persuaded. And they will go out and persuade others. In science, truth is the ultimate acid – everything melts away when faced with it. Eventually.
But given that you’ve had 400 years (4000, whatever) to come up with some results ever think perhaps it’s not us, its you?
About those ID papers that were rejected by the censors? Working on that are you?
Templeton apparently funded a few things in the early days, but then realized there was no there there. Now, their website FAQ states: “Does the Foundation support “intelligent design”? No. We do not support the political movement known as “intelligent design,” which denies large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge in evolutionary biology. As a matter of policy and in keeping with our legal status, we do not support or endorse political movements of any kind.”
At least you admit your terror; even if it is in the form of projection onto others.
I think you know about the death threats to Judge Jones after his decision in the Dover case.
I think you know about Bill Buckingham’s bullying of the Dover school board members and teachers.
I think you know about Bonsell’s attempts at money laundering to buy the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People for the Dover biology course.
I think you know about the word changes in that textbook that took place in 1987; and I think you know the meaning of “cdesign proponentsists”
I think you know all about the perjury by Buckingham and Bonsell in the Dover courtroom before Judge Jones.
I think you know about Dembski pulling out of the Dover trial to avoid cross examination and then attempting to “rebut” the plaintiff witnesses by way of a Friend of the Court document.
I think you know about William Dembski’s famous “fart video” mocking Judge Jones and the plaintiff witnesses at the Dover Trial.
I think you know about the Kansas State Board of Education and their attempts to change the definition of science and eliminate subject matter they didn’t like.
I think you know about Don McLeroy bullying the public when he was head of the Texas State Board of Education.
I think you know about Louisiana and Bobby Jindal and the creationist legislation there.
I think you know about Edwards v. Aguillard and McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, as well as other major court cases that have ruled on the nature of ID/creationism.
I think you know about the “Wedge Document.”
I think you know about Duane Gish bullying teachers in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
I could go on and on with example after example; and I think you are familiar with every example and know damned well who the aggressors in this culture war are.
You have evidently chosen to remain totally ignorant of science; nobody is going to impose that “doctrine” on you. And you have been as successful as all of your ID/creationist cohorts in keeping yourself ignorant and angry; not even a hint of science understanding at even the high school level.
It’s your choice, and you have made it. However, you don’t get to impose your ignorance and all the misconceptions and misrepresentations of ID/creationism onto others; not by stealth and not by force of law.
The US Constitution forbids the use of the institutions of government to impose your sectarian beliefs and hatreds on others. But you and your cohorts don’t acknowledge any of that.
Nobody is “terrified” of your science; you haven’t any, not even the real kind of science.
But you can be damned sure that there will be plenty of people who know your history and will stop you from imposing your religion on others by attempting to divert science education into sectarian dogma and sectarian pseudoscience.
Since I was talking in general to those that work the hardest to have the ideas of others censored and policed, and threaten and bully any venue that might lend credibility to those other view,, and you responded, which category do you fall in?
Was that an admission?
You can always tell when the freedoms of people are in trouble when the self-appointed intellgentsia decide that it is their duty to protect “laypersons” and “the general public” from information deemed “unfit” by the scientific aristocracy.
How can ideas be censored when anyone can publish anything on the internet?
From the OP:
But Elizabeth says ID is science.
Mike Elzinga:
I’d like to see Mike Elzinga, or anyone else over at TSZ for that matter, come up with a refutation of Hoyle’s mathematics:
Mathematics of Evolution
Mike Elzinga:
I have a better question:
Just where did you get the idea that ID/creationists never do any research?
Since in William’s world proper religioius belief is both necessary and sufficient for ideas to be correct, it’s only natural he regards this standard as universal. Everything is a religion, and the only way ID believers are going to get that good money is to replace the believers in evolutionism with creationists.
And that can only be seen as pure politics. His team is currently losing the political battle. As for scientific merit, this is only another subjective assessment to be run through theological filters. Everything is political.
Who is preventing you from worshiping in your own church, William?
Do you see any laws being passed that require that you teach evolution in your church?
Is anyone preventing you from propping up your sectarian beliefs with your sectarian pseudoscience?
Are people in black suits and dark glasses coming into your church and censoring what you do? Are you being arrested and thrown in prison for practicing your religion?
Did you know that the same First Amendment that prevents you from using the institutions of government to impose your religion on others also protects your right to worship as you please?
The problem for you ID/creationists is that the First Amendment protections of your religion aren’t enough for you. You simply have to impose your religion on others. That is what your dogma teaches.
You think you have found a way to do it by wrapping your sectarian dogma in a veneer of pseudoscience. You tried to get around the courts by claiming your sectarian beliefs are really science; and when that didn’t work, you morphed into “intelligent design” and failed yet again.
There are lots of people around who have witnessed the entire history of ID/creationism; and it is now well documented in court cases and in publicly available books and media as well as on the Internet. It is easy to find, William.
Your “inability” to remember your own history is itself a political ploy to try to rewrite your sectarian history. You must think others are really stupid; that they will forget after a couple of years.
It isn’t going to happen, William. People are not as stupid as you believe them to be; they want their children to be able to get the best education possible and not be saddled with all the emotionally charged ignorance and loathing you have to chosen for yourself.
Others have the right to their religions; even when they are the ones you love to hate.
And if others choose no religion, that is also their right. You don’t get to force your religion onto them.
And if people choose to learn the best science we have acquired, you don’t get to interfere.
You chose your own ignorance, William; nobody chose it for you. You quite simply don’t get to throw stumbling blocks – and your sectarian dogma disguised as a pseudoscience – into the learning paths of other people and other people’s children.
These are simple civics lessons, William. You should have learned them in high school; but you didn’t. And that is your fault; you don’t get to blame others.
As far as I know, the mathematics itself was fine. The problem was in the underlying assumptions about how evolution works. I seem to recall that Maynard Smith gave a pretty thorough debunking of Hoyle’s argument.
Everyone is ignorant Mike.
Which ignorance have you chosen?
Here is a little high school level physics/chemistry exercise for you.
Scale up the charge-to-mass ratios of protons and electrons to kilogram-sized masses separated by distances on the order of a meter. Calculate the energy of interaction in joules and in megatons of TNT.
Now throw in the rules of quantum mechanics.
In the light of your answer, justify Hoyle’s – and the ID/creationists who constantly quote him – equating the behaviors of atoms and molecules with junkyard parts.
If you can’t even begin this exercise, nobody will be able to explain anything to you.
High school level stuff; but nobody at UD can do this exercise and understand its implications.
The research of Creationism(s) is the criticisms of the establishment conclusions.
Its looking at the data and saying this and that is wrong and here’s why.
Thats why this forum exists. Its not fighting castles in the air!
Its very real ground combat laying siege to ground castles. Doing quite well also.
YEC or ID have done heaps of excellent research and easily contend with evolutionism etc.
Thats the essence of the modern revolution in origin subjects.
Why don’t you help Mung with that little high school physics/chemistry calculation in the comment directly above? Demonstrate your prowess with your ID/creationist’s form of “scientific refutation.”
We have been waiting since 1970. You can be the first to actually demonstrate that an ID/creationist can understand high school science.
Hoyle assumes that, in some unspecified manner, amino acids bumped into each other in a random way, growing a peptide chain from a mix of the 20 modern acids until, in another unspecified manner, the growth was terminated and the peptide assayed for ‘function’. He further assumes that only one sequence from all possibilities had that (or any other useful) function. If it didn’t have that particular sequence, it was discarded and the process started again from scratch. Once hit, the target was somehow preserved and the process undergone again with another target. It’s utter bunk, chemically and biologically.
Hoyle has correctly surmised that peptides growing in an unspecified manner, starting from scratch every time, will not produce a pre-specified target sequence of n picks from 20 variants in a realistic time. Well done Hoyle.
Do these scientific Illuminati control the internet, and all other means of dissemination, then?
No publisher can practically publish everything that is submitted to it. Peer review is an editorial policy – sometimes papers are rejected, sometimes requests for amendment or rewrite are made instead. The good sometimes gets rejected, the bad published, just as court decisions are not universally correct. But each reviewer is an independent individual. Or so I am prepared to believe. I don’t buy the idea that massive global conspiracies can be sustained – people are basically too goddamned incompetent, on the whole.
It is a cost of ‘believing what you want to believe’ that you have to play Whack-a-Mole with the inconvenient outer world, when it keeps seeping through the cracks, and so whines of Suppressive Conspiracy become one of the tools.
Try Biology Direct. It publishes some excellent papers, and some dubious ones. All you need is $2000 and 3 panel reviewers prepared to review it. They don’t even have to agree with it. Reviewer comments are published along with the paper. I have seen some fascinating discussions by hostile reviewers explaining exactly why the paper in question is both (a) Wrong and (b) Worth Publishing.
No, simply a recognition of the fact that your “other” category includes those people (who you have imagined, by the way) and myself. Given that no such censorship is happening there is then no difference between myself and those people so I get to respond on their behalf.
I note that your response to me shows that the original question’s intent was on the level of “have you stopped beating your wife?”. Any response and you get to say “ah-ha, so you are admitting censorship?”. Along the same lines as your ‘stolen concept’ blah. If these devices are really considered by you to be significant in some way in advancing ID then you’ve already lost!
The only admissions being made here are by you when you ‘pretend’ to ignore responses to your arguments. You are admitting that you have no answer and admitting that you will never admit that. And by using these sorts of questions, designed to entrap, you are illustrating that ID can only make progress in wordplay and redefining what words mean, not actual science. We all know that, when will you notice is the question?
Carry on….
Oh, sure, they do “research”.
http://www.iscid.org/
Just not much and none of it is actually about Intelligent Design as such. It’s all about what “Darwinism” can’t do, not how Intelligent Design was involved in the origin of life, the universe or anything.
It would be simple to prove me wrong, just find me some ID research that does not mention “Darwinism” or “Evolution” in it and instead talks about ID…
William,
One last thing:
I think here the fundamental “cargo-cult” idea at the heart of ID is exposed. Where a view is espoused does not lend it credibility. Sure, it can on the surface appear to help or even hinder but ultimately what decides is that “other view” supported by scientific evidence?
The problems is that the desperation of ID proponents to associate themselves with venues that “lend credibility” to ID seems to have caused them to forget their views need more then the correct soapbox. They need some substance too.
So next time you hire a room at Oxford University for the “Oxford University Canteen ID symposium” try and get some real content in too….
Since Mung is unlikely to be up yet, I will start his response for him:
“Darwinism assumes that, in some unspecified manner, amino acids bumped into each other in a nonrandom way …”.
I guess after waiting for 200 years we concluded ID advocates weren’t going to show up at the table.
Assuming they have actually done any publishable research it should be fairly easy to list some examples.
As I’ve tried (and and apparently failed) to educate you on the matter of my views before, Mike, I don’t have a church. I don’t have any “dogma”. I don’t even have a particular religion. IMO, all you are doing here is revealing your terror, which is based on some kind of stereotypical, childhood concept of religion and a biased perspective on historical theism.
It is science, and it isn’t, and it is detectable, and it isn’t. You forget – these people are unsure about the LNC. They get to say one thing one day, and the opposite the next.
Any research that doesn’t toe the atheo-materialist party line isn’t “real” research; any scientist that doesn’t toe the party line isn’t a “real” scientist; and publisher that doesn’t toe the party line doesn’t publish “real” peer-reviewed scientific articles.
Just more intellectual fascism by people terrified of religion/spirituality.
Could be, not is. There are sciences that employ design detection, but they require observed attributes and behaviors of the designers.
Keep it up, William. You are hilarious. Nobody is taking you seriously anymore (with perhaps one or two exceptions such as Robert Byers).
William,
Laughable. What’s to be scared of?
This is pure projection on your part. You must rationalise it something like “they are not convinced like I am convinced therefore there must be a reason for that that is nothing to do with the quality of evidence as that would reflect poorly on me”.
No. It’s actually simpler then that. You publish science, you are a scientist. You get your work honestly peer reviewed by knowledgeable people, it’s peer reviewed.
I could start up a journal tomorrow and ask people to submit papers. In a couple of years it might be a journal with a good reputation, if I work hard at it.
It’s that “working hard at it” part that you are confusing with “we tried and failed because the atheists would not let us publish in our own journal”.
I can understand why you would want to invent reasons for the lack of scientific ID work. But going straight to the intellectual fascism/global conspiracy as an excuse is really nothing new. But it is vastly amusing!
About that list of ID papers that were rejected by intellectual fascists?
The type that gets reproducible results.
No need to tell what you’ve chosen Mung, it’s clear already.
This could be cleared up if you would just list some examples of real research that demonstrates ID. Or you could just list some hypothetical research proposals.
Don’t play the fool more than you have to, Mung.
There’s the hateful ignorance of religious fundamentalism who thrice deny knowledge, there’s the casual ignorance of moderates who sumply can’t be bothered, and there’s the tiny ignorance of the best of us – such as Mike – who have spent their whole lives studying but who remain ignorant of a few things because there simply isn’t enough time to master everything. You’re pretending that Mike’s ignorance is as serious like WJB’s, and that’s foolish of you.
See Isaac Asimov The Relativity of Wrong
That you think “the detection of design” is the same as “the detection of design in biological systems” shows your desperation.
Elizabeth says design is detectable. So do I. And so?
The point is rather that you claim to have detected design in biology. My point is that your evidence, is, well, weak to say the least. And that’s it.
If you want to spin two apparently (but not really if you know the context) contradictory statements instead of addressing the heart of the problem (the lack of positive evidence for ID) then please do so but don’t think that it’s fooling anybody.
Here, let me make it clear.
Intelligent Design is detectable.
Intelligent Design has been detected.
Intelligent Design has not been detected in biological life.
It’s only the last point that is in dispute. If you want to harp on about the first two then it’s only to avoid the third.
WJM
I can assure you I myself am not remotely fearful of God’s possible existence. I would find an answer in the affirmative to be surprising, but not overly bothersome.
How do you imagine that your international conspiracy to intellectual suppression is sustained, through multiple changes of regime, across nations with very different relationships between the state and the church(es)/academia within?
Scientists make their names by discovering new things, not propping up the old. There is insatiable hunger for novelty, but not for its own sake. There has to be something there, something you can subject to some kind of objective (ie: interpersonally verifiable) test.
You have a means of reliably distinguishing design from non-design? Great! Let’s try a few blind trials and see if it outperforms the null.
Seeing as how the inestimable Mr. Murray has already claimed the right to believe, with perfect credibility, anything he wants, regardless of facts, if he wants to believe that science is thuggery, then by definition, thuggery it must be.
I never made such a claim.
I didn’t say you or anyone was, nor did I imply it. Which makes it interesting, from a psychological perspective, why you should issue such a statement as if it were a response to mine.
One wonders, if there is no evolutionary command to accept “scientific knowledge”, nor any formal, objective reason to morally, and since science is prone to both ongoing error and corruption, why “denying” the “knowledge” the science bureacracy wishes us to accept is seen as the “hateful” ignorance of “religious fundamentalism”.
There’s simply no basis, if atheo-materialism is true, nor any moral or ethical reason, to characterize anyone in such a way, much less broad swathes of the public. After all, people believe, say and do whatever physics commands, right?
This: “Just more intellectual fascism by people terrified of religion/spirituality.”
Ah, you draw a distinction between fear of God’s existence and fear of religion/spirituality. I missed that subtlety.
OK, let me further assure you I’m not terrified of religion/spirituality either.
Wrong.
With due respect to the participants, I’d be glad to see more focus on the OP.
Arguing with William J. Murray seems to be a waste of time, even if perhaps some kind of twisted fun. He is embarrassing himself with his claims of ‘intellectual fascism’ and scientific party lines and doing it as an IDist. And I am neither an atheist, a materialist or a nihilist saying this, though Murray will likely wish to call me that simply for opposing his far-from-reality idealism.
As with Steven Schaffner, I disagree with Neil Rickert that “‘fine tuning’ is a religious apologetics argument, and it has no scientific content.” Some people have made similar claims about (the) anthropic principle(s) in astrophysics and cosmology. But serious thought and research has gone into these ideas, which betray Neil’s claim.
One point to notice is that Neil capitalises the term ‘Intelligent Design.’ Torley usually does and explained to me why he does at UD. But the quotes Neil gathered from Torley’s ‘open letter’ use a uncapitalised ‘intelligent design.’ I wonder what’s behind that.
Unfortunately, I can’t seem to access vjtorley’s post at Uncommon Descent as the whole site seems to be down. Is anyone else having this ‘server is down’ problem (or is it perhaps blocked or unavailable in the country I just entered)?
What do you mean ‘if’? Don’t you know?
Site seems fine to me.
I put the open letter in a paste: http://pastebin.com/dKuYg18z
Gregory,
It seems to work fine in the US.
Glen Davidson
Point taken, though peer review and the oft-cited ‘atheist conspiracy’ are germane to the issue of the OP and academic integrity/academic freedom. Whether conspiracy theorists can be profitably debated is another matter.
Thanks for confirming it works where you folks are. And thanks for the open letter in pastebin. I’ve tried quite a few other sites here and UD seems to be the only one where “This page can’t be displayed.” Hmmm…perhaps that means an extended vacation from UD! = ))
What I have revealed is that I know the history of ID/creationism and the misconceptions and misrepresentations propagated by ID/creationists far far better then you or any of your ID/creationist cohorts do. I have been watching this since the early 1970s.
Furthermore, I also know the real science; and you don’t.
I have watched, in real time, as ID/creationists break and bend scientific concepts to comport with sectarian dogma. I can still watch the process in real time over at UD and with your posts here.
I have read the instructions by ID/creationists on how to “study” science while holding to their sectarian dogmas and hatreds of science that they bring with them into the classroom. Even you can find these instructions on the Internet.
I have visited fundamentalist churches and have listened to the fear and loathing from their pulpits and in their Sunday school classes. I have watched the political organizing by sectarian groups to get candidates into the State Legislature in order to introduce antievolution legislation. I have watched their candidates get elected and do precisely what they were elected to do.
I have watched the videos of ID/creationists instructing young people how to keep their heads down and “give the instructor what they want” in order to get those letters after their names without learning any science. I have seen the results of these tactics in the products these tactics produce.
I have read the court transcripts and court decisions on ID/creationism. I have watched the dissembling and lying by ID/creationists as they try to wiggle around the law and the Constitution in order to get their dogmas into the classroom and keep evolution out.
So I am pretty familiar with the socio/political history of ID/creationism in the US.
And your dissembling is just too transparent. There are thousands of religions in the world; and there are thousands of sectarian variations of each. However there is only one ID/creationism with its characteristic misconceptions, misrepresentations, and hatreds of everything secular, especially evolution and science and scientist “thugs.”
There is only one ID/creationism that uses the sleazy socio/political tactics designed to keep evolution out of science education and keep its sectarian followers completely misinformed and ignorant about science and the scientific community.
Whether you like it or not, whether you deny it or not; your concepts of science and scientists come directly from that cesspool of evangelical fundamentalism’s hatred of evolution and science. Your misconceptions, misrepresentations, and loathing are theirs to the letter. You are what you are because of your unquestioning emersion in their culture.
Nobody really cares about what “religion” or “spirituality” you claim to believe. What comes across – and you have made damned sure it has come across – is your hatred of the scientific community and your portrayal of science as a cabal of thugs preventing you from proselytizing.
You don’t understand the US Constitution – basic civics lessons you should have learned in high school – and you certainly know nothing about science and the situation that is taking place at Ball State. You are simply clueless about all of it.
So your projections of your hatreds and fears onto me simply look stupid to everyone here, with the notable exceptions of the other ID/creationists. You ID/creationists resonate with each other in the same stupid and repetitive, mind-numbing mantra you all have memorized without comprehension.
You bear the “mark of the beast;” you don’t fool anyone.
I’d call it more an opinion than a claim. I am well aware of disagreement with my opinion.
I can only say that I quoted the lazy way — with copy/paste. So I’m pretty sure that what I quote reflects what is in the UD post. When you get back to a part of the world that does not restrict access, you can of course check that for yourself.
At risk of being a bit off-topic, let me add that there is a far larger “intelligent design” community. I am talking about philosophy, particularly academic philosophy. Philosophers, as a group, tend to look at things from what I consider a intelligent design perspective. That perhaps comes from Plato. Perhaps it is a natural way of thinking. To be clear, that particular intelligent design community is honest and largely non-political, unlike the religious version. And yes, there are “fine tuning” ideas coming from that community.
Indeed.
Let me repeat: a whole has properties not possessed by its parts.
“Physics” doesn’t make commands,Ido.