Comparing Internet Argument Styles: Creationists, IDists, Scientists

Skeptic magazine has an interesting article, based on a 2017 article in Science & Education, describing a study that compared the argument topics and argument types found on websites discussing origins issues. It is not clear from the Skeptic article whether they counted arguments on discussion forums.

The comment I found most interesting is:

[T]he ID creationism approach has been, and continues to be, primarily a program meant to prove the existence of God. It therefore bears more resemblance to natural theology and apologetics than it does to science. Seen in this light, it is surprising that ID creationists once believed that ID would somehow help them achieve their goals.

The author characterizes the irreducible complexity argument as an argument meant to prove the existence of God. I suppose some here would disagree.

I think the ID creationists may have believed ID would help them achieve their goals only because creation science had been so decisively rejected. At that point it was either become more scientific or become more apologetic, and science was clearly not a way forward.

The original article is R. M. Barnes, R. A. Church, and S. Draznin-Nagy. 2017. “The Nature of the Arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.” Science & Education, 26, pp. 27–47.

239 thoughts on “Comparing Internet Argument Styles: Creationists, IDists, Scientists

  1. fifthmonarchyman,

    “What is at issue is the question of whether we can detect the actions of said intelligent designers and distinguish those actions from “natural” causes.”

    Please be careful & accurate. There is a reason for distinguishing between “Intelligent Design” and “intelligent design.” That the DI has a policy of obfuscation by only using a non-capitalised form, while also referring to a non-human ‘Designer’, is a large part of the problem. That they won’t admit it is a problem is a large part of the problem too. = P

    The notion of ‘IDers’ is also misleading. They are IDists; those who promote the ideology of IDism. An IDer is ‘every human being’ who is not brain dead.

    It’s the same reasoning behind why Francis Collins capitalised the ‘L’ in BioLogos. Far too many people ignore this & thus perpetuate imprecision in the conversation.

  2. fifthmonarchyman: Allan points out that humor is subjective. Perhaps what passes as humor from atheists here is not universally thought to be funny.

    I agree that “humor from atheists” sounds like a dreadful thing.

  3. Gregory: There is a reason for distinguishing between “Intelligent Design” and “intelligent design.”

    Not as far as I’m concerned.

    When we are talking about design as the activity of conscious agents. It does not matter if we are talking about Yolanda or Yahweh.

    Mainstream science has for some reason determined that when it comes to things like biology and cosmology different rules must apply than do in normal everyday life.

    I just don’t buy this argument

    Gregory: They are IDists; those who promote the ideology of IDism. An IDer is ‘every human being’ who is not brain dead.

    I know you like labels an pigeonholing people so as to properly identify the boogie man.

    I just usually don’t find that approach to be conducive to understanding or fruitful dialog.

    peace

  4. Corneel: I agree that “humor from atheists” sounds like a dreadful thing.

    You should try being on the receiving end

    😉

    peace

  5. A quick note about Douglas Axe. He is a fully qualified, experimental molecular biologist who has produced and thoroughly documented numerous lab experiments demonstrating beyond doubt the falsity of hypotheses nobody else would have even suggested.

    His MO, at least in my reading, is
    1) Make some claim about evolutionary mechanics at the molecular level no non-creationist biologist would propose.
    2) Demonstrate in great detail that this proposed mechanism does not and can not happen.
    3) Conclude that because evolutionary mechanisms have been disproved, god must be the one doing the biology.

    There is some debate as to whether Axe chooses rather silly hypotheses to disprove on purpose, or whether his foregone convictions prohibit him from any mental model of actual evolutionary mechanisms, so his hypotheses simply arise from a basic mischaracterization.

    Personally, I think Axe (and Ann Gauger) are sincere, and not simply searching for a niche market among the biologically unsophisticated creationists.

  6. Flint: 3) Conclude that because evolutionary mechanisms have been disproved, god must be the one doing the biology.

    In everyday life once our proposed “natural” mechanisms are ruled out we infer that a person is behind the thing.
    If another mechanism is proposed then we simply revisit our inference

    Why is that common sense approach not considered valid in biology?

    peace

  7. Flint: There is some debate as to whether Axe chooses rather silly hypotheses to disprove on purpose, or whether his foregone convictions prohibit him from any mental model of actual evolutionary mechanisms, so his hypotheses simply arise from a basic mischaracterization.

    Personally, I think Axe (and Ann Gauger) are sincere, and not simply searching for a niche market among the biologically unsophisticated creationists.

    I have no problem accepting that Douglas Axe sincerely believes his misconceived picture of evolution is “how evolution implies it would happen”.

  8. fifthmonarchyman: In everyday life once our proposed “natural” mechanisms are ruled out we infer that a person is behind the thing.
    If another mechanism is proposed then we simply revisit our inference

    Why is that common sense approach not considered valid in biology?

    peace

    No natural mechanisms in farming?

  9. newton: No natural mechanisms in farming?

    Reminds me of the joke about the Artificial Insemination Man. The punchline: “I’ve even put up a hook for you to hang your trousers”.

  10. Mung: Who cares?

    Someone who cares about being intellectually honest and consistent with his own claims perhaps? That may not be your thing, but other do care

  11. Such a common sense approach can certainly be tried in biology. Why don’t you give it a go, and write a paper on such a basis and then we can discuss it?

    I’m sure there are plenty of venues that would publish such a paper by FMM.

  12. phoodoo,

    Phoodoo quoted me: “[T]he ID creationism approach has been, and continues to be, primarily a program meant to prove the existence of God.”

    When we looked at the arguments found the specific 72 websites in our sample, we found quite a number of arguments of the form:

    data/evidence/argument therefore ID exists/God exists/the biblical narrative of origins is correct. You can find the exact frequency count for those types of arguments in the original journal article. The first two claims (i.e. ID exists and God exists) appear to focus on the existence of God, while the third claim (i.e. the Biblical narrative of origins is correct) deals with history/natural history. However, to the degree that the Bible attests to God’s existence, even those claims might deal with God’s existence in a tangential fashion.

    Another time Phoodoo quoted me: “Seen in this light, it is surprising that ID creationists once believed that ID would somehow help them achieve their goals.”

    ID was created to help get creationism into public schools and as everyone here is probably aware, it has failed in that goal (though more properly I should say that it has not yet succeeded in that goal).

    Only after conducting the study that we are discussing did I come to the conclusion that YEC is actually much better suited (compared to ID) as an alternative to the traditional scientific natural history narrative. YEC websites (compared to ID websites) made significantly more claims about the natural world (age of universe, worldwide flood, etc.). The ultimate argument of many of the ID websites included in our sample was that ID exists. Such an argument is interesting, but a course built around this could hardly replace a typical course in biology or paleontology in a public school classroom.

  13. Gregory,

    Gregory wrote: “I’m curious why you compared “apples with oranges” in your choice of terms.”

    That is a good question. In my first draft of the manuscript, I was consistent and used proponents of evolution, proponents of creationism and proponents of ID. It has been some time, but I THINK I changed it because a reviewer suggested that my choice in wording was rather clunky and that I should use the terms that you see in the final version. As for a defense of this, I could say that sometimes an author just has to change the wording to keep the reviewers happy. However, I suppose creationists seem more likely to self-identify as creationists, whereas one rarely hears mainstream scientist refer to his/herself as an evolutionist.

    You also wrote: “In other words, why use “creationism” vs. “evolution”, when the proper and more appropriate comparison is “creationism” vs. “evolutionism” ‘

    Well creationism seems to be a commonly used term in English and evolutionism is simply a term that one rarely encounters. I supposed I merely followed typical English convention in regards to that.

    You also wrote: “Whether “Darwinism” is a disreputable ideology or not, it is nevertheless still an ideology.”

    I will have to take your word on that. I don’t think I have ever met a person who self-identified as a Darwinist. That terms seems to be used exclusively by those who do not believe in evolution. I am not clear one exactly what the definition of that term is and (I suspect) that were I to learn the definition of that term, that we would discover that proponents of evolution and proponents of creationism would be fairly divided regarding the issue of who fits the description of that term.

  14. Ralph_Barnes: ID was created to help get creationism into public schools…

    Perhaps for some definitions of creationism, but not for the one that matters.

  15. Ralph_Barnes: Such an argument is interesting, but a course built around this could hardly replace a typical course in biology or paleontology in a public school classroom.

    A charitable observer might therefore conclude that the goal of ID is not to “replace a typical course in biology or paleontology in a public school classroom”

    peace

  16. dazz: Someone who cares about being intellectually honest and consistent with his own claims perhaps? That may not be your thing, but other do care

    Is there another kind of honesty, perhaps?

  17. dazz: Imagine for a second that the ID camp managed to produce evidence supporting the intelligent origin of life and it became a widely acceptedscientific fact (it takes a lot of imagination, I know). Does anyone here doubt that all of a sudden, the same IDists that claimed ID is not about identifying the designer would rush to ascribe the design to their preferred invisible friend?

    I mean, come on.

    It is very interesting that among a very small group of people the “preferred, invisible friend” could be anyone, or anything, as long as it is not God…Panspermia is fine…ET is fine…an invisible civilization is fine… UFO is also fine as long as none of the concepts even suggests God…Why?

  18. J-Mac:
    It is very interesting that among a very small group of people the “preferred, invisible friend” could be anyone, or anything,as long as it is not God…Panspermia is fine…ET is fine…an invisible civilization is fine… UFO is also fine as long as none of the concepts even suggests God…Why?

    Panspermia refers to the possibility that life arose somewhere else and then landed on our planet, where somewhere else refers to a real place, even if we don’t know which place (could be Mars, for example). ET and UFOs would be extraterrestrial life. given that the universe is huge, and that there’s life here, it makes sense that there might be life somewhere else in the universe. Nothing magical in panspermia or in extraterrestrial life.

    I don’t know about invisible civilizations. Now, gods are supposedly “supernatural” (whatever that might mean), are often claimed to have contradictory, nonsensical, attributes, their main “home” is often claimed to be some magical inaccessible realm, and have all the hallmarks of being imaginary. Mere fantasies. That’s quite an important difference with panspermia and extraterrestrial life.

    If that doesn’t give you a clue as to why many things are acceptable before some magical being in the sky, then the problem is that you fail to grasp the foundational problems involving gods, oh, sorry, “God.”

  19. fifthmonarchyman:

    “When we are talking about design as the activity of conscious agents. It does not matter if we are talking about Yolanda or Yahweh.”

    The classical creature / Creator distinction is something you don’t personally care about in your worldview. Ok then. You surely are allowed to be as confused as IDists are & to enjoy being deviant self-victimisers about it too.

    “Mainstream science has for some reason determined that when it comes to things like biology and cosmology different rules must apply than do in normal everyday life.”

    Scientists make decisions, not ‘science as agent.’ Why so dehumanising? And as for expertise vs. amateurishness, you now sound anti-education!

    “I know you like labels an pigeonholing people so as to properly identify the boogie man.”

    Using categories is standard fare in sociology, which is what I was trained in. If you don’t ‘like’ typologies (which are also indicated in Scripture) simply because it makes you look foolish when labels have been made that accurately describe the position you hold along with others out of touch, so be it. We’re not going to stop using those labels because they help us make sense of people, even if they are not always as rigid as they appear when used.

    Since leading thinkers in the science, philosophy & theology/worldview discourse have made an effort to reject IDism & their PR policy that muddies the water, by instead distinguishing carefully and accurately, as well as respectfully of divinity, instead of anthropomorphising as the DI does, no doubt you might understand why I take their side and not yours or the DI’s. The difference between ‘intelligent design’ & ‘Intelligent Design’ is one of the most important to make in this conversation and no linguistic relativist is going to change that simply by pouting about it. Classification often helps and certainly has its proper place.

  20. fifthmonarchyman: In everyday life once our proposed “natural” mechanisms are ruled out we infer that a person is behind the thing.
    If another mechanism is proposed then we simply revisit our inference
    Why is that common sense approach not considered valid in biology?

    I thought it wouldn’t be that hard. This inference is like saying since 2+2 does not make 5, therefore it makes 22, just like I thought all along!

    So to make it really clear: Axe has most emphatically NOT ruled out any known natural mechanism. He has ruled out a mechanism of his own construction, which wouldn’t have been regarded as a sensible hypothesis by any non-creationist biologist. He has yet to examine (in his usual meticulous detail) any mechanism seriously proposed by any secular biologist.

    I also thought it would be clear that Axe’s MO (at least as I laid it out), probably isn’t what’s really going on in his method. What I think is going on is:
    1) Goddidit. This is so stone obvious it cannot be questioned.
    2) If the evolutionist model is true, then by implication X must be true.
    3) Careful research demonstrates that X cannot be true.

    If my (and rumraket’s) assessments are correct, the error lies in step 2 here, because Axe cannot grasp the evolutionist model, he substitutes a creationist model which is as close as his faith permits his mind to see, and shows it to be incorrect. Which it is — Axe does good science.

    Note that I am not taking any exception to step 1. The problem is, Axe is looking for his god, whereas someone like Francis Collins is trying to figure out exactly how god does things, and if god’s tool is evolution and it took 4.5 billion years to produce Francis Collins, so be it.

    Where I think you have problems is in your recognition that if Collins is correct, any gods are strictly optional and need not exist at all.

  21. Entropy: If that doesn’t give you a clue as to why many things are acceptable before some magical being in the sky, then the problem is that you fail to grasp the foundational problems involving gods, oh, sorry, “God.”

    So, you must accept God as at least a possibility, whether you like it or not, right?

  22. fifthmonarchyman: A charitable observer might therefore conclude that the goal of ID is not to “replace a typical course in biology or paleontology in a public school classroom”

    Only if that charitable observer ignored the possibility of an excluded middle.

  23. Ralph_Barnes,
    Oh, this is so chock full of errors, and unscientific claims, where to start?

    Ralph_Barnes: You can find the exact frequency count for those types of arguments in the original journal article.

    Who decides what this “type” of argument is? The authors of the papers, including YOU?

    How were the sites chosen? Because a lot of people visited them? This would be like using the twitter accounts of the Kardashians to make conclusions about what people think, so whatever they say, must be the most relevant information on American consciousness one can find. You know the Kardashians like to show a lot of tits, I think this says a lot about our society. People respect people who show tits.

    Can I find plenty of websites which are from evolutionists which try to claim that Neo-Darwinian evolution exists therefore no God? You bet I could. I can wager you 1000 bucks I can find 72 that make some kind of claim of this “type” We can start at TSZ, there’s one? Care to wager?

    Ralph_Barnes: ID was created to help get creationism into public schools

    Look, I had my own ideas about intelligent design long before I ever heard the term. So to say ID exist because someone who believes in God thought of that term is a misstating of facts. ID exist, because it seems obvious, and as such, some have concluded (not unwarrantedly) that if things were designed, a designer probably did it. This would be the equivalent of someone saying “evolution exists” because people were doubting their faith in God. Because all it takes is for some people who early on believed in unguided evolution to have felt that way for me to make that claim.

    You know what one of the most common topics on TSZ are about? God! I guess Skeptics like to talk about God a lot. The first sentence on the website even mentions Christ. Oh look at that! Skeptics are so fixated on Christ!

    “Scott and Branch (2009) have suggested that the term ‘Darwinism’ is used by creationists in order to suggest that evolution is a ‘disreputable ideology’ rather than a position held because of strength of evidence.”

    That’s why creationist use that word? Not because Darwin gets credit for creating the theory you believe in? This really makes me laugh. Did creationists come up with this term?

    And why would using that term make it seem more disreputable? Because no one believes in that Random Mutations/Natural Selection nonsense?

    But I will give you this, thanks for coming here and telling us that Darwinism is dead. Every time a creationist here tries to make that claim they get laughed at here. I am glad you are standing up for them now. Darwinism is dead!

    What is it replaced by? Well, that’s a good question….This is when the humming and hawing by (Darwinist who are still looking for a new label) begins.

  24. J-Mac: So, you must accept God as at least a possibility, whether you like it or not, right?

    What are the minimum requirements necessary to be considered a deity that we must consider as a possibility?

  25. Gregory: The classical creature / Creator distinction is something you don’t personally care about in your worldview.

    The creature / Creator distinction is very important in my worldview but it does not negate the Imago Dei.

    To say that God and humans both design is not to say that God and humans are the same.

    Gregory: If you don’t ‘like’ typologies (which are also indicated in Scripture) simply because it makes you look foolish when labels have been made that accurately describe the position you hold along with others out of touch, so be it.

    labeling those you don’t like in order to more easily dismiss them is not “typologies” it’s just lazy.

    peace

  26. newton: What are the minimum requirements necessary to be considered a deity that we must consider as a possibility?

    Reasonable faith….which you chose not to have…

  27. Ralph_Barnes

    “In my first draft of the manuscript, I was consistent and used proponents of evolution, proponents of creationism and proponents of ID.”

    Thanks for pointing out your history of usage. The ‘proponents of’ part is consistent & fine as far as I’m concerned. But the ‘evolution’ vs. ‘creationism’ part isn’t and appears to reveal your own bias in this conversation, as well as that in the paper with your colleagues.

    IDism is also an ideology, which helps to distinguish it from the ‘strictly natural science’ facade they keep insisting on yet failed to deliver on their promises these last 25 years. However, ‘proponents of evolutionism’ vs. ‘proponents of creationism’ would have been the proper and most logical comparison for the survey, instead of what you used, and reveals the ‘argument style’ in your attempted ‘neutral’ framing.

    “I suppose creationists seem more likely to self-identify as creationists, whereas one rarely hears mainstream scientist refer to his/herself as an evolutionist.”

    Self-labeling by scientists is not uncommonly wrong due to ideology that the person in questions does not wish to reveal, yet which is visible oftentimes anyway (just as your study indicates, though strangely without identifying ideology as ideology). E.g. IDists don’t ever refer to themselves as ‘IDists’ – at least, I haven’t seen one do it yet – although it is quite clear that they are pushing an ideology, and not simply ‘strictly natural science.’ It would be surprising if you didn’t agree.

    Many, if not most evolutionary biologists, however, do indeed refer to themselves as ‘evolutionists.’ Likewise, many evolutionary natural scientists likewise refer to themselves as ‘evolutionists.’ It is rather common in the literature. It’s quite surprising that you’ve missed this.
    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/david-sloan-wilson-loses-it-again/
    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/evolutionist-coopts-the-field-for-social-justice/

    “Well creationism seems to be a commonly used term in English and evolutionism is simply a term that one rarely encounters.”

    Well, this appeal to ‘common usage’ by a team of 3 psychologists is suspect. One might realise you are revealing your own bias here, while at the same time intentionally distorting the English language by avoiding any *possible* ideological association with the term ‘evolution’ -> ‘evolutionism’. Since we know that many people in the United States loathe ‘ideology’ as ‘false consciousness’ (Marx), it makes sense as a linguistic strategy especially for atheists who hold evolution as a kind of worldview or religion-substitute (cf. Midgley’s “Evolution as a Religion”) to only consider ‘creationism’ negatively & completely avoid using the proper label ‘evolutionism.’ However, the term ‘evolutionism’ is the obvious alternative to ‘creationism,’ since both are ideologies. When comparing internet arguing styles, you would likely have found that evolutionists avoid using the term ‘evolutionist’ so as to seem like they are not ideologues, if you had included the notion of ‘evolutionism’ alongside of ‘creationism’ in a more balanced way than you did.

    “I don’t think I have ever met a person who self-identified as a Darwinist. That terms seems to be used exclusively by those who do not believe in evolution.”

    Accepting evolutionary biology, without necessarily ‘believing’ in it is possible both for atheists and theists. Let’s leave aside ‘Darwinism’ as it has been raised here many times. Simply put, it is a mistake to call ‘Darwinism’ a ‘strictly natural science’ and if one did, like Swamidass used to do until recently, then it was (ahem) ‘falsified’ over 50 years ago. Evolutionary biology qua ‘modern evolutionary synthesis’ continues with vigour today, along with criticisms from those promoting the EES.

    p.s. I’m neither a ‘creationist’ nor an ‘IDist’, in case that wasn’t clear. As for your not unbiased ideology and that of both of your colleagues, it’s not hard to guess based on how you framed the survey terms in your paper .

  28. I wonder who gets called a “scientist” in this paper? People online who argue for some type of “evolution” which we can’t name?

    Is Stephen Meyer a scientist Mr Barnes? Is Michel Behe a scientist ? Are people who believe in ID not scientists if they also believe in God? Or is DNA Jock a scientist, according to you? Because, you know, he is atheist. Joe Felsenstein is kind of an atheist, but he identifies as Jewish, sort of, because he likes Jewish food I think, is he a scientist? I think he rejects God, so probably his science credentials are safe.

    I think a better name for your paper would be-People Talk About God a Lot Online.

    Now that’s revolutionary findings!

  29. fifthmonarchyman,

    Instead of “labeling those you don’t like”, it’s simply labelling those who express a position. I get it that people take it personally when they are labelled for taking a position. But as Jordan Peterson would say, that’s the price for thinking, knowing what you believe and expressing it. There are some weak minded people who avoid any and all positions & thus labels largely because they stand for nothing.

    “it does not negate the Imago Dei.”

    I didn’t say it did. The univocal predication of IDism is based upon the Imago Dei, though they hide this in their public ‘strictly scientific’ statements. Steve Fuller has done a credible job of revealing this & it was exposed in a talk at Cambridge a few years back when Stephen Meyer responded to him from the audience. This is a source of their double-talking, which IDists deny they do.

    “To say that God and humans both design is not to say that God and humans are the same.”

    Again, I didn’t say we are. Why do you think the DI simply won’t speak publicly about the vast amount of ‘design thinking,’ ‘design theory’ and ‘design processes’ that a rather large numbers of both scholars and practitioners discuss on a daily basis? They are silent about all of this work on purpose & it stinks of indignity like a Seattle sewage dump that they won’t come clean about purely for ideological & PR purposes.

  30. Flint: So to make it really clear: Axe has most emphatically NOT ruled out any known natural mechanism.

    In everyday life we don’t rule out all known natural mechanisms before we infer design. We only rule out those that seem to us to be valid alternatives.

    Flint: If my (and rumraket’s) assessments are correct, the error lies in step 2 here, because Axe cannot grasp the evolutionist model, he substitutes a creationist model

    So your conclusion is that Axe is just incapable of understanding all the hidden minutia of the evolutionist’s model?

    I think the word for this is Gnosticism

    Flint: Axe is looking for his god, whereas someone like Francis Collins is trying to figure out exactly how god does things

    So you are now into mind reading?

    Flint: I think you have problems is in your recognition that if Collins is correct, any gods are strictly optional and need not exist at all.

    I actually think you are on to something here.

    If we grant
    1) the atheist starting position that God’s existence is somehow a conclusion to be proved by human
    argument .
    and…..
    2) Their contention that valid scientific reasoning must act as if God does not exist. (methodological naturalism)
    and………
    3) Their insistence that only things that can be demonstrated by science count as real. (materialism/scientism)

    Then it’s inevitable that they will conclude that God either does not exist or belief in him is somehow optional.

    peace

  31. Gregory: Why do you think the DI simply won’t speak publicly about the vast amount of ‘design thinking,’ ‘design theory’ and ‘design processes’ that a rather large numbers of both scholars and practitioners discuss on a daily basis?

    The Discovery Institute is afraid to talk about design “thinking”? Huh? What does this even mean?

    What is design processes? Why is it in quotes?

    But more importantly, why did the Discovery Institute steal your baby!

  32. Gregory: Instead of “labeling those you don’t like”, it’s simply labelling those who express a position.

    Since it’s is your position that such a thing is warrented I suppose your label should be compulsive labeler ? 😉

    peace

  33. fifthmonarchyman,

    Just call me a sociologist; that would suffice. If you wish to avoid sociology; nice for you. At some point, maybe you’ll discover that labels can and oftentimes do serve a valuable purpose for helping understand the people involved in the conversation and the coherency of what they believe. They often simply save time & aren’t meant to box people in with no reasoning, only feeling attached to them (as you seem so intent to accuse).

    Then again, you’re a Baptist successionist, it seems, and one who just tried to claim ‘evangelical protestants’ existed over 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation! So I doubt anyone would be surprised to recognise that your label-phobia serves your own ideological purpose, in this case, to defend Byers’ obscurantist views of history, science and theology.

    Sending love and peace to you as always, even while you seem to hate labels that merely aim to clarify & economise, rather than attack.

  34. phoodoo,

    The Discovery Institute is afraid to talk about design “thinking”? Huh? What does this even mean?”

    The DI is only interested in promoting “Intelligent Design” thinking, not ‘design thinking.’ Do you not care to admit the difference? Or are you simply not aware of the rich field of study involving ‘design theories’ and ‘designing processes’ that the DI never writes about & still won’t publicly acknowledge? They should have long ago published a thorough study of the history of ‘design thinking’, but refuse to do so because they are well aware it would signal the end of their ‘Movement’ if they ever did so.

    Do some research, phoodoo, & then come back here & say if you’ve found any ‘non-IDist’ ‘design theories,’ ‘design thinking’ or ‘design thinkers.’ There are MANY available, unless you put on blinders to them.

    Non-IDist design thinking: “The best way to predict the future is to design it.” – Buckminster Fuller

    Try Stanford’s D-School for a taste of much more of what is out there that avoids the ideology of IDism. https://dschool.stanford.edu/

  35. Gregory: Just call me a sociologist; that would suffice.

    Nope you don’t get to choose your own label unless you grant that right to others. I choose to call you a compulsive labeler and you don’t have a say.

    Gregory: So I doubt anyone would be surprised to recognise that your label-phobia serves your own ideological purpose

    That is just what a compulsive labler might say. Your actions just serve to reinforce my categorization.

    😉

    Funny how that works

    peace

  36. “Evolutionary biology qua ‘modern evolutionary synthesis’ continues with vigour today, along with criticisms from those promoting the EES.”

    That was poorly stated. Instead, evolutionary biology continues with vigour, even while some critics of the ‘modern evolutionary synthesis’ have come forward in promoting the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES), nevertheless, with no intention of impugning evolutionary biology itself nor downplaying its value.

  37. fifthmonarchyman: In everyday life we don’t rule out all known natural mechanisms before we infer design. We only rule out those that seem to us to be valid alternatives.

    How about ruling that a known natural mechanism works?

    So your conclusion is that Axe is just incapable of understanding all the hidden minutia of the evolutionist’s model?

    Yes, that’s about right. I think his un-examinable presuppositions act as blinkers.

    I actually think you are on to something here.

    If we grant
    1) the atheist starting position that God’s existence is somehow a conclusion to be proved by human
    argument .

    More accurately, the atheist doesn’t let figments of other peoples’ imaginations cloud his model of the world. As a general rule, atheists have what they regard as more rewarding ways to waste their time. My idea of the atheist is someone who life is quite complete without gods.

    and…..
    2) Their contention that valid scientific reasoning must act as if God does not exist. (methodological naturalism)

    Not exactly. Scientists, re Laplace, have no need of any gods in their research. I’d go further and say that gods (or at least their hypothetical actions) lie outside the boundaries of any valid science.

    I suppose ultimately, we get down to the fundamentals of reality — the basic forms of matter/energy and forces. Why these are what they are, I think all scientists are agnostics.

    and………
    3) Their insistence that only things that can be demonstrated by science count as real. (materialism/scientism)

    I would disagree with this. I believe that there are plenty of aspects of reality science can never demonstrate or fully explain. Lots of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. However, I’m personally more comfortable saying something is unknown (and even unknowable), than I would be fabricating a one-size-fits-all “supernatural” non-explanation.

    Then it’s inevitable that they will conclude that God either does not exist or belief in him is somehow optional.

    Now, this is your own projection. The goal of the scientist is to explain and understand, and to relate this understanding to all the others that science has derived or discovered.

    However, I’ll grant you that IF there are any gods, and IF they are diddling with reality in ways science can never determine or pin down, most scientists would assign those diddlings to the known unknown category. Very few scientists would be inclined to fabricate “explanatory” gods. I think most would regard such phenomena as not YET known, and keep digging. Almost everything generally regarded as scientifically established today was at one time unknown, and many if not most were initially ascribed to the activity of various gods. This was cross-cultural, leading me to think that people HATE admitting ignorance, and gods are truly powerful explanations, though they explain nothing.

    The gaps in human knowledge are closing up, and no gods have been discovered as they are squeezed out of each gap. I don’t really have a problem with “security blanket” gods, who provide meaning, comfort, or satisfaction to believers. I, too, treasure my delusions and would fight to keep them.

  38. fifthmonarchyman,

    “Nope you don’t get to choose your own label unless you grant that right to others.”

    You’re welcome to choose your own label. It would be better if that label/those labels reflect(s) the truth, however, otherwise people will stop trusting you. You have lost trust from me in this exchange for defending falsehood re: ‘evangelical protestantism’.

    Good luck with that phobia! ; )

  39. Flint: My idea of the atheist is someone who life is quite complete without gods.

    You need to demonstrate how life can be complete with out God.

    Good luck with that.

    What you do however is assert with out any evidence whatsoever that existence and even such a thing a “complete life” is possible with out God.

    Flint: I’d go further and say that gods (or at least their hypothetical actions) lie outside the boundaries of any valid science.

    This is often asserted but never demonstrated. How would you possibly go about demonstrating it?

    Flint: However, I’m personally more comfortable saying something is unknown (and even unknowable), than I would be fabricating a one-size-fits-all “supernatural” non-explanation.

    You own personal comfort is not an argument or evidence.

    Flint: The gaps in human knowledge are closing up, and no gods have been discovered as they are squeezed out of each gap.

    God is not a placeholder in some gap. He is the very thing that makes it possible to close the gaps in knowledge.

    peace

  40. Gregory: You have lost trust from me in this exchange for defending falsehood re: ‘evangelical protestantism’.

    I lost trust from you the minute I did not participate in your us verses them mentality. If recognizing complexity and ambiguity in human imposed categories is defending a falsehood then I’m happy to plead guilty

    peace

  41. phoodoo: But I will give you this, thanks for coming here and telling us that Darwinism is dead.

    Darwinism is dead. But Darwinists survive. It’s what the theory predicts. 🙂

  42. fifthmonarchyman: You need to demonstrate how life can be complete with out God.

    Good luck with that.

    What you do however is assert with out any evidence whatsoever that existence and even such a thing a “complete life” is possible with out God.

    What sort of evidence does one need, or could one present, beyond one’s own internal sense of living a complete life? I can only assure you that my life feels complete and satisfying to me. Who could say otherwise?

    This is often asserted but never demonstrated. How would you possibly go about demonstrating it?

    You are making a category error here. The enterprise of science defines its boundaries, perhaps arbitrarily limiting it to phenomena that can be measured in some way. I suppose you could regard the boundaries as axiomatic, taken as a given. But you do not demonstrate definitions, you simply decide whether they are useful, and to what degree.

    You own personal comfort is not an argument or evidence.

    If this is the case, then your own faith is neither argument nor evidence. You are comfortable with your beliefs, and I am comfortable with mine, for reasons that are 100% subjective for both of us.

    God is not a placeholder in some gap. He is the very thing that makes it possible to close the gaps in knowledge.

    You may be right, but over the course of history science has closed many gaps, and religious faith has propped them open. If you wish to regard human intelligence, industry, persistence, and curiosity as acts of your god, that’s fine. It is these characteristics that have combined to close gaps in our knowledge.

    If you wish to know why the sky is blue, you can say your god just wanted it that way. OR you can study the optics of Rayleigh scattering in detail and feel you’re closer to understanding. OR you can decide your god created Rayleigh scattering because of a preference for blue. Up to you.

  43. fifthmonarchyman,

    The ‘us vs. them’ just reflects your attitude. Labels are meant as positive identifiers, not necessarily as dividers. Unless you think all words are necessarily divisive and then your ‘peace’ message is just faux-friendly FUD. = P

  44. Ralph_Barnes:
    RodW,

    I am a coauthor on the article linked to in the Skeptic article.

    You wrote: “ID arguments…claim there is objective evidence of design in nature.”

    In the actual websites that my coauthors and I examined, this wasn’t strictly the case. To clarify, we found that each argument was composed of (at least) 2 parts: data and claim. We found that in many of the ID websites in our sample “evidence of design in nature” was used as data and the resulting claim was “therefore there must be an intelligent designer”. So we both agree that “evidence of design in nature” is a core aspect of the argumentation strategy of proponents of ID, we disagree in regards to whether that is used as evidence for the truth of a claim or it is used as a claim.

    To be fair, “evidence of design in nature” can be used (and was used) as both data and claim.

    E.g.
    Because data X, therefore (claim) we see design in nature
    Because (data) we see design in nature, therefore (claim) there must be an intelligent designer

    Okay. i saw this also on another blog.
    I was not reffering to the study on the other blog and was vague about this as the same one. it was the quote that made me say it was another hack job.
    Its the ID equals theology claim that is very wrong.
    I am YEC but both us and ID do not do theology but do science in proving/debunking points.
    our arguments are all sciency and not bible verses EXCEPT for YEC in hypothesis.
    our debunking also based on a alternative hypothesis.
    it seems to me the study was innocent enough and competent enough.
    just the quote was wrong.

    ABOUT iD’s purpose. Its not to prove God/creator exist but to prove scientific investigation into nature proves a God/creator.
    The science comes FIRST in ID investigation and not the conclusion comes first.
    God deniers/evolutionists deny, for most fairly, they are in existence to disprove God/genesis. it just works out that way.
    its about motive and not a nuance.
    i welcome the study to origin discussions.

  45. Gregory,

    Your complaint is why doesn’t the Discovery Institute talk about the theory of wall rugs or the best way to make an iPod case?

    Well, I doubt macrame clubs spend much time on cell division, but they do designs too. Not sure that’s a real problem.

  46. Mung: Darwinism is dead. But Darwinists survive. It’s what the theory predicts.

    Darwinism may be “dead”, but what replaced it (more like extended it) is more randomness. OTOH intelligent design has never even been alive as a scientific endeavor. Now if all that is something that makes you want to celebrate, by all means have at it

  47. phoodoo: Your complaint is why doesn’t the Discovery Institute talk about the theory of wall rugs or the best way to make an iPod case?

    My complaint is that they don’t talk about Intelligent Design.

Leave a Reply

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