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. Flint: What sort of evidence does one need, or could one present,

    For starters you need to show that life can arise with out God. In fact you need to show that any existence whatsoever is possible with out God.

    Flint: But you do not demonstrate definitions, you simply decide whether they are useful, and to what degree.

    You need to explain why it’s useful to act as if God does not exist and why it’s useful to rule out discovering the truth about his actions in the world aprori.

    Flint: It is these characteristics that have combined to close gaps in our knowledge.

    It’s the existence of Truth that has allowed us to close gaps in our knowledge. God is Truth

    Our ability to close gaps also relies on being able to trust things like our senses and reasoning ability and induction. God is the grounds for that trust.

    You need to explain how it would be possible to close gaps in knowledge if truth did not exist and if you had no reason to trust your senses and reasoning or induction.

    In short the only way come to the conclusion that belief in God is optional is to rig the game from the get go.

    peace

  2. phoodoo:
    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’sa real problem.

    Ah, so phoodoo continues the pure evasion as well.

    My complaint is simple, clear and, I believe, legitimate and if addressed will take down the IDM, which is precisely why they won’t address it. The DI continually writes about ‘design theory’ as if it is excluded, about ‘design theorists’ as if they are being unfairly treated (cf. Expelled Syndrome), about ‘design thinking’ as if one must be courageous to do it. Yet these are all lies told to further a victimisation narrative in order (read: with the specific communications intent) to appeal to their donors and sponsors.

    ‘Design theory’ is included and welcome; it is alive and well both inside and outside the academy. ‘Design theorists’ are *not* persecuted; they are productive and important contributors to knowledge and practise (I was at a ‘science studies’ conference in Denmark on ‘design’ in 2012 with over 2000 attendees!). ‘Design thinking’ is not outlawed, it is not branded as wrong-headed, it is not something people don’t talk about every single day around the world.

    What is excluded, unwelcome, unproductive and outlawed is ‘Intelligent Design’ thinking, theory and theorists. And that’s because it is an attempt, albeit a subtle and nuanced one, to force ‘a kind of theology/worldview’ into ‘strictly natural science.’ IDism, as the distinctive ideology of the DI, cannot ‘win’ precisely because of these obvious and already mundane social facts.

    So if Stephen C. Meyer, John West, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, Jonathan Witt, Paul Nelson, are listening, my message to them is simple & clear: Stop the word-play, double-talking & victimisation narrative surrounding these specific terms already! You don’t own them, you can’t steal them, and your game of trying to do so is up, it’s over, it’s finished.

    Of those 8 names listed above, I’ve met 6 of them in person & all 3 of them present during a closing skit laughed heartily along with me at the DI’s summer program. What was evident is that we have a shared understanding that exceeds their on-going word-play & rhetorical posturing, yet they are standing in the way. They’re not laughing now when they read this consistent, clear, valid and repeated charge against what they are deviously doing with their double-talking at the DI. Enough is enough!

    I am not blaming them for trespassing against me or anyone else. I am simply telling them to stop double-talking with the terms ‘design theory,’ ‘design theorist’ and ‘design thinking’ when they clearly have no intention of ever actually addressing them properly and fairly. This is what makes IDism at the DI ‘unbelievable.’

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

    Yes, that’s part of their policy of obfuscation. They talk about God the Creator behind closed doors or at ‘science & faith’ events openly. But they refuse to use the capitalised variant regarding their ‘strictly scientific theory’ because the game would quickly be up if they did.

  4. Gregory,

    Gregory, get a hold of yourself. They are not an architecture firm, nor a German film noir production company.

    I think you are confusing them with someone else.

  5. phoodoo: They are not an architecture firm, nor a German film noir production company.

    I think he is convinced that they are the Illuminati or the Skull and Bones secret society.

    😉

    peace

  6. phoodoo:
    Gregory,
    They are not an architecture firm, nor a German film noir production company.

    I think you are confusing them with someone else.

    Just more evasion. I’m talking about the Discovery Institute, a “public policy think tank” based in Seattle, Washington, USA. (The German film noir production company comment is rather provocative because John G. West – lead & main lecturer of the formerly named “Intelligent Design in Humanities and Social Sciences” section, now defunct, of the DI’s summer program – has indeed produced a kind a cult industry with his own genre of films as lead filmmaker for the IDM – see recent “Human Zoos” that is almost hauntingly myopic with its ideologically driven narrative against ‘Darwinism’.) The names I listed above, nevertheless, all of them nice, kind and I suspect rather good people.

    Yet their double-talking is obvious. Enough is enough. As with FMM, you both seem willing to do anything other than face the facts.

    If you’re going to comment, then at least do some cursory research first on ‘design theory,’ ‘design theorists’ & ‘design thinking’. You’ll discover the same thing I have & realise the intentional double-talking from the DI is duplicitous, not honourable or worthy of acceptance.

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

    It’s quite ironic that so many people who have supported (neo) Darwinism accepted the fact that it is dead, including the musketeers and yet they continue to attack and misrepresent Behe, whose 3 books are about nothing else but “Darwinism can’t accomplish what Darwinists claim it can…”

    What else is there to discuss? Behe won before his third book has even been published!!! ID won!!!

    It’s pretty amazing when one contemplates the magnitude of this fact…

    Obviously, the hardcore evolutionists will continue to spread misinformation and pretend that everything is fine and that there are alternatives to Darwinism with some possible mechanism of drift etc. but the fact that Darwinism is dead and many evolutionists have publicly admitted it, must make Behe and ID proponents ecstatic…

    They won!!! It seems obvious that the polar bear devolution drove the nail into the coffin of Darwinism… If it wasn’t the polar bear, what else would have made the musketeers to give up on Darwinism so quickly, especially Swamidass?
    On the other hand if the polar bear hasn’t evolved since the separation from its ancestor 400.000 years ago, how could evolutionists claim that ALL 10 BILLION SPECIES ON EARTH ARE EVOLVING? 😉

  8. J-Mac,

    Darwinism is dead yadda yadda

    Behe’s latest book directly acknowledges a role for Natural Selection. It’s kinda sad when someone lacks the equipment to comprehend the matter under discussion, shouty capitals or no.

  9. How many times can one kill Darwinism? Damn, it’s ability to resurrect time and again makes Jeebus pale in comparison

  10. dazz:
    How many times can one kill Darwinism? Damn, it’s ability to resurrect time and again makes Jeebus pale in comparison

    What’s kind of interesting is that biology works the way it has always worked, regardless of the various labels used to denigrate those who work to figure out all the details. I marvel at the triumphant claims of victory over a label — especially one not particularly relevant to how biology works. The label is DEAD! Life keeps on evolving.

  11. Gregory,

    Oh, for a second I thought you were talking about the Design Institute. Or the Hong Kong Design Institute. Or the Illinois Institute of design. Or the National Institute of Design. Or perhaps the Istituto Europeo di Design. Or maybe Istituto Marangoni.

    Or I thought you might be getting confused with the Dublin Institute of Design. Bu then maybe the Copenhagen Institute of Interaction Design. Or DIDI (The Dubai Institute of Design and Innovation).

    Or maybe you were thinking of the Jockey Club of Bangladesh. Who knows.

  12. phoodoo:
    Gregory,

    Oh, for a second I thought you were talking about the Design Institute.Or the Hong Kong Design Institute.Or the Illinois Institute of design. Or the National Institute of Design.Or perhaps the Istituto Europeo di Design.Or maybe Istituto Marangoni.

    Or I thought you might be getting confused with the Dublin Institute of Design. Bu then maybe the Copenhagen Institute of Interaction Design.Or DIDI (The Dubai Institute of Design and Innovation).

    Or maybe you were thinking of the Jockey Club of Bangladesh.Who knows.

    I think we might be talking about the Discovery Institute, based in Seattle. You know, the organisation that ran a million miles from justifying themselves when they were pulled up short in the Kitzmiller versus the Dover School Board case.

    Got any science since then?

  13. Gregory,

    In reply to Gregory

    You wrote: “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.”

    I will have to take your word that many evolutionary biologists self-identify as evolutionists. Like I said, I have never in my personal experience heard a colleague self-identify using that term. As for being surprised that I missed it, let me say that do not see my self as a researcher interested in origins. My doctorate is in psychology, but I have drifted to rhetoric and argumentation science since then. My journal article was an attempt to identify and label the various arguments used by three groups with the assumption that some other researchers out there might find such work useful. I have also used the same type of rubric to code arguments in the realms of GMO safety, climate change, AIDS/AIDS denialism, and vaccines/autism. Though I have finished data collection and coding on those four topics, I haven’t yet submitted that data for publication. I am not no expert in any of those four fields either. Identifying and labeling arguments is something that I do have a moderate amount of experience with.

    In response to my claim that evolutionism is a rare term, Gregory wrote:

    Well, this appeal to ‘common usage’ by a team of 3 psychologists is suspect. One might realise you are revealing your own bias here,

    Perhaps. However, a quick google search turned up 839k hits for that term and over 9 million hits for creationism (and over 2 billion for evolution). Clearly one term is more common than the other, and it appears that I did conform to common English usage in regards to evolution vs. evolutionism.

    I will say neither I nor my coauthors on the paper we are discussion are proponents of creationism. I would have preferred it otherwise, but that is just how it happened to fall out. I did mention above, however, that I used the same method & procedure to identify and label the arguments in websites promoting particular opinions about GMOs and vaccines/autism. It turns out that my research team for those studies did include people with diametrically opposed opinions on the safety of GMOs and vaccines. When we calculated kappa (a quantitative measure of interrater reliability) we found that the pairs of coders who disagreed were no more or less likely to agree on argument labels than pairs of coders who agreed. So the rubrics we have been using seem to be neutral with regard to the ideology of those involved in the coding.

  14. Robert Byers,

    Robert Byers wrote: “Its the ID equals theology claim that is very wrong.”

    Robert, I am certainly aware that this claim has been made by many ID proponents.

    However, let me clarify my findings. When reading the self-identified ID websites, we found many arguments of the form:

    1) Because (data) X, therefore (claim) we see design in nature
    2) Because (data) we see design in nature, therefore (claim) there must be an Intelligent Designer

    The final claim of these types of two-part argument is related not to natural history but is instead related to ID (who, in this context, appears to be the Judeo/Christian God).

    It is because of the frequency of these arguments that had as the final claim the existence of ID that made the statement you object to. Creationist sites we viewed often included claims about the age of the earth, the mechanism for the origin of animals and plants, the reality of Noah’s flood etc. All of these claims are relevant to natural history. Those types of natural history claims were quite common in the sample of creationist websites we looked at, whereas arguments about the existence of an ID were, by far, the most common argument types found in the ID websites.

    Now maybe the websites in our sample are not representative of most proponents of ID or the websites in our sample are not representative of the main ID-promoting organizations. But what I do know to be true is that we found many evidence for Gods/IDs existence type arguments in the websites in our sample.

    >ABOUT iD’s purpose. Its not to prove God/creator exist but to prove scientific investigation into nature proves a God/creator.

    That may well be true. However, our research was limited to analyzing the text in a particular sample of 72 websites and IN THAT SAMPLE we found a different message.

  15. Thanks to Dr Barnes for supplying me a copy of his paper.

    Ralph_Barnes: However, our research was limited to analyzing the text in a particular sample of 72 websites and IN THAT SAMPLE we found a different message.

    Is it possible to learn which websites you used in your analysis?

  16. phoodoo,

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

    The answer to that question can be found in our method section. Two of our categories were appeal to authority religious and appeal to authority secular. How did we code text into these two categories? We simply followed the text. If a web site referred to John Doe as a religious authority, then we coded Doe as appeal to authority religious. If the website failed to indicate that he was a religious authority (e.g. stating that he was a scientist) then we coded Doe as appeal to authority secular. Our coding in this regard was not based on any preconceived notions of the authors of the paper, but merely by the text found in the websites. No doubt many might disagree on whether a certain person is a scientist or not (and they are welcome to argue about it), but we simply relied on the identification of individuals by the person writing each individual web page.

  17. Alan Fox:
    Thanks to Dr Barnes for supplying me a copy of his paper.

    Is it possible to learn which websites you used in your analysis?

    How many of those websites are still active with more than sockpuppets contributing?

  18. Ralph_Barnes:
    Robert Byers,

    Robert Byers wrote: “Its the ID equals theology claim that is very wrong.”

    Robert, I am certainly aware that this claim has been made by many ID proponents.

    However, let me clarify my findings. When reading the self-identified ID websites, we found many arguments of the form:

    1)Because (data) X, therefore (claim) we see design in nature2)Because (data) we see design in nature, therefore (claim) there must be an Intelligent Designer

    The final claim of these types of two-part argument is related not to natural history but is instead related to ID (who, in this context, appears to be the Judeo/Christian God).

    It is because of the frequency of these arguments that had as the final claim the existence of ID that made the statement you object to. Creationist sites we viewed often included claims about the age of the earth, the mechanism for the origin of animals and plants, the reality of Noah’s flood etc. All of these claims are relevant to natural history. Those types of natural history claims were quite common in the sample of creationist websites we looked at, whereas arguments about the existence of an ID were, by far, the most common argument types found in the ID websites.

    Now maybe the websites in our sample are not representative of most proponents of ID orthe websites in our sample are not representative of the main ID-promoting organizations. But what I do know to be true is that we found many evidence for Gods/IDs existence type arguments in the websites in our sample.

    >ABOUT iD’s purpose. Its not to prove God/creator exist but to prove scientific investigation into nature proves a God/creator.

    That may well be true. However, our research was limited to analyzing the text in a particular sample of 72 websites and IN THAT SAMPLE we found a different message.

    Thanks for the reply.
    you seem to be still saying iD equals theology.
    This is just not true.
    If scientific investigsation demostrates intelligence, as opposed to randomness , in origins of the universe/nature and this intelligence means a inteligent being/creator its still not theology .
    Its just a fact .A fact of science. A fact of truth. Theology is a human word about the supernatural but is not about science.
    with respect it seems your saying any conclusion of intelligence/creator/God is theology. Then theology nullifys iD/YEC as science.
    A line of reasoning.
    ID/YEC concusions where claimed from scientific investigation are no more theology then opponents. Opponents are not theology.
    There is a error here in meanings of words.
    ITs the investigation that proves something is a scientific investigation. Not the conclusion.
    Id/YEC are the evidence of truth in nature about its origins. Figuring out its a creator DOES NOT change ID/YEC into theology investigations.
    Somebdy is wrong about this investigation eh.

  19. Ralph_Barnes:
    phoodoo,

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

    The answer to that question can be found in our method section. Two of our categories were appeal to authority religious and appeal to authority secular. How did we code text into these two categories? We simply followed the text. If a web site referred to John Doe as a religious authority, then we coded Doe as appeal to authority religious. If the website failed to indicate that he was a religious authority (e.g. stating that he was a scientist) then we coded Doe as appeal to authority secular. Our coding in this regard was not based on any preconceived notions of the authors of the paper, but merely by the text found in the websites. No doubt many might disagree on whether a certain person is a scientist or not (and they are welcome to argue about it), but we simply relied on the identification of individuals by the person writing each individual web page.

    It is not clear, but it seems you are stating that you made a distinction between someone who is religious and someone who is scientific as if these two are mutually exclusive, which is just the problem I was stating.

    Furthermore, what does it matter what the website refers to the person as. Whoever is writing the website my or may not consider someone a scientist , and they may or may not consider one a religious authority, I don’t see how that person who wrote that’s opinion is relevant to anything other than how they refer to them.

    I gave you a specific example, Michel Behe. In different contexts and different webpages he will be referred to as a creationist, a biochemist, or if you go by some of the ridiculous sites online such as Wikipedia he is called a pseudoscientist. Some people here probably even refer to him as a preacher or some such nonsense. So what is he considered in your paper?

    Likewise, Stephen Meyer. DNA Jock calls him a liar (Jock doesn’t care about UK libel laws much, except for sometimes), not a scientist. In Wikipedia they give him the same distorted types of characterizations, even though he holds a PHD in History and Philosophy of Science. So what is he, a scientist or a creationist or an IDist?

    So I am still not sure what these identifiers you use mean. The whole title of your article in fact makes this odd distinction, as if people who believe in religion can’t believe in science. You are either a creationist or a scientist? Now there’s a false dichotomy. Or an Idist for that matter, how does that make you not a scientist? The whole premise (and point of your paper I suspect) is biased and flawed.

  20. Robert Byers: ITs the investigation that proves something is a scientific investigation. Not the conclusion.

    I always thought so.

    ID/YEC exist to demonstrate that the natural world shows a creator, and errors about origins.

    Robert Byers

  21. This OP turned out a lot more interesting than I expected. I really don’t understand why some commenters got so upset about the conclusions of the article. That ID proponents never bring positive empirical evidence to the table is a common lament. It is quite evident that none of the ID proponents here at TSZ have the slightest interest in the natural world outside of humans, so no surprises there. And that ID is a program to seek scientific evidence for the existence of the Christian God is not really a secret either. So why the fuss?

  22. Corneel: That ID proponents never bring positive empirical evidence to the table is a common lament.

    Right-from skeptics that’s the lament. And Ralph is a skeptic. What a surprise!

    I guess he found the conclusion he wanted.

    Funny how bad science tends to do that.

  23. Corneel:
    This OP turned out a lot more interesting than I expected. I really don’t understand why some commenters got so upset about the conclusions of the article. That ID proponents never bring positive empirical evidence to the table is a common lament. It is quite evident that none of the ID proponents here at TSZ have the slightest interest in the natural world outside of humans, so no surprises there. And that ID is a program to seek scientific evidence for the existence of the Christian God is not really a secret either. So why the fuss?

    Maybe Ralph can use this post in his next article, to show how skeptics argument style is based on silly strawmen and ad hominen nonsense.

    That report should be out soon. If he needs help finding more examples of this, I will be glad to help him.

    What hogwash his whole endeavor is.

    Barnes apparently works with Micheal Shermer. Imagine that!

  24. phoodoo: Right-from skeptics that’s the lament. And Ralph is a skeptic. What a surprise!

    Since no direct evidence of the creation process is available, ID arguments must necessarily take on a different form. The study reflects that. Why is is that confronting?

    phoodoo: Maybe Ralph can use this post in his next article, to show how skeptics argument style is based on silly strawmen and ad hominen nonsense.

    I really don’t understand what your beef is. You keep on insisting that “materialists” are blind to the copious evidence pointing to the existence of the Designer, but when a study shows that such arguments are commonly used on pro-ID websites, you get upset. It is clear even by casually browsing TSZ: A while ago we had EricMH here trying to prove with mathematics that the universe is intelligently designed. That is a typical ID-style type of argument. Why wouldn’t any study examining internet arguments find that bias? This didn’t surprise me in the least.

    The only thing I could conceivably think of as confronting is the unmasking of ID as natural theology rather than science in the discussion, yet the result that argumentation styles are vastly different between ID, creationists and pro-evolution websites seems solid to me.

  25. Corneel: The only thing I could conceivably think of as confronting is the unmasking of ID as natural theology rather than science in the discussion, yet the result that argumentation styles are vastly different between ID, creationists and pro-evolution websites seems solid to me.

    If only the evolutionists had science on their side you might have a point. If only.

    I wonder why he didn’t call the article Comparing Internet Argument Styles: Creationists, IDists, Pro-Evolutionists?

    Or Skeptics.

    And I wonder why he thinks its disparaging to refer to evolutionists as Darwinists?

    I have no beef. I think his article is hilarious. Too bad you don’t see it.

  26. Corneel: You keep on insisting that “materialists” are blind to the copious evidence pointing to the existence of the Designer, but when a study shows that such arguments are commonly used on pro-ID websites, you get upset.

    Right. And that’s what his article says, Pro-IDists websites talk about evidence pointing to the existence of a designer.

    They talk about evidence. Skeptics just talk about God, God, God…

    That’s what his study found right?

  27. phoodoo: Right.And that’s what his article says, Pro-IDists websites talk about evidence pointing to the existence of a designer.

    They talk about evidence.Skeptics just talk about God, God, God…

    That’s what his study found right?

    Now that Darwinism is officially dead what are those websites for? Will the style of arguments matter? 😉

  28. phoodoo: Right. And that’s what his article says, Pro-IDists websites talk about evidence pointing to the existence of a designer.

    Do they talk about how the designer implemented his design?

  29. Corneel,

    Well said. The pro-IDists ‘generic theists’ at this site do IDism no favours with their disbelief of basic research, in this case ‘social psychology/rhetoric of argumentation.’

    “Why wouldn’t any study examining internet arguments find that bias? This didn’t surprise me in the least.” – Corneel

    Neither did it surprise me. It just reveals phoodoo & J-Mac fanatical bias, similar to how Swamidass can say or do no wrong in the eyes of his admirers & co-conspirators gbrooks9 and Patrick over at PS.

    “If only the evolutionists had science on their side you might have a point. If only.” – phoodoo

    Evolutionary science is well documented & even partially demonstrated (one cannot demonstrate ‘millions of years’ in a laboratory, only generations). It is wrong to equate ‘proponents of evolutionary biology’ with ‘evolutionists,’ which is the point I made above and which Barnes has skirted away from claiming ‘neutrality’.

    Evolutionists don’t have *ANY* ‘science’ on their side because ‘evolutionism’ is an ideology, not a science. But once a person conflates ‘evolutionism’ with ‘evolutionary science’, the conversation gets muddy quickly. And when people fling around the label ‘evolutionist’ without precision or accuracy, the conversation just gets belligerent and divisive because people don’t accept the labels that others would stick on them, as they miss the mark.

    Obviously the label-less ideologues are among the worst participants in the conversation because they can’t/won’t be pinned down about anything and thus just hover back & forth, here & there over positions they think they might wish to defend, but can’t actually, based on the portfolio of ‘expertise’ or ‘amateurishness’ that they bring to the conversation.

    That the IDM is a double-talking duplicitous (social, cultural, educational, political, quasi-spiritual) ‘movement’ when it comes to flip-flopping between ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design,’ between ‘designer’ & ‘Designer,’ really isn’t difficult to prove with examples in the literature and on ENV, over at UD, etc. And so it goes on & on…

  30. phoodoo: Pro-IDists websites talk about evidence pointing to the existence of a designer.

    They talk about evidence. Skeptics just talk about God, God, God…

    The search for the evidence of design in human biology is the attempt to find evidence for the existence of God. You cannot possibly separate the two.

  31. colewd: Why not?

    Ralph Barnes answered that question upthread, in response to a similar objection by Robert.

    Robert, I am certainly aware that this claim has been made by many ID proponents.

    However, let me clarify my findings. When reading the self-identified ID websites, we found many arguments of the form:

    1) Because (data) X, therefore (claim) we see design in nature
    2) Because (data) we see design in nature, therefore (claim) there must be an Intelligent Designer

    The final claim of these types of two-part argument is related not to natural history but is instead related to ID (who, in this context, appears to be the Judeo/Christian God).

  32. It is noteworthy that some of the early supporters of Intelligent Design was the semi-atheistic UFO religion Raelians/Raelism, who thinks the evidence for ID shows humans were designed by extraterrestrial intelligent designer aliens. But their support was rejected by the discovery institute if I remember correctly.

    It didn’t fit the goals of “ID theory”. Apparently all this atheism and pro-LGBT values the Raelians support don’t square with the goals of the ID gurus.

  33. phoodoo,

    They talk about evidence. Skeptics just talk about God, God, God…

    A wise man once told me it’s either ‘Lucky Accidents’ or God. He bristled somewhat at the suggestion that this was a false dichotomy, so …

  34. newton: Do they talk about how the designer implemented his design?

    Maybe the designer tossed the design over the wall to the developers who then tossed the implementation over the wall to the testers.

  35. Mung: Maybe the designer tossed the design over the wall to the developers who then tossed the implementation over the wall to the testers.

    So far that is the most detailed explanation,yet. Of course, the designer had to design those folks first and then walls which leads us back to how.

  36. Gregory: It just reveals phoodoo & J-Mac fanatical bias

    Really? Give few examples but in short…
    I hardly ever ready your comments past two sentences… for obvious reasons 😉

  37. newton: So far thatis the most detailed explanation,yet. Of course, the designer had to design those folks first and then wallswhich leads us back to how.

    Since Darwinism is dead the only reasonable explanation is top down design/creation…
    Since life systems are beyond irreducible complexity; life is dependent on many interdependent, coexisting parts (even the simplest life forms require thousands of functioning proteins) no bottom up mechanism of gradual, improved complexity can explain life…

  38. J-Mac: Since Darwinism is dead the only reasonable explanation is top down design/creation…

    So which creation story should we accept as the most reasonable explanation. Right now we have someone did something somehow ,sometime for some reason.

    J-Mac: Since life systems are beyond irreducible complexity;

    Present life , but what is the minimum required to qualify as life? Are viruses alive?
    We do not require complexity to qualify as designed, the wheel is simple. Why did the designer create such complex designs?

    life is dependent on many interdependent, coexisting parts (even the simplest life forms require thousands of functioning proteins) no bottom up mechanism of gradual, improved complexity can explain life…

    Human design has been a bottom up ,gradual increase in efficiency and complexity. Evolving systems, constantly upgrading, do we see that in life?

    Is the designer alive , if so how did the designer come about? How did it gain this knowledge, the environment plays a large part of life on this planet, is that controlled, how? If not , how would the designer deal with global level catastrophic events we see evidence of.

    Is design still occurring , was their more than one designer? What is the cost analysis look like, it may take resources to creat a biosystems, why expend the resources?

    There are lots of questions, how would we begin to answer them with design/ creation reasonable explanation?

  39. J-Mac: Really? Give few examples but in short…
    I hardly ever ready your comments past two sentences… for obvious reasons

    Finger gets tired?

  40. J-Mac: Since Darwinism is dead the only reasonable explanation is top down design/creation…

    Nope. That’s not even a reasonable scientific explanation, and your reasoning is of course faulty, namely, the archetypical creationist argument from ignorance.

    Besides, we already have a better theory, which is the one that “killed darwinism” (no need for spooky ghosts) And that theory, apart from natural selection & random mutation, now also includes drift, so there’s even more randomness to it than darwinism predicted. Suck it up, buddy!

  41. Gregory:
    Corneel,

    Well said. The pro-IDists ‘generic theists’ at this site do IDism no favours with their disbelief of basic research, in this case ‘social psychology/rhetoric of argumentation.’

    Neither did it surprise me. It just reveals phoodoo & J-Mac fanatical bias, similar to how Swamidass can say or do no wrong in the eyes of his admirers & co-conspirators gbrooks9 and Patrick over at PS.

    Evolutionary science is well documented & even partially demonstrated (one cannot demonstrate ‘millions of years’ in a laboratory, only generations). It is wrong to equate ‘proponents of evolutionary biology’ with ‘evolutionists,’ which is the point I made above and which Barnes has skirted away from claiming ‘neutrality’.

    Evolutionists don’t have *ANY* ‘science’ on their side because ‘evolutionism’ is an ideology, not a science. But once a person conflates ‘evolutionism’ with ‘evolutionary science’, the conversation gets muddy quickly. And when people fling around the label ‘evolutionist’ without precision or accuracy, the conversation just gets belligerent and divisive because people don’t accept the labels that others would stick on them, as they miss the mark.

    Obviously the label-less ideologues are among the worst participants in the conversation because they can’t/won’t be pinned down about anything and thus just hover back & forth, here & there over positions they think they might wish to defend, but can’t actually, based on the portfolio of ‘expertise’ or ‘amateurishness’ that they bring to the conversation.

    That the IDM is a double-talking duplicitous (social, cultural, educational, political, quasi-spiritual) ‘movement’ when it comes to flip-flopping between ‘intelligent design’ and ‘Intelligent Design,’ between ‘designer’ & ‘Designer,’ really isn’t difficult to prove with examples in the literature and on ENV, over at UD, etc. And so it goes on & on…

    This whole post is poppycock.

    First, your whole obssesion with “proponents of evolution” are not “evolutionists” spiel is your own little pet evangelism that is both uninteresting and unnecessary for anyone else to accept as meaningful in the slightest. If you believe in unguided evolution you are an evolutionist (and probably an atheist). Everyone else accepts this classification, if you don’t so what. Prattle on about it like a mental patient, its trivial.

    Secondly, what is this so called science of unguided evolution? Bacteria in a lab dish eating citrate? That’s what’s well documented and demonstrated? That is about the least convincing documentation of a grand theory that one could possibly imagine, if one had any imagination whatsoever.

    And to counter this one weak example of documenting so called unguided evolution, the ID side has scores and scores of examples of systems so complex that lucky accidents adding up to organized complexity as an explanation becomes so ridiculous and feeble, that even those who say they believe in unguided evolution are loathe to have to carry their unguided evolution mantle with them. Thus they beg for some third way, that can’t be explained, some third way in a book hidden in a locked vault somewhere written in a language no one knows, but one day, oh one day we will figure it out, don’t worry. THE THIRD WAY, the God of the modern evolutionist (who gives a fuck what you call it Gregory). Hallelujah, the THIRD WAY!. One day we shall meet!

    Citrate! Ha, that’s what the other side has.

    A million plus intricate systems, guided by an intricate code, guided by even more development codes. That’s what our sides has.

    I’d say our side is winning the science race. I am not afraid.

  42. phoodoo: This whole post is poppycock.

    You’ve read the whole poppycock?!
    I admire you… I usually read 2-3 of his sentences and lose interest…
    I don’t tolerate attention seeking behaviour particularly well…😎
    You?

Leave a Reply

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