756 thoughts on “I lost my faith in ID

  1. Adapa,

    There’s your epic failure again Bill. No one has ever shown anything in biological life has a purposeful arrangement of parts.

    Is your claim that the bacteriophage, flagellum, or the mousetrap are not a purposeful arrangement of parts?

    I can point out purpose or in one case multiple purposes of the above. Seems like this would be impossible according to your claim.

    0
  2. colewd:
    I gave you a test for circularity.

    No you didn’t.

    colewd:
    Can you get to the claim through evidence. Yes you can …

    Not unless you believe, subjectively, that it’s purposeful, which means unless you believe it’s designed: circular. You said so yourself when you quoted someone saying exactly that.

    colewd:
    … and so much that the evidence can persuade people with non theistic backgrounds.

    Do you even notice the irony of defending a circular argument with an argument from pseudo-authority?

    colewd:
    If the argument was circular you would not be worried about it.

    I’m not worried. I’m trying to get you to notice that you quoted an admission that the argument is circular, and you refuse to see it for what it is. If the argument was any good I’d be saying, now that’s interesting!

    colewd:
    Truly circular arguments are not hard to call out …

    Yet you fail at one that could be used as the prime example of circularity.

    colewd:
    like the argument that Dawkins makes for atheism.“God is just too big a concept”.This one gets a twofer circularity and incredulity.

    I doubt that’s the argument, and knowing you, surely you’re talking that out of context. And I haven’t heard much of Dawkins (I don’t care about the guy’s arguments at all). Also, the tiny bit you quote is not an argument at all. It’s a description. So, neither circular, nor incredulity, nothing without the context.

    colewd:
    This is why I think the design argument is powerful.

    Because it’s circular yet you cannot tell out of who-knows-what-damage-to-your-reasoning-faculties?

    colewd:
    It can only be defeated with logical fallacies or falsely accusing it of logical fallacies.

    Yet you quote him admitting that the argument is circular.

    colewd:
    As Behe said in the debate with Swamidass for the last 25 years no one has laid a glove on the argument.

    Of course he’d say that. he’s not about to admit that his argument is fallacious and thoroughly defeated. That would be the end of a nice book selling lifestyle.

    ————

    ETA: Here’s your quote in all its circular glory:

    colewd:
    It looks like evidence if one’s subjective priors lead one to see it as evidence. Without those filters, it doesn’t look like evidence at all. That’s why I said above that you can’t appeal to purposive structures in cells as evidence of design — it’s only if one first believes in design to begin with that these structures will look like purposive arrangements at all.

    2+
  3. colewd:
    Erik,

    Are you aware of ID movements in Poland and Brazil?

    Science Mag:
    President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration on Saturday named Benedito Guimarães Aguiar Neto to head the agency, known as CAPES. Aguiar Neto, an electrical engineer by training, previously served as the rector of Mackenzie Presbyterian University (MPU), a private religious school here. It advocates the teaching and study of intelligent design (ID), an outgrowth of biblical creationism that argues that life is too complex to have evolved by Darwinian evolution, and so required an intelligent designer.

    Straw man? 😉
    And yeah, fucking Bolsonaro, what a great way to argue for the rationality of your position, LMFAO

    4+
  4. Entropy,

    Not unless you believe, subjectively, that it’s purposeful, which means unless you believe it’s designed: circular. You said so yourself when you quoted someone saying exactly that.

    It’s empirically observed as having a purpose. I can define that purpose. I don’t believe it subjectively I am assigning an observation to a definition of purpose.

    it’s only if one first believes in design to begin with that these structures will look like purposive arrangements at all.

    This is not true by my own experience. I first noticed that there was a problem with the Darwinian mechanism. I then heard debates on ID and thought the argument was interesting but limited. I now believe that the evidence points to a mind being behind the universe and that has made it an interesting pursuit in my opinion.

    Just to summarize the argument is not circular because it starts with evidence and can affect peoples belief in a creator based on evidence especially what we observe inside living cells.

    0
  5. colewd: Is your claim that the bacteriophage, flagellum, or the mousetrap are not a purposeful arrangement of parts?

    Bill why don’t you just stop the dishonest equivocation over “purpose”? You already look like a clueless ass. There is no evidence – NONE – of any purposeful arrangement of parts in any biological system.

    1+
  6. colewd: It’s empirically observed as having a purpose.

    No Bill. It’s empirically observed to have a function. But knowing you you’ll keep repeating the lie “all functions must be purposely caused” until your keyboard shorts out.

    1+
  7. colewd: Just to summarize the argument is not circular because it starts with evidence and can affect peoples belief in a creator based on evidence especially what we observe inside living cells.

    Thanks again for admitting your ID-Creationist argument has nothing to do with science and everything to do with trying to prop up your religious beliefs.

    0
  8. colewd:
    It’s empirically observed as having a purpose.

    That’s not what the quote says. The quote, which you gave us, openly admits that it’s not empirically observed to have a purpose, that you have to believe it so. Furthermore, I don’t see any of those structures as having a purpose.

    colewd:
    I can define that purpose. I don’t believe it subjectively I am assigning an observation to a definition of purpose.

    If you define them as having a purpose, then it’s openly subjective, since it’s your definition, and then you’re arguing from both circularity: “hey, these things have purposiveness!” and from equivocation: “I defined it as purposive, therefore I define them as designed, even though purpose in designed objects means something different”.

    Otherwise, you’re making an anthropomorphic projection. Purely subjective.

    0
  9. colewd:
    Gregory,
    Let’s step aside from the advocacy issue of the DI.As a scientific argument what do you see are the problems with ID?

    Sorry Bill, no time for that now. It’s been done many times in peer-reviewed publications that you too could easily get access to read. Even with social distancing, if you have the internet at home! = )

    DI can’t even display the honesty for the sake of their own credibility by admitting that “design theory” and “design thinking” are actually NOT PERSECUTED. It is simply a lie to continue to say they are. Bill Cole, like all IDists so far, cannot look deep enough into himself, to simply buckle down & admit that truth. Just like Behe, he will not acknowledge real design theory & real design thinking, which differs from quasi-scientific neo-creationist IDism.

    By now, there’s a irremovable stained credibility issue with the DI & ID theory, that neither Bill nor any other Christian seeking the truth can avoid. Surely he doesn’t like to hear it most from fellow religious believers who have little to no trust for the DI & IDM, including Venema and Swamidass, but also a long list of people whose questions the DI has avoided, and in some cases has attempted to silence.

    Of course, Bill Cole won’t say otherwise to this fact of the DI & IDM because it’s too obvious for non-IDists to exploit against the IDM. And fanatics, which the most IDists are here and elsewhere, won’t give an inch, even with mud thick on their faces. Most normal, regular folks aren’t enthused watching anti-religious evolutionary atheists vs. pro-religious Intelligent Design “theorists”, and don’t trust either!

    Are there good Christian role models in the IDM? I haven’t found one yet. Surely there are quite a few science & faith ideologues currently sheltering for PR at the Discovery Institute.

    0
  10. Entropy,

    That’s not what the quote says. The quote, which you gave us, openly admits that it’s not empirically observed to have a purpose, that you have to believe it so. Furthermore, I don’t see any of those structures as having a purpose.

    If I did I then misspoke. I apologize for this.

    If you define them as having a purpose, then it’s openly subjective,

    I agree. This is however different then observing the function and being able to assign purpose based on that observation.

    0
  11. colewd: This is however different then observing the function and being able to assign purpose based on that observation.

    You only assign “purpose” since you already assume all functions must be purposely created. Still completely circular and completely worthless.

    1+
  12. Gregory,

    Sorry Bill, no time for that now. It’s been done many times in peer-reviewed publications that you too could easily get access to read. Even with social distancing, if you have the internet at home!

    This is what I suspected. I have no idea at this point whether you understand the argument or not. I am not interested in the politics of the matter. I am interested in the merits of Behe’s scientific claims. Which states, ” A purposeful arrangement of parts is the way, the only way, we can recognize the work of a mind.”

    0
  13. Adapa,

    Bill why don’t you just stop the dishonest equivocation over “purpose”? You already look like a clueless ass. There is no evidence – NONE – of any purposeful arrangement of parts in any biological system.

    As I suspected you cannot defend your claim. I see a pattern forming.

    0
  14. colewd: I am interested in the merits of Behe’s scientific claims. Which states, ” A purposeful arrangement of parts is the way, the only way, we can recognize the work of a mind.”

    That’s not a scientific claim Bill. It’s Behe’s personal opinion unsupported by any scientific evidence. There is no evidence for any purposeful arrangement of parts in any biological system.

    0
  15. colewd:I see a pattern forming.

    The pattern of you ignoring contradictory evidence and mindlessly repeating the same discredited ID-Creationist lies was established years ago.

    0
  16. I have come to the tentative conclusion that colewd simply cannot grasp any difference between function and purpose. He uses these terms interchangeably. I’d be quite interested if he would take the time and trouble to distinguish between these terms, and perhaps give an illustration of something he believes has either one without the other.

    C’mon Bill, give it a shot.

    1+
  17. Flint,

    C’mon Bill, give it a shot.

    Let’s use a working definition I found.

    Finally we come to Purpose. Purpose is very simply, the “why” behind our function.

    0
  18. Adapa,

    The pattern of you ignoring contradictory evidence and mindlessly repeating the same discredited ID-Creationist lies was established years ago.

    Could you be projecting? Logical Fallacy Adapa.

    0
  19. colewd: Let’s use a working definition I found.

    No Bill, let’s use the actual dictionary definition instead of your dishonest equivocation.

    Definition of purpose
    1a: something set up as an object or end to be attained : INTENTION
    b: RESOLUTION, DETERMINATION
    2: a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution
    on purpose
    : by intent : INTENTIONALLY

    Purpose always implies INTENTION Bill no matter how much you lie and squirm about it. There is no evidence for any INTENTIONAL arrangement of parts in biological systems.

    0
  20. How would you apply those principles to other things, Bill?
    If I was to declare that the Milky Way is an arrangement of parts whose purpose is to host the Earth and enable our existence, would I be justified in claiming it was designed?

    0
  21. colewd: Let’s use a working definition I found.

    Finally we come to Purpose. Purpose is very simply, the “why” behind our function.

    Note that honest Bill Cole even quote-mined this definition from an article on Project Management which specifically differentiates between role, function, and purpose.

    “You may feel like you’re headed back to English class, but let’s take a minute and discuss the semantics behind Role, Function, and Purpose as words themselves. They are individual words within the English language that often get used interchangeably when in fact, each word has not only it’s own meaning, but it’s own usage that is essential to our understanding of Project Management.

    Since many of us have actually taken English classes, and even own a dictionary, but still have trouble separating the definition of these three words, let’s try a different approach for discussing the meaning of each word.

    Role: Like the word “tool”, a role defines where a person or entity will fit into the scope of things. Unlike the carpenter, which is the head, the “tool” will be working under the carpenter, but ahead of the nails. Defining the roles of your team members helps keep everyone organized, knowing who will be responsible for what tasks.

    Function: The function of a tool, is the tasks that a particular role is assigned to accomplish. A hammer is a tool. To describe the function of a hammer, though, you would say that a hammer drives nails, removes nails, generally hits other lesser tools really, really hard. Another way to describe function is to think about when you read job descriptions–someone may be the Project Manager, but that’s just their role. What will their function at the company actually be? Well to answer that question, we list off the tasks that the PM will be doing. These tasks form the function of a particular role.

    Finally we come to Purpose. Purpose is very simply, the “why” behind our function. What is the ultimate goal of our efforts? To what end are we giving of our time and energy? These answers define our purpose.”

    Role, Function, and Purpose Are Not The Same Things

    Bill just has to lie to prop up his religious beliefs. He just can’t help himself.

    0
  22. dazz,

    If I was to declare that the Milky Way is an arrangement of parts whose purpose is to host the Earth and enable our existence, would I be justified in claiming it was designed?

    This becomes subjective.

    It’s not subjective that the purpose of a car is to get you efficiently from home to work. As it is not subjective to say that the purpose of a heart is to transport oxygen to the cells in your body.

    0
  23. colewd: As it is not subjective to say that the purpose of a heart is to transport oxygen to the cells in your body.

    Yes it is completely subjective. Purpose always implies intent. Having someone anthropomorphize a function (i.e “the purpose of rain clouds is to water the flowers”) doesn’t make the function be the intentional act of a disembodied mind.

    Why did you quote mine that article on Project Management? Was that an honest thing to do?

    0
  24. colewd:
    dazz,

    This becomes subjective.

    It’s not subjective that the purpose of a car is to get you efficiently from home to work.As it is not subjective to say that the purpose of a heart is to transport oxygen to the cells in your body.

    I know you could not tell the difference, despite multiple people explaining, providing dictionary definitions, and giving examples. Instead, you quote-mine from a text whose purpose is explicitly to explain the difference. Amusingly, both of your examples are wrong, underscoring the fact that you really do not know the difference.

    So I will try to give an example as well, because I don’t mind wasting the time.

    Bill, examine two open doors that won’t close. In one case, it’s because someone put a wedge under the door, and in the second case, it’s because the door has warped so badly it binds on the floor. NOTE carefully that the wedge and the warp have exactly the same function – they prevent the door from closing. But only the wedge has a purpose, because it was the INTENT of whoever put it there to hold it open. The warp has no purpose at all, it’s simply a warp. There was at no time any intention, motivation, or purpose in warping the door.

    (And please notice that in your example, getting you from home to work is YOUR purpose, not the purpose of the car. The heart is like the warp in the door – it has a biological function, but not through anyone’s intent.)

    1+
  25. colewd:
    dazz,

    This becomes subjective.

    It’s not subjective that the purpose of a car is to get you efficiently from home to work.As it is not subjective to say that the purpose of a heart is to transport oxygen to the cells in your body.

    How do you know the purpose of a car is, objectively, to get us efficiently from A to B?

    What makes my example about the Milky Way subjective?

    0
  26. dazz: How do you know the purpose of a car is, objectively, to get us efficiently from A to B?

    I think this is legitimate, or nearly so, because we know the car was designed by people, and these people had the purpose of transportation. But the purpose is physically located in the minds of the designers and in the minds of the drivers. The car has no intentions of its own.)

    0
  27. dazz:
    What makes my example about the Milky Way subjective?

    Faith. If one believes (and many do) that their particular god(s) created all mass, all energy, all structure, for Its purposes, then the milky way has Its purpose in the same way that a watershed does. It exists, therefore Bill’s god did it for good and sufficient reasons of Its own, about which we can only speculate. Bill’s god doesn’t answer such questions.

    0
  28. Flint: I know you could not tell the difference, despite multiple people explaining, providing dictionary definitions, and giving examples

    Bill knows the difference between function and purpose. He just isn’t honest enough to admit it because it kills his hero Behe’s argument deader than dead.

    0
  29. Adapa: Bill knows the difference between function and purpose.He just isn’t honest enough to admit it because it kills his hero Behe’s argument deader than dead.

    It is kind of hilarious that Bill extracted his “definition” from a page dedicated to telling him otherwise!

    0
  30. Flint: It is kind of hilarious that Bill extracted his “definition” from a page dedicated to telling him otherwise!

    Makes you wonder how many hours he spent desperately Googling until he found a page he could quote-mine that way. 🙂

    0
  31. Flint,

    It is kind of hilarious that Bill extracted his “definition” from a page dedicated to telling him otherwise!

    It’s a definition you can adapt to observation. It’s not subjective. The truth is we can extract purpose from observation using a simple why question. The truth is you can infer purpose from determining the function. Thats what Behe has done and it is actually quite brilliant.

    If we look at the flagellum we can call its function mobility. From its own perspective a purpose of that mobility can be obtaining food. From the animal who’s intestine that bacteria lives the purpose of the motor can be for helping that animal digest food.

    Biology appears to be designed for a purpose because it is. This is a reasonable alternative to Dawkins assertion and I would argue it is a more logical conclusion from the evidence.

    What is the ultimate goal of our efforts? To what end are we giving of our time and energy? These answers define our purpose.”

    This is in reference to something a specific group is doing and I would argue not part of purpose when we are inferring it from observation where someone unknown made it.

    0
  32. dazz: How do you know the purpose of a car is, objectively, to get us efficiently from A to B?

    Any car?
    This car is rather inefficient at getting people from almost anywhere to almost anywhere else:

    1+

  33. colewd: The truth is you can infer purpose from determining the function. Thats what Behe has done and it is actually quite brilliant.

    No Bill, you can’t determine purpose from function unless you assume conscious design and construction. If you’re out hiking and find a fallen dead tree functioning as a crude bridge across a stream that isn’t evidence the tree was purposely placed there to be a bridge.

    Behe’s only “brilliance” was to convince ignorant morons his personal opinion somehow qualified as ‘science” like he convinced you.

    0
  34. colewd: I would argue not part of purpose when we are inferring it from observation where someone unknown made it.

    HAH! Bill comes right back to the circular logic fallacy. He assumed with no evidence “someone unknown” purposely constructed biological systems so circularly concludes they must have been made for a purpose.

    0
  35. colewd: If we look at the flagellum we can call its function mobility.

    Seems right, keep going. Lots of ways to move.Why that particular how?

    From its own perspective a purpose of that mobility can be obtaining food.

    If you assume a bacteria has human-like introspection, and knows things. Why?

    From the animal who’s intestine that bacteria lives the purpose of the motor can be for helping that animal digest food.

    Why use bacteria and intestines?

    0
  36. Flint,
    I see what you mean, but I was hoping Bill could provide us with a rigorous methodology to identify objective purposes in things that might be subject to the study of ID.

    colewd: The truth is you can infer purpose from determining the function

    So if something has a function, then it has a purpose and we can infer design. Right?

    How do you know that everything that has a function, was designed for the purpose of that functionality?

    You said a car has the purpose of taking us (efficiently) from A to B. How do you know that?
    If I happen to have sex with a date in my car, is the purpose of the car to have sex in it?
    If at some other time, I have sex with my girlfriend at the beach, is the purpose of the beach to have sex?

    Which of those are subjective purposes and which are objective, and how do you know?

    0
  37. DNA_Jock: Any car?
    This car is rather inefficient at getting people from almost anywhere to almost anywhere else:

    Yeah, so much so that it keeps going back to where it started. 😅

    0
  38. I know you could not tell the difference, despite multiple people explaining, providing dictionary definitions, and giving examples. Instead, you quote-mine from a text whose purpose is explicitly to explain the difference.

    A lifted a definition from a text. It was the definition. I did not add or leave anything out of the definition and applied to something observed.
    Flint,

    In the case the example was a group working on something. Their perspective is available in this case. When looking at something and inferring purpose you do not have this perspective, however asking the why question around the function allows you to infer purpose and it is quite useful.

    Bill, examine two open doors that won’t close. In one case, it’s because someone put a wedge under the door, and in the second case, it’s because the door has warped so badly it binds on the floor. NOTE carefully that the wedge and the warp have exactly the same function – they prevent the door from closing. But only the wedge has a purpose, because it was the INTENT of whoever put it there to hold it open. The warp has no purpose at all, it’s simply a warp. There was at no time any intention, motivation, or purpose in warping the door.

    Looking at this case with out being able to talk to the door or floor designer what would you infer is the purpose in each case? Why? Use the standard of a purposeful arrangement of parts where more parts with tighter relationship exhibits stronger design detection.

    (And please notice that in your example, getting you from home to work is YOUR purpose, not the purpose of the car. The heart is like the warp in the door – it has a biological function, but not through anyone’s intent.)

    It was one of the purposes of the car.

    0
  39. colewd: A lifted a definition from a text.

    How many legit scientific theories do you know of that wouldn’t provide the relevant operational definitions and would leave you on your own to go fetching the interwebz for a random definition in a dictionary?

    1+
  40. colewd:

    It was one of the purposes of the car.

    I can see the error you persist in making, but I despair of ever being able to communicate it to you. I will try one more time:

    Purpose is not inherent in any object. Purpose is projected onto objects by those exercising intent!

    The reason why people keep pointing out to you that a car can have MANY purposes, is because the purpose lies with the people and NOT with the car.

    One of the tests given to children to measure creativity is to ask them how many different uses they can find for a brick. And kids note that bricks can be used for building blocks, they can act as doorstops, they can be chairs if you sit on them, projectiles if you throw them, dams if they block a stream of water, even pigments if you grind them up and put them in paint!

    This is a list of potential functions of a brick. So what is the purpose of a brick?

    1+
  41. colewd: asking the why question around the function allows you to infer purpose and it is quite useful

    Why does Bill Cole continually quote-mine, misrepresent, and lie about science when attacking evolutionary theory? The best inference to his purpose is he’s trying to push his ID-Creation religious beliefs even when they have zero supporting positive evidence

    0
  42. colewd: I have no idea at this point whether you understand the argument or not.

    Well, that’s an obvious difference between us. It is quite clear to me that you don’t understand “the argument”.

    Bringing together evidence for that is easy. But UnCooperative Christians, IDists with egos who self-label as “revolutionaries” like Dembski, don’t tend to listen to spiritual advice during their campaigns against atheism & agnosticism in America. Their cup is already too full of themselves.

    So, revel in your evangelical IDist contrarianism, then Bill. It is not worthy of attention, while you have all the time needed to just keep trying like Sisyphus the IDist, still batting 0.00% in converting atheists & agnostics to IDism, after all these years.

    “the merits of Behe’s scientific claims.”

    Behe’s “scientific claims” seem to merit no better than a C grade, 3rd rate (compared with Collins, who properly rejects ID theories). Darwin’s Black Box got attention from creationists and atheists, ignited by media coverage. But the “scientific claims” of Behe appear to be mediocre at best, and speculative nonsense (“it’s devolution baby”!) at worst.

    What is astonishing is the types of people who get duped into thinking Behe is a “great scientist” or even a “really good one”. He’s quite obviously not, according to publication record and volume of criticism.

    0
  43. Adapa: Why does Bill Cole continually quote-mine, misrepresent, and lie about science when attacking evolutionary theory?The best inference to his purpose is he’s trying to push his ID-Creation religious beliefs even when they have zero supporting positive evidence

    I wonder whether we can infer that his purpose is to show the willful blindness of the religious mindset. He’s quite successful in helping the rest of us see how religion cost him his ability to think, a cautionary lesson if there ever was one. He’s caught in a snare he can never escape, almost like he’s hosting a parasite only we can see.

    0
  44. What is the purpose of malaria colewd?

    Or those worms that infect the eyes of children?

    Your designer is either

    a) a shit
    b) imaginary

    Take your pick.

    0
  45. Flint,

    Purpose is not inherent in any object. Purpose is projected onto objects by those exercising intent!

    This is not the way purpose is being used in Behe’s argument. Purpose is inferred by observing the object.

    This is a list of potential functions of a brick. So what is the purpose of a brick?

    The purpose is the why of the function. The generic function is to build things. The purpose of a brick maybe to build your house. What are the purposes of a ribosome? What are the purposes of DNA?

    0
  46. Gregory,

    Behe’s “scientific claims” seem to merit no better than a C grade, 3rd rate (compared with Collins, who properly rejects ID theories). Darwin’s Black Box got attention from creationists and atheists, ignited by media coverage. But the “scientific claims” of Behe appear to be mediocre at best, and speculative nonsense (“it’s devolution baby”!) at worst.

    What is astonishing is the types of people who get duped into thinking Behe is a “great scientist” or even a “really good one”. He’s quite obviously not, according to publication record and volume of criticism.

    I am interesest in discussing the merits of Behe’s work by those who are attempting to understand it. As far as I can tell you have taken a stand and you have no understanding what you are arguing against.

    0

Leave a Reply

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