768 thoughts on “I lost my faith in ID

  1. Entropy,

    That’s the evidence ID-creationists do not want us to ask for: the evidence for designers: plans, machinery used for building the designed stuff, tools, a declaration from the designers about the purpose of each part and of the finished products. Evidence that there was some designers involved who intended things to work the way they do. But designers are declared off limits by IDiots.

    You are right. The identity of the designer is out of the scope of ID. Can I say we have common ground or are you going to hand me a poison branch 🙂

    0

  2. colewd: You are right. The identity of the designer is out of the scope of ID.

    EVERYTHING about the “Designer” is out of the scope of ID. The mechanisms used, the timeline, the source of materials, the location of manufacturing, the intent of the “designs”, EVERYTHING. It’s 100% religious apologetics, nothing to do with science.

    1+
    Entropy
  3. colewd:

    Thank you for this point.A single person is making an inference.The judgement is subjective but Behe has provided an objective criteria for judging the strength of the design inference.Certainly reasonable people can disagree with the inference especially where parts are few and cohesion of function is loose.

    Bill, you continue to shoot yourself in the foot. NOW you seem to be saying that if some object is serving few or one function, AND the large majority of observers agree this is so, THEN function somehow morphs into purpose. But the objective quality of anything is what it is, and cannot depend on majority opinion, no matter how devoutly you agree with the majority. Majority opinion doesn’t turn function into purpose.

    You keep saying this yourself. Function is a fact. Purpose is an inference.

    0

  4. “I’m pleased you’re against ‘hit and run’ posts, Mung!”

    – Richardthughes

    LoL

    0

  5. colewd: The identity of the designer is out of the scope of ID.

    How about the necessary characteristics?

    0

  6. Mung:
    “I’m pleased you’re against ‘hit and run’ posts, Mung!”

    – Richardthughes

    LoL

    Is this what happens to IDists at the end, you and phoodoo sure have given up on ID and instead are just whining.

    0

  7. colewd: The identity of the designer is out of the scope of ID.

    But we know it’s a mind like ours, and if it’s a mind like ours then we already know the identify. It’s a human, like us, as only humans have minds like us.

    newton: How about the necessary characteristics?

    So this mind, like ours, must be millions if not billions of years old. It has the power to create universes. It might be able to intervene in those universes once created but colewd, phoodoo et al have never been brave enough to come to a unified stance on that.
    This mind can also see the future consequences of changes it makes now, and can plan trajectories based on individual strands of DNA moving through millions of years.

    Sure sounds like a human “mind’ to me.

    colwed, every time you talk about ‘minds’ in relation to ID you are speculating on the identify of the designer. You just refuse to see that minds that live for billions of years and can predict the trajectory of individual atoms through billions of years worth of time are not like ours, if they actually exist at all.

    On the one hand you have ‘minds like ours’ as evidence for your position and yet we can’t talk about those minds because that’s out of the scope of ID.

    Tell me, what is in the scope of ID? When will Behe be using his filter in a formal rather then a youtube way?

    If Behe’s filter is usable then why don’t you demonstrate that usage, with numbers?

    0

  8. Mung: “I’m pleased you’re against ‘hit and run’ posts, Mung!”

    – Richardthughes

    LoL

    Moderation issues. The last gasp in the empty ID petrol tank. Still, I guess it’s better then the transphobia and general intolerance happening at UD at the moment….

    0

  9. Flint,

    You keep saying this yourself. Function is a fact. Purpose is an inference.

    I agree with you. Thanks for the discussion. I think Behe’s use of purpose works as Dembski’s use of specified works.

    0

  10. OMagain,

    colwed, every time you talk about ‘minds’ in relation to ID you are speculating on the identify of the designer. You just refuse to see that minds that live for billions of years and can predict the trajectory of individual atoms through billions of years worth of time are not like ours, if they actually exist at all.

    The job of ID is to argue that a mind is behind the universe.

    The job of Christianity is to argue that mind is contained in personal creator God who sent his seed down to earth to reconcile the relationship between him and humanity.

    The story is pretty compelling especially if it turns out to be true.

    0

  11. colewd: The story is pretty compelling especially if it turns out to be true.

    If wishes were fishes…

    0

  12. colewd to OMagain,

    The job of ID is to argue that a mind is behind the universe.

    Nope. The job of ID is to get religion taught in the science classroom.

    colewd to OMagain,
    The job of Christianity is to argue that mind is contained in personal creator God who sent his seed down to earth to reconcile the relationship between him and humanity.

    Ridiculously absurd, right?

    0

  13. colewd,

    “The job of ID is to argue…”

    Yes, that’s why it gets into so many arguments, and has so many bruises & wounds on its proponents’ faces.

    Not really a surprise that it turns out like that with people who are picking a fight with so many others, both atheists and theists in different ways. It’s a one-trick “design universalism” pony, at the end of the day, a kind of post-modern weaponized evangelical apologetics for the myopic. The myopic weaponization of ID theory (and not a few people, like Francis Collins of Human Genome, NIH & Language of God, think the weaponization actually amounts to very little; a minimalist approach) is simply viewed as peddling pseudo-science by most “normal” human beings, even more so by those scholars in the fields that uniquely focus on such “movements” and cults as scientology and the IDM. It turns out that I am one of those rare persons, and have been tracking the IDM and “ID theory” for almost 2 decades.

    So, for whatever (sub-sub-branch of) “religion” Bill Cole claims to “represent” here at TSZ, he somehow seems content to “use” ID theory as an ideological weapon for “that religion”, even if he doesn’t know how weak of a weapon it is when used against those who know both its weaknesses & how to defend from them. This speaks to the always-apologetics purposes of his “arguments”, which is mind-numbingly boring.

    Such an attitude, Bill, never mind Behe’s supposed “quality of science”, itself constitutes a barrier to more elevated and civil conversations that aren’t quickly swallowed in ignorance and propaganda for the DI & IDism. You don’t have the requisite training in a relevant field giving you valuable knowledge to have earned “our” respect (the vast majority Abrahamic monotheists who reject IDism & see through its ideology). This, combined with the way you act, even here among the “skeptics”, is the same kinda thing that makes most IDists “outliers” in any civilised “Science, Philosophy, Theology” conversation nowadays. These conversations are on-going and available for people to join, once that person (thinking about IDists here) sheds the “ignorance addicted” approach of the DI’s ID “theory” as evangelical scientistic apologetics against all-comers, Catholics, Orthodox and mainstream Protestants included.

    “I think Behe’s use of purpose works”

    Notice the utilitarian motif? They “use purpose.” IDists aim to “use design” for their devious ideological purposes.

    You’re not very self-reflexively aware of your own communicative, weak scientific, yet apparently proud deviousness in this “Intelligent Design” conversation, are you, Bill?

    Reminder: I’m not an atheist, but rather an Abrahamic monotheist. So please don’t respond to me as if I must accept the “strictly scientific theory of Intelligent Design” simply because I believe in our Creator. Thanks.

    0

  14. colewd:
    Flint,

    I agree with you.Thanks for the discussion.I think Behe’s use of purpose works as Dembski’s use of specified works.

    And oddly enough, I agree with you. Neither works, and fails equally. We now agree, I think, that anything with one or more functions can provoke as many inferences as there are observers. Nothing objective about it. We also notice that those with strong priors draw what they consider airtight inferences, which can be complete opposites depending on the priors.

    The problem with some inferences is, the inferences come first and the object to infer from comes second, if at all. And this was the problem with both Behe and Dembski – they already knew the answer before they even examined the question, because the question didn’t matter. They both specialize in forcing facts to fit foregone conclusions, even if they have to distort, cherry pick, or even fabricate facts as necessary.

    SCIENCE: If you don’t make mistakes, you’re doing it wrong. If you don’t correct your mistakes, you’re doing it really wrong. If you can’t accept that you’re mistaken, you’re not doing it at all.

    1+
    Entropy
  15. Flint,

    And oddly enough, I agree with you. Neither works, and fails equally. We now agree, I think, that anything with one or more functions can provoke as many inferences as there are observers. Nothing objective about it. We also notice that those with strong priors draw what they consider airtight inferences, which can be complete opposites depending on the priors.

    The problem with some inferences is, the inferences come first and the object to infer from comes second, if at all. And this was the problem with both Behe and Dembski – they already knew the answer before they even examined the question, because the question didn’t matter. They both specialize in forcing facts to fit foregone conclusions, even if they have to distort, cherry pick, or even fabricate facts as necessary.

    I disagree that the conclusion came before the observation. The enabler for Dembski was DNA and its information like qualities and for Behe it was the observation of the large cellular macro machines like the flagellum. The biology discoveries over the last 60 years has enabled these arguments.

    The use of purpose and specification here is very similar to the use of words like homology in evolutionary theory. If we stick to the rules of evolutionary theory Behe is on very solid ground.

    0

  16. colewd: The job of ID is to argue that a mind is behind the universe.

    The job of science is to discover the history and functioning of the universe whatever that history and functioning may be. Thanks for confirming yet again ID-Creationism is not science. It’s religious apologetics which starts with its desired conclusion then tries to cherry-pick and twist the data to fit.

    1+
    Entropy
  17. colewd: The use of purpose and specification here is very similar to the use of words like homology in evolutionary theory. If we stick to the rules of evolutionary theory Behe is on very solid ground.

    Bill’s man-crush on Behe makes it impossible for Bill to honestly address the many failings of Behe’s ID pseudoscience claims. Bill never misses a chance to kiss Behe’s ass no matter how stupid and discredited Behe’s idiocy is shown to be.

    0

  18. Adapa,

    The job of science is to discover the history and functioning of the universe whatever that history and functioning may be. Thanks for confirming yet again ID-Creationism is not science. It’s religious apologetics which starts with its desired conclusion then tries to cherry-pick and twist the data to fit.

    When and where was your last science class?

    0

  19. colewd: When and where was your last science class?

    When and where was your last visit to a priest to confess how often you blatantly lie about evolutionary theory?

    0

  20. colewd: The use of purpose and specification here is very similar to the use of words like homology in evolutionary theory. If we stick to the rules of evolutionary theory Behe is on very solid ground.

    Fail. Homology is 100% objective. The nested hierarchy is 100% objective.

    “I see the kind of purpose in biology that we see in designed objects” is 100% subjective and unscientific claptrap.

    0

  21. colewd:

    I disagree that the conclusion came before the observation.The enabler for Dembski was DNA and its information like qualities and for Behe it was the observation of the large cellular macro machines like the flagellum.The biology discoveries over the last 60 years has enabled these arguments.

    And let’s pay no attention to the fact that Behe and Dembski are deeply religious people striving to force biology to fit their religious convictions. They see their god everywhere they look, especially in places where most scientists (all of whom are VASTLY superior to Behe or Dembski) see none.

    Look, YOU observe DNA and see your god in it. Behe looks through his microscope and sees his god. Dembski finds his god in his equations. In all of these cases, impenetrable religious conviction came decades before these fools thought they could use science to rationalize it. I can guarantee you that Behe would find his god no matter what was under his microscope.

    But here again is your opportunity to propose something Behe might see, that would convince him his religion was bunk. Go for it!

    0

  22. Flint,

    Look, YOU observe DNA and see your god in it. Behe looks through his microscope and sees his god. Dembski finds his god in his equations. In all of these cases, impenetrable religious conviction came decades before these fools thought they could use science to rationalize it. I can guarantee you that Behe would find his god no matter what was under his microscope.

    But here again is your opportunity to propose something Behe might see, that would convince him his religion was bunk. Go for it!

    As you see your science worship eventually explaining it. It is easier to accept the design argument if you believe in God. All this being said we would not be arguing over this for 5 years if the inferences were not supported by evidence.

    Why do you oppose teaching design as something observed in biology or at least something that can be inferred by observing cells?

    0

  23. colewd: All this being said we would not be arguing over this for 5 years if the inferences were not supported by evidence.

    Sadly yes we would. Morons like you will keep up the Lying for Jesus until you drop dead from an apolectic fit.

    Why do you oppose teaching design as something observed in biology or at least something that can be inferred by observing cells?

    We don’t teach it because it’s pseudoscience horseshit pushed by religious charlatans for political reasons. Any questions?

    1+
    Entropy
  24. colewd: All this being said we would not be arguing over this for 5 years if the inferences were not supported by evidence.

    What a stupid thing to say. There’s no shortage of bullshit that’s needs to be debunked over and over again because fools like you simply won’t let go. That’s something a supporter of homeopathy could say, because just like you, they don’t understand what evidence means or simply don’t care about it.

    1+
    Entropy
  25. dazz,

    What a stupid thing to say. There’s no shortage of bullshit that’s needs to be debunked over and over again because fools like you simply won’t let go. That’s something a supporter of homeopathy could say, because just like you, they don’t understand what evidence means or simply don’t care about it.

    Real bs gets noticed pretty fast. There is a reason you are struggling to support your ideology. You think your rational is it possible your not 🙂

    0

  26. colewd:
    dazz,

    Real bs gets noticed pretty fast.There is a reason you are struggling to support your ideology.You think your rational is it possible your not

    And yet you failed to notice that many other bullshiters are still keeping their debates going by refusing to deal with the relevant facts. And we should believe you’re rational then? Why, when you clearly failed to notice the BS in your own argument?

    0

  27. colewd: Real bs gets noticed pretty fast.

    That’s why your ID-Creationist bullshit hasn’t even gotten a toe into any actual science labs or classrooms. 😀

    1+
    Entropy
  28. dazz,

    And yet you failed to notice that many other bullshiters are still keeping their debates going by refusing to deal with the relevant facts. And we should believe you’re rational then? Why, when you clearly failed to notice the BS in your own argument?

    I see you and Adapa as anti religious types especially against something confirming that might give them political power such as ID becoming an acceptable model.

    I don’t see either of you caring much about truth and thats a hard position to argue from. Both of you are blind to the weakness of a theory that supports your ideology.

    I think evolutionary theory is solid when its claims are not exaggerated. The problem you have is you once believed it supported the concept of a random accident universe. The problem is when you strip it of its ideological claims it does not support the random accident hypothesis. It turns out it supports the opposite.

    0

  29. colewd:
    dazz,

    I see you and Adapa as anti religious types especially against something confirmingthat might give them political power such as ID becoming an acceptable model.

    I don’t see either of you caring much about truth and thats a hard position to argue from.Both of you are blind to the weakness of a theory that supports your ideology.

    I think evolutionary theory is solid when its claims are not exaggerated.The problem you have is you once believed it supported the concept of a random accident universe.The problem is when you strip it of its ideological claims it does not support the random accident hypothesis.It turns out it supports the opposite.

    LOL! Bill Cole the proven Liar for Jesus comes back with the 50,000 watt projection once again. You’re a scientifically illiterate jackass who’s been corrected on his deliberate lies about evolutionary theory hundreds of times yet you still make the same ones every day. No one gives a shit about your personal religious beliefs Bill. We care about the DI trying to dumb down science education in this country to carry out their “Wedge” strategy of returning the Christian religion to government power. You don’t care they lie their asses off to do so because they’re your tribe. So you mindlessly repeat their garbage every chance you get to do the “Lord’s work. ” Clowns like them and you are a threat to the rest of the country Bill. That’s why we fight your lies and bullshit at every turn.

    0

  30. colewd:
    Flint,

    As you see your science worship eventually explaining it.It is easier to accept the design argument if you believe in God.All this being said we would not be arguing over this for 5 years if the inferences were not supported by evidence.

    You see everything through religious filters. Nobody worships science, nobody has that sort of faith in it. Science is a method of investigation, and nobody worships a method.

    But as I wrote earlier, if you cannot admit you’re wrong, you cannot do science or even understand it.

    I wouldn’t say it’s easier to accept the design argument if you believe in god. Many who believe in the same god you do reject that argument on the merits. So I would say it is only possible to accept the design argument if you start with the conclusion that your particular version of god designed life, and simply cannot or will not ever see otherwise. Religious people have prayed to various gods for understanding for millennia. NON-religious people have for the last 300 years or so been actually understanding their world and solving real problems. Nobody expects the religion-blinded to open their eyes and see, not in 5 years nor in 5000 years.

    Why do you oppose teaching design as something observed in biology or at least something that can be inferred by observing cells?

    Because it can’t be observed, it can only be projected. And it can’t be inferred by anyone except those searching for a way to rationalize foregone inferences. I suppose it could be taught in school in the religion department, because it’s pure religion. I might even like to take such a course, comparing various biological design claims along with claims of ghosts, life after death, psychic energies, and why people do rain dances.

    (I saw a humorous comparison of religion to masturbation. The drive to understand the world is innate, as is the drive to reproduce. And masturbation satisfies the reproductive drive without actually reproducing, while religion satisfies the desire to understand without actually explaining anything.)

    0

  31. Mung:
    “I’m pleased you’re against ‘hit and run’ posts, Mung!”

    – Richardthughes

    LoL

    This one is more life support than hit and run. Not for ID, that died a while ago, but this board.

    1+
    Mung
  32. Richardthughes: This one is more life support than hit and run. Not for ID, that died a while ago, but this board.

    Well thanks for posting the Venema interview. It generated quite a bit of interest.

    0

  33. colewd: Why do you oppose teaching design as something observed in biology or at least something that can be inferred by observing cells?

    What would you teach? How long would it take to teach it?

    You are asking people why they are opposed to something you refuse to explain in detail. Explain what you would like to teach and then you can ask people’s opinion on it.

    What exactly would you want taught and what resources would you use to do it?

    Designs have designers. What would you say about the designer in this class?

    What, other then ‘biology was designed and a mind did it’ would you actually teach?

    0

  34. colewd: I see you and Adapa as anti religious types especially against something confirming that might give them political power such as ID becoming an acceptable model.

    I don’t see either of you caring much about truth and thats a hard position to argue from. Both of you are blind to the weakness of a theory that supports your ideology.

    I think evolutionary theory is solid when its claims are not exaggerated. The problem you have is you once believed it supported the concept of a random accident universe. The problem is when you strip it of its ideological claims it does not support the random accident hypothesis. It turns out it supports the opposite.

    I hesitate to participate here, since you seem to be up against half a dozen others already but …

    Anti religion? Political power? A “random accident universe”? Ideological claims? Do you have any idea how much you reveal about yourself and your motives for supporting ID in this one comment?

    2+
    avatarEntropy
  35. OMagain,

    What would you teach? How long would it take to teach it?

    I would teach two subjects.
    -Functional information
    -Behe’s criteria which functional information is a subset of

    0

  36. colewd: I would teach two subjects.

    He asked you what you would teach about Intelligent Design. Not what lies about evolutionary theory you would regurgitate.

    0

  37. colewd: -Functional information

    Presumably you will teach what the origin of such information is?
    What is the origin of such information?

    colewd: -Behe’s criteria which functional information is a subset of

    Don’t you think it is premature to put something in front of students that does not have a solid scientific basis to it?

    If I’m mistaken and it does in fact have such a basis could you identify it for me? You seem to refer solely to a specific youtube video at the moment. Would you show that to the class perhaps?

    0

  38. Adapa: LOL!Bill Cole the proven Liar for Jesus comes back with the 50,000 watt projection once again. You’re a scientifically illiterate jackass who’s been corrected on his deliberate lies about evolutionary theory hundreds of times yet you still make the same ones every day. No one gives a shit about your personal religious beliefs Bill. We care about the DI trying to dumb down science education in this country to carry out their “Wedge”strategy of returning the Christian religion to government power.You don’t care they lie their asses off to do so because they’re your tribe. So you mindlessly repeat their garbage every chance you get to do the “Lord’s work. ”Clowns like them and you are a threat to the rest of the country Bill. That’s why we fight your lies and bullshit at every turn.

    To be honest, I don’t really care about ID or creationism per se. If we had decent science education in this country these would be as fringe as Flat Earth or ancient extraterrestrial visitations.

    But I do very much care about the general attitude of anti-intellectualism that one finds expressed in creationists and IDists — an attitude that Isaac Asimov nicely characterized as “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”. When it takes the form of anti-evolutionism this attitude is relatively harmless, but it is not harmless when it takes the form of anti-vaccinations, climate change denial, or a refusal to accept that wearing a cloth mask lowers the likelihood of coronavirus transmission.

    To be honest, I think the United States is not only in deep trouble, but it has passed the point where it can be salvaged at all. And it’s largely because of people like colewd. It’s too bad that Hell doesn’t exist, because he certainly deserves to go there.

    0

  39. Kantian Naturalist,

    To be honest, I think the United States is not only in deep trouble, but it has passed the point where it can be salvaged at all. And it’s largely because of people like colewd. It’s too bad that Hell doesn’t exist, because he certainly deserves to go there.

    Why do you feel this way? This is a pretty hateful statement?

    0

  40. OMagain,

    Don’t you think it is premature to put something in front of students that does not have a solid scientific basis to it?

    I think both Behe’s work and Szostak’s work are reasonable scientific arguments that should be taught as we do not have another theory for complex adaptions. I don’t think this should be a front and center piece of biology.

    0

  41. Alan Fox,

    We have gotten away from sharing different points of view and leaving priors at thee door. This is an indication that academia in this country has lost its way.

    Doug Axe had an interesting take on this early in his talk.

    https://youtu.be/1pVulmHTd74

    0

  42. Corneel,

    Anti religion? Political power? A “random accident universe”? Ideological claims? Do you have any idea how much you reveal about yourself and your motives for supporting ID in this one comment?

    I support ID because I think it is an interesting idea for science.

    I also support it because I think Darwinian evolution has been used as an ideological tool based on exaggerated claims. It has been a successful counter argument to keep evolutionary claims in check.

    0

Leave a Reply

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