Sandbox (1)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

1,772 thoughts on “Sandbox (1)”

  2. This statement:

    WJM: I don’t ever hold beliefs that contradict my actual experience. For instance, I won’t believe that I’m not looking at a computer monitor right now. I also won’t believe that I do not exist. I won’t believe that big, heavy objects or bullets can pass through my body. My experience contradicts those beliefs, and I always choose to believe that which doesn’t directly conflict actual experience.

    Is inconsistent with this statement:

    because I can adopt or suspend any belief at will, regardless of evidence or argument.

    Or are you suggesting that experience is not evidence?

    It seems to me that you hold beliefs just like everyone else William – based entirely upon the world you experience around you. I’ve yet to see you relate to believing in something for which you readily admit there is not only no evidence, but contrary evidence.

  3. Note the way you subtly reword what I say to make “you don’t know the science” the same as something I said.

    The correct paraphrase of what I said would be “we don’t don’t share a conceptual framework that would allow us to actually understand what the other means when they use certain phrases or employ certain concepts”

    Your paraphrase: “you don’t have the conceptual framework”.

    They are entirely different statements. One isolates a particular individual or side as lacking something, the other embraces all parties as having conceptual frameworks that might make mutual understanding difficult or, in come cases, impossible.

    You’re working really hard to paraphrase my side-neutral and individual-netural “gestalt” perspective as “the same as” calling some individual or one side “stupid”, “immature”, or “ignorant of science and math”, when it is clearly not the same. Perhaps you are attempting to characterize what I say in a way that makes others posting invective and personal attacks here appear equivalent to my much more moderate and civil tone and language?

    No, looking at it as a gestalt differential that both sides equally share, and makes both sides difficult if not impossible to understand on certain key points by the other, is not “the same as” calling someone, or either side, “stupid”, “immature”, “deceitful”, “hateful”, or “ignorant of the science and math”.

    Not by a long shot.

  4. The problem from my perspective is that pointing to a paper as evidence that IDist have done research implies that you know enough about the research to agree that the paper is in fact a reflection of research. So unfortunately for you, yes, knowing the science or math is still pertinent to such an point. No one (to my knowledge) has ever argued that IDists have never published papers on ID. The argument is that as yet, no IDist has published a valid scientific paper supporting ID. And you readily admit that you don’t know the math or science required to understand any such publication, so how would you know whether any of Axe’s, Abel’s, Gauger’s, Behe’s, or Dembski’s work meets said criteria?

  5. Robin,

    Robin, because I don’t or won’t hold certain beliefs doesn’t mean I cannot, or that at some point in the future I won’t change my mind about it. I hold beliefs as I wish; I wish (for now, anyway) to hold only those that are not in conflict with what I actually experience because doing so serves my purposes better than not doing so – because I have held beliefs in contradiction to my actual experience, and they don’t work as well, for the most part, as those that do not directly contradict my experience.

    Please note that “not directly contradicting my actual experience” is not anywhere near the same thing as “believing only what the evidence supports”. I can believe, for instance, that pink, winged unicorns dance on the rings of Saturn if I so choose, without directly contradicting anything I experience.

  6. William J. Murray:
    Robin,

    Robin, because I don’t or won’t hold certain beliefs doesn’t mean I cannot, or that at some point in the future I won’t change my mind about it.I hold beliefs as I wish; I wish (for now, anyway) to hold only those that are not in conflict with what I actually experience because doing so serves my purposes better than not doing so – because I have held beliefs in contradiction to my actual experience, and they don’t work as well, for the most part, as those that do not directly contradict my experience.

    Please note that “not directly contradicting my actual experience” is not anywhere near the same thing as “believing only what the evidence supports”. I can believe, for instance, that pink, winged unicorns dance on the rings of Saturn if I so choose, without directly contradicting anything I experience.

    Ah! Now, this I can get behind. Thanks.

    And it actually makes sense from an evolutionary perspective – we evolved the capacity to make sense of our immediate environment, not space-time, or deep time. Much of what science reveals is profoundly counter-intuitive, indeed contradicts common-sense intuitions. That doesn’t make common-sense intuitions useless – they remain extremely useful.

    It does make us aware of their range-limitations.

  7. William J. Murray: The correct paraphrase of what I said would be “we don’t don’t share a conceptual framework that would allow us to actually understand what the other means when they use certain phrases or employ certain concepts”

    Fair enough. I accept the correctionn.

  8. The problem from my perspective is that pointing to a paper as evidence that IDist have done research implies that you know enough about the research to agree that the paper is in fact a reflection of research.

    No, it just means that I know the definition of research, and reasonably assume that such work cannot pass peer-review into publication unless it met that standard. That doesn’t make the conclusions of the research correct, but I have yet to see any other non-IDist papers or any significant publication claim that Axe, Abel, etc. are not doing research.

    The argument is that as yet, no IDist has published a valid scientific paper supporting ID. And you readily admit that you don’t know the math or science required to understand any such publication, so how would you know whether any of Axe’s, Abel’s, Gauger’s, Behe’s, or Dembski’s work meets said criteria?

    That may be your argument, but it has never been mine. My argument has never been about whether or not their conclusions are valid.

    And, I didn’t say I don’t understand “any such publication”; any reasonably intelligent person can understand many, if not most, abstracts and conclusions presented by the authors, given that they are not too technical in nature.

    What arguments I make that refer to papers are always about the abstracts and conclusions, and posing them in an arguendo position. I think that once I read more into one of Dembski’s papers on CSI when Liz was claiming it was a circular argument, but that was about the logic of how he arranged the formula and got his results, not about the actual computations and whether or not they were computationally correct.

    It doesn’t take a scientist or a mathematician to find logical flaws in most any work. For example, there have been science textbooks that appealed to “imperfect design” as evidence for unguided evolution; no amount of science is necessary to spot the flaw in reasoning there. It doesn’t take an education in science to identify flaws in reasoning based on abstracts and/or conclusions accepted arguendo that are highly accessible to anyone of average intelligence, or to make logical arguments based on those conclusions/abstracts (again, accepted arguendo).

    Basically, all you and some others here are attempting to do is exclude anyone from the debate that does not have the scientific or mathematical level of expertise you deem necessary to make informed arguments about the actual science or the math; but that is not the only arena for valid debate concerning ID vs Darwinism, nor is it – IMO – the most germane arena.

    Most often, the argument’s I make have nothing to do with whether not the science is valid, but accept the science of Darwinists arguendo and then make a logical case against Darwinism even accepting their science as valid. There’s a huge difference between what the scientific facts are, and what they are portrayed as rationally implying. That is where my arguments usually lie – not in what the science itself offers as data, but rather how that data is ideologically interpreted into metaphysical claims.

    Such as, the original claim that any necessary mutations in question were “by chance” and that selection was “natural”; those are metaphysical claims (or assumptions), not scientific conclusions of evidence – at least, until one can demonstrate that “chance” mutations (vetted as “by chance), or “natural” selection (vetted as non-teleological), are sufficient (as explanations) to generate the features in question.

    Darwinists themselves deny a model exists that can vet such selections or mutations as being “by chance” or “by nature”; if they deny it, I certainly don’t need to understand the science to recognize that they deny such a metric exists, and thus their claims of “random” mutation and “natural” selection cannot be scientific conclusions.

    I don’t have to understand the merits of any particular scientific research, or any advance math, to make these logic-based arguments based on accepting arguendo what Darwinists themselves say and admit.

  9. Can you give an example of a belief you held that was in conflict with what you experienced? I’m curious as to what something like that would be.

    And just a correction on what you responded to: I quite specifically noted a contradiction between your claim that you hold beliefs that do not conflict with your experience and your claim that you hold beliefs regardless of the evidence. Nothing about “believing what the evidence supports”, so I’m not sure where you got that quote from. It’s certainly different from what I was addressing.

  10. Basically, all you and some others here are attempting to do is exclude anyone from the debate that does not have the scientific or mathematical level of expertise you deem necessary to make informed arguments about the actual science or the math; but that is not the only arena for valid debate concerning ID vs Darwinism, nor is it – IMO – the most germane arena.

    Actually, I’m attempting to do no such thing. What I am attempting to do is clarify your use of Axe, Abel, et al as references. Thus far I’m unaware of any actual scientific publication from them supporting ID.

  11. Such as, the original claim that any necessary mutations in question were “by chance” and that selection was “natural”; those are metaphysical claims (or assumptions), not scientific conclusions of evidence – at least, until one can demonstrate that “chance” mutations (vetted as “by chance), or “natural” selection (vetted as non-teleological), are sufficient (as explanations) to generate the features in question.

    Fair enough I suppose. However, as Lizzie and others have noted many times, in science, the null hypothesis cannot be an assumption of something of unpredictable or speculative impact. You may well feel that “chance mutation” and “natural” selection are metaphysical questions, but unless and until someone can reliably demonstrate there are qualities in selection that warrant a consideration of demons or pixies or unicorns or some other characteristic, “by chance” will be the null as it conforms to Ockham’s Razor. Ditto for “natural” in selection.

  12. Darwinists themselves deny a model exists that can vet such selections or mutations as being “by chance” or “by nature”; if they deny it, I certainly don’t need to understand the science to recognize that they deny such a metric exists, and thus their claims of “random” mutation and “natural” selection cannot be scientific conclusions.

    There is no onus to prove the null. That’s the whole point of the null. Attempting to shifting the IDist burden to secularists is certainly an approach to the problem, but it’s not an approach that any one who really cares about reality is going to buy.

  13. Actually, I’m attempting to do no such thing. What I am attempting to do is clarify your use of Axe, Abel, et al as references.

    I stand corrected.

    There is no onus to prove the null.

    Great. Then all ID has to do is define ID as the null.

    but it’s not an approach that any one who really cares about reality is going to buy.

    And there it is; the claim that chance & necessity as null is “what one cares about reality” believes, and any counter assertion of ID as null must be what those who do not care about reality believe

    From Wikipedia:

    In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential medical treatment has no effect.[2] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.

    So the proper null hypothesis would be that mutations and selections – of an sort – have any effect on the phenomena in question – the generation of novel, complex, functional biological features. Thus, through scientific investigation, we can establish that mutation and selection do have an effect on the phenomena in question. To be able to scientifically claim that such mutations are by chance, and that such selection is natural, you would have to compete against the null – that “chance” and “nature” have nothing to do with mutations and the selection process. That is the proper “null” hypothesis arrangement, not an assumption that “mutations” should be regarded as “by chance”, or that selection should be regarded as “natural” (non-teleological).

    “by chance” will be the null as it conforms to Ockham’s Razor. Ditto for “natural” in selection.

    Ockham’s Razor only applies between two competing theories after they have both been vetted as sufficient; the sufficient theory with the fewest necessary entities used to provide a sufficient explanation wins out. If you cannot vet “chance” mutation and “natural” selection as sufficient in the first place, Ockham’s Razor doesn’t apply.

  15. If you cannot vet “chance” mutation and “natural” selection as sufficient in the first place, Ockham’s Razor doesn’t apply.

    There’s the rub – it has been vetted as sufficient to those in biology. That is not sufficient to you or to some arm-chair creationists shouldn’t matter, should it? And as it has been considered in contrast to the GodDidIt explanation provided by creationists of the 1970s and onward, and has the fewest necessary entities in that context and thus won out, on what basis are you grousing?

  16. And there it is; the claim that chance & necessity as null is “what one cares about reality” believes, and any counter assertion of ID as null must be what those who do not care about reality believe.

    As an aside on this – and perhaps this should be a separate topic – the whole “chance and necessity” is really a strawman as Kantian Naturalist so nicely illustrated on April 25th. IDists such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish, and subsequently Dembski – wished to frame the argument against science as one against materialistic metaphysics a la Monod’s “Chance and Necessity”, not actually against the science of evolution. That conflation is erroneous or at least an exaggeration. The bottom line is, the null hypothesis is not about “chance and necessity”, but rather that reality does, in fact, reflect repeatable, predictable, and consistent phenomenon. That is what science relies upon. The onus is on those who feel otherwise to demonstrate that there is a reason to consider that reality is not consistent when offering that invisible deities or any other “designers” are meddling with the works “from behind the curtain” so to speak.

  17. William J. Murray: I stand corrected.

    Great. Then all ID has to do is define ID as the null.

    Two problems there:

    1. if you suggest that, you will have the whole ID community come down on your head like a ton of bricks. This is because….
    2. You have to be able to compute the probability distribution of your data under the null. And to do that, you have to hypothesise something about the Designer.

    This is a very very real problem, William, and it lies at the heart of the ID project. It’s not that the hypothesis of an ID is false, or even that it is unreasonable. It’s that it bases its claims on results from a gross misapplication of null hypothesis testing.

    And there it is; the claim that chance & necessity as null is “what one cares about reality” believes, and any counter assertion of ID as null must be what those who do not care about reality believe

    No, the problem is much more technical than that.

    From Wikipedia:

    In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential medical treatment has no effect.[2] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.

    So the proper null hypothesis would be that mutations and selections – of an sort – have any effect on the phenomena in question – the generation of novel, complex, functional biological features.Thus, through scientific investigation, we can establish that mutation and selection do have an effect on the phenomena in question. To be able to scientifically claim that such mutations are by chance, and that such selection is natural, you would have to compete against the null – that “chance” and “nature” have nothing to do with mutations and the selection process. That is the proper “null” hypothesis arrangement, not an assumption that “mutations” should be regarded as “by chance”, or that selection should be regarded as “natural” (non-teleological).

    OK. To derive a null, you have first to have a study hypothesis, often written H1. So if your H1 is “this flagellum was designed”, your null (H0) is “this flagellum was not designed”. What you then have to do is to calculate the probability distribution of data you would expect to see if your null was true.

    Which is simply not possible.

    We can only reject a null whose probability distribution of data we can characterise. We can reasonably reject some specific Design hypotheses, but we cannot globally reject “Design”, but we cannot reject a non-specified Design hypothesis because we cannot compute the probability distribution under the null.

    So when scientists say they have falsified Design, they are either talking about some specific Design hypothesis (a omniscient omnibenevolent designer, for instance, or a Designer who created the universe a few thousand years ago, in 7 days), but even those are scarcely falsifiable, because the hypothesis is infinitely flexible (how about a Designer who chose to make the universe look ancient?)

    Similarly, we cannot show that mutations are “Chance”. It’s far too non-specific. But there are some “chance” hypothesis we could attempt to reject – for instance, in a well-adapted population, under the null hypotheses that mutations are independent of their potential advantage, we’d expect to see larger proportion of deleterious than beneficial mutations. It might be possible to quantify that proportion, and if it was smaller than expected, to reject the null, and conclude that mutations actually are somehow constrained by what is likely to benefit the organism in the current environment.

    But I think a lot of the confusion arises from scientists making carelessly imprecise claims on the one hand, and ID proponents misunderstanding the true nature of scientific claims. Science has not refuted Design. Science cannot refute Design. Science could, in fact, find evidence for Design – but only by having a positive Design prediction. You cannot infer Design simply by rejecting a non-specific “non-design” null.

    However, evolutionary theory does provide us with a very rich set of hypotheses that make most of us feel no need right now to invoke anything other than processes we already basically understand to account for life. In other words we do not find Design a compelling way of answering the questions we do not know.

    ID proponents do. That is fine. But it’s not a scientific conclusion, any more than refuting Design is.

    Ockham’sRazor only applies between two competing theories after they have both been vetted as sufficient; the sufficient theory with the fewest necessary entities used to provide a sufficient explanation wins out. If you cannot vet “chance” mutation and “natural” selection as sufficient in the first place, Ockham’s Razor doesn’t apply.

    No scientific model is, or can be, complete, therefore no scientific model is, or can be “sufficient”.

    Ockham’s razor is normally used (usually in Bayesian form) to choose between models that both have substantial explanatory power – in the technical sense of predicting the data.

    In that sense, they hypothesis of an unspecified and unconstrained Designer has no explanatory power.

  18. Robin: There is no onus to prove the null. That’s the whole point of the null. Attempting to shifting the IDist burden to secularists is certainly an approach to the problem, but it’s not an approach that any one who really cares about reality is going to buy.

    Yep. We don’t even talk about “supporting” the null – if we don’t “reject” it, we merely “retain” it.

  19. Robin: There’s the rub – it has been vetted as sufficient to those in biology. That is not sufficient to you or to some arm-chair creationists shouldn’t matter, should it? And as it has been considered in contrast to the GodDidIt explanation provided by creationists of the 1970s and onward, and has the fewest necessary entities in that context and thus won out, on what basis are you grousing?

    I disagree 🙂

    Sure, biologists think that broadly the theory of evolution is pretty damn good. But the chances of being able to find the precise evolutionary pathway of even a trait in a wild population are zilch, I’d say. It’s more that there seems no good reason, given what we know (from actual empirical studies) about the power of evolution to think that it’s not sufficient.

    But it still leaves us with OOL. Life, the Universe and Everything 🙂

  20. Lizzie, I think that just as scientists can easily be fooled by stage magicians (because scientists expect honesty), they can also produce quote-mineable material because they don’t expect to be lawyered.

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence that so many ID websites are run by lawyers, rather than by successful academic scientists.

  21. William,

    My argument has never been about whether or not their conclusions are valid.

    I have to disagree. We simply have to look back and see how heavily invested you are in the idea that, for example, FSCO/I is a useful metric.
    William J MurrayOctober 24, 2011 at 8:14 am

    500-1000+ bits of FSCO/I is the ID metric where the “best explanation” of any phenomena moves from “physics & chance” to ID agency. ID is unnecessary to explain FSCO/I below that amount, thus it is falsifiable in terms of the only thing it claims according to the metric it provides: “best provisional explanation”.

    Darwinists, however, claim that RM & NS are what factually generated the features in question, without a means of falsifying it even as “best provisional explanation”.

    Yet you don’t seem to be able to give an example of a calculation where the FSCO/I changes from one value to another. And if you can’t do that then how can you tell when it increases or decreases? And if you can’t tell that how do you know when it passes the 500/1000 bit range?

    And please don’t tell me that your claim is simply that these arguments are made at all rather then about their validity. You are heavily invested in the idea and utility of FSCO/I.
    When it’s noted on that thread that FSCO/I cannot be calculated you respond:
    William J MurrayOctober 24, 2011 at 9:07 am

    No. It is rigorously defined, and it can be calculated handily. You can find the definition and reference in the FAQ and Glossary on this site, or by googling “kairosfocus FSCO/I” and finding many exhaustive epxlanations and examples on this site and others.

    If it’s so easy to calculate then please demonstrate it! A demonstration showing something passing the 500 bit threshold would be ideal!
    Soon you play your joker!
    William J MurrayOctober 24, 2011 at 9:56 am

    I didn’t say **I** could calculate it handily. I’m not a biologist, nor am I a mathematician. I’ve just read the material I referred to (and other such material) and I’ve read where kairosfocus and others did it and explained the meaning of the values and the process.

    Yet here we stand, you arguing with people who know their math who say they can’t do it and would you please demonstrate it as if just because kairosfocus writes it can be calculated it is so.

    Also, either the FSCO/I metric is scientifically valid and can be factually measured (whether for or against an ID conclusion), or it is not and can not.

    Exactly so. And yet this belief you have that it can be calculated and is useful is apparently immune to all change.
    Why don’t you just ask KF at UD to add a walkthrough calculation of the FSCO/I of a few comments, out of the “billions of such examples”?
    William J MurrayOctober 25, 2011 at 6:25 am

    You might try reading what BA77 and kairosfocus write, even though it takes a lot of effort and time, to really understand what they are explaining. A person who was sincerely trying to get to the truth of the matter about ID has no reason to resort to ad hominem.

    And here it is. I don’t believe you are sincerely trying to get to the truth of the matter about ID.

    In the articles I directed you to, kairosfocus exhaustively shows the scientific history of both the concept and the applied terms to demonstrate that FSCO/I only refines long-used and applied scientific terms and concepts into a useful formulaic concept.
    …
    You can’t have it both ways; either the FSCO/I calculated threshold is a scientifically valid commodity that can be factually applied (whether to support or contra-indicate an ID conclusion), or it is not. You’ve just contradicted yourself.

    Please refer me to the papers where it has been shown that the process you describe has been shown to factually generate 1000+ bits of novel FSCO/I (which would, I imagine, be difficult, since you also say only UD uses that term/concept). Or is that a case you wish to make on your own here?
    …
    If the concept of FSCO/I was invented by kairosfocus and is only used here at UD and has little or no scientific value, how do you propose to substantiate your claim that genetic algorithms produce non-trivial amounts of FSCO/I?

    Well William. That was in 2011. Perhaps you could demonstrate how the FSCO/I metric has been spreading outside UD in that time?
    William J MurrayOctober 24, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Nobody here (that I’m aware of) is claiming that ID did produce such features as a matter of scientific fact, but rather is only claiming that ID is the best provisional explanation for some features, because the only agency or process we know of that produces well over 500-1000 bits of FSCO/I is intelligent design (that of humans).

    500-1000+ bits of FSCO/I is the ID metric where the “best explanation” of any phenomena moves from “physics & chance” to ID agency. ID is unnecessary to explain FSCO/I below that amount, thus it is falsifiable in terms of the only thing it claims according to the metric it provides: “best provisional explanation”.

    Darwinists, however, claim that RM & NS are what factually generated the features in question, without a means of falsifying it even as “best provisional explanation”.

    Your argument has always been about whether or not their conclusions are valid. You do more then claim that a claim has been made regarding FSCO/I.
    William J MurrayOctober 24, 2011 at 3:55 am

    Unless Darwinists provide an evolutionary metric that describes what RM & NS is (and is not) capable of, the claim that RM & NS can and did produce current evolutionary features is non-falsifiable.

    When Darwinists refuse to provide such a metric, but rather rely on “just so” narratives that assume their conclusion, then skepticism is a proper response.

    Is that right? What about if we observe it (evolution) creating new features in front of us and have the DNA sequences of each step in the process? Does that count?
    William J MurrayOctober 24, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Without any such metric, one is engaging in speculation. ID theorists provide such a metric; Darwinists do not.

    That is a claim. A specific claim. You might parse that into “ID theorists provide a metric and that is my claim, not if that metric is valid or not” yet your other statements all undercut that. And to be specific, I’m saying that no, they don’t provide such a metric as a metric can be used to measure something. FSCO/I can’t. Therefore it’s not a metric.

    I tell you what. Here is a challenge. You are not a mathematician. Neither am I! But plenty of people here are.

    So if FSCO/I is as well documented and explained as you claim then it would seem that it would be possible for you to pick something and we could attempt to calculate the FSCO/I for it?

    Then, as each step is performed carefully following the documented procedure, I’m sure the folks at UD would point what was being done right and hopefully wrong and explain how to do it correctly. Or you could ask them!

    What do you say? If it’s so handily calculated by those with the relevant skill set shall we see if it’s really science (i.e. reproducible by others where the same result is obtained from the same initial setup) or, well, something else? And if that skill set is all math related, well, you’ve come to the right place I suspect!

  22. William J. Murray,

    Also, Liz, are you blithely unaware of the personal invective, character smearing and innuendo going on in this thread? I’m afraid I’m going to have to retract my earlier statement that you do a good job with the guano system.

    Does it ever occur to you that you may be projecting?

    Weren’t you the one who claims that different “gestalts” mean that different people see things differently? Obviously you don’t take yourself seriously.

    We have seen it from all the people over at UD; the moment someone gets right to the point, they are accused of “invective” by the regulars at UD. Elizabeth has been accused of a number of heinous acts, banned, and then demonized regularly over at UD; and these abuses are for things she has never done.

    In fact, you are accusing her of personally of aiding and abetting the same heinous acts that she has been accused of; you just did it.

    You want to wail and go after someone? You want to call directness and bluntness “invective”, then go after me and stop accusing Elizabeth of things she isn’t doing.

    I can be a direct and blunt SOB; I am perfectly willing and capable of taking ID/creationist whiners to task. But that means you will have to grow up and take responsibility for your ignorance and mischaracterizations of others.

    If someone points out that ID/creationists use analogies like junkyard parts and battleship parts for atoms and molecules, and then proceed to “calculate” the impossibility of atom/molecular assemblies, this is not invective.

    When someone points out that you or any of you cohorts continue to argue from a position of intransigent ignorance of science, that is not invective.

    When the egregious errors and misrepresentations of science by ID/creationists are pointed out, that is not invective.

    When people here point out objective, verifiable facts that you can check out for yourself, that is not invective. “Invective” is a particularly egregious accusation when you refuse to check things out for yourself.

    When someone points out the absurd consequences of your “beliefs” or “assumptions,” that is not invective.

    Pointing out your inability to communicate is not invective. Trying to get you to clarify is not invective. When you leave others to speculate about what you mean, you don’t get to call speculation invective.

    You follow a standard pattern among all sectarians of mischaracterizing pointed questions about your assertions and beliefs as some kind of persecution or “invective.” In other words, you don’t want to answer for your assertions and beliefs. If you don’t want to answer for them, then don’t foist them on others.

    If you are going to accuse people who have thoroughly informed themselves about the teachings of ID/creationism – and who also know the real science – of “invective;” and in particular, if you make such accusations while you yourself are unwilling to learn the writings of your own “gurus” of ID/creationism and at the same time remain completely ignorant of science, then you are going to be called out on it. And that is not invective.

    You are not free to insult the intelligence of others and then accuse them of “invective” when they call you out on it; especially when you deliberately refuse to learn what others have studied and learned.

    If directness is “invective” to you, then you, as someone who refuses to educate yourself, shouldn’t be playing these childish games with educated adults.

    When you accuse Elizabeth of permitting “invective,” I find that extremely offensive. She is doing no such thing. Your continuing “argumentation” from a position of willful ignorance is offensive; and that is bluntness, not “invective.”

    How many ways does this have to be said to you before you get it? Calling out your pretentious bluster is not “invective.”

    I don’t have to understand the merits of any particular scientific research, or any advance math, to make these logic-based arguments based on accepting arguendo what Darwinists themselves say and admit.

    You can’t possibly know “what Darwinists themselves say and admit.” You get your impressions from quote-mines and mischaracterizations of science; and you get them from the liars at UD who have a 50 year history of doing exactly that.

    Do you have any idea how stupid and insulting your “I don’t have to understand” assertion is?
    In fact, you are engaging in invective and innuendo with your second and third hand, ignorant accusations of what science is and what scientists do; and you do it by excusing yourself that you “don’t have to understand.”

  23. There’s the rub – it has been vetted as sufficient to those in biology. That is not sufficient to you or to some arm-chair creationists shouldn’t matter, should it?

    The idea that “chance” mutations and “natural” selection are sufficient explanations of particular biological features in question hasn’t been vetted at all, by their own assertion/admission that there is no metric in existence that can make such a discernment. If there were, it would provide the limitations of chance and natural selection in producing biological features.

    The only people working on that metric – that I know of – are ID proponents.

  24. The only people working on that metric – that I know of – are ID proponents.

    You really should be more careful about admitting your level of ignorance.

    Let’s have a little test. Name three mainstream biologists who have published in this area in the past few years.

  25. No disagreement here, but then I don’t see what you are disagreeing with in my response, Lizzie.

    Evolutionary theory is currently sufficient for biologists as an explanation for the diversity on this planet. This doesn’t mean – and I didn’t not intend the statement to mean – that the ToE is sufficient to explain everything in biology or that it is a complete or fully-accurate model. To me, “sufficient” means “enough to meet the needs of a situation”. It doesn’t mean “complete” or “without areas of concern”. I’ve certainly never thought that sufficiency required a complete model or understanding of all pathways to all biological structures and developments.

  26. You really should be more careful about admitting your level of ignorance.

    Why should I be careful about it unless I’m trying to deceive others into thinking I know more about it than I do?

  27. William J. Murray: Why should I be careful about it unless I’m trying to deceive others into thinking I know more about it than I do?

    No reason. It’s just hard to figure out what you are saying, when it seems that you are happy to draw conclusions from a position of ignorance. I completely agree that we all have to take a lot on “trust”, and the less we know about a field, the more we are stuck with evaluating the authors’ expertise, rather than the work itself.

    But the great thing about a training in scientific methodology is that it does equip one to critique reasonably intelligently things one is not an expert in. I am frequently asked to review papers where the actually material is unfamiliar to me. But I am competent to critique it because I can review the actual hypothesis testing methodology – figure out what they measured, how they controlled for bias, how they characterised their null, and whether their conclusion is supported by their data.

    So I also have the expertise, and so can many here, to evaluate Axe’s work, and Abel’s, and Dembski’s, and Behe’s, and see where the problems lie. And interestingly, so do other reviewers – that’s why when they do get things into peer-reviewed journals, it’s usually not claiming the stuff they claim when they write books or on blogs.

    Abel’s paper (the Durston et al paper that KF likes to quote) is a proper peer-reviewed paper. And it’s OK. The Hazen one is better, IMO, but it’s fine. But it doesn’t say what KF wants it to say. The null is not what he thinks it is.

    I know that, because I know how to figure out what a null is! It’s no big deal, nothing to swank about, and anyone can do it, it’s just that I happen to have done the training.

  28. Lizzie:
    … So I also have the expertise, and so can many here, to evaluate Axe’s work, and Abel’s, and Dembski’s, and Behe’s, and see where the problems lie.And interestingly, so do other reviewers – that’s why when they do get things into peer-reviewed journals, it’s usually not claiming the stuff they claim when they write books or on blogs.

    Abel’s paper (the Durston et al paper that KF likes to quote) is a proper peer-reviewed paper.And it’s OK.The Hazen one is better, IMO, but it’s fine.But it doesn’t say what KF wants it to say.The null is not what he thinks it is.

    I know that, because I know how to figure out what a null is!It’s no big deal, nothing to swank about, and anyone can do it, it’s just that I happen to have done the training.

    For some reason, this suddenly reminds me of a scene in Ocean’s Thirteen [mostly a stupid movie 🙁 ] where Brad Pitt’s conman character is giving poker lessons. One of his students, Topher, triumphantly shows his cards: “Fellas, fellas. ALL REDS”. High fives from the friends 🙄
    Ya know, Topher, that’s not actually a win by the rules of poker. Maybe a win by the rules of some children’s card game, but not poker; ya wanna play poker with the big boys, you have to agree to play by poker rules.

    I think Topher’s example has relevance for the IDist crowd, at least the ones who aren’t merely Dominionist ideologues. The ones who want to play the game of science, but by some combination of ignorance and incompetence can’t actually play by the rules of the game …

  29. William J. Murray, if, as you readily admit, you are not arguing for ID from the scientific point of view but purely as a personal belief, then it is of no relevance to the discussion. ID proponents want to be taken seriously as scientists. So ID has to be discussed, as per THEIR wishes, from a scientific point of view. What you are saying is to discuss ID from a personal belief or faith point of view. Which is fine, but it has no place in science class, as ID proponents wish it to be, or in a discussion about its ability to describe reality. Since you don’t claim it to describe reality, then It belongs, perhaps, in a class in religion or philosophy, though philosophy, too, has somewhat strict rules these days, so they may not accept it there either. (-:
    It’s as simple as that.

  30. I see a tendency among ID proponents at every level to believe that they have found the magic bullet. they have see some flaw in mainstream reasoning that has been overlooked by all the tens of thousands of researchers that have gone before.

    I’ve had that feeling. I know how it feels to believe you have made a great discovery.

    Then I wake up.

  32. heh.

    I meant I disagree that “it has been vetted as sufficient to those in biology”.

    I don’t think we ever claim that an model is “sufficient” in science – we just claim that it fits the data better than some other model 🙂

  33. billmaz:
    but purely as a personal belief,

    .

    I never said that. You’re conflating different arguments about different things. ID proponents argue & advocate ID in many different arenas in many different ways. My arguments are almost always logic/philosophy based. Many of KFs and Meyer’s arguments are also logic and philosophy based.

  34. But it’s true, surely, William, as OMagain points out, that some of your reasons you’ve given for adopting ID are based on scientific (or at least statistical) arguments for ID?

  35. No reason. It’s just hard to figure out what you are saying, when it seems that you are happy to draw conclusions from a position of ignorance.

    If I was making arguments the conclusions of which hinged on things I was ignorant about, you might have a salient point. IMO, all you’re doing now is leveraging an honest admission of the limitations of personal knowledge (and we all have them) into a reason to characterize all my arguments as “ignorant” whether or not those arguments have anything whatsoever to do with those specific areas of knowledge.

  37. ID purports to be a scientific endeavor, therefore it should stand on scientific arguments, no? If you find it a philosphical excercise, that’s fine, and I would agree with you.

  39. Liz,

    You say that the difficulty others have in understanding me may not be based on an unbridgeable conceptual gulf, but rather on my inability to make my views clear.

    Here I have told you probably about a half dozen times in the past few days, and probably at least twice today, that I believe as I wish; that I do not come to my beliefs based on science, evidence, logic, fact, but ONLY because they serve my purposes.

    Is this somehow incomprehensible to you? Are you claiming that you cannot understand the meaning of these sequences of words, that the sentences or phrasings cannot be parsed by anyone of average, or even below average, inelligence?

    How can it possibly be on my end that communication breaks down when, after explaining this to you in very simple language several times very recently (and at least once or twice today) – that I believe as I wish, not as evidence or argument would indicate or compel, it is you that then asks:

    … some of your reasons you’ve given for adopting ID are based on scientific (or at least statistical) arguments for ID?

    There is a difference between what I believe, and why I believe it, and whether or not a sound argument can be made about that view or proposition. Just because I make various arguments about a thing doesn’t mean that those arguments are the reason I believe that thing.

  40. “Here I have told you probably about a half dozen times in the past few days, and probably at least twice today, that I believe as I wish; that I do not come to my beliefs based on science, evidence, logic, fact, but ONLY because they serve my purposes. ” – honest, and also why it is a waste of time conversing with you.

  41. William J. Murray,

    Here I have told you probably about a half dozen times in the past few days, and probably at least twice today, that I believe as I wish; that I do not come to my beliefs based on science, evidence, logic, fact, but ONLY because they serve my purposes.

    Then why should what you choose to believe matter to anyone else? Why are you bombarding others with fact-free beliefs?

    And just how do they “serve your purposes?” Is you purpose to moon others and waste their time by eating up bandwidth?

    Perhaps someday you will finally get a minimum of a high school education and be faced with the realities of having to feed and care for yourself.

    If that day ever comes, let us know what you have learned about reality and the knowledge that other people have acquired while you have been on the internet playing word-games.

    Seriously, William; you really need to grow up. And that is bluntness, not “invective.”

  42. “honest, and also why it is a waste of time conversing with you.”

    That says it.

  43. William J. Murray: Here I have told you probably about a half dozen times in the past few days, and probably at least twice today, that I believe as I wish; that I do not come to my beliefs based on science, evidence, logic, fact, but ONLY because they serve my purposes.

    Yes, quite right.

    And that makes you either an alien from outer space, or a mindless mechanical robot. And that, in turn, is why you have difficulty communicating.

    The other possibility is that you are deeply confused. And that, too, would account for your communication difficulties.

  45. The concise KF

    For, Plato
    Alcibiades
    Lewontin
    Alinskyites
    Impossible proteins
    Materialism
    Homosexuality
    Short skirts
    Sadly, quietly
    Civilisation doomed
    Warning
    Please, do better
    G’day!

  47. (quibble…murmur…mumble…)

    Fine…I accept the distinction and retract the idea that evolution is a sufficient explanation in science. 🙂

  48. William: Here I have told you probably about a half dozen times in the past few days, and probably at least twice today, that I believe as I wish; that I do not come to my beliefs based on science, evidence, logic, fact, but ONLY because they serve my purposes.

    Two items to consider William:

    1) Stating “I believe as I wish regardless of the evidence” is not a clear statement in and of itself and is not easily accepted at face value. As such, most folks will try to parse the statement in such a way that it makes some rational sense – as Lizzie has done on a number of occasions. That you keep shooting down her and others’ parsings means the statement is not as straight-forward and easily understood as you seem to think it is.

    2) There’s a difference between a claim and a demonstration. Thus far you have claimed that you hold beliefs as you wish regardless of evidence, but you’ve certainly not demonstrated this is in fact an accurate statement. And as shown in your claims that you do in fact incorporate your own experiences to reject certain beliefs provides a solid basis to question your claim. As such, once again we are left with a claim that on face-value doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    Both reasons above are sufficient (see what I did there) explanations for our not understanding your supposedly quite clear posts. Inherently, they don’t make any sense.

  49. There’s a difference between a claim and a demonstration. Thus far you have claimed that you hold beliefs as you wish regardless of evidence, but you’ve certainly not demonstrated this is in fact an accurate statement.

    Sure I have – right here on this forum, where I changed my belief that many people were biological automatons, to the belief that nobody is a biological automaton, but rather just have different gestalts that conceptually interpret entirely different concepts out of the same terminology.

    I did this not because of any evidence or argument, but rather to better serve my goal of better reactions on my part, and to have a framework that others wouldn’t find insulting, even though I don’t know why someone would find it insulting.

    The inability of others to understand and retain very simple statements such as “I believe as I wish, not as evidence or argument indicates or compels” is their problem, not mine. It would be my problem if I cared whether or not anyone else understands it. I don’t. It is a simple matter of direct inference that someone who believes as they wish, and not as evidence or argument indicates does not come to their belief of ID – or any other matter – by way of scientific or mathematical evidence for ID.

    It’s like I’m telling Liz, “I’m married”, and Liz asks, “but are you a bachelor”? It is that direct a logical conclusion. It is tautologically true if A, then B. IF I do not come to my beliefs via argument or evidence, THEN I did not come to believe ID by scientific or mathematical evidence. There’s no way to not understand this unless something else is at play.

    You’re attempting to make excuses for Liz – or anyone – for not understanding a tautologically true statement.

  50. I think that William’s beliefs are not beliefs as the rest of the world understands the term, but temporary poses of expedience.

    That being so, it is only of passing interest to know what those poses actually are, but it may be of more interest to know just what purposes of William’s they serve, and how they do so.

    I think he’s said elsewhere that they help him to be a good or better man; but William being William and all, we’d have to put the question of what William regards as being a “good” person.

Comments are closed.