1. Darwin or Design

Comment #57544 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 6:01 pm

"Because "skeptic" implies an unwillingness to take something on faith, and a desire to explore the evidence before coming to a conclusion. That is exactly the opposite of what evolution deniers do"

Your welcome to use any term you like. I'm just nothing the rhetorical ploy contained in the term "evolution denier".

"There's a reason why evolution denial is found exclusively (or close enough) among the faithful."

Of course. The metaphysical naturalist is committed priori to something akin to Darwinism being true by default because the alternative is anathema. Dawkins concedes as much himself in The Blind Watch Maker.

2. Darwin or Design

Comment #57536 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 4:59 pm

"That seems like a bit of a leap. Is "global warming denier" also a hitlerian reference?"

That is exactly the purpose of the term. It is used for rhetorical effect. It attempts to paint the person as evil and unreasonable just like the sort of person who would deny the holocaust.

Why not use a neutral term like "Darwinian Skeptic" or "Global Warming Skeptic".

Instead of the loaded "denier" label.

3. Darwin or Design

Comment #57529 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 4:28 pm

"Sounds like you're the one running away matey."

Nope. I wont be goaded by you give it up.

"If you wanted to debate, you could have done it here."

I don't care for a debate I think it is a waste of time especially in a place like this.

"You are on our forum afterall."

Only because Darwin or Design got mentioned in the news article.

"Ah, another unjustified ad hom"

Not at all. You seem sufficiently confused that you think ID is not compatible with common descent. If you want a reasoned discussion at least give the impression that you understand the issue well enough not to spout complete nonsense.

"Only if I was comparing you to the Nazis."

Actually your use of the term "evolution denier" is an allusion to the concept of Holocaust Denial. A cause that many a neo-nazi takes up. As I said a violation of the spirit of the law. Sorry if that is to subtle for you.

4. Darwin or Design

Comment #57516 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 3:22 pm

"If this guy actually presented any real evidence, then he would be able to have a debate"

I've offered to make a stronger case in a more neutral forum. Should I take it as cowardice on your part that you have not taken that up ? Not that your later comment indicates that you are open to reason or understand the issue though.

5. Darwin or Design

Comment #57513 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 3:20 pm

"to give the evolution deniers a chance,"

This pretty much violates the spirit of Godwin's Law.

6. Darwin or Design

Comment #57512 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 3:17 pm

"Jason, Quetz asked a very simple question, which gave you the opportunity to outline what you see as the case for ID and you completely flubbed it."

I'm not stupid enough to attempt any sort of extended dialogue in this setting. To much noise.

7. Darwin or Design

Comment #57502 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 2:57 pm

"Now that your arguments have been effectively eviscerated you're saying things like "this forum is a pointless place to discuss things." Give me a break."

I've not attempted to make any detailed argument, nor would I ever bother in a forum like this.

No wonder you think ID has nothing too it, you appear to seriously lack reading comprehension skills.

8. Darwin or Design

Comment #57501 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 2:55 pm

"Nice, answer the jokey ad hom rather than the substantive point."

Actually in reality the jokey ad hom is actually the more substantive of the points because it implies that only biologists are entitled make observations about biological systems.

Yet in reality inside the cell you find long strings of coded information, programmable protein synthesizers, error correction codes etc. Such objects are the stock in trade of what a field like computer science deals with.

Why should biologists take a claim to something outside their field ?

9. Darwin or Design

Comment #57497 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 2:46 pm

"As Jason has spent a great deal of time talking to proponents of ID, I'm disappointed that this is what he finds most convincing about it."

Well you are welcome to email me or come over to the Darwin or Design forums (darwinordesign@gmail.com, forum link from darwinordesign.com) if you have further questions but this forum is a pointless place to discuss things.

10. Darwin or Design

Comment #57496 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 2:44 pm

"Your knowledge of computer science in no way gives you reason to believe that life is designed by an intelligent designer. Stay off of the biologists turf."

Only if the biologists stay off the engineers turf.

11. Darwin or Design

Comment #57495 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 2:43 pm

"You then think that readers will hopefully be able to see the distinction, but you haven't said anything – you pretty much just say you think nature is designed, so there! Surely you have more sophisticated arguments than the "it is because I say it is" argument?
"

I was asked why I fine design convincing. I answered the question and then invited Quetzalcoatl (and by extension anyone else that wants to provided they can be civil) to email me if he had any further questions.

If you want further information you likewise are welcome to email me and ask further.

I am not stupid enough to try and carry a civil discussion on here. If you want a public forum register for the Darwin or Design forums and we can continue the discussion there. Up to you.

12. Darwin or Design

Comment #57482 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 1:29 pm

"IDiots like yourself present absolutely nothin"

You say things like this and you wonder why I just ignore your comments and don't waste my time responding.

Why would any rational person enter into a discussion with someone as obviously abusive and mean spirited as yourself ?

13. Darwin or Design

Comment #57480 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 1:26 pm

"Ah, but you need to remember that for many atheists the idea of an Intelligent Designer is just as absurd as fairies at the bottom of the garden, that's why it's used as a comparison."

No doubt. But of course you would no doubt get annoyed at the claim that atheists are completely amoral and evil. After all, to many theists the idea of a moral atheist is absurd. I assume as a result you would consider such claims to be entirely reasonable from that persons POV. If not, then your comparison above is unreasonable as well. Choose one way or the other, but no double standards.

"Just out of curiosity- can I ask what makes you, personally, lean more towards ID than evolution?"

Who said it is a choice like that ? That is the first misunderstanding frankly. That is not actually what the debate revolves around.

What is at issue is the idea of teleology in nature. Is a strictly a-telic darwinian account able to do the heavy lifting its proponents claim it can do. I think that is false based on the evidence we see. Behe's argument is quite relevant here and I think he makes many good points, yet Mike Behe has no problem with common descent or "evolution" in general, he objects to the a-telic account that acts as a creation story for atheists. Hopefully you can see the distinction and get past this false ID vs Evolution meme you are propagating.

Based on what we do know about designed systems I think it is reasonable to infer intelligence in the design of life. I am a computer scientists by trade and would contend that it is reasonable to infer that when you see a programmable protein synthesizer inside a human cell that such a structure was designed and that we should look at insights from a field like computer science (that is telic top to bottom really) when examining such structures.

But hey thats just me. Does that better answer your question ? You can reach me at darwinordesign@gmail.com if you have more questions or wish to take this further.

14. Darwin or Design

Comment #57378 by thesciphishow on July 19, 2007 at 4:14 am

"And the best answer to this hypothetical question would come from science."

Ahh the semi-coherent philosophy of scientism rears its head.

"You may as well say "what if invisible fairies are responsible for the growth of plants?"

Do you think it somehow strengthens your position to invoke absurdities ?

"Btw, if you reject this ridiculous hypothesis you're obviously dogmatic."

Not at all. If you think it is a meaningful comparison to ID you simply don't know what you are talking about.

15. Darwin or Design

Comment #57314 by thesciphishow on July 18, 2007 at 10:06 pm

"ID explains nothing ultimately. It is incapable of doing so."

Actually that depends on what you mean by "explains".

As I asked PZ in his interview, "but what if it is true?". Then it would be an explanation of the way things really are. If it cannot in principle be invoked as a means of explanation your committing yourself to an inherently anti-realist approach to science, which certainly someone like Dr Dawkins or Dr Myers must not do to maintain their world view.

16. Darwin or Design

Comment #57272 by thesciphishow on July 18, 2007 at 5:58 pm

"Jason comes across as reasonably neutral in his interviews - although the posts by 'thesciphishow' here perhaps reveal an deeper underlying bias than was presented in the show (assuming 'thesciphishow' is Jason)."

Yep I am the same Jason. I wont make any secret of having a bias towards ID but the goal of the project was to present both sides and give the listener something to think about. I do much the same in interviewing people for The Sci Phi Show. It is more interesting to talk to people you disagree with than to just talk to ones you agree with. I figure truth will win out in the end and have no fear of looking at questions from different perspectives. Which is why I find attempts to get rid of ID proponents in some spheres and the language used to deride them as rather telling.

"I listened to these with as open a mind as possible but remain unchanged in my views; Darwinism is still the best explanation for what we observe in the natural world."

Fair enough. As long as it gave you food for thought them it has served the purpose for which I intended it. Did you learn anything ?

"Thank you Jason for interviewing such a diverse range of people on the topic. I disagree with your presuppositions but I appreciate the insight into the various trains of thought."

Thank you. I don't think I can ask for a higher compliment.

17. Darwin or Design

Comment #56677 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 11:04 pm

"They are if you mistake the difference between "dogma" and "passion". People like PZ and Richard can undoubtedly be annoying to believers but to call them dogmatic is a total misuse of the term... just like those that equate science with religion."

Not according to the dictionary. So I should assume that according to you using a word in line with its dictionary definition is a misuse of it ? Next time before you accuse someone of misusing a word it is important to actually know what the word means. Try dictionary.com in future.

"It was good to actually HEAR PZ rather than reading him, but I won't bother with the rest of this. I think I'm well beyond it."

Nothing like a mind firmly welded shut. And you objected to my use of the word dogmatic when applied to PZ. Will you object when I apply it to you ?

18. Darwin or Design

Comment #56676 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 11:01 pm

"Again, only if you change the definition of "dogmatic" so much as to make the word meaningless."

Given the word dogma has 4 common meanings

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

And that at the very least PZ's position falls into category 4, there is nothing unreasonable about the use of the word dogma to describe his position. Dictionary.com is your friend for future reference.

19. Darwin or Design

Comment #56675 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 10:59 pm

"Atheism is the natural result of rejecting things that are not supported by evidence. Nothing more, nothing less."

That is at best a half-truth. Where "atheism" is a synonym for Metaphysical Naturalism (such as the way PZ himself uses the term among others) it is significantly more than you claim. This sort of linguistic sleight of hand is pretty poor form on your part really. Surely you are smart enough to realise this common synonym.

"The premise is also flawed because "Darwin" is not synonymous with evolution"

Of course it is not. Darwin is short hand for a particular explicitly a-telic account of origins. If you have listened to the whole thing before seeing fit to comment in ignorance you would know this.

20. Darwin or Design

Comment #56671 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 10:43 pm

"Extraordinary claims require extraordianary evidence - Carl Sagan"

This demand is ill defined and only questionably coherent. You need to actually define what you mean by extraordinary in context. Otherwise it is just a worthless platitude.

"Since the claims of the worlds religions are backed up by either no evidence or terrible evidence, they can safely be rejected without an appeal to any dogma. Hence, PZ and atheists in general are not a dogmatic bunch."

That is really funny. Atheists like PZ are the most dogmatic people I have ever encountered.

21. Darwin or Design

Comment #56669 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 10:26 pm

"His own religion? How can you pretend to objectivity when you so obviously have such a poor understanding of the basics? PZ doesn't have a religion-- he's atheist."

PZ's atheism is held at least as dogmatically as any religious believer i've ever encountered and it serves the same purpose as a defining characteristic of his worldview. If it is indistinguishable from a religion it is hardly unreasonable to label it as such. After all there are a number of religions with no deities and he certainly has very strongly settled opinions about the "supernatural". Seems like characteristics of a religion to me. Although a pretty sparse and empty one that is usually poorly thought out. But still.

But such self-serving special pleading seems to be just business as usual for a particular breed of atheist.

And if you don't like my voice don't listen. It really is pretty easy. Does it make you feel like a big man to tack a barb on like that that contributes nothing ?

22. Darwin or Design

Comment #56663 by thesciphishow on July 16, 2007 at 9:29 pm

"The interviewer asks PZ a few times how they can engineer ID to work better for evolutionary scientists."

No I didn't. It is important to actually listen to the interview. I asked what sort of thing would count as evidence for PZ towards the idea of teleology in nature. The goal of the question was to let PZ show whether or not his own religion gets in the way and influences his thinking as yours appears too.