The thing that both amuses me and somewhat saddens is the anti-ID’s are every bit as doctrinaire as they perceive the pro-ID’s to be. Steven Green and Glenn Reynolds are particularly dismissive and a little insulting to the pro-ID side, sounding almost exactly the way liberals sound when they refer to conservatives in almost any capacity. Unfortuantely they aren’t alone. That’s their right and since I have no dog in this fight, it’s fine as well. The thing is, while they deride faith in the pro-ID side, anti-ID requires just as much faith. Sure the fossil record proves some of what Darwin theorized, but mostly it just proves the existance of fossils. There is no proof of what started it all and there probably wont be any to be had in this life. I’m curious about why some (hell, most) of the anti’s are so defensive, to the point they become almost insulting. Maybe there is a little worry that they may not be right. Not being religious myself, I can only speak from my experience with my grandparents who were. Their faith in God tended to make them serene for the most part. As near as I can tell from the blogs, the anti’s faith in evolution seems to make them feel superior, but anxious.

Try disagreeing with the guys attacking ID and you are depicted as a moron. Just read Bill at INDC to see the abusive tone. Well I guess when you can’t defend your position snakiness is all that left.

Try disagreeing with the guys attacking ID and you are depicted as a moron. Just read Bill at INDC to see the abusive tone. Well I guess when you can’t defend your position snakiness is all that left.

Actually James didn’t write that OTB post. I did.

Try disagreeing with the guys attacking ID and you are depicted as a moron. Just read Bill at INDC to see the abusive tone. Well I guess when you can’t defend your position snakiness is all that left.

While it is possible that one is a moron for thinking there is something to ID, it is also possible that one is not aware of the problems with ID from a scientific stand point.

For example we have Bryan here. Generally I agree with most of what he writes on his blog. On ID and evolution I don’t. Bryan is not a moron, but—and I’m guessing here—hasn’t read alot about this topic as well as things like scientific methodology (i.e., how do you choose between competing hypotheses). No crime there, no moron problem.

As for the problem with ID, there are many…so many now it is hard to list them all in detail. The biggest one is that there is no evidence, experiments, or predicitons based on, derived from, or utilizing anything from ID. In short the evidence is zero. Now, this doesn’t make ID untrue, but in selecting different hypotheses or theories we should judge each by how likely it is given the evidence. So on one hand we have the probability,

Prob(EoT|E).

And on the other we have the probability,

Prob(ID|E).

The evidence for ID is the empty set. The probability of the empty set is zero (consult any intermediate to advanced text on probability theory). Since conditional probability is defined as

PA|B) = P(A&B)/P(B) and since the intersection of any set with the empty set is itself the empty set, it immediately follows taht the probability that ID is true (note the small ‘t’, I am not claiming a universal truth here) is zero. That is, a rational person should go with evolution everytime until the IDists get into the lab and actually do something really weird like science experiments (no Dembski, Behe, Meyers and Wells have not done a single experiment based in ID).

Competition amongst ideas is a great thing. The problem is that this does not mean we must treat each idea as being equally valid. I have looked at ID. I was quite impressed by ID initially. Then I kept looking at ID and evolutionary theory and in the end I had to reject ID. I rejected it since it had no content.

Further, some argue that there can be no content. ID as currently structured offers no real hope for experiments since it is based on arguments and positions that X (where X is some statement about a biological structure) is impossible via a natural mechanism, hence the supernatural. Try building an experiment, prediction, or anything else off of that. It is damn hard.

Finally, ID is basically Evolutionary Theory + A Designer for somethings. Anybody familiar with Ockham’s Razor or the Principle of Parsimony at this point should be getting uncomfortable. Evolutionary Theory (ET) makes some pretty sharp predictins. For example, we don’t see modern day rabbit fossils in rock 200 million years old. Such an observation would invalidate ET. However, ET+D (Evolutionary Theory + Designer) is not violated. Clearly the Designer wanted that modern day rabbit fossil there so he deisgned modern day rabbits 200 million years ago. The ID hypothesis (ET+D) wants to have its cake and eat it too.

So there are quite a few problems with ID. It is not only bad science, but bad methodology as well.

Bryan,

Joyner goes on to snark his way past Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute without ever considering either their science or what they actually say about ID (which is how most people who haven’t actually read Behe treat him).

Oh please. I’ve read Behe and I’ve written up much more serious stuff on his views.

And what they say is both relevant and surprising. They aren’t pushing for ID to be taught in any public school anywhere. They are pushing for science texts to include some of the weaknesses that their work has exposed in Darwinian thinking (such as irreducible complexity).

Oh really. And IC is a barrier to evolution? And what things are IC? The blood clotting cascade? Sorry the deletion of the hagmann factor in dolphins renders that example void. The immune system? Sorry, there has been work on the evolutionary pathways for immune systems. The flagellum? That is taking a bit of a beating with the TTSS. There isn’t much left save some goal post moving.

What’s wrong with that? Have we become so dogmatic that our schools must only teach the strengths of scientific theory without ever discussing where they fall short?

Sure, but how about some real controversies such as sympatric vs. allopatric evolution? How about something like the neutralist-selectionist debate? The problem with teaching things like this is that they are advanced topics that require alot of initial ground work. In short, it isn’t something you are going to find in a H.S. science class.

I’m curious about why some (hell, most) of the anti’s are so defensive, to the point they become almost insulting.

You want nasty, you should look at some of the nasty things Dembski writes. He has taken to calling his critics stalkers, obsessive, and unethical.

As near as I can tell from the blogs, the anti’s faith in evolution seems to make them feel superior, but anxious.

I’d say it is frustration and anger. Anger at being so frequently misquoted by the IDers. Anger at being pretty sure these guys know they are pulling a snow job on the general public (Dembski is perhaps the worst with his mathematism). Frustration at having the IDers ignore valid points and engage in wishful thinking. David Hadley is a prime example when it comes to the Anthropic Principle. His contortions to get out of some very basic conclusions based on sound probabilistic reasoning is simply astounding.

Think of it this way, remember those arguments when you a kid.

Are too. Am not. Are too. Am not. Are too. Am not. Are too. Am not. Are too. Am not.

Well it is kind of like that in some regards. The biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and so forth put forward good arguments only to have the IDers say, “Are not!” The scientist make the arguments again in a different manner trying to convince the IDers. The IDers respond, “No way!” And on it goes. To some extent both sides are talking past each other in that the IDers have a religious goal in mind, and the scientists have a scientific goal in mind.

Which leads to another source of frustration, the bald face claims by the IDers that they don’t have any religious motivations. Nevermind the Wedge Document. Nevermind their speeches before the faithful that claim they have a religious goal in mind. Nevermind that all of them are Christians (i.e., not one athiest supporting the Aliens Did It theory).

I am sick to ddeath of the secular fundamentalists who parade about using the banner of science in the same fashion of Margaret Sanger to promote the same kind of political policies. If they are so confident in their correctness they shouldn’t fear open debate.

Just as the Kremblin called socialism a science to avoid open debate on the merits of socialism, we see the same political fringe groups trying to make ID an issue instead of explaining or defending the gaps in Darwin’s theories. Exhibiting the same attitudes as the Holy Inquisition they treat anyone who dares to question their doctrines as anything other than heresy.

Secular fundamentalism remains a religion the Left is trying to foist on the public. Darwin is their banner and saint.

The basic problem with ID in science class is…it isn’t science. There is no evidence and there can be no evidence forthcoming. And christianity has it’s own laughable notions on creation of man and animal. Not to mention the incest that followed. Anyway, I’ve studied many religions and they all have ridiculous myths interwoven with the few kernels of actual truth. The ones in the bible are too numerous to mention, though I’m sure somebody has cataloged them all. SAB, Myth and Deception In The Bible, both worthy research tools. And just for trollage value, Bush is proof we evolved from chimps. Of course I’m not the first person to make that comaprison.

But I also have many frustrations with scientists as well.

I am sick to ddeath of the secular fundamentalists who parade about using the banner of science in the same fashion of Margaret Sanger to promote the same kind of political policies. If they are so confident in their correctness they shouldn’t fear open debate.

Errr…what? Are you drunk or what? I bet on economics/economic policy you’d be agreeing with me far more than not. I get called a right-wing nut far more often than a left-wing nut. I’m not arguing any politics when I argue in favor of evolutionary theory, but that I feel it is the best explanation we have.

Further, did you know that economic theory is making quite a bit of use of evolutionary theory? Just today I down loaded a paper on how genetic algorithms can lead to rational expectations. I don’t expect that to mean much to you, but the policy implications are probably fairly appealing to you. Well unless you are one of those big government conservatives.

Just as the Kremblin called socialism a science to avoid open debate on the merits of socialism, we see the same political fringe groups trying to make ID an issue instead of explaining or defending the gaps in Darwin’s theories. Exhibiting the same attitudes as the Holy Inquisition they treat anyone who dares to question their doctrines as anything other than heresy.

Heresy? No, more like misguidedness and a misunderstanding. Sure evolutionary theory is not perfect. But that doesn’t mean it is to be junked in favor of a psuedo-science that has produced no experiments, no predictions, and no other form of evidence.

Secular fundamentalism remains a religion the Left is trying to foist on the public. Darwin is their banner and saint.

Oh this is a load of pure unadulterated crap. I am far from a Leftist, but I don’t have a problem with secularism or the secular. Further, this religion nonsense is just that. Religions deal not only with morals, ethics, but also with the the spiritual and dogma. Science does not deal with dogma as can be seen by a quick glance any book on the history of science. Theories have come and gone as new evidence is aquired. This exactly the opposite of the notion of dogma.

“Theories have come and gone as new evidence is aquired. This exactly the opposite of the notion of dogma.” This is laughable. Religious beliefs change also. And, more to the point, the scientific theories that changed were dogmas in their time. There has always been a ‘Steve’ around to insult and intimidate those who challenge his belief system. The vast majority of humans believe in God and God’s place in our universe. They simply ask that their beliefs be part of the discussion. But even this small acknowledgment of their dignity is just too much for some who demand that any reference to God is silly superstition and should be banished from discussion. It doesn’t take a genius to see who is intolerant of others opinions in this type of discussion.

Mikem,

The problem is, beliefs have no place in a scientific discussion. I tried carrying the torch of reasoned debate in an earlier post here on JYB on the subject of ID, and now Steve has done an admirable job on this post. Neither of us called anyone names, made fun of anyone’s beliefs, or impugned anyone’s intelligence. But still the ID defense comes down to how bad and evil we evolutionists are for having the audacity to reject ID because it is not science. Period. End of disucssion. And I say that after looking at ID, reading what was offered, and rejecting it as vacuous. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it so. Just because you really, really, really want ID to be true doesn’t make it so. And evolutionary theory and natural selection shouldn’t be modified or “sanitized” to take your beliefs into account. It is what it is. Now, if you want to have a discussion about origins, philosophy, and theology - then great, God is obviously an important and welcome part of that discussion, and there are places to have that discussion that are not science classrooms.

It doesn’t matter how many times you say the words “irreducible complexity” as some kind of mantra to ward off evolution. The irreducible complexity “problem” has pretty much been falsified, the entire concept is based on a faulty premise (no where does evolutionary theory say or predict that an eyeball evolves in one step, etc), and the VAST amount of experimental data to date has validated evolution. If that hurts your feelings or bruises your dignity, I’m sorry - but science deals in facts, not feelings. And it certainly does not seek its answers in the supernatural.

Nice overview of Irreducible complexity as it relates to ID.

Irreducible complexity demystified

“Neither of us called anyone names, made fun of anyone’s beliefs, or impugned anyone’s intelligence.” This is seen to be false by a quick glance at Steve’s comments above. He is plainly derisive and mocks his opponents. Steve is clearly of the ‘we’re right, you’re a religious idiot’ tribe.

“If that hurts your feelings or bruises your dignity, I’m sorry - but science deals in facts, not feelings.” You should know better, Neal, than to say this in these post-modern times. There is room for accommodation in the various scientific fields for Queer Theory this and that, including Physics and Mathematics. The field of Anthropology has a veritable wall up that prohibits politically incorrect research that involves race. In fact, the once common view in Anthropology that civilizations advanced as they left comfortable Africa and faced greater challenges has been attacked by the new Afro-centric disciplines that were created, funded and given instant credibility entirely based on accommodating racial feelings. Fine for Afro Americans. But don’t lecture us about scientific principles and rigid rules of evidence that preclude any discussion that includes God in it. I could write a book about how science has proudly blossomed to include discussion of feelings-based research and beliefs and ever more bizarre sounding disciplines, many of which arose from political pressure. But to even allow the discussion of alternatives to a secular based only evolutionary system is just beyond the pale for you guys. Lastly, ‘non falsifiable’ is increasingly used to ‘prove’ that non secular evolutionary discussion cannot be accommodated in science. But I read a lot about science and I have often come across the description. It is used as part of debate, not as a reason to close off debate. It merely warns the reader or student that the theory is considered as suspicious or difficult to study because it does not lend itself to experiment. Its use by people like Steve is simply dishonest. Anyone who looks at science today in all its accommodating diversity and still does not see room for God in the discussion should question whether their out of thin air ‘rigid’ scientific process needs to be applied to hundreds of other scientific disciplines also, or risk being considered bigots.

This is seen to be false by a quick glance at Steve’s comments above. He is plainly derisive and mocks his opponents. Steve is clearly of the ‘we’re right, you’re a religious idiot’ tribe.

No, I’m derisive and mocking of idiocy. Equating the idea that science should be secular with liberalism is stupid and worthy of derision and mockery. It is one of those silly over-generalizations that many people make thinking they have written or said something deep when in reality it is as shallow as a puddle.

You should know better, Neal, than to say this in these post-modern times. There is room for accommodation in the various scientific fields for Queer Theory this and that, including Physics and Mathematics. The field of Anthropology has a veritable wall up that prohibits politically incorrect research that involves race.

And this implies what? So anthropolgy has done something idiotic so…we should conclude that evolutionary theory is junk and elevate ID? Skroink…did I just miss something here?!?!

Lastly, ‘non falsifiable’ is increasingly used to ‘prove’ that non secular evolutionary discussion cannot be accommodated in science.

So…just to make sure I got this straight. Are you implying that you think that the existence of God or that God’s actions can be falsified? After all, non-secular means spiritual or religious and that deals with the super-natural…i.e. that which is above nature and no measurable. You are either being inconsistent or…well I don’t know what.

ut I read a lot about science and I have often come across the description. It is used as part of debate, not as a reason to close off debate. It merely warns the reader or student that the theory is considered as suspicious or difficult to study because it does not lend itself to experiment. Its use by people like Steve is simply dishonest.

No, any and all theories should make predictions and be testable. Failure on this front renders the theory or hypothesis merely speculation or a flight of fantasy.

Anyone who looks at science today in all its accommodating diversity and still does not see room for God in the discussion should question whether their out of thin air ‘rigid’ scientific process needs to be applied to hundreds of other scientific disciplines also, or risk being considered bigots.

What? This is nonsense. It is equivalent to old playground defense of “but he did it first”. So some other field does something dumb or foolish, that does not invalidate other fields of research. This is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

This is laughable. Religious beliefs change also.

Yes they do, but the central component, the existence of a divine being that is supernatural, always remains. The fact that there is no evidence for the existence of this being means that it is dogma.

There has always been a ‘Steve’ around to insult and intimidate those who challenge his belief system.

Whatever.

The vast majority of humans believe in God and God’s place in our universe. They simply ask that their beliefs be part of the discussion.

The beliefs of God are not germane to the discussion. God and his place in the universe is for religion. Or perhaps we should pass a law stating that athiests get to come into your church and lecture your congregation about science, evolution and why there is no evidence of God in biology. After all, the beliefs of athiests count too…right?

I’m personally in favor of leaving God out of science altogether. No athiesism, not Christianity, not Islam or any other religion.

But even this small acknowledgment of their dignity is just too much for some who demand that any reference to God is silly superstition and should be banished from discussion

Well to be perfectly honest, I feel that many supporters of evolution need to shut up about other people’s beliefs. Don’t make derisive comments about their religion/beliefs. There is no need to invoke God in a discussion of evolution and hence there is even less reason to make snide comments about God.

It doesn’t take a genius to see who is intolerant of others opinions in this type of discussion.

You are entitled to whatever beliefs you want. On that I completely agree. You are, however, not entitled to your own facts. You are only entitled to those facts that are in existence, as am I and everybody else. The facts (i.e. data) point quite substantially towards evolutionary theory and not ID. You are still entitled to believe in ID if ou want, but you run the risk of being seen as dogmatic.

You have pretty much verified that the problem for you and others is not that the scientific process is ‘violated’ but that God is part of the discussion. Scientific theories based on sexual orientation of the viewer?, check, that is science and we need to fund an entire department to study the full range. The same scenario based on the skin color or race of the viewer?, check, add a few more departments so that we explore the full scope of knowledge to be gained. But try to include God in the discussion of where we came from and how we came to be where we are and suddenly the battlements go up and the scientific process that has room for Queer Theory in science has no room for people who include God in their theory of evolution. That is dishonest and should embarrass any serious student of scientific ethics. You can’t have science accommodating so many classically non science related viewpoints in various scientific theories and discussions and then pull in the reigns because you decide to do so for one specific group. It may satisfy you to say “So some other field does something dumb or foolish” by way of explanation, but that reeks of hypocrisy and in the end, bigotry. Your analogy of evolution that includes God and preaching atheism at churches is ridiculous. I could cite you even more hyperbolic ‘analogies’ against your own, but why bother. Take a deep breathe. People like you assure us that it is only their respect for the vaunted scientific process that keeps God out of the discussion, but their assurances are belied by the many scientific disciplines that follow no such stringent guidelines. Not only do they not ban them from discussion, as you wish with ID, they recommend funding and personnel to expand the scope.

For the record, I am not religious. I believe in God but see religion, the bible, and creationism as man made attempts to understand God and our relationship with Him. I believe in most aspects of evolution, but not all. (HERETIC!) I judge that our universe is much too beautiful, too wondrous, too complex and too ‘miraculous’ to be explained by dumb luck and randomness. Einstein and I both came to the same conclusion, separately, and no, I can’t carry Einstein’s shadow. I just think it ironic that the greatest scientific mind of all time saw God’s hand in everything. Contrast that with today’s defenders of the faith who demand that God be banished from all scientific thought.

sigh

And that’s where the frustration comes from. Mikem, you argue with a great deal of passion, but not with a lot of rigor. As I said above, just because you really, really (really, really, really - ad infinitium, ad nauseum) want ID to be true doesn’t make it so.

Your argument is summed up by your last paragraph above - you JUDGE “that our universe is much too beautiful, too wondrous, too complex and too ‘miraculous’ to be explained by dumb luck and randomness.” Nice touch to say that Einstein shared your belief system when there is, of course, absolutely no evidence that he did anything of the kind (other than to make a couple of off-hand remarks about God playing dice and the like). That may be what you have decided, but you have reached that conclusion by ignoring a huge mountain of evidence to the contrary. Your judgement is faith based (or, if you prefer, feeling based).

Your last paragraph also seems a bit at odds with your first posting, where you complained about us evil secularists depriving those who wanted to believe in God of their dignity. That just seems an odd argument to make for someone who now proclaims that their position is from a “not religious” perspective.

Anyway, believe whatever you want. But it really shouldn’t be surprising that you will continue to get a sometimes aggressive response when you try and dress up a religious topic and teach it to all kids in publis schools as science. I mean, I’m sure most church congregations would have no problems at all if graduate students in evolutionary biology started teaching their kids about evolution in Sunday school class, right?

You have a lot of nerve highlighting my use of ‘judge’. In case you haven’t noticed, it is your side that is making a judgment so final that you demand your opponents be kept out of the discussion. Do you even sense the irony of employing the same tactics of the anti-evolutionary forces decades ago who demanded that evolution not be discussed in the classroom? (I LMAO when I read several snarky references to the Monkey Trials among bloggers reporting on Bush’s remarks. The irony is so obvious since the roles are now reversed.) What student of science can claim that to judge is not part of the scientific process? That is just a ridiculous attempt to totally strip your opponent of any role in the debate. Judgment is regularly employed in science, the law, in life. Frankly you are either a liar or obtuse to claim otherwise. Again, for the umpteenth time, I’ll point out that it is your side that is being dogmatic, that is demanding silence from the disbelievers. And thanks for clearing up the issue of Einstein’s religious beliefs. I guess ‘God’ doesn’t refer to God and ‘play with dice’ does not refer to randomness. Silly me. I should have asked you first before reading and integrating Einstein’s own words. (Some of the most evidently false statements on the web begin with ‘there is no evidence’ and, my favorite, ‘all studies to date’.) Most religious people have incorporated evolution into their beliefs. That is certainly true of the ID advocates. But the priesthood of the evolutionists will not tolerate any dissent at all from the people. You have become what you once despised and, worse, it is all because of a deeply held judgment that the vast majority of the human race is dead wrong and you must not simply argue against their point, but also silence their voice from the discussion. You are much too comfortable with that role. I would not be. Open your minds to the possibility that your’s is not the fullest and complete explanation for how we became who and what we are. Allow others the same dignity that science allows for dissenting views in other areas of scientific discussion. Take a break from playing God.

You have pretty much verified that the problem for you and others is not that the scientific process is ‘violated’ but that God is part of the discussion. Scientific theories based on sexual orientation of the viewer?, check, that is science and we need to fund an entire department to study the full range.

Are you kidding me? I’ve never said I support anything like science based on the sexual orientation of the researcher. Please stop it with the strawmen they are becoming quite tiresome. If this is the best you have to offer in the way of an argument, give up now.

But try to include God in the discussion of where we came from and how we came to be where we are and suddenly the battlements go up and the scientific process that has room for Queer Theory in science has no room for people who include God in their theory of evolution. That is dishonest and should embarrass any serious student of scientific ethics.

I am not defending these other practices, in case you haven’t noticed. Is there alot of crap out there masquerading as science? Sure, but that does not mean I have to accept all crap. This is where you argument falls apart. You have assumed for me that I support crap in other areas of study…therefore I should support crap in biology and evolutionary theory. Sorry, but I don’t like the other crap or your crap. Happy?

You have a lot of nerve highlighting my use of ‘judge’. In case you haven’t noticed, it is your side that is making a judgment so final that you demand your opponents be kept out of the discussion.

Well perhaps if instead of trying to cram ID down our throats via the political process they rolled up their sleeves and got to work in the laboratory there would be reason to include them in the discussion. But ID has been around for at least 10 years and they have produced exactly nothing in terms of experiments, predictions or any other evidence other than a bunch of Evolutionary Theory has a problem here, there, and up there…so ID must be true. It is like proving that Bob didn’t commit the murder therefore Harry must of done it. This kind of logical reasoning is deeply flawed and should be excluded from science.

What student of science can claim that to judge is not part of the scientific process? That is just a ridiculous attempt to totally strip your opponent of any role in the debate. Judgment is regularly employed in science, the law, in life. Frankly you are either a liar or obtuse to claim otherwise.

No kidding, and I have highlighted one manner in which one can make reasonable/rational/logical judgements in science and yet you act like what I wrote was nothing other than me hitting keys at random. Science works off of evidence. Your side has nothing in that regards. Until it has something their current batch of arguments just wont wash. Behe floated his idea over a decade ago…how come Behe hasn’t produced anything based on ID? Jonathan Wells is a trained biologist and can do experiments, but how come he hasn’t done anything that one can say is based on the ID hypothesis?

The ID side of the debate are a bunch of big talkers, but can’t walk the walk. They can’t seem to get the job done. Why? Even Paul Nelson has mentioned that there is a problem for ID in that it has no scientific research program. Clicky. Not that I expect you to actaully read that. But Paul Nelson is an IDist and even he admits there is serious lack of support for ID in terms of experiments and research.

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.—Paul Nelson, Touchstone Magazine 7/8 (2004): pp 64 – 65.

Who is Paul Nelson? Only a Fellow at the Discover Institutes Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture which is the big proponent of ID. In other words, he is one of the main guys.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I’ll point out that it is your side that is being dogmatic, that is demanding silence from the disbelievers.

Ding, ding, ding. There goes that strawman alarm again. No. Absolutely wrong. What I want them to do is not push their “theory” politically because it lacks evidence. I want them to show me why I or anybody else should take them serously. Scientists call it evidence and ID has none.

Most religious people have incorporated evolution into their beliefs. That is certainly true of the ID advocates. But the priesthood of the evolutionists will not tolerate any dissent at all from the people.

Now this is just an outright lie. Kenneth Miller is a Catholic and also an evolutionist. He has no problem believing in God and evolution and he is an ardent ID critic. There are many people who are religious and believe in evolutionary theory and they haven’t a problem. No censorship, no genuflecting before the great book of Darwin, nothing. You are making this up out of whole cloth. It would do you well not to resort to this kind of dishonest and misleading rhetoric.

You have become what you once despised and, worse, it is all because of a deeply held judgment that the vast majority of the human race is dead wrong and you must not simply argue against their point, but also silence their voice from the discussion. You are much too comfortable with that role. I would not be.

Wrong again. My view is you can believe whatever you want. You can be a flat earther who believes in astrology and numerology if that is what you want. I really couldn’t care less. However, I will fight you everwhere possible in you want to push that kind of psuedo-science into science classrooms via the political process.

Open your minds to the possibility that your’s is not the fullest and complete explanation for how we became who and what we are.

Oh, I am quite aware of this. For example, the theory of evolution is very different from what Darwin put forward back a couple of hundred years ago. I just want other explanations that also want to be included under the tent of science to present empirical evidence, experiments and to make predicitions. To answer questions, remove uncertainty and to add to our base of knowledge. Right now ID cannot do that. Hence it is barred at the gate.

Allow others the same dignity that science allows for dissenting views in other areas of scientific discussion.

Every other branch of science should do the same thing. You want to introduce a new theory of plate tectonics then you had better have some kind of data, a model, and some predictions that can be checked with new data. Otherwise you’ll be considered nothing more than a Woo-Woo Crank.

Mikem, do you do anything other than bluster when challenged? That, and misinterpret (willfully or otherwise) other people’s statmenets.

I didn’t judge you - I pointed out that you based your entire argument on your “judgement” the the universe was to “miraculous” to be explained by randomness.

Just for the record - you do realize that evolutionary theory says nothing about where we, or the cosmos, came from, right? evolutionary theory, or natural selection - deals with speciation - nothing more, nothing less. And as for the attitude of the evil secularists - seems like you have just a wee bit of attitude yourself. Does that work for you often - crying persecution everytime you don’t have any data to support your argument?

Strawmen? This is tiresome. I point out a couple of prominent examples of where science obviously does not employ the hard fast rules of evidence that you insist NECESSARILY preclude ID discussion, and you bounce between ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ and ‘that has nothing to do with the subject’ (to paraphrase). And political process? What nerve! As if Queer Theory and Afro-Centric Theories arose from the natural evolution of science in the many areas that they are now applied to and not from identity politics. Give me a break. I’m out of here. Best wishes to you and Neal. Hope you don’t blow a gasket worrying about people being exposed to heresy.

“Does that work for you often - crying persecution everytime you don’t have any data to support your argument?”

Gee, let me try that. Have you stopped beating your wife?

I have often enjoyed your comments, Neal. But now you are just wowwing me with your clever questions.

Strawmen? This is tiresome. I point out a couple of prominent examples of where science obviously does not employ the hard fast rules of evidence that you insist NECESSARILY preclude ID discussion, and you bounce between ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ and ‘that has nothing to do with the subject’ (to paraphrase).

1. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know you seem to think that this is not germane, but it gets right to the heart of your argument.

2. It has nothing to do with the subject. Sure there is lots of junk science masquerading as sound science. So what? So this means one more bit of junk is harmless? I oppose all junk science.

3. I notice you have no response other than to tap dance around this point.

And political process? What nerve! As if Queer Theory and Afro-Centric Theories arose from the natural evolution of science in the many areas that they are now applied to and not from identity politics. Give me a break.

You sure do love that strawman don’t you? What do you call him…or is it a her? So let me get this straight…you oppose “Queer Theory” because it isn’t science and has political dimensions, yet you think it is okay for ID to be considered science even though it too is not science and clearly has political dimensions? Have I got your thoroughly inconsistent and intellectually dishonest position correct?

I’m out of here. Best wishes to you and Neal. Hope you don’t blow a gasket worrying about people being exposed to heresy.

Well thank goodness. I have about had enough of that strawchick of yours anyways.

Steve demonstrates the mindless that the “reality” based secular fundamentalists have produced. Unable to accept any ideas that challenge their own they resort to arguments that border on the hysterical. One only need read Steve’s comments and substitute Darwin for ID and you realize how crazed he is.

Darwin cannot be proven by scientific method nor has it predicted anything. Much of science is based on faith, there ius no evidence of the Big Bang Theory. It is a theory. So exactly what does Steve use to justify his little rants? evidence? He waves the banner of science in the same way Bin Laden waves the Koran.

He further distorts economics by trying to show links between it and Darwinism, though it is more likely Darwinism is a better economic theory than it is at explaining evolution (for lack of a better word).

Steve, grow up little boy get an education. Science can’t explain 99% of what exists and occurs. But those who try to censor others or restrict debate show themselves to be authoritarians who’d do far worse if given the opportunity.

You are a coward and a liar, Steve. I sign out and you decide that this is a chance to falsely ascribe words to me and use something I never said against me.

”…you oppose “Queer Theory” because it isn’t science and has political dimensions, yet you think it is okay for ID to be considered science even though it too is not science and clearly has political dimensions? Have I got your thoroughly inconsistent and intellectually dishonest position correct?”

You lying sack of shit. I never said I oppose Queer Theory et al. In fact I pointed out that it and other ‘centric’ areas of study enjoy widespread support and funding in science. My point, once again although you are certain to pretend you didn’t hear, is that they, JUST LIKE ID THEORY, do not meet the rigid definitions that you insist rule the study of science. That means that the rules you cite as just that, your rules, and obviously not rules or guidelines agreed to by the scientific community. Got it? Of course not. I think you are a real putz to falsely ascribe words to other people.

Gee, let me try that. Have you stopped beating your wife?

Oh, I see. In fact you evert to the nasty “snark” that was supposed to be the purview of the evil secularists when you’re challenged. That “lying sack of shit” comment was pure class as well.

But see, this is the point - don’t tell us how you “fell” ID is correct, or how evolution should take the “dignity” of religious perspective into account. Don’t wow us with “this is what I believe, and it’s what Einstien believed, too”. Belief systems are fantastic things - but without hard data, they aren’t science.

Show me the data - any data - in support of ID, and we have the foundations for a discussion, Otherwise, stop trying to foist your belief system off on me as science. And please don’t accuse me of abusing me wife just because your position is scientifically indefensable. You think the persecution remark has hyperbole - well, I’m sorry. But that’s mainly what wee’ve gotten - how mean and nasty we secular scientists are to the Christians because we won’t accept ID because, well, just because, doggonit.

You are a coward and a liar, Steve. I sign out and you decide that this is a chance to falsely ascribe words to me and use something I never said against me.

Oh…you don’t like it? Well that is what you have done with me everytime you trot out that strawwoman of yours. You misrepresent my position as this fake one you have dreamed up and attack that. So who is the real coward and liar? Me for finally using your tactic, or you; the one who can’t seem to rebut any point I’ve made in this thread?

You lying sack of shit. I never said I oppose Queer Theory et al. In fact I pointed out that it and other ‘centric’ areas of study enjoy widespread support and funding in science.

Do you oppose it?

My point, once again although you are certain to pretend you didn’t hear, is that they, JUST LIKE ID THEORY, do not meet the rigid definitions that you insist rule the study of science.

Oh…so my characterization was correct. Queer Theory, according to you, is not science. Similarly ID, according to you, is not science. But since some nincompoops think Queer Theory is okay, I must accept ID. Now there’s a handy bit of logic.

That means that the rules you cite as just that, your rules, and obviously not rules or guidelines agreed to by the scientific community. Got it?

Yes, but you keep repeating this as if it is a devastating argument. I’ve already written several times I admit there is lots of junk science. Further, that one bit of junk science does not mean I have to accept all junk science.

I think you are a real putz to falsely ascribe words to other people.

I’m rubber you’re glue, whatever you write bounces of me and sticks to you. Seriously though, do you accept Queer Theory, which you describe as junk science? And are you really sure you want to describe ID as junk science? And finally, why are you so Hell bent on getting ID accepted as junk science?

Steve demonstrates the mindless that the “reality” based secular fundamentalists have produced. Unable to accept any ideas that challenge their own they resort to arguments that border on the hysterical. One only need read Steve’s comments and substitute Darwin for ID and you realize how crazed he is.

Talk about crazed, look at you and how you’ve got yourself worked up into a snit over “secular fundamentalist”. I love it, you cook up a fake religion…a bad fake religion…or I should say a bad fake anti-religion religion and then run around smearing your opponents with it. Nice job.

Darwin cannot be proven by scientific method nor has it predicted anything. Much of science is based on faith, there ius no evidence of the Big Bang Theory. It is a theory. So exactly what does Steve use to justify his little rants? evidence? He waves the banner of science in the same way Bin Laden waves the Koran.

Please, we are talking about evoloutionary theory. Keep the Big Bang and Bin Laden out of it. I know you want to try and tar your opponents as terrorists (and I admit I did enjoy the irony of describing a “secular fundamentalist” as an islmaic fundamentalist…tell me when was the last time secular fundamentalists killed 3,000+ people?). Evolutionary Theory (you do know using Darwin exposes you as an intellectual posuer right?) predicts quite a few things. Common descent predicts that DNA across species will be very similar. Evolutionary theory predicts things like anti-biotic resistent bacteria and pesticide resitant inscets. Know tell us Thomas, exactly what predictions does ID make?

He further distorts economics by trying to show links between it and Darwinism, though it is more likely Darwinism is a better economic theory than it is at explaining evolution (for lack of a better word)

No, I’m not. Evolutionary game theory is the new “hot thing” in economics. Try googling it. Look at the work of Herb Gintis, and others.

Steve, grow up little boy get an education.

LOL, now that’s funny. Are we going to play who has the more impressive academic credentials now Thomas?

Science can’t explain 99% of what exists and occurs.

So even if the above were true…I’m supposed to accept psuedo-science? Okay, gotcha there. Sheesh.

But those who try to censor others or restrict debate show themselves to be authoritarians who’d do far worse if given the opportunity.

Again, say whatever you want. Believe whatever you want. Neither I nor anybody else is stopping you (save in public science classrooms). What I do object to is calling your non-scientific beliefs scientific. You’ve basically admitted they [your beliefs] have little to do with science and so has mikem.

Show me the data - any data - in support of ID, and we have the foundations for a discussion, Otherwise, stop trying to foist your belief system off on me as science.

I second Neal’s comment here. Mikem & Thomas, if you guys can tear yourself away from slagging Queer Theory and my educational background can you guys provide one bit of evidence in favor of ID? Anything. Provide that evidence and why it is evidence then you’ve pretty much sunk Neal and me.

Goodness…I can’t believe I have to help the ID supporters put forward a good argument.

You lying sack of shit. I never said I oppose Queer Theory et al. In fact I pointed out that it and other ‘centric’ areas of study enjoy widespread support and funding in science. My point, once again although you are certain to pretend you didn’t hear, is that they, JUST LIKE ID THEORY, do not meet the rigid definitions that you insist rule the study of science.

Oh, and mike, I’d like you to reread what you wrote. The above is where you basically exonerate me of putting words in your mouth. From the above, it seems quite clear you don’t think Queer theory does not meets the “rigid definitiions…of science”—i.e., it is psuedo-science and then by extension so is ID. So, just out of curiousity: Why do you think psuedo-science is okay?

I really don’t see the point here. I’ve written time and again what constitutes an area of research as science. You keep on trying to insist that that I’ve written something else, that I must accept both Queer Theory and ID since other accept Queer Theory.

By the way, Queer Theory is not a good example as it comes from the “soft sciences” (which includes my beloved economics), that is, the social sciences. There is usually a line between these “soft sciences” and the “hard sciences” with the latter having much more solid grounding. You might as well use Feminist Theory. I don’t consider either of these two areas of study science.

Er, sorry for the typo laden comment above. I was in a hurry, and forgot to do the old preview thing. Had to rush off and beat the wife, don’t ya know.

What’s really funny is seeing myself portrayed as some kind of liberal blue stater. I am about as fiscally and militarily conservative as they come, and my first blog site was routinely bashed as being a “right wing nuthouse”. I support Bush in most things - but his apparent support of ID is not one of them.

One little piece of hard data. Any data. At all. Cue crickets.….….

I am about as fiscally and militarily conservative as they come, and my first blog site was routinely bashed as being a “right wing nuthouse”.

Ditto. I’m routinely called a right-wing nut. I’m almost never called a left-wing nut, save by anti-evolutionists.

One little piece of hard data. Any data. At all. Cue crickets.….….

chirp…chirp…chirp

Neal: Great display of outrage. You are right. I was actually accusing you of beating your wife!!

“Gee, let me try that. Have you stopped beating your wife?”

That wasn’t me using the classic example of a ‘no right answer’ question to show that your ‘question’ was no question at all. It really was an indictment of you. Be sure to get a lawyer. Indeed, you could start a blog about how you kept your dignity in the face of such hateful accusations against you.

This discussion has reached the point where you will pretend (I hope) to be clueless in order to play the victim. Meanwhile I have to put up with Steve making things up so that he can use them against me in argument.

You two keep taunting me (cue crickets etc.) to defend ID with data, as if I have ever tried to say that ID theory is superior to whatever the accepted version of evolution is today. I have not. I have merely pointed out that the reasons you two give for keeping ID theory out of the debate and out of science are clearly reasons, rules, guidelines etc that scientists themselves do not hold as disqualifying or rigid rules. You are citing multitudes of criteria that you both insist necessarily disqualify ID theory from science and debate when it is obvious that those rules exist only as wishful thinking or to be used against politically unpopular theories. Or maybe you are simply stating how science should operate, except you insist that it is how it DOES operate, when it clearly does not. Steve has spent most of this thread ignoring my point, even twisting it to mean something else entirely, until finally he settles on, basically, a ‘so what’ response. Now he is ready to insult entire areas of science as soft (not scientific) science to try to differentiate his rigid rules from how science actually operates. Different rules for different applicants to the world of scientific debate.

Mikem,

Gee, thanks for clearing that up - but isn’t that how you entered this thread, by playing the victim and complaining about your loss of dignity? You use mean and hateful speech while complaining about - mean and hateful speech. Those two scenarios are certainly equivalent, me saying that you hide behind a persecution complex to compensate for a weak position, and you calling me a spouse abuser. And as for your “loss of dignity” - well, I would say the person most responsible for your loss of dignity is you.

There are, indeed, differences between the “hard” sciences of physics and mathematics and chemistry and the “soft” sciences of the humanities (this wikipedia might help clear up your confusion). It’s not intended/perceived as an insult - but a great thing for you to carry on about.

So - you claim to believe in evolution, that you don’t fully believe in ID, do accept that ID has no data or experimental possibilities to produce any data, therefore it should be taught in science class - why, exactly?

Oh, yeah - I’m really outraged - that’s why I joked about being late for beating my wife as a reason for all of my spelling errors in my earlier comment.

You are citing multitudes of criteria that you both insist necessarily disqualify ID theory from science and debate when it is obvious that those rules exist only as wishful thinking or to be used against politically unpopular theories. Or maybe you are simply stating how science should operate, except you insist that it is how it DOES operate, when it clearly does not.

This is pure, unadulterated bs. Have you ever been to a scientific meeting? Have you ever presented at a scientific meeting that expected some rigor out of the presenters/attendees? I have - and it’s not unusual to get brutalized when you actually have data, even if the data is rock solid. You want ID to be taught in science class - then fine. Let the ID proponents start presenting at the evolutionary biology conferences. And when they get laughed off of the podium - I wonder why that will be? I will say that it is because they have no basis to make the claims they make. You, undoubtedly, will invoke Einstein and claim that they are being censored because they don’t conform to the secular norms of science. How utterly, wonderfully convenient for the ID crowd. “Well, no we don’t have any data to support our position. But the real reason they rejected our abstract is because they don’t believe in God….”.

Sure, there is all kinds of crap that makes it into the refereed scientific literature. Similarly, there is good science that gets kept out. But if the data is there, you can go from pariah to visionary. Judah Folkman’s views on angiogenesis and cancer were roundly rejected when first proposed. His work has gone from being rejected, to accepted, to now seen as seminal in the field of cancer biology and metastasis. If you have the data, you can overcome the bias. Whining about being persecuted in the absence of data just makes you a charlatan. We see it all of the time in the field of cancer medicine - clinics outside of the US offering desperate people all kinds of miracle cures for their cancer. Their clinic is in Mexico, they claim, because the US medical establishment and the FDA won’t let it in the US because it works too well, and it would ruin a multi-billion dollar a year industry by putting all of the oncologists out of business. And the dying cancer patients believe it, because they desperately want it to be true. Just like you desperately want ID to be true.

And taunting crickets aside, it’s a simple request. Give us the data on which to begin a discussion of ID vs evolution, and let’s get started.

What a fascinating exchange!

mikem, I think you should call it quits. Neal and Steve have just completely out-argued you and, I should say, out-classed you.

As for me, I am a firm believer in God and a very committed Christian. I have to say that both Neal and Steve have never once said that what I believe is meaningless or unimportant. Why are you so offended? Does the vast scientific data supporting evolutionary theory invalidate my faith in the Creator and even in the principles behind Intelligent Design? Absolutely not!

But it is my faith! It is not science. And quite frankly, I’m not interested in scientifically proving the existence or God or the verity of Intelligent Design. Faith doesn’t need or require science, else it would not be faith.

Quite frankly, the only purpose I see behind the push to legitimzie Intelligent Design as a science worthy of being taught next to evolutionary theory in a biology class is a bald-faced political move to make faith a science. You can go in that direction if you like, but at least recognize it for the political push it is. As for me, I wouldn’t particulary want to sully my faith by reducing it to a science. And I wouldn’t want to pervert science by making it faith-based.

Mikem,

You keep arguing that Queer Theory (QT) is a science (it is a social science, but not a hard science like physics, geology, biology, etc.). YOu point out that QT is lacking in regards to the conditions I have set forth. You seem to be strongly suggesting that QT is a load of rubbish. Then you strangely say that since QT, which by all appearances you consider crap, is allowed at academic institutions so should ID.

I definitely grasp your argument. I’ll summarize it.

1. I have laid out some conditions for something to be considered science. 2. You point out that QT fails these conditions. 3. Based on this QT isn’t science. 4. You admit ID isn’t science as well since it fails the conditions as well. 5. Based on this you think ID should be considered science.

My counter argument is I don’t consider QT science and hence your argument breaks down.

As for discussing ID, I’m fine with it in a college level philosophy of science class. I’m fine with it in a religion class. I am not fine with it being shoved down the throats of high school students. I’ll further note that Queer Theory is also not shoved down students throats either.

I have no problem with anybody believing in God. I really don’t. I consider it a personal issue and it is none of my business. I have also argued on my blog that many liberals on this issue of evolution vs. creationsim need to STFU when it comes to people’s religion. That such comments are not only not helpful, but counter-productive. If somebody wants to believe in a flat earth, that is their right. I think such a person is a bit daft, but hey I’m sure I do things many people consider daft. So I still don’t get your issue with dignity.

I am also all for the competition of ideas. But that does not mean we have to treat all ideas the same. Ideas should be judged on their merits and in science that means evidence and predictive power. Failing to have eitheris a big, big problem. Failing to have both renders the hypothesis something akin to wishful thinking, speculation, or some such.

Do other things parade around as science when they aren’t? Absolutely. I oppose such practices in general, and when I find them in specific I call it junk. So please drop it with the Queer Theory argument. It isn’t working.

Jimmy,

Thank you for the reasoned words. As I have mentioned on my blog, I do not believe in God. However, I have always respected the faith of those who do - and I sometimes envy them their faith. Your points are, I believe, exactly right. If there is a higher power at work here, he (or she) is undetectable to us, and unknowable in the physical sense. Hypothesizing something that is not now, and will never be, detectable does not fit in the realm of science.

Now, if we want to go all of the way back to the very beginning, to the big bang or what caused it or, more unkowingly, what happened “before” - if before has any meaning in that context, then the concept of God may become more germaine. But the concept of what happened before the big bang is again a philosophical/teleological question, not a scientific one. At least with regards to the information contained in this universe.

And, just in case you were wondering what Einstein thought about a personal God - perhaps we can get that information directly from the source.

Hint: Mikem was just a wee bit off claiming that Einstein shared his views on ID.….

Jimmy: My anger at Steve resulted from his mis-stating the heart of my argument so that he could attack it from a different angle. I think that type of tactic is reprehensible and without class. It was also done after I had said I was out of here (would not respond further), which made his mis-attribution downright cowardly. In fact, Steve went on to call me a hypocrite and dishonest for stating something that he simply made up. I responded with anger. I consider Steve’s dishonest tactic much more classless than calling someone a sack of shit, but what the hell, if it offended you, I apologize. What I have done throughout most of this long debate is to point out that the criteria that Steve and Neal use to prove that ID has no place in science are not applied in many areas of science, and not just ‘soft sciences’ as they are trying to say now, unless Anthropology is now considered a soft science. You don’t have to have a persecution complex, as Neal accuses, to argue that their criteria is just that, ‘their’s’ or perhaps wishful thinking among some scientists. Defenders of the scientific method, if that really is what this is about, should feel very uncomfortable demanding that an entire area of inquiry be ruled out of bounds, especially if the criteria they use is so narrowly or infrequently applied. Those who feel intellectually assaulted by any theory that includes a role for God or a greater intelligence need to come up with something that is more consistently applied or their demands for exclusion will seem dishonest and biased rather than principled. Lets be frank. Atheism is intellectually intoxicating. I dabbled in, at the least, agnosticism(?) for a while. It places the atheist separate and distinctive from the ‘plodding’ mass of humanity. I think these criteria, that seem to have no universal acceptance in science, are simply cover for that percentage of people who find any role for a God an assault on that feeling of intellectual superiority. I have much more respect for agnostics than atheists, who after all claim to have proof that something does not exist, which I was taught is logically impossible. Evolution is a good theory. ID theory, which I have not studied, seems to try to fill in the blanks. I have read, over the years, some ecologists and environmental scientists refer to a theory of nature as an unseen but controlling force. For the life of me I cannot recall the name assigned to this force, it has a nice 60’s ring to it. (It is similar to a Mother Earth concept, except they consider it an actual biological force.) The point is that scientists don’t jump up and down denouncing this theory as unscientific and not worthy of discussion. I bet that if they said God, instead of Gainia/whatever, the lack of outrage would be replaced with what we are seeing now. As someone said, most people who believe in God, including most Christians, also believe in evolution. They may not buy all contemporary versions of it, but they certainly seem more open minded than their antagonists. You do understand that in a simple sense, you guys have become the book burners, while the ID people can rightfully claim the high ground as open to inquiry and correction. Someone, Neal or Steve, attacked me for using the word dignity, claiming that this is not about feelings. But to hear the visceral reactions of the anti-ID people, you would think otherwise. (But for good purpose, of course.) And, Neal, I already explained as clearly as possible that I was showing you that I recognized the “no right answer” form of your question. That is why, as I explained, I used THE classic “no right answer” question in reply. It had nothing to do with what you actually said, it was not quid pro quo, it was the format, it was ‘nice try’. But whatever. It went over your head and I can’t solve that, even with spelling it out.

Neal(dn): Did you just try to use Skeptics.com as a reference source? My Einstein quote is accurate. I have read many books about Einstein and his theories. My attribution stands. Out of here. I’ll check back tomorrow.

And Mikem’s true strategy becomes apparent. Just keep posting and calling people names until they tire and go away. Then claim victory.

Mikem, your disingenuous, your arguments are inconsistent, and just because you claim you gave a perfectly plausible explanation doesn’t make it so.

With regards to Einstein, what attribution are you standing by? The one where you said that, since he mentioned the word God a couple of times, he must be on your side? Yeah, compelling argument, that. Sorry you don’t like Skeptics.com, but I guess the fact that other sources find the same viewpoint expressed by Einstein (like this wikipedia shows) won’t be any barrier to you ignoring the facts and continuing on your merry way.

In fact, you have shown yourself to be rather disingenuous, logically inconsistent, and just a wee bit nasty when cornered with the odd incvenient fact or 2. I know you’ve made it blindingly obvious to me, what with me being a poor simpleton and you being such a superior intellect and all, but somehow I remain unconvinced. But that’s OK, based on my observations of you in this forum, I’m sure that won’t stop you from claiming victory anyway.

My anger at Steve resulted from his mis-stating the heart of my argument so that he could attack it from a different angle. I think that type of tactic is reprehensible and without class. It was also done after I had said I was out of here (would not respond further), which made his mis-attribution downright cowardly. In fact, Steve went on to call me a hypocrite and dishonest for stating something that he simply made up. I responded with anger. I consider Steve’s dishonest tactic much more classless than calling someone a sack of shit, but what the hell, if it offended you, I apologize.

Yeah, and the real kicker is my strawman turned out to be accurate. You really do think QT is bunk and so is ID so lets call both science. Nice going.

What I have done throughout most of this long debate is to point out that the criteria that Steve and Neal use to prove that ID has no place in science are not applied in many areas of science

Well…no you haven’t. You only have QT and anthropology. Have you got anything else?

Those who feel intellectually assaulted by any theory that includes a role for God or a greater intelligence need to come up with something that is more consistently applied or their demands for exclusion will seem dishonest and biased rather than principled.

No, we don’t. That other things are junk is not the issue no matter how much you wish it were. The fact that post-modernism is making a mockery of serious science is not justification for letting in more junk. That is your position. You have made it abundantly clear in your numerous posts.

In your second post you wrote:

There is room for accommodation in the various scientific fields for Queer Theory this and that, including Physics and Mathematics. The field of Anthropology has a veritable wall up that prohibits politically incorrect research that involves race. In fact, the once common view in Anthropology that civilizations advanced as they left comfortable Africa and faced greater challenges has been attacked by the new Afro-centric disciplines that were created, funded and given instant credibility entirely based on accommodating racial feelings. Fine for Afro Americans. But don’t lecture us about scientific principles and rigid rules of evidence that preclude any discussion that includes God in it. I could write a book about how science has proudly blossomed to include discussion of feelings-based research and beliefs and ever more bizarre sounding disciplines, many of which arose from political pressure.—emphasis added

It is quite clear you think there is lots of junk out there. I agree with you. Where I disagree is that we should just give up and let in other junk as well. ID isn’t the only junk/questionable science I oppose, but it is one I tend to be more vocal about.

You also wrote,

Scientific theories based on sexual orientation of the viewer?, check, that is science and we need to fund an entire department to study the full range. The same scenario based on the skin color or race of the viewer?, check, add a few more departments so that we explore the full scope of knowledge to be gained. But try to include God in the discussion of where we came from and how we came to be where we are and suddenly the battlements go up and the scientific process that has room for Queer Theory in science has no room for people who include God in their theory of evolution. That is dishonest and should embarrass any serious student of scientific ethics. You can’t have science accommodating so many classically non science related viewpoints in various scientific theories and discussions and then pull in the reigns because you decide to do so for one specific group.—emphasis added

Again, we see you pointing out that these other theories you bring up like QT and the anthropology stuff is not science, by your own standards no less. You then turn around and use this fact to try and drag ID in which by implication is not science either.

I really can’t see any other conclusion that you think debasing science to satisfy some sort of twisted notion of ethics is just fine. I disagree; not only should we oppose ID because, as you strongly imply, it isn’t science, but we should also oppose other instances of junk science.

I see my position as reasonable and defensible Mike. I see your position as unreasonable and indefensible. Saying that we should let something be called science because it will not encroach on the feelings or dignity of others is a recipe for disaster, IMO.

By the way Mike, your strawman was right here,

But try to include God in the discussion of where we came from and how we came to be where we are and suddenly the battlements go up and the scientific process that has room for Queer Theory in science has no room for people who include God in their theory of evolution.

You have basically implied that Neal and I think QT is fine. That we think allowing in things that make people feel good and don’t diminish their dignity is fine so long as it doesn’t involve God. When you wrote that, there was nothing I had written to support this characterization of yours. You put words in my mouth. You distorted my position so you could attack it. You kept doing it and hammering on this point despite repeated attempts by me to disabuse you of this view. Then when I turned the tables on you a wee bit you became insulting and frankly irrational. So please spare me this “Woe is me,” act. If you really have this thin a skin, I suggest you not comment on the internet.

And just to recap:

1. Mikem does not, nor does any other poster here, have any evidence in support of ID. 2. Mikem apparently thinks QT is just fine…or at least he doesn’t oppose it. 3. Mikem also thinks QT is not science, but that we can call it science anyways. Something to do with feelings and dignity. 4. Based on 2 & 3 Mikem thinks we should also allow ID to be considered science as well even though it too is not science, but that it will not give some people hurt pink feelings and diminish their dignity. 5. I think science should always go with the theory that is most likely true (note the small ‘t’) given the evidence. 6. Based on 5, this disqualifies ID until the ID supporters go out and gather the evidence in favor of ID.

“Mikem, your disingenuous, your arguments are inconsistent, and just because you claim you gave a perfectly plausible explanation doesn’t make it so.” This could be a cut and paste from any standard internet argument. It basically means ‘shut up’. If you want to be specific, I’ll reply. Especially please explain inconsistent, since I have been harping on the narrow area of the scientific method as it is applied. I’ve been repeating the same argument to death, even I’m sick of it, but you say I’m inconsistent. Frankly, I think you just made that up. (See standard Internet argument.)

“With regards to Einstein, what attribution are you standing by? The one where you said that, since he mentioned the word God a couple of times, he must be on your side? Yeah, compelling argument, that. etc. etc. etc.”

I didn’t make a big deal of Einstein’s remark. I described very simply how I came to believe that there is a God and added that Einstein had remarked on the same thing, “God does not play dice with the universe.” I did not say that Einstein was a deeply religious person. In fact I said nothing else about Einstein except in reply to others claims, apparently, that I am wrong in citing his remark. Since I have heard the remark cited repeatedly, I don’t need to check it or read that someone else interprets it differently than what he actually said. You guys have made Einstein a big issue, not me. It’s a familiar remark. I’m surprised you haven’t heard it. And finally, Neal, don’t make stuff up. I didn’t claim victory and walk away. I said “I’m out of here and will check back tomorrow”. That’s not walking away claiming victory. That’s ‘I’m going to try to get some sleep, I’ll read your replies tomorrow’. Jeez. I think Steve gets it. I look at his last two lengthy responses and he gets it. He understands (if you will allow me to read your mind, Steve) that the rules, guidelines, criteria of the scientific method repeatedly cited by himself and Neal are not quite well represented in the sciences, especially, very especially, at the very churches of scientific thought, our universities. So he is, logically, attacking and trashing the hell out of the ‘violators’ so that he can in turn feel consistent about trashing ID. (Or justify banning it from science, to be less melodramatic.) But it is too late. It doesn’t matter that Steve is trying to be consistent, except that I appreciate him not holding a double standard. The fact is that Steve and Neal and I don’t decide the criteria. The scientific community does and it has obviously decided that Steve is wrong and his criteria do not apply, at least not consistently. I read Neal’s description of his personal experience in academia with the scientific method. I’ll give him the benefit and assume that he has never personally seen otherwise, but he is obviously not paying a lot of attention to other areas of academia and science because what I have noted is not exactly trivial news. It gets a lot of publicity, both positive and negative. (Mostly positive from academia/science [huh?] and negative from those outside of academia. [But we know our place.] I know you guys think ID is trash. You needn’t defend evolution or trash ID. I’m not trying to convince you of anything except that you can’t seriously argue that it is outside of science without condemning the scientific community you present yourselves as defending. If Steve and you are right, then that community has been very undiligent, unserious and unconcerned for quite a while now and it is a bit late to call foul on one narrow area. I’m going to try to get some sleep again. I’ll check back. (NOT CLAIMING VICTORY.) Fingers crossed for the landing.

Oh, I think I “get it” just fine. Your position, in a nutshell, is that other junk science (of which Queer Theory is your favorite example) has flourished, so junk science incorporating god should be allowed to flourish as well. That’s the kernel of your argument, and the only one that you’ve got. And you’ve made it over and over and over again - while throwing in all kinds of smoke and mirrors diversions along the way.

There are sciences where the observations yield hard data points. Drop a rock off a bridge, and it fill fall at a finite, measurable speed. Analysis of this kind of data is relatively easy, although subject to some interpretation when unknown variables are introduced (as is happening with attempts to measure the Hubble constant, for instance).

Then, there are sciences that have “soft” data points - these are the social sciences and humanities. Analysis of this data is much harder, much more subjective since much of the data is gathered by questionnaire (and we know how much the formation of the poll question affectes the outcome), and, most importantly, affected by the bias of the investigator.

I would venture to say that most physicists don’t see what people in the humanities departments do as real research. Much of what is being researched isn’t truly quantifiable from a “hard” science standpoint. Plus, it’s often not reproducible. Use the same questionnaire in the US and Germany, and get 2 completely different results. Drop a rock of a bridge in the US and Germany, and get exactly the same result.

You want ID to be allowed to play on the “hard science” playing field under “soft science” rules. But ID, if it is anything,is soft science - belonging in the humanities department wing of philosophy or religion.

As far as Einstein goes, your exact words were:

I judge that our universe is much too beautiful, too wondrous, too complex and too ‘miraculous’ to be explained by dumb luck and randomness. Einstein and I both came to the same conclusion, separately, and no, I can’t carry Einstein’s shadow. I just think it ironic that the greatest scientific mind of all time saw God’s hand in everything. Contrast that with today’s defenders of the faith who demand that God be banished from all scientific thought.

I merely pointed out that your judgement actually had nothing to do with the debate, and that you had mischaracterized Einstein’s position. Einstien was a believer in Spinoza’s God - the God of nature, not a personal God. But, if you won’t take his own writings as proof that he’s an atheist, then I doubt there’s any reason to provide you with more links to his personal writings.

The really delicious irony is that this whole thread on JYB started with Bryan decrying the hypocritical “intellectual bullies” who were keepig ID from being taught, but the only real nastiness and bullying I see going around isn’t from the secular crowd.

And finally, when I say your arguments are inconsistent and disingenuous, I’m not telling you to shut up. Post all you want, I don’t care. It will be the same point made with 1,000 different words, anyway. What I’m saying is that your arguments are logically inconsistent and disingenuous. Period.

Mikem,

I think you are bit off the mark. When Neal writes,

You want ID to be allowed to play on the “hard science” playing field under “soft science” rules. But ID, if it is anything,is soft science - belonging in the humanities department wing of philosophy or religion.

I think it is pretty much on target, and having spent many years studying a “soft science” I don’t disagree all that much. The social sciences are “squishy”. I think it is easier to get gobblydeegook in the social sciences/humanities that you’d have a harder time in the “hard” sciences.

Further, that one areas of inquiry has “gone to the dogs” doesn’t strike me as a very convincing argument that we should let other areas “go to the dogs” as well.

I know you guys think ID is trash. You needn’t defend evolution or trash ID. I‘m not trying to convince you of anything except that you can’t seriously argue that it is outside of science without condemning the scientific community you present yourselves as defending. If Steve and you are right, then that community has been very undiligent, unserious and unconcerned for quite a while now and it is a bit late to call foul on one narrow area.

This is like blaming you for your brother’s crimes, IMO. Biologists and evolutionary theorists are not only responsible for their field, but also have to police the field of gender studies (or whatever field Queer Theory grew out of)? You’d have a more solid argument if you could point to an example of where biology allowed in some nonsense due to reasons of feelings or fear of diminishing the dignity of some group.

I’d also like to point out that accepting QT might have a different set of consequences than accepting ID. What does QT do save employ some otherwise unemployable people? Probably not much. ID on the other hand could have some serious implications for research into evolution. For example, it could lead to less advances in medicine. Understanding the evolution of a something could very well give medical researchers understanding of how to deal with it. But ID might very well shut down that research. Why? Because ID says: this structure didn’t evolve so stop studying the evolution of this structure.

Just a point of clarification - I wasn’t trying to be dismissive of those doing research in the humanities at all, although on re-reading my last comment I see that it could be interpreted that way. I was meerely trying to make the point that the data are much more fluid and much more open to individual interpretation and potential researcher bias than a field where you measure objective data. The work is just as hard, and the research can be just as demanding (and tedious) - especially if you are abstracting several thousand questionnaires for a PhD thesis or some other thrilling exercise.

Equating the idea that science should be secular with liberalism is stupid and worthy of derision and mockery.

Actually, one important definition of liberalism (somewhat overlooked in the right-wing propaganda smear of the term) is “emphasizing intellectual liberty” and “broad-mindedness: esp: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms,” [Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary] a hallmark of scientific reasoning. So that should make true liberals open to ID as philosophy or theology and as science once any supporting experimental evidence is produced. Otherwise, your argument that ID belongs in Philosophy or Religion class, rather than Science class, is irrefutable and the only argument made by most “anti-ID” types.

But, obviously, irrefutable arguments and reasonableness only hold sway in the reality-based community, i.e., somewhere else.

“So that should make true liberals open to ID as philosophy or theology and as science once any supporting experimental evidence is produced.”

Are you suggesting that all scientists are liberal Democrats or Libertarians? This is not a political issue. It shouldn’t even be a science issue until ID actually develops a scientific argument. ID by very definition is a philosophy or theology and has no science to support its ‘theory’. Yes, I would be happy to amend my scientific understanding of the universe if some science was actually produced, but the subject matter is outside the scope of science since ID uses a supernatural assumption, so experimental data will never be produced. The Discovery Institute isn’t even trying to formulate a scientific argument. Oh, I was a lifelong conservative until this became a part of the republican political platform.

“But, obviously, irrefutable arguments and reasonableness only hold sway in the reality-based community, i.e., somewhere else.”

reason: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially something that supports a conclusion or explains a fact

real: not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent

Which part of ID is reasonable or real? If the designer is a fact why does each religion believe in a different diety? In order to have a reasonable argument, you must provide something to support the argument. ID has only attacked science and has not produced new knowledge. The ID ‘scientists’ justify end running the scientific community because they ‘make more money from selling books’. That is materialism at its best.

Which part of ID is reasonable or real?

Actually, I find it quite “not extreme or excessive” to believe that a higher power created the universe. It’s not science, it’s not real but it is reasonable.

But what I meant was that the argument made by “anti-ID” folks is also reasonable, i.e., that ID isn’t science.

Well stated Shep. I agree. This is exactly why my scientific views do not conflict with my spiritual views. The most offensive part of the fundamentalist assault on science is the implication that scientists are somehow godless heathens who support a leftist agenda. I have news for the fundamentalists, scientists are on the left, right and middle, some are profoundly religious others agnostic or even atheistic and we will fight tooth and nail to keep science science. I would expect the same response if science demanded changes to religious texts and open lectures about Physics, Chemistry and heaven forbid Biology during church services.

TJ-

Much of science is based on faith. There is no evidence of Big Bang theory. It is only theory.

Please provide an falsifiable explaination for the 3 degree Kelvin ‘background radiation’ that has been observed in our universe without resorting to, “God wanted it that way.”