Posts by binadub

The last time I took algebra, it was offered as a math review opportunity at the high-tech company where I was working. In that class, as an aside, the instructor explained that people who are good at algebra are generally not as good at an abstract reasoning math, which the following is one example:

There are 100 attorneys. Therein:
Premisis 1: There is at least one and less than 100 honest attorneys.
Premisis 2: Any two attorneys, at least one is dishonest.

How many honest attorneys are there?

The point the instructor was making is that this problem cannot be solved by algebra. People not good at algebra are the quickest in solving this kind of problem.

~Binadub

40

Who on this site have you met...

by besty in

jw
friends

just noticed the other thread about who you'd like to meet - how about this one for those you have met.. prolly going to miss a few but here goes:.

sweet pea.

snow queen.

binadub

Mouthy:
'Tis me, Ros (other screen moniker).

And I forgot to mention in my list I've met TD.

~Binadub

40

Who on this site have you met...

by besty in

jw
friends

just noticed the other thread about who you'd like to meet - how about this one for those you have met.. prolly going to miss a few but here goes:.

sweet pea.

snow queen.

binadub

AlanF
Amazing
Mouthy
AJWRB founder
Barbara Anderson
Bill Bowen
Blondie
CoffeeBlack
Outaservice
Frank Toth
Belbab
Gary Busselman (Armageddon Okie)
Jst2Laws
Euphamism
Epiphany

Those come to mind. Numerous other names you'd recognize who don't post here.

~Binadub

195

Theistic Evolution

by cofty in

thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

binadub

Cofty:

I promise this will probably be my last thoughtful rebuttal on this topic. We’re discussing here the specific comment you made that I disagreed with:

Intelligent Design is a specific term that refers to ideas invented by Michael Behe and his collegues and promoted by the Discovery Institute. It pretends to be science but is in fact creationism in disguise.

Let me address your reply to me about the second sentence first, since it is brief:

If you wish to show that the second sentence is wrong you have all your work to do to show that ID is scientific.

I have said so many times in this thread that ID is not science that I can only presume you have glossed over what I wrote because you assume it cannot have any intelligent merit. Intelligent design is a philosophical theory, the same as atheism and, for that matter, some conclusions drawn from the study of evolution.
I have also presented quotes that show they (ID proponents) are not creationists, and I'll show some more in this post.

So NOW . . . with reference to your first sentence in the above quote, I took your advice and did a Google search on: “Intelligent Design definition”
The results prove you are patently wrong in your definition of ID as being creationism, as well as the term being Behe's invention.

Two dictionary definitions (which I agree correctly define the term):

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun - The theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
intelligent design noun -the theory that the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent.

Your first sentence:

Intelligent Design is a specific term that refers to ideas invented by Michael Behe and his collegues and promoted by the Discovery Institute.

The following segments quoted from the on-line “New World Encyclopedia” on "Intelligent Design" illustrate that your statement is mistaken.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design [Empheses mine]:

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

. . .<snip>
. . . Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.
. . .<snip>
ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution),) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy.
. . .<snip>
The minimalist view described above, however, emerged in the 1980s.

--------------------
Cofty:

To your statement: Intelligent Design is a specific term that refers to ideas invented by Michael Behe . . .
Behe didn't come on the scene with his concepts until about 1993-1996.
Continuing snipets from the "New World Encyclopedia" article on "Intelligent Design" [emphases mine] : ------------------------

Cosmologist Fred Hoyle used the term “intelligent design" in 1982, . . . <snip>
Soon afterward, chemist Charles B. Thaxton was impressed by chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi’s argument that the information in DNA could not be reduced to physics and chemistry. Something more was needed. Thaxton later said that he preferred intelligent design to creationism because he “wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there.”
In 1984, Thaxton joined with materials scientist Walter L. Bradley and geochemist Roger L. Olsen to publish The Mystery of Life’s Origin, which criticized “chemical evolution,” the idea that unguided natural processes produced the first living cells abiotically, from non-living materials. The authors distinguished between order (such as found in crystals), complexity (such as found in random mixtures of molecules), and “specified complexity” (the information-rich complexity in biological molecules such as DNA). Relying on the uniformitarian principle “that the kinds of causes we observe producing certain effects today can be counted on to have produced similar effects in the past,” the authors argued, “What is needed is to identify in the present an abiotic cause of specified complexity.” Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen concluded: “We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?”
The following year (1985), molecular biologist Michael Denton published Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, which criticized the evidence for Darwin’s theory and defended the view that design could be inferred from living things. Since “living things are machines for the purposes of description, research, and analysis,” Denton wrote, it is legitimate to extend the analogy between living things and machines to attribute their origin to include intelligent design. He concluded: “The inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications [though Denton did not draw any], but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.”
In 1989, biologists Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon (under the editorship of Charles Thaxton) published Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. The book’s introduction explained that it was “not intended to be a balanced treatment” of the subject, but a presentation of “a favorable case for intelligent design” in order “to balance the overall curriculum” in biology classes. The book concluded: “Any view or theory of origins must be held in spite of unsolved problems…, [but] there is impressive and consistent evidence, from each area we have studied, for the view that living things are the product of intelligent design.”
Two years later (1991), Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson published Darwin On Trial, which critically analyzed the logic and assumptions Darwinists use to rule out design in living things. Johnson concluded: “Darwinist scientists believe that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, and they believe that science must be able to provide a naturalistic explanation for the wonders of biology that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Without assuming those beliefs they could not deduce that common ancestors once existed for all the major groups of the biological world, or that random mutations and natural selection can substitute for an intelligent designer.”

======================[End quote]

As mentioned, Behe did not come on the scene with his ideas about "irreducible complexity" until 1993. His book "Darwin's Black Box" in 1996 contributed to popularizing the term "intelligent design", but he definitely did not invent it nor the theories.

It's one thing to disagree with ID, but another to claim it is what it is not. This is not to say that ID proponents don't have personal religious views or may have varying degrees of personal agendas for ID. Some do and some don't (as for example deists). Behe happens to be Catholic. The point is that "intelligent design" as a theory is presented as nothing more specific than an alternative to atheism, period. It is not even specifically "theism," which I didn't even realize until I looked into it further as a result of this thread. (Thanks)

Here’s another link for definition (IF you're interested)
http://connection.ebscohost.com/science/intelligent-design/history-intelligent-design-theory

~Binadu b

195

Theistic Evolution

by cofty in

thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

binadub

Cofty:

Your Question:
What precisely do you disagree with in my post 4458 above?

Answer:
Intelligent Design is a specific term that refers to ideas invented by Micahel Behe and his colleagues and promoted by the Discovery Institute. It pretends to be science but it is in fact creationism in disguise.

~Binadub

195

Theistic Evolution

by cofty in

thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

binadub

Cofty:

I know what you have been saying ID and creationism is. I have explained why I disagree with you.

I would be interested in your credentials.

~Binadub

17

Woman requesting bloodless liver transplant

by loosie in

ok so here in kansas there is a women who is a jw asking for a liver transplant, but she wants bloodless surgery.

she is on state healthcare.

the state said no bloodless surgery is not needed in this case and refused to pay for the added cost.

binadub

Wouldn't the blood from the liver doner (presumed to be dead) have to be the same type?

~Bin

195

Theistic Evolution

by cofty in

thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

binadub

binadub - you are confusing me.

It's part of my charm.
No, I think we are confusing each other. It seems to be a matter of definition and semantics.
I'm seeing that I may have confused you to some degree because when I say "intelligent design" I mean it in a generic sense (no caps) whereas I think you see Intelligent Design as an organization, equating it with the Discovery Institute. I see it as a theory that they are pressing, you see it as the organization. I see "intelligent design" as simply meaning a superior intelligence is responsible for creation as opposed to atheism.

I have never called ID a religion. It is creationism in disguise so perhaps you extrapolated from that?

You're saying ID is not a religion, but it is "creationism."
So are you saying creationism is not religion?
In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms.
That's the whole premise for not allowing it to be taught in school--separation of church and state.

What "red herrings" are you referring to?

You seem to avoid my points that DI does not present ID as "creationism" (in the popular sense of being YECism). In spite of the fact that I have repeatedly said ID is not science, you asked me what ID has contributed to science. That, imo, is a red herring argument.

Come to think of it, however, I guess I could say that ID has contributed some scientists to science. :-)
(Are you a scientist?)

Also, on the red-herring point, you seem to keep trying to get the discussion with me to be about evolution. I'm not discussing evolution, and I'm sure you know that subject better than I. What I do maintain is that ID is not anti-evolution. It is, however, anti-atheist, and that may be the point of contention.

Intelligent Design (ID) is not religion and it is not science, - binadub

So we agree "Intelligent Design" is not science. That's progress. I would go further and say its anti-science. Of course its mission is to convince America that it is science.

It is not anti-science. I think saying its mission is to convince America that it is science might be a red herring. But I think it is true that they hope to get their theistic view represented, just as atheism is covertly implied in evolution. The DI people from what I can see do not deny evolution, but they would like to get mathematical "Probability" included as might relate to upward natural selection, as well as "Irreducible Complexity" and "Specified Complexity." I would have no problem with those theories being included in curriculum provided that they are 1) testable and 2) falsifiable, etc.

intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural... - DI website
Now you can claim they are lying, but regardless of the personal objectives of some of its proponents, that's from the mission statement is for Discovery Institute. - binadub
The main piece of evidence I presented was an official internal document published by the DI called the "Wedge Strategy" which was leaked and widely distributed. The DI have confirmed it is genuine. It proved beyond any shadow of doubt that thier ambiguity about the supernatural is a lie. They studiously avoid using the "god" word because they know that puts them in conflict with the constitution. You have fallen for their deception which is why you think ID is not creationism.

Why did you ignore the Wedge Document in your reply?

My reply was getting long and it was getting late. The Wedge document does not imo prove that "intelligent design" is religion. But again, I'm thinking of ID in a generic definiton, not an organization. I don't care what the proponents of the Design Institute believe so I have only given Wedge a cursory reading. It's my understanding that it was intended to be a fund-raising strategy to promote ID theory in the schools.

Let me try to explain it with an illustration.
Let's say a company (Co-1) is in competition with another company (Co-2), so they plan a strategy to expose corruption in the other company. Their motive for doing this is to gain competitive advantage in order to make a greater profit rather than for justice. So they actively implement their plan to expose corruption in the other company and they eventually succeed.

Now from my perspective, I don't care what the motive of Co-1 is. All I'm concerned with is that the corruption in Co-2 was exposed. Regardless of C0-1's reasons, the result was a revelation of what is true.

So I don't care what DI's alleged motives are as long as the legal system keeps them on track with their stated purpose as it is now presented. In that regard I think the opposition they get from your community is a good thing, because that constant criticism will force them to keep it legal.

The issue is not about evolution versus religion, it's about atheism versus deism.

Nobody has raised deism. With very few exceptions ID proponents are theists. TE proponents are theists. If you want to discuss deism feel free to open a new thread.

*I* have raised "deism" because imo that IS the stated objective of "intelligent design" (generic definition). When DI states, as it does in my quote above, and you quoted my quote in your reply, that "intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural... - DI website

. . . THAT is deism by definition imo. If they go beyond deism, then it starts becoming religion.

We are discussing the merits of TE. I only raised ID to prevent confusion about the topic.

And I apologized for missing your point and was willing to let the topic of ID drop in this thread. You promised to address it in another thread, and I was even going to let that drop when you didn't. I have kept responding to you here because I didn't want to ignore your replies to me. I'm not trying to interfere with your TE discussion. I tend to agree with you about that.

You ask what I say Intelligent Design has contributed to science...Comment: Red herring...&Answer: Nothing--it isn't science.
ID is not science. ID is not religion. ID is not anti-evolution. Like atheism, ID is a philosophy about origin. - binadub

You are the only person who seems to think ID has any merit but who concedes its not science. You have missed the whole point of ID.

It seems to me that you miss the point of ID. That's where I think the confusion lies--our different definitions of what ID is. I think it's simply supposing a Creator based on viable theoretical argument to support it; you think it is an organized religious movement (YEC creationism).

I think a lot of things that are not science have merit. The point of contention of ID is opposition to atheism. I am not an atheist, so I think ID has merit. I assume you think atheism has merit. I don't accuse you of missing the point of atheism nor do I think I miss the point of atheism on the premise that I don't agree with it. ID is simply the theoretical antithesis of atheism; it is not science, nor anti-science, nor evolution, nor anti-evolution.
It [ID] has two central claims -
1. That an intelligent designer can be detected through the application of a the science of "specified complexity".
2. That certain molecular systems are "irreducibley complex" and require an intellgent designer.
These are sceintific claims - or to be more accurate they are psuedo-scientific claims.

I particularly tend to see merit in "specified complexity."
I think of it like this:

For simplicity's sake, there was a fellow in Italy in the 1600s who invented the piano. The piano is a complex musical instrument. It would seem the person who invented it had an extraordinary sense for the difference between pleasant sound and irritating noise and arranging different sounds into melodies. Of course the piano can make either kind of sound, melody or noise depending on how the different keys are pressed, in what order and combination, and in what rhythm. Now the odds ("probability science") of setting the piano out in a hail storm and getting a concerto are remote (a form of specified complexity).

Then Bach in the 1700s began writing down chords, and it is thought that over time this was the beginning of musical "theory." And many composers followed, implement that theory and advancing it, and musicians followed and beautiful music.

Now the inventor of the piano did not create all the beautiful music, and his instrument could be used to make harsh meaningless noise as well. The inventor just created the instrument upon which others developed theory and advanced the art of the music over time indefinite.

Another analogy was attributed to Newton as I heard it, that saying there is no god is like saying you get Webster's dictionary from an explosition in the printing shop. Or the arrangement of letters of the alphabet in this post are, as I understand it, an example of "specified complexity," not likely to happen by random chance.

I'm no scientist, but I personally do not consider that to be pseudo-science. It is observable, testable, and falsifiable. I think some scientists agree.

It is anti-evolution becasue it wants to insert the supernatural into a natural process. For example a lot of progress has been made in explaining the evolution of the bacterial flagellum but Behe et al continue to insist it must have a supernatural designer.

I'll quote DI's own statement from their Web site again:
"... intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural..." - DI website

To be fair, I am aware that belief in God is what the proponents believe personally. They believe in an intelligent creator and so do I, personally. But that is not what they are advocating be taught in the schools--because they know they can't. Nevertheless, I still want to make it clear that I do not support ID being taught in school science--because, as said, it is not science.

Perhaps you could sum up your personal position on evolution in a few words, it might help me understand your point. I am still puzzled about what you are saying.

My view of evolution or your view of evolution is immaterial to my points about what "intelligent design" is or is not. My point is simply that "intelligent design" is not Young-Earth anti-evolution creationism. And while that term is employed by religious apologists, it is not in of itself religion, and in particular it is not by definition YECism. I have no problem with observed evolution, and I believe a Creator is responsible.

I think we've more than covered it. Again, I apologize for getting it off track from your intended discussion. I would have been fine with it continuing in another thread.
Thanks though for a good discussion. I'm going to let you have the last word. :-)

~Binadub

195

Theistic Evolution

by cofty in

thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

binadub

Bohm: I tend to agree with Demski's theory of "Specified Complexity." I believed that before I heard of his theory.

Cofty:

For starters, I copied both your long posts to me an pasted them in a word processor and interjected a response to all your points. There were a lot of 'red herrings' and opinions addressed, and the result was too long to post here in a thread, so I'm just going to cut to the chase (and it's still pretty long).
The thing that kept appearing was that you were presenting red-herring arguments to defend evolution or to define ID as a religion.

Regardless of who advances Intelligent Design, or what their personal motives are or were, Intelligent Design (ID) is not religion and it is not science, just like atheism is not religion and it is not science. They might be considered philosophies. And ID is not anti-evolution, so defending evolution is digressing.

Here is a partial quote from the DI's mission statements:

Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.[emphasis mine]

Now you can claim they are lying, but regardless of the personal objectives of some of its proponents, that's from the mission statement is for Discovery Institute.

You brought up the Dover trial. I have commented on that before in this thread. I said I agree with the Judge's decision. Quote the Honorable John E. Jones:

Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . . .

I said it previously and I'll say it again: I agree with the judge's decision. ID is not science.

But while we're on it, the opponents like yourself keep referring to this case as if it was some big national or international victory that set a spectacular precedent. It was just a local lawsuit in a Pennsylvania school district that got rather sensational coverage among skeptics. Nevertheless, try not to forget again that I said I agree with the decision.

What I will concede is that, as theists, ID proponents are trying to gain equal ground with the atheist-implied undercurrent in evolution study in the schools. That underlying premise is covertly appreciated by atheist proponents because it helps validate their own bias, and that is where I tend to agree with you that there is a legitimate question in reference to so-called "theistic evolution."

Bottom line:
The issue is not about evolution versus religion, it's about atheism versus deism. In my opinion, deism is not religion.

Numberous notable scientists and philosophers have been deists (Einstein, Flew, . . .). And while you have noted that scientists like Francis Collins who are Christian subscribe so-called "theist evolution," you do not note the fact that Collins is a self-described former atheist who claims that science helped convince him there is a god. Same is true of Einstein and Anthony Flew (who was convinced by the kind of dna evidence presented by Stephen Meyer, which you say was "not impressive).

You ask what I say Intelligent Design has contributed to science.
Comment: Red herring.
Answer: Nothing--it isn't science.

What ID scientists may have contributed to science as individuals depends on where they work and what field of science they work in (iinvariably with others who have different religious perspectives). For all I know some ID scientists may have also made contributions in the fields of medicine, nuclear energy, and so forth.

Fwiw, most of my adult career has been working for scientists and engineers in the fields of nuclear energy (one listed in Who's Who (a Mormon elder) and high-tech). They came from all various religious, skeptic, agnostic and atheist perspectives. But they would still play Bridge together riding on a bus through security checkpoints to the reactors and labratories in the desert.

ID is not science. ID is not religion. ID is not anti-evolution. Like atheism, ID is a philosophy about origin. Confined to scientific application, it is deism versus atheism. It should not be taught as science.

~Binadub