Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science


Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2005-12-26, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Deadrat wrote:
> >> "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:1135473070.598884.57870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > > Yet you need replicable evidence from lab and/or field studies that
> >> > > > > speaks unequivocally to ID mechanism, processes or structures to even
> >> > > > > begin to talk about ID in the public schools.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I disagree. CQ is strong enough to propel it there without having
> >> > > > boatloads of repeatable lab evidence.
> >> > >
> >> > > In any non-science course yes. You have yet to present any evidence
> >> > > that a scientist would accept who is not religiously wedded to ID such
> >> > > as Behe, Wells, and other likeminded DI personnel.
> >> >
> >> > No, I don't directly compete with evo.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > Your assertion that boatloads
> >> > > > of repeated lab evidence is needed is false
> >> > >
> >> > > Not for a science course.
> >> > >
> >> > > > You have not made
> >> > > > a case that CQ is not strong enough.
> >> > >
> >> > > You clearly aren't an educator.
> >> >
> >> > If addressing common questions is an educational sin, then send me to
> >> > hell.
> >>
> >> ID is not a common question, and the answer to it isn't sufficiently
> >> interesting to waste time in a science text book.
> >
> >
> > I disagree. There were plenty of mutterings about ID-like issues in my
> > biology class. Besides, it is not up to the fed to optimize flattened
> > dead tree usage.
>
> Here's what you do then. Go to every local school board you can, and
> use your eloquence and your topmind to convince each and every one that
> they should take you seriously. Explain to them what you want to add,
> what it means, and what they should say.
>
> Of course, your utter, complete, devastating incapacity to do this in
> this forum does not bode well for your success. I also think that
> the fact that all the Dover school board who were duped by charlatans
> such as yourself were subsequently removed from their elected positions
> may serve to insulate them from your nonsense.


Whatever.

>
> >> > > > > ID has no special place
> >> > > > > in scientific discussions or investigations that requires it to be
> >> > > > > jump-started before any empirical evidence is presented to the
> >> > > > > scientific community.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Your assertions about ID are not arguments; they carry no weight.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I disagree. They carry some weight. The machine comparison
> >> > > > is not 100% weightless. Weak, yes,
> >> > >
> >> > > Again this is not evidence to scientist. Your metric is your eyeball!
> >> >
> >> > I cannot predict what any given "scientist" will say. I am not a
> >> > fricken mind reader. If you have a clear-cut written definition of
> >> > science, then we can use that.
> >>
> >> There is no "clear-cut, written definition of science" in the sense that
> >> you want.
> >
> >> Your version of ID is sufficiently outside the definitions that
> >> we do have that it has no place in text books.
> >
> > How can we know that if the definitions are fuzzy?
>
> They might be fuzzy, but they aren't meaningless.

Close to it.

>
> > I don't see it.
>
> Yes, well, let's face it, you are pretty dim.

Up yours, twit!

>
> > I see ID fitting in with lots of other "borderline" ideas such MU, SETI,
> > reverse time travel, worm-holes, etc. You have not made a good case why
> > it scores even lower than those. Your explanations seem to flunk one or
> > more of those also.
>
> Since none of those are taught in science classes either, I'm not sure
> what your point is. As you've been told. Repeatedly.

CQ CQ CQ CQ, got it? Or do you need yet more repetition before it sinks
into your thick thick skull? CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ
CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ. Is that enough yet, or are your neurons
so damaged that even repetition won't work?


> >> > > So that's good enough for a science classroom?
> >> > >
> >> > > > but NOT 100%. Thus,
> >> > > > you are exaggerating. You have not showed it 100%.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > You have to demonstrate that it is science if you want it in the
> >> > > classroom.
> >> >
> >> > Give me a clear-cut consensus definition of science.
> >>
> >> Stop being childish.
> >
> > I might be childish, but I am not wrong.
>
> You are childish. And you are wrong.
>
> And ignorant. And not very bright.

Blah blah blah.

>
> >> > My version of ID *is* testable, BTW.
> >>
> >> So you keep saying. But we never see a decent test.
> >
> > Strawman. Don't need it.
>
> Then how do we know it is testable?
>
> You say it is testable. How can you make that claim without providing
> a test?

Even if it was not science, the Separation laws do not prohibit mixing
of science and philosophy. I said this already, but your smart brain
keeps forgetting.

>
> >> > > > > Indeed almost all (of your assertions) are tedious, tendentious,
> >> > > > > diversionary, empirically vacuous, and therefore otiose.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Me good, you bad.
> >> > >
> >> > > Show me one metric for your analog evidence, show me one that it has
> >> > > reliable results, show me that it has been explored by a scientist that
> >> > > doesn't have a religious agenda.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes you are very bad at providing scientific evidence. Why?
> >> >
> >> > Not required by my argument. My argument does not depend on
> >> > ID having strong evidence. It simply does not. If that bothers you,
> >> > then take cocaine.
> >>
> >> You need something stronger than you've got, though.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> Yes, but as we've established in this thread, you aren't very bright.

No, you have proven that you are not bright because I have to keep
repeating the same arguments over and over because you fail to
anticipate them despite I mentioning them many times. Your neurons are
apparently busted because they don't "hold a charge".

>
> > The other "speculative sciences" are also weak. Why are you
> > so softy on them but a boulder-ass on ID?
> >
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > > > I
> >> > > > only have to show it not religion
> >> > >
> >> > > Silly assertion as if it reflects reality.
> >> > >
> >> > > > (and not even to the level of
> >> > > > "science",
> >> > >
> >> > > What should be discussed in a science class your weak thinking or
> >> > > scientific evidence.
> >> >
> >> > The Separation laws are not to rank scientific ideas. They are to keep
> >> > religion out.
> >>
> >> The Dover case is sufficient in the real world to keep ID, including your
> >> version, out of public schools. Even in your theoretical world, in which
> >> your ID theory stands on its own, no serious text book publisher would
> >> waste space on that theory.
> >
> > Maybe some are not "serious" (by your standards).
>
> Well, you could hope to find a textbook publisher as ignorant as you
> are, but most rely on some effort of some knowledgeable people to actually
> provide feedback and review, which doesn't bode very well for your
> designs of textbook reform.

What feedback? Your arguments are based on your personal opinions, not
on clear logic. Your logic relies on soap-opera-style interpretations
of the *motivations* behind the writing and NOT ON THE WORDS
THEMSELVES. Thus, you flip flop and flap instead of stab my argument
with clear logic.

You only have OPINION, not logic. If you had logic you would use it
instead of insults to make your point. You would repaste your great
thinking chains instead of call me "dim". But you don't have that, so
instead you call me names. You have been exposed as a fraud. Insults
are all you have left so you toss them at me like a chimp tossing
feces.

>
> >> > > > since Seperation laws don't interfere with the mixing of say
> >> > > > philosophy and science, as long as religion is not present. And, your
> >> > > > case for my version being "religion" is by nebulous association,
> >> > >
> >> > > The overwhelming major of IDers are strongly fundamentalist and
> >> > > strongly committed to religion.
> >> >
> >> > So? That's their problem.
> >>
> >> And they just poisoned your well.
> >
> > Perhaps. Humans are easily swayed by emotions and associations.
>
> Are you suggesting that Judge Jones acted emotionally in his ruling?

Probably.

>
> Perhaps you should try making that argument in court.
>
> >> > > I am well aware that there is no
> >> > > necessary logical relationship between ID and religion but there is a
> >> > > strong demonstrable sociological relationship and that is what the
> >> > > judge in Dover documented.
> >> >
> >> > Well, it is a stupid metric.
> >>
> >> Chalk up first amendment law to the list of things you don't know.
> >
> > It is the courts that interpretret "seperation of church and state".
> > There are other ways to interpret the same thing than what they have
> > done.
>
> Yes, but they generally don't count. You can claim the first amendment
> gives you the right to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, causing a
> stampede, but you'll find that your claim doesn't hold much water with
> the courts.

Crappy analogy. ID doesn't start fires, just insults.


> >> > The whole
> >> > suppoter motivation thing is illogical. An idea does not become more or
> >> > less scientific because of what supporters do.
> >>
> >> Try to pay attention. This is important. Supporter motivation has
> >> nothing to do with the law. It's legislator motivation. One of the
> >> rules for disallowing religious laws (or policies) is purpose. A law
> >> may not have a religious purpose.
> >
> > Sounds like motivation to me. Ideas don't sing and dance and don't wear
> > bluejeans. ID as printed on paper has no brain and no conscience.
>
> The courts have ruled otherwise, because in fact, it was transparent
> that ID served no secular purpose, and that it's principle purpose
> was to advance certain religious ideas.

Ideas don't think. You idiots are anthropomorphising words like kids
drawing elephants with smiles.

> Oh, and the ID supporters
> managed to lie (and in the process, very likely commit perjury) when
> they tried to convince the court otherwise.

So? My version of ID is not a lie.

>
> >> That's the reason you don't see crucifixes in courtrooms. Putting
> >> up a crucifix has a religious purpose, namely the sanctifying of
> >> an area. The Supreme Court realized that people with misguided
> >> religiosity would pass laws that were religious in nature but would
> >> deny that fact. Just look at ID: "Nope, no sir, no religion there."
> >> So the Court said that plaintiffs could use *as evidence* for the
> >> purpose of the law, the purpose that the law makers had when they
> >> passed the laws. Who better to ask about the purpose of the law
> >> than the people passing it? And what speaks louder than post hoc
> >> rationalizations than the actions and expressions of people as they
> >> passed the law?
> >
> > Yeah, they were biased by religious motivations. No news there.
> >
> >>
> >> Tell me what's unclear to you about this.
> >
> > It is basing the decision on what people think, not on the words in the
> > textbook. Maybe that is what the courts do out of habit, but I still
> > think that is the wrong approach.
>
> Perhaps "thinking" is something you should try to do better.

Perhaps articulating your logic instead of insulting others is
something you should try.

> >> > > > not
> >> > > > content.)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > My logic is strong; my case is strong. The problem is YOU.
> >> > >
> >> > > More assertions without evidence. Forget all research procedures
> >> > > Top?minds logic makes science real!
> >> >
> >> > You have not made any solid arguments of why my version of ID cannot be
> >> > mentioned in a science book. It does not mention religion and I propose
> >> > it give the downsides of ID. Any interferences in such by the fed
> >> > courts is micromanaging where they don't belong.
> >>
> >> Your version of ID is really not very different from Behe's, and the reason
> >> that Behe's can't be mentioned is well stated in Judge Jones' decision. Why
> >> don't you read it and then tell us what bothers you?
> >
> > 1. I propose criticising ID for being hard to test.
>
> Since you haven't told us what ID actually predicts (and, in fact, better
> liars than you like Behe and Dembski haven't either) it's impossible to
> test. I could try to get my idea that we are all brains in vats taught
> in science, but seeing as it isn't actually testable either, perhaps we
> shouldn't waste time in science class considering it.

By the same reasoning, SETI is not science. But you won't commit. You
won't seperate the two with logic, yet classify them differently. You
are apparently not smart enough to do that.

>
> > 2. My approach is based on CQ, not on alleged weaknesses of evo.
>
> You don't have "an approach", you have an excuse. You think that since
> a child might ask "What is ID?" that gives you some freedom to present
> it as a scientific idea.

Well it is not religion. You have not showed it religion by any
objective metric.

> But the problem is, YOU DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER
> TO THE QUESTION THE STUDENT ASKED. You can tell him nothing about
> ID, just as you can't answer simple, direct, and reasonable questions
> presented here. You haven't got the slimmest clue about what ID might
> offer in the way of an explanation. Since you don't actually have
> an answer to the child's question, claiming some kind of right based
> upon ID being a common question is nonsense.

The above is false. I defined it already. You just forgot because your
brain does not work right.

>
> > 3. I propose DNA pattern analysis as a potential test. Thus, it is
> > testable. (Maybe not a great test, but that is not what is needed to
> > qualify under CQ.)
>
> Brannigan: "Yes, comets. The icebergs of the sky. By jackknifing
> from one to the next at breakneck speed, we might just get some
> kinda gravity boost. Or something."
>
> Kif: *sigh*
>
> You haven't proposed a test at all. What patterns might be indicative
> of design? SETI researchers have told you what patterns they think
> might be indicative of intelligent origin, why can't you?

MIGHT? I gave a list of MIGHTs. "Mights" are easy. Or did you forget
that also?

>
> I'll tell you why not, because you haven't got a freakin' clue what you
> mean.

No, its you that is broken. SETI is kicking you in the head and you
cannot take it.

>
> Mark

-T-

.

Loading