Re: OK, I just posted on Dembski's site!

On Feb 3, 10:14 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Frank J wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:28 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Frank J wrote:
On Feb 2, 9:24 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Frank J wrote:
On Feb 1, 6:31 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Frank J wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
VBM wrote:
Well, I may have pushed a bit too far in my latest post, but since I
am deemed "kosher" (for now), they are not holding my posts for
moderation.  You can see check the thread if you like, but here is my
latest post, which may get me the boot.  In a more recent thread, they
reiterated some internal rule that you are not allowed to ask a
particularly annoying question: "who created the designer".  But I
could not help but bring it up a bit.  I have never said I was an ID
proponent, but they may be assuming I am, which is fine with me.  Here
is my post, in case it gets pulled:
"But does that not get us back to the "question which must not be
asked", whether the entire concept of ID, which must be taken to its
logical extreme to be tested for validity, ultimately requires
something supernatural to create the intelligence?  If you say what we
have could not be the result of purely natural (or unintelligent)
forces, then you are positing something *if you go back far enough*,
that IS supernatural.
Listen, I know that there are many political reasons for not wanting
to tie ID to a particular theistic belief, but at some point, doesn't
this type of argument smack of intellectual dishonesty? Let's face it,
all of us are theists. Almost every proponent of ID is a theist.  If
there were compelling non-theistic arguments for ID, we would see a
significant number of non-theistic scientists saying "yeah, that's
right!".  But we don't.
I just don't think this strategy of attempting to secularize the ID
movement is really fooling anyone, and so it just makes ID look
dishonest."
I think that some of the IDers have presented alternatives that don't
require any supernatural entity -- not that any of them believe in those
alternatives, but they are logically possible:
1. It's material intelligences all the way down, and the universe (or
multiverse, or whatever) is eternal and has always had intelligences in it.
2. While natural origin of life isn't possible under conditions found on
earth, it is possible under some other conditions found in some other
place we don't know about, perhaps with some other basis than carbon.
I would say "not that any of them *necessarily* believe in those
alternatives." Since they repeat so many falsehoods, exhibit so many
inconsistencies, and are of the philosophy that one needs to tell the
"masses" fairy tales (or set them up to infer fairy tales in the case
of ID) one can't tell what they believe. My personal suspicion is that
they are privately theistic evolutionists.
I would go so far as to say that none of them believes in anything other
than that the God of Moses and Abraham is the unknown designer, and is a
supernatural entitie outside the universe. Now within this, some of them
are theistic evolutionists, e.g. Behe, and others are YECs, e.g. Nelson,
and everything in between.
If Behe really thought that he caught God in his "mousetrap" instead
of, perhaps, some non-almighty delegate, then he admitted under oath -
and more importantly in belief that God was listening - that God could
be dead.
He said it, but he doesn't believe it. He stated it as a logical
possibility that he couldn't rule out scientifically. But you know what
he thinks
I really don't, beyond my usual suspitions. And I agree that to IDers
*that* God did it is far more important than *when and how". If not
for themselves, for the "masses" they need to "save."
But I'm less sure of what Behe personally thinks about God (or that
hapless designer he claims to have caught) than I am of my speculation
that God is not happy with Behe.
I really don't understand your uncertainty here. Behe is a conservative
Catholic. As such, his religious beliefs are public. Check out a
catechism. That's his designer. He makes a pretense of separating what
he knows scientifically (a designer of some unknown sort existed at some
time) from what he knows otherwise (Pater et Filius et Spiritus
Sanctus). Thus he always says, at least for general audiences, that he
can't prove the identity of the designer. But he knows who it is.
I'm fairly sure that Behe personally believes that the Judeo-Christian
God is the *ultimate* designer. Heck, even his arch-rival Kenneth
Miller believes that. What I'm referring to is the designer that he
claims to have caught red-handed. The remaining possibilities include:
1. It is indeed God, in which case Behe outsmarted Him.
Why would you say that? Presumably God would want us to know that he was
the designer. What sort of theology requires him to be undiscoverable in
nature?

I know of none that *requires* it, but Christians who understand the
"god of the gaps" concept are not very keen on finding their God in
ever shrinking gaps.

Behe is far shrewder than classic creationists (presumably because he
was burnt on his early attempt with "where are the transitionals"). So
he cherry picks "gaps" that are unlikely to be filled any time soon.
Not to the molecular level he demands, at least.

2. It is a hapless delegate that God entrusted to make his/her/its own
decision, even if they are contrary to God's own will (like He
supposedly does with us).
I'm sure Behe accepts this (publically, anyway) as something that can't
be ruled out by current science. But it's not what he thinks, and it's
not even his working hypothesis, to the extent that he has one.

Are you positive that that's not what he thinks, or is it just an
impression?

3. Behe knows that the claim that he caught *any* designer is
nonsense.
What would give you that impression?

I can't rule it out. Especially with someone as addicted to spin as
Behe.

What might give 3 some weight are the DI's sound bites like "design
doesn't require a designer."
I don't think that means what you think it does. My impression is that
they're merely saying we don't have to know who the designer is in order
to infer that one exists. They apparently go farther, to say that we
can't learn anything about the designer from nature, and that the
question is scientifically uninteresting. But their dishonesty would
seem to lie elsewhere than you think. All their dishonesty flows from
their refusal to admit that ID is a political and religious movement,
not a scientific one. And it's probable that they are lying to
themselves long before they lie to you.

I'm not sure about "probable" but it's certainly possible, Behe could
be a closet flat-eather for all we know.

You are entirely too suspicious.

Never said I wasn't. If you think I'm hard on Behe, you can only
imagine what I think of those clowns running for President.


Behe is a conservative Catholic. If he
didn't believe in a currently existing God, his biography would make no
sense. And why not accept his agreement, freely offered, with the great
bulk of scientific knowledge?

I have little doubt that Behe personally believes in God, the same way
that Kenneth Miller does. My suspicion - with the same old caveat that
I can't offer any evidence of anyone else's private thoughts - is that
he made those concessions (old earth and common descent, if that's
what you mean) early in the ID movement, naively thinking that the
rank-and-file evolution doubters would not object much. They were
ready to accept an old earth before Morris made YEC sound scientific,
so why not "biological continiuty"? As a fellow chemist I can
identify; if evolution (RM + NS) is not responsible for the origin of
my lineage, why would I be any more offended if it originated (by
intervention) in an ancestral cell, a warm pond or a pile of dust?

Of course most nonscientists don't think like that. If Behe didn't
appreciate that in 1996, he did soon after. This too is just my
speculation, but since those words are on record, he is hesitant to
retract them. Though he did backpedal a little with is 2005 statement
about those who reject CD but are more familiar with the relevant
science.

All that said, I could be even more cynical than I am. I think - with
the same old caveat - that he honestly believes he is "saving the
masses." But another possibility is that he doesn't care about the
"masses" at all and just gets his kicks selling pseudoscientific snake
oil. And before I get the usual next question, he could be a masochist
who enjoys getting beat up.


.

Loading