Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski

On Mar 25, 3:05 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Mar 25, 1:58 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

SNIP....

I have flipped-flopped on the EF myself. Presently, I am undecided.
In my view the explanatory filter of Dembski is the way pseudoscience
is done, not the way that real science works.  
Comment defines pseudoscience as that which rejects Naturalism-
Materialism. Conversely, we define pseudoscience the exact same way:
that which rejects Theism-Supernaturalism.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to? Nobody defines pseudoscience in
either of these ways.

Howard Hershey defined pseudoscience to be what Dembski is doing.

No he didn't. He diagnosed what Dembski is doing to be pseudoscience,

Quibbling.

based on a prior definition (which he didn't state explicitly).

Dembski is a Theist who argues in favor of supernatural agents. That
was the context (review the replies). Are you saying that you disagree
with Howard?

No. I'm saying you misunderstand Howard.


You are quibbling over nothing.

And "we" (= Theists-supernaturalists).

Better if you speak for yourself, because I don't think mo[s]t theists
would agree with you.


Any Theist who doesn't is not a Theist since the concept of "Theism"
means the involvement of Theos in reality.

And we define pseudoscience to be Darwinism-Evolution-Materialism-
Naturalism. I go even further. I define the aforementioned to be "anti-
science."

That's a very silly definition. For example, it doesn't fit astrology,
homeopathy, n-rays, or koreshianity. I'm not sure you know what a
definition is. You aren't defining here. You're (like Howard)
categorizing. Unlike Howard, you don't seem to have even an implicit
definition other than "I say it's spinach and to hell with it."





In real science, one
does not distinguish between all testable causal explanations, pure
random explanations, and supernatural fantasy explanations, which is
what Dembski does.
The only division that *real* science makes is between *testable* and
*nontestable* explanations.  
False.
In real science there is no such thing as "non-testable" ideas or
explanations. A hallmark of pseudoscience is limitations.
Actually, a hallmark of pseudoscience is *absence* of limitations.

We disagree.

Pseudoscience is acceptance of limitations, exclusionary. The word
"science" is general and all-purpose. Darwinists view the word as
sacred.

You aren't being coherent here.


In addition: limitations or exclusion is a characteristic of religion.
What is obvious is that you haven't the slightest clue as to what
science is or means.

Evolution is a Religion also known as scientism. It worships ideas
that seek to displace and replace God from reality----that's why the
concept of evolution is postulated----it eliminates the need for
interventionism (= Theism). In order to conceal the objective pro-
Atheism claims of evolution, Darwinists intentionally misrepresent
evolution. When the misrepresentation is successful and Christians
accept evolution the objective atheistic claims and facts of evolution
remain. Darwinists really believe that they are justified in
misrepresenting the atheistic agenda of evolution in order to free
society from the Bible. Christians who accept evolution are straight
out evil since the Atheism agenda of evolution is foundational and
plain to see. Apes becoming men means God does not exist. They are
traitors. The Bible explains these traitors in a very satisfying way.

Anything is possible, and the pseudo-theory explains everything that
happens as well as everything that might have happened. Which means it's
unfalsifiable.

John: evolutionary theory *claims* to explain everything.

No it doesn't. Wherever did you get that idea?


Evolution produced the brain which in turn imagined the idea of
"God" (Darwin 1871). This is why Wallace split from Darwin (years
earlier) "murdering their child" (= natural selection). Wallace
concluded that a spirit world does indeed exist; that this domain of
higher intelligence was somehow responsible for intruding into nature
and causing mankind to exist. Darwin thought Wallace was more or less
crazy.

The point is: if evolution is true, both Deism and Theism are false.
This is WHY Darwinian "scientists" are still attempting to discover
biological First Cause. The concept of "deity" is rejected. But
remember, evolution is not atheistic! (LOL!).

Real science is falsifiable, which means that some things
that could have happened might have shown the theory to be wrong.
Limitations are essential if you are to learn anything.

No one is denying falsifiability.

?

And many things are untestable. String theory is currently untestable,
and may always be so. The multiverse theory, likewise. And of course God
may or may not be untestable depending on whether you are willing to
supply him with limitations.
Are you saying that String theory is not science?

There are many who think so. I would say that it's a set of highly
detailed speculations that might some day give rise to science.
Something like what some IDers think ID might be, if only it were that
detailed. The thing about string theory is that it's untestable because
of physical limitations in our equipment; with better equipment, we
might be able to do the tests that are implied by the theory. Probably
not so with ID, since it's actually designed to be untestable.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski
    ... pseudoscience is done, not the way that real science works. ... pure random explanations, and supernatural fantasy explanations, ... Evolution is a Religion also known as scientism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski
    ... In my view the explanatory filter of Dembski is the way pseudoscience ... Science does not *reject* theism. ... Howard Hershey defined pseudoscience to be what Dembski is doing. ... random explanations, and supernatural fantasy explanations, which is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Canadian scientists want out of Darwins rut
    ... Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have ... added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the ... theory of evolution. ... evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski
    ... In my view the explanatory filter of Dembski is the way pseudoscience ... not the way that real science works. ... Howard Hershey defined pseudoscience to be what Dembski is doing. ... random explanations, and supernatural fantasy explanations, which is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Human evolutionary origins for Zorg
    ... but evolution does rely on the billions ... of science seems to have a hard time even addressing. ... CHANGED the nature of science. ... If the assumption of "only naturalistic explanations" is wrong, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading