CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

Unsurprising creationist gibberish

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#161  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 20, 2014 5:03 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Behe's examples of the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting cascade have not been dedunked. Put it this way, if you had made some claim and somebody produced several documents and said that by these documents your claim is debunked. Would you just accept their evidence or would you ask them to be more specific as to how exactly the contents of these documents debunked your claim? The presentation of these documents in court was just a party trick.


Of course it's been debunked, CharlieM. One Black Swan debunks it more than adequately for anyone who employs logic as their means to rationality.

Your contention now implies that Behe had evidence rather than biased speculation, or you're engaging in the age-old Creationist methodology of shifting the burden of evidence. If Behe wants his claims to be taken seriously, then he needs to be forwarding evidence for them rather than assertions. It's that 'science' thing again, Charlie. Sorry that it just won't conform to your demands for your side's claims to be given special unearned status. I think we can all see how much it pains you, but you have to bear in mind that on exactly the same grounds as we'd accept Behe's claims, so we'd need to accept Astrology's.


CharlieM wrote:You do not understand the claims of ID. ID looks for evidence of design, it makes no claims about the designer. How many times does this need to be repeated before it sinks in? Being an advocate of intelligent design does not require a person to be a creationist.


We all understand the claims of ID very well, CharlieM - your single contention notwithstanding. You might seek to slip into the shadowy spaces where you don't really have to support anything, but any time you raise your head over the parapets and attempt to stake a claim, there's an argument already besieging you.

Calculate the specified information, CharlieM. If you can't do it, admit that it's because it begs the question. It starts from the position that information is already specified and then uses its own claim as evidence.

ID doesn't make any claims about the Designer, CharlieM - but we all know that the majority of ID proponents are Protestant Christians who do have a very Specified Designer in mind. Stop trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Another abstract we could so easily deal with is by stopping talking about other people's claims about the purported designer and start hearing yours. You are the one here acting as the proponent, after all. So many thousands of words on the topic, yet you've forwarded nothing of substance. I contend there's a reason for that - because the substance would immediately be recognisable as Christian. :cheers:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#162  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 20, 2014 5:13 pm

Shrunk wrote:
If the Ku Klux Klan claimed not to be a racist organization, would that mean they weren't one?


Or if one member could be shown to not be racist, then it would be unfair to consider the organization as a whole racist.

That's really all Charlie's saying, but amazingly along the way, the origin of this diversion has been forgotten! Who woulda thunk it?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#163  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 20, 2014 5:21 pm

CharlieM wrote:
"Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions:

Intelligent causes exist.
These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity)."


Problems right off the bat.

Intelligent causes exist, we know full well of them having been their cause. Conflating that position with a divine entity is deceptive.

If the causes can be empirically detected then where is the evidence? Why isn't there a field positively exploding as it breaches a new paradigm of discovery? The answer is because it provides no explanatory or predictive power whatsoever.

Finally, specified complexity has already been shown to be an exercise in question-begging. It's not a difficult test to employ were their credible means of computing it. We could take an object of known intelligent design and one known not to be of intelligent design, and use the metric to check its predictive ability. This hasn't been done and can't be done because there is no metric other than question-begging.

What's even more amusing is its inability to sort out its own theology. If the universe is wholly designed by the *cough cough definitely not Yahweh" Intelligent Designer, then the metric would be entirely useless - it would always produce the same result - 'designed', and there'd be no way to falsify that, making it once again, antithetical to science.

But as you put quote marks around it, CharlieM, I can't help but wonder whether you feel you've evaded actually saying anything which could be shown to be wrong. You can still maintain the illusion that your position is undefeated on account of you never having staked a substantive position. The merry-go-round continues! :cheers:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#164  Postby Oldskeptic » Sep 20, 2014 5:59 pm

hackenslash wrote:
CharlieM wrote:What about Doug Axe and the team at the Biologic Institute?


Yep, them too (an arm of the Duplicity Institute, which should be telling you something). More cretinist fuckwits, without a shred of scientific integrity.

Edit: It should be noted that this organisation's inception was specified in the infamous 'Wedge' document, which should again be telling you something important.

Liars and frauds, all.


Yep, and to receive tax free status they claimed falsely to be doing research on birth defects and genetic diseases. Liars and frauds all the way down.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#165  Postby Rumraket » Sep 20, 2014 7:08 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Interestingly, in support of your contention you've erected exactly zero supporting evidence, all you've done so far is to try and explain that Dembski is merely honest about his faith.

You are ignoring the evidence contained in Dawkins' very own words which I have provided as a example of his dogmatic bigotry.

What dogmatic bigotry are you talking about? Even if Dawkins is a bigot, what the hell does this have to do with how receptive he is to evidence for or against evolution or Design? You really are flailing around a lot.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#166  Postby Rumraket » Sep 20, 2014 7:13 pm

CharlieM wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:

As opposed to the evidence available in quantity that ID was spawned by creationists as a means of trying to sneak mythology into science classes under the constitutional radar. The Wedge Strategy document being an embarrassing piece of evidence IDists try to pretend never came into being. That's before we examine the "cdesign prooponentsists" transitional fossil they left, as evidence of the evolutionary processes at work within creationism. Evidence that was so stark, that even a right-wing Republican Christian judge couldn't ignore it.

It's one of the supreme ironies, that in its attempts to circumvent the Establishment Clause, creationism has evolved, and thus provided us with an example of the very process it denies exists. :mrgreen:


Well you could argue about creationism denying evolution but the ID movement does not deny evolution.

If the books, The Mystery of Life's Origin and Of Pandas and People were written by creationists and it was the aim of those creationists to produce scientific books then surely your best argument against them would be to deal with their contents. Here are the comments from a couple of people after reading The Mystery of Life's Origin:

Antony Flew:
Specifically, it was entirely right and proper that Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen were able to publish their book The Mystery of Life's Origin and did publish it with normal, mainstream scientific and philosophical publisher, rather than with some specialist Biblical house. For their very strong and very effective criticism is an essential part of, and contribution to, straight science.


Harold Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics, Yale University:
The critical aspects of this book are indeed commendable...The Mystery of Life's Origin is thus an interesting start with considerable scientific thrust.

CharlieM,
You are ignoring the obvious. The current ID movement has it's roots in the Wedge document. Their argument is that certain aspects of biology are too complex to have evolved, therefore they are designed. Their specific examples like the bacterial flagellum have been debunked. In court, one of the major ID proponents, Behe claimed that blood clotting could not be explained by evolution and there was no research showing this. His lie was exposed as he sat in the witness stand. To defend the ID movement is to ignore the heinous disregard for science. Don't forget that intelligent designer equals creator, therefore they are creationists.


Behe's examples of the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting cascade have not been dedunked.

ROFL. This shit again? Seriously, aren't you being just a tad bit forgetful?

Evolutionary theory predicts the emergence of irreducibly complex structures simply through the mechanism of evolution. Irreducible complexity is thus the result of evolution, not an argument against it.

The thing about Michael Behe's IC argument is that it's tautological and irrelvant. If you remove a part required for the function of the machine, the machine won't function! Well, fuck me?

The problem is that he then tries to assert on the basis of this tautology that evolution can't have produced the structure in question. That's where Müller's insights comes in and demolishes Behe's assertions. It doesn't HAVE to function as, for example, a flagellum. You can remove parts and still get a functional structure, it's just no longer a flagellum(or whatever else "irreducibly complex" structure or behavior). So Behe's IC argument is "the tautolog from irrelevancy".
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#167  Postby Rumraket » Sep 20, 2014 7:17 pm

CharlieM wrote:"Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions:

Intelligent causes exist.
These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity)."

Excellent. How do we detect specified complexity? How can we distinguish between a complex object made by an unintelligent and an intelligent process? :whistle:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#168  Postby Rumraket » Sep 20, 2014 7:35 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Animavore wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Your point seems to be that if someone accuses Intelligent Design of being nothing more than creationism which has been renamed to hide this fact, you can refute that person's claim by providing examples where ID proponents deny that ID is creationism.

:lol:


No I'm responding to Rumraket's post linking to creationist sites. He thinks that by doing this he is somehow arguing against intelligent design. I was pointing out that the sites he linked to criticise and distance themselves from ID. Its no secret that there are creationists in the ID movement, but there are also people with world views which are opposite to creationism. The search for design is a scientific enterprise no matter what the person's motives for searching.


Who are these people honestly searching for design? Where are their research teams? What is their field?
I've not come across one person with a screed of integrity from the ID crowd. Not one person with the gumption to ask honest questions on how to look for design or what to expect in biologically designed systems. No one even considering the serious implications of actually discovering evidence for design.
All I've come across at best is a bad case of apophenia and at worst outright lies and fruadulence.


What about Doug Axe and the team at the Biologic Institute?

You mean the two people employed to be liars for doctrine, by deliberately NOT properly testing evolutionary postulates, and never actually searching for design at all? Their entire research output has been nothing but attempts to falsify "neo-Darwinism" by deliberately constructing strawmen of the process of evolution, then declaring something along the lines that evolution is not up to the job when their deceptive strawman is knocked down.

Case in point, let's take a loot at the work of Discovery institute bioengineers Douglax Axe and Ann Gauger, who in their ironic attempt to disprove evolution, end up disproving design and confirming evolution (as we shall see when we take a hard look at what they actually did, and how the research SHOULD have been done).

This is a "paper" from Doug Axe and Ann Gauger of the BioLogic-institute:
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway
Ann K. Gauger, Douglas D. Axe
Abstract

Enzymes group naturally into families according to similarity of sequence, structure, and underlying mechanism. Enzymes belonging to the same family are considered to be homologs--the products of evolutionary divergence, whereby the first family member provided a starting point for conversions to new but related functions. In fact, despite their similarities, these families can include remarkable functional diversity. Here we focus not on minor functional variations within families, but rather on innovations--transitions to genuinely new catalytic functions. Prior experimental attempts to reproduce such transitions have typically found that many mutational changes are needed to achieve even weak functional conversion, which raises the question of their evolutionary feasibility. To further investigate this, we examined the members of a large enzyme superfamily, the PLP-dependent transferases, to find a pair with distinct reaction chemistries and high structural similarity. We then set out to convert one of these enzymes, 2-amino-3-ketobutyrate CoA ligase (Kbl2), to perform the metabolic function of the other, 8-amino-7-oxononanoate synthase (BioF2). After identifying and testing 29 amino acid changes, we found three groups of active-site positions and one single position where Kbl2 side chains are incompatible with BioF2 function. Converting these side chains in Kbl2 makes the residues in the active-site cavity identical to those of BioF2, but nonetheless fails to produce detectable BioF2-like function in vivo. We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth. Considering that Kbl2 and BioF2 are judged to be close homologs by the usual similarity measures, this result and others like it challenge the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution.

The great irony here is that Axe and Gauger inadvertently test one of the popular (and very ad-hoc) design-postulates, but deliberately ignore the evolutionary postulate.

They don't do ancestral sequence reconstruction and try to infer the most probable ancestral sequence using phylogenetic maximum likelyhood trees (as evolutionary biologists would have them do). Instead, they do what many design-proponents postulate their designer did, they take one sequence (Kbl2) and try to directly convert it into another distantly related structural homologue (BioF2), mutation by mutation.

They discover that doing this BREAKS THE FUCKING ENZYME. It stops working. Seemingly affirming the many claims of the creationists and ID proponents, that mutations invariably destroy function, that there are too large distances of nonfunctionality between isolated "islands" of function in the conceptual phenotypical space of protein functions.

But this is not what evolution postulates took place, this is NOT what is done with ancestral sequence reconstruction. Here both sequences (actually more, you need 3 orthologues sequences or more to do ancestral sequence reconstruction) evolved from a different common acestor to both of them, they did not change directly one into the other. There was a long history of divergence from a common ancestor, that took a totally different evolutionary route than the direct conversion Axe and Gauger is attempting, and the result of which they deceptively use to insinuate falsifies evolution. This is DELIBERATE INCOMPETENCE, they're PAID to be liars.

I made a nice little drawing for you:
Image¨
These people simply cannot be trusted to accurately report or even test the facts of the matter. It's all part of an elaborate ruse to produce religious converts. Stop deluding yourself.

There are hundreds of excellent publications by actual competent evolutionary biologists and biochemists, utilizing ancestral sequence reconstruction to test ancient versions of extant proteins, and they all CURIOUSLY find functional intermediates, contrary to Axe and Gauger's deceptive pretensions.

A good recent paper on this that I've linked before here is this:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001446
Reconstruction of Ancestral Metabolic Enzymes Reveals Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Evolutionary Innovation through Gene Duplication
Karin Voordeckers equal contributor, Chris A. Brown equal contributor, Kevin Vanneste, Elisa van der Zande, Arnout Voet, Steven Maere mail, Kevin J. Verstrepen
Abstract

Gene duplications are believed to facilitate evolutionary innovation. However, the mechanisms shaping the fate of duplicated genes remain heavily debated because the molecular processes and evolutionary forces involved are difficult to reconstruct. Here, we study a large family of fungal glucosidase genes that underwent several duplication events. We reconstruct all key ancestral enzymes and show that the very first preduplication enzyme was primarily active on maltose-like substrates, with trace activity for isomaltose-like sugars. Structural analysis and activity measurements on resurrected and present-day enzymes suggest that both activities cannot be fully optimized in a single enzyme. However, gene duplications repeatedly spawned daughter genes in which mutations optimized either isomaltase or maltase activity. Interestingly, similar shifts in enzyme activity were reached multiple times via different evolutionary routes. Together, our results provide a detailed picture of the molecular mechanisms that drove divergence of these duplicated enzymes and show that whereas the classic models of dosage, sub-, and neofunctionalization are helpful to conceptualize the implications of gene duplication, the three mechanisms co-occur and intertwine.

This is how actually testing the true evolutionary postulate looks. You infer the most probably ancestral sequence to a set of extant homologues, and then you express and test it's functionality. You don't just convert one extant enzyme directly into another, like Axe and Gauger did.

Author Summary

Darwin's theory of evolution is one of gradual change, yet evolution sometimes takes remarkable leaps. Such evolutionary innovations are often linked to gene duplication through one of three basic scenarios: an extra copy can increase protein levels, different ancestral subfunctions can be split over the copies and evolve distinct regulation, or one of the duplicates can develop a novel function. Although there are numerous examples for all these trajectories, the underlying molecular mechanisms remain obscure, mostly because the preduplication genes and proteins no longer exist. Here, we study a family of fungal metabolic enzymes that hydrolyze disaccharides, and that all originated from the same ancestral gene through repeated duplications. By resurrecting the ancient genes and proteins using high-confidence predictions from many fungal genome sequences available, we show that the very first preduplication enzyme was promiscuous, preferring maltose-like substrates but also showing trace activity towards isomaltose-like sugars. After duplication, specific mutations near the active site of one copy optimized the minor activity at the expense of the major ancestral activity, while the other copy further specialized in maltose and lost the minor activity. Together, our results reveal how the three basic trajectories for gene duplicates cannot be separated easily, but instead intertwine into a complex evolutionary path that leads to innovation.


A great figure that shows this:
Image
Figure 2. Duplication events and changes in specificity and activity in evolution of S. cerevisiae MalS enzymes.
The hydrolytic activity of all seven present-day alleles of Mal and Ima enzymes as well as key ancestral (anc) versions of these enzymes was measured for different α-glucosides. The width of the colored bands corresponds to kcat/Km of the enzyme for a specific substrate. Specific values can be found in Table S2. Note that in the case of present-day Ima5, we were not able to obtain active purified protein. Here, the width of the colored (open) bands represents relative enzyme activity in crude extracts derived from a yeast strain overexpressing IMA5 compared to an ima5 deletion mutant. While these values are a proxy for the relative activity of Ima5 towards each substrate, they can therefore not be directly compared to the other parts of the figure. For ancMalS and ancMal-Ima, activity is shown for the variant with the highest confidence (279G for ancMalS and 279A for ancMal-Ima). Activity for all variants can be found in Table S2.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001446.g002

As you can see, the original ancestral enzyme has low substrate specificity and is functionally promiscous(it catalyzes reactions from all the different substrates(colors), but at a low reaction rate(the thickness of the bars). Subsequently it gets duplicated, and daughter enzymes acquire novel mutations that change the substrate specificity, vastly increasing the reaction-rates for a smaller subset of substrates, sometimes losing functionality entirely for specific substrates.

We have other good threads on ASR and interesting functional applications on this very forum: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/evolution/new-paper-lends-additional-support-to-a-thermophilic-luca-t39943.html?hilit=ancestral%20sequence%20reconstruction
If you bother to actually read the first paper I introduce in that thread, you will see the biologists in question go out of their way to actually test their theories, elaborating on many common pitfalls and shaky assumptions.
Last edited by Rumraket on Sep 20, 2014 7:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#169  Postby Shrunk » Sep 20, 2014 7:36 pm

Rumraket wrote:
CharlieM wrote:"Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions:

Intelligent causes exist.
These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity)."

Excellent. How do we detect specified complexity? How can we distinguish between a complex object made by an unintelligent and an intelligent process? :whistle:


Duh! By calculating the CSI using the mathematical tools developed by the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, Dr. William Dembski (now on faculty at that renowned institution of mathematical and scientific research, the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.)

And, by a stroke of good fortune, we have CharlieM here who is well-versed in the theory and practice behind CSI, so he can show us how it can be calculated to disinguish between the products of intelligence and of natural processes.

Right, Charlie?

:coffee:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#170  Postby Shrunk » Sep 20, 2014 7:49 pm

Rumraket wrote:The great irony here is that Axe and Gauger directly test the design-postulate and ignore the evolutionary postulate.

They don't do ancestral sequence reconstruction and try to infer the most probable ancestral sequence using phylogenetic maximum likelyhood trees (as evolutionary biologists would have them do). Instead, they do what many design-proponents postulate their designer did, they take one sequence (Kbl2) and try to directly convert it into another distantly related structural homologue (BioF2), mutation by mutation.

They discover that doing this BREAKS THE FUCKING ENZYME. It stops working. Seemingly affirming the many claims of the creationists and ID proponents, that mutations invariably destroy function, that there are too large distances of nonfunctionality between isolated "islands" of function in the conceptual phenotypical space of protein functions.


IOW, what they do is the equivalent of this: If they wanted to test whether someone was your distant cousin, they would wait and see if that person had a child, or grandchild, or another descendent several generations later on who was an exact genetic clone of yourself. If that didn't happen, they would then conclude that the two of you are not related.

That's why we laugh at the very mention of the "Biologic Institute".

Oh, and because of this as well:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... c-institu/
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#171  Postby Oldskeptic » Sep 20, 2014 10:49 pm

"The conceptual soundings of the [intelligent design] theory can in the end only be located in Christ." - William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#172  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 21, 2014 12:51 am

So CharlieM is still trying to deny, that the whole ID business is about trying to conjure up a mythological magic man with apologetic spells, despite having been shown relevant parts of the Wedge Strategy document that tell us this?

This is hilarious.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#173  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 21, 2014 12:52 am

Shrunk wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
CharlieM wrote:"Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions:

Intelligent causes exist.
These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity)."

Excellent. How do we detect specified complexity? How can we distinguish between a complex object made by an unintelligent and an intelligent process? :whistle:


Duh! By calculating the CSI using the mathematical tools developed by the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, Dr. William Dembski (now on faculty at that renowned institution of mathematical and scientific research, the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.)

And, by a stroke of good fortune, we have CharlieM here who is well-versed in the theory and practice behind CSI, so he can show us how it can be calculated to disinguish between the products of intelligence and of natural processes.

Right, Charlie?

:coffee:


How long have you been asking him to come up with actual calculations in this thread? :mrgreen:
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#174  Postby Oldskeptic » Sep 21, 2014 1:02 am

Calilasseia wrote:So CharlieM is still trying to deny, that the whole ID business is about trying to conjure up a mythological magic man with apologetic spells, despite having been shown relevant parts of the Wedge Strategy document that tell us this?

This is hilarious.


It's like Dembski and his fellow travelers think that their religious comments will never meet their comments made to distance them from creationism and defend ID.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#175  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 21, 2014 1:29 am

Oldskeptic wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:So CharlieM is still trying to deny, that the whole ID business is about trying to conjure up a mythological magic man with apologetic spells, despite having been shown relevant parts of the Wedge Strategy document that tell us this?

This is hilarious.


It's like Dembski and his fellow travelers think that their religious comments will never meet their comments made to distance them from creationism and defend ID.


Indeed, it's as if they think no one will perform elementary fact checking, with respect to their manifestly religious apologetic output. The Wedge Strategy document being a particularly embarrassing example.

At bottom, these people aren't interested in science at all, Their interest lies in keeping Christofascist ideology alive, partly because it provides them with easy, lucrative careers, within which they're paid large sums of money for making shit up instead of doing real work, and partly because they share the bigotries of the fundies they're pandering to. The real motivation for much of their activities, is hate, plain and simple - hate of the same brand we see arising in fundie propaganda on a regular basis. Their primary interest lies in trying to make the nightmare of a Dominionist theocracy a reality, so that they can then subject all of their hate totems to a homicidal inquisition. They admitted as much in the Wedge Strategy document, in which they openly declared their intent to destroy anything not conforming to doctrine.

Quite simply, what motivates these people, and their fundie audience, is a sick fantasy vision of the future, in which all those people who don't conform to their nasty little doctrine will be dealt with. People such as women who decide that they want more out of life than being told to shut up and stay in the kitchen, women who want careers and choice over their reproductive destinies. People such as the members of the LGBT community, who want their relationships to be recognised as being just as valid as heterosexual relationships, and want to be free from abuse, violence and discrimination. People such as those scientists whose work roundly flushes sad mythological assertions down the toilet, and demonstrates that the mythology in question is a farcical intellectual eunuch. People such as those who, even without the backing of scientific evidence, treat mythological assertions with entirely proper deep suspicion. People such as those who question the validity of an economic system that heaps vast largesse upon a privileged few, whilst impoverishing the rest of the population.

Basically, the noxious, venomous and warped brand of Christofascism these people subscribe to, is little more than a wish list of hate - it's all about stamping on the SlutsTM, QueersTM, Pointy HeadsTM, CommiesTM and atheists. It offers nothing constructive, only the prospect of every treasured development of the Enlightenment being torched, and replaced by a gigantic theocratic concentration camp. That's what these people are really after, and the reason they're going after science in the manner they are, is because they're simply recognising, in classic Machiavellian fashion, the most dangerous opposition to their duplicitous scheming.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#176  Postby pelfdaddy » Sep 21, 2014 2:26 am

I hope they never stamp out sluts.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 1022
Age: 54
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#177  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Sep 21, 2014 2:52 am

I just think Rumraket is one fucking steely-eyed missile-person! That is all. :thumbup: :bowdown:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#178  Postby Shrunk » Sep 21, 2014 11:59 am

Calilasseia wrote:How long have you been asking him to come up with actual calculations in this thread? :mrgreen:


Not nearly as long as the entire world has been waiting for even one single member of the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement to answer. And still we wait....
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#179  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 21, 2014 12:13 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:How long have you been asking him to come up with actual calculations in this thread? :mrgreen:


Not nearly as long as the entire world has been waiting for even one single member of the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement to answer. And still we wait....


Sssshhh!!

They were calculating! Now you've disturbed them and they have to start again from scratch!!

:naughty:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: CharlieM and his defense of Dembski

#180  Postby CharlieM » Sep 21, 2014 12:58 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:I suppose that ridiculing creationists saves you from having to argue against ID:)

It seems to be favourite passtime here. If ID is equated with creationism then by arguing against creationism ID can be discredited without having to deal with any of their relevant arguments.

There is no counterargument against something that isn't an argument but rather a blind assertion.


True enough. To assert that ID equates with creationism is a blind assertion.


Intelligent Design is simply a tactic being used by some in the, mostly American, Christian Creationist movement. People and organizations within the movement may disagree on some fundamentals, even fight over them, but they are all part of the same hope and plan.


ID is simply the inference of design. Many people including Christians of different denominations, Jews, atheists and agnostics, are sympathetic to ID. Some creationists may use it as a tactic and some creationists are opposed to it. The situation is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Oldskeptic wrote:There is no way to separate Intelligent Design from Creationism, and it doesn't matter how circumspect or scientific any of them want to appear. It all comes down to God did it.That is the conclusion that they start out with not one they arrive at.


You are confusing the world view of some ID advocates with the process of searching out and studying ID in the empirical world. We do not disregard Newton's science nor Kepler's science just because they believed that God had a hand in it. We take their findings on their own merit regardless of the religious attitude of these men.
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest