Spin Denyalot wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

TeamCasa wrote:


I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.



So your decision isn't influenced by the Creationist conspiracy
surrounding IDs birth?


And science was built on the foolishness of Tyco Brache who
was utterly wrong. Guilt By Association.

Hi Spin. This wasn't directed at you.

You are wrong. Brahe was a colorful element of the development of
science. He took a position that turned out to be wrong. But he took a
testable position. He also was no doubt influenced by external
religious/politial pressure (sounds familiar). Saying he was "wrong" is
to discount the extremely valuable contributions he made to the
development of astronomy. Comparing him to ID also is the very Guilt By
Association you seem to be accusing me of, and discounts the actual
validity and testability of his theory, wrong or right.

You aren't concerned with the Genie In The Bottle problem associated
with it (the "builder" is also so complex he must have also had a
"builder")?

This isn't remotely a problem for anyone who has ever done an
inductive proof or integrated over a discontinuity in math -
at least not if they sit down and thing about it for any length
of time. Baseless Argument.

Why is it baseless, just because there are discontinuities in some
equations? How does that follow? That's utter nonesense.
Discontinuities have distinct properties and causes, and induction over
them has actual results that can be compared to well-defined behaviors.
To liken the Genie in the Bottle to this is to trivialize the problems
inherent to such a proposition.

You aren't concerned that it merely shifts the complexity to
unverifiable causes when there is a plausible, testable, and evident
alternative (it seems to allow speciation to occur but attributes the
selection process among the variants to a "builder" rather than a
"natural" mechanism.)?

The current theory found in the scientific community is full of
unverifiable causes which are not testable. False Dichotomy.

Oh please, do more than assert and give me an argument. There must be
something you can give me, but really I think you are spitting a party
line. What current theory? Are we still talking about evolution, the
theory of speciation? Are you going to talk about transitional fossils
again, or do you have something beter? Be specific!

You aren't concerned that many of the "arguments" made against evolution
by ID's proponents appear to attack problems that aren't associated with
it (the "genesis" issue, origin of life vs. origin of species)?

One does not measure the merits of a system on the basis of
that systems' bad practicioners. Ad Hominem.

You don't know what an ad hominem is, either. A bad argument is a bad
argument, not an attacked personage.

Well, I think you raised that yourself... oh wait. You were reciting
an ID view... you were reciting a "bad ID practitioners" view?

ID pretends to be practical if it makes claim to merit... but ID has
nothing testable or verifiable to it that isn't a simulacrum of Evo
ending with a whispering "as though there were a builder". This is the
failure of ID: an attempt to descend into practice by what is rightly a
metaphysical discussion.

You don't grow suspicious of motive when you notice that it is in many
ways indistinguishable from evolution *except* that it requires there be
an intelligence at work controlling the machinery?

This is not inherently a problem. It may be evidence both parties
are onto something. Overstated.

There is when you presume to descend from the realm of metaphysical
discussion into science. It's a problem inherent to ID. What ID has to
offer that Evolution doesn't is the essence of ID. And that lies in
another area of discussion than science.

You aren't upset that many of the arguments attack problems with human
thought, verifiability, and logic, that are endemic to all thought (ID
included) and as such aren't relevant to science, but to broader
questions of philosophy?

You cannot seperate the practice of science from its epistemic roots.
Bad Dualism.

No, *you* can't. Because you refuse to recognize the separateness of
physik and metaphysik, of knowledge and epistemology. You wish to
confound all meaning for the purposes of your argument (well, if you had
one. You offer (spurious) strengths of one, and criticisms of t'other,
you exploit the fundamentally metaphysical questions of one against the
practical considerations of t'other, but you only claim to be reciting
the party line.)

You aren't surprised that an idea is being advanced that rightly belongs
to a metaphysical discussion, not one of practice, and therefore is
orthogonal to a critique on the validity of a theory of speciation?

Utter baloney. Do this though experiment: Say that the IDers
were able to establish just their philosophical claims. Do you
seriously believe this would have no consequence to the practice of
science and its currently-held theories? More Bad Dualism.

Only if it offers something to practice beyond awed whispers.

These are some of the problems I have with Intelligent Design. I'd be
interested in knowing how you overcome these.

Since every single one of your "problems" are artifical, overstated,
or flatly bogus, you can "overcome" them by applying some small
modicum of honesty to your internal discourse. There are problems
with ID as currently proposed, but you haven't nailed a single one
of them.

This question was directed at someone I believe can give me an honest
and heartfelt explanation of his views. Not you.

er
--
email not valid