Tim Daneluk

[Joe Barta]

Maybe I missed them, but could you briefly explain these problems?

Joe Barta

[TeamCasa]

Nobody is perfect~! Dave

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services

---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **

----------------------------------------------------------

[Enoch Root]

On the contrary, Philosophy is perfectly happy and interested in pursuing the question of god, and acknowledges the limitations of knowledge: they are its bread. Philosophy acknowledges its limitations, and even spends a great deal of ink studying them.

Science doesn't do anything other than provide a framework of inquiry. Philosophy informs that, and describes its limits.

blah. The fact is, ID proposes a "theory" that rightly is a metaphysical question, not a testable theory of science.

er

[Enoch Root]

My use of language is perfectly standard. Yours only comes evident in your denials.

[left a snip here unindicated, didn't you buttercup]

You have the order wrong... I didn't start the ad hominems. You did.

And if the proofs of theorems against axioms are against axioms whose proofs are impossible, can one not deduce that all proofs are on shaky ground? That is the state of the art, Buttercup. Nothing idiotic about it.

So you were just reciting? No goals in doing so? Not answering questions or defending an argument--just noise?

You don't seem to have anything to penetrate with, Buttercup.

That's become very clear to me in your denials and your strange and unconventional use of "refute", among other oddities.

No? You don't need to step outside of my sentence, just keep your disciplines in order.

That's a ragged argument, if that's what you're calling it, and misses much of the detail. A question does impose some restrictions on the answer, ya know.

I wasn't trivializing anything. There's nothing to trivialize, Buttercup. You're just reciting but not making any claims based on your recitation.

No I'm just looking for an argument that you don't have.

Or one relevant to the original question.

So you aren't concerned at all with fredfighter's query. Or my criticisms of ID as theory. Ok. Your just making noise.

Since you only deny any attempt to circumscribe an argument, I can only surmise your "utilitarian" description of Evolution or Science doesn't extend to ID. But you're just making noise.

That's an absurd limitation on "predictive". It's also not true: you forget animal husbandry (i.e., "unnatural" selection.) Demonstrable Macroevolutin' is a canard. A phantom invented by... Behe? Can you describe it?

Actually, they were borrowed from them. Crossover among disciplines is slow and fraught with academic/industrial politics, discrimination. But the incentive is there...

Hey, I'm at least making an argument, Buttercup.

Above as in the field of philosophical and metaphysical endeavors, Buttercup, where things have a different way of unfolding.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear, but you want to give a metaphysical exploration the wrappings of Science. But with the strictures of Metaphysics. All muddled up.

My hubris is a mote in your own chaotic mind, Buttercup. You seem to be making my point: Science and Philosophy are different endeavors.

Gaping roar (and snips), that's all?

more snips, buttercup? What you did seems to be the big mystery because it has already been reduced by you to nothing.

Well it probably doesn't exist. Or anything resembling a treatment of the question.

No, but I would have to swallow a BIG pill were I to take it on. I can regard the religious questions with interest and zeal in the philosophical

So, just a big recitation? No point?

A question that exists only in your head.

You are confusing Science and Metaphysics again. Stop it.

I know, you never said anything beyond a recitation.

There's geological/climatic explanations for that. They're worthy of study.

How would you propose to embark on a study of ID explanations for that?

No. Sorry to disappoint you. Lots of work in evolution. Can't deny it. And don't. But it doesn't follow that "science in this area is far from established". Again, sorry to disappoint you. The work is there, but it's in the margins, and there's no real conflict between the world and the theory. Can you suggest other methods than inference into places and times that are unreachable by modern instruments, other than through the artifacts they leave behind? Can you make an argument for your "weak evidence" claim when the evidence, while inferential, is global, integrated, and all verifies the theory? Can you make a practical argument that a theory cannot be examined by experiment if the experiments test by inference the artifacts, and are constructed in such a way as to affirm or refute properties of evolution?

Here again I am trying to clarify the problem with your... recitation.

Draw a line between philosophy and science, and decide where ID lies.

Yes, but competing theories that actually had a basis in the physical world upset old theories of the earth.

Your non-defense of ID, and your non-criticism of evolution seem to be an attempt to defend ID against evolution, but as you are merely reciting but don't have an actual position I understand that you are merely making noise.

Macro-evolution. please define macro-evolution clearly and in terms a mere scientist can understand. I don't think that ooze->fish->yourobsession really cuts it.

And while we're at it Buttercup, I know it's offtopic, but how does that guy end up in EVERY one of your discussions?

If you kept ID in the realm of metaphysical discussion I'd be fine with that. But there are older and far more incisive questions that treat the question of god. ID doesn't add anything to that. ID has been from the very beginning a political game, and its proponents have tried to use it to foist a religious agenda upon scientific endeavors as they are depicted in schools.

blah blah, assertions assertions, no content. Macroevolution is a phantom, unless you can define it in a testable way. Might be a good starting point for a budding ID Scientist. Finding proof of intelligent intervention in what are isolated problematic elements of our understanding of the course of evolution are flights of fancy if there's a plausible simple explanation at hand. They are certainly not proofs that evolution cannot explain their presence. You are asking me to make a far greater leap of faith. I'm ready (I've done it!) to concede the gaps, but I'm also going to prefer a simple explanation that can be tested or that has a possibility of explication, to one of spaghetti monsterism.

Well, I did assume you responded to the question with the intent to answer it. And I did assume that your arrangement of recitations was an attempt to answer the question. That I have to wait for the denials in your responses certainly must show that. I've had some coffee this am. Your speculation of my drug use I'll take to mean that you don't really have any other intention than to make a lot of noise and be chaotic.

This isn't email, Buttercup. I've not done that, only assessed the validity of various explanations of the world *as* *theories*. I've not said *I* *believe* anything, but evolution has much more of my attention as a valid theory than... well you're just reciting and denial, and conflating Physik with Metaphysik.

If I discard a contrary position it is because there is no evidence to support it, or it's not testable as a theory. If you want to have a metaphysical discussion leave Evolution and Science vs. ID alone because that's muddying it up with practice.

No it's because you can't keep your knowledge and epistemology straight, because you aren't answering a question posed, and because you only claim to be reciting dogma when it is evident you had a ID vs. Evo agenda (based on the content of your recitation. A supposition I'm comfortable with.)

Oh maybe it was the arrangement of your recitation, or the incantation of "macroevolution".

Ah, the point at last. Thank you for being honest about *that*.

er

[Joe Barta]

In a debate, I usually know when the other guy has run out of worthy argument and it's time to move on...

Joe Barta

[Enoch Root]

Say, didn't you just the other day say that silence implies consent?

:)

er

[Joe Barta]

No, I think it was something about being silent and thought a fool ;-)

Joe Barta

[Enoch Root]

Ouch. I was thinking of Fredfigher, now I peruse google's groups.

er

[Enoch Root]

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.)

Only if it offers something to practice beyond awed whispers.

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

er

[Tim Daneliuk]

Yup. It is, however, interesting, that old "Enoch" takes such time and energy to refute someone he consideres not having a worthy position, having muddled epistemology/knowledge, and having some mystical agenda to attack his beloved evolutionary faith. If I were really that confused with so little an argument, you'd think he would just dismiss my argument and not bother engaging. Methinks he's worried (and for good reason too) ...

(I will respond to your earlier question when I have a moment...)

[Tim Daneliuk]

You have squealed on and on about what I do and don't believe in some vain attempt to discredit what you *think* I believe. So let me clear it up for you. Unlike the previous post that got your garters snapped (where I was trying to define the position of

*a third party*) here is *MY* take on things. You're free to attack it all you like and I will read it with great merriment. Squealing is always the sign that someone poked a nerve. So put your garters back in order, read this in direct simple English and try not to foam too much:

I am personally a Theist, but not necessarily an IDer - I think the jury is still out on ID, partly because the orthodox science establishment has dug in its heels so hard and refuses to hear them, and partly because the IDers have conflated philosophy and science and they are hard to understand when you do hear them.

In any case, I do not subscribe to a young earth, evolution, miro- or macro- does not threaten me, and I am willing to hear new evidence for any of this. I do have suspicions macro-evolution/speciation via natural selection is at least somewhat wrong and perhaps profoundly so as I do not see compelling evidence for it. But even if it is shown to be incontrovertibly true, this has no bearing one way or the other on my Theist beliefs.

I am trained in Computer Science at the graduate level and have a passing familiarity with complexity theory, and perhaps an advanced layman's appreciation for the physical sciences. I do not worship science as the highest form of human knowledge - it is one of many such sources of knowledge. Logic is not more valid than Faith - they address different kinds of knowledge. And, finally, I do not worship my own intellect. As a Theist, I acknowledge that my intellect - indeed everything in the Universe - is bestowed upon me by the original Author of it all - I am steward of what I have been given. I am not arrogant or presumptuous enough to believe that I am the source of my own knowledge.

You will note that *none* of this correlates to any of the attacks you've attempted to launch my way in the past several days. Despite the strong tone of my responses, I am not in the slightest bit angry or irritated with you. I mostly feel sorry for you. Your god is your own intellect and you will always find it an unsatisfying deity.

[fredfighter]

materialist/mechanical

However, as I pointed out in email and as was implied by my comments at the time, the criticisms were not directed at the Big Bang model. Rather they were directed at a straw man, a misrepresentation of the Big Bang model, essentially the 'dumbed down' version such as one might see presented on PBS.

IMHO, the weakest part of the Big Bang model is the underlying assumption that physical law was always the same as our current understanding of physical law.

As we have learned in the 20th century, physical law, as it was understood in the 19th century, was proven to be incorrect regarding conditions significantly different from everyday macroscopic phenomena. When we explored the physics of the very small, the very fast, and the very massive we found that physical law, as it was previousl understood was a 'special cases' of more general physical law. It should not surprise us if we find that

20th century physics is incorrect IRT the early universe--what we observe to be physical law in the present univers is a special case of more general physical law.

I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the scientific method. On that point I have no issue.

However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.

[Enoch Root]

I tried to get it out of you, to help you organize your thoughts... but that shall remain a Mystery when you reply with your denials, your half-cocked notions of logical fallacies, your backpedaling, and your childishly insulting postscripts to each of your replies...

Okay, Spin, I've got a bib on, I've put the coffee down, I'm sitting, and I can barely suppress a giggle of excitment and anticipation. GO!

er... aren't you jacking one of my criticisms against your uh, non-arguments there? Yup.

Young earth is not all of creationism:

refrain from equating macro-evolution and speciation, as inferred with your forward slash, until someone has seen fit to define macro-evolution sufficiently as to warrant a comparison. Thanks.

I'm glad your Theist beliefs don't depend upon Evo being false. Nothing wrong with that.

CS/Business Information Systems?

That's probably a good thing, too. Glad for ya, Spin.

I don't know that I'd agree with you, but I haven't formed an opinion on that question, meself. I'm unsure that it has any meaning.

Ooh, when I look back through your postings your arrogance really shines. Maybe you need an outside opinion. You know what they say about the inadequacy of any system to describe itself...

Ah. Hmm. Don't know what to say. I suspect that's an expression of your faith because it can't be demonstrated but you feel the truth of it, eh? Maybe I'm not expected to respond... I'll just gaze upon it.

Because that would be absurd. Knowledge is gained by study of the world, and ourselves, and of the works of others as well as being won by our own experience. It's like a social Commons.

Yeah, I noticed it's all pretty irrelevant to the questions, the "answers", and their critiques.

Well, that makes one of us, Spin. I found your arrogance, your spin, and your cheesy little insults downright bothersome, sometimes. In fact, I don't think I've ever been annoyed by anyone in this group 'til you responded to my post with your childish prattle about "Grownups".

That's because you are so compassionate, huh?

There's that embittered little boy ending, again. I almost thought you were rehabilitating, Spin.

er

[Tim Daneliuk]

Not even close. Hard core Theory Of Computation, Computer Languages, and Automata - the theoretical end of CS. But I practice professionally in business contexts not in the Academy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk [e-mail] PGP Key:

[Tim Daneliuk]

Good. Perhaps next time you won't attack positions that are not held, invent straw men ammenable to your abilities to refute, and generally behave boorishly when the adults are speaking politely. My objection and subsequent response to you were not rooted in the substance of your disagreement. They were rooted in the cavalier manner you misrepesented the intent and content of my original post so you could appear to be reducing it to ashes. Liars and charlatans deserved to be exposed and treated as such. If you'd behaved honestly in the first place, I wouldn't have ever had to spank you publically and we could have had a civil disagreement and discourse.

No. You deserve pity because there is considerable evidence (provided by you) that you do not value truth - you prefer to win the rhetorical battle even if you have to resort to fraud and misreperentation. People who do this are inevitably miserable humans.

I am not even slightly bitter. I live a fairly joyful life. I hope you discover how to do this as well. (Hint: It starts with being honest with yourself and then with everyone else you deal with.)

[Enoch Root]

Just a guess...

er

[Tim Daneliuk]

And the assumption of the sufficiency of Reason itself.

[Tim Daneliuk]

Joe Barta wrote:

Honesty compels me to stipulate that I am *not* an ID expert. I've done some reading in the area and have a POV, but this does not mean I know enough about it to speak authoritatively. So ... what follows is my

*opinion* about its problems. Generally speaking, the problems have to do with their *method* (which is muddy) rather than their *content* (which needs further investigation): 1) ID makes proposals both in the Philosophy Of Science and the *practice* of Science. All well and good, but ... 2) It does not do a good job of separating the two. For example, Behe speaks on "irreducable complexity which ought to be purely a question of Science as we understand it. But, he then jumps to the conclusion that this implies a Designer. The first claim falls into the *practice* of Science, the second into the *metaphysics* of Science. Conflating these two areas muddies the waters and does a disservice to both disciplines. ID needs to pursue its claims in both courts separately and clearly. 3) The existing orthodox scientific community resists ID. There are lots of very good historical reasons for them to be suspicious. They demand that ID ahere to the time proven methodology of the Scientific Method. To the extent that there is evidenciary support for ID's claims, its proponents ought to be meeting the scientific community on *its* terms. That is, writing papers that contain falsifiable hypotheses and having them judged in the court of peer review. This is important even if that court is biased and married to its own foreordained conclusions because ID needs to show more *data* if it is to be taken seriously. Assume for a moment that ID had a valid point - even so, it takes years for sea changes like this to be embraced by the larger Scientific community. ID proponents seem reluctant to do this, either because they have no evidenciary support yet or they are worried that they will not be taken seriously. ID - if true - would rock the foundations of modern Science. Those who subscribe to it need to be willing to plead their case an inch at a time perhaps for years. They seem hesitant to do so. 4) The philosophical component of ID - that the matter/material/naturalist view of Science is fundamentally inadequate - is the cornerstone of everything they do. But again, their conflation of the practice of Science with its philosophy makes this point less clear than it should be. This single point is probably more imporant than all the "Science" they could ever bring to the table. They need to do a much better job of describing the limits of the existing philosophy of Science *AND* then showing why their proposal fills the void. Although I am not an IDer, I am most sympathetic to their argument here - I've thought for years that Science was unnecessarily blinding itself by avoiding metaphysics - but their arguments need more crispness, forcefulness, and thus exposure. (Just for the record, the harmonization of Epistemology and Metaphysics has troubled philosophers for centuries. It's a really hard problem, but that doesn't mean it ought not to be constantly attempted.) 5) The majority of IDers I've read are devout Theists in some particular religious tradition. I am too, and have no problem with this. HOWEVER, they need to realize that this means existing orthodox Science will be eternally (!) suspicious that they are really just literal Creationists in drag. (You've seen a lot of this in this very thread.) They need to be *much* clearer in saying that ID is about *authorship* first and foremost, not *mechanism*. In particular, macro-evolution's validity has nothing to do whatsoever with ID's merits one way or the other. An Author/God that can create a Universe in one "breath" can easily use evolutionary mechanisms to do so (or not). There are lots of valid criticisms to be made about macro-evolution, but ID needs to separate itself from this discussion until & unless it has demonstrated a case for its starting propositions. Many otherwise honorable and honest Scientists are put off when the see ID being used as a proxy to attack macro-evolutionary theory. I personally have a number of problems with that theory myself, but understand that these have nothing to do with the question of Authorship. IOW, theory *must* precede *practice* and they are trying to do both simultaneously. I applaud their vigor, but it undermines clarity and makes their case hard to read. (I have a complementary complaint about the Scientific establishment that is way too quick - IMO - to elevate relatively weaker inductive theories like macro-evolution to the same level of significance as theories that can actually be tested by experimental methods. This is why I keep saying that there is a lot more "Faith" in certain corners of Science than its practicioners like to acknowledge.)

Sidebar: When I have this conversation with my fellow Theists, particularly those in the school of so-called "literal innerant" Biblican interpretation, I have a parallel beef with them. The authority of the Biblical literature does not hinge on literalism. No innerantist actually takes every single Biblican passage literally. They acknowledge that there are vast passages of the text - e.g., The poetry of the Old Testament - that is metaphorical and symbolic. They miss the point that the Gensis account is about *Authorship* _not_ *Mechanism*. It is entirely possible to ascribe authority to the Genesis account without insisting that it is a literal description of the timeline. Yet, for some reason, literal interpretation of Genesis has become a litmus test for a significant portion of the Theist community much like evolution has become the litmus test for mainstream Science. In my view, both communities are missing the point by a mile. The theory of Authorship has nothing whatsoever to do with its mechanisms. Both communities thus miss the opportunity to see where they have important common ground. For instance, the Big Bang theory is widely believed to be a fairly reasonable explanation for the mechanics of the first femto-seconds of the birth of the Universe. But once you get away from the Science v. Creation argument (which is bogus anyway) you begin to see that the Big Bang "Science" is very much parallel and complementary to the idea that God breathed the Universe into existence in a "moment".

6) Political Note: Many IDers are falling into the trap of thinking that they need to fight their fight in the educational system we have today. They don't. The fundamental problem here is that education is *public*. In Western democracies that means such education is - by intent - entirely secular. Any hint of religiosity will be seen as an assault on the so-called "separation of Church & State" (wrongly, in my opinon, at least sometimes). Until they have a compelling case as to why their views really are "Science", they are going to continue to lose battles like the recent one in the PA courts. The *real* fight they ought to be undertaking is to show that "secularism" is itself a religion no different than any other and that "public" schools thus cannot avoid making a religious choice. Once they establish this, they can join with many of us who want to see "public" education abolished. It is an assault on Liberty and the choice of Free People. Education is the responsibility of parents, not government. By playing the game of the political collectivists who want the government to be the sole/primary instrument of educating the young, IDers miss the opportunity to fix the primary/foundational problem.

There are some brilliant people writing in the ID community. Some of their philosophers are first-rate thinkers. (I am not competent to judge their scientists' particular claims.) It's a shame that they are not heard better and more loudly. But *they* are the ones proposing a very big sea change in Science. It is thus incumbent on *them* to make their case compellingly.

I've had the great fortune to be educated by both Scientists and Theologians. It is a great tragedy that they cannot find more common ground. As a convinced Theist, I find it depressing that they seem not to be able to acknowledge that all Truth - Scientific, Theological & Moral - springs from a common Author.

[Enoch Root]

[schnibble]

*boggle*

I've never shat a tapeworm into the bowl before... but I'm sure I'd feel the same looking at such an amazing adaptable parasite.

er

[Joe Barta]

First let me say thank-you. I am thankful that there are such bright lights out there will> Honesty compels me to stipulate that I am *not* an ID expert. I've

"Innerant"... this word threw me. Until I knew what it meant, the phrase "literal innerant" was a complete mystery. It would seem that the correct spelling is "inerrant"...

in·er·rant (adj.) Incapable of erring; infallible. Containing no errors.

And for the benefit of other dummies like me, a "literal inerrant", in this context is one that takes the text of the Bible literally... that it is literally infallible. If the Bible says God created the universe in 6 days, then by golly that's all it took.

I believe I understand the reasons for your assertion. But I think this is one area where idealistic logic runs headfirst into the realistic illogic of dealing with masses of human beings.

I'd say that in a practical sense, collectively educating our youth is a MUCH better option all the way around than individually educating them. Of course, that said, I also think every parent ought to have the right to individually educate their children if they wish. But I'm perfectly happy to observe that those parents are in the extreme minority.

I'm still a little puzzled why there is the need to believe there is an "author". If an apple falls from a tree, we think in terms of "it just happened" and if we dig further we can find perfectly rational and understandable explanations as to why it occurred. We normally don't think in terms of someone "designing" that apple to fall.

I understand that this gets into the "philosophy of science" as you put it, but why even suggest that this philosophy might have an author? Thousands of years of religious teachings aside, where does the notion of "authorship" come from?

To me, all truth springs from nothing. It just is. If we don't understand something, it's because we simply don't understand it (yet) or are incapable of understanding it.

Or am I just restating the same thing in a different way?

Joe Barta