UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (72) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 25048  
Subject: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/12/2012 7:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Fossils described as Vernanimalcula guizhouena, from the nearly 600 million-year-old Doushantuo Formation in South China, have been interpreted as the remains of bilaterian animals. As such they would represent the oldest putative record of bilaterian animals in Earth history, and they have been invoked in debate over this formative episode of early animal evolution. However, this interpretation is fallacious. We review the evidential basis of the biological interpretation of Vernanimalcula, concluding that the structures key to animal identity are effects of mineralization that do not represent biological tissues, and, furthermore, that it is not possible to derive its anatomical reconstruction on the basis of the available evidence. There is no evidential basis for interpreting Vernanimalcula as an animal, let alone a bilaterian. The conclusions of evolutionary studies that have relied upon the bilaterian interpretation of Vernanimalcula must be called into question.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2012....

The Cambrian Explosion lives!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24036 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/13/2012 10:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I take it this was published in an ID journal, since articles questioning scientific orthodoxy don't get published in scientific journals? Probably the last thing the person will get to publish, too, after the spring 2013 issue of Blacklist comes out.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24038 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/13/2012 10:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
...after the spring 2013 issue of Blacklist comes out.

You think they'll wait that long? Or did they discontinue the monthly bulletin? I hope not! Can't have a loose cannon running free for three or four months! The whip needs to be cracked!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24039 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/13/2012 11:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You think they'll wait that long? Or did they discontinue the monthly bulletin? I hope not! Can't have a loose cannon running free for three or four months! The whip needs to be cracked!

They discontinued the monthly bulletin after The Machine went into operation, remember? It's just a formality now.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24040 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/13/2012 11:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Oh yeah...I forgot about "The Machine". It's been pretty quiet after disappearing all those evolution dissenters. It was so effective, look what it did to the climate debate, too!

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-hav...

Normally I'd be very fearful of discussing it, but since the video revealed it they can't very well blame you or me!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24041 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/13/2012 1:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I take it this was published in an ID journal, since articles questioning scientific orthodoxy don't get published in scientific journals? Probably the last thing the person will get to publish, too, after the spring 2013 issue of Blacklist comes out.

Very funny. Show the quote that supports ID and you'd have a case.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24042 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/13/2012 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Why would it have to support ID to be in an ID journal? A proper journal publishes proper papers, no matter which side of a question they come down on.

Oh...guess I answered my own query, didn't I...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24044 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/13/2012 9:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
They discontinued the monthly bulletin after The Machine went into operation, remember? It's just a formality now.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw


Gotta remember to come back to that when I have a better internet connection. Eugenie Scott is hot!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24045 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/14/2012 9:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Gotta remember to come back to that when I have a better internet connection. Eugenie Scott is hot!

Tee hee....

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/who-made-the-b...
Michael Edmondson

April 21, 2008

Yes, I did perform all the character dancing… My wife says she throws up in her mouth a little every time she sees me as Eugenie Scott.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24046 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/15/2012 8:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That's funny!

So the intent was to make fun of Dawkins, et al. Yet seems to be getting at something useful:

"Cos science is the only way to know y'all, you stand with me y'all, or you can fall y'all"

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24048 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/15/2012 1:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Very funny. Show the quote that supports ID and you'd have a case.

What do you think the reason is for ID supposedly being verboten? If it's because it challenges scientific orthodoxy, then my point stands. If not, then what do you think the reason is?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24051 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/15/2012 7:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What do you think the reason is for ID supposedly being verboten? If it's because it challenges scientific orthodoxy, then my point stands. If not, then what do you think the reason is?

It's obviously not merely because it challenges scientific orthodoxy. It's because it proposes to detect design in nature by an intelligent agent, and more specifically because of the implications of such design.

It's not rocket science ;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24054 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/16/2012 10:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It's because it proposes to detect design in nature by an intelligent agent,

ID is opposed because it is ID? That's not helpful.


and more specifically because of the implications of such design.

Are you talking about an implication that theism is correct? Many theist apologists also claim that the big bang implies theism. Cosmology has no problems with being published. Sophisticated (tm) apologists like John Haught claim that evolution is a 'gift to theology.' Evolution has no problems with being published.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24055 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/16/2012 10:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
It's because it proposes to detect design in nature by an intelligent agent, and more specifically because of the implications of such design.

Yep. That's it. An intelligent creator is responsible for life and the universe, we just can't show how, why, and can't even demonstrate the creator exists.

Goddamned demons hid my keys again, and not one single stupid science journal will publish my paper that shows my keys are missing which proves demons did it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24057 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/16/2012 12:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Goddamned demons hid my keys again, and not one single stupid science journal will publish my paper that shows my keys are missing which proves demons did it.

that's rather unfortunate.
When my keys go missing it's Gremlins...
since they're pranksters, the keys are
usually returned quickly
-- but get your Demons in a bad mood ?


it is sometimes unclear what ID's
point/argument is

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24058 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/16/2012 12:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
it is sometimes unclear what ID's
point/argument is


I think Bryan summed it up well. ID asks what if nature didn't do it, but an intelligent agent did?

It's a great metaphysical question. But apparently that's not enough to give it the credence they feel it is owed.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24059 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/16/2012 7:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
it is sometimes unclear what ID's
point/argument is
============
I think Bryan summed it up well. ID asks what if nature didn't do it, but an intelligent agent did?

It's a great metaphysical question. But apparently that's not enough to give it the credence they feel it is owed.



it's only a great question if it's asked honestly.


eg .... learned today that nearly all mammals have 7 neck vertebrae. but they're all over the map with thoracic and lumbar..
Other vertebrates even more varied .... Frog has just a few, Snake zillions.

what if an "intelligent agent" did that ..... why the odd differences and similarities? Giraffe with BIG long neck has seven bones... Bat with TEENY neck has seven...

Agent works in mysterious ways?

Why are there auto-immune diseases?
Agent wanted us to break down? Agent is a bumbler?
( most other diseases make sense ....Virus gotta eat.... )

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JamesBrown Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24060 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 9:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
it is sometimes unclear what ID's
point/argument is

I think Bryan summed it up well. ID asks what if nature didn't do it, but an intelligent agent did?


I suspect the true point is, "Now that you've accepted the existence of ID, are you ready to take the next logical step and ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior?"

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24061 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 10:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I suspect the true point is, "Now that you've accepted the existence of ID, are you ready to take the next logical step and ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior?"

A quick look at who is behind the Discovery Institute pretty much proves that.

Science - people from all cultures, countries, ethnicities, genders, religions.

DI - evangelical christians.

Lordy, lordy, lordy brothers and sisters, who got?!?

I say whoooooo got?!?!?

I say who got an agenda?!?!?

Can I have an amen.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24062 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 10:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It isn't as up-front as "ask Jesus into your heart". No. It is far more insidious.

If they can get ID accepted as a part of science then they can get it into the science classroom, and "teach the controversy". Begin brain-washing...errr...indoctri...umm...educatin' them yung-uns.

But I do agree with the earlier point that the backers of this movement are all of the same ilk (i.e. evangelical Christians) is very telling.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24063 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 11:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I suspect the true point is, "Now that you've accepted the existence of ID, are you ready to take the next logical step and ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior?"

Which probably explains some of the resistence to ID. If there is an intelligence behind life, it makes God even more plausible.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24064 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 11:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If they can get ID accepted as a part of science then they can get it into the science classroom,

Why would teaching ID in a science classroom, once it is accepted as science, be insidious? I think you reveal the true motivation of many who oppose ID. Even if it was established as science, it would still be opposed.

I guess that would be par for the course. Global warming science is opposed as well.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24065 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 12:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Why would teaching ID in a science classroom, once it is accepted as science, be insidious?

Depends how it comes to be accepted. If it's just a school board populated by religious nuts (e.g. Dover), that is insidious.

If, however, ID makes testable predictions, and plays by the rules of falsifiability, then it arguably would belong in the science classroom. That is a hurdle it has yet to clear, and I sincerely doubt it ever will (since it does not seek falsifiability, it seeks blind acceptance - in His name, forever and ever, AMEN).

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24066 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 1:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Depends how it comes to be accepted. If it's just a school board populated by religious nuts ...

I agree, that's not a legitimate way that science is recognized as such.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Tarasicodissa Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24067 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 4:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Agent works in mysterious ways?

Why are there auto-immune diseases?
Agent wanted us to break down? Agent is a bumbler?
( most other diseases make sense ....Virus gotta eat.... )

ID seeks to find design (The sort of design we humans know and practice and can recognize ) in nature.

If ID would exist then we must take the next step and see what the designer would be like, once more based on human knowledge and practice.

Taken together, I think it is unlikely we could opt for one single designer. I'd say it looks like a kind of wargame played by several nerdy designers who get points for defaeating the contesters' design.

The immunity system would be something like that.

Or what about the giant mama-virus which installs an enormous virus-factory in infected cells. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamavirus
Opposed to the tiny sputnik virus which cannot reproduce itself in a cell, but can only usurp a mamavirus factory for its own reproduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_virophage

Looks like a contest, doesn't it ?
If ID-ers don't think this looks like a contest then why would rational people have to believe that these biological mechanisms are designed ?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24068 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 4:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If there is an intelligence behind life, it makes God even more plausible.



What a ridiculous assertion.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Tarasicodissa Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24069 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 4:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Looks like a contest, doesn't it ?
If ID-ers don't think this looks like a contest then why would rational people have to believe that these biological mechanisms are designed ?


Hit return to soon....

ID might have more success if they changed the name to LD. Ludic Design. It's more believable.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24070 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 8:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Taken together, I think it is unlikely we could opt for one single designer. I'd say it looks like a kind of wargame played by several nerdy designers who get points for defaeating the contesters' design.

I'd like to know how the ID folks would respond to that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24071 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 10:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Or what about the giant mama-virus

Yo mama-virus so fat that when she get in an elevator, it have to go down.

Yo mama-virus so ugly that her birth certificate contain an apology letter from the condom factory.

Yo mama-virus so stupid that she failed a survey.

Sorry, but you did ask.......

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24072 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/17/2012 10:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I'd like to know how the ID folks would respond to that.

They would say that the identity (or identities) or characteristics of the designer would be beyond the scope of intelligent design. When it comes to continuing to learn more about this designer they've identified, they have no curiosity to learn more and more details. (You may notice a pattern here.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24074 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 5:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'd like to know how the ID folks would respond to that.

If it's designed, it's designed. If scientists accepted the multiple designer hypothesis, then it means there is at least one designer.

It would be a huge win.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24077 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 9:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
A huge win?

Determining the correct answer is ALWAYS a huge win, regardless of what that answer may be. Furthering our understanding of the universe is the whole point

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDollie Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24081 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 10:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why would teaching ID in a science classroom, once it is accepted as science, be insidious?

ID cannot ever be accepted as science. Science is based on axioms ("A proposition that commends itself to general acceptance; a well-established or universally conceded principle; a maxim, rule, law" (OED)). Anything which isn't an axiom must be proved.

ID is a (possible) conclusion based on science (genetics etc) but it relies on an assumption that is far from axiomatic: the existence of a creator. For ID to be true, it requires the existence of a god; an assumption that is far from universally accepted.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LorenCobb Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24083 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 1:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
DirtyDollie: ID cannot ever be accepted as science. Science is based on axioms ("A proposition that commends itself to general acceptance; a well-established or universally conceded principle; a maxim, rule, law" (OED)). Anything which isn't an axiom must be proved. ID is a (possible) conclusion based on science (genetics etc) but it relies on an assumption that is far from axiomatic: the existence of a creator. For ID to be true, it requires the existence of a god; an assumption that is far from universally accepted.

First, welcome to the Creation & Evolution board. Glad to have you around and participating.

Second, I'm not sure I can agree with anything in the above quote. Here's why:

1. The "laws" of physics are not axioms, despite the superficial similarity. They are based on deductions from evidence, and are not a priori unprovable assumptions.

2. Science is in no way based on axioms. A few parts of mathematics are based on axioms (e.g. probability and logic), but none of science is so based. To quote Wikipedia, "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." You don't need axioms to do this, and it would be highly unusual to see axioms employed in this way.

3. There was a brief time in the late 19th century when some mathematicians and physicists expressed the hope that all of knowledge could be placed on a firm axiomatic basis. Russell and Whitehead wrote Principia Mathematica to show that it could be done -- and it blew up in their faces. The Russell paradox, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and the independence of the continuum hypothesis all contributed to the abandonment of axioms as the ultimate bedrock of mathematics. We still use axioms when they are convenient, as in Kolmogorov's probability theory, but we have no faith that such an approach will bring more than localized order to a subject.

4. As I understand ID, it does not actually require the existence of any god or supernatural domain. It only requires that our universe be embedded in some larger structure -- a theory that many physicists have played with -- and that that larger structure contain sentient beings with a technology sufficiently advanced so as to be able to "create" more universes, each with its own particular physical parameters. That's an idea more properly labeled "science fiction" than religion, philosophy, or physics.

Loren

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." — Arthur C. Clarke

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDollie Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24084 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 1:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the welcome!

I didn't mean to imply that the laws of physics are axioms but there is an assumption that the laws apply in the same way everywhere. That is an axiom. Without this assumption, science is meaningless.

As I understand ID, it needs someone or something sentient to have done the designing. That is an assumption that needs to be proved. Therefore ID is not a science, it is a conclusion.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LorenCobb Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24085 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 2:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
DD: there is an assumption that the laws apply in the same way everywhere

Ah, but that's the point. This assumption has been seriously questioned in cosmology and astrophysics. People are now working on theories in which physical laws and "constants" vary over time, over space, and between universes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-universe_theory
gerryporter.blogspot.com/2010/09/variable-law-of-physics.htm...

Loren

Print the post Back To Top
Author: adonsant Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24086 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 5:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Speaking of constants, I saw this blurb last week:

http://www.nature.com/news/relative-masses-of-7-billion-year...

The mass of the proton in relation to its much lighter counterpart, the electron, is known to great precision: the proton has 1836.152672 times the mass of the electron. But has it always been so?

Quite possibly, according to new research which taps the cosmos as a vast fundamental-physics laboratory. A study of a distant galaxy strongly suggests that the proton-to-electron mass ratio, denoted by the Greek letter mu (µ), has remained essentially constant for at least half the age of the universe. The findings appeared online December 13 in Science.


-Anthony

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24087 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 5:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the welcome!

I didn't mean to imply that the laws of physics are axioms but there is an assumption that the laws apply in the same way everywhere. That is an axiom. Without this assumption, science is meaningless.



i agree that's an Axiom ...

'meaningless' might be too strong.

earth would be sufficient Space for most of science
BUT all of time

ie
Axiom: Laws apply everywhere, everywhen

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Tarasicodissa Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24088 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 6:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

i agree that's an Axiom ...

'meaningless' might be too strong.

earth would be sufficient Space for most of science
BUT all of time

ie
Axiom: Laws apply everywhere, everywhen
--------------

I disagree that it would be too 'strong'. The consequenses would be serious.
If there was no linear symmetry of the equations of motion, i.e. if they would be different in other points of space, there would be no conservation of momentum. That could be messy.
If there was no rotational symmetry, i.e. if they differ according to direction, there would be no conservation of angular momentum. Would also be quite disruptive for the movement of celestial objects.

(check out Noether's theorem.)

(IF there was no symmetry in time also, then the conservation of energy would not hold.)

Furthermore, it is also my impression,( with a physical chemistry degree, so not mathematician or cosmologist) , is that the 5 postulates of quantum mechanics do look quite a lot like axioms.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24089 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 7:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

ID is a (possible) conclusion based on science (genetics etc) but it relies on an assumption that is far from axiomatic: the existence of a creator. For ID to be true, it requires the existence of a god; an assumption that is far from universally accepted.


I would say that this mischaracterizes ID. It doesn't assume or require God, rather a designing intelligence.

Design detection is used in a number of sciences, like forensics. Does the patterns of wounds on the body suggest an accident, or murder?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24090 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 7:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That's an idea more properly labeled "science fiction" than religion, philosophy, or physics.

How does that differ from the Multiverse hypothesis?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24091 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 7:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
As I understand ID, it needs someone or something sentient to have done the designing. That is an assumption that needs to be proved. Therefore ID is not a science, it is a conclusion.

Not at all true. ID observes that intelligent agents work in detectable ways. This is actually trivial in a number of scientific fields.

ID then asks "Can we identify design hallmarks in nature?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24092 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 7:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Design detection is used in a number of sciences, like forensics. Does the patterns of wounds on the body suggest an accident, or murder?

And it relies on knowing the capabilities, tools, and other characteristics of the potential murderers (homo sapiens.) If a supernaturally intelligent tree decided to drop its heaviest branch on someone's head, forensics would never figure it out.

What would it mean where ID failed to detect design? Parts of the universe weren't created by God?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24093 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 7:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What would it mean where ID failed to detect design? Parts of the universe weren't created by God?

Does forensic science detect every murder? If not, why do you consider it science?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Tarasicodissa Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24094 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 7:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Does forensic science detect every murder? If not, why do you consider it science?

Murders have been witnessed. We know first-hand that it happens. Therefore it is reasonable to investigate it.
A universe-designer has never been witnessed however (except possibly ourselves, but we can't have created ourselves can we ? Well, maybe we could, but that's not what ID is postulating).
Comparing ID to forensics is like stating that salamanders are spontaneously created from fire, and mice out of dirty rags. Yes, this is conceivable, and therefore it must be investigated.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24095 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 8:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Does forensic science detect every murder?

Of course not.

If not, why do you consider it science?

I wouldn't consider it science - I would consider it an application of knowledge from science. In any case, the agents forensics are dealing with are almost always trying to hide or disguise their activities.

I also don't think there is any non-fuzzy line separating 'natural occurences' from 'intelligent agent's activities' - to me, the latter is a subset of the former. So I definitely think forensics wouldn't detect every murder. Even granted absolute omniscience over a fatal incident, whether it was a murder or not would depend on time, place, jury selection, etc....

If ID has no example of a lack of ID, how can it determine characteristics that apply to ID and not to non-ID?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24096 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 8:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Murders have been witnessed. We know first-hand that it happens. Therefore it is reasonable to investigate it.
A universe-designer has never been witnessed however (except possibly ourselves, but we can't have created ourselves can we ? Well, maybe we could, but that's not what ID is postulating).


ID is mainly focusing on DNA, not the universe.

We have observed intelligent agents design DNA, so according to your standard it is reasonable to investigate whether or not such design has been implemented in other cases.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24097 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 8:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If ID has no example of a lack of ID, how can it determine characteristics that apply to ID and not to non-ID?

They observe intelligent agents at work.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24098 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 9:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If ID has no example of a lack of ID, how can it determine characteristics that apply to ID and not to non-ID?

They observe intelligent agents at work.

That will give them the characteristics that apply to ID alone and the characteristics that apply to both ID and non-ID in common. How do they separate out the characteristics that apply to only ID?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24100 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 9:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_e...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24101 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 10:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Design detection is used in a number of sciences, like forensics. Does the patterns of wounds on the body suggest an accident, or murder?

It never suggests supernatural causation. Apples and oranges.

I'm sure I've been greeked.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24102 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 10:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_e...

Like I said:

Notice that Behe's argument...rests...on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents
(4th paragraph, if you want to see if what I've omitted changes the meaning.)

Where can we find some non-designed systems, without input from the causal powers of intelligent agents? According to Christian theism, nowhere. So nothing is known that is exclusive to designed systems.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24103 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 10:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Does forensic science detect every murder?

Nope.

If not, why do you consider it science?

Because I can test the evidence from the scene against the physical evidence taken from suspects until a match is made (fingerprints, DNA, shoe prints, blood, semen, etc.).

Forensics is not intended to conclude a crime was perpetrated by some unknown and mysterious intelligent agent, it's intent is to prove who committed the crime.

Apples and oranges.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24104 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 10:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Where can we find some non-designed systems, without input from the causal powers of intelligent agents? According to Christian theism, nowhere. So nothing is known that is exclusive to designed systems.

I don't know what your point is. If everything is designed, then we can't know it?

ID focuses on biology. It doesn't require supernatural intelligence. It is not equal to Christian theism.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24105 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 10:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
We have observed intelligent agents design DNA

Really? Where? Show me any example of DNA design that does not mimic what already existed in nature.

ID presupposes design from scratch. Apples and oranges.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24106 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 10:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Forensics is not intended to conclude a crime was perpetrated by some unknown and mysterious intelligent agent, it's intent is to prove who committed the crime.

Apples and oranges.


Yes and no. It's an analogy. ID is not equal to forensics. But forensics can determine that an intelligent agent committed a crime, even if it can't go all the way and identify a specific agent.

You are trying real hard not to see the point.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24107 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 10:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Yes and no. It's an analogy. ID is not equal to forensics. But forensics can determine that an intelligent agent committed a crime, even if it can't go all the way and identify a specific agent.

You are trying real hard not to see the point.


No, I see the point just fine. It's the logic your following that has me stumbling.

It can determine the intelligent agent at work because it's been seen in action.

By way of example, we discovered very odd mounds in Africa that had no known explanation. No natural physical forces where known to create the features.

It was latter discovered that termites in a different area created the same mounds. Conclusion - termites had made the mounds.

Until the discovery of living termites at work, no one had any idea how the mounds formed.

IOW, if we observe design processes at work, they are not similar but unique to the species, and the ability to detect is based on being able to observe the design in process or in use by the agent.

Yes, forensics can differentiate between human causation and natural causation because it has known human models to compare.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24108 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 10:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
We have observed intelligent agents design DNA
---
Really? Where? Show me any example of DNA design that does not mimic what already existed in nature.


Ever hurt your back moving the goalposts?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24109 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 11:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
If everything is designed, then we can't know it?

If everything is designed, how can you say that you know what characteristics are exclusive to designed things? You can't. Irreducible complexity would be something that is a characteristic of designed systems and quite possibly un-designed systems. Until you started finding multiple un-designed systems without irreducible complexity you couldn't inductively reason that IC only occurs as a result of ID.


ID focuses on biology. It doesn't require supernatural intelligence.

I think it does require supernatural intelligence. If natural intelligence (which consists of many non-intelligent constitutents blindly following natural laws) counts as intelligent design then any ID explanation would also be a non-ID explanation. The ID explanation would just be much less detailed than the non-ID explanation (which would consist of many fundamental particles mindlessly following natural laws.)


It is not equal to Christian theism.

True, but its most enthusiastic supporters hold to both ID and Christian theism - and contradict themselves in doing so.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24110 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 11:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If everything is designed, how can you say that you know what characteristics are exclusive to designed things?

Your problem here is that ID doesn't claim everything is designed. Christian theism may, but that's a different discussion.

ID distinguishes design from non-design by specified complexity. Non-designed systems are hypothesized to not have it. Thus it's testable. Find the non-designed system with specified complexity.

That's probably it for me and the regulars. Have a great Christmas ya'll

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24111 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/18/2012 11:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Ever hurt your back moving the goalposts?

In this case it's really not moving them.

That's the entire line of reasoning going on here not just by me.

ID presumes a designer created dna. From scratch. It also implies that designer created this universe. From scratch.

To paraphrase ole Willy:

but man, proud man,....
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep;

We are not of such constitution as to make from scratch such things. That renders our designs rather useless in detecting the design of nature itself.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDollie Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24114 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/19/2012 6:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It doesn't assume or require God, rather a designing intelligence.

I referred to "a god", rather than God. Is there any discernable difference between a designer and a god?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24116 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/19/2012 8:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I referred to "a god", rather than God. Is there any discernable difference between a designer and a god?

Is a "god" supernatural? My point is that ID doesn't require or posit a supernatural intelligence. But at the same time, it doesn't rule one out either.

Some have argued that such an intelligence would have to be supernatural, thus making ID non-science. I don't think it follows.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: flightdoc101 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24118 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/19/2012 11:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"The Devil's Racetrack" is as yet unexplained. Perhaps it is the signature of the designer....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24133 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/19/2012 10:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It doesn't assume or require God, rather a designing intelligence.

I referred to "a god", rather than God. Is there any discernable difference between a designer and a god?



as I understand it .....
IDists claim The Designer might be any
intelligence
Really could be the proverbial garage ful of Ferrets

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDollie Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24136 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/20/2012 5:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Is a "god" supernatural? My point is that ID doesn't require or posit a supernatural intelligence. But at the same time, it doesn't rule one out either.

Possibly not explicitly, but I believe it is implicit. Any being that creates everything must be external to the laws it creates.

If you are referring just to life on Earth then it is possible that something created life but then that something would have to have created that being, be it natural or supernatural.

Giant stack of turtles in my opinion.

Out of interest, does anyone know of any ID supporters who don't believe in a theistic god?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24137 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/20/2012 8:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Out of interest, does anyone know of any ID supporters who don't believe in a theistic god?

Not many. David Berlinski is the only one I know of who "supports" ID. There are several atheist philosophers who think ID is at least worth investigating and think it's gotten a bad rap from mainstream science. Thomas Nagel is one. Bradley Monton is the other.

John Gribbin has a rather strange theory of intelligent design of the universe without God: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7972538/Are-we-livi...

-Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LorenCobb Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24139 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/20/2012 10:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
DD: Out of interest, does anyone know of any ID supporters who don't believe in a theistic god?

I think David Berlinski qualifies. He is an acquaintance of mine, and quite a prickly old curmudgeon. He supports ID as a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, but if you read his dense prose carefully it becomes clear that his position is motivated more by a desire to poke conventional wisdom in the eye, than by any reverence for ancient scripture. His religious background is secular Jewish, not Christian at all.

LC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: adonsant Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24143 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/20/2012 5:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21243965

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24144 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/20/2012 8:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Out of interest, does anyone know of any ID supporters who don't believe in a theistic god?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

Not sure that he qualifies as an ID supporter as such...seems like it.

Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is theologically agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24145 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/20/2012 8:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sorry, multiple greeked.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24147 of 25048
Subject: Re: RIP Vernanimalcula Date: 12/21/2012 2:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
DD: Out of interest, does anyone know of any ID supporters who don't believe in a theistic god?

I think David Berlinski qualifies. He is an acquaintance of mine, and quite a prickly old curmudgeon



interesting.

his Wiki bio makes him out to be BSC ***hole.



NTTAWWT!

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (72) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement