Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]

Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

[Fester Chugabrew]

The suggestion is not absent. It's right there in "well substantiated".

Please explain to me how "well-substantiated" means "capable of refutation," or "vulnerable."

[hosepipe]

[ A group of pearls composed of pearls.. is what hosepipe is Casting to the Public (swine)... whence we do not/cannot deserve these gems of wisdom... ]

You said it I didn't... hecklers are allowed but graded..
"C"

[Stultis]

As I said, if science can demonstrate the absence of organized matter along with the absence of predictable laws, it will have a strong case for falsifying the theory of intelligent design.

LOL! Now that's it. No one can be THAT dense and perverse. Seriously. I won't say I know for sure, but I'm openly positing that you are actually an evolutionist having us on for a laugh, or that your posts and persona are some manner of farce or imposture.

I'm calling you out. You don't have to reveal your real handle, but honor binds you to retire this one now that you've been fingered. Fess up and take your bows.

[ml1954]

People keep forgetting that Fester Chugabrew has previously stated that he starts with the assumption that he is correct, and concludes that any observations must be in line with his correctness.

When someone asserts that "everything is supernatural", where do go from there?

[b_sharp]

The sounds of rational thought.
Thank you.

[hosepipe]

[ The modern translations accommodate science tunneling its field of view to nature alone and use the word "philosophy" to keep an overarching meaning - all attempts of science to unseat philosophy notwithstanding. ]

Ouch... that had to hurt some calloused conciences..
Hmmmmm.. calloused conciences don't feel pain... DuuuH on my part...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You are defining EVERYTHING CONCEIVABLE as being intelligent design, a priori. This is absurd." (me)

---

"No more absurd than assuming the opposite, a priori. In fact, it is more reasonable." (you)

I don't assume that intelligent design is false; I know it is untestable, because it IS. I can make no scientific claims to it's truth or falseness. Science is an a posteriori method, not an a priori one. And when you define everything conceivable as being intelligent design, then there is NO WAY to test that. It cannot be a scientific theory, no matter how much you twist and stretch every word used to describe your claim. You were much less incoherent when you used to argue for YEC.

"Hence natural selection, mutations, and the like, are all manifestations of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws. I would expect this in an intelligently designed universe."

No, you ASSUME it because that is what you WISH to be. Organized matter following predictable laws and processes is perfectly consistent with a universe that *just is*. It is also perfectly consistent with a universe that was created by 1, or 2, or 1,000 designers. They could have been good, evil, indifferent. They could also not exist. All of this is consistent with the universe we see.


"They directly observed the movements of the planets and the stars, and they directly observed the behavior of people at the same time. They noticed recurring patterns of behavior at certain times of year and recorded that, too, over more than a thousand years of direct observation on the part of thousands of people."

Nonsense. They made it all up. That is why they almost never made accurate detailed predictions. They only ones that were predicted consistently were the very vague ones. Just like the astrologers of today.

"I would not be surprised if the foundations of astrology involved as much or more direct observation than Charles Darwin and all who have followed in his footsteps."

Well, since you don't believe in the utility of having to test ideas, I am sure you do believe that.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws is well-substantiated.

The fact that intelligent design entails the organization of matter so it behaves predictably is also well-substantiated.

The fact that the organization of matter occurs under the agency of intelligent agents is also well-substantiated.

When one is faced with these well-substantiated facts, it is hardly an unreasonable stretch to infer an intelligent agent as responsible for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.

The best way to falsify this theory is to provide an example of matter that is wholly disorganized and behaves entirely contrary to any predictable laws. Who's to say it cannot be done?

[b_sharp]

Anyone that contemplates their navel and documents any portion of the contemplation is doing science. Did you not know that?

As a up and coming young philosopher once said.

"Hey, what's it like being a rationalist in a world of empiricists? Must be uncomfortable, but I'm sure that if you think about it hard enough it will all go away. "

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science is an a posteriori method, not an a priori one.

Science partakes of both inductive and deductive reasoning. The theory of intelligent design works well in both directions, and it covers every conceivable situation in the known universe. If you think you can engage science without any a priori method then you may indeed be a candidate for belief in the spaghetti monster.

[hosepipe]

[ More nonsensical gobbledygook. I am still waiting for a coherent response to my question about how an untestable assumption (divine interference) is better than a testable one (natural, physical causes)? ]

SO, you're PURE are you.. pure logician..
No spooky ghost in the closet for you for three months..
there I said it - the Spirit-Nazi..

[hosepipe]

[ Sorry, that last question was for Cornelis, not you. I misread who posted to me. Busy day. :) ]

Too late.. punch line already posted..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Science partakes of both inductive and deductive reasoning."

This does not mean it is not a posteriori.

"The theory of intelligent design works well in both directions, and it covers every conceivable situation in the known universe."

It therefore is completely worthless. It explains nothing in particular.

"If you think you can engage science without any a priori method then you may indeed be a candidate for belief in the spaghetti monster."

If you think that you can have a scientific theory that can never be falsified or tested, because, as you said, "...it covers every conceivable situation in the known universe.", then you haven't a clue what science is.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Nonsense. They made it all up. That is why they almost never made accurate detailed predictions. They only ones that were predicted consistently were the very vague ones. Just like the astrologers of today.

Do yourself a favor and look up a brief history on the science of astrology. You might be surprised at the amount of direct observation that was made and recorded, both on the part of stars and planets and human behavior. Of course there were elements spun out of whole cloth from time to time. Fact is, they were able to make some decent predictions, not unlike the predictions we can make to this day r.e. PMS.

[hosepipe]

[ True enough. It's what we disagree on that makes it difficult (and a test of virtue). ]

LoL... Corny you're a ham..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" SO, you're PURE are you.. pure logician.. No spooky ghost in the closet for you for three months.. there I said it - the Spirit-Nazi.."

"Too late.. punch line already posted.."

Now I can say that's nonsensical gobbledygook. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You might be surprised at the amount of direct observation that was made and recorded, both on the part of stars and planets and human behavior."

But it was all BS. They weren't really observing any forces.

"Of course there were elements spun out of whole cloth from time to time."

Most of the time.

"Fact is, they were able to make some decent predictions, not unlike the predictions we can make to this day r.e. PMS."

They only made *decent* predictions when they made very very vague ones. And what predictions did they make regarding PMS.? This aught to be good.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It therefore is completely worthless. It explains nothing in particular.

It particularly explains why there is, on a universal scale, the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. This is valuable because it relieves the observer from anticipating occasions where matter will behave in a way other than the intelligent designer intends. It is also valuable because it instills in the observer a sense of respect and awe for the manner and degree of detailed design with which the observable universe is imbued.

[Senator Bedfellow]

See? It's valuable because it makes you feel good to believe it. And that's what science is all about, right?

[hosepipe]

[ Now I can say that's nonsensical gobbledygook. :) ]

Alrighty... better late than logical..