Dawkins Supports Intelligent Design... just not by God.

[fantome profane]

Especially if you squash all research.

Nonsense, what research do you think is being squashed? How do you do research into I.D? Who has proposed research into I.D. and had it been squashed?

I.D. proponents are not interested in doing actual research. If they were they would be doing it instead of making propaganda films. Do you really believe they can come up with the money to make films like this but can’t fund research?

There are no research projects into I.D. that are being refused funding because there are no research projects into I.D. being proposed.

but the whole system is stacked, and stacked in a way that is detrimental to GOOD science.

But your not a conspiracy theorists or anything like that.

 

[rocketman]

I agree. Also, my conviction there's an invisible elf outside my window farting invisible rainbows has no testable hypothesis, but it's going to hurt those durn scientists something fierce someday that they haven't discussed my notion in their circles and publications. They'll be sorry then!

The thing I like about invisible rainbows is that unlike other farts, they don't smell bad. I know this is true because Richard Dawkins told me so. However, just to be clear, it was Dawkins from a parallel universe, not this one. He built a special DeLorean that allows him to traverse the gulf between our two dimensions, but it only works if you sing songs of wishful thinking at it. Oh, and in that universe he is a theist.

Seriously, the apparant design inference deserves more respect than it receives, at least as a discussion topic. If it had no religious implications it would not be shunned so easily. It may well be that something important and useful is missed by the emotional categorical rejection of it now that ID has taken it over. At the end of the day if someone wanted to publish a discussion paper about apparant design in a journal, in the same way they do about multiverses and string theory, then that should be allowed, as long as they don't claim they have proof when they haven't.

The whole panicky defensive groupthink that pops up against ID has the air of McCarthyism about it. Surely we can be more mature as a society. (although fart jokes should be protected at all costs).

 

[painted wolf]

I will say that the ID community has promoted good science by keeping scientists on their toes.
They have brought up some points that have lead to genuine research in areas like the evolution of the immune system and subsequent studies of the evolution of disease.
Such studies have helped explain the origin of current disease and areas to look for outbreaks of new diseases.
Not to mention the lessons we have learned from studying more basal (I hate the term "less evolved") immune systems. The study of the evolution of clotting factors has helped us understand problems like hemophilia among other issues with blood.

This is an area that ID itself could never contribute... after all if disease is intelligently designed as is the immune system, then there is nothing that humans can further understand. We are at the mercy of the designer.

I've often said that my biggest problem with ID (other than the lack of actual science) is that it is so anti-investigation. They find a problem that they can't figure out and simply call it "Intelligently designed"... there is no exploration, no curiosity and no hope of future advance.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

Can you find someone with no agenda to do the same?
...
How sad.

This from the person who refers to the Expelled movie?
I have to agree, sad.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I.D. proponents are not interested in doing actual research.

Herein lies the real problem: Stereotyping.

What evidence do you have of this? Do you have statements from ALL of the scientists stating this? Or, like the Darwinist camp in the movie, are you making this blanket statement because it fits YOUR paradigm of how you want to see those who want to research ID?

You don't see how it could be tested, so no one can try, unless of course they have nefarious purposes. You have come to this conclusion based on what? Dawkin's dismissal of ID? What SCIENCE can you bring forth that shows us that such research is useless?

 

[Scuba Pete]

This from the person who refers to the Expelled movie?
I have to agree, sad.

So now that I have seen the movie AND have brought it up, I have some sort of nefarious agenda? Wow. Such stereotyping and biases are simply amazing. What seems to be my agenda, Mestemia? Please, I would like to see how you have pigeon holed me.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Pete, for an otherwise intelligent man to jump on trash like Expelled as if it were some great vehicle of truth is a sign of some serious problem.

What problem would this be? I look forward to your diagnosis.

Your feelings about Dawkins drive you to irrational behavior. If it's not hatred, it's something very like it.

Wait. I simply disagree with the man. Are you indicating that I am some kind of religious wacko for having the temerity to disagree with Dawkins AND call him the bigot that he is? Wow.

I disagree with Dawkins and you feel that I:

1. Have a serious problem (whatever that might be)
2. Are irrational.
3. Exhibit some bizarre behavior like hatred (bizarre in that it can't be named).

Using your logic, since you disagree with me on this, you hate me and are completely irrational about it.

 

[painted wolf]

Pete you can disagree with Dawkins all you want. Hell I do on a great many issues.

But you have expanded that into a diatribe against all evolutionary biologists. Including me.
I am not anti-religion and I have never encountered any anti-religious bias and I have pointed that out a few times now.
You pointedly keep ignoring that truth in favor of the movies distortions.

Frankly I'm a bit dismayed that you seem to have discarded any trust you had in me, built on our years of posting as friends, in favor of a propaganda movie.

wa:do

 

[Luminous]

We give Dawkins the time of day, and he promotes proof-free multiverse theories.

I agree ID has no testable hypothesis, but the way discusion of it is shunned in almost all academic circles and publications will do more damage than good in the long run I think.

If you want to learn multi-verse theories based on mathematics and no evidence then go to college or university were you can also learn of ID.

 

[Father Heathen]

So now that I have seen the movie AND have brought it up, I have some sort of nefarious agenda? Wow. Such stereotyping and biases are simply amazing. What seems to be my agenda, Mestemia? Please, I would like to see how you have pigeon holed me.

He was talking about Ben Stein having an agenda, not you. Expelled is a deliberately dishonest and misleading film. And the fact you refuse to even look at the site that thoroughly refutes the whole thing makes it look like you're being dishonest, too.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Pete you can disagree with Dawkins all you want. Hell I do on a great many issues.

It's great that I have your position.

But you have expanded that into a diatribe against all evolutionary biologists. Including me.

That's a GROSS overstatement. Heck, I believe in evolution! I think it's funny that Mr Eloquence was caught supporting aliens. At least he didn't resort to crystals.

I am not anti-religion and I have never encountered any anti-religious bias and I have pointed that out a few times now.
You pointedly keep ignoring that truth in favor of the movies distortions.

I have encountered it many times and many of those were right here on this forum.

Frankly I'm a bit dismayed that you seem to have discarded any trust you had in me, built on our years of posting as friends, in favor of a propaganda movie.

I will ALWAYS see you as a friend. That does not mean that our discussions can't be sharp and to the point. In fact, I feel FREE to let you know precisely what I feel because of our friendship. Part of being a true friend is sometimes being brutally honest. You have always been so for me, and I don't think I have let you down one whit in that regards either. You have said nothing to hurt me, and I hope that I did not come across as trying to ever hurt you!

 

[painted wolf]

That's a GROSS overstatement.

Is it?

Heck, I believe in evolution! I think it's funny that Mr Eloquence was caught supporting aliens. At least he didn't resort to crystals.

I think your dislike of Dawkins is making you less than critical of the circumstances the quote was obtained.

I have encountered it many times and many of those were right here on this forum.

I was unaware that you encountered many professional scientists on this forum. Let alone many professional scientists who attacked your religion.

I will ALWAYS see you as a friend. That does not mean that our discussions can't be sharp and to the point. In fact, I feel FREE to let you know precisely what I feel because of our friendship. Part of being a true friend is sometimes being brutally honest. You have always been so for me, and I don't think I have let you down one whit in that regards either. You have said nothing to hurt me, and I hope that I did not come across as trying to ever hurt you!

then I will take this discussion in that spirit.

wa:do

 

[Sententia]

He was talking about Ben Stein having an agenda, not you. Expelled is a deliberately dishonest and misleading film. And the fact you refuse to even look at the site that thoroughly refutes the whole thing makes it look like you're being dishonest, too.

In other words, Pete is arguing one side of the argument and doing so from a position that ID is good and will show something but doesnt say why its good or what the something is it will show.

There is a one minded blunt assertion here and anyone who is against it is wrong. Whats unique is they went to court, parents vrs the school board. The parents won. Then the school board could have appealed but those that objected to ID were the only ones left on the board. The others were outed.

This is not a conspiracy, the parents spoke up when the school board started to get out of line. It is unconstitutional to teach creationism in class. There is a seperatation of state and church by design.

The US is *not* a theocracy. It is not a religious state and we dont just start teaching myth and fantasy as fact because you believe this particular myth.

ID = Creationism. This is not science, it is religion. :thud:

 

[McBell]

So now that I have seen the movie AND have brought it up, I have some sort of nefarious agenda? Wow. Such stereotyping and biases are simply amazing. What seems to be my agenda, Mestemia? Please, I would like to see how you have pigeon holed me.

ROTFLMAO
You truly have gone over the deep end.
The FACT is that you use a reference that is NOTHING BUT agenda yet demand others use references without agendas.
You are a hypocrite.
Plain and simple.
Your attempt at martyrdom has simply made you look the fool.
Way to go.

 

[Scuba Pete]

ROTFLMAO
You truly have gone over the deep end.

That answered my question and ended our conversation. Have a great day.

 

[McBell]

That answered my question and ended our conversation. Have a great day.

Of course it did.
You are not interested in truth.
You are merely interested in the fight.
I mean, why else would you ignore facts that are presented to you?
The truth is your attempt at martyrdom has seriously failed in this thread.
Better to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and try again in another thread.
There is nothing left for you to salvage in this thread.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You guys, really have no idea what I believe, and yet I have made it plain as day. I have never and probably will never be a proponent of ID.

However, when I see bigotry and bias disguised as science, I feel honor bound to point that out. You can let this degenerate into calling me over the deep end, delusional or whatever epithet that you want. Rather than making a CASE that this theophobia exists, you merely PROVE it. None of you have given a whit of evidence to REFUTE it, but you are more than willing to vilify me for saying we should give the proponents of ID a chance to figure things out.

BTW, prove me wrong. FIND ONE POST that says I believe in ID. Find one post that says I don't believe in evolution. But I raise the voice of inquiry and you turn it into the ID Inquisition. It's obvious that unless I renounce ID, that I will be relegated to being a crack pot. That's simply amazing closed mindedness. But thanks for playing.

 

[McBell]

You guys, really have no idea what I believe, and yet I have made it plain as day. I have never and probably will never be a proponent of ID.

Please present even one post where I have said otherwise.

Rather than making a CASE that this theophobia exists, you merely PROVE it.

Your idea of what constitutes proof is rather selective I see.

None of you have given a whit of evidence to REFUTE it, but you are more than willing to vilify me for saying we should give the proponents of ID a chance to figure things out.

The fact is that you have not presented even a whit of evidence to PROVE it, but you are more than willing to vilify others for presenting "agenda filled" references to refute your "agenda filled reference."

BTW, prove me wrong. FIND ONE POST that says I believe in ID. Find one post that says I don't believe in evolution. But I raise the voice of inquiry and you turn it into the ID Inquisition. It's obvious that unless I renounce ID, that I will be relegated to being a crack pot. That's simply amazing closed mindedness. But thanks for playing.

Slow down dude.
You are moving the goal posts so fast no one can keep up!

 

[Father Heathen]

The point is, Pete, that ID can't be put forth as a science because in order to do so it has to meet several requirements,such as being observable, testable and falsifiable, for example. Also Benny Stein destroys his own credibility by attempting to use sensationalism and slander to discredit the theory of evolution. He presents it like it's some how mutually exclusive from god, which is patently false. He totally ignores the countless professional scientists who happen to believe in both god and evolution. There is no conflict between the two unless of course you take any of the countless creation myths literally, which any intellectually honest person will admit is not scientific. Then he goes forth with non sequitirs about Nazis and such. Ben clearly wasn't interested in an objective and unbiased look at the truth, and approached the subject with a religious conservative agenda.

 

[gnomon]

The fact that Mr. Dawkins referred to an intelligent alien as possibly providing design for life on Earth is nothing new. Many other scientists and philosophers you would hear this from include

1) Carl Sagan
2) Stephen Gould
3) Daniel Dennett
4) Sam Harris
5) Ron Matson (my biology professor who appeared on an episode of P&T's BS during their Evolution/ID program)
6) Basically every scientist and philosopher who understands what science means. That for any of them to state with certainty that there is no way alien intelligent design/panspermia or other possibilities within the known laws of physics regarding the beginning of life on Earth (which is not evolutionary theory) would be contra to the standards of scientific thought.

The only thing achieved in the OP was to get a prominent scientist to say anything close to intelligent design so they could equivocate the statement with Intelligent Design.

Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between intelligent design and Intelligent Design/ID, a.k.a. creationism, doesn't understand the issue at all.

Big deal.

This thread is not truly about ID or evolution. It's about Pete trying to get one over on atheists.

Which is really what Stein was trying to achieve and failed so miserably at as well.

It's not hateful. It is prejudicial.

But it is especially dumb.