Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."



  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?





  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Family 15 Minutes of Fame | Main | Working the Speed Bag, ca. 1950 »

Comments

realpc

There is nothing unscientific about the ID hypotheses.

I'll say it again. Hope your head will recover.

Cedric Katesby

"There is nothing unscientific about the ID hypotheses."

Prove it.

Why is this so hard for you?

amba

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's not a hypothesis that's scientific or unscientific; it's what you do with it.

realpc

ID says RM+NS cannot account for the origin of new species (or the origin of life -- but evolutionary biologists say that's not their problem).

The currently accepted theory (should I call it CAT?) says that RM+NS are adequate to explain all aspects of evolution (they will say there is much more to it than that, but it's basically RM+NS).

Neither ID nor CAT have supported their hypotheses with experimental evidence. So by your criteria, Cedric, CAT is not scientific.

Of course it's scientific to have a theory which is not yet proven. Physics is full of theories that may or may not lead anywhere. Scientists do a lot of thinking and wondering. You have completely left that out of the scientific method. Coming up with hypotheses is the hard part, what makes science a creative art. Science is also philosophical. You make it sound like a mechanical series of well-defined steps. It is not.

At this point we have no proof one way or the other about the theories of evolution. People are working on it, and they should be allowed to disagree.

Science does not always involve experiments. But it does, or should, always involve freedom to speculate and wonder. Science is not a religion or a cult, where you have to believe a certain way. You don't have to be a materialist atheist to be a scientist.

Science is about freedom to think and wonder, and it's about creativity.

Not all scientists are great or creative. Many are followers with no original ideas. But science should allow independent creative thinking.

If Einstein had been a conformist and afraid to disagree with his professors and peers, he would never have made his discoveries.

Cedric Katesby

Amba said...
"...it's what you do with it."

Do what with what?

How does a worker work with no tools?

How does a painter paint without oil and canvas?

How does a scientist work with no hypothesis?

This is not some legalistic, pedantic preamble.

This is not some word game.

The you-know-what-questions are there because....they work.

That's how you figure stuff out in the natural world.
Thats how you expand human knowledge of the universe around us.
That's how you develop penicillin.
That's how you get to the moon.

..............................

"ID says RM+NS cannot account for the origin of new species"

This is not a theory.
It's not even a hypothesis.

Can't you see that?

"So by your criteria, Cedric, CAT is not scientific."

Irrelevant, since we are not talking about the strengths or weaknesses of "CAT".

We're talking about ID.

"Of course it's scientific to have a theory which is not yet proven."

I'm not asking for you to demonstrate the VERACITY of your theory or hypothesis.

I'm asking you to demonstrate that you have a theory/hypothesis AT ALL!

................................

You have issues with "CAT"?
Great. Fine. Wonderful.

You've found some horrifying flaw in the "CAT" that science refuses to acknowledge?
Great. Fine. Wonderful.

So, where is your alternative theory?

Or failing that...

Where is your alternative hypothesis?

I'm not sure I can make this any simpler for you.

................................

There seems to be this wierd confusion as to what actually is a "hypothesis" and what is a "theory" and why these words are vital to this discussion.

Here's a quick article that will hopefully clear up any confusion.

Why “Intelligent Design” (ID) is not science.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html


amba

Cedric, penicillin was first discovered BY ACCIDENT.

realpc

Cedric,

Of course I have ideas about what causes evolution. Sheldrake's hypotheses make sense to me, for example. And his hypotheses can be tested, and he does test them. But materialist science tries to ignore him.

Current biology denies the existence of life energy. This energy has been known for thousands of years in oriental medicine and in yoga. But current biology says it does not and cannot possibly exist. Life energy might play an important role in evolution, and all other aspects of life. But materialist biology denies it.

Biologists could explore the possible existence of life energy, and make efforts to define and measure it. But they don't, because it cannot exist in their philosophical worldview.

Materialism and science are not the same thing. There must be many substances and energies currently unknown to science. Why refuse to explore the possibilities? Why not be open-minded? Science is supposed to be open-minded, not dogmatic and authoritarian. Yet science has become narrow-mindedly materialist.

There are many things that evolutionary biologists could explore right now, if not for the dogmatic materialist ideology. This ideology has not been challenged for decades. ID is despised and denounced because it questions the accepted ideology.

ID is not one simple hypothesis. There are many theories and hypotheses involved in questioning mechanistic, reductionist, materialist dogma.

Sheldrake's hypothesis is one, for example. There is no shortage of avenues to explore. Too bad established mainstream science is so resistant to change. But that's human nature.

Cedric Katesby

Amba said "...by accident".
Well, here's something a little more in-depth on penicillin.
Makes for interesting reading.

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/BOT135/Lect21b.htm

................................

RealPC said..
"I have ideas about what causes evolution"

Huh? Whatever...
:(

RealPC said "ID is not one simple hypothesis."

Is ID (as touted by the Discovery Institute) a theory?
Yes or No?

Is ID (as touted by the Discovery Institute) a hypothesis?
Yes or No?

After all the effort I've put into this, I'd really like a straight answer.

amba

Good story, Cedric, but really badly written. To the point of error through misuse of language.

realpc

Materialists say that science can only study the material, or "natural" world. But what is material about gravity, or electromagnetism? Many of the concepts studied by physics cannot be detected by our senses, and are not at all what we normally mean by "physical."

Things that are now called "supernatural" and cannot be detected by instruments are considered off-limits by contemporary materialist science.

But why? How do you know that these things will never be measured and studied? How do you know there are no biofields guiding the development of organisms and the evolution of species?

Not everyone who questions Darwinism belongs to Discovery. You don't have to be religious or Christian to doubt the materialist ideology.

The more that is learned about life, the more inadequate Darwin's simple hypothesis looks.

Cedric Katesby

Amba said "To the point of error through misuse of language."

What didn't you like about it?
Just asking.

........................

Evidently, my straight answer will be a long time in coming.
:)

RealPC, you don't have a theory.
You don't have a hypothesis.

You've just got naval gazing.

"Materialists say that..."

"Things that are now called supernatural..."

"Not everyone who questions Darwinism belongs to Discovery."

"The more that is learned about life..."

.................................

The Discovery Institute has no theory.
The Discovery Institute has no hypothesis.

When they say they are doing science, they are lying.

When an ID proponent puts the phrase "Intelligent Design" in the same sentence as "hypothesis/theory" then they are spreading a falsehood.

Do you get it now?

amba

He or she doesn't use the English language correctly -- calls antibiotics "antibodies," for example. I can't go through and point out others, 'cause I'm on a deadline.

amba

Cedric, you're not really listening. Real is not speaking for or of the Discovery Institute. She said, "Not everyone who questions Darwinism is in Discovery."

amba

You guys need to take a look at this:

In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing. Unlike the story about our minds being anachronistic adaptations, this new twist doesn’t seem to have been widely noticed outside professional circles. The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea that anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true. A lot of the history of science consists of the world playing that sort of joke on our most cherished theories. . . .
amba
The breaking news, however, is that serious alternatives to adaptationism have begun to emerge; ones that preserve the essential claim that phenotypes evolve, but depart to one degree or other from Darwin’s theory that natural selection is the mechanism by which they do.
Cedric Katesby

Amba said...
"You guys need to have a look at this..."

It has been dutifully added to the already vast and venerable collection.

The Imminent Demise of Evolution
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

.................................

Amba said...
"Cedric, you're not really listening."

On the contrary.
I've not only listened, I've BEGGED her to say something.

"Real is not speaking for or of the Discovery Institute."

How does this stop her from answering my two previous questions with a simple "yes" or "no"?

Could I persuade you to give me a straight answer on those two?
Please.

RealPC
"Not everyone who questions Darwinism is in Discovery."

So?

I don't care where you get your information from.
I don't care what sources inspire you to take ID seriously.
I don't give a damn who's questioning Darwinism.

I'm just after the science of ID.

Do you think ID is science?

Yes or no?

If yes, then....

(sits back and waits with grim resignation)

realpc

We have been answering you Cedric. You didin't even notice "serious alternatives to adaptationism have begun to emerge" in amba's comment. The science of ID is questioning Darwinism and finding alternatives. And using the scientific method to decide between alternatives.

If you can't hear or process that, well I give up.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said "The science of ID is questioning Darwinism..."

Previously she said "ID says RM+NS cannot account for the origin of new species (or the origin of life."

Previously Amba said "...that ID is really a critique of evolutionary theory, not yet an alternative theory."

RealPC and Amba, this it exactly.
This what I have been trying to get you to see.

Intelligent Design is not a theory.

Intelligent Design is not a hypothesis.

Intelligent Design is just endless carping on about Evolutionary Biology.

Take away the hype.
Take away the sciencey talk.
All you are left with is moaning and groaning about Evolution.

Therefore, ID a fraud.

You don't create a theory or a hypothesis just by bitching about the dominant theory.

You have fallen into the trap of The False Dichotomy.

You can't do science with a false dichotomy.

It's so sad to think that after all these posts, you are making the same basic mistake.

I even gave you, REPEATEDLY, the link to the "Fallacy of ID and creationism-False Dichotomy [Reloaded]" video.

Clearly, RealPC never bothered to watch it.
Or if she did, she certainly didn't understand it.

Do yourself a favor.
Find out what a false dichotomy is.
Find out why ID is a false dichotomy.

I've told you repeatedly that I didn't want to talk about Neo-Darwinism or Evolution or whatever.

(Your ignorance of the "CAT" is your problem.
It's also very boring.)

I told you politely.
Then I told you tersely.
Eventually I used sarcasm to get the message through to you.
(Even that didn't work.)
:(

What do I need to do to get you to 'put a cork in it' about Evolution/Neo-Darwinism etc?

Jump up and down and scream?

When you go off and drone on about Neo-Darwinism etc. you're just showing that you can't talk about ID.

You have fallen for the False Dichotomy.

ID proponents don't do science because all they've got is a false dichotomy.

They have no hypothesis to work with.
They cannot move forward and develop a theory.

Behe has done no research on ID.
Dembski has done no research on ID.
Nobody ever WILL do research on ID.

You can't do science with only a false dichotomy.
It's a science stopper.

When the Discovery Institute takes their false dichotomy and calls it a theory or a hypothesis or whatever....then...they...are...lying!

Warning:
This is the LAST TIME I'm going to post this link.

I'm posting it because I am trying to remain optomistic that perhaps, just perhaps, this time it will sink in!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9MdYU0S7CQ

amba

ID proponents don't do science because all they've got is a false dichotomy. They have no hypothesis to work with. They cannot move forward and develop a theory. Behe has done no research on ID. Dembski has done no research on ID. Nobody ever WILL do research on ID. You can't do science with only a false dichotomy. It's a science stopper.

Cedric, if you had just said that, and not much more, about five posts ago, I would have gone and looked at that link right away. When it comes to boring, as your compatriot TM would say, tu quoque.

realpc

Cedric,

We already explained several times that the article Amba posted describes evidence that contradicts a fundamental claim of Darwinism -- that all genetic variations are random.

This is a testable hypothesis that supports ID's criticism of Darwinism. When any kind of intelligence or purpose is observed in genetic variations, ID is supported.

ID does not make any specific claims about the nature of the intelligence or purpose behind genetic variations. There is no point jumping ahead and speculating in the dark. Right now, the point is to show something other than randomness in genetic mutations.

So ID has at least one very clear and testable hypothesis. Contrary to the propaganda you seem to have swallowed.

Cedric Katesby

Amba said "...if you had just said that, and not much more, about five posts ago..."

Actually I posted it way, way, back at the beginning of this thread about twenty-one posts ago.

(But who's counting, yeah?)

Amba said
"I would have gone and looked at that link right away."

So you never bothered to check out the link?
And somehow that's my fault?
(....)
(....)
Priceless.

The video is short.
The video is easy to understand.
Watch it.

Everything I have said about Behe and Dembski is easily verifiable.
I even posted a link to an article on Behe's scientific output after he became an ID casualty.
I guess nobody here bothered to read that either because I'm "boring".
:(

For the record, I've read all the articles you've linked to in this thread.

(Indeed, I've gone on and read other articles that either support or are critical of your articles)
............................

RealPC said "...evidence that contradicts a fundamental claim of Darwinism"

And so RealPC takes us for another spin around on the merry-go-round.
False dichotomy.

RealPC, do you know what a false dichotomy is?


amba

Cedric dahlink, I have other things to do besides read and write online. It's particularly hard to watch videos because I am always in the same room with my ill husband and then he wants to know "what's that," and then he can't hear it well, or understand it, and then a half hour is spent in trying to explain. I don't watch videos much.

I'm trying to tell you that people would hear what you're saying better if you were more concise, reduced the ranting and got to the point. As it is, one has to go in and dig it out, and one may not bother. Editorial advice.

Cedric Katesby

I'm sorry about your circumstances. I didn't realise.

I'm not meaning to rant.

I'm trying to make a constructive argument.
Yet RealPC is doing her one-trick pony show.

I try to explain that ID is bunk.
RealPC says it's not.

Fine, we have an argument going.
A good argument is a healthy thing.
It's what thinking adults do.

So, I've tried to get a scientific definition of ID out of RealPC.

She goes "Neo-Darwinism blah, blah, blah."

I try to steer the conversation back to ID.

RealPC goes "The trouble with Evolutionism is blah, blah, blah"

I try to explain that she's locked in a false dichotomy.

That looking for flaws (real or imagined) in the "CAT" does not lend support to her position.

I'd like to talk about the science of ID.

RealPC gestures to the article.
She says "Here's your evidence for ID, it's odvious!"

I explain that what seems odvious to her does not seem odvious to myself, nor the researchers involved, nor science in general.
The article is not connected with ID.
She's engaging in wishful thinking.

Can she demonstrate why she feels that the article is supportive of ID?

RealPC says "Well Neo-Dawinism can't explain this so blah, blah, blah."

Once again, I try to get through to her that she is locked in a false dichotomy.

So, as regular as clock-work, RealPC says "Darwinism doesn't have evidence to blah, blah, blah."

RealPC has a position.
She believes that ID is science.

I what to know why she thinks so.

If I can get her to focus soley on ID, then perhaps she will realise that her position is untenable.

I want her to see that she has no working framework.

She cannot give a scientific definition of ID because there is none.

She cannot give a hypothesis because there is none.

She has been duped.
.............................

I posted the videos and articles to help explain my argument.

What's a theory?
What's a hypothesis?
How does science work?
Why does ID not qualify?
How come Behe's doing nothing?
What's a false dichotomy?

The articles I've given links to can explain these scientific terms and why, if taken together, they expose the emptiness of ID.

None of it's overly long or academic.
In fact, the majority of it makes for interesting reading.

The videos are especially useful because they add visual aids to the discussion to help clarify matters.

As I continued to post, I assumed that all parties concerned has read my links and understood my point of reference and so, hopefully, the argument could move forward.

Instead, much to my frustration, it just seemed to go around in circles.

................................

If you get some free time, please check out the articles and videos provided in my previous posts.
As a final suggestion, if you find the others informative, I have one other recommendation.

After you've gone through the others you might want to view
a video lecture by Dr Barbara Forrest
titled "Creationism's Trojan Horse".

It's about an hour long but Dr Forrest really knows how to put on a good lecture.

Here's the intro...

"Video Lecture: Barbara Forrest - Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse
June 21, 2007

In this presentation, Dr. Forrest provides a detailed look at her work in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the history of the intelligent design (ID) movement.

Dr. Barbara Forrest is a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University. She is a recognized expert on the intelligent design creationist movement, having published numerous articles and a book on this topic. She testified as an expert witness in Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board, the landmark case in which a group of parents successfully challenged an attempt to introduce the teaching of intelligent design into the public schools."

www.centerforinquiry.net/news/inside_creationisms_trojan_horse/

Hope you find it interesting.


amba

Guess what? I'm familar with Barbara Forrest and Creationism's Trojan Horse. Although (typically) I didn't view the video, I read the transcript. I've been at her website. Natural History magazine, for which I work, ran a long review-essay of books on Kitzmiller v. Dover, and in the process of fact checking the review I had to study all that, fast, but thoroughly.

I think it's a pity that Intelligent Design does in fact have a bunch of people with a religious agenda behind it -- and I know it does -- because I think it's muddied the waters a lot. Scientists might not go some places they ought to be going (like the possibility that as yet unidentified fields are carriers of information) because religious people have already trampled all over that ground.

realpc

Yes amba, the association with religious organizations is very harmful to ID. But I guess that's the only way they can get funding.

I explained various aspects of scientific ID to Cedric but he has some kind of mental block. Sheldrake's biofields are an obvious possibility. And Arthur Koestler had a lot to say about complex natural systems and evolution.

I think that as more computer scientists and engineers get involved in the study of genetics, the impossibility of DNA evolving by chance will become increasingly obvious.

Mainstream biologists haven't really left the 19th century. They haven't had their "theory of relativity" yet.

But the controversy is more political/ideological than scientific. No one has the answers and the questions are complex. It's easy to create confusion and make it seem like one side or the other has it all figured out.

Cedric keeps yelling about a false dichotomy. I guess he means that if Darwinism is wrong it doesn't mean ID is right. But the dichotomy is not false; the contest is between two very different philosophies. Materialism can be shown to be wrong. Whenever mind is seen to act independently of material brains, that is evidence against the currently prevailing scientific ideology.

This is not a simple either-or debate. But when genetic variations are seen to be nonrandom, that suggests serious problems in Darwin's hypothesis. And the current theory. No, it does not prove that ID is absolutely correct, but ID is strengthened as Darwinism is weakened. Because there is a dichotomy.

You either believe that nature is mindless, and that intelligence is always a product of physical brains, or you believe intelligence is more general and that nature can possess intelligence.

ID says natural systems can be intelligent, mainstream biology says they cannot. That is the dichotomy.

realpc

And Cedric doesn't seem to understand anything about propaganda. If the Center for Inquiry expresses its opinion that ID is really creationism, that is just an expression of the organization's ideological perspective. I already understand that perspective, and I know I disagree with it. Why would it change my opinion to hear the same ideas expressed again and again?

Propaganda sounds scientific and convincing when it says things you already believe. Cedric is already a secularist/naturalist/atheist, whatever label you prefer. The Center for Inquiry promotes that perspective, so of course he likes everything they say. And thinks that if I hear it, I will suddenly change my views on everything.

I have heard the secularist arguments many times. I didn't learn to read yesterday, and I didn't learn about ID yesterday. I spent my life trying to understand this debate.

Cedric Katesby

Amba said...
"Guess what? I'm familar with Barbara Forrest and Creationism's Trojan Horse."

Well, I'm glad you checked it out.
:)

(Though you missed out on the audio of the fart noises that Dembski recorded and Dr Forrest used to 'set the tone' of her lecture.)


Amba said
"Scientists might not go some places they ought to be going (like the possibility that as yet unidentified fields are carriers of information) because religious people have already trampled all over that ground."

Behe is afraid to "go some places" because religious people have trampled over the ground?

Behe IS religious.
He's the one doing the trampling.

Dembski? About as religious as they come.

...............................

RealPC said
"I guess he means that if Darwinism is wrong it doesn't mean ID is right."

Wow.
The penny drops.

Unfortunately, later she says...

"No, it does not prove that ID is absolutely correct, but ID is strengthened as Darwinism is weakened. Because there is a dichotomy."

Oops. My bad.
She didn't get it at all.

"ID says natural systems can be intelligent, mainstream biology says they cannot. That is the dichotomy."

Huh? What do you mean?
"Natural Systems"
Intelligent"

Are you going to spell out a working scientific hypothesis?

...A tumble-week rolls acoss the plain...
...The drip-drip-drip of a tap is heard somewhere off-screen...
...An old man snores peacefully...

If you believe that an animal, a microbe, a DNA strand or my left hand is "intelligently designed" then nobody is stopping you.

The trick is to scientifically demonstrate it.
And for that you need data, a working hypothesis and so on.

So Intelligent Design vanishes in a puff of smoke.
And Behe and Dembski continue to cash their royalty checks.

realpc

"Are you going to spell out a working scientific hypothesis?"

I have mentioned Sheldrake's hypothesis, repeatedly, for one thing. And I said that observations of purpose in genetic variations contradict Darwinism. I said, over and over, that the article Amba posted shows that genetic mutations can be nonrandom.

>Huh? What do you mean?
>"Natural Systems"
>Intelligent"

Cedric, you have never given opposing philosophies a passing glance, if you don't know what I mean. You only learned materialism in school, like so many others, and you never once imagined it could be wrong in any way.

This is what all of us who believe in ID, or any form of non-reductionist scientific perspective, find so frustrating. The brainwashing is so effective in biology classes, many students become devout materialists for life.

Ok, materialism is one way of looking at things. But there are other possibilities, which you never hear about in science education now days.

You assume that Amba and I are open-minded about ID because we have not been exposed to the great insights of materialism and Darwinism. But you're wrong. I know what Darwinists believe and why they believe it. I think they go far beyond the evidence and make unwarranted assumptions, because they want a certain philosophical perspective to be true.

Finally, I don't think linking to videos is such a good idea. We don't have time to wait through the long introductions and jokes, not even knowing what part of the video you expect us to find so convincing.

It is much more helpful to post a quote or a link to a text article. And we want to see scientific logic and evidence, not materialist cheer-leading and propaganda.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC "I have mentioned Sheldrake's hypothesis"

So you are abandoning the Discovery Institute?
Dropping Behe like a hot potato?
Consigning Dembski to the trash can?

Here's a quote from Paul Nelson...

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem.
WITHOUT A THEORY, IT"S VERY HARD TO KNOW WHERE TO DIRECT YOUR RESEARCH FOCUS.
Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
Touchstone Magazine 7/8 (2004): pp 64 – 65
(emphasis mine)

Do you agree?

............................

RealPC continued....
"...observations of purpose in genetic variations contradict Darwinism. I said, over and over, that the article Amba posted shows that genetic mutations can be nonrandom."

False Dichotomy.
Do you understand why your above statement is not an ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS?
That it's just a false dichotomy?

Do you understand that your above statement is not an ALTERNATIVE THEORY?
That it's just a false dichotomy?

Please find out what a false dichotomy is.
Unless you grasp this basic concept of logic then you're just going nowhere.

...............................

"You have never given opposing philosophies a passing glance"

Philosophy?
Why are you talking about philosophy?
I'm arguing with you about science.

"You assume that Amba and I are open-minded about ID".

Be open-minded about whatever you feel. And Baal go with you.

I'm just after the scientific evidence for ID.
If you can't present a hypothesis, then say so.
If you can't present a theory, then say so.
If ID is not science, just philosophical notions, then say so.

No need to get all angstly about it.
:)

..................................

RealPC said
"We don't have time to wait through the long introductions and jokes, not even knowing what part of the video you expect us to find so convincing."

Amba's situation I understand.
However, I have no idea why watching short videos is difficult for you.

The False Dichotomy video is nine minutes long.
(Not exactly the Lord of the Rings Trilogy)

Trust me, it's VERY EASY to understand.

I posted two comedy videos.
The Intelligent Design Clip From NowShow is only two minutes long.
Robin Ince on Creationism will cost you three minutes and twenty seconds.

Both are funny and you can enjoy them with only a pair of head-phones.

The Dr Forrest video is the only lengthy one I suggested.
Yet I did give fair warning that it's a lecture and that it was over an hour long.
It was offered only as a suggestion. Not vital to the argument.

So, aside from the lecture, the three videos I urged you to watch were a total of about twelve minutes.
Five minutes of which were devoted to comedy.

If you don't have twelve minutes to kill, then you must be really, REALLY busy.

..............................

RealPC said
"We want to see scientific logic and evidence, not materialist cheer-leading and propaganda."

Prove it.

So far, your arguments have contained only the....

1) Argument of False Dichotomy.

2) The "scientists are closed-minded" argument.

3) The "you are hysterical, therefore I win" argument.

Rinse and repeat.

realpc

"f you don't have twelve minutes to kill, then you must be really, REALLY busy."

Yes I am, most people are. I constantly have to decide what is or is not worth spending time on. Videos that make fun of ID are certainly not on my list.

You have not said anything scientific or logical, nothing that would make us think, nothing we could argue against. All you do is rant and post links.

Most of the anti-ID fanatics pretend that ID is creationism and that ID opposes evolution. That is deception.

I do not belong to Discovery and never did. I can believe nature is intelligent without believing everything that everyone in some organization believes. ID is not a cult. It sometimes seems that Darwinism is, though. No one is allowed to disagree with its basic premise, that nature is mindless.

I am not making a false dichotomy, Cedric. Anything that shows intelligence and purpose in nature, and operates outside of physical brains, disproves the most basic premise of Darwinism.

Scientific atheists devoutly and fervently believe that a mindless and purposeless nature can generate intelligent and purposeful creatures.

Darwin's theory is partly correct -- random mutations do occur and so does natural selection. And evolution is a fact. The anti-ID fanatics pretend that ID questions these proven facts. It doesn't.

Cedric Katesby

Cedric said...

"3) The "you are hysterical, therefore I win" argument."

So RealPC
(predictable as ever)
says...
"All you do is rant..."

Cedric said...
"2) The "scientists are closed-minded" argument."

So RealPC
(predictable as ever)
says...
"...anti-ID fanatics, blah, blah, blah,... It sometimes seems that Darwinism is
[a cult], though. No one is allowed to disagree with its basic premise, blah, blah, blah...
Scientific atheists devoutly and fervently believe..."

Cedric said...
"1) Argument of False Dichotomy."

So,
(having no idea what a false dichotomy is)

RealPC said...
"I am not making a false dichotomy, Cedric. Anything that shows intelligence and purpose in nature, and operates outside of physical brains, disproves the most basic premise of Darwinism."
Rinse and Repeat.

Perfect.
:)

..................................

Oh I almost forgot...
RealPC said...
"I do not belong to Discovery and never did."

Didn't say you did.

Just asking for your opinion.
You can manage that can't you?
Just for the record, yeah?

Ready?
Here goes...
1)
Is ID(as touted by the Discovery Institute) a theory?
Yes or No?
2)
Is ID(as touted by the Discovery Institute) a hypothesis?
Yes or No?

You watch the news.
You're an educated woman.
Just asking for a simple opinion.
A straight answer for a change.

(Look, let me give you an example of how easy it is.)

I also do not belong to the Discovery Institute, and never did.

Yet I find it very easy to answer the two questions.

My answers?
1) No.
2) No again.

Easy huh?
OK, your turn...

...A wolf howls in the Alaskan wilderness....
...Rust spreads slowly over a car- wreck...
...Waves gently lap at a deserted beach...


realpc

I don't care what is touted by the Discovery Institute! Why should that be my problem?

I have explained countless times now that ID makes testable predictions. I have make logical arguments. You have not.

Can you provide logic and scientific evidence for Darwinism and against ID?

Anti-ID people give evidence for evolution in general, and against creationism. Well that has nothing at all to do with the controversy.

Can you explain why you believe Darwinism, or some recent variation of it, is an adequate explanation for evolution? Can you explain exactly why you oppose ID? Not as touted by Discovery or any other political organization. Can you explain exactly why you think a dead mindless universe can create complex and intelligent machinery?

Do you know of any scientific evidence that supports your belief? Do you realize that evidence for evolution in general is not evidence for Darwin's hypothesis?

Do you realize that scientific materialists assume random mutations plus natural selection can account for the origin of all species, even though they have no real scientific evidence to support that belief?

They believe it because it must be true, given their philosophical perspective.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC sweats...
"I don't care what is touted by the Discovery Institute! Why should that be my problem?"

It's not your problem, RealPC.
Yet I'm curious about your opinion on the matter.

You're an educated woman.
(Why, you have a Phd!)
You're a supporter of ID.
You have access to the Internet.
And you know exactly who and what the Discovery Institute is.


So....what's your answer to my two little questions?
What's your honest opinion?
Share with us.
Please.
Share.
:)

...Plankton floats on the Pacific current...
...Ivy grows over an old Mayan ruin...
...A bear hibernates in it's cave...

realpc

I agree with some Discovery Institute claims and I disagree with others.

You won't talk about the actual scientific controversy. You probably don't know much about it. You are only interested in the politics. Well the politics of the evolution debate is silly.

You are not interested in having a logical scientific discussion about evolution theory.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"I agree with some Discovery Institute claims and I disagree with others."

Fantastic.
We're making progress.
So, what claims do you agree with?
Please be specific.
(and give links, of course)
Thanks.

realpc

I agree with the Discovery Institute claim that Darwin's theory of evolution has not been supported with scientific evidence. I agree that Darwin's theory (or newer versions of it) cannot explain the origin of species. I agree that it appears that some kind of intelligence is involved in the creation and evolution of life.

I have already explained my own opinions about evolution. You never responded or explained why you disagree with me.

Darwinisn, or newer versions of it, is being presented as scientifically proven fact. Evolution is proven, the random mutation plus natural selection explanation of evolution is not proven. It has not even been tested.

No theory of evolution has been proven. It is an open scientific question. Debate should be allowed and encouraged.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"I have already explained my own opinions about evolution. You never responded or explained why you disagree with me."

RealPC, you are welcome to your opinions on evolution.
Whatever you think about evolution is just fine by me.

If you think that evolution is "x" or "y" or "z"....then...good for you!
I don't care.
I have no argument to make on evolution.

However, I would like to argue with you about Intelligent Design.
Can you do that?
Am I asking too much of you?

realpc

Cedric,

You have not made any logical statements about why you don't like Intelligent Design. You don't like the Discovery Institute, apparently for political reasons. I have absolutely no idea what theory of evolution you believe in. You seem to be against Intelligent Design but have never explained why.

I suspect you hate ID because it's supported by religious organizations and you think religion is for dummies. You think bashing ID makes you look Bright.

In reality, it's just narrow-minded to bash something you don't understand.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"You have not made any logical statements about why you don't like Intelligent Design."

(sigh)

Let's pretend
(for the sake of argument)
that you know about Intelligent Design.

Let's pretend
(for the sake of argument)
that I know NOTHING about Intelligent Design.

Let's also pretend that I don't like evolution any more than you do.
In fact, for every flaw you've discovered, I can come up with ten more glaring flaws.
Ok?

So, our starting position is that we both don't like Darwinism together.
Ok?

So,...(deep breath)... tell me about Intelligent Design.

I'm offering you a free kick here.
I'm deliberately trying not to presume anything about your position.
I'm trying to avoid putting words in your mouth.

(Work with me.)

Let's talk about Intelligent Design.
Can you do this?
Yes or No?


realpc

I have explained my opinions, logically and scientifically. You have not said anything that anyone could respond to.

I believe in evolution, it is a fact. I do not believe in Christian creationism, it has been thoroughly disproven.

The anti-ID movement is deceptive, unscientific and intolerant of opposing views.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"I have explained my opinions, logically and scientifically."

Yes.
Yes of course you have.
But I'm stupid.
Very stupid.
Help me RealPC.
Please.

Please quote the part where you logically and scientifically explained Intelligent Design.

Remember, (for the sake of argument) I freely and fully conceed any objections you have to Dawinism, neo-Darwinism or whatever.
Ok?
So, please tell me about Intelligent Design.

The Red Carpet is laid out for you.

realpc

I have gone through this several times already Cedric and I can't figure out what you're trying to prove.

As I have said repeatedly:

I like Sheldrake's ideas about evolution, and I like ideas from systems theory, for example. And I don't think Lamarck's theory was ever completely ruled out. There are many interesting ideas and possibilities. If only biologists had not fallen madly in love with neo-Darwinism and ruled out all alternatives.

Evolution is controversial, but if you believe mainstream biology it has been settled once and for all. Evolution should be taught as an open question, because that is what it is. It has NOT been settled scientifically.

Scientific atheism is now in control, so only ideas compatible with a dead and mindless universe are permitted.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC.
Look carefully at your previous posting.
Did you notice that, while you mentioned many different topics, you didn't 'logically and scientifically explain Intelligent Design'?

(You didn't even use the phrase "Intelligent Design")

Please, please tell me what it is!

You 'likes' and 'thoughts' and 'ideas' and 'possibilities' are fine.

Let's pretend
(for the sake of argument)
that I freely and fully appreciate the value of your admiration of Sheldrake, Lamarck etc.

Also,
(for the sake of argument)
I fully conceed the evils of scientific atheism.

Even
(for the sake of argument)
that the anti-ID movement is deceptive, unscientific and intolerant of opposing views.

Ok?
I conceed EVERYTHING that you're saying.
I'm on your side.
In the same camp.
We're rooting for the same team!

So...can we please now talk about Intelligent Design?

You can define it however you want.
You can use your own words or quote from whatever source you like.
I don't mind.

I'd like to know what you think it is.

I'm trying to keep this simple for you, RealPC.
I'm being as fair and as reasonable as possible.
State your case.

The podium is ready.
The microphone is on.

Go for it.

realpc

Intelligent Design is one approach to criticizing the current theory. Its specific approach is to use information theory to detect information, and information is considered to be the result of design.

That approach makes sense to me and I see nothing wrong with it. As far as I know, it does not propose a specific alternative theory about the cause of evolution. But, as I said, there are alternative theories that could be explored if neo-Darwinism is found to be inadequate.

So Intelligent Design has an important role in the search for a better understanding of evolution.

Intelligent Design does not try to answer all the questions about life and evolution. No one can do that. And Intelligent Design should be judged only for its mathematical and scientific proposals, not for any political or religious agendas that have become attached to it.

There are political and anti-religious agendas attached to neo-Darwinism. Whether a theory is true or false, useful or not, has nothing to do with what political groups have attached themselves to it.

Cedric Katesby

"There are political and anti-religious agendas attached to neo-Darwinism."

Yes, yes, yes.
They are very ugly too!
I've already conceeded this.
Remember?

..............................

"...there are alternative theories that could be explored if..."

Please RealPC, can we just focus on one for now?
I've only got one life-span.

.................................

So the meat of your position on Intelligent Design is...

"Intelligent Design is one approach to criticizing the current theory. Its specific approach is to use information theory to detect information, and information is considered to be the result of design."

And later...
"As far as I know, it does not propose a specific alternative theory about the cause of evolution."


Ok.
I need some more specific information about what you've just said.

I'd like to ask you some questions.

These questions will focus EXCLUSIVELY on your above statement.
I would really appreciate it if you could give me a straight "yes" or "no" to each of my questions.

Do you think you could do this for me?
Would this be ok?


realpc

Intelligent Design tries to open a door to the possible exploration of alternative theories of evolution. It does not say God caused evolution. It expresses skepticism about the idea that random mutations acted on by natural selection (plus some other things, but basically RM and NS) can entirely account for the origin of new species. It does not claim to be able to account for the origin of new species.

As I said, there are other theories that try to explain evolution, and these theories plus others not yet thought of might one day explain evolution. At this time, ID theorists are not claiming to explain evolution. They are saying that design can be detected mathematically in nature, which suggests that nature possesses some kind of intelligence.

Biology settled on the currently accepted theory (RM + NS, basically) in the 20th century, and has refused to question the validity of that theory. The theory became entrenched, and now it's heresy to question it.

The current theory states that genetic variations are random with respect to the needs or goals of the species and its members. That is the essence of evolutionary biology today. That is what Intelligent Design questions.

Maybe that answers your questions.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC,
(with your permission)
I'd like to try and distill your key sentences.

Let me know if I'm being unfair.

You said...
""Intelligent Design is one approach to criticizing the current theory."

So, in other words, you believe that ID is only a critique of the "CAT"?
Right?

Later you said...
"As far as I know, it does not propose a specific alternative theory about the cause of evolution."

So, according to you, ID is not actually a scientific theory.
Right?

realpc

"So, according to you, ID is not actually a scientific theory.
Right?"

Absolutely wrong. ID theorists don't pretend to have all the ultimate answers. CAT does. ID is MORE scientific, not less. There is no way for anyone to know at this time what actually caused the origin of species (let alone the origin of life).

Do you realize that biologists DO NOT KNOW how life originated? Does that mean a biologist working on the origin of life problem is not a scientist. OF COURSE NOT. But by your reasoning, origin of life research should be banned.

I see what you're trying to do, and you're wrong. You want ID blocked from science classes and university web sites, you want them starved for funding. All because they don't claim to have all the answers at this time.

Ridiculous.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...

"Absolutely wrong."

But previously RealPC said...

""As far as I know, it does not propose a specific alternative theory about the cause of evolution."

So which is it?
Is it a theory or not?

realpc

First define what you mean by "theory" Cedric. ID looks for evidence of design in living things. It is an approach to evolutionary biology. ID theorizes, or hypothesizes, that the current theory is inadequate. ID theorizes that evidence of design can be found in nature, and that design is involved in the evolutionary process.

ID DOES NOT HAVE TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT CAUSES EVOLUTION TO BE A THEORY.

Yes, the current theory does say exactly what causes evolution. That does not make it a better theory, just a more narrow-minded and probably incorrect theory.

So, if a theory is less specific, and more open-minded, do we have to ban it from public schools and universities?

If a theory is more specific, more narrow-minded, and possibly wrong, do we stick with it no matter what?

I still can't figure out what you're trying to prove.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design

Ecosystem


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004