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

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
First define what you mean by "theory" Cedric.

(Grits teeth.)

Fine.
Here's what I mean by "theory".

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Learn.

Read it?
Got it?
GOOD!

So, is ID a scientific theory?
Yes or no?


realpc

ID does not say what causes evolution. The current theory claims to know what causes evolution, without having supporting evidence.

The current theory and ID are contrasting approaches to the study of evolution. Is one better because it makes specific claims, although it does not have evidence? Is the other inferior because it tries to gather evidence, without claiming to know exactly how evolution works?

Is there something wrong with not claiming to have the answer? The whole point is that the cause of evolution is unknown, that the current theory is being advanced mostly for political and philosophical reasons.

ID is an approach to studying evolution. It makes no difference whether it claims to be a theory or not. Who cares? Why do you care?

Let's say a researcher was applying for grants to study cancer. Does the funding agency require a specific theory about the cause of cancer? Of course not. That's what the researcher is trying to find out. If the answers were already known, research would not be needed!

The ID approach to studying evolution is valid. You saw some anti-ID activists on a video, saying that ID is not a theory, so it should be ignored. Nonsense.

And as I repeated many times, there ARE reasonable evolution theories that are compatible with ID, but not with the current theory. As long as mainstream biology insists the current theory is correct, even without evidence, alternatives will not be explored.

It's scientific to be open-minded. It's anti-science to be close-minded and chose your beliefs for emotional and political reasons.

amba

Magnificent post, Real.

realpc

Thanks Amba. I also want to explain to Cedric that he does not need to educate me about science. I know that doing science is practicing an art, not following a list of clear and simple steps. I know that there is no clear and simple definition of the word "theory."

Yes there are anti-ID activists who believe, or pretend to believe, that it's all very simple, and the answers have been found. The message of ID is, essentially, that the answers have not been found. That's really all they want people teaching evolution theory to admit.

And, again, I am not a member of Discovery and I often disagree with them. I am talking about the ideas behind ID, not the political organizations.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"It makes no difference whether it claims to be a theory or not.
Who cares? Why do you care?”

But....,well,....ya see,...you care.

You keep claiming that it's a theory.

“Consider the recent debates about the Intelligent Design theory of evolution.”
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/02/pear-lab.html

(See! You called it a theory.)

“ID theory does not make any claims about God. The theory is separate…”

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/09/another-definit.html

(There's that 'theory' word again.)

“And it would strengthen the ID theory.”
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/03/_abstract_accor.html

(Theory? Did someone say theory?)

“ID theorists acknowledge…”
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/03/_abstract_accor.html

(Theorists? With a theory, yes?)


“…and that's why the ID theory of evolution is despised and feared.”
http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2007/02/evolution_it_ge.html

(Yet again the 'theory' word. Hmmm)

“Intelligent Design is a theory of evolution that…”
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/paul_krugman_th.html

(Once more the word "theory")

“There is absolutely nothing about the ID theory that wants to stop science.”
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/07/atheism_and_civil_rights_again.php

(Theory, theory, theory, etc.)

So please be honest with me and finally answer my question.

Is ID a scientific theory?
Yes or no?

realpc

You're having a hard time comprehending Cedric. I explained that there is no clear and simple definition of the word "theory." You think you're going to win this argument because of unimportant technicalities? Well then there is no point arguing. Where is the science and logic in your position? Can you do anything more than focus on petty incidentals?

Why do you think ID is wrong, if you do think it's wrong? Why do you think the currently accepted theory is correct, if you do think it's correct? You haven't defined your position at all.

Why do you think ID should be banned from science books (if you do think that)? Because it might not offer a specific and clearly defined theory of what causes evolution?

Well if that were grounds for excluding something, then no criticism of anything would be allowed in science books. No ideas could be presented, unless they were already accepted and stamped with the word "theory."

ID can be called a theory, or a hypothesis, or an approach. The currently accepted theory could be called a hypothesis or a worldview.

Things are seldom as clear and simple as your favorite anti-ID activists would like to believe.

You stubbornly ignore anything I say that involves logic or science. I suspect you are really a computer program sent by the anti-ID activiists.

realpc

And Cedric if we are going to ban anything from science books and classes, we should ban the presentation of so-called "theories" that have not been supported by scientific evidence as if they were proven facts.

The currently accepted Darwinist theory of evolution should be taught as a theory or hypothesis, not as a fact. There are other theories of evolution which have been discounted but have never been disproven.

And the worldview of naturalism, atheism, materialism -- whatever you want to call it -- should not be presented as the only worldview compatible with science.

If we're going to ban anything from science classes, it should be dogmatic insistence on the absolute truth of untested theories and ideologies.

Students should be allowed to know that there is more than one theory of evolution, and that none have been proven. Students should be allowed to know that you don't have to be an atheist to be a scientist, or to be an intelligent person.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said "I explained that there is no clear and simple definition of the word "theory."

Not according to people who own dictionaries and encyclopedias.

For example...

"Theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

RealPC said...
"You're having a hard time comprehending Cedric."

Yes I am. Please help me understand.
Is ID a scientific theory?
Yes or No.

For the sake of argument,
I conceed EVERYTHING that you're saying about all the other stuff.
Darwinism is bad.
Scientists just don't want to listen.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I'm on your side.
In the same camp.
We're rooting for the same team!
Remember?

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


RealPC said...

"ID can be called a theory, or a hypothesis, or an approach."

I don't understand.
What do you mean by "theory"?
What do you mean by "hypothesis"?
What do you mean by "approach"?

Speak English.
Define your terms.
Anything else is just word-salad.


realpc

ID IS NOT PROVEN. THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED "THEORY" IS NOT PROVEN. THERE IS A CONTROVERSY.

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. "

Neo-Darwinism (or whatever you want to call the currently accepted hypothesis) DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT DEFINITION.

If you are defining "theory" as an idea that has been tested and supported by evidence, then you cannot call the currently accepted theory a theory.

So remove neo-Darwinism from the text books.

realpc

And I don't necessarily agree with your definition of "theory." Einstein's theory was a theory before it was widely accepted.

A theory has more evidence than a hypothesis, but there is no consensus on exactly when a hypothesis becomes a theory.

And, again, Darwin's theory was accepted without being tested. How do you account for that?

Cedric Katesby

RealPC, focus on what you posted.
Focus really hard.

"ID IS NOT PROVEN."

That's not what I asked you.
I asked you if it is a theory.
Is it a theory?
Yes or no?

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

"THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED "THEORY" IS NOT PROVEN. THERE IS A CONTROVERSY."

Already conceeded. Why are you trying to convince me of this?
I'm on your side.

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

"Neo-Darwinism (or whatever you want to call the currently accepted hypothesis) DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT DEFINITION."

Already conceeded. Why are you trying to convince me of this?
I'm on your side.

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

"If you are defining "theory" as an idea that has been tested and supported by evidence, then you cannot call the currently accepted theory a theory."

The "CAT" is not a theory?
The science text books have it wrong?
Fine.
Cool.
I agree with you.
It's conceeded.
You win.
I'm on your side on this.
Let's move on.

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

"So remove neo-Darwinism from the text books."

Yes. Yes. Yes.
Get rid of it. Stop polluting the youth of the world with these falsehoods. Lets' have real science. Great. Fine. Wonderful.
For the sake of argument, I conceed all this!

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

"And, again, Darwin's theory was accepted without being tested. How do you account for that?"

Oh my gosh.....I can't.
You win.
I bow to your superior logic.
I hate Darwin too.
Boo Darwin. Darwin suks.

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

I CONCEED EVERY SINGLE POINT you want to make about Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Evolution, scientist-atheists, or whatever.
For the sake of argument, it's all conceeded.

* * * * * * *(Dramatic Pause)* * * * * * *

So...let's talk about Intelligent Design.

RealPC said...
"A theory has more evidence than a hypothesis, but there is no consensus on exactly when a hypothesis becomes a theory."

Hmmm. Very interesting.
So, is Intelligent Design a theory?
Yes or No?

Or would you prefer to call it only a hypothesis?
Yes or no?


realpc

This isn't fun Cedric. I'm wasting mental calories talking to you.

You don't seem to have the ability to see that things can be ambiguous, that the answer isn't always yes or no, that sometimes there are shades of grey.

If ID is not a theory, then neo-Darwinism is not a theory. If neo-Darwinism is a theory, then ID is a theory.

OK?

And yes, it is possible for science books to get something wrong. It has often happened that widely accepted ideas were overthrown.

realpc

And no, it would not make sense to teach an unsupported hypothesis in science classes. That's probably where all your sarcasm is heading. But you are completely missing the whole point of the controversy. You think ID is an upstart challenger to a well-documented and accepted theory, and therefore it has no right being taught alongside the current theory.

And you are completely wrong! The current theory is not documented, it is not supported by evidence! Anti-ID activists deceptively equate the current theory with evolution. Evolution IS A FACT, and ID does not try to challenge it!

The current theory is not supported by logic or scientific evidence, or anything except FAITH IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF MATERIALISM.

A theory that weak should not be presented as fact. They don't have to teach ID, or any other theory. It would just be nice if they stop teaching the current theory as fact. It is not a fact, it is not even a theory by your definition, since it has not been tested.

Cedric Katesby

So many words, so few answers.

(sigh)

RealPC said...

"You don't seem to have the ability to see that things can be ambiguous, that the answer isn't always yes or no, that sometimes there are shades of grey."

There's nothing ambiguous in your statements about Intelligent Design on multiple blogs (including this one).

You repeatedly refer to Intelligent Design as a theory.
"...Intelligent Design theory..."
"...ID theory does not..."
"...strengthen the ID theory."
"...ID theorists acknowledge..."
"...the ID theory of evolution is despised..."
"...Intelligent Design is a theory..."
"...nothing about the ID theory..."

There are no shades of grey here.
You're calling ID a theory.

Loud and clear.
These are your words.
Your comments.
Your claim.

Do you want to retract your words?
Or do you want to defend your claim?
Scientifically.

Be honest.
Speak English.
FOCUS!

Is Intelligent Design a theory?
Yes or No?

Or would you prefer to call it only a hypothesis?
Yes or no?

Nobody's censoring you here.
Nobody's putting words in your mouth.
This is your chance to set the record straight.
If you made a boo-boo about calling ID a theory, then say so.
It's OK.

realpc

The word "theory" is not either or. A theory is somewhere between obvious proven fact and hypothesis.

It's a fact, not a theory, that the earth goes around the sun. Once it was a theory, and before that it was a hypothesis.

People, including scientists, use the word "theory" in different ways. It's a matter of degree, depending on how well supported an idea is by evidence.

If I called ID a theory, so what? It's not a proven fact, but I think it's beyond mere hypothesis.

But all that is beside the point, which you lost hundreds of posts ago.

Cedric Katesby

Congratulations RealPC.
This is maybe the first time you've posted without mentioning Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, how terrible scientists are or whatever.
Thank you.
(No. Seriously. Thank you!)

So let's have a real scientific discussion about the nature of ID.
..................................

RealPC said...
"If I called ID a theory, so what?"

No need to be coy.
There's no "if" about it.
You and I both know that you most certainly did use the word "theory".
Repeatly.
Didn't you?

(RealPC nods her head ever so reluctantly)

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

However, RealPC said earlier on this thread...
"There is nothing unscientific about the ID hypotheses."

So here you're calling ID only a hypothesis.
You're NOT calling it a theory.

(Oh Dear!)

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

Now RealPC just said...

"Once it was a theory, and before that it was a hypothesis."

and later...

"A theory is somewhere between obvious proven fact and hypothesis."

and later....

"It's not a proven fact, but I think it's beyond mere hypothesis."

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

So you are saying that the word
"theory"
DOES NOT MEAN the same as the word
"hypothesis".

You yourself are making a distinction between calling something just a "hypothesis" and calling something a "theory".

You acknowlege that the two words are not interchangable.
They have different meanings.
(Even for you!)

Well, you're in luck.
For the rest of the planet agrees with you.
All (I repeat, ALL) good dictionaries, beginner level science text books and encyclopedias make clear and unambiguous distinctions between what a "hypothesis" is and what a "theory" is.

(Those ancient Greeks were pretty clever huh?)

So I want to know how you scientifically define Intelligent Design.
Exactly how you define it.
Precisely how you define it.
No weaseling.
No ambiguity.
No talking like a politician.
No going off on a rant about Darwin.


Is it a theory?
Or is it a "mere hypothesis"?

Spell it out for me nice and clear.
Yes or no?

P.S.
If you've thought it over and you want to retract your description of ID being a "Theory" then I invite you to do so.
People speak in haste.
They get confused.
It happens.

realpc

YOU ARE A BRICKHEAD CEDRIC. A sarcastic know-it-all brickhead.

I JUST TOLD YOU there is a gradation between hypothesis and theory, depending on how well-tested and confirmed an idea is at any moment. Scientific ideas evolve from hypothesis to theory to fact, if it turns out they are correct.

So whether you call an idea a theory or not depends on how much you believe in the idea in question at that moment.

So stuff it. I've had it with you.

realpc

(Sorry amba, I know we're supposed to be polite here. I finally lost patience with whatever his game is.)

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"YOU ARE A BRICKHEAD CEDRIC. A sarcastic know-it-all brickhead."

RealPC, stop being angry and think about what I'm trying to ask you.

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

If we were two scientists talking about Germ Theory or the Theory of Relativity then there would be no evasion or hand-waving on your part.

Scientist One: Is Germ Theory a theory?
Or is it only a hypothesis?

Scientist Two: It's a theory.
Used to be just a hypothesis.
Now it's a theory.
Here, have a look at the structure.
Heres my observations, predictions and the rest of it.

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

(Simple huh?)

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

Scientist One: Is the Theory of Relativity a theory or a hypotheis?

Einstien: It's a theory. Here's my calculations.
I think it will help answer some of the questions Newton's First Law can't answer.
Do you like it?
While I was working as a teacher I wrote down a quick hypothesis but then...

Other scientist: Can you say Nobel Prize?

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

(No problem here)

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

So let's try that with Intelligent Design.

Scientist One: Is Intelligent Design a theory or is it a hypothesis?

ID 'Scientist': Can I tell you how I feel about Darwinism?"

* * * * * (Scientist One gives him a dirty look) * * * * *

ID 'Scientist': Okay, okay. Just asking. So...er...what was your question?

Scientist One:(this time more slowly) Is Intelligent Design a theory or is it a hypothesis?

ID 'Scientist': First define what you mean by theory.


* * * * * (Scientist One hands him a dictionary)* * * * *


ID 'Scientist': "It's scientific to be open-minded."


* * * * * (Scientist One waits patiently)* * * * *


ID 'Scientist': "I know that there is no clear and simple definition of the word "theory."


* * (Scientist One hands him an encyclopedia. A big one.) * *


ID 'Scientist': " Why do you think ID is wrong, if you do think it's wrong?"


* * * (Scientist One starts to look bored) * * *


ID 'Scientist" : I really would like to talk about how I don't like Darwinism.

Scientist One: Do that on your own time. Do you have a theory or a hypothesis or what? At the bar last night, you were saying the word "theory" every chance you had.

ID 'Scientist': Prove it.


(Scientist One shows the camcorder file complete with audio)


ID 'Scientist': "If I called ID a theory, so what? It's not a proven fact, but I think it's beyond mere hypothesis."

Scientist One: So make up your mind. Which is it? A theory or a hypothesis?
If you want, I'll give you yet another dictionary to sort out any confusion.

ID 'Scientist': You sarcastic know-it-all. I'm going home to mother.

Scientist One: Do you want me to e-mail the video file to you or shall I just put it up on youtube.com?

* * * * * (Door slams)* * * * * *


realpc

I am not angry Cedric. I just think you're a waste of time.

Whether something is a theory or not depends on the beliefs of the person who is talking about it. We know that microbes can cause diseases so the germ theory is a fact, not a theory. We know the earth goes around the sun, so the heliocentric theory is no longer called a theory. Some aspects of relativity may be controversial, so we usually call it a theory.

If you don't believe in ID, you don't think it's a theory. People who believe in it think it is.

But whether ID is a theory or not has nothing to do with the Dover case, as I already explained.

Evolution should be taught as a fact. The cause of evolution is unknown. Students should not be told that the cause of evolution has been discovered and proven. It has not. That is the essence of the controversy.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"Whether something is a theory or not depends on the beliefs of the person who is talking about it."

Belief has nothing to do with it.
You are just talking through your hat.
I notice that you can't give a reference to back up your silly claim.
Nobody thinks Einstien's Theory of Relativity is a theory because they really, really believe it is.
It's because the theory is checkable, examinable and fits the criteria for a scientific theory.

Same with all other scientific theories.
Belief, hope and wishful thinking is neither here nor there.

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

RealPC said...
"Germ theory is a fact, not a theory."

Actually it is a theory. That's probably why they call it a "Theory".
Look. Read. Understand.

"The germ theory of disease, also called the pathogenic theory of medicine, is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases. Although highly controversial when first proposed, it is now a cornerstone of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

(Note how they say "theory" and their use of the present tense.
Weird huh?)
.................................

"...so the heliocentric theory is no longer called a theory."

Nope. It's still a "Theory".
It took me all of five seconds to find that out.
Lood. Read. Understand.

"In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the sun is at the center of the Universe and/or the Solar System."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

(Note how they say "theory" and their use of the present tense.
How odd!)

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

N.B.
Please note that the word theory does not mean "guess" or "hunch" or "fuzzy idea" to a scientist.
A theory can be falsified or superceeded but still be a theory.

"A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once commonly accepted but (for whatever reason) is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by mainstream science; or a falsifiable theory which has been shown to be false."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories


Here's how a scientist tries to distingush between a theory and a fact.

"Facts
The word fact can be used several ways, but in general in science, "facts" refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions, such as "It is a fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum." This is the part of science which will be thesame a century from now, unless more precise measurements show otherwise.

Theories
The theories are the explanations proposed in step two of the scientific method. Usually the word "theory" is reserved for more than a first attempt, which might be called a "hypothesis." A theory usually has already survived several falsification attempts, and is pretty well accepted. However,I'll use the word theory to mean any explanation of observations.

Thus, by separating facts from theories, I mean distinguishing between observations and explanations. When you hear the news, "The Dow Jones took a plunge today because of fearsabout the Asian crisis," is that fact or theory? It was half and half. The fact is that the market wentdown: that is an observation which was measured. But who knows what drives the market? The matter-of-fact statement that it was caused by such fears could be anything from one reporter's speculation to a general consensus of market analysts. In any case, it remains only a theory."
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/astronomy/science.html

So what's it to be RealPC?

Is Intelligent Design a theory?
Yes or No?
Or is it a hypothesis?
Yes or No?

Either defend your claim or retract it.
Enough of this intellectual dishonesty.

realpc

I am tired of your smirky sarcastic little face Cedric. This conversation has no point that I can see. I have explained my point of view on the evolution controversy.

It doesn't matter how different people define the word "theory." You're an idiot of you think there's a theory that the earth goes around the sun. You are not capable of seeing that meanings often depend on context. You have complete trust in authorities and you see everything in black and white. No rational conversation is possible.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"It doesn't matter how different people define the word "theory."

You are guilty of Humpty-Dumptyism.

""I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' "Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.

"They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

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

Lewis Carrol has your number.

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

RealPC said...
"I have explained my point of view on the evolution controversy."

Then it's a great pity nobody asked you to, huh?
(Hint: This thread section is called "Intelligent Design")

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

RealPC said...
"You're an idiot of you think there's a theory that the earth goes around the sun."

It's called "Heliocentricism".
It's been around for quite a few hundred years now.
It's a theory. Honest.
Look it up.

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

RealPC said...
"I am tired of your smirky sarcastic little face Cedric."

Ow, you wound me!
(Cedric's lip starts to quiver. He sobs quietly to himself. Then drawing from some deep well of inner strength, he bravely raises his head and though his tears of pain says...)

"I forgive you RealPC. I forgive you"

:)


realpc

You know what's ridiculous Cedric? You only want to talk about whether ID qualifies as a scientific theory or not. But that has nothing to do with whether Darwin's theory of evolution should be taught as if it has been proven.

And yes, it is idiotic to think it's merely a theory that the earth goes around the sun, now that we have the technology to prove it. In a historical context, it may be refered to as a theory. But you are not able to understand that a word's meaning can depend on its context.

You are a fanatic. It's no different than trying to reason with a biblical creationist. Extremists on both sides are idiotic.

realpc

It's cool right now to be a smirky sarcastic atheist. You don't have to think, just repeat the anti-ID propaganda.

But I don't care what happens to be cool at the moment Cedric. I like to think and I believe what makes sense to me, not necessarily what the "experts" of the moment happen to believe. I have read and thought a lot in my life, and I don't appreciate your condescending remarks. You automatically assume anyone who sympathizes with ID has a sub-normal IQ, and you treat them with smirky condescension. You took all your lessons at CSICOP and the Randi Foundation. You swallowed every single thing they taught.

That's ok, I don't care what you believe. But I don't like condescending sarcasm at all. Talking to you is like talking to a sarcastic CSICOP robot.

That's what makes me angry. Don't think you won any argument, because you made sure there was no argument. Just your petty bickering over the exact meaning of a word that is abstract and very context-dependent.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"You only want to talk about whether ID qualifies as a scientific theory or not."

Well, considering you continuously claim that it is a theory, it's a fair question.
In fact, it's the first question one must ask in a scientific discussion.
Yet when actually challenged to defend your claim, you convieniently get all vague about what theory "really means".
Very sad.
Cowardly.

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

RealPC continues...
"But that has nothing to do with whether Darwin's theory of evolution should be taught as if it has been proven."

Well, DUH!
So why do you keep ranting about Darwin?
It's kinda off-topic.

..................................
RealPC said...
"...it is idiotic to think it's merely a theory that the earth goes around the sun, now that we have the technology to prove it."

Actually we had the technology to 'prove' it centuries ago.
It was a theory then, it's still a theory now.
People refer to Heliocentricism in the present tense.
It's a current theory.
As in the 'now'. It's a theory.
Get it?
(sigh)

Heliocentric Theory - The Triumph Of The Heliocentric Theory

http://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html

The Copernican Model:
A Sun-Centered Solar System

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html

Still confused?
Then ask an astrophysicist at NASA.
I Dare You.

"This is the "Ask an Astrophysicist" service of the Imagine the Universe! web site."
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/ask_an_astronomer.html

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

RealPC said...
"You're a fanatic"

No, I'm just informed.

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

RealPC said...
"...anyone who sympathizes with ID has a sub-normal IQ"

No, unfortunately, smart people can be decieved. In fact, the overconfidence of a smart/educated person is very useful for a deciever.
Project Alpha anybody?
http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/project_alpha.htm

The Discovery Institute got a lot of free media play this way.
"All we want is equal time"
"We've got a list of scientists"
"We're calling what we've got a theory, so believe us."
"Oh look! Those ivory-tower types are ignoring us. See! That proves that they're afraid of us"

It tugs at the heart-strings.

The "Fair Play" ploy.
The "Appeal from Authority" ploy.
The "Scientific Baffle-Gab" ploy.
The "Oppressed but Righteous" ploy.

Very cute. It sucks in millions of ordinary people.
It's a very clever fraud with lots of megabucks behind it.

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

RealPC said...
"That's what makes me angry."

but before you said...

"I am not angry Cedric."

Make up your mind already!

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

This royal drubbing you've received
(and richly deserved) was easily avoidable on your part.
You could have asked the same basic questions about Intelligent Design that I have asked here.
Then, when you couldn't get a straight answer, that might have set off the alarm bells.
But you didn't.
The Intelligent Design proponents played to your suspicions and your ego and you just swallowed what they gave you.
They call it a theory.
You call it a theory.

Or you could have just watched the videos I linked to here on this thread. That would have informed you just how vacuous your position was.
(Especially the comedy videos!)
Yet you couldn't be bothered.
Twelve minutes max.
Your loss.
(Hint: When your opponent gives you a "head's up", take it!)

Or you could have gracefully conceeded that ID has no theory.
Yet your ego wouldn't let you.
So you lied.
Obfusticated.
Waved your hands furiously.
Generally coming across as a very 'special' person.

I'll give you yet another chance to redeem yourself.

Is Intelligent Design a theory?
Yes or No?
Or is it a hypothesis?
Yes or No?

Put up or shut up.

realpc

(sighs, grits teeth, gazes heavenward)

I will try again to see if reason can penetrate your randified skull.

Some people consider ID a theory, others do not. I sometimes call it a theory, but I actually think it's more of a worldview. It does not propose a specific mechanism as the cause of evolution. At this time, it does not claim to know all the details of how evolution works. It does claim that genetic variations are not entirely random, and it looks for evidence of this non-randomness.

If a theory of evolution must spell out all the details of how evolution works, then ID is not a theory of evolution. But scientific theories are not expected to spell out all the details of how something works, since scientific theories are supposed to evolve as new evidence is discovered.

A modernized version of Darwin's theory of evolution -- sometimes called neo-Darwinism -- claims to answer the question of how evolution works. So you might call it a respectable scientific theory. The problem is, however, that neo-Darwinism does not have evidence to back up its claim. So according to typical scientific standards, neo-Darwinism cannot claim to be a scientific theory. It is a hypothesis, or guess, about how evolution might work.

I do not think ID should be presented in science classes or text books. I hope I have made that clear previously, and if not sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do think that biology teachers and text books should STOP presenting neo-Darwnism as an established theory. Evolution is a well-supported scientific fact. I would not call evolution a theory, since we have no plausible explanation for what causes it. But it is, as far as any reasonable, educated person can tell, a fact.

Evolution should be taught as scientifically established, and neo-Darwinism should be taught as one hypothesis about what may have caused evolution.

Students should be told that there are and have been other hypotheses about the cause of evolution, but that neo-Darwinism is currently preferred, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support it at this time.

I don't know if science teachers should bother getting into the subject of worldview, and whether or not nature might be intelligent. I guess that would depend on the teacher and the grade level.

The main thing is that NCSE, Randi, etc., should stop pretending that evolution has been figured out. The origin of life has not been figured out, and this should be acknowledged. And the same goes for evolution. Admit that you do not know.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC.
"I sometimes call it a theory..."
Yes. You do.
Thank you for being honest about it.
However you also call it a hypothesis on occasion.

Which is it?

You yourself recognise that they are different words with different meanings.
There is, of course, a relationship between the two words but that is neither here nor there.

(Insert a multitude of definitions and clear-cut examples from recognised reference sources here)

In a scientific discussion, a scientist will VERY CAREFULLY choose which word to use.
They will CAREFULLY AND PRECISELY explain, step-by-step, how they justify using that particular word to avoid confusion.

So which is it to be?

"...I actually think it's more of a worldview."

If you call it a worldview then...wonderful.
Go in peace.
If you call it a concept then...fine.
More power to you.
A fuzzy idea? Terrific.
(I'll help myself to another coffee.)

We can then chalk Intelligent Design up to philosophical musings and have done with it.


So please make up your mind.

Do you wish to back away from your claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory?

Do you wish to back away from your claim that Intelligent Design is a hypothesis?

Do you now wish to state that Intelligent Design is a "worldview"?

Right here, right now I'm not baiting you.
Right here, right now I'm not being sarcastic.

Take a stand and please stop beating around the bush.
Please.

realpc

This is idiotic. I carefully explained exactly what I think about the controversy. If you want everything to be absolute then you're in the wrong universe.

You are obviously not a scientist and you obviously are not interested in discussing the evolution controversy.

Cedric Katesby

"This is idiotic"

You said it, not me.

"I carefully explained exactly what I think about the controversy."

Nobody asked you to. Nobody.
In fact, I repeatedly begged you not to.

"If you want everything to be absolute then you're in the wrong universe."

Huh?

"You are obviously not a scientist..."

Huh?

"...you obviously are not interested in discussing the evolution controversy."

Ooo, you're quick on the uptake.

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

The title of this thread section is called "Debating Intelligent Design".

So what am I interested in discussing?
That's right boys and girls...
Intelligent Design.


RealPC can't do it.
She can't even define it scientifically.
All she can do is go into "Anti-Darwin mode".
For her, that IS discussing Intelligent Design.

Take "Darwin-whatever-ism" out of discussing ID and you've got nothing.
Not a sausage.
Bugger all.

No Hypothesis.
No experiments.
No Theory.
No scientists working in labs.
No peer-reviewed research.
No discoveries.
No Nobel Prizes.
No science.

Why not find out for yourself?
Please read the ISCID.
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php

The International Society for Complexity, Information and Design.
They..."retrain the scientific imagination to see purpose in nature."

Sounds impressive, huh?

The ISCID does all the 'peer-review' for Intelligent Design.

It's run by the usual suspects like Dembski, Behe and co.

Last "upcoming event"?
March 25th, 2004.

Last issue?
Volume 4.2, November 2005.

Why not give them some money?
Support the science of ID.

(You know you want to!)

"Donations
Below, we have listed suggested donation amounts and corresponding levels of membership:

Regular Membership - $45-$99
Sustaining Membership - $100-$249
Friend - $250 - $499
Patron - $500 - $999
Founder - $1000 and above
Lifetime Benefactor - $5000 and above (includes a lifetime membership)"

Buy their books too!
Or at least give them free publicity.

(Just don't ask them to do any science. They're 'special'.)


realpc

ID has their own organizations because mainstream biology is currently dominated by Darwinism. That will change as the many defects and shortcomings of the currently accepted theory are revealed.

Right now it's all politics and PR. People like Cedric here vainly struggle to maintain the status quo, pretending that Darwinism equals evolution and ID equals creationism. Pretending that evolution is not only a fact, but a well understood fact. Claiming to know for certain that natural causes must be completely without intelligence or purpose.

Physicists have had to acknowledge the baffling complexity of nature. The same thing will happen in biology. This is the 21st century and we are beginning to leave 19th century-style positivism far behind.

Cedric and his crowd cling desperately to the old certainties. They had everything figured out. But real scientists have the courage and the curiosity to leave old certainties behind.

Cedric Katesby

"ID has their own organizations..."

That gather money, issue press releases, publish coffee-table books, gather money, issue press releases, gather money etc.

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

"That will change as the many defects and shortcomings of the currently accepted theory are revealed."

To be replaced by what?
Intelligent Design?
Really?
So what is Intelligent Design?
Is it a theory or just a "worldview"?
Calling it a theory sounds so much more sciencey, don't you think.?

(giggle)

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

"...pretending that Darwinism equals evolution and ID equals creationism."

I just want to know how you justify calling Intelligent Design a theory.
Or a hypothesis.
Or whatever.
:)

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

"But real scientists have the courage and the curiosity to leave old certainties behind."

So are any of these "real scientists" doing any science right now on ID?
No?
Oh dear!

(Kinda hard when there's no hypothesis and no theory, yeah?)

You've got nothing.
Nada.
Zip.


realpc

As I have patiently explained to you Cedric, any research showing purpose in genetic mutations undermines the foundation of neo-Darwinism. We increasingly find some kind of intelligence at work even in microevolution (which I prefer to call adaptation).

No one can say where this natural intelligence comes from. I personally believe that the universe in general IS intelligence, and that for some reason it can't help generating complexity.

Of course we don't know why. We are not nearly as great as the 19th century positivists considered themselves.

Our knowledge and understanding are severely limited, but it is our nature to keep trying and to continue exploring. Each one of us possesses a tiny fraction of the infinite creative intelligence of the universe.

Any biological research that demonstrates this creative drive towards complexity supports the ID theory of evolution and undermines the old 19th century Darwinist theory.

I am a scientist and a naturalist, but I am not a Darwinist. There is nothing "supernatural" about universal intelligence. It is perfectly natural.

As biologists discover more and more purpose and intelligence in the mutation process, their respect for nature will gradually increase, and their unquestioning acceptance of Darwinism will decrease.

And the ID theory will win. We will never discover the ultimate source of nature's intelligence, but at least biologists will stop calling nature dead and mindless. At least they will stop saying that DNA is mostly a pile of junk, and that living organisms are poorly designed. As they gradually uncover more and more of nature's dazzling complexity, they will gradually admit it could not have been assembled by a blind process of chance and selection.

Cedric Katesby

"...any research showing purpose in genetic mutations undermines the foundation of neo-Darwinism."

What research?
There is none.

No scientists.
No research.
No theory.
No hard work.

What "purpose"?
Is this just a buzz-word for you or do you have a scientific definition?

What's the purpose of the HIV virus?
Or a snowflake?
Or a pile of rocks?

Do all things have purpose or do only some things have "purpose".
Or perhaps there are degrees of "purpose"?
A tree has more "purpose" that a fruit-fly perhaps?
Or tape worms have more "purpose" than a whale?

The word "purpose" has no more meaning or scientific use that "design" or "complexity".
You're certainly not going to offer any way of defining "purpose" or how you test for it!
It's just word-salad.

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

"And the ID theory will win."

Yeah, the ID "theory" will win because you're going to "undermine Neo-Darwinism".

(giggle)

You can't do science that way.

It's a negative argument.
It's a false dichotomy.

Einstien didn't say "Newton's laws don't work, therefore I have a theory"

He actually created a theory.
He did the hard work.
He even explained exactly what he meant.
(What a concept!)
He then claimed a Nobel Prize.

I know you're not going to watch the video but to heck with it...

Fallacy of ID and creationism-False Dichotomy [Reloaded] (9min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9MdYU0S7CQ

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

"I am a scientist and a naturalist.."

Of course you are.
I really believe you.
Whoever you are.
:)

realpc

You are very wrong Cedric. First, I have explained that there are various alternate hypotheses, such as Sheldrake's, regarding evolution that are compatible with ID. Evidence supporting one of these alternatives would support ID. So ID research does not have to be negative.

But you are also wrong in saying that scientific research cannot be negative. It happens all the time. One scientist might claim that taking vitamin C prevents colds, for example. Another scientist says "No you do not have adequate evidence to back up your claim," and he does a controlled study showing vitamin C has no influence on whether subjects caught colds (this is a fictional example, don't take it literally).

It is not hard to think of many examples of scientific research that set out to criticize an existing hypothesis or theory.

So, to summarize for the comprehension impaired:

1. ID research is not necessarily negative.

2. Negative research is not necessarily unscientific.

Scientific research is not simple. You can't accept the null hypothesis just because no effect was found. An experiment with inadequate power may fail to find an effect, even though an effect should have been found. And no text book can give you a formula for adequate power. As my statistics professor said, it's an art, which depends on experience and intuition.

Scientists are constantly debating and disagreeing on the results of experiments. A scientist may claim his experiment demonstrates something, and other scientists may claim it does not. Maybe the researcher who said vitamin C has no effect did not give the subjects a high enough dose, maybe he used the wrong form of vitamin C, maybe he didn't have enough subjects, or maybe the subjects were atypical in some way.

If you were not so ignorant about science you would not be so easily convinced by little NCSE propaganda videos.

ID is not one simple idea. There are various possible approaches to evolution that contrast with the neo-Darwinist approach.

And it is perfectly legitimate when ID focuses, as it sometimes does, on critiquing the currently accepted theory. Scientists spend a great deal of their time finding fault with other scientists' ideas.

But you have never been a scientist, obviously, and you have very little understanding of what science really is.

Science is not a belief system or an ideology. It is a creative process.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"First, I have explained that there are various alternate hypotheses...

No, you 'explained' precisely nothing.
I asked you if ID was a hypothesis.
You never gave me a straight answer.
Remember?

RealPC said...
"Evidence supporting one of these alternatives would support ID. So ID research does not have to be negative."

You can't even define what ID is!
What is it?

Research?
THERE. IS. NO. RESEARCH.

RealPC said...
"One scientist might claim that taking vitamin C prevents colds, for example. Another scientist says "No you do not have adequate evidence to back up your claim," and he does a controlled study showing..."

(Oh for pity's sake!)
The Vitamin C scientist has made a SPECIFIC claim.
A TESTABLE claim.
That's science.

The scientist has stuck their neck out and subject their theory to (drum roll please) FALSIFIABLITY!
It is a simple matter for another scientist to understand what the Vitamin C scientist is claiming.
It is defined, there is a structure, it is possible to test it.
So the theory is tested.
It is falsified.
Knowledge is gained.
Science is done.
New theories are developed.

ID cannot do this.
ID is not defined.
ID is not testable.
ID is not falsifiable.

It's a default position.
ID automatically wins if a scientist can't explain something in biology to the satisfaction of the Discovery Institute.
That's just daft.

(I notice you dropped the word "purpose" when I challanged you on it. Very telling)


realpc

Oh Cedric, you know perfectly well that Darwin's hypothesis cannot be tested or falsified. You know that we can't wait billions of years to see if a new species is created by chance and selection.

So no matter what criticisms we may have, Darwinists can always come back with their all-purpose answer. Given billions of years, and maybe some parallel universes, anything at all can happen. It doesn't have to be probable or plausible. It doesn't have to make sense. If you wait long enough, anything can happen.

Now what kind of scientific argument is that? But that is the Darwinist's last word in any debate, because it cannot be proven wrong.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"...you know perfectly well that Darwin's hypothesis cannot be tested or falsified."

Let's pretend that I agree with you.
100%.
So what?

Did you ever play in the mud with your friends as a little girl?
Remember how you got your best dress all dirty?

Then, of course, when you came home, your mother scolded you.

Your response was...

"But Mom, all the other kids got their clothes dirty too."

Not much of a defence, is it?
Sounds kinda juvenile actually.

As a scientific argument, it sucks.

It's empty.

All you've got is a false dichotomy that's based on whining endlessy about "Darwinism" or whatever.

No hypothesis.
No theory.
No experiments.
No dirty test-tubes.
No researchers "in the field" discovering stuff.
No peer-reviewed papers.
No scientific work.
Nada.

(...and yet the money rolls in...)


realpc

ALL THEY WANT CEDRIC, IS FOR TEXT BOOKS TO STOP SAYING EVOLUTION IS UNDERSTOOD. THEY DO NOT WANT ID TAUGHT IN SCHOOL. THEY WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT ALTHOUGH EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT CAUSED IT.

YOU CAN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

And it certainly would be possible to gather evidence for some kind of non-materialist theory of evolution. The existence of bio-energy could be demonstrated, for example. There are many interesting ideas that I'm sure you have never heard of.

You have probably never heard of systems theory, which says natural systems are self-organizing and evolve towards increasing complexity. Students never hear about that. All they hear is that science has proven that evolution is caused by chance mutations and natural selection. And they also learn that life originated by chance -- even though you have not the slightest shred of evidence for that. It's materialist indoctrination. It has become so popular you don't worry about whether it's scientific or not. You just want to ban ID because you don't think it has enough evidence.

NO ONE HAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON THIS. IT IS AN OPEN QUESTION, A CONTROVERSY. WHY SHOULD STUDENTS LEARN THAT THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED, WHEN IT HAS NOT?

I'm sure you can't explain that. All you can do is repeat the same old nonsense.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"ALL THEY WANT CEDRIC, IS FOR TEXT BOOKS TO STOP SAYING EVOLUTION IS UNDERSTOOD."

No. They are calling ID a theory.
Just like you do.

That's a claim.
A testable, scientific claim.
Either put up or shut up.

RealPC said...
"And it certainly would be possible to gather evidence for some kind of non-materialist theory of evolution."

"Would be possible"?
Sounds very vague and uncertain to me.

(giggle)

Sounds an awful lot like "maybe".
Or "perhaps".
Or "at some time in the distant future in a galaxy far, far away".
Or how about "a load of hot air".

RealPC said...
"NO ONE HAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON THIS. IT IS AN OPEN QUESTION, A CONTROVERSY."

You believe that there's not enough evidence?
That's sweet.
Yet your suspicions don't add up to a theory,...or a hypothesis for that matter.

An "open question"?
Nope. Still doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.

"Controversy"?
(thinking, thinking, thinking)
Nup. No luck there.
Still no theory.

You (and the Discovery Institute) throw the word "theory" and "hypothesis" around like hand grenades.
Ordinary people go " Oh, they've got a theory. Thats'a a very sciency word. They must be talking science!"

You thrive on that confusion.
You want to muddy the waters.
You want to wear the lab coat of a scientist without any of the hard work associated with it.

If you kept on referring to ID as an "idea' or a "philosophical controversy" or as an "open question" the public would just shrug their collective shoulders and move on.

You can't afford that.
So you lie.

You claim that you have a theory.
You don't. You're a liar.

You occasionally claim that you have a hypothesis.
You don't. You're a liar.

You claim that there is "research".
Utter pig-swill.
Once again you lie.

ID is not a theory.
ID is not a hypothesis.
There is no ID research.
Nada. Zip. Bugger all.

(...And their crappy books are sold to the gullible...)
(...And press releases continue to be released...)
(...and the money keeps rolling in...)


realpc

You are being intentionally idiotic. It doesn't matter if ID is or is not a theory. The point is that neo-Darwinism has no evidence, yet is being taught as proven fact.

Talk about creating confusion! ID opponents pretend they are defending evolution against creationism. But no serious scientists are denying evolution.

The controversy is not about evolution. We agree that evolution is a fact. But neo-Darwnism is not a fact, and is not even a theory by your definition of theory.

We are not trying to replace neo-Darwinism with ID. We are saying NO ONE KNOWS what causes evolution.

You are pretending not to understand what I'm saying. I have said repeatedly I am not trying to get ID into textbooks. It doesn't matter if ID is a theory does it? No one is trying to teach it as a theory.

So who cares? ID is or is not a theory and that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I am talking about the fact that neo-Darwinism is taught as an established fact, not as a theory, but as a fact. I'm sure you have no problem with neo-Darwinism being taught as fact, or as good as fact. Right? And why is that ok? Explain to me why neo-Darwinism is a theory? Where is the evidence for it? I am not talking about evolution or common descent. I am not talking about natural selection. I am talking about the neo-Darwinist idea that the mutations selected from must be random.

This is not about putting ID in the text books. It's about qualifying the statements about the causes of evolution being understood. Because they are not. And you won't address that because you have no answer.

I am not a liar Cedric. I have no reason to lie, no political agenda. I have always tried to understand the facts about evolution science. I can see through your political BS.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"So who cares?"

You do.
( you keep saying "theory" and when challanged you refuse to retract your claim)

I do.
The Discovery Institute does.
Science teachers do.
The media does.
The scientific community does.

RealPC said...
"I can see through your political BS."

BS yourself.
You're full of it!

RealPC said...
"It doesn't matter if ID is a theory does it?"

Yes actually. It does.
It's vital to this discussion.

You are making a claim.
I'm calling you out on this.

I say that you don't have a theory.
Get it?
Me say you no have no theory.
NO. THEORY.

You are PRETENDING to have a theory.

When you say "ID Theory",you are lying!

You want people to take ID seriously so you dress it up in fancy science words.

You don't have a theory.
You're lying.
Retract your claim.

realpc

You just repeat the same nonsense. A complete waste of time.

You want to ban ID from schools because you don't consider it a theory. Well apply the same standards to neo-Darwinism. It is no more a theory than ID. Ban them both if you want, but don't ban one of them just because it doesn't fit your preferred ideology.

This is pretty simple. Do you want ID banned for not being a theory? If yes, then treat neo-Darwinism the same way. Ban it. It has not been established or proven or supported by evidence.

Cedric Katesby

RealPC said...
"You just repeat the same nonsense."

No.
I'm asking a legitimate scientific question.
You are evading it desperately.
Big difference.

A real scientist would never evade.
A real scientist would fall over themselves to explain their theory in great detail.
If it stacks up, then they can get a Nobel Prize or at least a mention in the history books.

Theories are not nonsense.
They help us understand the natural world around us.
They are vital tools to scientific enquiry.

RealPC said...
"You want to ban ID from schools because you don't consider it a theory. Well apply the same standards to neo-Darwinism. It is no more a theory than ID."

Remember your best party dress all splashed with mud?
Hmmmmm?
Your mother didn't let you off the hook just because "all the other kids are dirty too".
Can you think why she still scolded you?

RealPC said...
"Ban them both if you want, but don't ban one of them just because it doesn't fit your preferred ideology."

So, are you now admitting that you don't have a theory?

Are you now prepared to "come clean" about all of this?

Seriously, RealPC.
Admit you don't have a theory.
Just retract it and have done with it.
You're not fooling anybody.

Keep your opinions about Darwinism or whatever.
Nobody cares.
Go stand in line behind the Creation Scientists who also "disapprove of Darwinism".
Wait your turn.

It's when you go around claiming that you have a theory that you get into trouble.

realpc

"Theories are not nonsense."

DID I EVER SAY THAT THEORIES ARE NONSENSE?

Cedric Katesby

Do you still claim that ID is a theory?
Yes or no?

realpc

Do you want to go around that circle again?

You know what Cedric, I think you should wear that muddy little dress. It would look cute on you.

realpc

Ok, how about this: ID IS NOT A THEORY. NEO-DARWINISM IS NOT A THEORY. BAN THEM FROM SCHOOL. Make it a federal law, have armed police in every biology class. Get rid of all those terrible non-theories. Anything that is not a theory, according to Cedric's standards, must be banned from school.

Ok? Don't ask me if ID is a theory again. I called it a theory but I didn't define theory exactly the same way you define it. So that stupid argument should be over. Ban ID, get rid of it, it is not Cedric's idea of a theory.

Just make sure to ban neo-Darwinism also. This has nothing to do with muddy dresses.

It follows logically that if we are going to ban non-theories, we must ban neo-Darwinism. Which has been my point all along.

Burn those books! Death to non-theories!

realpc

Oh and let us not stop there. We must never allow them to become theories. Fire any professor who mentions ID, even in a whisper. No, firing is too good for them. Execute them. We don't want innocent students exposed to these dangerous non-theories. We don't want any ID research that might allow these horrible non-theories to grow into actual theories. What then?

Cedric Katesby

Wow.
Three postings one after the other.

All because of one basic scientific question.
Hmmmmmm.
(giggle)

RealPC said...
"Do you want to go around that circle again?"

No.
You're the one going around in circles.
You're the one having problems with this question.
You're endlessly running away from it....in a tiny, tiny little circle.

I'm patiently waiting.
Waiting for you to calm down and acknowledge my question seriously.
I'm waiting for you to stop equivocating and squawking like some cheap politician.

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

RealPC said...
"ID IS NOT A THEORY. NEO-DARWINISM IS NOT A THEORY."

Non sequitur.
(You know, the muddy dress thingy)

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

RealPC said...
"...according to Cedric's standards..."

They're not my standards, you dolt.
I got my definition from dictionaries and encyclopedias.
They're "the standards" of people who speak English.
Comprende? Yasna? Araso?
I gave you the references, remember?
.................................

RealPC said...
" I called it a theory but I didn't define theory exactly the same way you define it."

No.
This isn't YOUR definition versus MY definition.

Scientists use the word "theory" very carefully.
The meaning of the word "theory" is easily checkable in a beginner's science text book or any reference source.

You, however, have your own private, sneaky, 'special' meaning.
You are guilty of Humpty-Dumptyism.
You do this to confuse.
You do this to make your empty talk sound more sciency.
It's shamefully deceitful.
Start behaving like an adult.

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

RealPC said...
"We don't want any ID research..."

There is no research.
There never will be any research.

Here's that quote from the ID fellow 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)

I'm asking you to withdraw your claim that ID is a theory.
No long-winded rants.
No equivocation.
No weasel words.
Just admit it and be done with it.


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