Protest against closure of JC1 Thread on ID

[Ophiolite]

JC1 opened a thread (Intelligent Design struggles with an identity crisis) which included a lengthy extract by one Bruce Gordon former head of the Polanyi Center at Baylor University.

 

In this Gordon presents the most cogent, unemotional, objective description and defence of ID that I have read. I am not a fan of ID. I have condemned it in this and other fora for its unscientific methodology. Gordon's presentation was persuasive by its reasonable ness. It may be that this conceals the same old ID distortions, but if so they were well concealed.

 

When I say persuasive I mean in the sense of worthy of discussion and consideration, especially within a sub-section dealing with Metaphysics. I therefore am appalled that within one hour of the post being made Mokele had chosen to close it, describing the writing as More useless drivel from people who can't see the logical fallacy they're committing.

 

There have been countless discussions, debates, arguments and outright battles over ID in the past. This is the first time I have seen a thread locked almost instantly. A thread that contained a single post that was noteworthy mainly for its reasonableness.

 

I am well aware that freedom of speech does not exist on any forum, but does the censorship need to be this crude and blatant? I was frankly ashamed to see this action occuring on a forum that I have come to regard in many ways as a second home. I feel as if I have just been served with an eviction notice.

 

Ophiolite

[Dave]

Hey,

 

I'm going to review the post myself. The problem that we're having at the moment is that a lot of the ID threads are being inundated with people not willing to reason properly, and hence it's taking up a lot of time and causing us a lot of grief just to sort them out.

 

But, as I say, I will review the thread and get back to you.

 

(Next time it might be better to send a PM or post in Suggestions/Comments, since I just don't see things in Psuedo-science all that often )

[Mokele]

It sounded reasonable, but contained nothing but the same old falacies we're refuted time and again. Nothing in that article could not be satisfactorily refuted with a moment's use of the 'search' button or a simple knowledge of logical fallacies. Not to mention a basic knowledge of biology.

 

It contained nothing productive, and was purely intended to stir up shit on a topic which has been *thorughly* debunked.

 

In all honesty, I felt it to be little more than trolling. Nothing productive would have come of it (because nothing productive *ever* comes of that debate), so basically, I'm just saving everyone the trouble and boredom of yet another useless debate on an intellectually and emprically bankrupt position.

 

Mokele

[JC1]

I understand that there have been countless and useless discussion about ID, but i thought this one would be more interesting to share, or at least useful enough to educate ID fellows here, not to be like me before, to understand more about ID to avoid spouting nonsense and strawmen in their arguments in the future. I'm just surprised that my thread was instantly locked in a first glance without thorough consideration.

 

My intention is not to support schools teaching creationism by ignorant and presumptious ideas, but I support theories that testifies to real evidences that points to something else. Read Bruce Gordon's brief intro to what they are researching. He heads up teams of scientists who works on the science and empirical data that proves the unlikeliness of random chance in many of the current theories. That SHOULD be taught in conjunction to other theories in my opinion. What is the use to only teaching one side, when there are very legitamate truth on the other? this is the problem I would have with schools who take a 'narrow minded' stance in limiting the lessons to only the 'popular' theory. People must understand, 'evolution' is just best theory we have to explain the occurences of our natural world at this time. If we stop there, then we will never get the more perfect and absolute understanding of nature's processes. Creationism didn't satisfy me about how the earth works, evolution, only explains a little better, but I believe they will find even better theories therefore they should present in schools ID materials that doesn't have any religious biasis, just facts and figures to help give students more tools to work from.

[Mokele]

Read Bruce Gordon's brief intro to what they are researching. He heads up teams of scientists who works on the science and empirical data that proves the unlikeliness of random chance in many of the current theories.

 

You mean a team of half-rate hacks who're re-iterating the same tired arguements about probability which I guarantee are wrong in precisely the same way as all other ones have been, namely because they lack proper understanding of the system.

 

Oh, look, I just found his CV. He has *no* degrees in science, only applied math and philosophy of science (AKA "those who can, do, those who cannot, philosophize about it"). Ergo he has *NO* credibility on the subject, and insufficient knowledge.

 

Oh, and lookie! The "institute" responsible for this and headed by this individual was shut down by a *BAPTIST* university.

 

On top of that, probability proves *nothing*. It's extremely improbable that any given person will win the loterry, but people do win it.

 

That SHOULD be taught in conjunction to other theories in my opinion. What is the use to only teaching one side, when there are very legitamate truth on the other?

 

That'd be all well and good, if there were any legitimate truth supporting this "design" bullshit. As I'm currently noting in bascule's thread, teleological arguements come in two and only two flavors: those which are untestable and useless, and those which are flatly contradicted by the existing body of data.

 

they should present in schools ID materials that doesn't have any religious biasis, just facts and figures to help give students more tools to work from.

 

And we'll do that when ID generates some scienific, empirical results. Note that they hav failed to do so in twenty years, in spite of all the endlss yapping about how great their idea is.

 

As I noted elsewhere, penis-enlargement pills have more scientific merit than ID.

 

Mokele

[Ophiolite]

As I noted elsewhere, penis-enlargement pills have more scientific merit than ID.

They work for me. Do you think it's a placebo effect?

[ecoli]

They work for me. Do you think it's a placebo effect?

 

Or maybe the pills make your eyes zoom in when you bend your head down.

 

Researcher: That appeitite depressant is amazing!

Researcher B: Homer... you really have no desire to eat that food?

Homer: Food.... FOOD! I'm blind! AHHHH! AHHHH!

Researcher: Who's gonna buy a pill that's gonna make you blind?

Researcher B: We'll let marketing worry about that!

[bascule]

I started my own thread on this but I agree with Mokele that the thread should've been locked... for this reason in particular:

 

...if it is granted that teleology might be an objective part of nature, then it also has to be acknowledged that design research can be carried out in a manner that does not violate methodological naturalism as a philosophical constraint on science.

 

What they're saying there is "Our hypothesis is that a purely natural explanation in the traditional sense is wrong. We are going to presuppose an unnatural influence on the universe through which a telelogical process arises and shapes present events."

 

That's not how it should work. Teleological attractors, in order to be the least bit scientific, should be a consequence of natural processes (Why does God have to break his own laws?) I fully support the search for them, but don't try to claim that you're being scientific if you have to redefine science in order to do so.

[Dak]

just an idea, but why not make a sub-forum under philosophy/religion espescially for descussions on intelligent desighn and creationism? and add a check-box to the search and new posts options to ignore that sub-forum in all searches?

 

That way, those who can be bothered to tolerate ID/creationism can, and those who cant dont have to. Maybe, on the off-chance that a scientifically good thread gets started in there, it can get moved out into philosophy/religion or evolution, thus screening the IDiots out for those who dont want to put up with them.

[swansont]

Also consider that the content added by the original poster was essentially zero. It's a cut-and-paste job, requiring almost zero effort to drop into the mix, and yet it's expected that others will spend time responding. If JC1 wants a debate, he should formulate the arguments himself - that should be the minimum hurdle. It demonstrates an investment of time and the understanding of the material involved. The original format is no different from the spam we get in email - it is effortless to send, so there is no barrier to anyone sending it.

[Phi for All]

just an idea' date=' but why not make a sub-forum under philosophy/religion espescially for descussions on intelligent desighn and creationism? and add a check-box to the search and new posts options to ignore that sub-forum in all searches?

 

That way, those who can be bothered to tolerate ID/creationism can, and those who cant dont have to. Maybe, on the off-chance that a scientifically good thread gets started in there, it can get moved out into philosophy/religion or evolution, thus screening the IDiots out for those who dont want to put up with them.[/quote']Technically, this is what the Speculations forum is all about. Ideas that could have scientific merit try to make their case there and possibly get placed back in the regular science forums.

 

The problem with ID is that it has come up with NOTHING to support itself in it's quest to become a valid version that should be taught alongside accepted sciences in the classroom. It is still religious in nature, based on untestable ideas and beliefs, and can't be viewed in the same light as science without diminishing what science is trying to achieve.

[Ophiolite]

I felt it to be little more than trolling. Nothing productive would have come of it (because nothing productive *ever* comes of that debate[/b']), so basically, I'm just saving everyone the trouble and boredom of yet another useless debate on an intellectually and emprically bankrupt position.

So if that's the policy shouldn't all ID threads and all ID discussions be closed down? Why single out this one? And if it becomes a forum policy to exclude ID related debate, what does that say about the openmindedness of the scientists and the scientifically inclined who administer, moderate and participate in these forums? And if it is not policy, then I ask again , why this particular post.

I abhor ID and am mortified that I have felt the need to leap in to defend 'its' right to be heard, but I perceive the current approach as flawed and unwelcome.

[Phi for All]

So if that's the policy shouldn't all ID threads and all ID discussions be closed down?

I think we're very close to that right now.

And if it becomes a forum policy to exclude ID related debate, what does that say about the openmindedness of the scientists and the scientifically inclined who administer, moderate and participate in these forums?

If the people who argue in favor of ID would acknowledge any of the many points raised about it's lack of scientific backing, or stop misrepresenting accepted theories over and over to make their cases, or approach their claims in a manner that hasn't been refuted time and time again, I think you could trust us to be objective and patient in our approach.

 

In the US, a company called Verizon Wireless has commercials where a man with a cell phone travels all over, going to every out-of-the-way section of the country, making sure Verizon's service range is adequate. He keeps asking into his phone, "Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?" With regard to the ID threads, the staff here at SFN has begun to feel like the poor slob at the other end of the phone whose job it is to sit there day after day, hour after hour, and give the same answer, "Yes. Yes. Yes."

I abhor ID and am mortified that I have felt the need to leap in to defend 'its' right to be heard, but I perceive the current approach as flawed and unwelcome.

Your point is taken and respected. Suggestions?

[Mokele]

So if that's the policy shouldn't all ID threads and all ID discussions be closed down?

 

I've suggested it before.

 

Why single out this one?

 

Because I got sick of it.

 

And if it becomes a forum policy to exclude ID related debate, what does that say about the openmindedness of the scientists and the scientifically inclined who administer, moderate and participate in these forums?

 

It says that our patience is not unlimited, and that we will not allow an otherwise useful board to be polluted by pointless discussion of a disproven theology.

 

While there is the concept of ID's "right to be heard", that only applies at the begining. It's been heard. It's been refuted. It's been heard again. Over and over and over again, in spite of the fact that it *never* brings up anything new and ignores prior refutations.

 

To analogize: If I disagree with you, it's openminded of you to listen to and consider what I have to say, and to debate it with me. But what if I just keep harping on, recycling the same arguements, no matter how thoroughly you crush my ideas? What if I just will not let the debate die, and continuously bother you about it? That's when you punch me in the face and leave me unconscious in a gutter somewhere.

 

We're not at the "giving ID a fair hearing" point. We're at the "sick of hearing the same old bullshit" point, and IMHO, it's time to leave ID in the gutter with a nasty headwound and, out of spite, no pants.

 

You cannot extend the "give a fair hearing" ideal infinitely, because people will rampantly abuse it (reference: every ID/creationism thread on this board ever) and will drag down the whole quality of the board.

 

Besides, there are *other* places people can go, such as talk.origins, which are specifically dedicated to this.

 

It's less censorship and more a cry of "Enough, already!"

 

I abhor ID and am mortified that I have felt the need to leap in to defend 'its' right to be heard, but I perceive the current approach as flawed and unwelcome.

 

I agree it looks bad to end the discussion of a subject, but it does more than look bad when a supposedly scientific forum is inundated with this BS to the point that what time could be spent on productive discussions is entirely wasted.

 

I'm open to suggestions, but quite frankly, I'm ready to give ID the metaphorical punch in the face and get on with *real* topics.

 

Mokele

[YT2095]

it does more than look bad when a supposedly scientific forum is inundated with this BS to the point that what time could be spent on productive discussions is entirely wasted.

 

On that particular point I couldn`t agree more! Well Said:-)

[Cathy Pa]

As long as there is a philosophy/religion section on this "scientific" forum, isn't it a little hypocritical to disallow an ID thread?

 

All one needs to do after all, if one wishes to not be involved in a discussion about the viability of the ID theory is not read it.

 

Is that too much? :confused:

[Phi for All]

As long as there is a philosophy/religion section on this "scientific" forum' date=' isn't it a little hypocritical to disallow an ID thread?

 

All one needs to do after all, if one wishes to not be involved in a discussion about the viability of the ID theory is not read it.

 

Is that too much? :confused:[/quote']If ID was strictly a religious interpretation there would be no problem philosophising about it. But ID proponents are trying to argue that it is as valid as scientific theories which have been tested rigorously and should be taught alongside them in the public schools science classes. It would be irresponsible for us to ignore the fact that their ideas of what makes a theory are garbled and inept.

 

We can't allow bad information to go unchallenged and it drains our limited resources to keep challenging the same bad information in the numerous threads that try to defend ID in the same ways. It is insane to keep doing the same thing in the same way and hope for different results, so it's probably best to just post a sticky that says any standard ID argument will be shut down.

 

I'd really have no problem with someone explaining their ID argument in a fresh new way, and that is what the Speculations forum is all about.

[Mokele]

As long as there is a philosophy/religion section on this "scientific" forum, isn't it a little hypocritical to disallow an ID thread?

 

That forum is for legitimate philosophy/religion. ID is both bad science *and* bad theology.

 

Furthermore, consistency is second to keeping the board running smoothly. If, for instance, abortion debates began cropping up all over, and interfering with the purpose of the board, we would have the option of disallowing those even though there's a politics section.

 

All one needs to do after all, if one wishes to not be involved in a discussion about the viability of the ID theory is not read it.

 

Is that too much?

 

Yes. Silence is agreement by proxy. Bullshit like ID cannot be left unrefuted, or it gains the false appearance of legitimacy and acceptance. To allow errors to stand without correction is intellectually dishonest. The options are to either knock them down (waste time refuting the garbage) or just kneecap them so they never stand to begin with, thereby solving the problem in the most time-efficient manner.

 

Peer-review journals do not publish every crappy paper someone writes, with instructions to just ignore it if you don't like it, or at least the good ones don't, and that's *why* they're good ones: quality control. Just like any journal can reject a paper for being utter crap, we can reject a topic for the same reason and with the same motives (maintaining a quality discussion environment for *worthy* discussions).

 

Short version: Ignoring factual errors is intellectual laziness. They must either be corrected, or otherwise dealt with, to ensure that such errors are not mistaken for facts.

 

Mokele

[Cathy Pa]

That forum is for legitimate philosophy/religion. ID is both bad science *and* bad theology.

 

 

Do you have a degree in Theology?

[Cathy Pa]

If ID was strictly a religious interpretation there would be no problem philosophising about it. But ID proponents are trying to argue that it is as valid as scientific theories which have been tested rigorously and should be taught alongside them in the public schools science classes. It would be irresponsible for us to ignore the fact that their ideas of what makes a theory are garbled and inept.

 

We can't allow bad information to go unchallenged and it drains our limited resources to keep challenging the same bad information in the numerous threads that try to defend ID in the same ways. It is insane to keep doing the same thing in the same way and hope for different results' date=' so it's probably best to just post a sticky that says any standard ID argument will be shut down.

 

I'd really have no problem with someone explaining their ID argument in a fresh new way, and that is what the Speculations forum is all about.[/quote']

 

Well who established these "laws of science?"

 

The scientific community?

 

According to a lot of religions, God is all powerful. If God is all powerful, could God so confuse the scientific community that these so-called scientific "proofs" only seemed to be valid?

 

Since no one can disprove the existence of God, who is to say what God's plan might be? In short, how can you be sure that you and your fellow scientists are not merely pawns in some grand scheme of things?

 

I have seen people here discuss alternate realities with a (presumed) straight face, I have seen discussions of time travel and wormholes in space and all manner of nonsense, so how can you be arrogant enough to dismiss a theory that there is such a thing as God?

[cchea]

I am new here, and this probably is the (dumb?) question i would ask, as to why is the battle of Evolution and ID such a Sensitive and Hot topic, especially in the U.S? What is it so vital out of teaching ID that these religious people/scientists would love so much to see it being taught in science class in public school? Why would they want to invade their teaching in science class? there are plenty of churches or even their houses for teaching it.

 

Also, in the evolution side, why do scientists not want ID theory to be taught alongside with evolutionary theory? simply it's not scientific? or perhaps they defend the sciene as a whole that shouldn't be lowered or redefined? the latter sounds like this topic is hot because it is the battle of science vs religion.?.

[Mokele]

Do you have a degree in Theology?

 

My GF does, and I've discussed this with her before. ID in particular and Biblical literalism in general don't have a theological leg to stand on.

 

Since no one can disprove the existence of God, who is to say what God's plan might be? In short, how can you be sure that you and your fellow scientists are not merely pawns in some grand scheme of things?

 

I have seen people here discuss alternate realities with a (presumed) straight face, I have seen discussions of time travel and wormholes in space and all manner of nonsense, so how can you be arrogant enough to dismiss a theory that there is such a thing as God?

 

Coongratulations on totally missing the point. ID, in the sense it is used in the US, is *NOT* about there being a god. It's creationism. You know, the "evolution doesn't happen, earth is 6000 years old" bullshit. ID is just a watered-down version that claims to be science.

 

*That* is the problem. It's religion posing as science, and has *nothing* to show for itself, including a total lack of empirical data.

 

The existence of god isn't the issue, it's a religious idea attacking science without any empirical basis, and trying to use politics to overcome their total lack of facts.

 

I am new here, and this probably is the (dumb?) question i would ask, as to why is the battle of Evolution and ID such a Sensitive and Hot topic, especially in the U.S? What is it so vital out of teaching ID that these religious people/scientists would love so much to see it being taught in science class in public school? Why would they want to invade their teaching in science class? there are plenty of churches or even their houses for teaching it.

 

Because they see evolution and the idea that man was not specially created from dust as somehow contrary to the bible. Back in the 1920's, they actually banned evolution from the classroom because facts threatened their ideas. The courts threw that out, and they went for "equal time", which the courts threw out as well. Now they have ID, which is a flimsy attempt to circumvent the prior rulings, and will be struck down as well, very shortly.

 

It all stems from their desire to stick their fingers in their ears about facts, and to insist their mis-informed and dishonest propaganda is true.

 

Also, in the evolution side, why do scientists not want ID theory to be taught alongside with evolutionary theory? simply it's not scientific? or perhaps they defend the sciene as a whole that shouldn't be lowered or redefined? the latter sounds like this topic is hot because it is the battle of science vs religion.?.

 

Because it violates the definition of science (a leading proponent of ID recent admitted that the only definition of science wide enough to include ID also includes *astrology*), because it will confuse student on what is and is not science and the scientific method, and, most of all, because there isn't a single solitary scrap of evidence anywhere in nature to support it, and plenty to refute it.

 

Basically, they want the Flat Earth Theory taught in classroom as valid. ID is litterally on exactly the same level of intelectual validity.

 

Mokele

[Phi for All]

Why is it these things have to be explained in every new thread? Does no one retain ANYTHING from reading other threads?

Well who established these "laws of science?" The scientific community?

Exactly. The scientific method is very exacting and rigorous about what constitutes a theory. Things that aren't testable by this method are NOT science. They are free to be religion, but should not masquerade as science. If religion wanted to claim that everyone must read the Bible or face a jail sentence, would you let religion masquerade as civil law?

According to a lot of religions, God is all powerful. If God is all powerful, could God so confuse the scientific community that these so-called scientific "proofs" only seemed to be valid?

Omnipotence is one of the claims that puts most religions outside the purview of science. Unobservability and lack of falsifiability are others. People are free to have their beliefs, but they are not free to label them as science.

Since no one can disprove the existence of God, who is to say what God's plan might be?

According to the religious community, the religious community. According to science, NOT science.

I have seen people here discuss alternate realities with a (presumed) straight face, I have seen discussions of time travel and wormholes in space and all manner of nonsense, so how can you be arrogant enough to dismiss a theory that there is such a thing as God?

Some of the discussions of alternate realities and wormholes (and other "nonsense" that may seem counterintuitive to you) use parts of actual scientific theories to base their theses on. Religious discussions, while stimulating and interesting, do not. There is no theory that there is such a thing as God, not with the kinds of testing and evidence science requires of a true theory.

 

Seriously, if you want a religious discussion, there are plenty of better places on the web to get one. We would like to be known as a place where science has priority. I'm very sorry you view that as arrogance.

[timo]

Well who established these "laws of science?"

The scientific community?

Well' date=' it probably wasn´t the CIA ....

 

According to a lot of religions, God is all powerful. If God is all powerful, could God so confuse the scientific community that these so-called scientific "proofs" only seemed to be valid?

I can only speak for physics, here but I´d guess it´s more or less the same for all natural sciences: It´s a common misconception that science was about explaining why something works. It´s about creating models of how it works. And a big point in about these models is that they should allow for predictions (not sure to what extend this applies to biology). You can explain everything with "it´s gods will" but this "theory" won´t allow for verificable predictions.

For science, it does absolutely not matter whether a model works because it´s the "real explanation" of a phenomenon or because nature works like the model does due to some other reason (because god made it appear like that, for example).

 

Since no one can disprove the existence of God, who is to say what God's plan might be? In short, how can you be sure that you and your fellow scientists are not merely pawns in some grand scheme of things?

I can´t. Who cares?

 

I have seen people here discuss alternate realities with a (presumed) straight face, I have seen discussions of time travel and wormholes in space and all manner of nonsense, ...

I had a pretty long answer to this but I deleted it because it would bring the thread way too off-topic. So I´ll stick to my message without giving much explanations on it: There is a difference between a teenager letting his/her imagination running wild and an adult who has an agenda of getting his/her idea slip into education of future generations through the back-door.

 

so how can you be arrogant enough to dismiss a theory that there is such a thing as God?

I have yet to meet a single scientist who claims that there is no such thing as god (but admittedly god is usually not a big topic in science, anyways). See my comment above why the question isn´t relevant.

 

 

(partly) on topic:

I am in absolutely no position to judge the annoyance the ID threads cause to this forum or the administration - I simply don´t read them. I am aware that the discussion about ID is more than just "a few crackpots made up their 'darwin is a plagiatist'-argument because they didn´t understand relativ.... aehm .... evolution"-thing but that it does have (in the US - ID seems like a US-only thing to me) political component.

However, I always feel a bit sad when a thread is closed "because it´s crap". There are good reasons why ID shouldn´t be considered science, aren´t there? Well, I´m pretty sure I´ve read some convincing ones some time ago. Why not make a sticky "discussion about intelligent design", post an initial statement why you (whoever is the driving force on the SFN crusade against ID) post an initial statement why you don´t consider ID a scientific theory, then simply dump all ID threads there (okok, I can´t judge on the amount of moderation this dumping needs). Then, either ignore or sometimes visit the thread from time to time if your mood drives you there. Are you afraid that the SFN members/visitors are too stupid to tell a good statement from a bad one? I´d also like to have a "proving relativity wrong" sticky, btw.

 

Well, that´s just my thoughts about the "ID-problem" that seems to be quite an issue, lately. Like I initially said, I´m aware that it has a component beyond "it´s crap, scientifically" - the policital one. But I also do think that empty-headed closing of respective threads only fuels the uninformed (to say the least) "scientists are all anti-christs"-arguments.

[Mokele]

Why not make a sticky "discussion about intelligent design", post an initial statement why you (whoever is the driving force on the SFN crusade against ID) post an initial statement why you don´t consider ID a scientific theory, then simply dump all ID threads there (okok, I can´t judge on the amount of moderation this dumping needs). Then, either ignore or sometimes visit the thread from time to time if your mood drives you there. Are you afraid that the SFN members/visitors are too stupid to tell a good statement from a bad one? I´d also like to have a "proving relativity wrong" sticky, btw.

 

Great minds think alike - that's precisely the same suggestion I made at one point. It'd probably be a good idea, and I mostly fluctuate between it an just getting rid of all ID/creationism depending on how annoyed I am with ID at any given time.

 

Mokele