Behe's Acolyte on the Radio

[Big Phil]

I'm listening to a talk-radio program (Dave Ross) right now, and the host has an imbetard on (Jonathan Witt, author of "A Meaningful World: How the Arts And Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature") who's babbling on about Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design and other crap.

The highlights so far:

"Follow the evidence that leads to design." The host then asked Witt to clarify that the evidence is the lack of a known cause for evolution or for why creatures have the features they have. In other words, Irreducible Complexity means there must be an intelligent designer.

"One you decide there is a designer, you leave science and go to other things to try and find the answer." The other things are, of course, religion, philosophy, etc., but the imbetard kind of avoided this, although the host was pretty clear.

Dave Ross did a pretty good job of pinning this asswipe down on his bullshit and not letting him get away with vague bullshit claims. He also all but forced him to admit that ID isn't science (his statement above). Kind of interesting listening to this, although the stupidity of Jonathan Witt is pretty sad.

[K. A. Pital]

One you decide there is a designer, you leave science and go to other things to try and find the answer.

And then you're two leaps away from worshipping Mr. Thunder-God for rain. Oh wait. We've been here before.

ID advocates... Trying so hard to play on both fronts - as religious "messengers" to destroy science and as "scientists without a special agenda" can't sit in two boats. That's why ID sinks and stinks. At least the ordinary Cretinists have their share of hardcore believers...

[Lord Zentei]

And at least they are honest about what their position is.

[K. A. Pital]

The IDers exist in some sort of a Schroedinger's Cat position - until you ask them in a specific enviroment, you will not know which type of answer exactly they would use.

That is irritating to say the least, and that's why I almost never debate their kind. Disgusting to know that the opponent is not even honest enough to state his views openly.

[Lord Zentei]

The IDers exist in some sort of a Schroedinger's Cat position - until you ask them in a specific enviroment, you will not know which type of answer exactly they would use.

That is irritating to say the least, and that's why I almost never debate their kind. Disgusting to know that the opponent is not even honest enough to state his views openly.

Indeed. They want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to keep their beleifs intact, yet they want the respectability of science as well; to which end they will attempt to waltz between the protocols of the one and the other, never actually adopting either.

[drachefly]

"One you decide there is a designer, you leave science and go to other things to try and find the answer."

That's fucked up. This version of ID is immune to the quarter-hearted but fierce defense I've been giving it in the other thread.

And if it's from a Behe acolyte, then it may be the main version of ID.

[Lord Zentei]

"One you decide there is a designer, you leave science and go to other things to try and find the answer."

That's fucked up. This version of ID is immune to the quarter-hearted but fierce defense I've been giving it in the other thread.

And if it's from a Behe acolyte, then it may be the main version of ID.

It is, AFAIK.

[Darth Wong]

"One you decide there is a designer, you leave science and go to other things to try and find the answer."

That's fucked up. This version of ID is immune to the quarter-hearted but fierce defense I've been giving it in the other thread.

It is the only mainstream version of ID, fucktard. And it's no different from your version. The only difference is that he freely admits he's departing from science while insist that it's possible to have a scientific theory with no predictive power. At least he's honest.

[drachefly]

"My version"? You mean the version I mentioned in a devil's advocate role which has only 6 immediately fatal errors instead of 8, and one of those so demoted remains extremely severe?

[Plekhanov]

"My version"? You mean the version I mentioned in a devil's advocate role which has only 6 immediately fatal errors instead of 8, and one of those so demoted remains extremely severe?

So you mean you were trolling?

[Darth Wong]

"My version"? You mean the version I mentioned in a devil's advocate role which has only 6 immediately fatal errors instead of 8, and one of those so demoted remains extremely severe?

The version where you think that a total lack of predictive power is not a "relevant" criticism of a theory, retard. The version where you argue that in a hypothetical situation where evolution fails, ID must become a viable scientific theory by default. The one where you use EXACTLY the same kind of reasoning as ID, with the only difference being that you recognize the evidence for evolution failing isn't there. It doesn't matter if you were doing it as a "devil's advocate" argument; you were employing the logic of an imbecile, so I can only conclude that you are either an imbecile or a troll.

[drachefly]

"My version"? You mean the version I mentioned in a devil's advocate role which has only 6 immediately fatal errors instead of 8, and one of those so demoted remains extremely severe?

So you mean you were trolling?

I would have been trolling if I had been speaking just to get a rise out of you guys, particularly if I had been lying.

I think ID has numerous fatal flaws. I said so. I think one of the flaws taken on its own is not fatal (requiring identifying the mechanism is something we do not require of many other theories, especially in genetics and fundamental theories). My other point, which DW mentions derogatorily above, is that its lack of predictive power is partially chimeric because in principle it is an aggregate of many other theories, each of which is more specific. It is still an extremely severe problem that many of those theories are functionally indistinguishable.
That is all I have claimed about ID itself. I have made some comments on the strategy of counterarguing ID.

[Big Phil]

"My version"? You mean the version I mentioned in a devil's advocate role which has only 6 immediately fatal errors instead of 8, and one of those so demoted remains extremely severe?

So you mean you were trolling?

I would have been trolling if I had been speaking just to get a rise out of you guys, particularly if I had been lying.

I think ID has numerous fatal flaws. I said so. I think one of the flaws taken on its own is not fatal (requiring identifying the mechanism is something we do not require of many other theories, especially in genetics and fundamental theories). My other point, which DW mentions derogatorily above, is that its lack of predictive power is partially chimeric because in principle it is an aggregate of many other theories, each of which is more specific. It is still an extremely severe problem that many of those theories are functionally indistinguishable.
That is all I have claimed about ID itself. I have made some comments on the strategy of counterarguing ID.

The problem with your statement is that it suggests that ID remains a viable theory, which it does not. There are four theories - Creationism, ID, the one (I forget the name, it's old) where animals die out to be replaced by new animals, and Evolutionary Theory. The best of the four is evolutionary theory - it is the only one that is scientifically provable, testable, and backed up by evidence. It's not perfect, and questions still remain, but it fits the evidence. Why, therefore, should any of the other three theories be given any credence at all? Furthermore, why should ID (specifically) be the alternative to a perfect Evolutionary theory? Why not a theory where animals periodically shit out new animals, which then kill and eat the old ones and replace them? There's just as much evidence that cockamammy theory as for ID...

[drachefly]

I think ID has numerous fatal flaws. I said so.

The problem with your statement is that it suggests that ID remains a viable theory, which it does not.

ORLY?

The rest of your post is a summary some of the other fatal flaws that I claim are still fatal.

[Darth Wong]

I think ID has numerous fatal flaws. I said so.

The problem with your statement is that it suggests that ID remains a viable theory, which it does not.

ORLY?

The rest of your post is a summary some of the other fatal flaws that I claim are still fatal.

You're a lying sack of shit. You said that the lack of a comprehensible mechanism (which is necessary for prediction) was not a critical flaw. You said this on the first page of the "Letter to the Editor" thread. Anyone can go look at it and see the truth.

[drachefly]

The problem with your statement is that it suggests that ID remains a viable theory, which it does not.

ORLY?

The rest of your post is a summary some of the other fatal flaws that I claim are still fatal.

You're a lying sack of shit. You said that the lack of a comprehensible mechanism (which is necessary for prediction) was not a critical flaw. You said this on the first page of the "Letter to the Editor" thread. Anyone can go look at it and see the truth.

And anyone can look on the very post I was referring to and see that he did not name 'comprehensible mechanism' as a flaw, so it is consistent for me to say that he listed critical flaws of the theory!

[Lord Zentei]

And anyone can look on the very post I was referring to and see that he did not name 'comprehensible mechanism' as a flaw, so it is consistent for me to say that he listed critical flaws of the theory!

Ahem:

The problem with your statement is that it suggests that ID remains a viable theory, which it does not.
<snipp>
The best of the four is evolutionary theory - it is the only one that is scientifically provable, testable, and backed up by evidence.

If it does not have a comrehensible mechanism, it is not provable or testable.

[drachefly]

If it does not have a comrehensible mechanism, it is not provable or testable.

If it does not have specific consequences and requirements, it is not provable or testable. Mechanism is usually used to inform the consequences and requirements. They remain distinct concepts.

[SirNitram]

On look, a tangent replicating an existing thread. That's cute. What's even cuter is the WoI being deployed against the fact that without a mechanism, you don't have a theory.

[Lord Zentei]

If it does not have a comrehensible mechanism, it is not provable or testable.

If it does not have specific consequences and requirements, it is not provable or testable. Mechanism is usually used to inform the consequences and requirements. They remain distinct concepts.

And when no comprehensible mechanism exists in a "theory" how are you going to glean the concequences or requirements of it?

[Darth Wong]

If it does not have a comrehensible mechanism, it is not provable or testable.

If it does not have specific consequences and requirements, it is not provable or testable. Mechanism is usually used to inform the consequences and requirements. They remain distinct concepts.

You are full of shit. The mechanism is whatever the theory uses in order to generate a narrow set of predictions, ie- how you determine what the theory either can or more importantly CANNOT predict. You're assuming that "mechanism" means some kind of apparatus. It does not. It only means some kind of process that can be described in such a manner that you can tell what consequences can be predicted from it. Natural selection is an example of such a mechanism. Without it, you have no theory.