Strange, really- your post screams, “educated”, but your posting screams, “G.E.D.!”
I’m not a doctor, but I play one on the internet.
No, seriously, I totally believe that he’s a trained medical professional.
I know this, of course, because after I got back from leading the first manned mission to Mars and graduated first in my class from both ninja school and spy school, I also had a long and fruitful career as a Formula 1 racer. And believe me, in my time as a ninja spy astronaut race car driver, I learned how to spot a medical professional.
Don’t forget that underwear-modeling gig.
If I may … I think I figured out where ivn is coming from; I made a somewhat sarcastic post about it above, but I’d like to take it more seriously for a moment.
The position taken by Dembski et al is that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory with no religious underpinnings that deserves to be taught in secular science classes. This claim is patently absurd and needs no further discussion.
ign seems to be more concerned that the general ID concept is then being thrown out as valueless; that our culture assumes that knowledge based on the formal scientific method as the only ‘real’ knowledge, and anything else gets flushed.
And he’s certainly correct, to a point. There are many members of each of our belief collections that have not been justified by science. And when we discard an assertion as ‘not scientific’, what we’re ultimately saying in most cases is that it contradicts some other belief we have that isn’t actually any more scientific than the one being discarded.
With that said, I have to say that this really isn’t relevant to the subject of the OP. The core reason that so many scientists are opposed to Dembski isn’t that they have opinions that conflict with his on philosophic grounds that are outside the realm of science. It’s that Dembski is spearheading a political movement that is trying to get ID falsely labeled as science for the purpose of public school science classes. And that’s a fight that’s clearly worth fighting …
There are certainly some professional biologists that are vehemently of the opinion that science justifies disbelief in deities. There are others who believe that the scientific evidence supports the existence of a Creator. But both refrain from trying to teach about that in their science classes; they recognize that the proper forum for that argument is in the philosophy and/or religion departments of their university.
Someone who lobbies to change that is not interested in science. It’s possible to make a coherent case that there are things other than science that we ought to be interested in; but Dembski’s strategy seems to be to accept that all true knowledge is scientific, and then to try to change what ‘scientific’ means. And that’s just wrong, whether you’re a scientist, a philosopher, or a (serious) theologian.
(Disclaimer: I was working on a doctorate in philosophy in the same program in an overlapping time frame as Prof. Dembski. I hope this doesn’t impact your opinion of my post. 
)
The phrase Intelligent Design was coined by one of Behe’s cohorts or immediate predecessors in the God of the Gaps movement, (often ascribed to Charles Thaxton), then picked up by (lawyer) Philip Johnson* and waved around by the sort of anti-science people who went on to found the Discovery Institute.
It has always been a term used by those who want to sneak God into scientific discussions regarding evolution.
- My earlier references to “Phillips” were supposed to be references to Johnson that I did not catch while proofing.
I mean ivn, of course. Yeesh.
I also forgot we were in the Pit rather than GD. Feel free to mentally insert random swear words into my previous post.
Well… yeah. That’s because, as Popper pointed out, there really isn’t a ‘scientific method’ as much as there is one valid epistemological standard, which is testing, proof, refutation and verification. Any claim of objective knowledge has to go through that seive or it’s worthless as anything other than pure belief.
Which is fine. We’re not Vulcans and taking some things on faith or having an idiosyncratic metaphysics or what have you isn’t, necessarily, a bad thing. But the only way we can ever approximate any significant degree of certainty is through the power of reason/epistemology/“the scientific method”. It’s all the same beast: what do you know, how do you know it, what are the limits of your knowledge, are there any other viable explanations, how sure can you be of your conclusions, how can you be proven wrong, etc…
It’s worth noting that, even when dealing with subjective knowledge, this holds true to a certain degree. I love coffee ice cream, for example. Always have, and probably always will. This is knowledge, of a sort. Sure, subjective and personal, but knowledge none the less. And yet, I had a bowl of coffee ice cream tonight and it jut didn’t do it for me. Sure, it’s a bit of a facile example, but the point is that even self-knowledge and subjective knowledge can change, be out of date, be wrong in specific circumstances, etc…
No, we are not.
We’re saying that it isn’t testable, refutable, verifiable, open to experimental confirmation and analysis, etc… That, and/or that it violates what we do know about Universe and has no support of its own in any case. It’s the same reason that Last Thursdayism as well as dowsing as well as claims that magic powers exist as long as skeptics aren’t present all fail as anything other than semantic noise.
This, however, is spot on.
With, of course, the caveat that the null hypothesis is something that all methodologically sound inquiries into reality (“science” or not) should take heed of, and being unable to falsify the NH but still believing in that conclusion is the realm of faith and not *reason.
*
Your cite is for a section discussing why the concepts are bogus. NOT in the context of explaining the science of biology.
Don’t be such a prick.:rolleyes: It discredits your positions even on the occasions when they’re sound.
What is wrong with you? Seriously. What is wrong with you?
Did you not read the cite, or are you just not able to understand it?
As it is you’ve also already had other cites provided, and you seem to have ignored those too.
If you are determined to remain ignorant and spew fction, then at least shut up.
Far from saying the term is bogus, Talk Origins identified the long history of the use of the word macroevolution within the scientific community and discussed the different ways it’s used and thought of, controversies as to precisely how it can be delineated, differences within and between various fields that study evolution and tangential subjects, etc, etc, etc.
Yah know, that FAQ on all the evidence for macroevolution, not a FAQ on why the concept is bogus. You idiot.
God damn, all the fun happens after I go home from work.
It was fiction. It has no application in the real world, except to prove that there is only evidence for I.D. in a fictional setting, as none has yet been demonstrated in our own world. Sagan wrote about it because he thought it was a nifty “what if” that had exactly no applicability to the world as we currently understand it. Unless you’ve discovered a chunk of repeating 1’s and 0’s in Pi that, when displayed in a matrix, form a circle? I thought not, you fucking retard.
Like usual, you’ve demonstrated your unfamiliarity with reading comprehension. I said unless you have an M.D., you have had less education than myself, not that I was an M.D.
I’m sure with a tiny amount of research, you could figure it out, but then again, they don’t teach that at whatever community college you attend.
What internet Bible college did you get your fake postgraduate degree from?
You think an M.D. is the ultimate in education? Beyond a Ph.D? Just one more thing you don’t know squat about, it seems.
Maybe he went to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College.
I’d just like to point out that even if you did find a chunk of repeating 1’s and 0’s in Pi that, when displayed in a matrix, form a circle, that would prove nothing at all. In fact, I’d be a little surprised if such a thing didn’t exist in there somewhere. After all, it’s an infinitely long series of digits, and non-repeating. That’s a lot of room for a lot of different meaningless patterns.
That said, I don’t think it’s fair to call him a fucking retard. We have no evidence at all that he’s actually getting any, after all.
Unless you’ve got an MD, you’re not as educated as I am, lol, fatty tards! Well, not counting people who have multiple graduate degrees. Or people who went through rigorous Ph.D. programs. Or people who are life long learners and who don’t stop getting an education just because they’re not sitting in a classroom. Or, I guess people whose brains work and who can actually absorb and process information rather than misunderstanding everything that comes across their bovine eyes that can possibly be used to prop up a faux superiority complex.
But yeah… if you disagree with me you better at least be a doctor.
He’s saying his education credentials are exactly one step below having an M.D. I’m curious what those credentials are. I’m also curious when someone of his brilliance is going to get around to refuting the posts here that seem to show he doesn’t know anything about evolution instead of posting about irrelevant shit like his mysterious credentials and Contact.
ivn1188, PA-C has a nice ring to it. Well, unless you’re a patient.
You know what they call the guy that finishes last in his class in medical school?
Doctor.
Just pointing out that having a piece of paper with a degree title on it doesn’t prove anything. Unless you’re a scarecrow.
Nah, he said that unless you had an MD he was smarter, which implies those with PhDs and not MDs are dumber.
One of my hobbies is deconstructing posts by morons. 