Telic ‘Logic’

| 151 Comments

On Telic Thoughts, Salvador makes the following (self defeating) comment, in response to the statement by David Schweingruber that:

David Schweingruber Wrote:

So Iowa State has one thing in common with unaccredited Bible colleges and medieval heresy tribunals – our Bible scholars think they can tell our astronomers how to do their jobs.

And now Sal

Salvador Wrote:

Ouch! That’s about good a slam down as I’ve ever seen!

I guess this means we can safely reject the comments and objections from ID creationists like Meyer on for instance the Cambrian. After all Meyer has degrees in physics, geology and the History and Philosophy of Science. Should we now let physicists or geologists decide how biologists do their job?

Or what about Dembski, who holds degrees in philosophy, psychology, theology and mathematics? Why should we take him serious on issues of human evolution for instance? You get the point I hope.

Of course [the reality is that science did not reject their comments because of their background] their arguments were rejected on scientific terms and shown to be mostly scientifically vacuous, irrelevant or plain out wrong. At least David Schweingruber got one thing right namely that contrary to the claims by Gonzalez, Gonzalez was not the target of the petition.

Schweingruber Wrote:

I suggest discerning followers of the Iowa State Intelligent Design controversy actually read the anti-Intelligent Design petition in question. The petition doesn’t even mention Guillermo Gonzalez, who, according to many media accounts, is the target.

Strangely enough Sal seems to forget about the rebuttals by Patterson of the work by Gonzalez.

Patterson, who has written a review of the book and will present a scientific critique of it and intelligent design on Thursday, said he enjoyed “The Privileged Planet.”

“The book is rich with good science in it,” he said.

But, he said, the intentions of many intelligent design theorists were clear.

“It is a religious apologetic disguised as science,” he said.

Not to mention the in depth rebuttals presented here on Panda’s Thumb.

Or the arguments presented by Del Ratzsch. One does not have to be an astrophysicist to recognize the fundamental flaws in the “logic”.

What he and Richards argue in the book and Ratzsch will say Tuesday is that categorically eliminating those explanations is a mistake.

Let me point out that David Schweingruber’s ‘argument’ is missing the point as Avalos is not telling astronomers how to do their jobs. Avalos is merely pointing out that Gonzalez et al’s thesis conclusions are based on flawed logic although the science may be overall quite enjoyable.

Thus when Schweingruber comments

“What is Avalos’ objection to Gonzalez’s work? He told The Des Moines Register that knows Intelligent Design is religion and not science because, “I’m a biblical scholar”.

he fails to represent Avalos’s argument accurately. But Schweingruber also undermines his own argument, namely that sociologists should not be telling theologists how to do their job either.

151 Comments

Doesn’t IOWA stand for idiots out wandering about?

:-)

Not wanting to sound like a spoilsport, but what do Salvador’s comments and their implications have to do with a general refutation of the ‘theories’ of ID in whatever form? I know ID is vacuous, as has been reasonably exposited here multiple times now, but arguments such as these do not really help the general cause of trying to eradicate them from underneath the science label. These arguments reek heavily of ad hominem to me… Discrediting scientists does not help in discrediting theories.

I have to agree with Edin. I’d much rather see PT entries dealing with actual news and substantive debates, rather than ‘gotcha’ moments like this. It just looks petty, and that’s not necessary when we’ve got the science on our side. Leave the sniping to Dembski.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 5, column 2, byte 268 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

I have to add to the spoilsporting, but I feel quite strongly about this. In science, the validity of an argument has nothing to do with the background or credentials of its proponent. For example, biology benefited immensely from an influx of researchers from the physical sciences in the early days of molecular biology.

minimalist wrote:

I have to agree with Edin. I’d much rather see PT entries dealing with actual news and substantive debates, rather than ‘gotcha’ moments like this. It just looks petty, and that’s not necessary when we’ve got the science on our side. Leave the sniping to Dembski.

Us lowly YECs have the worst reputation in the world, and I was simply amused that the atheist professor of religion, Avalos, was being equated with a YEC. That was just too funny. I mean, that’s as big a put down as it gets for someone like him.

In regard to the content of PandasThumb, I would like to see more vitriol and anti-Christian ad hominem rants like what we see at Pharyngula and infidels.org. The last thing I want to see here is a civilized discourse.

Given the population demographics of roughly

50% creationists 38% theistic evolutionists 12% atheistic darwinists

the anti-religious, anti-Christian ad hominems at PT are a valuable marketing tool for the wedge.

The vitriolic ad-hominem attack on creationists alone is highly valuable in as much as these are targeted to the rising number of creationist in the scientific disciplines like biology. Such Pharygula/style rhetoric has been they source of inspiration on the campuses. So keep up the good work at PT, and keep fanning the flames of the wedge.…

You guys don’t realize how easy you make my job. Here is the equivalent of what I might say (exaggerated to get my point across.

Dear freshman chemistry/biology major who is aspiring to become a doctor, physical therapist, or bio tecnologist. I commend the fact you came from a nice protestant family with a protestant medical doctor/first class heart surgeon for a dad (over 50% of protestant physcians reject Darwinism).

Do you see what those Darwinists are saying about people like your daddy, the godly heart surgeon who saves peoples lives? Do you see what hard core Darwinists really are like and what they say about you and your dad on the internet.

Atheistic Darwinists are out to destroy your Christian beliefs, they call your daddy an idiot and lunatic, they say they want to beat your daddy with brass knuckles and steel-toed boots. Just go over to Pharyngula and see for yourself. They want your school teacher mommy to be fired and publicly humiliated. Visit PandasThumb to hear more of the same.…..

I commend the fact you got a scholarship to James Madison University where the acceptance rate from chem/bio majors to medical school is 98%. I expect you’ll graduate with honors and follow in your daddy’s footsteps.

Will you consider helping me get the message out that biology speaks of a great Designing Intelligence and show the world your daddy was right about the fact God created life?

PS hey PvM, thanks for linking to my writings here at PT, I appreciate it bud

Salvador T. Cordova Wrote:

Given the population demographics of roughly

50% creationists 38% theistic evolutionists 12% atheistic darwinists

the anti-religious, anti-Christian ad hominems at PT are a valuable marketing tool for the wedge.

Should you not qualify this with “in the USA”? The Southern Baptist Creationist/ID worldview does not seem to export well.

In regard to the content of PandasThumb, I would like to see more vitriol and anti-Christian ad hominem rants like what we see at Pharyngula and infidels.org. The last thing I want to see here is a civilized discourse.

Me, I’d like to see creationists and IDers answer questions that are put to them.

But, alas, they don’t seem to have the ping-pongs for it.

the anti-religious, anti-Christian ad hominems at PT are a valuable marketing tool for the wedge.

Remember, everyone, ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion or apologetics. Anything AT ALL. (wink wink)

Anyone still wonder why we think IDers are nothing but dishonest evasive liars?

Sal, any chance we could get you to testify for our side in Dover?

Sal Wrote:

hey PvM, thanks for linking to my writings here at PT, I appreciate it bud

No problem Sal, your contributions always rank high on my list. After all how better to fight ID :-)

Edin Najetovic Wrote:

Not wanting to sound like a spoilsport, but what do Salvador’s comments and their implications have to do with a general refutation of the ‘theories’ of ID in whatever form?

It doesn’t but it shows the shallowness of thought amongst some of the more vocal ID proponents. The more ID is exposed, the worse it will do. The recent comments by Bush, the overselling of ID by many of its proponents, it’s all coming back to bite them as they have failed to overlook a simple aspect:

A scientific theory of ID.

And among the people who come to realize this are an increasing number of creationists. As a Christian myself who has no problems reconciling faith and science, I find this comforting.

Ricardo Azevedo Wrote:

I have to add to the spoilsporting, but I feel quite strongly about this. In science, the validity of an argument has nothing to do with the background or credentials of its proponent. For example, biology benefited immensely from an influx of researchers from the physical sciences in the early days of molecular biology.

Then we agree? The quote I was responding to “So Iowa State has one thing in common with unaccredited Bible colleges and medieval heresy tribunals — our Bible scholars think they can tell our astronomers how to do their jobs.” is wrong for many reasons.

Lenny Flank Wrote:

Me, I’d like to see creationists and IDers answer questions that are put to them.

That would be the day… ID proponents have ignored such questions long enough to be stuck in this situation of ID being scientifically vacuous, and for various reasons often theologically risky. I can understand why a YEC-er would be attracted to such a position though. But at what cost to science and faith…

The recent surge of op-eds, letters to the editors, by everyday people, rejecting intelligent design as scientifically vacuous (and often theologically poorly developed), is something which as a Christian and as a scientist gives me the strength needed to continue the work here at PT. While some may prefer “actual news and substantive debates”, it’s hard to get ID proponents to debate their faith. The news aspect of this posting is to address both a response by an ISU sociology professor to the letter signed by over 120 people as well as the common response of some vocal ID proponents to the news. And the news has not been that good lately…

Having seen the ‘depth of arguments’ at telic thoughts, has led me to conclude that providing links to its content can only serve the scientific cause. ;-)

Ah, salvador mentions the wedge. Let’s take a look at the Wedge Document:

GOALS

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. … To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

So materialistic sciences like meteorology need to shed their vile materialistic explanations and get some theistic understanding, eh? I’m game, Sal. Fill us in. What’s the theologically enhanced understanding of, say, Hurricane Katrina. Those deficient, methodological scientists merely talk about winds and levees, water temperature, and feet below sea level. Give us some of the good stuff Salvador. What’s the theistic insights about the disaster you’d like to add? What does your soon-to-be-dominant perspective contribute?

Since Sal’s big on numbers and percentages…

Creation/ID: 99% BS 1% Scientific Data

You have managed to convince everyone in the trailor parks but, I think you will find the rest of the world may be more difficult.

Stuart Weinstein Wrote:

Doesn’t IOWA stand for idiots out wandering about?

Actually, I had always heard it stood for I Owe the World an Apology.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 64, byte 64 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Steverino:

I think you are being too generous on the Scientific Data for Creation/ID.

I however don’t appreciate the hasty generalization fallacy where you attribute everyone in the trailor parks as buying in to Creation/ID. It is rude, dishonest, and unwelcomed. I would kindly request an apology.

Not everyone that lives in trailer parks is stupid…as your statement implies.

Ricardo Azevedo Wrote:

I have to add to the spoilsporting, but I feel quite strongly about this. In science, the validity of an argument has nothing to do with the background or credentials of its proponent.

I am not sure I agree 100% with you on this. Authough the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority would disagree with your statement, I believe that the fallcy of an ad hominem attack would agree.

I don’t think it is wrong of a person unrelated in education to the field of biology to have a theory in biology, as long as this theory can hold up to biological scientific scruitiny. However I do think it is wrong of a person unrealted in education to the field of biology to keep insisting their theory is valid, when it has been shown by those specialist that they are misinformed, or just plain wrong.

One of the difficulties I have with ID is that it (unwittingly?) attempts to ride the fence between intelligent cause(s) and materialism.

In the first book of the Metaphysics Aristotle writes:

For Anaxagoras uses intelligence as a deus ex machina for the making of the world, and when he is at a loss to tell from what cause something necessarily is, then he drags intelligence in, but in all other cases ascribes events to anything rather than to intelligence.

Anaxagoras, it seems, was the first God-of-the-gaps proponent. And to that extent, he and Behe, for example, are cut from the same cloth.

PvM Wrote:

Then we agree? The quote I was responding to “So Iowa State has one thing in common with unaccredited Bible colleges and medieval heresy tribunals — our Bible scholars think they can tell our astronomers how to do their jobs.” is wrong for many reasons.

Yes, we agree – I should have read your post carefully to the end. I did not spot the sarcasm in the portion I read…

Salvador T. Cordova Wrote:

The vitriolic ad-hominem attack on creationists alone is highly valuable in as much as these are targeted to the rising number of creationist in the scientific disciplines like biology. [emphasis added]

I’ve seen the italicized claim made repeatedly by creationists & IDers around here. My guess is it’s bogus. Possibly the numbers are increasing simply as the total number of biologists increases, but I doubt there’s any fractional increase. (If anything, I’d like to think there’s been a fractional decrease, but maybe that’s too optimistic.)

How about it, STC? Any data to back this up?

For example, biology benefited immensely from an influx of researchers from the physical sciences in the early days of molecular biology.

Here, here. And biology will benefit as more ID leaning engineers get involved in helping elucidate biology from a systems and software perspective.

And biology will have more and more researchers available as the formerly marginalized creationists join the ranks. Why, have you seen the skyrocketing enrollments in biology since the advent of the ID in the 90’s? This is correlated with the de-emphais of Darwinian evolution.

Where the USA is struggling is in the ranks of Engineers, Physicists, Chemists, etc., not biologists. These are areas where Darwinism is nothing but a useless impediment anyway.

Why last night I was talking to some sophomores in computer engineering. I said, “did you know that biological systems are rich in software. You all know how hard it is to write software. Do you think the software in biology, like the 3 giga base-pairs of DNA in humans was just an accident. Do you think Darwinian evolution could do that?”

They said, “No way!”

Heartwarming to see that these young science students can think logically.

Salvador

Miah Wrote:

I am not sure I agree 100% with you on this. Authough the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority would disagree with your statement, I believe that the fallcy of an ad hominem attack would agree.

(I don’t know if I agree 100% with anything I say…) I’m not sure how you came to your first conclusion. I was actually spelling out the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy.

Miah Wrote:

I don’t think it is wrong of a person unrelated in education to the field of biology to have a theory in biology, as long as this theory can hold up to biological scientific scruitiny.

Sure. I’m just warning against arguments which emphasize Meyer’s or Dembski’s lack of training in biology. Their ideas are rubbish, but it’s not (only) because of their training. Note that Dembski routinely challenges his critics’ mathematical credentials, when they raise perfectly reasonable objections to his arguments. It’s that kind of behavior we should avoid.

Posted by Miah on September 2, 2005 12:05 PM (e) (s)

“Steverino:

I think you are being too generous on the Scientific Data for Creation/ID.

I however don’t appreciate the hasty generalization fallacy where you attribute everyone in the trailor parks as buying in to Creation/ID. It is rude, dishonest, and unwelcomed. I would kindly request an apology.

Not everyone that lives in trailer parks is stupid…as your statement implies.”

My deepest apologies.…How can I make it up to all those wonderfully mobile homesteaders.…Perhaps a weekend pass to Kent Hovind’s Dino Land!, Home of the Fire Breathing Dino!???

the rising number of creationist in the scientific disciplines like biology.

General enrollments had been up in 1997. Any on is welcome to post more recent numbers.

http://biowww.clemson.edu/biolab/enrollNSF.html

Unless the enrollment rise is due only to Darwinists enrolling, then there has been a rise in the number of creationists enrolling. That makes demographic sense. It is an inference. I guess we’ll see where we are a decade from now.

I do know in a poll that many biology majors at James Madison might be interested in learning about intelligent design. It does not mean they are creationists nor IDists, but I would consider them as potential for becoming ID sympathizers. Our sample size was too small to make a good reading on the bio majors, so a further poll would be a good idea.

However, the fact 37% of physcians reject Darwinian evolution, many who are bio majors, it’s hard to make the case that there are only small numbers of bio majors who reject Darwinian evolution.

Heartwarming to see so many physicians (like Senate Majority Leader Frist of Harvard Medical School) survived the attempted brainwashing and indoctrination. The intelligent design in nature will not be held captive to stacked peer-reviewed committees bent on perpetuating Darwin’s unscientific and failed theories.

Salvador Wrote:

And biology will benefit as more ID leaning engineers get involved in helping elucidate biology from a systems and software perspective.

And biology will have more and more researchers available as the formerly marginalized creationists join the ranks. Why, have you seen the skyrocketing enrollments in biology since the advent of the ID in the 90’s? This is correlated with the de-emphais of Darwinian evolution.

This is wishful thinking at best. Biology has been on the rise for decades, and the “de-emphasis of Darwinian evolution” has got nothing to do with it. Anyone who can argue that the explosion of molecular data (to name one of the main developments) since the early 80s has weakened evolutionary biology must be living in an alternative reality. Real biologists, know better…

Salvador Wrote:

Where the USA is struggling is in the ranks of Engineers, Physicists, Chemists, etc., not biologists. These are areas where Darwinism is nothing but a useless impediment anyway.

Nonsense. The physical sciences are struggling to recruit people in Europe as well…

Salvador Wrote:

Why last night I was talking to some sophomores in computer engineering. I said, “did you know that biological systems are rich in software. You all know how hard it is to write software. Do you think the software in biology, like the 3 giga base-pairs of DNA in humans was just an accident. Do you think Darwinian evolution could do that?”

They said, “No way!”

Heartwarming to see that these young science students can think logically.

You’re deluding yourself. Wait until they learn about genetic algorithms. In my experience, computer scientists are actually some of the best equipped to get evolutionary ideas – and I have had several computer science graduates working in my lab on computational evolutionary biology. Many more are helping fuel the bioinformatics explosion – one where evolutionary biology has had a strong influence. Show me a single example of ID-inspired bioinformatics!

steve Wrote:

So materialistic sciences like meteorology need to shed their vile materialistic explanations and get some theistic understanding, eh? I’m game, Sal. Fill us in. What’s the theologically enhanced understanding of, say, Hurricane Katrina.

Legalized prostitution Mardi Gras

The Big Easy is just a 21st Century Sodom, although God’s aim seems to have deteriorated since Old Testament times. And don’t concern yourself with the collateral damage; that’s never been high on God’s list of concerns (see Noah’s Flood).

Simple.

And we know good Christian folk like it simple.…

Salvador wrote:

Atheistic Darwinists are out to destroy your Christian beliefs

Salvador, atheists are not roaming the world trying to burn down churches every chance they get. Christianity on the other hand has a notable penchant, in its history, for torches at dusk. The loss to the world, and archaeology in particular, of our collective history has been immense. I’d be willing to trade your beliefs for that history.

insincerely,

In his comments on Anaxagoras and Aristotle, Mythos actually engages in a bit of quote mining. (Just kidding.) Aristotle’s objection to Anaxagoras was that he only brought in intelligence to explain the making of the world instead of being consistent and seeing it at work in everything as Aristotle himself did. Indeed, a page before the quote about God on the Machine, Aristotle wrote “When one man said that reason was present–as in animals, so throughtout nature–as the cause of the world and of all its order, he seemed like a sober man in contrast with the random talk of his predecessors. We know that Anaxagoras certainly adopted these views…”[trans. W.D. Ross]

We’re always bitching about the absence of a theory of ID. Aristotle’s biology shows what such a theory might be like, consistent, perceptive, but obviously wrong. On the other hand, Darwin once commented, “We’re all schoolboys to old Aristotle” so he at least found something useful in the master of those who know.

I do know in a poll that many biology majors at James Madison might be interested in learning about intelligent design.

As would we all, Dr Cordova. Would you like to enlighten us as to the theory of intelligent design and what it can contribute to the better undestanding of Biology. Please feel free to expound.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.… To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

Come on, Salvador. Materialistic explanations have been given for Hurricane Katrina. What’s your ‘theistic understanding’ have to add to the cause of the hurricane?

Sal baby, if I might call you Sal… many years ago, it was a widely held belief that anyone suffering seizures was thought to be possessed or suffering the wrath of God. Today, however, we know by not giving into the “God of the Gaps” type thinking that those seizures are not the wrath of God or Deamons, but actually something medical. Pretty cool, huh? Don’t you love it when we are able to learn the truth about something…figure something out???

Now imagine if we had all given into that desire to just write if off as “God”…where would we be?

Salvador has his function on this blog as any court jester has. However, when a thread has too much of him, it ceases to be funny and becomes nauseating. Please, do not engage him that much in exchange of comments. The impudent ignoramus has many other sites to show his mettle and lack of shame.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on September 1, 2005 11:13 PM.

ID’s minor success was the previous entry in this blog.

Rio Rancho NM UPDATE - FSM, Profs Weigh In is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter