Search results

As usual, you are mischaracterizing my position in order maintain the argument so that you can attempt to demonstrate your superior argumentation abilities via ad hominem, where you cannot prevail in your argument on the merits. And, also, as usual, when you start your descent into the flame...

...just insult me in passing and then appeal to authority. Rather than engage you at all, I will just provide a link to the most recent Leonard Susskind lecture on the anthropic principle and string theory (June 06), and allow everyone to decide whether or not jem's appeal to authority is...

Doesn't matter what things seem like -- it matters how they are actually measured -- and they don't measure any intelligent designer, other than ourselves. Until this circumstance changes, there's no designer.

Since you have now indirectly attacked me, I'm forced to respond. You are arguing exactly the reverse of what is required to prove your hypothesis. In order to actually conduct a probability experiment we must be able to initiate multiple trials and see what the statistical outcome is...

The big bang is not magic because there is objective observable scientific evidence supporting the emanation of all matter in the universe from one point. There is no objective evidence to support that any intelligence caused this process, so that is magic. Science does not infer a cause of...

This is a frivolous response. If it's what you really believe, then your reasoning ability is far below your writing skills. Since I don't find that conclusion credible in view of your responses, and because the only reasonable alternative is that you are now being intentionally disingenuous, I...

Your example is based on the dual false premise that (1) all natural causes have been exhausted and falisifed, and (2) some evidence of sabotage was discovered. In the case of biology, all natural causes have not been exhausted and falisfied -- rather a majority of natural causes have been...

I didn't say that my proposed proofs would "convince me of design." I said that they would convince me that there is a "case" for design, warranting further investigation. Effectively, I've already answered your question.

You always advance your conclusions as if they are undeniable. Saying "False," just makes you seem disingenuous. What matters for the purposes of the scientific method is the existence of AFFIRMATIVE evidence. There is no scientific proof without an experiment, so simply saying that design...

I have told you on multiple occasions what would convince me that there is a case for design: evidence, i.e.: 1. A visit or communication from an extra-terrestrial intelligence describing how it seeded the Earth to create life. 2. Identification of a biological organism that could not...

You are far too smart to not recognize that you are confusing a public policy argument about how scientists should resolve inconclusive findings when publishing their conclusions, vis-a-vis the technical objectives of the scientific method and the limits of scientific investigation. I have no...

Your comments are relevant to a public policy discussion, but not to a scientific one. I'm not advocating any particular public policy. Scientifically, if design is undetectable, then it is irrelevant, because all that measurable is evolution. Thus, it serves no scientific purpose to expend...

Thank you for this explanation of your position. Dembski's rationale seems to me to be an attempt to obfuscate the ultimate point. Which is, that if evolution is the product of a designer who existed prior to the formation of this universe and created biological evolution as a means of promoting...

OK, what is your "intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life?"

Teleologist, you say you have no "proof," yet you simultaneously state that you can make a circumstantial case. I've already defined proof and circumstantial inference earlier in this thread, and I've stated that a sufficiently compelling circumstantial inference can be proof, and that proof...

I'm completely open to your proof, if it is based on some verifiable test (including a statistical test inferring a certain conclusion). However, if your proof is not based on any verifiable test, then it's not scientific, so it's not proof. So, what proof do you have?

Agreed. I think that the reason why the scientist tend to favor the "natural" answer is simply because the alternative is a supernatural answer. Some may argue that God is a natural actor, because God is in everything. But, if that's true for scientific purposes, then God must be...

Inference: to draw a conclusion from a predicate fact. Proof: Evidence which tends to make a material fact more or less probable. I have steadfastly advocated testing predicate facts rather than drawing conclusions. However, there are cases when many facts exist and all inferences drawn...

Re subjectivity: I didn't say that subjectivity was wrong. I said that subjectivity is inescapable, but that eventually enough subjective facts may make for a pretty inescapable objective conclusion, and at the moment, those facts point to evolution and not ID. Re the investigation example...

I'm not dismissing ID out of hand. I'm simply suggesting that the ID advocate produce some evidence to support ID, other than just saying that something looks designed. If you go into court, you have an affirmative duty to prove the case. You can't go in and say that because there is no...