Unsupported assertion. And a false one -- it ignores my previous example of how evolutionists *have* addressed ID. Is this oversight due to poor reading comprehension, disingenuousness, or a tragic affliction of selective amnesia?
Almost without exception, the concept is thrown out.
Please make up your mind. Is it "not addressed" by evolutionists, or is it *almost* always thrown out (implying that at times it is *not*, and thus considered after all)?
This is done from an emotional rather than a logical decision.
Unsupported assertion.
Now, I've not given concrete examples supporting my points deliberately, because I've concentrated on showing the logical points of my argument.
...which are not as logical as you think they are, for reasons I've already given, which you have failed to address.
My logic stands thusly: If you don't test for a specific result, then you have no business acting as if you did. If you cannot remove or isolate the impurities in an experiment, then you cannot honestly present the results as if you did.
Fair enough.
And this is what many evolutionists are doing.
No, it is not.
They are testing for specific results, such as the mutation of fruit flies, then saying that ID had nothing to do with it.
I have previously insisted that you provide an actual quote from any study which has made a conclusion remotely resembling what you describe. To date you have failed to do so. I can only presume that the reason is that you know damned well that scientists *don't* draw such conclusions (e.g., "ID had nothing to do with it") from their experiments.
I'm sorry, but ID had everything to do with the mutiation of those fruit flies. This is because an Intelligent Agent oversaw and carried out the experiment to begin with. Therefore, to say that ID had nothing to do with the mutations is outright false, since ID was an integral part of the experiment.
The above passage has so many holes in it I'm not sure where to start...
1. Who, please, for the Nth time, actually puts conclusions like "ID had nothing to do with the mutations" in the Conclusions section of their experiments? If the answer is "nobody", then your whole rant about "dishonest" scientists deflates.
2. It's false to say that because a planned experiment is being performed, that "ID had everything to do with" the mutations occurring, because often experiments are performed in a way that's just "let's watch what happens", and the mutations which occur are the ones that WOULD HAVE OCCURRED EVEN IF THE EXPERIMENT HAD NOT BEEN CONDUCTED.
3. Even if the experiment *did* instigate the mutations (by adding a mutagen in order to accelerate natural mutation rates, for example), this STILL doesn't mean that "ID has everything to do with" the *RESULTS*, since a) naturally occurring mutagens achieve the same changes, and b) the experimenter has no "design" -- and even no control -- over *what* mutations occur and what influence they have.
In other words, ID may be *involved* in conducting the experiment, but it's blatantly fallacious to declare that it has "everything to do" with everything that happens in the experiment, or taints the results.
If I intelligently choose a spot from which to intelligently set up a telescope that was intelligently built, in order to observe the mating behaviors of two intelligently chosen subspecies of bird from far away enough that my presence doesn't disturb their behavior, does this mean, as you claim, that "intelligent design has everything to do with" the observed mating differences? Does it mean the birds can't mate without some intelligence guiding their genitals?
Furthermore, it is also dishonest since a conclusion is being made, by the designers of the experiment, about something which they did not (and could not) set up their experiment to test for.
One. More. Time. Please support your assertion that scientists *do* make any such conclusion.
BTW, as an aside, I just used this as an example. I have no idea if any experimenters with fruit flies make comments pro or con about ID.
Obviously.
I do know that many people look at such experiments and conclude that no ID is involved (sometimes I think so myself :)).
And your point is...?
So any experiment done has an automatic ID bias. The fact that it is so ubiquitious as to be nearly invisible to many researchers doesn't lessen the bias.
I have repeatedly asked you to define "ID bias". Please do so for a change.
So, from a strictly logical standpoint, in order to throw out ID, researchers have to first rid all of their experiments and observations from the taint of ID bias.
Whatever that might be...
And again, name a researcher who has claimed to "thrown out ID".
Since this is also logically impossible, then all such arguments against ID must be treated as an emotional belief - a statement of faith, if you will.
EEERRRNNNTTT!
I'm sorry, you have exceeded your changing-the-subject quota for the day. Thanks for playing.
Above you spend a lot of time arguing that *experiments* can not rule out ID. Now suddenly you shift and conclude that all "arguments" against ID must be empty and purely emotional. Nice try.
Furthermore, you have failed to rule out the existence of valid *arguments* against the involvement of ID in the evolution of life, and thus your conclusion that such a conclusion must be "just a matter of faith" is itself nothing more than "an emotional belief, an article of faith".
I notice that evolutionists demand IDers prove the existance of ID
False. Evolutionists ask for *evidence* to support ID.
while denying that they have to prove the non-existance of ID.
I don't have to prove the non-existence of the involvement of Invisible Pink Unicorns, either. Or at least I don't feel any need to. If the IPUers want to convince me of anything, the ball's in their court.
But it is not up to IDers to prove ID as much as it is up to anti-IDers to logically defend their use of ID tools while denying that ID exists.
For like the twentieth time, who allegedly "denies that ID exists"?
In almost any other profession, such a dichotomy would be considered perilously close to hypocrisy.
In almost any basic class in logic, such a foregoing essay wouldn't achieve a very good grade.
It seems a shame that such a useful tool would be thrown out, when it could so easily fill in some nasty evolutionary gaps (such as the evolution of information, irreducible complexity and the origin of life).
Again, you miss the point. Science can't just grab "a useful tool" because it "could so easily" slap an explanation on "some nasty gaps". The evidence has to *support* the inclusion of a given "tool". Otherwise it's just an ad hoc rabbit-out-of-a-hat.
If the evidence pointed towards the intervention of ID in biological events, then scientists would have adopted such an explanation. But it does not.
But even after all of this, I don't think I will have convinced you.
Imagine that.
I have honestly tried to explain all of this to you from a logical standpoint.
Poorly.
I remember a few years ago talking to a young lady (whom I still admire) about the Bible. I asked her if she worshipped Jesus or if she worshipped the Bible instead. She told me (of course) that she worshipped Jesus. I then asked her what she would do if Jesus came back to her and told her that the Bible was false. In effect, she told me that she would reject Jesus and hold to the Bible, thus showing me that she actually worshipped the Bible, in spite of all of her protestations to the contrary. In certain ways, your arguments and counter-arguments remind me of this young lady. Both of you put yourselves in the position of rejecting truth because it apparently conflicts with your currently held beliefs.
And what "truth" have I rejected, please?
This if fine. I never really expected to convince those who hold to the religion of evolution anyway.
Evolution is not a religion, and I am not what you claim I am.
However, I desired to bring out at least three things in these discussions. The first is that there is a good logical argument in favor of ID.
Then you might want to present it instead of wasting time arguing that experiments can't rule out ID.
The second is that any logical argument that does not support their cause is almost automatically thrown out and derided as invalid by many evolutionists.
Unsupported assertion, AGAIN. Feel free to support it for a change.
The third is that there is a difference between the science of evolution and the religion of evolution.
What is this "religion of evolution" of which you speak? I'm familiar with the science.
I must admit, that after your apparent lack of understanding of my use of your "voltage" example, I feel that further discussion on the matter is fruitless.
I must admit, that after your failure to identify an actual flaw in my example, despite my *specific* invitation for you to do so, I feel that you are just trying to arrogantly declare victory and make an excuse to run away.
It appears that no matter what I say on this subject, you will reject it out of hand.
It appears that I won't fall to my knees at your obvious brilliance, and this baffles you. It also appears that I do not "reject out of hand" what you say, instead I analyze it and point out where it appears to be flawed. You, on the other hand, "reject out of hand" any objections to your constructs. Rather than defend your arguments, or point out specific flaws in the rebuttals, you start waving your hands about ladies with bibles and "the moveon.org crowd". Sad.
I don't mean to offiend, but from my point of view, your comments are not exactly calculated to inspire one with the belief that your broadmindedness and understanding is any greater than that of the moveon.org crowd.
You may not mean to, but you certainly do. And I'll refrain from stating what your comments inspire about your abilities and emotional issues from *my* point of view.
I'm just hoping that if you reject my logic, that you do so because you do not understand. If you reject it because you will not understand, then you are in the unenviable position of those that have eyes and will not see.
I find it *extremely* telling that you don't even *consider* the option that anyone could possibly reject your logic on the grounds that it's faulty or incomplete. No, surely it *must* be only because they don't *understand* your brilliant unassailable argument, or *refuse* to see its flawless genius.
Ooookay...
So in closing, I would like to say C'est la vie, C'est la guerre, I'm outa here.
That may be the wise move at this point.