There is 
Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I thought it was called "Petitio Principii" or some such. Either way, I'm not sure how it applies to the assertion that intelligent design works well as a theory due to the extensive presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. Of course the evidence is indirect. Most of the evidence science enjoys is indirect. Anyway, maybe you could point out to me what this has to do with my spouse?
Nope. I've worked with, and remained faithful to, the common definition of both. Maybe you could assist in the discussion by describing what happens when an object is intelligently designed and implemented.
And that question is "When did you stop raping little boys?" It puts everbody on an equal footing.
Wells is a Moonie whose rejection of evolution is a result of his devotion to the Unification Church and his conviction that the Reverend Sun-Myung Moon is the second coming of the Messiah. Stephen Meyer is a hiistorian/philosopher. William Lane Craig is a theologian.
So you're one for three, and the one is a cultist.
It's a well established term in animal behavior, nothing to do with sociobabble. It means engaging in behavior that is immediately neutral or harmful in exchange for reciprocal behavior that is beneficial.
You think a killdeer that puts her life in danger to draw predators away from her chicks does so because she was raised Catholic?
No, it's not well established, it is controversial. And easy to see why, the contradiction in terms must be unpalatable for all but the most devoted reductionists.
Kin selection is much better established which is what you are referring to below but I'd be happy to discuss that with you as well.
You think a killdeer that puts her life in danger to draw predators away from her chicks does so because she was raised Catholic?
Certainly not but when the killdeer jumps in the ice to save another killdeers chicks, you can get back to me because then I will suspect the killdeer did have some training by Catholic parents.
Spoil sport. You're too nice. :)
Logical fallacies have latin names. Those used to structured debate generally learn them by those names. You've probably heard of the more common ones, like ad hominem. Petitio Principii is also known as "begging the question" or "circular reasoning." It is related to "complex question" as both are logical fallacies of presumption. "Loaded question" is also related.
, I'm not sure how it applies to the assertion that intelligent design works well as a theory
Because your statements supporting organized matter (indeed, everything) being the result of a designer presume the designer, and even the designing itself. Thus, it is a fallacy of presumption. I had hoped that you'd see the obvious connection with the wife-beating question (it presumes without evidence that you beat your wife) as Alamo Girl did, and probably everybody else, but they were mean/nice enough to let me continue. Obviously I was wrong.
Of course they do, much as a result presumes a cause, and a cause presumes a result. Circular reasoning would say in effect "there is a designer because there is a designer." Linear reasoning says "there is a designer because there are designed things." Insert the theory of evolution into the same framework, and see what presumptions are also assumed true. The theory of evolution is not discarded as a non-theory on that account, nor should it be.
Here is a non-rigorous form
1. Humans create order.
2. Humans are intelligent agents
3. Therefore only intelligent agents create order
Do we rely on your authority as an animal behaviorist, here, or do you have some actual evidence?
Cleaner fish engage in reciprocal altruism. So do vampire bats, chimpanzees, etc. These are all well-established examples that don't involve kin. All you have against are your own peculiar prejudices
A novel approach thinking for oneself, eh?
That makes me the fool for wasting my time.
Let's keep things in order here Prof.
Evidence for "kin selection" = 40,000,000 aborted babies. Good evidence?
So ID/Creationiwm hasn't yet broken the Steve barrier?
Come to think of it, it may not have. I can't think of a creationist Steve.
There is no difference between reality and unreality.
There is
placemarker
The Steve barrier being that more people support your position? Majority, like might, doesn't make right.
Obviously listing more scientists won't influence your position. You guys don't even allow someone with a viewpoint that doesn't match your own a seat at the table.
My position remains that there are many scientists who don't share your certitude that the evolution explains the origin of life on this planet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.