Tuesday, December 06, 2005

No Dots, No Dice, No Sense, No Chance

No Dot DiceIntelligent Design has been criticized in comments on this blog for claiming that “God did it.” This is a straw-man fallacy about what the Christian proponents of ID also believe rather than what the essence of what ID is. (There are a large number of non-Christian and even non-theistic proponents of ID with whom I share a common cause.) It has been suggested that we ask, “What did it?” I believe what the person asking really meant was “What, other than God, did it?” In other words, their mind is closed to any solution in which God is part of the answer. While I am willing to debate upon the level playing field that God may or may not be part of origins, I will not concede that God was not involved in origins because I see overwhelming evidence and reason for the contrary. Therefore, why don’t we see if we can know what did NOT do it.

Most scientists believe that “something other than God did it,” referring to origins, and they believe that “something” is CHANCE.

R.C. Sproul has the following to say in his book titled, Not a Chance:
    We begin by asking the simple but critically important question, What is chance? Because this question is so critical, however, I think it important to first to explain why the definition of chance is so crucial.

    Words are capable of more than one meaning in their usage. Such words are highly susceptible to the unconscious or unintentional commissions of the fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation occurs when a word changes its meaning (usually subtly) in the course of an argument. We illustrate via the classic “cat with nine tails” argument.

    Premise A. No cat has eight tails.
    Premise B. One cat has one more tail than no cat.
    Conclusion: One cat has nine tails.

    We see in this “syllogism” that the word cat subtly changes its meaning. In Premise A “no cat” signifies a negation about cats. It is a universal negative. In Premise B “no cat” is suddenly given a positive status as if it represented a group of comparative realities. Premise B assumes already that cats have one tail per cat. If we had two boxes, with one box empty and the second containing a single cat, we would expect to find one more cat in that box than in the empty one. If cats normally have one tail, we would expect one more cat’s tail in one box than the other.

    The conclusion of this syllogism rests on the shift from negative to positive in the phrase no cat. The conclusion rests upon equivocation in the first premise. “No cat” is understood to mean a class of cats (positively) that actually possesses eight tails.

    Such equivocation frequently occurs with the use of the word chance. We find this in the writings of philosophers, theologians, scientists – indeed pervasively. Here’s how it works.

    On the one hand the word chance refers to mathematical possibilities. Here chance is merely a formal word with no material content. It is a pure abstraction. For example, if we calculate the odds of a coin-flip, we speak of the chances of the coin’s being turned up heads or tails. Given that the coin doesn’t stand on its edge, what are the chances that it will turn up heads or tails? The answer, of course, is 100%. There are only two options: heads and tails. It is 100% certain that one of the two will prevail. This is a bona fide either/or situation, with no tertium quid possible.

    If we state the question in a different manner, we get different odds or chances. If we ask, “What are the chances that the coin will turn heads?” then our answer will be “Fifty-fifty.”

    Suppose we complicate the matter by including a series of circumstances and ask, “What are the odds that the coin will turn up heads ten times in a row?” The mathematicians and odds-makers can figure that out. In the unlikely event that the coin turns up heads nine consecutive times, what are the odds that it will turn up heads the tenth time? In terms of the series, I don’t know. [1 in 1024 attempts of 10 consecutive flips] In terms of the single event, however, the odds are still fifty-fifty.

    Our next question is crucial. How much influence or effect does chance have on the coin’s turning up heads? My answer is categorically, “None whatsoever.” I say that emphatically because there is no possibility, real or imagined, that chance can have any influence on the outcome of the coin-toss.

    Why not? Because chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately impotent. Again, I must justify my dogmatism on this point. I say that chance has no power to do anything because it simply is not anything. It has no power because it has no being.

    I’ve just ventured into the realm of ontology, into metaphysics, if you please. Chance is not an entity. It is not a thing that has power to affect other things. It is not a thing that has power to affect other things. It is no thing. To be more precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. It has no “is-ness.” I was technically incorrect even to say that chance is nothing. Better to say that chance is not.

    What are the chances that chance can do anything? Not a chance. It has no more chance to do something than nothing has to do something.
Dr. Sproul does a magnificent job at explaining the ridiculousness of change having causative power in origins. With this in mind, consider this if you will:

You have a completely empty room, there is NOTHING in it. What are the chances that in a room with nothing in it, there is a pair of dice showing seven? Okay, so you will concede, for whatever reason, that the room is not completely empty (how it is empty and not-empty at the same time or how it got that way doesn’t matter for the sake of argument you say) and it has an infinite number of monkeys in it, but it is empty you say. You will also concede, for whatever reason, that this empty room that is full of monkeys has been that way from all eternity. Furthermore, you concede that those monkeys have been rolling spotless dice that entire time. Even after all those illogical concessions (which Christians have been apt to make) the possibility of ever rolling a seven with dice that have no dots is still zero and becomes even more absurd with each unreasonable concession that is removed.

Why have we allowed the world to push us to such absurd limits? Why have Christians allowed the world, modern science, to bully us into such absurd leaps of illogic and abandonment of common sense? It all makes about as much sense as throwing dice without dots and expecting to get seven dots showing.

To the whole ridiculous absurdity I say, “No Dice!” Obviously, when scientist make the claim that “chance did it”, what they are really saying is that “Nothing did it!” Next “something” please…

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Erm... 'what'?

You've excelled yourself here with quite possibly the most bizarre and directionless argument from non-existent phenomena and philosophy that I've ever read. The whole 'chance / syllogism' argument circles the debate without answering anything. Wordplay once again, nothing more.

"I believe what the person asking really meant was “What, other than God, did it?”

No. I asked "What did it?", nothing more. What you 'believe' isn't at question here. As I've said before, science makes no assumptions. It posits a question, and searches for answers. ID tries to make a case for the 'signature', if you like, of a designer in life and / or life's origins. This is a "God did it" case, some kind of designer, a supreme being; a god by any definition. If not, then what instead, exactly? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? It might as well be, even though I'm loathe to use that as an example... It's an argument that cannot be falsified, and that's not science. It's dogma.

Absolutely nobody says "Nothing did it." Except yourself, of course, rightly as an example of the statement's absurdity. Existence has occured and exists right now because we're here within it. Something did it - only the honest will say that "we don't know what, but we'll try and find out". That's science. ID presumes a creator, an uneccesary addition sliced away neatly by Occam's Razor, as explained elsewhere by my good and troll-like self.

ID is transparently a vehicle used by Christians as a means to circumvent the US Constitution, and get a pseudo-scientific version of Creationism taught in schools. Whilst I concede that some without an affirmed religious agenda support ID, that doesn't take anything away from its own (ahem) genesis. It's a politically motivated cause supporting a biblically orientated population that presumes the existence of a God (creator) and then tries to support that presumption.

In short - bad science.
DC

Anonymous said...

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Reference
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.



‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’

Reference
Huxley, A., Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.

“One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a creator”

Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer—Anthropology, Sydney University.
Quadrant, October 1982, page 44.


At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.

Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18.


‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.’

Reference
Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.


“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”

John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26


“Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph.

Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism.”

G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

DeathRowBodine said...

Excellent post! Thank you for those revealing quotes. This information further confirms the thesis of my post "The Religion of Secular Humanism"

LeeC said...

I'm not an ID proponant,I'm a creationist. But this seemed pertinant.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_26November2001.asp

Anonymous said...

There's an awful lot of "twisting of statements" here, a signature of Apologist views, in order to support a religious agenda.

Sure enough, scientists criticise their own number and methods more than people realise, and indeed the phenomena of 'human presumption' in experiments is one notable marker of human fallibility in science. But then, that's what blind experiments were made for, to remove presumption. It's why the method of publishing to peer review exists, to ensure that claimed results are replicated across the globe to verify (or condemn) findings. Cold Fusion is one example of science exposing itself to ridicule - but better that, than allow poor science to continue...

The statement that humanism is a religion has some truth, I suppose, but then people call Buddhism a religion when in fact it's more like a philosophy than anything else. The idea that science is a religion is a bit like saying that 'bald is a hair colour'.

As for the 'rotting corpse of Christianity' and the 'mental health of atheism', I support both statements. Atheism just gets on with life instead of presuming the existence of a supreme being/s. A problem? I don't think so... more like a theological blind alley removed.

Using selected statements of others, and the current non-omniscience of science as a weapon againt it, doesn't qualify as evidence for a god, for ID or for anything else. The history of religion in all of its guises, throughout humanity, provides ample evidence for the benefit of alternatives, however they might be voiced. Religion and its attendent lies and evils remains the enemy of everything both human and humane, and ID tries to support it in everything but name.
DC

LeeC said...

No, but it does point out how far blind dogma really sits in regards to your stance.

In another time the most vociferous proponants of Darwinism would be burning people at the stake for challenging thier dogma.

You see, you are exactly what you seem to hate.

Right now the witchburnings are still rampant in the form of having the reputations of many good scientists ruined and often them being removed from their posts when they have worked for years or even decades profitably because the are creationsts or proponants of ID.

In fact, all that is needed to rise the ire of the blind dogma of the darwinist is to even hint that someone might have some evidence that runs contrary to evolution.I cite Sternberg and Scott Adams.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

If the blind faith of this outated, poor credentialed man Darwin had its way of removing all creationists from scientific posts then the MRI would never had been invented, and a myriad of profitable scientist would not be working.

LeeC said...

By the way.

Have either of you two actualy read what Steve Abrams, chairman, Kansas State Board of Education has to say on the topic?

http://www.educationnews.org/a-column-about-kansas-science-standards.htm


" Another claim that our critics promote through the media is that we are inserting Intelligent Design. Again, if we go to the Science Curriculum Standards, Standard 3 Benchmark 3 Indicators 1-7 (pg 75-77). This is the heart of the “evolution” area. Only 7 indicators…

1) understands biological evolution, descent with modification, is a scientific explanation for the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors.



2) understands populations of organisms may adapt to environmental challenges and changes as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and various mechanisms of genetic change.



3) understands biological evolution is used to explain the earth’s present day biodiversity: the number, variety and variability of organisms.



4) understands organisms vary widely within and between populations. Variation allows for natural selection to occur.



5) understands that the primary mechanism of evolutionary change (acting on variation) is natural selection.



6) understands biological evolution is used as a broad, unifying theoretical framework for biology.



7) explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations.

As anyone can see, Intelligent Design is not included. But many of our critics already know this. This is not about Biblical creation or Intelligent Design… it is about the last 5 words of indicator 7… “scientific criticisms of those explanations.”

Evolutionists do not want students to know about or in any way to think about scientific criticisms of evolution. Evolutionists are the ones minimizing open scientific inquiry from their explanation of the origin of life. They do not want students to know that peer reviewed journals, articles and books have scientific criticisms of evolution. " -Steve Abrams

Why are y'all so scared of leting data speak for itself?

Why are you s intent on supressing anything that doens't mesh with you presuppostions?

Hardly scientific, it's a dogmatic agenda.

Most I.D. and Creationist advocates have zero problem with Evolution being taught. They trust their data to hold up, and fill manyof the holes evolutionists leave laying there

You guys sound scared, ad the more volatile you get, and the more ad-hominems used, the more people see your stance as blind dogme.

Thats a freindly warning by the way. I sugest you think on it DC.

Anonymous said...

'Friendly warning?'...

Your post seems to contradict itelf almost every step of the way, a zealous but wayward rant in the name of Creationism/ID.

'Dogma' is faith without compromise, superstition over analysis. Science is the opposite of this, no matter how much creationists waffle to the contrary. The assertion that 'Darwinists' would be burning people at the stake is, frankly, the most ridiculous comment I've read anywhere on these blog-sites. Only a supremely ignorant, or perhaps arrogant and dogmatic, individual would make such an errant claim. You're a legacy of the stake burner's beliefs, LeeC, not an opponent.

"Why are y'all so scared of leting data speak for itself? Why are you s intent on supressing anything that doens't mesh with you presuppostions? Hardly scientific, it's a dogmatic agenda."

There are no presuppositions in science, only in religion, the chief of which is; "God did it." There is no data at all to support ID, but around 150 years' worth of data to support evolution. No contest at all.

You state in your first post that you are not a proponent of ID, but a Creationist. Next post, and you support ID. Which is it? I don't think that you know, do you.

"Most I.D. and Creationist advocates have zero problem with Evolution being taught. They trust their data to hold up, and fill manyof the holes evolutionists leave laying there"

Then why are you here, and why are you posting saying that 'Darwinists' are such a major problem for you? Frankly, I haven't a clue where you're coming from.

Blind dogma is a religious stand-point. While I would agree that many scientists stand rigidly behind obervable phenomena and often refuse to budge when claims are made to the contrary ( such as when it was first said that our sun was chiefly composed of hydrogen gas, not iron ), it has become much rarer with time. Scientists of todays' generation are much more accustomed to change than those in the past, and they thus change accordingly. It's not moving the goalposts - it's just accepting that gaining knowledge can radically alter our view of our universe. ID does NOT achieve that, and nor, of course, does Creationism. They are one and the same.
DC

LeeC said...

“Your post seems to contradict itelf almost every step of the way, a zealous but wayward rant in the name of Creationism/ID.”

This seems a rather common argument of yours, perhaps the problem is in the reading and not in the writing at times?

“'Dogma' is faith without compromise, superstition over analysis. Science is the opposite of this,”
I would agree with that, and add that your kind are in the forefront as this post points out.
“ no matter how much creationists waffle to the contrary. The assertion that 'Darwinists' would be burning people at the stake is, frankly, the most ridiculous comment I've read anywhere on these blog-sites. Only a supremely ignorant, or perhaps arrogant and dogmatic, individual would make such an errant claim. You're a legacy of the stake burner's beliefs, LeeC, not an opponent.”

You truly are ignorant aren’t you? Blinded by your stance. There are more logical fallacies in the above comment than I can shake a stick at. Do you have no comment on Dr. Sternberg? http://www.rsternberg.net/
There is tons of evidence similar to this, but in your crusade you are blind to it.

“"Why are y'all so scared of leting data speak for itself? Why are you s intent on supressing anything that doens't mesh with you presuppostions? Hardly scientific, it's a dogmatic agenda."
There are no presuppositions in science, only in religion, the chief of which is; "God did it." There is no data at all to support ID, but around 150 years' worth of data to support evolution. No contest at all.”

Again a bad logic argument. First off to say that there are no presuppositions in science is totally ridiculous. You have to have a presupposition at some point, you need to presume your data is reliable somewhere back in the chain. Period. At the very end you need to presume your own rationality even. As “150 years” By your logic we should have held to the argument that the sun revolves around the earth, or bleeding patients based merely upon how long we have held that view. No data? Really, such hyperbole is not the realm of rational argument

“You state in your first post that you are not a proponent of ID, but a Creationist. Next post, and you support ID. Which is it? I don't think that you know, do you.”
Then you need to read better. (with the exception of the typos I make on the wretched laptop) I endorse science, you endorse suppression of research mainly through ridicule over substance. I have no problem with the studies of ID, or Darwinism being taught as long as scientific methods are being used. You know what scientific methodology is right?
observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.
Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right.
Anything using this methodology is science and no matter how vociferously you yell otherwise will change that.

“"Most I.D. and Creationist advocates have zero problem with Evolution being taught. They trust their data to hold up, and fill many of the holes evolutionists leave laying there"

Then why are you here, and why are you posting saying that 'Darwinists' are such a major problem for you? Frankly, I haven't a clue where you're coming from.”
Of course you don’t, when caught up in dogma people rarely actually listen. Did you even bother reading Steve Abrams letter? You are for suppressing scientific study that goes against your agenda, I and most Creationsist and ID advocates I know are fro science in it original form not the re-invented definition of science you seem to use. Stop the shoddy rhetoric ad witch hunts and if someone uses proper methodology ad you don’t agree refute it with your own study not schoolyard ridicule. Or better yet you go out and actually using scientific methods show where your opponent failed to use those methods.


“Blind dogma is a religious stand-point. While I would agree that many scientists stand rigidly behind obervable phenomena and often refuse to budge when claims are made to the contrary ( such as when it was first said that our sun was chiefly composed of hydrogen gas, not iron ), it has become much rarer with time. Scientists of todays' generation are much more accustomed to change than those in the past, and they thus change accordingly. It's not moving the goalposts - it's just accepting that gaining knowledge can radically alter our view of our universe. ID does NOT achieve that, and nor, of course, does Creationism. They are one and the same.
DC “
Ad again, that is a dogmatic statement with no basis.

LeeC said...

Too bad this guy isn't a qualified scientist.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/eckel.asp

Dr. Eckel is professor of medicine, and of physiology and biophysics, and program director, General Clinical Research Center, at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. He holds a B.S. cum laude in bacteriology, University of Cincinnati, and an M.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Dr. Eckel has published more than 80 research papers, 17 book chapters and received 20 research awards. He is a reviewer for 50 medical journals, a member of the American Society for Clinical Investigation and The Association of American Physicians, and chairman, Nutrition Committee, American Heart Association.

DeathRowBodine said...

leec,

Great info. Do you mind if I incorporate some of your stuff into future posts?

Thanks for the value you add to my blog.

DRB

Anonymous said...

Lee,
You don’t really seem to understand how science works, or indeed why it ever became the dominant form of knowledge on our planet. Your consistent claims of reduction of science to ‘dogma’ flies in the face of every scientific advancement ever achieved on earth. If it were simply dogma, then nothing would have changed from the Dark Ages. How do you think that we ended up living in houses with electrical supplies, sending satelltes into orbit or having computers with which to type these replies? Religion? Dogma? No, it was science. Full stop.
I get weary of typing the same answers to blogs here – almost everything you’ve stated is untrue. When Darwin completed his Origin of Species, he had no intention of alienating Christians or anyone else – he just wrote what he observed and left it to others to test. The whole anti-Darwinism thing comes from Creationists who felt they were being ‘persecuted’. They weren’t. They just didn’t like their cosy beliefs being challenged.

“First off to say that there are no presuppositions in science is totally ridiculous.”

No it’s not. Pressuposition is starting from a belief and trying to prove it correct (Creationism). In science, there is a hypothesis (idea) which is tested – not a presupposition. They are not the same. You’re not understanding the terminology or the processes.
You claim that you don’t oppose but support science – and yet you’re a self proclaimed Creationist. If so, then you must reject Einstein as well, as relativity proves Creationism incorrect. If you don’t understand why, then you have no right to challenge my own knowledge.
I have no doubt that Dr. Eckel is a profoundly competent and experienced scientist in his own right, but to repeatedly say that because he supports ID he must be right is a fallacy in itself. There are also God-fearing scientist that reject ID. I’ve already stated that I’m aware that some scientists support ID – and their arguments have been viewed by others. The point is that those arguments have been found wanting at almost every level, not because they don’t expose certain gaps in Darwinian knowledge (there are indeed plenty of gaps to be filled), but because they’re based upon the presupposition that there *must* be a supreme creator of some kind, behind the evolution of the universe and of life within it. That is dogma – full stop.
Imagined ‘persecution’ has been the currency of ID and Creationism since their respective inception. Those who rail against science do so from this stand-point, a personal rather than professional one. They attack the scientific method, but then use it to try and support their own beliefs rather than find answers. Hypocricy, basically.
The existence, or otherwise, of a God does not interest me, and I care not a jot whether there is one or not. I only want the truth, and historically, only science (that practised by Darwin or Einstien or Newton and many others) has proved itself capable of achieving that. ID doesn't follow that method. It’s not school-yard ridicule. It’s fact.

Could you, just for me, explain how you combine Creationism with Relativity, for instance? I'm very interested in how you've achieved something like that.
DC

Anonymous said...

Apologies - I missed a comment made by LeeC;

"As “150 years” By your logic we should have held to the argument that the sun revolves around the earth, or bleeding patients based merely upon how long we have held that view. No data? Really, such hyperbole is not the realm of rational argument"

A lie, a twisting of truth knowingly made by someone with an agenda. Sir Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity stood solidly for almost 300 years, until surpassed by Einstein's Relativity. Does that mean that Newton was wrong? No. It means that knew knowledge has added and enhanced his original, and correct, theory. There was never a theory that the sun went around the earth - only religious dogma said such things.

A theory is something that has been tested, repeatedly, often over decades and even hundreds of years and found secure. It can be enhanced, but its structure and foundational arguments remain solid. LeeC here uses my comment and twists it to support his own falsehoods and baseless arguments for dogma. That's just plain deception, through and through.
DC

LeeC said...

Certainly Bodine, I'm not saying anything riginal.
Your detractr certainly seems bent on misinterpretation.

I particularly like how he completely ignores (or is incapableof grasping) my 150 year comment in lieu of a rabbit trail for more vitriol and ad hominem.

Very clever how he picks and chooses his targets as well, never really addressing what the author says. Classic.So DC you deny
that the scienctifi method is:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge

That is the inferrance by al the bluster and vitrol above. As usual it seems your issue has nothing to do with Creationism or ID in regards to sciene but you wn hatred of anything percieved as Christian.

LeeC said...

Curse this keyboard, I really should proofread when using it....

Anonymous said...

And there you go - LeeC confirms everything I've said. He feels 'persecuted' because he has Christian beliefs.

You say I hate anything perceived as Christian. How do you know this? Do you know me? Have we met? No. It's an assumption, made and stated because you can't back up your statements with anything approaching evidence or coherence. Vitriol? Where, exactly?

Often in my replies I admit to the flaws and failures of science. I have no agenda except finding the truth in all things. You, on the other hand, write with the arrogance of dogma literally overwhelming in your responses. The only shrill voice here is the one in your own mind which must, *at all costs*, defend that which you BELIEVE - at the expense of what you might learn.

There's nothing clever or cunning in my replies - I just tell it as it is. You're the one dodging questions and dancing around facts, twisting words and then accusing me of the same (a favourite apologist trick).

I agree - start proof-reading your repies. The may have some substance to them if you do.
DC

DeathRowBodine said...

George,

You do seem to have been somewhat vitriolic to my guest. Specifically, you came very close to violating one of my rules about inferring a lack of intelligence based upon spelling and grammer mistakes.

You do make a good point about pointing out "exactly" the content of the objection being referred to. It is something we all should do better at. I will attempt to do so, will you?

LeeC,

Thank you for acknowledging the importance of proofreading. I am personally the world's worst proofreader and make tons of mistakes. I KNOW it is important, but somehow I repeatedly make the same sort of errors over and over and never seem to catch them.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough :o) Consider my knuckles suitably rapped.

DC