I don’t need to. My explanation that ID is not a subset of creationism has demonstrative force. If you don’t have enough logical skill to follow a demonstration, maybe you didn’t study as much Euclidean geometry in school as I did.
I don’t intend to invest time in tracing down exactly how your reasoning goes off the path, when I know that my reasoning is certain. So I won’t be addressing your argument (speaking loosely) here further.
Apparently I did not write clearly enough. I was agreeing with the general principle you enunciated, i.e., that letting one’s science be shaped by one’s social goals is not good scientific practice. I was bracketing out the question whether your application of that principle to Discovery was sound. However, if you will settle for a partial agreement, I will admit that I have seen some material on the DI website where the writer is so eager to persuade the audience that he is less than scrupulous in his use of science. Usually in those cases the writer is not a scientist but someone trying to popularize. Almost always the examples I have seen are on ENV. I do not defend those examples. And I don’t usually read ENV, so I’m not even aware of them unless someone here points them out. I usually read books, not the DI website.
That much is clear. So you apparently disagree with my point (in specific) but also admit that you aren’t paying attention and so are in no position to judge.
Bechly is not a creationist. He’s a saltationist, though apparently the saltation is supposed to be divinely caused. Poofing wine into existence ex nihilo is creation; turning water into wine isn’t, at least as far as I can tell.
Berlinski, based on your link, might better be called incomprehensible.
Brilliant analogy. Interestingly, though. This nesting of groups within groups in biology results from descent, but ID is descended from creationism rather than creationism being descended from ID. But apart from that, the analogy is exact and makes your point.
I am saying that the fine-tuning of the universe is fine in the same sense that a field that has been carefully prepared by its owner is fine for sowing.
Your assertion that ID is not a subset of creationism has no force at all, and your demonstration that creationism is a superset of ID contradicts it.
Since you (like @Giltil) don’t seem capable of distinguishing the attributes of a set from the members of a set, your comments about lack of logical skill are 180° mistargeted.
P.S. Euclidean geometry, which I have almost certainly studied more than you, is not particularly relevant to subsets. You should have paid more attention during maths lessons.
Just like the attributes of ID are a subset of the attributes of creationism, right? I think you’re the one who has it backwards here, and you have just demonstrated it.
Sounds like the creator, then, has the abilities of a farmer but not those one might expect from an omnipotent being, who would not have to prepare a field but could grow crops in stony soil, and in fact rather than planting could just say “let the earth bring forth grass”, etc.
The attributes of vertebrates can indeed be considered a subset of the attributes of mammal, but it doesn’t follow that vertebrates are a subset of mammals, as you’ve admitted yourself.
Similarly, the claims of ID can be considered a subset of the claims of creationism, but it doesn’t follow that ID is a subset of creationism, which, very strangely, is the position you defend.
It seems you are the one that is confused here.
I didn’t offer it as a relevant to subsets. I offered it as relevant to the art of demonstration. You should read more carefully.
By the way, we studied Euclidean geometry every year from about third grade all the way through to the end of high school. And I did pay attention to my math lessons. My math grades, along with my chemistry grades, won me a scholarship to a major research university.
The fact that explicitly excludes appeal to creationist assumptions, as explained in detail in articles on the website.
That is more course tilling than fine tuning. Fine tuning involves narrowly parameterized processes such as stellar nucleosynthesis for the elements of which we are constituted. That is not essential to direct divine creation of life.
I agree that a necessary but not sufficient universe is a reasonable position to hold, but I would contend that the momentum is with sufficiency, without any requirement for intervention, at least in any way that could be discerned.
If fine tuning is so warmly embraced by ID/Creationism, what is so wrong with sufficiency anyways? Framed theologically, is God capable of creating a sufficient universe?
It does follow when ID is used to refer to the claims, arguments and beliefs of IDers, i.e. ID ‘theory’. It does not follow if ID is used to refer to the people involved, i.e. the ‘movement’.
No. ID is not the same as people who accept/promote ID, and creationism is not the same as creationists, which is what you implied by your mammals/vertebrates example.
Isn’t that backwards from the claim you put in bold? Anyway, just because two groups share some characteristics, that doesn’t mean that either group is a subset of the other. It just means that they overlap in some way. “Creationism” is also ill-defined here, which makes it hard to tell what you’re talking about. I don’t think the nested hierarchy model fits this situation very well in any case.
Please show where Denton misrepresented the idea of nested hierarchy in any of the six books that I was discussing when I made my point. My point was that Discovery had published six books by Denton. If Denton did not speak about nested hierarchies in any of those six books, then your complaint against Denton should be directed to some other publisher of his books, not Discovery.
By the way, don’t think that the turning to Slow Mode under The Argument Clinic will let you off from answering the question I posed there just before Slow Mode was put on. Once Slow Mode is off, I’ll be returning to that question again.