Is the Wikipedia page on Intelligent Design biased?

Please take any discussion of that diagram somewhere where it is relevant.

1 Like

Hi Roy
Your star athlete Tim was not able to defend the claim. There are many more if you understood what you are competing against.

This statement is another example of your lack of understanding ID.

You have not shown it’s a misrepresentation, so there’s nothing to defend.

2 Likes

William Cole:

You have asserted, without substantiation that:

& that

With the implication that one of these misrepresentations is:

You have presented no evidence that any of this is a “misrepresentation”, but instead demand that we allow you to take us on a lengthy digression to prove you wrong.

However it has been said that:

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You have presented your assertion that (i) the article mispresents ID, and (ii) that its labelling of ID as pseudoscience is one such misrepresentation, without evidence.

I am therefore completely justified in dismissing these assertions, without presenting any evidence of my own.

But I did in fact present evidence, the fact that it was the opinion of a prominent Philosopher of Science, published in a peer-reviewed journal. I have also presented evidence suggestive that this opinion may be widespread in Academia.

You have presented nothing that would suggest that a “defin[ition of] pseudo science and [a] show[ing of] why ID meets this category” is necessary to carry this argument.

I will also ignore your rather blatant and childish attempts at baiting. :roll_eyes:

2 Likes

Someone’s failing to point things out, but it’s not Roy.

Both Roy and I evaluate arguments using evidence, which you avoid.

Easy. No ID proponent has ever advanced or tested a single scientific hypothesis. It’s all rhetoric and no science, evidenced by your framing above.

2 Likes

You are a bright guy and if this was true you could explain it. You know you cannot because it is a false claim. ID is not pseudo science because we can test the claim using humans as a test bed. You can use the scientific method to directly test it. This is not true for most of macro evolutionary theory.

We have discussed Behe/Snoke’s model here. There have been years of knock out experiments on the flagellum. There is Winston’s paper we discussed. There is also Axe’s experiment. Are you really taking an unbiased look at ID?

Discussion doesn’t count. They haven’t tested it empirically.

You’re just making my point for me, Bill.

So what? What’s the alleged ID hypothesis and its empirical predictions?

No hypothesis testing there.

A fatally flawed test of a straw-man evolutionary hypothesis, not an ID hypothesis.

I am. Are you?

You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between rhetoric and hypothesis testing.

2 Likes

Yes they have John read the papers.

That when we see a arrangement of parts where we can infer a purpose we can also infer it is the work of a mind. It has shown to be very reliable.

Sure there was. Did you read the paper?

So now you agree that ID has performed tests? I disagree that it is fatally flawed.

I think so John. I was not in favor of ID for several years due to its limitations. Someone was able to show its value to science. It is a good counter argument when random or no identifiable cause is not a viable null hypothesis.

Evolutionary science has a big problem if common descent of all vertebrates is not true as most papers written assume it is. The Howe diagram makes the theory very suspect. The use of weak testing alternatives has put science in this position.

Could I explain it to the satisfaction of somebody so blinkered as to:

  1. view the simple assertion of the purported limitations of Methodlogical Naturalism as refuter to an argument;

  2. consider the Howe diagram as a refuter to Common Descent; and

  3. claim that Mike Behe’s vacuous assertion that some things exhibit a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a “method”

… of anything that they did not want to know? Of course not.

I am sensible enough to not even try.

You William Cole have a well-earned reputation on this forum for being obdurately and willfully ignorant of any of the many arguments and evidence against, and indictments of, ID. Attempting to explain any such to you is therefore an exercise in futility.

Nothing you have said against the Wikipedia article has been backed by evidence, so everything you have said on the topic can be dismssed without presenting further evidence.

1 Like

No you have beliefs that are deeply ingrained that you cannot see past. The fact that you cannot see the Howe diagram as a challenge for common descent of vertebrates shows me you are blinded in a paradigm. You are not alone here.

These are the same people that think the Wikipedia article demonstrates understanding of ID.

If you cannot make an argument for your beliefs it maybe time to take a serious look at what you believe to be true.

Asserted without evidence, so dismissed without need of evidence.

1 Like

You’re 0 for 2 there.

Sorry, I omitted my specification:

No ID proponent has ever advanced or tested a single scientific ID hypothesis.

1 Like

How are you this blasted?

This is an assertion based on ignorance.

Is you’re thinking this narrow? ID bad bad bad :slight_smile:

No, it’s based on observation. Do you have one?

1 Like

Highly politicized by whom?

It looks like the arsonist is complaining about the house that is on fire.

3 Likes

:laughing: :rofl: :laughing: :rofl: :laughing: :rofl: :laughing: :rofl:

Touche!

Also to the point, does Colewd suggest any ID theory or hypothesis that has been tested and found wanting? Just one or two? That can’t all be correct since a number are not cross-compatible.

2 Likes

Aside on the Wikipedia censorship angle: Andrew Schlafly is always looking for more contributors and editors for Conservapedia. They definitely don’t have evolutionary biases. Have at it, Eddie & Colewd!

4 Likes

From Conservapedia:

One way to illustrate the objection is this: Consider two definitions of science.

  1. Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.
  1. Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.

The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term “natural”, which assumes there are natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.

The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as the definition for science. However, the “natural causes alone” criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there is a natural cause for all natural phenomena. If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth. The insistence on only “natural causes” imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on knowledge, but an assumption. Therefore, methodological naturalists “define out” of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.

What are your thoughts on this reasoning?