Atheist Professor: Intelligent Design Arguments Should 'Be Taken Seriously'
Your links are all worth perusing, and for anyone wanting a few laughs, the PZ Myers link you provided is here (it may not have opened due to a parenthesis ')' tacked on to it).
Myers emphasizes the point that you must be anti-religious to do science properly, or more specifically, a non-theist.
"Scientists! If you're not an atheist, you aren't doing science right."
So it's not just organized religion that's wrong, it's the concept of theism, deism, or ID (designer input at various a priori points in time by unknown intelligent sources).
Sorry PZ, but the data statistically refutes the myth of totally natural causation of ALL biologic constructs. August 28, 2012
On 9:26 PM on August 26, 2012, you responded to NonAnonymous, but it was my post. And yes, I plan on submitting the second part of the ruling to SCOTUS as a subjective and unfounded opinion that has no place in a legal adjudication, and that it violates jurisprudence. I won't go into all of the details here, but there is a substantial case that can be made. And will be made.
And if the point is raised that technically, it only applies to Dover PA, I plan to cite the widespread influence it has had, and make the case that it has undermined and demeaned science. And further, that if allowed to stand, it may well have the effect of widening jurisprudential autonomy unjustly, and may allow future courts to adjudicate scientific hypotheses and theories unjustly.
That's it. Now if you'd like to parse those 139 pages (double spaced), we can do that. Noted that you double spaced in your most recent comment as well. Helps to fill pages, but not win arguments.
Lee Bowman August 28, 2012
Correct, Julie, regarding ID being somewhat in its infancy. Incorrect, however, that it is not science based (if that was what you meant).
Kudos to the Biologic Institute for their efforts to do new research, in particular research regarding statistical probabilities of protein and enzyme evolution. If valid, it contravenes current evolutionary theory as all inclusive, and has invoked hostile reactions.
As well, their current views on population genetics has met stern opposition, and is subject to further study. August 25, 2012
Regarding the dude at talkreason.org, I was frankly flattered that he gave me that much attention. Most ID henchmen try to ignore me, but I would gladly debate any of them. Their usual position is that to debate a creationist (which I am not) only tends to give them credence. They simply won't risk it.
That's fine, since my goals are to instill an interest in design as an investigative premise (hypothesis), and to encourage others to do the bench work. And having studied areas of biology genetics, and having blogged for over ten years on various biology related topics, I feel that some progress has been made.
So again, are there ID proponents who only want to further their religion (guarded proselytism), and could care less about doing valid science? Sure, but the true ID proponents, many converted atheists and agnostics, will be the ones that do the meaningful research in times to come. But we'll see. August 23, 2012
In short, ruling on ID was a violation of jurisprudence. By equating ID with a political movement, a book (Panda's and People), and a misguided school board, Jones felt he was authorized to rule on ID (politically based and false associations).
First, ID was not on trial. Second, it is a scientific investigative hypothesis, NOT a political movement, although various groups have use ID terminology to further their ends. And thirdly, as a scientific hypothesis, Courts, and in particular one adjudicated by a non-scientifically schooled Jurist, are not authorized rule on scientific theories and hypotheses. Allowing that will just cause problems down the pike, like a Court disclaiming the Big Bang Theory or worse.
Google variations of Kitzmiller, dover, jones, jurisprudence, and my name in double quotes to learn more of my views on the matter. One hit in particular, sci.waikato.ac.nz is quite lengthy, as Prof. Campbell, I and others debate other topics as well.
"Can you name a few "true ID proponents" who are, allegedly, not religiously motivated and some references to their published research?"
Some are agnostic, a few atheistic, and some won't say. But many who are chose to be after discerning the data in support of design.
"Can you state that ID hypothesis for further consideration; the one you claim is "valid" and that may be used in research by those "true ID proponents"?"
My hypothesis is spelled out in various posts, and like any hypothesis is tentative, subject to revision in part or in toto as new data spells out. But I do not include Cosmic creation within it, since there is no real evidence of that, other than religious views. It may be true, but the data doesn't support it IMO. The anthropic principle has some merit, but not enough to make it a viable presumption. August 23, 2012
NonAnonymous - I scotted around the Internet, glimpsed your discussions with Bonesiii, and his various blog comments.
Interesting, but a little off base from the points I make, basically:
(1) ID is a valid hypothesis
(2) It is not religiously motivated (by true ID proponents who go by the data alone)
(3) To verify my objectivity, I would side with materialists/ reductionists, but only if the data points in that direction.
(4) I am totally against regulatory organizations stepping in to squelch ID discussions (within academia and by working scientists).
(5) I plan to submit to the Supreme Court the case for a review of part two of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.
(6) Like many, I'm an unpaid journalist, but an open pursuit within science is clearly my agenda, NOT religious adherence, a personal choice. August 23, 2012