Intelligent Design

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Chris_Falter

In all likelihood, Eddie started a reading project roughly 10 years and 11 months ago that comprised many ID volumes from the previous decade. So I don’t see a contradiction in his two statements.

When he says he hadn’t even heard of ID 11 years ago, and he also says that over ten years ago he was discussing ID with some of the leaders of the movement, that’s a contradiction. This isn’t about what he has done since, it’s about the fact that he made two contradictory statements about what he did eleven years ago.

@Chris_Falter

I agree with you that the ID movement is truly philosophical rather than scientific, by the way. In my opinion, if it were to label itself as such, and not make unwarranted claims from the realm of science (exhibit A: the shredding of non-immunologist Behe’s immunological arguments by experts in immunology), its value to the world and to the church would become much more apparent.

I agree entirely. If they just acknowledged it was a theological response to secular science, like YEC, that would be perfectly ok.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

No; Joshua is doing more than that. He is endorsing the conclusion of the author of the article against the conclusion of Behe. And the subject is immunology. He is therefore posing as an arbiter in the field of immunology.

He isn’t doing any of the kind. On the contrary, he is appealing to the expertise of others, not his own judgment. This is simply your mischaracterization of what he wrote, the same trick you’ve pulled many times on other people.

@Eddie

It does not follow from the fact that I first hear of ID only about 11 years ago (actually, it was about 13 years ago, so I made a slip, but that’s not the point here), that I have not since then read material by ID authors and about ID from the earlier period

That is not what I said. Once again you are changing the subject. The contradiction in your words was that you claimed that 11 years ago you hadn’t even heard of ID, but you also claimed that over ten years ago you were discussing ID with some of its leaders. You can’t have it both ways.

@Eddie

complaining about Johnson’s particular views in 2016 is pointless.

It isn’t useless when he is still promoting those views, and other ID proponents are also promoting those views. The Disco Institute is a case in point.

@Swamidass

@Eddie thank you for recognizing the obvious. You are way way out of your depth. You do not know what you are talking about regarding science, and your exclusive strategy regarding ID science is to appeal to unnamed authority, and accuse actual experts substantively responding to you of doing the same. Remember you stated that “scores of ID proponents” did not think that genetic algorithms could do anything useful. Then you accused me of appealing to authority (which I wasn’t) but commenting favorably based on my expertise as a biologist on an article explaining how the immune system evolved.

A cautionary tale indeed.

[beaglelady]

Dr. Swamidass,

I wish you could be the president of BioLogos! You know your stuff, and you are willing to interact with forum participants.

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

Deb is a much better president than I would ever be. I am very grateful she is running the show, not me. And as for posting, I am taking a break for a bit. Real life calls. =)

[beaglelady]

Well, I hope you’ll be back often. I’ve enjoyed your contributions here. Thank you.

[BradKramer]

I’ve decided to close this thread. Conversations can continue on other threads, if desired.