Ken Miller (a Christian, btw) puts the complete and total smack down on Casey's ridiculous crybaby-fest about the Dover trial. Well worth the read.
Why Casey Luskin at the DI is an IDiot...(116 posts) (9 voices)
I read it.
Summary: the DI are still demonstrably wrong, and they're still lying about it.
Well consider me shocked at that revelation! Who would ever have guessed?
Part 3's concluding paragraph is kind of ominous, though. Like Freddy Krueger and Jason, the DI cannot be killed. They will be back, and we must be ready.
... in other breaking the the Pope was spotted wearing a rather 'fancy' hat that some considered a bit strange and an ursus arctos was seen leaving a copse after carrying out an as yet unknown activity.
LRA, if you haven't yet, you need to watch Thunderf00t's youtube series on why people laugh at creationists. He rips Casey a new one pretty early on into the series.
Awesome. Thanks Sock.
The reasons why Casey is an idiot are irreducibly complex.
LOL!!! Good one Ty!
Have you ever posted over at Uncommon Descent?
Haha! That echo chamber? No. They would just delete me anyway. Besides, you have to register to post and I don't want to do that.
"Haha! That echo chamber? No. They would just delete me anyway. Besides, you have to register to post and I don't want to do that."
Why do you call it an "echo chamber"?
I can't imagine why that is can you?
Jabster, I really can't, but I'll offer the following. From what I have been able to observe about blog culture, most people don't like venturing into alien territory, better to stay in your own little blog where 99% of everyone else thinks like you do. Secondly, UD forces you to argue in a different way; shouting "...moron!" at the top of your lungs won't cut it over there. Maybe at PZs and here but not over there. And finally, when one of the moderators decides to delete a post due to the aformentioned, the offended can shout *censorship!". What say you?
Some quotes from the latest thread:
"The fact is, we already understand that Darwinism is a tax-funded, court-supported crock. The key question is what to do."
"The question for me is, at what point are the evolutionists finally going to drop this pig. ToE is an embarrassment to the human intellect."
Yes there is some real discussion going on over there but the blunt fact is ID is not a science so why pretend that it is by treating it as one.
Jabster, you might be right about it not being a science. I do not know. To me, ID is more of a methodology of detecting design. It's forensic in a way, but that's just me. On the face of it, I don't have a problem with the basic premise that, a method can be applied in which one could detect the difference between a natrual object and one that is the product of an intelligence of some sort.
"Jabster, you might be right about it not being a science. I do not know. To me, ID is more of a methodology of detecting design."
So presumable the ID movement's main priority is to first solve the problem of how one decides that something is designed or not instead of their current stance of that's looks complicated God (sorry an intelligent designer) must have made it. What you actually see is evolution is wrong because either a) the same old tried argument that has been done to death, b) something for which I've complete twisted the truth or c) ToE doesn't explain everything including the start of life so it must be wrong. From that we quickly move to magic man did it and not just any old magic man but the Christian magic man. If you don't know whether this is science or not they you don't know what science is.
Can you think of any other branch of science that spends it's energies on trying to disprove another theory and at the same time presenting no evidence for the own theory. Is evolution considered true because there is not a shred of evidence that magic man did it or is it considered true because it has ample evidence to back it up?
"So presumable the ID movement's main priority is to first solve the problem of how one decides that something is designed or not..."
What's so outlandish about that simple idea?
"instead of their current stance of that's looks complicated God (sorry an intelligent designer) must have made it."
Dave Scott, an Ider over there for a long time was an admitted agnostic. Dr. Demski of course is a Christian. So each has their own idea of an "intelligent designer. Who was it that came up with the idea of Panspermia, was it Hoyle of Jastrow? To them the designer was an alien race. So, not everyone over there is in lock-step agreement as to who (or what) the intelligent designer is.
"What you actually see is evolution is wrong because either a) the same old tried argument that has been done to death, b) something for which I've complete twisted the truth or c) ToE doesn't explain everything including the start of life so it must be wrong."
I never said I didn't believe in evolution, so you'll have to take up that argument with someone else.
"From that we quickly move to magic man did it and not just any old magic man but the Christian magic man. If you don't know whether this is science or not they you don't know what science is."
I work in a field of science for a living; electronics. If I didn't know or believe in science, I would be fried in a matter of seconds since I work on high volatge equipment on a dialy basis.
"Can you think of any other branch of science that spends it's energies on trying to disprove another theory and at the same time presenting no evidence for the own theory. Is evolution considered true because there is not a shred of evidence that magic man did it or is it considered true because it has ample evidence to back it up?"
You may be correct. I'll have to give it some more thought!
"What's so outlandish about that simple idea?"
Unless you can come up with a reliable way of determining whether something is designed or not then what are you supposed to base evidence on ID for. Maybe this is why the ID movement doesn't produce evidence of its own but concentrates on ToE is wrong therefore magic man did it?
"To them the designer was an alien race. So, not everyone over there is in lock-step agreement as to who (or what) the intelligent designer is."
So the odd person disagrees with the notion of the intelligent designer just so happens to be the Christian god. They must be a bit pissed that they are involved with a movement that is creationism by the back door.
"I never said I didn't believe in evolution, ..."
I never claimed you didn't ... but do you or don't you?
"I work in a field of science for a living; electronics."
Electronics is primarily a engineering not scientific discipline let alone one that has a connection to evolution science.
"You may be correct. I'll have to give it some more thought!"
There isn't any thought to give it. ID is not a science regardless of how much some people claim it is.
It's getting close to 6AM in the morning here in SC, will be heading home from work in a few minutes and will try to answer your questions tonight. I would like to tell you how much I appreciate how kind you have been to me in our discussions! Have a great day...
"Electronics is primarily an engineering not scientific discipline..."
I am sure a lot of electrical engineers would be absolutely shocked that theirs is not a scientific discipline. Electronics is a branch of *physics*. The following is a an outline for an electrical engieering course:
"EENG 0423. ENERGY CONVERSION. 1st and 2nd Semester. Lect. 3, Lab 0, 3 credits. Various types of energies and their convertibility. The electromagnetic field; forces in EM fields; induced electromagnetic forces and rotating magnetic fields; the DC Machine, generator and motor operation and performance characteristics. Single phase and three phase transformers; the Induction Machine; three phase and single phase induction motors. Three phase synchronous machine-performance and operating characteristics; parallel operation of three phase alternators. Prerequisite: EENG 0333.
Now, having read that, what *exactly* mentioned in that description would you not consider to be *science*?
Okay...this time I really have to go!
"EENG 0644. DIRECT. ENERGY CONVERSION II. Lect. 3; Lab 0, 3 credits. Offered on demand. Prerequisite: EE 424 or equivalent. Electrogasdynamic, Magnetohydrodynamic, thermoelectric, thermoelectronic and thermionic converts; furl and solar cells; utilization of solar proton influx, or ground level and terrestrial energies; global power transmission. Prerequisite: Graduate Standing."
still not science :)?
Working in a field that is informed by science does not mean that the practitioners of that field are scientists. Are pilots, pharmacists, computer programmers etc. scientists? Electronics is still primarily an engineering discipline. Do not confuse technology with science.
"still not science" - er, well no.
ID as a methodology utterly fails as well. As quite a number of smart people in information science have pointed out, the ID claims regarding information are completely unscientific. In addition, no one has yet demonstrated that ID information theory can create an accurate measurement for what constitutes design.
An information scientist whose blog I follow has issued quite a number of challenges in this regard, to be met with silence. ID claims that design can be determined through information content. But they don't have any criteria for what determines design, and they have never successfully used their theory to demonstrate that it can separate design from naturally occurring events.
It is science in the same way that UFO studies is science. Before it can claim any validity, it kind of needs to show us a UFO.
Until then, it's just wanking.
"Working in a field that is informed by science does not mean that the practitioners of that field are scientists."
I didn't say that the people working in the field of electrical engineering were scientists per se. The field is underpinned by scientists (ever heard of Faraday and Maxwell or Tesla?), it employs the scientific method, and it cannot operate if the engineers do not understand the basic principles of science and how it functions. Let me give you an example; if an engineer, tasked with designing a new piece of electronic equipment, doesn't understand electron flow, doesn't know what types of materials conduct electricity and why, doesn't understand resistance, how then can he ever build a device that would work? The answer is he couldn't. Somewhere along the line the engineer would have been electrocuted. If you have never worked in the field, and I have for 15 years, I think your view of an electrical engineer is probably based simply on what you have gained from pop culture and is very narrow. I think maybe your idea of a scientist is simply someone in a lab coat peering through a microscope.
"Are pilots, pharmacists, computer programmers etc. scientists?"
I knew a pilot in the navy who had a degree in aeronautical engineering, so I am sure he had his share of science courses. But, try this, the next time you are on an airplane, you'd better hope that pilot up front knows a *little* about the science of aerodynamics, or, he is going to fly you atheist behind straight into the dirt :) .
"Electronics is still primarily an engineering discipline. Do not confuse technology with science."
It's not me that is confused.
"still not science" - er, well no."
Er, yes, still science. I'll go to my engineer buddies from Georgia Tech, Purdue and Clemson University and tell them what they were taught in college wasn't science. I'm sure they will all laugh themselves silly...
"Michael Faraday, FRS (22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867) was an English chemist and physicist (or natural philosopher, in the terminology of the time) who contributed to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry.
Faraday studied the magnetic field around a conductor carrying a DC electric current, and established the basis for the electromagnetic field concept in physics. He discovered electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism, and laws of electrolysis. He established that magnetism could affect rays of light and that there was an underlying relationship between the two phenomena. His inventions of electromagnetic rotary devices formed the foundation of electric motor technology, and it was largely due to his efforts that electricity became viable for use in technology.
As a chemist, Faraday discovered benzene, investigated the clathrate hydrate of chlorine, invented an early form of the bunsen burner and the system of oxidation numbers, and popularized terminology such as anode, cathode, electrode, and ion.
Although Faraday received little formal education and knew little of higher mathematics, such as calculus, he was one of the most influential scientists in history."
Any of that sound "sciency" to you? I deal with electromagnetism on daily basis. So do all electrical engineers. They, and I, use it to design, operate and repair electrical devices. Without it, and without an understanding of it, we we would be left with the idea that gremlins are running things here...
Did I say anywhere that they are not based on science, no I didn't, I said that the field of electronics is an engineering discipline not a scientific one. I'll show that you even agree with me as you yourself stated "So do all electrical engineers" ... so what actually is your problem when I say you're an engineer not a scientist.
Oh and are you saying that your job is similar to Farday's job "... design, operate and repair electrical devices ..." doesn't sound the same to me.
"Did I say anywhere that they are not based on science, no I didn't, I said that the field of electronics is an engineering discipline not a scientific one."
My argument is that electronics combines elements of both engineering and science. Thus, an electrical engineer, uses the science that underpins electromagnetic forces, and then applies this in a practical way, to build something that works.
"I'll show that you even agree with me as you yourself stated "So do all electrical engineers" ... so what actually is your problem when I say you're an engineer not a scientist."
Okay. Here is an example. When an electrical engineer designs an antenna, to be used with a 500,000 watt transmitter, he has to design it in such a way that an impedance match exists between the transmitter and the antenna, or, under certain conditions, when their is an impedance mismatch, the transmitter simply will not function. Now, I am suggesting that, an enginner must be not only aware of this potential problem, but has to "study it out", has to research it amd finally blueprint it before it is ever built. Once it is built, it has to be tested, multiple times, under different conditions, to make sure it works. If it doesn't, then it is a failed experimnet and it's back to the drawing board. As I am sure you must be aware, when Edison was working on his light bulb, he recorded many failures before finally succeeding. Was Edison a scientist? Or "just" an engineer? Was he both? I would suggest to you he was both, and/or capable of acting in either capacity or a combination thereof. When electrical engineers design, build, operate and troubleshoot equipment, they do not suddenly leave all of the science behind and enter into some sort of cloud coo coo land. You simply are not giving engineers, of all stripes, proper credit for what they do. There's more to being a scientist than merely peering through a microscope.
"Oh and are you saying that your job is similar to Farday's job "... design, operate and repair electrical devices ..." doesn't sound the same to me."
Let me ask, do you think Faraday ever built anything? Or just sat around all day writing down equations on the back of an envelope? How about Tesla? I am absolutely sure he designed, built and operated some of what he built. So, was Tesla merely an engineer? Or a scientist? He was both, I think you will find most people would say.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Born 10 July 1856(1856-07-10)
Smiljan, Austrian Empire
(Croatian Military Frontier)
Died 7 January 1943 (aged 86)
New York City, New York, USA
Residence Austrian Empire
Kingdom of Hungary
Citizenship Austrian Empire (pre-1891)
Fields Mechanical and electrical engineering
Institutions Edison Machine Works
Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing
Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.
Known for Tesla coil
Tesla electric car
Tesla's Egg of Columbus
Rotating magnetic field
Particle beam weapon
Terrestrial stationary waves
Influences Ernst Mach
Influenced Gano Dunn
Notable awards Edison Medal (1916)
Elliott Cresson Medal (1893)
John Scott Medal (1934)
Nikola Tesla (10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was an inventor and a mechanical and electrical engineer. He was one of the most important contributors to the birth of commercial electricity and is best known for his many revolutionary developments in the field of electromagnetism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Tesla's patents and theoretical work formed the basis of modern alternating current (AC) electric power systems, including the polyphase system of electrical distribution and the AC motor, with which he helped usher in the Second Industrial Revolution.
So, Jabster, engineer or scientist?
Nikola Tesla (185k)
The Serbian-American inventor, electrical engineer, and scientist
Born on July 9/10, 1856 in Smiljan, Lika (Austria-Hungary)
Died on January 7, 1943 in New York City, New York (USA)
Inventions: a telephone repeater, rotating magnetic field principle, polyphase alternating-current system, induction motor, alternating-current power transmission, Tesla coil transformer, wireless communication, radio, fluorescent lights, and more than 700 other patents
You must log in to post.