subjective science

Originally posted by @fmf
You are mistaken, the article is found in the February 2016 edition of Trends in Ecology and Evolution. The text at the link dj2becker gave is a bit of advertising puff and a kind of summary - not written by the academics who produced the actual article itself - complete with click bait words like "intelligent behaviours", "apparently intelligent", and "appear ...[text shortened]... e described it as badly written] is surely not what you mean when you referred to "the article".

That's right, the puff summary is not what I meant by the full text of the article. If you scroll down from the summary you will find the article dj2becker was referring to.

His link took me directly to the article. I use a tablet now instead of a lap top computer, so this might explain the difference in how we are accessing the same links.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
That's right, the puff summary is not what I meant by the full text of the article. If you scroll down from the summary you will find the article dj2becker was referring to.

The "article" you are referring to is the "puff-summary" I am referring to. Well, anyway, put the puff-summary aside. Instead, here's what Dr Richard A. Watson ~ you have touted his credentials - has written about his ideas and about "intelligence that isn’t supernatural", which are in the article that the puff-summary is about:

http://theconversation.com/intelligent-design-without-a-creator-why-evolution-may-be-smarter-than-we-thought-52932

Originally posted by @fmf
The "article" you are referring to is the "puff-summary" I am referring to. Well, anyway, put the puff-summary aside. Instead, here's what Dr Richard A. Watson ~ you have touted his credentials - has written about his ideas and about "intelligence that isn’t supernatural", which are in the article that the puff-summary is about:

http://theconversation.com/intelligent-design-without-a-creator-why-evolution-may-be-smarter-than-we-thought-52932

If you only read the summary then yes, it's not terribly impressive.
The word 'summary' is also not very impressive, which is why I believe KN called it an 'abstract'.

I put up Dr Richard A Watson's credentials to show you that he has scientific credentials.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I put up Dr Richard A Watson's credentials to show you that he has scientific credentials.

You may be doing yourself a disservice by relying on the puff piece you keep referring to as "the article". Watson writes about his ideas here.

http://theconversation.com/intelligent-design-without-a-creator-why-evolution-may-be-smarter-than-we-thought-52932

You should take a look before you cite him as a supporter of your notion of supernatural design.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
If you only read the summary then yes, it's not terribly impressive.
The word 'summary' is also not very impressive, which is why I believe KN called it an 'abstract'.

As wolfgang59 pointed out, the entire puff piece [a.k.a. "the article" according to you... it's not even written by Watson!] is "not terribly impressive".

KazetNagorra probably went here

http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(15)00293-1

Originally posted by @fmf
You may be doing yourself a disservice by relying on the puff piece you keep referring to as "the article". Watson writes about his ideas here.

http://theconversation.com/intelligent-design-without-a-creator-why-evolution-may-be-smarter-than-we-thought-52932

You should take a look before you cite him as a supporter of your notion of supernatural design.

You should take a look before you cite him as a supporter of your notion of supernatural design.

Where do you see me citing him as a supporter of supernatural design? He's an evolutionist, and he's attempting to integrate the idea of intelligence into evolution theory.

I suspect many old school evolutionists will have trouble supporting his idea, because for many years they have been claiming intelligence has nothing at all to do with the evolutionary process. So now they will have to decide whether to stick to their guns, or concede that intelligence may be a factor that plays an integral role in evolutionary development.

If evolutionists are comfortable with claiming naturally arising operating systems (containing information and instructions) then it shouldn't be much of a leap to go from there to recognising a naturally occurring intelligence based learning system.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Where do you see me citing him as a supporter of supernatural design? He's an evolutionist, and he's attempting to integrate the idea of intelligence into evolution theory.

What "idea of intelligence" is that? Perhaps you've only read the puff piece?

Originally posted by @fmf
What "idea of intelligence" is that? Perhaps you've only read the puff piece?

Have you read the article?

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Have you read the article?

I have read what he himself has written about his notion of "intelligent" and "intelligence" as it pertains to the evolutionary process. It is not the same as the notion of "intelligence" that you and dj2becker propagate. If you think he is a 'friendly witness' for you in your assertions about there being intelligent design, then you have dropped a clanger.

Originally posted by @fmf
I have read what he himself has written about his notion of "intelligent" and "intelligence" as it pertains to the evolutionary process. It is not the same as the notion of "intelligence" that you and dj2becker propagate. If you think he is a 'friendly witness' for you in your assertions about there being intelligent design, then you have dropped a clanger.

You dropped the first clanger when you assumed I thought he was a creationist. And you're still dropping clangers because Watson does talk about design and intelligence.

I read the same article you purportedly read, and I can see as well as anyone else that he is not promoting supernatural creation. Pull your head out of your butt and take a breath now and then... and look at what is actually being said. Right now your imagination is in overdrive, and you are spouting incomprehensible nonsense.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151218085616.htm

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
A very poorly written article.

Written that way quite deliberately, I think. I wonder how many Creationists forked out the $35 having been teased by the weasel words? 🙂

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Pull your head out of your butt and take a breath now and then... and look at what is actually being said. Right now your imagination is in overdrive, and you are spouting incomprehensible nonsense.

OK, I can see where you are coming from on this.

Originally posted by @fmf
OK, I can see where you are coming from on this.

I believe Watson's attempt to fold design and intelligence into evolution theory is a brilliant idea, because if atheists can own these ideas instead of resisting them it could put an end to the intelligent design debate.

But taking possession of intelligent design (instead of resisting it) could also prove to be problematic for the theory. If they discard it (after excepting it) this could make evolutionists appear to be opportunistic promoters of a theory, rather than serious scientists who follow the evidence regardless of where it points.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I believe Watson's attempt to fold design and intelligence into evolution theory...

Watson isn't attempting to fold "design" and "intelligence" into evolution theory.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
But taking possession of intelligent desgn (instead of resisting it) could also prove to be problematic for the theory.

Watson isn't taking possession of "intelligent design" nor do I have any reason to believe he has ever seen himself as "resisting it".