subjective science

Originally posted by @fmf
Dr Watson's work simply does not support any notion of intelligent design regardless of how you define it, supernatural or otherwise.

Has it dawned on you yet what has happened here?

When you and KN saw dj2beckers link to Dr Watsons paper, you immediately assumed he mistakenly thought it supported his views. Then when I joined the discussion you both made the same assumption about me... and from that starting point both you and KN have been arguing against your own initial assumptions.

And even now, after you've had ample time to have figured this out, instead of acknowledging the mistake you double down and continue arguing against your own (imaginary) strawman puppets.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Has it dawned on you yet what has happened here?

When you and KN saw dj2beckers link to Dr Watsons paper, you immediately assumed he mistakenly thought it supported his views. Then when I joined the discussion you both made the same assumption about me... and from that starting point both you and KN have been arguing against your own initial assumptio ...[text shortened]... the mistake you double down and continue arguing against your own (imaginary) strawman puppets.

This waffly flannel of yours is mere deflection. I understand full well what Dr Watson is on about. It seems you got sucked in by the puff piece. His work just does not support any notion of intelligent design, no matter how you define it. There is no "strawman" in operation here. You have simply read into Dr Watson's work something that isn't there.

Originally posted by @fmf
This waffly flannel of yours is mere deflection. I understand full well what Dr Watson is on about. It seems you got sucked in by the puff piece. His work just does not support any notion of intelligent design, no matter how you define it. There is no "strawman" in operation here. You have simply read into Dr Watson's work something that isn't there.

LoL

Alrighty then, I'll leave you alone to play with your strawman doll.
Sorry to have interfered with your playtime activity.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
LoL

Alrighty then, I'll leave you alone to play with your strawman doll.
Sorry to have interfered with your playtime activity.

There's no "strawman" lemon lime. There is just the big muddle you got into. If you're still confused about what Dr Watson's work is about, have a read of this

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

Originally posted by @fmf
This waffly flannel of yours is mere deflection. I understand full well what Dr Watson is on about. It seems you got sucked in by the puff piece. His work just does not support any notion of intelligent design, no matter how you define it. There is no "strawman" in operation here. You have simply read into Dr Watson's work something that isn't there.

It supports the notion that evolution exhibits both intelligence as well as design. The fact that he does not see this as the handiwork of a creator is neither here nor there.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It supports the notion that evolution exhibits both intelligence as well as design. The fact that he does not see this as the handiwork of a creator is neither here nor there.

You can assert all you want that there is a supernatural being that created everything. Good for you if it gives your life meaning. However, Dr Watson's work, in so far as it is relevant to your superstitions, undermines your assertions. As he unequivocally states, you do not have "a scientifically useful explanation" for the complexity of the evolutionary process, while he arguably does. He is not a scientist you ought to be citing in the propagation of your beliefs. His work takes the wind out of your "intelligent design" ideology's sails.

Originally posted by @fmf
You can assert all you want that there is a supernatural being that created everything. Good for you if it gives your life meaning. However, Dr Watson's work, in so far as it is relevant to your superstitions, undermines your assertions. As he unequivocally states, you do not have "a scientifically useful explanation" for the complexity of the evolutionary proc ...[text shortened]... tion of your beliefs. His work takes the wind out of your "intelligent design" ideology's sails.

How in your opinion does his work take the wind out of my intelligent design sails when he suggests that evolution exhibits both intelligence and design? 🙄

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How in your opinion does his work take the wind out of my intelligent design sails when he suggests that evolution exhibits both intelligence and design? 🙄

Because it doesn't support your superstitious, unscientific "intelligent design" cop-out. It accounts for the complexities that you say cannot be accounted for without your preferred 'supernatural' explanation. It has removed the string from your bow.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The fact that [Dr Watson] does not see this as the handiwork of a creator is neither here nor there.

One of the hackneyed "intelligent design" soundbites about scientists is that they can't explain the complexity of things produced by evolution ~ so, we are told, the source of the complexity has to be supernatural.

Then, along comes a scientist who can explain the complexity of things produced by evolution and can clearly do so without resort the 'it's supernatural' soundbite, and you think it boosts your case? How odd.

And to put a sweet charlatan's cherry on top, while citing his work, you dismiss the fact that it doesn't boost your case as being "neither here nor there".

Originally posted by @fmf
Because it doesn't support your superstitious, unscientific "intelligent design" cop-out. It accounts for the complexities that you say cannot be accounted for without your preferred 'supernatural' explanation. It has removed the string from your bow.

So when an atheist detects evidence of 'intelligence and design' in evolution that is pure science but when a creationist detects the same evidence it is 'superstitious and unscientific'?

Originally posted by @fmf
One of the hackneyed "intelligent design" soundbites about scientists is that they can't explain the complexity of things produced by evolution ~ so, we are told, the source of the complexity has to be supernatural.

Then, along comes a scientist who can explain the complexity of things produced by evolution and can clearly do so without resort the 'it's sup ...[text shortened]... is work, you dismiss the fact that it doesn't boost your case as being "neither here nor there".

I think you are confusing his detection of intelligence and design in evolution with his ability to account for it.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I think you are confusing his detection of intelligence and design in evolution with his ability to account for it.

I think you have confused the scientific explanation he has provided for complexity with the mythology that your superstitious prism compels you to superimpose onto that complexity.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So when an atheist detects evidence of 'intelligence and design' in evolution that is pure science but when a creationist detects the same evidence it is 'superstitious and unscientific'?

Dr Watson's work does not support your belief in a supernatural higher power and creator. He has found a scientific explanation. Yours is not a scientifically useful explanation. Frankly, it's a bit odd that you're trying to drag a scientist like Watson into the propagation of your belief in a magical explanation as if he corroborates it. "Superstition" refers to a belief in supernatural causality. That's why I refer to your beliefs as superstitious. Watson's findings are not about supernatural causality.

Originally posted by @fmf
I think you have confused the scientific explanation he has provided for complexity with the mythology that your superstitious prism compels you to superimpose onto that complexity.

And I think the narrow prism of your belief system does not allow you to follow where the evidence leads.

Originally posted by @fmf
Dr Watson's work does not support your belief in a supernatural higher power and creator. He has found a scientific explanation. Yours is not a scientifically useful explanation. Frankly, it's a bit odd that you're trying to drag a scientist like Watson into the propagation of your belief in a magical explanation as if he corroborates it. "Superstition" refers ...[text shortened]... refer to your beliefs as superstitious. Watson's findings are not about supernatural causality.

Obviously from the narrow prism of your perspective it doesn't. My claim is that he has found evidence of intelligence and design in the evolutionary process. Do you agree or disagree with my claim? The fact that the narrow prism of your belief system doesn't allow you to make the connection that I have says more about your belief system than it does about his findings.