subjective science

Originally posted by @dj2becker
And I think the narrow prism of your belief system does not allow you to follow where the evidence leads.

My 'belief system' when it comes to creation and design is agnostic, as you know. If that's "narrow" in your parlance, that's OK.

However, I am inclined to be sceptical about - and resist - the kind of blatant intellectual charlatanry that the likes of you and lemon lime peddle, as we see here with your gimmicky seizing upon and attempted appropriation of the words "intelligent" and "design" in the case of Dr Watson's work.

Look, here's an idea. I do quite a bit of work with international academic journals, PhD dissertations and academic papers etc. Academics collaborate or integrate their work all the time.

You could contact Dr Watson and offer to add variants of the assertion "...and this is proof of a supernatural creator" to his work. Scatter it around the text wherever you think it's apt.

The resulting Watson-Becker paper may not get published, but you could hawk it around Creationist message boards and tout it as explicit scientific evidence to support your claim of supernatural causality.

It'd have more traction for your purposes than Watson's work does as it currently stands.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
My claim is that he has found evidence of intelligence and design in the evolutionary process. Do you agree or disagree with my claim?

He has not found any evidence of design perpetrated by an intelligent being, no. If he had, he would have shown it to be so and would now stand to make countless millions of dollars.

Originally posted by @fmf
My 'belief system' when it comes to creation and design is agnostic, as you know. If that's "narrow" in your parlance, that's OK.

However, I am inclined to be sceptical about - and resist - the kind of blatant intellectual charlatanry that the likes of you and lemon lime peddle, as we see here with your gimmicky seizing upon and attempted appropriation of t ...[text shortened]... y.

It'd have more traction for your purposes than Watson's work does as it currently stands.

If you are agnostic does that mean you are open to the existence of a creator or not? Or is it simply a matter of you having no backbone to make up your mind either way? It's obviously more comfortable to sit on the fence isn't it and accuse actual thinkers who have a conviction of their beliefs of being intellectual charlatans. If you disagree that Dr Watson's work indicates that the evolutionary process exhibits intelligence and design feel free to say so.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you are agnostic does that mean you are open to the existence of a creator or not?

Of course. I have said it to you many times. It's as if you haven't read my posts.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Or is it simply a matter of you having no backbone to make up your mind either way?

"Backbone"? What is that? Is admitting that 'I do not know' an example of "backbone"?

Originally posted by @fmf
He has not found any evidence of design perpetrated by an intelligent being, no. If he had, he would have shown it to be so and would now stand to make countless millions of dollars.

Let me ask you this:
What in your mind is a more probable explanation for design and intelligence that is observed in evolution.

A) An intelligent designer
B) An non intelligent random process
C) Another option
?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It's obviously more comfortable to sit on the fence isn't it and accuse actual thinkers who have a conviction of their beliefs of being intellectual charlatans.

Do you count yourself as one of the "actual thinkers" and me as not an "actual thinker"? You should explain.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[bIf you disagree that Dr Watson's work indicates that the evolutionary process exhibits intelligence and design feel free to say so.[/b]

Offer to add your assertions to his scientific work. He's at the University of Southampton.

Originally posted by @fmf
Do you count yourself as one of the "actual thinkers" and me as not an "actual thinker"? You should explain.

You ask two people a question. No says they don't know and the other attempts to give an explanation, which of the two would you regard as a thinker?

Originally posted by @fmf
Offer to add your assertions to his scientific work. He's at the University of Southampton.

What are you on about? I asked you a question. Why do you continue to dodge it?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What in your mind is a more probable explanation for design and intelligence that is observed in evolution.

What "design and intelligence" is "observed in evolution"? Do you mean the "design and intelligence" that you claim is perpetrated by a supernatural being? Or do you mean the complexity that the likes of Dr Watson study which "shows that evolution is able to learn from previous experience, which could provide a better explanation of how evolution by natural selection produces such apparently intelligent designs"... which is not the same as what you are saying at all.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What are you on about? I asked you a question. Why do you continue to dodge it?

I was responding to "If you disagree that Dr Watson's work indicates that the evolutionary process exhibits intelligence and design feel free to say so" which was not a question. There is no dodge.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You ask two people a question. No says they don't know and the other attempts to give an explanation, which of the two would you regard as a thinker?

I think admitting that one does not know what the correct "explanation" is can be evidence of being a thinker. I think somebody insisting that they are absolutely certain about what the "explanation" is, is not necessarily much of a thinker.

Originally posted by @fmf
What "design and intelligence" is "observed in evolution"? Do you mean the "design and intelligence" that you claim is perpetrated by a supernatural being? Or do you mean the complexity that the likes of Dr Watson study which "shows that evolution is able to learn from previous experience, which could provide a better explanation of how evolution by natural sel ...[text shortened]... h [b]apparently intelligent designs"... which is not the same as what you are saying at all.[/b]

How do you account for the intelligence of a process that can learn from previous experience?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Let me ask you this:
What in your mind is a more probable explanation for design and intelligence that is observed in evolution.

A) An intelligent designer
B) An non intelligent random process
C) Another option
?

What do I think lies behind our existence, our evolution, our origin...

A) An intelligent designer
B) An non intelligent random process
C) Another option
?

I don't know. I think nobody knows.