The trouble is that routing on chips isn't done by hand anymore. An algorithm crunches away on a design and spits out what it found to be the most optimal layout for the given parameters. So if you have to start pushing things around by hand in order to make room for cooling channels, it could break your design.
I'd say the solution to it would be to lay out the cooling channels just like other routes in the die, and set the parameters up somehow in the routes would be relatively well distributed for maximum heat absorption.
FFVII was a bad game because it was linear, nothing less, nothing more. There's no character design, no real thought involved in materia, and no real challenge. I beat the whole game without dying in a non-optional combat.
FFVII is closer to an "interactive movie" than it is to an actual game. At some point, I was playing the game half-asleep just waiting for the next cutscene, not really noticing the 100 random combats that they make you fight between "Cutscene H" and "Cutscene I".
My girlfriend played FFVII the right way, which is to say she didn't play it at all but just watched the cutscenes and read the story.
The experiment in question shows nothing. In fact, faintly blowing wind across a persons arm can trick them into thinking that they wanted to choose that arm to. It's a very interesting experiment, but it doesn't have to do with Free Will, beyond perhaps reinforcing it -- something like a third of the subjects *didn't* raise that hand, even when the region was stimulated (IIRC, been a while since I read it).
Free Will doesn't necessarily have anything to do with supernatural entities. It is possible that everything can be explained inside the brain scientifically, and yet we could still have free will.
There's a couple different aspects that people talk about when they mean free will (it is a very overloaded term).
The easiest answer is to the question of prediction. It is provably impossible to create an algorithm that will perfectly predict the behavior of a human. The key revelation here is that humans can emulate turing machines. Therefore if a perfect human predictor existed, then there would be a perfect solver for Halt.
The main question, IMO, is if a human mind can serve as a chaos source. If it can, then we have free will. If it can't, then we don't.
In China, the price of pirated DVDs in Shanghai (pirated DVD capitol of the world -- they have brick and mortar shops) is firmly set at 8 kaui by the pirated DVD mafia. Whereas you can haggle with Shanghai shops on nearly anything (I got a North Face jacket for 20$ when they wanted $150), I couldn't once budge even a street DVD hustler off the 8 kuai price point (they're people that walk up to you on the sidewalk and sell unsleeved DVDs). The street "Rolex" hustlers, by comparison, would usually haggle down to a 10-to-1 ratio off their starting price.
8 kuai is right at $1 right now (buying at 7.99, selling at 8.02), not 75 cents. So they're coming in closer to the pirates price point than that. And Chinese people I talked to actually prefer real goods; it's just hard for them to justify when the pirated goods are so much cheaper... sounds like it should work.
Large. The human ones have already the trouble to interpret the dial tone of the electronic mails. On this, leave have a certain point of algorithm to us on the indices subtle if necessary for the suitable translation of human transmission. After all, the computers already showed a formidable professional experiment treating human languages.
Refreshing the plant nevertheless. Laughter that follows without the doubt.
Take WOW for example. The devs watch the most popular mods, and build the most 'requested' features into the game. Everyone was installing Cosmos or GypsyMod to get more toolbars, so they added new toolbars. People were installing CTMOD to watch the health of their raid members, they made it so you can watch the health of anyone in your raid. Etc., etc.
WOW mods are all legally open source, so there's never any issue if they can even steal from the community. Though I do think it would be appropriate to cite their sources, so to speak.
Sure. It's difficult to differentiate the historic Socrates from Plato's character of Socrates. Hence I said Socrates and Plato. Perhaps Socrates/Plato would have been more clear. Some people write it that way, but it always seems awkward to me.
But even in the dialogues in which he just calls everything into question, you can sometimes draw a conclusion of what Socrates is trying to get at. Even if he doesn't come out and say it.
The reason I said that they thought it was self-evident was because when one accepts their notion of justice and virtue (which are both defined in ways that sound very odd to the modern ear), it becomes immediately clear that an intelligent/wise/non-insane person cannot commit evil, or even choose to commit evil, since that would be a contradiction.
The reason it's perhaps not self-evident to us now is that we have to go through a rather tedious process of mentally creating a second definition for "virtues" (our current definition stems from Aquinas, IIRC), "justice", etc., that are both like, but then again very unlike our current usages for the words. In Socrates' circle, if they had all already accepted the definitions of virtue and justice that Socrates/Plato settled on, then it simply needs to be revealed that a wise man commiting evil is a contradiction, with no exposition or argument necessary.
The original question was if it was possible for an unethical person to "emulate" an ethical person on a straightforward ethics test. My original point is that the people that believe tests could catch unethical people were probably subscribing to the classic Greek belief that unethical implies unintelligent or insane, either of which would presumably show up on a test.
Socrates did more than just critically question everything. He actually made statements as well. And self-evident is a tricky word. The question of how something can be self-evident if it didn't occur to us beforehand is a long one, with the short answer what I gave, that one's intellect is illuminated, and one instintually knows it is right, without necessarily having a logical premise, argument, and conclusion.
In the case of the Glaucon, Socrates claims that evil acts harm ones own body, so while one can commit evil to gain power, wealth, etc., one is harming himself in the process. Thus, as I said in my first post, it was considered to be a contradiction to have a wise/intelligent person who would knowingly choose to do evil, since an intelligent person (by its very definition) would not wish to harm himself.
If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll repost after I have more sleep. =)
>>There is a delusion regarding ethics that an unethical person cannot pretend to be ethical >>effectively, that is, when given a question about ethics, they might want to lie, but then >>they wouldn't know what lie is the "ethical" choice.
Probably a result of reading too much classical Greek philosophy. Socrates and Plato considered ethical truths to be self-evident, and as self-evident as other truths. As in, if someone explains to you the meaning of right action, your consciousness will become illuminated... akin to the process you go through when you read a beautiful mathematical proof for the first time. (There's no question that it's not true, you simply hadn't realized it before.) Etc., Etc. Socrates held it contradictory that someone could be a lover of knowledge and still commit evil (since evils hurt oneself, and nobody acting in one's self interest would intelligently want to hurt himself).
Of course, we can recognize now that people can quite easily not only choose unethical behavior, but also can reasonably emulate ethical behavior. An open source Quake Mod project I headed was "infiltrated" by a person who inserted cheat codes into his submissions so that he could be a dick and 0wn people inside of the game world. This was someone I had a reasonably large conversation with, etc.
Oh well. Quake is more manly than Pokemon in any event. =)
Alternative oil sources (SASOL, Oil Shale) have been profitable for a while now due to rising oil costs. My father has dealings with some people in SASOL. They aren't going crazy building factories because they would lose their shirts if the price of oil fell.
So people in the oil industry don't believe in peak oil... but even if it's true, then you'll slowly see alternative sources coming online, once the price of oil rises high enough for them to turn a tidy profit.
>>But the thing is, it does not matter what the cause is. If the cycle continues it will >>certainly, without a doubt, lead to the death of us as a civilization, whether we were >> the cause or not.
Wait... when a cycle continues, doesn't that mean we end up back where we started? =)
I highly doubt it will lead to the death of us as a civilization. Human beings are quite adaptable creatures. A rise of 1 degree celcius and a 1M rise of sea levels by 2100 won't collapse civilization. It will cause problems. But humans are good at solving problems. Venice and Denmark have dealt with sinking buildings and high ocean levels.
Things that could collapse civilization and lead to untold misery and suffering include such things as banning all non-renewable energy production. We should just invest in fusion research (essentially unlimited energy) and then keep using non-renewable energy (oil and uranium) in the meantime until science brings fusion online.
Presents the results of a common climate prediction model. This I have no issue with. What I have an issue with is the color choice: the yellows and reds imply that the earth will be a giant sahara-style desert within 100 years.
They would gain control over the populace, as they get to dictate more and more aspects of life (carbon is, well, everywhere). There's a certain segment of the population that gets off on being able to order other people around, and unfortunately, most of them end up in politics.
I had to sell a car once because bringing it up to emissions standards would have cost about double what the car was worth, which didn't endear me to the movement, one way or another. Now suppose global warming is a complete hoax (not saying it is, just suppose). Then the whole process of me having to walk and bum rides (I was poor in college) until I could find another decent, cheap car was a complete hassle that benefited no one. But I was forced to do it, since the state wouldn't reissue a vehicle registration for my car.
If making personal attacks is your only line of recourse, you probably shouldn't pretend to be logical.
You accepted my definition that Behe and Dembski represent ID. My point was that older (irrational and unscientific) theories which have been sometimes called "ID", such as Paley, are not in the same set as Behe and Dembski, and are more properly refered to argument-from-design or teleological arguments.
If you accept Behe and Dembski to define modern ID (again, we're not using the "modern" category as a subset, but rather to discriminate it from older non-ID arguments), then it's clear that ID and Creationism are mutually incompatible theories.
I don't need to rely on experts (many of whom don't understand the difference themselves) to make my point; the logic is clear and stands on its own.
>>If you are rational, as every human says he is, then you can't. You have no free will.
Except free will can be established.
The easiest question is that of predictability. Due to QM, we know that the universe is unpredictable, so there's no chance of something like Asimov's Foundation trilogy perfectly predicting the future for millions of years. I'll be happy when they get the weather right for the current day.
2nd, the human brain can certainly emulate a turing machine. It's interesting how the same computer scientists that know all about the halting program would allow there to be a program that can tell if a human (running a "program") will halt when he knows that such a program is provably impossible (due to reduction, since solving Halt for the human brain would allow solving Halt for turing machines). Thus, a program to predict human behavior is impossible.
3rd, and most importantly, humans exhibit meta-cognitive traits. The most aggravating part of the Matrix is when the Oracle tells Neo to not worry about breaking the cup -- given the knowledge that he was going to break the cup, there's no particular reason why he couldn't have chosen NOT to break it. The same problem exists with all Oracles -- if knowledge of one's future is told to the person, there's no particular reason why the person can't simply choose to do something else. ("You're going to raise your right hand." Etc.) The kicker being that if you introspect your own thoughts, you can arrive at the same conclusions that an external oracle can. This creates a strange loop, which is essentially the basis of Free Will.
There's no excuse for a bad memory when all of the posts are archived.
"I'd rather say that Behe and Dembski are the only two people to seriously consider in ID. Old arguments like Paley's are irrelevant to the modern discussion. ID is not argument from design." -Me (about 5 posts back.)
I'm not talking about a subset of ID; their stance is ID. If they themselves can't recognize the logical inconsistency between ID and creationism, that doesn't make the two theories any more logically compatible.
Furthermore, the fact that panspermia / creation by aliens, and other wild theories also qualify as ID beliefs further underscores the difference between ID and Creationism.
The notion that ID is creationism wouldn't be a commonly held misconception... if it wasn't commonly held. Many creationists love ID as a "stealth theory" to undermine positive materialism, but that's a completely orthogonal issue. Any Christian fundamentalist who believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible would have to reject ID if he was at all honest, as ID attempts to "poke holes" in evolution, not get rid of all elements altogether. "Some things cannot be explained by evolution" being the key, central, phrase of the ID movement.
>>As I had that expert for a professor, not merely meeting him once but >>getting to know him over a couple of years, I think my appeal to >>authority fallacy is less fallacious than yours.
Is it a fallacy to appeal to fallacy too often?
Claiming something is self-evident is not an attack ad hominem, but you seemed to perceive it that way earlier. And it's not an appeal to authority (go back and re-read my post) -- it is being used as a a credential. If anything, your quote of Dembski would qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority, since as I state below, Dembski is wrong (or, at least, conflating "argument-from-design" with ID).
>>"First off, design is not young earth creationism. This is not to >>say that there are no young earth creationists who are also design >>theorists (Paul Nelson and Siegfried Scherer come to mind)."
So you indeed acknowledge that Dembski stipulates natural selection and an old earth? And that he acknowledges degenerative mutations or mutation that result in no net information gain? As I stated before, I consider Behe and Dembski to define modern ID (a definition which you've accepted as well). Therefore, ID and Creationism are logically incompatible.
Dembski could call Paley an IDer as well, but Paley was an "argument-from-design" person rather than a modern IDer (for whatever it's worth to be a modern IDer).
In order to stipulate a "new earth", you have to disagree with science. But I am only considering the "scientific" ID community (centered around Behe and Dembski), therefore these people are not part of that group (regardless of whatever labels people, Dembski included, might apply to them).
Scientific ID can be tested as a scientific theory. Given than (according to NPR), something like 70% of people in England believe in ID, I feel that it would be worthwhile to just spend 0.000001% of our research budget to just test it, instead of having each side flaming each other back and forth, ad infinitum.
It's kind of painful to read; they're wrong about Augustine too.
But yeah, it encapsulates what I said in a nutshell. Creationists like ID more than they like "Darwinism", but ID and Creationism are fundamentally antithetical ideas.
>>>>simply any of your purported experts on ID >>Like Dembski. *shrug*
No, you're misunderstanding yet again. Dembski does not deny natural selection. He denies that natural selection can cause the so-called "ball rolling uphill mutations", or mutation in which information is gained. He does allow for mutations in which information is lost. For example, some bacteria have mutated around antibiotics by eliminating a gene which made them vulnerable to the antibiotic.
I've spoked wih Dembski in real life when he came to my campus (and stumped him, to boot), so I doubt you're going to win by mechanically repeating that Dembski and other IDers don't/can't believe in natural selection.
Slashdot Mirror
Put the quotes around the supposed instead of master.
It's not difficult to master C, even the obscure weird ass bits of it, after 5-6 years or so.
Even the ISO standard starts making sense when you're looking at it from an alien angle.
The trouble is that routing on chips isn't done by hand anymore. An algorithm crunches away on a design and spits out what it found to be the most optimal layout for the given parameters. So if you have to start pushing things around by hand in order to make room for cooling channels, it could break your design.
I'd say the solution to it would be to lay out the cooling channels just like other routes in the die, and set the parameters up somehow in the routes would be relatively well distributed for maximum heat absorption.
FFVII was a bad game because it was linear, nothing less, nothing more. There's no character design, no real thought involved in materia, and no real challenge. I beat the whole game without dying in a non-optional combat.
FFVII is closer to an "interactive movie" than it is to an actual game. At some point, I was playing the game half-asleep just waiting for the next cutscene, not really noticing the 100 random combats that they make you fight between "Cutscene H" and "Cutscene I".
My girlfriend played FFVII the right way, which is to say she didn't play it at all but just watched the cutscenes and read the story.
The experiment in question shows nothing. In fact, faintly blowing wind across a persons arm can trick them into thinking that they wanted to choose that arm to. It's a very interesting experiment, but it doesn't have to do with Free Will, beyond perhaps reinforcing it -- something like a third of the subjects *didn't* raise that hand, even when the region was stimulated (IIRC, been a while since I read it).
Free Will doesn't rely on supernatural entities.
Free Will doesn't necessarily have anything to do with supernatural entities. It is possible that everything can be explained inside the brain scientifically, and yet we could still have free will.
There's a couple different aspects that people talk about when they mean free will (it is a very overloaded term).
The easiest answer is to the question of prediction. It is provably impossible to create an algorithm that will perfectly predict the behavior of a human. The key revelation here is that humans can emulate turing machines. Therefore if a perfect human predictor existed, then there would be a perfect solver for Halt.
The main question, IMO, is if a human mind can serve as a chaos source. If it can, then we have free will. If it can't, then we don't.
$80?
Sure, 10 years ago. My girlfriend just spend $280 on one book. And the bookstore didn't even throw in a free massage.
They don't rely on foreign markets to pay for their films. A film is a success if it breaks even in America. Foreign sales are all gravy.
They're trying to maximize their profits by setting a lower price point.
In China, the price of pirated DVDs in Shanghai (pirated DVD capitol of the world -- they have brick and mortar shops) is firmly set at 8 kaui by the pirated DVD mafia. Whereas you can haggle with Shanghai shops on nearly anything (I got a North Face jacket for 20$ when they wanted $150), I couldn't once budge even a street DVD hustler off the 8 kuai price point (they're people that walk up to you on the sidewalk and sell unsleeved DVDs). The street "Rolex" hustlers, by comparison, would usually haggle down to a 10-to-1 ratio off their starting price.
8 kuai is right at $1 right now (buying at 7.99, selling at 8.02), not 75 cents. So they're coming in closer to the pirates price point than that. And Chinese people I talked to actually prefer real goods; it's just hard for them to justify when the pirated goods are so much cheaper... sounds like it should work.
Large. The human ones have already the trouble to interpret the dial
tone of the electronic mails. On this, leave have a certain point of
algorithm to us on the indices subtle if necessary for the suitable
translation of human transmission. After all, the computers already
showed a formidable professional experiment treating human languages.
Refreshing the plant nevertheless. Laughter that follows without the
doubt.
Way out of date. Life has been exposed to radiation for a lot longer than since humans have had nuclear meltdowns.
There's a homeostatis mechanism for radiation exposure.
Not true.
Take WOW for example. The devs watch the most popular mods, and build the most 'requested' features into the game. Everyone was installing Cosmos or GypsyMod to get more toolbars, so they added new toolbars. People were installing CTMOD to watch the health of their raid members, they made it so you can watch the health of anyone in your raid. Etc., etc.
WOW mods are all legally open source, so there's never any issue if they can even steal from the community. Though I do think it would be appropriate to cite their sources, so to speak.
Sure. It's difficult to differentiate the historic Socrates from Plato's character of Socrates. Hence I said Socrates and Plato. Perhaps Socrates/Plato would have been more clear. Some people write it that way, but it always seems awkward to me.
But even in the dialogues in which he just calls everything into question, you can sometimes draw a conclusion of what Socrates is trying to get at. Even if he doesn't come out and say it.
The reason I said that they thought it was self-evident was because when one accepts their notion of justice and virtue (which are both defined in ways that sound very odd to the modern ear), it becomes immediately clear that an intelligent/wise/non-insane person cannot commit evil, or even choose to commit evil, since that would be a contradiction.
The reason it's perhaps not self-evident to us now is that we have to go through a rather tedious process of mentally creating a second definition for "virtues" (our current definition stems from Aquinas, IIRC), "justice", etc., that are both like, but then again very unlike our current usages for the words. In Socrates' circle, if they had all already accepted the definitions of virtue and justice that Socrates/Plato settled on, then it simply needs to be revealed that a wise man commiting evil is a contradiction, with no exposition or argument necessary.
The original question was if it was possible for an unethical person to "emulate" an ethical person on a straightforward ethics test. My original point is that the people that believe tests could catch unethical people were probably subscribing to the classic Greek belief that unethical implies unintelligent or insane, either of which would presumably show up on a test.
Interesting argument.
But "manly" is a real adjective, therefore Pokemon do not exist.
Socrates did more than just critically question everything. He actually made statements as well. And self-evident is a tricky word. The question of how something can be self-evident if it didn't occur to us beforehand is a long one, with the short answer what I gave, that one's intellect is illuminated, and one instintually knows it is right, without necessarily having a logical premise, argument, and conclusion.
In the case of the Glaucon, Socrates claims that evil acts harm ones own body, so while one can commit evil to gain power, wealth, etc., one is harming himself in the process. Thus, as I said in my first post, it was considered to be a contradiction to have a wise/intelligent person who would knowingly choose to do evil, since an intelligent person (by its very definition) would not wish to harm himself.
If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll repost after I have more sleep. =)
>>There is a delusion regarding ethics that an unethical person cannot pretend to be ethical
>>effectively, that is, when given a question about ethics, they might want to lie, but then
>>they wouldn't know what lie is the "ethical" choice.
Probably a result of reading too much classical Greek philosophy. Socrates and Plato considered ethical truths to be self-evident, and as self-evident as other truths. As in, if someone explains to you the meaning of right action, your consciousness will become illuminated... akin to the process you go through when you read a beautiful mathematical proof for the first time. (There's no question that it's not true, you simply hadn't realized it before.) Etc., Etc. Socrates held it contradictory that someone could be a lover of knowledge and still commit evil (since evils hurt oneself, and nobody acting in one's self interest would intelligently want to hurt himself).
Of course, we can recognize now that people can quite easily not only choose unethical behavior, but also can reasonably emulate ethical behavior. An open source Quake Mod project I headed was "infiltrated" by a person who inserted cheat codes into his submissions so that he could be a dick and 0wn people inside of the game world. This was someone I had a reasonably large conversation with, etc.
Oh well. Quake is more manly than Pokemon in any event. =)
Alternative oil sources (SASOL, Oil Shale) have been profitable for a while now due to rising oil costs. My father has dealings with some people in SASOL. They aren't going crazy building factories because they would lose their shirts if the price of oil fell.
So people in the oil industry don't believe in peak oil... but even if it's true, then you'll slowly see alternative sources coming online, once the price of oil rises high enough for them to turn a tidy profit.
>>But the thing is, it does not matter what the cause is. If the cycle continues it will
_ Predictions_Map.jpg
2 62100-2753503?v=glance&n=283155
>>certainly, without a doubt, lead to the death of us as a civilization, whether we were
>> the cause or not.
Wait... when a cycle continues, doesn't that mean we end up back where we started? =)
I highly doubt it will lead to the death of us as a civilization. Human beings are quite adaptable creatures. A rise of 1 degree celcius and a 1M rise of sea levels by 2100 won't collapse civilization. It will cause problems. But humans are good at solving problems. Venice and Denmark have dealt with sinking buildings and high ocean levels.
Things that could collapse civilization and lead to untold misery and suffering include such things as banning all non-renewable energy production. We should just invest in fusion research (essentially unlimited energy) and then keep using non-renewable energy (oil and uranium) in the meantime until science brings fusion online.
What I have the most issue with are not the scientific debates, but how people frame the data. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming
Presents the results of a common climate prediction model. This I have no issue with. What I have an issue with is the color choice: the yellows and reds imply that the earth will be a giant sahara-style desert within 100 years.
I recommend everyone read "How to Lie With Statistics":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393310728/104-6
As it helps you spot bad science, or bad presentations of science.
They would gain control over the populace, as they get to dictate more and more aspects of life (carbon is, well, everywhere). There's a certain segment of the population that gets off on being able to order other people around, and unfortunately, most of them end up in politics.
I had to sell a car once because bringing it up to emissions standards would have cost about double what the car was worth, which didn't endear me to the movement, one way or another. Now suppose global warming is a complete hoax (not saying it is, just suppose). Then the whole process of me having to walk and bum rides (I was poor in college) until I could find another decent, cheap car was a complete hassle that benefited no one. But I was forced to do it, since the state wouldn't reissue a vehicle registration for my car.
>>Right. You should be ashamed of yourself.
If making personal attacks is your only line of recourse, you probably shouldn't pretend to be logical.
You accepted my definition that Behe and Dembski represent ID. My point was that older (irrational and unscientific) theories which have been sometimes called "ID", such as Paley, are not in the same set as Behe and Dembski, and are more properly refered to argument-from-design or teleological arguments.
If you accept Behe and Dembski to define modern ID (again, we're not using the "modern" category as a subset, but rather to discriminate it from older non-ID arguments), then it's clear that ID and Creationism are mutually incompatible theories.
I don't need to rely on experts (many of whom don't understand the difference themselves) to make my point; the logic is clear and stands on its own.
>>If you are rational, as every human says he is, then you can't. You have no free will.
Except free will can be established.
The easiest question is that of predictability. Due to QM, we know that the universe is unpredictable, so there's no chance of something like Asimov's Foundation trilogy perfectly predicting the future for millions of years. I'll be happy when they get the weather right for the current day.
2nd, the human brain can certainly emulate a turing machine. It's interesting how the same computer scientists that know all about the halting program would allow there to be a program that can tell if a human (running a "program") will halt when he knows that such a program is provably impossible (due to reduction, since solving Halt for the human brain would allow solving Halt for turing machines). Thus, a program to predict human behavior is impossible.
3rd, and most importantly, humans exhibit meta-cognitive traits. The most aggravating part of the Matrix is when the Oracle tells Neo to not worry about breaking the cup -- given the knowledge that he was going to break the cup, there's no particular reason why he couldn't have chosen NOT to break it. The same problem exists with all Oracles -- if knowledge of one's future is told to the person, there's no particular reason why the person can't simply choose to do something else. ("You're going to raise your right hand." Etc.) The kicker being that if you introspect your own thoughts, you can arrive at the same conclusions that an external oracle can. This creates a strange loop, which is essentially the basis of Free Will.
Cheers.
>>Very dishonest of you.
There's no excuse for a bad memory when all of the posts are archived.
"I'd rather say that Behe and Dembski are the only two people to seriously consider in ID. Old arguments like Paley's are irrelevant to the modern discussion. ID is not argument from design." -Me (about 5 posts back.)
I'm not talking about a subset of ID; their stance is ID. If they themselves can't recognize the logical inconsistency between ID and creationism, that doesn't make the two theories any more logically compatible.
Furthermore, the fact that panspermia / creation by aliens, and other wild theories also qualify as ID beliefs further underscores the difference between ID and Creationism.
The notion that ID is creationism wouldn't be a commonly held misconception... if it wasn't commonly held. Many creationists love ID as a "stealth theory" to undermine positive materialism, but that's a completely orthogonal issue. Any Christian fundamentalist who believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible would have to reject ID if he was at all honest, as ID attempts to "poke holes" in evolution, not get rid of all elements altogether. "Some things cannot be explained by evolution" being the key, central, phrase of the ID movement.
>>As I had that expert for a professor, not merely meeting him once but
>>getting to know him over a couple of years, I think my appeal to
>>authority fallacy is less fallacious than yours.
Is it a fallacy to appeal to fallacy too often?
Claiming something is self-evident is not an attack ad hominem, but you seemed to perceive it that way earlier. And it's not an appeal to authority (go back and re-read my post) -- it is being used as a a credential. If anything, your quote of Dembski would qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority, since as I state below, Dembski is wrong (or, at least, conflating "argument-from-design" with ID).
>>"First off, design is not young earth creationism. This is not to
>>say that there are no young earth creationists who are also design
>>theorists (Paul Nelson and Siegfried Scherer come to mind)."
So you indeed acknowledge that Dembski stipulates natural selection and an old earth? And that he acknowledges degenerative mutations or mutation that result in no net information gain? As I stated before, I consider Behe and Dembski to define modern ID (a definition which you've accepted as well). Therefore, ID and Creationism are logically incompatible.
Dembski could call Paley an IDer as well, but Paley was an "argument-from-design" person rather than a modern IDer (for whatever it's worth to be a modern IDer).
In order to stipulate a "new earth", you have to disagree with science. But I am only considering the "scientific" ID community (centered around Behe and Dembski), therefore these people are not part of that group (regardless of whatever labels people, Dembski included, might apply to them).
Scientific ID can be tested as a scientific theory. Given than (according to NPR), something like 70% of people in England believe in ID, I feel that it would be worthwhile to just spend 0.000001% of our research budget to just test it, instead of having each side flaming each other back and forth, ad infinitum.
Here's an example of fundamentalists attacking Dembski because he stipulates an old earth, etc.
s ki.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0207demb
It's kind of painful to read; they're wrong about Augustine too.
But yeah, it encapsulates what I said in a nutshell. Creationists like ID more than they like "Darwinism", but ID and Creationism are fundamentally antithetical ideas.
^spoked^spoken
>>>>simply any of your purported experts on ID
>>Like Dembski. *shrug*
No, you're misunderstanding yet again. Dembski does not deny natural selection. He denies that natural selection can cause the so-called "ball rolling uphill mutations", or mutation in which information is gained. He does allow for mutations in which information is lost. For example, some bacteria have mutated around antibiotics by eliminating a gene which made them vulnerable to the antibiotic.
I've spoked wih Dembski in real life when he came to my campus (and stumped him, to boot), so I doubt you're going to win by mechanically repeating that Dembski and other IDers don't/can't believe in natural selection.