This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

fizhburn's Profile

fizhburn's Avatar Joined almost 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by fizhburn

More Discussions by fizhburn

Latest Comments by fizhburn

Go to: Lying for Jesus?

fizhburn's Avatar Jump to comment 8923 by fizhburn

Comment #249906 by gogglebrains

Welcome to the site! I hope your post is the beginning of a constructive dialogue and not an example of drive-by passive-aggressive nonsense :)

What ever, specifically, makes you think RD is "afraid"?

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:25:00 UTC | #237800

Go to: 'Rare' mammoth skull discovered

fizhburn's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by fizhburn

<!-- Be sure tags are closed -->Comment #241602 by AfraidToDie

If it was like 5, 13, 17, 25, 29, 197, 205, etc., how many more would it take for ID'ers to actually accept the obvious fact that this series can easily be defined as 4n minus 3?
They don't see this as a search for underlying principle, is the thing, nor as confirmation that the principle (thought to hold of the relevant series for antecedent reasons) holds of the facts. They are looking for a whole 'nother animal, something much more like a continuum of transition (which, given finite generations, is strange by itself).

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:27:00 UTC | #229296

Go to: Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

fizhburn's Avatar Jump to comment 95 by fizhburn

Here I was, enjoying a nice quiet hangover, and some fool on the internet has to go and ruin it with unusually hyperbolic cluelessness.

JoMo: stop ctrl-c/ctrl-vomiting nutjob windbaggery and just make your arguments yourself.

Thanks in advance,

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:34:00 UTC | #223036

Go to: No credit for creationism

fizhburn's Avatar Jump to comment 132 by fizhburn

If we're employing a principle of charity, then what might be the best formulation of ID?

Basically it's asserting that there is at least one evolutionary event (on Earth) that cannot be explained by intention-less processes. That is, excluding human meddling with various genomes.

This claim is weaker than the claim that YHWH or whoever reached into germ cells and cocked things up, but even so weakened there is nothing to say in favor of it. Given the history of science in filling in gaps in our knowledge, that proposed irreducibly complex systems have so far turned out not to be so irreducible (thus that an adequate criterion for IC has not been formulated), and that nothing like evidence for design has ever been found (since appearance can't count as evidence unless some correct argument by analogy holds, which it doesn't), by induction we shouldn't take ID seriously.

But it can be formulated as a "falsifiable" hypothesis. Since its confirmation requires us to embark upon an exhaustive cataloging of the evolution of every biological system in existence, it can safely be put on a shelf indefinitely. Certainly it doesn't give any additional impetus to a research program that was going to be carried out anyway.

As MPhil pointed out, the stronger hypothesis that a nonphysical entity performed some intervention is a non-starter, assuming you agree that (i) non-physical entities cannot generate physical causes [what would that even be like?], and (ii) "science" deals only with physical facts.

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:20:00 UTC | #222436

Go to: The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

fizhburn's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by fizhburn

If there were reason to believe that being an atheist actually motivated promoting a secularist agenda, it would in fact be a defeasible reason to vote for the candidate. Grayling is giving some reasons to prefer atheists to theists in general; but whether Miliband promotes secularism is where the real test lies. Perhaps those of you on the island can tell us?

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:14:00 UTC | #221988

More Comments by fizhburn