I only did it to make a point, that I stongly disagree with the protocol, and frankly, I have better things to do than post here. To me, negative votes w/o any comment(s) to substantiate them, are ridiculous. I once debated a retired lawyer, Tim Beazley on Amazon.com, a debate that went on for weeks. Points were made, rebutted, sometimes rephrased, etc, by both sides. Beazley used a lot of ad homs, his favorite being IDiot for ID'ist.

I enjoyed the debate, feeling that my args trumped his, and none of mine utilized ad homs of any kind; only logic, and 'reference based' when needed. At some point down the road, Amazon not only banned Beazley from commenting, but they deleted the scores of comments he had made over several years. Shortly after that, they banned his close associate John Kwok from posting there as well. I assume it was the result of complaints (none by me), or of having assumed a more conservative position than in the past.

Later, I criticized Amazon for their actions, and got plus voting numbers for that comment. But hey, I don't give a shit about the voting points, neither here, there or on youtube. At least in my case, they count for nothing, nada zip. My arguments are logic based, and the result of fifteen years of biologic study of genetics, ten years of blogging, and around forty years of engineering experience. Negative points can actually increase the scrutiny and review of comments, and in some cases, actually help to make a point. It's hiding or deleting comments that I strongly disagree with, and as I stated above, I'm outa here.

If you still think that censorship (or burying comments) is the way to go, read Yudkowsky's original post again, since he makes my point. And if you're the least bit curious regarding my past dialogues, search leebowman, "lee bowman", beauleeman, or "beau leeman".

The plausibility of my genetic conjectures have nothing to do with the other speculations that followed them. If they are viable, then my predications will be confirmed.

So tell me, do you feel that consciousness is a synapic brain function? If so, what abou OOB experiences? Are they all BS? The brain is an interface to body functions and sensory input. The only thing it has to do with consciousness is to color it, i.e. mood, personality, inherited character traits. These conclusions are based on my own observations, and some emperical testing I have done. But I didn't expect that you or most others to just 'accept' it, based on a few statements.

To the lurkers out there who may be more open to non orthodoxy, consciousness is not only external to the brain/ body, but may allow you non corporeal adventures some day. The body is merelly a vehicle for an earthbound experience.

But the point of my comment (original) was that ID and Creationism are totally separate concepts, though with some commonality. In a venn diagram, I'd give them only about 10% overlap.

By the way, this comment was hidden from view when it incurred -5 points, so I'm reposting it here. But I do have a suggestion: When you disagree, consider posting the point(s) of your disagreement, rather than voting it down with one finger. Or is this too much of an intellectual challenge for you? I think the answer is obvious.

The plausibility of my genetic conjectures have nothing to do with the other speculations that followed them. If they are viable, then my predications will be confirmed.

So tell me, do you feel that consciousness is a synapic brain function? If so, what abou OOB experiences? Are they all BS? The brain is an interface to body functions and sensory input. The only thing it has to do with consciousness is to color it, i.e. mood, personality, inherited character traits. These conclusions are based on my own observations, and some emperical testing I have done. But I didn't expect that you or most others to just 'accept' it, based on a few statements.

To the lurkers out there who may be more open to non orthodoxy, consciousness is not only external to the brain/ body, but may allow you non corporeal adventures some day. The body is merelly a vehicle for an earthbound experience.

But the point of my comment (original) was that ID and Creationism are totally separate concepts, though with some commonality. In a venn diagram, I'd give them only about 10% overlap.

On DI's 'General Questions' page, they make their general ID statement as cited above, which is a very general statement, that doesn't address the common descent question, where there is some divisiveness within the mainstream ID camp. But they do address the question further down the page.

Regarding that question, as well as ID's compatability with NDE, they state, "It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory." Given that statement, they now agree with common descent, although not necessarily a consensus view of its members in its early days.

They also state that ID is not Bible based, nor is it the same as Creationism. They state, "Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism."

Answers in Genesis, AiG, is however Bible based, and their precepts (cited above) are definitely contra to science. Furthermore, Ken Ham does not endorce ID as a concept.

While Creationism and ID agree that an intelligence created life, the seminal ID concept only addresses biologic life, and not the universe 'in toto'. ID address biologic life, and the tenetative mechanisms for both adaptability (evolution), and novelty and complexity (gene tweaking).

Due to personal beliefs, there are obviously those within the ID community that believe by faith alone, that one God created everything, i.e. the Universe and everything in it. Some are YECs as well. But ID as a disipline is NOT grounded in, nor even REFERS to scriptural references for substantiation. It looks more at statistical probabilities, possible methods of alteration, and the existence of engineering principles (ligament attachment points and the geometry involved as one example).

Similarly, there are scientists that accept NDE as the sole cause of the phylogenetic cascade, but may accept theistic evolution, a vague concept that allows for an intelligence that set the stage, including for some adherents a preloading of biologic life, then left the theater.

But do those scientists employ their faith based concepts in the lab? No, nor do IDists who are objective inquiry based in their pursuit of design inferences. I am one of the latter, who sees design inferences on many fronts, and who has arrived at his conclusions by a study of the data, including the same data the evolutionsist look at. Simply differing conclusions regarding much of that data.

My predictons: Adaptive evolution, a function of the embryogenetic process, is a 'built in' function to adapt to environmental variables as well as to minimize extinctions. Extinctions do happen, many over vast time, but so what? When something no longer functions it is eliminated, or redesigned, take your pick. I further predict that adaptive genes are expressed due to a 'designed in' function to produce variability, rather than folding errors/ mutations. This may be a HOX gene process. Time will tell.

The variability from mutational occurences is accepted as the sole source of novelty and complexity, a concensus viewpoint held by 99.9 percent of scientists (if you want to believe dingbat Brian Alters' statement). The actual figure, if there was a way to detemine it, might surprise you. As a working biologic engineer, and even viewed through the 'rational thought' filter which I employ to assess ALL observable data, there had to be intelligent input, likely a form of genetic engineering, at strategic points in time.

By a god? Not necessarily, but more likely via cosmic spirit entities or design teams, either competitively or merely for something to do, or perhaps surogates of a supreme authority. Further, unless all life forms generate consciousness internally (a jump in logic), they exist as vehicles for spirit entities to inhabit, a kind of sabatical from the cosmic realm.

But feel free to conflate ID with Creationism, a sophmoric and frankly dated position to try to uphold the status quo by discrediting detractors of evolutionary theory as 'religious nuts'. But please, don't label it as 'rational thought'.

Cheers

That he did, as have Barbara Forrest and many others, but those conclusions consist of 'blanket statements', and are subject to scrutiny. Many times when a statement of that ilk is made, there follows a link to one of the Creationist trials (Dover most often), the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, a critique of Forrest's book, 'Creationism's Trojan Horse', or links similar to those provided by Torben. These are just a few of the plethora of evolution supporting references, but the question we're addressing here is simply the "more or less" issue regarding the two camps.

Blanket statements abound in the media, an example being "The US has the best health care system in the world", courtesy of Sean Hannity, and almost on a daily basis. Even given the fact that the US is advanced technologically in many ways, would you buy that statement carte blanch?

First you define a philosophical or evidence based position. Then you debate the validity of its tenets. At that point you can more objectively discuss/ debate the merit of the conflation issue. A complicating factor here is the possibility that there are actually more than 'two camps', or that adherents (of either) may have altered their 'consensus' positions compared to say a decade ago.

After defining the two groups' seminal tenets, we can THEN discuss Dover, Demski, the Wedge et al. Any takers?

Again, what I'm asking for in simple terms is to define the basic beliefs of both camps, and where their beliefs correlate with each other. What are the conceptual differences between the two?

I.E., what does a Creationist believe (seminal concepts)?

What does a design theorist believe (seminal concepts)?