The Memory Hole

by Krauze

In the Memory Hole, we keep all the comments that didn't quit fit in the discussion upstairs.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 5th, 2005 at 5:38 pm and is filed under Memory Hole. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

563 Responses to “The Memory Hole”

tim Says:
May 9th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Hi,

I'm a newbie and willing to learn from you all. Here's a thought and a question had after reading this thread.

First, in reply to:

What's the scientific/theoretical benefit of IDT?

To me it seems that one of the chief benefits/goals of IDT is to create a common theory for all design inferences, across all of science and daily life (and SETI, etc), and hence eliminating any "double standards" which ID theorists accuse evolutionists of applying to biology.

For example, if an evolutionist and an ID theorist happened to be looking at both a watch and a bacterium (while discussing various theories of origins), the ID theorist would claim that both were obviously designed, wheras the evolutionist would claim that the watch is obviously designed and the bacterium is obviously not.

But WHY would they both claim that the watch was designed? Is that a scientific conclusion? What principles apply? And how would those principles be applied to the bacterium?

These seem to be the questions that ID theory aims to answer.

Second:
Question: It seems that "eliminative theories" are related to most of the questions and responses on this thread. Why are eliminative theories (such as EF) viewed with distaste among (at least most of) the contributers to this thread? Why is a "god of the gaps" theory eschewed, in favor of a "chance of the gaps" re Dembsky's "Design Revolution" chapter 15?

Comment by tim — May 9, 2005 @ 11:20 pm

kkawohl Says:
May 15th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
The Intelligent Designer Proclaims:

I Am The Intelligent Designer.
I did not come from nowhere.
I play no magic tricks on man.
I did not create the earth by casting spells.
I had a humble beginning the same as man;
My beginning was at the dawn of spirituality.
My wisdom grows as more spirits unite
After the cessation of life after much physical strife.
Throughout time I have been named God,
Allah, Jehovah, The Great Spirit, and many more.
I do not judge man for his vanity or naivety
To be the one who claims to please me the most.
I am easy to please. I require very little.
I only want you to do what is best for mankind.
I will bless you and wish you well.
I will inspire your mind and you will
Accomplish the unfathomable.
I require no worship. I need nothing from man.
I am self sufficient. I am spirit.

Develop your spirit wisely, the best that you can.
Live your life for the betterment of man.
Your spirit will soon be with me and then
Together we will see and traverse the universe.
There are many wonders to behold,
Your spirit will soar.
You will partake in all the wisdom
That has been gathered from the beginning of time.
The stars will be your playground.
You can play with the animals,
Be with your loved ones,
Listen to the greatest opera,
Stage or musical performances,
Or you can just relax next to a bubbling brook
And enjoy the scenery.
You feel no pain, despair,
Heartache, or negative emotions.
You are now One with me.
You are with the SPIRITUAL UNITY my child.

Comment by kkawohl — May 15, 2005 @ 2:52 pm

edarrell Says:
May 24th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
First, NABT did promulgate the first statement, contrary to Mike Gene's account. It was modified only after Dr. Scott and others, after a great effort of persuasion, convinced the NABT folk that their statement was unnecessarily insulting to religion and scientifically unjustified. It's interesting that this well-documented history eludes ID people, and that instead of saying 'Well, how nice,' IDists think the change something sinister.

Second, following Mike Gene's links to the H. pylori story, I find nothing there that would be encouraging to a current IDist. It's a story of real science done by real scientists, and the evidence finally being so great that it overcame the skepticism of others. The story is neatly paralleled by the story of Wegner and plate tectonics (which most IDists are at least nervous about since it corroborates evolution in living things), and by Darwin's discovery of evolution, which had to overcome Darwin's creationist beliefs and understanding first. ID offers no serendipity, and a great dearth of evidence to support the case.

Without mathematics, we know what design looks like. It's generally accompanied by an external-to-the-thing blueprint, and it can be broken down on the lab bench, left for a couple of weeks, reassembled to run again, or re-engineered for improvements or simply reverse-engineered for duplication. Better designs simplify rather than make more complex.

Living things don't meet those criteria.

Might there be other criteria? Sure, especially if the designer is a supernatural entity. ID proposes not only no new criteria, however, but instead zooms off on an inappropriate analogy that living things are like an electrical signal in a wire, claiming Shannon's electronic information model as good biology — again without evidence.

Good science keeps smacking scientists in the face. Darwin's doubts were constantly hammered on by his collections. Serendipitously, his attempt to get 13 much different birds from 13 different islands was frustrated by the familial ties of the birds. Serendipitously, Darwin ran into the ornithologist who discovered they were all finches. Serendipitously, that ornithologist mentioned to Darwin the discovery.

Mike Gene's example makes a strong case for Darwin, but a weak or non-existent case for ID.

Comment by edarrell — May 24, 2005 @ 2:16 pm

edarrell Says:
May 27th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
ID is a threat to science only to the extent that it discourages kids from pursuing science — and it discourages thousands of kids from doing that — and to the extent it hammers at the foundations of science education, as it does in all 50 states.

Foreign students, especially those from India, Pakistan, South Africa, and Eastern and Southern Europe, will happily take the jobs in science U.S. kids don't fill. It's an interesting twist on the brain drain issue.

We won't feel the effects of the damage ID does until people start to die from stupid antibiotic prescriptions, or until the current and continuing funding cuts to our research into biological warfare, made by politicians like Rick Santorum who are wholly ignorant of how such things work, are exposed by a biological attack on U.S. citizens in which many die or are maimed, and we cannot do anything to assuage the damage or thwart further attacks.

Pharmaceutical research is already moving out of the U.S., and the sacrifice to fundamentalist "science" will start appearing shortly at a stock market near you.

The damage ID does to this nation will only affect you if you need health care, or if you have a pension fund, or if you want a job.

Comment by edarrell — May 27, 2005 @ 6:06 pm

Guts Says:
May 27th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
Edarrel,

You are one short of a six pack, aren't you.

Comment by Guts — May 27, 2005 @ 11:51 pm

Aagcobb Says:
May 29th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
I see you are engaged in the usual IDist/creationist tactic of equating mainstream evolutionary theory with atheism are trying to sell the idea that IDism is compatible with theism and MET isn't. In fact, lots of theists have no problem with MET and lots of problems with pseudoscientific IDism. Your argument is as fallacious as arguing that you have to believe intelligent agents push matter around to explain gravity or your an atheist. God could just as easily use natural means to evolve life as he uses natural means to generate gravity.

Comment by Aagcobb — May 29, 2005 @ 7:39 pm

Guts Says:
May 29th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
"God could just as easily use natural means to evolve life as he uses natural means to generate gravity."

God uses natural means to "generate gravity" How do you figure?

Comment by Guts — May 29, 2005 @ 11:18 pm

edarrell Says:
June 1st, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Mike Gene is very, very touchy about corrections!

Don't take my word for it. On the issue of research reductions, go see for yourself. Here's one site to start from: http://search.csmonitor.com/2005/0414/p14s01-stss.html

Track the issue for a while. See who votes which way. See what happens to research budgets.

Comment by edarrell — June 1, 2005 @ 11:55 pm

Aster Says:
June 3rd, 2005 at 1:22 pm

But do they know what they are looking for ? If they could point at design and say "Here it is !", there would be no problem left for them to resolve, wouldn't it ?

So, because they don't know what design is, they go looking for it at Mt Rushmore, the same way Lamark went looking for his demonstrations in the neck of a girafe.

I suggest we think of "dna" as a plausible illustration of what design is (or in the cell for that matter, or the heart, or the "eye" of Darwin, etc.).

Let's try to prove that "dna" is design, or let's prove the opposite conclusion. But here we've got an item that everybody knows about, on which we can develop the analysis, and perform all the scientific tests that we can think of, until we get to a conclusion.

Comment by Aster — June 3, 2005 @ 1:22 pm

Joy Says:
June 19th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
Tom once again wishes to argue semantics and boogey-men in his own imagination.

This is a serious, not a rhetorical question. If you can come out and say that any significant proportion of Darwinists hold their views on Darwinism because of a reasoned assessment of available evidence; then I will apologise for misunderstanding you, and withdraw my comment.

"Any significant proportion?" Why, if even one duly notable Darwinist holds their position because of reasoned assessment of available evidence s/he would count as 'significant'. But I expect there's many. I've known a couple of 'em myself.

You keep seeing absolutes where there are none, then demanding retractions for what wasn't said in the first place. Please stop.

There is no qualifier here on how many scientists are absolutists in the non-absolute endeavour of science. The "some" qualifier you place so much emphasis on only qualifies those who "don't even know their faith has been invested". This leaves it open that all scientists have their faith invested, but only some don't realise that.

You can read into it whatever you like, and obviously will. That would be your own platter of rotten fish. I don't eat rotten fish, thanks.

Further, though the sample was only of some Californian scientists; Mike clearly attempted to draw conclusions about the scientific community in general, conclusions you did not dispute.

I owe you no "retractions" for things I didn't say, and I am not required to dispute anyone else's claims just because you take issue with them. If you have a problem with what Mike says, talk to Mike. Maybe he is more tolerant of inanities than I am.

Comment by Joy — June 19, 2005 @ 8:57 pm

tom_kbel Says:
June 19th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
"Any significant proportion?" Why, if even one duly notable Darwinist holds their position because of reasoned assessment of available evidence s/he would count as "˜significant'. But I expect there's many. I've known a couple of "˜em myself.

I am sure if one notable Darwinist holds their position because of a reasoned assesment of available evidence, that indeed would be significant. But one would not be a "significant proportion". You are rellying on a deliberately created ambiguity to evade the question. Speaking of "duly notable Darwinists" you say that, "you expect there are many". "You expect" Does this mean you have not read many duly notable Darwinists so that you are not in a position to know? Or does it rather mean that you don't know of any duly notable Darwinists you would count in that category, but rather than admit that, you take the escape of vague platitudes? As there are very many Darwinists, "many" is consistent with there being ony one or two percent of Darwinists who are not guilty of "self imposed ideological blindness".

I will ask the question again. What is your ball park estimate of the percentage of Darwinists who are Darwinists because of a reasoned assessment of the available evidence?

You can read into it whatever you like, and obviously will.

Actually, I will read into it what was written. Despite you claim to have qualified your statement by saying "some", your most abusive comments were not qualified by that word at all. It is true that that is just a matter of semantics, ie, the meanings of words. I do not see why I am interested in the meanings of the words you use excuses you from having to defend your comments. It is of course, always possible that you simply phrased your comments poorly. In that case, a person with integrity will say as much, and rephrase.

It is however, extrordinarilly unlikely that that is your situation. Since I have started reading your comments, you have liberally sprinkled them with blanket comments about Darwinists and their refusal to base their beliefs on emperical evidence. Do you now believe, not that "Darwin's defenders practice rationalism but believe it to be empiricism"; but that only some do; while a significant proportion practise empericism and believe it to be empericism? Do you now believe that a significant proportion of Darwin's defenders actively test the emperical predictions of Darwin's theories?

It seems to me your responce shows bad faith. You want to condemn Darwinists as dogmatists and absolutists; as not basing their theory on emperical research; as intruding unneeded into metphysics – and do so frequently, and without noticable qualification. But you don't want to think of yourself as a dogmatist and absolutist – so you quibble about what you said, even though the implications are quite clear.

If you really believe that a signficant proportion of Darwinists base their belief on evidence, isn't it about time you started moderating what you say. And if you wish to use immoderate language as you have been, don't try to pretend your views are in fact moderate afterall.

Comment by tom_kbel — June 19, 2005 @ 10:19 pm

Joy Says:
June 20th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
I notice that Tom is still unwilling to accept anything I have to say about why "Darwinists" accept the so-called [by "Darwinists"] 'Central Dogma' of the so-called [by "Darwinists"] 'Orthodoxy' which rules evolutionary biology with an iron fist. Which, since Tom posts to this blog as a defender of orthodoxy's central dogma, is hardly surprising. Despite Tom's expressed shock at my non-surprise in matters such as these.

I will ask the question again. What is your ball park estimate of the percentage of Darwinists who are Darwinists because of a reasoned assessment of the available evidence?

This is a loaded question, considering that whatever I might offer as a "ball park estimate" off the top of my head would be nothing more than a wild guess with no more validity than a guess I might make as to the number of jelly beans in a mayonnaise jar. Keeping statistics on the number of "reasoned" adherents to Darwinian Orthodoxy is not my job.

So I think it's best to let Mr. 'kbel' stew in his own mousetrap on this one. Perhaps he has the statistics handy and will enlighten us all.

Actually, I will read into it what was written. Despite you claim to have qualified your statement by saying "some", your most abusive comments were not qualified by that word at all. It is true that that is just a matter of semantics, ie, the meanings of words. I do not see why I am interested in the meanings of the words you use excuses you from having to defend your comments. It is of course, always possible that you simply phrased your comments poorly. In that case, a person with integrity will say as much, and rephrase.

Whoa! Now I am accused of semantic "abuse." This might be "Darwin abuse" or maybe just "tom_kbel abuse," but to tell the truth, I really don't care. Either way it's rotten fish, and I don't eat rotten fish. Until and unless 'kbel' can demonstrate reading comprehension skills capable of discriminating between what is actually written and what his imagination conjures, he will rate no response other than my semi-amusement that he feels so threatened by my meager opinions.

Comment by Joy — June 20, 2005 @ 4:47 pm

tom_kbel Says:
June 20th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Joy:

1) You are unwilling when asked to define what you mean by "metaphysics"; but base your claims against Darwinism on a supposed unwarrented intrusion into metaphysics. If you are not willing to be clear about, or provide cogent reason for your most often repeated claim, why should I take it seriously?

2) It is only a loaded question because any reasonable answer would expose the hypocrissy of your frequent blanket condemnations of Darwinists.

3) As to being threatened by your opinions; your opinions are transparently a joke. You purport to comment on the philosophy of science and yet: you cannot remember which century empericism as a philosophy started; you cannot distinguish between rationalism (the epistemological doctrine) and the enlightenment (the social movement); and you don't even understand the meaning of a priori.

Unfortunately, I don't subscribe to the view that peoples opinions should be immune from criticism just because they are total tripe.

Comment by tom_kbel — June 20, 2005 @ 6:38 pm

Doug McGee Says:
June 20th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
No one's threatened by your opinions Joy. We just tire of your bigoted denigrations of a whole profession, supported only by a caricature of your own making.
Where's Krauze and Mike? They wrap themselves in the victimology of stereotypes, and rant daily against the use of stereotypes, but it seems their rants are nothing more than a rhetorical tool they learned from "persecuted" Xtians.

Comment by Doug McGee — June 20, 2005 @ 9:30 pm

tom_kbel Says:
June 20th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
So, Mike. Here you are being condemned because of what someone could make of your little post rather than what you actually said.

And it appears that you don't like it.

But it seems to me that you are getting just a mild dose of the medicine you dished out to Watson. There you compared him to Hitler, not because of something he said, or the nature of his view – but because someone in the future might start from Watson, head of into left field and end up with Hitler.

I must say that I am deeply unsympathetic to your cries of anguish.

Comment by tom_kbel — June 20, 2005 @ 11:39 pm

tom_kbel Says:
June 21st, 2005 at 4:01 pm
The art of parody requires that there be at least a subtle resemblance to the thing parodied. As an evolutionist, I cannot see any resemblance in these parodies to any arguments used by evolutionists to prove evolution.

I do, however, see the resemblance to creationist misunderstandings of evolutionary arguments; so I have to thank Commander for an amusing parody on creationist misunderstanding.

Comment by tom_kbel — June 21, 2005 @ 4:01 pm

tom_kbel Says:
June 21st, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Ariel:

And now a parody of creationists as the fat comic nerd on the Simpsons.

Delicious.

Comment by tom_kbel — June 21, 2005 @ 4:07 pm

Doug McGee Says:
June 28th, 2005 at 8:32 am
I didn't realize that I was supposed to be the vanguard of ARN. Sorry Doug, but I admit that I'm kind of selfish. I rarely read threads that I am not involved in and focus primarily on topics that deal with me (directly or indirectly). For example, I have had to spend a good deal of time deflecting character assassination and misrepresentation of my views.

You mean you had to rant ad naseum about stereotypes? lol But we both know many of your ID, (creationist) brethren posted in those very threads, and you point me to a lone (or two) post(s) out of 4000+?

What's more, by picking fights with the creationists, I effectively double the population of my opponents. Now you can begin to understand Doug's "concern." But it's more than this. Throughout the years, several critics have tried to slime me in rather despicable ways. If I succeed in antagonizing just about everyone at ARN, it would be much easier for some of the trolls to isolate and slime me, now wouldn't it?

Sorry Mike, I never knew you had such fear of the trolls. Here all this time you have expressed your concern for the truth and the facts, but only if you don't alienate the folks in the big tent? Or is it the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Strength in numbers? What? Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems if you were truely an evolutionist, you would care when the truth is distorted, despite the "personal" (since your rather anonymous not much id is invested) cost. I know I've been outnumbered on many a creationist board … it's fun.

It's a clever strategy on Doug's part. Bait me to help debunk the creationists, so I have less time to come up with my own arguments/questions, double the pool of my opponents, and make myself an easier target for character assassination, or"¦become part of the Wedge. It's quite clever, but thoroughly dishonest.

But my dear friend, they claim to be IDists – just like you, not "creationists." I'm really not baiting you to debunk the creationists, I'm baiting you to stand up and speak out for what you claim you believe. Facts for which I am still somewhat in doubt.
And everytime you blog to promote ID, you ARE a part of the Wedge, that's why that big stereotype brush keeps smacking you in the face. There will never be a post-wedge-ID because the two are synonymous. If you're sincere, I suggest you denounce the ID/Wedgies, remove yourself from it's affiliations, and promote Teleogical Design or some such. This blog seems suitable for such endeavors … and you wouldn't have to fear the trolls. Then, time permitting, mayhaps you can enlighten me on the mechanisms of FLE.

Comment by Doug McGee — June 28, 2005 @ 8:32 am

edarrell Says:
June 29th, 2005 at 12:12 am
I've seen a lot of people claim that their faith is ridiculed and shattered "by the pervasive worldview in our culture," when in fact their friends were just trying to keep them from stubbing their toe or smashing into a wall.

Science is done on a lab bench, and the results speak for themselves without filter or spin. If ID had a whit of science about it, it would be all the rage in the laboratory. As it is, there is not a single lab on Earth where ID is practiced.

Nor are there any in heaven.

Comment by edarrell — June 29, 2005 @ 12:12 am

Krauze Says:
June 29th, 2005 at 6:58 am
Hi Doug,

I didn't move your previous reply, but I did move this. When reading the comment guidelines, did you notice this part?:

"Don't complain about something having been moved. As said, if you don't like how the place is run, find another place."

Comment by Krauze — June 29, 2005 @ 6:58 am

MikeGene Says:
June 29th, 2005 at 9:03 am
I moved the previous one, as it had nothing to do with the OP.

Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2005 @ 9:03 am

MikeGene Says:
June 29th, 2005 at 9:59 am
Doug,

Since you want to make me the topic, I'll walk the extra mile and answer you here. But I tire of these type of arguments that were so common on ARN, I get the last word here.

Doug:

You mean you had to rant ad naseum about stereotypes? lol

No, what I did was calmly point out your reliance on stereotype. Since it is true, you have no counter-argument. Since you have no counter-argument, you get mad. Since you get mad, you project your anger on me. Thus, you accuse me of "ranting." Instead of complaining, you need to come to terms with the fact that you view all your opponents as cartoon characters.

But we both know many of your ID, (creationist) brethren posted in those very threads, and you point me to a lone (or two) post(s) out of 4000+?

I see. So I am supposed to pick a fight with a creationist because the creationist agrees with me about the way you rely on stereotypes. How much sense does that make?

Sorry Mike, I never knew you had such fear of the trolls. Here all this time you have expressed your concern for the truth and the facts, but only if you don't alienate the folks in the big tent?

No fear. Just an appropriate, learned understanding of the various tactics many critics will employ.

Or is it the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Strength in numbers? What? Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems if you were truely an evolutionist, you would care when the truth is distorted, despite the "personal" (since your rather anonymous not much id is invested) cost. I know I've been outnumbered on many a creationist board "¦ it's fun.

You are projecting. I did not posture as the guardian of truth. I introduced my arguments and questions and proceeded from there. As you can see from the link I provided you, I was waiting and quite willing to actively participate in an attempt to reduce the polarization. You never showed any interest. Had a decent core of a meager five-or-so critics shown a willingness to criticize some of the outrageous claims of their fellow critics, I may have had the time to read and challenge some of the creationist claims. You dropped the ball.

But my dear friend, they claim to be IDists "“ just like you, not "creationists."

There are ID creationists and ID evolutionists. You don't understand ID.

I'm really not baiting you to debunk the creationists, I'm baiting you to stand up and speak out for what you claim you believe. Facts for which I am still somewhat in doubt.

Yes, you were trying to bait me to debunk creationists for the very reasons I cited. The only other explanation would be that you felt the creationists were beating you up and you are now mad at me for not rescuing you.

And everytime you blog to promote ID, you ARE a part of the Wedge, that's why that big stereotype brush keeps smacking you in the face.

As a conspiracy theorist, the Wedge means what you want it to mean.

There will never be a post-wedge-ID because the two are synonymous.

Yes, it's clear you will always cling to the Wedge.

If you're sincere, I suggest you denounce the ID/Wedgies, remove yourself from it's affiliations, and promote Teleogical Design or some such. This blog seems suitable for such endeavors "¦ and you wouldn't have to fear the trolls. Then, time permitting, mayhaps you can enlighten me on the mechanisms of FLE.

But I know how you conspiracy theorists think. The new label will just be portrayed as a new face of the Wedge "“ Trojan Horses all the way down, y'know.

Like I said, that's the last word – there's no more Hole to send you to.

Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2005 @ 9:59 am

hebenz Says:
June 30th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
It's great that this Cordova guy is posting in this thread. Does anyone really think it's about logic and science for him? He's a dreamy-eyed creationist who's taken up the ID banner, and he wants to convert the youth through biology classes, professional biologists be damned. He even cites the ID movement's dream result from a 15-year old Kansas student. Their "science" is obviously dubious-to-junk to the science community, but they just might be able hoodwink the 15-year olds. For every Mike Gene, there are hundreds or thousands of Cordovas, I'm afraid.

Comment by hebenz — June 30, 2005 @ 1:59 pm

Steve Petermann Says:
June 30th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
hebenz,

It's great that this Cordova guy is posting in this thread. Does anyone really think it's about logic and science for him? He's a dreamy-eyed creationist

Salvador is certainly not "dreamy-eyed" but it you want some examples of dreamy-eyed, check out Dennett and his Darwinian "universal acid" or E.O. Wilson's consilience of science through evo-psych. Now that's dreamy-eyed.

Comment by Steve Petermann — June 30, 2005 @ 2:43 pm

tom_kbel Says:
June 30th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
I have never deleted any of your posts. The only thing I did to you was move one of your posts to the Hole, because you tried to derail the thread about Lynch by resurrecting the discussion of Watson and eugenics. Y'see, you threw in the towel on the Watson thread and declared you wouldn't talk about it any more. Anyway, you shouldn't think I will be intimidated by some crybaby, victim routine. For the last five years, I have nearly 5000 postings showing a willingness to answer the questions of critics.

So it was the tooth fairy who deleted my responce to your last post in the "How California Scientists Percieve ID"; and also my responce to Krauze's last post in the same thread? Give me a break. Are you now going to follow Guts example in dishonestly refusing to take responsibility for his own actions?
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001110.html#c36744

No it wasn't. You tried to make me the topic by making an untrue claim about me. The topic is not me. Don't bother replying to this, as I warned that I will aggressively moderate this thread.

Give me a break. You focused on on sentence to call my post of topic. Meanwhile you ignored the preceding two paragraphs, plus the two quoted paragraphs before that which were clearly on topic.

Further, the essence of the claim was true (although it might have been better worded). Your entire scenario is set up in such a way that you can have a kick at the "extremism" and "intellectual irresponsibility" of "most" ID critics. In the meantime, you give the wedgies a free pass, even when they comment directly on your post in a way that shows your prognostications of a post wedge world are bunk. In fact, by making criticism of ID critics such a central part of your original post, you make your criticism part of the topic. By ruling it of topic, you show that you want to kick the opposition when they can't kick back.

Don't bother replying to this, as I warned that I will aggressively moderate this thread.

Put me in the "Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn" category on this one. Since all my posts over a two day period got deleted (deleted, not shifted to the Memory Hole), I have posted on the assumption that each next post will also be deleted. So far as I am concerned, you and the entire crew here at Telic Thoughts have shown by your actions that you are not interested in debate – only in selling your message.

Comment by tom_kbel — June 30, 2005 @ 4:00 pm

Doug McGee Says:
June 30th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Telic Thoughts have shown by your actions that you are not interested in debate "“ only in selling your message.

Of course, and Sal "Mr non-dogmatic YEC" is their salesman.

Comment by Doug McGee — June 30, 2005 @ 9:25 pm

g arago Says:
July 1st, 2005 at 5:22 am
Hello Mr. Petermann,

You didn't deny that he's a creationist. Is it true? And are you?

Salvador may not be "˜dreamy-eyed,' perhaps you are right about that; pragmatic and empirical is that Latin-American, Wash, D.C. pro-ID cat. I saw his picture in Nature for his evangelical exploits on behalf of IDists in America and to me he didn't look dreamy. But there are indeed, undeniably unrealistic dreams he is flaunting with his evangelistic-ID zeal. Do you not recognize them? Are you wanting to become an evangelical IDist too?

Please don't duck the issue by referring to "˜them Darwinists,' Dennett, Wilson and others who are easy targets. Why not attack socio-biol or evo-psych directly with a telic-thoughts-psych if that is what you've joined this blog for? Salvador will still find networks greater than yours, whether or not ID makes scientific breakthroughs, based on his mainstream American-evangelical religious views, if not on his fringe-experimental scientific philosophy.

Salvador is a Wedgie, pure and simple. He has repeated this like a broken record, propaganda tactic over the last two years or so. He is (read: must be) against Mike Gene as a non-traditional IDist, though probably pleased for any advertising on Mike's blog that comforts or adds to (or at least doesn't contradict) ID ideas and feelings. This is why he claims to be "˜non-dogmatic' while promoting his own form of dogmatism in conforming to the views of certain ID leaders, and even to those who pre-date the IDM but who use the words "˜design' or "˜intelligence' in their vocabulary. This is why he promotes classes in ID theory, whether in schools, universities, colleges or church groups, even if the "˜science' of ID is not (yet) capable of delivering. This promotion of ID courses fits perfectly with the Wedge strategy, which Mike Gene is now somehow supporting by encouraging a course in ID, even if in religion classes. This is basic Wedge-in-action.

A PWW would mean isolation for those such as Salvador who suggest ID as an updated form of scientific creationism or as a "˜rational or probabilistic proof' of God's (or the un-named IDer's) existence. ID may continue to press for legitimacy, though it would have to distance itself from YEC-IDists. George Murphy has shown us this clearly in his discussion with Salvador at ARN. Salvador is likely not against "˜telic thoughts,' simply because he feels this somehow supports his views of ID under a big, bigger, biggest tent of "˜scientific theology' or "˜theistic science.' There is no reason not to support those who are at least not against one's convoluted views of REVOLUTIOnism, though Mike Gene admits ID theory is revolution-not.

Salvador believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Really, he does (like many Americans, who again distinguish themselves from much of the rest of the world))! Did you know this, Steve Petermann? This was one of the major things that disqualified "˜creation science,' i.e. since mainstream scientists agree otherwise, as does Michael Behe a contradictory IDist himself, that the Earth is not young but "˜old'. If Mike Gene's proposed PWW is to become a reality, it will require similar proclamations against ID-Creation Science. It would split the ID-tent; ID in a religion or philosophy class is emphatically not ID-science.

The problem with Salvador's particular version of ID (since there is no singular version to criticize, but many theories of ID) is that he invokes creationist ideas and authors to legitimize his ID views. He evangelizes (or tries to evangelize) when on an evangelical stage and speaks (or tries to speak) in scientific terms when on a scientific stage. He switches between "˜no one here but us scientists' and "˜don't want to address the theology of ID' at his own whim. This lacks integrity, depth and rigour, is unfair to theologians who would not be swayed by lacklustre science (as a one-way ticket) and is disingenuous to religious persons who would (unknowingly) hear only a one-sided view of "˜science' in Christian student groups. ID in religion (or philosophy, used pejoratively) classes, but Salvador is really a scientist, not a philosopher or a trained theologian.

ID has not satisfied the majority of readers/listeners that it is THE BRIDGE between science and theology. Is this the reason Mike really wants to propose a Post-Wedge-World? Is Mike Gene proposing a bridge between science and theology with his views on origins, purpose, meaning and teleology? I find that to be far-fetched.

Sorry for the contra-Salvador rant, Steve, but I've witnessed firsthand both the damage and the goods (e.g. marketing) he's delivered in the last few years. And he hasn't even published a paper or book yet to back his talk up with results! He's only made a social survey that he uses to bolster his "˜science,' while at the same time he ridicules social scientists without apology or humility to boot. Why not ask him to publish something in his fields of "˜expertise'?

Please see the Salvador vs. Lamoureux thread at ARN to confirm his avoiding inconvenient questions, his weakness in biology and his toeing the Dembskian-line for authoritarian support. There he was unwilling to address the role of "˜interpretation' and unwilling to accept the "˜concordism' tones of his views. Lamoureux outmatched Salvador in theology just as he outmatched Johnson in biology. The scientific and the theological stories there are both open to be reviewed by any honest seeker, i.e. a theist, agnostic or otherwise who would "˜follow the evidence (or interpretation) where it leads.'

If Dembski and Salvador want a biology-in/biology-out victory over naturalism, secularism and materialism, then there's news for them that they don't want to hear and will likely ignore: they are barking in the wrong places! It's probably because they've had promotional success in certain circles and thus think their strategy (Wedge-like) is working. When will they learn they can't turn the tide of free thinking people by appealing to gaps in current knowledge that are unable to be filled with a catchy concept dynamic-duo? It will take someone outside the American-inspired ID multiverse to break the news to them; what a gem it may be.

Though probably I don't agree with his adherence to evolutionism (if that is indeed his view) or his fear of religionists, I surely do agree with hebenz, contrary to the approach of Mike Gene, that anti-ID people are not irrationally concerned with political ID. There are indeed those who have a realistic case against (and reason to combat) politicization in the name of ID = scientific revolution, even if they support the theistic views of the majority of those inside the IDM. For those who don't support theistic-ID but who wish for another version of ID to suit their irreligious or agnostic pro-scientific (scientism) views, there doesn't seem to be a safe way out. That is, if the DI, ID Network and those in control of the ID circus have their say and use the Wedge document to light the way, the future of science-in-America is still in doubt.

Mike Gene, Krauze, Steve Peterman and Guts may not be among the majority of theistic-IDists, but they are, in one way or another, furthering usage of the Wedge (or at least its intentions) by supporting the concept, theory or movement of ID over against whatever version of neo-Darwinism or evolutionism they see as their foe. The question really is how far are they willing to go? It is impossible to get beyond a Wedge ideology if they are standing obviously still inside ID's Wedge against scientific materialism. But like I said, this may not be a bad thing in itself.

Those with ears please hear.

Hopeful thoughts of peace for those on all sides in this time of discourse,

Arago

p.s. I wrote this before reading Mike's June 30th p.m. posts, but I wonder what Mike thinks ID is if it is not "˜science'? For example, what is it that he hears whispering? Is that the spirit of nature whispering or something else? This is imo a great analogy, btw.

"Instead of being afraid of a well-planned, well-funded specifically identified agenda to get "˜the designer' taught in the schools, you'll have to be afraid of people who think differently in a pluralistic democracy and whose thinking goes back at least 2500 years." "“ Mike Gene

Let me repeat, I am not a (neo)-Darwinist and I am not afraid of IDists.

Comment by g arago — July 1, 2005 @ 5:22 am

DataDoc Says:
July 1st, 2005 at 7:11 am
"Many supporters of Darwinism fear that if intelligent design orientations find there way into mainstream science it will retard or halt progress."

I don't think many supporters of Darwinism are worried about ID finding its way into mainstream science. It appears to have lost its battle with selection sometime in the 19th century – if there was ever a time when ID was a part of science at all.

There's certainly no flood of ID papers being published. PCID is still so desperate for anything ID oriented that they're reduced to publishing outright crankery like Chris Langon's piece.

"But it is true of every new paradigm that the establishment tries to 'select out' something that challenges its place."

Can you give some examples of this? The one I hear most often is Eugene Wigner's theories on what is now called continental drift, but his problem was scant evidence that the continents had drifted along with a total lack of theories that could explain how something like a continent could move. When solid evidence was found that they had moved (from the magnetic tracings on the sea floor that showed the continents' tracks), the theory was quickly adopted and scientists started looking for how it happened.

I've also heard that Einstein was resisted, but this is hardly true. It took a while for physicists to figure out what he was talking about, since the ideas were extremely radical and he used tensor mathematics that were unfamiliar to most people, but as soon as people could figure out a way to test his theory, they did so and when it started to pass those tests, it quickly became a part of science.

What else? Quantum mechanics? Now there's a group of truly off the wall phenomena that virtually turned science on it's head. It should have been resisted to the death if your theory is correct, but it too was quickly accepted. People may have had trouble believing it, but the experiments were done and the evidence was undeniable.

Neutrinos? They remained theoretical and didn't become a part of mainstream science for several years – until evidence of their existence was found.

Quarks? They were just a theory too until scattering experiments showed that particles bounce off protons just exactly the way they would be expected to bounce if protons had three smaller particles inside them.

I don't think ID's problem is that it's being rejected by science, although this seems to be the reigning ID claim. I think ID's problem is that it can't find any evidence to support the theory. Why should science drop a theory like Darwinian evolution, which has a mechanism that can be demonstrated, a fossil record showing that it has occurred, DNA which shows the traces of past evolution and much more while ID has …

What evidence DOES ID have?

Comment by DataDoc — July 1, 2005 @ 7:11 am

DataDoc Says:
July 1st, 2005 at 7:37 am
"Seems to me that resorting to an argument-from-motive at best reflects a laziness to address the issues, and at worst is an unscrupulous attempt to cast aspersions on the intellectual integrity of someone. Or even worse yet an appeal that whole groups who hold certain worldviews are ignorant, stupid, or incorrigible somehow."

Look at it this way. Suppose a fairly large group of people starts to make claims about the world – in this case, that an Intelligent Designer is absolutely necessary to explain certain aspects of the world.

Suppose these aspects are already covered by existing theory that is well integrated into the body of scientific knowledge.

Suppose also that this new group of people absolutely refuses to provide any scientific evidence for their theory, relying instead on philosophical theories that are full of massive holes.

Suppose that all attempts to call attention to the holes in these theories are ignored or countered with theories with even bigger holes.

Suppose that what these people mostly do is gainsay conventional, well established theories of evolution.

Suppose also that these same people who criticise evolution demonstrate a remarkable ignorance about how it's supposed to work, which makes most of their criticism not only useless, but bizarrely so, with dozens of straw men being set up and knocked down without any of them effectively criticising evolution.

Suppose also that these people demonstrate a remarkable combination of pugnaciousness and hubris, regularly telling scientists working in fields they don't even understand that they're wrong, promising that their ideas will revolutionise science when they're accepted, claiming to have discovered brand new basic laws of the universe and comparing themselves to Newton and other famous scientists.

Suppose also that the other major activity of this group is using policital and PR methods to try to force their ideas into science, both in science classes, and into the scientific literature.

With all this, can you understand why a lot of people might wonder why in the world these people are doing all of these things? It's certainly not for their stated reasons – they're not doing anything for science at all.

Finally, suppose you notice that the ideas this group of people are pushing come straight out of their religion – they believe that their God is the mysterious Intelligent Designer and they are using the same tactics that others with similar religious beliefs have used to try to force their religious beliefs onto society.

Given all that, can you see that maybe the attention to motives is justified?

Comment by DataDoc — July 1, 2005 @ 7:37 am

edarrell Says:
July 1st, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Growth of ID-friendly scientists? There were about 300, total, in 1995. There were about 300, total, in 2003. There are about 300, total, today. There may have been a couple of conversions, but there have been an equal or greater number who realized what was going on and asked not to be counted by Discovery Institute as friendly to ID.

Is this the "little lie" tactic in progress?

Comment by edarrell — July 1, 2005 @ 3:21 pm

MikeGene Says:
July 1st, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Tom:

So it was the tooth fairy who deleted my responce to your last post in the "How California Scientists Percieve ID"; and also my responce to Krauze's last post in the same thread? Give me a break. Are you now going to follow Guts example in dishonestly refusing to take responsibility for his own actions?

I did not delete your posts. If I had deleted them, I would proudly admit so that I could explain what it was about them that caused me to delete them. I don't appreciate your careless accusations.

Give me a break. You focused on on sentence to call my post of topic. Meanwhile you ignored the preceding two paragraphs, plus the two quoted paragraphs before that which were clearly on topic.

The sentence I focused on was where you attempted to spread misinformation about me. I don't care if you have a 1000 word essay. If you spread misinformation about me, that is what I will focus on. If you think you have a strong point, resist the temptation to spread misinformation about me, as you will be putting your strong point at risk. And remember, I know myself, my views, my opinions, my statements, etc. better than you do. If you want to talk about me, you'll likely be at a disadvantage.

Further, the essence of the claim was true (although it might have been better worded).

No it was not.

Your entire scenario is set up in such a way that you can have a kick at the "extremism" and "intellectual irresponsibility" of "most" ID critics.

Yes, those who interpret everything about ID in light of the movement. Is that type of activity supposed to receive a free pass? After all, what critic is criticizing this?

In the meantime, you give the wedgies a free pass, even when they comment directly on your post in a way that shows your prognostications of a post wedge world are bunk.

You missed the entire point. Nothing Salvador posted showed my arguments about a post wedge world are bunk.

In fact, by making criticism of ID critics such a central part of your original post, you make your criticism part of the topic.

Hogwash.

By ruling it of topic, you show that you want to kick the opposition when they can't kick back.

The topic is a discussion of the PWW, not Mike Gene. There is nothing hard about this "“ unless you are obsessed with discrediting me.

Put me in the "Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn" category on this one.

As you wish. So let's have no complaining when I really do delete your postings. Otherwise, you would be lying.

Since all my posts over a two day period got deleted (deleted, not shifted to the Memory Hole), I have posted on the assumption that each next post will also be deleted. So far as I am concerned, you and the entire crew here at Telic Thoughts have shown by your actions that you are not interested in debate "“ only in selling your message.

Your personal perceptions are irrelevant. I have a documented history of being someone who is quite interested in debate: close to 6000 postings on the ARN and Brainstorms forum over the last five years, where the vast majority are part of long, extended debates. What's more, I've already debated you and several other critics on this blog. That documented history trumps Tom's subjective opinion. Case closed.
Don't bother replying Tom, as you are right about one thing – I will not debate in the Hole.

Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2005 @ 4:48 pm

Guts Says:
July 2nd, 2005 at 9:18 am
Tom thinks that he his criticms are being deleted because they are somehow relevant and piercing. Yet, as I have shown by responding to his "deleted" comment over at his home town "anti-ced", he continuously repeats assertions that have already been addressed, and continues to misinterpret papers, as well as misquote his opponents. If thats the best that one can expect from ID criticism, who needs ID proponents?

Comment by Guts — July 2, 2005 @ 9:18 am

Brian Sell Says:
July 8th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Where does one buy stock in all this?

In the compost heap on the swamp land I'm selling for $50,000 an acre.

Comment by Brian Sell — July 8, 2005 @ 6:05 pm

g arago Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Steve,

It's too bad you did not hear what I said. Your response to my message is incomprehensible. I am not visiting to 'debate' you, but to communicate about 'telic thoughts,' including but not exclusive to the controversy surrounding ID theories.

Your words: 'pissing,' 'condescending,' 'sucking,' 'waste my time,' 'battlefield' – how can this be compared to what I wrote?

It may be that 'design engineers' take things too personally when they are seriously engaged with those who don't avoid the reality of personal presuppositions in conversations about origins, meaning, human purpose and teleology. The fact that I bothered to take the time to read part of your website shows that I was interested in 'civil' discourse.

It may be that what you consider a personal assault is another person's way of trying to figure out 'where you're coming from'. If you are offended then I am sorry. What I wrote was not 'designed' to offend you, nor was that my intention.

It is difficult to imagine how my probes stating that "The "˜evolution paradigm' (in a post-modern view) is more than only about teleology" would be considered insulting. I don't expect everyone to integrate their views interdisciplinarily. But since your personal website says you've studied theology, and you include it on this channel, I figured you'd be open to discussion. Perhaps I was wrong.

Bon voyage,

g.

Comment by g arago — July 11, 2005 @ 6:21 pm

Aegeri Says:
July 17th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
Oh well. You have a lot of rhetoric but no assertions/evidence of your own.

This is exactly the point, you haven't bought up ANYTHING to support your position at all. So I naturally asked you. Then you went and instead of answering asked me things, which is irrelevant and aside from the point. Never once did you even attempt to answer anything I asked.

You demand a lot of IDists but none of yourself.

It's not my fault you continuously fail to answer anything. Again, shift the goalposts steve and the burden of proof.

You want to claim there is a designer? Again, PROVE IT.

A true interlocutor is willing to accept some level of burden.

Says you, who doesn't even answer basic questions. You posited you had 'science' so I asked. You have been found wanting steve.

Tsk tsk.

You accept none. I'm through wasting my time with you. You show no sincerity to support your own position.

Indeed.

In any event you'll capitulate shortly by trying to again, shift the burden of proof somewhere it is irrelevant, so long as it isn't on what YOU'RE claiming.

I've been doing this far too much now, I predicted you to a tee. Does that mean my hypothesis that ID advocates have no experiments and there really isn't any scientifically testable theory of design is true? I wonder…

Comment by Aegeri — July 17, 2005 @ 10:59 pm

Aegeri Says:
July 17th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Oh well. You have a lot of rhetoric but no assertions/evidence of your own.

Again irrelevant as I said before. You're the one claiming you have evidence so I suggest you present said evidence. I was more than happy to discuss any evidence you were going to bring up, but unfortunately you chose to shift the goalposts meaninglessly and simply dodged the question to begin with.

You demand a lot of IDists but none of yourself.

Once again irrelevant Steve, because I am not claiming to have science and then not presenting said evidence for said 'science'.

A true interlocutor is willing to accept some level of burden.

But as you've proven steve, you've accepted none yourself. You refuse to debate by refusing to answer my questions yet being utterly assured of this 'designer' of yours. Where is your evidence, as again, you're claiming this is 'scientific' yet aren't bothering putting it up.

You accept none.

Says the one in this discussion who is running as fast as he can to shift the goalposts.

Do you frequently, when challenged on something, try to immediately shift the question back on the questioner?

I'm through wasting my time with you. You show no sincerity to support your own position.

The only person who wasted time here is me. I mistakingly thought that you'd be actually willing and able to discuss the scientific 'evidence' behind this 'designer' you are claiming exists. Very obviously, there isn't any man behind the curtain as I suspected. Then you just went and met my prediction:

In any event you'll capitulate shortly by trying to again, shift the burden of proof somewhere it is irrelevant, so long as it isn't on what YOU'RE claiming.

And that is exactly what you did. If at any time you feel like having a proper discussion that is above the level of "NO U" please feel free to answer my three questions and the experimental basis for how you derived each one.

Comment by Aegeri — July 17, 2005 @ 11:43 pm

Aegeri Says:
July 20th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
But let's not overlook the fact that Behe could be wrong in his opinion as to the implementation, without necessarily implying that his argument about design was automatically invalid.

Your arguments are irrelevant however to the point MikeGene is bringing up:

Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to label Behe, a theistic evolutionist, as a creationist?

And so I bought this up:

At Hillsdale, after his public lecture, I challenged Behe in a small-group discussion to give us a positive statement of exactly how the "Intelligent Designer" creates bacterial flagella. As usual, he was evasive. But I didn't let him get away. And finally, he answered: "In a puff of smoke!" A physicist in our group asked, "Do you mean that the Intelligent Designer suspends the laws of physics through working a miracle?" And Behe answered: "Yes.".

Let's seperate out the pertinent bit:

"Do you mean that the Intelligent Designer suspends the laws of physics through working a miracle?"

Right.

Let's use a simple rule of logic. Is Behe appealing to a supernatural or natural designer with a 'miracle'. Is Behe appealing to a supernatural or natural designer with implying that the IC systems came into place miraculously by suspending the laws of physics. Do you think, that natural bound space aliens would be able to perform such a miracle and 'poof' the IC systems into place?

Premise 1 from MikeGene no longer holds and the original assertion that Behe is inherently bending a supernatural, theistic God as the designer is clear. Hence the creationism label holds of the original authors as they refer to Behe. MikeGene is trying to portray the authors as deliberately making Behe a creationist when he apparently is not. Yet here you are trying to defend a point that MikeGene isn't actually making to begin with.

Is Behe a creationist? I would say that with IC systems in place and these requiring a supernatural being to render a miracle to 'poof' into existence these establishes that Behe is a 'creationist'. Like it or not, MikeGenes entire essay falls over as a result because the original authors have NOT mischaracterised Behe. Now unless you want to tell me how to suspend the laws of physics so we humans can perform miracles of our own? I've always wanted to poof myself a new TV with an ariel that actually works…

Once again, if you didn't get the entire basis of MikeGenes essay is destroyed with one simple quote you didn't realise what he was arguing FOR which is simply summarised in his opening points:

Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to label Behe, a theistic evolutionist, as a creationist?

Demonstratably false, they have by Behes own words correctly labelled him and I wouldn't describe 'poof' as a scientific concept as 'theistic evolution'. Theistic evolutionists have no need for IC systems and neither do we feel a need for them to be 'poofed' in by a miracle as Behe admits.

Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to add the label "˜supernatural?'

Demonstratably true, unless someone here wants to posit to me that aliens can perform miracles. Any takers on this?

Comment by Aegeri — July 20, 2005 @ 9:54 pm

Aegeri Says:
July 20th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Speaking of conferences, might as well since this was bought up link to this:

Creation MEGA conference with Dr. Georgia Purdom heavily criticising the ID movement.

Probably did more damage to ID as it directly strikes at a good majority of the core supporters of ID.

Comment by Aegeri — July 20, 2005 @ 10:24 pm

edarrell Says:
August 9th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
One of the difficulties of criticizing the press for dilettentism with regard to intelligent design is that, no matter how brief the attention span of the press, the attention span of the advocates of intelligent design is even more brief.

When intelligent design advocates don't bother to get their facts straight or even try to understand the depth of the issues, they are outed as those who are willing to set aside academic and moral norms to serve their own worldviews. Plus, they are condemned to rail at press reports that, no matter how accurate and incisive, disagree with the skewed worldview of the ID advocate.

The debate has stirred up some deep sentiment on the part of scientists, who dislike fools even when they suffer them, but only sediment on the part of intelligent design advocates, it often seems. If I read one more claim made completely without evidence that there is any hint of theory behind intelligent design, I may purchase copies of Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory to beat ID advocates with. They'll never see it coming.

Comment by edarrell — August 9, 2005 @ 1:42 pm

MagicXR1000 Says:
August 13th, 2005 at 7:56 am
Hi There,

I have a question about replication, mainly cell wall separation. Are You able to repond?

Thanks, Ben

Comment by MagicXR1000 — August 13, 2005 @ 7:56 am

ElvenRanger Says:
August 13th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
This makes twice now that Mike has banned me from threads. In the first case, he did even though I raised points he had not considered before, and because I had not provided a definition for which he had not asked. The effect was to preclude my continuing a debate which I am certain he would have lost. That, in fact, seems to be the purpose of the banning.

On the second occasion, he banned me because supposedly I misrepresented his opinion on three occasions. (In fact, strike 2 and 3 are exactly the same statement, and the same reason restated. This obvious contrivance belies the purported reasons for the ban.) Again, that does not wash as the reason for the banning. His purported reason for his post was "…illustrating Miller's point with some current examples." However, in my first post in responce to his post, I had directly argued that his questions and illustration were not to the point in that the activity of the DI and that of atheists like Provine are not equivalent. The DI actively misrepresents bad philosophy as genuine science, they actively mislead about scientific facts. Provine and Dawkins, in contrast, do no such thing. They do draw antireligious conclusions from science by means of very bad arguments, but they do not misrepresent the science in the first place. As such, their activity is of peripheral concern to the interests of the major science organisations, or such organisations as the NCSE.

Now, I made two sets of comments immediately relevant to this issue, and Mike responded to neither of them. First, in my first responce, I pointed out the facts above. In my second, I illustrated that point by the comments of a DI Fellow equating the beliefs of neodarwinians with Lamarckism and Lysenkoism (it is difficult to imagine a more grotesque misrepresentation). Apparently Mike had no interest in debating topical content.

What he was interested in doing was banning me from the discussion because of comments I made relating to his percieved rhetorical interest in his post. Mike may like to pretend that he had no rhetorical interest in his post, that he merely wanted to illustrate Miller's point as a passing fancy because it was an intellectually interesting challenge, and with no regard to the wider C/E debate. But we know that such a pretence is hogwash!

Mike asked questions as follows:

First, will any scientific or anti-ID organization ever write up a public response to such claims that not only disagrees with them, but educates the public about the erroneous nature of these claims by refuting them in detail? If not, why not? After all, Weisberg pays tribute to the fact that there are even "Darwinists who call themselves Christians" and cites Ken Miller as his example. Will Ken Miller take a few seconds from his battle against the "enemies of science" to reply to Weisberg, given that he knows such claims only strengthen the "enemies of science"? If the pattern noted by Weisberg continues, we can expect only silence.

What, we might ask Mike, would be the significance if none of the organisations responded? If Miller made no responce? If there was only silence? He has already provided the answer he is inclined to, and wants us to be inclined to with a preceding rhetorical question:

Could it be that these organizations really don't believe this theme, but use it only as a political device? I'm not sure, but we are left with their complete silence anytime a leading member of their community uses science or evolution to peddle Atheism. That silence needs an explanation and Weisberg himself suggests this when he notes, "In a state like Kansas, where public opinion remains overwhelmingly hostile to evolution, one sees the political logic of this kind of tap-dance."

So, what if they were silent? Well then Mike wants us to think there claim of the compatibility of religion and neodarwinism is only "a political device" which "they really don't believe". (This, by the way is Johnson's answer.) But that does not follow.

It does not follow because, as pointed out above, the activities of the DI and other creationist organisations is not of the same kind as that of the atheists, and so need not provoke a public comment.

It does not follow, even if you reject that reasoning, because other neodarwinians will speak out, and if others have spoken, it may be redundant to add further voices. But Mike does not like that answer. He is after epistemological evidence before he will accept the bona fides of scientific organisations. Consequently he rules that mention of other neodarwinists making the criticism was not an answer to his question. Consequently he feels he can ignore them as irrelevant – but they are precisely relevant to the rhetorical point he was making with his questions. Ignoring them because they were not a literal answer to the question is merely a means of avoiding a debate. He employs his rhetoric to establish a claim, but evidence relevant to his rhetorical claim as irrelevant on technicalities. (By the way, this strategy means his true answer was not (d) none of the above; but (b) & (c), ignore the relevant answer so that he can sustain his Johnsonian intuitions.

Finally, it does not follow because the organisations (and Miller) have already made clear statements rejecting the incompatibility of religion and neodarwinism, in some cases statements argued in great detail. No-one can reasonably suppose that because Miller did not respond to each particular instance of some inane atheist making silly errors about the incompatibility of neodarwinism and religion, that therefore he now believed neodarwinism and religion to be incompatible. And by the same token, because the NCSE or AAS do not respond to each by an atheist who disagrees with them, nothing follows about the sincerety of their previous statements, and nor is their commitment to previous statements called into question. Organisational statements do not typically respond to commentary in the press by friends or foes. Normally, they make position statements and leave it at that untill revised. Or they make comments about major developments such as the Kansas State Board of Education hearings, or the Dover case. Their silence about particular commentary means nothing because it is the normal state of affairs.

The people who do comment on, and criticise other commentary, are the commentators in blogs and media. It is there we should look to see if their is a genuine disagreement between neodarwinisms about its implications regarding religion, or whether some neodarwinians are saying things "they really don't believe" as a "political device". But such commentary is exactly the sort of evidence I provided, and exactly the sort of evidence that Mike rules out of court, and bans me for raising.

Comment by ElvenRanger — August 13, 2005 @ 1:38 pm

g arago Says:
August 13th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Duh! Students would speak about Eminem half the day (or more) if you gave them a chance! Does it mean high schools should offer courses in the history of rap music or contemporary pop culture, or even in The Eminem Show. Let's get real about ID in or not in schools, officially!

You said:

"This thread is not about whether or not ID should be in schools but that it will be because of the students." (emphasis mine)

Go ahead and claim spin upon spin. What's the point?

I thought this blog was about Telic Thoughts, not about (teaching) intelligent design 'in schools' (whether or not its because of the kids, the parents or the pseudo-scientists/mathematicians who would promote it in biology classes at the drop of an evangelical religious hat)? 'In schools' but not taught 'in schools' is just beans to me. Kids play with Pokemon too!

Comment by g arago — August 13, 2005 @ 7:37 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
August 15th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Krauz wrote:

Hi Salvador,

"ID seen to have a powerful impact on culture, and the ID movement is the use of ID for cultural renewal."

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on that one. Take the fact that public opinion on creation and evolution has remained unchanged for the last 20 years. Considering that this is the area where the ID movement has expended most of its energy, I see no evidence of ID having "a powerful impact on culture".

Hi,

I fumbled with my words a bit. What I meant was that ID, in view of the wedge document is seen to eventually have an impact on the culture in the future. You are correct the polls have budge little in the last 20 years. The expectation is that ID will become the dominant scientific paradigm as well as a cultural paradigm. I do not know how possible it is. I do not know which will come first, if either. I would predict the cultural change will come first, thus IDM (cultural) will out pace ID (research program).

Krauze,

With regards to your comments about the strength of ID, let me just say that this isn't the thread for it. Let's not let the discussion move out of this tangent, shall we?

No problem. That discussion could go on for years. I only point out that I'm at a different place than some here at TelicThoughs, hence I'm not as cautious in my promotion of ID. But I point out where ID, not the movement, needs to go to make a more convincing empirical case. Right now I think the case is mostly theoretical.

I do view the IDM as essential to getting financing and generating interest in ID the scientific program. The Rosetta Stone's discovery, some ideas with population genetics, etc. will take billions of dollars to discover. Part of the reason is the expense of sequencing complete genomes, not only that, sequencing more than a handful of creatures to identify aspects of a genome. For example, the Chimp genome, I hear is being sequenced by the study of only a few chimps. Some of the empirical advancements will thankfully come independently of ID, in that there is continued interest to sequence genomes, but these things will take time. Thankfully, the brute research going on independent of ID is providing the data IDists need.

At my school, Morowitz received a Templeton grant, to do research into metabolic hierarchies. That is an example of ID friendly science research. There are a few other Templeton grants floating out there. I consider those, ID friendly science issues. But the hope is, IDM will open money up in secular universities or biotech firms.

I do agree that you make a very good point ID is separate from IDM, but in the view of some, ID as a research program will have a better chance of flourishing if there is a cultural shift simultaneouly. I've given up on thinking the academics in power will be willing to change their minds. And even if they do, coming out publicly with that change of mind comes at cost!

I believe IDM the cultural movement will far outpace ID the scientific research program. It already has. Hence we have overzealous places like Dover mandating it's teaching (which I think is an ill-advised move at this time). We have governmnet leaders in the USA and Austrailia talking about it being taught in schools, it get on the cover of Time Magazine, etc., but the actual research is in it's infancy.

I do not look at IDM outpacing ID as necessarily a bad thing. IDists are slowly receiving more and more respectable mention. When Jerry Coyne said IDists are honest and intelligent, that is beginning to set a good climate for ID research. Recall that creationists could never shake the "dishonest and stupid" perception, and here Jerry Coyne is referring to IDists as honest and intelligent, that's a step forward to making ID as a research program respectable.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 15, 2005 @ 10:08 am

g arago Says:
August 19th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
"Townes, a critic of ID in biology, being friendly to ID in cosmology, was just too much for PZ. No room for guys like Townes in the Big Tent of Critics." – S. Cordova

Sal, This might be one of the more intelligent things I've yet seen you say (the first half of it anyway). There's more than one ID!? And a 'big tent' causes that another 'big tent' (not unifying but divisive) until another bigger tent comes and subsumes them both. But don't start thinking I support yours or Bill's Dembskian REVOlution-ary claims. Ain't gonna America-n-it this way. You're out of your leagues speaking origins-talk with a sociologist. Arago will come to save the day.

Comment by g arago — August 19, 2005 @ 6:07 pm

DsP Says:
August 21st, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Hi Krauze,

"if you float like a duck"¦"
they can burn you down?

That's what I thought.

ps.
it looks as though my attempt to use the "blockquote" will fail me here. If it does could somebody please throw this comment away? Ok? Thanks.

Comment by DsP — August 21, 2005 @ 2:57 pm

Aagcobb Says:
August 25th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Inunison and Steve:

Steve has labeled millions of christians as being "candy-asses", which certainly looks to me like an expression of contempt for their religious convictions. Rhetoric by some atheists about the religious convictions of fundamentalists has earned them the label of haters from Steve, but Steve's contempt for "candy-ass" christians is hardly any less than that of atheists for fundamentalists.

Comment by Aagcobb — August 25, 2005 @ 2:26 pm

Mark Nutter Says:
August 27th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Yet what do the professors mean when they claim phenomena are "explained?" We can't say that to "explain" is to uncover the truth, as that would be arguing that science can determine it is true that certain natural phenomena occur without the intervention or influence of supernatural beings or events.

To "explain" something scientifically means to describe a phenomenon in terms of other known and understood phenomena, in sufficient detail that a specific outcome can be determined, such that the predicted outcome can be compared to the observed outcome in order to establish a guage of the reliability of the explanation.

The problem with introducing supernatural "explanations" is that the supernatural is not a scientific explanation, and in fact is the antithesis of a scientific explanation. One appeals to the supernatural to explain why some phenomenon cannot be given a scientific explanation (i.e. cannot be described in terms of other known and understood phenomenon in sufficient detail that a specific outcome can be determined). To the extent that science is able to study a phenomenon well enough to describe it and understand it and predict its behavior, it ceases (as far as science is concerned) to be supernatural. This has happened over and over in the history of science.

There is never any need to make special concessions for "the supernatural" in scientific investigation. To the extent that any supernatural beings or forces intervene in the material world and leave a tangible influence on it, they create a material phenomenon that science can study just like any other material phenomenon. As far as science is concerned, that's where the point of contact is, and that's where the question falls within the purview of scientific investigation. Whatever aspects of the supernatural have no influence on the material world, have no impact on science, and fall outside the domain of science. It is a mistake, therefore, to try and hyperextend the scientific method to encompass questions beyond its domain. The point of contact for questions about the interaction between the material and the supernatural lies within the material, and therefore methodological materialism is both adequate and necessary for good, objective scientific investigation of such questions.

Comment by Mark Nutter — August 27, 2005 @ 3:44 pm

AdR Says:
August 27th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Mark: But really, it's fairly trivial to think of what kind of evidence would it take to falsify evolution, if you think about it. It's like asking, "What kind of evidence would it take to falsify the theory that the earth is round?"

Evolution, as in common descent, is fairly solid to say the least. The rest is a lot of speculation. I do not think that 'undirected evolution to reach putative future fitness goals' is as solid as that.

The only chance to make it in a scientific journal for ID is if it could specify the design component and the intelligent part, and show how the usage of both would create novel and fruitful evolutionary hypotheses. I am sure the design part won't be difficult, after all it is just mundane engineering. If you formulate intelligence as the characteristic (or better requirement) of the evolving system, it may stand a good chance, especially in the more AI/AL/biosystems-oriented community.

Comment by AdR — August 27, 2005 @ 3:46 pm

Joe G Says:
August 29th, 2005 at 10:37 am
What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) "Why is a Fly not a Horse?", the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

Chapter IV "Why is a Fly not a horse?" (same as the book's title)

[B]"The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply "I'm sorry but I do not know." This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg."[/B]

IOW no one, I repeat NO ONE, knows whether or not ANY mutation-selection process can account for the range of morphological or phenotypic change required if all of life's diverity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce. That means there isn't any way to test the premise of evolutionists. The experiments we have run demonstrate genetic homeostasis, and that NS is a conserving force. Not really evidence one would expect if the ToE were indicative of reality.

For an essay as to why ID is scientific please see:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=524

Viva ID's bulldog!

Comment by Joe G — August 29, 2005 @ 10:37 am

PvM Says:
September 3rd, 2005 at 10:57 pm
Let me know what part you did not comprehend and I will see if I can put it in more accessible language.
These are important issues and Mike's 'argument' or rather lack thereof is worth a discussion. Which is why I raised the issue on PT.

I find it somewhat amusing that Krauze states that I did not answer the question.
Why should MN resort to the supernatural to explain these data? Just because we at the moment fail to understand how it happened? Is that not what gap arguments are all about? Or is it because the data match to a certain extent a particular interpretation of the Bible?

In other words, Mike's question is illogical as he provides no logical argument as to why MN should (in this case or in any other case) include the supernatural.

I understand that Mike is concerned with the inability of MN to deal with the supernatural.

Such is science. It's time that ID proponents appreciate this simple fact namely that appeal to the supernatural explains anything and does nothing. Mike's concern that IF the supernatural were real and MN cannot address this that somehow it will miss certain knowledge is interesting from a philosophical perspective. The same problems arise when arguing that nature is all there is. Our ignorance in both cases prevents us from drawing such strong conclusions. Of course, the latter one has one advantage, we know that nature exists.

Sal: Here I thought he was a real person, not a Sock Puppet, and now I discover Pim was all just a hoax.

How does it feel to be rebutted by not just a sock puppet but a computer program my dear friend.

PS: Are you still avoiding the questions posed to you at PT?

Comment by PvM — September 3, 2005 @ 10:57 pm

PvM Says:
September 3rd, 2005 at 11:15 pm
And Harold may be hardly impressed by the abuse of these quotes. But let's address the strawman raised

Steve: However, if Darwinists claim this as sufficient support for a scientific theory, they should certainly feel comfortable with allowing IDists at the table as well.

1. ID ist do not present any testable or details pathways or processes. Such 'pathetic' requirements are quickly rejected. Which is why ID is imho, and the opinion of many others, scientifically vacuous.

2. Plausible pathways are hardly sufficient but necessary. The problem with ID is that such pathways prevent a design inference until it can be shown that their probability is too small. In other words, until science rejects a particular hypothesis, design has no power. But showing that a particular hypothesis has a low probability is not that simple. And since ID presents no hypotheses of its own that can compete with the scientific hypothesis in question, why should ID be invited at the table?

Steve: Of course if both groups are valid scientific members in this debate (as they should be according to this criterion) , the race is on to see who's scenario is more plausible.

But ID does not present any scenario other than natural forces and chance cannot explain it. That's a major problem.

Steve: "James Shapiro, Stuart Kauffman, and Lynn Margulis have raised similar doubts."

Specific examples would be useful. Perhaps one may even ask the author if he agrees with the interepretation given to their statement. All you have done is quote a secondary source (Dembski). Do you know how Dembksi reached this conclusion?

And since you like to mine Harrold, why not present his other quote

" "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity.""

Steve: Just goes to show that there are several prominent biologists out there who may not even be ID friendly who recognize Darwinian failings.

Another non sequitor. At most they recognize our ignorance. I find it interesting that our ignorance is seen as a failing of science rather than an opportunity for science.

See this this link"

"Shapiro recognizes that the Darwinian mechanism has played a role in the evolutionary history of biotic life, but that role is limited and less central than many believe. In fact, he contends that the gradualism and randomness of Darwinism primarily serve the purpose of fine-tuning once the "heavy-lifting" has been done. He argues that the key problem ("heavy lifting") is to get genuinely new inventions in evolution, and that this is achieved through a form of cellular systems engineering."

In other words, again an ID inference is blocked by yet another plausible scenarion…

Comment by PvM — September 3, 2005 @ 11:15 pm

PvM Says:
September 3rd, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Let's quote mine Margulis who was quoted by Steve (quoting Dembski)

Lynn Margulis is a famous evolutionary biologist. This is her summation of the scientific status of Evolution:

Biologists have no doubt that evolution occurred. They even know what drives it: the growth of any population of organisms beyond the ability of the environment to support them, the appearance of organisms that have novel genetic traits, and the greater growth of some of those variant organisms leading to changed populations over time – the process known as natural selection. But biologists are still debating the details of how it occurs. The theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is being continually revised and refined.

… Scientific meetings on these subjects often generate great disagreements. These disagreements have been misrepresented to the public by creationists as evidence that the theory of evolution is in doubt. On the contrary, they are evidence that what is going on is the pursuit of science and not the shoring up of dogma.

Farewell To Newton, Einstein, Darwin…, Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, Science 81, Dec 1981, pp.55-57. Quoted from page 56.

Comment by PvM — September 3, 2005 @ 11:18 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
PvM: But ID does not present any scenario other than natural forces and chance cannot explain it. That's a major problem.

Steve argues: That is false:

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Lot's of words to say exactly what I said. High information content is nothing more that 'we don't understand how it happened.
Fascinating how few ID proponents seem familiar with the primary research on these topics.

Item 3) shows the foundation of ID's argument from ignorance. This is a typical gap argument.

What scenarios does ID present as an explanation? Poof?

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 2:05 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
PvM: But ID does not present any scenario other than natural forces and chance cannot explain it. That's a major problem.

Joe G argues: That is false:

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Lot's of words to say exactly what I said. High information content is nothing more that 'we don't understand how it happened.
Fascinating how few ID proponents seem familiar with the primary research on these topics.

Item 3) shows the foundation of ID's argument from ignorance. This is a typical gap argument.

What scenarios does ID present as an explanation? Poof?

What surprises me is the unfamiliarity of ID proponents with evolutionary theory. Yes, there is a lot of 'stasis' but also lots of fast and gradual change to be observed.

What I find interesting is how selection, evolvability, robustness and neutrality all fit together here.

Check it out. Fontana, Toussaint, and others.. Let me know if you need more data.

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 2:08 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Joe G quotes Behe "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components "

And concludes

That is a positive statement about design.

One can surely make 'positive statements' but that does not mean that the process of identifying design as used by the majority of ID proponents is based on an eliminative filter which makes it inevitably a gap argument and argument from ignorance. Behe is wrong btw, we do not recognize design just based upon the ordering of separate components. Anyone familiar with archaeology, criminology etc would recognize the flaws. Means, motives, opportunities are incredibly important to infer 'design'. Lest one wants to include natural designers as the designer of 'design'.

After all remember that ID's eliminative approach cannot exclude natural designers as the 'designer'. Wesley Elsberry pointed this out half a decade or so ago. Not much of a response yet to his findings.

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 2:12 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Joe G: No matter what it all "turtles down" to the supernatural. It can't be avoided. Nature could not have originated vu=ia natural processes because natural processes only exist in nature.

That's a very simplistic argument based on flawed logic. But let's take it to its full extreme, that the origin of the universe was a supernatural event. Since the event is shielded from our direct inquiry by the Planck time, we can thus safely speculate but never really prove what happened in the first 10^-43 seconds. Does this mean that this event was supernatural? Of course not. It depends on the scenarios proposed.

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 2:15 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Joe G: NIOW it appears that people like you are avoiding reality by trying to exclude the metaphysical a priori.

Not really. I remain neutral to the possibility. Science however is ill equipped to deal with the supernatural. WHich is why ID has remained so unsuccesful scientifically. And why more and more Christians are realizing the risk of hiding one's god in the shadows of our ignorance.

My God does not hide in gaps, I see Him in the sunset, in the smile of my kids, in the face of my spouse. But then again I accept Him on faith.

Science does not exclude design a priori, although ID proponents do make this claim when they really mean supernatural design. Funny how ID proponents sometimes conflate the two…

Joe, explain to us how science deals with the supernatural? It explains anything and thus nothing, in other words has no explanatory value, it has never been empirically/directly observed and is forced by ID to compete with our ignorance.

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 2:21 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Arago: I would guess that PvM even accepts telic thoughts to a degree, as does a certain biologist/theologian I know who accepts intelligence and design generally speaking. So why do IDists so dogmatically fight them? Neither of them, however, accept i+d theory in the specific sense(s) promoted by the IDM or by Salvador T, its main cheerleader in the Eastern USA and at certain Universities. But why should they tow such a Pajaro-party line?

I accept teleology in nature just like Ruse or Ayala who see teleology as an inevitable outcome of the processes involved. I also have accepted on faith alone Christ.

Arago: PvM or Pim, most likely a real person and not an automaton, a single person, has done damage to i+d claims by addressing its weaknesses in theory and practise. As a (said) theist who rejects the theology (where present) of i+d theories as heretical and the science of i+d (where present) as an argument of gaps, PvM does good by challenging the theological and scientific vacuity of ID thinking.

Thank you Arago. I indeed see ID as scientifically vacuous (but ID proponents could prove me wrong by showing the required details as to how the design happened (a similar challenge was issued by Dembski for evolutionary science and when asked to provide the same level of detail, Dembski called this 'pathetic'))

Source: "You're asking me to play a game: "˜Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.' ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories." Dembski on ISCID Forum

From a theological perspective I find ID to be troublesome and risky as it hides its god(s) in the shadows of our ignorance. Such a gap theoretic approach has never done well. Imagine when science establishes the detailed pathways for the flagellum for instance. What impact would this have on ID proponents who have accepted the claim as evidence for their god(s)? Such powerful weapons are provided to those who do not hold to a similar faith.

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 2:28 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Krauze, you see to forget that science has addressed and rejected most of the basic claims by ID. The Behe and Snoke paper is only indirectly relevant to ID as it provides no positive explanations as to how. What B&S have attempted is to show under which circumstances certain evolutionary processes are unable to explain the observed data. The problem with their argument is that the conclusion is only as good as their assumptions and that under slightly different assumptions, evolutionary processes seem to be sufficient to explain the data.
B&S's paper was already addressed on Panda's Thumb and the authors reached a very similar conclusion.

In another instance, PT explored the claims by Meyer about the Cambrian and showed the many gaps. Again ID failed to provide positive explanations of the data.

Krauze's rethoric only serves to hide these simple facts. Namely that science has stood up and rebutted most of the foundational claims of ID. ID has mostly remained silent about this which may explain why ID proponents may not be too familiar with this fact.

How many people have read the contributions by Richard Wein, Wesley Elsberry, Jeffrey Shallit, Mark Perakh or del Ratzsch? Who is familiar with the following papers?

R. Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003 , vol. 77 , no 4 , pp. 591 – 611

Proponents of Intelligent Design theory seek to ground a scientific research program that appeals to teleology within the context of biological explanation. As such, Intelligent Design theory must contain principles to guide researchers. I argue for a disjunction: either Dembski's ID theory lacks content, or it succumbs to the methodological problems associated with creation science-problems that Dembski explicitly attempts to avoid. The only concept of a designer permitted by Dembski's Explanatory Filter is too weak to give the sorts of explanations which we are entitled to expect from those sciences, such as archeology, that use effect-to-cause reasoning. The new spin put upon ID theory-that it is best construed as a "˜metascientific hypothesis'-fails for roughly the same reason.

Patrick Frank "On the Assumption of Design", Theology and Science, Volume 2, Number 1 / April 2004, pp. 109 – 130.

Abstract: The assumption of design of the universe is examined from a scientific perspective. The claims of William Dembski and of Michael Behe are unscientific because they are a-theoretic. The argument from order or from utility are shown to be indeterminate, circular, to rest on psychological as opposed to factual certainty, or to be insupportable as regards humans but possibly not bacteria, respectively. The argument from the special intelligibility of the universe specifically to human science does not survive comparison with the capacities of other organisms. Finally, the argument from the unlikelihood of physical constants is vitiated by modern cosmogonic theory and recrudesces the God-of-the-gaps.

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 2:43 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Joe G: Counterflow is all we need to know to detect the activity of an intelligent agency. And yes I got that from Del- that is what my essay states. It appears you didn't read it

Of course reliably detecting counterflow is hardly that simple. The problem with counterflow is that one first has to understand what is natural.

To call an event or structure "something that nature would not have done on her own" requires seeing both sides of a boundary. We cannot claim to see both sides, or even to assert confidently that there are two sides. In the spirit of Kant and Wittgenstein, we cannot know the limits of knowledge, say the limits of language, or assume a perspective outside
of nature that will allow us to determine just where, or even if, it ends. And if we cannot draw at least a relatively clear boundary around nature, then we cannot claim to have a clear understanding of the term supernatural.

Del also stated

" I think that some are certainly too far in the materialist direction, and they claim that science backs them up on that. ID can at least serve a 'keeping em' honest' function, even if nothing else. I think that ID may very well have things to offer science, but I think that it is too early for ID to claim that it has done so. I don't think that it is just obvious that ID will contribute substantively to science, but I think it has that potential, and that it should be pushed as far as it can be made to legitimately go. "

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 2:50 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
The answer is NO. MN can conclude that we do not know enough to explain the data. In other words, we don't know. The supernatural may very well hide in MN's inability to explain something but how do we differentiate our ignorance from the supernatural?

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 2:58 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
PlumP: In otherwords the argument looks sound, the conclusion from the data seems to follow inductively (and the rational man goes with the argument right?) but I don't like the conclusion as it is somehow "Extraordinary"!

While the science in PP is beyond reproach, the conclusions do not follow as they are based on several significant flaws.

See for instance the presentations by Kyler Kuehn. I have personally discussed many of the flaws at Panda's Thumb

The major problems include:
1. Drawing conclusions from correlations
2. Drawining conclusions from single datapoint. (And yes I know what the authors argue, they are wrong (if you want to know why, ask)).

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 3:08 pm

PvM Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Plump-DJ: I"m not saying that argument is sound! The scientist thought it was though!

The science was sound, the conclusions may not have been. In other words, the data was sound, the science was sound, the argument and the conclusions were flawed.

Also it is worth noting that Gonzalez et al merely reject chance but accept natural forces as the designer.

Comment by PvM — September 4, 2005 @ 3:28 pm

pimothy Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Plump: Not sure what you mean here? If natural forces, devoid of intent are the designers then you haven't really got the argument they're trying to make have you? How would nature "design" anything (meaing the design is illusory) on an astronomical scale?

Indeed, by including natural forces as the designer, Gonzalez et al have created a significant problem. In fact I would argue that the correlation between habitability and measurability is to be expected from natural law.

Comment by pimothy — September 4, 2005 @ 4:17 pm

The Panda's Thumb Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Censorship at Telic Thoughts

On Telic Thoughts, the administrators seem to have chosen to not only block me from further contributions but they have also deleted my contributions. Fascinating how ID proponents complain about censorship but apparantly do not shy away from censorin…

Trackback by The Panda's Thumb — September 4, 2005 @ 4:23 pm

Plump-DJ Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Hi pimothy,

Well that's a shame. Did you do something naughty? Maybe you can quickly answer my question (which I can read) before they delete it. Don't worry — i've got my refresh button ready to go.

Comment by Plump-DJ — September 4, 2005 @ 4:28 pm

edarrell Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Pim's first language isn't English. But I have little difficulty figuring out what he's saying. Yeah, he's a bit pedantic — but then, intelligent design suffers from a great lack of pedantry.

You guys often complain my posts are unfocused when I ask questions that I have discovered other advocates of ID can't answer and especially don't want to be asked in public or semi-public fora.

And especially, since the questions can't be answered, ID advocates don't want to be reminded of that (for example, my challenges to produce any evidenc of actual ID research).

Were Pim as incoherent as you claim, it would do you no harm to leave his posts. Were his points not valid, why bother to move them at all?

Sock puppets? ID has no answers to sock puppets?

Good heavens. Who'd have dreamed that ID would be done in by something akin to Triumph the insult comic dog?

Comment by edarrell — September 4, 2005 @ 7:39 pm

edarrell Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
"Yeah, that's the ticket: ID is 'too big' for science."

So, the reason there are no ID labs anywhere is because ID can't fit in them? Oh, labs are big enough to look for quarks and neutrinos, and black holes, and galaxies and universes — but not big enough for ID.

Salvador, do you know the Yiddish definition of "chutzpah?"

Comment by edarrell — September 4, 2005 @ 7:42 pm

edarrell Says:
September 4th, 2005 at 9:57 pm
The answer is, your question is not worthy of an answer. It's a foolish question.

I'm not familiar enough with the Zen koans to know the exact answer to your 174-word intellectual flatulence, but it might be something akin to holding one's nose and hopping on one foot out of the room.

Comment by edarrell — September 4, 2005 @ 9:57 pm

edarrell Says:
September 5th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
So, "memory hole" is where all the posts go that ID advocates have no answer for?

Comment by edarrell — September 5, 2005 @ 12:48 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 17th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
Just a quick comment. I'm not sure "random" and "designed" are mutually exhaustive. There are plenty of non-random processes that are nevertheless not designed. Even if it could be proven that genetic mutations are not random, I don't think that means ID wins.

Also, if you'd like to read some criticisms of the Explanatory Filter and the way it's applied to the Design Inference, I'd recommend reading this, this, this, this, and this.

From what I can tell, it's the consensus of both the scientific and mathematics communities that the Explanatory Filter simply does not work the way Dembski claims it does. I've read similarly devastating critiques of Dembski's use of the terms Complex Specified Information (or specified complexity) and information. Since Dembski never defines the term "information," no one knows whether he means information in the way Shannon meant it, or Kolmogorov meant it, or anyone else for that matter. He also fails to define "meaning," which seems to be tied up with his definition of "information." On the other hand, he never defines "intelligent" or "design," except to state that "intelligent" doesn't necessarily mean "smart."

Comment by ericmurphy — September 17, 2005 @ 10:41 pm

Joe G Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 12:38 am
The EF is used to determine an inference as to the origins of something. I would love to see the criteria for the anti-ID position, ie that life and the universe are the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. Do they flip a double-headed coin and say if it lands heads it must be option #1?

The EF isn't the issue. The people trying to use it are. I mean who besides an ID critic would use the EF on snowflakes? Why apply it to God or the designer seeing we don't know much of anything about either?

I would also like to know how anti-IDists think scientists and lay-people alike go about detrmining intelligent, intentional design evrey day of our lives.

No one uses Shannon information to describe anything in biology. Shannon information was only for transmission and storage. Content & function are not even considered. Biological information is obviously concerned with content & function.

So how do anti-IDists and ID critics think we should go about the detection of intelligent design?

Comment by Joe G — September 18, 2005 @ 12:38 am

ericmurphy Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 1:20 am
Joe G:

The problem with the Explanatory Filter, which you'll see if you follow the links I provided, is that it doesn't work. It doesn't work on non-biological phenomena, and it doesn't work on biological phenomena either. The theory behind it is deeply flawed, and one of the biggest complaints I hear about Dembski, other than that his ideas lack rigor, is that it's impossible to pin him down on what he means by things like complexity, information, and design. If Dembski isn't using the word "information" in the sense that information theory uses it, then perhaps he'll favor the mathematical community with what sense he is using it in. And he can't continue to complain that no understands his theory if he doesn't define his terms, and more to the point, if he doesn't define his terms consistently.

Believe it or not, the issue for neodarwinian evolution isn't whether something was designed or not. Most biologists are satisfied that there is no compelling evidence that anything in biology is designed. The fact of that matter is, the biological sciences have made immense progress in the last 160 years by assuming life is not designed. So far, ID has added essentially nothing to the corpus of knowledge about life. In the opinion of virtually all scientists, ID simply isn't a fruitful area of inquiry. It's not because they're biased, or because they're atheists, or because they're afraid of controversy (believe me, there's plenty of legitimate controversy in the life sciences already). It's because a belief in Intelligent Design simply doesn't get you anywhere.

Comment by ericmurphy — September 18, 2005 @ 1:20 am

Deuce Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 3:37 am
sadfasdf dasfasdssadfsdfawwwwwwwwqweqweqweqweq qweqweqweqweqqweqweqwe qweqweqweqweqwewqeq qweqwewqewqeqwewqewqeqw qweqwewqewqewq eqweqweqw eqweqweqwe qweqwewqeqw qwewqewqewq eqweqwewq eqweqw eqweqwewe qwewqeqweqweqwe w ewq qwewqewqewqew ewqewqe wqeweqweqweqwe

Comment by Deuce — September 18, 2005 @ 3:37 am

Joe G Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 9:57 am
The EF works. The people that use it may not understand how to use it.

IF EF methodology isn't used to detect design then how do we detect design?

The criteria for complexity, specification and information are more rigorouly laid down than the anti-ID position.

ID might not get YOU anywhere but that is because of you.

Why is it that you avoid the issues? Why don't you tell us the methodology currently used by scientists and lay-people alike to detect intentional design?

Why don't you tell us the criteria used to determine that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for life and the universe? Let us see if it holds up to scrutiny.

Also it would help if the alleged majority of biologists could substantiate the claims made by evolutionists- that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for the diversity of life from some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.

Comment by Joe G — September 18, 2005 @ 9:57 am

ericmurphy Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Joe G:

"The EF works. The people that use it may not understand how to use it.

Obviously I'm not going to get into a battle of the "yes it does/no it doesn't" variety. But have you read the links I provided that demonstrate the insufficiency of the Explanatory Filter? As I said before, if Dembski claims that people don't understand his theory, it could very well be that he doesn't explain it in a way that makes any sense. Using self-contradictory definitions or not defining terms at all might have something to do with it. And if you read the links I posted, you would see that there is no rigor at all to Dembski's use of the terms "complexity," "specification," and "information."

It's not that ID isn't getting me anywhere. I'm not a professional scientist. What's important is that it isn't getting science anywhere. I point to the utter lack of ID papers published in peer-reviewed journals, and the lack of progress ID has made in explaining anything at all about biology. You can tell me that ID has made valuable contributions to the biological sciences, but I'm telling you, you're going to have a hard time backing that up with any actual cites.

If you're looking for evidence that unintelligent, blind/undirected processes can account for life, you might want to start here. The evolution of life is obviously a different subject than the origin of the universe, and it adds unnecessary confusion to conflate the two.

I'm not avoiding the issues, Joe. The issue, as I see it, is this: does ID make a valuable contribution to the life sciences, or does it not? As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes that it does not. As to the methodology scientists and/or laypeople use to detect design: I don't think there's one single technique that would work equally well in, say, archaeology and the forensic sciences. But I will say this: as far as I can tell from actually reading the literature, the Explanatory Filter simply isn't supported as a method of inferring design.

And what, exactly, do you mean by the "alleged majority" of biologists? Are you claiming that it might be close to 50% of biologists who subscribe to ID? I think a more accurate figure might be closer to 1%. I'm sure you've heard of the "Steves Project," which is five times the size of the list maintained by the Discovery Institute, and it includes only scientists: no lawyers, no theologians, no politicians. Granted, science is not a popularity contest. But it is driven by consensus. If other scientists can't reproduce your results, or can point out major flaws in your hypothesis, your hypothesis is in trouble. That's where ID stands today.

Also, can we avoid the ad hominem comments? I may not agree with you, but I don't impugn your motives or your intelligence. I expect the same in return.

Comment by ericmurphy — September 18, 2005 @ 5:49 pm

Joe G Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Yes Eric I read the links. Did you know that Dembski has rebutted most of what was written?

The people who use the EF are the issue. Again no one in their right mind would use it on God or the designer. Why not? For the mere fact we don't observe God or the designer in the physical world.

Use the EF on snowflakes? Again why would you?

Also IDists have defined complexity, specification and information. It appears that either you guys don't understand it or just choose to willfully misrepresent what IDists say.

What do I mean by "alleged majority" How many of those biologists can actually substantiate what is claimed by the theory of evolution? (hint: zero%)

Comment by Joe G — September 18, 2005 @ 6:58 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 18th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
Joe:

I'm aware that Dembski has attempted to rebut most of what was written, but I'm also aware that his rebuttals are no more persuasive than his original papers. As I've stated before, the biggest complaint I hear from Dembski's critics is that he either doesn't respond to their criticisms, or attempts to deflect them without actually addressing the substance of their criticisms.

The reason people use the EF on snowflakes is due to the claims Dembski makes as to its efficacy. He essentially argues that the EF is infallible (i.e., never produces false positives), when it fact it can be demonstrated to fail even on fairly simple matters. Is Dembski's claim actually that the EF is only infallible when applied to biological structures? Even if that were his claim, he has yet to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the scientific or mathematical community, that he can back up his claims with actual evidence of its infallibility. In fact, the contrary evidence is substantial.

IDists may have defined complexity, information, and specification, but Dembski sure hasn't; or at least he hasn't defined them in a way that has logical rigor. He's also notorious for using a well-defined term from some branch or other of mathematics, without warning that he's actually using it in a different sense ("information" would be a good example), and even worse, sometimes he uses the same term to mean different things at different times. Is it a wonder that others have difficulty figuring out what he means?

I assumed when you referred to the "alleged majority of biologists" that you were referring to the "alleged majority of biologists who believe that NDE is a better explanation for biodiversity than ID." Is there some other interpretation of the phrase I should use?

Another question: what do you mean by "substantiate" If you mean, can they "prove" the validity of NDE, I'd agree that the number is zero. If you mean, how many of them can provide evidence as to the claims of NDE, I would say the number is somewhere between three and four digits. Are you saying the links I provided for evidence of speciation events and the ability of RM&NS to generate biological novelty are not, in fact, "evidence" I think that by any conceivable definition of the term "evidence" they most certainly are. But I'm not sure we can "prove" that the entire universe, including us and all our memories, wasn't created last Thursday.

And regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of the evidence supporting NDE, the fact remains that upwards of 99% of biological scientists are persuaded as to its explicative utility, and as yet, ID doesn't seem to have anything to add to the discussion. Can you think of any paper published in a peer-revied journal in the last 20 years that adds anything to the corpus of knowledge about how life works by an ID theorist?

Comment by ericmurphy — September 18, 2005 @ 8:26 pm

Joe G Says:
September 19th, 2005 at 9:17 am
Umm, Dembski flat out states that the EF, like all other scientific tools, processes and procedures, is very fallible.

As I said only someone who isn't all there would apply the EF to snowflakes, God and/ or the designer. Those same people most likely use a screw driver as a saw.

Anyone can make the EF fail. However that is more of a reflection upon the user than the process.

The issue as I see it is that anti-IDists do not want to understand and will do their best not to. However when compared side-by-each ID vs NDE, it would be obvious to any objective person that the only way ID can be kept out of science classrooms is to apply a double-standard. Ya see eric, there isn't any evidence that demonstrates the range of change required is even possible diversity started out as some single-celled organisms.

The fact remains is that we don't even know what makes a fly a fly or a horse a horse.

We have scientists publishing on the uselessness to the ToE. Yet you say it is useful. I will go with the scientists…

Comment by Joe G — September 19, 2005 @ 9:17 am

ericmurphy Says:
September 19th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Joe G:

"Umm, Dembski flat out states that the EF, like all other scientific tools, processes and procedures, is very fallible."

"I argue that the explantory [sic] filter is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I argue that the Explanatory Filter successfully avoids false positives. Thus whenever the Explanatory Filter attributes design, it does so correctly." -Wm. Dembski, "The Explanatory Filter: a three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design," 1996.

If Dembski no longer believes this, perhaps he should issue a retraction. So far he has not done so.

I've already explained why someone would apply the explanatory filter to snowflakes – twice.

It's true that anyone can make the EF fail. But the question is, can anyone make it succeed? Evidently not, since no one has yet demonstrated design using the EF where the causative history of the event is unknown.

Anyway, enough of that. We're just going around and around in circles. Let me ask you this: let's say I'm a biologist trying to work out the interrelationships between various forms of the hemoglobin molecules found in different organisms. Now, let's say you've convinced me that life was designed. How would that belief change my research program? Would it just end it?

Or let's say I'm a pathologist, and I'm trying to work out a way to avoid antibiotic resistance in bacteria by studying how bacteria evolve that resistance. You've managed to convince me that life was designed by an intelligent agent. Would that give me any additional clues as to how I should conduct my research?

Or, say I'm a paleontologist, and I'm trying to work out the evolution of early hominids. But now I've seen evidence that life was designed. Should I abandon my research? Should I assume that since the evolution from A. afarensis was planned out from the get-go, there's no real point in trying to figure out how we got from there to H. sapiens ?

In other words, how would a belief in Intelligent Design aid scientists in trying to answer questions about the evolution of life on earth? What does ID have to say about the actual mechanisms of evolution?

But one more point. You say:

We have scientists publishing on the uselessness to the ToE. Yet you say it is useful. I will go with the scientists…

My opinion that NDE is useful is irrelevant to the discussion. The vast, vast, vast majority of scientists believe that NDE is a useful and accurate description of reality. A tiny minority believe otherwise. But you're going to go with that tiny minority? Why?

Comment by ericmurphy — September 19, 2005 @ 11:46 am

ericmurphy Says:
September 19th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Joe G:

"Umm, Dembski flat out states that the EF, like all other scientific tools, processes and procedures, is very fallible."

"I argue that the explantory [sic] filter is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I argue that the Explanatory Filter successfully avoids false positives. Thus whenever the Explanatory Filter attributes design, it does so correctly." – Wm. Dembski, "The Explanatory Filter: a three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design," 1996.

If Dembski no longer believes this, perhaps he should issue a retraction. So far he has not done so.

I've already explained why someone would apply the explanatory filter to snowflakes – twice.

It's true that anyone can make the EF fail. But the question is, can anyone make it succeed? Evidently not, since no one has yet demonstrated design using the EF where the causative history of the event is unknown.

Anyway, enough of that. We're just going around and around in circles. Let me ask you this: let's say I'm a biologist trying to work out the interrelationships between various forms of the hemoglobin molecules found in different organisms. Now, let's say you've convinced me that life was designed. How would that belief change my research program? Would it just end it?

Or let's say I'm a pathologist, and I'm trying to work out a way to avoid antibiotic resistance in bacteria by studying how bacteria evolve that resistance. You've managed to convince me that life was designed by an intelligent agent. Would that give me any additional clues as to how I should conduct my research?

Or, say I'm a paleontologist, and I'm trying to work out the evolution of early hominids. But now I've seen evidence that life was designed. Should I abandon my research? Should I assume that since the evolution from A. afarensis was planned out from the get-go, there's no real point in trying to figure out how we got from there to H. sapiens ?

In other words, how would a belief in Intelligent Design aid scientists in trying to answer questions about the evolution of life on earth? What does ID have to say about the actual mechanisms of evolution?

But one more point. You say:

We have scientists publishing on the uselessness to the ToE. Yet you say it is useful. I will go with the scientists…

My opinion that NDE is useful is irrelevant to the discussion. The vast, vast, vast majority of scientists believe that NDE is a useful and accurate description of reality. A tiny minority believe otherwise. But you're going to go with that tiny minority? Why?

Comment by ericmurphy — September 19, 2005 @ 11:47 am

Joe G Says:
September 20th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Eric,

I have been down this road many times before so this will be my last response about it. Page 91 of The Design Revelution

The prospect that further knowledge will upset a design inference poses a risk for the Explanatory Filter. But it is a risk endemic to all of scienctific inquiry.

The EF and snowflakes- why, when I apply the EF to snowflakes do they get kicked out at the first node?

Can the EF succeed? Can we detect design? Yes to both. Again can you tell me a better process to detect design that isn't biased towards that end?

I have been in the investigation field for over 20 years. The EF works. That some people have issues with it tells me more about them than it does the EF.

How would the design inference change research? For one with the design inference comes reverse engineering. Second we would then be sure that the genetic code really is and we would set about trying to decipher it.

BTW the vast majority of scientists have no use for the theory of evolution. Scientists are usually too specialized to even care about such a broad and useless theory.

Comment by Joe G — September 20, 2005 @ 5:27 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 20th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Joe G:

I send you five different papers demonstrating in excruciating detail why the Explanatory Filter does not, and cannot, work the way Dembski says it works, and your reply is that "The EF works"

Either Dembski believes the EF does not generate false positives, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, he should retract his earlier statements that it doesn't. He shouldn't make claims he knows he can't support. If the EF can generate false positives, then its usefulness for detecting design is limited.

Are you saying it's impossible to figure out how the human immune system works without assuming a designer? We seem to have made an awful lot of progress in the past 50 years without assuming a designer, and I haven't seen any evidence that assuming a designer would speed up the process.

And surely you're not claiming that science isn't already trying to decipher the genetic code. Considering we didn't even know what the genetic code was encoded in 60 years ago, and now we know a great deal about how it works, that would be a tough argument to make.

Sure, physicists don't have much use for the theory of evolution. Nor do cosmologists. But epidemiologists sure do, and I'd say they have a greater impact on our lives than cosmologists. Find someone working on bacterial resistance to antibiotics who doesn't have use for such a "useless" theory. After all, even Behe and Dembski don't deny that evolution happens. Do you?

Comment by ericmurphy — September 20, 2005 @ 6:13 pm

Joe G Says:
September 22nd, 2005 at 8:18 am
Eric,

There wasn't any detail in those links. All I read were people that just don't get it. And there isn't anything I can do about that.

Ya see Eric when it comes to comparing detecting design to just saying unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes were responsible, the design detection criteria is better prepared and laid out than the other. IOW anti-IDists have no business criticizing IDists because they have nothing to criticize in return.

Also any scientific inference can be confirmed or refuted by future research. However the EF is a procedure (and it is NOT Dembski's) used to determine the cause of what is being investigated.

I have over 25 years of investigation under my belt. I will take my knowledge and experience against any one of those anti-EF article writers in a public forum and embarrass them.

Bacterial resistance does NOT rely on all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms (via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes). In EVERY experiment bacteria ALWAYS remain bacteria. No matter how many generations go by (and yes it is generations not time that is the key to "evolution")

Creationists don't deny that "evolution" happens. Do you even understand what is being debated?

And as for the EF critics do they have a better way to determine design? Or can they just misuse a procedure and then call it useless?

Comment by Joe G — September 22, 2005 @ 8:18 am

ericmurphy Says:
September 22nd, 2005 at 9:20 pm
Joe G:

Your claim that the links I provided don't contain any detail is absurd on its face. Are you really going to claim that a 36,000 word analysis of Dembski's misuse of the Free Lunch Theorems doesn't contain any detail?

Regardless of your claims that "no one understands the EF" (which, even if true, would be Dembski's responsibility; surely you're not claiming that all of his critics, many of whom are mathematicians, can't understand mathematics), no one, including Dembski himself, has been able to demonstrate a legitimate design inference of a biological structure using the EF. We can go around and around a few more times on whether the EF works, but the fact of the matter is that Dembski has not been able to convince more than a tiny fraction of the mathematic or scientific community that the EF works at all. You say it works, but virtually everyone else disagrees with you. Why is that? Are they all too dumb to figure it out?

Again, I'll say it one more time: people don't get Dembski because he's not gettable. His arguments are incomprehensible because he piles undefined term upon undefined term. Can you explain to me what Dembski means when he says "information" Because no one else knows, and it's not even clear that Dembski knows. One thing is sure though: his definition of the term "information" has nothing to do with the way the term is defined in information theory (either classical or algorithmic), which is strange for someone referred to (by other IDists, certainly not by anyone else) as the "Isaac Newton of information theory."

If the Explanatory Filter isn't Dembski's invention, whose is it? Dembski sure thinks it's his invention. In any event, no matter how many times you deny it, it doesn't change the conclusion of the scientific and mathematical community that the Explanatory Filter simply does not work. Not because people don't understand it –people much smarter than you or I have investigated it — but because the theory behind it is fatally flawed. Why do you think it is that Dembski has yet to publish a single peer-reviewed paper in any journal of information theory?

I'm not a mathematician (to put it bluntly), but here's one for you: how does the explanatory filter compute probabilities for a chance hypothesis when there is no pre-existing knowledge of the hypothesis whatsoever (i.e., it's an explanation we haven't thought of yet)? Dembski claims the EF "sweeps the field clear" of all chance hypotheses. How is that possible, even in principle? How can we exclude all possible chance hypotheses when there could be an infinite number of them we haven't even thought of yet?

Here's another: would you care to explain how one would compute the probability of a "design event" when we have no idea at all about the designer, its motives, mechanisms, or intent?

I have to say, it would be interesting to see you go up against someone like Mark Perakh, David Wolpert, or Richard Wein and see who ends up being embarrassed. They're easily reachable by e-mail; are you up to the challenge?

You're saying that evolutionists have no right to critique ID's attempts to infer design because they have no competing mechanism for detecting design. Has it occurred to you that the reason might be because evolutionary theory doesn't even attempt to detect design? Because it has better things to do with its time, like figure out how evolution actually works? Evolutionary theory isn't trying to prove the lack of design; it's trying to elucidate the mechanisms of evolution. Something ID doesn't even begin to have a theory for!

You say you have 25 years of investigation under your belt. Have you spent those 25 years attempting to work out an alternative theory for how evolution happens? Because if you haven't, I'm not sure those 25 years of experience are of any utility in determining that ID is a better explanation for the mechanisms of evolution.

I'm going to anticipate your claim that ID does not attempt to explain the mechanisms of evolution by asking why, in that case, is there even a dispute as to which is a better explanation for the fact of evolution?

You're right: an investigation into bacterial resistance has nothing to do with exploring how life's earliest precursors evolved into the vast panoply of life we now see before us. But are you really going to argue that an investigation into how antibiotic resistance evolves is not concerned with the mechanisms behind evolution? How do you suppose antibiotic resistance happens? Perhaps an intelligent designer drives the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Care to hazard a guess as to why? Do you have any mechanism for how it evolves in mind? Does ID? Oh, wait; ID isn't a theory about mechanisms. CF Dembski, "The Design Revolution," pg. 179.

I wonder why you first state that bacteria never evolve into anything other than bacteria (not that anyone's ever waited around for a few billion, or even a few million, generations to see if it happens — on the other hand, no one's ever seen continental drift happen either), and then say you (and ID) don't deny that evolution happens. Well, which is it? Does evolution happen, or not? And if it does, do you claim that no organism ever evolves into any other organism? Then what, exactly, do you mean when you say IDists don't deny that evolution happens? If you're saying evolution only happens at the genus or species level (i.e., microevolution), then I'd like to hear how you get around the existence of higher-order taxa (e.g., orders, classes, phyla) without invoking special creation.

Comment by ericmurphy — September 22, 2005 @ 9:20 pm

Joe G Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 9:09 am
OK- obviously we can and do detect design. How do YOU think we do it?

Why don't these Dembski critics tell us that Stonehenge is just a natural formation? Why don't they tell forensic scientists that they can't tell a natural death from a homicide?

Why can't the processes used by design-centric endeavors be used in biology?

And what, exactly, is the criteria for determining that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for the universe AND life? We will see if it is as well presented as IDists have presented the criteria for inferring design. If your next response answers anything it had better answer that. If not I will know you and those critics have nothing but a load of double-standards.

Read the following:

Why ID is scientific

Comment by Joe G — September 23, 2005 @ 9:09 am

ericmurphy Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:59 am
Joe G:

Your insistence that ID has a better mechanism for detecting design than NDE does, aside from being wrong (ID's proposed mechanism doesn't work), is utterly beside the point. You're asking which is a better tool for inferring design, ID or NDE. That's like asking which is a better tool for computing the area under a curve, calculus or Photoshop.

ID and NDE are theories (to the extent that ID even is a theory) about entirely different things. ID attempts (without success, in the opinion of virtually all scientists) to infer design. NDE attempts to elucidate the mechanisms for evolution. Calculus is great for determining the area under a curve. On the other hand, it's terrible for manipulating pixels in a digital image. I wouldn't use Photoshop for computing the orbit of a satellite; would you?

This thread was originally about which is a better explanation for the evolution of life, not for which was better for inferring design. Steve Petermann quoted James Shapiro as saying "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." I could reword that to say, "There are no ID accounts, detailed or not, for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system; in fact, there is no ID account for anything at all." If all ID claims to do is infer whether a particular system is designed or not, most evolutionary biologists would say, "Who cares? I want to know how evolution works, not whether or not this particular thingamajig was designed."

So which theory is a more plausible explanation for the evolution of life? I'm not sure at this point whether you think evolution even happens (you don't seem to think it happens to bacteria), and I know you don't have a proposed mechanism for how evolution happens in the first place. Still think ID is a better explanation for evolution than NDE?

Comment by ericmurphy — September 23, 2005 @ 11:59 am

ericmurphy Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Joe G:

I've read "Why ID is Scientfic." I've also read the rebuttal by "skeptic-err-guy." No offense, but frankly I find the rebuttal more compelling. I can't imagine that would come as a surprise to you.

Comment by ericmurphy — September 23, 2005 @ 12:17 pm

Joe G Says:
September 24th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Yeah skeptic-err-guy's response was to say that ID is un-falsifiable. I have shown the opposite to be indicative of reality. Therefore it figures that yoiu would side with the opposition, ie anti-reality.

Oh well…

Then you totally missed the point of my last post. No surprise there either.

This:

And what, exactly, is the criteria for determining that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for the universe AND life?

Has NOTHING to do with detecting design. It has everything to do with what criteria is used to determine (basically) the ANTI-ID position, ie the "blindwatchmaker" position.

The point being is that you can criticize the criteria for detecting design all you want. But reality demonstrates that you have nothing to defend NDE. IOW you aren't casting stones from a glass house- you don't even have a house.

Then you say:

If all ID claims to do is infer whether a particular system is designed or not,

That is NOT all ID claims to do. You would have known that had the ability to understand my essay.

Comment by Joe G — September 24, 2005 @ 9:12 am

Joe G Says:
September 24th, 2005 at 9:15 am
Eric,

See if you can follow this:

kongstad sez:
If someone stumbled upon concrete evidence for design in nature that would be science, but we are still waiting for that to happen.

Could that be due to the fact the only acceptable concrete evidence the "we" are still waiting for is a direct face-to-face interview with the designer?

Or perhaps you can provide a reference to the type of concrete evidence you would accept by proving the same type of evidence that demonstrates that life and the universe are the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.

That would not only provide a reference but would show that you are not applying some arbitrary double-standard.

Comment by Joe G — September 24, 2005 @ 9:15 am

ericmurphy Says:
September 24th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
Joe:

If anyone is missing any points here, it's you. How many times do I have to say it: NDE is not about disproving the existence of a designer. There is no criterion, anywhere in the neodarwinian theory of evolution, for "determining" the sufficiency of unintelligent, blind/undirected processes to account for evolution. Nor does it need one. The fact of the matter is, neither NDE nor ID have come upon a single, confirmed instance of any biological structure that cannot have evolved through "unintelligent, blind/unidrected processes." And how the hell would one go about "determining" non-design? Are you arguing that for NDE to criticize ID's inability to detect design reliably, it has to have a method for detecting "non-design" What kind of complaint is that?

Furthermore, NDE has nothing to say about the creation of the universe! Since when did NDE become a cosmological theory? Do you also criticize economic theories for not accounting for the origin of the universe?

Your withering criticism of NDE for not having a criterion for determining life was not designed is tantamount to criticizing it for not determining the value of the universal gravitation constant! Neodarwinian Evolution is not concerned with either proving or disproving that life was designed. Is that such a tough statement to understand?

But the fact is, for any particular biological structure, NDE has proposed one or more mechanisms for how it got to be the way it is. Usually, the problem is trying to decide which of multiple processes was responsible. ID has proposed no mechanism of any sort whatsoever for how any biological structure got to be the way it is!

And if you ask me one more time to "prove" that life and the universe are the result of unintelligent, blind/undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, I'm going to blow a seal, or something. (BTW, do you have a macro that prints out "unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes" with a single keystroke? Just curious.)

This isn't rocket science, Joe. It doesn't require any mathematical symbolism, it doesn't require appeal to probability theory or calculus. It involves a little research into the literature. If you think that ID is a better explanation for the evolution of life on earth, then you're going to have to point in the direction of some paper somewhere that explains how a designer drove evolution. Not how it created the universe, not how life got its start, but how it evolved. Whatever ID claims to be able to do, one thing it steadfastly insists it doesn't have to do is explain how life evolved! What kind of theory of evolution is that?

So tell me, Joe: what is ID's explanation for how life evolves? I don't want to hear anything about irreducible complexity, or complex specified information, the explanatory filter, or the design inference, because none of those concepts has anything whatsoever to do with how life evolved. If anything, they attempt (unsuccessfully) to show that life could not have evolved.

As far as the scientific community is concerned, if there is a single biological structure anywhere out there that can be proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt to be unevolvable except through some sort of intelligent agency, then you'd have compelling evidence for the existence of a designer (and, as a bonus, you would have falsified NDE). But in case you haven't noticed, anything short of that is a classic god-of-the-gaps argument, and no self-respecting scientist is going to take it seriously. No amount of arm-waving about irreducible complexity, CSI, etc. is going to change that.

I actually did read your essay, and in fact I did understand it. But since ID depends on merely finding one unevolvable biological structure, somewhere, at some time, then for all practical purposes it is unfalsifiable. If science can satisfy Michael Behe that neither the bacterial flagellum, the mammalian clotting sequence, the vertebrate immune system, etc., are in fact not irreducibly complex, Mr. Behe is free to try to find some other system that is.

Okay, Joe. You claim that ID is falsifiable. Put your money where your mouth is. Tell me what piece of evidence, from the fossil record, from genetics, from biochemistry, morphological studies, from cladistics, would prove to you that ID is false. I already gave you one piece of evidence that would falsify NDE; here's another one: Precambrian rabbits. That's all it would take. Any confirmed evidence like that would be enough to do it. You can't just argue that something "must have been designed," and use that to falsify NDE, for reasons that should be clear by now.

One thing you have done a pretty good job of so far: you've pretty much convinced me that you do not believe evolution happens. You've stated numerous times that since, as you claim, bacteria don't evolve into non-bacteria, flies don't evolve into non-flies, and horses don't evolve into non-horses, NDE doesn't work. But on the other hand, you've implied that you don't deny evolution. Well, I think it's time to pick a side. Is the reason you don't think ID needs to explain evolution that you don't think evolution happens in the first place? By design or not, does it happen or not?

You can accuse NDE adherents of a double-standard when you can show that ID has some sort of explanation for the diversity of life ( don't tell me that saying it was "designed" explains anything). Until then, it belongs in a philosophy class, not a high school biology class.

Comment by ericmurphy — September 24, 2005 @ 8:43 pm

Joe G Says:
September 25th, 2005 at 9:32 am
In my essay I demonstrated how to falsify ID. You said you read it.

eric murphy:
There is no criterion, anywhere in the neodarwinian theory of evolution, for "determining" the sufficiency of unintelligent, blind/undirected processes to account for evolution. Nor does it need one.

That is flat out wrong. Ya see THAT is what is being debated. IF you had read my essay you would have understood that simple and basic fact.

Also my essay explained my position on evolution. You say you read the essay. However I have to assume you are lying.

The mechanisms for "evolution" in the ID scenario are "built-in responses to environmental cues" (in my essay) or a cleverly written genetic algorithm with a goal in mind.

em:
Furthermore, NDE has nothing to say about the creation of the universe!

I never said nor implied that it did. ID does. So in order to falsify ID you have to demonstrate that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can accoiunt for it. The NDE doesn't say anything about the origin of life either but again to falsify ID…

The point being that if life or the universe did NOT originate via those processes there isn't ANY reason to infer its subsequent diversity is the result of those processes.

Precambriamn rabbits wouldn't falsify the NDE- you wanna know why? Because the precam rabbnits has to do with the history of life and the NDE is about the process of how they came to be.

As I said in my essay ID is NOT anti-evolution. Even Creationionists since the time of Karl von Linne understood speciation (macro-evolution) occurs. However the experimental (empirical) evidence demonstrates genetic homeostasis- that is a populations resistance to change. And yes that is why basteria always remain bacteria even after millions of generations.

So why don't you show me the evidence that demonstrates a population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms. If you can't do that then the NDE does not belong in a biology class. You may have a mechanism, RM & NS however no one has shown that mechanisms can do anything except slightly modify already existing designs.

Also IF NDE isn't concerned with whether or not life was designed then why do so many evolutionists argue against design? Reality refutes yoiu yet again.

Comment by Joe G — September 25, 2005 @ 9:32 am

Joe G Says:
September 25th, 2005 at 11:12 am
Saying "it was designed" obviously does something. If it didn't we wouldn't have archaeology because determining an artifact from a rock is useless- according to you and your ilk.

Also we could rid ourselves of homicide and arson investigators because it doesn't matter- that is if we listen to your (il)logic.

Why have SETI if saying a radio signal from another system was the product of ET? According to you that adds nothing. According to scientists, however, that would be cause of great enlightenment. Who should we believe?

Reality demonstrates that saying "it was designed" says quite a bit. It also shifts the investigation- as evidenced by archaelogy, SETI, homicide and arson investigations.

But I thank you for demonstrating the NDE does not have nor require a criterion all the while criticizing ID for having one that can be tested.

Comment by Joe G — September 25, 2005 @ 11:12 am

ericmurphy Says:
September 25th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Joe G:

Obviously you're going to give me no peace until I can "prove" I've read (or more accurately, "waded through") your essay, so I guess I'll have to ruin a perfectly good afternoon and do so. I'm wondering how many times I'll have to quote you directly before you'll accept that as "proof," or even "evidence" that I've read it.

Okay, here goes:

The truth need not be an absolute truth.

Except, evidently, when it comes to neodarwinian evolution.

With respect to your difference of opinion with the McLean case, I want to first point out that you're taking a court decision to speak for the scientific community. There are probably plenty of scientists who would disagree with one or more points listed, but no matter. Let's see which ones you think are contradictions.

Is the origin of life explained by natural law? No.

Well, I'm not sure I see a contradiction here, but I guess my first question is, what do you mean by "explained" Do you claim that natural law will never, as a matter of principle, be able to explain life, or are you just saying it can't do so now? Because if the latter is true, you're looking right down the barrel of a god-of-the-gaps accusation, and if the former is true, I don't think there's any way you'll ever be able to prove that 30th century science will not be able to explain life.

Is all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms via common descent/ descent with modification explained by natural law? No.

You're saying this like you know for a fact that it's true. For one thing, the first organism that could plausibly be said to be "alive" certainly was not a single-celled organism. Far from it. The first thing out there that was capable of replicating itself wasn't even close to being a single-cell organism. So you're not even close to right on this one. And besides, have a look at this. (Although I can already anticipate your complaint that the explanation given "doesn't have any detail." Well, you can't say I didn't try.)

And yes, what about the origins of those natural laws?

And yes, what does NDE have to do with explaining natural laws? I think that's the job of quantum physics, not biology.

How do we falsify the notion that the evolution of cetaceans from land animals proceeded via natural selection acting on random variations caused by random genetic mutations?

Well, you could start by showing that the morphological, genetic, biochemical, and fossil evidence has some other, more plausible explanation. Something beyond that a designer designed whales, and a designer also designed hippos, and it's just by sheer laziness that he made them obviously related on a genetic level.

(There's a lot of stuff you talk about that has no direct relationship to the evolution of life on earth; it's more directly concerned with the existence of natural law and the origin of the universe. If we were discussing cosmology or quantum physics, I'd respond to it, but I'd like to get this done today, and we're supposedly talking about evolution, not the universe. I will, however, say that depending on your definition of "supernatural," failing to exclude it as a possible explanation of a natural phenomenon makes it difficult to exclude any explanation, because how can you exclude something that violates natural law by appealing to whether it is possible or not? You can't even exclude impossibilities.)

What the above demonstrates is that one cannot define ID out of science without doing the same to any anti-ID position.

The reason scientists exclude ID from consideration is because it doesn't explain anything, and it doesn't exclude any possible hypothesis, especially if you don't exclude supernatural causes. How can you "exclude" the possibility of design, especially if the designer can suspend natural law at will, as Behe believes?

We explain the evidence and we don't have to explain the metaphysical to do so.

First, you don't even begin to explain the evidence — you have no explanation whatsoever for how life evolves, and what do you mean you don't have to explain the metaphysical? If you're not excluding supernatural causes, then how do you explain them without recourse to metaphysical explanation?

It's interesting that you quote Behe saying ID "does not try to explain everything," but at the same time you're insisting that NDE must explain everything. If anyone is guilty of a double-standard here, it's pretty obvious that it's ID.

Speaking of which, you think that "built-in responses to environmental cues" actually explains anything? It's about as specific as saying "God did it." Spetner's argument is elegantly reduced by Dawkins to "argument from personal incredulity."

And even if Spetner's argument held water, he'd still have to explain how those mutations he refers to actually happened. What's the mechanism? Does god reach in with the holy tweezers and twiddle some nucleotides? Why is it so hard to believe that mutations can be random when we've watched them be random, i.e., when they're serious enough to kill the organism.

Again, are you going to argue that the good mutations are designed and the bad ones aren't? And what's so complex about transposition or inadvertent duplication? Genes get moved around in the chromosomes all the time. (continued next message)

Comment by ericmurphy — September 25, 2005 @ 6:02 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 25th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
(cont. from previous message)

Whole Chromosomes get linked accidentally, which is why chimps have one more chromosome than humans, despite having virtually identical genotypes. What is ID's explanation for that? The designer wanted to save space?

Okay, here we go with Dembski's ideas on ID.

1) High information content has nothing to do with whether life was designed or not. If you want a lot of information, run a random number generator for a few minutes. Poof! Information.

Oh, you mean specified information. Well, first, Dembski has failed to demonstrate that CSI requires design. He hasn't even clearly demonstrated what he means by CSI. See here, and here. I know, a 48-page paper with 98 footnotes won't contain enough detail for you, but it's the best I could do on short notice.

Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

Classic god-of-the-gaps argument, Joe.

Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Aside from being a non-sequitor (if A /= B, then A = C), the fact remains that ID isn't any kind of explanation whatsoever for the origin of information and for irreducible complexity.

For one thing, we already know that irreducibly complex systems can, in fact, evolve, because we've witnessed it. A species of bacterium has evolved an irreducibly complex system for metabolising nylon precursors that did not exist in nature before 1941. Did this system just "poof" into existence? No. It was cobbled together from pre-existing proteins that already had other functions. Nevertheless, it is made up from a number of well-coordinated parts, that work together, the deletion of one of which would make the whole system unworkable.

Is IC a hallmark of intelligent design? In a word, No.

Your analogy between anthropology and archaeology is fatally flawed, because in both instances we already know the nature of the designer. As ID adherents have stressed again and again, ID makes no predictions as to the nature of the "designer," so how can it possibly infer design when it knows nothing about the designer?

There's nothing to indicate that the mechanisms of random mutation involve "counterflow." We already know that random mutations happen all the time — according to Behe and Snoke's own methodology, they happen millions of times a microsecond worldwide (when you use assumptions that actually have applicability in the real world), and these are only the mutations that involve the creation of biological novelty!

Intelligent design also implies intention. With intention a whole new world of investigation opens up.

Great. So when are the ID guys going to start investigating? Rev up your word processors, guys, and start publishing some papers!

Behe's claim that design is empirically detectable is simply false, no matter how many times you want to deny it, and for every biological structure that Behe claims cannot have evolved, ways it could have evolved have been described, sometimes before Behe even makes his claim! The bacterial flagellum, the clotting sequence, and the complementary immune system are just the three best-known examples.

Here's the reason scientists don't appeal to design to explain natural phenomena, Joe: It's because it does short-circuits the inquiry . If you say the bacterial flagellum was designed, what comes next? Whatever it is, it isn't clear that any ID proponent is pursuing it, and it's not like they're being forbidden to do so.

And the thing is, even if it's true that some biological structure was designed, so what? Does that get us any closer to figuring out how life evolved? No, it does not. There hasn't been a single paper published in any peer-reviewed journal that has taken the assumption that life was designed and gone anywhere with it. Why not? What's holding these guys back? It can't be lack of funding. The Discovery Institute alone is funding 40 fellowships. Where's the research from these guys? If I were running the ID, I'd be wondering what I was getting for my money?

God, Joe. Are you really going to claim that it's ID that's spending all its time "fending off" attacks from biological scientists? That statement is utterly ridiculous on its face. Who the hell is making this huge cultural controversy out of the issue? Do we hear about evolutionists badgering school boards nationwide to get warning stickers affixed to high school biology textbooks? Give me a break.

(cont.)

Comment by ericmurphy — September 25, 2005 @ 6:34 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 25th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
(cont. previous msg.)

Okay, as for the explanatory filter, I give up. I've given you 45,000 words on why the damned thing doesn't work, but you insist it does. If anyone should be accusing anyone of lying here, it's me. Your sole response to the links I provided was that they "didn't provide any detail." Given the amount of detail that actually is in those links, I would have supposed that after reading them, you would have doubted that Dembski's explanation of the EF meant anything at all. Given that that hasn't been your response, nor have you mentioned disagreement with any of the points made, I would be forgiven for thinking you've never even looked at them. But I don't think accusations of lying advance the discourse any, and therefore will not level any accusations at you. I will assume that you have, in fact, read them, and simply are not disposed, for reasons of your own, to agree with anything that pokes holes in the EF.

I will say one thing, though. Dembski claims that false negatives are a problem for any detection of design. No kidding, Bill! Ask any cop! But so are false positives, despite Dembski's unretracted statements to the contrary.

The point is that the EF has no reliable method for excluding chance hypotheses we have never thought of! And how, exactly, even in principle, would it do so? Dembski has never given us a clue. It's not a matter of eliminating every possible cause. It's an inability to assign probability to causes you know nothing about. Whenever someone talks about probabilities in the context of disputing NDE, I know they're very likely wrong.

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

Ian Musgrave, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics (internal references omitted).

About irreducible complexity: Behe's definition is inapplicable to biology because it excludes the possibility of removing a part from an IC system and leaving it functional for a different function, a possibility that seems not to have occurred to Behe (and now it's too late to retract his argument). And choosing the bacterial flagellum was a particularly bad idea, not only because you can remove parts from the flagellum and still have it work for other purposes, but also because there are flagella out there with as few as 27 proteins, and others with as many as 40. So the best you can say is that the 27-protein flagella are IC, but certainly not the 40-protein ones.

So. Does IC demonstrate design? No. Does CSI? No. Does the EF? No. Do all three together? No. So if you're claiming that disproving any one of the three would falsify ID, it looks like it's already happened, Joe. And if it hasn't, then maybe ID isn't falsifiable after all.

And you still haven't provided me with actual evidence, from whatever source you care to name, that would in your view falsify ID. Behe's claim that if you took a bacterium without a flagellum (but could it have a TTSS?), give it some selective pressure, and wait 10,000 generations to see what happened, is patently absurd. 10,000 generations for most bacteria would take less than a year. Would you care to wait around for, say 10^10 ^ generations, Dr. Behe? or 10^12^? Because it clearly could have taken that long, or longer, for bacteria to evolve flagella from a TTSS. How many generations do you suppose there are between 3.8 BYA and, say, 1.2 BYA?

(cont.)

Comment by ericmurphy — September 25, 2005 @ 7:02 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 25th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
(cont from previous. And I'm only halfway through!)

The minimal complexity required to sustain the simplest possible living organism is 250-400 genes and their corresponding proteins.

This is wrong. 250-400 might be a minimum for modern life, but it's ridiculous to suppose that it's some sort of irreducible minimum for any sort of life.

Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive.

This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism [20]. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins [20]. Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still [4], and preceded by even simpler chemical systems [3, 10, 11, 15].

As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 – 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily.

The "life sequence" is a myth.

Musgrave, supra, internal references omitted.

The cells of a metazoan contain the same DNA yet there are many different kinds of cells. Also there are cells that reproduce via mitosis and cells that reproduce via meiosis. We can postulate that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for that all we want, however when it comes right down to it the only reason for doing so, given what we do know, is to fulfill an anti-ID agenda.

Why are we talking about metazoan life? You're about three billion years too far up the ladder! Meiosis probably took two billion years to evolve! If you want to talk about the origin of life, you're getting a bit of a late start, Joe. You can't assume that because life is as complex as it is now, that it was always that complex, and using that as evidence that life cannot have evolved. No one (except, perhaps, for IDists) assume that the first thing capable of reproducing was even a cell! There are plenty of autocatalyzing substances out there that can "reproduce" in some sense of the word, that don't even need genetic material at all! Or even proteins!

Those familiar with computer programming and packet delivery systems can really appreciate what goes on inside of a cell. Then couple that with a whole body of different cells, with the same DNA, all communicating and working in concert, yet being separate from the whole metazoan, in that said metazoan isn't consciously controlling the activities at the cellular level and the metazoan survives despite many deaths at the cellular level.

Again, why are we talking about cells? It sounds to me like your arguing that life could not have arisen without design, but NDE isn't about how life originated anyway. You need to refute arguments from abiogenesis, and you haven't even started doing that.

Here's an example of why CSI doesn't work. There are ~10^93^ possible functional cytochrome c proteins. With 104 amino acids, clearly we're talking about a lot of CSI here. But any one of them will work. Put a human cytochrome gene into a yeast cell, and it will work fine. Because the genetic code is degenerate, there is an even more humongous number of functional cytochrome c genotypes. Yet humans and chimps have exactly the same cytochrome c protein. How likely is that? Even the genotype only differs by four base pairs. Humans and chimps differ from all other mammals by about 10 amino acids, and from yeast cells by about 50 amino acids. The chances of humans and chimps having exactly the same cytochrome c protein are clearly too small to compute, and would probably fall below Dembski's "universal probability bound." So does that prove design? No! Because there is a huge number of functional cytochrome c proteins that would work perfectly well. So where does CSI get you in this case? Nowhere, because the proper explanation is that humans and chimps are descended from a common ancestor that had the same cytochrome c gene, and other mammals split off earlier, and evolved their own proteins due to genetic drift. Does CSI imply a designer here? No.

You spend a lot of time presenting evidence for design from Gonzales and Richards, but in my opinion all those (purportedly) necessary requirements for life argue against design. A designer (especially one who supposedly designed the natural laws of the universe) could have specified a design for the universe that made life likely, common, and abundant. Why didn't he/she/it? We don't know, do we? If we can't even answer simple questions like that, how can we possibly think we can infer design from the unlikelihood of life?

(cont.)

Comment by ericmurphy — September 25, 2005 @ 7:28 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 25th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
(cont.)

Without direct observation or input from the designer, although an interesting question is not necessary to achieve the objectives of ID- that is the detection and understanding of the design.

It might not be necessary for the objectives of ID, but it sure is necessary for the objectives of biology! This is Dembski's argument, and it doesn't cut it. Frankly, if you can't figure out how life evolved, then what difference does it make if it was designed or not? Even you could prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that life was in fact designed, all that does is get you in the door, and you still have to do all the hard work that evolutionary biology has done for the last 150 years. Or, you wouldn't, because all that work has been done already, without assuming any kind of design.

Everyone spent the last half of the 19th century trying to figure out the properties of the luminiferous ether, under the assumption that it was necessary for light to propagate in a vacuum. Einstein realized it wasn't necessary to explain anything, dispensed with it, and everything got a lot simpler. The same is true of dispensing with a design hypothesis in biology. If you assume design, you're just making life hard for yourself, wasting a lot of time and effort trying to find evidence for it, when instead you could be accomplishing real work.

ID is another way of saying "I give up looking."

Nothing could be further from reality. In reality whenever design is detected the work is just getting started, just ask any archaeologist or SETI researcher. To say my car was designed affords absolutely no knowledge about the car. To gain that knowledge research must be conducted.

Good point, Joe. So now, after the ID guys have spent the last 20 years chasing their own tails, and will probably spend another 50 or 100 years still trying to prove design, they'll be right were evolutionary biologists were 150 years ago. Fortunately, they won't have to do all the research, because it will already have been done for them while they were distracted with wild goose chases.

Presumably at this point you'll at least grant that I have actually read, wallowed in, waded through, immersed myself in, your essay. Of course, you'll still claim I didn't understand it (I guess there's no way I could ever prove I actually understand it), but can you at least get off my case about it and stop accusing me of lying?

And in the meantime, I think you should go back to the links I posted earlier, read them closely, and get back to me about whether you still think the Explanatory Filter works the way Dembski claims it does.

Comment by ericmurphy — September 25, 2005 @ 7:40 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 25th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Joe G: [in response to your post 9/25/2005 9:32 AM]

I gotta hand it to you, Joe: you're endlessly entertaining. Or at least I thought so before you made me respond to your essay. I keep saying that the debate is about which is a better explanation for the evolution of life, ID or NDE, but just spent two hours getting sidetracked discussing whether ID is "scientific" or not. Anyway…

"Built-in responses to environmental cues." That's your "mechanism" for evolution? Could you possibly be more vague? Hell, you could be talking about RM&NS!

If you think "built-in responses to environmental cues" is any kind of proposed mechanism for evolution, you've got pretty low standards for theoretical rigor.

And wait! You claim that when I say there is no criterion "anywhere in the neodarwinian theory of evolution, for "determining" the sufficiency of unintelligent, blind/undirected processes to account for evolution," that I'm wrong? You mean there actually is one? Then why do you keep hounding me to provide one? Oh, but maybe you think I'm wrong when I say NDE doesn't need such a criterion because "that's what's being debated." Well, actually, no, Joe. That's not what's being debated. In case you've forgotten, we're not debating your essay. We're debating whether or not ID is an equally plausible explanation for evolution as NDE is." Let's try to stay focused here.

I'm not asking you how to falsify ID. I'm asking you for specific evidence, from the fossil evidence, genetics, etc., that in your view would falsify ID. There's nothing in your essay that gives examples of any such evidence. If I've missed it (which frankly wouldn't be hard), please provide it to me now so I don't have to re-read it yet again.

Of course you implied that NDE was supposed to account for the creation of the universe! You asked me:

And what, exactly, is the criteria for determining that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for the universe AND life?

How could NDE be expected to have a criteria for "determining" that, etc. etc that can account for the universe if it were not a theory of cosmology? You may not have intended to imply that NDE should have something to say about the universe, but you did anyway; in fact, you flat-out stated it.

Your claim that if the universe were in fact designed (which it may well have been) there would be no reason to infer the diversity of life from other processes is wrong. Let's say that the universe is "designed" in the sense that the physical constants, laws of nature, etc., were "front-loaded" into it. Does that mean that a designer has to intervene in the genetic material of living organisms in order to drive evolution forward? Of course not! Science would still have to discover the mechanisms by which organisms evolve. And stating that they evolve due to "built-in responses to environmental cues" isn't going to satisfy any competent scientist.

Precambrian rabbits absolutely would falsify NDE. No matter how horribly you misinterpret punctuated equilibrium, there is no way rabbits could have evolved in a few million years from any organisms that lived in the Precambrian. You claim bacteria can't evolve at all; how could evolution account for bacteria evolving directly into rabbits in a few million years?! Bacteria evolving into rabbits is absolutely about the process of evolution, not just the history of life, and NDE would be unable to account for rapid (and unique) evolution on that scale. NDE would be falsified. The fact that you don't understand this makes me wonder about the limits of your understanding of NDE (given your constant claims that I don't understand the EF, or even what this debate is about, I think I'm entitled to say the same thing about your understanding of NDE)

And if you don't think Precambrian rabbits would falsify NDE, why the hell would you think the notion that life was "designed" would falsify it?

Joe, you claim you don't deny evolution, but you do. Your arguments show that you do not believe that single-celled organisms can evolve into anything other than single-celled organisms. If that were actually true, evolution would have stalled right there, and the earth would be filled with single-celled organisms and nothing else. You're missing the implications of your own statements. How did we get from bacteria to camels if bacteria can't evolve into anything but bacteria? Do you have an alternate hypothesis that doesn't involve special creation?

Calling speciation "macro-evolution" is stretching the meaning of the term. If you call an ancestor species splitting into one or more successor species "macro-evolution," what is your term for evolution from, say, the earliest deuterostomes to birds? Macro-macro-Macro evolution?

Again, you're asking me for evidence that "demonstrates a population of of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms." Since you're asking for such evidence, I think I'm entitled to assume that a) you believe no such evidence exists, and b) that therefore it doesn't happen. I guess it's possible you believe that such evolution happens but there's no evidence for it, but I don't get the sense that's your position. Given that, I think I'm also entitled to state that you, personally, do not believe evolution happens.

(cont)

Comment by ericmurphy — September 25, 2005 @ 8:05 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 25th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
(cont from previous)

Given the evidence provided here, here, here, here, and here, I think you'd have to be disingenuous in the extreme to claim that there's no evidence life could have evolved. (Yes, I know, those links "don't contain any detail." That's the perennial complaint IDists level at NDE; you'd think they wanted a video of it actually happening!).

And let me ask you this (not that I haven't already): can you show me evidence that "demonstrates a designer could take a population of single-celled organisms and make it into something other than single-celled organisms? Or that a designer actually did so? Or that a designer actually caused to exist the various higher-order taxa you claim could not have evolved from predecessor organisms? Because if you can't, ID certainly doesn't belong in a biology class.

I've told you a million times why evolutionists argue against design, but I guess one more time can't hurt: they argue against it because design doesn't explain anything.

Again, equating evolutionary biology with archaeology is a fatally-flawed analogy because in archaeology we already know who the designers will be, and what they're like. We can draw inferences from the designed object about what their methods were, what their intentions were, and what they themselves were like. We can draw no such inferences about a "designer" of biological structures because we can't even begin to guess what such a designer would be like. Except that it's not a particularly good designer, because of all the examples of poor design scattered all through life. You can find a few of them, anatomical and biochemical, here.

If ID would stop spending all its time using fatally-flawed tools to try to infer something that doesn't get anyone anywhere (re-read what I just said above before you jump all over me), it might actually get something accomplished. I point to the complete absence of original research, published in legitimate scientific journals, as conclusive evidence as to just how monumental a waste of time ID really is.

And I have to say, after spending most of my day responding to your arguments, Joe, I can begin to see why scientists don't waste their time arguing this stuff. For one thing, they see the issue as settled, long ago. For another, they know they're not going to persuade anyone who doesn't want to be persuaded. And for a third, it takes forever write all this stuff out. A lot longer to actually write it than to come up with it in the first place. That's actually the easy part.

I think that at this point, any objective reader is going to realize you're losing this argument, Joe. And I'm just a legal assistant with no formal training in science, to say nothing of biology. If you think you're going to get somewhere with a trained evolutionary biologist, you're kidding yourself. People like Michael Behe and William Dembski, whom no one would describe as stupid, have made exactly no headway with the scientific community, and in fact in many ways are laughing stocks. So if you think arguing with me is hard (who knows, maybe you don't), imagine what it would be like arguing with someone who really knows what they're talking about.

All I can say is, good luck.

Comment by ericmurphy — September 25, 2005 @ 8:25 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Joe G:

After reading my (extremely lengthy) response to your essay, "Why ID is Scientific," and to your most recent comments, I realize that my responses are not particularly well-organized (and were riddled with typos and grammatical errors). I'd just finished a particularly grueling 60-mile bike ride, on top of an 85-mile ride the day before, so I may have been suffering from oxygen starvation. But enough excuses! Anyway…this comment is with respect to your claim that ID is "falsifiable."

Okay, let's see — you say ID is falsifiable, and without providing any examples of hypothetical evidence that would in your view actually falsify it, you state that if any one of three premises — Irreducible Complexity, Complex Specified Information, or the Explanatory Filter — can be "falsified", then ID itself is also falsified.

Let me show again why none of these premises stand up to scrutiny.

Irreducible Complexity

First, ID has not been able to demonstrate that any complex biological structure is in fact "unevolvable" because it possesses IC. I've argued than the bacterial flagellum (which one? there are at least a dozen different ones) is not IC, and that you can remove parts of it and still leave it functional, albeit for a different function. While NDE may not be able to "prove" that you can evolve, say, a Type III Secretory System into a flagellum, ID can't even begin to prove that it cannot, as a matter of principle, be done. Since ID's premise with regard to IC is purely eliminative, this is a fatal defect.

Second, Michael Behe and David Snoke attempted to prove that it is impossible (or at least extremely unlikely) for random mutations to produce biological novelty, but Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright demonstrated in a (relatively) short paper that using the same calculations as B&S but assumptions actually applicable to the real world, the evolution of such biologically-novel structures isn't just possible; it is likely, and common. The same paper demonstrates how it is possible, through random mutation, to get from the hagfish version of hemoglobin to the bony fish version in about 50 million years, and from the lamprey version to the bony fish version in 600 million years, which is in reasonable accord of what is seen from the fossil record.

Third, NDE has demonstrated that some IC structures can, in fact, evolve. I presented the example of an IC metabolic pathway that allows a species of bacterium to metabolize nylon precursor polymers that did not exist 75 years ago.

Therefore, IC does not demonstrate Intelligent Design.

(cont. nxt msg.)

Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 2:08 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
(cont. prev. msg.)

Complex Specified Information

HereÃs what Rich Baldwin has to say about Dembski's use of Information Theory as it applies to CSI, and hence to ID:

In attempting to define complex information, Dembski conflates a definition of information from Classical Information Theory (probability) with a modified definition from Algorithmic Information Theory (computational length, or Kolmogorov complexity). Recall that Dembski defined information as -log2 p, where p represents the probability of an event. This is essentially Shannon's usage in Classical Information Theory. On the other hand, he goes on to state that -log 2 p is a complexity measure:

"Information is a complexity-theoretic notion. Indeed, as a purely formal object, the information measure described here is a complexity measure… Given an event A of probability P(A), I(A) = -log2P(A) measures the number of bits associated with the probability P(A). We therefore speak of the "complexity of information" and say that the complexity of information increases as I(A) increases (or, correspondingly, as P(A) decreases)."

So far, Dembski has applied Kolmogorov complexity to the Shannon information resulting from a single event. At least, other parts of the article imply he means Kolmogorov complexity, and he doesn't state otherwise in this paragraph. Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with this, though the usefulness isn't very clear at all. There is a big error in the final half of the last sentence, however:

"the complexity of information increases as I(A) increases (or, correspondingly, as P(A) decreases)."

This is wrong. In general, there is no relationship whatsoever between the Kolmogorov complexity of a string and its probability of occurrence. Kolmogorov complexity of a string is the length of the shortest program on a reference Universal Turing Machine or UTM (a sort of generalized computer) that will produce that string. It depends on two things: (1) the contents of the string, and (2) the reference computer, neither of which relate to the probability of the string's occurrence. There is an infinite number of UTMs to choose from. Given an arbitrary finite string, we can find a UTM on which the Kolmogorov complexity of the string is arbitrarily low or arbitrarily high. Nature has no preference for one UTM over another.

Further, Kolmogorov complexity is inherently non-computable, which makes it a useless measure of information content or improbability in any event.

I've also demonstrated that Dembski's definition of CSI is vague, ambiguous, not well thought out, and in the words of Elsberry and Shallit:

We have argued that Dembski's justification for "intelligent design" is flawed in many respects. His concepts of complexity and information are either orthogonal or opposite to the use of these terms in the literature. His concept of specification is ill-defined. Dembski's use of the term "complex specified information" is inconsistent, and his proof of the "Law of Conservation of Information" is flawed. Finally, his claims about the imitations of evolutionary algorithms are incorrect. We conclude that there is no reason to accept his claims.

Nor has Dembski demonstrated why CSI must imply a designer. I have shown that at least some systems with CSI (e.g., the cytochrome c protein) can easily be the result of chance.

Therefore, CSI does not demonstrate design.

(cont. nxt. msg.)

Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 2:09 pm

ericmurphy Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
(cont. prev. msg.)

The Explanatory Filter

You've implied, in previous comments, that you work in some field of investigation, and have often drawn an analogy between the use of the explanatory filter in explaining the evolution of life and techniques used in forensics and archaeology. Therefore, I think you'd be interested in what Gary S. Hurd, someone whose field is forensics and archaeology, says in his chapter "The Explanatory Filter, Forensics, and Archaeology" from the book "Why Intelligent Design Fails." His position is that all of the detection of design used in these fields comes from what Dembski refers to as "side information," and virtually none comes from the explanatory filter itself. (Unfortunately, Hurd's essay does not appear to be available online, so I guess you'd have to buy the book if you want to read the whole thing.)

Here's why analogizing Archaeology to the design inference is invalid:

Archaeologists know precisely the identity of our designers, their fundamental needs, their available materials, and their range of means to manipulate those materials. Our close kin and we ourselves are the designers. Physics, chemistry, geology, and engineering provide our knowledge of their materials and means. Bradley and Thaxton (1994) cited archaeology merely as an example of analogical reasoning; they showed better understanding than Dembski.

As for the forensic sciences, Hurd points out that while the explanatory filter might be able to determine if a death were the result of design, it would have nothing to say about whether a death were a suicide, or simply accidental. The EF simply cannot do what Dembski claims it can do. Hurd concludes by saying, "Dembski raises the bar higher than he can jump and then ducks underneath it."

You earlier claimed that it was ridiculous for someone to run the existence of triangular snowflakes through the explanatory filter, and my response was that if the EF generated a false positive on this relatively simple and obvious test, it was suspect for the much more difficult test of avoiding false positives in detecting biological design. You asked, "why, when I apply the EF to snowflakes do they get kicked out at the first node?" In fact, they don't get "kicked out" at the first node. You're assuming that there is a known explanation for why triangular snowflakes form under certain atmospheric conditions. This is false; there is no known mechanism. Therefore, "regularity" cannot account for the existence of triangular snowflakes. Mark Perakh demonstrates why use of the Explanatory Filter as Dembski claims it should be used does in fact generate a false positive, despite Dembski's unretracted statement that the EF does not generate false positives.

Another possible example would be the spider's web. Clearly a spider's web is not the result of any natural law. Therefore, it gets through the first node of the EF. There is no doubt that a spider's web is not the result of chance. I don't think Dembski would deny that it has complex specified information. Therefore, according to the EF, it must be designed. Well, obviously it has been: by a spider. But "intelligently designed" I guess that depends on your estimation of spiders' intellects.

Presumably one could argue that the real designer of a spider's web is the same designer that designed everything else, but if anything this points out a problem with ID generally: if you postulate some sort of indefinite "designer," you can explain anything. And therefore, you explain nothing.

Richard Wein has written an exhaustive critique of the EF, and has demonstrated that it is methodologically vacuous. Dembski's response is at best flaccid, and at worst fails entirely to address Wein's criticisms. It is clear, after reading all three papers, that the EF simply cannot perform the way Dembski claims it does.

Therefore, the Explanatory Filter does not demonstrate design.

You claim in your essay that falsifying any one of the three premises Ã± IC, CSI, or the explanatory filter Ã± would falsify ID. But all three premises have in fact been falsified. Therefore, I think it's inarguable that ID itself has been falsified as well.

Comment by ericmurphy — September 28, 2005 @ 2:10 pm

Joe G Says:
October 20th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
ScienceDaily quotes Peter Andolfatto:

"Sequencing of the complete genome in humans, fruit flies, nematodes and plants has revealed the number of protein-coding genes is much more similar among these species than expected," he said. "Curiously, the largest differences between major species groups appear to be the amount of 'junk' DNA, rather than the number of genes."

I would say this doesn't bode well for NDE. It would also explain that why, when a PAX6 gene from a mouse is inserted into a fly, the fly does not develop mouse eyes. The information for "mouse" or "fly" eyes does not reside in the genes (at lest not in the HOX genes).

Also this would give support to the system architecture approach used by JA Shapiro.

Comment by Joe G — October 20, 2005 @ 12:10 pm

Joe G Says:
October 20th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
People simplify life by stating "life is chemicals, their interactions and their reactions. All you need is a self-replicating molecule with an imperfect replication process."

Obviously life requires much more than a self-replicating molecule. DNA at a minmum has to also code for proteins, proteins required for DNA replication and RNA transcription.

Those same people simplify species by saying "a species is the sum of its genes."

Both very simple. Both very wrong.

However the correlation between reproduction periods and size is very interesting. Can we use that to also measure specified complexity? I mean if we set our egos aside because it knocks us off the top of the SC totem pole.

I mean perhaps the information required for an organism of great size is more specified, more complex or both, than an organism of much lesser mass.

And please forgive me if what I just posted strayed from the OP's point.

Comment by Joe G — October 20, 2005 @ 8:03 pm

DataDoc Says:
October 21st, 2005 at 6:47 am
Krauze: "In Nature Peter Andolfatto has an article on non-coding DNA, or, as some like to call it, "junk DNA". He reports that there are signs that non-coding DNA in fruitflies is being maintained by natural selection, which indicates that it plays a functional role after all."

Since duplication and modification of existing DNA is a well known way for evolution to creat DNA that does something new, why does anybody find this surprising? Most "junk DNA" consists of copies, often endlessly repeated, of other DNA. It was named "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists who probably weren't thinking of evolution when they noted it did nothing functional for the cell and was therefore "junk". Peter Andolfatto and others, who are probably more atuned to evolution, are observing evolution in action in that "junk".

Joe G:

ScienceDaily quotes Peter Andolfatto:

"Sequencing of the complete genome in humans, fruit flies, nematodes and plants has revealed the number of protein-coding genes is much more similar among these species than expected," he said. "Curiously, the largest differences between major species groups appear to be the amount of "˜junk' DNA, rather than the number of genes."

I would say this doesn't bode well for NDE. It would also explain that why, when a PAX6 gene from a mouse is inserted into a fly, the fly does not develop mouse eyes. The information for "mouse" or "fly" eyes does not reside in the genes (at lest not in the HOX genes).

Breakthrough! The information for "mouse" or "fly" eyes does NOT reside in the HOX genes! The HOX genes initiate other genes which actually build the eye or whatever. Keep this up and eventually you guys will understand evolution, which is pretty much the same thing as saying that you'll become evolutionists.

Comment by DataDoc — October 21, 2005 @ 6:47 am

DataDoc Says:
October 21st, 2005 at 7:24 am
Joe G: People simplify life by stating "life is chemicals, their interactions and their reactions. All you need is a self-replicating molecule with an imperfect replication process."

Obviously life requires much more than a self-replicating molecule. DNA at a minmum has to also code for proteins, proteins required for DNA replication and RNA transcription."

MODERN life encodes proteins and does lots of other things that make life more efficient, but when you're starting out, simple molecular reproduction is all you need.

Onething: But if it turns out that the progression is from complex to simple, even some of the time, that could pose a real problem.

Simplification happens frequently. It's extremely common in parasites. If you're getting all your food, waste disposal and protection from your host, you can lose things like stomachs, intestines and teeth without any problems.

And you don't even have to be a parasite to simplify. Darwin discovered that some mysterious specks found in female barnacles were actually the male barnacles! They hatch out, find a female, embed themselves in her and start pumping out sperm. And sperm factories are about all the have. No shell, no digestive organisms, nothing for locomotion – nothing much but sperm factories.

Comment by DataDoc — October 21, 2005 @ 7:24 am

Joe G Says:
October 21st, 2005 at 8:03 am
DataDoc:
The HOX genes initiate other genes which actually build the eye or whatever.

I understand the concept yet no one knows where the information for the eye or "whatever" resides. Or if they do know they aren't telling us.

DataDoc:
Keep this up and eventually you guys will understand evolution, which is pretty much the same thing as saying that you'll become evolutionists.

I understand evolution and that is why I am an IDist. As a matter of fact I will take my knowledge of evolution over yours any and every day.

DataDoc:
Since duplication and modification of existing DNA is a well known way for evolution to creat DNA that does something new, why does anybody find this surprising?

Using gene dupication as an example of a random variation is disingenius. No one knows how gene duplications occur.

DataDoc:
Most "junk DNA" consists of copies, often endlessly repeated, of other DNA.

That could be what it looks like to you however that doesn't mean that is what it is.

Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 8:03 am

Joe G Says:
October 21st, 2005 at 8:08 am
DataDoc:
MODERN life encodes proteins and does lots of other things that make life more efficient, but when you're starting out, simple molecular reproduction is all you need.

Thank you for making my point! However I doubt you will find a serious scientist who agrees with you. BTW if you want to propose that "life" could be simpler(?) than the life we observe today or the more simple than the simplest life scientists have proposed can exist, then it is up to you to demonstrate such. Otherwise it belongs in a fairy-tale.

Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 8:08 am

Joe G Says:
October 21st, 2005 at 9:30 am
Perhaps we need a thread on "How 90% of my conversations about ID end."

As with this post they end in censorship, editted out-of-existence.

It is amazing how many faces some people can wear at one time…

Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 9:30 am

Joe G Says:
October 21st, 2005 at 10:57 am
Thanks Krauze, I knew I could count on you.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have our first entry in the "Whatever, Dude" competion (drum roll):

The topic- ID and research proposals

However Wm Dembski has presented many research proposals based on ID. Ignoring those proposals won't make them go away.

Aacobb:
But they are kind of irrelevant of noone follows up on them, aren't they?

(uno, dos, one, two, tres, quatro)

Whatever, Dude!

Thank you. Rememberance of the day:

The square root of Tuesday is Blue.

Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 10:57 am

onething Says:
October 21st, 2005 at 11:19 am
But they are kind of irrelevant of noone follows up on them, aren't they?

Of course. It solves the problem nicely.

Next.

Comment by onething — October 21, 2005 @ 11:19 am

edarrell Says:
October 21st, 2005 at 11:33 pm
There's more stuff supporting directionality theory than there is supporting intelligent design. Even minor stuff in science is better supported than the strongest stuff in ID.

Comment by edarrell — October 21, 2005 @ 11:33 pm

Joe G Says:
October 22nd, 2005 at 8:28 am
NAS:
"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

There are many aspects of NDE which cannot be objectively tested. There are many aspects of NDE that are not well-substantiated. Heck we don't even know what makes a species what it is. Therefore saying one can evolve into another is putting the cart before the horse. Hardly how something is substantiated. You don't substantiate something by assuming it and then using that assumption as part of the process.

NDE does not fit the criteria of theory laid down by the NAS. And as MikeGene pointed out neither do many peer-reveiwed articles.

Did someone send this (MikeGene's OP) to the Thomas More center?

Comment by Joe G — October 22, 2005 @ 8:28 am

I love ID (really!) Says:
October 23rd, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Theories are nothing. What do them scientists know about theories?
Nothing. Thats what!
National Acadamy of Sciences.
Where do they get off telling ordinary god-fearing folks about what's science and whats not! Well, I think they've got some nerve.
They just want to keep people out of their little ivory towers.
If ID doesn't fit with their precious definition of 'theory', then its about time that god-fearing folks CHANGED the definition!
Most of those Darwinist types don't even believe that the Earth is only 12,000 years old. Don't they even read the bible????

Comment by I love ID (really!) — October 23, 2005 @ 1:20 pm

g arago Says:
October 23rd, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Well, since there is no category called 'theism' or 'theology' on this blog, we'll asume that any discussion of the theological implications of evolution, intelligent design, or creation are outside of the scope of thinkers here, right?

Just kidding! Though I would recommend adding one or the other to the list so that threads such as this one can find a proper categorical home and so that some sort of balance can be sought somewhere between the politics, philosophy and science of telic thoughts (about intelligent design).

Second, I thought Steve Petermann was a theist? If so, how does he so conveniently separate his theological beliefs from his evaluation of 'intelligent design' as purely a 'science,' nay even a scientific revolution, which inevitably has implications for philosophy, theology and 'all humane studies' (according to M. Behe)?

Third, why not ask A. Peacocke, N. Murphy, D. Lamoureux, G. Ellis, T. Davis, I. Barbour, G. Murphy, G. Morton or others about how they can 'possibly' accept (certain forms of) evolution with their theological approach without advocating blasphemy or living in contradiction, instead of asking mere id-critics. These are theists that do accept Darwinian evolution, if not completely then at least partially. Why not say a bit about them and about theism in its various tones and colours (as JoeG displays) then?

The id camp has erected many false dichotomies and flimsy caricatures about those who accept the natural science of evolution at the same time that they accept the sovereignty of God the creator in their personal and social lives. It seems less effective to ask those who simply suit your case (e.g. ID vs. anti-ID, design vs. chance, teleology vs. anti-teleology) and further entrench the logic of predetermined conclusions. Why not discover how ID is being rejected by theologians as much as it is being rejected by scientists?

Then again, perhaps Steve was looking for the advice or comments of natural scientists who accept some of Darwin's theory of evolution and at the same time still remain (mainstream) theists. Perhaps further respondents would declare whether they fit this qualification before answering him.

Comment by g arago — October 23, 2005 @ 5:50 pm

doctor(logic) Says:
November 6th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Science cannot prove that God doesn't exist (although logic and linguistics can demonstrate that the classical definitions of God are utterly nonsensical). What science does is make God superfluous.

Disarmed of the idea that human life is fundamentally inexplicable by science, religion now has nothing to offer us save for a self-indulgent dreamscape. I don't claim that evolutionary biology has explained everything, merely that very few (if any) reasonable people now regard life as being fundamentally inexplicable by science. Many TE's may hope that there is more to life than quarks and leptons, but, for TE's, a mechanical universe is more repugnant than implausible.

The tipping point will come once we understand in detail how the mind is implemented in the brain. When we appear to be no more than holodeck characters, it will be very difficult to maintain charades like dualism.

So, ironically, I agree. TE's should show more backbone. The more they dispel the most unreasonable Iron Age sensibilities from the religious ecosystem, the better off we all will be.

Comment by doctor(logic) — November 6, 2005 @ 3:12 pm

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2005 at 3:20 am
asdfasdfa

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2005 @ 3:20 am

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2005 at 3:24 am
asdfasdf

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2005 @ 3:24 am

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2005 at 3:59 am
Testing the bolding

This is bolded because there is no space between "/blockquote" and the new text.

This is not bolded

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2005 @ 3:59 am

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2005 at 4:11 am
STill bolded

Still?

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2005 @ 4:11 am

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2005 at 4:14 am
still bolded

Still?

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2005 @ 4:14 am

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2005 at 4:15 am
I'm moving my posts to the memory hole

So am I

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2005 @ 4:15 am

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2005 at 4:17 am
what a waste of time

So?

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2005 @ 4:17 am

Guts Says:
November 24th, 2005 at 4:19 am
This bolding doesn't happen anymore

Awesome

Comment by Guts — November 24, 2005 @ 4:19 am

Guts Says:
November 25th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
%u2019

Comment by Guts — November 25, 2005 @ 8:58 pm

Guts Says:
November 26th, 2005 at 2:08 am
Test

Comment by Guts — November 26, 2005 @ 2:08 am

DataDoc Says:
December 7th, 2005 at 3:09 am
Mike, the topic here is ParaSpinning. If you'd like to open a topic on morality and science or the intellectual capability of great apes vs humans, or animal experimentation in general, I'd be glad to discuss it with you. I'm not particularly interested in discussin Dawkins with you, except in the context of somebody ParaSpinning something he said. (And I'm still waiting for your promised article on your religion, for that matter.) But this topic is on ParaSpinning and I've got another juicy example for you. Remember that you said, "To ParaSpin is to paraphrase someone else's views in [a] way that is misleading, turning the paraphrase into spin." in your OP?

From Dembski's December 3, 2005 entry in his Uncommon Dissent blog:

"What has disillusioned Templeton about ID is not that it failed to prove its mettle as science but that it didn't fit with Templeton's accommodation of religion to the science of the day and Templeton's incessant need to curry favor with an academic establishment that by and large thinks religion is passÃ©."

This is commenting on this quote from the Templeton Foundation:

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.'

Now this is a prime example of ParaSpin! To go from Templeton asking for ID research proposals and receiving none to a "disillusioned Templeton" because ID "doesn't fit with Templeton's accommodation of religion to science" is a master spin! After all, what could possibly be a better accomodation between religion and science than ID establishing scientificially that there's an unknown Intelligent Designer out there whose powers seem to parallel those claimed for the Christian God?

Comment by DataDoc — December 7, 2005 @ 3:09 am

DataDoc Says:
December 7th, 2005 at 5:27 am
Here's another example of ParaSpinning, also featuring Dembski. The full article is by Jeffrey Shallit and can be found at http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/cw.html

It seems that in 1998, in Dembski's book, "Mere Creation", Del Ratzsch wrote, "The Smithsonian Institution has a collection of obviously designed human artifacts, concerning the purposes of which no one has a clue." He provided no citation for that claim.

In 2001, Ratzsch wrote "Nature, Design and Science" where he expanded this claim a bit: "The Smithsonian reportedly has a number of obviously human, recognizably designed artifacts, the purposes of which have been entirely forgotten."

Then, in 1998, in an article entitled, "Science and Design" in "First Things", Dembski starts to ParaSpin:

"There is a room at the Smithsonian filled with objects that are obviously designed but whose specific purpose anthropologists do not understand."

Note that a "collection" and "a number" have now been ParaSpun into "a room … filled with objects"! The inflation begins! Dembski doesn't give a reference for this claim, but he did edit "Mere Creation", where Ratzsch started it all and I think it's fair to infer that this is the source of the raw materials for Dembski's ParaSpinning.

Then, in "No Free Lunch", Dembski repeats himself, this time saying,

"Consider that the Smithsonian Institution devotes a room to obviously designed artifacts for which no one has a clue what those artifacts do."

This time, Dembski gives a source for his "quote" – Ratzch's original article in "Mere Creation".

About this time, Shallit wrote to the Smithsonian and received this fax on April 16, 2002 from Kenneth Burke of the SI:

"Your letter of March 21 has been referred to this office from the office of the Secretary for response.

The Smithsonian has no room such as described in William Dembski's book. He may be referring to a section of an exhibition called Nation's Attic which was displayed at the National Museum of History and Technology (now the National Museum of American History, Behring Center) from April 1, 1980 through February 8, 1981. We have enclosed a photocopy of a short article concerning the exhibition from Smithsonian magazine, April 1980. In one showcase in the exhibition a number of unindentified articles were displayed, but there was never a whole room devoted to them.

Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated."

Shallit then adds that,

"The April 1980 issue of Smithsonian reveals that the entire exhibit consisted of 125 objects; for nearly all of these objects the purpose was well-known. The only reference to objects whose purpose is unknown consists of a single line:

The final category, Unidentified Objects, consists of several items that no one can figure out."

From "several items" to a "room" full" via the magic of ParaSpinning! All in all, I have to agree with you: "ParaSpinning is more insidious than quote-mining." and "Beware the ParaSpinners."

Comment by DataDoc — December 7, 2005 @ 5:27 am

DataDoc Says:
December 7th, 2005 at 7:57 am
Boy, I really didn't plan on posting three times tonight (I'm at work), but ANOTHER instance of ParaSpinning has popped up on Dispatches From the Culture Wars (http://www.stcynic.com/blog/)

See the article titled, "More ID Distortion of Sources", published at 9:52 am by "Ed" for the gory details. Sahotra Sarkar, a microbiologist at the University of Texas, nails Stephen Meyer for ParaSpinning an article Sarkar wrote. Here's the money quote:

When testifying before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003 (in a battle over textbook adoption that we won hands down), I claimed that my work had been maliciously misused by members of the Discovery Institute. Questioned by the Board, I referred them to "publications" (that is, web-pieces with no peer review) by Stephen Meyer. The episode had its effect. For a while these miscreants left my work alone. But no longer. I quote from an Expert Report, again by Stephen Meyer, presented to the court during the recent Dover, PA, creationism trial.
Here is the relevant quotation (verbatim) from their blog:

"Studies in molecular biology and information theory have shown that the assembly instructions inscribed along the spine of DNA display the characteristic hallmarks of intelligently encoded information: both the complexity and specificity of function that, according to Dembski's theory, indicate design.[51]"

I now quote what Reference [51] is:

"51. See Sahotra Sarkar, Biological Information: A Skeptical Look at Some Central Dogmas of Molecular Biology, in THE PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: NEW PERSPECTIVES 191 (Sahotra Sarkar ed., 1996)."

My paper is fairly widely known because it was one of the earliest ones expressing skepticism about informational metaphors in molecular biology (and has been reprinted in my Molecular Models of Life [MIT, 2005]). The trouble is that it says nothing of the sort that Meyer claims. I don't mention Dembski, ID, or "intelligent" information whatever that may be. I don't talk about assembly instructions. In fact what the paper essentially does is question the value of informational notions altogether, which made many molecular biologists unhappy, but which is also diametrically opposed to the "complex specified information" project of the ID creationists.

Notice how my work is being presented as being in concordance with ID when Meyer knows very well where I stand on this issue. If Meyer were an academic, this kind of malfeasance would rightly earn him professional censure. Unfortunlately he's not. He's only the Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Naming a liar when we see one is all that we can do.

So Meyer ParaSpins an article that basically destroys all of the information claims of ID (including the claims of the 'Isaac Newton of Information Theory') if true into something that allegedly supports ID! And it gets worse! Meyer actually listed this bogus citation in his 'expert' report that he was going to use in the Dover trial! Amazing! That might have lead to the third instance of perjury in that trial! Beware the ParaSpinners!

Comment by DataDoc — December 7, 2005 @ 7:57 am

DataDoc Says:
December 8th, 2005 at 8:36 am
Life's been pretty rought for ID lately, especially ID(MG), hasn't it? First you tried to challenge me on science vs religion and that blew up in your face, then Dover tanked wonderfully and now you invent a new term, ParaSpinning and I find four instances of ID ParaSpinning, including one from you, and NOBODY has posted an instance of Science ParaSpinning.

Why you think I tried to change the topic is beyond me. I specifically turned away an attempt by Joe G to do that. I also don't know why you think I "attacked" you by posting one of your ParaSpins. I DID ignore your response, but that's because I've been reading your posts for a couple of years now and I'm tired of wasting time on your prolix attempts at obfuscation.

You can throw this post into the hole too. Go ahead, I won't mind. In fact, you can cancel my registration. I've ignored this place for the last month and I'm ready to ignore it forever. I will check in to this thread from time to time though, just to watch the examples of Science ParaSpinning NOT being posted.

If you want to see your problem with this thread, look up "projection" as it's used in psychology. You and most of the other IDers are projecting your own numerous faults on those you don't like.

Have a Happy Saturnalia!

Comment by DataDoc — December 8, 2005 @ 8:36 am

doctor(logic) Says:
December 9th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Jazz,

No one has any idea what the odds are for undirected abiogenesis. It could be highly probable for all we know.

Again, ID (and IC) is relying exclusively on our lack of actual scientific knowledge for its support. For ID to be a valid inference (let alone, a scientific inference), it must have a predictive theory of its own. A theory that actually explains the data.

What does explain mean? It means that you have a principle that enables you to use one subset of your existing observations to predict another subset of your observations. No predictions, no explanation. A valid explanation must have implications for the data. A theory's consistency with the data isn't enough to make it an inference from the data.

Thus, claims that ID "explains" life (or anything at all, for that matter) are not supported until ID makes some firm predictions.

You may ask, "so why do so many people still have a gut sense that ID is explanatory?" Well, most supporters see ID as a link in a chain that is said to explain why humans are here, not how humans are here. ID isn't here to explain the scientific data. It's here to validate a metaphysical worldview. And yet, it doesn't even do that much because a metaphysical claim can never be validated by physical science (if it could, it would be a physical claim).

Comment by doctor(logic) — December 9, 2005 @ 4:45 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
December 9th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
GeneMiner:

Interesting post, but your argument fails on a rather simple issue: do you have any evidence of any processes other then the material universal laws ever doing anything, anywhere?

Mind is primitive to physical systems. In modern quantum theory the future affects the past. There is some sense MIND is itself a cause of life. That is the heart of various Strong Anthropic Principles. Morowitz, who worked on OOL 50 years:

The founders of modern atomic theory did not start out to impose a "mentalist" picture of the world. Rather, they began with the opposite point of view and were forced to the present-day position in order to explain experimental results.
….
First the human mind, including consciousness and reflective thought, can be explained by activities of the central nervous system, which in turn, can be reduced to the biological structure and function of that physiological system. Second, biological phenomena at all levels can be totally understood in terms of atomic physics, that is, through the action and interaction of the component atoms of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and so forth. Third and last, atomic physics, which is now understood most fully by means of quantum mechanics, must be formulated with the mind as a primitive component of the system.

We have thus, in separte steps, gone around an epistemological circle–from the mind, back to the mind. The results of this chain of reasoning will probably lend more aid and comfort to Eastern mystics than to neurophysiologists and molecular biologists…

from Mind's Eye edited by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett

Morowitz is not an IDist, but physicists are coming to terms with a non-mechanistic, non-reductionistic view that MIND is as primitive to physical systems as atoms or any subatomic particle.

His writings suggest he expects a chemical solution eventually, but he does not decouple chemistry or atomic physics from a sort of mentalist view of reality, where MIND is really a part of physics.

Morowitz thinks MIND has it's role in the orign and destiny of the universe, but he is essentially traditional in believing chemistry and physical law are the mechanism through which MIND makes life.

Howver, Yockey is not so friendly to the view Morowitz has toward a chemical solution, he does not view biological information in the first life as attributable to chemical or physical processes. Trevors and Abel and Voie have been the few others who have managed peer-reviewed papers expressing skepticism. Yockey has been forthright in saying abiogenesis will not be solved. The skepticism is there, but the the researchers into abiogensis, of necessity, will not heed their critics, lest the entire industry disappears. As long as the money and prestige keep flowing, they'll keep pursuing, even in the face of inevitable dead ends…..

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 9, 2005 @ 10:20 pm

Joe G Says:
December 10th, 2005 at 8:36 am
doctor:
No one has any idea what the odds are for undirected abiogenesis. It could be highly probable for all we know.

If it is "highly probable" that would demonstrate total ineptitude on the part of the scientists trying to figure out how life arose from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.

doctor:
Again, ID (and IC) is relying exclusively on our lack of actual scientific knowledge for its support.

That is demonstratably false:

DR Behe:

The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.

and

"Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed" Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

IOW don't blame IDists for the ignorance of the anti-IDists.

doctor:
For ID to be a valid inference (let alone, a scientific inference), it must have a predictive theory of its own. A theory that actually explains the data.

I would love to hear what you think NDE predicts so we could have a reference. However (biological) ID predicts we will find IC and CSI in living organisms. We do.

doctor:
ID isn't here to explain the scientific data.

How would you know? It is obvious you know very little, if anything, about ID.

Comment by Joe G — December 10, 2005 @ 8:36 am

doctor(logic) Says:
December 10th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Joe G,

As usual, you have ignored my central claim.

Quoting Behe, a guy whose work gets about zero respect in the field, convinces no one but Behe's adoring fans. His conclusion is in error because there can be no inference without prediction.

If you infer something from the data, your inference has to enable you to make predictions within and beyond the data. Otherwise, your "inference" says nothing about the data, and it doesn't rely on the data for its conclusion.

Generic ID doesn't make any predictions. It is, at best, an empty category of theories. NDE is also just a category of theories, but it's not an empty category. Generic NDE is a category containing real theories with real predictions.

If you want to find a design inference, it has to be predictive. Being consistent with the data isn't enough. Otherwise your so-called "design inference" is compatible with any data, come what may.

To be predictive, ID has to identify what physical limitations of the designer led him/her/it/them to design physical life the way it is. Awww, but God doesn't have any physical limitations, does he?

It is obvious you know very little, if anything, about ID.

No, it is obvious that you know very little, if anything, about reason.

Consider the numeric sequence:

1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, ?, ?, ?,…

There are an infinite number of formulas that could generate this sequence.

Consider these conjectures:

1) The sequence is generated by an unknown, supercalifragilistic formula that produces {1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11} and follows it with indeterminate numbers.

2) The sequence is generated by a formula that produces {1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11} and follows it with the sequence {6, 3, 2, 6,…}.

3) The sequence is an ascending list of integers evenly divisible only by themselves and 1.

The list of such consistent conjectures is infinite. Which ones do you infer?

Conjecture #1 doesn't explain anything. It just repeats the data.

Conjecture #2 is a wild guess.

Conjecture #3 is an inference. It predicts one part of the sequence from another. It may not be the correct formula (that is indeterminate), but it is a valid inference from the data.

Generic ID is a case of solution #1. It's fully consistent with the data, but explains none of it.

Comment by doctor(logic) — December 10, 2005 @ 11:33 am

Joe G Says:
December 11th, 2005 at 9:18 am
doctor:
As usual, you have ignored my central claim.

You don't have a central claim. ID predicts IC and CSI.

Also in The Privileged Planet there are predictions basefd on their design inference.

What does NDE predict? Look at the allged predictions you linked to. Show us one that depends on unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.

doctor:
To be predictive, ID has to identify what physical limitations of the designer led him/her/it/them to design physical life the way it is.

Why? Because you say so? Do I have to know the physical limitations of the Wright brothers before I can infer that airplanes were designed? No.

doctor:
Consider the numeric sequence:

1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, ?, ?, ?,"¦

There are an infinite number of formulas that could generate this sequence.

Formulas do not just pop out of thin air.

Comment by Joe G — December 11, 2005 @ 9:18 am

Teli Says:
December 14th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Telitest

Test

Trackback by Teli — December 14, 2005 @ 5:17 pm

Benjii Says:
December 19th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Yes

Comment by Benjii — December 19, 2005 @ 7:21 pm

Benjii Says:
December 20th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
I heard the judge ruled against design. Hmm…this gives me an idea for a new posting over on Salvador's blog.

Comment by Benjii — December 20, 2005 @ 1:13 pm

Simus1 Says:
December 20th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
A 139 page decision.

The impartiality of this district court judge will be called into question because of the injudicious language in the opinion. Judge John Jones called the school board policy "BREATHTAKING INANITY" and also added that the students and teachers of the Dover, Pennsylvania school district "DESERVED BETTER THAN TO BE DRAGGED INTO THIS LEGAL MAELSTROM WITH ITS RESULTING UTTER WASTE OF MONETARY AND PERSONAL RESOURCES."

Next, this case will probably be taken by the 3rd District Court of Appeals, and then maybe the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It should be an interesting 2 to 4 more years of litigation and controversy.

One parting question for Mike Gene: Can you explain to me, Mike, why it is not a "moderate" position to describe Neo-Darwinism as a theory and to allow (not mandate) instructors to supplement (not substitute) their biology curriculum with materials on ID from, say, this informative website http://www.idthink.net/ ? Opinions like this one serve to silence by force of law voices like yours.

You see, Ed Brayton, it is OK to expose the dirty family laundry once in a while.

Comment by Simus1 — December 20, 2005 @ 2:21 pm

Simus1 Says:
December 20th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Judge Jones also called ID proponents LIARS. He used the word "LIE" in the opinion itself. One thing I was clearly taught in law school is that an advocate does not call anyone a liar unless there is incontrovertible proof of intentional deception. What makes this worse is that Judge Jones is not
an advocate, but supposedly an impartial jurist. What drove Judge Jones to make such a conclusion? It seems that he thought it an undeniable "LIE" when pro-ID professors and scientists stated in testimony and in writing that the hypothesis that *biological life is too complex to have originated and propagated on earth by purely naturally means* does not necessarily lead to religious theism. (1) I know several theists and deists who are not religious. "Deism" and "theism" are not synonymous with "religion." (2) Also, has the judge ever heard of the Panspermia Hypothesis? Atheist Sir Carl Sagan (who dabbled in Panspermia) must be gyrating uncontrollably in his grave right now for being branded as a religious theist.

The judge also stated:

"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, Â§ 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific THEORY [emphasis mine] of evolution, and from requiring teachers to REFER [emphasis mine] to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Teachers were not "required" to defend ID. It is astonishing to me that now Dover teachers are prohibited (legally "mandated," "permanently enjoined") from even "REFER"ring (not just from defending, not just from presenting all sides, but from "refer"ring) to ID. I have very little doubt that this part of the injunction will be reversed as an impermissible abridgment of the teachers' 1st Amendment freedom of speech. Apparently the mere reference of the word "ID" out a teacher's heretical lips is anathema.

The Dover policy, which the judge found unconstitutional, was to include 4 paragraphs that described Darwinism as a theory and not fact. Yet, in the quote above the judge himself calls it a "theory." Has he once again just violated the Constitution?

Comment by Simus1 — December 20, 2005 @ 3:32 pm

Joe G Says:
December 24th, 2005 at 9:27 am
We as Christians should reject utterly the sort of lies, mendacity, and innuendo that not just characterize antievolution, but comprise it.

Doesn't Wesley realize that the current theory of evolution violates Christianity:

Atheist Frank Zindler said,

"˜The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.'

Has Wesley informed his fellow Christian evos that they are living a lie?

dogscratcher:
Telling one audience one thing and another audience something else: that is political (as well as dishonest).

And telling people that humans evolved from some ape-like population is dishonest as there isn't any scientific data that shows such is even possible. As a matter of fact there isn't any scientific data that shows any of the alleged "great transformations" (see the PBS series "Evolution") are even possible. Heck scientists don't even know what makes an organism what it is. But do you think that high school students will ever learn any of that? No. Dishonesty at its core…

Comment by Joe G — December 24, 2005 @ 9:27 am

Joy Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Stauffenberg said:

The leading site on the controversy in Kansas, it has been taken over by a swarm of agressive atheists who lay on the ridicule, insults, and accusations like a mob on any new poster who HINTS at even questioning mainstream evolutionary theory.
We need some people on our side to sign up over there and participate.

"Taken over?" I'd have to suggest they are who they've always been. A political forum designed as a Good Ol' Boys club for religion-haters and posers. I tried participating for about a week before the Dover decision. I quickly found that there's no point. You can't get a straight answer to any question, you can't get past the religion-bashing even if you're not religious, and you can't hold a decent technical discussion with posers who don't know much about science.

Mike says about the "lies" tactic of ID critics that it's a "sneaky and effective piece of political rhetoric." I don't think it's the least bit effective, because it entirely precludes any possible discussion of any issue it's applied to. KCFS's live-in turf-guardians seem to have no other tactics, thus nothing to discuss. A complete waste of time.

Your mileage may vary, though.

Comment by Joy — December 27, 2005 @ 8:58 pm

MikeGene Says:
December 27th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
Joy,

Here's a nice example of the KCFS in action shortly after they crashed the ARN forum and turned most the discussions into political ones. Your perceptions have been shared by many. Atart with the pretty pictures, kick back and enjoy the show – especially my comments on page 13 – you'll understand why they hate me.

Comment by MikeGene — December 27, 2005 @ 11:34 pm

Stauffenberg Says:
December 28th, 2005 at 9:16 am
AS of yesterday they were still slamming Joyb…the administrator, Jack Krebs, who claims to be on the "high" road, is obviously enjoying all this.

The forum is dominated by a small group of atheists who will swarm any new poster…and there are two or three holding out against the swarm, but they are being overrun.

Aster has even started a Troll of the Year Thread.

Lets see what Mr. Krebs has to say about that.

Kansas Citzens for Science in not even made up of Kansans and is not about science anymore…it has become a thread blatantly promoting atheism.

Which of course they can do, but what is so dishonest is that they will deny it and claim this is "all about science".

Comment by Stauffenberg — December 28, 2005 @ 9:16 am

Aagcobb Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Joe G says The bacteria or virus or whatever population has the resistant variant in it at the time the anti-biotic was introduced.

Joe, when your words are posted right here for everyone to look at, you can't get away with subtly altering your point without it getting noticed. You originally said a virus doesn't evolve drug resistence.

Viruses and bacteria, it doesn't matter which, do evolve drug resistence, and other beneficial mutations, as the link I provided showed. The fact that the mutation occurred before the antibiotic or antiviral agent was introduced wasn't the point; the point was that the mutation was the result of evolution.

Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 9:49 am

Joe G Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Joe G says The bacteria or virus or whatever population has the resistant variant in it at the time the anti-biotic was introduced.

Aacobb:
Joe, when your words are posted right here for everyone to look at, you can't get away with subtly altering your point without it getting noticed. You originally said a virus doesn't evolve drug resistence.

That is true. How can it evolve resistence to something that hasn't been introduced? The "evolving" part occurred BEFORE the anti-biotic was introduced. THAT has ALWAYS been my point.

Aacobb:
The fact that the mutation occurred before the antibiotic or antiviral agent was introduced wasn't the point; the point was that the mutation was the result of evolution.

Not really because when that selectiove pressure is taken, just like Darwin's finches, the population oscillates back to what is was before- a mixture of organisms- some with and some without resistence. IOW no "evolution" takes place.

But anyways I will go with the experts on this. If you watch the PBS series "Evolution" they agree with what I posted.

BTW- to "evolve" resisteence to something means you were subject to it and then changed. This is not the case.

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 10:05 am

Joe G Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 10:07 am
To tika/ OA/ Occams Aftershave:

Until you provide the evidence that I threatened someone OR admit you are a liar, I have nothing to say to you on this board.

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 10:07 am

tika Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 10:52 am
It's interesting that you and Joe both engage in such revisionist history when the original words are still here for everyone to see. You made the following statement

Douglas:That's not the standard manner in which "testability" and "science" are presented by scientists. And, as I said, ID DOES make useful "predictions" about the natural world, particularly about what we would expect to find regarding DNA (that is, that it would exhibit features similar to human-designed software).

That's YOUR claim, not mine. I merely asked you to provide those useful predictions about the natural world that ID makes that YOU described. You couldn't answer, so went off of a snipe hunt talking ranting about creationism and "subsets" of ID, blah blah blah… Once again we see a cornered IDist trying everything possible to avoid backing up a claim he has made.

No, I answered you, but you merely DID NOT UNDERSTAND, AND THUS DO NOT ACCEPT, my answer.

You supplied an answer but it had nothing to do with the question, or backing up your claim. I accept fully that that's your way of avoiding further embarrassment.

YOU, on the other hand, have had MORE THAN ENOUGH opportunity to prove your accusation that Joe G "threatened" you, yet you HAVE NOT DONE SO. Thus, you are, at this point, a LIAR. Deal with it, or prove your accusation.

More revisionist history. I never said Joe threatened me. My exact words are

tika:And on every board he responds by attempting to shift the burden of proof (just like he did here), followed by insults (just like he did here), followed by threats to meet you in person and "educate you" about ID (that's coming, wait for it).

If you want confirmation, just go to the NAIG board where Joe G. is well know as "John Paul." You don't have to register, it is an open board. Start a thread and ask if anyone there has ever seen John Paul offer to physically meet with another poster to "teach" them. Then do the same thing at Creationtalk, and EvC Forum. Let us know what results you get.

Comment by tika — December 29, 2005 @ 10:52 am

Joe G Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
doctor:
An actual ID theory (if one is ever proposed) says specifically how and why the object was designed, and predicts other, independent observations.

Why? Just because YOU say so? How and why an object was designed, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, could only possibly be determined by studying the design. Therefore neither are necessary for A) detecting design and 2) attempting to understand via research.

doctor:
So far, ID has no predictions.

ID predicts IC and CSI. Both can be tested for and both have the potential to be falsified.

Judge Jones threw the book at some cartoon version of ID. The type that you and most anti-IDists appear to argue against even after your folly has been pointed out many times.

Perhaps the good doctor can tell us what predictions can be made from unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes and how we could possibly test those predictions. Then we can compare that to ID and see if double-standards are being applied.

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 8:53 pm

doctor(logic) Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Joe G,

You don't understand. IC hasn't been predicted. It has been observed. There are natural systems that perform a function, but fail if any component is missing. No one says this isn't the case. It just doesn't imply ID or exclude blind processes.

As for CSI, it doesn't even have a proper definition.

So why don't you tell us how you define it?

And don't quote Dembski or Behe. Tell me what you think it is.

Here's what you do. Look at human-designed stuff and pull out some attributes. Compare those attributes to natural things that are understood very well (e.g., metals), and things which are not understood (e.g., biochemical machines). Then define CSI as those combinations of attributes that are present in human inventions, but missing in the well-understood naturalistic ones. Then, your theory is that objects with those special attributes can only be produced by intelligent agents.

However, it is not your prediction that unknown objects will possess CSI!!! Your prediction is that an object with CSI is designed!! To test your prediction, you have to find evidence of that design, or counter-evidence that it was evolved. Of course, you make no proposal to look for evidence of the designer because he's God, and he doesn't leave any evidence, works in mysterious ways etc. Instead, you demand that evolutionists explain how an object can have your cooked up set of attributes by way of evolution. Like that's their problem!

You defined CSI by fitting it to the data, so you can't claim that same data as confirmation of your theory.

Here's an example. Take the phone numbers of your friends, and separate out the phone numbers of the all the men. Then come up with an algorithm that returns true on the men's numbers, and false on the women's numbers. Then you theorize that your algorithm can predict the sex of a person from their phone number. Fair enough. However, your prediction is NOT that your algorithm can return true on some unknown phone number. Your prediction is that IF your algorithm returns true, THEN the phone number belongs to a man. You can't claim confirmation for your algorithm when it says 555-5555 is a man, and no one answers at that phone number.

Likewise, ID doesn't predict CSI, it predicts that CSI is a measure of intelligent design.

Comment by doctor(logic) — December 29, 2005 @ 10:13 pm

tika Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Joe G wrote:
Both CSI and IC have been defined. If we observe unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes fulfilling those definitions then ID, as it currently stands, is falsified. Pure and simple- that is how it works in science.

Joe G, keeps claiming CSI is positive evidence for ID in biological life. He keeps claiming that the definition of CSI in biological systems is

Joe G: CSI & specified complexity are basically the same thing. CSI can be understood as the convergence of physical information, for example the hardware of a computer and conceptual information, for example the software that allows the computer to perform a function, such as an operating system with application programs. In biology the physical information would be the components that make up an organism (arms, legs, body, head, internal organs and systems) as well as the organism itself. The conceptual information is what allows that organism to use its components and to be alive. After all a dead organism still has the same components. However it can no longer control them.

But he refuses to give a rigorous definition of "physical information" or "conceptual information", or how to measure either quantity, so his definition of CSI is still worthless.

He piles more BS on his first worthless claim with

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

At least a half dozen times I have asked him these questions:

* Please provide a scientifically rigorous definition of CSI.

* Please explain how to measure CSI. If you can't measure CSI, how can you claim High, low, or in-between quantity?

* Please define "high" in reference to "high information content". High compared to what?

* Please give us a specific example of the measurement of CSI content in a living biological object, and in the same object after the creature has died.

Joe G's only answers to date are "you must be ignorant of ID to ask!" and "Read Dembski's books!", which leads me to conclude he is just a Dembski parrot and has no clue about the claims he is making. Since Joe G. is so incompetent and incapable of giving a straight answer, I ask the board:

Can anyone else reading this provide a rigorous definition of CSI, or answer the questions about it above?

Thanks in advance

And Joe G. "“ keep out of this. You had your chances many times, so shut up and keep away.

Comment by tika — December 29, 2005 @ 10:58 pm

Joe G Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
tika sez:
Joe G, keeps claiming CSI is positive evidence for ID in biological life.

That is what all IDists claim. Why do you attempt to make it appear as if ID is my personal theory? Your not an internet stalker, are you?

tika:
He keeps claiming that the definition of CSI in biological systems is

Actually I claim that CSI is defined by Wm. Dembski. I even referenced the relevant material. Why doesn't tika want to get the information from the source she states she has read? What is it about the source that tika doen't understand?

Now tika continues to demonstrate her stalking with more attempts at making it appear that I claimed something that I never did:

tika sez:
He piles more BS on his first worthless claim with

High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

I referenced the source of those "claims". Any rational or reasonable person would know they are not my claims, but claims that are substantiated in the book I referenced.

The reason I won't answer tika's nonsense is because she accused me of making threats and has failed to provide ANY data that would substantiate that claim. She has also refused all attempts at a dialog by refusing to answer relevant questions on this topic- questions that would show that she engages in double-standards or hasn't a clue.

Now tika, did you read "NFL" or not? If you didn't then admit it. If you did what part about CSI were you incapable of understanding- I mean besides what it stands for, which appears to all you understand.

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 11:10 pm

Joe G Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
doctor,

You don't understand. If we didn't observe IC or CSI ID never would have been proposed. Also we wouldn't be here to discuss the matter. We know, through experience, that CSI and IC are hallmarks of intelligent agencies- that is evry time we have observed IC and CSI coming about an intelligent agency (that is one capable of doing what nature acting alone could not or would not do) has been the cause. Always. That makes both a prediction of ID.

So what are the predictions that we can make based on unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes? Or don't you want to tell us for fear of exposing your charade?

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 11:17 pm

tika Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
Joe stays true to form – no answers, just more bluster, more denials, and more "read Dembski!!"

Joe – what part of

Joe G., keep out of this. You had your chances many times, so shut up and keep away.

didn't you understand?

Comment by tika — December 29, 2005 @ 11:19 pm

Joe G Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
Another good question to expose trolls espousing double-standards:

Can either tika or doctor provide us with any rigorously defined scientific criteria for determining the design observed in nature is illusory?

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 11:23 pm

Joe G Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
tika, I asked if you had read "NFL" as YOU claimed. I take it I caught you in another lie. Oh well- true to form indeed.

Now how about substantiating the claim I threatened people?

As for "keeping out of this" yeah right as if you get to set any rules.

Pathetic, but very laughable. Thanks.

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 11:26 pm

Joe G Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
Just so that everyone is clear on this (how I have always presented which tika tyies to make into my claim):

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 11:34 pm

Joe G Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
tika sez:
He ruled on the evidence that was presented to him at the trial.

It appears he was duped by the lies of the ACLU "experts"- that is if you compare ID reality to what they presented. The ruling makes the judge look like an "ignorant ass".

He wouldn't allow the publishers of "Pandas and Paople" defend the book in court- his mind was made up before the trial started. No sour grapes, just basic observation weighed against reality.

Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 11:37 pm

tika Says:
December 29th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
*******warning! off topic post!*************

for those wondering about Joe G's latest cowardly excuse for refusing to back up his ID claims, here is what I wrote

tika (describing Joe G's behavior on other boards) :And on every board he responds by attempting to shift the burden of proof (just like he did here), followed by insults (just like he did here), followed by threats to meet you in person and "educate you" about ID (that's coming, wait for it).

If anyone wants confirmation, just go to the NAIG board where Joe G. is well know as "John Paul." You don't have to register, it is an open board. Start a thread and ask if anyone there has ever seen John Paul offer to physically meet with another poster to "teach" them. Then do the same thing at Creationtalk, and EvC Forum. Feel free to post the results here

Joe, we both know damn well you did it to me, because I called your bluff and gave you a time and place to meet. You pussed out and didn't show. I also told you that it was incredibly stupid and immature to make such veiled threats over the internet.

So Joe tell us honestly – have you ever "suggested" to another poster that you physically meet so you could "educate them" about ID?

*** apologies to the board for having to waste board space on this turd ********

Comment by tika — December 29, 2005 @ 11:54 pm

tika Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 12:02 am
Just so that everyone is clear on this (how I have always presented which tika tyies to make into my claim):

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Guess what nitwit – you presented those as a defense of your ID claims, that makes them your claims too.

If you agree with them, then be a man and answer the criticisms of them in your own words. Don't cry and evade with "Waaa! Read NFL! Waaa!"

If you don't agree with them, say so and be done with it.

Fish or cut bait Joe. There's nothing worst than a spineless afraid-to-commit coward.

Comment by tika — December 30, 2005 @ 12:02 am

azar Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 12:23 am
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

Sure, Joe, accept just these three things and everything else follows. Like we have a choice!

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Umm, nope.

Comment by azar — December 30, 2005 @ 12:23 am

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 12:27 am
tika sez:
Guess what nitwit – you presented those as a defense of your ID claims, that makes them your claims too.

Wow I guess she told me!

As for going to NAIG and asking them anything- sure but just consider the source. Getting confirmation for their spewage will be a chore. This will be especially enjoying to hear about:

Start a thread and ask if anyone there has ever seen John Paul offer to physically meet with another poster to "teach" them.

I don't ever recall posting at "CreationTalk" but if she sez so it must be so.

And again tika claimed she read "NFL". So I ask again ms. tika- did you or did you not read it? I need to know so I have some reference.

It is also telling that my essay contains a very simple and easy to understand concept of CSI yet you don't understand even that.

But the most telling thing about you is that you call me an intellectual coward for pointing out/ referencing the source of the data- the source that any rational person would be interested in as opposed to an internet stalker who has to hear it specifically from Joe G- and then when you are asked to substantiate your claim I threatened someone, what do you do? Pass the buck by telling people to visit sites where anyone can say anything without recourse.

I apologize that this internet stalker felt it necessary to stalk me and pollute this blog. I don't know what else to say…

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 12:27 am

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 12:30 am
azar chimes in:
Sure, Joe, accept just these three things and everything else follows. Like we have a choice!

Of course you have a choice. You can choose not to accept them and set out to falsify them. Or you can do what the rest do- sit back in the cheap seats and hurl nonsensical gibberish.

Never mind, I see you made your choice.

Have a nice day…

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 12:30 am

tika Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 12:46 am
Joe G. But the most telling thing about you is that you call me an intellectual coward for pointing out/ referencing the source of the data- the source that any rational person would be interested in as opposed to an internet stalker who has to hear it specifically from Joe G-

No, you're an intellectual coward for not presenting any data to back up your BS claims. You post excerpts from Dembski and other ID charlatans as your arguments. That you post the source of the excerpts doesn't mean sh*t. What matters is that you flat out refuse to defend or discuss the details of what you've posted. And when backed into a corner, you always try to change the subject or insult the questioner.

That behavior, Joe, is what makes you such a coward and an intellectually incompetent nitwit.

Comment by tika — December 30, 2005 @ 12:46 am

doctor(logic) Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 1:23 am
Joe G

We know, through experience, that CSI and IC are hallmarks of intelligent agencies- that is evry time we have observed IC and CSI coming about an intelligent agency (that is one capable of doing what nature acting alone could not or would not do) has been the cause. Always. That makes both a prediction of ID.

Wrong. We have observed IC in artificial devices, and we have observed IC in the flagellum and in blood-clotting, but neither of those natural systems has been shown to have been designed. Indeed, scientists have already refuted the claim that IC implies ID in blood-clotting. Behe got busted for this on the witness stand.

So, your statement is false. It is your hypothesis that IC and CSI indicate ID. They are not also your proof because that would be circular reasoning (hypothesize IC=>ID, observe IC, conclude ID).

BTW, you forgot to tell us what you think CSI is or how it can be calculated.

So what are the predictions that we can make based on unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes?

This is the difference between ID and its scientific opponents.

Scientists aren't making the claim that everything in evolution has an explanation in blind processes. No, they are proposing specific blind processes as explanations for various details in the origin and evolution of life. For example, scientists make the claim that if natural selection and nucleic DNA mutations were responsible for evolution, then we will observe relationships between the species we see today. These claims have been confirmed by the fossil record and by genetic studies.

This is NOT the same as claiming that ONLY blind processes led to life. That would not be a theory, it would be a prediction-less pseudo-theory, like ID. No predictions, no scientific theory.

Of course, if we confirm predictive theories about blind processes that explain evolution and the OOL, we will not have ruled out all possibility of ID, but we will have made ID no more plausible as an explanation of life than Ra is an explanation of solar transit.

Comment by doctor(logic) — December 30, 2005 @ 1:23 am

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
poikilotherm sez:
You want crazy stuff in science?

No, just reality. IOW we want to be allowed to follow the evidence to whatever inference is warranted by the data

poikilotherm:
Who the heck cares what a bunch of dead guys thinks is and isn't science?

People interested in reality should.They laid the ground-work and foundations of modern thought and today's science. We stand on their shoulders.

As rational people understand foundations are key to success.

poikilotherm:
In here and now, what this judge thinks doesn't mean that much either.

We know.

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 1:02 pm

poikilotherm Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Joe G

It isn't at all clear to me that you are saying anything: any time anyone even mildly engages you in conversation over your various and sundry asertions, you retreat into a welter of poorly focussed accusations, semantic arguments, frank rudeness and evasiveness.

Do us all a favor: stop replying to my posts. Or, as you say here, in response to my considerably more direct questions and assertion: "Whatever, dude".

Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 1:13 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
poikilotherm:
It isn't at all clear to me that you are saying anything

It isn't clear to me what your level of understanding is. Are you suggesting you be spoon fed?

poikilotherm:
Do us all a favor: stop replying to my posts.

No one is forcing you to post here. However I reserve the right to respond to any and all posts made on this blog.

BTW your projection is duly noted…

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 1:21 pm

poikilotherm Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
OK Joe G, if you want to converse here, great. I'll take that as an offer in good faith, and you won't retreat into your twice repeated "Whatever dude" response.

When you say "we want to be allowed to follow the evidence to whatever inference is warranted by the data" just how are you being prevented from doing that?

Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 1:41 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
poikilotherm asks:
When you say "we want to be allowed to follow the evidence to whatever inference is warranted by the data" just how are you being prevented from doing that?

Just look at the open hostility towards ID and IDists. It is obviously a very oppressed/ repressed position to hold. Public humiliation (at least attempted), ostracization, censorship, blatant misrepresentations, outright lies and damnation of the idea, suppression from academic debate… I could go on but you should get the point.

New research requires new minds. New minds are developed very young.

———————————————————————————-
Sir Isaac says:

"Though these bodies may, indeed persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws"¦ [Thus] this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."

jmcd chimes in with:
Today we know this to be false.

"We" do? Who says? And who are the "we" and how do "they" "know" that to be false?

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 2:21 pm

poikilotherm Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Joe G:

OK, so people have hostility towards ID. I know that, but a list like you gave is pretty vague: the presence of hostility doesn't necessarily mean that people can't make conclusions. Take the rather ugly behavior of some of the people at the Smithsonian that followed the publication of the (rather vacuous) Meyer paper.

How has that resulted in anyone being unable to follow the evidence anywhere?

Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 2:32 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
poikilotherm:
How has that resulted in anyone being unable to follow the evidence anywhere?

Perhaps not but it sure does put a damper on the discussion of the inference. What good is an inference that can't be openly discussed so it that it may followed up on? It is useless an will die with the people/person who reached it.

Other than that you may have a point. However it is unclear to me.

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 2:53 pm

poikilotherm Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
You know, I do research. I've funded my own research here and there when I didn't want to write a grant. You guys are telling me that with literally MILLIONS of American households thinking ID is the way to fly, and a well oiled PR machine, its so chilling that one person can't raise, I dunno, $150,000 to spend on ID research? Maybe its true, but I doubt it.

Come on. Academia is full of contrarians, and you can alweys find someone to back you if you have a clear operationally defined question.

Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 2:54 pm

poikilotherm Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Joe G:

Perhaps not but it sure does put a damper on the discussion of the inference. What good is an inference that can't be openly discussed so it that it may followed up on? It is useless an will die with the people/person who reached it.

Well its being openly discussed HERE, isn't it?

Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 2:56 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
poikiltherm opinesa:
I dunno, $150,000 to spend on ID research?

One more time- ID is not (at this time) about any spoecific ID research program. ID in its current state is about being allowed to come to a design inference based on curent scientific research, past scientific research and future scientific research.

Please stop trying to force IDists to put the cart before the horse. I understand that is the way you think have to be done but we know better.

poikilotherm retreats to:
Well its being openly discussed HERE, isn't it?

Not really. Anyone who thinks as you do about "The Privileged Planet" isn't interested in open discussion nor the consequences of suppressing ideas.

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 3:06 pm

WhirlingBlade Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Just look at the open hostility towards ID and IDists. It is obviously a very oppressed/ repressed position to hold. Public humiliation (at least attempted), ostracization, censorship, blatant misrepresentations, outright lies and damnation of the idea, suppression from academic debate"¦

The presence of hostility is no indicator of anything except the presence of intense controversy. I expect Hernstein & Murray (authors of The Bell Curve) could teach Dembski a thing or two about recieved hostility. I am quite certain that if I proposed the theory that Australians were still apes, based on strict evidence, I might recieve a few pieces of hate mail.

The other factor, unfortunately, is that while there are interesting questions in ID ("Can design be empirically detected"), there are also pro-ID arguments that are almost insulting to an educated reader. I myself have gotten quite irked reading established mathematicians post things like "By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, no natural process can create order". It has nothing to do with the direction of the proposition, it has do do with the fact that these people should know better, and I am forced to question motives…when I should be pondering conclusions.

I don't think anyone would say that pro-evolution folks are more "mature" than any other conglomerations of humanity. But being the target of derision does not improve the quality of your position by fiat.

Comment by WhirlingBlade — December 30, 2005 @ 3:08 pm

jmcd Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Joe G and Rock both stated that we cannot prove Newton's quote wrong. This is true. There is no way we can know anything. What we can say is that for current theories about stellar and planetary evolution to be wrong someone went to quite a bit of trouble to trick us into thinking the way we do. That is a possibility, but how is it of any scientific use to consider notions of stellar/planetary evolution that do not fit the evidence? Science isn't about truth. Its about creating frameworks that allow us to explain, understand, and manipulate the world/universe we live in. Any scientific theory is merely a useful approximation of the "truth."

Comment by jmcd — December 30, 2005 @ 3:11 pm

poikilotherm Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
JoeG:

poikiltherm opinesa:
I dunno, $150,000 to spend on ID research?

One more time- ID is not (at this time) about any spoecific ID research program. ID in its current state is about being allowed to come to a design inference based on curent scientific research, past scientific research and future scientific research.Please stop trying to force IDists to put the cart before the horse. I understand that is the way you think have to be done but we know better.

So are you saying that if I wrote a cheque to MikeGene and said "Here's $150 000: go spend it how you like to demonstrate therole of ID in evolution, he WOULDN'T think it valuable? That peer-reviewed publications specifically directed at demonstrating evidence for ID in evolutionary biology don't require money to generate? What are you talking about?

poikilotherm retreats to:
Well its being openly discussed HERE, isn't it?

Not really. Anyone who thinks as you do about "The Privileged Planet" isn't interested in open discussion nor the consequences of suppressing ideas.

File that under "vague accusation" and "ad hominem fallacy".

Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 3:31 pm

jmcd Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Joe G

I apologize for not answering the second part of your question. The "we" I was referring to would be the scientists concerned with those fields and those that are familiar with and accept the conclusions of their research. Certainly this is not everybody, but I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that group to have the most informed opinion.

Comment by jmcd — December 30, 2005 @ 3:36 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
poikiltherm sez:
Well its being openly discussed HERE, isn't it?

Seeing that we anonymous (for the most part) indicates the discussion isn't very open. Also I have had two internet stalkers (Robert Rapier & Jon Barkett) send lie-filled emails to my empoyer.

poikilotherm:
So are you saying that if I wrote a cheque to MikeGene and said "Here's $150 000: go spend it how you like to demonstrate therole of ID in evolution, he WOULDN'T think it valuable?

The thought never crossed my mind. Talk about "vague accusation".

————————————————————————————

jm,cd sez:
Joe G and Rock both stated that we cannot prove Newton's quote wrong.

I know I didn't and I read what Rock posted. He doesn't say that either.

YOU made a claim. Support it. A link would be OK or some other reference. I won't demand you have to put it in your words. I prefer the source.

jmcd sez:
Science isn't about truth.

You have that wrong:

]"A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth." Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.

Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, "Science is the search for the truth.

"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding." Albert Einstein

The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.

A reading of "The Privileged Planet" indicates the data does point to design over chance as the origin of things (ie, laws that govern the universe and the universe itrself).

But this blog isn't a discussion of that…

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 3:48 pm

Rock Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Thanks, Joe G, I didn't say that.

"Science isn't about truth."

Yes it is.

But that does explain why some people are more comfortable with the imposition of false "rules."
(Or maybe I should characterize the "rule" as approximately true? LOL)

Comment by Rock — December 30, 2005 @ 4:01 pm

poikilotherm Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
So Joe G

Why are you saying that I'm trying to "force" ID into doing anything? Clearly in order to be accepted as mainstream science it must publish in the peer reviewed literature. Publishing in the peer reviewed literature costs money and requires research. So why do you say I'm "trying to force IDists to put the cart before the horse"

If this isn't open discussion, OK. I can't see that anyone is inhibited. If you are being stalked, that really is too bad, but I don't think its because you support ID per se. Since you bring up the unpleasant behavior of others, I will note that you have several times insisted that in order to discuss the evidence for ID, you and I would have to meet in person (now, that looks a little bit off to me. Sorry: its true) , and you also said I would be a coward if I did not meet you. You've said similar things to several people. You also decided at one point it would be a good idea to post the address of my computer over on the NAIG board. That sort of behavior is not common on these discussion boards, so I am not surprised that, in conjunction with your often casual abusiveness, you get some pretty bad reactions. I don't think your ideas about ID are necessarily at the heart of any "chill" you might have suffered. You might want to think about it.

Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 4:12 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
poikilotherm wonders:
Why are you saying that I'm trying to "force" ID into doing anything? Clearly in order to be accepted as mainstream science it must publish in the peer reviewed literature. Publishing in the peer reviewed literature costs money and requires research. So why do you say I'm "trying to force IDists to put the cart before the horse"?

You are obviously trying to force ID into some unspecified "ID research" when ID is only about scientific research and being able to come to a design inference based on it. Until that is accomplished it is a bit premature to ask for anything else- as you do. Therefore you put the cart before the horse. Simple enough.

poikiltherm the sez:
I will note that you have several times insisted that in order to discuss the evidence for ID, you and I would have to meet in person (now, that looks a little bit off to me. Sorry: its true)

Actually YOU wanted some type of proof and the only way I could possibly provide it is if you came to the meeting. I can't help if you ask for something that can't be conveyed over the internet.

However that you would take that as a threat tells me you think you are guilty of something that I might want to get even with you about. What would possibly make you think that?

poikilotherm:
and you also said I would be a coward if I did not meet you.

Really? Do you have something real to substantiate that claim?

poikilotherm:
You also decided at one point it would be a good idea to post the address of my computer over on the NAIG board.

You sure it was me or someone else posting under my well-known moniker?

You do realize that at the NAiG board IP addresses are posted, and as such subject to investigation by ANYONE and everyone via a simple link to one of several websites. IOW by posting there YOU post the address of your computer. Sorry but that is the facts of the real world.

I admit I give as good or better then I get. That's life. I can deal with it. Perhaps someday a couple of anti-IDists will tailgate me/ force me to pull over- I can only hope…

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 5:17 pm

poikilotherm Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
You are obviously trying to force ID into some unspecified "ID research" when ID is only about scientific research and being able to come to a design inference based on it. Until that is accomplished it is a bit premature to ask for anything else- as you do. Therefore you put the cart before the horse. Simple enough.

I don't see how you got that from what I posted. All I said is "You know, I do research. I've funded my own research here and there when I didn't want to write a grant. You guys are telling me that with literally MILLIONS of American households thinking ID is the way to fly, and a well oiled PR machine, its so chilling that one person can't raise, I dunno, $150,000 to spend on ID research? Maybe its true, but I doubt it.

Come on. Academia is full of contrarians, and you can alweys find someone to back you if you have a clear operationally defined question."

Pretty hard to get from that to me forcing anyone to do anything. I fully confess: I want to see peer reviewed literature exlicitly using ID before I'll consider it anything other than fringe science. I don't think that's unreasonable.

As to the rest, well, it speaks for itself. If you can deal with giving out, then maybe you should try not to imply, deliberately or otherwise, that its ID that has caused people to have negative feelings towards you.
Since you bring up the parallel, its kinda like it wasn't Mirecki's atheism per se that got him into trouble, but him being a twit by abusing his academic position……….You have a good weekend.

Comment by poikilotherm — December 30, 2005 @ 5:31 pm

tika Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Joe G: Just look at the open hostility towards ID and IDists. It is obviously a very oppressed/ repressed position to hold. Public humiliation (at least attempted), ostracization, censorship, blatant misrepresentations, outright lies and damnation of the idea, suppression from academic debate"¦ I could go on but you should get the point.

You want a little cheese with that whine? The hostility that most "professional" IDist get is well deserved, and is due entirely to their own scurrilous behavior. Just look at Dembski, Wells, or the DI. They publish no research, try to circumvent all accepted scientific protocols (like peer review) for new ideas, scream "censorship" when their crappy non-scientific pap gets rejected from serious scientific journals, engage in dishonest tactics like quote mining and misrepresenting others' real research, and try to "back door" their way into the public school system. Those are the people the honest ID proponents should be furious at.

There is no damnation of ID as a philosophical idea. There is well deserved condemnation of ID when it is pushed as being deserving of a place in any science classroom now.

Just a quick aside:

On another thread I posted this

tika (describing Joe G's behavior on other boards) :And on every board he responds by attempting to shift the burden of proof (just like he did here), followed by insults (just like he did here), followed by threats to meet you in person and "educate you" about ID (that's coming, wait for it).

Both Joe G and Douglas jumped up and down and called me a liar

Douglas: YOU, on the other hand, have had MORE THAN ENOUGH opportunity to prove your accusation that Joe G "threatened" you, yet you HAVE NOT DONE SO. Thus, you are, at this point, a LIAR..

Now there is this from an independent source

Poikilotherm: Since you (meaning Joe G.) bring up the unpleasant behavior of others, I will note that you have several times insisted that in order to discuss the evidence for ID, you and I would have to meet in person (now, that looks a little bit off to me. Sorry: its true) , and you also said I would be a coward if I did not meet you. You've said similar things to several people. You also decided at one point it would be a good idea to post the address of my computer over on the NAIG board. That sort of behavior is not common on these discussion boards, so I am not surprised that, in conjunction with your often casual abusiveness, you get some pretty bad reactions.

So Joe G. has behaved exactly as I described, and done it more than once. Turns out I was telling the truth after all.

I deserve an apology from both Douglas and Joe G, but given their honesty challenged nature I don't expect it.

Comment by tika — December 30, 2005 @ 6:00 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
tika sez:
Both Joe G and Douglas jumped up and down and called me a liar

Anyone who is aware of my physical condition (Thanks Iraq) knows I cannot jump up & down. However tika you are a liar. That is a fact of life. Deal with it.

Just because an another anonymous poseur allegedly coroborates your story you really believe that means something? Real data is required to substantiate your pap. Thanks.

And for someone who is as (self) admittedly ID ignorant as you are, how can you possibly criticize it?

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 6:07 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
poikilotherm:
I want to see peer reviewed literature exlicitly using ID before I'll consider it anything other than fringe science.

THAT is your problem. There isn't any "using ID". There is just being allowed to come to a design inference. That is a simple enough concept yet it seems to escape you.

I'm not one to pull you away from your agenda but in all honesty it appears you are clueless as to what is going on.

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 6:10 pm

tika Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
poikilotherm:
I want to see peer reviewed literature exlicitly using ID before I'll consider it anything other than fringe science.

Joe G:
THAT is your problem. There isn't any "using ID". There is just being allowed to come to a design inference. That is a simple enough concept yet it seems to escape you.

Just because some self-proclaimed "ID expert" poseur alleges that ID is science, you really believe that means something? Real data is required to substantiate your ID pap. Thanks.

Comment by tika — December 30, 2005 @ 6:18 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
tika & poikilotherm,

The problem with accusing me of what is posted on NAiG is that anyone can post any content under any name any time they want.

I also know something about "John Paul" that you couldn't fathom. The walrus wasn't Paul…

But thanks for the entertainment.

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 6:18 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
tika,

poikilotherm is the one who alleges ID is science albeit "fringe" science (whatever that means).

My claim is different. Intelligent people understand the difference.

Or were you really attacking poikilotherm? If so then I apologize and will him fend for himself.

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 6:22 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
tika,

BTW wipe the froth from your mouth…

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 6:23 pm

tika Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
Joe G. The problem with accusing me of what is posted on NAiG is that anyone can post any content under any name any time they want.

But the NAIG board displays IP addresses, so there was proof positive that all the posting done by "John Paul" was done by you Joe. Do you deny posting there?

But thanks for lying again to try and squirm out. It's entertaining.

Comment by tika — December 30, 2005 @ 6:27 pm

tika Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Joe G: poikilotherm is the one who alleges ID is science albeit "fringe" science (whatever that means).

My claim is different. Intelligent people understand the difference.

OK, so you allege that ID is not science. Great! Then why should it be taught in science class? Intelligent people understand the difference between a philosophical idea and a scientific one.

Comment by tika — December 30, 2005 @ 6:36 pm

Joy Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
tika:

I deserve an apology from both Douglas and Joe G, but given their honesty challenged nature I don't expect it.

I honestly don't find flame wars to be all that interesting. Flame wars started on other forums and dragged here are positively boring. I don't care what it's about or who started it or even how it ends. It is taking up way too much bandwidth here, though.

I request that the several of you take your little spat back to wherever it belongs, and let this blog concern itself with the opinions expressed by the bloggers.

Thanks.

Comment by Joy — December 30, 2005 @ 6:38 pm

Rock Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
It's none of my business, but is it possible to have less fishwives' gossiping and bitch-slapping each other over the backyard fence?
Will anyone actually address directly what I wrote, even if they take it as "personal" and "inflammatory" (I am flammable!)
I did take the trouble ya know…

Comment by Rock — December 30, 2005 @ 6:44 pm

Joe G Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
tika:
But the NAIG board displays IP addresses, so there was proof positive that all the posting done by "John Paul" was done by you Joe.

That is demonstrate-ably false. Why do you think it was when the other internet stalkers sent their lie-filled emails to my employer, nothing happened to me?

If I post there the best that can be found is either verizon, netzero or AOL. That is a fact.

And again I apologize for this internet stalker. It is obvious the only reason she posts here is to try to inflame.

tika opines:
OK, so you allege that ID is not science.

Wrong again. As usual. Care to try again?

Comment by Joe G — December 30, 2005 @ 7:06 pm

TP Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Joe: That is demonstrate-ably false. Why do you think it was when the other internet stalkers sent their lie-filled emails to my employer, nothing happened to me?

I have watched this with some fascination. It is amazing how short Joe's memory is. When he first started posting at NAiG (before Stratus told him to hit the road) he actually made threats from his work computer. That's how one of the posters there learned his identity – the IP traced to Joe Gallien at Stratus Computers. It is too funny to see Joe try to rewrite history. I don't blame him, as shameful as his conduct has been.

As far as "nothing happening to him", well take that with a grain of salt. He no longer works for that employer, and it was not by his choice. After he was let go, he came back to NAiG making a lot of noise about getting even. That's a fact.

TP

Comment by TP — December 30, 2005 @ 8:58 pm

TP Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
Joe G.: Seeing that we anonymous (for the most part) indicates the discussion isn't very open. Also I have had two internet stalkers (Robert Rapier & Jon Barkett) send lie-filled emails to my empoyer.

You were also challenged to back this up over at NAiG after claiming to have these e-mails. You never did back it up, so allow me to publicly call you a liar.

Joe: I admit I give as good or better then I get. That's life. I can deal with it. Perhaps someday a couple of anti-IDists will tailgate me/ force me to pull over- I can only hope"¦

When you say things like this, it kind of destroys any hope that someone will believe you when you claim that you didn't threaten people. Any anonymous idiot who makes macho claims like this over the Internet will enjoy zero credibility when he claims he didn't make threats. Wasn't it you who wrote:

Joe: Anyone who is aware of my physical condition (Thanks Iraq) knows I cannot jump up & down.

Yet you hope that someone forces you to pull over. Are you that desperate for attention? You, sir, are a goofball and it is no wonder people don't take you seriously.

Sorry for the rant, folks, but blowhards like Joe annoy me enormously.

TP

Comment by TP — December 30, 2005 @ 9:42 pm

edarrell Says:
December 30th, 2005 at 10:52 pm
Here you go, MG: http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/desparate-pathetic-and-disgusting-dis.html

There is a particularly disgusting piece of quote editing done under John West's name on the DI blog. He changes Judge Jones' comments about how he was proud to provide a defense for an unpopular defendant to a quote about being proud to lessen the punishment of a guilty man.

Here's your chance to make it clear you stand for truth and honesty.

Comment by edarrell — December 30, 2005 @ 10:52 pm

mymemmory Says:
January 7th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
I don't know too much about what pimple has to do with feathers or faith.

However, I find the chance of evolution randomly coming up with a feather greater than the random chance of there being a supernatural deity capable of making a feather.

Comment by mymemmory — January 7, 2006 @ 11:03 pm

tika Says:
January 8th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
SP: There are a mirad of constraints that apply to biotic systems both internally and externally. Internally the given configuration also provides a mirad of constraints. Now I'm no biologist but I'll guess at some.

You'll guess at some?? Your whole argument against the evolution of biological systems rests on the premise of a definitive biological "design space" having constraints, but all you can do is guess at some??

(tika shakes head sadly and chuckles to himself)

In your engineering job, when something you propose undergoes a formal CDR (critical design review) is guessing at crucial parameters deemed an acceptable method of arriving at a design solution?

SP: Things such as power capacity, materials manufacturing capabilities, space availability, and internal chemical environment just to name a few. Externally, of course, are the constraints coming from the environment, fluid viscousity, temperature, pressure, availability of materials, other biotic systems, etc. All these things provide constraints for what changes can and cannot occur.

You've already admitted that you have no clue as to what those constraints might be. Now to be consistent, you're going to guess at the actual constraint limits too? Obviously the "design space" has enough power, materials, volume, etc. an eighty ton Blue whale to exist. So what would be the problem with a smaller creature evolving new functionality? As long as it is smaller than a Blue whale, everything is good, right?

SP: Of course it is true that systems may not have used up all the design space. (Although that would seem inefficient from a Darwinian standpoint) For those systems it will be easier to make some kind of change. There will still be many cases where a specific design space is used up because from a Darwinian perspective there would be no need to do more.

Then name some of the actual cases in biological systems where the specific design space is used up. Present the analysis that supports this claim. Or are you just guessing again?

Your argument is based on nothing more than your cockeyed misunderstanding of biology and your own wishful thinking. Your static model of how new functionality develops is still flat out wrong because it doesn't take into account the positive feedback available in real life biological systems. Your guesses aren't even SWAGs, they're WAGs. Guessing is great fun at the company Christmas party, but do you think it deserves a place as a central tenet in a proposed scientific analysis?

Comment by tika — January 8, 2006 @ 2:48 pm

tika Says:
January 8th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Hey, what gives?

I posted a reply to Steve Petermann in this thread early this morning, but when I came back this afternoon to check for an answer my reply was gone.

In the meantime I see that others have been leaving replies today.

Until I hear differently, I'll assume it was some sort of innocent data base hiccup that deleted my reply, so I will repost. Thanks.

Comment by tika — January 8, 2006 @ 6:25 pm

tika Says:
January 8th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
SP: There are a mirad of constraints that apply to biotic systems both internally and externally. Internally the given configuration also provides a mirad of constraints. Now I'm no biologist but I'll guess at some.

You'll guess at some? Your whole argument against the evolution of biological systems rests on the premise of a definitive biological "design space" having definitive functionality limiting constraints, but all you can do is guess at some?

(tika shakes head and chuckles to himself)

In your engineering job, when something you propose undergoes a formal CDR (critical design review) is guessing at crucial parameters an acceptable method of arriving at a design solution?

SP: Things such as power capacity, materials manufacturing capabilities, space availability, and internal chemical environment just to name a few. Externally, of course, are the constraints coming from the environment, fluid viscousity, temperature, pressure, availability of materials, other biotic systems, etc. All these things provide constraints for what changes can and cannot occur.

You've already admitted that you are just guessing as to what those constraints might be. Now to be consistent, you're going to guess at the actual constraint limits too? Obviously the "design space" has enough power, materials, volume, etc. to allow an eighty ton Blue whale to exist. So what would be the problem with a smaller creature evolving new functionality? As long as it is smaller than a Blue whale, everything is good, right?

SP: Of course it is true that systems may not have used up all the design space. (Although that would seem inefficient from a Darwinian standpoint) For those systems it will be easier to make some kind of change. There will still be many cases where a specific design space is used up because from a Darwinian perspective there would be no need to do more.

Then please name some of the actual cases in biological systems where the specific design space is used up. Present the analysis that supports this claim. Or are you just guessing again?

Your argument is based on nothing more than your basic misunderstanding of biology and your own wishful thinking. Your static model of how new functionality develops is still flat out wrong because it doesn't take into account the positive feedback available in real life biological systems. Your guesses aren't even SWAGs, they're WAGs. Guessing is great fun at the company Christmas party, but do you think it has a place in a proposed scientific analysis?

Comment by tika — January 8, 2006 @ 6:39 pm

tika2 Says:
January 9th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
SP: We at telicthoughts are committed to maintaining the quality of our blog including the discussions that ensue. Accordingly, I will shove comments that fall outside that commitment into the memory hole without warning. If commentors are not able to discern for themselves what constitutes civil and on-topic comments, it is not my obligation to inform them.

Fair enough. it's your board, so you get to be judge, jury, and executioner. However, also I noticed that at the same time my criticisms of your argument disappeared my user account tika was also deleted, which is why I'm now posting as tika2. Did you do that too? I politely ask, is it also now Telicthoughts policy to ban people a la Dembski with no warning?

I will now politely attempt on-topic criticism of your argument

You say that evolution can't work because some biological definitive "design space" is limited by some definitive "constraint space", However, you haven't defined either as they apply to biological systems, or given any examples. I find this to be a serious flaw in your argument.

SP: At least from the engineering standpoint that is not true. Often in order create a robust, flexible system it is necessary to use up all the design space. Just because the design space is fully utilized does not mean that a system cannot adapt to changes in environment.

You have not show any limits to a biological design space. You have not show a reason to conclude that the design space is fully utilized, or even close to fully utilized.

SP: That ability is built into the specification.

Biological organism do not have a specification. Changes are made ad hoc in response to environmental conditions.

SP: In engineering the amount design space "left open" must be weighed against the current "fitness" of the design. Seems to me that a biotic system would be the same. That system could be very well adapted to changes even with a fully utilized design space. However, it would not be amenable to adding new functionality.

You have given no supporting evidence for this claim.

SP: Since according to the Darwinian model change occurs slowly and by chance

This is a common misconception among those with no training in the subject. Evolution does not occur by chance. It is a feedback loop where random genetic changes are filtered by natural selection, and fed back into the system to produce each succeeding generation.

If that was not polite enough or on-topic enough, please tell me how I may correct my deficiencies. Thanks

Comment by tika2 — January 9, 2006 @ 1:48 pm

Deuce Says:
January 9th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
testing…

Comment by Deuce — January 9, 2006 @ 5:38 pm

Deuce-test Says:
January 9th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
testing…

Comment by Deuce-test — January 9, 2006 @ 5:43 pm

Deuce-test Says:
January 9th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
testing 2…

Comment by Deuce-test — January 9, 2006 @ 5:53 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 11:05 am
The reason biologists understand so little about evolution is that they keep reducing everything to mechanism They view life as nothing more than a complex biochemical machine, viewing the universe through the lens of the 18th century industrial revolution. Could any world-view be more anthropocentric than to postulate that our mechanistic technology is the nature of how the universe works? After all, machines break and they do not repair themselves, they do not reproduce, they do not self-organize.

Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis of morphic resonance explains how much of heredity is not based on DNA at all but is a more holistic, field-like phenomenon.

He has presented quite a lot of evidence that reductionistic explanations of reductionism are missing a big part of the picture.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 10, 2006 @ 11:05 am

derwood Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
From Sheldrake's book's website:

"…Rupert Sheldrake describes this process as morphic resonance: the past forms and behaviors of organisms, he argues, influence organisms in the present through direct connections across time and space. Calling into question many of our fundamental concepts about life and consciousness, Sheldrake reinterprets the regularities of nature as being more like habits than immutable laws.."

I trhink I would prefer something a bit more tangible. I had to laugh at his 'telephone' telepathy allusion. How many times has someone thought of someone – and they did not call?

From another book blurb:

"How does a dog know when its owner is returning home at an unexpected time?"

Well, my dog can hear our cars driving up the road. Pretty simple, really.

We may be missing a part of the big picture, but at least we are not relying on mysticism and magic.

Comment by derwood — January 10, 2006 @ 1:07 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Derwood,

Perhaps you might comment on methodological flaws with his published experimental studies in peer-reviewed journals rather than engage in knee-jerk dismissal of ideas which contradict assumptions you have about how the universe works. The experiments he conducted with return-anticipating dogs flatly rule out the explanation you proposed in the cases he examined.

It is not "mysticism and magic" to propose new ideas about the nature of the universe that generate testable predictions and experimental evidence, some of which has been replicated by skeptics. Rather to dismiss all such ideas as nonsense indicates that one is a slave to dogmas. Science is a method of inquiry, not a position on what is real.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 10, 2006 @ 1:20 pm

derwood Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
"the past forms and behaviors of organisms, he argues, influence organisms in the present through direct connections across time and space. "

Thank you for the implicit insult, but I think I will wait until there is some credible, tangible evidence on the morphological influence across time and space from previous forms via "direct connections."

Comment by derwood — January 10, 2006 @ 2:24 pm

derwood Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I forgot – perhaps you can point out which of his peer-reviewed papers lend credence to or deal with "Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis of morphic resonance explains how much of heredity is not based on DNA at all but is a more holistic, field-like phenomenon."

I read several of his abstracts and links and did not see any that dealt with that in any reasonable way. But I might have missed something.

Comment by derwood — January 10, 2006 @ 2:29 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
perhaps you can point out which of his peer-reviewed papers lend credence to or deal with "Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis of morphic resonance explains how much of heredity is not based on DNA at all but is a more holistic, field-like phenomenon."

This article explains the relevance of morphic field theory to Sheldrake's experiments on the sense of being stared at.

For more detail on how biological development is considered from the standpoint of morphic fields, read A New Science of Life.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 10, 2006 @ 4:10 pm

poikilotherm Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Science is a method of inquiry, not a position on what is real.

I dispute that. Science makes many positive statements on the reality of different phenomena, and many negative commebnts on processes that are not compatible with observed processes. The circulation of the blood is a real, scientifically demonstrated process incompatible with the blood washing forward and back with the tides. The method of inquiry leads to results, and results are important.

Sheldrake, well, color me unimpressed, but his stuff seems a bit off topic here………….

Comment by poikilotherm — January 10, 2006 @ 4:17 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
I dispute that. Science makes many positive statements on the reality of different phenomena, and many negative commebnts on processes that are not compatible with observed processes.

Yeah, the sociological enterprise of science does do that, and repeatedly gets egg on its face because of it.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 10, 2006 @ 4:51 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
his stuff seems a bit off topic here"¦"¦"¦"¦.

If field theories of biology are correct (and Sheldrake is only the most recent and well-known proponent) then this goes a long way to explaining the conservation of form and function in a way not completely reliant on the stability of DNA.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 10, 2006 @ 4:59 pm

poikilotherm Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Yeah, the sociological enterprise of science does do that, and repeatedly gets egg on its face because of it.

Following your argument to its logical end, we find that medical science has been getting egg on its face for insisting that the blood circulates. Anyhow, this is all very off topic. Tnx.

Comment by poikilotherm — January 10, 2006 @ 5:03 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Poikilotherm,

I don't know anyone disputing that blood circulates.

However I do know a lot of "scientists" who claim that "science" has proven that brain = mind, that random mutations and natural selection account for biological history, and that free will is an illusion.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 10, 2006 @ 6:00 pm

poikilotherm Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
OK, so what we do get in science is a relative scale of strength and reliabilityof reality claims. No one disputes some things, down to everybody disputing others. The fact that science does make some mistakes in no way invalidates the facts that a) it gets many things right b) that it is a social process, and not simply a methodology c) Usually valuable things come out in the wash. That's why I place a fairly high premium on people demonstrating the utility of their ideas to scientists. A useful idea (like the Helicobacter story) leads to lots of new useful stuff, and in these days, usually (though not always) in fairly short (less than 20 years) order.

Comment by poikilotherm — January 10, 2006 @ 6:10 pm

derwood Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
This article explains the relevance of morphic field theory to Sheldrake's experiments on the sense of being stared at.

That is not relevant to what I was asking about.

For more detail on how biological development is considered from the standpoint of morphic fields, read A New Science of Life.

No thanks. I have better things to spend my money on. Besides, I was told that there were all sorts of peer-reviewed papers that supported his claims. Now I am told to read a book.

Comment by derwood — January 10, 2006 @ 7:34 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Poikilotherm,

Helicobacter didn't threaten the metaphysical foundations of anyone's worldview, so obviously it had much clearer sociological sledding than ID, morphic resonance, or the non-material nature of consciousness.

It's clear from the incredible amount of resistance to less paradigm-shifting discoveries ideas like the bacterial origin of ulcers, the reality of meteorites, and the invention of a microscope that operated by touch – that mainstream science is very hidebound and resistant to questioning its assumptions. So it is not a surprise that phenomena that bring into doubt all the mechanistic, reductionistic and ateleological dogmas of mainstream science are scoffed at, ignored, and "debunked" in a manner wholely lacking in methodological rigor.

In the end it is clear that so-called mainstream science is predominantly a sociological phenomenon, while the very valuable methods of science can be applied with great success to a wide variety of phenomena.

Therefore it is perhaps not so surprising when the self-proclaimed champions of "mainstream science" refuse to practice the methodology of science and instead adhere to dogmas about the nature of reality.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 10, 2006 @ 7:50 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Poikilotherm,

Clearly evidence that supports that supports the existence of morphic resonance in one area strengthens that theory overall in other domains.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 10, 2006 @ 7:54 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Sorry, that last comment was supposed to be addressed at Derwood.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 10, 2006 @ 8:11 pm

chaosengineer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
So it is not a surprise that phenomena that bring into doubt all the mechanistic, reductionistic and ateleological dogmas of mainstream science are scoffed at, ignored, and "debunked" in a manner wholely lacking in methodological rigor.

I think you're missing some of the history. If "morphic resonance" was a brand-new idea, then scientists would be interested in it. But it seems like it's an old idea with a new name. A few years ago, they called it "Kirlian Energy", and before that it was "psi", and before that it was "orgone", and before that it was "spiritualism". Scientists tried to do research on Spiritualism back in the 19th Century, but all they found were frauds and con-artists. They never got any positive results and eventually they lost interest.

So if you want scienists to re-consider, it's no longer enough to present a little bit of positive evidence. People will just assume that there was a flaw in your experiment. You need to present a lot of positive evidence. Enough positive evidence to counter a century's worth of negative evidence, and maybe an explanation of why you're able to succeed where everyone else has failed.

The good news is that there's an easy way to do this. The JREF has a standing offer of a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate any kind of paranormal ability in a laboratory setting. The "dog telepathy" thing would qualify, and so would the "sense of being stared at".

The application is here. You can take the test yourself if you have either of those abilities, or you can pass it on to Rupert Sheldrake and see what he says.

Good luck!

Comment by chaosengineer — January 10, 2006 @ 8:36 pm

Benji Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
For Starters,

Guys, I'm the same guys who logs under Benjii, with two i's. I'm not trying to be deceitful or anything. The reason I chose this name is because on my sister's computer I can't use 'Benjii'. I'm saying this so that I can be honest. Teleologist held me accountable for logging on with different names. If any of the bloggers don' appreciate this, then, I can understand.

Comment by Benji — January 10, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

Benji Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Replace guys with 'guys'. Replace don' with 'don't'.

TY

Comment by Benji — January 10, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Chaosengineer,

You've certainly presented the orthodox dogma of your belief system simply and effectively. I've heard it many times in words like this and terms such as "Parapsychology: 100 years of failure" and all that.

Of course, you are assuming that in fact there is a preponderance of negative evidence, and you are lumping all manner of different ideas with different levels of evidence for them together into an undifferentiated lump we could call: "the paranormal". Of course that word assumes we know what the boundaries of the normal are, and that these phenomena are wholely separate from so-called normal phenomena — propositions I personally find doubtful.

As someone who has communicated with a great many people who hold to a variety of different belief systems, and held quite a few myself over the years, I've found that all of these sociological systems of thought have this sort of foundational structure of ideas. Leftists describe the exploitations of Capitalism, the depradations of robber-barons, and the greed and thuggery of management, and cite facts and figures from history. Conservatives rail against the excesses of personal liberty, the sins of communism, and cite facts and figures from history. Christians depict history through the filter of their dogma, and atheists depict history through theirs. Battling ideas, battling ideologies. And the opponents and opposing camps start to resemble one another more and more.

I've been trying more and more to cultivate a way of consciousness that does not believe anything. Nor do I believe nothing. I simply try to withhold judgement. Because beliefs are limited models, and cleaving too strongly to them tends to blind us to other possibilities. As I have cultivated this awareness I've become less interested in arguing for a particular position, and more interested in the process which leads us to adopt a particular position, what holds us to it, and how we can be less attached to ideas.

What seems much more important to me than the exact contents of what people believe is our similarity as interpreters of reality, story-tellers, model-builders. And I've found a great freedom in letting go of slavish devotion to any particular model, no matter how impressive it might seem.

As I've become more and more interested in this kind of "meta" investigation on the nature of beliefs, our epistimology if you will, I've become less interested and even somewhat bored with arguing with "skeptics" about the reality of phenomena which I have personally experienced and which they insist cannot and do not exist. I've even put my blog that argues for the reality of these phenomena on hold, and future contributions will likely be few and far between.

So if you are absolutely convinced that Sheldrake's experiments must be full of holes, that there is absolutely no evidence of any phenomena not explicable in terms of reductionistic materialism, that mind is clearly and completely a function of brain physics and chemistry, and that random mutations and natural selection is wholely capable of creating the complexity and diversity of life we witness, I will not try and change your mind.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 10, 2006 @ 10:12 pm

bipod Says:
January 10th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
FYI, almost all the posts in this particular blog will be deleted because they are off topic.

It wasn't meant for people to talk about Sheldrake, etc.

Comment by bipod — January 10, 2006 @ 11:42 pm

Benjii Says:
January 11th, 2006 at 12:14 am
It's great to be back as my former self.

Comment by Benjii — January 11, 2006 @ 12:14 am

MatthewCromer Says:
January 11th, 2006 at 1:46 am
Bipod, it's your blog, you can delete what you like. However I do think that field theories of biological organization are directly germane to the conservation of form in living organization, and that mainstream DNA-based reductionistic approaches are going to be about as fruitful to understanding this subject as the RMNS approach has been to the development of life's complexity. That's why I brought up the topic. I should have been more specific about the relevance of biological field theory to the robustness of biological form, and for that I apologize.

Comment by MatthewCromer — January 11, 2006 @ 1:46 am

Benj Says:
January 11th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Yes

Comment by Benj — January 11, 2006 @ 1:48 pm

poikilotherm Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 5:40 pm

This is trivially true. However, wrt anything observed being evolvable or not evolvable in the real world, it lacks demonstrable relevance as stated.

Uh, I'm sorry, because that's basic evolutionary theory. We call this notion that only some of all possible designs fit the theory of natural selection. You've heard of it.
Remember your previous comments?"¦

I have heard of natural selection, but I was unaware that it was the notion that only some of all possible things fit into a design space. Usually the idea of natural selection is formulated in terms of heritability of traits, mutation and differential propagation.

How many structured n-dimensional subspaces can one fit into a cylinder of some definite (4-D) volume? The obvious answer is that there are an infinite number of such subspaces. So what's Steve Petermann's problem?!

The relevance of this comment is unclear to me.

It is Steve Petermann's problem, because, unaware to him, (or me or anyone I know) this is a problem solved in the "Neo-Darwinian" theory"“or ANY FREAKIN OTHER THEORY YOU HAVE!"“poilkilo

The relevanceof this statement is similarly unclear to me. Perhaps you can clarify.

Comment by poikilotherm — January 12, 2006 @ 5:40 pm

Benji Says:
January 16th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Hey Krauze,

Comment by Benji — January 16, 2006 @ 7:36 pm

Benji Says:
January 16th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Krauze,

Do you believe that-and I asked this before-specified complexity can be detected in the fossil record, thus rendering ID?

What are your thoughts on this…

Comment by Benji — January 16, 2006 @ 7:38 pm

Benji Says:
January 18th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Does Krauze accept macro evolution?

Comment by Benji — January 18, 2006 @ 6:36 pm

Krauze Says:
January 18th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Hi Benji,

Yes, I do.

Comment by Krauze — January 18, 2006 @ 6:45 pm

Benji Says:
January 18th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Hey Krauze, if you accept macro evolution, then, how is it that you support ID? Krauze, I love you and all, however, I feel like you and Mike, and maybe the others, should clarify and explain your positions a lot better. Like, I'm not sure how you guys fit into the schemes of ID, yet, embrace certain evolutionary premises? May you explain?

Comment by Benji — January 18, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

Benji Says:
January 18th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
I think most scientists are quite skeptical of macroevolution to begin with.

Comment by Benji — January 18, 2006 @ 9:40 pm

Dane Parker Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 1:52 am
Hey Benji,

I wasn't asked, but why can't evolution be designed?

Comment by Dane Parker — January 19, 2006 @ 1:52 am

Art Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 2:01 am
At the level of the cited study, just what would constitute macroevolution? A change in fundamental protein fold and structure? Or a change in the chemistries that make up substrates and products?

BTW, Benji, FYI, most scientists accept macroevolution for the well-supported fact that it is.

Comment by Art — January 19, 2006 @ 2:01 am

keiths Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 4:58 am
Benji wrote:
I think most scientists are quite skeptical of macroevolution to begin with.

Benji,
As Art pointed out, scientists overwhelmingly accept evolutionary theory (including macroevolution). Check out these questions from a survey of Ohio scientists:

Survey at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/733_ohio_scientists39_intellige_10_15_2002.asp

1. Are you aware of any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution?
1. Yes — 4%
2. No — 93%
3. Not Sure — 2%

2. The concept of "Intelligent Design" is that life and the universe are too complex to have developed without the intervention of a purposeful being or force to guide the development of life. Which of the following do you think best describes "Intelligent Design"?
1. It is strongly supported by scientific evidence — 2%
2. It is partly supported by scientific evidence — 5%
3. It is not supported at all by scientific evidence — 90%
4. Not Sure — 3%

Comment by keiths — January 19, 2006 @ 4:58 am

Exile From Groggs Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Whoa. So between 2 and 10% of scientists in Ohio think there may be something in ID. That's a lot more than I thought!

Comment by Exile From Groggs — January 19, 2006 @ 5:55 am

keiths Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 6:10 am
Exile From Groggs wrote:
Whoa. So between 2 and 10% of scientists in Ohio think there may be something in ID. That's a lot more than I thought!

Well, 10% assumes that all of the 'not sure' scientists end up going for ID.

Also, keep in mind that the survey covered scientists in all of the following fields: astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and other natural sciences. Biologists are less likely to see merit in ID, as revealed by another survey which found that while 95% of scientists overall accepted evolution, 99% of biologists did.

Those numbers are pretty overwhelming when you consider that 60% is considered a landslide in presidential politics.

I'll post a link to the second survey if I can find it online.

Comment by keiths — January 19, 2006 @ 6:10 am

Exile From Groggs Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 7:08 am
I've blogged here

I did say "between 2 and 10%".

I suspect that there are various reasons that more biologists support evolution. One is that biologists are less mathematically disciplined than most other scientists, and just don't understand the stats. One is that people disinclined to believe in darwinism are less likely to choose a course where it is expected of them to toe the line. In most science subjects, belief in evolution as an explanation of all life has no more relevance to everyday studies than belief in ID – see question 6.

Sorry, my response is off topic anyway – you are right that the proportion of people endorsing evolution is pretty "overwhelming". I was just surprised that the level of dissent was as much as it is.

Comment by Exile From Groggs — January 19, 2006 @ 7:08 am

Krauze Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Here's the most telling of the results:

Do you think the concept of "Intelligent Design" is primarily a religious view?
1. Yes — 91%
2. No — 5
3. Not Sure — 4

In other words, if a research article openly advocating intelligent design is submitted to a journal, chances are it'll end up with reviewers who think that the very concept of intelligent design is primarily religious. And we all know what the wisdom is regarding mixing science and religion.

Comment by Krauze — January 19, 2006 @ 7:48 am

Krauze Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Hi Benji,

Mike and myself hypothesize about intelligent design behind the origin of life. Not the most common ID position, but here at Telic Thoughts we don't mind being the weird kids in class.

Comment by Krauze — January 19, 2006 @ 7:51 am

keiths Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Exile From Groggs:
I suspect that there are various reasons that more biologists support evolution. One is that biologists are less mathematically disciplined than most other scientists, and just don't understand the stats. One is that people disinclined to believe in darwinism are less likely to choose a course where it is expected of them to toe the line.

Regarding "toeing the line": though biologists might be afraid to admit publicly that they doubt evolution, I see no reason why they wouldn't answer honestly on a survey if they thought the evidence was weak.

My interpretation of the 99% number among biologists is simply that they have studied evolution, they understand it, and they're aware of the multiple converging lines of evidence supporting it. In my experience, most of the incredulity is expressed by people who don't understand how evolution works and aren't acquainted with the totality of the evidence.

I myself was a creationist as a child. It seemed bizarre to me that scientists would accept evolution. Now I know why they do.

Comment by keiths — January 19, 2006 @ 7:58 am

Exile From Groggs Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Obviously, my interpretation differs. But then I did cell biology for a year at university and to the best of my knowledge was not presented with any evidence in support of evolution. Which didn't mean that it wasn't assumed that we believed it.

Comment by Exile From Groggs — January 19, 2006 @ 8:53 am

derwood Says:
January 30th, 2006 at 9:00 am
A couple quick comments – wouldn't it have made more sense to compare/contrast two biology textbooks or two anthropology textbooks? That clever adage 'apples and oranges' comes to mind.

Also:

"I won't have to waste any time at all trying to counter bigoted horsehockey coming from the erstwhile authority of the local school system, and he'll still learn the most valuable science he needs to learn to pursue his dream of being a paleontologist!"

Having read many of your posts here, I have to wonder how you, of all people, would be able to counter bigoted anything.

Perhaps a little humility might be in order.
Just a thought.

Comment by derwood — January 30, 2006 @ 9:00 am

Joy Says:
January 30th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
derwood: I have relegated your post to the Memory Hole because your "quick comments" were both poorly constructed and rude. If you care to make a point or ask a question, please try to ensure that your comments are related to what is written, and remember that ad hominem will not be tolerated.

Comment by Joy — January 30, 2006 @ 12:29 pm

derwood Says:
January 30th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
What an ironic justification, considering the tone and content of so many of your posts.

"I am so glad to see that what my grandson is going to be learning this semester isn't propaganda, isn't lies, isn't biased anti-religious garbage"¦"

"I wonder what the die-hard ID-critics of the Great Internet Wars would say about this. Would they be tempted to launch an ACLU lawsuit against McGraw-Hill, National Geographic and every school system in the country using this text, because it doesn't berate creationist or ID views? "

You can have your little fiefdom and run it as you wish.

But it will smell no better than any other 'anti-DarwinDefener' run blog/board.

Comment by derwood — January 30, 2006 @ 1:49 pm

Art Says:
February 1st, 2006 at 1:18 am
joy:

So you've really got to wonder why it is that 100% of high school students are required by law to be indoctrinated into Neodarwinism, when it doesn't mean anything to them or what they'll end up doing with the entire rest of their lives.

Um, maybe because an informed consumer won't end up believing that a ca. 300 bp promoter sequence is a fully-infectious virus that's going to cause the demise of all humankind when it jumps from those evil GMO foods into each and every cell in yer body? And, because of this belief, end up wasting his/her money on food products that are outrageously overpriced and demonstrably no better for the consumer or the environment?

Sounds like a good reason to me.

Comment by Art — February 1, 2006 @ 1:18 am

Nick Matzke Says:
February 1st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Paul Nelson, of course, is after a lot more than the nature of the last common ancestor (and hey Paul — if the ancestor was a group of gene trading microbes, can't we just call that a species and we're back to one common ancestor?):

One root, three roots — what does it matter? In my talk, I'll explore the radical import of cutting through the trunk of the Tree of Life near its base. Run a chain saw through a real tree near its root, and everyone knows what will happen. The extension of the metaphor to the biological Tree of Life is apt: once the tree begins to come apart at its base, it is hard — maybe impossible — to stop the ramifying consequences.

Pretty soon, we'll all realize that all that fossil and molecular evidence for the common ancestry of humans and apes was bogus, and that actually they poofed into existence!

Comment by Nick Matzke — February 1, 2006 @ 1:26 pm

g arago Says:
March 6th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Mousetrap = human-made
Bio-chemical entity = non-human-made

Mt. Rushmore = human-made
Bacterial Flagellum = non-human-made

Does anyone think it important to distinguish between them?

"Intelligent design theory has implications for virtually all humane studies, including philosophy, theology, literary criticism, history and more." – Michael Behe (1999)

On what grounds can this claim be made, coming from a bio-chemist? When asked to back down from such a claim by a humanitarian scientist Dr. Behe becomes silent. When asked about causality by a physicist-theologian, Behe replies 'Poof.'

Irreducibility as Philosophy vs. Irreducibility as Science. Is there a theological motive to claims of irreducibility?

Dr. Behe accepts old Earth. He accepts common descent. Accepts (micro)-Evolution in Darwinian form. How fundamentally different from Paul Nelson (Dembski-comrade) who accepts young Earth. Who accepts uncommon descent. Accepts anti-Evolution in (any) Darwinian form.

Is there a unified theory of ID? No. Is there a (more-or-less) unified social-political movement of ID in America? You be the judge.

Organism = mechanism. This is the foundation of ID hypotheses/theories. Guts says it himself – 'the cell looks like a complex machine factory.' An ORGA-MECHA paradox.

Famous? Not in scientifically literate cultures outside of the _SA.

Happy 'state of the union.'

Comment by g arago — March 6, 2006 @ 10:55 pm

hrun Says:
March 7th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
This is an issue where people come down on different side. In other words, are eyes homologous even though the common ancestor didn't have eyes, as long as it had the genes now used to develop eyes? In my opinion, this is largely a semantic discussion over what label to put on a phenomenon.

Well, I guess one must define the semantics a little bit, if one wants to argue that 'convergence increases the plausibility of front-loading evolution'. Is the argument that two different organisms were front-loaded with two different basis that later evolved into convergent structures? How is that different from two different organisms evolved two different structures into convergent structures.

Obviously, Guts says, that here is a clear distinction between Darwinian evolution and FLE. Convergence apperently strengthens FLE but weakens (or at least does not strengthen) Darwinian evolution. I am trying to understand why that is the case.

Comment by hrun — March 7, 2006 @ 1:36 pm

hrun Says:
March 7th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
I certainly did, if I say that evolution is in some sense channeled does that sound like Darwinian evolution to you of small random incremental changes guided by a blind selective process?

Yes, it certainly does sound like Darwinian evolution. As different organisms push into similar habitats Darwinian evolution would predict the existance of convergence countless times over. And, in fact, that is what we see everywhere. There is convergent evolution of fin-like structures in organisms inhabiting the ocean, be it fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, … it is the selective pressure of the same environment that selects for convergent structures.

So, I still do not see how the discovery of convergent structures strengthens FLE over Darwinian evolution. And as far as your reference to the 'misconceptions' thread is concerned, all I could find was the following statement by you:

I'm not sure but I think FLE also explains convergence differently than Darwinian theory does (i.e. it's not or it's more than similar selective pressures).

This does not sound to me like an actual explanation why convergence strengthens FLE over Darwinian evolution. In fact, it sound like you are unsure about either how FLE or Darwinian evolution (or both) explain convergence, right? I have to admit, I am at least unclear how FLE explains convergence.

Comment by hrun — March 7, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

hrun Says:
March 7th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Hrun, we already discussed your questions in the "Misconceptions about front-loading" thread.

Are you referring to the question specifically about how FLE explains convergence, or what the difference between FLE and Darwinian evolution would be?

If it's the former, then I don't think there was an actual answer given, but I may be wrong. If it is the latter, then I apologize for bringing it up again. But it seemed to me that here was a clear example, where Guts saw a specific difference between FLE and Darwinian evolution and I was hoping he would elaborate on the difference between the two.

Comment by hrun — March 7, 2006 @ 2:02 pm

Aagcobb Says:
March 7th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
In this scenario, the evolution of multicellularity wasn't "programmed"; the designers wouldn't have known what exact route life would take, nor could they have known that organisms such as oak trees and cats would emerge. Furthermore, there is no need for every gene to have been present in the first organisms. To use yet another metaphor, life would merely have been given a skeleton, on which new structures could be built.

isn't unpacking of pre-existing design. But then, why should we argue about this, when we can just ask Krauze and MikeGene if they see frontloading as the "unpacking" of pre-existing designs.

Comment by Aagcobb — March 7, 2006 @ 2:14 pm

derwood Says:
March 30th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Michael Denton does not work 'in the weeds', whatever that is supposed to mean.
I find it interesting that you seem to think that because you designed things that you gained some special insight into… evolutionary biology. You designed things that work, it was real hard, and it paled in comparison to your interpretation of what you saw in nature, therefore, nature must have had a Supreme INtelligence behind it.
This bizarre arrogance and elitist mindset seems especially prominant in engineers, computer programmers, and mathematicians that also happen to be creationists of one sort or another, and even more so in those devoid of any relevant background knowledge.
Frankly, Steve, I could not care less what some engineer/seminarian thinks about my profession or its underlying theories.

Comment by derwood — March 30, 2006 @ 10:14 am

Art Says:
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:39 pm
… I was/am willing to accept that Mims (and several other students) misinterpreted an expression of glee at the thought of ridding the planet of most people for a position that advocates this.

So it really is possible that Mims is guilty of slander and libel in his accusations that Pianka advocates a terror-like purging of human life.

This is a person being held up here as a standard? And purported to be a reliable witness?

The sad thing is that there are some interesting issues (and outlandish suggestions – on a par with those held to by Joy and her ilk) being bandied about by Pianka. But the bloggers here are bound and determined to pull a Mirecki. Only the mugging won't be by some anonymous wackos.

And we'll never hear of the interesting scientific issues on this blog.

Comment by Art — April 2, 2006 @ 10:39 pm

Art Says:
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Art, you are projecting your group-think on us in a rather trollish manner.

I think not.

Mayhaps the responsible person (who is a TTer) can 'fess up to this quote (which is 100% in lockstep with the leader of the ID movement hisself):

How seriously is anyone supposed to take you as a rational, good-faith conversationalist when they see you stretching credibility to come up with a defense for a psychopath who blatantly fantasizes about and promotes the mass eradication of humanity by a horrible disease?

Comment by Art — April 2, 2006 @ 10:55 pm

edarrell Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 2:24 am
So you have hearsay twice, and you think that's a fact?

Back to j-school 101. Note the part about libel.

And never forget, please, the sage advice of Joseph Pulitzer, who said: "Accuracy! Accuracy! Accuracy!"

Comment by edarrell — April 5, 2006 @ 2:24 am

ethel_merganser Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 11:01 am
mynym,

Glad you liked the satire but your comments otherwise certainly qualify as grad A moonbatista. By your logic correlating smoking with lung cancer is prophecy. And your Darwinism-Nazi-eugenics-scientism point is laughable! Recently I head a talk by the head of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research – they are stealing ideas from animals (e.g., how do geckos climb glass, pit vipers sense heat, lotus flowers collect water etc) – all in the admirable cause of building bigger and better weapons. Interesting thing is the guy, who recently got some big medal from President Bush was telling us how millions of years of evolution were better than they could do and so they were tapping into to – guess what – evolution. Strangely he didn't mention their ID section. I guess that's top secret, eh?

You also dismiss that fact that maybe one reason we're not dead or living in significantly worse circumstances is because people (e.g., Richard Nixon) paid attention to scientists and did something about some of these problems. I doubt that praying would have led to such positive changes. Another example, compare the air in the UK with what it was in 1950. Again, all the prayin and such wouldn't have done much to improve the air.

But, I suggest that it's time to read some more Zechariah- there's that juicy bit about the bowels turning to water and the part where a man's bones will be cleaved from his marrow…..all good stuff and very much to look forward too. I'd bet that if the AFOSR could just figure out how to pray a man's bowels away at 500 meters they'd fire all them pesky evolutionist loons right quick.

Ethel

Comment by ethel_merganser — April 5, 2006 @ 11:01 am

forchristbible Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
If Pianka has indeed expressed glee at the prospects of Humanity's mass death.

He should receive Major correction!

I believe that it will one day happen, but I am not happy about it. When that time arrives many will be lost and will be without hope!

Love God Serve God

Comment by forchristbible — April 5, 2006 @ 4:26 pm

ethel_merganser Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
bipod,

Ok, here's a hypothetical to consider – assume that Pianka is a believer and believes that God is using ebola has his agent. Then, not to express glee at the acts that God is intending would be to make one a fighter against God would it not? Now, certainly in tandem with this coming epidemic one, as a Christian, should be preaching, but ultimately those who get destroyed do so because of their refusal to med their ways. Jesus himself said that plagues and earthquakes would be a sign of the times.

Where does one draw the line?

Ethel

Comment by ethel_merganser — April 5, 2006 @ 4:46 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 6:52 pm

What should the consequences be? Is it something to be ignored as innocent fun? Is it something that demands minor correction? Major correction? Other options?

The consequences should be that Herr Heinrich Himler Osama Pianka should be made the poster child of Darwinism by the ID and Creationist communities in all their fund raising and political acitivities.

The other consequence should be that Pianka example encourages more people to come out of the close like Peter "experiment on humans and have sex with animals" Singer, Stephen "baby killer" Pinker, Thornhill and "rape-is-as-natural-as-a-giraffes-neck" Palmer, David "murder-is-an-adaptive-behavior" Buss, and ALF "kill doctors to protect rats" advocates.

Salvador

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 5, 2006 @ 6:52 pm

ethel_merganser Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Salvador,

Such invective from Nature's poster child – I suppose you wouldn't agree with them publishing this then

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7041/full/435429a.html

Ethel of the love your enemy class of Christian

Comment by ethel_merganser — April 5, 2006 @ 7:04 pm

Andrea Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Herr Heinrich Himler Osama Pianka

Good stuff, uh, Krauze? Are you proud?

Sal, let's see if you'd like to answer this: when you pray "thy Kingdom come", how exactly do you envision the events leading to said Kingdom will unfold? Do they bear any literal similarity to the Book of Revelation?

Comment by Andrea — April 5, 2006 @ 8:14 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Hypothetically, if Pianka has indeed expressed glee at the prospects of Humanity's mass death, what follows?

I don't think Pianka should suffer consequences. No, the next time a natural disaster like Katrina or a Tsunami hit, or when hundreds are massacred in a terrorist killing, the news reporters ought to get Pianka's take on the situation.

Reporter: What do you think of today's disasters, Dr. Pianka?

Pianka: It certainly gave me much glee. It really made my day. My only regret was that more people weren't killed. We've gotta hope the next disaster will take out a lot more.

Reporter: What sort of disaster would really turn you on.

Pianka: I was pretty thrilled about the onset of AIDS. That was a real killer. I'm quietly hoping for a flu pandemic, as that would kill more. But to answer your question, what would really seal the deal would be airborne Ebola. Yesiree sir, airborne Ebola! It would cause 90% of the world's population to get wiped out, and that would put me in ecstasy.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 5, 2006 @ 11:01 pm

Andrea Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Sal, your words are truly despicable, especially since the only people actually known to have expressed satisfaction at AIDS and natural disasters are closer to your belief system than Pianka's.

I hope TT site managers will consider deleting your hateful posts.

Comment by Andrea — April 5, 2006 @ 11:18 pm

Aegeri Says:
April 6th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Hey Sally, how about this:

Reporter: What sort of disaster would really turn you on?

Jerry Falwell: AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers.

I didn't even have to make anything up either because Falwells quote, unlike the garbage you pulled out of thin air, is an actual quote. Perhaps you should look at some of the idiots in Christianity as well hmmm? The number of preachers who are supposedly following Jesus on 'love thy neighbour' who delight in the AIDS epidemic of homosexuals in America is quite a bit higher than the likes of fellows like Pianka. But then again, you're a master of ignoring what you don't want to hear isn't that right Sally?

Comment by Aegeri — April 6, 2006 @ 12:23 am

edarrell Says:
April 6th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Or, one could take a look at the statement from the Texas Academy of Sciences (which is up at Panda's Thumb).

Neither any known transcript, any known recording, any of Pianka's 28 books or numerous other publications, Pianka's classes, nor others who were of sound mind at the meeting in Beaumont support the odd view sustained by several at this blog that Dr. Pianka bears a grudge to all humanity.

The grudge bearing and offensive speech is all demonstrated here, and Pianka doesn't post here.

Did the TelicThoughts lawyer pass off on the comments here? Is it the same guy who urged Dover's school board to push ID? One might learn from experience.

Comment by edarrell — April 6, 2006 @ 3:20 pm

Art Says:
April 6th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
So, if Pearcey and/or her associates have has the complete audio files, why is the transcript just partial? Why not show more juicy and damning parts if there are any? The plot thickens"¦

Hey, Andrea, it takes time to assemble the splice'n'dice version such as Sal would give us.

No, wait, I've got it. Pianka was speaking in some mysterious code, and it's taking those Bible Code Breakers more supercomputing hours than anticipated to get the goods on him.

Yeah, that's the ticket….

Comment by Art — April 6, 2006 @ 11:27 pm

Art Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Prepare to eat crow Deuce,

Bah – those are just the words from the horse's mouth. Remember, we're in the Post Wedge World. These words do not carry near the weight of the things the antievolutionist thinks he heard.

Remember – no right or wrong, no true or false, no correct or incorrect. If the IDist feels it in his heart, then it's so.

Deal with it.

Comment by Art — April 7, 2006 @ 12:23 am

Aegeri Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Of course, that's exactly what I did as we were talking hypothecially here on the presumption he's gleeful at death. His comments on AIDS have been made. Then on the presumption he's hypothetically gleeful, then that scenario should not be far from the truth in my estimation. No where am I representing this as an absolute fact.

Uh-huh. Nowhere in your post do you make this distinction clear. Anyone who read your post would assume you were quoting an actual reporter. The 'hypothetical' in this thread that bipod has set up incidentally is this:

Hypothetically, if Pianka has indeed expressed glee at the prospects of Humanity's mass death, what follows? What should the consequences be? Is it something to be ignored as innocent fun? Is it something that demands minor correction? Major correction? Other options?

Posting bollocks 'reporter' questions with hacked up quotes from Dr. Pianka is not following the hypothetical at all. Nobody believes this defence of yours.

Salvador, meet Mr. Shovel. Mr. Shovel meet Mr. Hole. Isn't it funny how big Mr. Hole is getting these days.

Speaking of Sally, let's bask in some irony here, because you've done such a wonderful job of destroying your own credibility:

If he is hypothetically gleeful at death, well, all the more reason taxpayers should be made aware of the kinds of professors there are at their schools. If he's not gleeful, perhaps he should work on his communication skills.

Yet here, you've come out with numerous highly inflammatory, highly insulting and degrading comparisons with Dr. Pianka that have been taken directly seriously by a large number of people. There are the three responders to you that took you directly seriously because you said this:

This is not too far from the truth:

Where you then made up a reporter and a completely hacked out of context response from Dr. Pianka that in no way reflects what he thinks.

Sal, you're pathetic. Truly pathetic. You're one of the worst examples of Christianity I have ever encountered.

Comment by Aegeri — April 7, 2006 @ 2:51 pm

Andrea Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Correction:
the rant I linked to in the previous post is from a few days ago (4/2) – I thought it was the most recent letter, since it just came out. So, we don't know whether Mims is thinking of backing down his accusations of genocide or not. Does anyone of the insiders have any info?

Comment by Andrea — April 7, 2006 @ 8:21 pm

Andrea Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Oops, sorry – wrong thread.

Comment by Andrea — April 7, 2006 @ 8:22 pm

JAllen Says:
April 10th, 2006 at 11:57 am
I was pleased to see that this course doesn't promulgate the ahistorical belief that intelligent design was invented by a Christian lawyer in the 80s, but has instead chosen to acknowledge the long history of the concept

Yes, Intelligent Design is a concept with a long history – even longer than Darwin's ideas – unless one asks, "What has ID to show for itself?"

Big ideas take time by Krauze

…intelligent design has passed from being expressed in creationist pamphlets as a flimsy support for apologetics, to being expressed in popular science books. ID critcs often inquire as to why intelligent design still isn't doing any research, "10 years after Behe published Darwin's Black Box". However, they should remember the lesson taught to us by Darwin's followers: Big ideas take time.

So the Intelligent Design concept goes back to Aristotle? (I did not know that Aristotle was expressing flimsy support for apologetics in creationist pamphlets.) How much more time do you think you'll need?

Comment by JAllen — April 10, 2006 @ 11:57 am

James Redford Says:
April 11th, 2006 at 1:28 am
I'm sorry if the below article by me seems off-topic here, but the thread where it would have been more on-topic is now closed.

Forrest Mims did not Misrepresent Prof. Eric Pianka's Statements

Prof. Eric R. Pianka is an evolutionary ecologist who teaches courses in biology and zoology at the University of Texas at Austin. Prof. Pianka was named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist by the Texas Academy of Science at its 109th Annual Meeting held in early March 2006 at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas.

At this meeting, Prof. Pianka gave a lecture on March 3, 2006. Forrest M. Mims III, the Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, who was present during the lecture, claims in a March 31, 2006 article that in this lecture Prof. Pianka "enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola," and that he "spoke glowingly of the police state in China that enforces their one-child policy." (See "Meeting Doctor Doom," Forrest M. Mims III, The Citizen Scientist, March 31, 2006 http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html .)

This March 31, 2006 article by Forrest Mims touched off public controversy concerning what it is that Prof. Pianka had actually stated during his March 3, 2006 lecture. Many individuals who were not present during this March 3, 2006 lecture by Prof. Pianka have claimed that people such as Forrest Mims have misrepresented Prof. Pianka's words as part of an anti-science "witch hunt" (despite the fact that Forrest Mims is himself the Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, and is one of the most widely read electronics authors in the world).

Unfortunately, during the March 3, 2006 lecture by Prof. Pianka, audio and video recording devices were ordered to be turned off. Hence, as of the date of this writing, no recording of the full March 3, 2006 lecture is known to publicly exist. An audio recording apparently was made of part of this lecture, but it apparently only caught the ending of it. For a transcript of this partial recording, see "Dr. 'Doom' Pianka Speaks: Transcript From the Speech That Started It All," Pearcey Report, April 6, 2006 http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/04/transcript_dr_d.php/index.html .

But even though a full record is not currently known to publicly exist of what Prof. Pianka said during his March 3, 2006 lecture, I will present other sources of evidence which strongly demonstrate that Forrest Mims did not misrepresent what Prof. Pianka said during this lecture, and that Forrest Mims's account of the lecture is accurate.

I first present an account of this March 3, 2006 lecture by a supporter of Prof. Pianka who was present during the lecture, a one Brenna McConnell, a biology student and senior at Texas Lutheran University. Commenting on Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 Texas Academy of Science lecture in a March 9, 2006 post by her on her personal weblog (see http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:h7mx7M7cGqEJ:brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html ), she says of the lecture, in part:

""
Dr. Pianka's talk at the TAS meeting was mostly of the problems humans are causing as we rapidly proliferate around the globe. While what he had to say is way too vast to remember it all, moreover to relay it here in this blog, the bulk of his talk was that he's waiting for the virus that will eventually arise and kill off 90% of human population. In fact, his hope, if you can call it that, is that the ebola virus which attacks humans currently (but only through blood transmission) will mutate with the ebola virus that attacks monkeys airborne to create an airborne ebola virus that attacks humans. He's a radical thinker, that one! I mean, he's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population! And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he's right."
""

Brenna McConnell went on to write in the same post, "Dr. Pianka made a very profound comment during his presentation; he said that China has the right idea by limiting reproduction at 1."

Thus, in her March 9, 2006 comments we see Forrest Mims's account of the statements made by Prof. Pianka concerning his desire that 90% of the human population be killed off with an airborne ebola virus and his support for China's enforced, mandatory maximum one-child policy is independently corroborated. Keep in mind that Brenna McConnell was writing as someone who supports Prof. Pianka. Also note that she wrote on this matter well before Forrest Mims published his March 31, 2006 article, and well before the public controversy surrounding Prof. Pianka started.

I next present a circa April 4, 2006 email by another supporter of Prof. Pianka, a one Rebecca M. Calisi, a Graduate Teaching Assistant in the Department of Biology at the University of Texas at Arlington. (See "A Fellow Biologist's Response to the Watson and Jones Article on Prof. Pianka," Infowars, April 4, 2006 http://www.infowars.com/articles/commentary/emails_pianka_response_biologist.htm .) Rebecca Calisi sent this email in response to an April 3, 2006 article on Prof. Pianka by Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones. Rebecca Calisi was present during Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture (you can see a picture of her smiling warmly at Prof. Pianka during that event here: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/images/fig1.jpg ). In that email by her, she wrote, in part, the following in support of Prof. Pianka:

""
I was in attendance at the Texas Academy of Science, and the only people (and there were very, VERY few) booing and hissing were the moronic creationists, angry that Pianka informed them they are not the "highest" creatures on this planet.

…

Eric Pianka is a brilliant, extremely well respected scientist. When your article states, "If Pianka, or 'The Lizard Man' as he likes to be called, is so vehement in the necessity of culling the human population will he step forward to be the first one in line? Will he sacrifice his children for the so-called greater good of the planet? We somehow doubt it."

Actually he said MANY TIMES that he would have no problem being the first to go, and fully understood (although saddened by the fact) that this would include his loved ones too!! He wishes no ill will toward anyone (he has children and grandchildren of his own you know), but there is NO DENYING the natural world would be a better place without people – ALL people! Not a selective bunch. Get it straight.

To liken Pianka to Hitler, etc., is the most absurd, ignorant comment anyone could make. He has spent his career trying to PROTECT life. He has inspired many a student to study, respect, and care for the natural world. Why are you trying to defame him when he is simply stating the facts??
""

Note that Rebecca Calisi was writing after the controversy surrounding Prof. Pianka had already become public. But in her email she doesn't make any attempt to deny the accounts that Prof. Pianka desires a large portion of the human population be killed off. Indeed, she reinforces the accuracy of those accounts by stating "Actually he said MANY TIMES that he would have no problem being the first to go, and fully understood (although saddened by the fact) that this would include his loved ones too!!" She even goes further than the statements attributed to Prof. Pianka in stating that, in her opinion, "there is NO DENYING the natural world would be a better place without people – ALL people! Not a selective bunch. Get it straight." According to Rebecca Calisi in her email, one apparently would have to be a "moronic creationist" to have a problem with large portions of the human population being killed off.

Thus, here again in the email by Rebecca Calisi, who supports Prof. Pianka, we find more independent eyewitness corroboration that Forrest Mims did not misrepresent Prof. Pianka's statements. Again, keep in mind that she was present during Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture.

Next I will present evidence that Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture was not the first time that he stated that it is his desire that a large portion of the human population be killed off, particularly with ebola.

The below two accounts are excerpts from student evaluations from Fall 2004, located on Prof. Pianka's personal University of Texas website and listed anonymously. (See "Biology 304 Evaluations" http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/357evaluations.html .) One student writes the following concerning Prof. Pianka's class:

""
I don't root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet.
""

And another student writes regarding Prof. Pianka's class,

""
Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views.
""

Hence, we have accounts from two different students who took classes by Prof. Pianka that Prof. Pianka has stated that it is his desire that at least some humans be killed off with ebola; 90% of the human population being killed off in said manner, as the second account states. Note that these students were writing well before Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture, and well before the controversy surrounding Prof. Pianka's lecture statements became public. Further note that the above two student evaluations are only marginally critical on some points, while being supportive of Prof. Pianka on other points.

Also keep in mind that Prof. Pianka is in charge of posting these evaluations on his personal University of Texas website. Thus, if these comments were attempts to smear Prof. Pianka, or if they were misrepresentations his views, then Prof. Pianka was under no obligation to post them to his own personal webspace, and it is not very reasonable to think that Prof. Pianka would do so if he thought that they were misrepresentations of his views–without, at the very least, giving his own comment to them in reply. Therefore, by Prof. Pianka's own actions in posting these comments without any attempt to say that they were misrepresentations his views, this certainly suggests that he did not think that they were misrepresentations of his views.

So here again we have independent eyewitness corroboration that Prof. Pianka has made statements in the past that are consistent with the accounts of Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture. And by implication, we have Prof. Pianka's own corroboration on this matter, in that he apparently did not think that the above student evaluations were misrepresentations of his views.

Now I turn to a circa April 5, 2006 email by a one Lenny Foster, who was a student of Prof. Pianka at the University of Texas. (See "A Former Pianka Student Speaks Out," Infowars, April 5, 2006 http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/pianka_former_student_speaks_out.htm .) In this email, Lenny Foster says, in part, the following about Prof. Pianka:

""
(I just wanted to talk about Dr. Pianka's comments. I had this professor for a class, and he actually said this to us TWICE in class! Oh, to clarify something for you, the 90% figure comes from the kill rate of ebola; it typically kills 9 out of 10 people it infects. I don't think it comes as much from the average of 85-95% population reduction plan, but Dr. Pianka clearly is a globalist.

He even gleefully went through the progression of ebola infection to death. Symptoms start out mild, but at some point, you start vomiting blood, sores break out on you, and you vomit parts of your esophagus. Make no mistake, he GLEEFULLY read over the gory details, he was actually giddy and smiling about it.

…

2 things. 1, you are fairly accurate with your assertion that universities inundate you with population control. In a number of classes, even non-biology classes, I have heard references to overpopulation. But, I haven't heard any open calls for extermination like I did in Pianka's class. 2, a number of people I have told about Pianka's outrageous statements actually SUPPORTED his position! They wanted more info on his class; they actually WANTED to take his class because of his call for near-global extermination. It's incredible.
""

So again we have further independent eyewitness corroboration that Prof. Pianka has stated prior to his March 3, 2006 lecture that it is his desire that a large portion of the human population be killed off.

Conclusion

When one takes into consideration all of the above eyewitness accounts of statements made by Prof. Pianka then it becomes apparent that Forrest Mims did not misrepresent what Prof. Pianka said during his March 3, 2006 lecture, and that Forrest Mims's account of the lecture is accurate. These eyewitness accounts are by Brenna McConnell and Rebecca M. Calisi, both of whom are supporters of Prof. Pianka, and both of whom were present during his March 3, 2006 lecture. So also this includes eyewitness accounts that Prof. Pianka has stated prior to his March 3, 2006 lecture that it is his desire that a portion of the human population be killed off, with ebola featuring in all of these accounts and the 90% figure featuring in two of them: i.e., in class evaluations by two students of Prof. Pianka posted on his own personal University of Texas webspace, and in an email by Lenny Foster, who was a student of Prof. Pianka at the University of Texas. Concerning the previous sentence, by implication Prof. Pianka himself corroborates the two students' accounts of his views given in the evaluations, in that he apparently did not think that said student evaluations were misrepresentations of his views, as he posted them on his personal webspace when he was under no obligation to do so and without giving any comment of his own stating that they were misrepresentations his views.

To maintain that Forrest Mims misrepresented what Prof. Pianka said during his March 3, 2006 lecture, one would so also have to maintain that Brenna McConnell and Rebecca M. Calisi, two supporters of Prof. Pianka who were present during his March 3, 2006 lecture, also have misrepresented what Prof. Pianka said during that lecture; moreover, that these two supporters of Prof. Pianka gave the same misrepresentation of Prof. Pianka's statements that Forrest Mims did. And to maintain that Prof. Pianka has not made statements that he desires that a large portion of the human population be killed off with ebola, one would have to discard the Fall 2004 class evaluations by the two students spoken of above, of which were implicitly corroborated by Prof. Pianka himself, as well as Lenny Foster's email.

In sum, to maintain that Forrest Mims misrepresented what Prof. Pianka said during his March 3, 2006 lecture, or that Prof. Pianka has not made statements that he desires that a large portion of the human population be killed off with ebola, is an exceedingly untenable position which is contradicted by the available evidence.

Clarification of Some Recent Confusion

A number of commentators on the recent controversy surrounding Prof. Pianka have made mistakes as to which specific speaking event by Prof. Pianka is being referred to by Forrest Mims in his March 31, 2006 article. In that article by Forrest Mims, he refers to the March 3, 2006 lecture by Prof. Pianka at the 109th Annual Meeting of the Texas Academy of Science held at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. This is the same lecture that Brenna McConnell and Rebecca M. Calisi were at. Some have confused this event with the March 31, 2006 speech by Prof. Pianka at St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas. (For that March 31, 2006 speech, see "St. Edward's University transcript," Seguin Gazette-Enterprise, April 6, 2006 http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:wGYXS2KUqBYJ:seguingazette.com/story.lasso%3Fewcd%3D3817403731ee3d74%26page%3Dall .) The analysis provided above by me specifically concerns the March 3, 2006 lecture given by Prof. Pianka and statements made by him prior to that date.

Comment by James Redford — April 11, 2006 @ 1:28 am

Aegeri Says:
April 11th, 2006 at 3:24 am
Uh-huh Redford. Aside from the fact you're boring and haven't stated anything that wingnuts haven't beaten to death ad nauseum already, do you actually have anything that is original to add?

Pez

Those presenting the data don't get a monopoly on interpreting it.

Yes, but they are often the best qualified to do so having actually done the research.

Comment by Aegeri — April 11, 2006 @ 3:24 am

Jack Says:
April 12th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
This explains (among other things) why the 'identity of the Designer' is kept a mystery.

No one is keeping anything a mystery. Dembski and Behe will tell you that they believe the designer to be the Christian God but they keep their theological beliefs out of their scientific hypothesizing. Do you complain when theistic evolutionists do the same?

Comment by Jack — April 12, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

g arago Says:
April 12th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Jack – you continue to astound! "No one is keeping anything a mystery." In the ever-so-secretive IDM – are you kidding?? It seems the scientific research program(s) is top secret behind-closed-doors stuff – for inside eyes only. Meyer's first-peer-reviewed ID paper is fluff.

Ever asked Mike or Krauze to tell you who the designer (Designer) is? [*cue link to ID Think article]

The notion of 'poetry' and what is written by M. Denton appear incompatible. If 'robot-like machines' inspire you, and confusing ORGA with MECHA is your thing, then so be it. But there is a dark-side to the mechanistic metaphors of such organic/biological scholars.

~
Allen – if you prefer 'purpose' or 'teleology' instead of 'design' then I suggest you solicit assistance/counsel from a non-natural scientist/scholar. The former concepts are prominent and discussed at length (or presumed) in humanitarian/social sciences, while natural scientists often struggle to properly contextualize them. This is in fact a large part of the problem of misunderstanding; the natural sciences condescend toward humanitarian/social sciences at the same time that persons like Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski draw parallels with human-made things (e.g. mousetrap, Mt. Rushmore, Easter Island). I agree with your general sentiment about not needing the qualifier 'intelligent' (apparently it is not an 'intelligent' revolution, but a 'design' revolution) but also acknowledge that there can indeed be 'unintelligent' design. I wonder, do 'we' all know a 'lack of intelligence' when we see/hear it?

I'm also curious to learn more about the (positive, creative) sense in which you will use the term 'teleology' in your course. Probably this would be a hot topic at Telic Thoughts to explore.

~
Rock – you're a kid at heart! :-> I heard Jason too and have also lived in Vancouver. There's not much about ID in lotus land, but there's a Conservative Christian Bible belt which professes "God created the heavens and the earth" and the two apparently go hand in hand. The first Chair of Religion and Science in Canada, at the University of Alberta, rejects ID as concordist, neo-creationism, while at the same time defending his views as an 'evolutionary creationist.' It sometimes seems that if Mike Gene wasn't 'agnostic,' but rather a faithful man he would lean towards this view rather than Behe's or Johnson's pseudo-revolutionary claims.

In New York there may be invested research facilities, if Jason wants to follow a research rather than theoretical education path. However, the philosophy of science and religion is just as strong in Canada as it is in the States of America. And one might find that the political climate for expressing one's views is more restrictive there in a land which exudes such emotion over whether or not C. Darwin's views/knowledge even qualify as 'science.'

How many Americans think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old? Most countries have settled this matter, for better or for worse. But 'only in America' is the debate so heated and a hot bed for anti-evolutionism so prepared.

I hope Dr. MacNeil makes it an exciting and challenging, though non-scientistic, course as well.

G. Arago

Comment by g arago — April 12, 2006 @ 6:00 pm

Krauze Says:
April 12th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
"Ever asked Mike or Krauze to tell you who the designer (Designer) is? [*cue link to ID Think article]"

Presumable confessing ignorance about the identity of the designer amounts to secrecy.

Comment by Krauze — April 12, 2006 @ 6:06 pm

g arago Says:
April 12th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
p.s. it ain't luck, and Neo didn't believe in 'fate' – do you know why?

(Cuz the W. bros couldn't figure out which side their bread was buttered on!)

It doesn't take a course on evolution and design to tell us: the destiny of ID is already sealed.

Comment by g arago — April 12, 2006 @ 6:11 pm

Art Says:
April 12th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
(from Denton, just a snippet to make a contrast)

"…The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules…."

Actually, reality is much different from this neat and ordered picture that a teleological perspective imparts on the cell.

Stand outside on most typical days, and one may notice a refreshing breeze of a few mph.

Now imagine yourself standing in the most extreme part of, say, Hurricane Camille. Tempest isn't the word – one cannot stand up, or still, and one is constantly buffeted with all manner of stuff, debris, water, anything and everything.

NOW imagine yourself inside of a cell. Well, you cannot. Compared with the contrast between a refreshing breeze and Camille, a typical cell is a maelstrom of truly Biblical proportions. This is because chemistry is accelerated, not one or two orders of magnitude, but by 5 or more. That's a hurricane with windspeeds in excess of 100,000 mph (or kph, for you Europeans here). With all the connotations, the confusion, the incredible disarry that the comparison with hurricanes implies.

The reality that is the chemistry and metabolism inside cells isn't very easy to project upon a teleological worldview. In fact, it pretty much flies in the face of the "nice and ordered" POV that the snippet from Denton implies, the tidy and well-oiled caricature that modern IDists adhere to.

Comment by Art — April 12, 2006 @ 7:43 pm

afdave Says:
April 12th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Art, Art, my friend … come now … "pretty much flies in the face of nice and ordered?" … you surely cannot mean to imply that there is disarray inside cells! Real molecular biologists will tell you that cells are the absolute antithesis of disarray. Everything is highly ordered and multitudes of diverse and vital functions and carried out constantly. When disarray happens, Art, you probably will get sick. I never cease to be amazed as some of the non-sensical notions that come out of the Darwinian way of thinking.

Oh well … predjuced people will continue to believe what they want to believe in spite of the evidence … that's the way it will always be (not saying you are necessarily prejudiced, Art, but many people are).

The good news here is that a science professor at Cornell University is actually REQUIRING people to read one of the most refreshing texts of the 20th Century — Darwin's Black Box — no matter what kind of intellectually dark, Darwinist blather may spew forth in that class, it is a beautiful thing indeed that THE LIGHT WILL BE TURNED ON — many people will be exposed to the truth at last! In a major university, no less!! Folks, this is HUGE … I'm not sure you understand the major, positive consequences of your action, Prof. MacNeill, but you will be doing something similar to what Henry VIII did in England by eventually allowing the publication of the Bible in English. The light was turned on … people read the truth for themselves … and the world was transformed for the better. So influential was that "turning on of the light" that English is now the official language of commerce the world over. It never would have been, had the people been kept in the dark. Thank you, Prof. McNeill !!! Here's to a bright, post-Darwinist future!!

Comment by afdave — April 12, 2006 @ 10:57 pm

Art Says:
April 12th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
afdave said:

Art, Art, my friend "¦ come now "¦ "pretty much flies in the face of nice and ordered?" "¦ you surely cannot mean to imply that there is disarray inside cells! Real molecular biologists will tell you that cells are the absolute antithesis of disarray.

So, you are claiming that "real molecular biologists" will disagree that intermediary metabolism inside of a cell happens at a rate or speed that puts the most violent and destructive of storms to shame? Pardon me for saying that I don't believe you. Heck, I bet most TTers here would have to agree with my statement. As they should, because it's dead-on correct.

There's much more to my analogy than the simplistic POV of the IDist, and when taken through it, "real molecular biologists" would and will agree with me. Guaranteed.

Everything is highly ordered and multitudes of diverse and vital functions and carried out constantly.

Do you understand the contradiction in this sentence? Think about it, because it holds one key to my point.

When disarray happens, Art, you probably will get sick.

Actually, you have it backwards.

I never cease to be amazed as some of the non-sensical notions that come out of the Darwinian way of thinking.

Yeah, reality always seems to amaze ID proponents. Go figure.

As always, think long and hard about my original point. There's much more to it, and it helps tremendously to understand what cells are really like.

Comment by Art — April 12, 2006 @ 11:15 pm

Bilbo Says:
April 12th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Sorry, Art. I don't see the contradiction between highly ordered and high speeds. Could you explain it for us non-scientist types?

Comment by Bilbo — April 12, 2006 @ 11:38 pm

Art Says:
April 12th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Bilbo said:

Sorry, Art. I don't see the contradiction between highly ordered and high speeds. Could you explain it for us non-scientist types?

It's more of a paradox than a contradiction. You should google up some video of photos of, say, the Gulf Coast at the height of Katrina. Then ask yourself, is this (all manner of debris flying around, roads, bridges, houses being blown away, etc.) highly ordered?

Then think abut the cell, and try to find the analogy that resolves the paradox.

Comment by Art — April 12, 2006 @ 11:57 pm

Bilbo Says:
April 13th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Was it just my imagine, or were there a number of posts here that are now gone? I could have sworn that Art resonded to the Michael Denton quote, saying something about events in a cell resembling a hurricane, and then somebody responded to him about the events in a cell being orderly, then Art responded, saying something about this being contradictory, then I asked Art how the high order and high speed were contradictory. And now it's all gone. Where did it go to? Or was it all a dream?

Comment by Bilbo — April 13, 2006 @ 10:15 am

Bilbo Says:
April 13th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Oh, I see…it all got sent to the memory hole. Too bad there isn't a way to carry on a conversation there. So I guess I'll post here, and wait for you to send it there, and hope Art sees it and responds here, and so on.

Yes, Art, I see a paradox between the hurricane Katrina causing disorder, and the hurricane in the cell causing order. Or are you saying that the hurricane in the cell caused disorder?

Comment by Bilbo — April 13, 2006 @ 10:22 am

Bilbo Says:
April 13th, 2006 at 10:25 am
And one for g arago:

Once again you attributed a quote to Behe:

"Intelligent design theory has implications for virtually all humane studies, including philosophy, theology, literary criticism, history and more." – Michael Behe (1999)

And once again I challenge you to tell us where he said that. If this were my blog, I wouldn't let you post here anymore until you gave us the reference, or withdrew your claim that Behe said it.

Comment by Bilbo — April 13, 2006 @ 10:25 am

Art Says:
April 13th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Bilbo said:

Oh, I see"¦it all got sent to the memory hole. Too bad there isn't a way to carry on a conversation there. So I guess I'll post here, and wait for you to send it there, and hope Art sees it and responds here, and so on.

Yeah, I just noticed that as well. Oh well, this'll keep Krauze busy (for a millisecond or two).

Yes, Art, I see a paradox between the hurricane Katrina causing disorder, and the hurricane in the cell causing order. Or are you saying that the hurricane in the cell caused disorder?

No. The first statement is the question. Now, consider this perspective.

When it comes to order and disorder in a cell, things ain't what they seem. The underlying causes of what teleologists see as rigid order in a cell betray a much murkier reality.

Comment by Art — April 13, 2006 @ 9:42 pm

Odd Digit Says:
April 18th, 2006 at 4:47 am
Art said:

The difference between ID and real science is exemplified nicely by Mike's reference here. With ID, vague intuition, suspicion, personal revelation, and the like (whatever that is, Rock) are the end of the process.

Guts replied:

That is, of course, simply not true. The aim of many of his ID "musings" is to elucidate theoretical propositions which clearly give insight into biological processes. The biological significance is clearly stated. None are highly speculative, that is, not based on current biological knowledge. Many include experimental results which bear on the underlying hypothesis being presented. One can easily put forth a (proto)mathematical model and / or some experiments to test that hypothesis.

Go on then Guts, let's see some results of experiments to test that hypothesis. It's easy apparently, shouldn't take you long to do some…

Comment by Odd Digit — April 18, 2006 @ 4:47 am

derwood Says:
April 19th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Art:

"The difference between ID and real science is exemplified nicely by Mike's reference here. With ID, vague intuition, suspicion, personal revelation, and the like (whatever that is, Rock) are the end of the process – because the IDist cannot test an ID-related hypothesis. If an IDist suspects something, (s)he expects that to count as evidence, and assumes quickly the role of martyr when those meanie reviewers don't see things their way."

Talk about spot-on synopses…

Dear Mike,

I apologize for being "confused" about "your blog" and reading into it what was surely not there. It was silly of me to have considered the tone and content of the many posts the 'bloggers' on this 'blog' make to include you. I should first have ventured to your other personal site, had I known about it, and read the many, many essays filled with 'suspicions' and 'intuition' and 'fulfilled predictions' prior to having dared post a comment to one of your astute commentaries.

So, so sorry.

Comment by derwood — April 19, 2006 @ 8:36 am

derwood Says:
April 19th, 2006 at 8:42 am
'Guts' writes to Art:

"That is, of course, simply not true. The aim of many of his ID "musings" is to elucidate theoretical propositions which clearly give insight into biological processes. The biological significance is clearly stated. None are highly speculative, that is, not based on current biological knowledge. Many include experimental results which bear on the underlying hypothesis being presented. One can easily put forth a (proto)mathematical model and / or some experiments to test that hypothesis. "

Cool. Has anyone done it? Have ID tenets/thinking actually lead to any such experiments? Or is it all post hoc 'ID believers COULD have done this, if they had wanted to' sorts of things? Or is this all just ego stroking?

Comment by derwood — April 19, 2006 @ 8:42 am

David Heddle Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Ethel,

I'll address Hebrews 11:1, and maybe you'll address the passages that I listed above, rather than just dropping a verse as if, without explanation, it constitutes proof.

You need to see the next verse for the first clue:

"For by it the people of old received their commendation." (Heb 11:2)

Notice the writer is not making a general treatise on salvation, for salvation is the same for all times. But here the writer is commending only the OT saints. Why? Because they did not enjoy the same physical proof that the NT saints enjoy–they did not see Christ alive and especially resurrected.

Even then, the hall of fame of OT saints that follows makes it clear that the unseen things do not include God, that faith is not blind faith in the existence of God, that faith is not a synonym for "believe", but to trust and obey god.

Take Noah, as described in verse 7 of the same chapter,

By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. (Heb. 11:7)

we see that Noah didn't need blind faith in God–God spoke to Noah–Noah had direct physical proof of God–Noah's faith involved trusting and obeying–what was unseen to Noah was not God, but the events as they were to unfold.

Likewise for the other OT saints in the Hebews 11 hall of fame.

You need to look a little deeper.

Comment by David Heddle — April 28, 2006 @ 2:10 pm

ethel_merganser Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
David,

Certainly Paul was pointing out OT examples of faith and as Heb 12 continues, these people were held up as examples of faith for Christians. But that does not alter his very precise definition of faith. Or do you diisagree that Heb. 11:1 provides a good definition of faith?

Certainly, various people have demanded proof of God and God has obliged on occasion. However, Paul singled out the faith of the Old Testament prophets – not their requests for proof. For example, Moses was commended for the things he did based on faith and prior to his demand to see God's glory. This, by the way, was surely not because Moses needed evidence of God's existence after all that had gone before – the burning bush, the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea. If Moses needed to see further evidence of God after all that then he certainly was a doubter of gargantuan proportions. Heb. 11 doesn't mention Gideon as an example.

I'm not suggesting that faith is blind, otherwise it would imply that any and all beliefs are equivalent. The point being that the Heavens declare God's glory only if one has the faith to see it. Romans speaks of God's invisible qualities being perceived through the things made. Since microsopes and super colliders did not exist at that point it is obvious that Paul meant that anyone at all could observe what we might call "everyday creation" and come to conclusions about the nature of God. It hardly seems credible that Paul was recommending scientific inquiry to prove that God exists. After all, most Christians – then or now – are not in a position to pursue such studies.

So, e.g., someone who accepts evolution can still believe in God and can see God's qualities in nature. Someone who considers that ID is science is, in principle, accepting the possibility that ID can be falsified. What then happens to their faith? What if people put their faith in Dembski's "mathematics" and then Dembski's proofs are proven false? Do the band of Dembskinians then lose their faith? If yes then ID is poor theology. If no then ID is not sciience.

We can look for God's qualities in nature but don't expect to be able to prove that God made it. Faith may seem old fashioned but it is still the essential basis of Christianity. and it means believing in thngs which you cannot see based on your interpretation of the evidence. If ID were to succeed in proving that God exists then everyone would believe in God. If God wanted that then why not simply set up shop in Jersualem and be done with it?

The problem with ID is that it puts constraints on God and how he operates. In particular, it requires that God made the universe in a particular way. It is very much like the Jehovah's Witnesses who project their interpretation of scripture onto the physical world, arguing that if the Bible says something then it must be scientifically or medically valid. Science does not do this and so no scientific discovery can shake the faith of one one who, like Moses, truly has his or her eye on the city which God has prepared. That's really the beauty of faith.

By the way, did you see the article in this week's Nature entitled (from memory) Is the universe natural?

Ethel

Comment by ethel_merganser — April 28, 2006 @ 2:58 pm

Uncommon Descent Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Who Wants to Sue the University of Minnesota?

In light of Kitzmiller finding that ID is religion I decided to see exactly what PZ Myers, who votes on tenure at the University of Minnesota, said about denying tenure to people who believe in ID.
In short order I found I was preceded in this investig…

Trackback by Uncommon Descent — April 28, 2006 @ 3:02 pm

David Heddle Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Ethel,

It provides a good definition of faith"”but not of salvific faith, for that was not its intent. But before Macht boots us, I'll just point out, once again, that MacNeill's argument (actually his parroted argument) that ID undermines faith and is therefore is a theological problem is not supported by scripture. Instead, "you want proof, I'll give you proof" is much more aligned, and so ID would not be a problem at all. It's what you do after seeing the proof where faith enters the equation.

I agree with you"”someone can accept evolution and still believe in God"”or be a Christian for that matter. What he cannot do is argue that God was not in control"”that God was surprised or even potentially surprised"”that God could not, if he wanted, intervene, or that man was not inevitable. For then he would no longer be a theist. He can believe that God used evolution the same way God uses gravity"”as a secondary cause"”and that like the case of gravity, as scientists we simply study what is available to our senses.

You are right, Romans speaks of invisible attributes of God, but these are deduced from the visible creation. In other words, science allows us to appreciate something of God through what we see in creation. Perhaps Paul wasn't saying that science proves God exists"”but he something very close, namely that it means all men are without excuse.

ID puts no constraints on God"”it is either nonsense or it reveals something about how God created. If it's nonsense, then God left no macroscopic or cosmological evidence of creation. That says nothing about God other than he chose to leave no evidence of that sort. If is true, it means God did leave evidence. In either case, it merely reflects God's choice, it in no manner constrains him. When you say it requires God to have made the universe in a certain way, you are placing the effect before the cause.

If someone's faith is based on Dembski"”then it is not a saving faith. The bible does not teach salvation by faith in Dembski or Behe or Darwin or Einstein. If your faith is based on Dembski's math, and Dembski's math is demonstrated as faulty, then you have only lost faith in Dembski. A saving faith in God cannot be shattered this way (I'll skip the verses.)

I have not seen the Nature article. Is there an online abstract?

Comment by David Heddle — April 28, 2006 @ 3:29 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
May 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I would be perfectly happy if scientists as scientists were just mute on these types of inferences. But they aren't. Some claim that it is science itself that supports non-teleological inferences.

But how are they supposed to aggressively push their metaphysic without making that claim?

After all, the problem with ID is not that it is anti-evolution, rather that it threatens to undermine the evidence-free assumption that evolutionary processes are entirely ateleological. And that would undermine the entire project of modernity to extirpate any notion of meaning or purpose to reality. Because if we were here for some kind of higher meaning or purpose, why that would bring the deification of the individual human ego to a crashing halt, wouldn't it.

Comment by MatthewCromer — May 1, 2006 @ 3:09 pm

MatthewCromer Says:
May 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pm
I would be perfectly happy if scientists as scientists were just mute on these types of inferences. But they aren't. Some claim that it is science itself that supports non-teleological inferences.

But how are they supposed to aggressively push their metaphysic without making that claim?

After all, the problem with ID is not that it is anti-evolution, rather that it threatens to undermine the evidence-free assumption that evolutionary processes are entirely ateleological. And that would undermine the entire project of modernity to extirpate any notion of meaning or purpose to reality.

Comment by MatthewCromer — May 1, 2006 @ 3:13 pm

bFast Says:
May 13th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
ederrell, it is all well and nice to suggest that publication bias is limited to "self-sensoring", but it's not. Consider the following link: Wall Street Journal If you think that publication bias on the issue of ID is significantly less than a threat to all scientists that supporting the ID perspective is equivelant to committing career suicide, then your head is stuck thoroughly in the sand.

Comment by bFast — May 13, 2006 @ 11:04 pm

edarrell Says:
May 13th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Sternberg has never had a paper refused that anyone knows. Stick to the issue: Sternberg also lacks any data to support a claim either that confounds evolution theory or that promotes a hypothesis of ID. Sternberg may be a great demonstration of exactly the point I'm making. Sternberg does no research that supports ID, he writes no articles to submit to journals on the point, and consequently, there are no articles.

To blame Sternberg's lack of research on a bias by scientists at science journals is just bizarre. If Sternberg has some research results, he can submit them for publication. But of course, he has none, which was my point.

But neither is it career suicide to support ID, even in ethically questionable ways, as Sternberg did, as bFast suggests. Sternberg has had a career revival since his little indiscretion. Sternberg's actions were unethical, and in any fair situation would have damaged his career. But Sternberg has suffered nothing of note. His employer defended him. The scientists he stabbed in the back at the Smithsonian who wondered in e-mails what would be appropriate action, determined ultimately that they had no recourse against him, since he was not an employee of the Smithsonian and his actions were clearly outside the purview of the institution — and the record shows that they did absolutely nothing about the issue that might be called a "penalty" to Sternberg. (This point was brought up by the defense at the Dover trial, and you can read Judge Jones' summary; it's official, Sternberg didn't suffer.)

As icing on the cake, of course, we should note that the Sternberg case bears no resemblance whatsoever to Gould's statement. Gould worries about scientists not questioning, accepting the common wisdom so strongly that they self-censor. Sternberg could have benefited from some self-restraint, but didn't. The Sternberg case is simply inappropriate in every possible way.

Comment by edarrell — May 13, 2006 @ 11:20 pm

bFast Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 12:09 am
ederrell, I don't know where you get your sunny view of Sternberg's improved popularity since his "indescresion". On his website, he seems to be confirming the Wall Street Journal in the matter.

As to how Sternberg relates to Gould, let's see, Meyer did not self-censor, and presented a paper which questioned the paradyme. Sternberg let Meyer's questioning out of the bag. Sternberg got censored by the scientific community. What part of "Sternberg was punnished because Meyer did what Gould said should be done" don't you understand.

Comment by bFast — May 14, 2006 @ 12:09 am

edarrell Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 9:20 am
bFast, all the problems Sternberg cites are from the illegal and unethical letter from the rogue lawyer at the agency to which Sternberg complained in error. They were discussed at the Dover trial, and it adds up to this: Sternberg was reassigned to an office appropriate under Smithsonian rules, along with all Smithsonian researchers and employees, and security at Smithsonian stopped the practice of allowing everybody to have a master key — only keys to one's own office.

How does that affect Sternberg's career? How does that reflect bias against ID when more evolution-understanding scientists got the same treatment, including employees of Smithsonian?

And that's your only example?

The challenge in the Arkansas case was a good one: 'Bring in the articles you guys have submitted to the journals that were rejected so we can insert them into the court record.' Not a single such article was found.

If you have an example, a real one, of bias preventing publication of a real research article, bring it forward. Sternberg committed unethical acts; when unethical and unauthorized acts were discussed as reprimand, those stabbed in the back by Sternberg decided there was nothing they could do.

In the meantime, another 4,000 articles supporting evolution have been published (give or take a few). That's thousands of times more than have ever been published supporting ID. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the trend.

Comment by edarrell — May 14, 2006 @ 9:20 am

Hrafn Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 8:51 am
ederrell, I don't know where you get your sunny view of Sternberg's improved popularity since his "indescresion". On his website, he seems to be confirming the Wall Street Journal in the matter.

My impression is that Sternberg appears to be getting considerable mileage out of being a 'professional victim' — so of course he'll keep up the "woe is me" stance.

Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 8:51 am

HaroldJenkins Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 10:10 am
I tried to post a comment in this one, but it wouldn't let me. The Office of Special Counsel documents the abuse he suffered…complete with e-mails from colleagues who wanted to get rid of him but didn't want to make him a "martyr." The OSC found that they did, indeed, go after him and he suffered from their abuse, but that the OSC ultimately didn't have jurisdiction.

Even the federal office looking into the matter concluded he suffered offenses, and that they went after him.

Comment by HaroldJenkins — May 16, 2006 @ 10:10 am

Hrafn Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 11:06 am
HaroldJenkins:

1) The OSC has a reputation for being highly politicised.

2) It had no jurisdiction in the Sternberg case and its "preliminary determination" were based solely on Sternberg's side of the story.

Sternberg's supervisor, Jonathan Coddington refuted many of the accusations, with the following statement:

1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, "Research Associate," means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.
3. I am, and continue to be, his only "supervisor," although we use the term "sponsor" for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever "assigned to" or under the "oversight of" anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.

Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 11:06 am

Steve Petermann Says:
May 17th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Hi Deuce,

What he *ought* to say is that teleonomic processes are an illusion – that there are really only teleomatic processes, and that "program" does not describe anything objectively real, but perhaps that it is convenient for us to describe things this way.

Exactly. Interestingly enough it sounds like he and others feel that using teleological thinking provides some advantage in exploring biotic systems. Isn't this exactly what Mike Gene has been suggesting all along. The irony would seem that if telic thinking and language are helpful for Mayr, why would he then, out of the other side of his mouth claim that there is really nothing telic going on at fundamental levels. Seems arbitrary or ideological to me.

Comment by Steve Petermann — May 17, 2006 @ 3:09 pm

derwood Says:
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:03 am
How is Aagcobb not banned from this site? What does he offer? It's hard to follow where he gets his ideas from. They add nothing and usually serve to insult.

He might not be sure of why Krauze's post is relevant to telicthoughts"¦. I'm still trying to find out why Aagcobb is relevant enough to be here in the 1st place.

Ironic…

Comment by derwood — May 22, 2006 @ 9:03 am

Guts Says:
May 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Meanwhile, Bush, a conservative republican, has moved America even more towards economic socialism.

Comment by Guts — May 26, 2006 @ 5:44 pm

Art Says:
May 27th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Since biotic systems look so similar to human made intelligent systems

But they don't. (Of course, Steve may be one of those poor souls who has to replace the radiator in his car every week, his tires every 50 miles, his windshield every day, his engine block every month. In this case, I can understand how he could be so confused. In the meantime, I'd recommend that he invest in a human-designed machine that actually looks very unlike biotic systems, one whose components last long enough for his bank account to get a few moments' respite.)

the burden of proof should be on those who reject ID.

LOL. Steve, no matter how many times you chant the mantra, the fact is that 'tis you who bear the evidential burden for what is otherwise a completely unsubstantiated assertion.

Of course, you haven't any. And of course you cannot be bothered to put your unsupported claim thru the hypothesize, test, and revise wringer.

Comment by Art — May 27, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

Guts Says:
June 16th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
tset

Comment by Guts — June 16, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

Daniel Says:
July 1st, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Joy,

We are informed constantly that it is somehow vitally "important" to humanity at large that all and/or most human beings be made to believe-in the Neodarwinist just-so story told about life and evolution here on planet earth. It is SO "important," we are told, that any and all non-Neodarwinian just-so stories must be forcefully excluded by law or by tantrum from public communications, from public (and private) educational institutions, and from all formal/informal belief systems if they wish to be considered acceptable in public.

They let you post this crap on TT? Wow… and I was starting to think that TT had some level of intellegence and honesty…

Your profession says it all – "Professional fool."

Comment by Daniel — July 1, 2006 @ 3:24 pm

Migrations » Blog Archive » Are all IDers inane creationists? Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
[...] But, if you still had any lingering doubts as to where the interests of IDers lay, just check out their choices in reading. Thus far at least, all of the books mentioned are either explicitly dealing with religious concerns, and/or are very misleading about science. [...]

Pingback by Migrations » Blog Archive » Are all IDers inane creationists? — July 17, 2006 @ 1:32 pm

dangerous liberty Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Are all Darwinists Intellectually Lazy? Or Intellectually Dishonest?…

Dan of Migrations asks Are all IDers inane creationists? He says up front most creationists are intellectually dishonest. That fits arguments I've heard made by Young Earth creationists. But I wonder, is an intellectually dishonest creationist one who…

Trackback by dangerous liberty — July 17, 2006 @ 3:29 pm

teleologist Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Pinocchio "“ Walt Disney

No other book is more valuable in helping me gain an insight into the Darwinian mindset. It taught me to search for the truth when I encounter the long noses of the Darwinists. It also showed me the power of wishing upon a star, even fairytales can come true.

Comment by teleologist — July 17, 2006 @ 8:30 pm

Odd Digit Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 2:55 am
On the subject of location, I'm wondering about the location of the reply I wrote yesterday in the Confirmation Bias thread.

Any ideas? I'll give all of you at Telic Thoughts a fair chance to respond before I comment on this issue on my own blog.

Comment by Odd Digit — July 25, 2006 @ 2:55 am

Mesk Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 4:14 am
Odd Digit,

Do you mean this comment? If so, looks like it's fallen down The Memory Hole.

Comment by Mesk — July 25, 2006 @ 4:14 am

Guts Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 4:27 am
Hmm, second complaint about missing comments. Please repost or send me your comment if you can't and I'll post it, I doubt the blog is eating comments randomly, but they could be getting scored as spam by one of the TT gods not carefuly reviewing the moderation queue. Sometimes regular commenters can have their comments scored as spam by improper formating.

Comment by Guts — July 25, 2006 @ 4:27 am

Odd Digit Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 4:32 am
Mesk,

it's not that comment, no.

Guts,

that would be strange as the comment was specifically addressed to you. I will repost it. It did say it was in the moderation queue yesterday (at 4am), and since then it hasn't appeared on the site.

Comment by Odd Digit — July 25, 2006 @ 4:32 am

Guts Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 4:35 am
Odd, I gave you an explanation and I offered a solution. Going to someone else's blog and issuing threats and demands is not a good idea. All I have to say is your response better be good. Don't post anymore on this issue in this thread.

Comment by Guts — July 25, 2006 @ 4:35 am

Odd Digit Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 4:43 am
Guts,

Who's issuing threats and demands? I was simply asking where my comment had got to that's all.

I've posted it again: "Your comment is awaiting moderation". I've also posted it on my blog.

Comment by Odd Digit — July 25, 2006 @ 4:43 am

Ford Prefect Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Ford, surely you know that it has been scientifically established that the properties of the cosmos are such that resuurections can NOT happen, even in principle. Oh wait"¦that hasn't been scientifically established yet..whew!!
But try telling THAT to the Dawkster!!!

That's what I like about these blogs, you get to hear all kinds of neologisms. I love the word Dawkster but wonder if it shouldn't be spelled with an o instead of an a, as in Dorkster.

Comment by Ford Prefect — July 28, 2006 @ 6:49 pm

Ilion Says:
July 28th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Should 'Dembksi' be spelled with a 'u?'

'Dawkster' is one thing, 'Dorkster' quite another.

Comment by Ilion — July 28, 2006 @ 11:09 pm

Douglas Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I saw the program, and they made a good case for the thought that Darwin's Hypothesis of Evolution (macro, that is) led to Hitler's "Aryan superiority" view resulting in the attempted eradication of "inferior" races.

Comment by Douglas — August 27, 2006 @ 1:30 pm

Lutepisc Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
This past Fall, I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. A special exhibit, entitled "Deadly Medicine," was being offered. The links from eugenics to "racial hygiene" to the Holocaust were explicit and indisputable. Although the exhibit is no longer on display in Washington, much of it is available online.

"Deadly Medicine" demonstrates that the Nazis thought they were incorporating the latest scientific understandings and methodology into their platform of creating an Aryan super race. I had never linked Darwinism with the Nazis' platform before, but I did so after seeing this exhibit.

In view of that, I was taken aback when the ADL lodged a strong protest against "Darwin's Deadly Legacy."

Comment by Lutepisc — August 27, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

Smokey Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Mike wrote:
"BTW, I noticed that PZ does seem to buy into the Hitler = Catholic meme."

Only if one doesn't understand the rhetorical technique of reductio ad absurdum, and fails to read his clear statement at the end:

Objection! Hitler was merely cynically manipulating the German people by using their beliefs in God.
Reply: I'd say something similar of his misuse of scientific theory.

Lutepisc wrote:
"This past Fall, I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. A special exhibit, entitled "Deadly Medicine," was being offered. The links from eugenics to "racial hygiene" to the Holocaust were explicit and indisputable."

If everything was so explicit and indisputable, why would you use a vague, fuzzy word like "links" to describe the relationships?

Comment by Smokey — August 27, 2006 @ 5:04 pm

Lutepisc Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Hi, Smokey. You wrote:

If everything was so explicit and indisputable, why would you use a vague, fuzzy word like "links" to describe the relationships?

Smokey, if you can think of a less vague, less fuzzy word, please do. Just click on the link to "Deadly Medicine," listen to the narrator and view the artifacts. Please be forwarned, though: it's quite chilling.

Comment by Lutepisc — August 27, 2006 @ 5:21 pm

Smokey Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Lutepisc,

"Link" is a word used by people who are trying to portray correlation as causation.

Moreover, there is a huge problem in that what is being discussed is whether Darwin led to the Holocaust, not whether eugenics was used to justify it. PZ Myers made it very clear:

"…I think humans have done evil throughout their history, and are always willing to grab any convenient rationalization for their behavior, whether it's science or religion or twinkies. Science doesn't dictate morality, and it's also rather clear that religion does a piss-poor job of it, too."

Comment by Smokey — August 27, 2006 @ 6:29 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
September 20th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Now, what about this: what would happen if one day, if some extraterrestrials arrived on earth and claimed they were responsible for life on earth and could create new life from scratch?

Comment by kornbelt888 — September 20, 2006 @ 9:44 pm

Bradford Says:
September 20th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Now, what about this: what would happen if one day, if some extraterrestrials arrived on earth and claimed they were responsible for life on earth and could create new life from scratch?

Many would claim the ETers owe their origin to a prebiotic soup recipe.

Comment by Bradford — September 20, 2006 @ 10:07 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
September 20th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
kornbelt888 wrote…

Now, what about this: what would happen if one day, if some extraterrestrials arrived on earth and claimed they were responsible for life on earth and could create new life from scratch?

Alien designers wouldn't be that faith shattering to me. I could even tolerate a talking homicidal rabbit seeding the earth.

I am probably pushing with this one, but I have another thought experiment that deals with aliens and is relevant to the ID/Darwin debate.

An official from some intergalactic council shows up on earth and offers the following…

"Earth is one of many planets in the galaxy which are under our care and supervision. As such, we offer our assistance in the from of technologies that will feed all your people, provide unlimited power, allow interstellar travel, etc. The price for this assistance is that you will give up all scientific research. You will be allowed to learn only enough to operate to technology. The human race will forevermore be forbidden from learning how or why things work. This includes studying the cosmos, mathmatics, chemistry, biology and similar sciences. The study or philosophy and religion will still be allowed."

Take as long as you want to decide, but once you have decided to take the deal, there is no turning back."

Deal or no deal?

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 20, 2006 @ 11:08 pm

takuan Says:
September 21st, 2006 at 12:03 am
As I recall, a variation of the scenario suggested by Thought Provoker was actually played out in one or another of the original Star Trek teleplays. Captain Kirk decides to violate the "prime directive" of noninterference, destroying a planet's technology and infrastructure (long forgotten by the inhabitants), forcing them to think and fend for themselves.

As for Dembski and the Google issue, I'd guess Dembski loves it… he seems to relish the idea that he's being persecuted.

Comment by takuan — September 21, 2006 @ 12:03 am

Thought Provoker Says:
September 21st, 2006 at 10:13 am
Takuan wrote…

Captain Kirk decides to violate the "prime directive" of noninterference, destroying a planet's technology and infrastructure (long forgotten by the inhabitants), forcing them to think and fend for themselves.

I am not exactly sure which episode you are thinking of…

In A Taste of Armageddon, Kirk and crew actively destroy the systems that allow the planet to engage in bloodless wars.

In Spock's Brain the society is using technology it doesn't understand of which Spock's brain as a key component. Kirk and crew take back Spock's brain.

Either way, the key element missing is choice. The choice of focus is what is relevant to the ID/Darwin debates. That is…

Who is focused on obtaining understanding as opposed to just having the fruits of that understanding?

The fruits in one case is having advanced technology without understanding how it works. In the other case the fruits is having the truth without understanding how or why it is true.

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 21, 2006 @ 10:13 am

macht Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 3:52 pm

Comment by macht — September 27, 2006 @ 3:52 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:19 pm
This is a test. Please move to memory hole.:!:

(it looked like the thread was messed up)

Comment by Thought Provoker — October 2, 2006 @ 5:19 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Here is an excerpt from an actual constitution…

ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens of X irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in X is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of…the citizens of X are guaranteed by law:

freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

…

ARTICLE 127. Citizens of X are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of a court or with the sanction of a procurator.

ARTICLE 128. The inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of correspondence are protected by law.

Just a little something to provoke thought.

Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2006 @ 5:16 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Another constitiution…

Article 19

All people of X, whatever the ethnic group or tribe to which they belong, enjoy equal rights; and color, race, language, and the like, do not bestow any privilege.

Article 20

All citizens of the country, both men and women, equally enjoy the protection of the law and enjoy all human, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, in conformity with xxxx criteria.

Article 21

The government must ensure the rights of women … and accomplish the following goals:

1.create a favorable environment for the growth of woman's personality and the restoration of her rights, both the material and intellectual;
2.the protection of mothers, particularly during pregnancy and childbearing, and the protection of children without guardians;
3.establishing competent courts to protect and preserve the family;
4.the provision of special insurance for widows, and aged women and women without support;
5.the awarding of guardianship of children to worthy mothers, in order to protect the interests of the children, in the absence of a legal guardian.
Article 22
The dignity, life, property, rights, residence, and occupation of the individual are inviolate, except in cases sanctioned by law.

Article 23

The investigation of individuals' beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief.

Article 24

Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of xxxx or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law.

Article 25

The inspection of letters and the failure to deliver them, the recording and disclosure of telephone conversations, the disclosure of telegraphic and telex communications, censorship, or the willful failure to transmit them, eavesdropping, and all forms of covert investigation are forbidden, except as provided by law.

…

Article 30

The government must provide all citizens with free-education up to secondary school, and must expand free higher education to the extent required by the country for attaining self-sufficiency.

Article 33

No one can be banished from his place of residence, prevented from residing in the place of his choice, or compelled to reside in a given locality, except in cases provided by law.

Article 34

It is the indisputable right of every citizen to seek justice by recourse to competent courts. All citizens have right of access to such courts, and no one can be barred from courts to which he has a legal right of recourse.

Article 35

Both parties to a lawsuit have the right in all courts of law to select an attorney, and if they are unable to do so, arrangements must be made to provide them with legal counsel.

Article 36

The passing and execution of a sentence must be only by a competent court and in accordance with law.

Article 37

Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court.

Article 38

All forms of torture for the purpose of extracting confession or acquiring information are forbidden. Compulsion of individuals to testify, confess, or take an oath is not permissible; and any testimony, confession, or oath obtained under duress is devoid of value and credence. Violation of this article is liable to punishment in accordance with the law.

Article 39

All affronts to the dignity and repute of persons arrested, detained, imprisoned, or banished in accordance with the law, whatever form they may take, are forbidden and liable to punishment.

Comment by Thought Provoker — October 5, 2006 @ 5:33 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Mike said:
"…you might want to consider how your argument looks to others. You have done little more than to express a faith that someday, somewhere, some scientists will reproduce abiogenesis or come up with something that resembles a theory. And there is nothing wrong with this. But why would you expect us to share in this faith?"
This is what I call FAST faith: faith in the Future Advancement of Science and Technology. I have no doubt that science will continue to advance in the future. I do have doubt that anyone knows, at least longe range, where science is going. If we learn anything from history is that science more often than not takes surprising turns. The truth is that at the present no one has a clue how life originated or if it's origin was natural or supernatural. Good point Mike.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 12, 2006 @ 12:14 pm

Smokey Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Bradford: Why were you disingenuous by inserting your own words into my sentence or is stupidity the cause?

I was neither. The square brackets clearly denote that they were not part of the quote.

The "that" refers to the noun preceeding it namely "result."

So the antecedent of "that" wasn't the subject of the question to which you were allegedly responding?

Daniel: And just for a second Bradford, let's consider the alternative to naturalism – that some things in nature can only be explained by violating the laws of nature – do you have any experience with this? Why is that even remotely a reasonable and reality-based view of the world?

If "that" didn't refer to "violating the laws of nature," you were being disingenuous in dodging the question.

The result was described as not definitive and an undefinitive result would be the appropriate explanation for the phenomenon in question

No, an undefinitive result cannot be an explanation for a phenomenon, when one is looking for mechanistic explanations for a phenomenon. An "undefinitive result" might be an explanation for WHY one doesn't HAVE an explanation, but it can't possibly BE the explanation.

How can you credibly accuse others of being disingenuous when you write incoherent babble like that?

… rather than a huge extrapolation to support your personal origins preferences.

It's not "a huge extrapolation" to infer that your response refers to the subject of the question you quoted.

So, are you now claiming that you are agnostic about OOL mechanisms?

TP, I think that it is more likely that the problem is not mere differences in definitions. In Bradford's case, his definitions seem to change rapidly. He clearly doesn't know the definition of the RNA World hypothesis if he thinks that the RNA is coding for something else.

Comment by Smokey — October 13, 2006 @ 12:39 pm

Daniel Says:
October 17th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
I don't know what you two are arguing about – Bradford already settled this last night – Mt Rushmore was built/designed and didn't evolve, therefore life was designed.

Comment by Daniel — October 17, 2006 @ 3:40 pm

Daniel Says:
October 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Bradford,
Are you still doing your "because it looks designed" crap? Try addressing the next question then – how do you know it looks designed?

Do you have anything better than "I just know, that's how?"

Comment by Daniel — October 17, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

Daniel Says:
October 17th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Insufficient to generate life. That's the contention which contrasts with abiogenesis. The jury may be out for both sides although we clearly lean in different directions.

Yes, who's found natural forces insufficient to generate life?, since that's your criteria for labeling something as designed. If the "jury is out," that's fine, but how did you come to the conclusion that life was designed, with your "analytical skills"

Surely you must have some rationale other than "it looks too complicated" or "it looks designed," right?

Oh, and FYI: abiogenesis literally translates from latin to "from nothing, life begins."

Comment by Daniel — October 17, 2006 @ 8:28 pm

Daniel Says:
October 17th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
LOL Can't handle simple questions?

Comment by Daniel — October 17, 2006 @ 8:32 pm

Daniel Says:
October 17th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Ok, why do you think that abiogenesis was designed? Were you saying something like "it looks too complicated?"

Please, I'm not trying to misquote you, I'm just trying to understand the logic behind your conclusions. Please demonstrate that you have some logic there, other than "it looks like it," and that you're not scared of a simple question.

Comment by Daniel — October 17, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

Daniel Says:
October 17th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Ok, why do you think that abiogenesis was designed? Were you saying something like "it looks too complicated?"

Please, I'm not trying to misquote you, I'm just trying to understand the logic behind your conclusions. Please demonstrate that you have some logic there, other than "it looks like it," and that you're not scared of a simple question.

Comment by Daniel — October 17, 2006 @ 8:45 pm

Smokey Says:
October 17th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Art wrote to Bradford:
"You are now claimimg that the data that tells us that the RNA World is at the core of life as we know it in unconvincing?"

That's easy for Bradford to do without looking at the data.

Next, I predict that Bradford will assume that the paper introduced by TP represents the totality of Yarus's work.

Bradford:
"Art, I'm not denying that Yarus can be presented as evidence."

To which of Yarus's 144 papers do you refer? How many have you read?

Comment by Smokey — October 17, 2006 @ 11:11 pm

nickmatzke Says:
November 8th, 2006 at 3:42 am
I've basically had this argument before and am not particularly interested in repeating it, but I will point out that Mike's questions are obviously clearly answered as "Yes" for those who were actually involved in evolution/creationism in 1989. See the reviews written by Michael Ruse, Kevin Padian, Eugenie Scott, Frank Sonleitner, etc., back in 1989-1990:
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=21

Then, consider the fact that Pandas broke on the scene in the Alabama textbook adoptions in 1989, where the book was very nearly passed, and then precipitated a similar fight in Texas in 1990, and then a whole series of fights in local areas throughout the 1990s. The only thing that it is surprising is that it took until 2004 for Pandas to end up in a lawsuit — it could have happened a dozen other places.

Approximately the first major national attention that the ID movement received was a 1994 front-page article in the Wall Street Journal by Erik Larson, which reported on Pandas and the battles over it.

Kenneth Miller says he first met Michael Behe in 1995, when Behe and Miller were invited to an ASA meeting to debate the scientific merits of Pandas.

And, of course, basically all of the significant people and concepts of the ID movement can be directly tied to Pandas. (Does anyone ever wonder why Stephen Meyer's PhD thesis was entitled "Of Clues and Causes") There is no way to discredit Pandas and not discredit ID in general. Specified complexity, irreducible complexity, "information", etc., the ID philosophical framework, etc., are all found fully-formed in Pandas.

And please, let's not have any silliness about Pandas being "fluff". It is at least as sophisticated as other ID works. It uses big technical words that the authors didn't understand and everything.

Comment by nickmatzke — November 8, 2006 @ 3:42 am

Douglas Says:
November 8th, 2006 at 5:24 am
Nick,

It uses big technical words that the authors didn't understand and everything.

Surely there must be some glory in being able to use big technical words. Although, Nick, if you believe that the concept of Intelligent Design is the same as Creationism, or that all ID Advocates are necessarily therefore Creationists, I'm afraid your skill with words would be negated by a mental fog.

Comment by Douglas — November 8, 2006 @ 5:24 am

Odd Digit Says:
November 8th, 2006 at 5:58 am
Mike,

No. No. Yes. Yes.

Why have chosen to highlight just this argument about why ID is creationism?

Why have you chosen to ignore all the other arguments I have made – both in the previous thread and in this one?

People have argued that ID is not creationism because it doesn't mention God or the Bible. Well a bunch of other theistic relgions don't mention God or the Bible either, yet also contain a form of creationism. It looks like mentioning God or the Bible is not a reliable indicator of creationism. How about this definition:

"In many religious traditions, creationism is ideological support of the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was specially created by a supreme being or by other forms of supernatural intervention."

The main reason why ID is creationism is because it invokes a supernatural cause. It's not me that makes this 'supernatural cause' argument by the way, it is ID proponent William Dembski:

The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

Go argue with him if you disagree.

If we apply his argument (the intelligent agent must be supernatural) to the definition of ID:

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

then we can see that ID is a form of creationism. By Dembski's definition.

There are a bunch of other reasons why ID is creationism, in some cases more specifically Biblical creationism:

* For the prominent ID proponents ID is not just creationism, it is also Biblical creationism. For example, a quote from Dembski:

"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

* The Pandas book shows that ID is just creationism rebranded.

* ID proponents use a large number of exactly the same arguments that the creationists were using before them.

Comment by Odd Digit — November 8, 2006 @ 5:58 am

g arago Says:
November 9th, 2006 at 5:53 am
What are the sociological interpretations of the results, Mike?

Is it not surprising that a highschool textbook isn't heavily read by adults interested in the i+d theories?

How many people have read 'Design OR Chance' by Denyse O'Leary?

At least its got its own Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

'Banned book of the year' says the DI's West – hah!

Noteworthy, of course, in the introduction on the above Wiki page is the statement: "Intelligent design is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community, primarily because it invokes supernatural powers."

But it doesn't *have* to invoke, imply or infer such a Thing (c.f. http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/The_Thing.txt)!

Shuffle, shuffle, (fast steps are heard) distancing TT's-ID from IDM-ID.

Comment by g arago — November 9, 2006 @ 5:53 am

thesciphishow Says:
November 9th, 2006 at 7:21 am
I find it rather ironic that a book that does not seem very widely read, at least by the ID folks around here (ok true the sample was self selecting and so on, but still) is the lynch pin in Nick's charge that ID == Stealth Creationism.

Seems a but odd that so many people haven't read this book that is supposedly the "smoking gun".

I suspect if you tried the poll again with Darwin's Black Box or one of Dembski's works you'd get very different results.

Of course those books aren't actually of any use in making Nick's point.

Comment by thesciphishow — November 9, 2006 @ 7:21 am

Douglas Says:
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
joy: Actually, the topic is an archaeological discovery in Botswana – a cleverly carved giant snake in a cave with a secret 'shaman room' and ritual artifacts dated to be ~70,000 years old. The only biblical implications are to those like yourself who buy Bishop Ussher's 1654 chronology, dating of creation to:

Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. My Bible contains no such date. If yours does, it's not an authorized version.

Did I ever mention Bishop Ussher, or his chronology? I'm pretty sure I didn't, joy. But perhaps you thought you had read my mind – if so, I'm afraid I have to inform you that your mind-reading abilities are apparently on the fritz, because I've never claimed that Ussher's chronology is exactingly accurate; rather, I've pointed out that the Bible itself limits the age of the Earth, and most especially of mankind, to somewhere around 6000 years. Please take note of this joy, for your future reference in discussions between us.

joy: You have shared your views in a total of five [5] posts to this blog. Not a single one of which scientifically refutes the news story that is the subject, all of which effectively express the fact that you don't believe it. Your 'job' here is done.

joy, my first post in this blog pointed out that the supposed date for the serpent rock contradicts the Bible's limit of the possible age for that carving/sculpture. The remainder of my posts in this blog (including this one) have been in response to your replies to my original post – don't try to pretend that my posts have been off-topic, joy, as they have had direct bearing on the supposed "evidence" which your original post "presented", and they have been in direct response to several of your claims regarding Biblical teachings and implications. You simply don't like the fact that I have been pointing out the direct contradiction between your supposed "evidence" (and your preferred views) and clear Biblical teachings. And, clear Biblical teachings regarding the possible age of mankind, and thus of apparent archaeological evidence, ARE directly relevant to the topic of this thread, joy – specifically, to the portion of the original post which claims an age of around 70,000 years for the serpent idol, and particularly to the very title of this thread ("The Most Ancient Creation Story?"). I expect, though, that you will throw a fit, and delete this post, and perhaps ban me from posting in this blog.

Me: And it would not be particularly fair-minded of you to single out for editing or erasing posts reflecting views which conform to Evangelical Christianity.

joy: Phooey. I know some Evangelical Christians. Not a single one of 'em believes God created the world in 4004 BC..

So you know two or three people who call themselves "Evangelical Christians" and who don't accept the idea that God created the Earth in the specific year 4004 B.C. – is that supposed to refute the fact that the vast majority of Evangelical, Fundamental Christians accept a young age for the Earth? (Note that I myself have said absolutely NOTHING about the year 4004 B.C., a year which you seem to be trotting out as a sort of strawman, since you are having a hard time dealing with the actual truth which the Biblical chronologies and teachings clearly reveal regarding the age of the Earth and of mankind).

joy, you should simply accept the fact that your views, and the supposed "evidence" you presented in your original post in this blog, directly contradict what the Bible clearly teaches. Rather than side-stepping, obfuscating, and confusing the issue, just be honest with others and yourself that, yes, the Bible clearly contradicts the claim that the serpent image was created around 70,000 years ago. You can then begin to work on your arguments for why you reject certain portions of the Bible, yet claim to accept others (though of course tinged with your own subjective interpretation). Seriously, joy – all you had to was say, "You're right, Douglas – the Bible does not allow an age of 70,000 years for the serpent rock, but I only accept those portions of the Bible which agree with my own views". Then, you could state that you wanted only to deal with "scientific" evidence with regard to the serpent image, and I would begin dealing with errors in scientific dating (beginning with the radioactive dating of recent lava flows from Mount St. Helens at hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of years of age, when the theory says they should be dated at less than a hundred years of age, given their recent hardening).

Comment by Douglas — December 3, 2006 @ 3:45 pm

Douglas Says:
December 4th, 2006 at 5:34 am
joy: Actually, the topic is an archaeological discovery in Botswana – a cleverly carved giant snake in a cave with a secret 'shaman room' and ritual artifacts dated to be ~70,000 years old. The only biblical implications are to those like yourself who buy Bishop Ussher's 1654 chronology, dating of creation to:

Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. My Bible contains no such date. If yours does, it's not an authorized version.

Did I ever mention Bishop Ussher, or his chronology? I'm pretty sure I didn't, joy. But perhaps you thought you had read my mind – if so, I'm afraid I have to inform you that your mind-reading abilities are apparently on the fritz, because I've never claimed that Ussher's chronology is exactingly accurate; rather, I've pointed out that the Bible itself limits the age of the Earth, and most especially of mankind, to somewhere around 6000 years. Please take note of this joy, for your future reference in discussions between us.

joy: You have shared your views in a total of five [5] posts to this blog. Not a single one of which scientifically refutes the news story that is the subject, all of which effectively express the fact that you don't believe it. Your 'job' here is done.

joy, my first post in this blog pointed out that the supposed date for the serpent rock contradicts the Bible's limit of the possible age for that carving/sculpture. The remainder of my posts in this blog (including this one) have been in response to your replies to my original post – don't try to pretend that my posts have been off-topic, joy, as they have had direct bearing on the supposed "evidence" which your original post "presented", and they have been in direct response to several of your claims regarding Biblical teachings and implications. You simply don't like the fact that I have been pointing out the direct contradiction between your supposed "evidence" (and your preferred views) and clear Biblical teachings. And, clear Biblical teachings regarding the possible age of mankind, and thus of apparent archaeological evidence, ARE directly relevant to the topic of this thread, joy – specifically, to the portion of the original post which claims an age of around 70,000 years for the serpent idol, and particularly to the very title of this thread ("The Most Ancient Creation Story?"). I expect, though, that you will throw a fit, and delete this post, and perhaps ban me from posting in this blog.

Me: And it would not be particularly fair-minded of you to single out for editing or erasing posts reflecting views which conform to Evangelical Christianity.

joy: Phooey. I know some Evangelical Christians. Not a single one of 'em believes God created the world in 4004 BC..

So you know two or three people who call themselves "Evangelical Christians" and who don't accept the idea that God created the Earth in the specific year 4004 B.C. – is that supposed to refute the fact that the vast majority of Evangelical, Fundamental Christians accept a young age for the Earth? (Note that I myself have said absolutely NOTHING about the year 4004 B.C., a year which you seem to be trotting out as a sort of strawman, since you are having a hard time dealing with the actual truth which the Biblical chronologies and teachings clearly reveal regarding the age of the Earth and of mankind).

joy, you should simply accept the fact that your views, and the supposed "evidence" you presented in your original post in this blog, directly contradict what the Bible clearly teaches. Rather than side-stepping, obfuscating, and confusing the issue, just be honest with others and yourself that, yes, the Bible clearly contradicts the claim that the serpent image was created around 70,000 years ago. You can then begin to work on your arguments for why you reject certain portions of the Bible, yet claim to accept others (though of course tinged with your own subjective interpretation). Seriously, joy – all you had to was say, "You're right, Douglas – the Bible does not allow an age of 70,000 years for the serpent rock, but I only accept those portions of the Bible which agree with my own views". Then, you could state that you wanted only to deal with "scientific" evidence with regard to the serpent image, and I would begin dealing with errors in scientific dating (beginning with the radioactive dating of recent lava flows from Mount St. Helens at hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of years of age, when the theory says they should be dated at less than a hundred years of age, given their recent hardening).

Comment by Douglas — December 4, 2006 @ 5:34 am

Douglas Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 5:18 am
joy,

I expected as much from you. The totalitarian, intolerant, streak does not become those who call themselves "Christian".

Anyway, I mentioned before the unreliability of many dating methods, methods upon which your entire first post depends. For evidence of my claim of their unreliability, note that the recently (within the past 30 years) hardening of molten rock at Mount St. Helens should have, according to theory, been dated at less than a hundred years, or at the very least less than a thousand years, whereas the dating methods scientists so trust have dated those rocks at hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of years. Thus, when someone claims that the serpent carving is found "along with artifacts at least 70,000 years old", one must bear in mind the incredible inaccuracy of the dating methods used. What they claim must be "at least 70,000 years old" could very well be only a thousand, or perhaps even a few hundred, years old.

Comment by Douglas — December 5, 2006 @ 5:18 am

John A. Davison Says:
January 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
That cowardly, uneducated twerp Alan Fox has now made it impossible for me to post at the very thread he set up just for me – "John Davison, this is for you."

How low can a Darwimp stoop?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — January 6, 2007 @ 3:27 pm

John A. Davison Says:
January 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
That cowardly little twerp Fox has now made it impossible for me to post at the thread he presented just for me – "John Davison, this is for you."

How low can that Darwimpian creep stoop?

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Not for me it isn't.

I love it so!'

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — January 6, 2007 @ 4:37 pm

Douglas Says:
January 7th, 2007 at 11:16 am
John A. Davison,

A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.

I deny that a past evolution occurred, as do many scientists. There is no evidence whatsoever for a past evolution – it is all imaginary theorizing, force-fitting unconvincing data into a preferred model. What of human evolution? No evidence, just similar-looking skeletal remains (often remarkable for their partialness), mostly out of sequence. And so on. There is absolutely no evidence for a past evolution which does not reside entirely in the minds of those who believe a past evolution must have occurred.

Comment by Douglas — January 7, 2007 @ 11:16 am

Guts Says:
January 15th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Whatcha talkin about, everyone…

Comment by Guts — January 15, 2007 @ 4:27 pm

Guts Says:
January 15th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Whatcha talkin 'bout Joy?

Comment by Guts — January 15, 2007 @ 4:45 pm

Joy Says:
January 15th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I'm just talkin' about the nature that science must defeat if it intends (that's a telic term) to defeat nature. I don't think it's possible, so I wonder why a few people want to try it anyway. Doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe that's nature talkin'.

What are YOU talkin' 'bout, Guts?

Comment by Joy — January 15, 2007 @ 5:12 pm

Guts Says:
January 15th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I'm sorry just testing the memory hole ignore me.

Comment by Guts — January 15, 2007 @ 5:13 pm

Joy Says:
January 15th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Ah, so. I thought it was a fair question… Â§;o)

Comment by Joy — January 15, 2007 @ 5:22 pm

keiths Says:
February 4th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Joy wrote:

I do not see where Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have made any arguments pertinent to the subject of this blog, or to my response to your attempt at distraction above.

Joy,
You were the one who brought up Dawkins, not me:

PZ doesn't believe his guru's characterization of religion as the root of all evil.

If you don't believe that Dawkins' view is relevant, then why did you bring it up?

And if it is important enough to mention, why get angry when someone corrects your misrepresentation of it?

Comment by keiths — February 4, 2007 @ 8:15 pm

keiths Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 1:19 am
Mesk wrote:

Meanwhile, you [Salvador] seem to be unable to prevent yourself from exaggerating the message of literally every statement you quote… I guess I've been spoiled here at TT for the last year or so – people here tend not to employ the dirty tricks of quote-mining and empty rhetoric that characterises the creationist camp. I'd almost forgotten that these tactics existed. It's a real shame you've decided to ruin my happy illusion, Salvador.

Hi Mesk,

If it's any consolation, you're by no means alone in your disgust at Salvador's dishonesty:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1274;p=42351

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/thats-mighty-selective-quoting.html

http://telicthoughts.com/a-misleading-post-from-a-pro-id-blogger

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=122&start=15&sid=30244ac26aa1c8b9ec4412d6dac06498

Comment by keiths — February 21, 2007 @ 1:19 am

keiths Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 8:46 am
Vividbleu wrote:

As for your other citations your joking right.. Other than TT what would you expect from those sites that Sal is a good guy?

Vivid,

I'm not suggesting that you rely on my or anyone else's opinion of Salvador. The evidence speaks for itself, there's plenty of it in the blogosphere, and it shows that Salvador is not merely "going overboard" on occasion, as you put it, but engaging in deliberate dishonesty.

Regarding your softpedaling of Krauze's criticism of Salvador, note that Krauze stood by his position throughout that thread.

Bradford,

You ask whether it is our "faith" in the necessity of a non-telic process that leads us to believe that selection, rather than design, was the operative force in the origin of life.

My answer is that it is not faith but Occam's Razor, and a desire to maintain scientific progress, that keeps us from invoking a designer unnecessarily. We have explained why a repair mechanism is not necessary for small genomes. Why then insist that a repair mechanism is needed at the origin of life, and furthermore invoke a designer to explain this unnecesary feature?

And if you're willing to invoke design in this case, why not do so for other scientific mysteries? Dark energy? The hand of the designer. The Higgs boson? Who needs it? Let's posit a designer who continuously intervenes to bestow mass on particles throughout the universe.

What criterion can you consistently apply which tells you that we need a designer to explain the origin of life, but not for all of the other scientific mysteries that confront us?

Comment by keiths — February 21, 2007 @ 8:46 am

Krauze Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Hi Bilbo,

Put this tag where you want the break to be:

Comment by Krauze — February 22, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

Bradford Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I still don't know how to cut the thread down to size and put the rest of it on the "read more" page.

I had the same question. Click more.

Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2007 @ 6:08 pm

Bilbo Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Krauze:

Put this tag where you want the break to be:

What tag?

Comment by Bilbo — February 22, 2007 @ 6:10 pm

Bradford Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Bilbo, place the cursor where you want a break and then click more.

Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2007 @ 6:13 pm

Guts Says:
February 27th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
That was awesome. It's like accidently creating a picasso.

Comment by Guts — February 27, 2007 @ 6:13 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Hi Krause,

FYI, Panda's Thumb's description is…

The Panda's Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara. The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation.

(emphisis mine)

Does TT's About Us say anything about critiquing "Darwinists'" claims or defending Intelligent Design?

Even if Cartwright's intent was to agree with Wired, what he actually said was rather neutral…

In another observation of pop culture's war on ID, I bring you a remark by Wired:

And I find it difficult to believe someone "proudly quotes" something by being amused by it. As in…

"This is additionally funny to us because we run FreeBSD, whose mascot, Beastie, inspired Hexley."

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 29, 2007 @ 2:42 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 29th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Hi thechristiancynic,

You wrote…

By the way, you keep bringing up the About Us page. For all your talk of provoking thought, you sure do seem to want to stifle discussions on certain topics.

I do not want to stifle discussions. I have suggested TT change the About Us description to be more in line with its actual policy. For some reason, this has been a problem. And it has now become my ethical dilemma.

MikeGene has made it quite clear he has no intent of changing the About Us description. This forces me to either not post to TT or only post in such a way that makes it clear I am not condoning what I consider an unethical statement.

For the record, the fundamental change I am requesting is to change one sentence from"¦
"Here, we will explore intelligent design and the issues surrounding it, hopefully in a pleasant and fruitful atmosphere."
"¦to something like…
"Here, we support intelligent design by exploring various ID concepts and the issues surrounding them, hopefully in a pleasant and fruitful atmosphere."

Another solution would be to deactivate my commenting privileges and I would go away peacefully.

You also asked…

Thought Provoker, could you consider for a moment that this amuses the PTers because they think it's funny that anyone would link evolutionary biology to Satanism because of devilish attributes on a mascot for something called "Darwin"

I think the PTers' option of TTers are pretty much a mirror image of TTers' opinion of PTers.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 29, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Hi thechristiancynic,

You wrote…

Thought Provoker, could you consider for a moment that this amuses the PTers because they think it's funny that anyone would link evolutionary biology to Satanism because of devilish attributes on a mascot for something called "Darwin"

My previous answer went down the memory hole. On the off chance I still have my commenting privledges I will answer the on-topic question. I suspect Krause didn't like my response to your off-topic point.

Yes, I considered (for more than a moment) that this amused PTers precisely because it would irritate TTers and other ID supporters. IMO, the two websites are mirror opposites of each other. For what it is worth, I think both sides should directly communicate instead of snickering inside separate clubhouses.

Provoking Discussion

Disclaimer: my posting on TT should not be seen as condoning the "About Us" statement. I find the statement "We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation." misleading at best.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 30, 2007 @ 3:11 am

stunney Says:
May 13th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
A propos of nothing in particular, I saw these stories just now on yahoo's newsy webpage:

Christians and atheists start a calmer dialogue

and

Reactionary bastard tells poor to go fuck themselves.

Just thought I'd mention 'em.

Comment by stunney — May 13, 2007 @ 8:11 pm

keiths Says:
May 18th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Joy wrote:

Did you bother to read the OP, keiths? If you do, you'll see a link to a page from Dinald Simanek citing the NAS surveys for the 20th century (latest 1998) to make his point that NAS scientists – the "best of the best" are EAs like him, spun to 'scientists' in general.

Yes, Joy, I 'bothered' to read the entire thread. I also bothered to understand it, as well as Simanek's page, Larson/Witham's two reports, and Ecklund's study. You might benefit from doing likewise.

Simanek does not claim that NAS members are EAs. He also does not use the NAS survey to justify his claim that most scientists are not religious. If you think otherwise, supply us with some quotes which demonstrate your point.

I wrote:

Larson and Witham's questions were quite specific, and their results match up almost perfectly with Ecklund's.

Joy:

Then what's your problem?

Joy, you were the one who claimed that Larson and Witham were spinning. What's your evidence?

Comment by keiths — May 18, 2007 @ 10:45 pm

Raevmo Says:
May 20th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Joy to keiths:

You've consistently ignored my point – that EAs (like Simanek) use survey data to support their assertions that science supports their atheism, when most scientists are actually NOT evangelical atheists at all – they're just not fundamentalist Christians. Which is a big So What?

Who said that most scientists are evangelical atheists? Simanek certainly makes no such claim in the link you provided. And how does the fact that ~60% of scientists self-report as not religious (disbelief or doubt/agnostic) translate into "just not fundamentalist Christians"

Let me put it in German: du spinnst, Joy.

And booting keiths in a tread against "wannabe mind-tyrants" is a bit ironic, don't you agree?

Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2007 @ 1:34 pm

keiths Says:
May 21st, 2007 at 5:29 am
Joy has banned me from the Scientific Atheism thread after sending a comment of mine to the Memory Hole…

Because this is my thread, I am free to moderate as I see fit.

Your participation in this thread has ended.

…so I am responding here.

Joy wrote:

In this thread you began by telling me that a 50% response rate is as good as a 75% response rate. Irrelevant.

Joy,
You wish I had said that, but of course I didn't. Here's the actual exchange:

You wrote:

Then I'm sure you agree that Ecklund's 75% response rate for her survey of academic scientists was far better.

I responded:

Barely. Going from a 50% response rate to 75% only gains you 1 or 2% in statistical accuracy.

Perhaps you could explain why the statistical accuracy of the studies is suddenly "irrelevant", when you were the one who brought up the issue in the first place.

Then you introduce a survey not present in the links provided – also irrelevant – to claim Ecklund's figures are consistent with it.

What could possibly be more relevant to the topic of your thread than a modern survey which addresses the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of scientists?? And why do you object, when Larson/Witham's results match those of Ecklund, whom you cite?

Then you assert that being a "spiritual" atheist is perfectly consistent with Simanek's spin because YOU consider yourself a "spiritual" atheist. Who cares?

No, I mentioned that I wasn't surprised by Ecklund's results because I, like Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, have no trouble reconciling spirituality with my atheism.

Look at what Ecklund writes:

And what did these respondents mean by spirituality? Analyses of the in-depth interviews reveal definitions that vary from "a vague feeling that there is something outside myself" to "a deep and compelling, other-centered worldview that directs how research and interactions with students are conducted." …For many of those who consider themselves spiritual, spirituality means simply having a larger purpose or meaning that transcends daily concerns. For many of the natural scientists, in particular, knowledge of the spiritual comes directly from their work. For example, according to one physicist,

When I travel to observatories…and when I finally just have enough time to try to think of my place in the world and the universe and its vastness, it's then that I feel the connection to the world more than I do, say, sitting here in my office. And so that for me, that's the closest I can come to a spiritual experience.

Not one of those descriptions of spirituality is incompatible with atheism. Don't pretend otherwise.

Joy:

You've consistently ignored my point – that EAs (like Simanek) use survey data to support their assertions that science supports their atheism, when most scientists are actually NOT evangelical atheists at all – they're just not fundamentalist Christians.

Actually, I've tackled your point head-on, and I'll do so again: Nowhere on Simanek's page does he claim that most scientists are evangelical atheists.

Joy, in your thread, you:

1) harped on the difference between a 50% response rate and a 75% response rate, as if that made a significant difference in statistical accuracy;

2) claimed that Ecklund was using a particular definition of "spirituality", when she was not;

3) accused Simanek of claiming that most scientists are EAs; when he does no such thing;

4) accused Simanek of extrapolating from Larson and Witham's NAS survey to scientists in general, when he did not;

5) accused Larson and Witham of spinning their results, when they did not;

6) banned me from the thread and sent a comment of mine to the Memory Hole for challenging you on these things.

Pretty ironic when you consider that the point of the thread was to criticize others for spinning.

Joy, I realize that this is all very embarrassing to you — indeed, it should be — but the solution is not to lash out mindlessly at your critics.

Take some time, do your research, and think before you hit 'Post'. You'll find that your online life goes much smoother that way.

Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 5:29 am

keiths Says:
May 21st, 2007 at 5:36 am
Wow. Joy actually sent a comment of Raevmo's to the Memory Hole as well.

Raevmo makes the following trenchant observation:

And booting keiths in a tread against "wannabe mind-tyrants" is a bit ironic, don't you agree?

LOL. You're something else, Joy.

Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 5:36 am

keiths Says:
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Joy, this is getting ridiculous.

Hair does not replace atoms in its structure one-by-one (or molecule-by-molecule).

Who said it did?

It's nonliving matter.

Who said it wasn't?

Great-grandpa's baby hair has the same atoms it had when it was cut from his baby head and put in the family album 150 years ago. Though he may have died before you were born.

Of course. So?

Trimming the beard is a cop-out.

No it isn't. A man who's had his beard for twenty years, but kept it neatly trimmed, has still had his beard for twenty years. That was my whole point: it's the same beard, even though none of the atoms are the same. Continuity is the key.

The atoms in the bottom of the hairs of Billy Gibbons' beard (ZZ Top) are as old as they (and their powerful disulfide bonds) were was when that portion of the hair first emerged from his face.

Reread that sentence — carefully this time — and see if it makes sense to you.

And the atoms in the hair shafts all the way up to the face are as old as they were when they emerged too.

No, they've gotten older since they emerged, at a rate of one day per day, like everything else.

Joy, beard hairs go through a follicle cycle, just like other hairs. When the cycle is over, the hair falls out and the follicle begins producing a new one. The cycle does not last twenty years. If a man has had a beard for twenty years, the keratin at the tips of his beard hairs is not twenty years old.

Now can we get back to talking about brains?

Comment by keiths — June 22, 2007 @ 11:29 am

keiths Says:
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
stunney wrote:

Listen ya daft tit: I don't regard being told 500 times by wankers like you that I believe in magic (you did it again in this post) as a case of my not being insulted. As for a juvenile temperament, you've still got yours, judging by every time you mention God. So grow the fuck up.

Stunney,

I really think you should cut down on your weekend drinking.

Comment by keiths — June 23, 2007 @ 6:09 pm

keiths Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Raevmo, to Joy:

Please stop embarrasing yourself. It's painful to watch.

Don't forget, Raevmo, this is the same Joy who suggested in all seriousness that there is a global conspiracy to suppress information regarding the role of superconductivity in biology.

If she's not embarrassed by that, she's not going to be embarrassed by this.

mcromer wrote:

I think these findings point quite clearly towards the possibility that the "blueprints" for creating organisms are not specified within the genome at all. . . Genomes code for the sequence of amino acids in proteins.

Matthew,

Genomes do far more than simply coding for proteins. You might want to learn more about gene regulatory networks before deciding that something like "morphic resonance" is necessary.

Comment by keiths — June 27, 2007 @ 3:41 pm

keiths Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
For the record, here is what Joy wrote about the superconductivity data. Judge for yourselves:

keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this – seeking everything science knew about consciousness – superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?

Comment by keiths — June 27, 2007 @ 4:06 pm

Raevmo Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Ah, it's Mung, one of Dembski's braindead sycophants at UD. Mung, here's what Lerle wrote:

FrÃ¼her galt es als offenkundig, daÃŸ sich die Sonne um die Erde dreht. KÃ¶nnte es nicht eventuell sein, daÃŸ am Anfang eine LÃ¼ge stand, vergleichbar mit der LÃ¼ge Ã¼ber die Gaskammern in Dachau; daÃŸ diese LÃ¼ge dann erst durch stÃ¤ndiges Wiederholen zur Offenkundigkeit geworden ist? KÃ¶nnte es nicht eventuell sein, daÃŸ deshalb alle Menschen von den Gaskammern in Auschwitz Ã¼berzeugt sind, weil jeder durch die gleichen PropagandalÃ¼gen bewegt wird?

Let me translate that for you, while you wallow in your ignorance:

It used to be commonplace, that the sun revolves around the earth. Could it be that this originated from a lie, comparable to the lies about the gas chambers in Dachau; that these lies only became commonplaces by constant repetition? Could it not be that all people are convinced about the gas chambers of Auschwitz because they have all been affected by the same propaganda lie?

Comment by Raevmo — June 28, 2007 @ 7:31 am

hrun Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am
Hrun: Just out of curiosity: How old does FLE predict that all these things are?

MikeGene: You would need a particular FL hypothesis with a good feel for FL mechanisms to make this prediction. But first things first. Here, we can see the general, broad-brushed strokes of what FLE would look like. As of now, "older than expected" is subtle, yet substantive. This common theme of "older than expected" is expected from the FLE perspective once we a) understand the logic of FLE and b) understand that FL is not incorporated into mainstream evolutionary thought.

So the short answer is: "I do not know." or "It does not." or "That depends."

Is there any prediction that one can make, based on FLE, that says clearly how old some of these structures should be?

As I said, you would need a particular FL hypothesis with a good feel for FL mechanisms to make this prediction. In the meantime, the common theme of "older that we thought" clearly implies that non-telic views of evolution either a) fail to make such predictions or b) keep getting it wrong.

So again, the short answer is: "No, there is none."

I really wonder how you can make a statement like "This common theme of "older than expected" is expected from the FLE perspective[...]" without actually documenting a) how old 'regular evolution' would predict these structures to be and b) how old FLE would predict the very same structures to be.

I personally do not know how old 'regular evolution' would have predicted these features to be. You apparently do not know (or can not or want not) say how old 'FLE' would have predicted these features to be. Yet, the 'older than expected' theme is supposed to be meaningful in some way. How is that possible?

Comment by hrun — July 1, 2007 @ 10:12 am

mtraven Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
In other short, there is no such thing as a human 'brain' if there is no such thing as human mental states.

And where do you find someone claiming that there is no such thing as human mental states? Saying that mental states are also physiological states is not the same thing as saying that they don't exist.

one of Saul Kripke's celebrated arguments against mind-brain identity: roughly, if the mind just is the brain, this would have to be a necessary truth (since for all x, x=x); and surely it is not. For if it were a necessary truth, that would entail that in every possible world containing minds, those minds would all be human brains.

That is an amazingly stupid argument. I hope it's just your interpretation rather than what Kripke actually says. A dim ten-year-old could poke a hole in it. For one thing, you could use the exact same form to argue that all minds are identical to stunney's brain, which would be alarming indeed.

Comment by mtraven — July 1, 2007 @ 3:26 pm

mtraven Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
You'll need to elaborate for me why you think it can be used to argue that all minds are identical to my brain"”-assuming for present purposes that you're no dimmer than a dim ten-year-old.

No, you'll have to explain how you and/or Kripke can put forth such an obviously flawed argument. In your step C above, there is a completely unjustified generalization across the class "human". That class appears nowhere earlier in the argument, and you could just as easily introduce the class "males", or "the singleton set consisting of stunney", and the argument would work just as well — that is to say, not at all.

More meaningfully, saying that "the mind is identical to the brain" is not a good encapsulation of the materialist point of view. I prefer Marvin Minsky's "minds are what brains do", or, if you like, the metaphor that brains are the hardware and minds are the software (a metaphor which can be highly misleading, but it's better than no theory at all). Going even further, I would say that focusing solely on the brain is not a good way to understand cognition, which involves the rest of the body, the senses. The situated cognition movement is an attempt to address these deficiencies, which are common to both materialist and soul-ist theories. In fact, most materialist theories of mind haven't gone far enough, and have implict conceptual holdovers from the dualist worldview.

Comment by mtraven — July 1, 2007 @ 5:09 pm

mtraven Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Well, the extension of the term 'brain' in the premises is the set of human brains, since that's the reference class of the word 'brain' in the context of the mind-brain identity theories that Kripke's argument is addressing.

So Kripke's argument is that if human brains are identical to minds, then in all possible worlds minds are identical to human brains. That's very profound. Does he get paid for this stuff?

If you use 'materialism' to mean something other than such theories, that in no way affects Kripke's argument to the conclusion that those theories are false.

I couldn't care less, given your presentation of Kripke's arguments they are laughably weak, and of no relevance to reality, which is what I care about.

Comment by mtraven — July 1, 2007 @ 5:46 pm

mtraven Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Yes, eliminative materialists exist, but who in this forum has been arguing such a position? Such stupid viewpoints are confined to a few philosophers and possibly some holdouts from behaviorist psychology. Philosophers (as you are demonstrating with Kripke) believe all sorts of stupid things, nobody is under any obligation to take them seriously.

Comment by mtraven — July 1, 2007 @ 5:53 pm

mtraven Says:
July 1st, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Thanks for deleting my comments, it does two things for me:

- conclusively demonstrating that this forum is dominated by intellectual vapid, dishonest tools

- giving me a good excuse to bow out and stop wasting time here.

Feel free to hole this, asshole.

Comment by mtraven — July 1, 2007 @ 6:10 pm

keiths Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 am
Bradford,

You're already stymied, and we haven't even gotten to the problem of how an immaterial soul is able to manipulate a material body to carry out its wishes, all without violating the laws of physics.

Comment by keiths — July 3, 2007 @ 12:06 am

Doug Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Hi Mike, is there a reason why my comments are back to "awaiting moderation".
If they are then they are, and there's really nothing I can do about it.
But is there something I have done recently to be put back into this status?
Thanks.

Comment by Doug — July 9, 2007 @ 1:51 pm

Doug Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Looks like my reposted comment is in the 'awaiting moderation' queue again.

Comment by Doug — July 9, 2007 @ 4:13 pm

Raevmo Says:
July 15th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Chris:

Certainly, and although standard neo-Darwinism didn't predict, nor expect many of the findings coming from genomics, it still did a respectable job in other areas (population genetics, especially).

Joy answers:

Ho, hum. Statistics generated upon probability distributions are nothing new, and can be applied to anything science cannot predict with any real degree of specificity. I can do the same "respectable job" from a framework of economics or sociology or even political science. Not very impressive biology.

What an ignoramus you are, it's not funny anymore. Ever heard of statistical physics? Entropy? All sciences that deal with complex systems have to rely to some extent on stochastic modeling. Have you ever read some of Dembski's technical work?

Comment by Raevmo — July 15, 2007 @ 5:30 am

Raevmo Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Joy:

I use more of my genome than most people do. Thus I know that more of genomes are useful than other people (particularly NDS'ers) want to admit. Not everybody uses everything useful, but that doesn't make what they don't use non-functional.

Hilarious. Easily one of your most absurd posts. I'm surprised the government lets you get away with divulging all those secrets.

Comment by Raevmo — July 17, 2007 @ 1:22 am

Raevmo Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Bradford:

Physics would not be the realm within which mischief is likely to be found but based on the studies I've come across I cannot say the same for neuro-science.

Name of Jan Hendrik SchÃ¶n ring a bell? What's your evidence that "mischief" is more rife in neuroscience than in physics?

Studies attempting to link metaphysical values to an evolutionary origin. If nothing else the conclusion is vapid unless you have already figured out what values are non-evolutionary in origin.

Comment by Raevmo — July 17, 2007 @ 2:12 pm

Raevmo Says:
July 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Joy:

Not to mention the expression suite-ing that results in the physical indistinguishability of voles across such a wide range of C-values.

C-value does not equate to number of chromosomes. Chromosomes can fuse and break up without altering C-value. Do voles vary as much in C-value as in chromosome number?

It also explains why the die-hards have abandoned science at this point in time in order to take their ideology to a broader sociological level. They've no hope of maintaining their previous stranglehold on biology, or to reinstate biology's authority to justify seriously repressive pogroms against humans they don't like. So they've openly declared jihad against the idea of telic design instead.

Do you realize how utterly insane that sounds? Pogroms ferchristsake. Better start taking your meds again.

Comment by Raevmo — July 21, 2007 @ 3:38 pm

salimfadhley Says:
August 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Been there, done that. What I have discovered is that when critics want testable hypotheses, they mean proofs that evolution is impossible. That's old stuff that will surely be discussed again.

Feisty indeed!

So what am i to draw from this – that MG believes ID critics are unable to spot a testable hypothesis when they see it?

I certainly was not asking you to provide a proof that evolution is impossible, a statement that I gather nobody outside the Kent Hovind fan-club would agree with.

On the other hand, when an IDist claims that they can make a design inference about some feature of life, I'd like to see more than an inference – this is exactly where those "testable hypotheses about the natural world" you mentioned would come in handy.

For example, if you figure that flagellum are a non-evolved structure, then it would be very cool to propose a testable hypothesis about how they did come to be.

Comment by salimfadhley — August 6, 2007 @ 2:35 pm

dimasok Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 2:16 am
You've demonstrated an unrelenting hostility to theism and a belief in atheism. Your personal beliefs are noted.

Firstly my personal beliefs? Excuse me, but if that's how the world works, and I have no reason CURRENTLY to suspect otherwise, then my or your personal beliefs would not make a dent in the objective picture. You seem to have a different spin on the data, and that's make you jump into conclusions that don't follow from the currently available premises.

Secondly, i'm a transhumanist, so not entirely an atheist.

Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 2:16 am

dimasok Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
That doesn't mean theism is true. But at least for me, the moment 'The Tenth Dimension' style metaphysics was considered somewhat reasonable, the argument that theism is just too silly shriveled up like a stack of dimes. Why should I utterly rule out thoughts of an organizing, conscious force behind (or at work throughout) creation? "To make Dawkins happy" is as high on my list as yours.

I never said you should utterly rule out an organizing, conscious force behind creation. I was dismissing Bradfords reply that I hope was said out of sarcasm and not serious ruminations:

No. My God was crucified and resurrected 2,000 years ago. Before that occurred he revealed a remarkable set of moral standards by which to live by. This impacts the study and practice of science gar nichts.

This is the kind of bullshit of the purest form I was referring to (interchangeable with any other belief system of the same ilk), not what you said about ruling out some sort of higher power, which even I don't rule out. And no amount of reasoning could possibly convince me to take the above quote as anything but the worst insult to everything humans accomplished.

So, again, I don't rule out higher cosmic intelligence behind everything (although not ruling out is leaps and bounds behind of actually accepting it), but I do rule out religious hogwash (of christian, islamic, judaistic, hinduistic nature or what have you) and I can't believe that since all of you here are with Ph.d's as someone noted here, I should even BOTHER discussing nonsense like that.

Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 11:33 pm

dimasok Says:
August 21st, 2007 at 5:09 am
Stunney, thanks for showing me what an ignorant asshole you are, as if I didn't know from your previous posts – if you wanted to know why I didn't address them. Feel left out and abandoned? Want to call mommy?

Comment by dimasok — August 21, 2007 @ 5:09 am

steve Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
this was pretty interesting too

As an interesting aside, IDists, when they're quoting Dembski, like to talk about the No Free Lunch theorems. The NFL theorems are based on the idea that landscapes really aren't smooth – that they don't have uniform properties that permit a search strategy to work. Behe's argument totally contradicts that – the kinds of landscapes that must be considered to make NFL work totally devastate Behe's idea. )

Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 3:19 pm

steve Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
#

By the way, what productive things have you done lately? You seem to do nothing but comment on this blog.

Comment by Raevmo "” September 22

Maybe he's the editor of the Intelligent Design journal. That's like being the Maytag repairman.

Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 7:50 pm

stunney Says:
September 24th, 2007 at 4:01 am
Allen MacNeill wrote:

As to the "reality" of pain, the sensation is clearly real, but the interesting thing about pain is that it has no direct physical referent.

All the more reason then, are we to take it, that the word 'reality' requires scare-quotes?

Kidney stones are indirect evidence that, if God(s) exist, S/He/It has a predeliction for causing pointless agony in his otherwise logically designed creations.

Jesus. God. Almighty.

Do you "really" "teach" at Cornell?

I mean, for "fuck's" sake.:roll:

Comment by stunney — September 24, 2007 @ 4:01 am

keiths Says:
October 19th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Raevmo asks Guts:

Could it be that I have assumed incorrectly that you have actually read Pigliucci & Kaplan?

And by the way, Guts, have you read Consilience, and if so, when?

Comment by keiths — October 19, 2007 @ 11:43 pm

Guts Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
test

Comment by Guts — November 25, 2007 @ 4:14 pm

Guts Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
test2

Comment by Guts — November 25, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

Frostman Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Bradford,

How many posts have you deleted? Guts says he deleted some — which ones are your responsibility? I count several of mine missing now. If this is the memory hole, then it's not working.

Comment by Frostman — November 26, 2007 @ 12:21 am

Joy Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Suggestion to the nay-sayers: Get over yourselves. Here at TT, post authors get to decide what's unacceptably rude or off-topic, and may memory-hole any comment that fits their criteria. Complaining about it and launching off-topic sub-threads related to complaining about it just compounds the problem.

If you don't like how this blog is run, go elsewhere. Keep your comments civil and on-topic and you won't get holed. That's simple enough even for you. Behavior over the last few days has been abominable, we've given you some slack because we're all overdosed on tryptophan. It's wearing off now.

Comment by Joy — November 26, 2007 @ 1:24 am

Joy Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 1:29 am
And now, to show my magnanimity, I will hole both of these comments. Thank you Guts for fixing its glitch…

Comment by Joy — November 26, 2007 @ 1:29 am

Frostman Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Bradford:

Your word substitution and false allegation of out of context quotes are inappropriate…

Here is the Davies quote again. The bold portion is what you clipped. You said that an "anti-theist" would find it "most discordant".

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

I said:

Davies was quoted out of context. What Davies says, in context, is most certainly something non-theists would support.

I have already responded thusly to your above claim of inappropriateness:

The fact of the matter is that the Davies quote was clearly taken out of context. Non-theists and "anti-theists" alike would agree with Davies on the preceding sentences you clipped. There is nothing "most discordant" about them; indeed the contrary is true. It does not matter which term I use "” they are equivalent insofar as agreeing with Davies or not.

As I said, "anti-theist" sets the stage for an us-verses-them mentality, which is to be avoided. By pointing out the problematic quoting, I did not wish to inadvertently take the side of "anti-theists". That is why the term is inflammatory "” you are setting the stage for those who disagree to be on the "anti-theist" side. It's just modern-day tribalism.

"As I said…" above refers to a post which you deleted; you have also deleted all posts which quoted it.

You will have to address my points directly; tell me why the above is inappropriate. Declaring them to be so does not make them so.

Bradford:

…as is your disresectful disregard of repeated requests by Guts and me to keep your comments focused on the blog topic.

Aha, but we are talking about the blog topic. We are talking about your claim the quote was not out of context, and your claim that "anti-theists" would find the quote "most discordant". You have not adequately addressed my points on this issue. Instead, you have deleted my comments and issued threats.

Comment by Frostman — November 26, 2007 @ 11:15 am

Guts Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Wow

Comment by Guts — November 30, 2007 @ 2:40 pm

Raevmo Says:
December 9th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Bradford:

Why is it entirely reasonable to assume that life evolved from self-replicating molecules?

I told you already. Extrapolation from observed trends of increasing complexity. It seems more reasonable to me than to postulate a magic man that has never been observed.

Are you an authority on SRMs?

No, but I am an evolutionary biologist. What are your credentials?

Fortunately you have an apparent out with the lack of fossils huh? That way you can shrug and point to experiments that model nothing approaching the level of your imaginative claims.

Why don't you point me to experiments that model your magic man?

Comment by Raevmo — December 9, 2007 @ 7:45 pm

The Pixie Says:
December 11th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Bradford

It is interesting to note that if abiogenesis is impossible, Mike Gene's front-loading ultimately relies on God to create life on another planet.

The chemical properties of nucleic acids. What properties of nucleic acids, including the nature of the bonds that link their constituent substances, would lead a rational person to conclude a chemical pathway causes a functional sequencing of nucleotides which act as symbolic storage units for specified amino acids? In the event of some fortuitous accident that arranges codons in just the right sequential pattern within a minimal genome, what is the chemical based explanation for the generation of a code and translation mechanisms? I'm not interested in stories, only a scientifically based explanation of the science behind prebiotic reductionist scenarios.

Ah, it seems we have different ideas of what a "scientifically based assessment" is. I was imagining an assessment based on science. You know, something published by scientists, or perhaps based on something published by scientists, using the scientific method. I have not heard of personal incredulity described as a "scientifically based assessment" before. Ho hum.

I pointed to areas of knowledge not ignorance. We are very much aware of the chemical properties of nucleic acids. The question was based on what we know. I'm not interested in a non-telic arguments based on ignorance. Let's discuss the known factors.

Here is a thought. Why not discuss the science, rather than making bland assertions. Why not point us to science web sites that back your assertion. You said "I also will not tolerate you or anyone else pretending your non-telic concepts are scientifically derived without a challenge." Right back at you, Bradford. You claimed your assessment was scientifically based. I challenge you find the science!

Comment by The Pixie — December 11, 2007 @ 4:55 pm

edarrell Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
But two weeks later, as we now know the creationist/ID assault on Texas education is larger than the New York Times could have guessed, and we know it's the intent of the chairman of the State Board of Education to inject intelligent design/creationism stuff into the curriculum standards, and we know that creationists are working to skirt the Constitution to get creationism into public schools once again through the ICR — yeah, we hear your protests that ID isn't creationism. Tell it to the creationists. Tell it to the IDists who say it IS creationism, and that it's their religious right.

Comment by edarrell — December 18, 2007 @ 12:09 pm

Raevmo Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Anax, I admire your success as an electronic engineer, but abstract thinking is clearly not your strong suit. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Comment by Raevmo — December 18, 2007 @ 6:38 pm

valerie Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
thechristiancynic wrote:

The comments here are so incredibly amusing that I hardly have words. Zachriel, valerie – you two are either far more patient than I am or have far more time. (And no, that statement is not a tautology"¦)

TCC,

The key word is "amusing."

My rule of thumb: When you encounter an ego-to-ability ratio as top-heavy as AR's, stick around. Hilarity is bound to ensue.

And it's cheaper than cable.

Comment by valerie — December 18, 2007 @ 8:07 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hi Bradford,

That was a nice sounding answer.

Well rehersed, but it still sounded nice.

My turn…
Were and/or are you being coached?

(This is just to get it on record. I will give my response after you deny it)

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 6, 2008 @ 1:17 pm

valerie Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Your complaint against Dembski is that he fails to detect all evidence of design.

Bradford,

Read the thread, a little more carefully this time. You've got it completely backwards. Zachriel and I criticize Dembski's method for allowing false positives — that is, for "detecting" design where there is none.

We are not complaining that it fails to detect some instances of design — that it produces false negatives, in other words.

Not only does Dembski's method produce false positives, as he acknowledges in Specification — it fails to meet Dembski's own standards for design detection, as expressed in NFL:

Only things that are designed had better end up in the net.

And while Dembski admits in NFL that the possibility of ignorance makes false negatives unavoidable, he reverses himself completely in Specification and says that ignorance has no "epistemic force". Why? Because otherwise he would have to admit that false positives are just as inevitable as false negatives.

Why are you so attached to the ideas of this inconsistent, dishonest, flip-flopping bozo?

Comment by valerie — January 13, 2008 @ 1:08 am

Raevmo Says:
January 16th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Rock:

The critics' argument appears to be that because I can conceive of something which does not exist it must be true. An "Intelligent Design" argument if I ever heard one!

You appear to be quite insane, Rock. Perhaps you ought to seek some medical help. You seem to argue that ID arguments amount to claiming that anything untrue which can be conceived of must be true. Weird.

Comment by Raevmo — January 16, 2008 @ 6:34 pm

Raevmo Says:
January 16th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Rock:

I am "quite insane."

Good for you.

Indeed, I reject the idea that science doesn't "prove" anything. I wonder if anyone else is as sick of this dumb-ass argument as I am.

So you believe that science can prove things once and for all. History shows that's a very dumb-ass attitude.

You teach science?

I don't think you do.

To quote G.W. Bush: who cares what you think?

Comment by Raevmo — January 16, 2008 @ 7:05 pm

Raevmo Says:
January 18th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Thanks for that info, Valerie. Before this thread started I wasn't even aware of Luskin's existence. So Luskin seems to deny common ancestry of humans and chimps, despite the overwhelming evidence. This statement by Luskin says it all really:

According to Neo-Darwinism, humans and extant apes supposedly share a common ancestor.

The evidence for common ancestry doesn't rely at all on "neo-darwinism", in the sense that natural selection was the sole mechanism of divergence. Luskin is clearly a dishonest political hack.

Comment by Raevmo — January 18, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

Dan Says:
January 19th, 2008 at 9:55 am
"You cite an example of defects in polymerase proofreading and mismatch repair leading to an increased risk of cancer. Based on this you erroneously conclude that DNA repair is not essential which is remarkable in that a partial disablement of DNA repair leads to an increased risk of death for the individuals affected in your cited example."

From a cell biologist's perspective (that is, my perspective), the cancer cells are themselves still alive. So are the proofreading-less yeast cells. Again, I ask, do yeast cells themselves not have "life"

Can we stop with your charade that only multicellular organisms are alive?

Comment by Dan — January 19, 2008 @ 9:55 am

BrainyLack Says:
January 19th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
And then there are those who contribute nothing of substance at all. Like you.

That's rich. A loud mouthed half-wit telling me that I contribute nothing. I just started posting here.

I gladly admit that Pixie and Zachriel are far better and much more eloquent critics than I am.

Not just eloquent. Don't give yourself too much credit that you don't deserve.

I try to learn from them.

Pfft. You agree with them and then try to make sense of it after the fact.

I learn a lot from the ID proponents. They often point me to interesting research I hadn't heard about yet.

Wonderful.

Comment by BrainyLack — January 19, 2008 @ 9:08 pm

Raevmo Says:
January 19th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Lack of Brains:

That's rich. A loud mouthed half-wit telling me that I contribute nothing. I just started posting here.

You're calling me a half-wit just after having complained about my lack of civility. Your inconsistency almost matches your idiocy. Do you have anything substantial to say, or will you stick to exchanging insults?

Comment by Raevmo — January 19, 2008 @ 9:22 pm

Zachriel Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Help with the moderation queue, please.

Comment by Zachriel — January 22, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

One Brow Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
You may have noted parallels to a biological process but unlike the biological process the alphabet evolution lacks specificity and supporting data. But it rings of a religious impulse. … It is ritual like thinking on display not to be confused with sound science.

What utter, projective nonsense. I, and as far as I can tell most of the people with whom you have been disputing, have *no* problem with designed, incremental changes. For example, every amendment to the Constitution, as well as the document itself, is a product of design, made with the intent to change the future and an eye to its potential impact.

Comment by One Brow — February 10, 2008 @ 9:28 pm

Raevmo Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 3:39 am
Null:

If more minted/printed currency is available, how can that happen with no one realizing it? How can more seashells enter and no one realizes it?

Are you really that dumb? Let's say seashells enter the economy at aggregate rate x, and they leave at aggregate rate y (accidental loss, destruction, etc). Is it not conceivable that x>y without any individual being aware of it?

Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2008 @ 3:39 am

valerie Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Null wrote:

Just to tie this up, since I think – really – we'd all rather go fight in other threads I'll condense the dispute here.

Translation: Run away! Run away!

Raevmo, to Null:

Are you really that dumb? Let's say seashells enter the economy at aggregate rate x, and they leave at aggregate rate y (accidental loss, destruction, etc). Is it not conceivable that x>y without any individual being aware of it?

I second both questions.

Null, to Raevmo:

Even in your example, there is no way for seashells to enter the economy at aggregate rate x without people being aware that there's an inflow/outflow.

Null,

Has it occurred to you that the seashells might be gathered by multiple persons, in different times and places, none of whom know what the aggregate inflow is? And that this is not only possible, but likely? Likewise, has it occurred to you that the aggregate outflow is almost certainly not known by any single person either? How would you go about determining whether there's an increase in the seashell supply, much less what the rate of increase is, without knowing the aggregate inflow and outflow?

Oops.

I wrote:

No, I showed how, using your definition, inflation could occur whether or not any of the participants knew that the money supply had increased.

Null replied:

Considering my definition was related to monetary inflation – a greater volume of gold/currency entering the market – that's one hell of a trick! Or are you arguing now that the person increasing currency volume is not a participant in the market?

Guess what? Just as seashells don't have to come into the economy via a single person, neither does gold or money.

Incidentally, I've noticed that you keep referring to currency and counterfeiting in this thread. This seemed strange to me at first, but now I understand why: you actually believe that the supply of money and the supply of currency/coins are the same thing.

When we talk about an increase in the money supply, you actually think that this means that someone must be printing/minting (or counterfeiting) currency or coins.

Get thee to an economics class! Currency and coins form only a fraction of the money supply, and there are other ways of increasing the money supply besides printing bills or minting coins.

Every time you take out a loan or use a credit card (but not a debit card) to make a purchase, the bank is creating money, fercrissakes.

How are prices rising in general, and nobody knows it's inflation, when the definition of inflation is 'the general rise of prices in an economy'?

First of all, for the umpteenth time, inflation will happen whether they know it or not, as my example shows. Knowledge of inflation is not required in order for inflation to occur.

Second, how can someone tell, from their local prices alone, whether inflation is occurring? Their local prices might be going up, while prices in most of the economy are going down, or vice-versa.

For example, suppose our blacksmith lives in a western town. One day he notices that prices are higher at the general store. Does that meant that prices are higher nationally (i.e. inflation), or is it just that the railroad started charging more for hauling groceries from back East? He has no way of knowing, unless he gathers more information.

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?

If more gold is being added to the market, how does that happen with no one realizing it? If more minted/printed currency is available, how can that happen with no one realizing it? How can more seashells enter and no one realizes it?

Can you guess the answer? Hint: reread this comment.

If someone wants to keep on raging, more power to 'em – I just see little meat left on this skeleton.

I guess I don't blame you for wanting to bail out of this thread. It's been pretty humiliating for you.

Go lick your wounds.

Comment by valerie — February 11, 2008 @ 8:04 am

Guts Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 4:18 am
test

Comment by Guts — February 12, 2008 @ 4:18 am

Raevmo Says:
February 13th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Guts:

c) The only way he will be let back in is if he apologizes and it is approved by the majority of TTers.

Apologizes for what? For bruising your fragile macho ego? Be a good Christian and turn the other cheek.

Comment by Raevmo — February 13, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

One Brow Says:
February 16th, 2008 at 12:07 am
So they put togther a linkage of sounds to 22 different symbols inadvertently? Was the wheel invented inadvertently too? Why not take the most parsimonious interpretation instead of one that requires additional information to explain the real reason they linked 22 symbols to sounds? After the linkage was made do you think someone revealed to their surprise what they had "inadvertently" invented? This is a village idiot interpretation. Human inventions occurring inadvertently.

I don't find sneering, condescension, or ridicule to be evidence.

Comment by One Brow — February 16, 2008 @ 12:07 am

One Brow Says:
February 16th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
One Brow: I think that almost everyone thinks what they currently speak *is* the standard, and it's always the other guys who have the funny accents.

Overly simplistic and misses the point. It doesn't matter if the gaul descendants think their version of latin is 'better than the kind people used to speak, or the kind they speak in that other place. The awareness is there, and ample.

The point is that this is not a case of "Intentionally discarding and/or ignoring attempts to maintain language harmony…" because people believe they they are speaking the correct language, and "Why are those silly priests trying to tell me otherwise? I speak just like my Dad (and Grandpa if I knew him)".

You were using it as an onomatope. Guess what? The dog likely doesn't realize it's saying b-a-r-k 'bark' either. But when I say 'bark', I know what I'm dealing with.

When I use "bark" with you, I'm using words to communicate. When I was cooing back at my six-month-old, there was no meaning attached, it wasn't a word. Words have meanings.

One Brow: Stuff like that comes from me unintended quite frequently.

You find yourself often saying things with no intention? They have medication for that, you know.

They have medication that will improve your typing? Of course, my understanding is that you think typos are designed.

Comment by One Brow — February 16, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

Raevmo Says:
February 17th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Joy:

I don't suppose the availability of guns or the un-availability of mental health care (or any health care) has anything to do with such things, though. It's gotta be that the shooters don't believe in evolution, right?

Weird that you don't suppose so. In contrast, I do suppose so. That, and a certain American cultural tendency towards violence.

Instead of attacking me, you might consider directing your wrath to the author of that disturbing post upthread, wherein the teaching of evolution is held responsible for school shootings. Some mental health long overdue for that poster.

Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2008 @ 7:39 pm

One Brow Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 11:26 am
OB: I think there are other choices besides purposefully and accidentally. I would say they inadvertently created an alphabet.

So they put togther a linkage of sounds to 22 different symbols inadvertently? Was the wheel invented inadvertently too? Why not take the most parsimonious interpretation instead of one that requires additional information to explain the real reason they linked 22 symbols to sounds? After the linkage was made do you think someone revealed to their surprise what they had "inadvertently" invented? This is a village idiot interpretation. Human inventions occurring inadvertently.

Your incredulity, references to other events, and mischaracterizations do not constitute evidence. Will you be providing it?

Comment by One Brow — February 18, 2008 @ 11:26 am

Bradford Says:
February 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Test

Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 5:54 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
aiguy: If the cause of life was intelligent, it was a completely different sort of mind than ours, and to think of it in anthropomorphic terms is certainly wrong. So we shouldn't use the same word ("intelligent" or "mind") to describe both human mentality and this whatever it was that designed life.

I like that post, except that I would not say that the designing intelligence was completely different. One, it would likely possess consciousness, and at least be as conscious as we are; and two, whatever kind of thought "processes" it has, they would certainly be at least as complex as ours. Likely it's going to have more, not less, of whatever faculties we possess, and possibly some we do not possess. But I don't think the kind of intellectual capability is of a different kind, rather a different degree. I don't think it's out of the question that humanity will one day possess the understanding it takes to engineer life.

Comment by kornbelt888 — March 6, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Moderator, please delete the accidental copy. (And this message too, of course.)

Comment by kornbelt888 — March 6, 2008 @ 12:24 pm

Joy Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I just moved them to the memory hole, kornbelt.

Comment by Joy — March 6, 2008 @ 12:31 pm

Raevmo Says:
March 12th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Bradford:

I won't. There are zero mechanisms that lead to a cell in the absence of intelligent guidance.

Hahaha. I was asking for YOUR favorite mechanisms. How did intelligent guidance lead to the first cell? Details please.
Your bold claim that there are zero mechanisms exposes you once again for the ideological creobot that you really are.

Comment by Raevmo — March 12, 2008 @ 8:42 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Bradford:

ID is the belief that physical evidence can be used to support claims to design.

Then we can all go home now, because we already know for a fact that physical evidence can be used to support claims to design. It's pretty sad and pathetic that after all these years of fighting for ID you still can't provide a proper definition of ID.

If that is the claim then the DI is correct and you are wrong in alleging dishonesty. Christianity has nothing to do with claims of design. Neither does Islam, Judaism "¦

That is not the claim. The allegation of dishonesty is perfectly appropriate and the link to religion totally obvious. The Wedge document says it all. The utterly dishonest pro-ID Expelled movie is almost superfluous further evidence.

Comment by Raevmo — April 18, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

JackT Says:
April 19th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Bradford: I characterized a comment as blatently dishonest which alleged ID was nothing more than wild speculation.

Myself: What makes ID more than wild speculation?

Bradford: What makes your view more than wild speculation?

If you wish to concede the point, we can move to another topic such as my view, if you are interested.

Comment by JackT — April 19, 2008 @ 8:47 am

agam Says:
April 19th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Actually Eugenie Scott is given lots of time to explain that Darwinism and faith in God are not incompatible. This is followed by Myers and Dawkins saying that she is just being deceitful to gain the support of religious folk. Do you aprove of this type of lying?

Big deal! Who's lying? Dawkins? Myers? Scott? All three are on record regarding their atheism/humanism etc., They only differ regarding the implications of science for believers. You don't have to sit thru 90 minutes of stupid creationist drivel with a droning ignoramus like Ben Stein to learn that. They have been at it for years. They have not minced words about what they think of Chamberlain type scientists. And these self-same scientists have collaborated to keep creationists (old and new) at bay and have successfully deflated pompous airbags like Dembski all the while diagreeing about their beliefs. In fact at Dover the defendants without success tried to draw this track about atheism science during their cross of Forrest, and Dembski even sat thru her deposition hoping to wear her down. No such luck. Even after the creos threw the kitchen sink at Forrest, she batted everything away. It is Dembski who slunk out like a coward. This time Myers and dawkins aren't complaining about being "outed" or any such thing. They are calling to attention the devious dishonesty of creationist chumps like Stein who obtain interviews under false pretences. Their viiews are there out in the public for all to see. Dawkins's titles are popular as ever. And while a clown like Berlinski seels a few copies here and there, Dawkins is successful as ever being feted coast to coast.

Comment by agam — April 19, 2008 @ 11:56 am

The Pixie Says:
April 20th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Bradford

I was hoping you might answer these questions:

*Did you learn anything new?
*Assuming you didn't learn anything new, was it worth it because it made you feel good?
*Did it help reinforce that Group Think feeling that you were on the side of the righteous?

Also the implied question from the first two, why was it worth it?

I said "studious avoided" because tyou actually quoted TP asking the questions, and still failed to answer them, choosing imnstead to go off on some self-righteous rant. From your response I have no idea if you learnt anything new from the movie, and I have no idea why you felt is was "worth it". Why do I get the feeling I never will.

Comment by The Pixie — April 20, 2008 @ 10:41 am

Bradford Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Aagcobb: I'm going to put this here because I'm guessing Joy would consider it OT on her thread on Darwin and the Holocaust. It would have been interesting if Stein had made a documentary concerning the various strands Hitler wove together and warped into his sick, twisted, murderous ideology. Centuries of virulent, violent christian anti-semitism was the prime ingredient and eugenics was part of it too, though for centuries christians never needed eugenics or evolutionary theory to justify the torture, murder, conquest and enslavement of Jews, Muslims, heretics and heathens.

When Stein gets finsihed with that theme he can make a documentary on non-Christians who have "tortured, murdered, conquered and enslaved" throughout history. The list is a long one and makes the above point rather pedestrian unless you are attempting to assert the well known Christian position that man is inherently evil and no ethnic or religious group is excepted.

Of course thats not what Stein did. What he did was make a right-wing propoganda piece which send the message to believers that Darwinism is evil as demonstrated by the Holocaust, and therefore its wrong. Which is simply a lie.

What believers would they be? Stein is not an evangelical Christian. He is not even a Christian? Oh but of course you had a different definition of believers in mind. Those who do not think like you. Did you see the movie? Document the right wing thingy for me.

I noticed after this was posted that this is not a rabbit thread. Any responses should be on one.

Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2008 @ 11:02 am

Raevmo Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Joy:

Well, that's where your philosophy may be steering you wrong. In healthy human psyches, evil elicits disgust. THAT is perfectly natural.

Not at all. It used to be very popular to go watch humans being brutally murdered, for sheer entertainment value. Think Christians being thrown to the lions (OK, bad example, that would be entertaining), or gladiators slaughtering each other, quartering of criminals, etc etc. Now we consider that evil, but that's just a recent cultural invention.

It was Darwinism that led to eugenics, thus to The Holocaust.

I've been away for a few days, but I see you are still trying to spread your pathetic hateful propaganda. How do you know that without Darwin there would have been no Holocaust? Mass murder of Jews was popular way before Darwin. Hitler admitted himself that he wasn't always an anti-semitic, but that protestant Christians "converted" him to that sick state of mind. He never mentioned Darwin even once in his writings and speeches. And yet you are sure that Darwin caused the Holocaust. If you had even the slightest capacity for critical thinking, you would at the very least be a little doubtful that Darwin played such a major role. But no, you are sure. And you bring up your godparents with the tattoos. Well, my grandfather had the tattoo as well, and I don't see why that's a reason to believe your crap.

Comment by Raevmo — April 24, 2008 @ 3:10 pm

olegt Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Joy,

Quote-mining? I quoted from the paper's quote offered, what I could find out there on the web. I still haven't found a renunciation or apology from the NAS for their complicity. Have you? I also supplied the links to THREE of Ramsden's presentations, which I think are quite revealing on the issue, as he's not shy at all of talking about what you are intent on denying. Aren't you just a little bit ashamed of your denial? You should be, IMO.

You chose to quote that little sound byte which supported your thesis leaving out the surrounding text that showed opposition to Shockley's personal view. If that's not quote mining then I don't know what is. As I indicated above, reading Ramsden reveals that racist eugenics had already been stigmatized in the scientific community by the late 1930s. And here you are, 70 years later, demanding that scientists renounce eugenics. Open your eyes, Joy, the train has long left the station.

Today is my certifiably 'Nordic' (since for eugenics purposes 'Nordic' means his Scots-Irish-French-English and Cherokee ancestry is overruled by his Norwegian father due to hair and eye color) grandson's 18th birthday, we will be busy herding teenagers of all shapes, sizes and ethnic varieties for the weekend, attempting to talk a few of them out of 'careers' with the US Army committing genocide against dark-haired, dark-eyed civilians in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Should only biologists apologize for the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or are we physicists also guilty?

Have fun denying scientific complicity in eugenics. You won't be convincing anybody who knows better. I have stated the issues. Eugenics is alive and well in the scientific community, racism is alive and well and flourishing with "scientific support" from eugenics organizations still extant today as SSR and the Galton Institute (and its favored source, the Pioneer Institute).

You know squat, Joy. You're a loud mouth, though.

Comment by olegt — May 3, 2008 @ 1:11 pm

Raevmo Says:
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Joy:

Where do you come from, Oleg? Where did you grow up? I am aghast at your willful ignorance and denial. At a loss to account for it.

Has it even occurred to you that you might be wrong? That your idea of the big scientific conspiracy that supports eugenics is a pathological fantasy? I think you need some professional psychiatric help. Seriously.

Comment by Raevmo — May 3, 2008 @ 6:30 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
aiguy: Sorry, but the fact that a half-dozen or so vague, conflicting, and differing guesses have been offered in this thread regarding what "intelligence" is supposed to mean in ID doesn't exactly support your viewpoint.

OK. Very well then. The verdict is in: you don't have any. (bang)

Next.

Comment by kornbelt888 — May 16, 2008 @ 9:33 pm

danielet Says:
May 18th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
WHY AS A CHRISTIAN BERLINSKI PISSES ME OFF

I read Berlinski's article in COMMENTARY, "The God of
the Gaps"…

(for full text)
http://dakowski.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=494&Itemid=48

…on , ironically, the very night of my Easter– the
most important day of my religion, for it is then that
Jesus is believed by us to have proven that HE indeed
is the Son of God; and so we utter in greeting each
other: "Christ has arisen"; to which we respond: "He
truly has arisen." Unfortunately, our theologians
could neither get together on the date of Easter,
except once every few years, for our fellow
Christians, nor on the date of Passover for our fellow
Jews. Thus, it is here, in what is the key method of
science, MEASUREMENT, that there is a Biblical flaw in
our faith– MEASUREMENT…the stuff Berlinski's bank
account is made of.

Berlinski is not only arguing for doubt in Darwinian
evolution, but he is also INSISTING on the certainty
of GOD in man's image (the true logical sequence, for
we all have seen man but few if any saw God). In doing
so– to this believer– he reads and sounds like an
adolescent sophist on a Baptist high school debating
team (or is it Regents University?) as he bases his
case on snip and cut quotes from defensive and angry
scientists and singles out for his rage fellow
adolescent sophist Christopher [what a nice Christian
name] Hitchens. The latter has been the darling of the
neocons and their ideological "World War IV" in the
Middle East, but I guess not for Berlinski, the man of
God in man's image ideology…or is he also a neocon?

Alas, at his best, Berlinski only reiterates the need
for philosophical supervision of science….and,
presumably of mathematics, applied or contrived, to
which I say AMEN, bravo! Here, here– yes indeed,
evolution NEEDS very much philosophical supervision–
alas, here Berlinski can quote no contrarians for none
exist among scientists. And most certainly, as a
neurobiologist myself, ALL BRAIN SCIENCE DATA needs
severe philosophical scrutiny. For that God gave us
Gerald Edelman and many, many other older sages of
science who no longer litter the libraries with data
but philosophically extract ideas from that of others.
Yet, I urge Berlinski to heed the caution of
neurophilosopher William Calvin and be weary of the
"janitor's dream" of fundamentals ridden particle
physicists in the basement trying to conjure up what
goes on in the penthouse of the brain where love, hate
and ejaculation are enrapturing. No, Mr. Berlinski,
nerves do not "twitch," but they depolarize and
conduct current. And what they do in assemblies we can
barely mathematically model as theory rather than
fact. Right now, evolution of the mind, like the Big
Bang, is all models in search of falsification tests,
much like the theory of eleven universes by a very
attractive Harvard theoretical physicist, Lisa
Randall. She may be a lot cuter than Darwin ever was,
but offers no less a theory in search of falsification
tests. Though science is really the inverse of a
cancer test: you can't be sure about cancer until a
test comes out positive and about science except when
an experiment comes out negative, these are not
dreamed up, as Berlinski would have us believe in
ignorance. Since all these branches of science are
incomplete works in progress, should we settle for
"God" as a totem blocking their path to adventurous
scientific investigation?

Berlinski's vague amorphous God cloud substituting for
science is the Old and New Testaments as FACT. That
may be fine for the neocon materialists in their quest
to "re-establish" Israel (meaning: "defier of God") in
Jerusalem as Zionist kings of the Middle East (what
else could they ask for in their waining years now
that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin– the Three Who Made A
Revolution of their youth are all dead?) but it fails
to define a moral compass for mankind, given that the
Bible makes us all look like nothing but circumcised
apes vs. the uncircumcised apes.

Neurobiology is a young and maturing experimental
science, a term Berlinski failed to consider in his
epiphany against it. Evolution is actually history
helped with clues from genetics, another young
experimental science. Decades from now genetics may be
able to tell us what are the chances that Berlinski
may go mad; but certainly now it cannot tell us if he
is mad…Does that mean we should stop research into
the neurobiology of madness and just leave him to
clergy instead? We tried that for centuries and all we
got were exorcises, Freud and Lewis!

Berlinski's COMMENTARY article is a fraud because it
slanders as anti-God the very science that makes no
pretensions of knowing anything about God. Yet
Berlinski asserts God's divine dominion and that we
are made in His image as if he knows best because his
revelation came to him upon eating mushrooms or
something (he gives us no clue).

Berlinski fails– nay, AVOIDS– answering the
question: is there ONTOLOGY without ONTOGENY? No, Mr.
Berlinski, no Amazonian Indian has, as far as I know,
lived a full life in the jungle AND THEN moved on to
Cambridge to write a learned and literate PhD thesis
on civilization from bottom up and from top down. And,
no closer has Berlinski come to a chimp than I to
Jesus, so there's little he can say with authority–
other than Chomsky's hypothesis based on "think
experiments"– about the chimp's non-verbal vs.
Berlinski verbal type cognition. Again, BEING IS
ACQUIRED through a neotony of prolonged maturation–
there is no ontology without ontogeny– not
necessarily a capriciously God given one for the
circumcised but rather one acquired by nature-nurture
interactions developing into intelligence.

I can't admire Blinks's faith, given that it is a
payed-per-word assault on Hitch en's attempts to make
a living selling books. Both come off looking like a
not too interesting boxing match between two blind
fighters. But I do resent the game the noons played
ALLEGEDLY (???) on behalf of Israel, exploiting the
so-called "Christian Zionists" whom the noons laugh at
privately as "dumb gym." The dumb noons don't realize
that the domestic agenda of these gos is a Christian–
of their kind only– America that would eventually
deny Blinks and his Nikon fellows citizenship unless
they suddenly find Christ. In my old age I was
planning to be a philosopher too like my beloved
Edeline and Calvin, not to put myself at risk hiding
Jews in my armories from the Hagee-ilk Inquisition.
That's why I find Berlinski and the neocons and their
World War IV ideology so outrageous– as a scientist,
as a Christian and as an American by choice, not
chance.

I hope Berlinski's faith in God eventually saves him
from the high probability scourge of Alzheimer's
better than can our neuroscience to date. As for me, I
still think God would rather I research the damned
disease rather than just pray wishing that He not
inflict it on me but on my pesky neighbor instead.

Daniel E. Teodoru

Comment by danielet — May 18, 2008 @ 8:08 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Sorry, I missed your post:

aiguy: I believe they mean that the Designer must be at least as capable of designing complex machinery as I am. But that is an empty tautology: The cause of the complex machinery of biology is"¦ something that is capable of designing complex machinery. Can't you see that tells us nothing at all?

Invalid mapping. Saying the designer must have at least human intelligence, is not the same thing as saying the designer of complex machinery must be capable of designing complex machinery.

We know that humans can design complex machinery. (Whether humans have enough foresight and attention to detail and consequences of the relationships involved in designing comparable systems such as exists inside of cells, is an open question.) If you were to ask me, "can humans design system on par with cellular internals?", and I were to answer, "yes, they can", that is not a tautology. The answer may be wrong, but it's not a tautology, since it's not an obvious fact that humans indeed can design cellular internals.

When I say that the designer of cells must have at least as much intelligence as a human, I mean that the quality or kind of intelligence need not be greater, though the quantity may be far greater. Humans do understand dynamic relationships and their consequences, seemingly to "infinite" levels, unlike other mammals, who only seem to grasp a level or two, maximum. And we have the capability of designing machines that enable us to multiply and layer our efforts even more. While the intra-cellular systems may be extremely complex, there is no evidence thus far that they are ultimately beyond human intelligence to reverse engineer, and thus gain the ability to understand and ultimately re-engineer.

Of course, I could be all wet about the ability of humans to achieve this, arguments could be made on either side why this will turn out to be true or not, but the statement that the design of earth-life must at least be as intelligent as humans is neither meaningless, nor tautology.

Long live Telic Thoughts!

Comment by kornbelt888 — May 19, 2008 @ 9:43 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
May 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Stephen: detecting design=self recognition;

Ah, so the intelligent design advocates think they created life on Earth? Or are you saying ID advocates think they are flagellums? Why even post these abstract affirmations that are so obscure they convey nothing? My personal amusement is the only reason I can fathom. Man, you never stop with the funny. I'm curious Stephen, is English your native language?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 25, 2008 @ 11:12 am

aiguy Says:
June 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Bradford,

I think dualism is observable pending technology sensitive enough to detect and compare changes in thinking with brain biochemistry.

Ah yes – more "sensitive" technology ought to help a lot. Perhaps we can use the same instruments to find our souls and our elan vital.

ID relies on an intelligent inference; not the need to prove free will.

You have gone back and forth on this so many times I lost count long ago.

Either you concede that your meaning of "intelligence" entails libertarian, contracausal free will or it does not. Which is it, Bradford? (I can find quotes from you either way, so no matter which you say you will be contradicting yourself).

Comment by aiguy — June 9, 2008 @ 6:46 pm

Zachriel Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
It bears mentioning that the author, Neil Shubin, is co-discoverer of Tiktaalik roseae. Knowing from other evidence of the Theory of Evolution that land vertebrates evolved from fish, they sought out 375 million year old strata in their quest to find an intermediate species. The strata happened to be in the Canadian Arctic, and the discovery took several years of field work. Tiktaalik has many intermediate features, such as a flexible neck, functional wrist, modified ribs.

Shubin has also mounted expeditions to the American Southwest, Morocco, Greenland, South Africa and China. Quite an adventure.

(Our library already has the scroll on order.)

Comment by Zachriel — July 5, 2008 @ 10:42 am

Bradford Says:
July 24th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Test

Comment by Bradford — July 24, 2008 @ 10:14 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Joy: Does it bother you that I have internet access? That it's land-line slow?

I think you missed the point I was making completely. The point was you spend even more time playing this game then the people you call ego-stroking juveniles for playing this game. You claim exemption from the motives you project on others while spending even more time engaged in the same behaviors.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 6, 2008 @ 11:49 am

Alan Fox Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I appreciate you offering this thread up because it looks like DaveScot wasn't interested in my Vernanimalcula guizhouena comment (at least the submitted comment hasn't appeared on Uncommon Descent yet).

TP, this borders on the disingenuous. Dave's agenda does not involve a free exchange of ideas.

Comment by Alan Fox — August 22, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

Raevmo Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Hey nullasalus. Commenter by the name of Nobody Important, that's you isn't it?

Comment by Raevmo — August 29, 2008 @ 5:09 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
September 4th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
raevmo,

I've wondered what would happen if you stuck your thumb in your mouth and blew real hard. Maybe you would float in the air. Try it and see what happens. Let us know the results.

(What are you complaining about? I'm just an evolved proto-ape. One ape to another.)

Comment by kornbelt888 — September 4, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 4th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
kornbelt88:

I've wondered what would happen if you stuck your thumb in your mouth and blew real hard. Maybe you would float in the air. Try it and see what happens. Let us know the results.

I'll tell you if you share with us what happens when you pull your head out of your ass. Fair enough?

Comment by Raevmo — September 4, 2008 @ 6:14 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
justin:

From the way I am reading your comments, Zachriel agrees that MET must regard people as robots or zombies, but Raevmo does not. Correct?

Why the emphasis on people? MET mustn't regard anything as "robots or zombies". There is no need since we are in a sense all robots.

You see, I don't agree at all with Pinker's statement that "we can imagine a robot that, behavior-for-behavior and state-for-state, is identical to a human, but in which there's "no one home" — no one actually feeling the pain or seeing the red…" I for one cannot imagine that, and I think nobody can.

IMO, if two bodies are identical or even nearly identical in state (atom-for-atom, or quark-for-quark if you like), then they are identical FAPP (to borrow from Joy's impressive arsenal of acronyms). They have exactly the same feelings.

Certain feelings (such as pain) are hard-wired responses to certain stimuli, that in turn evoke behavior that has adaptive value.

Comment by Raevmo — September 9, 2008 @ 2:41 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Joy:

NOTE: In the interests of keeping to the topic (and keeping the thread short enough to follow), your attempted resurrection of his "Poof-Joy" thought experiment has been relegated to the hole. The arguments have been explored in previous threads, the imaginary case study has been rejected as silly and without pertinence to any consideration of mind's causal role in life and evolution.

As if one post extra suddenly makes the thread too long to follow. Most of the arguments in any thread have been explored in previous threads in one way or the other. Just because you reject something as silly it gets holed. Pathetic.

Comment by Raevmo — September 9, 2008 @ 3:37 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I see I am not allowed anymore to comment on the EAM thread, even though I have remained entirely on topic and behaved quite civil. In violation of the blog's rules Joy has even deleted a comment of mine. Could someone please explain why?

Comment by Raevmo — September 9, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Sorry RogerRabbit, I'd like to discuss fitness some more with you, but as I said I can't comment there anymore. Joy's ego gets in the way.

Comment by Raevmo — September 9, 2008 @ 6:40 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Joy:

Wasn't I just informed that proteins aren't involved in methylation of genes?

No. You were informed that a methyl group is not a protein, and you were informed that the methyl group is attached by a protein (or a complex of proteins).

If you can't refrain from rudeness, you'll find yourself out of this thread, too.

Come on, you don't refrain from some rudeness yourself. It would be nice if the standard for rudeness were the same for everybody.

Comment by Raevmo — September 9, 2008 @ 6:59 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Is it just me, or does the moderation policy of TT really resemble more and more the UD moderation policy? If I'm right, that would be really sad, because TT used to be one of the very few ID blogs that gives a fair hearing to both sides. I didn't agree very often with Mike Gene, but at least he tolerated dissent. Bye now.

Comment by Raevmo — September 9, 2008 @ 7:28 pm

Joy Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I've opened a melodrama thread just for you and whoever you can convince to play. You're outta this one.

Comment by Joy — September 9, 2008 @ 7:45 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Bradford:

So empirical data indicates that religion can inhibit superstition. Not a surprise. Judeo-Christian scriptures are openly hostile to practices like palm reading and attempts to communicate with the dead.

Is this satire? It's hilarious anyway. So the empirical data indicate that one form of superstition can inhibit another form of superstition. That's quite a relief.

And why are the scriptures so hostile to talking to the dead? It's apparently OK to talk to Jesus, but not to the dead? Could it be that Jesus doesn't like the competition?

Comment by Raevmo — September 27, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

John Wendt Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Your belief that undefined chemical pathways suffices to explain is not good enough for me.

Hey, just because you don't know anything about biochemistry doesn't mean that nobody knows anything. From the reference:

We now know there is nothing in living organisms that disobeys chemical and physical laws.

That would seem to mean no disembodied agents.

The messenger and receiver need not be intelligent agents.

In a chemical reaction it's hard to say which molecule is the messenger and which the receiver. (Do you mean "sender" here?) It's often convenient to talk about "messenger RNA" or "signaling molecules", but that's introducing a teleology that doesn't exist in the chemistry itself.

It's causal genesis perhaps not.

The humorist James Thurber once said that "a pinch of probably is worth a pound of perhaps". Biochemistry has lots and lots of probably. ID has never demonstrated any "perhaps".

This is a philosophical explanation equating information to a mechanical process. Not to be confused with a mindless process.

But this is exactly the confusion that ID lives on.

Dembski does not need a comprehensive theory explaining intelligent functions to implicate an intelligent causal source.

Talk about an unpaid debt…

We're not even asking for a comprehensive theory. Scraps would do. But we don't even get that.

Comment by John Wendt — October 30, 2008 @ 12:28 pm

don provan Says:
November 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
In my view that would indicate that memory too has a trancendent quality.

And don't forget eyes. The eyes must also have a transcendent quality for them to gather the reported observations, right?

Comment by don provan — November 11, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

Guts Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
test

Comment by Guts — November 17, 2008 @ 10:56 pm

don provan Says:
November 18th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
That's a stupid comment.

I agree, it was stupid to bring up space aliens.

You have been objecting to the use of the word symbols because only humans can be associated with it in your view…

No. I objected to it because there were no humans in sight where you wanted to use the term. I thought you were smart enough to understand that "no humans" would naturally imply "no humans or anything else that acts like a human"…

Comment by don provan — November 18, 2008 @ 9:37 pm

steve Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Granville Sewell's anti-evolution Second Law of Thermo comments were so dumb that I actually emailed the physics faculty at University of Texas El Paso what he was saying, and nobody said they would comment on the record about it. They didn't want to call a colleague a complete idiot.

Comment by steve — November 28, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

Raevmo Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
nullasalus:

Alright – then evolutionary theory has been falsified, because horizontal gene transfer circumvents the RM&NS and CD models alike and seems to play a large role in the history of evolution on this planet. We'll just have to call the theory that integrates everything something new. The 'common idea' in ET can be so watered down, it hardly seems to matter.

Too bad you are so ignorant about science in general and ET specifically. So many new contributors to TT, but still nobody with a decent education in science.

It is of course ridiculous to claim that horizontal gene transfer circumvents RM&NS and CD models. There must be thousands of peer-reviewed papers out there (including several of my own) considering the role of horizontal vs vertical gene transfer in evolution (e.g. of parasites and other symbiotic relationships), with very explicit roles for RM/NS and CD.

Comment by Raevmo — December 6, 2008 @ 10:25 pm

don provan Says:
December 11th, 2008 at 6:15 am
This could explain motives behind the paper. Money. Notoriety. Add promotion of one's pet ideology to the mix and you have it.

Sounds like Dembski.

Comment by don provan — December 11, 2008 @ 6:15 am

Zachriel Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Off-Topic

Concerning what is on-topic to a discussion. From the Dark Matter thread.

chunkdz: So you've resorted to "He started it"?

Yes, that is perfectly correct. The original post determines the parameters of the discussion. The first sentence of Bradford's original post was "Intelligent Design is about sneaking ID into public schools."

chunkdz: It's a shame you monkeys can't resist the urge to grab a handful anytime you see the letters I and D together in a sentence… You sit and think about how far you can fling a pawful of crap.

The bad experience you had at the zoo as a kid is decidedly off-topic.

Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2008 @ 2:22 pm

Zachriel Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
That's funny. This is an open thread, meaning a place for off-topic discussions. Yet, my comment about what constitutes on-topic was sent to the Memory Hole.

On second thought. That makes sense. On-topic is not on-topic for an off-topic thread.

The question then is whether a comment about on-topic not being on-topic for an off-topic thread is off-topic enough to qualify for an off-topic thread.

Rabbits Away!

Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2008 @ 2:54 pm

Zachriel Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Guts: Zachriel, don't use my threads, open or otherwise, to post complaints or insult others. Your post was once again thrown in the memory hole.

Let's see, chunkdz accuses me and others of being feces-flinging monkeys. Instead of derailing the thread, I post my reply in an open thread. So, you hole my comments. Sure, that makes sense.

(I thought Rabbit threads were open threads. I would have posted this comment directly to the Memory Hole, but I can't see how that is done.)

Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

Raevmo Says:
December 17th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Mike Gene:

A truly impartial observer would not need to ask such a question. A truly impartial observer would have remembered when I told him there is no such thing as “ID theory.” A truly impartial observer would attempt to accurately gauge the DI position and would thus be able to determine for himself if someone else’s position is different from the DI position.

Mike Gene is really full of himself.

Comment by Raevmo — December 17, 2008 @ 10:29 am

Zachriel Says:
December 17th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Bradford: Really?

In fact it fits staggeringly well!

Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2008 @ 7:56 pm

Zachriel Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
Bradford: Why disrupt a thread with scoffing?

The Douglas Adams' puddle-argument is not scoffing, but a reasonable response to the on-topic question. It's presented as an analogy, "This is rather as if you imagine …" And I note that the discussion of the puddle-argument continued after I was banned. As you banned me, you said,

Bradford: You left out a few thousand events not dictated by constants.

I had just posted my answer to this, but it was lost in the ozone due to the ban. And that is the problem with banning someone, then continuing to argue with them.

Comment by Zachriel — December 22, 2008 @ 9:33 am

olegt Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 am
Bradford wrote:

Right, comments in informal blog settings are not templates for textbooks so my response to olegt would not be labled (sic) a theory.

But that's exactly what you did:

olegt:

There is a significant difference between those theories and ID: the former offered positive predictions that differed from those of an existing theory, while the latter offers none of that.

Here's one. Genomes undergo continous decay in the absence of genomic repair mechanisms. Unless such mechanisms are front loaded we witness an increasing tendency toward loss of function over time. In their absence cellular life is not viable.

Comment by olegt — December 22, 2008 @ 9:45 am

Zachriel Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Bradford, you asked me a direct question.

Bradford: Why disrupt a thread with scoffing?

I wasn't scoffing.

–
The Douglas Adams' puddle-argument is not scoffing, but a reasonable response to the on-topic question. It's presented as an analogy, "This is rather as if you imagine …" And I note that the discussion of the puddle-argument continued after I was banned. As you banned me, you said,

Bradford: You left out a few thousand events not dictated by constants.

I had just posted my answer to this, but it was lost in the ozone due to the ban. And that is the problem with banning someone, then continuing to argue with them.

–
So I have responded to the on-topic question directed at me, and brought it back to the "problem with banning".

Comment by Zachriel — December 22, 2008 @ 10:37 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Bradford: Next time you visit Barnes and Noble or some other well stacked book store note that, contrary to anti-IDist memes, it is primarily non-IDists who author books aimed at the public to make money.

Had to get some scoffing in there, eh? The majority of books are written to make money, even bible printers have to pay the bills. Luckily ID is a small and failed ideology which has nothing to say, so relatively little is written about it. As to bad pop psyc, it is sad to see such drivel peddled to morons as science, but at least they aren't part of an anti-science movement. Once anti-science is defeated then people can move on to fighting against bad science.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — December 23, 2008 @ 12:25 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
FMM is off the deep end again with more deluded semantic non-sense. The flood of persistent and repeated dredge like this is precisely the sort of thing that calls for scoffing. To not scoff at such drivel is to imply that it has some tiny amount of value or worthiness. So I scoff at thee: scoff, scoff.

None the less, to satisfy Larry I'll attempt to probe a bit deeper. Perhaps I can get something more than FMM's typical "repeat myself until everyone else gives up" tactic. The basic argument seems to be that nothing can be supernatural, rather these things just "exceed" the natural without violating the natural. To me it seems like FMM is simply redefining the terms, but to be sure I need to better understand the extra division he’s attempting to define. I defined only two divisions: “natural” and “supernatural”. FMM has three divisions which I will call: “natural”, “extra-natural”, and “supernatural”. Further FMM claims that the supernatural category is empty and therefore doesn’t really exist. My first question, how is your “extra-natural” not actually the same as my “supernatural”? If these nature exceeding events are within natural law, then could humans learn to perform these same “extra-natural” biblical miracles? Or is there some barrier which limits humans for performing these events but doesn't hinder all-might desert sky fairies? Can these extra-natural events be triggered by natural cause and effect? Or can only other extra-natural causes trigger these events?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — December 27, 2008 @ 2:50 pm

Raevmo Says:
January 6th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
chunkdz:

Predictably, I bring you science and you screech and fling poo.

Have you talked to someone about your obsession with poo?

Comment by Raevmo — January 6, 2009 @ 7:34 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Looks like WW is trying to give FMM a run for his money! It's like watching a train wreck, so bad and yet I can't look away.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 15, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

William Wallace Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Who is FFM?

Comment by William Wallace — January 15, 2009 @ 11:34 pm

don provan Says:
January 16th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Yeah, OK, let's ignore Bradford. I agree he's a waste of time.

JJ, can you go into more detail about how we can apply engineering principles to an event without first asking what it involved? Yes, I understand there are lots of unknowns, but how can you apply engineering principles without first resolving or at least conjecturing about those unknowns? You conjectured about RNA and DNA, and that was OK, but Raevmo conjectured about what the initial life forms might involve but using different terms, and suddenly he's showing a lack of understanding of front loading. How does that work?

Forgive me for being honestly puzzled (rather than ignorant or malicious, as Bradford is always ready to claim).

Comment by don provan — January 16, 2009 @ 1:55 pm

olegt Says:
January 20th, 2009 at 9:39 am
nullasalus, you sound positively new agey.

Comment by olegt — January 20, 2009 @ 9:39 am

ID guy Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 9:45 am
ID guy: You cannot specify what mutates other than "the genome".

Well, yes. And the genotype helps determine the phenotype.

At best genotype influences phenotype. It does not determine it.
However I noticed you didn't provide any data which shows you can specify what mutatiuons will occur and which will be selected for.

IOW just as I have stated you don't have any specifics.

For example you cannot specify the mutations or the DNA sequence that was modified in order to get hearing from a population that couldn't hear, ie didn't have a hearing system.

And natural selection hasn't been observed to produce much of anything.

That's a handwaving argument that doesn't address your claim.

Now facts are handwaving?

There isn't any way to predict what will be selected for at any pioint in time .

We can observe the process by which mutation and selection lead to changes in populations. Indeed, we can make many valid scientific predictions, such as in the Lederberg Experiment.

The Lederberg experiment is a form of aRTIFICIAL selection.

So yes if WE choose what lives or dies then we can "predict" what will live or die.

As for scientific methodology- YOU don't understand it. That is because YOU cannot provide a testable hypothesis for non-telic processes.

YOUR position is that ice crystals form on windows therefore living organisms arose by non-telic processes.

IOW you are a complete dolt.

Now try to stay on topic.

I undertsand that is very difficult for someone with your diminished capacity to think and reason. But at least try.

Is design a mechanism?

According to currently accepted definitions of BOTH words, it is.

Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2009 @ 9:45 am

Raevmo Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 11:15 am
nullasalus:

At the end of the day, the only considerable difference between strong 'emergent property' claims and 'dualist' claims of substance or most any other stripe is that the former is supposed to no longer be around once the matter is gone, while the latter's activity is not supposed to be discernible while still existent in the same case.

So at the of the day, you believe in ghosts or you don't.

Comment by Raevmo — January 28, 2009 @ 11:15 am

ID guy Says:
January 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I do want to thank olegt and Zachriel.

They have shown that they will not support their cliams, rather they will distract from that fact by using bait and switch tactics.

But again I do understand. When all you have are such tactics all you can do is use them.

Comment by ID guy — January 29, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

don provan Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Some asserted emergence as explaining the properties of the mind.

Emergence is simply a counter-argument to the dualistic argument, "What else could it be but a supernatural force beyond our investigation?" It is not an explanation, but a denial that an explanation beyond physical processes is logically necessary.

What's missing? The reasoning able to decipher the details of emergence with respect to the issue at hand.

As you know, lot of research is focused on mind/brain issues. That is "deciphing the details of emergence", and it includes the possibility of emergence not being the complete story.

Scientific knowledge does not confer enhanced capacity to reason scientifically.

On the other hand, a lack of scientific knowledge makes scientific reasoning impossible.

"[W]ithout a trained organic chemist on hand to supervise, nature would be struggling to make RNA from a dilute soup under any plausible prebiotic conditions."

A trained organic chemist on hand to supervise nature is equally implausible. So the investigation proceeds by finding previously unknown plausible paths.

Comment by don provan — February 3, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

Raevmo Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
I guess that was an example of Argumentatum ad Shit Happens.

Comment by Raevmo — February 3, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

Raevmo Says:
February 11th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Bradford, TomG wasn't just defining creationism. TomG stated it as his specific belief.

I'm pointing out your lies. I've read DBB and much of Dembski. I've read the OT and NT. They are not the same and the conflation of creation with ID is disingenuous.

ID claims that the same-ole same-ole creator dunnit. I can see why you don't want to call it creationism for purely political reasons. Do I need to bring up the cdesignproponentsists again?

Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

Raevmo Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
chunk:

In the end it's a campaign based on an un-premise. Since atheism has nothing to offer anybody, they have to make up imaginary problems to offer imaginary solutions for. The supposed 'champions of reason' are left to pathetic contrived sensationalism just to sell a few mugs and t-shirts while Jesus is busy changing peoples lives for the better.

So you keep claiming that nobody is afraid of hell, without any evidence. I don't see any reason to believe you. Your charge that the bus ad campaign was a for-profit scam is also entirely unsupported. Jesus is apparently so busy that he needs you to lie for him.

Comment by Raevmo — February 17, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

Raevmo Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Unbelievable. It must be in the middle of the night over there, yet Bradford is still busy deleting comments.

Comment by Raevmo — February 19, 2009 @ 6:38 am

Raevmo Says:
February 20th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Don't feel bad, Don. Chunk is obviously not really interested in honest debate. I wonder why he bothers with his charade, since Jesus can do so much more. These observations will probably get me banned from this thread, but that's life.

Comment by Raevmo — February 20, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

Zachriel Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Bradford: You could be wrong about that Olegt. Why don't you ask Zachriel. He claims to know CSI values.

I am more than open to correction. But no one seems capable of resolving certain ambiguities.

The calcuation the puddle performs is to first determine the complexity of the hole. The typical puddle-hole can only be described by exhaustively detailing all its bumps, meaning the hole is very complex. (We could represent this with a long, non-periodic digital expression.) As the hole is apparently "tuned" to exactly the shape of the puddle, the specification is precisely what is required to fit the puddle "staggeringly well".

χ = –log2 [ 10^120· ϕS(T) · P(T|H) ]

Indeed, the closer the puddle looks at the hole, the more incredible the fit appears to be. For any reasonable resolution of a typical puddle-hole, the CSI exceeds the Universal Probability Bound.

Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

Bradford Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Bradford: You could be wrong about that Olegt. Why don't you ask Zachriel. He claims to know CSI values.

Zachriel: I am more than open to correction. But no one seems capable of resolving certain ambiguities.

Your confusion is of your own making. You really should make the effort to represent what Dembski actually claims. Quoting:

Whenever we infer design, we must establish three things: contingency, complexity and specification. Contingency ensures that the object in question is not the result of an automatic and therefore unintellgent process that had no choice in its production. Complexity ensures that the object is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance. Finally, specification ensures that the object exhibits the type of pattern characteristic of intelligence.- William Dembski; Intelligent Design; Page 128.

When you contrast a puddle with an irrigation ditch you find the latter has contingency, complexity and specification. Most hollowed out portions of ground hosting puddles are traced to natural processes like erosion and do not have contingency. Most puddles are readily explained by a combination of chance occurences. Finally, puddles do not show patterns characteristic of intelligence. You don't need exact quantification data to distinguish obvious contrasts like males and females or puddles and irrigation ditches.

Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

The Pixie Again Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Bradford

You just eliminated yourself as a serious debater.

How very convenient that you managed to contrive this excuse. Now you do not have to confront the obvious inconsistencies in your holy book.

It is particularly pathetic as it was you who said "That's not what Luke wrote" with regards to Luke 3:23. Did Luke write it or not?

Do not worry, Bradford, that was a rhetorical question. I have no doubt you will find some way to rationalise why you do not need to answer that question.

Comment by The Pixie Again — March 3, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

Bradford Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Quoting from Raevmo's anonymous Wiki source:

The Early Christian tradition attributes the Gospel to Matthew, one of Jesus' disciples. This tradition of authorship dates from the writings of Papias in the first half of the second century AD. [1][2] Beginning in the 18th century, however, critical scholars have increasingly questioned whether Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name.[3].

So 18 centuries after the events obscure scholars invent a theory based on their personal incredulity. Impressive.

Most contemporary scholars describe the author as an anonymous Christian writing towards the end of the first century. [4] According to Howard Clark Kee, it appears that Jesus' teachings and sayings were handed down orally until they were eventually written down. This theory is partly based upon "the fact that other, later Christian writings include sayings attributed to Jesus that resemble those in the gospels, but for which there is no exact equivalent." [20]

Kee is a moron. Earliest extant manuscript fragments date back to the first century and numerous manuscripts in different languages date from the folllowing two centuries. Despite the linguistic differences the writings are essentially the same. Who needs an oral tradition when a written one predates it?

Comment by Bradford — March 3, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
March 4th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
What would be the fun of working with stem cells if they don't have little souls? That's why Obama shouldn't break his promise.

Just like anyone who dies then, right?
Like a mom who died because of cancer. Stupid little soul having to make us feel bad for her.

Comment by GringoRoyale — March 4, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
March 4th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Ah Chunk, continuing to keep up the fine standards of excellence here at TT, I see. You're a hoot.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 4, 2009 @ 11:26 pm

Raevmo Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
God, how Chunk had missed that feeling. It had been almost exactly 9 days, 6 hours and 3 minutes since Dr Behe last wrapped his hairy arms around Chunk’s slightly obese thighs in the very same toilet of the truck stop. “Please tell me again how many children you have, Dr Behe. I love me some kids”, Chunk begged with his squeaky voice, while his face was hovering over the dirty toilet bowl. The smell turned him on even more. He was about to receive that magnificently designed organ once again, and he quivered with anticipation. “Nine”, Dr Behe answered while he delivered the first thrust. As usual, Chunk passed out and an hour later he found himself lying alone on the sticky floor, a greasy twenty dollar bill tucked in his shorts. What a great day.

Comment by Raevmo — March 12, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

chunkdz Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Quite the romantic, Raevmo. LOL!

Comment by chunkdz — March 12, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
chunk:

This does not sound like someone who had ever encountered God.

Please tell us a bit about your latest meeting with God.

Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I liked this part…

Nothing cramps one’s causal powers like not existing.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 4, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
nullasalus:

As for me, I'll reserve judgment for now. I'm just doing a little bit of that thar "thought provokin" I've heard so much about.

I was hoping Fodor's paper might have provoked some of your own thoughts and that you would be so generous as to offer us your thoughts for contemplation. But then, I understand all too well it can be very scary to stick out one's neck and risk being shown wrong.

Comment by Raevmo — April 4, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 19th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Pez:

ACORN used CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards.

Hahaha. It has nothing to do with greedy bankers and their pyramid schemes. No, it's the social engineers, the godless communists who are to blame for the crisis. And Jesus was raised from the dead, and I have a bridge to Brooklyn for sale.

Comment by Raevmo — April 19, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Bradford, you forgot to answer this question:

Maybe so, but is there any evidence that children raised by same-sex couples perform worse according some relevant measures?

Bradford:

Except that the arguments for gay marriage- discrimination and the touchy feely (makes people feel bad because they can't get "married") apply to these other marrage possibilities. Why discriminate against those with multiple partners? Mary loves her chimp and wants to have society legally formalize a relationship. You can't discriminate can you Raevmo?

If you're against gay marriage because it would discriminate against polygamy and inter-species marriage, then you should also be against marriage of same-sex couples. Your own argument undermines your own case.

Let's be honest here: the main reason why you're against gay marriage is because some primitive desert dwellers >2Ky ago hated homos and wrote that down in some book which you consider the final arbiter of what's wrong and right. There is no rational reason to deny same-sex couples the same rights as straight couples.

There are rational reasons to be against polygamous marriages. One being that many males (or much less likely, many females) will end up without a partner, which tends to make them unhappy and become unproductive members of society. We see this already in China, where the one-child policy combined with a cultural preference for sons has led to an unbalanced adult sex ratio, with many adverse consequences for society (kidnapping of scarce young women for example).

Comment by Raevmo — April 27, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

Alan Fox Says:
May 13th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Then let's talk.

read this first!!!

Comment by Alan Fox — May 13, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

Zachriel Says:
May 14th, 2009 at 9:25 am
nullasalus: Or as I like to call it, the "All major sides in the ID debate are wrong" theory.

That's not quite an accurate parallel. Many ID Advocates incorrectly claim scientific support for the claim of teleology. An ID Advocate claiming that evolutionary mechanisms (in this universe) are not capable of generating adaptive structures is not equivalent to someone pointing out the fallacy of that position. Indeed, most of the ID Movement concerns such false scientific claims.

However, I would agree that many flavors of metaphysics can be seen as more-or-less equivalent as long as they don't include false claims about science. (To clarify this point, the universe may be 6000 years old, but the claim that there is scientific evidence to support this position is false.)

nullasalus: Short and highly skeptical summary: "Quantum woo."

Not that there is anything wrong with woo.

Comment by Zachriel — May 14, 2009 @ 9:25 am

Raevmo Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Kornbelt:

Is there an absolute moral imperative despite anyone's opinion?

If so, from where or what?

Why do you care? Unless you curse the holy spirit, your eternal place in heaven is secured. You might as well go on a rampage and kill all your neighbors, you will be forgiven if you repent.

You are just a soul inhabiting a bunch of molecules for a very short time compared to the eternal time you will spend next to Jesus. How do you imagine you will spend that infinite amount of time next to your hero?

Comment by Raevmo — May 28, 2009 @ 5:40 pm

aiguy Says:
May 28th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Rock, not only have you failed the test… but you have cheated! Tsk, tsk.

Looking over your exam, you seem to have simply left your answers blank: Can you aim your static electricity at high points on the Earth, the way clouds do – especially at church steeples? I thought not – you're just not smart enough. And even better: Can you match the intelligence of soap film by calculating minimum spanning trees? Oooh, not even close. Sorry!

Yet you pretended to pass the test… that speaks poorly of your integrity. To the principal's office!

Comment by aiguy — May 28, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

Zachriel Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Bradford: Saddam was resposible for the murder and torture of millions.

Saddam's was a brutal regime. For instance, nearly a million died in the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam justified all his bruality as necessary for national security.

The United States claimed WMD as the legal justification for the invasion. It was a disaster for the Iraqi people.

Bradford: The point of North Korea having nules and firing missiles at will is that this is taking place under Obama's watch.

They became a nuclear power during the Bush Administration.

Bradford: The world is not becoming a safer place.

We agree on that.

Zachriel: The system is broken, and the treasury is empty.

Bradford: You can't complain the treaury is empty and then spend trillions at an unprecedented rate.

You keep missing the point. Your partner pilfered the money and now you have to go to the bank and sign the note in order to save your home. The worst part is that he's probably in the islands somewhere laying on the beach drinking piña coladas. You may shake your fist, but you still have to pay the bill.

Bradford: We have a safety net in place.

Indeed, the (very minimal) safety net is a stimulus. That includes FDIC and other regulatory mechanisms which can directly inject cash into the system.

Bradford: The contemporary spending, aimed at stimulating the economy, is not stimulating the economy.

The first portion, during the Bush Administration, was just to stabilize the banks. The stimulus proper has yet to have most of its impact.

In any case, I would like some acknowledgement that you understand the basic concept of how an economy can enter an accelerating downward spiral. People stop spending because they are worried about the future. This causes a decrease in business activity. People get laid off which causes a reduction in spending. Investors pull out of markets. There are runs on banks which have to close their doors. Etc. The purpose of the stimulus is to stave off the collapse of the markets.

Bradford: I'm not advocating a strict budgetary balance. That however does not mean that removing all spending constraints makes sense.

I agree. The hard part will be changing directions once the economy is moving again. There is a great deal of natural resistance to taxes and spending cuts, but bringing the budget back into line is essential. Remember surpluses in 2000. The salad days so long ago.

Comment by Zachriel — June 4, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

Raevmo Says:
June 11th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
When cornered bring up OOL. You are so predictable, Bradford. So boring that almost nobody visits TT anymore ever since you took charge and let simpletons like Chunkdz play a major role here.

Comment by Raevmo — June 11, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

Raevmo Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
At least fmm linked to some research, unlike Bradford.

From fmm's link:

I conducted a review of all the studies I could locate which assessed sexual preference in homosexually parented children. I had only two criteria for inclusion in my review:

First, the authors of the study had to be pro-homosexual researchers, otherwise I was concerned that critics would simply disregard the results. And second, I only sought studies that utilized subjects 18 years of age or older, since many individuals don't self-identify as non-heterosexual until after that age (Patterson, 1992). Unfortunately, few studies met the minimum 18-years-of-age criteria. So, in order to maximize the number of studies in my survey, I included studies with subjects as young as 14 years of age. Because of the inclusion of studies with such young subjects, the reported percentages of non-heterosexual children may be under-estimates.

[my bold]

I wonder how Hansen identified the authors of the studies as "pro-homosexual". Did he ask them? What is pro-homosexual anyway? Is it the same as anti-heterosexual?

Anyway, Hansen concludes that (very) roughly 15% of individuals with one or more gay parents (usually one) self-identify as non-heterosexual.

Even if all gays suddenly started to raise children, it would hardly increase the number of gays in the population, seeing as 85% of gays must apparently have been raised by straight couples. Of course there are also plenty of closeted gays raised by straight parents, which are overlooked by such studies. Sometimes these people write gay porn on blogs, but they go otherwise unnoticed.

But my question to Bradford was whether he had any evidence that children raised by gay couples fare worse than children raised by straight couples. I still haven't seen such evidence, unless it is assumed that being gay is bad. Or is he worried that the number of Republican politicians would increase?

Comment by Raevmo — June 12, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

don provan Says:
June 16th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Gravity does not offer any means of distinguishing between undisputed design or indisputable natural origins. I believe that was Daniel's original point.

And Zachriel's point was that we, nonetheless, accept the natural explanation. That's because, in the case of gravity at least, we recognize that the intelligence of the hypothetical angels adds nothing to the explanation.

Comment by don provan — June 16, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
June 17th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
You do not have to be a theist to understand biology of course but if you analyze origin dilemnas theism offers the advantage of linking the origin of genetic codes to a source with cognitive properties.

Haha, the made up invisible unprovable sky fairy advantage. I suppose a theory of Intelligent String Vibration would be superior to theism in explaining the universe then, see the strings vibrate because God is playing a cosmic violin. This theory matches empiric observation more than theistic theories and has Bradford's "linked to the imaginary" advantage to boot!. Its obvious really.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 17, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

don provan Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Bradford: That's why the Gedankenexperiment takes place on another planet uninhabited by humans. You're free to believe that a detailed sculpture found on that planet is indeterminable with respect to design.

It takes place on another planet, yet what is used to identify the intelligent origin is things reflecting our experience with humans. The face can be recognized as a cross between a human and a bear. If the face looked like an eroded hill, you'd miss it.

What's being shown is that we can identify things that look like things humans do. A given. Despite the claims to the contrary, what isn't being shown is some ability to detect intelligent design inately. The example is selected because the actual intelligent design is a given. This is intended to make us think that identifying human-like things always shows intelligent design, but logically that conclusion doesn't actually follow from the example. If it were intelligently designed, then in some cases we could identify characteristics typical of human design. The converse does not follow: even if we identify characteristics of human design, we still cannot conclude intelligent design by those characteristics alone.

Comment by don provan — June 22, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Yeah, I guess teaching critical thinking is fundamentality an atheist anti-theistic action. Learning to think is obviously an "indoctrination" every bit as much as miming dogma and embracing fairy tales. That does explain a lot, thanks for opening my eyes.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 12:44 am

Raevmo Says:
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Bradford:

You don't have diddly on the origin of life and if you don't know that you need a better education.

This is how every "discussion" with Bradford ends, not matter what the subject of the OP: you don't have diddly on OOL.

What's your education, Bradford?

Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2009 @ 4:40 pm

Raevmo Says:
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Perhaps interesting for chunkdz:

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Link

Comment by Raevmo — July 3, 2009 @ 4:46 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Raevmo: Don't worry mate, I'll just laugh at your combination of ignorance and arrogance that is so typical of the deluded.

We should feel lucky, its not every day one gets to encounter such a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Thank you mayan for providing this psychology demonstration.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 5, 2009 @ 11:51 am

hrun Says:
July 11th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Bradford wrote in another thread:

Hrun you are a moron. If you or anyone else wants to prove that my caim is erroneous you can do so. There is nothing to admit to jerk.

Bradford, I think it is fine that you ban me from a thread that has become uncomfortable to you. But it is a little embarrassing that you don't have the guts to at least memory hole our exchange, but rather make it disappear completely. It wouldn't have something to do with the fact that rather than supporting your claim you resort to name-calling?

Comment by hrun — July 11, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

Satolep Says:
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 am
Daniel says:

This is not about whether or not God exists. Believers know he exists. God could do whatever he wants – he could allow natural forces to do what they do unaided, so his existence is not the issue. The issue is whether one interprets the evidence from a framework of creation or not. That decision is based on beliefs – on both sides.

Just what is it that believers know? Believers know? I'd think if they knew, they would be knowers. IMHO, they believe that they know. It is a fact that people may believe in the most absurd things, like the Holocaust never happened or that the moon landings never happened.

WRT evolution, there are in fact lots and lots of real facts, artifacts, evidence, and 150 years of science confirming the fact of evolution. Remains just the religious question: Nature or supernature? We have yet to see any evidence for supernature. Suggest ID looks for evidence.

Is the inability to see the dots connected evidence that the dots are not connected?

I find Daniel's god a rather strange character. His omniscience strikes me as rather peculiar: He not only knows what may be known, he also knows everything that never was, never have been – even things that never will be. Is it conceivable that even before the universe was created and given time to evolve, he knew what it would become, enabling him to create life? Life, nothing never before seen, and yet he knew exactly how to make it, how he wanted it to be? Why did he do that?

Magic is a powerful tool but is magic possible? How come we are unable to detect magic at work? Isn't magic like effect without a cause, is that possible?

I suggest that to an extent surpassing that of Daniel's knowledge that God exists, we know that evolution is an expression of natural forces at work. There is evidence for that, what is the evidence for magic?

Comment by Satolep — July 23, 2009 @ 5:10 am

Raevmo Says:
July 29th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I just love chunkdz' contributions. Nobody is better at exposing the vacuity of ID than her. Thanks and good night!

Comment by Raevmo — July 29, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

The Pixie Again Says:
July 31st, 2009 at 10:43 am
Bradford

Zachriel: Positing fairies to explain an anomaly is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

TomG: Has it occurred to you just how painfully obvious that is, and that a mistake that obvious is probably not one that a philosopher at CU, or any of the scientists or supporters of ID would be making?

Pix: Could you explain to me how this is different to ID?

Brad: Here's a clue for the geniuses that post comments here. Fairies are not posited as causal sources by IDists. They are used to form dishonest caricatures by those more interested in attaboys from fellow obstructionists than in truth.

So you are saying that the big difference between positing an intelligent designer to explain an anomaly and positing fairies is that former is done by IDists, while the latter is merely a caricature? Are you seriously suggesting that Monton, a philosopher professor at University of Colorado at Boulder, determines whether a hypothesis is science by considering who proposed it and why, rather than troubling themselves with predictions, testing and evidence?

Bradford, you do make it easy for us sometimes.

Now, come on. Pull your socks up, and think. What really is the difference between positing an intelligent designer to explain an anomaly and positing fairies? Why do you think one is science and one is not? What do you think Monton thinks?

Hmm, what do you think Behe would say, after admitting in court that for him astrology is science?

Comment by The Pixie Again — July 31, 2009 @ 10:43 am

don provan Says:
August 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 am
Bradford: Core Christian values center around the belief that Christ died, in the manner specified by the Gospels, as an atoning sacrifice for sin. The divinity of Christ is also a core element.

Exactly. FMM referenced an article describing shifting between sects as evidence against indoctrination, but I was pointing out that it was perfectly consistent with indoctrination of these core values.

I've been part of different denominations but all shared these core values. In my case indoctrination makes no sense. The same applies for many others.

Indoctrination in those core values makes perfect sense, based on the fact that you've been a Christian. As I've mentioned, it doesn't prove indoctrination, but you seem to be thinking along with FMM that switching denominations is evidence against being indoctrinated with these core values. It's no such thing.

I opted for Christianity because I believed the claims.

Someone indoctrinated also believes the claims. That's the point of indoctrination.

I'm not a good candidate for your indoctrination theme.

Perhaps not. I'd have to hear your whole story. But, anyway, the point isn't that every Christian is Christian because of the indoctrination, only that indoctrination is part of the program.

(Again, this really can't be denied. It's just an observation of the techniques used in Christian practices, not a claim made based on the fact that people are Christian.)

But I have to admit, the core values you listed don't strike me as the ones someone that took an intellectual approach to Christianity would consider the most important. Instead, I would expect your relation to God to be primary, the implications of that on your relation with the universe, including your relations with other people, to be second, and the specific details of Christ dying for your sins and being resurrected important only to illustrate and justify the former. By listing them first, it sounds a like you swallowed the hook.

And the fact that you underscore not questioning the specifics as presented by the Bible — "in the manner specified by the Gospels" — is, to me, a key sign of indoctrination, not intellectual consideration.

I admit I could be wrong. But can you admit that even if you really were indoctrinated, you'd deny it just as you are? In other words, can you understand that if you were Christian primarily because of Christian indoctrination, you wouldn't realize it?

Comment by don provan — August 2, 2009 @ 4:34 am

nanosoliton Says:
August 11th, 2009 at 10:20 am
preview1

Comment by nanosoliton — August 11, 2009 @ 10:20 am

don provan Says:
August 27th, 2009 at 3:24 am
Daniel Smith: I don't remember saying that they haven't. I'd be interested to see research that follows this line of reasoning if you or anyone else here knows of any.

I'm glad you appreciate that this line of research may actually have been done. I would go so far as to say that it almost certainly has been done. If it has been done, then the only plausible reason neither of us have heard about it is because the results weren't very interesting, most likely because the research revealed that treating biological systems as if they were artifacts produced by intelligent agents really didn't make that much sense. It seems as if that line of reasoning were a productive line, we'd be innudated with people celebrating the result, wouldn't we?

A design theorist would probably use a different approach than one who thought these "designs" happened by accidental mechanisms – especially regarding the replication of the design process.

What might have kept "design theorists" from entering the field? And what makes a "design theorist" more capable than any other researcher of approaching the question the right way? If that approach were fruitful, wouldn't anyone researching the field become a design theorist?

Comment by don provan — August 27, 2009 @ 3:24 am

Zachriel Says:
August 30th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
nullasalus: You have three options. A) Provide the scientific test and result that demonstrated God's non-existence and/or God's inaction in evolution, B) Concede that no such test exists, or is possible in principle, C) Enjoy your threadban.

nullasalus: I ask Zach a point-blank question and he answers with a question and a punt.

There is no questionmark there. That wasn't a question; it was a demand. Please define "God" as you used it above.

nullasalus: "God did it all 6000 years ago" involves claims that can be investigated to a large degree – but the "God did it" part cannot.

Not only did many scholars think the Earth was only a few thousand years old, but they also believed that species were created kinds and immutable. And that was the environment Darwin found himself in. He had to answer those objections. More importantly, the modern Theory of Evolution has come a long way since Darwin's day. Other than cultural ID, there is no scientific argument about the mutability of species.

nullasalus: "truly random"

To be "truly random" would mean to be uncorrelated with respect to every possible influence, even those we don't know about or can't detect. Similarly with "truly unguided", which would mean unguided by every possible influence, even those we don't know about or can't detect.

Comment by Zachriel — August 30, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

don provan Says:
September 8th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Sal,

Sorry, that's your job. My point was simply that there is no possitive support. As it happens, I'd also claim that positive support for ID, as currently presented, is inherently impossible. So it's silly to ask me what it would look like.

So since you're asking me for ideas, I take it you agree that there is currently no positive support for ID?

Comment by don provan — September 8, 2009 @ 10:56 pm

don provan Says:
September 26th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Bradford: In short they are focused on areas where explanations are inconclusive and must therefore entail some personal opinions thrown into the mix.

My job is to point out where your personal opinions are leading you to conclusions based only on your personal opinions.

What is illogical is the concession that explanations are lacking juxtaposed to claims that opinions being asserted by the gang of five are authoratative.

I've explained to you many tims that I am asserting no claims. I certainly don't pretend I'm an authority on anything. No, I'm really sorry, but you have to deal with the fact that I really am pointing out problems in your thinking. I'm a coach. You can't pretend I'm pitching for another team. I have no personal opinions on the matter and have no vested interest in any conclusion.

Comment by don provan — September 26, 2009 @ 3:38 pm

don provan Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
ID guy: That does not answer the question and there isn't anything except for intentional design that can predict such a thing.

How does "intentional design" predict such a thing? Or maybe a better way to ask the question is, "What does 'intentional design' not predict?"

You say intentional design is the only thing that can predict such a thing, but why can't magic predict such a thing?

Comment by don provan — November 5, 2009 @ 1:27 pm

ID guy Says:
November 11th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Yse Zachriel, by calling you a crack-whore Joe G has done an injustice towards crack-whores as they are more credible and honest than you will ever be.

Comment by ID guy — November 11, 2009 @ 8:24 am

don provan Says:
November 17th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Bradford: We do not use experimentation…

Now who's grossly oversimplifying science?

Legal evidentiary standards. That's not science.

The metaphysical underpinnings are the same.

Comment by don provan — November 17, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

Jupiter Says:
November 28th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Well you've been perfectly backed into a corner on this thread. I don't mind you moving on for lack of time or too many conversations. But that you've engaged me elsewhere, unsolicited, suggests something else.

Comment by Jupiter — November 28, 2009 @ 11:07 am

Bradford Says:
December 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
This one's for you TP.

Comment by Bradford — December 12, 2009 @ 1:44 pm

nickmatzke Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
See, this is good old-fashioned TT fare here.

I have read Signature in the Cell. There are many problems with the argument, here is one. Meyer says that "information" — sequence-specific function — is densely concentrated in the DNA genome:

"Thus, far from being dispersed sparsely, haphazardly, and inefficiently within a sea of nonfunctional sequences (one that supposedly accumulated by mutation), functional genetic information is densely concentrated on the DNA molecule." (p. 461)

"Far from containing a preponderance of "junk" — nonprotein-coding regions that supposedly perform no function — the genome is dominated by sequences rich in functional information." (p. 461)

Furthermore, says Meyer, not only is this established truth, but it is a prediction of ID theory, and furthermore it was predicted by ID advocates a decade or more ago:

"The genome does display evidence of past viral insertions, deletions, transpositions, and the like, much as digital software copied again and again acumulates errors. Nevertheless, the vast majority of base sequences in the genome, and even the many sequences that do not code for proteins, serve essential biological functions. Genetic signal dwarfs noise, just as design advocates would expect and just as they predicted in the early 1990s." (p. 461)

However, at numerous places in the book, Meyer notes (correctly) that repetitive sequences have little information:

"Since information and improbability are inversely related, high-probability repeating sequences like ABCABCABCABCABCABC have very little information (either carrying capacity or content). And this makes sense too. Once you have seen the first triad of ABCs, the rest are "redundant"; they convey nothing new. They aren't informative. Such sequences aren't complex either. Why? A short algorithm or set of commands could easily generate a long sequence of repeating ABCs, making the sequence compressible." (p. 107)

Unfortunately for Meyer, he seems to not realize that 40-50% of the human genome (and most animal genomes of similar size) consists of LINEs, SINEs, segmental duplications, and other repeating elements. As documented here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hmg&part=A642

In other words, there is no way that in "the vast majority" of the genome genetic information is "densely concentrated" — as proven by his own arguments!

QED.

Comment by nickmatzke — December 31, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

cerebate Says:
January 7th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
@chunkdz

Uhh, yeah, because I was the one who used the term and therefore established the context. Stop being obtuse.

Uhh the context you used it first was different from the context you use it now. In the sense you use secular now, breathing is a secular activity , walking is a secular activity.(Though I doubt you have ever used the term secular breathing)
I'd tell you to stop being stupid, but some things cant be fixed.

And beatings kill children regularly. Is there some point to your meandering?

Ah changing the goalpost are we? Punching a child different from killing them.

You think teaching kids that they will have an arranged marriage is child abuse?

Pathetic. Do you think they are taught about arranged marriage?

If it's abuse, the courts will send them to jail, and this has already happened to many of the people you are referring to.

No this has only happened when the girls were underage. the court is powerless when the girl is 16 years old. It the indoctrination at a young age to accept her fate is the abuse I'm referring to, a point you keep avoiding.
for the last time , is that indoctrination wrong or not?

I'm not sure why you thought this was controversial or provocative or even pertinent.

Its relevant to what can or cannot be taught to children and to their upbringing. I never claimed it was relevant to russels post, and since I dont see your original post as relevant to Russels, I dont see the problem here.

He is more terrified about losing on abortion, euthanasia, contraceptives, fetal stem cells, cloning, and the "rampant dominionist movement that wants to establish an American Theocracy".

When you use the term terried , you project your feelings.

I've also concluded that most of the horrible things are done because of a single human emotion – fear.

A pretty simplistic view. So the fundamentalist mormon who abuses 16 year old is, I dont know afraid of her. Yes that must be it. No wait he must be afraid that he is.. I dont know.. suggestions?
its also telling that religion with its concept of hell and eternal damnation and punishments must be trying to I dont know, foster love?

Do you happen to know anything about this "rampant Dominionist movement" that has Russell biting his nails and wringing his hands?

All I know is the attempts by religion to interfere with government are on the rise, and that must be nipped in the bud.

Comment by cerebate — January 7, 2010 @ 11:48 pm

Joy Says:
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:06 am
Lies that come with official governmental stamps of approval and go into your kids' history books at school are sometimes almost believable. The more technical a subject and questions related to it, the easier it is to pull off a whopper.

Both the Kemeny and Rogovin Commissions to investigate the accident at TMI reported a sequence of events that included a successful scram at 8 seconds into The Event. Further explanation of what that means, with due sections in the TATF report volumes, listed the number of fuel and control rods in the TMI-2 reactor. Described them, explained their purpose and control processes. TMI-2 had 69 control rods in 8 groups. Both Commissions concluded that 69 of 69 control rods fell.

Our contention from the beginning was that not all the rods fell – scram failure. An accident type nobody talked about much, but which had happened a few times over the years. Twice in the 1950s at a Canadian test reactor at Chalk River. At which a young Naval officer named Jimmy Carter served in recovery. Another unbelievable coincidence…

None of the press or anti-nuclear groups we contacted were able to parse the details on something so technical. Nobody ever realized that if the scram failed, the ENTIRE story changes (and gets a lot scarier). Not evacuating the public as required by federal regulation when general emergency was declared was nothing short of a crime against humanity. Like a war crime.

They could try and pretend they didn't know, still try to blame it on the operators. But if I knew it, the operators in the control room knew it. It was right there on the heads-up graphic display. We couldn't 'prove' scram failure, we just could report what we knew and supply evidence we could document (releases, doses in the aftermath, and coverup). So 69 of 69 is still the official story, even though Met-Ed/GPU let loose of the information in 1982 that 8 of those 69 rods didn't fall after all…

69 – 8 = 61. We produced this in 1985 after getting the GEND report via a Freedom of Information request, but had sent out a basic version when the AP article appeared that raised enough ruckus to generate the GEND report…

Small-break LOCA [and pressure leak], total loss of feedwater (heat exchange) for 8 minutes (steam generators boiled dry at 2 minutes), scram failure at core central, hot leg's off the scale. To a nuke, that's horrifying – worst nightmare territory. To most regular people, it's a big shrug.

We delivered our reports to Congress and the NRC (with testimony) in 1985. That was our job at TMI as reporting agents for the subcontractor under provision of 10.CFR.21. Then we did something else with our lives. But it felt kind of good when we got that GEND report to just say "I told you so." That's the last we heard about it until 1995, when we were contacted by agents of the plaintiffs in that federal class action suit with 2000+ claimants. They threatened subpoena, we gathered up old files and came up with backup for expected testimony about releases (where we were assigned). The suit was dismissed when defendants succeeded in having all expert witnesses for the plaintiffs stricken. Because the evidence didn't support the official story of "No Harm To The General Public."

Hardly anyone who wasn't there cares one way or the other. It was 30 years ago. The Magic Bullet was 47 years ago. Lots of 'blue ribbon commissions' have come and gone. History is written by the winners – or just The Powers That Be. But experiencing something like that (and living to tell the tale) doesn't make for much automatic trust of The Powers That Be. About anything they're pontificating on today. Especially the big Events. There's always a lot you won't ever be told, and maybe wouldn't understand if you did hear about it. History books are simple, events seldom get more than a paragraph or two. Reality is seldom so simple.

It's been nearly ten years since 9-11. Before you know it we'll be marking 15, 20 years… and eventually it'll be as publicly forgotten as 12-7. That's the way of things. You'll always remember vividly where you were on 9-11-01, just as I will, and always vividly remember where I was the on 11-22-63. 4-4-68. 6-6-68. 8-9-74. 3-28-79. But no matter what anybody says (or how they were connected), the official lie will never change. Hardly anybody believes in Magic Bullets these days. It just doesn't matter anymore, so who cares?

But a dose of actual history doesn't hurt on occasion. Particularly when things get as weird as they are now. You guys act like it's something new, or are orthodoxy robots or something. Believe me, things are way more twisted than you (and recorded history) would like to admit. Keep your salt lick handy…

I see unrest in the country, and I see plenty of reason for it. I think we are being mightily manipulated, because us finding common ground is THEIR worst nightmare. We are all of us The People. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to remember that and not let FoxNews or MSNBC distract us into believing otherwise.

Good night. And thanks for letting me post this here. That's refreshing.

Comment by Joy — January 23, 2010 @ 1:06 am

Zachriel Says:
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
Zachriel: How gradually? After all, you're advocating that little old ladies and disabled vets take a cut in their meager stipends.

Bradford: Reduction in the rate of spending growth can precede actual spending cuts. A partial freeze would have that effect or one pegged to the rate of inflation.

That's all well and good, but you didn't answer the question. People would want to know the benefit of cutting benefits to disabled veterans and retirees. (Even if spending is only frozen, the increase in the population of these groups means that individual benefits would decrease.)

Bradford: Little old ladies are also adversely impacted by inflation, poorly managed economies etc.

That's true, but we can't see if your proposed solution is worth putting the burden on the least of these rather than the wealthy.

Bradford: It's all Bush did this and Bush did that with him even if he links to sources indicating that excess spending, often voted for by liberals, can be implicated.

It's a fact that Clinton left surpluses, while Bush ran up deficits then crashed the economy on the way out the door. It would behoove to remember the lesson of that catastrophe. Nevertheless, the economy should be repaired. That means short term deficits due to stimulus spending, then spending cuts and taxes once the economy recovers.

Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2010 @ 11:23 am

olegt Says:
February 5th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Joe, I suggest that you drop the topic of nested hierarchies. You don't understand the concept and if you have been unable to learn this stuff in a year or so, it's not worth trying. There are other things in life.

Comment by olegt — February 5, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

Tom MH Says:
February 5th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
olegt: I don't think Joe makes any distinction between added and additive. He seems to use these terms interchangeably

He is so busy trying to confuse his perceived opponents that he succeeds in only confusing himself.

Comment by Tom MH — February 5, 2010 @ 9:03 pm

olegt Says:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Joe the Plumber takes on the scientific establishment. Complains that no one understands him. Calls it a day.

Film at 11.

Comment by olegt — February 16, 2010 @ 11:13 am

ID guy Says:
February 16th, 2010 at 11:20 am
trollegt the loser blows stuff out of his you know what and calls it a day.

No news here. Move along…

Also the day that Zachriel, you and david are the scientific establishment is the last day of earth's existence.

However it is obvious that neither of you three understands what I am saying.

That could be because you didn't read what I posted or you are just too stupid to understand what I posted.

Comment by ID guy — February 16, 2010 @ 11:20 am

Zachriel Says:
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 am
Bradford: There is no plausible science related to the central issue- this treaty will change the climate by lowering temperatures this much (a precise and tight range) and here are specific predictions tying CO2 levels to temperature (no cheating this time).

You have been provided detailed estimates in other threads, but here are some graphs that might make the predictions based on human responses (scenarios) easier to understand.

Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 8:32 am

Bradford Says:
February 27th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Dawkins in lock step with a long line of intolerant atheists. It comes with the territory. Freedom and atheism are incompatible.

Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2010 @ 2:02 pm

ID guy Says:
February 28th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
And then we have run-of-the-mill scientists like olegt who can only throw stones from the cheap seats.

Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 6:44 pm

olegt Says:
March 1st, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Joe,

You claimed to have read "at least 100 papers on the formation of stars, planets and solar systems." That's an obvious lie. You haven't read even one. If you had, you'd know that planetary nebulae consist mostly of hydrogen (73%) and helium (24%). The rest of the elements make up a mere 2%.

Comment by olegt — March 1, 2010 @ 2:04 pm

ID guy Says:
March 1st, 2010 at 2:50 pm
olegt,

Man are you ever dishonest and unstable.

You said something about planets and stars forming from a hydrogen cloud.

That is obviously a bogus claim- I called you on it and you supported my claim.

Now you want to turn that around to try to make it that I was the one who messed up.

YOU never claimed anything about planetary nebula- YOU said hydrogen cloud.

You move the goal-post like a little chicken-shit and then say that I lied.

You are a dishonest goal-post mover with no shame.

Bradford- I would like to complain about oleg's low-life behaviour.

Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 2:50 pm

ID guy Says:
March 1st, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Start here

olegt said:
astronomers learned how stars and planets form out of hydrogen clouds.

Planets form from the left-overs of supernovae- which contain much, much more than hydrogen-

IOW the nebula that are alleged to form planets are not hydrogen clouds.

So olegt throws a hissy fit and then provides a reference that shows planetary nebula are much, much more than hydrogen clouds- just as I had claimed, and calls me a liar.

I nominate olegt "Crackpot of the Year"…

Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

ID guy Says:
March 1st, 2010 at 3:00 pm
olegt,

Your instability is on display for all to see.

I would advise you to take a week off- at least a week.

Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

ID guy Says:
March 1st, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Oh where, oh where
Has our Zach-ri-el gone

Oh where, oh where
Can he be?

Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

ID guy Says:
April 9th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Zachriel:
You didn't quote Zachriel.

Zachriel is a slippery little snake who goes out of its way not to say anything.

However Zachriel always refers to the scientific consensus- so that is what I cited.

Comment by ID guy — April 9, 2010 @ 7:00 am

ID guy Says:
May 7th, 2010 at 7:55 am
olegt:
Yes, Mike, I'm confused.

No, you're just a jerk and a crackpot…

Comment by ID guy — May 7, 2010 @ 7:55 am

Bradford Says:
May 13th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
RichardtHughes:

We CAN'T detect ~~bad~~ design in biology without independent knowledge of the designer

Which of course speaks against ID as a hypothesis.

ID is a hypothesis? Like abiogenesis is a hypothesis right? Bad design arguments are theological. The identity of the designer is not hidden. The point of a bad design argument is to debunk God. Tards know that. Are you as smart as a tard Richard?

Comment by Bradford — May 13, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

Richardthughes Says:
May 24th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Sal, Sal, Sal. When they catch you tapping your foot in the stall or with a young man carring your luggage on vacation, they'll beat you with your own words.

Comment by Richardthughes — May 24, 2010 @ 11:02 am

Guts Says:
June 7th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Test

Comment by Guts — June 7, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

The Memory Hole

563 Responses to “The Memory Hole”

Featured Books