15 Responses to “Another Review of the Design Matrix”

1. Thought Provoker Says:
   December 31st, 2007 at 11:51 am

   Hi Mike,

   For those who don't like to follow links…

   To conclude this rambling review, I find Mike's fourth criterion of design to be actually the only criterion really worth considering, because it is the only one for which there cannot be any non-teleological alternative. Evolutionary processes can give the semblance of rationality; they can give the semblance of discontinuity; they can certainly appear analogous to human systems. However, by definition, they cannot operate with any foresight. If a unicelluar eukaryote's genome contains proteins that serve it no critical function but are essential for multicellular life, that points toward "front-loading." If the universal genomic code is so optimized as to both minimize errors and promote beneficial mutations, as Mike suggests, then that points toward clear foresight, particularly as unicellular organisms are hardly as concerned about maintaining genomic integrity as are long-lived multicellular ones.

   I hope you (and others) can see past the reserved remarks of the reviews and realize that this approaches high praise. Reviewers are taking The Design Matrix seriously.

   The review was a lot more positive than the "only criterion really worth considering" line would suggest. While I would have the phrased it a bit differently, I agree that the evidence of foresight (e.g. retrocausality) is your strongest argument.

   I agree with the reviewer's "minor quibble" that he "…would have liked to see some discussion of the "RNA World" hypothesis and how it fits (or doesn't) with the possibility of evolution of the genetic code."

   I have the advantage of knowing you have opinions on this and suspect that it will be addressed in your followup book.

Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 11:51 am

2. Doug Says:
   December 31st, 2007 at 1:02 pm

   I agree with the reviewer's "minor quibble" that he ""¦would have liked to see some discussion of the "RNA World" hypothesis and how it fits (or doesn't) with the possibility of evolution of the genetic code."

   Mike had mentioned that he's already working on a second volume. Could be included in there.

Comment by Doug — December 31, 2007 @ 1:02 pm

3. MikeGene Says:
   December 31st, 2007 at 7:06 pm

   Hi TP,

   Yes, I do indeed take that as a positive review. I think the reviewer nails it when he notices, "the major difference between Mike and I is that I still operate from too much the "black-and-white" category." I am not nearly as pessismistic about the subjectivity of the Matrix criteria, but there is plenty of time to get into that some other day.

   As for the RNA world, I made a decision not to address it because it didn't seem to fit well in the book. But you might not have to wait until vol 2, as I will probably write up a web page article about it.

   "We are not engaging in a Duck Hunt; we are going to chase the Rabbit."

Comment by MikeGene — December 31, 2007 @ 7:06 pm

4. Lutepisc Says:
   January 1st, 2008 at 9:52 am

   TT, you wrote
   

   Reviewers are taking The Design Matrix seriously.

   Yes, that's exciting. I wonder whether mainstream reviewers will be astute (or brave) enough to address an obvious question. "What prompted this thoughtful author to write this book anonymously?"

Comment by Lutepisc — January 1, 2008 @ 9:52 am

5. MikeGene Says:
   January 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pm

   Hi Lutepisc,

   As I have mentioned here in the past, the success on the DM depends on one thing "“ its arguments. As I explain in the book:

   As I have repeatedly argued on the Internet, I am not going to make any appeal to qualifications or training. If I have no qualifications or relevant training, this may cause some to dismiss or overlook a good argument for this reason alone. If I do have qualifications and relevant training, this may cause some to embrace a bad argument for this reason alone. I would rather let the arguments stand on their own to be evaluated without prejudice. The Internet functions in such a way that it allows us to strip most of the extraneous material from an argument (a person's reputation, degrees, popularity, etc.) and focus instead on the core of the argument and the data used to support it. It is my hope that this approach carries out of the Internet and into this book. Of course, since I make no appeal to qualifications or relevant training, you, the reader should not treat me as an authority. You must decide for yourself if the evidence and arguments make sense and if need be, track down the references that may support them.

Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

6. Thought Provoker Says:
   January 1st, 2008 at 1:13 pm

   Hi Mike,

   While I am biased on the subject (being an anonymous entity myself), I agree with your stated observations.

   However, I will go further. I choose to be anonymous because I don't feel comfortable exposing myself and my business to unnecessary risk because of my frank and open comments on the internet.

   Guess what?

   That gives me the freedom to be very frank and very open in my comments.

   While I wouldn't be surprised if this is viewed as a bad thing by some, I argue the reverse. Of what value is lying to an anonymous entity? It's not like someone is going to take our word on anything.

   Mike, I offer that the reason you and I are the habit of providing links to scientific papers can be directly linked to our anonymity.

   Human nature, being what it is, tends to gravitate towards establishing a social hierarchy. People look for leaders to trust and like-minded followers to give them a feeling of belonging.

   Anonymous entities cause conflict with that.

   Anonymous entities force people to constantly evaluate and reevaluate comments and suggestions instead of simply relying on trust.

   Well here is my frank and open comment on that"¦

   People need to start THINKING FOR THEMSELVES!

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 1, 2008 @ 1:13 pm

7. Lutepisc Says:
   January 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pm

   Hi, Mike. Yes, I can see there are some strong advantages to presenting your work anonymously.

   Still, I would like to see mainstream reviewers devote some attention to the dynamics which yield these advantages (and possibly others as well). I see it as an issue which is orthogonal to the merits of your arguments themselves…but at the same time, an issue which will get no attention unless the content of the book is deemed to have merit on its own.

Comment by Lutepisc — January 1, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

8. MikeGene Says:
   January 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm

   Hi TP,

   Anonymity is the norm for the internet. It comes with an upside (which you lay out) and a downside (which we could all expound on). Over the years, both sides have periodically attacked and psychologized me for remaining anonymous. And it is usually the case that those who attack/psychologize me are themselves anonymous!

   However, when I decided to remain anonymous when writing a book, I was stepping outside the norm. Anonymous authors can leave a bad taste for two reasons. First, they can claim some type of authority that they do not have. Second, they can use their anonymity to throw bombs at real world people and their work.

   Those who've read the DM should realize that I have ethically factored for these by constraining myself further. I inform my readers that they should not treat me as an authority (an echo of the disclaimer on my personal web page). And the book does not seek to target and debunk anyone's work, but instead attempts to set a positive outlook.

Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

9. Lutepisc Says:
   January 1st, 2008 at 1:44 pm

   Hi, TP. (Sorry to have called U "TT" above!)

   However, I will go further. I choose to be anonymous because I don't feel comfortable exposing myself and my business to unnecessary risk because of my frank and open comments on the internet.

   Yes, that's the dynamic that's of most interest to me…the notion that there is some sort of implicit "orthodoxy" in place, and there are consequences for coloring outside those lines.

Comment by Lutepisc — January 1, 2008 @ 1:44 pm

10. Lutepisc Says:
    January 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    Hey! I didn't intend to derail this thread…

    Are there any more comments on the very fine review given by St. Edmund Campion (whom I suspect of being our very own nullasalus)?

Comment by Lutepisc — January 2, 2008 @ 8:36 pm

11. nullasalus Says:
    January 2nd, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Lutepisc,

    Are there any more comments on the very fine review given by St. Edmund Campion (whom I suspect of being our very own nullasalus)?

    Greetings, don't think I've met you before!

    In response, let me say - Bwuh? Sorry, that's not me. If you think it's a very fine review and think that's a reason to consider it my doing - well, thank you for the compliment.

    Didn't expect to hear that association.

Comment by nullasalus — January 2, 2008 @ 8:49 pm

12. Lutepisc Says:
    January 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 pm

    nullasalus
    

    In response, let me say - Bwuh? Sorry, that's not me. If you think it's a very fine review and think that's a reason to consider it my doing - well, thank you for the compliment.

    Mea culpa, nullasalus! Here was my tortuous train of thought: 1) "nulla salus" is a reference to Unam Sanctam (you probly hafta be Catholic to get that…though I'm not). 2) Referring to Unam Sanctam is probly a pre-Vatican II gesture (but not necessarily so…). 3) You seem pretty knowledgeable about this ID/evolution issue, and there probly aren't that many Unam Sanctam-type Catholics with your level of expertise about this.

    Continuing…4) the reviewer who goes by St. Edmund Campion also seems to be a pre-Vatican II Catholic, since he lifts up the Tridentine Mass on his web site; and 5) St. Edmund Campion also seems pretty knowledgeable about the ID/evolution issue, as demonstrated by the thoughtful review of The Design Matrix and the fact that he refers to himself as a student of microbiology on his web site.

    Given so much overlap, I inferred that the two of you were identical. But evidently the universe of those with interest and proficiency in ID/evolution is larger than I imagined!

Comment by Lutepisc — January 2, 2008 @ 10:03 pm

13. nullasalus Says:
    January 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    Not a problem, Lutepisc! Again, it was a compliment. You've actually got a keen eye - I'm catholic (a poor one, but one nevertheless), and my overlap with Campion is considerable, at a glance. Just wanted to avoid any confusion.

Comment by nullasalus — January 2, 2008 @ 10:26 pm

14. ecampion Says:
    January 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    No, nullasalus and I are not the same person, sadly.

    Thanks, Mike, for posting a link to the review.

Comment by ecampion — January 3, 2008 @ 10:40 pm

15. MikeGene Says:
    January 4th, 2008 at 12:35 am

    Hi ecampion,

    And a bigger thanks to you for that helpful feedback. I'm in the process if setting up a Facebook group for discussion of the book. If you are interested, you might want to join, if for no other reason than to look in on the eventual discussions.

Comment by MikeGene — January 4, 2008 @ 12:35 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.