 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
September 26th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Yeah….
well squirrels OWN rattlesnakes.
So that makes the squirrel pound for pound champ!!
Comment by Doug — September 26, 2007 @ 10:27 am
September 26th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Hi Mike,
You may want to take a look at the conversation I am having at After the Bar Closes
I did a repost of The Magic of Intelligent Design there and they are asking me about your thoughts on Front Loading.
Feel free to criticize my response either publicly or privately. (note, I am not trying to speak for you).
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2007 @ 11:35 am
September 26th, 2007 at 11:54 am
TP,
Do you really believe that Dembski is trying to manipulate people?
Is Demski's intelligence BS? Is what he thinks he understands BS?
How is Dembski manipulating those that already believe his BS? Does he manipulate people into believing his BS? Or, after they believe his BS does he start manipulating them.
This quote of yours make you seem like just a typical critic who labels his/her opposition in order to shoehorn them into a particular, easy to discredit mold.
Comment by Doug — September 26, 2007 @ 11:54 am
September 26th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Unless Doug, TP knows Dembski personally
Comment by inunison — September 26, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
TP:
I don't know Dembski, but I suspect that most of us IDers would absolutely love to see a new scientific hypothesis emerge that seriously emerges from strict "Darwinism". After all, there is a wonderful hypothesis in Physics that allows the scientific community to be comforted in light of the big bang — the multiverse hypothesis. To the IDer this hypothesis frees the materialist-bound scientic community to pursue the truth about God's magnificent creation without getting bogged down in philosophy.
I don't know what you call your hypothesis, but I understand that you generally suggest that our future selves may become able to manipulate our own history, and, in fact to create ourselves. Is that about it? If the scientific community ever came to accept this hypothesis, at least the community would have accepted an ID position as viable. This would release the community to give up on the silliness of RM+NS as a complete explanation. The scientific community, like yourself, could continue to hold to a materialistic worldview (falacy, I believe), but would have to contend that the materialistic view does not have eight legs up on the theistic interpretation. I say, bring it on.
Comment by bFast — September 26, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I was thinking about this too.
TP, you really shouldn't have linked that discussion. I've never seen you quite like this before. Hard to respect a guy that would delight in seeing someone squirm when beliefs that that person holds dearly would be shown to be incorrect.
What motivates you in the search for truth/knowledge?
Watching the bottom fall out from someone when you get to 'prove' them wrong?
Comment by Doug — September 26, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Hi Doug,
You wrote…
Which is why I linked to the discussion. I was fully aware of what I had said.
While most people should be aware the I am a critic of the ID Movement in general and Dr. Dembski specifically, I haven't gone into the details.
Ethically, it is better that you know.
So you would find no joy in the thought of Richard Dawkins' beliefs being belittled and shown to be incorrect?
BTW, please read again. I wasn't suggesting Dembski would be skirming because God was proven not to exist, I was suggesting Dembski would be skirming because ID SCIENCE wouldn't be about religion and he couldn't do anything about it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Hi All,
As I told Doug. Ethically, I feel it is appropriate not to have my opinions hidden.
I haven't been pushing my opinions of Dr. Dembski here because I support the words written in TT's About Us…
"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."
I can't very well complain about caustic remarks against the likes of Dawkins, Myers, etc while I a spouting my opinions of Dembski, Wells, etc.
At least not ethicallly.
After the Bar Closes obviously prides itself on being rude. I have adjusted my tone someone to compensate. For example, I felt it appropriate to tell someone they "SCREWED UP" in order to get them to understand that I felt they made a mistake in their understanding.
It isn't something I would do here.
I think Telic Thoughts is better for it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
No joy at all. Because I know what it's like to have the bottom fall out. When how you view the world gets tossed upside down and ripped inside out. I suffered from major depression since the beginning of high school until the end of college. And then the adjustment I had to make when the depression lifted and when life started to have meaning again. To make that transition I had to sever times with a group of guys that would be none too happy with my change.
Comment by Doug — September 26, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Hi Doug,
I was going to put up an open thread on my blog to deal with these specific questions but I was unable to do that. Hopefully we can keep this conversation appropriate for Telic Thoughts.
yes
I think Dembski is very intelligent and is fully aware of what he is attempting to do.
By focusing on getting people to "believe" his BS verses UNDERSTANDING it.
Do you understand this Dembski paper?
If not, why do you "believe" Dembski?
Both
It's all too easy to rationalise dismissing things you don't want to hear.
My motivations shouldn't matter. Dembski's motivations shouldn't matter.
Understand the arguments. Think for yourself.
I can defend the Penrose-Hamerof hypothesis, in detail.
Can you do the same for Dembski's hypothesis?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
But for you they certainly seem to.
You're assuming that those who agree with him don't understand his arguments and that they don't think for themselves. Why?
If you assume this then how would you ever get through to them? From your perspective I think it would be pointless to try to rationalize with this type of folk.
*applauds*
Why should I have to? Are you assuming (again) that I am a supporter of William Dembski? I read two books by him and I had trouble understanding both. Not a slam against Dembski - but a slam against my ability to comprehend his work. I'm more into this whole debate because of Dr. Behe and some of the posters I met when I stumbled across ARN (Joy, Mike Gene, Krauze, AdR, Illion… and some others).
Comment by Doug — September 26, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Seconding Doug on this. There's a difference between enjoying an argument turning out to be correct (or even incorrect) and enjoying someone's personal distress because you just plain don't like them. I'd like to think that if Dawkins were to find out or believe he's found out he was wrong about his beliefs, he would overall feel happier for it. Demoralizing campaigns of this type are more or less exclusive to the atheist side of the argument.
What is Dembski attempting to do, then? 'Getting people to believe rather than understand his writings'? Fine. To what end? Are you saying he doesn't believe his own writings? Or believes they're valid, but not as conclusive as he thinks?
Mind you, I don't really believe Dembski's specific claims, and I haven't tried to understand them. But I have trouble getting worked up at the thought of someone in science wanting people to believe and accept, rather than understand, the topic they're discussing. It just means that Dembski's in the vocal majority, only with a different slant.
Comment by nullasalus — September 26, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Hi Doug,
I mean it when I say I like you. I think you are honest and strive to do what you think is right.
But you are human with human biases. You ignore the ample opportunaties to defend the rights of "Darwinists" to believe in materialism. I do not recall any statements of concern coming from you about dashing their dogmatic view of reality.
And, again, note that I wasn't expressing delight at the thought of Dembski suffering a crisis of faith. I was expressing delight in the thought of his politically scheming backfiring on him. I have no illusions about the strength of Dembski's faith. Do you think there is any chance in [you know] that Dembski's faith in God is in peril?
I did a quick search of religious threads for your comments. You said the following to Pixie…
link
It was a benign comment. And hardly worth mentioning.
It is only because I know this matters to you that I feel this comment will probably have impact.
But think about what you just did and why. You decided my behavior in another formum was so inappropriate that you copied it here, misinterpreted it and expressed your disappointment. Why?
Did you think I would gravel and apologize?
Did you think I would decide to be a little less arrogant?
Why didn't you do it privately?
Or, better yet, on the After the Bar Closes forum.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I have never argued that anyone doesn't have the right to believe whatever they wish. Do I advocate belief in materialism? No. Do I advocate that people have the right to believe in materialism? I didn't know this was an issue.
TP,
let's get this clear. Me saying that I don't take joy in seeing someone struggle with a changing world view isn't the same as me saying that no worldviews should ever change. Do I find joy in seeing someone struggle with accepting that maybe their worldview was wrong? No.
But some worldviews are wrong, some are more consistent, some benefit the society as a whole better than others.
Incorrect - I copied and posted this:
Followed by a series of questions. How did I misinterpret your comment when I was asking questions for you to clarify what your point was? If it was aagcob, ed darrel or someone else I wouldn't have thought twice - it's because I think of you differently from them that I was stunned to see that feeling expressed in that manner.
No I didn't.
I don't know. I don't know if I still think you're arrogant. You might be…. but I'm not as certain about that anymore.
You mean mutter it under my breath to myself?
I struggle with being patient when I'm called an idiot, dishonest, stupid….
I let my emotion get the best of me, lash out, get frustrated… and then I get down on myself - wondering why I can't be more understanding and patient…. followed by thinking that I'm not that much different from when I was a reactive/violent punk. That's why.
Comment by Doug — September 26, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I feel "manipulated" when the females in my life require that I put the toilet seat down. Arguments about who is "manipulating" whom are ridiculous. They assume that I am so stupid that I don't even know when I'm being "manipulated." LOL Put the lid on that "argument."
Comment by Rock — September 26, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Btw, I do put the toilet seat down.
Comment by Rock — September 26, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Hi Doug,
Your first comment didn't bother me. I had anticipated it. I also answered your questions.
bfast's comment wasn't even that critical.
It is your second comment that crossed the line IMO. Does the fact that bfast commented on my words first mitigate you of responsibility?
It was MY words you quoted, not bfast's.
bfast didn't misinterpret these words you did.
You used your misinterpretation to justify judgemental statements you didn't make in your first comment.
Jumping on the Group Think bandwagon is so easy to do, isn't it?
BTW, I am not angry but I wasn't about to let it slide.
still friends?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
You are being manipulated, it's been shown that you're actually working harder:
Choi, P. (2002), "Up or down? A male economist's manifesto on the toilet seat etiquette."
Comment by Guts — September 26, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Sorry about that… I was assuming the 1st one.
Responsibility for what; that I didn't care for your 'squirm' comment?
You even bounced it back to me asking if I would get some type of joy in seeing Richard Dawkins' beliefs being 'belittled'. So what was your intention?
I know. I was thinking you were referring to my initial quote from you.
oh…. okay.
Okay, if it's just that… then I'm sorry - seriously. But why the question about Richard Dawkins? That I don't get.
Can it never be a harmless misinterpretation? If it was truly group think would I have such a quick turn around? Nope. I've studied the phantom, poorly conceived term/non-phenomenon 'group think'…. and if that term applies to anything I really don't think it applies here.
I understand.
You better believe it. For what it's worth. If you were ever in Milwaukee, WI I'd be happy to buy you a couple of drinks. Got a nice irish pub right downtown.
Comment by Doug — September 26, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
How do you expect anyone to win an argument if they just let honest misunderstandings slide as such? Discussions are no fun when there's just other conversationalists, rather than opponents.
Comment by nullasalus — September 26, 2007 @ 4:14 pm