Dr. John Krystal, corresponding author of this commentary and Editor of Biological Psychiatry, remarks: "We felt that it was important to respond publicly to the attacks that have been directed at scientists, their families, and their neighbors because to be silent in the face of the attacks is to condone them. We condemn these misguided attacks.
- Here
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| 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 |
April 10th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Now that's threaty!
Comment by macht — April 10, 2008 @ 8:15 am
April 10th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Mike, I still have some questions for you. I posted them wayback when here in this thread as well as emailing you. I'd appreciate some insight into the situation if possible, thanks.
Comment by Bad — April 10, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
April 10th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
What's the point of your repeated questions Bad? It's more than idle curiosity isn't it?
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
April 11th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
I should think the point of them would be quite literally obvious from the questions themselves. Of course it's not "idle" curiosity. Someone has made a bunch of assumptions and implications and I want to know MikeGene thinks they are true or not, given that some of them are about him.
Comment by Bad — April 11, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Okay, last time I'll mention it: what's the point of not answering the questions, or at least just telling me that you won't answer them? I didn't think it would be a big deal, just filling in some information.
Comment by Bad — April 13, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Quoting Bad:
Mike has indicated that blogging about ID is a hobby. He never gave the impression (fostered by your words "as opposed to a hobbyist") that biologist and hobbyist are mutually exclusive terms.
Comment by Bradford — April 13, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
April 13th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Bad,
Maybe Mike read your blog and saw what you were really interested in.
If that is the case, I can't say I blame him.
Comment by Doug — April 13, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I've made no secret of my views and opinions. I'm not sure why that means he can't answer questions or clarify things, especially if they are in his favor (as they are in this case: the whole point is that I suspect Bethel of misrepresenting MG). I'm not aware of any reason why one would have to be coy with people whose views don't match your own.
Bradford: I could call myself a hobbyist biologist if I wanted to, but that's hardly what Bethel is implying, and incredibly, your nitpick of what is logically possible still manages to avoid saying anything one way or the other. I've never seen MG claim to be a biologist anywhere (though I very easily could have missed it, and you can point me to it and clear up a lot right away), and here is Bethel saying that he is. If Mike is a working, publishing biologist, that would be worth knowing so we can better judge what Bethel is saying. All I'm asking is Mike's opinion on what Bethel has said about him and whether it's all accurate.
Comment by Bad — April 15, 2008 @ 9:54 am
April 15th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Bad:
Perhaps you are unaware of explanations given by Mike in the past so let me paraphrase to the best of my recollection. Mike wants the thoughts he expresses to be judged by others based on their own merits. IOW, he does not want his ideas supported (or debunked) by the authority that is frequently associated with academic or scientific titles but would prefer to have them assessed based on their own merit. Mike can correct me if I'm not accurate about this but I think this is the gist of it. It also strikes me as refreshing particularly, in a world where power and political clout frequently count more than the validity of competing concepts on the table.
Rather than continuing your attempts to uncover details about Mike's background why not discuss the specifics of what he has written in a forum like this where your comments can be analyzed by people of all different viewpoints?
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2008 @ 10:10 am
April 15th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Let me put it another way. MikeGene's reasons for anonymity and not citing who he is all sound very reasonable: avoid politicizing the issue, stick to the arguments. And yet here is Bethel and Expelled, referencing who he thinks MikeGene is explicitly to make a big politicized deal out of it. What I want to know is whether MikeGene thinks that is accurate or legitimate or not.
Comment by Bad — April 15, 2008 @ 10:17 am
April 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I don't get it - so MikeGene has good reasons for anonymity, but someone commented on who he thinks Mike really is, and you don't see why Mike would remain silent about it?
Not to reply for Mike, but the obvious answer is 'he takes his anonymity seriously, and realizes that the moment he starts engaging questions about said anonymity, it's placed at greater risk.' Do you honestly not see why a person who values anonymity would not want to get into games of confirming or denying other people's claims about their identity? Especially when MG has said outright that he doesn't even want people to consider his occupation when reviewing his arguments?
More to the point, how long will this chain be? 'Hey Mike, here's a question about your identity.' 'How come you won't answer?' 'How come you won't answer why you won't answer?' 'How come you won't answer why you won't answer why you won't answer?'
Comment by nullasalus — April 15, 2008 @ 10:51 am
April 15th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I don't mean to sound uncaring but I don't care who Mike Gene is. LOL Maybe Mike Gene would agree with me that its only important that he knows who he is.
I don't think Bad is who he says he is either. Who are you? And why should I care?
Who am I? "Rock"? I don't even know anymore! [Choke. Sob.]
I think we should all adopt the persona and go by the name of our favorite person, say our favorite philosopher, scientist, or theologian. Shit, I'd still be me! LOL
Comment by Rock — April 15, 2008 @ 11:37 am
April 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I'll be… Stu-ey! Naw. Hmmm… how about CS Lewis (Christine Staton, that is)? Rosalind Franklin? Frau Niebuhr? Amy Einstein?
Huh. Better just stick with Joy. I just never learned how to answer to anything else, despite all my many names!
Comment by Joy — April 15, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I like Joy R. Franklin. Sounds like the CEO of an organic food corporation.
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Bradford:
[Gasp!] Howd'ya know!!?? §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 15, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
April 15th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Personally I've never been a huge fan of pseudonyms and anonymity. Even having a last name I never particularly cared for (too hard to spell) I still choose to use it. Regardless, I have no issues with Mike's desire to remain anonymous.
However, I think the issue that Bad was digging at is that Mike stated he used a pseudonym in order to avoid making an argument to authority based on his personal expertise. This includes both positive and negative effects that his authority might add. If he where, for example, a biologist that might be seen as strengthening his argument whereas if he was, say, a minister at a fundamentalist church that might lead people to dismiss the idea regardless of its merit. But now Tom Bethel is asserting that Mike is, actually, an authority. Unless Mike secretly is Tom Bethel he surely can't be held accountable for this, but if he truly wants to be seen as a neutral authority he should not allow a misconception to persist. If he knowingly allows a misconception to persist because that misconception increases his authority then his claim of trying to avoid asserting authority wouldn't hold water.
So I can see Bad's point, but in this case since Tom Bethel is not himself in any way an authority on anything Mike can easily ignore Tom. In effect Tom's claims simply do not justify any sort of response. Tom could claim that Mike farts fire and can levetate using the power of his mind, would Mike need to respond to that? Added on top the fact that Bad may well have an ulterior motive of wanting to claim that Mike specifically lacks authority and you can understand why the wise move of Mike's part is to simply ignore the question.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 15, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
You've completely missed the point, while Todd gets it pretty much correct. I said at the outset that Mike's stated reasons were very reasonable and defended psuedonyms (after all, I use one myself). The point is that Bethel IS trying to use Mike as an authority and a partisan talking point: he's doing exactly what Mike has implied he doesn't want done. Bethel is using Mike's anonymity AS a means to make his point: that Mike is a biologist who keeps his identity secret out of fear: not fear of his identity clouding the debate (a legitimate idea) but rather fear that the Darwinist hordes will descend from the trees and destroy his life (the basic message of the). And I want to know if Mike thinks that's accurate. He doesn't even have to reveal which part of it is not accurate.
He doesn't really have to say anything at all to blow his cover. All he has to say is that Bethel is mischaracterizing his reasons.
This isn't about nailing down details about who Mike is. I honestly don't care if he's a biologist or not. I'm not a biologist, and I feel fine to engage in debates about things I am capable of understanding as a layperson, and can still make worthwhile points.
In fact, it's giving him a chance to clear things up INSTEAD of accusing him of playing Bethel's game. You'll notice that it's been weeks since I first read the Bethel claims and asked Mike. I haven't since blogged anything about Mike being a bad guy here. I want to know if he agrees with how Bethel is leveraging his psueodnymity or not.
Comment by Bad — April 17, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Bad, it looks as if you have issues with Bethel and are looking for reasons to debunk the soon to be released movie Expelled. Your choice of words shows a predisposition on your part. Bethel is mischaracterizing… …playing Bethel's game?
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2008 @ 2:28 pm