These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted on Saturday, April 28th, 2007 at 11:14 pm and is filed under The Rabbit.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
1. If the Wedgies got all that they dreamed of, what would the world be like?
2. Given the Wedgies are from moderate to conservative background, many of whom are not evangelical Chrisitains, I would suppose, not too much.
Seriously, what social issues has the center for science and culture been involved in? School Prayer? Nope? Teaching the Bible in Public schools? Nope? Evangelizing for Christ? Nope.
1. Concern over Eugenics
2. Concern over Euthenasia
3. Concern for embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Concern over the violence of the Animal Rights movement
5. Concern for the welfare of scholars and students
I think the suggestion the Wedge was going to be involved in directing sweeping social change is over-rated. Sure they argue that science should not neglect purpose in nature, and that it should not be inimical to scientific ideas which may be friendly to theisim. But what would the ID movement really achieve if they got what they want. They would have human life viewed as a highly valued thing, something more special than mere animals….
Would they pettition that teaching Darwinism is equivalent of child abuse? Would they use public institutions to destroy atheism like some others are eager to do to promote their agenda? Hmm, hard to say. Wedgies strike me as being fairly libertarian. Does one see authoritarian streaks in them, compared to say their opponents?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 30, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
Salvador: But what would the ID movement really achieve if they got what they want. They would have human life viewed as a highly valued thing, something more special than mere animals"¦.
Don't softpeddle this Salvador. If those Wedgies really got what they want
the words intelligent and design forever would be allowed to be juxtaposed and kids would have an inalienable right to say mom and dad even in California.
You provided a link to Uncommon Descent which linked to WorldNetDaily which linked to itself and other right-wing organizations.
Here is a link and a summary of SB 777, hopefully this will encourage more independent thinking.
(1) Existing law states that it
is the policy of the state to afford equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public or private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability and prohibits a person from being subjected to discrimination on those bases and contains various provisions to implement that policy.
Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of a school district from adopting for use in the public schools any instructional materials that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities, and instructional materials and instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose.
(2) Existing laws relating to education refer to "handicapped pupils," "handicapped adults," "physically handicapped pupils," "physically handicapped adults," "the handicapped," and "handicapped persons."
This bill would change these terms to "pupils with disabilities," "adults with disabilities," "pupils with physical disabilities," "adults with physical disabilities," and "persons with disabilities."
I am curious how this has anything to do with ID science.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 1, 2007 @ 12:10 am
TP: I am curious how this has anything to do with ID science.
Why do you not ask the same question of the other side? My experience with ID critics is they rarely talk about actual science. Much of what they say flows from internet arguments whose general form they memorize. That's why you find different cliches repeated ad nauseum. Take a trip over to PZ's blog or read one of Dawkins' books. Is the content all about science? Some of it is. But much is about politics and religion. Those two areas tell you much about the real reasons someone is inclined to believe a protein synthesis mechanism arose on prebiotic earth through a chance/selection process. It does not arise from the study of cellular biology.
TP: I am curious how this has anything to do with ID science.
Why do you not ask the same question of the other side?
I do ask the same question of the other side. See link comments #170643 through #171830. There are other examples, but this should give you a taste of me provoking thought on the other side.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 1, 2007 @ 9:17 am
I am curious how this has anything to do with ID science.
Absolutely nothing.
This was an open thread with rabbits as the first topic after all.
Since motivations of the Wedge are frequently criticized, I thought it would interesting to explore what would happen to the world if they got what they want. Given 90% of the USA accept God's involvement in the world, I doubt there would be the sort of changes people argue for if the Wedge succeeded. Certainly not a theocracy. At least not in the USA. I can't speak from knowledge about the rest of the world….
My only concern would be more boneheads like Dover (who were never part of the Wedge, but only were pretenders) trying to use public schools to proseletize.
From my interaction with the Wedge, the things on their mind have little to do with getting people elected to office, passing legislation, legislating cultural edicts and mores. The things on their mind are the evidences for ID and the plight of professionals and students who accept ID.
Of course it bothers them that Darwin gets a free pass in public schools, but of more concern at a personal level is the jobs and diplomas and opportunities being denied ID proponents.
I'm for civil liberties. If an atheist homosexual Darwinist parent wants to raise her biological child a certain way, though I may not like it, she has the right to do so, and I would defend that right.
I argue for the rights and privileges of ID proponents in academia and industry. I think legislative means are the least effective, however, spreading truth and information are very effective. As university presidents and industry executives realize it's bad for the bottom line to persecuting ID proponents, change will happen. A heartening example was when Darwinists Atheist John Rennie was given the cold shoulder by several University presidents and the Executive of Intel. See: Creationism, Cowardice and Science Education. Some time ago Rennie was advocating even denying kids entry into colleges unless they burnt incense to Darwin. It's nice to see the university presidents politely told him to take a hike….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 1, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
If you didn't already read it. I defended you (at least partially) over at Panda's Thumb. I also took on a Loki persona in that thread. I would be interested in your reaction to my arguments as Loki. The interesting stuff starts here.
From the above link (with some typos corrected)…
At one time most thinking people assumed all numbers were rational numbers. They had faith that someday PI would be shown to be a rational number. The same thing with the square-root of two. The square-root of two eluded explanation until, eventually, it was realized that mathematics wasn't internally consistent unless numbers outside of the rational number set were presumed to be true (i.e. inductive reasoning).
This is the crux of the ID argument. How long is science going to keep up the faith that the "rational" empirical answers will someday, somehow be found when obvious, non-empirical answers provide the best explanation? The "irrational" must exist to explain the tough nuts that defy "rational" explanation.
What are these tough nuts?
Consciousness - Reality depends on a conscious observer, what observed the universe's origin?
Intelligence "“ Intelligence requires preexisting information and language for its creation and only intelligence can create information and language.
Time - Time causation breaks down with naked singularities. A definable concept of Time continues to elude being modeled.
Please understand that ID isn't asking for anything to be artificially abandoned. When the best explaination is empirical, it is appropriate ot retain that answer. Similar to the fact that rational numbers do exist there are obviously empirical parts of the universe.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 2, 2007 @ 2:31 am
If you didn't already read it. I defended you (at least partially) over at Panda's Thumb. I also took on a Loki persona in that thread.
WOW!
You approximated my answers very well.
I do however, suggest if the Intelligent Designer of the Universe chooses to reveal Himself, that would strong empirical validation. I do not rule out that possibility. Till then I consider Design (with no reference to intelligence) a strong inference, and Intelligent Design (where the intelligence has human-like qualities like consciousness) a weaker inference.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 2, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
This is the crux of the ID argument. How long is science going to keep up the faith that the "rational" empirical answers will someday, somehow be found when obvious, non-empirical answers provide the best explanation? The "irrational" must exist to explain the tough nuts that defy "rational" explanation.
This was a commendable approximation, however, my argument is one of criticising category errors:
My criticism of the non-ID approach is that it tries to explain information in material terms. It is hopless to try to explain things like irrational numbers by appealing to Chemistry and Physics. The real numbers (which contain the irrationals) help us explain chemistry and physics, not the other way around.
A materialist approach to explaining the origin of information is a category error. A reasonable position is that of Trevors, Abel, and Yockey — namely — no answer for origins. All though I don't share their views, I think their position is at least defensible, which is more than I can say for the materialist view.
Like Mike, I consider ID to be a relatively weak inference, but I think it is still correct…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 2, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
I am glad you liked my Loki response. I am a little disappointed with your wishy-washy statement of…
…if the Intelligent Designer of the Universe chooses to reveal Himself, that would strong empirical validation. I do not rule out that possibility.
That would be like Hippasus saying he wouldn't rule out the possibility that the square root of two might be shown to be a rational number after all.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 2, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
A materialist approach to explaining the origin of information is a category error.
Indeed. But they've boxed themselves into a position that allows for no alternative. It amounts to a commitment to a narrow interpretation of evidence relating to information and intelligence.
I'm curious "” how do you think Jesus feels about your dishonesty?
Keiths, what do you think Jesus feels when someone insults another by calling him a wanker? Don't fall back on the "don't believe God exists" mantra. Explain why an atheist is exempt from moral standards.
Explain why an atheist is exempt from moral standards.
Atheist is not exempt from moral standards. Rather he/she sets and adopts them as the circumstances (environment) dictates. Ultimate freedom, wouldn't you agree?
The question with the Wedge is not "what would happen if they got what they wanted." That has never been the question. The question was, is, and always will be why did their public discourse differ from the Wedge Strategy, and why was the Wedge secret?
Such unsavory tactics are common place, expected, and acceptable in politics. But not when the ultimate goal is to promote theism. Recall a governing goal of the wedgies:
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
(As an aside, this is a ludicrous goal, because materialistic explanations and a theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God are not mutually exclusive"”even though Dawkins, Harris, PZ, and the wedgies agree that they are.)
The wedgies united garden variety deceptive political tactics with evangelism. That's unacceptable, and all those involved in the Wedge fiasco should apologize to the body and step down from any leadership position. They were caught with their pants down. Instead their response is exactly the opposite: self righteous indignation.
Sal: you've called yourself a Young-Earth Creationist; which implies, to me at least, that you believe a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of the origin of life on Earth. And that, in turn, implies that you believe in the God who did all that creating. Am I guessing your beliefs correctly?
Assuming that I am, I have to ask you this: if you believe that that God exists, why do you insist on disobeying that same God's Commandment not to bear false witness against your neighbors? For that is what your quote-mining has repeatedly been shown to be: false witness.
(On a more specific note, when are you going to apologize for mindlessly equating my verbal arguments with the alleged surgical mutilation of children — the facts of which incident you didn't even report correctly? Does your God give you the strength to admit wrongdoing?)
why did their public discourse differ from the Wedge Strategy
Greetings my dear brother.
I must however disagree. Their public discourse has been exactly the Wedge Strategy. The key elements:
Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication
Individual Research Fellowship Program
Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)
Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)
Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making
Book Publicity
Opinion-Maker Conferences
Apologetics Seminars
Teacher Training Program
Op-ed Fellow
PBS (or other TV) Co-production
Publicity Materials / Publications
Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences
Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training
Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities
They have certainly tried to follow their plan. Given a mere 1 million dollar budget, I'd say they were effective stewards of the money they were given.
They have the biologic institute and Doug Axe and Ann Gauger. Their definition of science may not be the same as yours, but if they are persuaded in their own conscience it is science, then I don't think they can be accused of deception.
My own view is that of total truth. Whether we classify it as science or theology is ultimately less important than whether a hypothesis is correct.
Let me encourage you to give your brothers in the Wedge the benefit of the doubt. You are accusing them of deception, can you cite a false statement that they have continued to prominently promote?
For myself, I have learned more science from the Wedgies than all the writings of Darwin or most evolutionary biologists.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2007 @ 11:56 am
I'm curious "” how do you think Jesus feels about your dishonesty?
How was I being dishonest?
1. it should be obvious from the context it was not a serious quote
2. links were provided to the full quotation
3. I pointed out it was a quote-mine (and hence not a serious quote)
4. It WAS Darwin's words, not mine
I was nicknamed "Gas".
I beat a puppy.
Charles Darwin
Thanks to you and others for giving publicity to those quotations. You are helping the public become aware that Darwin was nicknamed "Gas" and that he beat a puppy simply for the sense of power.
Keiths, you're so humorless.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Darwin…beat a puppy simply for the sense of power.
This quote is taken out of context: Darwin was quite young when he did that, and he also admitted he felt regret for that deed soon after he did it. So once again, you bear false witness by omitting an important element of the truth.
I ask you again: why do you disobey your Creator's Commandments? Are you really a believer, determined to live according to your God's rules, or are you just another hack using religion to justify doing whatever you want?
Let me encourage you to give your brothers in the Wedge the benefit of the doubt. You are accusing them of deception, can you cite a false statement that they have continued to prominently promote?
First they said ID was "science;" then, under oath at the Dover trial, one of their leading lights admitted it was NOT science; since then, they have ignored the smackdown they got at that trial, and are back to insisting that ID really is science.
Coming from someone who explicitly compared my verbal arguments to the mutilation of children, your protestations of innocence are just plain laughable.
Come on"”look at the goals of the strategy. Without question it included promoting theism. (Which, of course, in principle I am in agreement with.) But how many of the ID leaders were telling mainstream audiences that their goal was to promote theism? How often did they hammer home the theme that the designer needn't be God? You don't find that deceptive? You don't find saying "the designer doesn't have to be God" in public while your actual goal is to promote theism to be disingenuous?
Their model appears to be a hypothetical Paul of Tarsus finagling an invite to Mars Hill by promising a lecture on "Philosophy Only! No illegal religions mentioned!" only to, in accordance with his secret plan, flip-flop when he got the microphone.
And, it's not surprising, if the ID leaders had been honest about their goals, rather than keeping them under lock and key, things would have turned out better"”if only for the simple reason that they couldn't possibly have failed any more miserably-yet at least they wouldn't have alienated those of us (including the ASA, it would appear) who are embarrassed by their methods.
Come on"”look at the goals of the strategy. Without question it included promoting theism. (Which, of course, in principle I am in agreement with.)
David, you had previously written: "materialistic explanations and a theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God are not mutually exclusive" Had you said natural explanations I would have agreed. God can be the initial cause of a natural series of cause and effects. But materialism is the belief that matter and energy is all that there is and all that there ever was. There is no room within materialism for spirituality or God. They are excluded from the mix. I grew up under the influence of an atheist parent. Materialism was preached and I acquired a natural suspicion of any explanation of that was not solidly grounded in the matter is all there is mantra. Carl Sagan was someone I admired and followed. I was not open to the message of Christianity. Materialism was an obstacle. You do not become a Christian by disbeliving materialism but removing an obstacle makes the reception of a message possible. Actually the only thing necessary is a willingness to believe that an alternative to materialism is possible. My views of intelligent design are linked to the origins of a genetic code and the symbolic meaning of messages encoded by our DNA. I am not a disciple of the DI and neither are most IDists and have come to resent the use of the wedge document to discredit, not the DI, but rather ID.
But how many of the ID leaders were telling mainstream audiences that their goal was to promote theism? How often did they hammer home the theme that the designer needn't be God? You don't find that deceptive? You don't find saying "the designer doesn't have to be God" in public while your actual goal is to promote theism to be disingenuous?
The origin of DNA implicates an intelligent source. That's the conclusion of arguments I am able to make based on empirical studies. My arguments as to God's identity extend beyond this but are not based on research. There are many outside the DI who have similar views. My honest answer to the identity of God, based on biological evidence, is "I cannot tell." But then I will quickly add that I can discern his identity on another basis. There is no deception except among those who would mischaracterize our views.
Thanks to you and others for giving publicity to those quotations…
This is a common fallback position for children (both the standard and the overgrown kinds) who have pretended to be smirkingly intelligent, only to find themselves disgraced and discredited in front of their peers: pretend that all the attention they're getting — negative though it is — only proves how important and relevant they are. A short translation might be: "Nyah, nyah, I made you listen to me!"
I am not a disciple of the DI and neither are most IDists and have come to resent the use of the wedge document to discredit, not the DI, but rather ID.
The Wedge Document discredits ID because that's all they've managed to produce. If there were ANY peer-reviewed papers, or any other sign of real scientific work, supporting ID, then the Wedge document would be irrelevant. Perhaps you should direct your resentment toward the people who made the ID movement all about politics and PR, with (as the IDers themselves have admitted) no science to back any of it up.
But how many of the ID leaders were telling mainstream audiences that their goal was to promote theism?
The word theism doesn't appear in the Wedge document.
we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.
They have done exactly that. They visit apologetic seminars and teach it in the manner I see it taught elsewhere. They focus on the science and rather than talk from the authority of scripture, they appeal to the physical evidence. I'm not so sure they have ever publicly denied their deeply private beliefs and motivations. When asked who they believe the designer is, they are forthright.
How often did they hammer home the theme that the designer needn't be God?
That's not the way it's phrased. They may believe the designer is God, but that is not a valid inference from the theory. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics suggests something outside the universe got the universe started. I believe the cause of the Universe is the Christian God, but it's an invalid logical and scientific inference to go from the 2nd Law and suggest the souce of the Universe is the Christian God. Even if the statement "the source of the Universe is the Christian God" is correct, making that inference from the 2nd law is invalid. Same with ID theory.
When I teach ID theory to Christian audiences, I'm careful to point that out. It's not a matter of deception, but teach good logic and sound apologetics.
You don't find that deceptive? You don't find saying "the designer doesn't have to be God" in public while your actual goal is to promote theism to be disingenuous?
When asked publicly who they believe the Designer is:
Stephen Meyer : "God"
Jonathan Wells: "God of the old and new testament"
William Dembski: "God"
Phil Johnson: "God"
Michael Behe : "God"
IDEA Website: "God of the Bible"
I find it hard to justify an accusation of outright deception. It would be wrong to teach Christians to construct invalid apologetics. To say ID implies the Christian God is the Intelligent Designer, is an invalid logical construct. I think other lines of evidence suggest the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God, but that's not an inference one can make from the fundmental theorems of ID (i.e. Displacement Theorem, Barrow's Universal Wave Function, etc.)
Furthermore, having been a part of the movement, I've never been encouraged our counseled or seen a matter of policy to conceal who we think the Designer is. Where in the Wedge document does it say, use the phrase "the designer doesn't have to be God" in public in order to dupe the public?
We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
The 2nd Law of thermodynamics suggests something outside the universe got the universe started.
It could be argued that the 2LoT implies that the universe has a finite age (since entropy is not maximal right now, which it would be if the universe were infinite). Is that what you mean? I don't see how the 2LoT directly points to something outside the universe.
But materialism is the belief that matter and energy is all that there is and all that there ever was. There is no room within materialism for spirituality or God.
I'm not an expert in these matters, but I was referring to scientific materialism, also known as methodological naturalism, as opposed to metaphysical naturalism, with the former crudely defined as "doing science as if materialism is all there is" and the latter ratcheting it up an important notch, replacing the "as if" with "because."
Newton approached gravity as if materialism explained everything. When finished, this approach presented us with a more beautiful picture of the cosmos, and hence God was glorified.
I am sympathetic to the ID argument that (1) nature has evidence of design and (2) it doesn't tell us who the designer is. That's fine. If that was "all there was" then I'd have no problem with the ID movement although I wouldn't be part of it, as long as it insisted on being called science. However, the Wedge Document is inconsistent with this definition, because it implies an understood-but-secret "wink-wink-nod-nod" is associated with point 2. If ID is as you describe it, there never would have been a Wedge document.
In other words, if it is a simple as 1) We see design in nature and (2) We cannot identify the designer, but (3) my personal view, which is outside the purview of ID, is that the designer is God, then why-o-why was there a secret strategy that had as one of its governing goals "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. " Why would you need such a strategy? Why couldn't your public statements 1,2 and 3 constitute all there was to know about your motives?
Sal,
The word theism doesn't appear in the Wedge document.
What is your point"”surely you are not arguing that there is anything substantive behind the fact they want to promote a "theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" rather than use the word "theism?"
And you are making the same argument as Bradford"”that the leadership is always about (1) look, design! (2) No, can't identify designer and (3) Oh, by the way, I think it is God but that doesn't matter, that's just my personal view. But saying these three points define the ID movement is to imply that it is not about promoting a "theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" but rather, almost by accident, the very genteel acknowledgment that such a personal view can be accommodated. But the Wedge document does not state that "Isn't it nice that a theistic view fits with ID?" It argues to use ID to promote a theistic view. Surely any reasonable person sees the difference.
Keiths, what do you think Jesus feels when someone insults another by calling him a wanker?
Bradford,
Jesus doesn't appear to have any qualms about name-calling. Check out his tirade against the Pharisees in which he calls them "snakes" and "brood of vipers".
Explain why an atheist is exempt from moral standards.
Who said they were?
inunison wrote:
Atheist is not exempt from moral standards. Rather he/she sets and adopts them as the circumstances (environment) dictates. Ultimate freedom, wouldn't you agree?
inunison,
Do you have any evidence for your assertion? Or is this just a way for you to experience an imagined moral superiority?
Jesus doesn't appear to have any qualms about name-calling. Check out his tirade against the Pharisees in which he calls them "snakes" and "brood of vipers".
Jesus was concerned with the truth of a statement. Would you desist in labeling Nazis something uncomplementary or would you call a spade a spade?
Jesus was concerned with the truth of a statement. Would you desist in labeling Nazis something uncomplementary or would you call a spade a spade?
Bradford,
So then, according to you, it's okay to call someone a wanker if he is a wanker. And the word "wanker" doesn't need to be taken literally, since Jesus obviously wasn't being literal when he called the Pharisees "snakes" and "vipers".
So what's the problem? What are you complaining about, again?
So then, according to you, it's okay to call someone a wanker if he is a wanker. And the word "wanker" doesn't need to be taken literally, since Jesus obviously wasn't being literal when he called the Pharisees "snakes" and "vipers".
So what's the problem? What are you complaining about, again?
We've been through this before. The person labeled as a wanker is personally unknown to the accuser. That in itself explains the problem. There was no basis for name calling other than satisfying a juvenile urge. Given your sensitivity to the statements of IDists I would have expected you to join the rest of us and label the name calling for what it was- jerky behavoir. You don't have to of course, but if the wanker tag is OK with you then don't whine about Salvador.
…if the wanker tag is OK with you then don't whine about Salvador.
Bradford,
Your objection might make sense if I were berating Salvador for name-calling, but I'm not. I'm accusing him of chronic dishonesty.
If you think that name-calling is morally equivalent to deception, that's fine — morality differs from person to person, after all — but don't be surprised when others, like Jesus, disagree.
The person labeled as a wanker is personally unknown to the accuser. That in itself explains the problem. There was no basis for name calling other than satisfying a juvenile urge.
Maybe you can outline for us the algorithm that Josh would have needed to follow in order to "objectively" establish that Mike was a wanker, thus justifying the epithet.
Perhaps you can even patent it: "Means and apparatus for the objective identification of wankers."
Your objection might make sense if I were berating Salvador for name-calling, but I'm not. I'm accusing him of chronic dishonesty.
If you think that name-calling is morally equivalent to deception, that's fine "” morality differs from person to person, after all "” but don't be surprised when others, like Jesus, disagree.
If you tag someone with a name that has a specified definition you are engaging in deception when the definition does not match up with the character of the person so labeled. Jesus knew the Pharisees to be religious hypocrytes. Josh did not know Mike.
Maybe you can outline for us the algorithm that Josh would have needed to follow in order to "objectively" establish that Mike was a wanker, thus justifying the epithet.
Maybe you and Josh can refrain from acting like jerks- yes it is name calling and it fits.
If you tag someone with a name that has a specified definition you are engaging in deception when the definition does not match up with the character of the person so labeled. Jesus knew the Pharisees to be religious hypocrytes. Josh did not know Mike.
Interesting.
1. Josh called Mike a wanker, based on Mike's hypocrisy.
2. Jesus called the Pharisees vipers, based on their hypocrisy.
3. Therefore Jesus was right, and Josh is wrong.
Keiths: Josh called Mike a wanker, based on Mike's hypocrisy
Guts: All I see in that link is Josh erroneously thinking that Mike claimed the things Sam Harris did.
Let's take a look at who is the real hypocryte. From the post referenced by Josh:
Mike writes:
Harris ends with this basic argument:
There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith "” but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical "” and even spiritual "” without pretending to know things they do not know.
But these are empty words. For example, is Harris (or Dawkins) recognized as someone who displays compassion? He can talk about it and write about it, but does he live it? What has the rich Sam Harris done to "help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak?" And while there are dozens of atheist organizations that bash religion, where are those that refrain from bashing religion, but instead devote most of their energy to "help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak?" For example, every Christmas, you can't miss the Salvation Army people collecting money to "help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak." Why don't we also see the "Army for Reason" doing the same thing every Darwin Day? And if we did, would it be a PR stunt or would the desire be genuine?
If Harris wants to claim there are "better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak," he needs more than rhetoric. He needs a rich tradition of action to draw from. As it stands, he would struggle to come up with examples.
In other words action speaks louder than words and if Harris wishes to assert there are better reasons let's see them. Good reasons include motives that moved this organization to do good things, and this one as well and this one,this too, here's another, and another and another organization founded by motivated Christians. Where is Harris's evidence of compassion that exceeds what these and many, many more Christian organizations have done? If his criticism is not backed up by evidence of compassion inspired by the beliefs he shares with other EAs then it is Harris, Josh and their syncophants who are the hypocrytes.
First, that's a completely different post, you do realize that don't you? And as Mike explained to you, he was not dismissing harris for his credentials. Also, remember that you are a guest on this blog, so calm down on the name calling.
Nice try at changing the subject, but we were talking about how Jesus would feel about quote-mining vs. name-calling, when I confronted you with the uncomfortable fact that Jesus himself indulged in name-calling.
First, that's a completely different post, you do realize that don't you?
Of course, but the issue is exactly the same. In two different cases, Mike attempts to discredit Harris by focusing on his background and credentials, conveniently forgetting that he himself has argued that his ideas should be taken at face value, independent of his credentials or training.
Also, remember that you are a guest on this blog, so calm down on the name calling.
What name-calling? I invite you to reread the thread, make note of any instances of name-calling, and admonish the appropriate people. Hint: I'm not one of them.
Nice try at changing the subject, but we were talking about how Jesus would feel about quote-mining vs. name-calling, when I confronted you with the uncomfortable fact that Jesus himself indulged in name-calling.
You forgot about your hypocrisy charge that quickly? Lying is the issue. Hitler was a muderer. That's a fact. Before you go labeling people that post here make sure you have incontrovertible facts to back you up.
If an accusation, backed by evidence, constitutes name-calling; and if you seek to banish name-calling, so defined, from this blog; then you're going to spend an awful lot of time censoring your co-contributors.
Of course, but the issue is exactly the same. In two different cases, Mike attempts to discredit Harris by focusing on his background and credentials, conveniently forgetting that he himself has argued that his ideas should be taken at face value, independent of his credentials or training.
But Keiths, that's what you got wrong. In neither case does Mike make the same claims as Harris.
Keiths:
What name-calling?
You calling someone a hippocrit. Consider this your first warning from a TT moderator.
I just noticed that Keith is continuing his misguided obsession of sliming me. His personal attacks against me have been refuted, but he insists on repeating them again and again.
I am not a disciple of the DI and neither are most IDists and have come to resent the use of the wedge document to discredit, not the DI, but rather ID.
The Wedge Document discredits ID because that's all they've managed to produce. If there were ANY peer-reviewed papers, or any other sign of real scientific work, supporting ID, then the Wedge document would be irrelevant.
Your claim that there are no peer reviewed papers is a factual error.
You calling someone a hippocrit. Consider this your first warning from a TT moderator.
Guts,
There's a difference between referring to an action as hypocrisy versus labeling someone a hypocrite. If you doubt this, start labeling people rather than actions in your interpersonal relationships and see how far it gets you.
Also note that in this exchange, the only participant labeling people is Bradford, who refers to Sam Harris and his "syncophants" as "hypocrytes" and to Josh Rosenau and me as "jerks". Where is your rebuke of Bradford?
Finally, consider the consequences of an outright prohibition of action-labeling and name-calling. Suppose Richard Dawkins did something dishonest. You couldn't call him a liar, because that's name-calling. You couldn't label it dishonest, because by your standards that amounts to calling him a liar. Do you really want to hobble yourself and your fellow contributors this way?
Mere epithet-slinging is surely counterproductive, but accusations backed by evidence deserve to be heard.
Also note that in this exchange, the only participant labeling people is Bradford, who refers to Sam Harris and his "syncophants" as "hypocrytes" and to Josh Rosenau and me as "jerks". Where is your rebuke of Bradford?
In this exchange? So the insults from your buddies came in prior excahnges? So what? You wrote:
There's a difference between referring to an action as hypocrisy versus labeling someone a hypocrite.
OK, so by the same logic there is a difference in labeling you and Josh jerks and asking you to refrain from acting like jerks. To add some context,
Maybe you and Josh can outline for me the algorithm that I would have needed to follow in order to "objectively" establish that you two were engaging in jerky behavoir; thus justifying the use of the term.
You're missing the entire point. For the reasons I just expressed to Guts, I don't think that name-calling should be prohibited at TT.
I don't object if you call me a jerk. I was simply using you as an example to demonstrate to Guts that if he wants to eradicate name-calling from TT, he's going to spend an awful lot of time censoring his co-contributors.
Call me a jerk, if you wish. If you do, I would request that you present your reasons for thinking so. Even if you don't, I don't think you should be banned.
You're missing the entire point. For the reasons I just expressed to Guts, I don't think that name-calling should be prohibited at TT.
You've set forth your hypocrisy and liar charges ad nauseum. I do not think name calling should be a standard form of exchange at TT. Obviously moderators are not absolutely opposed to it either. But you've expressed yourself along these lines enough IMO and it is time to stop. I do not restrain guests in my home who, in the course of conversation, criticize public figures or even call them names, but do object when they repeatedly do this to other guests or family members. I draw the line there. Guts and Mike can decide to do what they think best. My advice to you is to engage in rational expositions of your POVs that EAs are allegedly noted for.
This is only your opinion, Keith. Yet notice that you speak as if you are describing objective reality, even to the point of emphasizing the word "have." Why is it that you cannot qualify your statement as an opinion and perception when that is all it is? Because, as I see it, you are engaged in character assassination. But why think that?
You provide "evidence" to support your accusatory claims, yet you conveniently omit the responses where I debunk your accusations. Readers can read my responses for themselves, as there is no need to resurrect dead horses.
The key here is to step back and notice the pattern. The examples of my supposed hypocrisy involve criticisms of Harris, PZ Myers, Dawkins, and Dawkins. Is it merely a coincidence that my "hypocrisy" always seems to come into play when Keith's heroes are being criticized? You'll note that Keith doesn't come up with counter-arguments or show that my criticisms are invalid and/or misguided. Instead, he merely distracts from the criticism by attacking me. Given that Keith has made it abundantly clear that he is a culture warrior with an agenda, I would think that the tactic he applies to defend his leaders should be rather transparent.
Furthermore, I would think it likewise obvious that keith is not standing on principle. The moralistic accusations he tosses out are always aimed at "the other side," as if the critics and New Atheists are never hypocritical. Yet as I see it, the New Atheist movement itself comes to us drenched in hypocrisy, claiming to champion science, yet abandoning science and relying on propaganda, anecdotes, and emotion to make its case.
The examples of my supposed hypocrisy involve criticisms of Harris, PZ Myers, Dawkins, and Dawkins.
Don't forget your criticism of Ken Miller when you said…
Over at Uncommon Descent, Dembski catches Miller in an act of blatant misrepresentation. It is this type of misrepresentation which makes me truly wonder if Miller even understands Dembski's arguments.
And when Miller explained how and why he wasn't misrepresenting Dembski, you responded with…
Thus, the perception of misrepresentation was entirely justified. What I can do later tonight, if you want, is write up a short blog linking to Miller's letter and letting readers know that the BBC misled a lot of people.
I may have missed it, but I don't remember seeing the promised explaination from you.
Of course I am still troubled about how all of these criticisms are ethically consistent with the About Us 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."
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
This is only your opinion, Keith. Yet notice that you speak as if you are describing objective reality, even to the point of emphasizing the word "have." Why is it that you cannot qualify your statement as an opinion and perception when that is all it is?
Now take a look at a post of Mike's from February, and ask yourself after each sentence (including the title), "Is this objective reality, or just Mike's opinion?"
Dawkins: Unqualified to Pass Judgment on Intelligent Design
The thing to keep in mind is that Dawkins' brain is hard-wired to equate ID with religion and the designer with God. Thus, in a neurological process that mimicks the withdrawal reflex, Dawkins' brain hears "God/religion" when "ID" is spoken or written.
As such, his mind requires a level of evidence that would force him to embrace the deity he despises. Yet given his views about the evil essence of religion and the evil nature of the deity, it should be clear that Dawkins needs something that is earth-shattering, sensational, and mind-boggling. The data need to be so powerful and overwhelming that Dawkins, in his mind, must embrace and advocate for Evil. In short, he needs nothing less than total proof of an undeniable miracle. Those who would disagree do not have a good handle on human psychology.
But this need short-circuits the investigative approach, an approach that always begins with clues amid an ambiguoius schema. The investigative approach also requires an open-mind and a willingness to focus on issues regardless of their wider implications. Thus, Richard Dawkins is not qualified to pass judgment on the concept of ID. This is not to say that he is unqualified to respond to those who claim that X could not possibly evolved. He is unqualified to inform us as to whether intelligent design exists amid biotic reality.
Admirably objective, Mike. And certainly free of the "armchair psychologizing" you accused Elliott Sober of.
It's a wonder you can walk with all the bullet holes in your feet.
I may have missed it, but I don't remember seeing the promised explaination from you.
LOL. Are y'all starting to figure out that the critics have me under the microscope? But keep this in mind "“ after over 1000 postings, and despite all this straining and cataloging, the lame complaints you see in this thread are the BEST they can come up with.
TP, when I read this, I had completely forgotten about my offer (which was not quite a "promise," now was it?) that you did not reply to. So I went back and checked.
I made the offer very early Thursday morning, April 26. The next time I put up a new posting was Sunday night, April 29. In between then, I posted a single sentence comment late Saturday night, and that's it. Given that I work very hard, and that I almost always post in the early mornings, nights, and weekends, it's obvious that I became extremely busy at this time and had no time/energy to blog. In real life, TP, Telic Thoughts is not the #1 priority. Thus I imagine by the time Sunday night rolled along, it was not just a major issue for me.
LOL. Are y'all starting to figure out that the critics have me under the microscope? But keep this in mind "“ after over 1000 postings, and despite all this straining and cataloging, the lame complaints you see in this thread are the BEST they can come up with.
TP, when I read this, I had completely forgotten about my offer (which was not quite a "promise," now was it?) that you did not reply to. So I went back and checked.
Trust me, I could be a whole lot more nit picky.
The only reason I bother is because I believe you actually still care and it was just too juicy to pass up. For the record, it didn't take "straining and cataloging" to remember this one. It was one of the few times you and I went at it pretty hard. Also, for the record, your offer was to Keith, not to me and I did comment in the thread after this. I defended you from a comment by g arago because you had backed down (or at least I thought you had).
You are better than most Culture Warriors on either side of the question. I just wish I was more sure that it is more than keeping up appearences so you can play the "I've gone the extra mile" card when needed.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
Admirably objective, Mike. And certainly free of the "armchair psychologizing" you accused Elliott Sober of.
It's a wonder you can walk with all the bullet holes in your feet.
You do it again. You did not provide the link which contained a clip of Dawkins's speech. So here it is:
I encourage people do watch the video and consider my points.
1. Can Dawkins consider Intelligent Design independently of the God of the Bible? There is no evidence that he can, and plenty of evidence that he conflates the two.
2. The video shows that Dawkins views the God of the Bible as the most evil being imaginable. Thus, given #1, when Dawkins says he will accept evidence for "ID," what he needs is evidence sufficient enough for him to embrace the existence of the being that he describes/perceives. Watch the video again with this in mind.
3. Given #2, I don't believe that Dawkins could consider ID in a fair- and open-minded manner.
4. Since I think investigators must attempt to remain fair- and open-minded about all possible outcomes of an investigation, I do not think Dawkins is qualified to pass judgment on ID.
Call it arm-chair pyschologizing all you want (after all, if Sober can do it in the pages of the scientific literature, a loud mouth like me can do it on an obscure blog). What matters is that once again, keith rushes to Dawkins's rescue not by discrediting my arguments, but by attacking me.
I'm curious, keith. How long to you plan to keep this "show MikeGene is evil" routine going?
Admirably objective, Mike. And certainly free of the "armchair psychologizing" you accused Elliott Sober of.
"Armchair psychologizing" is unrelated to the theme of what Mike wrote. Anyone who "hears "God/religion" when "ID" is spoken or written" is not in a position to objectively evaluate an argument for ID or the sufficiency of accompanying evidence. Dawkins' biases interfere with sound judgement. Your attribution of hypocrisy to this is obscene.
Doesn't it bother either of you that Dawkins isn't talking about Intelligent Design or even Evolution in the clip you provide as evidence of his bias against ID.
I doubt Dawkins would find much to complain about with my ID proposal. link
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
You are better than most Culture Warriors on either side of the question. I just wish I was more sure that it is more than keeping up appearences so you can play the "I've gone the extra mile" card when needed.
All of us keep up appearances to one extent or another and thus remember that I wonder the same about you. All I can say is that I work hard and am almost always tired. As I mentioned, I post mostly in the morning or at night, when I am even more tired. After 1000+ postings and 1000s more comments, merely "keeping up the appearances" would have given you many examples of much more juicy things to complain about.
Are you concerned that I will someday and somehow "come out" using ID for socio-political and/or religious reasons?
Doesn't it bother either of you that Dawkins isn't talking about Intelligent Design or even Evolution in the clip you provide as evidence of his bias against ID.
Not at all. Read my 4-point argument. I know that ID is not the same as what Dawkins is talking about. But he doesn't know that. On the contrary, he thinks it is all the same thing. When someone says "ID", his mind hears what is expressed in the video.
Are you concerned that I will someday and somehow "come out" using ID for socio-political and/or religious reasons?
No, I am concerned that you don't realize you already are using ID for socio-political and/or religious reasons.
We all have our biases and agendas, including myself.
I would like to think I have been pretty darn open and ethical about where I am coming from, what I am doing and why I am doing it.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
That's right, and I accepted the offer, so I was surprised that Mike didn't follow through on his promise.
My goodness. My offer has been mutated into a promise. But if we are to talk about not following through on promises, consider this one:
MikeGene: Hmmm. Almost 50 comments later and my original critique of Harris remains completely intact.
Keiths: I'll do my best to rectify the situation after work today.
One hour later.
Keiths: In the meantime, Mike: Assuming that you believe in a God who sometimes heals in response to prayer, what is your perspective on the amputee question?
And that was the last we heard from Keith on that one.
No, I am concerned that you don't realize you already are using ID for socio-political and/or religious reasons.
And I suppose I should be concerned that you think I am. I'm trying to figure out how I am supposed to be doing this. Do I use ID to argue for the existence of God? Do I use ID to argue for a particular social or political outcome? You tell me.
We all have our biases and agendas, including myself.
I would like to think I have been pretty darn open and ethical about where I am coming from, what I am doing and why I am doing it.
And that was the last we heard from Keith on that one.
When?
Try Jan 24, 2007.
I'd say that Keith's current "surprise" is simply hypocrisy
LOL
Excuse me for stepping in here. But I have some responsibility for dredging up old issues. Hopefully, we all can make this a positive experience by stepping away.
However, feel free to point out hypocrisy on my part. I am owed at least one.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
And I suppose I should be concerned that you think I am. I'm trying to figure out how I am supposed to be doing this. Do I use ID to argue for the existence of God? Do I use ID to argue for a particular social or political outcome? You tell me.
Fair questions. I will attempt to do the balancing act of keeping this light but honest.
I think you are fighting a social/political battle where you earnestly feel you are telling the truth, correcting misconceptions and defending ID.
To me, your defense of ID is promoting ID.
I can't be sure why you want ID to succeed, but I think it is a reasonable presumption that you do.
As for your religious motivation"¦ You are smart enough to know that engaging in religious argument feeds the perception that ID is religious. The easiest and most effective way of reversing that trend would be to complete reject any and all attempts to suggest that ID might lead to scientific proof of God's existence, even if the suggestion is from an ID proponent. You do not do that.
Provoking Thoughts
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
I think you are fighting a social/political battle where you earnestly feel you are telling the truth, correcting misconceptions and defending ID.
If an attempt to tell the truth and correct misconceptions is fighting a social/political battle, what am I supposed to do? Allow the misconceptions to remain unchallenged? As for "defending ID," I defend my own ideas and perspective.
To me, your defense of ID is promoting ID.
But promoting or defending the concept of ID is not the same as a religious, political, or social agenda.
I can't be sure why you want ID to succeed, but I think it is a reasonable presumption that you do.
As of today, the only reason I would want it to succeed is because I have spent too much time/energy on it. It's an intel
April 29th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Hi Mike,
I thought you might be interested in this…
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com...
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 29, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
TP,
There is an unhappy ending to that story:
Kim Jong Il Ate My Rabbits For His Birthday
Comment by keiths — April 29, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Hi TP,
Thanks for the pic. But as the resident RabbitExpert, y'gotta wake up pretttty early in the morning to scoop me. Behold.
Comment by MikeGene — April 29, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Hi Mike,
I wasn't trying to "scoop" you. But not one to back away from a challenge, did you see this picture?
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com...
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 29, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Er…okay, I'm happy to admit you scooped me on that one.
Comment by MikeGene — April 29, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
April 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
She is actually in pretty good shape and she has a nice smile.
Comment by Bradford — April 29, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Open thread. YAY!
The ID Movement:
1. If the Wedgies got all that they dreamed of, what would the world be like?
2. Given the Wedgies are from moderate to conservative background, many of whom are not evangelical Chrisitains, I would suppose, not too much.
Seriously, what social issues has the center for science and culture been involved in? School Prayer? Nope? Teaching the Bible in Public schools? Nope? Evangelizing for Christ? Nope.
1. Concern over Eugenics
2. Concern over Euthenasia
3. Concern for embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Concern over the violence of the Animal Rights movement
5. Concern for the welfare of scholars and students
I think the suggestion the Wedge was going to be involved in directing sweeping social change is over-rated. Sure they argue that science should not neglect purpose in nature, and that it should not be inimical to scientific ideas which may be friendly to theisim. But what would the ID movement really achieve if they got what they want. They would have human life viewed as a highly valued thing, something more special than mere animals….
Would they pettition that teaching Darwinism is equivalent of child abuse? Would they use public institutions to destroy atheism like some others are eager to do to promote their agenda? Hmm, hard to say. Wedgies strike me as being fairly libertarian. Does one see authoritarian streaks in them, compared to say their opponents?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 30, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
April 30th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Don't softpeddle this Salvador. If those Wedgies really got what they want
the words intelligent and design forever would be allowed to be juxtaposed and kids would have an inalienable right to say mom and dad even in California.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
May 1st, 2007 at 12:10 am
Hi Bradford,
You provided a link to Uncommon Descent which linked to WorldNetDaily which linked to itself and other right-wing organizations.
Here is a link and a summary of SB 777, hopefully this will encourage more independent thinking.
I am curious how this has anything to do with ID science.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 1, 2007 @ 12:10 am
May 1st, 2007 at 6:49 am
TP: I am curious how this has anything to do with ID science.
Why do you not ask the same question of the other side? My experience with ID critics is they rarely talk about actual science. Much of what they say flows from internet arguments whose general form they memorize. That's why you find different cliches repeated ad nauseum. Take a trip over to PZ's blog or read one of Dawkins' books. Is the content all about science? Some of it is. But much is about politics and religion. Those two areas tell you much about the real reasons someone is inclined to believe a protein synthesis mechanism arose on prebiotic earth through a chance/selection process. It does not arise from the study of cellular biology.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2007 @ 6:49 am
May 1st, 2007 at 9:17 am
Hi Bradford,
I do ask the same question of the other side. See link comments #170643 through #171830. There are other examples, but this should give you a taste of me provoking thought on the other side.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 1, 2007 @ 9:17 am
May 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Absolutely nothing.
This was an open thread with rabbits as the first topic after all.
Since motivations of the Wedge are frequently criticized, I thought it would interesting to explore what would happen to the world if they got what they want. Given 90% of the USA accept God's involvement in the world, I doubt there would be the sort of changes people argue for if the Wedge succeeded. Certainly not a theocracy. At least not in the USA. I can't speak from knowledge about the rest of the world….
My only concern would be more boneheads like Dover (who were never part of the Wedge, but only were pretenders) trying to use public schools to proseletize.
From my interaction with the Wedge, the things on their mind have little to do with getting people elected to office, passing legislation, legislating cultural edicts and mores. The things on their mind are the evidences for ID and the plight of professionals and students who accept ID.
Of course it bothers them that Darwin gets a free pass in public schools, but of more concern at a personal level is the jobs and diplomas and opportunities being denied ID proponents.
I'm for civil liberties. If an atheist homosexual Darwinist parent wants to raise her biological child a certain way, though I may not like it, she has the right to do so, and I would defend that right.
I argue for the rights and privileges of ID proponents in academia and industry. I think legislative means are the least effective, however, spreading truth and information are very effective. As university presidents and industry executives realize it's bad for the bottom line to persecuting ID proponents, change will happen. A heartening example was when Darwinists Atheist John Rennie was given the cold shoulder by several University presidents and the Executive of Intel. See: Creationism, Cowardice and Science Education. Some time ago Rennie was advocating even denying kids entry into colleges unless they burnt incense to Darwin. It's nice to see the university presidents politely told him to take a hike….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 1, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 am
Hi Salvador,
If you didn't already read it. I defended you (at least partially) over at Panda's Thumb. I also took on a Loki persona in that thread. I would be interested in your reaction to my arguments as Loki. The interesting stuff starts here.
From the above link (with some typos corrected)…
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 2, 2007 @ 2:31 am
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
WOW!
You approximated my answers very well.
I do however, suggest if the Intelligent Designer of the Universe chooses to reveal Himself, that would strong empirical validation. I do not rule out that possibility. Till then I consider Design (with no reference to intelligence) a strong inference, and Intelligent Design (where the intelligence has human-like qualities like consciousness) a weaker inference.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 2, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
This was a commendable approximation, however, my argument is one of criticising category errors:
My criticism of the non-ID approach is that it tries to explain information in material terms. It is hopless to try to explain things like irrational numbers by appealing to Chemistry and Physics. The real numbers (which contain the irrationals) help us explain chemistry and physics, not the other way around.
A materialist approach to explaining the origin of information is a category error. A reasonable position is that of Trevors, Abel, and Yockey — namely — no answer for origins. All though I don't share their views, I think their position is at least defensible, which is more than I can say for the materialist view.
Like Mike, I consider ID to be a relatively weak inference, but I think it is still correct…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 2, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Sal,
You've been caught quote-mining yet again.
Why do you do it?
Comment by keiths — May 2, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
I quoted the accurate part of the editorial. I tossed out the baseless, untrue claims by MacCallum.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 2, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
By the way, I don't consider that a quote mine. However I do consider this a quote mine:
and
Keiths asks:
"Why do you do it? "
Because I occasionally delight POff my opponents and maybe I'm a scoundrel.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 2, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
If you are a scoundrel you share the label with quite a few EAs who love to belittle concepts that are revered by their theistic counterparts.
Comment by Bradford — May 2, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Hi Salvador,
I am glad you liked my Loki response. I am a little disappointed with your wishy-washy statement of…
That would be like Hippasus saying he wouldn't rule out the possibility that the square root of two might be shown to be a rational number after all.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 2, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 am
Indeed. But they've boxed themselves into a position that allows for no alternative. It amounts to a commitment to a narrow interpretation of evidence relating to information and intelligence.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2007 @ 12:10 am
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 am
Salvador,
I'm curious — how do you think Jesus feels about your dishonesty?
Comment by keiths — May 3, 2007 @ 1:04 am
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 am
Keiths, what do you think Jesus feels when someone insults another by calling him a wanker? Don't fall back on the "don't believe God exists" mantra. Explain why an atheist is exempt from moral standards.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2007 @ 6:08 am
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:55 am
Bradford,
Atheist is not exempt from moral standards. Rather he/she sets and adopts them as the circumstances (environment) dictates. Ultimate freedom, wouldn't you agree?
Comment by inunison — May 3, 2007 @ 7:55 am
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
Sal,
The question with the Wedge is not "what would happen if they got what they wanted." That has never been the question. The question was, is, and always will be why did their public discourse differ from the Wedge Strategy, and why was the Wedge secret?
Such unsavory tactics are common place, expected, and acceptable in politics. But not when the ultimate goal is to promote theism. Recall a governing goal of the wedgies:
(As an aside, this is a ludicrous goal, because materialistic explanations and a theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God are not mutually exclusive"”even though Dawkins, Harris, PZ, and the wedgies agree that they are.)
The wedgies united garden variety deceptive political tactics with evangelism. That's unacceptable, and all those involved in the Wedge fiasco should apologize to the body and step down from any leadership position. They were caught with their pants down. Instead their response is exactly the opposite: self righteous indignation.
Comment by David Heddle — May 3, 2007 @ 9:47 am
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 am
Sal: you've called yourself a Young-Earth Creationist; which implies, to me at least, that you believe a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of the origin of life on Earth. And that, in turn, implies that you believe in the God who did all that creating. Am I guessing your beliefs correctly?
Assuming that I am, I have to ask you this: if you believe that that God exists, why do you insist on disobeying that same God's Commandment not to bear false witness against your neighbors? For that is what your quote-mining has repeatedly been shown to be: false witness.
(On a more specific note, when are you going to apologize for mindlessly equating my verbal arguments with the alleged surgical mutilation of children — the facts of which incident you didn't even report correctly? Does your God give you the strength to admit wrongdoing?)
Comment by Raging Bee — May 3, 2007 @ 11:20 am
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
Greetings my dear brother.
I must however disagree. Their public discourse has been exactly the Wedge Strategy. The key elements:
They have certainly tried to follow their plan. Given a mere 1 million dollar budget, I'd say they were effective stewards of the money they were given.
They have the biologic institute and Doug Axe and Ann Gauger. Their definition of science may not be the same as yours, but if they are persuaded in their own conscience it is science, then I don't think they can be accused of deception.
My own view is that of total truth. Whether we classify it as science or theology is ultimately less important than whether a hypothesis is correct.
Let me encourage you to give your brothers in the Wedge the benefit of the doubt. You are accusing them of deception, can you cite a false statement that they have continued to prominently promote?
For myself, I have learned more science from the Wedgies than all the writings of Darwin or most evolutionary biologists.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2007 @ 11:56 am
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
How was I being dishonest?
1. it should be obvious from the context it was not a serious quote
2. links were provided to the full quotation
3. I pointed out it was a quote-mine (and hence not a serious quote)
4. It WAS Darwin's words, not mine
Thanks to you and others for giving publicity to those quotations. You are helping the public become aware that Darwin was nicknamed "Gas" and that he beat a puppy simply for the sense of power.
Keiths, you're so humorless.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Darwin…beat a puppy simply for the sense of power.
This quote is taken out of context: Darwin was quite young when he did that, and he also admitted he felt regret for that deed soon after he did it. So once again, you bear false witness by omitting an important element of the truth.
I ask you again: why do you disobey your Creator's Commandments? Are you really a believer, determined to live according to your God's rules, or are you just another hack using religion to justify doing whatever you want?
Comment by Raging Bee — May 3, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Let me encourage you to give your brothers in the Wedge the benefit of the doubt. You are accusing them of deception, can you cite a false statement that they have continued to prominently promote?
First they said ID was "science;" then, under oath at the Dover trial, one of their leading lights admitted it was NOT science; since then, they have ignored the smackdown they got at that trial, and are back to insisting that ID really is science.
Coming from someone who explicitly compared my verbal arguments to the mutilation of children, your protestations of innocence are just plain laughable.
Comment by Raging Bee — May 3, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Sal,
Come on"”look at the goals of the strategy. Without question it included promoting theism. (Which, of course, in principle I am in agreement with.) But how many of the ID leaders were telling mainstream audiences that their goal was to promote theism? How often did they hammer home the theme that the designer needn't be God? You don't find that deceptive? You don't find saying "the designer doesn't have to be God" in public while your actual goal is to promote theism to be disingenuous?
Their model appears to be a hypothetical Paul of Tarsus finagling an invite to Mars Hill by promising a lecture on "Philosophy Only! No illegal religions mentioned!" only to, in accordance with his secret plan, flip-flop when he got the microphone.
And, it's not surprising, if the ID leaders had been honest about their goals, rather than keeping them under lock and key, things would have turned out better"”if only for the simple reason that they couldn't possibly have failed any more miserably-yet at least they wouldn't have alienated those of us (including the ASA, it would appear) who are embarrassed by their methods.
Comment by David Heddle — May 3, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Hi David. You wrote:
David, you had previously written: "materialistic explanations and a theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God are not mutually exclusive" Had you said natural explanations I would have agreed. God can be the initial cause of a natural series of cause and effects. But materialism is the belief that matter and energy is all that there is and all that there ever was. There is no room within materialism for spirituality or God. They are excluded from the mix. I grew up under the influence of an atheist parent. Materialism was preached and I acquired a natural suspicion of any explanation of that was not solidly grounded in the matter is all there is mantra. Carl Sagan was someone I admired and followed. I was not open to the message of Christianity. Materialism was an obstacle. You do not become a Christian by disbeliving materialism but removing an obstacle makes the reception of a message possible. Actually the only thing necessary is a willingness to believe that an alternative to materialism is possible. My views of intelligent design are linked to the origins of a genetic code and the symbolic meaning of messages encoded by our DNA. I am not a disciple of the DI and neither are most IDists and have come to resent the use of the wedge document to discredit, not the DI, but rather ID.
The origin of DNA implicates an intelligent source. That's the conclusion of arguments I am able to make based on empirical studies. My arguments as to God's identity extend beyond this but are not based on research. There are many outside the DI who have similar views. My honest answer to the identity of God, based on biological evidence, is "I cannot tell." But then I will quickly add that I can discern his identity on another basis. There is no deception except among those who would mischaracterize our views.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Thanks to you and others for giving publicity to those quotations…
This is a common fallback position for children (both the standard and the overgrown kinds) who have pretended to be smirkingly intelligent, only to find themselves disgraced and discredited in front of their peers: pretend that all the attention they're getting — negative though it is — only proves how important and relevant they are. A short translation might be: "Nyah, nyah, I made you listen to me!"
Comment by Raging Bee — May 3, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I am not a disciple of the DI and neither are most IDists and have come to resent the use of the wedge document to discredit, not the DI, but rather ID.
The Wedge Document discredits ID because that's all they've managed to produce. If there were ANY peer-reviewed papers, or any other sign of real scientific work, supporting ID, then the Wedge document would be irrelevant. Perhaps you should direct your resentment toward the people who made the ID movement all about politics and PR, with (as the IDers themselves have admitted) no science to back any of it up.
Comment by Raging Bee — May 3, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The word theism doesn't appear in the Wedge document.
They have done exactly that. They visit apologetic seminars and teach it in the manner I see it taught elsewhere. They focus on the science and rather than talk from the authority of scripture, they appeal to the physical evidence. I'm not so sure they have ever publicly denied their deeply private beliefs and motivations. When asked who they believe the designer is, they are forthright.
That's not the way it's phrased. They may believe the designer is God, but that is not a valid inference from the theory. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics suggests something outside the universe got the universe started. I believe the cause of the Universe is the Christian God, but it's an invalid logical and scientific inference to go from the 2nd Law and suggest the souce of the Universe is the Christian God. Even if the statement "the source of the Universe is the Christian God" is correct, making that inference from the 2nd law is invalid. Same with ID theory.
When I teach ID theory to Christian audiences, I'm careful to point that out. It's not a matter of deception, but teach good logic and sound apologetics.
When asked publicly who they believe the Designer is:
Stephen Meyer : "God"
Jonathan Wells: "God of the old and new testament"
William Dembski: "God"
Phil Johnson: "God"
Michael Behe : "God"
IDEA Website: "God of the Bible"
I find it hard to justify an accusation of outright deception. It would be wrong to teach Christians to construct invalid apologetics. To say ID implies the Christian God is the Intelligent Designer, is an invalid logical construct. I think other lines of evidence suggest the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God, but that's not an inference one can make from the fundmental theorems of ID (i.e. Displacement Theorem, Barrow's Universal Wave Function, etc.)
Furthermore, having been a part of the movement, I've never been encouraged our counseled or seen a matter of policy to conceal who we think the Designer is. Where in the Wedge document does it say, use the phrase "the designer doesn't have to be God" in public in order to dupe the public?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Sal:
It could be argued that the 2LoT implies that the universe has a finite age (since entropy is not maximal right now, which it would be if the universe were infinite). Is that what you mean? I don't see how the 2LoT directly points to something outside the universe.
Comment by Raevmo — May 3, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Bradford,
I'm not an expert in these matters, but I was referring to scientific materialism, also known as methodological naturalism, as opposed to metaphysical naturalism, with the former crudely defined as "doing science as if materialism is all there is" and the latter ratcheting it up an important notch, replacing the "as if" with "because."
Newton approached gravity as if materialism explained everything. When finished, this approach presented us with a more beautiful picture of the cosmos, and hence God was glorified.
I am sympathetic to the ID argument that (1) nature has evidence of design and (2) it doesn't tell us who the designer is. That's fine. If that was "all there was" then I'd have no problem with the ID movement although I wouldn't be part of it, as long as it insisted on being called science. However, the Wedge Document is inconsistent with this definition, because it implies an understood-but-secret "wink-wink-nod-nod" is associated with point 2. If ID is as you describe it, there never would have been a Wedge document.
In other words, if it is a simple as 1) We see design in nature and (2) We cannot identify the designer, but (3) my personal view, which is outside the purview of ID, is that the designer is God, then why-o-why was there a secret strategy that had as one of its governing goals "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. " Why would you need such a strategy? Why couldn't your public statements 1,2 and 3 constitute all there was to know about your motives?
Sal,
What is your point"”surely you are not arguing that there is anything substantive behind the fact they want to promote a "theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" rather than use the word "theism?"
And you are making the same argument as Bradford"”that the leadership is always about (1) look, design! (2) No, can't identify designer and (3) Oh, by the way, I think it is God but that doesn't matter, that's just my personal view. But saying these three points define the ID movement is to imply that it is not about promoting a "theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" but rather, almost by accident, the very genteel acknowledgment that such a personal view can be accommodated. But the Wedge document does not state that "Isn't it nice that a theistic view fits with ID?" It argues to use ID to promote a theistic view. Surely any reasonable person sees the difference.
Comment by David Heddle — May 3, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Salvador "Wormtongue" Cordova wrote:
The word theism doesn't appear in the Wedge document.
A laughably transparent dodge, as Heddle points out when he quotes the Wedge Document:
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
The Wedge Document proves that ID is ALL about promoting theism, and Sal's attempts to pretend otherwise are getting more pathetic by the day.
Comment by Raging Bee — May 3, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Raevmo,
You are correct. I should have said, 2LOT suggests something started the universe.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
David,
You drive an intelligently designed car, can you name the names of all the human designers involved using ID theory?
I think you're being deeply unfair to your brethren.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 3, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Sal,
What do you mean?–I clearly wrote that I had no problem with the "can't identify the designer" mantra. Please reread.
Comment by David Heddle — May 3, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Bradford asks:
Bradford,
Jesus doesn't appear to have any qualms about name-calling. Check out his tirade against the Pharisees in which he calls them "snakes" and "brood of vipers".
Who said they were?
inunison wrote:
inunison,
Do you have any evidence for your assertion? Or is this just a way for you to experience an imagined moral superiority?
Comment by keiths — May 3, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Jesus was concerned with the truth of a statement. Would you desist in labeling Nazis something uncomplementary or would you call a spade a spade?
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
So then, according to you, it's okay to call someone a wanker if he is a wanker. And the word "wanker" doesn't need to be taken literally, since Jesus obviously wasn't being literal when he called the Pharisees "snakes" and "vipers".
So what's the problem? What are you complaining about, again?
Comment by keiths — May 3, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
We've been through this before. The person labeled as a wanker is personally unknown to the accuser. That in itself explains the problem. There was no basis for name calling other than satisfying a juvenile urge. Given your sensitivity to the statements of IDists I would have expected you to join the rest of us and label the name calling for what it was- jerky behavoir. You don't have to of course, but if the wanker tag is OK with you then don't whine about Salvador.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
Your objection might make sense if I were berating Salvador for name-calling, but I'm not. I'm accusing him of chronic dishonesty.
If you think that name-calling is morally equivalent to deception, that's fine — morality differs from person to person, after all — but don't be surprised when others, like Jesus, disagree.
Maybe you can outline for us the algorithm that Josh would have needed to follow in order to "objectively" establish that Mike was a wanker, thus justifying the epithet.
Perhaps you can even patent it: "Means and apparatus for the objective identification of wankers."
Comment by keiths — May 3, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
If you tag someone with a name that has a specified definition you are engaging in deception when the definition does not match up with the character of the person so labeled. Jesus knew the Pharisees to be religious hypocrytes. Josh did not know Mike.
Maybe you and Josh can refrain from acting like jerks- yes it is name calling and it fits.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Bradford wrote:
Interesting.
1. Josh called Mike a wanker, based on Mike's hypocrisy.
2. Jesus called the Pharisees vipers, based on their hypocrisy.
3. Therefore Jesus was right, and Josh is wrong.
Okay, Bradford, whatever you say…
Comment by keiths — May 3, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Keiths:
All I see in that link is Josh erroneously thinking that Mike claimed the things Sam Harris did.
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Guts,
Take a look at this, and then explain how Josh and I are wrong about Mike's hypocrisy.
Comment by keiths — May 3, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Let's take a look at who is the real hypocryte. From the post referenced by Josh:
Mike writes:
In other words action speaks louder than words and if Harris wishes to assert there are better reasons let's see them. Good reasons include motives that moved this organization to do good things, and this one as well and this one, this too, here's another, and another and another organization founded by motivated Christians. Where is Harris's evidence of compassion that exceeds what these and many, many more Christian organizations have done? If his criticism is not backed up by evidence of compassion inspired by the beliefs he shares with other EAs then it is Harris, Josh and their syncophants who are the hypocrytes.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Keiths,
First, that's a completely different post, you do realize that don't you? And as Mike explained to you, he was not dismissing harris for his credentials. Also, remember that you are a guest on this blog, so calm down on the name calling.
Comment by Guts — May 3, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Bradford,
Nice try at changing the subject, but we were talking about how Jesus would feel about quote-mining vs. name-calling, when I confronted you with the uncomfortable fact that Jesus himself indulged in name-calling.
Comment by keiths — May 3, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Guts:
Of course, but the issue is exactly the same. In two different cases, Mike attempts to discredit Harris by focusing on his background and credentials, conveniently forgetting that he himself has argued that his ideas should be taken at face value, independent of his credentials or training.
What name-calling? I invite you to reread the thread, make note of any instances of name-calling, and admonish the appropriate people. Hint: I'm not one of them.
Comment by keiths — May 3, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
You forgot about your hypocrisy charge that quickly? Lying is the issue. Hitler was a muderer. That's a fact. Before you go labeling people that post here make sure you have incontrovertible facts to back you up.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Keiths: What name-calling?
Keiths: I'm accusing him (Salvador) of chronic dishonesty.
Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Bradford,
If an accusation, backed by evidence, constitutes name-calling; and if you seek to banish name-calling, so defined, from this blog; then you're going to spend an awful lot of time censoring your co-contributors.
Comment by keiths — May 3, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
May 4th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Keiths:
But Keiths, that's what you got wrong. In neither case does Mike make the same claims as Harris.
Keiths:
You calling someone a hippocrit. Consider this your first warning from a TT moderator.
Comment by Guts — May 4, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I just noticed that Keith is continuing his misguided obsession of sliming me. His personal attacks against me have been refuted, but he insists on repeating them again and again.
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 10:31 am
May 5th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Mike,
You have been hypocritical — repeatedly. Anyone who doubts it should examine the evidence:
http://telicthoughts.com/sam-h...
http://telicthoughts.com/yet-a...
http://telicthoughts.com/archi...
http://telicthoughts.com/be-ni...
Comment by keiths — May 5, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I am not a disciple of the DI and neither are most IDists and have come to resent the use of the wedge document to discredit, not the DI, but rather ID.
Your claim that there are no peer reviewed papers is a factual error.
Comment by Bradford — May 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I asked:
Guts replied:
Guts,
There's a difference between referring to an action as hypocrisy versus labeling someone a hypocrite. If you doubt this, start labeling people rather than actions in your interpersonal relationships and see how far it gets you.
Also note that in this exchange, the only participant labeling people is Bradford, who refers to Sam Harris and his "syncophants" as "hypocrytes" and to Josh Rosenau and me as "jerks". Where is your rebuke of Bradford?
Finally, consider the consequences of an outright prohibition of action-labeling and name-calling. Suppose Richard Dawkins did something dishonest. You couldn't call him a liar, because that's name-calling. You couldn't label it dishonest, because by your standards that amounts to calling him a liar. Do you really want to hobble yourself and your fellow contributors this way?
Mere epithet-slinging is surely counterproductive, but accusations backed by evidence deserve to be heard.
Comment by keiths — May 5, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
In this exchange? So the insults from your buddies came in prior excahnges? So what? You wrote:
OK, so by the same logic there is a difference in labeling you and Josh jerks and asking you to refrain from acting like jerks. To add some context,
Maybe you and Josh can outline for me the algorithm that I would have needed to follow in order to "objectively" establish that you two were engaging in jerky behavoir; thus justifying the use of the term.
Comment by Bradford — May 5, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Bradford,
You're missing the entire point. For the reasons I just expressed to Guts, I don't think that name-calling should be prohibited at TT.
I don't object if you call me a jerk. I was simply using you as an example to demonstrate to Guts that if he wants to eradicate name-calling from TT, he's going to spend an awful lot of time censoring his co-contributors.
Call me a jerk, if you wish. If you do, I would request that you present your reasons for thinking so. Even if you don't, I don't think you should be banned.
Comment by keiths — May 5, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Keiths:
You've set forth your hypocrisy and liar charges ad nauseum. I do not think name calling should be a standard form of exchange at TT. Obviously moderators are not absolutely opposed to it either. But you've expressed yourself along these lines enough IMO and it is time to stop. I do not restrain guests in my home who, in the course of conversation, criticize public figures or even call them names, but do object when they repeatedly do this to other guests or family members. I draw the line there. Guts and Mike can decide to do what they think best. My advice to you is to engage in rational expositions of your POVs that EAs are allegedly noted for.
Comment by Bradford — May 5, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Hi keiths,
This is only your opinion, Keith. Yet notice that you speak as if you are describing objective reality, even to the point of emphasizing the word "have." Why is it that you cannot qualify your statement as an opinion and perception when that is all it is? Because, as I see it, you are engaged in character assassination. But why think that?
You provide "evidence" to support your accusatory claims, yet you conveniently omit the responses where I debunk your accusations. Readers can read my responses for themselves, as there is no need to resurrect dead horses.
The key here is to step back and notice the pattern. The examples of my supposed hypocrisy involve criticisms of Harris, PZ Myers, Dawkins, and Dawkins. Is it merely a coincidence that my "hypocrisy" always seems to come into play when Keith's heroes are being criticized? You'll note that Keith doesn't come up with counter-arguments or show that my criticisms are invalid and/or misguided. Instead, he merely distracts from the criticism by attacking me. Given that Keith has made it abundantly clear that he is a culture warrior with an agenda, I would think that the tactic he applies to defend his leaders should be rather transparent.
Furthermore, I would think it likewise obvious that keith is not standing on principle. The moralistic accusations he tosses out are always aimed at "the other side," as if the critics and New Atheists are never hypocritical. Yet as I see it, the New Atheist movement itself comes to us drenched in hypocrisy, claiming to champion science, yet abandoning science and relying on propaganda, anecdotes, and emotion to make its case.
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Don't forget your criticism of Ken Miller when you said…
link
And when Miller explained how and why he wasn't misrepresenting Dembski, you responded with…
I may have missed it, but I don't remember seeing the promised explaination from you.
Of course I am still troubled about how all of these criticisms are ethically consistent with the About Us 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."
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Speaking of the "h-word", Mike wrote:
Now take a look at a post of Mike's from February, and ask yourself after each sentence (including the title), "Is this objective reality, or just Mike's opinion?"
Admirably objective, Mike. And certainly free of the "armchair psychologizing" you accused Elliott Sober of.
It's a wonder you can walk with all the bullet holes in your feet.
Comment by keiths — May 5, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Hi TP,
LOL. Are y'all starting to figure out that the critics have me under the microscope? But keep this in mind "“ after over 1000 postings, and despite all this straining and cataloging, the lame complaints you see in this thread are the BEST they can come up with.
TP, when I read this, I had completely forgotten about my offer (which was not quite a "promise," now was it?) that you did not reply to. So I went back and checked.
I made the offer very early Thursday morning, April 26. The next time I put up a new posting was Sunday night, April 29. In between then, I posted a single sentence comment late Saturday night, and that's it. Given that I work very hard, and that I almost always post in the early mornings, nights, and weekends, it's obvious that I became extremely busy at this time and had no time/energy to blog. In real life, TP, Telic Thoughts is not the #1 priority. Thus I imagine by the time Sunday night rolled along, it was not just a major issue for me.
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Trust me, I could be a whole lot more nit picky.
The only reason I bother is because I believe you actually still care and it was just too juicy to pass up. For the record, it didn't take "straining and cataloging" to remember this one. It was one of the few times you and I went at it pretty hard. Also, for the record, your offer was to Keith, not to me and I did comment in the thread after this. I defended you from a comment by g arago because you had backed down (or at least I thought you had).
You are better than most Culture Warriors on either side of the question. I just wish I was more sure that it is more than keeping up appearences so you can play the "I've gone the extra mile" card when needed.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Hi keiths,
You do it again. You did not provide the link which contained a clip of Dawkins's speech. So here it is:
I encourage people do watch the video and consider my points.
1. Can Dawkins consider Intelligent Design independently of the God of the Bible? There is no evidence that he can, and plenty of evidence that he conflates the two.
2. The video shows that Dawkins views the God of the Bible as the most evil being imaginable. Thus, given #1, when Dawkins says he will accept evidence for "ID," what he needs is evidence sufficient enough for him to embrace the existence of the being that he describes/perceives. Watch the video again with this in mind.
3. Given #2, I don't believe that Dawkins could consider ID in a fair- and open-minded manner.
4. Since I think investigators must attempt to remain fair- and open-minded about all possible outcomes of an investigation, I do not think Dawkins is qualified to pass judgment on ID.
Call it arm-chair pyschologizing all you want (after all, if Sober can do it in the pages of the scientific literature, a loud mouth like me can do it on an obscure blog). What matters is that once again, keith rushes to Dawkins's rescue not by discrediting my arguments, but by attacking me.
I'm curious, keith. How long to you plan to keep this "show MikeGene is evil" routine going?
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
"Armchair psychologizing" is unrelated to the theme of what Mike wrote. Anyone who "hears "God/religion" when "ID" is spoken or written" is not in a position to objectively evaluate an argument for ID or the sufficiency of accompanying evidence. Dawkins' biases interfere with sound judgement. Your attribution of hypocrisy to this is obscene.
Comment by Bradford — May 5, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Hi Mike and Bradford,
Doesn't it bother either of you that Dawkins isn't talking about Intelligent Design or even Evolution in the clip you provide as evidence of his bias against ID.
I doubt Dawkins would find much to complain about with my ID proposal. link
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Hi TP,
All of us keep up appearances to one extent or another and thus remember that I wonder the same about you. All I can say is that I work hard and am almost always tired. As I mentioned, I post mostly in the morning or at night, when I am even more tired. After 1000+ postings and 1000s more comments, merely "keeping up the appearances" would have given you many examples of much more juicy things to complain about.
Are you concerned that I will someday and somehow "come out" using ID for socio-political and/or religious reasons?
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Hi TP,
Not at all. Read my 4-point argument. I know that ID is not the same as what Dawkins is talking about. But he doesn't know that. On the contrary, he thinks it is all the same thing. When someone says "ID", his mind hears what is expressed in the video.
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Thought Provoker wrote:
That's right, and I accepted the offer, so I was surprised that Mike didn't follow through on his promise.
Comment by keiths — May 5, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Hi Mike,
You asked…
No, I am concerned that you don't realize you already are using ID for socio-political and/or religious reasons.
We all have our biases and agendas, including myself.
I would like to think I have been pretty darn open and ethical about where I am coming from, what I am doing and why I am doing it.
Provoking Thought
Disclaimer: My commenting on TT should not be construed as an agreement the About Us 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." isn't misleading.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Hi Keiths,
My goodness. My offer has been mutated into a promise. But if we are to talk about not following through on promises, consider this one:
And that was the last we heard from Keith on that one.
When?
Try Jan 24, 2007.
I'd say that Keith's current "surprise" is simply hypocrisy.
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Hi TP,
You write:
And I suppose I should be concerned that you think I am. I'm trying to figure out how I am supposed to be doing this. Do I use ID to argue for the existence of God? Do I use ID to argue for a particular social or political outcome? You tell me.
Me too.
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Hi Mike and Keiths,
Mike wrote…
LOL
Excuse me for stepping in here. But I have some responsibility for dredging up old issues. Hopefully, we all can make this a positive experience by stepping away.
However, feel free to point out hypocrisy on my part. I am owed at least one.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Fair questions. I will attempt to do the balancing act of keeping this light but honest.
I think you are fighting a social/political battle where you earnestly feel you are telling the truth, correcting misconceptions and defending ID.
To me, your defense of ID is promoting ID.
I can't be sure why you want ID to succeed, but I think it is a reasonable presumption that you do.
As for your religious motivation"¦ You are smart enough to know that engaging in religious argument feeds the perception that ID is religious. The easiest and most effective way of reversing that trend would be to complete reject any and all attempts to suggest that ID might lead to scientific proof of God's existence, even if the suggestion is from an ID proponent. You do not do that.
Provoking Thoughts
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 5, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
If ID is the correct viewpoint then that alone is sufficient reason to want it "to succeed."
Comment by Bradford — May 5, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
May 5th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Hi TP,
You write:
If an attempt to tell the truth and correct misconceptions is fighting a social/political battle, what am I supposed to do? Allow the misconceptions to remain unchallenged? As for "defending ID," I defend my own ideas and perspective.
But promoting or defending the concept of ID is not the same as a religious, political, or social agenda.
As of today, the only reason I would want it to succeed is because I have spent too much time/energy on it. It's an intel