24 Responses to “It'll Never Work… We'll All Be Killed”

1. Mung Says:
   July 1st, 2006 at 8:57 pm

   WHY must everyone be forced to believe-in the same just-so story about life and evolution on planet earth?

   Because it's THE TRUTH!

   Oh, and nothing makes sense except in the light of it.

   And, it's probably a matter of life and death.

   But we can thank God for Science, our Saviour.

Comment by Mung — July 1, 2006 @ 8:57 pm

2. Bradford Says:
   July 2nd, 2006 at 8:35 am

   WHY must everyone be forced to believe-in the same just-so story about life and evolution on planet earth?

   Because it is an evangelical tool for materialism. If standard origin of life hypotheses were supported by solid scientific evidence there would be no need to force the issue. Force is the by-product of intellectually weak arguments combined with a need to control.

Comment by Bradford — July 2, 2006 @ 8:35 am

3. Mung Says:
   July 2nd, 2006 at 10:07 am

   New post in the Humphrey on consciousness thread here.

Comment by Mung — July 2, 2006 @ 10:07 am

4. Odd Digit Says:
   July 2nd, 2006 at 3:50 pm

   I think the scientists must be quaking in their boots. The amount of concrete evidence and eyewitness accounts that Bill Demski has presented to demonstrate the truth of his claims against the scientists he names is simply staggering.

Comment by Odd Digit — July 2, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

5. edarrell Says:
   July 2nd, 2006 at 4:32 pm

   No, no one really argues that intelligent design and other creationist claptrap should be excluded by law. It should be excluded by science and common sense, and ethical behavior. When creationists coerce legal and legislative bodies to impose intelligent design where it does not belong, especially in science classes in the public schools, then courts are appropriately used to restore the rule of law.

   In every case that has ever gone to trial it has been creationists who abused the legal process and tried to use law to impose their will, not the other way around.

   Please try to keep the story accurate.

Comment by edarrell — July 2, 2006 @ 4:32 pm

6. Farshad Says:
   July 2nd, 2006 at 4:38 pm

   WHY must everyone be forced to believe-in the same just-so story about life and evolution on planet earth?

   I think it has something to do with a group of scientists trying to become intellectually fullfilled _____.

Comment by Farshad — July 2, 2006 @ 4:38 pm

7. Art Says:
   July 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 pm

   Lemmee see if I've got this right - joy, who thinks that the ca 300 bp CaMV 35S promoter is a fully-infectious virus as well as an insidious genetic element that will cause uncounted cancers in people who get a sniff of GMO foods, this joy is praising a blog entry by Dembski, in which he scolds a student for having the temerity to correct Wells?

   joy, is the parody intentional? If so, kudos. Self-deprecation is too rare here.

   As for joy's question:
   

   WHY must everyone be forced to believe-in the same just-so story about life and evolution on planet earth?

   1. They're not "just-so stories". Someone who is professing some interest in, and knowledge of, the philosophy of science ought to land on Chance and draw a clue card. (Talk about mixing metaphors - that should scramble a few minds .)

   2. No one is forcing anyone to do anything (unless, of course, joy is on board with the rest of theTT crew in thinking that objective standards in schools and the academy are inherently unfair to ID, and thus that ID-friendly folk deserve a free ride, a rubber-stamp A in courses just for being ID-friendly).

   3. It's not a matter of belief, but rather following evidence. Evidence, that property that is endangered and will probably be legislated or decreed out of existence in the Post Wedge World, that post-modern metaphysically relativistic paradise where everyone and everything is correct, where there is no right or wrong, where "it looks that way to me" is the acme of scholarly inquiry.

Comment by Art — July 2, 2006 @ 10:36 pm

8. trrll Says:
   July 2nd, 2006 at 11:56 pm

   We are informed constantly that it is somehow vitally "important" to humanity at large that all and/or most human beings be made to believe-in the Neodarwinist just-so story told about life and evolution here on planet earth.

   Most scientists that I know are not all that concerned about what people believe–they just don't like teachers misleading students about their profession.

Comment by trrll — July 2, 2006 @ 11:56 pm

9. Bradford Says:
   July 3rd, 2006 at 12:44 am

   "In every case that has ever gone to trial it has been creationists who abused the legal process and tried to use law to impose their will, not the other way around. "

   The Discovery Institute and most IDers have taken the position that evolution be taught but that both supporting evidence and evidence that is problematic be included. This includes the matter of life's origins: a particularly weak point for Darwinists.

Comment by Bradford — July 3, 2006 @ 12:44 am

10. Joy Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 12:22 pm

    Art, if you've nothing but misrepresentations and lies to offer, please don't offer. Thanks.

Comment by Joy — July 3, 2006 @ 12:22 pm

11. Mung Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    Art, if you've nothing but misrepresentations and lies to offer, please don't offer.

    Um, are you claiming that the IDM is not the source of post-modernism?

Comment by Mung — July 3, 2006 @ 12:56 pm

12. MikeGene Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    Art:
    

    unless, of course, joy is on board with the rest of theTT crew in thinking that objective standards in schools and the academy are inherently unfair to ID, and thus that ID-friendly folk deserve a free ride, a rubber-stamp A in courses just for being ID-friendly).

    I think you are a little confused here. I don't think there is anything unfair to ID about objective standards in schools and the academy. Nor do I think that ID-friendly folk deserve a free ride, a rubber-stamp A in courses just for being ID-friendly.

    It's not a matter of belief, but rather following evidence. Evidence, that property that is endangered and will probably be legislated or decreed out of existence in the Post Wedge World, that post-modern metaphysically relativistic paradise where everyone and everything is correct, where there is no right or wrong, where "it looks that way to me" is the acme of scholarly inquiry.

    Don't you think it a tad paranoid to believe that evidence will "probably be legislated or decreed out of existence in the Post Wedge World?" You seem to be confused about the the Post Wedge World; it is simply defined by the effective death of the Wedge:

    The strongly worded decision from U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones in the Dover case hasn't driven evolution's opponents toward extinction, but it does make future legal challenges to evolution a "hot stove" no one wants to touch, Mr. Harvey said.

    It could keep evolution from facing a court challenge for a long time.

    "They saw somebody else touch the stove and get burned. I think that's the lesson learned in Ohio," he said.

Comment by MikeGene — July 3, 2006 @ 2:36 pm

13. MikeGene Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    Mung:
    

    Um, are you claiming that the IDM is not the source of post-modernism?

    You are obviously not very educated, Mung. If you were, you'd be able to follow the simple logic:

    ID = God;
    God = Religion;
    Religion is the Root of All Evil (see Dawkins);
    Post-modernism is Evil;
    Therefore, ID is the root of post-modernism.

Comment by MikeGene — July 3, 2006 @ 2:39 pm

14. Art Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    Joy, funny you should mention "misrepresentations and lies". The screed by Dembski you link to is nothing but misrepresentation and lie.

    Which leads us to the question - what was your point, if not parody and self-mockery?

    As for the implication that I am misrepresenting you, are you denying that you point to, support, and defend Mae Wan Ho and her anti-GMO balderdash? That you have specifically asserted, beyond all reason, that the CaMV 35S promoter is an infectious virus? Do we need to cut'n'paste the relevant ARN posts here?

    Or are you claiming that, somewhere in the virtual netherworld (or even in your own mind, unmentioned in the blogosphere until now), you have changed your mind about these matters? If so, I apologize for my characterization and applaud your clear-headedness.

    Mung, ID did not lead to post-modernism. But ID most certainly depends, extensively, on the metaphysical relativism. For only in a relativistic landscape can "it looks that way to me" be anything more than an idle musing. It takes a post-modern world for this most beloved of ID assertion to rise to the status of evidence (and even then, not scientific evidence).

    Mike, the Post-Wedge World is the place where there is no right or wrong, where "it looks that way to me" is the "way" and HTR is pushed aside. The defeat of the Wedge has brought these things into clear focus.

Comment by Art — July 3, 2006 @ 6:21 pm

15. Guts Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    Art's modus operandi is to spread lies and misrepresentation, because in his mind ID = religion, and as he revealed in the "pandas" thread, he regards (at least some) religious practices as "odious". It's just "ends justifies the means" based on a fallacious view. The funniest thing is that all of Art's accusations can be reduced to projection.

Comment by Guts — July 3, 2006 @ 6:38 pm

16. Joy Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 7:23 pm

    Yeah, Art. I think tampering with staple food crops by means of a crude technology built upon gross misinterpretation of biotic reality is terminal foolishness. You're a salesman for the effort, so of course you have a problem with my point of view. Tough titty.

    Guts, if Art had any knowledge whatsoever about my metaphysical beliefs he might have something to say about 'em. Since he does not it's mere projection. I'm not interested in the psychological projections of irrational people.

    This is my thread, Art. Don't post to it.

Comment by Joy — July 3, 2006 @ 7:23 pm

17. MikeGene Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 7:35 pm

    Art:
    

    Mike, the Post-Wedge World is the place where there is no right or wrong,

    Actually, you have it completely backwards. It is wrong to miscast a mistake as a lie. It is wrong to miscast a difference in perspective as a lie. You are the one who abandons the sense of right and wrong in a self-righteous rush to attach the "liar" label to others.

    where "it looks that way to me" is the "way" and HTR is pushed aside.

    Here you are erecting straw men. To carry out HTR, we need, as Nobel Laureate Francois Jacob points out, a "look" that is "is necessarily guided by a certain idea of what this so-called reality might be." And appearances play a prominent role all throughout HTR. Recall, for example, your argument that Fox's protocells were alive. It was no different from "it looks that way to me." Your belief that proto-cellular life forms once existed as part of some RNA world likewise boils down to "it looks that way to me." Correction "“ you can add "and to others" to that sentence. Anyway, if you want to continue discussing HTR, I'm still waiting for a reply to this comment.

    The defeat of the Wedge has brought these things into clear focus.

    You overlook the fact that many of us have been arguing with you for years. Your complaints are not new, as if they "suddenly" came into focus since the Dover decision. So why are you acting as if "the defeat of the Wedge has brought these things into clear focus?"

Comment by MikeGene — July 3, 2006 @ 7:35 pm

18. orion Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 8:16 pm

    But ID most certainly depends, extensively, on the metaphysical relativism.

    Odd, I thought ID was creationism-lite a fundamentalist plot.

Comment by orion — July 3, 2006 @ 8:16 pm

19. Bilbo Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 8:30 pm

    Sorry, but what is HTR? And can't we all just get along?

Comment by Bilbo — July 3, 2006 @ 8:30 pm

20. keiths Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 8:48 pm

    Bilbo asks:

    Sorry, but what is HTR? And can't we all just get along?

    HTR stands for hypothesize, test, revise (from another TT thread).

    And we can't get along because each side feels that the folks on the other side are poised to do real damage (intentional or not) if they succeed.

Comment by keiths — July 3, 2006 @ 8:48 pm

21. Art Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 9:08 pm

    Joy has disinvited me from the thread, but I want to remind the TTers here of the color that joy herself has painted them with.

    Readers can scroll back up and reflect on teh fact that no TTer - not a one! - has taken joy to task for promoting a diatribe that is pathetic to its core. The conclusion is obvious - the TT crew is on board with Dembski's characterization of evolutionary biology.

    Here's the bulk, so we can see here just where TTers really stand when it comes to evolution:

    I want next to consider some of the actual techniques for establishing evolutionary claims that evolutionary logic makes available. I will be concerned mainly with ways in which these techniques can be applied in lecture courses — they require only trivial modification to be used in textbooks, research papers, formal debates, and Internet discussions.

    In evolutionary biology, organisms transform by an evolutionary process into other organisms. This means that evolutionary biologists are often called on to establish lineal relationships. There is a whole class of methods that can be applied when an instructor can't quite bridge an evolutionary gap. Suppose an instructor can get from organism A to organism B and from organism C to organism D by an evolutionary process but cannot bridge the gap between B and C. A number of techniques are available to the aggressive instructor in this emergency. The instructor can write down B and then, without any hesitation, put "therefore C." If the class is bored or the organisms in question are not terribly interesting, it is unlikely that anyone will question the "therefore." This is the method of argument by omission and it is remarkably easy to get away with (sorry, "remarkably easy to apply with success").

    Alternatively, there is the argument by fiat, where one simply posits an intermediary between B and C — call it Z — that shares characteristics of both. The evolutionary transitions from B to Z and then from Z to C are now obvious. The argument by fiat is a special case of the argument by misdirection, where in place of a difficult problem that was supposed to be solved, one solves an easier problem that is superficially similar to the original problem.

    Argument by definition can be extremely effective. Here the instructor defines a set S to be whatever biological systems satisfy some property. For instance, S might consist of all irreducibly complex molecular machines that are the result of Darwinian evolution. The lecturer then announces that in the future only members of S will be the focus of discussion. Even honors students will take this at face value, not questioning whether the set S might in fact be empty.

    Argument by assertion is unanswerable. If, for instance, some vague waffle about an evolutionary transition does not satisfy a recalcitrant student, the instructor simply says, "This point should be intuitively obvious. I've explained it as clearly as I can. If you still cannot see it, you will just have to think very carefully about it yourself, and then you will see how trivial and obvious it is." The instructor at this point might also want to add, "What are you, a creationist?" or "Are you one of those Christian fundamentalists?" or "Where have you been brainwashed?" Arguments by demonization like this are particularly effective when one or a few students get unruly, but the majority sides with the instructor.

    Yet when the majority of the class becomes unruly, nothing beats an argument by obscure reference. This will silence all but the most determined troublemaker. Few students take the time or want to take the time to hunt down an obscure reference in the evolutionary literature. And even if students locate the reference (which is becoming easier with the Internet), if the reference is sufficiently technical and difficult to understand, it is an easy matter for the instructor to inform the student that he or she simply doesn't comprehend the relevant passage.

    In this case, if the instructor is feeling benevolent, he or she may simply offer an argument from removable ignorance — "Just keep studying evolutionary theory, and eventually it will all make sense." If that doesn't work, the instructor may wish to try an argument from stupidity — "How can you be so stupid?" But if the student is otherwise at the top of the class, this approach may backfire. In that case, either the argument from wickedness ("You are just being perverse") or the argument from insanity ("What are you, nuts?") should do the trick. And always keep the argument by demonization in your front pocket.

    A variant of the argument by obscure reference is the argument by irrelevant reference. This works in a pinch when you can be reasonably sure that the student won't track down the reference (perhaps because of time constraints). But be careful — if the irrelevance is palpable (say you are discussing the evolution of vertebrates and the article you cite is on the evolution of organisms in a completely different phylum or even kingdom), then you may be in trouble if the irrelevancy is pointed out. Make sure the irrelevance is hard to fathom. And then there's the argument by nonexistent reference — this works best in public debates.

    Because the public debate over evolution tends to pit academic high culture against the burger-eating, coke-swilling moronic masses, it is helpful to have a technique specifically for keeping the masses in check and for keeping the academic elite from being seduced by populist sentiments. The argument from aesthetics is the technique of choice here. "This theory is just too beautiful to be false." Evolutionary biologists regularly use this technique to establish the validity of their theories when the evidence for them otherwise is extremely slender.

    By now it will be apparent what riches derive from the study of evolutionary logic. I therefore appeal to evolutionary biologists everywhere to institute formal courses in this discipline. This should preferably be done at the undergraduate level so that those who go to teach with only a bachelor's degree will be familiar with the subject. But high school students too should be exposed to the rudiments of evolutionary logic. It is certain that in the future no one will be able to claim a biological education without a firm grounding in the practical applications of evolutionary logic.

    We could extend the assent of the TT crew with Dembski's screed to the recent collection of pulp from Coulter - after all, Dembski has as much as claimed to have written the chapters on evolution.

    All of this fairly loudly shouts - ID, even the TT version, is solidly, boldly, loudly, unequivocally evolution NO!

    A better and clearer statement of the true sentiments of the TT crew I daresay we could not find. Thanks, joy.

    (And a very red-faced "um, never mind" if it turns out that joy's efforts here are really parody and self-mocking.)

Comment by Art — July 3, 2006 @ 9:08 pm

22. Art Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 9:09 pm

    One more thing, Mike - I really like the way the thread you are waiting on ended. I don't want to spoil it.

Comment by Art — July 3, 2006 @ 9:09 pm

23. samohth Says:
    July 3rd, 2006 at 10:03 pm

    And we can't get along because each side feels that the folks on the other side are poised to do real damage (intentional or not) if they succeed.

    Real damage to what besides large egos?

Comment by samohth — July 3, 2006 @ 10:03 pm

24. Guts Says:
    July 5th, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    One more thing, Mike - I really like the way the thread you are waiting on ended. I don't want to spoil it.

    Are you a masochist?

Comment by Guts — July 5, 2006 @ 12:38 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.