Open thread: Bird brains, theocracy books, and Dawkins of the Gaps
by KrauzeCat's got my tongue, so you get to decide what to talk about. Good thing I still have my fingers, or I wouldn't have been able to type in these suggestions.
Pharyngula has a nice post about bird brains and their similarities (or rather lack thereof) to those of mammals. My favorite part is the list of mental abilities found in birds, even ones traditionally regarded as outright stupid. Makes one wonder if birds could have evolved human-like intelligence if mammals had never gotten the chance.
John of Verum Serum writes about yet another book about the Coming Theocracy, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by Chris Hedges. With all those theocracy books already out there, you need to go to extremes to get noticed, and from the LA Times review, it appears that Hedges believes that to preserve liberty and democracy, we need to ban those religious views that he considers intolerant.
David Anderson (who also blogs at The BCSE Revealed) has written a parable, "Does Richard Dawkins Exist?", describing the epistemological doubts caused by applying the arguments from Dawkins' newest book to Dawkins himself.
If a Dawkins designed the book, then who designed the Dawkins? This only moves - not solves - the problem; it is no answer at all. For it was clear that nobody would be able to explain just who was responsible for the Dawkins.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Open thread! YAY!
Here are Uncommon Descent threads that I think could be of interest and I was surprised it did not generate more discussion:
William Dembski and 3 IDers cited in a significant OOL peer-reviewed article by Trevors and Abel
It ought to be noted, Trevors and Abel squish Richard Dawkins scientific ideas in the paper. Yes, Dawkins has been taking flak in the poplular press, but one of is his scientific ideas was successfully criticized and the criticism passed peer review in a physics journal.
Conversely, 4 IDers get a favorable citation in that same paper. 
Here is another topic that has significance on many levels:
Nachman's U-Paradox
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 10, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Speakng of Dawkins, Kazmer Ujvarosy just introduced my essay "The Darwinian Delusion" over at American Chronicle, January 10, 2007 edition, as an antidote to Dickie Dawkins' delusionary "The God Delusion."
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — January 10, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Congratulations to John! And to Dembski, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and R. L. Olsen! How… satisfying. §;o)
Comment by Joy — January 10, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
January 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I thought this creation story for young materialists particularly funny. By the way, would Dawkins object to them being labeled "young materialists" I think Joe Carter needs some consciousness raising…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — January 10, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
January 11th, 2007 at 11:49 am
'Does Dawkins Exist' is very clever. I like this:
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2007 @ 11:49 am
January 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Kenneth Pidcock, Ph.D., an associate professor of biology at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, says:
"It is appropriate to ask scientists to explain what, absent philosophical bias, accounts for their lack of respect for the theory of intelligent design. I would like to offer my own explanation: There is no theory of intelligent design…
The molecular nature of a design event, and how it differs from undirected mutation and recombination, has never been proposed. ("Specified complexity" is an outcome, not a mechanism.)…
Intelligent design supporters are not alone in their critique of the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
Biologist Lynn Margulis and others likewise question neo-Darwinian assumptions, using some of the same arguments from probability as the intelligent design community.
They differ, categorically, from the intelligent design community in that they offer an alternative theory — symbiogenesis — in which illegitimate (the word does not convey value) recombination among disparate genomes accounts for speciation.
Having an actual theory allows supporters of symbiogenesis to test that theory against evidence provided by the fossil record and extant genomes, which has provided some interesting insight into the evolutionary process.
Symbiogenesis as a major mechanism for speciation is not widely supported within the scientific community, but its supporters receive much greater respect than do supporters of intelligent design. In fact, Margulis has served as president of Sigma Xi, a scientific research society.
This is not because neo-Darwinians are more comfortable metaphysically with symbiogenesis. It is because symbiogenesis offers a testable scientific theory.
Supporters of intelligent design promote "teaching the controversy" but, in doing so, they misrepresent what controversy means in the context of scientific deliberation.
Real scientific controversy entails discussion among competing, testable theories. The controversy between neo-Darwinian theory and symbiogenesis is very real and, if I may speak as an amateur scientist, quite enjoyable.
Intelligent design proponents claim that they are being excluded from the discussion because of philosophical bias, but that is not true.
They are being excluded from the discussion because, for whatever reason, they have chosen to offer no competing theory. Until they do, it is they who are failing to act in good faith, and scientists should not feel pressure to pretend otherwise."
Entire article can be found here:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld...
Comment by Jack — January 11, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
January 11th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
The molecular nature of a design event, and how it differs from undirected mutation and recombination, has never been proposed.
Multiple pathways to a single outcome, all of which are equally plausible, is a hallmark of an intelligently directed outcome. The "how it differs" part is not mysterious. A complex system, that would not form through forces of nature alone, is an indicator.
("Specified complexity" is an outcome, not a mechanism.)"¦
Specified complexity is a descriptive criteria by which to assess outcomes.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
January 12th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Scientific discovery has absolutely nothing to do with discussion and never has. It has to do only with revealing absolute undeniable crystalline truth.
"Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation. drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."
Galileo
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — January 12, 2007 @ 7:55 am
January 12th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Jack
You are absolutely right. There is no "theory" of Intelligent Design. The Intelligent Design of the entire universe, animate and inanimate, is perfectly obvious to anyone with an objective mind. Chance has played no role whatsoever in any aspect of either. How many times has he had to tell you?
"EVERYTHING is determined… by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
That which IS determined WAS determined. Think about it.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — January 12, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 4:27 am
Jack
I am a Creationist although not a member of the so called "ID movement."
I have definitely offered an alternative "hypothesis" to the Darwinian "hypothesis." It is properly identified as a "PrescribedEvolutinary Hypothesis. Apparently you choose to ignore it.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — January 13, 2007 @ 4:27 am
January 13th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Jack
I see you intend to pretend I do not exist. That is the typical Darwinian reaction to any form of criticism of "the one true faith." That won't wash any more.
Let the record show that Jack, whoever that really is of course, has no response to offer when formally challenged. That was the fate of everyone of my sources as well and that is the primary reason I have published my evolutionary papers. It is to restore those sources to the prominence they always have deserved as the real pioneers in the study of the greatest mystery in all of biological science - organic evolution.
I repeat, for God only knows how many times now, that the Darwinian model has absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution beyond the elaboration of intraspecific varieties, all of which are nothing but evolutionary dead ends anyway. It is the greatest and most long lived hoax in the history of science, dwarfing both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — January 13, 2007 @ 7:41 am
January 13th, 2007 at 7:43 am
John,
I think Jack was simply quoting an article , those words were not his.
Comment by Guts — January 13, 2007 @ 7:43 am
January 13th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Man, you're a persistent guy, JAD.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 13, 2007 @ 10:46 am
January 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
When one is supremely confident of ones position, as I am, one can afford to be persistent. Presently I am simply trying to see how many blogs and forums will ban me, thereby identifying themselves as hopeless, feckless ideologues. I have been doing famously of late. My current audience, aside from this one, consists entirely of "Sandwalk" (Larry hasn't noticed me yet, but he will probably ban me when he does),"brainstorms", my favorite forum and Terry Trainor's "Evolution, Creation or Both" forum. Incidentally, I am the one responsible for the "Both." Trainor is remarkable for his tolerance of ideas that are not in concert with his own, a rare feature among forum hosts. It is too bad others cannot do the same. Most forum heads are incorrigible egomaniacs with only one goal in mind which to establish their own perspective whatever it takes. Some of them even have hired goons like David Springer and Alan Fox to do their dirty work for them. I am sure I don't have to tell you which forums I have in mind.
So you see "Telic Thoughts" is on trial too as far as I am concerned.
Aren't I the arrogant one though? You bet I am.
Just what does anyone intend to do about it? Ban me?
Bannishment is the final proof that one has, as they say in the military -
"reached out and touched someone."
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — January 13, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
That's some task, John. Best of luck (although I think you'd have to do quite a bit to get banned around here).
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 13, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
If one is not taken seriously, he might just as well be banned.
"When little is known with certainty, every man is an expert."
John A. Davison
"Men believe most what they least understand."
Montaigne
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — January 13, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Whatever happened to DNAunion? Is he here under another name? It's been a long time since I heard from him.
Comment by Doug — January 26, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
January 26th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Hi Doug,
"Whatever happened to DNAunion?"
See for yourself.
Comment by Krauze — January 26, 2007 @ 7:23 pm