No comment. But maybe food-for-thought"¦

Mike, let's be fair. A. Peacocke, J. Polkinghorne, G. Ellis, G. Murphy, N. Murphy, E. Davis, D. Lamoureux and others are 'critics of i+d' too. But you refrain from criticising their criticisms (seemingly) because they often involve a theistic dimension, which you are not willing to entertain in your conceptualization of i+d. You seem to want to study i+d as agnostically (i.e. secularly or, please excuse, scientifically) as possible. The criticisms of those persons above are quite well-articulated (they are all accomplished scientists, with the exception of one) and also quite different from the atheistic or agnostic criticisms of i+d which you seem so fond to spend your time debating.

You say they are quite different from atheistic or agnostic criticisms. Are you refering to theological criticisms? Obviously each of these people have their own unique positions but from what I've seen their non-theological criticisms are very similar to those of other critics. You seem familiar with their positions. Could you point to some of the differences?

Also as far as flavors of theistic evolution (of which I think some of those individuals would fit) it's not as though there are no extant criticisms from a theological perspective. Cardinal Schönborn has been a vocal critic. I've also done one here and more recently philosopher of science and Catholic priest Martin Hilbert has one here.

No. Didn't you know that by now? The similarities between language in Panda's before and after was quite shocking, however, and it would be far-fetched to say that 'creation' is/was irrelevant to the invention or concoction of i+d, don't you think?

Sure. I discuss this here.

I would be satisfied if you simply adjusted your language to say 'critics of ID' or even 'ID critics' instead of 'the ID critics' which implies a stronger (more unified) categorization. Critics of i+d come in many shapes and sizes, even those who don't bother to criticize it anymore can be considered critics.

Point taken.

Mike, let's be fair. A. Peacocke, J. Polkinghorne, G. Ellis, G. Murphy, N. Murphy, E. Davis, D. Lamoureux and others are 'critics of i+d' too. But you refrain from criticising their criticisms (seemingly) because they often involve a theistic dimension, which you are not willing to entertain in your conceptualization of i+d. You seem to want to study i+d as agnostically (i.e. secularly or, please excuse, scientifically) as possible. The criticisms of those persons above are quite well-articulated (they are all accomplished scientists, with the exception of one) and also quite different from the atheistic or agnostic criticisms of i+d which you seem so fond to spend your time debating.

I am not excessively familiar with the criticisms from theistic evolutionists. Those that I have seen look pretty good. But before you can get there, one of these authors would need to establish the following position "“ "If Life was designed, the designer MUST have been God."

We're likely not all that far apart after all. But I demand respect for my areas of scholarship and research, as you likely do for yours. Reducing i+d or teleology to natural sciences alone is likely not conducive to discussion across the disciplines and rather fragmentary of knowledge, than seeking to integrate knowledge. Philosophy also has a role to play, beyond just repeating the demarcation game.

Just as I am not a "great thinker," neither am I am Renaissance Man. I can only speak of things from my perspective. If someone else seeks to integrate knowledge, they should make the effort to understand my position and perspective and tell me how it integrates with their own areas of specialty. Since I am the world's leading expert on the position and perspective of MikeGene, I can then determine whether the integration efforts succeed or fail to capture the essence of MikeGene's position and perspective. The other option, of course, is to ignore me. You won't find me hounding others and demanding that they integrate my position and perspective.

Yes, I know this. But you quote those who do chant 'scientific revolution' in your writings and formulations (see second quote below).

No, I don't quote them. I point out their focus of interest to serve my point.

I am not here pointing a 'guilt by association' finger, but that is what some of your critics do.

LOL. Some? Many critics (but not you) demonstrate a herd mentality and then turn around and project that on me. It's worth pointing out.

Neither can you avoid this, not can you post-wedge something you weren't responsible for in the first place.

Of course I cannot avoid it. So when many of the critics rely on a herd mentality and simple-minded stereotypes, I take a big spot light and illuminate such tactics for all to see.

If the IDM and Pajaro Dunes hadn't happened, if i+d hadn't been coined, if the CSC hadn't been set up, etc., then you'd likely be working on another internet blog project altogether. The same hunches about life being 'designed' may still be there, but without a further degree of articulation"¦thanks to the IDM.

Of course. I have already explained how Mike Behe's arguments played the critical role in the birth of my IDthinking. But you are viewing things in one dimension. Two other streams of influence play equally critical roles. First, there are "the critics" themselves. Without them, I might indeed be working on another blog. Second, and most importantly, is my own eccentric view of reality. Do you think I am simply a product of my environment, g arago?

Which teleologists? Do you mean social and humanitarian thinkers? Why not reference Daniel Bell or Manuel Castells when talking about 'information'? We are supposedly living in an 'information age' according to some people - not just natural scientists and naturalists.

Teleologists who would take notice that molecular biologists are cashing checks from the teleological bank accounts.

This is the super duper trio! It is not surprising that you rarely tip your hat to Phillip Johnson, the 'father' of i+d. And yes, molecular biology is included in my reference to biology; much like social psychology would be included in a reference to psychology. Would you answer the question, then, why molecular biology? I asked it directly to Dembski, who is not himself a biologist, and he answered rather curtly to me that biologists themselves think design is relevant, and that's why i+d focuses on biology instead of places where design is obvious (cue Rock's deserved laughter), i.e. human-made things.

Well, I did write: "A better question is "˜Why molecular biology?' Well, it's basically answered in the first sentence of my blog "“ "Information theory, along with cybernetics, have significantly shaped and influenced the study of molecular biology.""

Why molecular biology? Well, it looks like this is something ID theorists should be writing and working on.

Nowhere in any ID literature (caveat: that I've read or heard about) has anyone successfully/satisfactorily addressed the difference between human-made and non-human-made things, in relation to theories of ID.

You want to chemical composition of human feces and fish feces? The former is human-made while the latter is not. I don't think "made" captures the essence of ID.

I suggest you take Chuckdz advice and just ignore certain critics. Others may be worth sparring with on-line.

Well, according to very highly educated people, I must be a closet creationist. However, I know that I am not. So this raises interesting questions, allowing me to know that highly educated people are certain in their convictions about reality, but I know they are wrong. It's one of the few areas that I can build around things that I know.

Nevertheless, it likely isn't true that you acknowledge no source, no invention date (stamp), no coiner of the 'concept duo i+d,' do you? It didn't just poof into existence!? The reasons and motivations aside (for the moment), someone had to first speak or write the words together, didn't they?

I believe Charles Thaxton is the first person to have put the words together. This is not surprising if you have ever read his book, The Mystery of Life's Origins. As I playfully explain, the reasons and motivations are irrelevant.

As with the link you reference, there is quite a difference between studies in technology and biology.

Not if the focus is molecular biology (another reason for "why molecular biology?"). Molecular biology has taken biology and technology and fused them into biotechnology and is playing a lead role in the development of nanotechnology. The difference between studies in technology and biology will continue to shrink with each passing year. That's one reason why ID is in the cards. And some critics think they can kill it by painting it with the "Bible thumper" brush. LOL.

What discipline or type of teleologist is Mike Gene; a natural science teleologist, an information theorist-teleologist, a psychology-teleologist, a humanitarian-teleologist, a theologically-curious-teleologist, etc.?

I'm a guy who is fascinated by the possibility that life itself was designed. Do you know who radical that sounds?

So you are not a critic who thinks Intelligent Design was/is nothing more than a moniker that was invented purely as a PR stunt to re-label creationism so the Bible could be taught in the schools? - Mike Gene

No. Didn't you know that by now? The similarities between language in Panda's before and after was quite shocking, however, and it would be far-fetched to say that 'creation' is/was irrelevant to the invention or concoction of i+d, don't you think? I would be satisfied if you simply adjusted your language to say 'critics of ID' or even 'ID critics' instead of 'the ID critics' which implies a stronger (more unified) categorization. Critics of i+d come in many shapes and sizes, even those who don't bother to criticize it anymore can be considered critics.

The words and advice have to be clear before I can heed them.

Mike, let's be fair. A. Peacocke, J. Polkinghorne, G. Ellis, G. Murphy, N. Murphy, E. Davis, D. Lamoureux and others are 'critics of i+d' too. But you refrain from criticising their criticisms (seemingly) because they often involve a theistic dimension, which you are not willing to entertain in your conceptualization of i+d. You seem to want to study i+d as agnostically (i.e. secularly or, please excuse, scientifically) as possible. The criticisms of those persons above are quite well-articulated (they are all accomplished scientists, with the exception of one) and also quite different from the atheistic or agnostic criticisms of i+d which you seem so fond to spend your time debating.

I'm not sure I get the point here.

We're likely not all that far apart after all. But I demand respect for my areas of scholarship and research, as you likely do for yours. Reducing i+d or teleology to natural sciences alone is likely not conducive to discussion across the disciplines and rather fragmentary of knowledge, than seeking to integrate knowledge. Philosophy also has a role to play, beyond just repeating the demarcation game.

I should point out that I am not part of any movement that sees itself in the midst of any "˜scientific revolution.' I've made this clear to you in the past.

Yes, I know this. But you quote those who do chant 'scientific revolution' in your writings and formulations (see second quote below). I am not here pointing a 'guilt by association' finger, but that is what some of your critics do. Neither can you avoid this, not can you post-wedge something you weren't responsible for in the first place. If the IDM and Pajaro Dunes hadn't happened, if i+d hadn't been coined, if the CSC hadn't been set up, etc., then you'd likely be working on another internet blog project altogether. The same hunches about life being 'designed' may still be there, but without a further degree of articulation…thanks to the IDM.

why would anyone think that teleologists would not eventually come along and close the loop?

Which teleologists? Do you mean social and humanitarian thinkers? Why not reference Daniel Bell or Manuel Castells when talking about 'information'? We are supposedly living in an 'information age' according to some people - not just natural scientists and naturalists.

Why biology? Actually, if you look more closely, the ID people are much more focused on molecular biology. Think of Stephen Meyer and his DNA arguments. Think of Behe and his decision to focus on the molecular realm. Think of Dembski as his specified complexity. A better question is "˜Why molecular biology?'

This is the super duper trio! It is not surprising that you rarely tip your hat to Phillip Johnson, the 'father' of i+d. And yes, molecular biology is included in my reference to biology; much like social psychology would be included in a reference to psychology. Would you answer the question, then, why molecular biology? I asked it directly to Dembski, who is not himself a biologist, and he answered rather curtly to me that biologists themselves think design is relevant, and that's why i+d focuses on biology instead of places where design is obvious (cue Rock's deserved laughter), i.e. human-made things. Nowhere in any ID literature (caveat: that I've read or heard about) has anyone successfully/satisfactorily addressed the difference between human-made and non-human-made things, in relation to theories of ID.

I am trying to get my mind around the critic's belief that the concept duo poofed into existence two decades ago, apparently as someone was just trying to come up with a more catchy name for "˜creationism.'

I suggest you take Chuckdz advice and just ignore certain critics. Others may be worth sparring with on-line. Nevertheless, it likely isn't true that you acknowledge no source, no invention date (stamp), no coiner of the 'concept duo i+d,' do you? It didn't just poof into existence!? The reasons and motivations aside (for the moment), someone had to first speak or write the words together, didn't they?

As for Norbert Wiener, you're probably right that it deserves its own thread at TT's (or did you really mean blog?). Cybernetics is big where I live these days. A colleague just wrote a paper about it and the talk persists. Probably Wiener and I will collide one day, but for now there are many of his disciples to contend with. Only one brief point of note: Wiener seems incapable of (or unintent to) find a bridge between human-made and non-human-made things. Studies in logic, mathematics and mathematical physics, engineering and weapons design, don't likely endear one to most humanitarian thinkers.

the term "teleologic" in particular has been frequently used in the scientific literature to capture the sense of purposeful, iterative goal-directed behavior in biological and technological control systems.

As with the link you reference, there is quite a difference between studies in technology and biology. What discipline or type of teleologist is Mike Gene; a natural science teleologist, an information theorist-teleologist, a psychology-teleologist, a humanitarian-teleologist, a theologically-curious-teleologist, etc.?

Arago

~~
Len, perhaps it is TT's wish to somehow help raise the level of discussion, instead of stooping to such 'droll' (as Joy recently wrote) comments of those persons who simply refuse to listen to the perspectives of others.

As an agnostic I find such statements ludicrous.

ID neither relies on, nor implies, any supernatural reality, nor any particular kind of god or gods. ID is about detecting design in biological entities and nothing more.

It is not, and has never been about science.

Do you really think that the folks that put the little Darwin fishies on their cars are proclaiming their love for a 19th century British naturalist? Or are they proclaiming their loathing of a certain 1st century carpenter who's symbol they are bastardizing. The kind of vitriol you find on PT and elsewhere does not occur in purely scientific discussion. It is only when the name of Jesus is invoked that the bigots start to spew their insults. Scientists disagree all the time - amiably or heatedly - but the kind of furious hostility that Dembski has had to endure is strictly because of his theological bent, not because of his mathematical conjecture.

Religeous bigotry is alive and well. I say ignore 'em, keep working and keep smiling.:wink:
They will only get angrier and more vitriolic as ID progresses.

It seems to me that if you've followed the comments about 'Intelligent Design' of the last few years on the Internet you've found :

1) frequently the motives of people are questioned (ie no one is given the benefit of the doubt).

2) such 'original' terms as 'IDiot' or 'cretin(s)'/'cretinist(s)' are coined/used to mean 'creationist' and/or IDist, then used over and over again, to the point where you question whether the person HAS a point to a post (this on message boards and blogs) or is merely looking for an excuse to abuse the opposition via the oh-so-clever coinages/vituperation (now grown rather stale).

3) and that's not even including the use of 'Dumbski' as a trashing of Dr. Dembski, an experience he probably hadn't had since, oh, about junior high school. But unlike message boards, junior high has SOME adult supervision…..

4) compare that to the aforementioned 'ID critic' or 'Intelligent Design critic' or 'IDC', an attempt, at least, at a NEUTRAL term to characterize those who oppose it: philosophically, scientifically, culturally, politically, juridically……..
——————————————————————————
Ah, what the heck, let's get down to PARTICULARS:

1) SecWeb (Infidels message board): search under 'Dumbski" (done today): 81 total hits(but some reposts). Including:

a) 'moderator' Oolon posting (partial):

So what is the use of his SC idea if examples cannot be cited? If it's just that we've not yet figured out how this complexity arose, the best he's got a specified complexity of the gaps.

Dumbski: This thing has SC.
Dawkins: Here's why it doesn't.
Dumbski: Well it wasn't SC then.

Am I missing something? Is it really that simple — and stupid?

Oolon

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
———————————————————————
Then

b) (again 'moderator' Oolon posted on Oct 16, 2003) posted (partial):

I really can't be arsed with Dumbski. Whenever I've tried, the words 'impenetrable hogwash' keep coming to mind. But could those of you who have tried to decipher him tell me please: I take it that there's no reason, according to the filter or whatever, why the items on The List are not designed? I mean, if nerves are designed according to Dembski, then the recurrent laryngeal's route must be too, yeah?

Cheers, Oolon
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
——————————————————————–
———————————————————————–

c) and here, on July 4th, 2003, is that SAME Oolon, once again in his 'moderator' hat responding to a request to tone down the language:

Quote:
Originally posted by MrDarwin
Can we please put an end to such childishness as "IDiot" and "Dumbski" "Cretinist" is another one that makes me cringe.

Sorry, but if it's childish, then… "Shaaan't!"

I endeavour to only use such terms amongst 'ourselves', for the reasons you give. But there is a long and honourable tradition in English of deliberately mangling or making-more-appropriate an opponent's name.

It should not be used from the outset: nobody should call Disciple 'Dumciple', for instance. But it becomes an almost necessary outlet when talking about the constantly-refuted and incorrigibly-dense. It is an encapsulation: a single-word summary of what you think of the opposition.

Same with any derogatory name-calling. I feel fully justified in calling, Vanderzyden, say, a humpty-backed twat (to use a current favourite)… provided I then go on to point out just why I believe this is the case. It's just an elaboration of the common way of speaking: "it's due to the homeobox genes, like I said three times on the last page, you idiot!"

Of course it's no substitute for an argument. But that's not why I, at least, use these terms.

And 'cretinist' is shorter to type.

Oolon
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
—————————————————————–
Oh, but I know what you are thinking! Sure, a mere 'moderator' might use such childish abuse but surely not a mature scientist!

But you'd be wrong:

1) here's 'pangloss' aka Professor Scott Page, biologist, using the same term, same message board:

Quote:
Most Darwinists have not read or considered biochemist Michael Behe, geneticist Michael Denton, embryologist Jonathan Wells, or information theorist William Dembski. These dissenting voices are systematically marginalized and silenced by academic McCarthyism.

When did wells become an embryologist?

When did Dumbski become an Information theorist?

Do these clowns just make up important sounding titles to impress the lay public as they see fit?
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
————————————————————–
And that same biology professor, showing on Nov 12th, 2003 that the above was no fluke:

Originally posted by Principia
Yup, it was either him or P. Nelson would be my guess, given that Nelson has been active at both ARN and ISCID against niiicholas. The irony however is that everyone pales in comparison to MG's "internet activities." In fact MG himself is quite proud that he has personally "dealt with hundreds of critics." And with a post count well in excess of 3000 posts (more than 3x times nic's), Dumbski seems to have given the critics the perfect rhetorical ammo against some of his own compatriots. In fact, recently, it was even discovered that Julie Thomas of Talk.Origins was in fact a persona of MG. At least, niiicholas has the intellectual honesty not to cite his own internet personae as his own authority, as MG seems to do here, here, and here

I have long thought Gene to be an ass, this only adds fuel to that fire. Before they banned me for calling Duane Salmon a jerk after he died (and before I had time to 'apologize'), Gene's antics were pretty obvious.

I especially like his claim that 'telelogic' guided him to 'predict' transcriptional proofreading. He claimed that while writing an essay on translational proofreading, he 'predicted', in an ID perspective, that there should be transcriptional proofreading too. Did a search and he vindicated his ID prediction.

But if one does a pubmed search - which he did - using ANY terms relevant to translational proofreading, the article that Gene claimed to have later found supporting his 'prediction' shows up!

He didn't predict a damn thing - he saw the article while conjuring up some gibberish about translational proofreading and saw an opening for an 'ID' guided prediction and was able to fool morons like Nelson Alonso, who vociferously defended his hero at ARN and later at the KCFS forum.

Genie of course just claimed that he had made his prediction and wandered off…
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
————————————————–
And here is that same biologist using 'cretinist' to refer to creationist and/or IDist(s):

Ilion, as creationists are wont, has hitched a ride on the High Horse of the Superiority of the Outsider (he's not a scientist):

Silly Darwinists don't even understand the questions…

As the administration at that tower of intellectual freedom, ARN, won't let me post there, I might suggest that some of you who can rise to this occasion. I have read several posts there in which Ilion has his hat handed to him and in usual cretinist fashion, lacks the wherewithal to recognize that.
But hey, let him know again…
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth...
——————————————————————————–
At same message board: 400 hits under 'cretinist' and the search under 'IDiot' was inconclusive since it included hits for 'idiot' as well….but in TOTAL there were over 300 hits (IDiot/idiot)
————————————————————————-
But let's look elsewhere: if your stomach is strong you can look at this entry under "DUMBSKI" in the online 'Urban Dictionary':
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
——————————————————————–
Then we have the self-characterized "The foremost progressive blog in Kansas" whose entry by Josh Rosenau is entitled "Why we call him Dumbski"
http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2005/...
——————————————————————–
Then, at PANDA'S THUMB there is this entry:

Comment #27738
Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 2, 2005 03:08 PM (e)

I had spoken with Peter Ward for about an hour or so when he came to give a couple of talks at the University of Hawaii, back in "˜99 or was it 2000?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Peter mentioned he was atheist.

Dumbski doesn't do his homework.
———————————————————————–
A Google search under "Dumbski" (granted some ARE typos and/or references to other persons) turns up: 3,870 hits, many at blogs where 'science' (aka modern evo synthesis) is 'defended', frequently by being as 'offensive' as possible……….

I like what you wrote "“ "The message is not what's important, it's the mechanism."

As for spending more energy on exploring 'biotic reality,' I hear ya. The amount of energy and time I spend on blogs like these is a small fraction of the time I spend exploring ID. I will add a very significant update to my web page in the upcoming weeks.

I am not bringing this up to suggest it somehow validates anything about Intelligent Design.

I think this post does contain a hint of validation for ID. Admittedly, the presence of encoded information does not indicate a designer. Nor does the presence of an encoder and decoder. As Rock paraphrased Shannon:

…a communications system may be designed regardless of the semantic content of the messages conveyed via that system.

But it is not just the semantic content of the message that points to design.
The Nyquist theorem is evident in digital audio as it defines the bandwidth of the signal. In the case of the first digital recorders, the bandwidth of the encoded PCM signal was specifically chosen to replicate frequencies within the range of the human ear. Also the error correction inherent in the PCM code is designed to provide just enough error correction for human enjoyment under human circumstances. Not to mention dithering of the digital signal to minimize quantization errors. A sort of 'anthropic principle' for an intelligently designed CODEC system. The message is not what's important, it's the mechanism.
There are hundreds of other examples, but I like the idea of a 6 bit code like DNA that incorporates parity error correction, uses noise reduction mechanisms, and is packaged in such a way as to optimize the system for biological life, regardless of the message. It is neither too low or high in fidelity for it's given application, indicating a possible design bias for biological life.
The only difference in biology (vs. PCM audio) is that when you change the message, the mechanism can also change (due to embedded metadata - a definite pointer to design, front-loading, side loading, etc.)

But I understand that the original intent of your post was to point out that ID is not a new phenomenon. I must admit I wonder why you expend so much energy trying to convince a bigoted minority of detractors that this is so, when your energy would be so much better spent exploring the 'biotic reality'.