Stop that Shameless Plugging!
by MikeGeneOkay, so some people are getting annoyed with my so-called "shameless plugs." Design Matrix this and Design Matrix that. Can't I talk about something else? Answer "“ not really, so get used to it. Let me explain.
It wasn't too long ago that other complaints were constantly made. He is obsessed with Dawkins. He talks too much about the critics. All he does is psychologize his opponents. Etc, Etc, and Etc. Well, those were the pre-DM days, and yes, since I wanted the numerous DM arguments to come out in the context of The Design Matrix, I didn't have all that much to talk about. In fact, I faced quite the challenge "“ how does one talk about ID-related themes on a daily basis without really talking about the things that really interested and motivated me? And what's more, that challenge was stretched out much longer due to the unforeseen delay of the book's publication. Now that was a test of patience.
But those days are over and this bunny is dancing. Finally, I get to talk about the things I have wanted to talk about for years. And guess what? What I want to talk about is what is in The Design Matrix, for the DM is "Mike Gene ID." My interest in this whole topic is, and has long been, a function of the very perspective that is laid out in the DM.
Why would I not endlessly talk about the DM? Most criticisms of ID are obsolete in The Matrix. This perspective had led me to expect things that science has found. It has led me to anticipate the thinking of leading experts in synthetic biology. It is very similar to the approach of SETI. It allows me to approach this heated topic in a non-political and fair-minded manner. It entails a cornucopia of fascinating questions and thoughts. And thanks to many of you good people, it even makes me laugh. So again, how can I not talk about it when there is so much more to come? The DM is the perspective I bring to the table and I can hardly divorce myself from my perspective on things.
As for the bunnies and pictures, you'll have to pardon me for having fun. The supply is endless.
So if the "shameless plugs" trouble you, if they make you dislike me, my advice is simple "“ get out of the rabbit hole, hook up with the herd, and go do something"¦.mainstream. As for me, I'm just getting started, as this rabbit hole gets deeper and deeper.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I don't mind the shameless plugs (have people been complaining?).
I still think we should have an "Is this Inference Sound?" thread for Design Matrix where we critically analysis your method.
Please excuse my distracting comments.
I admit I have gotten a little carried away lately. I blame it on AtBC.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 12:24 am
February 8th, 2008 at 12:47 am
TP:
TP, if that's how you feel you have the option you have utilized before- a guest post. It seems that many ID critics are more interested in attacking easy strawmen than engaging in substantive discussions. There is substance in the DM. Charge!
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 12:47 am
February 8th, 2008 at 5:52 am
Shameless plugging? You wrote a book. I'd be driving a car and wearing t-shirts with advertisements glued onto them if I did such a thing. It's understandable, and I think you've done it tastefully.
Comment by nullasalus — February 8, 2008 @ 5:52 am
February 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Could that be because anything that happens in 'The Design Matrix' is completely compatible with evolution– except for the initial active 'front loading intervention'? In fact, so much so, that it is impossible to distinguish 'front loaded evolution' and 'not-front loaded evolution' other than by pinpointing and examining the front loading event.
I know, I know, what will follow is somebody pointing out how front loading is still in its infancy, that nobody demands that front loading needs to be distinguishable from evolution and that all the Design Matrix is finding facts that make front loading plausible.
That might all be true– but the fact remains, since the evolution criticism is obsolete, most of the front loading criticism (Design Matrix style) is obsolete.
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 10:02 am
February 8th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Hold it! Did I miss something? Can we no longer critique evolutionary theory?
Comment by 0112358 — February 8, 2008 @ 10:59 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:02 am
No, you can criticize all you want. The criticism is just obsolete.
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 11:02 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Hi Hrun,
You wrote…
Did you mean to say that…
Most of the front loading criticism (Design Matrix style) is obsolete because criticism of evolution is obsolete?
If you are, the nailing jello accusation comes full circle.
If it turns out that either through Quantum Mechanics, or some other mechanism, that a future need directly drives past biological capabilities are you suggesting that would be consistent with Mainstream Evolutionary Theory (MET)?
The point being that while a lot of Mike's DM parallels MET, there are differences. Differences Mike is clearly pointing out. I wouldn't think you would want to complain about a more conservative approach to a potential scientific study.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 11:07 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am
hrun:
Critiques based on new data occur all the time. I believe hrun is saying it is OK to tweak but don't think ID has anything to do with evolution (or abiogenesis for that matter).
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 11:07 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Ah!
Comment by 0112358 — February 8, 2008 @ 11:21 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:27 am
That's exactly what I'm saying. So far I have not seen any experiments geared towards actually examining the intervention step of front-loading. In fact, it has been suggested that the front-loading may have occurred as far back as during the emergence of the first proto-cell or even earlier than that. That is, of course, far beyond the scope of anything evolution addresses.
No. If that turns out to be true then I would MET to be conceptually false. Do you have any idea how we can experimentally address this question? (And is it part of Mike Gene's Design Matrix?)
Thought Provoker, is there an experiment that one could perform (doesn't even have to be technically possible, just a thought experiment will do), where the result would differentiate between evolution as it is commonly understood by biologists in labs around the world and front-loaded evolution as described by Mike Gene in the Design Matrix– of course, leaving aside the actual intervention step of front loading?
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 11:27 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Hey, it's your blog. Plug away, it won't bother me at all.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 11:39 am
February 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Hi Bradford,
You said:
Yes, I think you are probably right. I just can't quite grasp the disconnect of hrun and the mainstream scientific community who hold this belief. Somehow they feel that is more "scientific" to hold presuppositions which do not allow for intelligence. In their eyes any other presuppositions are bogus. Their presuppositions are somehow purer than those held by the rest of us.
Comment by 0112358 — February 8, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Right. They are metaphysically purer for thinking that way.:grin:
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that except for the actual, active intervention step, front-loaded evolution as supported by Mike Gene and evolution as understood by mainstream scientists are not distinguishable.
At least I have not seen ANY proposed experiment that even in theory could distinguish the two. Do you know one?
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Hi Hrun,
You asked…
I tend to focus more on possible mechanisms than Mike Gene does. Coming up with experimental results showing retrocausal QM can be done as home (here is a Scientific American article on that, H/T to W. Elsberry).
Experimentally testing for QM effects in biology being done in places like Berkeley Labs, by people like A. Patel and, of course, in connection with studies of Quantum Consciousness.
As for what Mike Gene says in his book, for $16.47 (from Amazon) you can decide for yourself.
How was that for a shameless plug?
While I can understand why you might not want to financially support something you are philosophically opposed to, I wouldn't be overly impressed with an expectation that Mike should spend his time giving you details he already provided because you aren't interested enough to bother ordering a very readable book.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Thought Provoker, it appears that there is really no (thought)experiment that could be done to support your theory of future need directly driveing past biological capabilities.
So what I'm asking for is in the book? Are you sure?
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Hi Hrun,
If you think…
…based on actual evidence of retrocausality and unexpected biological use of it,
then I doubt what you are looking for is in Mike's book.
Because if it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation about the possibility. We would be having a conversion about the profound ramifications, and Mike Gene's book wouldn't be a small paperbound thing, it would be a hardcover college textbook.
If what you are really asking for is an excuse to dismiss Mike Gene's Front Loading, then you could probably find that in the book, if you have enough determination to do so.
BTW, I suggest that is the honest and ethical path a critic should take. Read the book. Borrow it if you have to. That is what I do with Dembski's and Well's books.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I didn't think it was in Mike's book. I would think that would be in your book, that's why I was asking you a specific question: Is there a way to experimentally test your hypothesis? A thought-experiment would do in this case as well. Is there such an experiment?
I'm not looking for an excuse to dismiss the book– even though it might appear to you that way. I have asked this very same question on this blog in various forms pretty much the whole time I've been coming here (prior to the book being in the talks).
In one of the threads I believe it was Mike or Krauze said that indeed, they did not know of a experiment that could distinguish front loaded evolution from evolution as it is commonly understood– other than at the very point of intervention. Now, if the Design Matrix actually presents such an experiment, I'd love to hear about it. That's why I was specifically asking if it was in the book. Is it?
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Hi hrun,
I guess I got sidetracked by your suggestion that any critique of evolution is obsolete.
As far as your suggestion that:
I don't know of any experiments, thought or otherwise, that can really expect to answer this question. I believe that Mike in his book and Dembski with his mathematics are attempting to approach this question in new ways. These new methods may not be scientific in the traditional sense but they are at least making a much needed break with the dogmatic acceptance of purely naturalistic causes. As we learn more about the universe and life, a wholly naturalistic framework is becoming increasingly unreasonable. I believe that these new approaches to the question will not provide answers in the traditional scientific sense but that they are very helpful in informing our presuppositions. We all have them. We just have to ask ourselves which presuppositions are the most rational to hold.
Comment by 0112358 — February 8, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
How so? I thought that both ID and front loading don't have anything to say about naturalistic or non-naturalistic causes.
How so?
Here I couldn't agree with you more. However, I dare say that expressing this thought would draw considerable ire from the ID elite over at the Discovery Institute or Uncommon Descent– whereas probably all scientists will agree with you on this point.
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Does the front-loading hypothesis entail an interventionist event by "the designer" In what sense of the term would front-loading be interventionist?
Can the hypothesis of front-loading be distinguished from Darwinian evolutionary theory? I think so, yes. In Darwinism, the elements that evolution has to work with must be built-up from precursors. In front-loading, evolution would be working with what is already there. Which way does the evidence lead?
Comment by Mung — February 8, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Hi Hrun,
I'm not at home and I won't be until much later. I don't have Mike's book memorized (forgive me Mike) so I don't know if he had a specific experiment in mind beyond the "Consilience of Clues".
Despite AtBC suspicions to the contrary, I am not Mike. My approach is different than Mike's. But I feel Mike has made an earnest effort with specifics and worked out examples. Something unheard of in other pro ID books.
In my review, I called it a solid single in the baseball analogy sense. This is in contrast to the other pro-ID books claiming to have hit a homerun and running the bases to their cheering fans. Meanwhile the catcher on the opposing team is holding the ball looking puzzled and irritated.
IMO, Mike made it to first base. He still has a very long way to go. But it is a start.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Oh, but the thing is, in front-loading evolution, evolution would also work with what's there. A front-loader might put in precursors and front-loaded evolution would work with those. Obviously, that's where the evidence leads.
It's interventionist in that at some point some entity did some front-loading. At some point in time, some powerful entity adds information to an organism and then lets nature run it's course. The interventions may be many or few. They may be early or late. But somewhere, somehow, something intervenes.
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Thought Provoker. Thanks for your reply. I don't want to denigrate whatever effort Mike put into his book. It is what it is. I had a very simple question. As far as I can tell, the answer to that question is no: There is no (thought)experiment that can distinguish mainstream evolution from front-loaded evolution other than by addressing the actual point of intervention.
Mike might have given examples of how he would term something designed or not. He might have answered in his book numerous questions in much more detail than any other ID book. But in terms of the question I had that's irrelevant, isn't it?
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Hi hrun,
You wrote…
It's possible Mike didn't write the book with you or your question in mind.
At any rate, this is getting beyond my comfort zone for speaking to Mike's hypotheses.
Now, if you want to talk about Quantum Mechanics and Orch OR here is a thread you could use to ask me those kind of questions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I was gunna wait for Mike to respond but I'll add this to the mix. Critics will contend that any evidence for FLE was simply undirected evolution. Even pseudogenes are argued to be processed or unprocessed inferring that any inherited non-functional DNA that subsequently evolves functionality is likewise undirected. One advantage we have in looking back in time is hindsight. Hindsight however can provide clues of foresight. That's a key indicator which distinguishes between intelligent design and a blind watchmaker. Mike fleshes out the foresight concept in his book and I'll let him take the ball from here.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
So, according to you, front-loading is interventionist by definition, which explains why you haven't actually put forth an argument to that effect.
I don't accept the truth of your assertion that front-loading is interventionist by definition. So now you need to argue that case that it is, rather than merely assert it to be the case.
Why is front-loading interventionist by definition?
Comment by Mung — February 8, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I don't think you understood the point. Sure Darwinian evolution works with what is there, it has no choice in the matter. But then, what's there, in the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, must have had a Darwinian evolutionary history. It must have evolved from something else, by a Darwinian process.
Under a hypothesis of front-loading, it's not necessary (unlike Darwinian evolution) that all of what is there have a Darwinian evolutionary history.
So your question is, if I understand you aright, is can the two be distinguished? I think that it's obvious that they can.
Comment by Mung — February 8, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I don't know why it is so. It just seems that this is how Krauze and Mike suggest it is. When I asked Krauze how a certain feature came about according to FLE in this thread, his answer was: "It was designed by an intelligence."
To me that sounds like intervention. But maybe it's not.
Sure, according to front loading evolution some stuff could have been put there by a designing intelligence. That's the step of intervention where it differs from mainstream evolution.
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Hi hrun.
Since evolution and abiogenesis are separate topics, there is no "except" here. Front-loading is completely compatible with evolution because it is a view of evolution. This is one area where many of the anti-ID arguments are obsolete (explaining why I have stuck with ID all these years).
Whether it is "impossible" depends on the person, after all, many have tremendous difficulty distinguishing between such obviously different things as ID and creationism.
But I am afraid that you have missed the central metaphor of The Design Matrix. This is not an issue of coming up with a magic bullet test that will clearly kill the Duck (or Rabbit). After all, I have said I am not on a Duck Hunt. I'm focused on fleshing out the Rabbit.
For decades, teleologists have faced a choice. Either embrace the Duck (and all his grooming from thousands of groomers) OR try to kill the Duck. But what I am pointing out is a third choice "“ lookie just how much that Duck also looks like a Rabbit.
Rather than focus on magic bullet tests, I think it much more important to focus on grooming the Rabbit and follow where he leads. If you really want a test that distinguishes, it will take a lot of time and show itself as the critter who ultimately becomes the better guide.
But as it stands now, yes, I can see the Duck and hear him quack. But I also see that Rabbit, who is coming into better focus everyday. If you can't distinguish your Duck from my Rabbit, why should I ignore the Rabbit and pretend there is only a Duck?
And this is progress. When I first raised the hypothesis of FLE years ago, it elicited knee-jerk skepticism and laughter. The idea that evolution could be designed in some fashion was nonsense, as teleological evolution had long ago been "disproved." But as the data adds to the increasing plausibility of the hypothesis, I have reason to think the Rabbit is going some place interesting.
Comment by MikeGene — February 8, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Mike:
Are you saying that the idea of FLE originated with you?
In your opinion perhaps. Most of the people who actually collect the data would probably beg to differ.
Comment by Raevmo — February 8, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Well, I thought that FLE was open to some/many interventions by intelligent designers post-abiogenesis. At least that's what I gathered from my interactions with Krauze. That's why I wrote "except".
I didn't miss it in the slightest. That's why my first post said "anything that happens in 'The Design Matrix' is completely compatible with evolution". I am well aware that that's what you were doing in the book. That's why I was puzzled when Thought Provoker appeared to suggest that there was an answer to my initial question in the book.
It's your life and you can clearly focus on whatever tickles your fancy.
I'm afraid that it still evokes the knee-jerk skepticism. Don't know about the laughter. It remains to be seen if in the end, once the Rabbit is in focus, it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck.
In the end, I suspect, the question about the bullet will have to be answered, not merely to get the Rabbit accepted, but for scientist to even start studying the Rabbit.
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Maybe the term was coined by Mike.
But as far as the idea goes, it apparently is indistinguishable from what others call Theistic Evolution. There was a creation event (or design event) by a powerful intelligence that got the ball rolling and evolution has been playing out ever since. The only difference I can see is that Theistic Evolution generally posits the powerful intelligence to be a deity, while FLE is uncommitted on that point.
I'm still unclear what exactly the view of FLE proponents are on repeated interventions by intelligent agents in the evolutionary process (Krauze seemed to support the notion while I got the feeling that Mike does not), but please don't quote me on this. I profess my ignorance in this matter and since repeated asking has not clarified the situation I will have to leave it at that.
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Hi hrun,
There is a difference to being open and actually proposing such things. I am open to further acts of intelligent intervention, just as I am open to the idea that the Earth spawned life. But I am proposing neither one.
I'm afraid you did. If you didn't miss it, you wouldn't have bothered to demand a magic bullet test.
Indeed. And it's not just tickling my fancy, it's also a consilience of clues. This theme is even echoed in the fourth paragraph of the OP.
Could be. .
Not necessarily. If the hypothesis is fundamentally correct, then scientists are currently studying the Rabbit but relying on the prism of the Duck. And there is no rational or ethical reason why data must therefore remain within this perspective; all data are open to reinterpretation.
Besides, there was no bullet that killed the Rabbit in order to see the Duck.
Comment by MikeGene — February 8, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Hi hrun,
Well I am a theistic evolutionist, but I doubt TEs like Miller or Collins would be receptive to my ideas. FLE proposes that the first cells were indeed designed and thus explores how design could shape and influence evolution. Neither one has explored along these lines. Conway-Morris, on the other hand, is closer, but, from my readings, he doesn't seem to explore WHY convergence is so common.
Comment by MikeGene — February 8, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Mike, just because the magic bullet is not in the book does not mean it doesn't exist. And even though it might not be found in your book, somebody who follows FLE might have a though about it.
Unless of course, such a bullet does just not exist.
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Why would they not? What would be the difference? I guess it is a matter of where you set the actual point of design? Was it during abiogenesis? Was it pre-abiogenesis? It seems to me that Theistic Evolution easily encompasses both propositions. But I do understand that your focus is different.
Comment by hrun — February 8, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
hrun:
You're gonna SHOOT the rabbit? What'd he ever do to you???!!!
Comment by Joy — February 8, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Hi hrun,
If someone wants to look for a magic bullet to shoot the Duck, or the Rabbit, well, whatever tickles their fancy. The Matrix may even help facilitate someone's thinking out there. All I need point out that The DM is a way to explore without magic bullets.
Instead of guns, we pack binoculars and a sandwich.
Comment by MikeGene — February 8, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Hi hrun,
I suspect it would be a mix of theology and social pressure. Let's face it, thanks to all the political activity, scientists like Miller and Collins are not likely to get near anything called "Intelligent Design." All I can say is that The Design Matrix is quite unlike anything they have ever written.
Comment by MikeGene — February 8, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
As a general point, I would agree. But somehow I get the feeling that you think this is a strike against ID or FLE or some combination of the above. If MET is indistinguishable from FLE or ID scientifically, how can one be science and the other not? Why are scientists outraged at "guided" evolution being taught in the public schools, but allow "unguided" evolution to be taught in public schools without a peep.
Now I understand that MET has one glaring advantage over ID/FLE: no postulating unknown intelligent agents. But it may (and the jury is still out on this) suffer from a lack of being a rational explanation for what we see.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 10:42 am
February 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
You wrote…
Thank you for your comment. I am honestly glad that you chose to contribute to this thread.
I happen to believe there is a distinction between ID SCIENCE and the ID MOVEMENT.
Personally, I think Mike Gene's efforts towards ID science is laudable and should be strongly embraced by ID proponents as a clearly earnest and honest approach.
I happen to think Mike is still leaning too much towards an unnamed, omnipotent "Designer" (aka "Creator", aka "God") but that is a difference of opinion I am willing to overlook considering Mike is being ethical.
My personal gripe with the ID MOVEMENT is their hypocritical attempt to suggest their form of ID isn't about God or religion. That their complain about MET is all about the evidence.
On 16 June 2006, a significant leader of the ID MOVEMENT posted the following on his website…
"The problem is not that evolution implies God does't exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility." link
I was part of conversations in opposing forums that noticed the significance of this statement. The next day, the statement was modified to include the parenthetical…
"(well, actually, space aliens who seed the Earth, time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives that don't require God; but these are way down the totem pole for most people)".
I consider Quantum Physics not only provides evidence but also a mechanism that suggest "telic organizing principles in nature".
I'm also of the opinion that the only reason it is "way down the totem pole for most people" as an ID alternative is because the ID MOVEMENT is clearly a religious movement having the goals outlined in Discovery Institute's Wedge document.
ID SCIENCE provide support for a Quantum Mechanical explaination. Mike Gene's Design Matrix provides support. Dembski's logic surrounding his equation…
χ = "“log2[ 10^120 "¢ Ï•S(T)"¢P(T|H)] > 1
(link)
…provides support for a a Quantum Mechanical explaination (which is not a Chance Hypothesis).
Shall we follow the evidence wherever it leads?
Or are we only following evidence that supports belief in God?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 9, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
You forget that I said it is indistiguishable EXCEPT for the point of intervention. But that is exactly the point that neither ID nor FLE either wants to study (or admits that it can't study).
See what Dembski says about the actual design event? Nothing. Every now and then there is an admission that the designer is the Christian God. But that's about as far as it gets.
I would bet that most ID supporters think that ID is fundamentally different than evolution. For example, how many folks in the ID camp fully support common descent? How about what's commonly called 'macroevolution'? Or even an old earth?
So I don't think it is trivial to determine where exactly ID theories diverge from evolution as it is commonly understood.
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
And I happen to believe there is no objective criteria you use for assigning those labels. Just like with ethics, it is what you like vs what you don't.
Since I've never had a dog in the God fight since I first came upon ID, and the fact that you are still busy trying to assign one to me, should we catagorize that as "doing science" or "being in a movement"
You rationalize your disagreements with others as "thinking for yourself", but you aren't that charitable to most who disagree with you. Group Think is one you've tossed around a time or two.
I have no problem with your "movement" to obsess upon anybody's theistic beliefs. We all gotta have a hobby. But if there is any substance to your posts, I've failed to discern it yet.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
hrun says:
There is a world of difference between won't and can't. Darwin didn't know all the things we now know about evolution. So?
I don't think a Dembksi or a Behe has a clue where the design event(s) occurred and I don't think they've made any bones about that lack of knowledge. We don't know what we don't yet know. We may never know. I've heard Darwinsts say the same about cricial details of evolution.
Dembski doesn't make the claim that God did it, only that such is his personal belief. Ditto for Behe. Just like a lot of Darwinists eschew any role for God or any intelligence.
There is nothing that prohibits anybody looking for the pathway to the flagellum or to the design event.
And I would bet that most Darwinsts would agree with them. Now what? Remember, it is the Darwinist movement that wants to draw that bright line. You are apparently upset that they got what they wanted. Not my fault. And that bizarre reality is a good part of why I currently sit on this side of the fence.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I thought that Dembski and Behe are the ones that want to distinguish themselves from evolution. You know, teach the controversy and all that. So if it turns out that ID and evolution are the same, except for the part that ID doesn't want to or can't investigate… then what's the point of Dembski and Behe's distinctions?
I was merely making a point that most ID supporters apparently don't agree with. You and I are in apparent agreement. It does not go beyond that.
And if the ID movement were to acknowledge or stress this point more, I bet the scientific community would be much more receptive to ID. Just look at the mainstream scientists supporting Theistic Evolution.
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Actually, Behe is the guy who has taken great pains, both in his books and in his Dover testimony, to point out that people use "evolution" to mean many things, and that one has to clarify exactly what one is talking about and not rely on that ambiguous word. It strains credulity that objective observers with any sort of grasp of the English language and Behe's writings could not understand this. Yet you wish to tar him with a broad brush in spite of that. Ditto for Kenneth Miller.
Of course it does. Your attempt to extend that in patently absurd directions in the next paragraph is exactly the point. You and your allies have expended no small amount of resources trying to give folks the impression that Behe's ID and Biblical literalism are one in the same. To the extent that you've succeeded, who should get the credit or blame?
There is no "ID Movement" that can acknowledge or stress anything. Only individuals. You can choose to call Behe an IDC or not as you choose. Don't blame me if the strategy backfires.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
RogerRabbit, I'm an experimentalist at heart. That's why I'm looking for ways to experimentally distinguish between (what are presented as) competing theories.
It seems to me that FLE can't be experimentally distinguished from what is commonly understood by biological scientists around the world.
Likewise, you apparently agree that neither Dembski's nor Behe's version of ID can be experimentally distinguished from evolution.
If that is the case, then I don't understand what this whole controversy is about. It then appears to be only of a philosophical nature after all, dealing only with occurrences that precede evolution.
It kinda gets tenuous to try and critique every single individuals understanding of ID or FLE. I try on occasions though. Krauze and Mike appear to disagree on when and how often intelligent design occurred. Thought Provoker thinks there might not have been a designing entity at all. Mung doesn't even agree that FLE requires some sort of intervention at any point. So it gets difficult to make any kind of argument about FLE in general.
In any case, I have certainly not tried to link Behe or Dembski to biblical literalism. In fact, I don't describe anybody as being a biblical literalis. I used the term Theistic Evolution(ist) which describes quite well both the folks who think that first life was created by a powerful designing entity or that the universe was created by a powerful entity in a way that caused life to appear.
Look. The question still remains: It appears that a number of the different ID theories seem to be fully compatible with mainstream evolution. The only clear difference is that most mainstream evolution proponents don't posit an intelligent agent as the source for the first cell. If that is the case, then I don't understand why ID supporters try to essentially prove evolution wrong. It just doesn't make any sense.
So the conclusion one would be left with is that most ID theories are maybe not compatible with evolution after all. And that of course is not surprising, since you pointed out above that there are a lot of different ID theories supported by a lot of different people.
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Hi hrun,
Which would demonstrate that the non-teleological perspective of evolution is just that "“ a perspective. But there is a difference. While I am willing to acknowledge that my perspective is not science and basically amounts to a suspicion, non-teleologists insist their perspective is Science and is supported by massive evidence.
As far as FLE and experiments go, why think the Rabbit vs. Duck approach is the only important one? More interesting questions arise from within the FLE gestalt "“ to what extent can evolution be designed? how would one design through evolution? what could have been front-loaded? what was the composition of the originally designed cells? why were cells front-loaded?
Comment by MikeGene — February 9, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
And those scientists would be right in their approach. I guess that's where that whole parsimony-thing comes in. In all past instances where 'teleology' was suspected in natural phenomena, it turns out that there was actually a non-teleogical proximate cause. Diseases are caused by germs, not evil spirits, lightning is caused by electrostatic charges and not by Gods flinging bolts, … so I think as a first assumption a non-teleogical explanation is probably a reasonable assumption. And so far I have not seen any data that would indicate that in the case of evolution this assumption is not warranted.
Not saying it's the only important one. But the question on to what extent evolution can be designed is being studied– regardless of any rabbits, ducks or FLE.
As to the other questions, I would say, go ahead. Most scientists in the field would probably need a much closer look at the rabbit before they invest their time into answering a question that is based on that the first cell was designed by a powerful intelligence. Most scientist still would want extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. And positing a powerful intelligent entity that is responsible for designing the first cell remains extraordinary (at least to most scientists).
Added notes:
As to the 'what could have been front-loaded' and 'what was the composition' question, these questions as well are being addressed by scientists, regardless of whether the first cell was designed or not. See for example here.
As to the 'why'-question– can that be answered in any meaningful way without actually examining the designer?
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
hrun says:
I understand that it is much less tenuous to create strawmen than deal with actual specific arguments. But that doesn't really seem the rational alternative to me. You're the guy who dropped the names of Behe and Dembski.
As far as the "controversy", it seems pretty clear there is as much fomenting on the Darwinist side, if not more. Who brought the federal law suit in Dover?
As for "making sense", it clearly does in context. Just because you are an "experimentalist at heart", doesn't mean everybody is. There are issues of philosophy and logic involved on both sides. But you only raise questions about one side. That's interesting.
Again, depending on what you mean by evolution. And the difference may not be experimentally resolvable.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
hrun,
It's really hard to tell if we are on the same page or not. There is a controversy because there is a spirited exchange between two positions. I have no problem with such controversies.
If you do, it would seem you might try to use your influence on your natural allies. In many senses, ID really is much ado about nothing, scientifically speaking. So why are your natural allies so up in arms?
After a decade or so, I can't figure it out on a rational basis.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Sigh.
Well, actually it was Thought Provoker and 0112358 who first mentioned Dembski in this thread. And it was you who mentioned Behe for the first time.
This is what I said about Dembski: "See what Dembski says about the actual design event? Nothing. Every now and then there is an admission that the designer is the Christian God. But that's about as far as it gets."
And I don't think that is a strawman or a mischaracterization of Dembski's position.
I think it was parents of children enrolled in a Dover school. Was it not?
I thought I raised a question how to distinguish one theory from another. Doesn't that mean I am raising a question about both?
Yes. It would depend on what I mean by evolution and what you or anybody means by evolution. I refer to evolution as what is the mainstream view of evolution by the people who study and teach it in our universities.
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I don't either.
I also agree here, scientifically speaking it is much ado about nothing. But it becomes much ado about something if ID, for example, is supposed to be introduced into a biology curiculum in a public school. And as to why other people are up in arms about it– who knows. It probably has multiple reasons. Some might suspect an agenda by the ID supporters that they don't agree with. Others see their research wrongfully attacked. Others try to correct misconceptions and falsehoods. Just like it's impossible to characterize a single ID movement, it's probably impossible to characterize a single motive for the 'anti-ID movement'.
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
I thank you again for your comments and your participation in this thread, although I was hoping you would be more topical and help with the "shameless plugging" of Mike Gene's book.
So, what do you think of Mike's book? In case you don't have a copy yet, it can be purchased for the low, low price of $16.47 at amazon.com.
Now that I have saved the comment from the memory hole, let me respond to…
This kind of surprised me, because I didn't think I accused you of have a God dog in this fight, but I could have easily have been mistaken so I went back through some of the threads where RogerRabbitt and Thought Provoker commented. I really liked the exchange in "Is this Inference Sound?" thread, and while you may thought it lacked substance, I thought it was quite a good back and forth.
Of course, that wasn't my thread, it was Bradford's.
The guest thread of mine where you and I exchanged several comments was The Ethics of Intelligent Design where one of your side remarks was…
link
This is consistent with your proclamation that my posts lack substance. I get the feeling you think Telic Thoughts would be better off without me and my posts. If that feeling is correct, I disagree. You see, I think it is important for a group interested in critical thinking to have significant variety in opinions expressed. While varied opinions may be detrimental to a movement, it is beneficial to those actually interested in pursuing science.
The fact you may not like me very much doesn't bother me (but I am thankful you don't have the power to ban me). I like a good argument. You are a good opponent. I really like it that you choose to comment on Telic Thoughts.
BTW, I was quite surprised to see that I didn't respond to your last post in the Ethics thread (A lot of the last comments in the thread went unanswered). Maybe I got distracted with real life. From your last comment…
link
Please accept my belated "thank you" for answering my questions.
It looks like you and I have something in common. You see I too started my own religion with a membership of one. It looks like I might be starting my own movement starting with a membership of one considering the reception I got in After the Bar Closes.
But truth be known, if there is a larger movement to be had it would not be mine. At the fundamental level it would be either Joy's or Hameroff's. I think Nullasalus would get a vote too. Raevmo may soon want a say too.
Different people with difference philosophies agreeing to look at the science together. What a concept.
Now if I can only get Mike Gene to openly embrace it as Front Loading.
Maybe if I shamelessly plug his book some more.
Did I tell you that the Design Matrix is available on amazon.com for the low, low price of $16.47?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 9, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
hrun says:
And that's why we have a controversy. Some people, including you and me, like to make mountains out of molehills. It keeps us off the street.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
And this is what you said:
And as I pointed out, that is a pretty grievous mistelling of Behe's position.
And a particular subgroup, no? You can avoid the obvious, but I don't think that wins you any points. Some parents were for it, and some against it.
Which covers a lot of ground. As Behe has pointed out. The same group that likes to harp about what is meant specifically by "theory" in science, now gets all bashful about being specific about what they mean by evolution in a specific instance.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I really don't understand your misgivings about this characterization.
Behe writes in the edge of evolution what he thinks evolution can accomplish and what it can not. In his view the power of evolution is extremely limited. While he agrees with common descent, he believes that all major changes in common descent came about by intelligent design.
Can you explain why you believe that Behe DOES NOT want to distinguish his theory from what is currently understood as evolution by mainstream scientists?
Of course it was a particular subgroup of parents. Namely the ones who did not want ID taught in public school. From looking around at UD and here as well, I think a lot of people that think of themselves as ID supporters also think that ID should not be taught in public schools.
I have yet to meet a scientist who is bashful about answering specific questions.
Edit: That last statement is probably too strong. But in general I have found that pretty much all scientists are more than happy to engage about specific scientific questions. Even though they might have a hard to to encompass exactly what they think evolution is in a way that is not beyond the scope of a thread on a blog.
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I think the circle is now complete. Here is what you said upthread:
Are you unhappy that Behe does or doesn't draw contrasts? Clearly the answer is merely that you are unhappy with Behe.
The misgivings are what I pointed out earlier: your attempt to characterize Behe lack intellectual rigor. He has continually made the point that one cannot keep using the ambiguous term "evolution" and grasp his point. Your claim that some may be confused by Behe's nuanced position is certainly true. You seem to be one of them.
You say some aspects are similiar to MET. True. You say some aspects are different from MET. True. But then you fail to recognize the aspects and talk about vague "evolution". I can save you a lot of trouble. You will never make sense of Behe's position doing that.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Hey RogerRabbitt and hrun,
Hrun wrote…
RogerRabbitt responded…
Are we going to talk about the Dover case now? I like talking about the Dover case. I was so fascinated by it that I read every transcript, some of them more than once.
But first, we need to be topical and shamelessly plug Mike Gene's book.
Did you know that the following was in the book's introduction?
"I should make it explicitly clear from the start that I did not write this book to help those seeking to change the way we teach science to our kids. I do not argue that design deserves to be known as science. At best, Intelligent Design may only be a nascent proto-science and thus does not belong in the public school curriculum. Nor does this book argue that evolution is false and deserves to be criticized in the public school curriculum. If the truth is to be told, I oppose such actions."
BTW Roger I found a comment where it could be construed that I accused you of having a dog in the God fight. (link)
At the time I was pretty angry about Uncommon Descent's treatment of Mike and his book, but since you indicated at the time you hadn't read Mike's book yet, there wasn't much reason to continue discussing the above passage.
Have you read Mike's book now? Can we discuss it now?
Meanwhile, did you have any questions on who did what action in the Dover case?
Personally, I think the teachers and parents acted very appropriately in not rolling over to the unconstitutional actions of their local school board.
Were you aware that a simple compromise was offered very early in the proceedings? If the administrators agreed not to forgo reading a statement that clearly was a government endorsement of religion then the lawsuit would be dropped.
Some on the Dover school board thought they could get away with lying under oath and took a chance, they lost.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 9, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
hrun, what are you defining as "the actual design event"
And why must Dembski say anything about it, and why is his silence at all relevant?
Indeed. I fail to see what you think is being intervened with when the concept of design is mentioned.
When you design an experiment, what is it that you are intervening with?
Is it possible to have design that is not actualized, or "put there," to use your term?
Is that your objection? That design, in order to be detected, must be actualized, and any actualization of a design is, by definition, an intervention?
Comment by Mung — February 9, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I have no bone to pick with Behe specifically. My initial mistake was to think that his view of ID is compatible with evolution. Clearly it is not. I discovered the mistake and described Behe's thinking as such. To which you replied that this was a 'a pretty grievous mistelling of Behe's position.'
In the end it all boils down to the fact that ALL ID proponents agree that evolution takes place to a certain extent. And ALL ID proponents apparently agree that at some point an intelligent agent designed some aspect of life (either only the first cell, or every now and then a few new species, or continuously new parts of certain organisms).
My mistake was to generalize this into a coherent view of ID.
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
TP says:
I don't think you meant to include the "not" there. I also don't think the statement was an endorsement of religion, "clearly" or otherwise.
Thanks for offering your "expertise", but I don't seem to have any questions for you. I'm perfectly capable of reading the source materials as well. We've resolved (temporarily) the issue in Dover, so now its on to the other 10K (or however many there are) school districts in the country.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Now, what religion is being endorsed there?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 9, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hi hrun,
It's a Duck, not a Rabbit!
Let's see. How are proteins made again? Oh yes, a molecular machine translates a messenger molecular using the genetic code. Clearly, non-teleological assumptions are the most parsimonious ones for such a process.
You can always interpret any event as something that just happens.
Cool. Do you have some handy references?
Sure, after all, cellular biology was so obviously spawned from geochemistry.
As for extraordinary evidence, are you saying that if life was indeed designed, this entails that it would indeed come with "extraordinary evidence?"
Excellent.
Who knows? That's why you investigate.
Comment by MikeGene — February 9, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 7:12 am
http://www.timesonline.com/art...
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 10, 2008 @ 7:12 am
February 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Hi RogerRabbitt,
Good Morning.
You wrote…
Such a waste of energy for an unconstitutional cause. Wouldn't it be better to focus on the science? Quantum physics holds a lot of promise for overturning the status quo, ethically.
You asked…
Well, let me start with the first paragraph of the article you kindly provided…
That is how the average man in the street sees this. The ID Movement leaders allow and often out-and-out promote this either/or choice. It is only when the possible legal ramifications are thought about that the "way down the totem pole" ID alternatives are brought into play.
Even if by some divine miracle the Discovery Institute and other ID Leaders actually weren't trying to promote a religious agenda, the citizens of Dover and, especially, the students of Dover schools saw it that way.
The legal standard for the Endorsement Test is perception, not actual intent. The legal precedent in the Pennsylvania circuit is to apply the Endorsement Test before the Lemon Test. That is why the defense team argued so vigorously for Judge Jones to ignore this legal precedent and apply only the Lemon Test. Once the defense lost this argument, they lost the case.
Note, the constitution has government prohibitions concerning religion in general, not "a religion". This distinction wasn't obvious from the phrasing of your question.
Now, if ID proponents were to start actively promoting a "Third Choice" that is neutral on the subject of God that might be a way around this stalemate. Quantum Mechanics has scientifically recognized evidence and potential mechanistic explanations that support a scientific hypothesis that challenges "Darwinism".
ID SCIENCE, imagine that.
As to the statement itself"¦
"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part."
Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about a lot of things but the administrators focused on a specific topic they wish to call into question. The specific topic is something religious organizations tend to want questioned. The average person would see this as the school administration endorsing the religious side of an issue. The fact that is was being presented to impressionable students by their teacher's superiors made it even worse. The statement also suggests that they are being forced to teach something they do not wish to in the name of standardized testing on this specific topic.
Once again this would be seen as the administration endorsing the religious desire to cast doubt on a specific theory. There are plenty of scientific theories, for example the Quantum Theory and the Gravitational Theory. The Quantum Theory is generally thought to be incomplete (not for long, IMO). The Gravitational Theory is pretty much known to be incorrect (waiting on Quantum Theory). The Evolution Theory is one of the more stable scientific theories. While it can still be modified, even significantly so, it appears the administration is picking on it for religious reasons. When asked by the administration, the science teachers suggested removal of the sentence "The theory is not a fact." because it misled students about science. The administration's refusal to this compromise is one of the reasons the teachers refused to read the statement.
This referenced book includes this description of Intelligent Design…
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera."
It appeared to be a relabeling of Creationism. Especially, when artifacts from the relabeling efforts were still in the book (i.e. "cdesign proponentsists")
There are other problems with the statement that came out in the trial, but these were the main ones.
Once again, it doesn't matter for the purposes of the Endorsement Test what the Discovery Institute or ID supporters argued after the fact. The perception to the citizens of Dover and, especially, the impressionable students in Dover schools that this was an endorsement. Some approved of the endorsement, some disapproved of the endorsement, but the vast majority saw it as endorsement of religion.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 10, 2008 @ 9:55 am
February 10th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
TP says:
Ah yes, you are in favor of that which you are in favor of. But what do we do about all those who favor something else?
So nice of you to claim to speak for all those groups, but I'm skeptical you can. You talk about "the religious side of an issue" without giving us any objective definition about what that means. The "anti-religious side of an issue" would be equally problematical. Your comments about the Lemon test just exemplify why it is fatally flawed and will soon be dispensed with. Whether an ID case or some other issue is the catalyst I cannot predict.
Some of your other comments aren't related to religion at all, but why you and others disliked the statement. But that certainly isn't a Federal issue.
You claim the dispute is a "waste of energy". Nobody is requiring you to waste any energy on it at all. That's your choice.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 10, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
To my "ethically" you responded with your usual…
I suggest you might be projecting.
I disagree with Walt Brown (http://www.creationscience.com...) but I think he is acting ethically.
I don't like the NRA, but I think they are acting ethically when they attempt to preserve the 2nd amendment.
Do you agree it was an ethical decision to decide the Dover statement was an endorsement of religion even if you disagreed with it?
Do you think I'm unethical? If so, why?
May I suggest we make agreements and laws via a democratic process? Then we set up a code of conduct where we expect people to adhere to their agreements.
We might even call that "ethics".
I did not, and do not, claim to speak for these groups. They speak for themselves. A lot of what they said in public forums and editorials was used as evidence in the Dover trial transcripts.
You wrote…
Government actions curtailing the free practice of religion would be problematical. There is nothing wrong with the government being seen as NOT endorsing religion or even endorsing non-religion.
Religious organizations are tax exempt. Do you think organizations fighting religion are, or should be, tax exempt?
I wasn't talking about the Lemon Test, I was talking about the Endorsement Test being applied BEFORE the Lemon Test. Are you going to do away with the Endorsement Test too?
Why not just go to root of the problem?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
However, to modify this ethically would require following the agreed procedures for modifying the constitution. A less ethical way is to fill the Supreme Court with justices more willing to follow their moral judgments than their ethical commitments. As an added bonus, the side promoting this unethical action could loudly accuse those following precedent of being "activist judges".
I disagree that a violation of the constitution isn't a Federal issue.
I consider it my duty to ethically expect the constitution to be followed. Yes, I guess it is technically a choice whether to do my duty as a citizen or not.
P.S. to stay topical (shameless promotion of Mike Gene's book); Have you read it yet?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 10, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I think we've been through this once before. Haven't a clue whether you or the decision was rendered "ethically", nor is it something I obssess about. You're the guy who is passing judgement on folks ethics, not me.
So, didn't the state of PA set up local school boards, and wasn't the school board of Dover duly elected democratically? And aren't curriculum decisions left to their discretion? So why did folks go running to the federal courts? Cause the laws now didn't give them the outcome they want, so they want a do-over.
So what law did Congress make in Dover? None, I don't think. But now you wish to insert "Supreme Court []justices more willing to follow their moral judgments than their ethical commitments" because you like how they rule. I understand that. But you don't like it when your opponents want to play the same game. I'm not sure about the ethics of that, but it sure doesn't seem intellectually consistent.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 11, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I am sure that the you are aware that the 14th Amendment grants the same immunity from a State-sponsored religion that the 1st grants from Congress.
Because a body of the State was acting in breach of the 14th Amendment.
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Let's talk about incorporation, shall we:
http://www.usconstitution.net/...
It's not in the 14th. It wasn't seen as part of the 14th for decades. And the courts have selectively decided what was covered by incorporation and what wasn't. All without any textual basis in the 14th or the rest of the Constitution.
Now judging from TP's claim about the proper way to amend the Constitution, that ain't it. But I'm sure he's not upset, because he likes that interpretation. Ergo it's ethical. Some justice interpreting it another way he will not like, and he will rant about how unethical it is.
But I just see that as different.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — February 11, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Hi RogerRabbitt,
Thank you for the information and I will look into it further.
I agree that it would be unethical for the government to treat some of the bill of rights differently than others. I am inclined to believe that the right to bear arms (2nd amendment) isn't being enforced as well as other rights, and that is wrong. Personally, I don't like the idea of people having the right to carry fully automatic weapons on public streets. But the ethical thing to do is amend the constitution, not play unethical games.
Even if your implication is right that the 14th amendment has been unethically interpreted, the interpretation happened at the Supreme Court level and that is where it needs to be fixed. Circuit judges, like Judge Jones, are ethically required to follow precedents set by superior courts.
The plaintiffs availed themselves of the legal precedent of taking this to federal court because they honestly felt the school board's actions violated the constitution of the United States.
The plaintiffs acted in accordance with the law, told the truth (especially under oath) and were honest and open about their motives. Their actions were consistent with their stated motives.
The defendants on the other hand"¦
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 12, 2008 @ 12:24 am
February 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am
The Supreme Court thinks otherwise.
By ther very article you quoted, historians have disagreed on that point. Some feel that it was intended to be a part of the 14th from the very beginning, others don't.
That seems to be overstating the issue considerably. Amendment 2 has its own limiting clause, altough I agree that in many jurisdicitons the limits have quite possibly unconstitutionally restrictive. Has Amendment 3 (no quartering of soldiers) ever been brought before the Court, and what would constitute quartering of state troops in this modern age anyhow? How often do you see capital civilian cases without a Grand Jury indictment (Amendment 5), or jury trials denied, or irregular appeals (Article 7)? Most likely, the courts haven't ruled on 3, 5 (Grand Jury section), or 7 because it has never come before the Court, since 1947 anyhow. If you have evidence otherwise on those three, I'm all ears.
Absent an clear indication, perhaps there should be an Amnedment that either holds states to Bill of Rights or frees them from it. Until such time, it seems premature to say either side is acting unethically.
Comment by One Brow — February 12, 2008 @ 11:31 am
February 12th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
TP, don't both sides seek to appoint judges favorably disposed to interpret the constitution in a manner agreeable to them? Is there not a real distinction between the words of the constitution and its interpretation?
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hi Bradford,
Ironically, of the last fourteen Supreme court justices (starting with Warren Burger) only two were appointed by a Democratic president.
Those two are Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Bryer. They both had over a dozen years of experience on the court of appeals prior to being nominated to the Supreme Court.
From this link discussing Ruth Ginsburg…
Contrast that to Clarence Thomas who only had a year being a Judge prior to being nominated. Thomas doesn't say much more publically than he was a victim of a high-tech linching during his confirmation hearing and exclaiming "whoop-de-damn-do" when told he was nominated 52 to 48.
Here is something interesting from Scalia…
link
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 12, 2008 @ 2:27 pm