I understand perfectly well what you mean by ID Mike, but you seem incapable of listening to someone who disagrees with you. Like it or not, the term ID has been co-opted by the socio-political movement comprised largely of creationists. In this sense, Matzke is exactly correct to promote the ID=creationism meme.

Yes, it is easy to understand why someone like Matzke would be invested in promoting this stereotype. Nevertheless, it illustrates the fact that many people dismiss ID without really understanding what it is that they dismiss.

And let's not pretend that Mike Behe's *arguments* are somehow going to rescue your credibility. They suck (to put it in terms your readers seem fond of). You're writing here touting the failed arguments of a senior fellow of the main organization behind the ID=creationism meme and you expect everyone to believe that you are somehow different from them?

Note how you quickly fill in the gaps with your stereotypes, thinking that I was "touting" some argument. If you look back, I was responding to your appeal to Pandas, noting a) that no one here thinks it is an important ID book (in fact, most have not even seen it) and b) most here became interested in ID as a consequence of Behe's arguments. You miss the fact that Behe promotes his views/arguments as one who is an evolutionist. He opened the door to considering design not as something that necessarily opposes evolution, but as something that can complement evolution. I wrote about this here.

I understand you think you have good reasons for sticking with "ID", but I think you underestimate the negative impact the creationist association has on your credibility.

There is good reason to think I have good reasons. I ended that post as follows: "Now, someone may not agree with my reasons. Fine. But what they would need to show is that my reasons are unreasonable." And you have failed to show that my reasons are unreasonable. You simply tap-dance around the arguments while reciting your stereotype. You think I am a kook. So be it. What matters is that my position and arguments still stand.

You of course perceive this as horribly unfair and place the blame on the "stereotypes and propaganda" of the mainstream.

Whether or not it is "unfair" does not matter, as that is not an angle I push. I have always focused instead on the implications that follow from so many otherwise smart critics whose thinking is shaped by stereotypes.

Whereas I think the mainstream looks at your stubborn unwillingness to disassociate your ideas from the lunatic fringe and concludes, probably correctly, that you really don't *want* to disassociate yourself from them because, deep down, you *are* one of them.

Right now, the "mainstream" is interested in Anna Nichole's body and Brittany Spear's haircut. So yes, I am out of the maintstream. But none of this matters. What you have built on is stereotype, slogan, and emotional perception. Your whole case crumbles when critical thinking is applied and the arguments are laid out. In other words, your position is front-loaded for collapse (it's only a matter of time). Look at it this way. Say that K Klein tells B Stein that MikeGene is a creationist. Let's say that B Stein believes K Klein. Sooner or later, B Stein reads some of MikeGene. Oh, oh. B. Stein is going to feel misled by K Klein. Valid arguments may travel slower than spin, but valid arguments have the staying power.

My credibility can only erode if I am truly an anti-evolutionist pretending to be an evolutionist. But I am not. Thus, it's the meme-spreader whose credibility is at stake. It's just a matter of time. In fact, you just gave me an idea. I think I might draw up a post that will solicit signatures from ID critics, getting them to go on record as giving this issue much thought and reaching the firm conclusion that Intelligent Design = Creationism.

I'll bring it back up years from now. Are you willing to sign on?

[BTW, last time I tried something like this, only one critic was willing to fuse himself to such a position. I'd be happy to give it another go.]

I think you'd find that most TT'ers - the bloggers - are 'evolutionists' in that we don't have much doubt that evolution of life has occurred. The issue is with the mechanisms,

Yes indeed Joy, I refer to myself as an "ID evolutionist" however, when forced to operate as a physical-only scientist, I can become downright devolutionary.:wink:

—The Brookfield Theory of Devolution—

Extremely simple organisms such as myself (with only two and a half {2 1/2} moving parts and only three {3} functioning brain cells) are the end product of millions of years of Devolution. At long last, the age-old theological question as to how I could have become so simple — without the aid of God — has finally been answered.

SCIENCE has now found the REAL SOLUTION in the simple and elegant mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection (RM&NS). This is how it works. Random Mutation (RM) garburates (scrambles) genetic information — and then Natural Selection (NS) takes out the garbage. Thus, through millions of years of garbage-generation (by RM) and garbage-removal (by NS), massively complex organisms such as bacteria and amoebas have steadily devolved downward into increasingly simpler life forms such as myself.

Yet another question commonly asked by Darwinists and elegantly answered by my model is "how could you be so stupid and still survive?" The answer of course is that RM&NS "selects" for Survivable Stupidity (SS) while all Non-Survivable Stupidity (NSS) is removed by Selective Destruction (NS). Stupidity is of course a specific (neurological) form of simplicity. With RM&NS constantly scrambling/trashing/randomizing and then destroying (NS) all higher forms of complexity(such as brains), survivable stupidity is all that remains.
——

The driving force behind my Theory of Biological Devolution is the randomization function (R) that destroys genetic information (DNA coding).

"Randomness" is a uniform probability distribution over a set of possible outcomes. If your dice consistently rolls a "six" more (or less) often than the other numbers (other dice faces) then the distribution is non-uniform and subsequently non-random. "Information" on the other hand, is a highly coordinated, functionally specific sequence of "non-uniformities" (bits, bytes, codes, characters etc.,). "In-FORM-ation" is a highly complex type of "order" or "FORM." "Randomness" is the opposite of "order/form." Randomization subsequently destroys all types of order including genetic in-FORM-ation.

"Randomness" — by definition — cannot produce novelty. By "novelty" I am referring to NEW information, NEW designs or NEW species. "Randomness," is a uniform probability distribution. As soon as novelty occurs and the probability distribution is rendered non-uniform or "biased" (in favor of say, "sixes" on a dice or "jackpots" in slot machine) then specified novelty (order/form) has indeed occurred, but the distribution is no longer uniform and therefore no longer random. While randomness cannot produce specified novelty (by definition), active randomization (RM) is ideal as a destroyer of order and complex specified novelty (information).

My Information-density order-disorder continuum diagram can be found at ISCID. See — http://www.iscid.org/boards/ub... The base of the pyramid is drawn in dashed lines due to the resolution limit of the (digital) system under consideration. Randomness being uniform cannot be perfectly expressed in digital (I.E., non-uniform) systems.

The endless reproduction (of DNA code) provides additional devolution in the form of the inevitable random copying errors. With all of these destruction mechanisms in place, Brookfield Devolution is inevitable.
—-
By the way, I have never belonged to a religion in my entire life. For me, a religion free life is the only way to live.

Bradford denies that ID is primarily a socio-political movement dominated by creationists.

Truth is worth more than your propaganda.

Doug denies that Behe's arguments have been widely debunked by the scientific community.

What Doug said was: "Klein, you say it over and over again that Behe's arguments are failures, but show it."

Klein, you are consistent in your inaccuracies or maybe you view that as the opening of your circus?

Bradford denies that ID is primarily a socio-political movement dominated by creationists. Doug denies that Behe's arguments have been widely debunked by the scientific community.

Doug thinks I'm some dude he met on Delphi in 1999. Bradford thinks I'm an "extemista", whatever that is.

The clowns are here, when does the circus start?

correctly, that you really don't *want* to disassociate yourself from them because, deep down, you *are* one of them.

You don't have a clue what you are braying about. Why didn't you take Mesk's advice and read around here before you started posting.
If anyone is incapable of listening it's you. Mike addresses your points and all you do is regurgitate you same comment over again.

Klein, you say it over and over again that Behe's arguments are failures, but show it. Someone whining about failed arguments had better be able to show how all of his arguments (which you placed in asterisks as if to hint that they really weren't arguments at all…. and please, do explain that as well) have failed.

You will deny this a thousand times over, I'm sure, but, as they say, actions speak louder than words.

The exact same comment holds more water when directed at you.

For someone who claims to have been debating these topics on Delphi forums since 1999, Guts assessment is correct, you do suck at the internet.