What every cat needs
by MikeGene
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 30th, 2007 at 2:56 pm and is filed under The Rabbit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/what-every-cat-needs/trackback/
December 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Cute.
Kind of hard to blame a cat for biting a rabbit though.
That's like tossing Caramello's on me while I'm lying on a couch and lecturing me for eating them.
You know… that's a great idea for a birthday gift next year. I'll have to tell my wife.
But that idea will have to wait. I might get the chance to be a sparring partner for a kid who's 3 fights deep into his pro-boxing career.
Mtraven, you're welcome to come and cheer him on as he beats me about the ring.
Comment by Doug — December 30, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
It looks like Mike might need help. He has authored the last eighteen threads to Telic Thoughts.
Here is a candidate for starting a thread on Nanobes…
Nanobes, another challenge to dogmatic thinking in biology.
Here is a 2007 article that summarizes the situation concerning the existance of Nanobes nicely.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 30, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
TP, why did you not submit this as a guest post?
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Hi Bradford,
I thought I just did.
But it is in the gray area since all I did was quote someone else.
Feel free to use it and start a thread yourself.
I have to run (family duty calls).
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 30, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 8:33 am
Those little bunnies are in grave danger
Comment by Farshad — December 31, 2007 @ 8:33 am
December 31st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Hi Mike,
You have my permission to promote this to a guest host if you wish to but I won't be surprised if you don't. I'm not planning on holding back (my comment to Bradford was only a taste).
A Reaction to The Design Matrix's Reception at Uncommon Descent
I made the mistake of looking over the reaction to Mike Gene's book by his supposed peers.
While the quotes were fairly representative of the book it hardly mattered because anyone even reasonably familiar with the target audience would know that few would bother to read past the first two excerpts.
Yes, Mike Gene was quotemined by his supposed "friends".
Compare this…
To the raw meat fed to the masses…
link
For a movement that asks others to ignore their obvious agenda and focus on their evidence and logic, here is how they reacted…
"proto-science? That's a slap in the face…"
"Doesn't it follow … that Mr. Gene thinks insufficient explanations in science classrooms should go uncriticized and, as is too often the case, be uncritically accepted by students?" (also added "I guess I'll just have to read his book and hear these quotes in their proper context.")
"While I like Mike, I must disagree with him here.." (and only talked about whether ID was science or not).
"gosh I think that we should be able to criticize all theories in class.
…
On the other hand if the whole point of public school is to indoctrinate kids to produce useful servants of the state then yes I can understand Mike Gene's view." (sarcasm, the last refuge…)
"Interesting. Gene says he does not view ID theory as science, but the quotations you produced seem to suggest he views ID theory as correct. Probably he feels he had to include some anti-ID statements to get the book to be taken more seriously in academic circles." (Mike, a kiss ass?)
"sounds like bashing ID to me. I don't know"¦to me it looks like a good cop/bad cop routine."
"That is why Mike Gene is clueless on ID as science."
And then there is DaveScot….
"Mike Gene is a shrinking violet. He carefully hides his identity so his notions about ID can't be used to blemish his reputation (whatever that reputation might be). While I admire his thinking on the subject to some extent I don't have any respect for the man (or possibly woman) himself. His rejection of ID as science is par for the course - my guess is he's covering his ass in case his boss or peers find out what he's been doing in his secret life. No doubt he appeals to many Western Europeans. Western Europe has lost its backbone and has become a continent full of shrinking violets. I'm guessing the United States will have to rescue it yet again in the not too distant future when the Muslim horde successfully takes it over."
It is noteworthy that several people came to Mike's defense (ChristopherSaint, Nullasalus, WondersforOyarsa)
But the man who manipulated the reaction to start with, Dr, Dembski, would have none of that (have I mention how I don't think highly of this person?)…
"ChristopherSaint: Give us more credit, please. My dad got his PhD in biology at the the University of Erlangen and my parents live in Germany. My uncle was a professor of ergnomics at the Technische Hochschule in at the time West Berlin. I know the scene in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. And I have read Ratzsch and Sober carefully "” Ratzsch spent a week in a six-week seminar that I conducted at Calvin College in 2000 to discuss his then forthcoming book. Although I like much about Mike Gene's book, he is an amateur at the philosophy of science. Thus I find those who like Mike try to argue that ID is valuable but not science as engaged in misconceived philosophy of science. I'll probably write a paper on this sometime "” when I get time off from my scientific research with Bob Marks's Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evoinfo.org). Forgive me for slipping this in, but where is the outcry from your colleagues about the suppression of this work?"
Note, Dembski just published a book, The Design of Life. Let's compare excerpts. Here is a link to the prime gems chosen by the authors themselves.
Please follow the link. These excepts are nothing but handwaving hyperbola and whining about Eugenie Scott, Clarence Darrow, Dawkins, Gould and Dawinists in general.
Clearly tailored to be read by the already converted. However, "The Design of Life is the definitive book on intelligent design (ID)." A definitive book meant to rally the masses only needs rhetoric, not substance.
Now, how does Dr. Dembski deal with the sensitive issue of public schools with his book?
From the FAQ…
"It was not developed for use in public secondary schools, whose guidelines, developed to circumvent controversy, may not permit this level of open inquiry."
And if that wasn't weasel-worded enough, here is what the FTE is all about according to the same FAQ…
"A widely reported study during the early 1980s examined 60 public school social sciences textbooks and found in them a left-leaning bias hostile to traditional values. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics was established to address such bias by (1) producing effective communication tools that elucidate critical subjects involving world view, morality, and conscience, and (2) positively but accurately portraying family values and healthy lifestyles for the education of young people."
So, do we have a clear understanding of the why FTE is publishing The Design of Life?
As for ID and science…
"The Design of Life is the first book that lays out the entire current intelligent design program. As a standalone volume aimed at the general reader, The Design of Life provides the evidence and conceptual tools necessary to understand the scientific case for intelligent design. Here you will find cutting-edge research and in-depth analysis."
So why isn't that showing up in the author-selected excerpts?
Mike Gene is an ID Scientist who wrote an honest, straight-forward book for the general public based on scientific principles.
For his troubles, Mike is being vilified by glorified snake-oil salesmen offering nothing but rhetoric and platitudes.
And you want to know why I am a critic of the ID MOVEMENT?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 7:02 pm
TP,
He was being criticized by people who hadn't read the book and saw what amounted to one quote who confused them. This in the comments section of UD's blog.
And Dembski ('The man who manipulated this reaction'? From what I recall, his entire OP on the subject was excerpts) walks into the comment section, and his great attack on MikeGene is 'I like his book' and 'Amateur at the philosophy of science'? Admittedly, amateur has some sting to it. They have some frank disagreement there.
But insofar as UD and Mike's book goes, this really seems blown out of proportion. The nastiest reply was from DaveScot - but, honestly, when is DaveScot pleasant in criticism?
Comment by nullasalus — December 31, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Dembski used to say that Mike was "insightful" and "someone you should know".
Now he tiredly climbs up to the podium at UD and mumbles that a "friend" sent him some quotes from Mike's book, and well, here you go.
Of course I didn't expect Dembski to endorse the book. But is it too much to ask him to wait until he, himself, has something "insightful" to say before giving such an unceremonious and warped introduction?
Comment by chunkdz — December 31, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 3:34 am
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
Out of curiousity Nullasalus, do you think Dembski is dumb?
I don't. In fact I think Dembski is quite intelligent and very much aware of what he is doing.
Do you think Dembski isn't aware of what his attack dog, DaveScot, does on his blog?
Do you think it is an accident that the majority of the commenters on Uncommon Descent are predictable in their blind support of Dembski's version of ID?
Do you think Dembski has worked multiple years, writing multiple books on something you intuitively know is impossible to accomplish, the ablility "…to scientifically discern between design and lack of design at a grand scale…"
You also have stated recently that you "…personally don't think Dembski succeeded"
Do you think Dembski so incompetent that he would expend this much time and effort on a failed exercise?
(Note, Dembski published The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities TEN YEARS AGO!)
This snake oil salesman has been selling the same cure-all for a decade. How does he do it? By using his intellect and training to put together complicated sounding mathematical models that "proves" mainstream evolutionary theory is bunk. Anyone pointing out the weaknesses in Dembski's logic is branded an ID critic and, of course, banned from posting on his blog, keeping them away from his followers.
How long are you going to "cheer on" this fraud?
Pointing to the other side and saying they are wrong isn't an excuse.
Why aren't you condemning both sides?
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 1, 2008 @ 3:34 am
January 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am
TP says:
Not particularily. It is enough to know that you are rabidly anti-Dembski, and make a highly unreliable witness on his doings.
The question isn't whether Dembski is intelligent, the question is, if we grant that he is, does it imply he is the evil demon you imagine him to be? I don't see any reason that the two follow.
The question that first came to me from reading this post is, did Mike Gene not say on page xi:
And that's a sincere question, because I don't have the book and don't know. Your post seems to imply that he didn't, and somehow Dembski or his unnamed "friend" set out to delude us all about what MG said. If he did, your post would seem to be the misleading one.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 1, 2008 @ 11:03 am
January 1st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Hi RogerRabbitt,
I think what TP is getting at is that some of the context was stripped from those quotes. He provided the quotes with their context.
Look, I have been arguing that ID is not science for more than eight years. Why is this news?
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2008 @ 11:48 am
January 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Mike Gene says:
I'm sorry, was that addressed to me? I don't think I said anything about it being news, and it wasn't a surprise to me. And I may be missing something, but if it is your longstanding position, which is what I thought, then why would one charge that quoting such a statement is "provid[ing] the quotes with[out] their context". A half a page of quotes out of a 200 page book could be trivially described as "out of context". But that only seems to be a meaningful claim if the context changes their meaning in some way. But I get the impression from you that they reflect accurately your position, and what you said in the book.
Now TP may have meant to make that charge you assign to him, but that isn't what he said:
Who wrote the raw meat? If you are taking authorship, why is that Dembksi's failing (TP's point)? If you wish to clarify the context for any given quote that you feel was unfairly spun, I'm all ears.
But I don't think TP is on firm ground alleging that those quotes are some dastardly plot of Dembksi. I don't think it is innately evil of Dembski, or the posters on his site, to disagree with, or challenge you. Nor vice versa.
Heck I disagree with you, but I don't assume that makes you evil.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 1, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Hi RodgerRabbit,
You wrote…
Of couse I am not on firm ground. Dr. Dembski isn't dumb enough to leave that good of an opening.
As Chunkdz pointed out, Dr. Dembski distanced himself from even providing the quotes. An anonymous "friend" provided them. However, in the comments (that occured the same day) Dr. Dembski says…
"Although I like much about Mike Gene's book, he is an amateur at the philosophy of science. Thus I find those who like Mike try to argue that ID is valuable but not science as engaged in misconceived philosophy of science. I'll probably write a paper on this sometime…"
And Doug thinks I sound arrogent
Even giving Dr. Dembski the benefit of the doubt that the poor choice of quotes and the reaction to them was unexpected, that means Dr. Dembski didn't take the time to put together his own set of quotes, or even think about the obvious reaction to the book he just read but, instead, thought about writing a paper on how people, like Mike, engage in a misconceived philosophy of science.
Sure, Dembski is a real gem of a person. With friends like this…
So, it wasn't Dr. Dembski who attacked Mike Gene it was his select group of followers and his hand picked attack dog, DaveScot.
And it wasn't even Dr. Dembski who provided the "raw meat", it was one of his ever-present anonymous emailers (perhaps Galapagos Finch?).
As to whether the "raw meat" should have been recognized as such…
RodgerRabbit, how far are you willing to stretch the incredible?
Everyone knows the question of whether ID is science or not is controversial.
They had a trial in Dover over it, remember?
It isn't something you just slip into a list of quotes with no comment.
How would you have handled it?
Here is what I would have done if I was given the chance to post a review to Uncommon Descent.
I would have summarized the main ideas in the body of the book, with special attention to Mike's "Design Matrix" and Mike's scoring system (yes, Mike provided something people can actually understand and use).
I would then provide my biased view of Mike's strength and weaknesses.
I would then, at the end, provide Mike's direct dealing with controversial subjects.
That is how a friendly, but critical, review would have been done.
Did you take a look at the excerpts for Dembski's The Design of Life?
They ordered the quotes with the later chapters first (they are the strongest).
They hid the explanations of controversial subjects in the FAQ.
Mike's book deserved better treatment than it got.
Mike deserved better treatment than he got.
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 1, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
And that's how we know that Dembski is truly this evil genius. Not because of the evidence, but the very lack thereof. Burn him, he's a witch!
You've provided no evidence that these were objectively a "poor choice of quotes". Indeed, your post really implies the opposite. That these are issues that are a source of controversy that Mike Gene willingly waded into in his book. The only case you make is that you wouldn't have raised them. To each their own.
Because it certainly is evil for one friend to communicate with another about the contents of a book he has read.
I like the language. If by attack you mean criticize, he certainly did. That doesn't make him evil. He agrees with MG sometimes, and disagrees at others. In that you see evilness. Most of the rest of us see diversity.
No, it turns out it was ultimately Mike Gene who did that. By his own admission in this very thread.
So why didn't MG recognize it as such, and delete it from his book?
Including Mike Gene? So, let me get this strait. Mike Gene gets to write a book on a controversial subject, include raw meat, but nobody who disagrees gets to respond?
What A Scam! Maybe I'll write myself a book, "Roger Rabbitt: The smartest Leporid in the World". Only somebody truly evil could attack my claim. Right?
If that is what Mike really thinks, he would probably be well advised to stop writing books.
But I think he's a lot smarter than that. Not as smart as the smartest Leporid in the World, mind you, but no slouch either.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 1, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
I hesitated putting together this post, but since I need to get back to focusing on real life again and I happen to be angry enough I decided it was time to have it out with you.
Starting with…
I strongly disagree with Walt Brown and his ideas presented in http://www.creationscience.com, but I don't think he is "evil". In fact I respect him for his honesty and tenacity in explaining/defending his views.
I strongly disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs and tactics, but I respect them for their honesty and tenacity in explaining/defending their views.
I also strongly disagree with Salvador Cordovia and tactics. And while I question his honesty at times I can overlook his transgressions because, as a whole, he is honest and tenacious in explaining/defending his views.
Interestingly, you use the word "evil".
I think Dr. Dembski is dishonest and unethical.
I think he is motivated by his perceived moral imperative to fight "evil."
I would not use the word "evil" because I separate ethics from morality.
"Good" and "Evil" are moral concerns. Honesty is an ethical consideration.
I realize you don't agree with me on this and refuse to acknowledge my right or ability to think this way. This is not surprising considering the attitudes you have demonstrated.
For example, you wrote…
Am I the evil snake in the garden tempting you with false logic?
I have witnessed nothing that you don't have access to.
Has my logic become unreliable because I dare challenge a "good" God-fearing man?
After all, I am an immoral atheist. It is impossible for me to be honest and ethical, right? I am not to be trusted in all things. Only God's chosen are to be trusted.
Of course you must guard against evil at all times. Even though I said, "While the quotes were fairly representative of the book"¦", it is obvious that I was trying to imply the UD quotes contained out-and-out falsehoods.
And even if Dr. Dembski is an arrogant, manipulative snake-oil salesman, you know he isn't an "evil demon" because it is obvious he believes in God.
You have indicated in the past that you don't agree with Mike's assessment of the value of my comments. Is this a kin to "Get thee behind me Satan"
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 1, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
This typifies the anti-ID movement which I distinguish from honest critiques or proposals (sound familiar?) like that submitted by TP himself. I once submitted a list of prominent IDists to Google and searched with key words designed to locate negative responses. I was surprised by both the extent and degree of hatred that anti-IDists harbor. If you wish to search out arrogant and manipulative people go no further than the comment section of some prominent ID critical blogs.
Comment by Bradford — January 1, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
And the hits just keep on coming.
You wrote…
Because Mike is ethical. An ethical person doesn't avoid unpleasant issues, they address them. Granted, one surrounds the more controversial thoughts with plenty of explaination and don't make it a main theme if it isn't necessary. For example, Mike put the controversial parts in a preface and labeled the pages in roman numerials (e.g. "xi") so everyone could understand this isn't the main point.
An ethical reviewer would realize that and treat it accordingly.
Sure, disagree all you want.
BTW, have you read the book yet?
What do you think of Mike's Design Matrix and its associated scoring system?
Do you disagree with it?
Or is the only thing you are focused on is the side issue of Mike's philosophical outlook and how it affects your political agenda?
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 1, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
TP,
I just want to remind you of this: When I once accused Richard Dawkins of having ulterior motives - of saying certain things more out of political expediency than anything else - you launched in on one hell of a routine about stereotyping and otherwise warping our perceptions of our 'enemies'. Compare the two events.
Do I believe Dembski is dumb? Not really. He probably has political machinations like everyone else. But I think 'getting DaveScot to act rude and flippant' is.. well, what do you think it is, TP? The Master Plan? These were the machinations of Dembski - quoting portions of MikeGene's book, drawing attention to it, saying he likes it, and then saying he disagrees with Mike's philosophy and saying he's an amateur at the philosophy of science?
What's more, I said I believe Dembski failed - and I pointed out that that belief was due to philosophical considerations. Maybe you don't believe me, but I honestly, truly believe that 'dis/proving' intention, mind, creation, etc cannot be done in a falsifiable way. I'm not calling Dembski's math or methodology into question. It doesn't even get that far with me.
And I do and will condemn Dembski or other ID proponents when they make moves *I* think are dishonest or attacking (Not a big fan of Thebrites style humor, or photo manipulation of people in general - maybe I'm too sensitive), or unfair. Just like I'll not sign on with proposals or criticisms automatically just because 'they're stuff atheists won't like'. I just don't see it here.
But hey, let's play a game.
You're smart, right TP? And you've admitted you're driven by political views. Should I entertain the notion you're focusing so strongly on Dembski's horrible, manipulative, two-faced takedown of MikeGene's book because you want to divide an ID community? Why shouldn't I condemn your hay-making as a stunt, a duplicitous ploy?
And no, I don't really want to get into that argument. I defended MG's view on UD (And I saw most criticism coming from comments, not Dembski - I really thought the quotes he pulled were neutral. The disagreement centered around what I think is a misunderstanding of his position.) Overall, I don't think the post was such a big deal. But if you urge me on start whipping out condemnations and examine what could be the 'real motives' in play, you may not like what dots I connect.
Comment by nullasalus — January 1, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Then do it.
You will note the bulk of my critique of the ID Movement is done by quoting the IDists themselves.
Let's show all how is more of the snake-oil salesman. You take Dembski's explaination detecting design from this Dembski paper…
Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence
Explain it and attempt to defend it.
I will take "Mike Gene's Design Matrix Scoring Continuum" as described in his book and explain it and attempt to defend it.
This should flush out how much substance (or lack thereof) they contain.
Or is the only thing you are interested in is defending the concept that OOL researchers are wasting their time?
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 1, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
TP says:
Putting aside that your arguments are neither tempting nor logical, I love the imagery. Do I detect a hint of a Biblical reference?
Let it all out:
Now don't you feel better. Sorry, but that isn't my hidden agenda. It's yours. Your the one who has been nursing this deep inside of you, despite your own claims that these hidden agendas are unethical.
Having exorcised those "ethical demons", maybe you can let go of them at last, and offer some sort of logical arguments.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 1, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
LOL! Let me see if I've got this strait. MG engaging raw meat on a controversial topic is being ethical. Dembski et al are being unethical doing the same thing, because MG enabled himself of non-arabic numberings of the pages on which he broached the subject.
This isn't some deep-seated cultural bias, is it? That sounds faintly unethical.
Just gets curiouser and curioser.
But seriously, neither Mike nor any other author gets to decide for the reader what is important and what isn't.
Suppose Dawkins claimed to have proof of God's nonexistence, gives said proof in the introduction, using Roman Numeral paging, and the meat of his work is about where society should go now that theism has been debunked.
Would it be ethical for somebody to challenged Dawkins proof?
I haven't been focused on MG's philosophy at all. Not sure where you got that idea. My posts have been mostly directed at you and your illogic.
And no, don't have the book and haven't read it yet.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 1, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
In case it escaped your notice, I respect you and your views. Even the ones I disagree with. Your debate tactics are reasonable both is effectiveness and honesty. I would say we are evenly matched. However, I would have included a link like this to the exchange you mentioned.
I will agree that my initial response to you comment was strong ("fangs and claws on cartoon drawings of Japanese solders"), but if you look at the overall thread it was a pretty even give and take. Including this comment from me…
I am not surprised that you would offer…
You don't want to get into the argument but that didn't stop you from making a legitimate point. Of course you should entertain that notion. You should even bring it out in the open like you did. Is it representative of my motivations in this situation? Even I am not sure of the answer.
I have made no secret that I don't like Mike Gene using his good ideas to help the ID Movement.
I admit to being predisposed to seeing intentional disrespect for the ID SCIENCE that Mike Gene's ideas represents.
I see it as all in keeping with the ID Movement leaders' intent of keeping the big tent door open. To me, it is obvious that the Movement's focus is almost exclusively on rallying troops. Serious exploration of scientific hypotheses is detrimental to that focus and, therefore, detrimental to the movement.
Which, of course, is one of the main reasons I am motivated in trying to help advance ID Science.
However my primary motivation is I like thinking about extreme new possibilities (building thought models) and debating.
But back to the current subject…
I am pretty sure Dr. Dembski expected a negative reaction to Mike Gene's "ID isn't science" statement. I suggest that is why he distanced himself from the excerps when he posted them.
I argue that it really doesn't matter whether Dr. Dembski's thinking was malicious or apathetic, he should have taken more care in his presentation.
Would a riff between Dr. Dembski and Mike Gene make me happy?
Probably.
Do I think it will happen?
No, it isn't in Mike's best interest.
Both Mike and Dr. Dembski are too smart to let that happen.
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 1, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
I am not surprised with your responses. Although I was a little amused when you suggested I was trying to be subtle with my "evil snake in the garden".
I am comfortable that I got my points across to the listening audience.
Whether you got the points or not, I am not really sure I care.
I pretty much expect you to continue trusting in Dr. Dembski and his God.
P.S. that wasn't me trying to be subtle either
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 1, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
TP,
And I disagree. If anything, I think part of the function of the Big Tent is to encourage discussion - without ostracization - among people who do share common views. And I have seen ID *critics* try to use stances of ID proponents to try and divide them, from pointedly bringing up 'You know Wells is in the Unification Church, right?' to highlighting Behe's acceptance of common descent and biological precursors (Or, that old trick, pretending Behe 'now' accepts those - as if he hasn't for awhile). What riles many ID critics isn't the acceptance of science, but the fact that ID is, in a general and broad sense, promoting a new way of looking at science philosophically - alongside the scientific claims.
Probably did. And Dembski himself obviously doesn't agree with Mike. But I also think Dembski agrees with MG on other points - and that Dembski also probably disagrees with Behe on some points.
As I said, I just don't see the controversy here. Certainly nothing close to backstabbing. Considering whose thoughts and views UD has promoted in the past, their track record on calling attention to people who they disagree with philosophically, even theologically, seems pretty good to me. But that's merely my take.
Someone else can have another take, but to me it's 'DaveScot came across angrily? What are the odds.'
Comment by nullasalus — January 1, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
TP says:
Another rare moment of agreement TP. So am I.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 1, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
There are so many responses I have to this. Hmmm, where to begin…
There is a difference between "ostracization" and conflict. If there is no conflict, it is a practical given that no serious consideration is occuring. The polite version is "frank and open discussions". Althought, I agree that arguing religion and philosophy is the kind of conflict that isn't overly useful.
Max Tegmark and Start Hameroff have strong and conflicting views. They fight each other with scientific evidence, equations and logic. However, this is the kind of conflict is not occuring in ID's big tent. In fact it is discouraged.
Please note that I have been ostracized from Uncommon Descent. When asked, Salvador Cordova indicated that he was powerless to allow me to comment there again. Here is the comment I submitted that resulted in my disinvite…
Here is the link to my disinvite from DaveScot…
Before you pull out the Dembski-isn't-ID argument I will ask you who do you consider as the leaders of the ID Movement? If there is no leadership, there is no movement. I suggest there is a definable movement with definable leaders making coordinated decisions and Dembski is one the movement's top leader.
Dembski's blog is titled "The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends."
I'm sorry, I got to run. It looks like Bradford has
fallen into my trapaccepted my challenge to compare and contrast different design detection mechanisms (well he kind of did).Just assume the other points I was going to make would brilliantly explain why the ID Movement's primarily purpose is to promote religion pretty much as outlined in the wedge document.
Comment by Thought Provoker — January 1, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
TP,
I'm not going to defend UD's comment standards. I'm not going to condemn them either. If they want to have a forum primarily for like-minded people to congregate and discuss amongst themselves, that's their decision. I won't pretend I'd like it if I got booted (and I've probably come close), but internet communities are their own thing. We have public forums, private forums, moderated forums, etc.
I think calling that ostracization is a bit much. Not from ID, anyway. UD is one ID forum.
C'mon, TP. How did Hameroff get treated when he made his presentation at Beyond Belief? Does the word 'hostile' apply? What was that quote? "You have infuriated every member of the audience"
Note that Hameroff doesn't give Tegmark equal time at his blog either. They certainly confront each other outside of their websites - but, what, ID proponents don't engage in debate in public forums? They don't respond to critics on their website, or have people who criticize them on their own sites? And for the record, Tegmark certainly seems to think that the issue between himself and Penrose-Hameroff is settled. Is that right or wrong? I do not know. You cited a comment asserting that microtubules apparently aren't at work in paramecia, which makes me wonder what evidence Hameroff has going for his claims. Does Penrose even subscribe to the idea anymore?
And I disagree. Sure, there are leaders insofar as there are prominent people who particularly make the case for ID. There are TEs who make the case for teleology but don't associate with ID explicitly. The idea that there is no movement if there are no leaders strikes me as overly simplistic; even if I granted (And I do not) that ID has a single set of leaders, all the same for 5-10 years running, it doesn't follow that they haven't had new ideas, new interactions, new proposals, new goals, etc. Or even that they all agree.
And Dawkins is on record as saying his love of evolutionary theory has a lot to do with his belief that it can promote atheism. Philosophical smuggling in the guise of science.
There is nothing wrong with promoting a belief - everyone does it. Insofar as ID promotes a philosophy of looking at nature as designed, I support it. Insofar as they propose finding design is scientific, I oppose it conditionally based on what I've outlined before.
Comment by nullasalus — January 1, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 7:22 pm
TP, whether or not you should have been allowed to post at UD is a matter left to the discretion of the blog owners. Fighting that battle here has the earmarks of petulance.
Looks like you imagine others as quaking in their boots at the thought of having to cross swords with you.
Comment by Bradford — January 1, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
January 7th, 2008 at 6:59 am
I was reeling in horror at this video, when it was supposed to be cute lol
Comment by Guts — January 7, 2008 @ 6:59 am
June 21st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I happened to surf across this thread and wanted to update readers here about what I think about Mike Gene and "The Design Matrix". My initial reaction, quoted here several times, had nothing to do with the book, only my opinion on Gene's carefully guarded anonymity. I suppose I was a little harsh. What with the revelations in Expelled and my own (now) lengthy and frequent interactions with a great number of scientists who are afraid to come out of the closet (so to speak) about their pro-ID positions I must retract what I said about Gene's anonymity. I understand. Many of wish you'd come out but we understand that priorities must be ordered and sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. You have my sincere apologies, Mike Gene, whoever you are.
As to the "The Design Matrix". Brilliant. I loved it. I've personally recommended it to hundreds of scientists and professors who are sympathetic with ID (many of whom are also unwilling to associate their name with a positive view of ID). My recommendation usually goes something like this: "If you want to see an engineering point of view on this whole ID brouhaha then you should read Mike Gene's "The Design Matrix". Actually I didn't care all that much for the matrix scoring system but the discussion preceding it was fantastic. I particularly like the peer reviewed literature surveys showing the increasing use of engineering buzzwords in biology and how that doesn't happen in any other scientific disciplines.
Great book, Mike Gene, whoever you are.
Comment by DaveScot — June 21, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
Hi Dave,
Apology accepted. Thanks.
Thanks again. The scoring system is actually more powerful than many might realize. In the future, I hope to illustrate this by actually scoring some more systems.
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2008 @ 10:46 am