You have my sincere apologies, Mike Gene, whoever you are.

Apology accepted. Thanks.

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.

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.

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.

TP: 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.

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.

I'm sorry, I got to run. It looks like Bradford has fallen into my trap accepted my challenge to compare and contrast different design detection mechanisms (well he kind of did).

Looks like you imagine others as quaking in their boots at the thought of having to cross swords with you.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

You wrote…

…I think part of the function of the Big Tent is to encourage discussion - without ostracization - among people who do share common views.

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…

To DonaldM,

You have an interesting reaction to the news that Behe's flagellum challenge appears to have been accepted.

As for the last 10 years"¦ it has taken a while to separate the grain from the chaff. The back-and-forth papers has caused Behe to redefine his terms and two of his three alleged IC systems (blood clotting and eyes) have been demonstrated as indefensibly weak. Therefore, while there will always be never-say-die advocates for all of the systems, it looks like scientific forces have focused on the star of the Dover trial and the No Free Lunch's cover art, the Bacterial Flagellum.

Rejoice! This is how science is done.

What did you expect? Did you think everyone would just agree "Yep, that's designed alright" and leave it at that?

Here is a worst-case scenario (for ID). Some energetic individuals will sit down and catalog the Flagellum's proteins to create "a model of flagellar evolution and speculate as to how an experimental programme focused on this topic might look." (Pollen and Matzke abstract, 2006) This published paper will be reviewed (with a fine-toothed comb) to iron out weaknesses. After surviving the gauntlet, predictions will be made and experiments performed. The experimental results will be reviewed against the predictions. Any surprises will be folded back into the model and experiments ran again. Each step providing insight into how natural processes could have created the Flagella. The never-say-die advocates will dismiss all this as meaningless while the rest of the scientific community will eagerly make use of new knowledge.

What would be the best-case scenario? This becomes a total waste of effort because the Flagellum required an unknowable creator and, therefore, is beyond our capability to understand how it was created. In other words, pursuit of knowledge is worthless; we should just accept the truth and be happy with that?

Given a choice between trying to obtain my own knowledge, or being given someone else's truth, I will die trying.

Here is the link to my disinvite from DaveScot…

Thought Provoker just doesn't have the right spirit for our little community and won't be with us any longer. Fare thee well, Thought Provoker.

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 trap accepted 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.

I am comfortable that I got my points across to the listening audience.

Another rare moment of agreement TP. So am I.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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

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…

It looks like you managed to draw out most of the subtleties of my comment. Even the part about Group Think which wasn't mentioned. Please note, I didn't "equate" your view with "vile war-era racism". I just put it in juxtaposition with your sweeping presumption that "It's all about politics rather than science" and that "If that turns out to be a net liability, [Dawkins will] have a change of heart."

BTW, I enjoyed reading your interplay with Zachriel on the other thread.

I am not surprised that you would offer…

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.

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.