RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (15) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science, Honest questions from Dembski's students< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,12:28   

[quote=carlsonjok,Mar. 16 2010,11:58][/quote]
Quote



HA HA THIS IS YOU



HEY! I know where that pic was shot! It's a place called Spier in South Africa. There's a vineyard there as well as a raptor and Cheetah rehab center (don't remember the connection - oops...that SB 'connexion' since I'm referring to SA). You can do the whole pet the cheetah/pet the cheetah cub thing there and occasionally they get a bit frisky.

'Nice kitty...down kitty...hey that's my arm!' Brings a whole new meaning to I can haz cheeseburger...

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,13:02   

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 16 2010,12:28)
HEY! I know where that pic was shot! It's a place called Spier in South Africa. There's a vineyard there as well as a raptor and Cheetah rehab center (don't remember the connection - oops...that SB 'connexion' since I'm referring to SA). You can do the whole pet the cheetah/pet the cheetah cub thing there and occasionally they get a bit frisky.

But that's a leopard in the picture, I believe. Do they have leopard cubs there as well?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,13:05   

Hi BJRay,

Thank you for coming for a visit.  The guys and gals around here have been getting bored lately.  My Quantum Quackery trolls barely even get nibbles anymore.

Assuming you find this comment among all the others.  Allow me to quote from Dr. Dembski's expert testimony at the Dover trial...

   
Quote
How, if at all, does quantum mechanics challenge a purely mechanistic conception of life? The intelligent design community is at the forefront in raising and answering such questions.
...
there is now growing evidence that consciousness is not reducible to material processes of the brain and that free will is in fact real. Jeffrey Schwartz at UCLA along with quantum physicist Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are two of the key researchers presently providing experimental and theoretical support for the irreducibility of mind to brain.
link

Since that time, there have been remarkable discoveries in Quantum Biophysics.  Sir Roger Penrose is among the most notable scientists proposing the ideas Dr. Dembski wrote about (Penrose/Hawking mathematically modeled and predicted Black Holes).

Why aren't Dr. Dembski and the rest of the ID crowd "...at the forefront in raising and answering such questions" about Quantum Biophysics?

Could it be they are more interested in manipulating public opinion than doing science?

Feel free to tell Dr. Dembski that Thought Provoker says "hi".

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,13:56   

TP, you are mistaken!

Allow me to quote from Dembski's testimony at Dover:

   
Quote










                                                                                                  .





















                                                                                         .


(Sung to the tune of 4:33 by John Cage)

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
bjray



Posts: 13
Joined: Mar. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,13:58   

I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.

On a side note, I have been reading up on the links you posted as well (thanks for getting me up to speed). Also, Elsberry, thanks for your thorough response. I thought I'd also note that I randomly read one of Shallit's responses to Dembski's work ( which can be found here); since you mentioned the case. (More to comment on this "peice" later.)

Thanks again, and I'll work to reply to your comments/questions, just give me a bit.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,14:51   

Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.

You'll, er, want to turn that off!

Just to reiterate, CSI is the prize.

I would really like to see the CSI calculated for any one of the things that Dr Dembski claims it can be calculated for. Or a baseball. Or a cake. Or a salt crystal.

If CSI really means something and is something, then why can't we see it being worked out? Is there a list of objects and the values for the CSI for each? Even just one? And how it was worked out?

Can we give the explanatory filter a go while we're about it?  :D

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,14:52   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 16 2010,13:02)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 16 2010,12:28)
HEY! I know where that pic was shot! It's a place called Spier in South Africa. There's a vineyard there as well as a raptor and Cheetah rehab center (don't remember the connection - oops...that SB 'connexion' since I'm referring to SA). You can do the whole pet the cheetah/pet the cheetah cub thing there and occasionally they get a bit frisky.

But that's a leopard in the picture, I believe. Do they have leopard cubs there as well?


I noticed that when I saw the pic. There were no leopard cups when I was last there, but they do have a number of paddocks, so it's conceivable they were rehabbing one for one of the game parks or some such. I could also be wrong that the pic comes from Spier, but the petting cell for the cheetah cubs I was in had the exact same wall art. Seems a bit too coincidental, but maybe there's something to that pattern that's more common than I know.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,15:28   

Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 16 2010,13:56)
TP, you are mistaken!

Allow me to quote from Dembski's testimony at Dover:

You are right.

I should have said it was from Dembski's expert witness report which was excluded since Dembski dropped (was dropped?) as a witness.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,15:29   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 16 2010,14:51)
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.

You'll, er, want to turn that off!

Just to reiterate, CSI is the prize.

I would really like to see the CSI calculated for any one of the things that Dr Dembski claims it can be calculated for. Or a baseball. Or a cake. Or a salt crystal.

If CSI really means something and is something, then why can't we see it being worked out? Is there a list of objects and the values for the CSI for each? Even just one? And how it was worked out?

Can we give the explanatory filter a go while we're about it?  :D



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,15:34   

Yeah, listen to Akbar!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,16:02   

Quote
since Dembski dropped (was dropped?) as a witness


How about chickened out?

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
dheddle



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,16:10   

Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 16 2010,13:56)
TP, you are mistaken!

Allow me to quote from Dembski's testimony at Dover:

     
Quote










                                                                                                  .





















                                                                                         .


(Sung to the tune of 4:33 by John Cage)

No, not sung to the tune you mentioned. Sung to the tune of Sir Robin!

Brave Doctor D ran away - No!
Bravely ran away, away - I didn't!
Dep'sition reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled - No!
Yes, brave Doctor D turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Doctor D!

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,16:16   

I liked the
"Dr. Dr. William Dembski,
you've got a bad case of Mammon envy" one.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
RBH



Posts: 49
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,16:59   

Cubist wrote  
Quote
... as far as I can tell, ID can be accurately (albeit cruelly) summarized in seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something.
I have to demur: It's worse than that.  My wording, asked a number of times in various venues, is this:

Sometime or other, some intelligent agent(s) designed something or other, and then somehow or other manufactured that designed thing in matter and energy, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and leaving no independent evidence of the presence, or even the existence, of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).

If BJRay can fill in any of the placeholders in that statement, with evidence appended, I'd be grateful.

Edited by RBH on Mar. 16 2010,17:00

--------------
"There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things, one is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex." - Danny Hillis.

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,17:01   

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,11:55)
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 16 2010,10:07)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,08:13)
cubist:  I grade your work as a "C".  In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C".  Enjoy.

edited

Huh? Are you sure you weren't replying to bjray here?

OOPS-- SORRY - YES, I am concussed, I mean confused!  I most humbly beg your pardon!

I will pray a Novena to The Designer, and sacrifice a virgin to Thor to atone.*

* Not really, but I thought about it.  The virgin not the novena.

It's virginity that's supposed to be sacrificed not the virgin. I really wish people would get that rite.

God

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,17:42   

Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.

On a side note, I have been reading up on the links you posted as well (thanks for getting me up to speed). Also, Elsberry, thanks for your thorough response. I thought I'd also note that I randomly read one of Shallit's responses to Dembski's work ( which can be found here); since you mentioned the case. (More to comment on this "peice" later.)

Thanks again, and I'll work to reply to your comments/questions, just give me a bit.

I hope your comments on Shallit's participation in the Kitzmiller v. DASD case prove more, uh, substantive than those of Dembski himself, who embarrassed himself so thoroughly that he deleted three threads on the topic on his blog and referred to the deleted posts as himself engaging in "street theater".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Cubist



Posts: 349
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,18:47   

Since you're coming from a Creationist-heavy background, bjray, I think it would be appropriate to draw your attention to a recent example of behavior which you may have overlooked on account of unfamiliarity: Namely, someone admitting their mistake when called on it.
The specific mistake was made by J-Dog, who wrote two responses to you, bjray, that were somehow addressed to "Cubist".
When J-Dog's mistake was pointed out to him, his response to that pointing-out-of-mistake was basically, Oh, jeez... that was stupid of me, huh? My bad! He acknowledged his error -- took ownership of it, you might say.
What J-Dog did not do: He did not ignore the corrections. He did not defend his mistake. He did not attack the people who pointed out his mistake. He did not reply to their corrections with any variation of "You're not qualified to judge what I wrote". He did not employ sophistry to confuse the issue of the mistake he made.
He didn't do any of that; rather, he simply acknowledged his mistake.
bjray, it might be instructive for you to dig into some of the many criticisms Mr. Dembski's work has received, and compare Mr. Dembski's behavior in response to those criticisms with J-Dog's behavior here. If you do that, perhaps you may gain some insight as to why real scientists treat Creationists the way they do.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,19:06   

Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 16 2010,14:56)
TP, you are mistaken!

Allow me to quote from Dembski's testimony at Dover:

   
Quote










                                                                                                  .





















                                                                                         .


(Sung to the tune of 4:33 by John Cage)

Comparable to Zappa's The Black Page in every way but one.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2010,19:39   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 16 2010,19:06)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 16 2010,14:56)
TP, you are mistaken!

Allow me to quote from Dembski's testimony at Dover:

       
Quote










                                                                                                  .





















                                                                                         .


(Sung to the tune of 4:33 by John Cage)

Comparable to Zappa's The Black Page in every way but one.

Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version?

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,00:16   

Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39)
Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version?

"If she were MY daughter..."

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,03:26   

Given BJRay's noted intention to comment on Jeff Shallit's rebuttal report in the Kitzmiller case, I re-read it myself.

Shallit's rebuttal has two distinct components. One addresses Dembski's academic standing, and the other addresses Dembski's ideas about "design inferences". For a legal proceeding, like the Kitzmiller case, this is pretty standard. The idea is that one aims to discredit or impeach an expert witness offered by the opposing side. To do this, one can legitimately examine both the claims of the opposing expert and critique the reasons for considering him to be an expert in the case.

I'm assuming that Shallit's rapid demolition of Dembski's ideas is likely not the source of discontent here. After all, "intelligent design" advocates are nothing if not adept in explaining away any and all challenges to their argumentation. It is more likely that Shallit's rapid demolition of Dembski's academic pretensions and exaggerated claims to expertise are more troublesome. This, some would assert, is simply out of place in a rebuttal in the context of science. But the point is that the context is not science, and in the relevant context, that of a legal proceeding, items that go to consideration of the weight to give to an putative expert's opinion are not just permitted but are to be expected. When one is offered as an expert in a case that goes to trial, one should expect and be prepared for the opposition seeking to find reasons to discount one's opinions.

My impression of the handling of expert witnesses by the Thomas More Law Center was that it was inept in several aspects. While the experts for the plaintiffs were cautioned that referencing materials in expert reports would induce a burden to produce those materials for the opposing side, either that advice was not given or not followed on the defense side. For example, the defense wanted plaintiff's expert witness John Haught to deliver to them a manuscript of a book that he was writing at the time of the trial. Haught, though, had not mentioned the manuscript in his expert report and the judge denied the defense's motion for production. William Dembski, by contrast, prominently mentioned in his expert report that his expertise in the topic at hand was enhanced by his role as academic editor of the then-in-production third edition of "Of Pandas and People" (published later as "The Design of Life"). Plaintiffs moved to have the manuscript of this work provided to them, and the judge ordered it to be done under seal. (This incident caused a huge uproar involving the publisher, Jon Buell of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics.) This was a case where Dembski's penchant for self-aggrandizement materially hurt both his side of the case and his colleagues at FTE, and if the lawyers at TMLC had been even halfway paying attention, it could have been avoided.

So, BJRay, if what concerns you is the attack on Dembski's credentialism, please rest assured that is par for the course in rebuttal reports in legal proceedings. One need only look to the transcript and the TMLC's rather desperate attempts to deny expert witness status to plaintiff's expert Barbara Forrest to see similar (though ultimately unsuccessful) actions at work on the defense side.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,05:23   

Being frank* for a moment, if I were back at university as an undergrad/taught masters student and one of my lecturers was getting the demolition of a lifetime the world/web over I'd feel I was in a pretty tough spot.

I got on pretty well with my lecturers and very well with a couple of them. It's not an unusual (or reprehensible) psychological impulse to want to defend/not think poorly of one's lecturers. I think the motivation is pretty obvious. If BJRay is what he says he is, I genuinely feel for him. Granted my patience is generally short lived, but I have a mental image of this kid reading replies here and running off to Dembski/sticking replies in his assignments and generally playing piggy in the middle.

If he's at the stage where he is genuinely interested in the subject of evolutionary biology, or intellectual discovery (as opposed to thinking he is, or just saying he is), then he's going to rapidly come to the conclusion he's in the wrong class at the wrong university. If he's not at that stage then we'll see the standard hot shoe shuffle and creationist two step.

My guess considering his posts to date, heavily focussed on the tone of the debate and the personalities involved, is that he is not (yet perhaps) interested in the evidence. I hope to be proven wrong about that. I also guess he won't grasp that that isn't a criticism. I hope to be wrong about that too. Although I will say someone who has been through a conversion experience (an ex-creationist/ex-religious person) is far better placed to empathise with, or examine, the stages than someone like me who never had to go through this process.

Louis

*Resist the temptation folks. I tried, but I'm weak, it's not easy.

ETA: Our new chum is a she? I thought women had more sense....oh wait....FTK....carry on.

--------------
Bye.

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,05:26   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 16 2010,14:51)
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.

You'll, er, want to turn that off!

Just to reiterate, CSI is the prize.

I would really like to see the CSI calculated for any one of the things that Dr Dembski claims it can be calculated for. Or a baseball. Or a cake. Or a salt crystal.

If CSI really means something and is something, then why can't we see it being worked out? Is there a list of objects and the values for the CSI for each? Even just one? And how it was worked out?

Can we give the explanatory filter a go while we're about it?  :D

I'd also like to know the CSI of a Garden of Eden pattern in Conway's Game of Life (or any cellular automaton), as by the rules of that universe, it meets the most major requirement for design: it absolutely cannot come about by natural laws (and cannot arise by chance either). If it ever appears in the Game of Life, it HAS to be created. By the laws of the Game of Life, this thing should be the most CSI-ey thing in existence.

Of course, since a Garden of Eden doesn't have any function beyond 'being a Garden of Eden', ID can't analyse it, which just shows that Dembski's claim to 'finding patterns which indicate design' ultimately means 'inventing a pattern and then claiming that evolution can't do it'. In essence, he sneaks in the very information he finds by specifying a function, then claiming that the inability of natural causes to produce that function IS the information.

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,09:45   

Hi Bjray,

A lot of the answers so far focused at least in part on the person of Dembski and I could understand if you felt compelled to defend him. But let’s not waste time on him. If his criticism of evolutionary theory were legitimate, he could be a total asshole, incompetent, and promoting his criticism for the wrong reasons, that still wouldn’t make his criticism less valid.
So, the question really is whether Dembski’s (or Behe’s, or Meyer’s, or whoever) criticism is valid.
You clearly believe so:
     
Quote
Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory?

Scientists don’t.
If it were valid, it would be dealt with. I don’t know whether you read Uncommon Descent? Just a few days ago [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/speciation/uncommon-descent-contest-question-21-reposted-what-if-darwins-theory-only-works-6-percent-


of-the-time]they were crowing[/URL] over an article published in Nature, one of the leading scientific journals. Or, more precisely, they were crowing about an article in the New Scientist reporting about that article.

The author of the Nature article tested hypotheses regarding speciation. He looked at several phylogenetic trees and measured the branch length between speciation events, i.e. the time it took for speciation to take place. If speciation were the result purely of accumulation of variation then the branch lengths should be uniformly distributed, meaning that when a certain amount of variation is reached, speciation occurs. But what he found (and I’m simplifying a lot) was that the branch lengths he measured were distributed in a pattern that suggested that this wasn’t true. In most cases, the pattern he found was instead best explained by speciation as a result of rare chance events. The purely “Darwinian” mode of speciation by accumulating variation occurred only in about 6 % of the cases he analysed.

If you read only the UD post about this topic you’d get the impression this paper overturns evolutionary theory. But it was published in Nature! If scientists are repressing scientific data that challenge the status quo why was this article published in Nature? The answer is easy. Challenging new insights are welcomed. This article was published in Nature and not in some less prominent journal exactly because it is challenging for some views of evolution and if Dembski et al. had legitimate criticism bolstered by data they’d be publishing in Nature as well.

But is this article really the overturn of evolutionary theory the UD crew would like you to believe? No, of course not.
A chance event that could lead to speciation is e.g. the metaphorically rising mountain that separate two populations. That’s an example included in every text book.
We know that some species remain genetically compatible although they’re clearly two separate species, e.g. tigers and lions while e.g. polyploidy in plants can lead to “instant speciation” because the polyploid offspring is genetically incompatible with the diploid parent plant.

So, we already knew that the event that leads to genetic incompatibility and/or speciation can be a chance event that is independent from how much variation is accumulated in separate populations.
And in no way does this article comment on the importance of natural selection in general. While the event that leads to speciation might be a chance event, species are still shaped by natural selection.

But why is the article published in Nature if we already knew all that? For one thing, it puts a number on it. While we knew that chance events can lead to speciation we didn't know how often that is the case. Secondly, because there’re two lines of thinking – one emphasizes the importance of natural selection/adaptation for evolution the other emphasizes the importance of chance events for evolution. This article is another point in favour of the importance of chance events and, therefore, important for "the big picture", how we think about evolution in general.

And why am I telling you all that? Because it highlights a few things about the ID movement.

- They aren’t interested in what the research really says. This is just one example where no one bothers to read the original article but instead quotes some parts of a pop sci article that include words like “surprising” or “controversial” and claims victory.

- They do not think about what research means in relation to their own proposal. What does this article have to do with ID? And of course, this article relays heavily on evolutionary theory. The calculation of branch length etc. is only valid if a lot of our understanding of evolution is valid, too – an understanding that is heavily criticised by ID people in other instances. Some proponents of ID do not even accept common descent – how can they then accept any of the conclusions of this article?

- They do not honestly represent current evolutionary theory. In this case they pretend that no one ever mentioned anything about chance events leading to speciation. That is clearly wrong.

But if they were interested in valid criticism of evolutionary theory they wouldn’t do any of these things. They’d read the original article, they’d evaluate it in light of their own criticism, and they’d put it in the context of what evolutionary theory actually says.

That never happens, though. You can go over to UD and look at the last ten posts or so and you’ll find several posts all along the lines of “this research shows that evolutionary theory is wrong” that all show the same short comings.
Actually, all of the output of UD or the Disco’tute can be grouped in one of four claims:

1. Darwin was a racist, plagiarized his “theory” (scare quotes are obligatory), and beat puppies (therefore evolutionary theory is wrong).

2. Darwinism led to school shootings, moral relativism, and/or the holocaust (therefore evolutionary theory is wrong).

3. This scientific research shows Darwinism is wrong (while not engaging in any way with the actual research).

4. Scientific research that shows Darwinism is wrong is repressed by a conspiracy of Darwinists that want to preserve the status quo (or “Help, help, we’re being oppressed." Funnily, they don’t seem to realize that 3. and 4. can’t both be true.)*

So, if scientists are disgusted by ID proponents it is because of this: Their pretence to be interested in scientific criticism when they’re clearly not. Instead, they're running propaganda mills.




* There’s a fifth group of posts at the Disco’tute: Casey Luskin whining about Dover.



Edited by Lou FCD on Mar. 17 2010,16:55

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,10:35   

Quote
There’s a fifth group of posts at the Disco’tute: Casey Luskin whining about Dover.

Casey would like the spelling changed to Do-over.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,10:54   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2010,11:35)
Quote
There’s a fifth group of posts at the Disco’tute: Casey Luskin whining about Dover.

Casey would like the spelling changed to Do-over.

Turned out to be more of a Doh!-ver though.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,11:14   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,01:16)
Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39)
Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version?

"If she were MY daughter..."

What would you do daddy?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,12:17   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,09:14)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,01:16)
Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39)
Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version?

"If she were MY daughter..."

What would you do daddy?

If she were MY daughter...

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,12:21   

I would be careful about calling a daughter BJ.

I have a nephew named John Thomas. His dad is a creationist and a lawyer, so that's three strikes.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,13:29   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,13:17)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,09:14)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,01:16)
 
Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39)
Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version?

"If she were MY daughter..."

What would you do daddy?

If she were MY daughter...

What would you do daddy?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
  444 replies since Feb. 22 2010,14:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (15) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]