RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (121) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed., Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker - A film< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2007,07:23   

O'Leary breathlessly announces a new ID film. Obviously all that ID based peer reviewed research leaves them craving a break...
Quote
The film, directed by Nathan Frankowski, features people like Rick Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker, scientists victimized by the Darwin cult. Stein also confronts a number of cultists, including the Smithsonian congregation that drove out Rick Sternberg (and called security on the film crew), as well as Richard Dawkins.


A "major feature" film defends intelligent design, no less.

O'Leary also notes
Quote
The film has already received endorsements from Michael Medved, Peter Furler (of Newsboys)and J.I.Packer. It is not funded by Discovery Institute but by software entrepreneur Ruloff who lives on Bowen Island in British Columbia, Canada, and a team of supporters.


It's come to something when you've got to note that this time your propaganda is not funded by the usual suspects.

--------------
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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2007,07:40   

YAWN.

Wake me for the second reel.

Why didn't they go the whole propaganda hog and ressurect Leni Riefenstahl for the director's chair? After all wasn't she merely a misunderstood and misused propagandist film maker? Shouldn't birds of a misunderstood feather flock together?

Do I win an award for such an early Godwin?

Louis

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2007,07:46   

I think what they don't mention will be more important then what is in the film.

The funding issue for GG for example. He dun't got none....

--------------
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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2007,08:16   

Yes, the accurate reflection of the fact he was denied tenure for failing to bring in the sweet, sweet funding will be replaced by the innaccurate claim that evil Darwinian atheists who hate Jesus materialists hell bent keen on keeping kookery, falsheood, non-science, religious claims and utter drivel The Truth (TM patent pending) which includes Jesus no religious material at all out of science.

Why do these bozos think this shit works?

Louis

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

  
qetzal



Posts: 309
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2007,09:14   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 12 2007,08:16)
Why do these bozos think this shit works?

Probably because it does work among the faithful.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2007,11:12   

Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 12 2007,15:14)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 12 2007,08:16)
Why do these bozos think this shit works?

Probably because it does work among the faithful.

Damn! I KNEW I'd forgotten some demographic!

Louis

P.S. Sorry I should have made it clear that I was talking about science. You're totally right of course, the faithful love their propaganda.

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

  
clamboy



Posts: 155
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2007,19:41   

Ooooh, this waste of time, material, and effort, excuse me, film, has been endorsed by Michael Medved???

Wow. Wowee wow wow.

What a...hmm, "coup" is not the right word, nor is "achievement"...okay, how's this:

"An endorsement from Michael Medved?!? Wow, what a stinking pile of 'So fucking what'."

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2007,14:36   

Oh yeah, they've got a summer blockbuster on their hands there.

or not.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,14:41   

Ben Stein Calls for No Censorship; Volunteers; Has Open Comments

How long will that last?

Remember to copy any pearls you write back here.

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

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,14:53   

"This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS."

It sounds like philosophy to me Ben, not science. You are perhaps confusing the two. Science is concerned with natural world:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

If God exists then surely it is outside of the physical universe?

Also, I don't thin you understand what 'hypothesis' means. In scientific terms, it doesn't mean belief:

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."

Did they test their hypothesis? Did it become a theory?

People are of course free to believe what they would like. Science is actually evidence based, and ID has none - it is simply an argument from incredulity.

--------------
"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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,14:55   

And the blog says:

"Rich Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. "


Bwahahahahaha bad creobot tards:

--------------
"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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,15:02   

Somebody ought to post a link to the thread here that's all UD bannings...

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

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,15:12   

Also see here:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/bigscienceacademy_expelled.php

Bono - Prominent scientist.

Einstein - "God does not play dice" quantum mechanics denier. I jest, but I don't think he believed in a personal God:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature." Albert Einstein

Galileo -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy

--------------
"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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,15:18   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 22 2007,15:02)
Somebody ought to post a link to the thread here that's all UD bannings...

Done:

Here's how the ID community handles censorship / different viewpoints:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=5141

Thanks.

--------------
"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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,15:30   

ooh this is fun.  any advice on how to improve my undercover tard cloaking device?

Quote
Can't wait to see the movie.  I'm sure it will blow the socks off those evilutionists who deny the all=mighty purposeful hand of god who has clearly invested a lot of his(her?) time in designing the phalluses of katydids and tinkering with the chimpanzee genome to fool materialists.  

Athiest darwinist materialists have held the pulpit for too long, with their evidence and predictive power.  The tide is turning in churches and homeschooled classrooms across the globe, upholding the observation that all true science is given to us from God and is an exploration of his glory and omnipotence.  Only fools demand evidence to believe something.  

Additionally, with the growing impetus behind Intelligent Design (including a real science journal and lots of internet weblogs that thankfully don't worry about the opposing views to their arguments) soon we can be sure to see some real ID research from the growing number of ID labs in the United States.  All Science So Far!!!

Stifling dissent is unamerican and unchristian.  Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, there are even atheist pleasurians in the fold.  In short, it is all about the maths.

See here for more about censorship and Darwinism.

[URL=http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5141


--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,16:13   

Ben Stein:  
Quote
Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of ?anti-intelligent design? would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him? EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS? HE WOULD BE BANNED.

Instead of denigrating these employers who fire people for their unspoken thoughts, we should be leveraging their mind-reading powers in more productive ways, like prisoner interrogation, or finding out whether the writers of Lost actually have a story plan.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,16:34   

PZ Myers was interviewed, and a segment appears in "Expelled". However, he was not interviewed for "Expelled":

 
Quote

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.


Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 22 2007,16:34

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

    
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,17:13   

Quote (clamboy @ Aug. 13 2007,18:41)
Ooooh, this waste of time, material, and effort, excuse me, film, has been endorsed by Michael Medved???

Wow. Wowee wow wow.

What a...hmm, "coup" is not the right word, nor is "achievement"...okay, how's this:

"An endorsement from Michael Medved?!? Wow, what a stinking pile of 'So fucking what'."

Haha. Medved in bed with righter-christers agin. What a stinking pile of "so fucked, what?"

His right-wing fanatic friends behaved like yowling cats in Jerusalem during the New Year's countdown to Y2K. You made your bed (again), Medved. :)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,17:52   

Quote (Rob @ Aug. 22 2007,16:13)
Ben Stein: ?
Quote
Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. I

Well, I certainly do hope, with all sincerity, that this film gets a full and complete showing, in court, the next time some idiotic school board tries to bullshit everyone into accepting some ID "science textbook" because "ID ain't about religion or god, no sirree Bob, and it's just them atheist darwinists and activist judges who think so."

These morons STILL have no clue at all why they keep losing.

Surreal.

I thank God, every single day, that fundies are so utterly completely unalterably irredeemably mind-numbingly jaw-droppingly stupid.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,20:01   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,16:18)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 22 2007,15:02)
Somebody ought to post a link to the thread here that's all UD bannings...

Done:

Here's how the ID community handles censorship / different viewpoints:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=5141

Thanks.

Holy shit.

I visited my creations to find them badly corrupted by the bizarre character set issue that has lately afflicted the board. Search and replace fixed most of the character substitutions (I've learned from Pandas), but this board software does not handle long links well very well (often breaking them into segments such that they are no longer recognized as links) so I was sawing legs of a four-legged table for quite some time (every correction seemed to introduce new errors). They're not completely fixed but I'm gonna leave it alone until the charset issue is corrected.

--------------
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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8951
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,20:06   

Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 22 2007,18:13)

thanks. that made my week.

   
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,20:25   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 22 2007,16:34)
PZ Myers was interviewed, and a segment appears in "Expelled". However, he was not interviewed for "Expelled":

   
Quote

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.

Even for creationists, I find this kind of behavior to be somewhat shocking.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,21:51   

comments are up on his blog...
Lots of science questions from scientists and a few "right-ons" from, erm, engineers?

--------------
"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

  
Freelurker



Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,00:35   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,22:51)
comments are up on his blog...
Lots of science questions from scientists and a few "right-ons" from, erm, engineers?

No, the "right-ons" are from creationists.

--------------
Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,00:37   

Quote (Freelurker @ Aug. 23 2007,00:35)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,22:51)
comments are up on his blog...
Lots of science questions from scientists and a few "right-ons" from, erm, engineers?

No, from creationists.

Same thing!*



*disclaimer. If you're a rational engineer disgruntled at my comment, please keep building safe bridges.

--------------
"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

  
Freelurker



Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,01:28   

Richardthughes,

As I've said here before, engineers and scientists are natural allies in this dispute. When the IDist engineers talk about engineering they misrepresent it as much as they misrepresent science. I have pointed this out over at UD several times, with some limited success.

You don't hear more from the mainstream engineers simply because the IDists aren't calling for reforms of engineering. (They conveniently ignore the fact that engineering is at least as materialistic as science is.)

Oh, and F*** you. :angry:

--------------
Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,01:43   

Quote (Freelurker @ Aug. 23 2007,01:28)
Richardthughes,

As I've said here before, engineers and scientists are natural allies in this dispute. When the IDist engineers talk about engineering they misrepresent it as much as they misrepresent science. I have pointed this out over at UD several times, with some limited success.

You don't hear more from the mainstream engineers simply because the IDists aren't calling for reforms of engineering. (They conveniently ignore the fact that engineering is at least as materialistic as science is.)

Oh, and F*** you. :angry:

Not enough CSI in that for me to decode!

;)


http://www.puzzlexpress.com/cgi-bin/query.cgi?query=f%3F%3F%3F

Hoping for "Fund" or "Feed"!!  :p

--------------
"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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,02:51   

Mario A. Lopez shows us that ID is more about appearances in the comments
Quote
Hello Mr. Stein,

I am glad to see that you have joined in the battle against the Darwinian Gestapo. The great thing about all of this is that they have already admitted to the ?appearance? of design in nature, and better still, lack the mechanism to account for it.

These are exciting times.


Is that kinda like how ID has the "appearance" of intelligence but it vanishes on closer examination?

And Darwinian Gestapo? Something of an insult to the real people who were tortured by the real Gestapo methinks....

--------------
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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,08:58   

Is that mario lopez from saved by the bell?  He is a genius.






--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,09:28   

Quote
Errrm, ID doesn't have anything to do with religion or God.  It has to do with defeating materialism, which is anti-religion and anti-God.  See it doesn't have anything to do with it.  

And it's all science so far!!!  the Explanatory Filter can identify design, except in cases where it doesn't, and your credit card number either has Complex Specified Information in it, or it doesn't.  You just have to ask the right IDist and be prepared for the definition and talking points to change.

And it is completely compatible with evolutionary theory, except in cases where it isn't.  Depends on who you ask in the BIG TENT of Intelligent Design.  Some are young earth creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis), some are Old Earth Creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis) and some (one) are atheist pleasurian polymaths, and many many many many more (the rest) are just regular old bible-believing plain folks that don't have time to wade through facts and the logical structure of propositions.  Science=Democracy!  All Science So Far!!!


--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,16:03   

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=577874

--------------
"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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,11:37   

This fella is an engineer:


http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-366


Quote
I am a 35 year practicing engineer and work with permutations of these laws daily. I?m glad they are there or I couldn?t do my job!!

1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.
2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself (if 1/10^50 is commonly accepted as the level of absolute impossibility, the odds of a single very small protein assembling itself is in the range of 1/10^150), let alone complex proteins or a DNA chain.
3. The law of irreducible complexity precludes gradual evolution of innumerable living constructions.
4. The law of information is absolute proof of intelligent design. These learned men would scoff at anyone claiming the Encyclopedia Britannica (do they still sell those door-to-door or even publish it any longer or is it all on the web now?) spontaneously assembled itself. However they have no problem believing a strand of DNA, a compilation of precise information that makes the Britannica look like a Dr. Seuss book, just decided to come together one day.



Please, please don't 'engineer' anything that the public might use..

--------------
"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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,12:36   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 24 2007,11:37)
This fella is an engineer:


http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-366


 
Quote
I am a 35 year practicing engineer and work with permutations of these laws daily. I?m glad they are there or I couldn?t do my job!!

1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.
2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself (if 1/10^50 is commonly accepted as the level of absolute impossibility, the odds of a single very small protein assembling itself is in the range of 1/10^150), let alone complex proteins or a DNA chain.
3. The law of irreducible complexity precludes gradual evolution of innumerable living constructions.
4. The law of information is absolute proof of intelligent design. These learned men would scoff at anyone claiming the Encyclopedia Britannica (do they still sell those door-to-door or even publish it any longer or is it all on the web now?) spontaneously assembled itself. However they have no problem believing a strand of DNA, a compilation of precise information that makes the Britannica look like a Dr. Seuss book, just decided to come together one day.



Please, please don't 'engineer' anything that the public might use..

From his ramblings, it looks like he is perfectly suited to design bridges like the 35W in MN.

Although I have to admit, at least he didn't bring a banana to his argument...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,18:38   

One wonders why Ben Stein has such concern over IDC advocates variously underwhelming tenure review committees with a whole lot of didn't do squat since hired, trying to force people to like them despite playing shady politics with peer review, or telling students that "There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution," while ignoring the general expulsion of scientific views from the current administration. Whether the issue is public health (epidemiology of AIDS, "abstinence only" sex education, etc.), environmental issues (gutting the Endangered Species Act), or climate change (telling scientists what their results are or just to shut up), these things are manifestly happening and are causing actual damage.

Where's the "Expelled" project for exposing the right's war on science?

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

    
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,20:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 25 2007,18:38)
Where's the "Expelled" project for exposing the right's war on science?

I'm sure there's an independent film out there somewhere that deals with the results of two Bush White House terms on the federal science agenda.  I've been seeing things like this showing up on a cable channel, possibly sundance.  There was one on the Patriot Act, there was one on the history of Karl Rove..  I can't recall seeing one specifically about science, but I suspect it's out there.

Truth be told, if anything I think the fundies are behind in the propaganda film business.  Perhaps the bible colleges need to start adding art courses.  They could start up their own independent movie circuit, I'd suggest somewhere in Florida as a good first venue.  Call it something like the Independent Thought Festival, where, of course, every movie would say exactly the same thing, rehashing the same arguments that were debunked decades ago.  It could be a whole new thing for them, supplementing the tedious pseudo-textbooks and occasional lawsuit fiasco.

I suspect Rupert Murdoch might be up for sponsoring something like that.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,12:37   

JAD shows up:

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-634

Loves it so!

--------------
"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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,12:51   

Wow, that's the most succinct, least weaselly statement of Javison's barmy views I've ever seen:

 
Quote
While there is no tangible evidence for a living God, it is unthinkable that one would even dream of denying a past presence for one or more such entities. Yet that is exactly what such compulsive atheists as P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins continue so arrogantly to proclaim. Several months ago I managed to introduce on RichardDawkins.net forum the following thread for discussion - God or Gods are dead but must have once existed. During about a week it attracted over 60,000 views after which I was summarily terminated along with my viewing rights to his forum. I achieved a similar honor at ARN and have been banned from all the major forums with the exception of ISCID's brainstorms where I am still allowed to hold forth. While I am a Creationist, I have rejected both the Darwinian and the Christian Fundamentalist camps, which apparently is the primary reason I am anathema to both. I welcome any comments at ?brainstorms, here, or anywhere else. I will probably not respond to anonymous posters. A person who cannot put his name to his words is a coward. The internet teems with such. It should never have been permitted.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison


(my boldfacing)

I do wish VMartin (of course his real full name) would tell us whether he agrees that God is dead and that 'there is no tangible evidence for a living God'. :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,15:04   

Slimey Sal links to this in his posts:

http://media.coralridge.org/customp....ucation


No religion there, then..

--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4080
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,18:28   

So is Davison like a parahna to both current science and the ID/C movement?

Henry

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,19:59   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 26 2007,18:28)
So is Davison like a parahna to both current science and the ID/C movement?

Henry

As a matter of fact, Davison is so pathetic he could even be a pirahia to paranhas.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,20:23   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2007,15:04)
Slimey Sal links to this in his posts:

http://media.coralridge.org/customp....ucation


No religion there, then..

D. James Kennedy (the link Sal provides) is one of the sleaziest, most dangerous figures of the American religious right.  He's not as famous as, say, James Dobson, but his show is viewed by many millions every week, and he knows a lot of DC insiders.  (He's been sidelined with a heart attack for some months, but his show goes on.)

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,14:47   

New advert in the Tardshoppe window:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

--------------
"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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,22:13   

Wes, I think JAD has a man crush:

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-763

 
Quote
John A. Davison Says:

...It is hard to imagine dumber scientists than Richard Dawkins, Wesley Elsberry and P.Z. Myers, atheists all.



Meeeeeeoooooooow!

Edited so as not to give a forum to the bewildered.

--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4080
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,22:48   

Weren't phlogiston theory (chemistry) and ether theory (physics) mistakes due to insufficient data, rather than hoaxes?

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,22:55   

JAD's just as well-informed about current evolutionary biology as he is about my personal beliefs.

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

    
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,17:20   

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng...._be.php

Producer Mark Mathis apparently doesn't have the time to write a real reply to someone interviewed for the movie (PZ) or to Richard Dawkins, apparently.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,18:15   

Kennedy was on Fresh Air - the radio interview show. I've never heard Terry Gross actually get rattled before (well, except for by Gene Simmons, but that was a little different).

He is frightening.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,21:40   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 28 2007,19:15)
Kennedy was on Fresh Air - the radio interview show. I've never heard Terry Gross actually get rattled before (well, except for by Gene Simmons, but that was a little different).

He is frightening.

Once he has recovered, let's lock James D. Kennedy and Gene Simmons (in full KISS regalia) in a room for an hour and see what comes out.

(Both do some pretty strange things with their tongues, neither very appealing.)

--------------
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

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,03:57   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 27 2007,22:48)
Weren't phlogiston theory (chemistry) and ether theory (physics) mistakes due to insufficient data, rather than hoaxes?

Henry

Yup.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,14:09   

JAD has a rare moment of unintentional clarity:

Quote
The internet is specifically designed for insecure blowhards who can?t cut the mustard in the real world!



http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-902

TA comes up with this nugget:


Quote
Tom Aquines Says:

August 30th, 2007 at 10:22 am
If evolution were true, mothers would have three arms.


http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-902

--------------
"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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,15:42   

Is anybody saving that thread anywhere?  Certainly by any scientific and philosophical sense, Ben is being slaughtered, while creos and IDiots merely parrot their long-destroyed claims, or far more commonly, whine that we point out their deficiencies in intellect and argumentation.

They're doing a good job at not censoring the discussion at this moment, but I can see how it all might conveniently disappear at some point in the future.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,13:23   

Wesley suggested on one blog that we archive our posts on Ben Stein's blog here. ?Because I don't trust it all to disappear some time in future, I'm going to take him up on it. ?The last post hadn't been approved at the time I copied it to here:

?
Quote
Glen Davidson Says:

August 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Perhaps the most telling reason why ID is not only useless but wrong, is that the evolutionary patterns among the eukaryotes are substantially different from those in the prokaryotes. Notably, we see the appearance much horizontal transfer among the asexual (but conjugating) bacteria and archaea, and almost solely vertical transfer among the sexual (it appears that all asexual eukaryotes had sexual progenitors) eukaryotes, regardless of what level of evolution is considered.

If the Grand Designer were in fact designing through evolution, why does it choose to produce the patterns expected from the differing mechanisms among eukaryotes and prokaryotes? Why virtually no horizontal transfers in the vertebrate lineage, why a difficult-to-sort out pattern of evolution in prokaryotes, due to their rampant promiscuity?

It looks as though known mechanisms might be responsible for the evolution of eukaryotes and the evolution of prokaryotes. It takes quite a designer to so carefully design evolution just as if it were the known and established mechanisms were operating over the course of earth?s history.

That?s what we?re ?censoring,? of course, a ?theory? that has utterly failed to explain anything at all, only claiming that the predictions of modern evolutionary theory ?can fit? with the lack of predictions about their ?designer?. Of course it can, because the IDists haven?t said anything substantial at all.

Why not simply resort to Last Thursdayism or Omphalos creationism? It?s the same reasoning, that all of the predictions of science are meaningless because an undefined and unconstrained designer could make it all look like it?s old, and that Darwinian mechanisms have operated in organisms through all time.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


?
Quote
Glen Davidson Says:

August 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I commend Ben Stein for running a blog which allows all comments, presumably within certain reasonable rules of dialog. We?re really not used to this from pro-ID spokespersons.

And I do hope that Ben interviewed Dembski, whose own blog is the opposite of open, having expelled nearly all critics of ID. Indeed, this was done recently in the discussions about this movie on Uncommon Descent, Bill Dembski?s blog. See Dembski expel the inconvenient critic here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-133745

You have to scroll up to see what ?Rocket? had said that ?merited? this censorship.

Meanwhile, Panda?s Thumb and Pharyngula remain open to virtually all comments, except for the truly trollish ones. It is rare that Paul Nelson and Sal Cordova avail themselves (the rest of the DI tribe do not at all, even if Dembski did in the past) of such openness, generally preferring (or so I have to assume) the secret conversations held by highly restricted net groups. I only know about these latter because a former member of one, David Heddle, tired of the limits of discussion enforced by that group, and complained publicly as he was ousted for disagreeing with them. Heddle?s a good source to look up on the web as a critic of ID censorship, who still sympathizes with cosmological ID (probably biological as well, but he doesn?t discuss it much, if ever).

Okay, so forums are open to the IDists, they just don?t use them much. Forums are closed to us (Dembski?s blog kicks us off piecemeal), so that ID doesn?t have to face sound criticisms.

Any chance that Stein will cover these important details, if not in the movie, at least in a future blog?

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


?
Quote
Glen Davidson Says:

August 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Again, were Ben concerned over the real freedom issue, he?d be skewering IDists for censoring so many of their blogs. Dembski?s blog is well-known to be censored, and I linked to an example of this in #395.

ARN is the only ID forum I know about which is relatively uncensored. But, as any pro-science poster there knows, writing of the intellectual dishonesty of the IDists who post there is often censored, even though that?s the only remaining issue at stake once all of the ID ?arguments? have been properly answered (and I don?t go there any more because of it).

One of the potentially best places for ID to be discussed, at Behe?s forum on Amazon, has had the comments disabled. Anyone can see this here (at least at the time of this posting):

http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Ev....&sr=8-1

Gee, you?d think that the ?censored IDists? would jump at the chance to provide all of the ?censored evidence? which supposedly is ?prohibited? by the big bad anti-religionists (you know, including the 40% or so of scientists who are religious). But no, Behe hides behind a wall that keeps out all of the questions that he can?t answer (like why the Designer made yet another prediction of evolution come true, malarial parasites doing what evolved organisms do, taking energy and matter in any manner possible, but being limited to derived and modified components to do so), the requests for evidence that he can?t supply.

Indeed, there is a lack of openness and freedom which is worth investigating. It?s being caused by the IDists, who have never been able to compete in a the legitimate evidence-driven discourse of science.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


?
Quote
Glen Davidson Says:

August 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I?ve got some waiting time right now, so I figure why not go through most of Ben?s ?points??

?I?m glad you found this site, because I want to share with you my thoughts from time to time here about a subject that is very near and dear to me: freedom.?

Yes, freedom, the right to do meaningful science, and to be tried according to the evidence, not according to religious notions which fail empirical tests.

?EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, and that is doing irreparable harm to some of the world?s top scientists, educators, and thinkers.?

I fail to recognize, say, Behe and Dembski as top scientists or thinkers. And indeed, science is open to all, religious and irreligious alike, unlike ID which cannot be done by people who rely only upon empirical evidence.

What is more, the idea that anything is changing is utterly unsupported by any evidence. As far as can be determined, we?re operating according to the same rules utilized by Newton and by Einstein, such as Newton?s ?Rules for Reasoning in Philosophy? (which is what he called his science):

?RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

RULE II.
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.

RULE III.
The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which uses to be simple, and always consonant to itself. We no other way know the extension of bodies than by our senses, nor do these reach it in all bodies; but because we perceive extension in all that are sensible, therefore we ascribe it universally to all others also. That abundance of bodies are hard, we learn by experience; and because the hardness of the whole arises from the hardness of the parts, we therefore justly infer the hardness of the undivided particles not only of the bodies we feel but of all others. That all bodies are impenetrable, we gather not from reason, but from sensation. The bodies which we handle we find impenetrable, and thence conclude impenetrability to be an universal property of all bodies whatsoever. That all bodies are moveable, and endowed with certain powers (which we call the vires inerti?) of persevering in their motion, or in their rest we only infer from the like properties observed in the bodies which we have seen. The extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and vis inerti? of the whole, result from the extension hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and vires inerti? of the parts; and thence we conclude the least particles of all bodies to be also all extended, and hard and impenetrable, and moveable, and endowed with their proper vires inerti?. And this is the foundation of all philosophy. Moreover, that the divided but contiguous particles of bodies may be separated from one another, is matter of observation; and, in the particles that remain undivided, our minds are able to distinguish yet lesser parts, as is mathematically demonstrated. But whether the parts so distinguished, and not yet divided, may, by the powers of Nature, be actually divided and separated from one another, we cannot certainly determine. Yet, had we the proof of but one experiment that any undivided particle, in breaking a hard and solid body, offered a division, we might by virtue of this rule conclude that the undivided as well as the divided particles may be divided and actually separated to infinity.

Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates towards the earth; that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon; and all the planets mutually one towards another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in consequence of this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation. For the argument from the appearances concludes with more force for the universal gravitation of all bodies that for their impenetrability; of which, among those in the celestial regions, we have no experiments, nor any manner of observation. Not that I affirm gravity to be essential to bodies: by their vis insita I mean nothing but their vis inerti?. This is immutable. Their gravity is diminished as they recede from the earth.

RULE IV.
In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from ph?nomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other ph?nomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm

Tell me how we deviate from those rules, then I might start listening to your complaints.

?Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.?

I?ll take that as metaphorically true. As such, why would anyone wish to take away our freedom by imposing ID into education and science, when it cannot withstand the scrutiny of science?

?A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry.?

Absolutely, and Galileo was persecuted for inquiry. IDists wish also to impose a ?science? which cannot be engaged in by impassionate seekers of empirical knowledge.

?Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine?

Right, and modern medicine has been predicated in part in evolutionary theory, in order to interpret results from animal experiments, and to tweak medicines and trials for humans. IDists threaten modern medicine, particularly as it is increasingly reliant upon comparisons of our genome with the genomes of related organisms (and the only sensible interpretation is that undirected evolution is responsible for changes in genomes).

?no antibiotics?

Quite. Antibiotics work against bacteria and are relatively harmless to humans and related organisms. This fits in with the predictions of non-teleological evolution, while ID has no basis for any sort of predictions, not as formulated by present IDists (though they claim to predict function for junk DNA, while contradictorily claiming that vestigial organs fit in with ID?vestigial organs essentially are the result of a kind of junk DNA).

?no brain surgery, no Internet?

Right, brain surgery and the internet come from classical science which effectively adheres to causal mechanisms. Unlike ID.

?no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways?

Oh, so science has been good to us. Then why bring unevidenced charges against it, as you do?

?no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.?

Absolutely. Science has had great success, while ID tells us that we ought to resort to pre-scientific assumptions which have never proved their worth.

?This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates.?

Completely allowed. ?Naturalism? is only a convenience for theists, who wished to put their God beyond the realm of observation. Science itself cannot exclude God from possible inquiry, it?s just that nobody has ever found a way to observe God or God?s doings in the cosmos.

?This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.?

OK, then what?s your complaint?

?Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.?

True for Galileo and Newton, not true of Einstein. Einstein?s ?God? was at most ?Deus sive Natura,? Spinoza?s conflation of nature and divinity which could never propose a ?designer God? or any such epistemological horror.

?Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.?

Good grief, you really don?t know anything about them, do you? Thermodynamics was developed by other people, especially by Lord Kelvin (another theist, btw). And none of us fault Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Lord Kelvin (though Kelvin?s theology interfered with certain of his claims), for they did exactly the kind of science that modern scientists do today. Indeed, anyone who reads Darwin may recognize how he is trying to bring biology into the same sort of scientific regime in which Newton operated, the cause-and-effect analysis of the data.

?Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.?

You should be sorry to say it, because it isn?t true. IDists mean to suppress inquiry, but so far have been thwarted in their attempts.

?Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.?

No evidence or argumentation is brought forth to back up this banal claim. Indeed, Nature wrote an editorial praising Francis Collins? efforts to bridge the science/religion divide, which they suppose he is able to do precisely because he finds science to be compatible with God and Xianity (if hardly all forms of Xianity).

?Do you realize that some of the leading lights of ?anti-intelligent design? would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him? EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe??

No, I didn?t know that, though it could be true. Even if it is true, it hardly backs up your charges against science as a whole.

?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS? HE WOULD BE BANNED.?

What do you mean ?banned?? I?m sure that all kinds of factors prevent scientists from working together, many much more trivial than religion. It hardly troubles me that some scientists would not like working with certain theists, nor that certain theists would not like working with certain atheists (PZ comes to mind as a possibility).

?In today?s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.?

There is almost certainly no reason to think that today?s America differs substantially from the one that welcomed Einstein with open arms rather than sending him back to Nazi Germany. Einstein would be showered with grants and opportunities, were he alive today, and I?ll bet that even you know it.

Newton could run into trouble if he espoused alchemy, a pseudoscience like ID (though almost certainly more scientific than the latter, able to give rise to aspects of chemistry). That said, Newton could almost certainly be more open about his religious ideas than he was able to be in England in the 17th century.

And it?s laughable to see the religion-persecuted Galileo brought up by the pro-pseudoscience spokespeople as if he?d be troubled by the scientists of today. Galileo is substantially responsible for modern science, something that Heidegger points out with some disapproval (why don?t we try to force Heidegger?s perspective into the sciences along with ID? At least it?s not the result of religious dogma, no matter that it?s still tendentious nonsense).

?They cannot even mention the possibility that?as Newton or Galileo believed?these laws were created by God or a higher being.?

Of course they can, and some do. It behooves Stein to learn a little bit about science and how it is done.

?They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off.?

Unlikely, though I suppose it?s within the realm of possibilities (there are the prejudiced and the idiotic in science, just as anywhere).

?This can happen.?

Anything can happen. It remains for IDists to bring up evidence for any of their claims, for they haven?t produced sufficient evidence for their non-trivial charges and claims thus far.

?It has happened.?

I?d like to see the evidence. Not Sternberg, who appears to have shepherded junk science through the process meant to weed it out.

?EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters near you in February 2008. To learn more, check out my blog here often ? and explore the rest of our site for new developments, or to volunteer to help spread the word.?

You have not made a compelling case for anyone to ?learn? anything else from you. Just a bunch of claims made without evidence, claims that have been exhaustively answered on science blogs like Pharyngula and Panda?s Thumb, while the ID blogs remain mostly impervious to open discussion.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


?
Quote
Glen Davidson Says:

August 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I?m still waiting for the ?censored evidence? that could answer the post I made a few days back. Here it again is for all of those who are just waiting to provide the evidence of ID:

?Glen Davidson Says:

August 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Perhaps the most telling reason why ID is not only useless but wrong, is that the evolutionary patterns among the eukaryotes are substantially different from those in the prokaryotes. Notably, we see the appearance much horizontal transfer among the asexual (but conjugating) bacteria and archaea, and almost solely vertical transfer among the sexual (it appears that all asexual eukaryotes had sexual progenitors) eukaryotes, regardless of what level of evolution is considered.

If the Grand Designer were in fact designing through evolution, why does it choose to produce the patterns expected from the differing mechanisms among eukaryotes and prokaryotes? Why virtually no horizontal transfers in the vertebrate lineage, why a difficult-to-sort out pattern of evolution in prokaryotes, due to their rampant promiscuity?

It looks as though known mechanisms might be responsible for the evolution of eukaryotes and the evolution of prokaryotes. It takes quite a designer to so carefully design evolution just as if it were the known and established mechanisms were operating over the course of earth?s history.

That?s what we?re ?censoring,? of course, a ?theory? that has utterly failed to explain anything at all, only claiming that the predictions of modern evolutionary theory ?can fit? with the lack of predictions about their ?designer?. Of course it can, because the IDists haven?t said anything substantial at all.

Why not simply resort to Last Thursdayism or Omphalos creationism? It?s the same reasoning, that all of the predictions of science are meaningless because an undefined and unconstrained designer could make it all look like it?s old, and that Darwinian mechanisms have operated in organisms through all time.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7?

Now come on, on Panda?s Thumb I asked Paul Nelson to provide the answer, and he simply disappeared. I asked here, and all I got was someone who asked me what I actually know about evolution, when that post mentions several things that I know about evolution (I?ve never run into an IDist who could answer my questions forthrightly, which is surely evidence of something). Stein claims that ID is being stifled, when all I can see is a bunch of IDists who can?t answer reasonable questions.

Somehow I expect that nothing has changed in the past few days.

Glen D


And the one not yet posted as of this time:

 
Quote
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

August 31st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I?d guess the reason Ferris Bueller took the day off is that he?d already learned all that Ben Stein had to teach him: The answer to everything is, ?God did it?.

On the other hand, why wouldn?t Ben be expelled from a good school if the only answer he could give to every question (yes, I know, IDists implausibly accept science outside of biology, but they?re inconsistent when they demand that evidence actually be used to back up charges against them, rather than vague (and typically wrong) analogies) was ?God did it?? There?s actually more to investigation and learning than resorting to Behe?s puff of smoke every time the questions get hard.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7



And one more added in edit, on 9-1-07

Quote
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

September 1st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
By the way, I know that the pro-IDists, pro-creationists try to do what every conspiracy-theory monger does, which is to whine pitifully that we label nonsense as nonsense, and to shout ?conspiracy? instead of answering the questions.

It?s very thin gruel, and it won?t wash with anybody who understands what goes into making science. The very fact that such a sad little conspiracy theory is the best Stein and the producers is the best that they can do shows just how badly ID has failed in its stated goal of actually convincing scientists that magic (they didn?t call it magic, true, but they never demonstrated that it was anything else) is science.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


Added 9-5-07

Quote
Let's set the scenario.  The times have changed, and it is the new improved future when the requirement of evidence for "doing science" and convicting criminals has at last been overturned.  ID thus reigns supreme, and the evidence of relatedness means nothing any more.

Now DNA means nothing in the courts.  Why should it?  God may very well have intervened to make a person's DNA fit with the DNA retrieved from the crime scene, or God may have changed the DNA from the crime scene to fit your DNA.  Are you trying to tell me that God couldn't do this?  That's exactly what IDists tell the "Darwinists" when the latter point to DNA evidence that agrees with non-teleological evolutionary predictions.

The Bulgarian medical personel are sent back to Lybia to be killed.  After all, it required phylogenetic evidence to show that they didn't infect the Lybian children with HIV.  And the IDists tell us that God intervenes in evolutionary processes, hence such evidence is worthless, now that ID is no longer "censored" by gov't and educational institutions.

Guys are happier now, because mere DNA evidence indicates nothing to the courts.  After all, if apparent DNA relatedness doesn't show that we're related to chimpanzees, why should DNA relatedness tell us anything about paternity?  God might have intervened in evolution, and who can tell God that he can't design in a way that makes it appear that the baby is related to one who is not the father?

And I am much happier, now that the computers which disappeared out of the warehouse and appeared in my basement cannot be traced either by serial number, nor to me.  Good grief, do you really think that God couldn't have changed the serial numbers, or even if God didn't do that, that God couldn't have rewarded me with the gift of all of those computers?  You don't know that they're either the same computers or that I actually took the computers, since God might have intervened (I never really had the computers, you know, it's an example).  After all, isn't this the sort of scientific explanation that is being "censored" by the evilutionists?

But I cheated a bit on that last one.  How?  Because a burglary has all of the marks of design.  That is to say, it is not irrational to say that God, the Designer, aliens, or leprachauns might have picked the locks, jammed the burglar alarms, and moved the computers from one place to another.  There is no good solid evidence for it, which means that in the ancient and dark past when evidence was required, nobody would believe me that God or space aliens put the computers in my basement.  But it isn't actually irrational to say that something that is designed, like a burglary, could have been done by a hypothetical rational agent like God or space aliens.  

Biology is different, and was recognized as different at least as far back as Aristotle.  Biology was physis to the ancient Greeks, while machines were made by techne.  This is why machines are made rationally, with straight lines, foresight, teleology, and according to the numbers, while plants and animals are quite something else, "physis" or nature.  Plants and animals do not have a purpose as such, nor are they at all designed as humans would design them, with "poor designs", and by adapting rather unlikely organs to serve new functions, such as taking legs and making wings out of them.

The descent of the testicles is hardly design, it is adaptation from what previously existed, abdominal testicles, and their descent leaves weak spots in the abdominal walls (the doctor says, "now cough").  The primate foveas and bird pectens partially get around the poor "design" of the eye which put blood vessels right in front of the light-sensing retinas, but these are only ways of dealing with inherited problems expected in evolution and easily avoided by intelligent designers.

Back to wings.  Think about it:  three different types of vertebrates evolved wings, and none of the earlier wings were used in order to make the later wings, nor were any designed from scratch.  Now the best designs would be from first principles, but humans might very well take wings from one example and adapt them to fit another purpose (as indeed the Wright brothers did).  What a sensible designer would never do would be to take legs and change them in order to make wings out of them.  It's just a ridiculous way of designing wings.

Pterosaurs had the first known vertebrate wings.  From what were they "designed"?  From thecodont legs.  What does evolutionary theory predict (in context) would give rise to pterosaur wings?  Thecodont legs.  By what sort of thinking would anyone expect a designer to make pterosaur wings out of thecodont legs?

The next wings were better, bird wings.  So were bird wings an improved version of pterosaur wings?  Why no, bird wings were made from dinosaur legs and dinosaur feathers.  What would evolutionary theory predict?  That bird wings would be made from dinosaur legs, and likely would utilize feathers, since they already existed and produce superb airfoils.  What would honest design principles predict?  Either wings from first principles, or at least from other wings.  Bird wings came from legs, hardly promising material, but the only organs available to evolve into wings.

At least bird wings were an improvement, however odd the route of "design" chosen by this exceeding odd "designer" that the IDists give to us.

Bat wings were a step back, however, because as evolution predicts, they were produced from an unlikely source, mammalian legs and no feathers.  The "designer" only copies legs to make vertebrate wings, not copying excellent vertebrate wings as one might expect of an actual thinking entity.  Indeed, bats sleep upside down in part because they are not as good fliers as birds are, and can gain airspeed by dropping down from their roosting positions to partly compensate for their poorer flying ability during takeoff.

Then there's the odd fact that design took four billion years or so, around the time expected for non-teleological evolution, rather than the at most a few years expected from known designers.  Funny that, everything comes out like non-teleological evolution predicts, and the scientists complain when Behe tells us that we should understand it all to have been designed.  The "designer" steps in to produce what non-teleological evolution would produce, but can't according to Behe's numbers?  Um, I'm sort of thinking, why?

However, this is Ben's dream world, in which evidence no longer counts for anything.  No more "censorship" by the evidence, every notion is the equal of another and should be taught as equals.  Don't teach the scientific method in biology, it's unfair to those who prefer theological claims to evidence-based claims.  This is the post-modern world of Michel Foucault, where the mere fact that Ben has to use a blog to say what he does, instead of having his theology taught in the schools, now counts as "censorship".  

And as so many bleat on this thread, surely the fact that we protest only demonstrates our censorious nature.  Yes, fighting to preserve the Enlightenment and the only bases we have for law, justice, science, and technological advancement, only indicates prejudice and bigotry.  Sure, but that's just us, we are not schooled in the ways of understanding preconceived theologies as superior to the ideas that gave us democracy and science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

There, it's saved from the possibility of future religious suppression of my (and to a considerable degree, our) ideas.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1979
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,02:16   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:47)
New advert in the Tardshoppe window:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

Ha Ha Ha!

Look at the screen dumps of the questions.  In the first, it's cut off at the right.  The second is for question 77, and it's not cut off, so we can see most of one of the potential answers.  We can also therefore see the current score - 22%.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,12:47   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 01 2007,02:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:47)
New advert in the Tardshoppe window:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

Ha Ha Ha!

Look at the screen dumps of the questions.  In the first, it's cut off at the right.  The second is for question 77, and it's not cut off, so we can see most of one of the potential answers.  We can also therefore see the current score - 22%.

Bob

That's just too good not to repost.And it might get "edited" :)http://www.evolutionnews.org gets 22%

Rehosted.

--------------
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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,19:58   

Meanwhile, Ben Stein is doing a fine job creating buzz for Expelled...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,15:48   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 01 2007,12:47)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 01 2007,02:16)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:47)
New advert in the Tardshoppe window:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

Ha Ha Ha!

Look at the screen dumps of the questions.  In the first, it's cut off at the right.  The second is for question 77, and it's not cut off, so we can see most of one of the potential answers.  We can also therefore see the current score - 22%.

Bob

That's just too good not to repost.And it might get "edited" :)http://www.evolutionnews.org gets 22%

Rehosted.

From the "Physician, Heal Thyself" department:
Quote
In 1970 an estimated 65,000 black rhino could be found throughout sub-Saharan Africa, despite widespread poaching that targeted the animal for its ivory tusk...


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,16:00   

Ben Stein manages what many have tried:

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1042

Quote
John A. Davison Says:

September 5th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I am obviously wasting my tme here. Adios.


--------------
"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

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,17:43   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 05 2007,16:00)
Ben Stein manages what many have tried:

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1042

 
Quote
John A. Davison Says:

September 5th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I am obviously wasting my tme here. Adios.

Getting JAD to growl good-bye and head for the door in a huff is pretty easy.  Getting him to actually leave is another story.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,02:50   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 28 2007,21:40)
 
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 28 2007,19:15)
Kennedy was on Fresh Air - the radio interview show. I've never heard Terry Gross actually get rattled before (well, except for by Gene Simmons, but that was a little different).

He is frightening.

Once he has recovered, let's lock James D. Kennedy and Gene Simmons (in full KISS regalia) in a room for an hour and see what comes out.

(Both do some pretty strange things with their tongues, neither very appealing.)

Whoops.  Too late.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,13:19   

Just recording my (not posted at this time) response to Luskin on Stein's blog, in case they decide to censor them in the future:

Quote
--Listing some pro-ID Rebuttal links?--

Yes, of course.  Why don't you answer the questions, particularly the ones asked of your DI propaganda?  You know very well that virtually everything the DI has put out has been answered, usually without the DI addressing the points made by those who responded.  Instead we get the same droning nonsense over and over again.

Why don't you answer the questions I raised in post #389 and in #1031?  I know why, it's because you have no good answers to them.

I'll link to a few of the responses made to the ID propaganda.

--This is a fascinating and incredibly long discussion, but I?m glad to see the interest that is being sparked by this movie. Some Darwinists try to pretend that ID proponents imagine the discrimination that in many cases has actively harmed their careers,--

Of course we don't deny that unevidenced religious bias presented as "science" isn't largely rejected by academia.  What we do deny is that it is anything that shouldn't be done, as astrologists, homeopathists, and alchemists are also rejected (well, usually).

--but I suspect it will be difficult to make such claims with a straight face after this movie comes out.--

Quit changing the subject.  The issue is the false claim that ID is being "censored", as Ben claims, which it is so very clearly not, as Casey's list of links shows.  That it isn't accepted by academia in lieu of its miserable showings on the evidentiary front, and its attempts to change science so that "it looks designed" counts as evidence, is only to the credit of academia (which is hardly perfect, certainly).

--Thanks to Ben Stein and others behind this movie for being willing to stand up for the persecuted minority:--

We're waiting for evidence of the "persecuted minority".  Not that the lack of evidence stops IDists from making outrageous claims.

--they will be viciously attacked for making this movie, as they already are being attacked.--

Yes, we are so mean for calling ID on all of its false claims, and Ben's unsupported charges.

--They should be commended for standing up for those whose voices are often silenced, even if that means they themselves become attacked for making the film.--

Why aren't you standing up for genuinely ignored science, instead of for long-falsified claims, and subsequent non-predictive claims which avoid falsification by denying the obvious predictions which an honest ID theory would make?

--Regarding this thread: internet Darwinists often think that by throwing up links to websites like TalkOrigins that they can win an argument. I?ve surveyed many of the links repeatedly posted on this list by such internet Darwinists and unfortunately there have been few posts to some of the many rebuttals to these arguments.--

They're rebuttals, not actual answers.

--I only have time for one post on this thread, but I?m going to post some pro-ID rebuttals to many of the links Darwinists have posted in this discussion:--

And why didn't you post the rebuttals to the DI's sorry nonsense?  You know very well that, quite unlike the charges of "censorship" suggest, that you have been amply answered.  And most importantly, your "rebuttals" are largely attacks on "Darwinism", not at all evidence for your theological intrusions into science.

1. A few Darwinists have posted a link to the TalkOrigins Common Descent FAQ at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ But there is a direct and comprehensive rebuttal to that FAQ at:

A Critique of Douglas Theobald?s ?29 Evidences for Macroevolution?
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp  --

It is not direct, nor comprehensive.  It's an attempt to nickel and dime the real predictions of evolution to death, without addressing the real predictions made by evolutionary theory.  Unfortunately, the "29 Evidences" could have been written more carefully (for there is no inherent prediction that all life should be related, and for other reasons), however it does get to the gist of evolutionary prediction, while the "response" merely cavils on minor aspects and mistakes by the "29 Evidences" authors.  I can hardly respond to the entire piece, but here's an example I picked up at the very beginning:

--Unless one inserts an additional premise imposing a limit on the degree to which descendants can vary (which would require specification of a mechanism of descent), the claim of common ancestry does not require that all of the descendants share one or more traits.  There is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages.--

Of course there is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages (which would be something like abiogenesis, only of too-complex organisms), it's because of what we've learned about evolutionary mechanisms that insists that this cannot happen.  The author is trying to make a point that is entirely specious in the overall theory of evolution, which is based upon many limiting factors.  Thus his argument here is entirely bogus, except as a cheap debating tactic.

Here's a really quite good response to some of the above link's many claims, one that I think is really a better source than "29 Evidences" ever was:

http://www.botany.wisc.edu/courses....nes.ppt

Note in particular how it mentions how desert grasses have the same photosynthetic machinery as do grasses in cool moist areas do, NOT the better photosynthetic mechanisms of cacti.  One would predict this from known evolutionary mechanisms (or at least, that whatever desert grasses have would not be the same as those of cacti, and that convergent evolution would be evident from any recent evolutionary convergences), and one would naturally predict a designer to design desert grasses for their environments, not to mimic grasses in cool wet regions (IDists don't predict this, solely because they'd be immediately falsified).

And here's another link that covers only one aspect of where Casey's linked site goes so very wrong:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.p....uscles_

--Many of the individuals arguments made in the TalkOrigins Common Descent FAQ are rebutted in other locations, such as these links:

Fossils:

Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232  --

As usual, Casey only attacks evolutionary theory, he doesn't support design or creation at all.  Furthermore, he's faulting evolution over punctuated equilibrium, when the real proponents of punctuated equilibrium recognize the familiar evidences of non-teleological evolution to be compelling.  Casey writes:

--Another study, "Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse," found a bird (as well as a mammal) "Early Tertiary 'explosion'" because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms.--

This appears to be a deliberate, or very ignorant, confusion of what is meant by "explosion" in those contexts.  Not even the "Cambrian Explosion" is as Casey characterizes it, but I'll concede that it's still an issue, no matter that evolution during the Cambrian is evident and chordates do not appear at the beginning.  Birds and mammals do radiate rapidly at times, particularly after the Cretaceous, but that's all we see, rapid evolution.  We do not see novelty appearing, as one might expect from ID.

--34 Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, "a genetic revolution"35 where "no australopithecine [ape] species is obviously transitional"35 leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a "big bang theory" of human evolution.--

Again the twisting of what is meant by "explosion" there.  Certainly the evolution of H. sapiens from H. erectus is well accepted by scientists, and australopithecines have no obvious reason to exist at all except as part of a hominin adaptive radiation, whether or not any are our direct ancestor.  Indeed, why do IDists suppose that australopithecines, were "designed", only to go extinct?  It's an answer that Casey, like the others, never gives to us.

--36 While these papers appeal to adapative radiation, niche-filling, and "genetic revolutions" as the mechanisms for these explosions, the pattern of rapid appearance of diverse morphologies without transitions remains an important pattern in the fossil record.

Conclusion:
Out of thousands of species in the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be transitional forms. This lack of transitional forms poses, as Darwin said, "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [evolutionary] theory."1 And, at least to this point, it appears to be an objection that is unsolved by evolutionists. --

Casey seems not even to know what punctuated equilibrium is meant to answer, which is the problem of speciation.  There are in fact very many transitionals identified in the fossil record (he's just wrong about that), and all vertebrate classes have at least one intermediate form extant in the fossil record.

As far as Casey's quote mining of Darwin goes, Darwin went on from the "gravest objection" to give a number of possible reasons why intermediates to the species were not found (as it was at that time, not at the present).  

More importantly, Casey has utterly failed to explain why transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx are in fact "poorly designed" compared to modern birds, just as non-teleological evolutionary theory predicts (that's the short version of how we even know that they are transitional), and ID would not.

--Human Origins and Intelligent Design
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1146  --

Here's a link that partly addresses Casey's claims in the above link:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/meet_selam.html

--The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories http://www.discovery.org/scripts....Science  --

Answered here:  
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html


Junk-DNA:
--Intelligent Design and the Death of the ?Junk-DNA? Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1437  --

Such "ignorant yammerings" (as Matzke calls them in the link) are routed here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/junk_dna_junk_s.html

--Design vs. Descent: A Contest of Predictions
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/846  --

A short, pithy response to such meandering nonsense is found here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-95724

And frankly, that's enough.  For anyone with an honest desire to learn, those alone answer so much of what IDists claim, and show up how pathetic their little apologetics pieces actually are.  More importantly, I've shown by finding responses to almost every one of Casey's links on the web that the responses are out there, so that anyone can find them.  Casey just doesn't acknowledged that, far from being censored, ID has been exposed for the sham that it is, and IDists simply link the same quote mining and worthless argumentation no matter how many times they have been answered.  

And I repeat that virtually everything written by the DI and Casey merely attacks current science, it rarely even purports to produce any evidence for ID, and never comes close to presenting any legitimate evidence that organisms have been designed.  Indeed, if they had that, they'd have answered the two posts that I pointed out have gone begging for answers from the IDists, post #389 and post #1031.  They have no answers, so that even if #1031 was posted after Casey had written the comment that I have responded to here, it's safe to say that it hasn't been answered properly and won't be merely because IDists have no answers, not because of any "censorship".

I'll only respond further to Casey's closing paragraph:

--I do not have time to make any further posts on this blog thread--


And still you've written dozens, if not more, posts on the internet which have failed to give any evidence for ID.  I'd think you could answer our questions, if you had any answers to our questions.

--but I hope that some of these links are helpful to you all in your discussions.--

They are not.  I posted several which are helpful, and which are generally written by actual scientists, not lawyers like Luskin (he does have degrees in earth science, reportedly, not, however, in biology).

--Thanks and I hope all will do their best to keep the discussion here friendly and civil!--

Yes, IDists always want us to "be civil" as they attack science with the most worthless bilge, quote mines, and frequent false claims.  We have answered them, they continue to avoid telling us how ID can account for different patterns of evolution in prokaryotes vs. those in eukaryotes, and why vertebrate wings are modifications of legs, not designs from first principles or even modifications of good wings (posts #389 & #1031 respectively).  Furthermore, they almost always do nothing but attack science, while refusing to make even the obvious design predictions expected (because they know that they'd fail), and never providing any evidence of rational thought behind the "designs" of organisms.  Rational thought is more than a little evident in nearly all of human creations, and would be expected from alien designs as well (if aliens do not produce rational signals and tools, we likely could never detect their designs).  It's God (or "the designer") alone which is supposed to design without anything actually appearing to be designed, or to be techne, as the Greeks called it.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,13:20   

Good post Glen

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,14:31   

Thanks, J-Dog.

I don't know why posts aren't appearing in any timely fashion, but it makes me more certain that I ought to save my posts here.  I wrote another one today, which at least is supposed to be awaiting moderation.  It goes thusly:

 
Quote
I'm going to try to post, though it doesn't seem that posts are going through now.

Here's Kevin Miller, one of the writers of "Expelled":

--When I say ID is friendly to belief in God in a way that classical Darwinism is not, what I mean is Darwinism literally has no need for the God hypothesis. According to Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, everything can be explained purely by natural forces--including the origin of information, consciousness, and life itself. If you want to bring God into the picture, that is a belief that you are adding to science. It is not required by the science itself, and many Neo-Darwinists believe it gets in the way of science. ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one's interpretation of science, God--or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer--is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code. Therefore, the search for potential signs of intelligence in nature becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise rather than a pseudo-scientific one. IDers are essentially asking the same question as the Darwinists: How did the information get there? What separates them from the Darwinists is that they are willing to consider intelligence as one possible cause. This is not to deny the power of mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection. All the IDers are saying is that such forces are simply inadequate to explain the origin and development of life. Once again, it is not just the IDers who are questioning this. There is huge debate amongst the Darwinists themselves as to which mechanisms are most important and at what level (group, individual, molecular) they operate.--

http://ArtsAndFaith.com/index.p....=156729

This tells us all that we need to know about both ID and about the movie.  What Miller doesn't know is that science doesn't presuppose entities like God or the wink-wink nudge-nudge "Designer", it looks for the best hypothesis.  He is trying to tell us that ID is science because it has decided already that God (or "the Designer") is at the heart of nature, so instead of simply searching for the best explanation, ID searches for "potential signs of intelligence in nature".  

That is not science, that's apologetics.  This is what Stein is accusing "Big Science" of suppressing, which of course it is suppressing in the realm of science, for the very good reason that insinuating religious presuppositions about God's role in nature into science is a perversion of the search for explanations in which science engages.  It is exactly the kind of perverse injection of religion into science that Galileo opposed, and for which he was persecuted.  I guess Stein and the rest just want to bring back the good old days of harming those who won't accept religion as the adjudicator of science.

Miller is admitting that his religious presuppositions are what drive ID and the whine in the movie, and, for anyone who believes in the integrity of science, he provides the clinching case against both ID and the movie's false charges of suppression (that is, I don't deny its suppression in science, I deny that there is anything illegitimate about keeping pseudoscience out of science).

It should (but doesn't) go without saying that scientists are not unwilling to consider that intelligence could play a role in the development of life.  The fact that there is no evidence for this intelligence in evolutionary processes is why the null hypothesis (that intelligence is not involved, save through modern human manipulations) is the working hypothesis in science, and will be up until the point where evidence of intelligence guiding evolution is produced by someone (it is unlikely that IDists could produce such evidence, even were it to exist, for they do almost no science--indicative of how little even they think of ID as actual science).  It is grossly unfair to claim that we won't consider intelligence, since we do in any number of cases, and our complaint against ID is that it merely assumes intelligence without any evidence, a fact that Miller tacitly concedes in the excerpt above.

ID is nothing but religious apologetics, a fact that many IDists deny, but one that Miller and Stein's movie only demonstrate is the case.  Science doesn't simply assume that God is directing hurricanes and earthquakes to cause death and destruction to humanity, nor does it simply assume that God designed malarial parasites to effectively sicken and kill humans like Behe suggests that he did.  

Science looks at the evidence, and sees that malaria organisms (Plasmodium falciparum) show evidence of having non-teleologically evolved, both in the manner of its uncaring attacks on humans and in its genomic information, and thus it accepts that it evolved non-teleologically under the present evidence.  Miller and the other IDists have to assume that malaria was designed, then they have to insist that undesign-like features, such as its genome evolved along the constraints predicted by evolutionary theory, are, contrary to all expectations, the result of design.  

This they do because from the start they assumed that God was central to the development of life, which they do not similarly assume for the development of hurricanes.  Why do they suppose that we ought to accept the one assumption without any evidence, while not accepting the other one, due to its lack of evidence?

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


This post added on 9-9-07

 
Quote
--Glenn Davidson:

I must respecfully challenge your contention that creation science and intelligent design are equivalent.--

Considering that I never made that contention here, I have no idea why you're trying to pin me with it.  The fact is that one may treat the various types of creationism differently, or one may treat them as the same, much as IDists do whenever it is convenient for them to do so.

As Deleuze notes, repetition involves difference.  That's why I usually speak of IDists and creationists if I'm discussing both, no matter how similar the two are.  That some will always include a "C" with ID is also understandable (that is, they write "IDC" rather than "ID"), as in "Intelligent Design Creationism".  It hardly matters, of course, whether one drags out creation over 4 billion years or so, the essence is still creation.  It's an absurd concept that "design" would require as long a time as non-teleological evolution is thought to do, but there's nothing new about religious apologists being absurd.

--To better appreciate the differences, I submit to you an interesting historical perspective of both movements.--

Actually, the history is that Paley was an inspiration both to IDists of various stripes since his time, including young earth creationists (YECs).  "Design" is an old YEC claim, and most of Behe's examples were used before Darwin's Black Box by creationists.  Look up "cdesign proponentsists" on the web for the cavalier manner in which one "textbook" was turned from a creationist one into a "design proponent" text.

--Mankind has always been interested in investigating the relationship between God and nature.--

Or the gods and nature, or in how the spirits of nature themselves operate (like the Greek river gods).  It's interesting how readily the "scientific" intelligent design "theorists" allow their theologies to creep into their language.

--At times, philosophy defined the debate; at other times, science seemed to have the upper hand.--

Get real.  Modern science began with, say, Galileo, or more certainly with Newton.  Science has mostly had the upper hand since then, although IDists are very unhappy about actually applying scientific standards to biology.  Hence they wish to change it to accept unevidenced flim-flam, the most beautiful example being when Behe noted on the stand at Dover that astrology would be science under his definition (he seems to have meant only until it was found not to produce results, but it hardly matters, since he there was equating anthropocentric "hypotheses" and actual science hypothesization).

--What has always mattered in this discussion is in which direction the investigation proceeds.--

What has always mattered is how the investigation begins, whether with evidence and minimal biases, or with theistic prejudices.  Kevin Miller wants us to believe that the latter is as legitimate a starting place as the former.  I bet he wouldn't want to be tried for a crime under similar prejudices.

--Does it move forward, that is, does it assume something about God and then interpret nature in that context;--

Assuming something about God is not moving forward.  It is moving backward to the time when science was checked by theology.

--or does it move backward, that is, does it observe something interesting in nature and then speculate about how that might have come to be?--

No, it hypothesizes about how something came to be, and it uses scientific knowledge to do so.  That is, normal causal knowledge is used in any legitimate science.  What Stein, Kevin Miller, and apparently you, want to do is to believe in the kind of "Cause" that Aquinas believed in, something that is only speculation, not the result of continued investigation like causes in classical science happens to be.

--If the investigation moves forward, as does CD, it is faith based; if it moves backward, as does ID, it is empirically based.--

Here you show how very little you know about the practice of science.  Speculation is for metaphysics and theology.  Good solid evidence understood according to normal causality is how science proceeds.  ID only tries to force God into the picture because it is theistic metaphysics.  You can't honestly move from the evidence of continued inheritance with modification with no identifiable breaks into the theistic belief in "design".  If the IDists were honest they'd admit that there is nothing similar between known design practices and evolved characteristics, even if sometimes the results can have a functional equivalence and overall similarities (but the details are what always differentiate evolutionary products and design, hence Dembski's snort at our "pathetic level of detail" which he refuses to engage in, when all of science is about the "details").

But then you seem not to be discussing science, only claiming that religious ID operates differently from religious creationism.  I really don't care, of course, since neither one is doing honest science.

--Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years.--

The fact is that the two are doing much the same thing, utilizing their prior beliefs to try to cram themselves into science.  Of course ID wants to claim that it's making valid inferences from the evidence, but it quite obviously is not.  Both intend to bring "science" into accordance with theology and the Bible, of course, the main difference being that creationism tends toward literalism, ID tends more toward medieval metaphysics.

--We notice the forward approach, in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm.--

The whole point of Anselm's ontological proof is to show that God exists sans prior belief in revelation.  So you're hardly characterizing him properly there.  Augustine seems to go back and forth between your "forward approach" and the supposedly different "backward approach".  And he might as well, since modern philosophy and science understand both "directions" to be impossibly dependent upon beliefs which "deconstruct" upon questioning.

--Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” In each case, the investigation is faith based.--

Augustine was not particularly a literalist, and often brought "faith" ideas into line with the evidence as he understood it.  Furthermore, he himself was something of a philosopher who used more than just faith to make his arguments.  Famously, Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" appears to be a reformulation of Augustine's anti-skepticism argument, and from they way that he uses it, one guesses that it was a familiar anti-skeptical argument of his day.

--By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle,--

You have no business putting Aristotle in with Aquinas and Paley.  Aristotle was nothing like an IDist, or a faith-based thinker like Aquinas and Paley.  He was what philosophers often call "logocentric," if not as much as Plato was.  Nevertheless, he is sometimes called the "first scientist", for he did use empirical data for some of his conclusions, most notably biological conclusions.

--Aquinas, Paley, and others.--

These guys are apologists.  Nothing strikingly wrong with that, especially considering Aquinas's excellent thought.  Nevertheless, if Aristotle was at least somewhat like a modern scientist, Aquinas is solidly metaphysical and a non-scientist, while Paley is just a Reverend trying to come up with evidence that "proves" his faith.  There is nothing new about the fact that Paley's "argument" wasn't based on literalism, just as ID is not, but it relies wholly upon an unevidenced concept, God, to "explain" without the rigor of scientific causality.

--Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover,” is obviously empirically based.--

It obviously is not empirically based.  Rather than noting motions in the heavens (which seems to be where his "god" is most being used to "explain motion") and acknowledging that he did not have an explanation for them under his "physics," he just invented a God "thinking himself" which supposedly produced the motions.  It isn't for nothing that such a speculation came in the book now called "Metaphysics," for that work is largely involved in non-empirical speculations.  It is a thoughtful and intelligent work, nothing like ID's attempts to confuse the issues and to have God producing exactly the sorts of patterns of evolution among prokaryotes and among eukaryotes that would accrue through the mechanisms we see affecting each respectively, however it is not an empirical approach at all.

--Obviously, Barbara Forrest and Judge Jones III and others miss the point. CS and ID are simply the latest manifestations of each tradition.--

Obviously they do not miss the main point, which is that although ID is based more in medieval metaphysics and creationism is based more upon a kind of Biblical literalism, both are nothing other than apologetics.  If they had a bit more philosophical knowledge they might at least differentiate between ID and creationism somewhat better, for there are some actual differences (Catholics who reject science tend more toward medieval metaphysics and ID, Protestants who reject science tend more toward Bible literalism).

--I therefore ask you to reconsider your point that the the two are synomymous,--

I ask you to read what I write better than you have, for I did not claim that the two are synonymous.  They're equally non-scientific, though, which I no doubt did imply or state at some point.  Perhaps that is why you merely assumed that I made the two out to be synonymous.

--either theoretically or pragmatically.--

What matters in this debate is that neither one is science, and both are religious apologetics.  Science is what should be taught in science classes, not religion.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


This, on 9-10-07

Quote
--Glen Davidson, rather than respond to all your points (many of which I would challenge),--

You don't challenge them.  More importantly, you haven't the knowledge to do so, but deny like IDists normally do.

--I will try to narrow the focus even more. You tend to impose religious concepts in places where they don’t belong.--

Sorry, I'm the one trying to keep religion out of where it doesn't belong.  Your confusions are inadequate to keep religious presuppositions in their place.  Or more to the point, in many hands they seem designed to deliberately confuse the issues.

--Aristotle did not mention a “prime mover” to inject God into the discussion.--

Here you go in your strawman attack mode again.  I wrote:

--Rather than noting motions in the heavens (which seems to be where his “god” is most being used to “explain motion”) and acknowledging that he did not have an explanation for them under his “physics,” he just invented a God “thinking himself” which supposedly produced the motions. It isn’t for nothing that such a speculation came in the book now called “Metaphysics,” for that work is largely involved in non-empirical speculations. --

I didn't begin to say that Aristotle did "mention a 'prime mover' to inject God into the discussion," which false charge is as incorrect as your many other errors.  I wrote, essentially, that he had no explanation, so he invented one.  That's what religions have often done.

--His point was similar to Aquinas’. Everything in nature that moves must be moved by something else.--

Well gee, I suppose it was similar to Aquinas' "proof of God," since Aquinas' "proof" almost certainly comes ultimately from Aristotle.  

Importantly, everything in nature that moves must not in fact be moved by something else.  This gets back the metaphysics of Aristotle, for indeed he speculated where he had no empirical evidence.  

--In his judgment, that process can not go on forever—it must stop at the point of a “prime mover.” Aquinas made the same point, popularizing the term “inifinite regress,” meaning that the number of prior causes must be finite and finally culminate in a causeless cause. In that context, they were not beginning with faith, they were beginning with observation.--

I wonder why those ignorant of philosophy think they have something to tell those of us who are adept in philosophy.  I know very well what Aristotle, and Aquinas following him, said.  My point was that there is nothing empirical in their "solutions," unlike Galileo's and Newton's physics, and you yammer on about the rationale of a non-empirical "physics" and metaphysics which existed prior to Galileo.

Can't you at least see why we oppose the insistence of the pseudoscientists that we adopt the Aristotelian nonsense that was used (in part) to persecute Galileo?  That's what ID is, where it isn't actually the same as creationism, an attempt to base their "science" on the mistaken presuppositions of Aristotle and medieval scholastics.  

Indeed, Dembski quite directly claims that we need to consider the other "causes" listed by Aristotle (material, formal, and final), along with his "efficient cause" (which really wasn't the same as causation today, though it at least is related to it).  Well we largely gave up the others because they don't work in science, and we're not impressed with the claims made by Aristotle which have been refuted by modern science.  And ID has little else, and nothing worthwhile.

--Obviously, that doesn’t mean that Aristotle and Aquinas never thought about God, it means that they were looking for a method that would dramatize the power of reason without presuming God’s existence.--

Except that they had indelibly in their minds the "fact" of God's existence, though certainly Aristotle was willing to play around with this "fact".  And they operated with metaphysics which assumed top-down imposition of form and motion, while modern science understands it, more or less, bottom up (I don't like speaking of modern science as "bottom up", but compared to the hierarchical IDist claims, and in its metaphysical language, that's the closest I can come to a comparison).  That's why the great majority of Aristotle's work is not science, no matter that he had some of the elements of science working even in his unworkable "physics" (and science almost certainly benefited by Aquinas' incorporation of Aristotelian ideas into Western thought, until Aristotle became a millstone around Galileo's neck).

--One may or may not have religious motives for undertaking such an investigation, but the motive does not define the process.--

Another strawman from Stephen.  I have repeatedly noted that religious motives needn't define the process, as in Galileo, Einstein, Newton, and Lord Kelvin (though both Newton and Kelvin left science in some of their claims).  It's the IDists, not religious people in general, who object to the science which developed to its full flowering within Christendom (with help from ancient pagans and contemporary Jews and Muslims, and almost certainly others as well) who have to force their unwarranted presuppositions into science because they are unwilling to accept the tests of their ideas that science provides.

--So why do I fuss about that?--

No doubt because you'd rather attack a strawman than what I actually wrote, and because you have nothing with which to legitimately argue for ID.

--Why do I narrow the topic to so sharp a point?--

I see nothing sharp or on-point in your treatment of the subject.  Learn some philosophy, at least, if you're unwilling to learn science.

--Because the major objection to intelligent design is the false assertion that THE PROCESS begins with presupposition (faith) and therefore cannot possibly be science.--

Good grief, the major objection to intelligent design is that it has absolutely no sound evidence in favor of it.  I know that you're just making up stuff as you go along, Stephen, but you'd look a whole lot more competent if you'd learn what's at stake.

And the fact that theistic assumptions are necessary in order to arrive at "God" or "the Designer" is another grave objection, one that you seem not even to understand how to potentially address.

--One either begins with presupposition or one begins with observation.--

No, one does not.  One begins with the way that one understands the world (Kant), and one begins with observation (which actually shape Kantian "categories" and the like).  Even presuppositions begin with observations, however they do often intrude into further observation, as is the case with ID.

--Intelligent design begins with observation.--

ID begins with a prejudice, the sort of animistic/typological sense that the world must operate like humans do (probably unavoidable in early humans, for what other processes could they know?).  There are observations involved (gee, it's pretty complicated, and other equally mindless ID tripe), but first and foremost ID begins with a metaphysics which is illegitimate in science and in modern philosophy (possibly not in some dungeons of analytic philosophy (think of Saul Kripke), but certainly in mainstream analytic and continental philosophy).

--If you will not concede anything else, surely you will concede that.--

Sure, I studied philosphy in order to concede that metaphysics is due to observation.  Ha.  

What I can say is that you're pretty far from a good understanding of metaphysics, philosophy, or science.  ID cannot reach the "conclusion" that there was a "designer" without first putting their God into their premises (or, one might say, only if they fail to disabuse themselves of their anthropocentric prejudices, since that's from where those premises come).  It's all top-down metaphysics, assertion that DNA information can only come from mind, and denial of the evidence of derivation of all life via the processes operating at present.  

If you knew anything about the philosophy you invoke, Stephen, you'd know that I'd never concede that ID begins with observation, for I have studied both the history of philosophy and those who have analyzed the presuppositions of the metaphysicians and logocentrists.  One does not concede a falsehood, above all.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


Another on 9-11-07

Quote
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

September 11th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
–Glen Davidson, actually, I made a typo on post 1118. What I meant was that you missed my point, not that you didn’t read the post or respond in a timely manner. So, calm down.–

I hadn’t responded to you yet, so how could I have missed your point?

–You say that you haven’t conflated CS with ID, yet you continue to claim that ID, in effect, bootlegs religion into its methodology which is what CS does–

I don’t conflate CS with ID, but I also don’t accept your unevidenced assertion that the difference is that ID isn’t religious. In fact, all of the evidence is that ID is overwhelmingly religious, from it’s “big tent” strategy and its refusal to address the scientific question of the age of the earth (physicist Heddle had a falling out with IDists over that, because he knows that the age of the earth is extremely important in science, and for him, especially astronomy), to the religious statements known from most of its prominent proponents. Dembski famously stated that, “Dembski: “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,” Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999? (my source for this was Wikipedia, article “Intelligent Design”).

I would not say that one absolutely has to be religious in order to take up the most minimal tenets of ID. They’d be wrong to do so, likely basing their acceptance of it on teleological biases and incredulity at self-organizing principles, but they wouldn’t have to be exactly religious (arguably, however, they’d be using a metaphysics which is in essence religious, without their recognizing this). What matters is that the movement, and particularly the attempts to force ID into schools and to censor science and its standards, is heavily based in religion and done for the sake of religion.

–So I don’t get why you think I am putting words in your mouth.–

That’s because there is so much that you don’t get. You have your unquestioned “reasons” why ID isn’t the same as creationism, and when someone disagrees with you and tells you how they really do differ, you simply don’t grasp the reasons I have. That is to say, like so many pro-IDists, you really don’t know what makes up philosophy and science, and the various ways that we have of addressing matters, and instead you rely on the narrow claims of IDists and other religionists to set the “standard”.

It’s precisely such narrowness that we are trying to prevent. And no, of course we’re not trying to force the teaching of evolution in the churches, for it is the open society that negates Ben Stein’s charges. The problem is that Ben and the rest wish to intrude their non-standards into another sector of society that allows the reality-based community scope for action, thereby compromising our freedoms to associate and to act as we wish.

Indeed, if that happens it will be the worst for the religious, for there will no longer be any reason why the churches shouldn’t be forced to teach evolution or anything else that society at large might wish everyone to learn.

–If one begins with presupposition (faith, bias, religion etc), one is doing creation science; if one begins with observation and draws inferences from data, one is doing ID.–

Again, Dembski said, “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

–I say ID begins with observation; you (seem) to say it begins with a religious presuppoition.–

How about this, why don’t you tell me what observation leads one to God, or to “the Designer”. I mentioned that the major problem we have with ID is not that it is religious, but that it has no sound evidence in favor of it. That it begins with religion is a problem, but if by strange chance ID (an earlier ID, one that wasn’t so intent on refusing to make inherent predictions) happened to make the right predictions predicated on what we know about design, it would likely be accepted as science (depends upon the circumstances).

That is to say, we keep asking for meaningful observations from IDists, and we never receive any (other than the equivalents of “it looks designed” or the false dichotomy of “evolution isn’t up to the task, hence design is true”—we want evidence for ID, for, even if modern evolutionary failed, there’s no apparent reason why ID would explain anything at all). So yes, of course I’m saying that ID doesn’t begin with observation, that’s essentially the whole case against ID as any kind of science, even as a failed science. We ask for observational data which would point to design (like rational layouts of organisms and systems, instead of the evolved systems and organisms that we see). We ask and ask and ask, and we never receive it. If ID began with observation (and we do mean using the standard observational practices of science and forensics), I’m sure that we’d either have some of the evidence for ID that we have requested, or an admission on the part of IDists that ID isn’t science.

–Am I misreading your position or connecting dots that aren’t there?–

There isn’t any question that I state and have alwasy stated that ID doesn’t begin with observation. IDists no doubt often think that they do, however their unquestioned assumptions and unquestioned human predilections for presupposing purpose and design that isn’t there, precede them.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,13:40   

Still just archiving, as Wesley initially suggested.  Jbagail's post is a particularly nasty and dishonest attack, I would note:

Quote
--Glen

“I’m the one trying to keep religion out of where it doesn’t belong”.

Is this like keeping Blacks out from where they do not belong?--

Since you guys can't make any sort of "argument" except by lame analogy, I'm not surprised that this absurd comment cropped up.

OK, Jbagail, we'll not tolerate being kept out of where we're told that we don't belong.  I demand to be made the pastor of D. James Kennedy's church.  I'm certainly more qualified to tell the truth, and why should I be kept out just because I don't agree with his church's teaching?

So is this an exact analogy?  No, of course it isn't.  One complication is that the gov't has to make decisions about what to teach and fund.  That, in fact, is exactly why religion is kept out of the funding, and the teaching, of science, because the real legal issue is freedom of religion, and not even the importance of teaching science.  You have no business having your religious ideas funded from the taxpayers' dollars.

Your mindless smear has nothing to do with it.  You aren't being kept ignorant by the gov't, you want the gov't to keep children ignorant and to teach them falsehoods.

--A black female relative of mine was murdered many years ago and the male killer got 6 months because she was where “she didn’t belong.”--

Ah yes, the dishonest comparison and the twisting of words by these "righteous" people who try to smear us.  I didn't even come close to saying that any human being of any race, religion, belief, ethnicity, or IQ level doesn't belong anywhere that anyone else does.  I said that I was trying to keep RELIGION out of where it doesn't belong, which is entangled in a government which is bound by the constitution not to establish any religion.

--I find this comment of yours very offensive.--

I find your unintelligent and faulty analogy to be offensive in the extreme, and your attempt to compare keeping a potentially controlling system of thought from controlling the schools and the government as being akin to keeping a person out of somewhere due to race to be highly tendentious and beneath contempt.

--Who are you to judge where religion does not belong?--

First off, I have no power to say where it belongs.  Secondly, I am a reasonable man who has argued these things out like an intellectual, not a blustering bully like your presentation makes you out to be.

--If a man is a Christian he should act like a Christian in everything he does. Many people feel a Sunday Christian is not a good thing.--

Sorry, we're not arguing about whether or not Xians have the rights that everyone else does to free speech, free expression in general, and free public assembly.  I am entirely in favor of the First Amendment, which you seem to oppose.

--Glen, do you want Christians to go into the closet?--

Do you want to attack strawmen all day?  I repeat, I want to keep religion out of where it doesn't belong, and it belongs in Xians, who are free in this society.

--Is this what you want? What about Jews? Shall they go into the closet? We have a Jew and also a Muslim at the University, and both talk about their faith almost every chance that they get (tactfully) and, frankly, I enjoy their company as does everyone else I am aware of.--

Since the idea that I oppose the freedom of Jews and Muslims is entirely of your own malicious and/or ignorant making, I point out again what a dishonest attack you make upon me.  It appears that the words of an honest non-theist such as myself in favor of the First Amendment is, in your mind, justification for a host of false charges.

--Where I work we stress tolerance for all religions. I have learned much from them. Ben you need to release your film ASAP.--

Apparently you haven't picked up any kind of tolerance, rather you promote hatred of those of us who favor the First Amendment.  Indeed, with people like you praising the film, it shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate exactly why we need to keep religion where it belongs, which is, not acting as an agent of the government to oppress those who disagree with would-be theocrats like Jbagail.

You are one frightening person, Jbagail.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


9-13-07

Quote
--In message 1243 Glen D chose to only comment on my last statement about my anticipation of the movie that is receiving immense criticism even though it has not been seen yet.--

Since it is a strawman attack, while you avoid what we actually wrote, it seems unlikely that anything else you might write is worthy of comment.  

--I was disappointed that he did not offer any comment on the more substantive part of my message (1237) about entropy and the origin of life.--

What's substantive about it?  We've read Granville Sewell, who tries to conflate probabilities with entropy, when the two are not about the same things.

--I addressed this only because some of the earlier messages indeed brought up thermodynamics and the acorn analogy.--

Indeed.

--I simply offered what I thought was a reasoned response.--

Well it wasn't.  How about actually addressing some of the many responses that have been made to Sewell and to others who try to shoehorn SLOT into denying evolution?

--However I guess I was just guilty of more “strawman attacks, unsupported demonizations of their opponents, and the most useless “science” arguments that have ever been answered thousands of times without their getting a single clue.”--

Yes, I pointed out how inappropriate your remarks were.  Why do you suppose that anyone should care about what you write about entropy when nothing prevents you from unfair characterizations of your opponents?  Notably, rather than take back your unfair characterization, you simply move on to more attacks.

But okay, I'll answer again the most useless "science" arguments that have been answered thousands of times without their getting a clue:

--Just a few comments about the origin of life and thermodynamics. It is certainly the case that the 2nd law of thermodynaimcs applies in both open and closed systems. It is also true that in the early earth there was plenty of energy available from the sun. It is also true that an acorn only needs water, sun and soil to germinate and grow into a mighty oak tree. This can all seem to argue that life could have arisen on an early earth as a localized decrease in entropy as the rest of the universe necessarily increases in entropy.--

It doesn't speak to the issue of whether or not life could have arisen on an early earth.  Probability is not the same as entropy, even if someone like Sewell claims that it is.  The point about the sun's radiance is that SLOT doesn't rule out increases in order (not the precise language of entropy, but it should be all right for our discussion), and that it can pay for incremental changes during the course of evolution.

I don't even know why abiogenesis is being brought into this, but again entropic considerations don't rule it out.

--But that’s not the whole story. An acorn also needs a genetic blueprint and cellular machinery to take the raw ingrdients of sun, water and soil and grow into a tree.--

That's where evolution comes into the picture.

--And raw energy from the sun is rather impotent without some kind of energy conversion mechanism to harness that energy for useful cell building work.--

No, energy from the sun is quite potent, able to make radicals, superoxides, amino acids, and what-not.  Of course evolution is needed in addition to produce an oak tree and acorns, but that doesn't mean that the sun is impotent sans energy conversion mechanisms.

--Today that role is primarily filled by the process of photosynthesis.--

And on Mars high-energy molecules are made without photosynthesis.  Possibly providing energy to organisms which evolved there.

--In the early earth, if we are going to go from raw chemicals, water and solar energy to even a simplified first cell, there is a desperate need for some kind of energy conversion mechanism.--

Why?  Don't you know that the first organisms are considered likely to have been extreme heterotrophs?  Just as high-energy ozone is made in the upper atmosphere, high-energy organic molecules could be made by sunlight under the proper conditions.

--Applying raw undirected energy to a system of chemicals is almost always going to be destructive not constructive.--

No, chemicals are zapped by various forms of energy to make high-energy and complex molecules.  Buckeyballs and carbon nanotubes form when electrical discharges are run through various chemicals.  Lightning produces ozone and nitrogen oxides.  The Miller-Urey experiments produced amino acids via electrical discharges.  Carbonaceous chondrites have fairly complex organic molecules in them including amino acids, which is certainly a step up from the monotomic atoms coming out of supernovae explosions.

Self-organizing processes are very well known in chemistry and elsewhere.

--Requiring some kind of energy conversion mechanism apart from cellular machinery before there were cells seems to require some kind of intelligent input.--

This is why I didn't respond to this "substantive" stuff before.  It's all sheer creationism/ID, without any knowledge of what is proposed for abiogenesis, nor with any of the understanding of how early "life" might have incorporated and used compounds for reproduction.  Indeed, replication itself would be the only real "metabolic" function in most scenarios, and that could be provided by various environmental means, like pH changes.

--Something has to manipulate the molecules.--

Only in your assumptions.  Real science involves trying to learn how molecules might self-organize, which does happen in many situations.

--And what about the first cellular information blueprint? All of our experience tells us that useful, complex, specified information arises from intelligence.--

Our experience is that functional information in animals has evolved over the course of evolution.  We do not know how genetic material arose to the level of life in the first place, but if we're not willing to conclude that it was just magic, we work at the problem scientifically, not merely resorting to the unevidenced.

Most importantly, the sort of information found in DNA has never been observed to come from intelligence, ever.  Your claim that "All of our experience tells us that useful, complex, specified information arises from intelligence" is related to the idea that we have only seen wolves and lions coming from intelligence, when in fact we have only seen them coming from reproduction.  But even though we HAVE only seen them come from reproduction, and even though we have evidence that lions and wolves share ancestry, you would prefer to believe that an unknown agent was responsible for there being wolves and lions.

Should we believe the evidence of common ancestry among humans?  Among mammals?  Among vertebrates?  Among all of life?  What is most absurd about ID is that it believes that the "probabilities are too high for 'Darwinism' to account for evolution," when apparently the 95%+ relatedness of chimps and humans is either accidental or due to some unfathomable reasons of the creator.  We know that probabilities could never produce anything like the apparent relatedness and non-teleological evolution of all life, and of course claiming that design caused the expected patterns of "Darwinism" is the most ad hoc and lame claim that I can think of.

--Packaged energy for cellular processes and genetic information scream for an intelligent precursor.--

Non sequitur.  And you completely ignored what is actually proposed for abiogenesis, which are also understood only as a sets of hypotheses at this time (IOW, it is not evolutionary theory).

--Compounding the equation is the apparent necessity for this to be a rapid process since fossilized remnants of bacterial life have been dated at around 3.6 or 3.7 billion years old, only a 100 million years or so after the earth had cooled sufficiently to allow life to survive and the major meteoric bombardment had let up.--

Compounding the equation is the fact that you have put in a bunch of assumptions which are not obviously important to abiogenesis.

--You can find the full thermodynamic equations in Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen’s book, “The Mystery of Life’s Origin.” It’s critique of chemical evolution scenarios remains valid.--

And I'm supposed to believe that claim, when none of your assumptions are shared with those scientists who work on abiogenesis?

--If you’re going to rely purely on chemical and geological forces to account for the origin of life, you just can’t get there from here.--

First off, I can't see that anyone was arguing over abiogenesis.  Perhaps some were, but that's not what this blog is about.  Secondly, none of your points have anything to do with the real work being done to try to explain life's origins.

--I look forward to the movie and am disappointed but not terribly surprised at the ad hominem attacks and negative judgement displayed here about a film no one has even seen yet.--

Still a very unfair statement, considering that almost none of the remarks have disparaged the movie except insofar as it has been characterized by Stein and others involved in the movie.  You seem to fault us merely for answering Ben's claims, and without properly characterizing our answers.

Back to the last part of his more recent post:

--I have been making this observation for many years. Perhaps Glen D can enlighten me as to why he would characterize my comments this way. I welcome any response.--

I characterized it that way because you made an unfair attack on those of us who were not faulting the movie so much as the material that has been released about the movie, and because such untruthful attacks amount to ad hominem attacks.  Then I didn't want to get into abiogenesis, since that's largely beside the point that evolution is a solid established scientific theory the equal of other scientific theories.  

And also I had noted how many times pro-IDists' "science" claims have been answered because it is true, and because I dealt with Granville Sewell's attacks on evolution (invoking entropy) here:

http://groups.google.com/group....e35a31a

You have to click on "Read more" to get the full comments.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,12:21   

DaveScot pops in to offer Glen reinstatement at UD "if you can be civil". Then I thought maybe he means JAD, so I posted:

#  DAVESCOT Says:
September 11th, 2007 at 1:27 am

Davidson, I will lift your ban at Uncommon Descent if you can be civil.


Great to see you out and about again, Dave. I thought you had retreated to the UD laager permanently. Just to clarify, are you re-inviting Glen (who apart from the odd hissy fit, usually manages to remain civil if somewhat verbose) or was Davidson a typo and you meant to address John (who possibly has overstepped the bounds of propriety on occasion). I am sure UD can restore its rightful place in the blogosphere with some insightful input from JAD.

Shame about the informatics thingie. Bill could do with a  bit of good publicity to boost those book sales which must be flagging a bit since Dover.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2007,15:20   

I was uncertain who was meant as well.  It didn't really matter, though, since I had no idea that I am banned, if I am (I don't know if that's really Springer posting either).  That's how eager I am to post alongside DaveScot.

Not that he isn't the epitome of class in inviting whomever back, if he "is civil".  To a bunch of ignoramuses and/or liars, I am not.

I loved ("I love it so") the response from JAD, though, who certainly thought it was the "Darwinian blow hard," and whined like a kicked dog that the dolts at UD won't take him back in.  Is there any set of people about whom he wouldn't complain if they don't accept him (and even more if they do)?  Someday he's going to be muttering out on the street that no bums will let their rags touch him, which will be believable.  Of course he seems to loathe anyone dumb enough to think he has anything to add (for good reason), so he'll always spit at anyone who gives him the time of day.

Poor old fool, there isn't a forum new enough that it doesn't have a good many on it who already know about how he operates.  He's as lonely on Stein's forum as he always was at his own.  What's sad is that someone so socially needy is almost totally without social skills, and devoid of anything of value to offer anyone.

Glen D

Back to the archiving, 9-12-07

Quote
--Glen Davidson,

Please knock off the insults and get back into the business of substantive discourse. --

I'm the only one of the two of us who has brought any substantive discourse into the discussion.  Your inability to address anything properly is what I have to address, since you ignore almost everything that I actually write, and turn to repeat some meaningless claim that you made previously and of which you didn't understand the reply which was made to it.  

It's interesting how quickly someone like you who came in with a completely false charge against me faults me for supposedly not engaging in substantive discourse.  Also, when you haven't begun to address anything substantive that I've written.

--Intelligent design is in no way dependent on religion, nor has Dembski ever defined it that way.--

I wish you could actually make a point that would have some intellectual meaning.  I know how dishonest Dembski is about ID, and I didn't suppose or claim that he ever defined it as dependent on religion (it would hurt the legal case if the truth were told).  That it is dependent upon religion is the substantive issue, the one that you haven't begun to address.

--Here is one of the many ways he has expressed it::--

Do you dream that we haven't heard the droning claptrap of the ignorant Dembski over and over again?  What's important is that we're independently capable of evaluating ID apart from the bogus claims of those who want to pretend that it is science, when that is the least plausible claim that it makes.

--“Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence.--

The trouble is, it doesn't.  What Dembski does is to claim that simple but "unlikely" design is complex, contrary to any meaning of that term.  Then he tries to claim that design is detected by his measure of "complexity," completely ignoring the fact that we rely most of all upon the marks of rational thought which are visible in designed objects, and also upon any evident purpose, novelty, and "borrowing" for an obvious or a non-obvious reason.  What Dembski states is hardly credible.

--"Note that a sign is not the thing signified. Intelligent design does not try to get into the mind of the designer and figure out what a designer is thinking.--

Of course it doesn't.  That's because their "designer" is inscrutable, just like Maimonides', or to a lesser extent, Aquinas's God.  The "Designer" also is apparently capable of fine-tuning the universe, which in ID circles means some nearly-omnipotent Being (that we might be in a simulation is speculated on by non-IDists, in which case it might be a guy sitting around, drinking beer and playing a video game.  Not the scenario proposed by IDists).

Actual science is concerned about anything that can be deduced from a putative cause, while the IDists are not concerned about investigable causes.  We'd be intensely interested in the mind and purposes of a real designer, if you people would actually come up with something for once.  

Thanks for pointing out how unlike science ID is.

--"Its focus is not a designers mind (the thing signified) but the artifact due to a designer’s mind (the sign).--

Dembski doesn't even know how to use the terms "sign" an "signified" properly.  The mind that creates is not what is signified by the object, except in unusual self-referential cases (I don't dispute that some aspect of mind is essentially signified in "signifying something else," but that's already understood by actual scientists).  The sign or object often does signify something, but something other than the mind that creates it.  Dembski either ignorantly or deceitfully switches the meaning of words to avoid the fact that a real designer would indeed be expected to put signification into said designer's object, and this might actually tell us something about that mind (as it does with humans).

But of course Dembski's "Designer" is like the philosopher's God, hence one isn't supposed to speculate about this God, uh, "Designer".  Once again, completely unlike how real science operates.

--"What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest).--

Why yes, apparently the "Designer" thinks in genetic algorithms, because instead of ever producing anything that appears like designed objects do, this "designer" is making organisms appear as if they had evolved.

--"But the designer’s thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design.--

How convenient, and how unlike real science.  In real science, you have to know something about the cause in order to match it with its hypothesized effects (and ID cannot honestly predict complexity or simplicity, let alone pretend that complexity can only come about through the divine, er, the inscrutable designer).  So Dembski declaims any concern about the actual cause, yet insists that life is its effect.  That's bogus philosophy, let alone being pseudoscience.

--"As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.”--

Yes, we'll ignore the cause, and claim the effect.  That's certainly not science, rather it is what is often known from religion.

--As everyone knows (including you, I trust) Barbara Forrest pulled the quote about “logos theory” to make it appear that ID is religious based.--

Simpleton, of course it was pulled out in order to provide evidence (you know, what none of you people ever provide) for the obvious fact that ID is about religion.  Dembski said, it, quit pretending that there's anything wrong with using it.

--As it turns out, Dembski made that comment discussing intelligent design in the context of its relationship with theology and metaphysics for a Christian audience.--

Yes, we know that extremely well.  During the week, he's telling us that ID is science.  On Sunday, he's preaching ID as religion.  This has been discussed a good deal on forums like Panda's Thumb, and of course you merely make our point, that not only is ID religion, ID is very dishonest regarding its claims to the contrary.

--Unlike many scientists, Dembski is formally trained in philosophy and theology–not just science.--

Dembski is not formally trained in science (I suppose he's taken some classes in it, but I have yet to see any indication that he understands it and its methods).  Quit coming up with false claims.  And he's not adept in philosophy at large, but only in a kind of metaphysical-religious sort of philosophy.

--That means, of course, that he is qualified to discuss controversies that appear at the intersection of science and philosophy,--

Only if he actually understands philosophy beyond a certain metaphysical ghetto, plus had an understanding of science.  I have yet to see him understand any philosophical position that is critical of metaphysics, or science above grade-school level.

--an attribute that not everyone in this dialogue can lay claim to.--

Neither can he.  And you certainly evince no knowledge of science or philosophy that would pertain to this subject.

--From a Christian’s faith perspective, intelligent design does have religious implications, of course.--

Ya think?  I'd like to see what it has to do with anything other than religion.

--But the methodology itself is scientific,--

You know, it gets very tiresome to read you making the same monotonous claim each time you come in here to reveal still more of your ignorance.  I asked you for evidence, for observational data that would support ID.  As with all IDists, you utterly and completely fail to get up to the starting point of science, but merely complain whenever we point out how devoid of science content ID obviously is.

--as Dembski pointed out earlier in the same discussion.--

So, you're resorting to argumentum ad verecundiam.  That's the formal name for your fallacy.

--To ignore the distinction is to violate reasonable standards of fairness. --

And so you convict yourself.  

--If it is not asking too much, please limit your response to this one subject--

If it's not asking too much, please respond intelligently to even one thing that I've written.  And by the way, the fact that you can't discuss or understand the range of issues involved is your problem.  The repetition of untrue claims, fallacies, and your complete inability to broach the issues revolving aroud science and the pseudoscience of ID is unproductive and revelatory of your reliance on the bogus claims of the egregious IDists.

And I already posted this at post #1090, but here is an excerpt of something that one of the writers of this movie posted on a forum regarding ID:

--When I say ID is friendly to belief in God in a way that classical Darwinism is not, what I mean is Darwinism literally has no need for the God hypothesis. According to Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, everything can be explained purely by natural forces–including the origin of information, consciousness, and life itself. If you want to bring God into the picture, that is a belief that you are adding to science. It is not required by the science itself, and many Neo-Darwinists believe it gets in the way of science. ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one’s interpretation of science, God–or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer–is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code.--

Try to understand for once, Kevin Miller is contrasting "Darwinism" with its lack of need for a God with ID's prior belief that God is at the heart of nature.  Of course one could try to bring up the charge of argumentum ad verecundiam, but it won't work because this is simply an example from a pro-IDist, while I've argued the actual case a great deal, here and elsewhere.  Not only does Dembski betray his "during the week" claims when he's selling his book to the rubes, this whole movie happens to be a complaint that we're supposedly suppressing ID because it is religious (and we are suppressing it along with other bogus "science" in certain venues, but only where religion isn't supposed to be supported by gov't, and where our own freedom of speech and association give us the right to do so--along with the other pseudosciences and conspiracy theories).  

Perhaps you should actually read Ben's blog.  He doesn't mention ID, unlike Miller does, but Miller confirms that the movie primarily concerns ID, and the whine is that we're "keeping God out".  Yes, that's what science does, unless you can actually come up with evidence that God is a proximal cause.  You'd be a whole lot more convincing that ID isn't about religion if you weren't commenting under a blog whose main complaint is that ID is being suppressed because, in fact, ID is religious.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


9-13-07

Quote
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

September 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
–Dear Ben,

I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names.–

Where are your answers to the questions and points that I raised in posts #389, #1031, #1065, and #1090, for starters? Oh, you didn’t answer them, did you? You prefer to write the blatantly false claim that we can only call names, when in fact I have not seen much other than name-calling from the creos and IDists, and the little else was recycled nonsense (and we have answered virtually all of it, no matter how tiresome it is to do so).

So your credibility level is—about where Dembski’s is, hovering around zero.

–I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension.–

And you provide as much evidence as Ben did for such flim-flam, none at all. But then the need for evidence famously doesn’t trouble IDists.

–My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution.–

Fascinating that a non-teleological biological process wouldn’t be taught to an engineer. Must mean something, huh? But sadly, Josh can’t quite relate what this meaning is (so he invents it).

–It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science,–

Actually, it does not. It has to do with applying the conclusions of science. You’re not the first ID engineer to make the colossal error of thinking that in bypassing science with your engineering degree you have nonetheless become an expert in science.

–not science fiction.–

Gee, imagine anyone resorting to name-calling. Well, it wasn’t me, Dimensio, Craig, or a host of other pro-science commenters who thought that name-calling and false accusations would stand in for discussing science (not that we don’t use the names that fit, certainly), it was the whiner who can’t back up a single claim that he makes.

–It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe.–

Mere ad hominem, and something that Josh could hardly know. I suspect that many on the pro-science side have seriously studied ID and creationism, like I have by coming from a creationist background. But why should Josh bother telling the truth when Stein’s blog is a mash of untrue claims barely altered from official ID mendacity?

–I have studied both evolution and ID.–

I should think that if you knew anything about evolution you’d be capable of dealing with it in detail. And if you really were a scientist, you’d finally tell us what we’ve been asking for, what is the scientific evidence for ID?

–What are those people afraid of? GOD.–

Why yes, it’s what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Dobzhansky, Father Coyne, Ken Miller, and Francis Collins were all afraid of, God. Oops, no. You’re as wrong about that as you are that engineers study science (aside from a few core courses).

Wow, you got absolutely none of your non-trivial claims right. But that’s as good as most IDists, I’ll admit, so you’re in the right company.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

September 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
–I think the negative comments are proof enough of the need to clarify the THEORY of evolution vs. Intelligent Design.–

Yes, negative comments have proven that the city of Atlantis existed, that UFO abductions are a reality, that homeopathy works, that the CIA killed John Kennedy, that our government was responsible for the twin tower attacks, divination by birds, necromancy, Scientology, and Intelligent Design.

See, all you have to do is to make a statement, no matter how absurd, then when someone disagrees, that proves your statement. Anyway, that’s what all of the pseudoscientists tell us.

–One could just as easily ask an evolutionist to come up with real evidence that this THEORY is true as they push on the ID people.–

This tells us all too much about the mentality of most creos and IDists. Darwin published the evidence 150 years ago (accounting for non-teleological aspects (vestigials and some rather odd adaptations) which pointed away from purposeful design–in addition to providing the evidence of common descent itself), and we get the same demand for “evidence” and denial thereof from the sorts of people who never provide evidence for ID. I wonder why they’re so evidence-challenged?

Darwin only began the process of gathering and disseminating the evidence for evolution. Journals are rife with it, of course, though it rarely is called “evidence for evolution” any more than evidence for Newton’s laws of motion is called “evidence for Newtonian laws”–scientists have been satisfied with the evidence for over a century in the case of evolution. And beyond that, people have been repeatedly pointed toward evidence at Talkorigins and blogs which exist just for the purpose of putting out the evidence and discussing it, as well as presented in numerous comments.

It’s sort of what Plato noted in the parable of the cave, that nothing will actually affect people until they actually look. Because few IDists and creos will look at the evidence, or they fail to understand it, the mere fact that we have done what we can to make the evidence available doesn’t prevent the same kinds of demands and questions from being made. This is due to the fact that if they don’t see the evidence, it does the anti-scientists no good at all.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2007,23:25   

Glen,

Gotta compliment you on this series of posts.  Did you apply any anesthetic before dissecting? :)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,11:11   

Oh, Tardfight at "Expelled"!

--------------
"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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,16:57   

Quote (snoeman @ Sep. 13 2007,23:25)

Gotta compliment you on this series of posts.  Did you apply any anesthetic before dissecting? :)


They seem to be already numb intellectually, so I didn't bother.

Archiving, 9-15-07

Quote
--Glen Davidson,

About me your wrote, …“that you can’t discuss or understand the range of issues involved is your problem.”

My purpose in zeroing in on a simple point was to provide a little focus for you because you don’t seem to be able to do it for yourself.--

What you don't know is that the interaction of science and philosophy is rather complex when it comes right down to it.  It isn't simplistic like you and Dembski suppose.

-- Apparently, you didn’t get the hint, so I will come out with it. Writing forty of fifty paragraphs when one will suffice does not prove intelligence or knowledge, it only proves verbosity.--

The trouble is that you have no clue about what's involved, so you think that an argument from authority, along with some misapprehensions of philosophy, are sufficient.  You can't discuss anything, so you want to make my learning into a problem.

--That your insufferably long posts do not even address the issue is even more annoying.--

You don't understand the issue, as has become painfully obvious.

--That is why I narrowed the issue to ONE ASPECT OF ONE TOPIC—hint-hint-hint—it’s your cue to make a point, shut up, and get out.--

This is how it always ends, we discuss the issues, you who don't know anything get angry that you have nothing to say, and get nasty.

--The idea is go straight to the issue—not to keep shooting arrows endlessly, hoping that one day you will hit a target,--

I'd like you to be able even to discern what the target is.

--Your latest offering shoots about thirty more arrows, none of which even make it to the outside ring. My original point was simple: YOUR EXAMPLE citing Dembski’s comment about the Logos theory of the Gospel as proof that ID is faith-based is illogical. Dembski’s statement was made in a theological/philosophical context, and therefore does not relate to the question about whether or not ID’s methodology is empirically based. I showed that your contention was wrong, and I made the point SUCCINCTLY.--

If stupid and succinct mean the same thing to you, go ahead and believe that.

--Incredibly, your interminable response ignores this one and only point. I am therefore left to wonder whether you just like to read your own prose or whether you have a problem with reading comprehension. --

Unfortunately, you are incapable of thinking from the evidence, and blither around the evidence that Dembski is theology-driven with a bunch of trivial side issues.

--Instead you weasel out by saying, “I didn’t suppose or claim that he ever defined (ID) it as dependant on religion.” Oh no? Well then, what was your point in raising the issue of logos theory in the first place? I didn’t bring it up, you did. Apparently, you will not allow Dembski to define his own theory. If he insists that ID is empirically based, you will simply say, “sorry, we don’t allow people to speak for themselves.--

He spoke for himself, and essentially said that ID is "Logos" of John 1.  You can't accept that Dembski speaks out of both sides of his mouth, so you deny the most obvious fact, that, for Dembski at least, ID is religiously motivated.

--We accuse them of being so enamored with their Christianity that they lost all sense of judgment and can’t possibly know where religious faith ends and empirical observation begins.” What bigotry.--

Yes, you're incredibly bigoted, close-minded, and unable to make reasonable inferences from the data.

--Your mission, then, should you choose to accept it, is to defend your ridiculous and bigoted assertion that Dembski’s Theological comment about Logos theory proves that his science is not empirically based. Also, try to make every word count. If you can’t do both, do neither.--

Well, I've spent too much time responding to someone who can't begin to make a reasonable argument.  Try a little bit of schooling, it might make you capable of at least reading what I write, if not of responding coherently.

The fact is that Dembski's "Logos statement" does not by itself show that ID isn't religiously based.  Yours and his utter inability to come up with any kind of evidence that would actually pass muster in forensics or in science to demonstrate empiricism is what show that it isn't science.  I made this point to you earlier, but you ignore whatever you don't understand, which is about everything.  Since it isn't evidence-based, it must have some other motivation, and that religious motivation is altogether obvious even without Dembski's Logos statement, and more so with it.

I will probably not respond further to you, since you never properly address the issues involved, any more than that fatuous JAD does (which is sort of a response to him, I know, but if it's more than he deserves, it's still very little).  

I suspect that I can at least have a decent discussion with Kevin Miller, unlike you who want authority to stand where you are incapable of any substance (haven't seen any yet from you).

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,18:39   

Kevin Miller--one of the writers of "Expelled"--responded to me, and really most dishonestly.  I wrote a very long response, so I'm making another post in which to archive it.  Note, this is before editing and splitting up my comments, which I think I ought to do.

Quote
--Glen Davidson,

Thanks for being such a lively participant on this blog. However, I’m afraid your enthusiasm may have gotten in the way of a few facts.--

I'm afraid that your claim that I have neglected any facts is itself markedly lacking in fact.  Of course I don't see the matter as you do, I see it as a philosopher does, and just because I disagree with your tendentious interpretation does not mean that I quoted anything out of context or related anything that wasn't the truth.

--Case in point: When you quoted me in comment 1090, you did so out of context.--

I included everything that was in that section.  The earlier section of your post didn't have a lot to do with the later section.  What is more, I linked to your post.  What am I supposed to do, include the entire thread before you'll allow that it wasn't out of context?  I followed standard procedures, I included a lot of context, and I linked to the rest.  

--What I wrote was not meant as an apology for ID but an explanation of why ID is friendlier to theism than classical Darwinism.--

I neither said that it was intended to be an apology for ID nor that it was.  I said that ID is apologetics.  Here it is:



Try to get your facts straight, Mr. Miller.  It's your "explanation" that indicates that ID is apologetics.

--What I said was, ID leaves room in its paradigm for an active designer,--

No, the relevant statement was not that ID leaves room in its paradigm for an active designer, the relevant statement (the one to which I referred in my comments) was, "ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one’s interpretation of science, God–or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer–is literally at the heart of nature itself...".  That not just leaving it open, so you've subtly altered your point without any justification for it.

--whereas the best that Darwinism allows is some sort of non-involved deity or a deity that interacts with the world in a way we cannot measure.--

That's not the "best that Darwinism allows" (and why can't you people ever get it right?  In the US it isn't "Darwinism" as such), it is the best that the evidence allows.  You have no business suggesting that we leave out God at the start, we only leave out God for the same reason that meteorology leaves out God, the evidence just isn't there for biology.

--Hardly a satisfying situation for your average theist.--

Which is irrelevant to science and its practices.  Are you going to write a movie about how meteorology leaves God out of the picture?

--Even so, it is not so much a criticism of Darwinism as a mere a statement of fact, and I don’t see how it can be construed as an endorsement of ID.--

Did I call it an endorsement of ID?  No, I did not.  You're setting up strawment left and right.

--If you read my entire conversation with Peter Chattaway, you will see that it was merely meant as a point of clarification.--

Yes, I don't care what it was.  What you wrote is what I was interested in, how completely wrong you are that we aren't willing to consider intelligence acting in nature (we do all the time where the evidence exists), and how you admit that God is insinuated into ID from the beginning.

--I can accept the above mistake as a potential oversight on your part.--

Sorry, I didn't make any mistake, you just assumed that I wrote what I did not in fact write.  If you care to pursue this any further, please bring up any kind of justification you might have for your claims.

--However, my real bone of contention is when you say, “What Miller doesn’t know is that science doesn’t presuppose entities like God or the wink-wink nudge-nudge ‘Designer’, it looks for the best hypothesis. He is trying to tell us that ID is science because it has decided already that God (or “the Designer”) is at the heart of nature, so instead of simply searching for the best explanation, ID searches for ‘potential signs of intelligence in nature’.”

I meant nothing of the sort, Glen, and I suspect you know that to be true.--

I know very well what you wrote, and I properly interpreted it.  And yes of course it's an interpretation, but it isn't an unwarranted one.

--At best, your interpretation of my post is just plain wrong. At worst, it is a wilful distortion of the facts.--

It is neither, and again you fail to bring any sort of justifiable evidence against my reading of what you wrote.

--Perhaps it will help if I clarify things a little: To disqualify ID merely because it starts from a particular philosophical position is ridiculous.--

There are philosophical positions which have assumptions in them which cannot be justified, and there are philosophical positions which merely formalize the practices of working science and forensics.  Indeed, science essentially operated without a real philosophical basis up until the time of Hume and Kant, because the old metaphysical philosophy didn't work in science, and no satisfying new philosophy existed.

--Who doesn’t do science from a philosophical position?--

The most that Newton had were some rules of inference in science.  He was not working within the edifice of ancient or medieval philosophy as such, he merely borrowed the rules that philosophy had acknowledged regarding evidence.  He did not begin with the assumption that God was "working in the solar system," though it is true that he let God take care of the gaps left over.

Only if you insist that the rules of science "come from philosophy," when it is at least as arguable that they originally came from practical matters, can you even begin to claim that science necessarily operates from a philosophical position.  The fact that philosophy helps to deal with empiricism does not obviously mean that it is the basis from which empiricism is done.

What is perhaps more important is that I actually discussed a good deal that you ignore, like the consistency of sticking with the philosophy and/or scientific positions that work in meteorology when one is also doing biology.  Here you come up with a lot of strawmen to attack, while you ignore the importance of consistency in science.  Why am I not surprised at the lack of consistency between what you wrote previously and what you wrote more recently, and at the lack of consistency between what I really wrote and what you claim that I wrote?

The fact is that IDists generally accept the "philosophy" or science that we use everywhere in our science, but you refuse to follow the same position where it comes to biology.  Ignore that point as many times as you wish, Mr. Miller, but it remains a gaping hole in your treatment of the issue.  

But then I hardly allow that medieval philosophy has stood the test of time anyway, so that on philosophical grounds ID fails, even before it fails on empirical grounds.

--That’s all science is: conceptual model building upon a philosophical foundation—a constellation of unprovable assumptions.--

No, that isn't even close to what science is.  It is a way of dealing with the world in an "intersubjectively sound" (I hate use "subjective" at all, but it gets the point across) manner.  Kant detailed some of the "unproven assumptions" that necessarily go into science, and those have been honed and shaped over time into a more nuanced and sound manner (for instance, we know that at least some of Kant's "givens" are shaped by experience), but it is true that in the most foundational sense we cannot prove or empirically demonstrate that we know the world "as it really is," so to speak.

But as Kant (who was no atheist, by the way) noted, we can agree on how we do understand the world, and from there we can do satisfactory empirical science.  And modern science is "based" upon his philosophy, if any, not upon the unwarranted claims of medieval philosophy.  Metaphysics is just speculation, science operates according to working understandings and constructive capabilities of the mind to work through empirical data in a mutually ("intersubjectively") agreed-upon manner.  You want to claim that ID is equivalent to this, when it simply assumes that a sort of philosopher's God exists, when it cannot show that this God exist in either an empirical sense or in the "intersubjectively sound" sense that much of modern philosophy understands our "prior assumptions" to be.

--If you don’t believe me, just look at someone like Richard Dawkins.--

Dawkins is not my God, or any kind of authority to me.  

--While he claims his atheism is inferred from the evidence—which it may have been at one point—his scientific writings are clearly meant as an apologetic for his atheistic point of view.--

Do you have some kind of legitimate point?  Dawkins has his own problems with philosophy and theology, they aren't mine, or science's in general.

--His atheism doesn’t flow from his science; his science flows from his atheism.--

I see absolutely no justification for this claim.  More importantly, this has no bearing upon your claim that science is simply conceptual model building upon a philosophical foundation.  Anyone who leaves out the empirical matters, and the attempts to remain true to the evidence, is hardly an authority on either science or philosophy.

--So if you want to disqualify anyone for mixing their philosophical presuppositions with their science, Dawkins is your man.--

Nothing at all in your "argument" showed that Dawkins's science comes from his atheistic position.  I have faulted Dawkins at times when he got into philosophical matters (recently on Panda's Thumb), but on the whole he just isn't my concern.  The perversion of science is.

--You may not like ID’s philosophical starting point, just as many others may not like Richard Dawkins’s starting point.--

I do not like ID starting with a philosophical position which assumes that entities are acting without there being any kind of evidence for these undetected entities.  Not all philosophical positions are the same, and it's absurd that you treat them as equals.  That you write as if they are all equal indicates that, as a writer for a movie which delves into both philosophy and science, you cannot do justice to the issues involved.

--But if so, that is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.--

Evidently you are without any adequate knowledge of science.  Science and modern philosophy are meshed together, with give and take in both disciplines.  Einstein was something of a philosopher, as were most of the early quantum theorists.  Most of us who know philosophy as well as science understand how illegitimate the metaphysics behind ID really is, how it completely fails to follow the methods of either science or of modern philosophy.

Why don't you make a movie about how we reject Hindu philosophy in science like we reject Aquinas's philosophy in science?  Of course we do, because Hindu philosophy, like medieval philosophy, merely assumes what it cannot show empirically or "intersubjectively," instead resting many of its claims upon prior religious assumptions.  So not only does your "argument" fall flat on philosophical and scientific grounds, evidently you're insisting upon that a philosophy coming out of Western religions is as legitimate as modern philosophies which make as few assumptions as possible (and ground them in "intersubjectivity" as well").

Why do you suppose that most of the world adopts the philosophical bases for science, while most reject the philosophies behind ID?  It's because the philosophical basis with which science is associated happens to yield practical and intellectual results, while the philosophies of the IDists belong to Western culture and are not universally applicable.

--If you’re going to reject ID—or Richard Dawkins—you need to do so on the basis of their science.--

We do.  The fact that you ignore all of the scientific arguments that I made against ID explains much of your unjustifiable attacks upon my justified argumentation.

--Which brings me back to my post: Contrary to your interpretation, I am not arguing that ID should be classified as science because it begins with the assumption that God is at the heart of nature. I’m merely arguing that ID should not be disqualified on this basis.--

Sorry, not only does your distinction not make much difference, it doesn't relate what you wrote in your post, which was:



You said that ID suggests that God or the "Designer" is at the heart of nature itself, then you claimed that "therefore the search for potential signs of intelligence in nature [which may be taken as a euphemism for ID] becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise."

It was precisely their "suggestion" that God or "Designer" is at the heart of nature that was your premise for why ID becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise.  I "interpreted" you justly, and you simply deny it without dealing with the evidence that I included.

--As I understand it, the core scientific program of ID seeks to explain how information moves in and out of biological systems. That’s it.--

What's scientific about it?  And how do they seek to find out how information moves in and out of biological systems?  More importantly, how would that relate to their core design claims?  You left those out, didn't you (though it's true that they fail to do science to find evidence for design in nature)?  

Look, we know very well what ID claims, and that it fails to provide any legitimate criteria for what would be "designed," claiming instead that a false dilemma would provide "evidence" for ID.  Indeed, if it is studying information in biological systems in a scientific manner at all, this has nothing to do with their core claims, which are that a designer is responsible.

If they were serious about design being in nature, they'd predict that rational "planning" of organisms would be in evidence, and that purpose, novelty, and "borrowing" might also be visible.  Because none of these are (as meant in science), they refuse to predict that the designer did what known designers do, instead pretending that faulting another theory is all they have to do in order to be scientific.

--All of the religious baggage that gets tagged onto the movement is essentially a red herring perpetuated by their opponents.--

Right, that's why they speak largely to religious audiences, refuse to discuss the age of the earth, and repeatedly claim that ID points toward the supernatural.  Remember, we listen to the IDists, and at a speech I attended, Behe claimed that the reason we reject ID is merely that it points beyond science.  Hardly, we reject it because nothing in biology points beyond the cause and effect standard practices of science.

--Darwinian evolutionists think they’ve already solved the information problem by proposing purely natural information-producing mechanisms, such as random mutations and natural selection.--

You really don't know the science, do you?  There are quite a large number of information problems in biology at present, notably because a whole lot of information has recently become available through DNA sequencing.

Yet virtually all of the data point to nothing but the familiar non-teleological mechanisms known from the laboratory and in the collected data.  Moreover, the predictions of non-teleoligcal evolution have been satisfied by the evidence, while teleology and the marks of rational thought are absent.  Thus we stick with the evidence, no matter how much theology attempts to intrude into science.

--But the ID proponents are skeptical that such mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin and diversity of life.--

Huh, and very few of them are biologists.  We do have the Moonie Jonathan Wells, and biochemist Behe, but Dembski is a philosopher/mathematician, Phil Johnson is an attorney, Paul Nelson is a philosopher (who can't answer the questions we pose on PT), you have a host of engineers, physicians, and the like, while nearly all biologists are satisfied with the direction in which research is going.  Where is the justification for their "skepticism"?

--In their search for a more satisfying hypothesis, they are willing to consider all possible explanations—including some form of superior intelligence.--

Really.  Why don't they answer our questions?  You know, we discuss these issues on numerous forums, while ID forums are often closed to us.  Still, they could answer our questions--if they had answers.  I see that you don't supply any answers either, but merely try to claim that ID is scientific without your telling us any way in which they actually do science, or conform to science practices.

I have yet to see them consider anything but a "superior intelligence," and this all without any kind of cause and effect relationship being proposed.  I've brought this up in at least one post, and instead of you dealing with such a necessary condition to do science, you're claiming that I wrote what I didn't write, and claiming that you wrote something other than to what I actually responded.

--I fail to see how that makes them unscientific.--

Of course you do, because you don't understand to what we're objecting.  We're objecting to the claim that intelligence was involved without evidence either for an inscrutable designer (one not acting like us, but which can nonetheless be seen to act in ways that produce what we see), or evidence for the marks of design that we use to understand whether or not an object was designed by humans.

We'll consider any investigable cause that leads to observable effects.  We're not willing to "consider" a "cause" that cannot be shown to produce what we see, or which perhaps does design in an intelligible manner, yet doesn't produce the patterns seen in biological change.  It's the evidence that fails, and you completely fail to deal with our actual objections.

--In fact, I think it displays an open-mindedness that seems sorely lacking on the part of their purely Darwinian counterparts—including,--

If they and you were open-minded, you'd actually deal with scientific issues, not monotonously droning on about the "open-mindedness" of those who fail to utilize the methods of either modern science or modern philosophy.

--if I may say so, Mr. Glen A. Davidson.--

You cannot legitimately say so.  I've made the point that I am completely willing to consider anything that fits the accepted methods of forensics and of science (which cannot honestly exclude the "supernatural" except by defining the "supernatural" as something totally unreachable with legitimate epistemologies).  We're (at least not those of us steeped in philosophy) not denying that a superior intelligence could never operate in the biosphere, only that there have to be some observed match between the purported cause and the "effects" that we see in organisms.

Open-mindedness entails giving up meaningless claims when they have proven to be meaningless.  That is why I am open-minded, and your IDists are not---they cling to a "cause" for which they claim no causal markers, for effects which are predicted by non-teleological evolutionary theory.  Hanging onto a non-falsifiable "hypothesis" is not open-minded at all.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com2kxyc7


--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1979
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2007,06:46   

In amongst Glen's short and pithy replies, we have this:
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1275
Quote
Dear Ben,

I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names. I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension. My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution. It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction. It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe. I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.

Keep up the good work.

Josh

Savour, just savour.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2007,18:19   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 16 2007,06:46)
In amongst Glen's short and pithy replies, we have this:
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1275
Quote
Dear Ben,

I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names. I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension. My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution. It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction. It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe. I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.

Keep up the good work.

Josh

Savour, just savour.

Bob

If I had to guess, I'd say that's a not-so-deep cover troll.  There are just too many telling indicators--the mention of the engineering degree, the arrogance, the overt ID-is-about-God comment, the complete nonsensical reasoning. . .etc.  Yep, that's got to be a troll.  I hope.  ???

--------------
Evolander in training

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2007,11:17   

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 16 2007,18:19)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 16 2007,06:46)
In amongst Glen's short and pithy replies, we have this:
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1275
 
Quote
Dear Ben,

I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names. I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension. My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution. It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction. It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe. I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.

Keep up the good work.

Josh

Savour, just savour.

Bob

If I had to guess, I'd say that's a not-so-deep cover troll.  There are just too many telling indicators--the mention of the engineering degree, the arrogance, the overt ID-is-about-God comment, the complete nonsensical reasoning. . .etc.  Yep, that's got to be a troll.  I hope.  ???

I wouldn't be so sure....

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,14:51   

Ruloff, of "Expelled", came to Ben's blog with the same tired and slimy list of the "persecuted".  He can't come up with a single new thing to say, which I suppose is why he's dumb enough to make the movie.  Anyway, I made a response which is now pending:

Quote
--Do you think this is some kind of fanciful conspiracy theory? Google the names of Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Dean Kenyon and Bill Dembski and see what you find. These distinguished scientists have suffered severe consequences for questioning Darwinian theory and there are hundreds, if not thousands, more. --

Naw, it isn't even a competent conspiracy theory.

I'm waiting for Ruloff and Stein to put out the film about how Holocaust deniers are suppressed and persecuted, along with JAD, homeopathy, geocentrists, and believers in UFO abductions.  Do you suppose that it is wrong for academia ever to prefer a well-substantiated position over one that is seriously lacking in substance, Ruloff?  How is keeping pseudoscientists from teaching religiously-based nonsense any worse than the fact that I don't get to be the preacher of a church?

Is MOND suppressed just because string theory has a much stronger position in academia?  Is Wicca persecuted by academia because the latter explains the motions of the heavens through physics instead of the wills of the gods?  Is religious persecution behind modern critiques of medieval metaphysics?  And is it even suppression at all in the general sense to tell a guy to quit pretending that Baylor has an "ID informatics lab" when it doesn't?

Of course the only real complaint these whiners have is that science and the rest of academia are doing what they're supposed to do, eliminating "hypotheses" that don't work, while teaching and using the ones that do work.  ID has been answered (despite its not having anything in its favor from the beginning), something that Ben Stein, Kevin Miller, and Ruloff don't discuss, and no reasonable responses have been forthcoming from these guys.  

ID has been considered by academics much better than many genuine scientific hypotheses have been, for the obvious reason, that ID has political clout.  Indeed, ID has to some extent distorted science already, by taking attention away from concepts that follow the scientific method, and diverting time and resources with cheesy arguments and attempts to change science into something that accommodates unevidenced magic.  Thus ID has managed to suppress science, while ID has open to it all of the venues that it belongs in, including the internet and the churches.

The complaint, in other words, is that science comes to the conclusions expected of it, eventually discarding whatever does not comport with scientific practices and evidence.  Their problem is that science works, and it passes judgment upon pseudosciences like ID.

Indeed, one should not forget that "the father of Intelligent Design" denied that HIV causes AIDS, no matter how abundantly the evidence indicates otherwise.  And of course HIV denial is frowned upon in the universities, even though HIV denial doesn't even exist as a Wedge for religion.  How much more ought we to oppose ID in the centers of learning than even HIV denial, considering that ID not only is completely fallacious as science, but exists expressly in order to oppose the highly successful methods of science?  

I do thank Ruloff for so completely exposing the religious nature of ID, however.  To be sure, it was evident to anyone who can think, but then Phillip Johnson explicitly stated it in the Wedge document.  Yet this whole complaint that we're "suppressing" a "science" because it is in fact religious, is helpful to those of us who wish to maintain the First Amendment and freedom--at least it is in the legal realm.

Believe me, a Holocaust denier would be much less welcome to Baylor than an IDist is.  And Ruloff doesn't raise a single objection to shunting out those egregious malingerers.  Why should he?  We have evidence that the Holocaust happened, and the deniers have no evidence that it did not.  Likewise, we have evidence that evolution happened according to mostly known non-teleological processes, and IDists have no evidence for the teleological processes that they claim were involved (which they claim even though they deny that we should look for evidence for teleology in organisms).  But supposedly we're suppressing the one, while Ruloff et al. don't care that we're "suppressing" the other one, and indeed, should complain if we didn't do so.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Henry J



Posts: 4080
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,23:06   

In other words, they're being attacked by the educated segment of society!

Henry

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,08:39   

DT, YEC:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-138087

Quote
55

DaveScot

09/21/2007

5:22 am
jerry

I certainly understand where you’re coming from. Recall I’m the one who wrote a post here nearly two years ago saying I was going to delete anything that attempted to dispute common ancestry and an old earth.

That said, I can’t say I’m convinced that the YEC contingent is wrong. We appear to live in a universe that is governed by immutable physical laws and everything is understandable by those laws. Certainly if we apply these laws backward in time we see an old universe and common descent. Appearances however can be deceptive. There’s nothing that proves the universe, the laws that govern it, and its apparent history weren’t created any time from a moment ago to billions of years ago. Consider that time and space now appear to be digital (pixelated). There is a Planck length and a Planck time. This is strikingly like how computer simulations (artificial realities) are constructed. A master clock ticks and at each clock tick a set of rules are applied and the model is updated from one state to the next. The programmer (or hardware designer) chooses the clock rate and rules that apply. He may change both the rules and the clock rate at his whim. He can also start the simulation running with any arbitrary set of initial conditions. He can also stop and start the model at any time. If we as conscious human beings are constructs inside such a model how would we be able to know if what we observe is real or the machinations of some entity outside the model? All we can do is look for inconsistencies (violations) of the rules that govern the model. So far I don’t think we’ve categorically observed any inconsistencies but since the apparent history of the model, viewed from inside the model, is manipulable by an outside agency we really have no way of knowing if the clock was stopped and the rules were changed and the state of the system changed to make the new rules appear to be the rules that were there all along.

ID is basically a tentative finding of an inconsistency. If RM+NS is the true source of organic evolution it is so statistically unlikely to have generated the patterns that we see that it warrants a conclusion that there’s an entity involved who either stacked the deck (set up the initial conditions and laws to produce a certain outcome), which is the deist position of esteemed minds like Einstein, or there’s an entity that intervened over the course of time to steer the course of events towards a desired outcome. I prefer the deist position - the deck was stacked one time and the immutable rules take over from there in a clockwork universe not because it must be that way but because it makes the universe rational and predictable.


--------------
"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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,08:50   

Quote
That said, I can’t say I’m convinced that the YEC contingent is wrong.


Oops the little yellow ID clown car with the red wheels just reversed into the Big Tent back door ....again. All the YEC clowns clap and jump in the air.HONK

The audience waits for the next act.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,09:24   

Shock, horror, Demski comes out against Common Descent. Davetard who previously wrote, the retracted:

Quote
I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn't get the issue framed around science it's going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I'd ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don't have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I'm going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It's simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor. What we are fighting is the idea that the modification was unguided. ID can fight that without ever leaving the battleground of plain scientific conclusions. If we try to argue against anything else we're are (sic) going to lose. Plain and simple. No buts about it. There's only one gaping vulnerability in the commonly accepted evolutionary narrative we can exploit successfully and that's the bit about it being unplanned.



now agrees with him.

GOOD DOGGIE DAVE!
*scratches DT's ears*
DOES DAVEY WANT A CHEESY POOF? BEG...BEG... GOOD BOY!

--------------
"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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,09:32   

Aw, worng thread.

Sternberger Story, Fix puh-lease?

--------------
"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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,10:32   

What a surprise, the stupid have to defame and lie where they can't hope to know anything (archiving again):

Quote
--In reply to Glen’s claim: “The “father of Intelligent Design” and HIV denier to whom I was referring is Phillip Johnson. Is it at all surprising that Johnson has advocated more than one pseudoscience, not just ID?”

It is hard for me to understand how educated persons could be so misinformed and resort to character assassination such as this. Se the above post.--

It's bizarre that people like Jbagail condemn themselves in just about every post, by dishonestly projecting their own faults onto others.  Johnson's past opposition is well-known by those informed enough to comment on these matters, which obviously Jbagail is not.  Here's one example, for the woefully ignorant defamatory pro-ID anti-thinkers:

--Given the 10 years of total lack of progress on AIDS, the billions of dollars that have been wasted, the human heart-ache that this issue has caused so many Americans, it seems only sensible that we should re-examine the question of what really causes AIDS. At issue here are not only the lives of those diagnosed with AIDS who are being treated improperly, but also of those who are tormented by the fear of AIDS-for themselves and their children. We can't allow the scientific bureaucrats at the CDC and NIH to prevent this reappraisal from happening. *--

This was written by:  "By Kary B. Mullis, Phillip E. Johnson & Charles A. Thomas Jr."  The whole piece may be found here:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/kmsdtrib.htm

I should mention that not only do IDists threaten lives by condemning the primary organizing principle in biology, evolution by investigable means, but the HIV denial in which Johnson engaged even more directly threatened the lives of people, especially in Africa.

Fortunately, science has "suppressed" such nonsense here thus far, or in other words, it has discharged its duty to abandon useless ideas whenever and wherever they have proven to be useless.  Jbagail chooses to be dishonest about this, as well as most other related matters.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,12:31   

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12965.html

--------------
"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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,06:26   

The NY Times has a run at the controversy (how dishonest were the makers of "Expelled" when they approached scientists about filming interviews?). PZ gets his name in the paper; Ben Stein gets more free publicity for his wacko beliefs.

--------------
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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,09:03   

http://www.nytimes.com/2007....=slogin


HT: Pharyngula.

--------------
"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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,09:06   

From above..

Quote
Mr. Stein, a prolific author who has acted in movies like “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and appeared on television programs including “Win Ben Stein’s Money” on Comedy Central, said in a telephone interview that he accepted the producers’ invitation to participate in the film not because he disavows the theory of evolution — he said there was a “very high likelihood” that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth.

He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.”




HITLER! Woo Hoo!

(I was hoping for "why are their still monkeys")

--------------
"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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,09:36   

I added myself to the "Expelled" mailing list a while ago.  This hit my inbox last night (I'm too lazy to rebuild the links):

Quote
Hey there,

Dairek here. I'm the director of Student Outreach for Motive Entertainment (the promotions company working with Expelled).

Wanted to let you know of a HUGE event coming up. It's called "The God Delusion" debate. Richard Dawkins will be debating John Lennox. It's probably the biggest debate on this subject in years. It's at the University of Alabama Birmingham NEXT WED, Oct 3. We're going to hold an Expelled rally before the event happens.

SO, if you happen to live around Birmingham, then please go be a part of the Expelled rally. If you're not in the Birmingham area, then perhaps you'd consider writing an op-ed in your local paper about the debate and/or issue. Dawkins is featured quite heavily in Expelled and has become one of the leading "faces" of Atheism.

Make sure you stay tuned in for the latest updates, and add this email address to your “safe” inbox so we don’t get tossed into the junk e-mail pile.

AND don't forget to help us spread the word . . . Here’s a couple different ways to tell your friends: CLICK HERE and enter your friends’ e-mail addresses. They will be sent an introductory email to the film. CLICK HERE to send your friends an e-card about the film


--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4080
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:04   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 27 2007,09:06)
From above..

Quote
[...] — he said there was a “very high likelihood” that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth.
[...]

Well, a complete explanation of life of Earth would have to also include geology, astronomy physics, astrophysics, cosmology, climatology, etc., so in that sense evolution alone doesn't explain everything about life. Though that might not be what he meant?

Henry

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:10   

They finally have a new blog up at Ben's site, about as pathetic as the first one.  Well, I'm going to continue to archive, for I don't know what they're going to do with the blog in the end:

 
Quote
--Actually, the authentic victims in this story are those scientists who have been “expelled” for the offense of merely acknowledging that intelligent design exists within nature.--

Does it ever occur to you that you need to back up your claims?  Or are you just too IDist to care about truth, and evidence?  

Yes, we've heard that extremely tiresome and extremely well-answered claim extremely many times before now.  The mere fact that you've never come up with the slightest bit of solid evidence for it indicates that you're not only uninterested in science, but also that you're uninterested in telling the truth.

You want to know what I think about the complaints over the interviews?  I think they're legit, but not very important.  What?  Someone's making  a film about religion and science, and it ended up having a viewpoint, particularly one in favor of theocracy?  What a shock!  The name change is almost to be expected with films, and <i>Crossroads</i> should have been considered to be a working title by the participants.

Greater honesty from theists might be expected, if these weren't intellectually dishonest proponents of ID.  But the ellipses in their answers, in their "science," and in their dealings with others should be expected when they're opposed to the modern science that was worked out mainly within Christian societies (hardly only by Christians, or even theists, however).

Fine, I've taken care of that, from my perspective.

Now back to the gross dishonesty of the film's producers and writers.  Here's Ruloff's defamation of what is, as far as anybody knows, an honest man and scientist whose work Ruloff couldn't hope to understand, Francis Collins:

--Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (Simon & Schuster, 2006), explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line,” Mr. Ruloff said.

That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview.--

http://www.nytimes.com/2007....=slogin


And this is supposed to be an honest film?  Not a chance.  Francis Collins, who is attacked by the likes of PZ Myers and other "new atheists" who are intent on faulting religion and not just pseudoscience, does his work of gene sequencing well within the evolutionary paradigm (how could anybody do otherwise and be intellectually honest?), writes books on how he finds faith and science compatible, and sticks up solidly in favor of modern evolutionary theory, and all we get from Ruloff is this slander of the good man.  

By the way, Francis Collins does speak out in favor of cosmological ID and for a mind behind human morality, neither of which is exactly welcome in the scientific community--and for good reason, I might add.  He apparently is willing to buck the "Establishment" in some areas (areas where his competency does not lie, I might add), yet Ruloff acts as if his agreement with modern evolutionary theory is just some slimy suck-up to the powers that be.  These IDists have no shame, much like Joe McCarthy who knew the "communists" without taking the trouble to bring forward any evidence, or even intelligent argumentation.

Of course, Ruloff probably knows about as much about the history of the acceptance of science among religious folk in the Catholic and mainline Protestant traditions as he knows about science itself.  Tell me, Ruloff, why Father Coyne writes in favor of science and against pseudoscience?  Why do Catholic biology departments all across the country oppose "Intelligent Design," when clearly they rely on their Church to shield them from the faux persecution trumped up in this film?  

Indeed, why do many biologists in fundamentalist schools chafe under the restrictions of their religious leaders?  Wouldn't they simply accept ID without concern, if there was anything to it?  I know about at least one of these, because I went to a religious college (Walla Walla University, was Walla Walla College when I attended) for my undergraduate degree.  A number of your better scientists there were frankly evolutionist, from biologists to physicists, for all of the reasons that we've laid out at this blog and elsewhere.

Indeed, if Ruloff, Miller, and Ben Stein were able to show any kind of illegitimate suppression of their unevidenced pseudoscience, they'd be answering the questions I asked in the other thread, namely, why do the taxonomy and phylogeny of prokaryotes and of eukaryotes differ considerably and according to what would be expected from the known "naturalistic" evolutionary mechanisms, if indeed they were "designed"?  And why were pterosaur, bird, and bat wings were all derived from legs, and not from first principles or from extant (in the case of birds and bats) wings?  To say that it makes design sense to make wings out of legs is merely ridiculous.

None of you can answer those questions.  None of you has the slightest evidence FOR design at all.  Yet you demand that we treat ID as science, thus revealing your autocratic tendencies and desires to force unscientific beliefs into the science of Newton, Galileo, and Einstein.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


One more:

Quote
As it happens, Ben Stein doesn't seem particularly impressed by the ID nonsense either.  Not that it really should matter, given that he neither has expertise in science, nor has sense enough to recognize the importance of keeping pseudoscience from being forced into the university science departments.  Nevertheless, this is what NY Times reports of Stein's response:

--...said in a telephone interview that he [Ben] accepted the producers’ invitation to participate in the film not because he disavows the theory of evolution — he said there was a “very high likelihood” that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth.

He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called “From Darwin to Hitler.--

http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/122721.html

Now this is a bizarre notion, though one pushed by IDists often enough.

Ben needs to study the history of Germany versus that of England and the United States.  Both of the latter have had and continue to have their faults, but they were the Enlightenment countries (the US in particular was founded on Enlightenment principles), and thus were not fertile ground for the nonsense of the Nazis (it is believed that occult beliefs played a large role in fostering Nazi anti-Semitism, for instance).  Germany was open to such ideas, for a number of reasons, naturally (WWI, depression, etc.), but especially because the Enlightenment hadn't really taken hold in Germany.

From Germany came Hegel, Marx, and Heidegger (actually, Kant, too, but Kant's pro-enlightenment notions had been quickly turned into Romantic thought by people like Hegel and Heidegger).  Of course great scientists came from Germany as well, but the overall attitude of Germany was Romantic, and favored "spirit" over theories about hard evidence.

Darwin, by contrast, was in the tradition of Hume, Newton, and a tradition that in both the judiciary and in science favored evidence over "feelings" and vague notions like ID or, indeed, the German Haeckel's magical notions.  Among the intellectuals of the Anglo world, Darwinism was taken up almost as a matter of course (most religious people in power did not oppose it), and despite a fair amount of Victorian notions in Darwin's writings, including racist ideas, evolutionary theory was part of far saner societies than what appeared in Germany and in Italy.

Evolutionary theory needed to move on from Darwin, in part because he included Victorian prejudices, and it most certainly did (one reason we don't like yahoos like Ruloff calling today's evolution "Darwinism"), for it was evidence-based science and thus became well-integrated with other science, like Mendelism.  Meanwhile, the non-Enlightenment societies of Germany and the USSR largely rejected the "materialistic" ideas of Mendel and of Darwin.  Did this itself make them the totalitarian nightmares that they were?  No, of course not, however, bad ideas in science frequently are associated with bad ideas in government, and Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR were no exceptions.

In spite of all their faults, the UK and the US remained beacons of Englightenment, as the rejectors of the Enlightenment brought us war and genocides.  

Stein really ought to know about all of this much better than he does, for he ought to know a little about Jews and the improvement of their lot as the Enlightenment took hold.  Medieval theocracies were cruel to Jews, and actually, to many many Christians as well.  The Enlightenment brought relief to most everybody, other than that we had to fight and oppose the anti-Enlightenment societies of Germany and the USSR.

So now what does Ben do?  He attacks the Enlightenment itself through this movie, claiming that those who have no evidence and only desires to impose their will onto science, have been persecuted.  You want Hitler, or at least theocratic dominance over what should be free science?  Then keep this up, Ben.

The Enlightenment is what demanded evidence before one is determined to be guilty, and the Enlightenment is what demands that science remain based in evidence and not in the wishes of Romantics and of atavistic theocrats.  As ID's Wedge Document points out, ID is really only a way of getting rid of Enlightenment ideas (it doesn't call them that, but it is what they are), and hence the way to attack both our Constitution and the science that America needs to compete.

If you don't know science, Ben, at least try boning up some on history.  Attacking the Enlightenment is the way to Hitler, as well as to other less odious but still objectionable impositions upon humanity.  Force science to accept "standards" that reject the need for legitimate evidence, and not only have you destroyed the First Amendment, you have destroyed the Declaration of Indepence as well, and all that gave rise to freedom of thought and of science.

There you go.  You're free, of course, to oppose the Allies and their anti-fascist standards, but if you succeed in your gambit, you had better not count on having freedom for much longer.  

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,00:06   

Another half-wit with just enough learning to get everything wrong shows up at the "Expelled" blog:

Quote
It's nice of the philosophically ignorant "Post-secular PhD" to tell us all about science and philosophy.  Of course it really has almost nothing to do with actual philosophy, science, or the bases for our judicial system.  Indeed, with his disregard for the "intersubjective" soundness of science, we could hardly do anything in science, and we may as well forget about "proving" anyone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here's some of his "wisdom":

--[Science] almost always requires a deep commitment to a set of principles, laws, and practices in the absence of conclusive “proof” (i.e. faith);--

What a bizarre term for the well-honed understandings of mind worked out in philosophy and in science--faith.  Science, like the related forensics, exists in order to be able to decide matters on something other than faith, which was too much relied-upon in medieval times.

Anyone who's actually read what the more prolific pro-science posters have written, instead of just assuming something that isn't true based on his unwarranted faith like "PhD" did, would recognize that we do not claim that science is based upon "conclusive proof" (not completely true, since mathematical proofs are used, but these rely on "postulates" and "axioms" which cannot be proven).  We rely on the best evidence, and yes, we also rely on the best principles, laws, and practices which have been subjected to skepticism and scrutiny.  They are not "proved" as such, however they have been demonstrated, something that a scientist worth his salt would mention.

--and cannot operate without dogma.--

No, we cannot operate <b>with dogma.</b>  This is why I have no reason to believe the claims you make of being a scientist.  Everything is at least theoretically in doubt, although some principles and "laws" have been very well demonstrated in the areas where they can be tested.  If scientists often reveal their biases, it is completely wrong to say of science as a whole that it operates with dogma.  It uses whatever has proven to be sound after being subjected to tests and questioning, the only legitimate way in which to proceed.  Dogma would totally undermine science because it would destroy the necessary questions of our "intersubjective" agreements and evidentiary processes.

--Furthermore, how well a theory fits the data is often not the main reason for its acceptance or dismissal.--

How well the theory fits the data is indeed the main reason for its acceptance or dismissal, so long as "fit" is understood in scientific terms of causality (in classical science) and the principles that have been shown to work.

--Darwinian evolution took root despite a fundamental deficiency (the lack of any evidence for hereditary material).--

That wasn't a "fundamental deficiency," which you'd know if you were any kind of competent scientist.  First of all, there was indeed evidence for hereditary material, in that parents produced offspring much like themselves.  Darwin utilized the empirical processes of artificial selection as an analogy with natural selection.  The chemical, and what we now call the "genetic", bases for the known hereditary effects were not known, but that something was transmitted was indubitable.

--It took another century to discover the structure of DNA, but that didn’t stop scientists from holding to the theory.--

You totally shifted the issue at stake from what you first wrote to these non sequiturs.  You made the illegitimate claim that scientists accept theories not because of their fit with the data, but for other reasons.  Then you complain about the deficiencies of genetic knowledge (incompetently, I might add) in Darwin's day, as if that meant that "Darwinism" wasn't the best fit to the data.  That doesn't follow in the least.

The point of "Darwinism" (in that time the term was fairly appropriate, but I use scare quotes because we've moved so far beyond Darwin's original theory) was to fit the data as well as was possible at the time.  Which it did.  For your claim about "Darwinism" being accepted without it fitting the data best to have any kind of legitimacy, you'd have to show that there was another scientific theory which fit the data better.  And you seem even to be unaware of this necessity in science.

The fact is that "Darwinism" was a theory of change based upon obvious, yet poorly understood, processes of hereditary.  It fit the data because it explained life without resort to a teleology which cannot be shown in life the life we see, which has no apparent or demonstrable purpose.  "Darwinism" explains how organisms are adapted without any sort of rational planning in evidence (as we'd expect from "design"), and with "competing purposes" evident in organisms (hence no overall "purposes" beyond reproduction).  Evolutionary theory explains why Linnaeus and Aristotle felt compelled to treat organisms with homologies as if they were related--the reason being because they are!

In a way, "Darwinism" predicted that discrete hereditary information exists in organisms, for evolution by natural selection (plus other processes) couldn't occur (in life's context, that is) otherwise.  In that sense, and not in the sense of giving us any of the details, Mendel's findings were predicted by "Darwinism".  Instead of "PhD" being impressed that "Darwinism" would rely upon the kind of conservative yet "randomly" alterable molecule such as DNA turned out to be, he tries to claim that the theory's prescience was actually a liability.

Well, it wasn't, as anyone with a smattering of knowledge of the philosophy of science knows.  Many theories begin without having some of their core requirements fulfilled by observation, and later data fills these in.  Did Einstein's theory of relativity have the necessary evidence of light-bending by gravity when he proposed it?  Of course not, and the evidence that light is bent by gravity showed that his already explanatory theory was likely the proper one.  

Darwin actually did have a good deal more evidence in hand when he wrote <i>Origin of Species</i> than Einstein did.  Hence the acceptance of his theory did not need to wait on further observations (to tell the truth, Darwin's mechanism wasn't fully accepted until the 20th century, but it probably should have been, and was accepted in part by much of biology even earlier).  

DNA and its associated mechanisms (including repair) turned out to be exactly the kind of molecule needed for "Darwinian" evolution to work.  As such, it ought to be considered as vindication of the mechanisms of evolution elucidated by Darwin and others.  And thus, far from being a reason to fault those who were intelligent enough to recognize the importance of natural selection, it indicates that those who insisted on cause and effect processes in biology were correct, and that the people who relied on magic and "vitalism" were as wrong as all who prefer wish-fulfillment to the processes of science.  Or those who can't understand the proper relationship between evidence, science, and philosophy (philosophy must be based on evidence as well, ultimately, and not to dictate the equalities that some neo-scholastics assume).

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,21:40   

Can this guy actually think that he's clever?  Anyway, it's quite likely the same halfwit I tackled last night, trying to be "clever" where he can't be competent.

Quote
<blockquote>2nd. this is in response to Glen Davidson who will no doubt pounce on my primitive remarks. hey, call me reckless.</blockquote>

Nah, ignorant and incompetent will do.

--i do apologize to everyone else for this because it is way off topic but could prove to be entertaining to some so get your popcorn and that stale diet dr. pepper and read on.--

Yeah, that's right, it's way off topic, and you're too incapable of any insight to actually address anything I wrote.  Hence a long ad hominem attack, none of it honest or substantive.

--Seriously though, you are a fantastic spokesperson for Darwinian evolution…and unresolved rage my man,--

I deal with the emotionally committed who can't make an intellectual case on their own level, at the level of emotion.  Of course you wouldn't understand me, you know nothing about me and are intent only on trying to defame whatever you cannot comprehend.

--but what a wealth of knowledge! WOW!--

Yes, quite unlike yourself, I don't ramble on stupidly about what I don't know.

--I’d love to have an evolution party with you sometime. We could talk Darwin and you could unpack the mysteries of the universe to me and chop a few heads off in the process. woo hoo!--

Wow, clever.  Who'd think to imply that we who defend the Enlightenment are axe murderers.  Oh, except for the rest of the herd who has no capacity for making substantive comments.

--you seem to get around the blog sites too so i’m sure we could go over your “Davidson’s Top 5 Slams” and boast about all the idiots you exposed.--

You'd be on it.  No, not really, you're pretty weak as substanceless maligners go.  I'd put you in the top 50, though, if I cared to document biting gnats.

--do you have them taped on your wall or just saved on your hard drive?--

Actually, I rarely start any of these brawls.  You missed that, didn't you?  True, I hit the "Prof", because he's claiming expertise in an area where he is so clearly lacking.  But I don't do ad homs, I just have to respond often enough to people like you who hate not being able to provide the sorts of evidence that we do.

--i know you believe you’re fine and you’re only upset at the stupidity of that scientist who must be a liar and an idiot savant who happens to help cure lethal diseases but seriously, man. you act like he attacked your belief system or something…weird.--

Oh yes, we know the game.  The creo or IDist attacks scientists, implying that they are liars for maintaining actual standards.  Then when we realize that the snake oil is convincing enough people and we raise the alarm, you attack us for actually responding to a boatload of defamatory comments and attempts to impose theocracy upon the nation.  Tragically, such an obvious and dishonest ploy works on enough people.

--What do you do, cowboy? something noble i’m sure. something that helps and doesn’t hurt which is why you have to take all your aggression out on people you’ll never meet.--

Here's the dolt who can do nothing but attack me for responding to the anti-Enlightenment push, ascribing his own ill tendencies to me.  The fact is that I haven't used particularly strong language, rather less strong than many on both sides have used, you're merely trying to put down what you find impossible to answer.

--what are you so afraid of boss? why do you have to belittle?--

Because you harm people.  Can you get that?  I fear those who would use power to overcome free inquiry, freedom of religion, and the freedom of speech.  In fact just now you are effecting a de facto attempt to curtail my freedom of speech (legal, but immoral), by making a whole lot of dishonest claims in your ad hominem attack.  If you were concerned about honest dialog, you'd engage me on the substance.

--that’s not exactly the best way to educate or inspire, but i’m sure you know that. you do want to educate and inspire right? that’s why you’re standing for something right? its not like you’re learning all this just to justify your rightness and be better than others or anything.--

What education do you bring to this thread?  I don't employ the slimy tactics that you do, I keep it honest.  And no, I do not try to educate people such as yourself, whose hatred of competence combines with your unwarranted egoism to try to put down whatever you can't counter with legitimate arguments.

I do educate.  But I also know how to fight those who will use whatever tactics they can to undermine the integrity of science.

--i mean that would be lame and you don’t have to time for that you have a difference to make. --

Apparently you're really addressing yourself, whatever the pronouns you misuse.

--after all, anyone arrogant enough to tell another scientist whom he doesn’t know from Adam (or grandaddy rock - presludge you know ;)), who obviously has well thought out arguments and ideas, that he isn’t “worth his salt” as a scientist and doesn’t have “a smattering of knowledge” about science or philosophy must be on the brink of an enormous breakthrough in science or medicine.--

Yeah, I knew it was "Prof" again, not willing to show himself, and completely unable to back up his erroneous claims. Sorry, I studied philosophy a great deal, and I have no business treating some ignorant claptrap as if they were "well-thought out" arguments.  They're not, they're pop philosophy, and the call of every honest scientist to actually look at the evidence remains the only proper response to such post-modernist nihilism.

--no? maybe just the head professor at a well respected college changing his community? oh, well i’m sure it’s something worth while.--

And it is a distraction from the issues you're trying to avoid.  You haven't even given your name.  Plus, the issues are laid bare on their own, and it is all too apparent that you wish to avoid the actual issues by bringing in irrelevancies--again because you lack the ability to deal with substance.

--by the way, thanks for proving that idiot “Phd”’s argument for him since he couldn’t do it on his own. you really hit those points home about science having to believe before it knows and all that.--

I guess when you run out of ad hominem attacks you resort to complete fictionalization of the exchange.  Well, you could hardly answer me, now could you?  After all, science is about questioning and skepticism, while your formulation is exactly the opposite, the falsehood that it is about dogma.

--don’t get me wrong. i had to work through all your hate toward your mom, society and that girl that dumped you in highschool that you never got over but seriously,--

Wow, that's really a new one.  Gee pop psychology when your pop philosophy fails you.  Make up a few lies, throw them out, hope that your flung feces work where your wits obviously do not.

--thanks. you really helped use that reverse psychology to drive the point home. did you do that on purpose?--

Even better, the old "reverse psychology" ploy.  Nice to have someone from the '70s visit me with his "profound insights".

--genius. congratulations again for defeating your own argument and actually supporting the other guys.--

Since you're apparently not too bright, I'll have to figure that you came up with that standard little feint by recognizing your own tactics here.  The whole mom and girlfriend thing, while standard empty rhetoric for witless drones, are more than likely to be your own story.

--nice work man.--

You'd mean that, if you were capable of understanding the issues.

--From Carnegie to Lincoln, its pretty common knowledge that the more you have to cut down someone else the less confident you are in yourself and your decisions.--

Gee, I bet you think that hate isn't the opposite of love, only apathy is, also.  Where'd you learn your "psychology", out of Playboys?  

Anyway, if your pop psychology is correct, it clearly cuts against you far more than myself, since I discussed issues and called the "Prof" as I saw him.  It really goes against the intelligence you claim when you suggest that somehow calling out an arrogant guy blabbing on about things he doesn't understand actually exhibits some kind of "need" to cut people down.  From Lincoln to Carnegie, competent people have used the proper words to describe the pompous and substanceless, people like yourself.

--You don’t have to be a scientist to know that. but you don’t care what other people think do you? least off all a lesser mortal like me. all i do is make people millionaires.--

The plaint of the truly pathetic.  'Why yes, I know how to make money, so my opinion about Darwin and DNA is worth something.'  Try that out on the truly stupid.  Come to think of it, I'd guess you do that a lot.  Well then, learn enough to differentiate between the stupid and those who see immediately through your ad hominem attacks.

--i don’t really know a lot about science. speaking of, got a client so have to go. u get clients Dr Glen?--

Gee, I wish I were a suckup to the bourgeoisie like you.  I thought you had no substance, but by God, you have clients (so you say).  That changes everything.

--oh, and before you call me out for belittling you and therefore defeating my whole “confidence” vamp. remember this. i did it with style.--

Thanks for telling me, since I thought that was a collection of inane pop psychology and lame repetitions by the truly uncreative.  Hm, so that's style.  How could I have been so wrong as to think that T.S. Eliot had style, when it is really the babblings of a dull troll are what really counts as style?

--that’s the difference. take notes, cowboy. ciao.--

Write that down.  

Gee, you're turning into JAD (John A. Davison, who attacks the person instead of the substance because he has none of the latter--like you "Galactic") right before our eyes, with the same clicheed patter, the desperate attempts to claim "style" or some such thing for crude and derivative attacks, and of course, a total lack of substance coupled with the projection of your own failings onto others.

I bet you're going to try to claim some triumph for this sad little attempt at a slam, since you reveal yourself in your tired little attacks.  I, naturally, don't do anything like that, since responding to someone like you is too easy.  The only things I remember are the opportunities I have for discussing science and the philosophy of science in depth, while these feces-flingers are answered and quickly forgotten (unless they haunt the forums with their raging impotence).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,13:44   

This is actually some fairly interesting information, which someone named "Roger" found:

Quote
I ran across this information on the web (someone else did the work, I'm pointing out, but he only called himself "Roger"):

<blockquote>Domain Name: EXPELLEDTHEMOVIE.COM
  Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
  Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
  Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net
  Name Server: NS1.FILMPR.COM
  Name Server: NS2.FILMPR.COM
  Status: ok
  Updated Date: 15-jun-2007
  Creation Date: 01-mar-2007
  Expiration Date: 01-mar-2008</blockquote>

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois....vie.com

So there you are, according to this apparently reliable site, "expelledthemovie.com" was registered in March, 2007.  PZ Myers was told that the movie would be <i>Crossroads</i> in April, 2007, as he wrote:

<blockquote>Last April, I received this nice letter from Mark Mathis.</blockquote>

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....tar.php

So how can the following be considered to be anything but misleading, on top of the misleading comments given to the interviewees?

<blockquote>The release references “Crossroads,” as a “tentative” title, if that’s OK? So just to set the record straight, the film was titled EXPELLED only after we began to see the disturbing pattern and shocking information that the footage reveals! So, thanks for the title guys, we couldn’t have done it without you! And we’re still considering using “Crossroads” for something else! Watch out.</blockquote>

Yes, it's true that they may have used <i>Crossroads</i> as a working or tentative title sometime prior to March 1, 2007, but clearly they knew by the time of PZ Myers' interview that they'd probably (or at the very least, very <i>possibly</i> would) go with "Expelled".  Otherwise, they wouldn't have registered the domain "expelledthemovie.com" then.

Now I'm not one who thinks the shenanigans of the producers of "Expelled" are anything to get too worked up about.  The pattern of dishonesty continued in this particular blog, however, hardly speaks well for them--although it's pretty much a constant factor in the promotion of ID, along with the steady whine about "persecution" coupled with dead silence whenever we request the evidence FOR "intelligent design" (as opposed to their attacks on MET).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,16:43   

And another one, which will be broken up at "Expelled":  [oops, I meant to break it up, but didn't]

Quote
The rather odd and disjointed composition of this particular blog entry has been commented upon by many.

Being a screed, however, it's not unexpected.  You know, so many of the standard put-downs of the opposition have to get in, so much persecution has to be claimed, and any of the requirements that the claims made on the blog as well as the claims made by IDists must be properly evidenced and argued must be shunted aside with a sort of tabloid rhetoric.

OK, but that's said, and it will be ignored on the other side because they (or most on that side who comment on these forums do, anyway) already "know" that I have to be wrong simply because I am on the other side.  So I'll leave that bit as an introduction that will receive the predictable reactions from the various factions, and will move on to some specific problems with what was written, beyond what I've (or anyone, IIRC) discussed in the past.  To be sure, the problems "go without saying," that is, they go without saying for the people who have learned about science and philosophy.  However, these problems should be mentioned for the sake of those who have either missed out through no fault of their own (elitism is far too rampant in this society), and for those who have simply not cared to learn prior to pontificating on these matters (I particularly mean those responsible for this film).

<blockquote>Actually, the <i>authentic</i> victims in this story are those scientists who have been “expelled” for the offense of merely <i>acknowledging</i> that intelligent <i>design</i> exists within nature.</blockquote>

The way italics are used above is odd.  However, one is probably justified to surmise that "acknowledging" is written and emphasized both to rhetorically (and without evidence) suggest that it is only sensible to claim that life is designed (despite the fact that this claim has never been established in a judicially or scientifically sound manner), and to try to void the normal scientific requirement that such claims need to be <b>evidenced</b>, not merely assumed and (supposedly) <i>acknowledged</i>.

In other words, rhetoric is used to bluster through the fact that ID has no evidence in its favor.  Call the IDists "victims" who are supposedly suppressed for "acknowledging" assumptions for which they are required in scientific practice to actually make an evidence-based case, and thereby you have successfully ignored the fact that ID doesn't meet the requirements for science--and for that reason alone do have their apologetics rejected, or, where that's not possible, ridiculed as being pseudoscience.

<blockquote>Our worldwide investigation over the last eighteen months revealed the <i>real</i> “miscasting.” </blockquote>

Your "investigation" consists in those committed to an <i>a priori</i> belief in a designer-God looking for reasons to attack those who maintain the proper and expected standards of science.  It is not an investigation so much as it is the use of your own confirmation bias as a way to fault those who disagree with you, and to affirm what you prejudicially assumed from the beginning.  A proper investigation would be made up of people who know the rules of evidence, not a right-wing actor/writer like Stein, a right-wing radio host like Miller, and a businessman such as Ruloff.  These people lack the perspective of judges, scientists, and others steeped in the processes of sorting out good ideas from bad ideas, rather they simplistically believe that just because science rules against ID that such judgments are tantamount to "suppression".

<blockquote>Namely, to the role of <i>“the unemployed,” or “discredited,”</i> that the cadre of elite antitheists assigns any scientist or educator dissenting from the party line.</blockquote>

Oh yes, the tired old refrain of the believers in discredited beliefs.  You get that from every purveyor of crackpot "science", from faulty physics "theorists", to UFO believers, to the few geocentrists still kicking around, to Rousseau with his herbal cures which are supposedly being kept quiet by the conspiracy of the medical establishment (Weil is also in this category), and on to the people who just know that the CIA, KGB, President Johnson, or some other favorite enemy "really" killed Kennedy.

In fact it is true that there are many beliefs that are properly discredited.  Does Ruloff want "phlogiston theory" being taught to his children?  Should the claim that Prometheus made man out of earth and water be taught to Miller's kids?  We have the First Amendment to keep blatantly religious beliefs from being promoted by the government, which is why we don't teach Greek myths, nor the Judeo-Christian philosopher's God as being the "intelligent designer" of life, in science classes.

The only legitimate tactic to use when we call ID a discredited pseudoscience is for you to actually produce evidence in favor of your "hypothesis" (no, the "Explanatory Filter" does not provide evidence, it only attempts to impose a false dilemma into science standards).  The people behind the movie and this blog cannot or will not explain why the "designer" supposedly designed prokaryotes differently than eukaryotes (in prokaryotes, different genes in the same organism "speciate" at different times, is one example of what I'm talking about) and in line with known prokaryotic evolutionary mechanisms, nor do they tell me why vertebrate wings were "designed" from leg structures instead of from first principles, or from previously existing wings.  Therefore, the only legitimate conclusion to which I can come is that the <i>Expelled</i> folk cannot produce the evidence required for us to consider their "hypothesis" scientifically.  On the other side, we do have explanations for these phenomena, yet ID wants equal billing in academia when it has no explanation for these or other biological phenomena.

<blockquote>The party line being the “explanation” that random mutation is responsible for the extrusion of <i>every living thing on earth,</i> and in <i>record</i> time.</blockquote>

See now, I'd like to know who wrote "the extrusion of every living thing on earth."  It isn't even proper use of the word "extrusion".  Plastic objects, spaghetti, and Play-Do are what can be extruded.  Extrude a monkey, and you have nothing but a rather disgusting paste with bits of bone in it.

But that's just a complaint that the writing here is bad.  It's the science mistakes that really matter.

Anybody who knows enough to properly be commenting on evolutionary theory either way should recognize at once what a collosal mistake it is to say that the accepted explanation for life's diversity is "random mutation", as suggested by the above quote.  Random mutation doesn't even come up in Darwin's writings, though he did dealt with the variations that do arise without assuming a telos (goal or purpose) which is not in evidence.  Evolutionary theory is based on the obvious fact that "unselected" variations could never produce what we see in life, but rather, some sort of "selection" is absolutely crucial.

It is much easier for the author of this blog piece to attack the strawman that ID sets up (from Dembski's to the Discovery Institute's blog, this strawman is a commonplace of ID misrepresentation of biology) than it would be to discuss the evidence regarding evolutionary mechanisms.

Not content in making one rather egregious language mistake, and perhaps the greatest scientific error one could make about evolutionary theory, the author has to claim that living things were "extruded" in "record time."

I wonder how in the world 3-4 billion years of evolution could be mistaken to be "record time"?  The fact is that life took an amazingly long time even to get beyond single cells and (relatively) simple colonies of these cells.  The Cambrian "explosion" was fast by evolutionary standards, probably for reasons of genetic plasticity along with a dramatic rise in oxygen, but of course its results were fully in-line with what we'd expect from evolutionary mechanisms--evolutionary changes within the expected range of evolutionary constraints, and a whole lot of "primitive" (certainly primitive by comparison with many crown species) ancestors (or close relatives of the actual ancestors) of later organisms.

What is stunning is that IDists suppose that their designer took 3-4 billion years to come up with what we have today.  This is completely out of the range of anything we have ever seen a designer actually do.  Of course we have also never seen designers constrained by the evolutionary limitations that we see in life, nor any designers whose rationality couldn't be elucidated from their work.  IDists cannot point to any rational design or planning of organisms, which is why they try to change the subject.

Lord Kelvin tried to claim that evolution was impossible within the 20 million years or so that he allowed for the existence of the earth, when most biologists were nearly certain that it would take several hundred million years.  So there is nothing odd in the fact that life took so long to evolve.

It is this film that is trying to claim that their "designer" made life in a "record" amount of "time," indeed, in a time so much longer than the scale of all known design processes that it is impossible to conceive of the mechanisms involved in any such "design" (classical science requires so-called "mechanisms", another reason ID isn't science).  That no doubt is why this blog isn't even upholding the ID fiction that ID is not religious, because clearly their designer is God-like in both being inscrutable and in being omnipotent (I know of no IDist who doesn't claim that the "designer" also made the universe).  Isn't it a trifle odd that ID's "design" phase just happens to be within the range required for non-teleological evolution, and also that what we see in organisms is what would be expected of non-teleological evolution?

The following quote is from a different context than the foregoiong (if you want to see the context, just scroll to the beginning blog piece), and is aimed specifically at issues that I will not discuss.  There seems to be little doubt that it is also meant to be a comment about evolutionary ideas in general, which I will address:

<blockquote>Random mutation never ceases to <i>amaze</i>, though. One just can’t <i>predict</i> what will happen!</blockquote>

Again we have the improper claim that evolutionary theory is about nothing other than "random mutation".  What I want to discuss now, however, is the equally false claim that evolution can't "predict" what will happen.

That would be true if evolution were only about random mutation, of course (actually, physics would still yield some predictions, but they'd be biologically uninteresting, for there'd be no biology), or if it were caused by some design process and design goals unknown to us.  However, evolutionary theory is founded upon predictions which have been borne out by the evidence, as any theory must be.

Within known evolutionary constraints, the "nested hierarchy" found in taxonomy is indeed one of the founding predictions of evolutionary theory.  Aristotle and Linnaeus came up with taxonomies (Linnaeus' was far more complete) which grouped organisms in ways that looked a lot like genealogies do, and no one (other than creos and IDists claiming exceptions where their theologies are threatened) claims that genealogical patterns exist by "design".  Darwin (and earlier thinkers like Maupertuis who had similar ideas, but not the needed mass of evidence) made the rather obvious (by now) observation that the evidence that shows organisms to appear as if they were related should be understood as meaning that they are related.

That wasn't a "prediction" in the way that many outside of science consider the term to mean, however it counts as a prediction in science because such patterns are entailed by the theory and its context.

What amounts more to "prediction" in the vernacular sense is that evolutionary theory predicts the range of what transitional fossils must embody.  That's how we know that archaeopteryx is transitional (in point of fact, it is not the ancestor of today's birds, but it is thought most likely from morphological considerations to be about three cladistic branchings off from the actual ancestor).  ID cannot provide the criteria for deciding transitional fossils at all, for there are no known constraints on the supposed designer (unless we simply take MET's constraints as if they are the "designer's", clearly an ad hoc solution).  Hence there is something odd about an IDist like Behe accepting the fact that evolution occurred from the evidence, when the evidence for evolution can only be evidence for evolution if it is constrained by known evolutionary processes, and not when they are unconstrained by dint of some super-intelligent "designer" working for unknown purposes and via unknown capabilities.

The finding of Tiktaalik (a transitional between fish and amphibian) is one of the best examples of predicting both transitional form and timing, since the researchers who went to the expected "time strata" to find evidence about the evolutionary development of Tiktaalik's shoulder girdle and other tetrapod locomotive anatomy (a mere transitional was not what they were after, as some of these transitionals, such as Ichthyostega, were already known) found just the <i>type of</i> transitional for which they were looking--in the predicted range of strata.  I'd also point out that timing is only statistically predictable in evolution, for we do not know all of the contingencies involved.  However, the predicted ranges for transitional fossils is rather narrower than are the predicted times for most transitions (not that there aren't substantial constraints on most temporal <i>ranges</i>).

And of course, as I've mentioned a number of times, and already in this post, prokaryotes are predicted to evolve differently from how eukaryotes are predicted to evolve.  Prokaryote (I mention parenthetically that some object to the term "prokaryote", since it really only means "not-eukaryote" or "non-eukaryote".  However, it is often useful to be able to easily write "non-eukaryote" by writing "prokaryote") taxonomy is difficult, due to the great number of lateral transfers between closely related lines (and yes, like I mentioned, it's interesting that "genes speciate" separately in the same "species" of prokaryote) and lack of true sexual reproduction.  Vertebrates appear not to undergo much lateral gene transfer, so produce the wonderful phylogenetic trees so beloved of the teachers of evolution.

Indeed, the evolutionary patterns are significantly different between eukaryotes (actually, lateral gene transfers to insects from Wolbachia appear to be much more common than were expected in the past, yet sexual reproduction in insects seems to largely maintain the eukaryote patterns of evolution in these as well) and prokaryotes, agreeing with the predictions of MET (modern evolutionary theory).

Look, I could go on about evolutionary predictions, but I think that these are the very biggest predictions which have to work out predictively according to known mechanisms--and this is already a very long response to a few short and erroneous statements.  What I've mentioned already are crucial tests for whether or not MET works within our present ability to comprehend cause and effect, and the predictions are overwhelmingly borne out by the evidence (inevitably there are questions at the margins, as in any science, while the expected patterns are unquestionable).

ID, by contrast, tries to sneek into science by emphasizing the remaining questions, and not by coming up with any kind of prediction or evidence that design has happened over the course of evolution.  Design ought to be detectable, indeed, for we have tests for "engineered" organisms.  And actually, one important question for IDists is why it is that we can detect our own "designs" in organisms (sometimes this is done from specific knowledge about genetic engineering of organisms, but one could also detect substantial tampering with genomes of, say, anthrax by comparing what designers can do with what is possible without any engineering)from the background genomes, since according to IDists the background is also designed.  This may be very important in the future, if terrorist organizations make designer diseases.  It would be impossible for us to detect designer diseases if "wild-type" organisms had been designed, assuming that the word "design" has any actual meaning to it.

Well, it isn't surprising that IDists take pains to avoid making predictions (except to claim that ID predicts IC or some such thing, which it doesn't--clearly design can be either IC or not-IC, and without knowing the capabilities of the "designer" one could never know if it could make anything that is "IC"), since life is so unlike any designs that we have ever observed being produced.  

By contrast, one can predict what will happen in evolution, or more precisely, one can predict the range of possibilities within a given evolutionary scenario.  If what we find in biology did not fit within that range, I'm sure that the IDists would happily point this out to us.  Failing that, they try to make much of the fact that biology is an ongoing science which, unsurprisingly, does not have all of the answers, while they continue to predict nothing whatsoever that is actually entailed by general design principles as we know them, nor by appeal to a specific designer with known specific capabilities and purposes which may differ from presently known designers.  

What the gang at <i>Expelled</i> wants is for us to devalue the explanations and predictions which evolutionary theory makes possible, and for science to capitulate to an unscientific theological idea which refuses to make the kinds of entailed predictions that every legitimate scientific hypothesis must make.  They want us to state that ID is the every bit the equal of the predictive scientific theory that biology researchers use every day, when it is useless for research purposes.  Such heavy-handed tactics didn't ultimately work in Galileo's day, so why should anti-empirical dictates succeed now?

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2007,12:59   

Another monotonous drone insists that we accept science's guilt prior to presentation of any evidence:

Quote
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

October 6th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Glen Davidson, I wonder why you’re protesting so furiously, without firsthand knowledge of this movie’s content?

I wonder why you’re coming up with false claims about what I’m doing. I’m responding to a whole lot of unfounded attacks, essentially ad hominem fallacies, upon science and its practitioners, and have never pretended to be addressing the movie.

It seems odd to me that you’ve elected yourself the only “truly enlightened” intellectual here.

It seems to me that you have nothing worthwhile to bring against what I’ve written, hence you are out to malign someone who has done what you cannot, actually discuss the issues raised at this blog in an intellectual manner.

Do you realize that you’ve already posted 6 times in this thread alone — and the movie doesn’t come out for another 4 months?

Do you realize that you haven’t actually addressed any of the substance of what I’ve written? Not surprising, because pro-ID folk have a knack for ignoring the need for evidence, substantive reasoning, etc.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, the promo material for this movie suggests that it’s about “closed minds”

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, its a rather simple fact that this particular blog entry is attacking and misrepresenting evolutionary ideas themselves, as well as bringing up a whole lot of canards about “persecution” without even a feint toward supplying any evidence that this is so.

— not so much a debate about the details of Creation — but a true disclosure of those too BIGOTED to consider any other possibilities, or deeper discussion.

Apparently your beef with me is that I don’t accept their completely unsupported assertions. You also seem to fail to recognize what I’ve in the main discussed, which was the lack of honesty in this blog, as well as how very wrong Ben Stein is to attack the Enlightenment. Especially since the Enlightenment-influenced societies were the ones who fought off Hitler and the rest of the largely anti-Enlightenment Nazis. I also bothered with the abysmal nonsense from “Prof” and the ad hominems of “Galactic” (supposing they are not the same person).

Is that the type of scientific discovery we should embrace?

Is your unquestioned belief in the veracity of these people anything I should embrace?

Should details that conflict with our belief system be hidden?

The details are hidden, should they in fact exist. I wouldn’t have thought that this vital fact would be missed by you, but apparently it was. Ruloff can present actual evidence for his claims, and I will be happy to consider it. These people haven’t done so, but apparently think we’re supposed to take it all on faith.

— even if empirical scientific data backs up someone’s claims?

Bring in the empirical data, why don’t you? That’s our complaint, that no one from your side ever does, least of all this blog.

Should those scientists be ridiculed or shunned for expanding our horizons to other possibilities?

They’ve been ridiculed for bypassing the processes that vet science and make it into a worthwhile endeavor. And we’re still waiting for any evidence in favor of ID, as I’ve mentioned.

Should the status quo be maintained — just to keep the money (grants,etc.) flowing into universities?

Should you drone on and on about a “conspiracy” for which you lack even a scintilla of evidence?

In case you haven’t come to grips with this reality, your knowledge of Darwinism is also a “belief system” — with preconceived biases,

Another mind-numbing repetitive talking point from someone who seems not even to recognize the need to back up his charges. The fact that IDists chant this illegitimate claim is no reason why we should adopt it.

that make the pieces fit (for you).

Gee, yes, that’s what theories are about, fitting the evidence together. I’d like to see ID do that, or for you whiners to come up with evidence for your conspiracy theory.

Your adamant opposition to Believers isn’t proving anything — in fact, you highlight quite well what this movie is about (e.g. you’re a bully).

The real bully just calls the guy who demans evidence a “bully”. Learn something about science, why don’t you, and quit insisting that you have the right to force your ideas into science without providing any kind of evidence in favor of it.

If someone knows deep in their heart that God exists, your pompous arguments are not going to make a difference.

Your bullying and name-calling isn’t going to do anything to persuade anyone with any intellectual honesty. Besides, if you were intellectually honest you wouldn’t imply that I’ve been arguing against God at all. It’s amazing just how lacking in honesty most (at least most who comment) on your side is.

Please wait for the movie.

Right, I’m supposed to wait for the movie, while Stein and the producers malign those on the science side without presenting any sort of evidence.

There’s plenty of time for mankind to solve this puzzle. For now, maybe we should just be talking about whether people are being open to honest, complete discussions?

Considering your lack of honesty, yes, I think that I’ve been aiming at the main issue, the lack of honesty on the part of ID and its proponents.

…or is “hatred” the new code word for “scientific knowledge”?

I guess that IDists like you think that hatred is a substitute for the scientific process and rational discussion.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


Another, to be split up:

Quote
<blockquote>Mr. Davidson—I find your comments disappointing.</blockquote>

I found your comments to be shrill, accusatory, and without substance.

<blockquote>I was hoping to have someone engage ideas with me in a thoughtful manner. I was trying to look at the way scientific knowledge is gained, the process by which it happens, not at any specific issue—</blockquote>

Then I think that you should have written your post in a thoughtful manner, and not with a lot of unwarranted accusations.

<blockquote>I’m sorry you didn’t quite catch that point and instead primarily went on a rant against pro-ID people (the pagans storming the gates)</blockquote>

It's a shame that you don't deal honestly with what I wrote, but instead have to set up a strawman instead.  I barely wrote about ID people, I addressed your points at post #54.

<blockquote>and wrote a passionate defense of evolution (as if it needed another one).</blockquote>

I did not write a passionate defense of evolution, I wrote about science and how evolutionary theory fits in with the normal acceptance procedures in science.  Rather than engaging with such substantive considerations, you simply accuse.

<blockquote>ID is just the current hot example by which to reflect on science as a field and epistemology. I never said I was pro-ID,</blockquote>

And I never said that you were pro-ID, so quit implying that I did.  Only in your imagination did I "rant" against ID, and it appears that you either could not or would not read what I wrote competently.

<blockquote>and in fact, I am not in the ID camp at all.</blockquote>

Non sequitur.  

<blockquote>My intention was not to challenge evolution or ID but to pose a wider challenge of a general depiction of science as evidenced by the language of the anti-ID posters.</blockquote>

Yes, and that is what I addressed, the lack of any meaningful knowledge about science and of the philosophy of science in your first post.

<blockquote>As someone who has spent my adult life as a scientist, I can hardly be seen as someone out to destroy it</blockquote>

Why not?  Behe's out to destroy it, in essence if not in intention.

<blockquote>—I’m sorry you only have 2 categories in your world: enemy and proselyte.</blockquote>

I'm sorry that you have only two ways of dealing with someone who engaged your claims with knowledge and intelligence, with accusation and with wholly untrue claims.

<blockquote>I can think of another arena where anyone who questions is the enemy and only those who uncritically accept the view of the faithful are accepted.</blockquote>

Apparently you're speaking of your world.  You haven't clue about myself, any more than you know how to discuss basic issues of science.

<blockquote>My previous post contained several controversial claims about how science operates, but they are not mine – they’re Kuhn’s.</blockquote>

Oh, I see, I'm supposed to believe you because you have adopted dogma from an authority.  No way I'm playing that game.

<blockquote>You are obviously familiar with his work, and have found it unconvincing.</blockquote>

Of course I find it unconvincing.  He's in an analytical tradition that I have never thought much of, nor do I find Popper to be very impressive.

<blockquote>If you have compelling rebuttals of Kuhn’s claims, please present them and stipulate whether they are your ideas or someone else’s so that I may read the original criticism.</blockquote>

The fact of the matter is that Kuhn wants us to suppose that "paradigms" can be, and are, irreducibly different from each other.  He writes:

<blockquote>I do, in short, really believe some--though by no means all--of the nonsense attributed to me.  The heavens of the Greeks were irreducibly different from ours.  The nature of the idfference is the same as that Taylor so brilliantly describes between the social practices of different cultures...  ...In neither can it be bridged by description in abrute data, behavioral category.

Thomas Kuhn.  <b>The Road Since Structure</b>.  Eds. James Conant & John Haugeland.  Chicago and London:  The University of Chicago Press, 2000.  p. 220</blockquote>

If one considers Aristarchus's heliocentric model, the Pythagorean cosmic model, and the sense that some ancients had that the sun is a burning fire (not true, but probably the best guess at the time), I fail to see the irreducible differences.  Copernicus appealed to Aristarchus as a predecessor, which almost certainly carried part of the weight of his argument.

Kuhn overemphasizes the breaks in science, too much ignoring the large amount of continuity in it.  Evolution builds upon artificial selection, genealogical knowledge, and especially upon the taxonomy of Linnaeus and later taxonomists.  General relativity and quantum mechanics both build upon Newtonian physics, and end up subsuming its claims into their own.

These are mostly my own arguments, though I they echo, or are echoed by, a physics teacher that I had who taught Kuhn and other philosophers of science.  He asked if I agreed with Kuhn, I said "No," and gave my reasons (continuity of methods, especially), and he concurred.  Others in the class were surprised, as they considered Kuhn to be the unquestioned voice of science philosophy as you seem to do.

<blockquote>Your comments are disturbing because they imply that the Philosophy of Science (as a field) trashed Kuhn’s ideas long ago, ran back and picked up the torch of the Enlightenment, and then proceeded as if 200+ years of thought never occurred.</blockquote>

No, you misunderstand that as much as anything.  Kuhn was only partly accepted by scientists.  Many scientists and philosophers disagreed with Kuhn, as one may see in the Kuhn quote above (he's there responding to claims that his ideas are nonsense).  He seems to have declined in popularity recently as well, at least in science and in philosophy.

<blockquote>If you’ve studied philosophy a “great deal,” then you should be warier about claiming mass agreement on such issues as Kuhn’s idiocy.</blockquote>

If you claim to be able to read and write well enough to be a scientist, you should not ascribe to me such dishonesties as the statement above.  I didn't write anything like that, and I suspect that even you know it.

<blockquote>My good friend and philosophy professor assures me there is no such universal agreement on that question.</blockquote>

Since that wasn't the question, so what?  Try to stay on topic, and actually respond to what I write instead of what you dream that I wrote.

What is more, I was not aware that the "dogma" to which you referred was Kuhn's terminology.  "Dogma" has an entirely different connotation in Kuhn's writing than it does in these discussions, and you terribly confuse the issues when you pretend that "dogma" means the same in this context as in Kuhn's writings, regardless of how much I disagree with Kuhn (he'd never confuse the terminology here like you did).

<blockquote>And I don’t think she would invite me to talk to her philosophy class about Kuhn’s critique of science if this were the case.</blockquote>

And I think that is totally irrelevant to the issues, which you continue not to discuss.

<blockquote>For the sake of this discussion and its ramifications for society as a whole, take off your combat helmet and try communicating with me instead if you have significant and thoughtful (and original) criticisms to contribute to this important discussion.</blockquote>

Sorry, your projection is the one to whom you are addressing those remarks.  I did not come in accusing people of exhibiting "breathtaking ignorance" like you did.  What you wanted to do was to trash a whole lot of people whom you don't know without any evidence, while proclaiming your superiority.

<blockquote>You will get no ad hominem attacks from me.</blockquote>

You began with ad hominem attacks.

<blockquote>I’m offering the chance to have a REAL discussion on this topic with a scientist who knows a little philosophy and cares a great deal about these issues.</blockquote>

It's certainly not easy to believe you after you've implied that I suggested that you're an IDist, when I never did any such thing, and that I "ranted" against IDists, when I barely even discussed them in my post (#54).  Then the implication that I had said that the field of science philosophy at large had concluded that Kuhn awas an idiot is another unwarranted ad hominem attack by implication.  I require far more honest responses than the one you've made here before I begin to treat them as anything but hostile polemicists.

<blockquote>I’m not interested in “he’s an idiot and I’m right b/c…” posts that merely attack the opposing side w/o engaging questions.</blockquote>

You're the one who didn't engage my arguments.  I responded to your claims, so I don't appreciate the false implication that I did otherwise.  Can you ever leave off the unfair and untrue attacks?

<blockquote>I (following Kuhn) never claimed that science does not use scientific methods.</blockquote>

I never said that you claimed that.  I pointed to the proper methods used in the adoption of Darwin's ideas, which you had denied.  Rather than engaging what I've written, however, you have done virtually nothing but attack strawmen of your own.

<blockquote>Rather, I question, as Kuhn did, what the nature of scientific methods is because my experience practicing science bears little resemblance to the naïve comparison-with-nature description that is invariably presented to the general public.</blockquote>

It's not a bad description of science for the general public.

I do mention philosophical issues often enough, and too often am accused of "writing long" or some other supposed sin.

<blockquote>To take just one example, why do I keep hearing from public defenders of science that falsifiability is a definitive boundary between science and non-science when it was shown long ago that, as such a definitive boundary, falsifiability fails and when my own experience as a scientist confirms that failure? </blockquote>

I mention falsifiability occasionally, but primarily as shorthand for issues that are far more complicated than that.  Most of the time when a hypothesis lacks falsifiability, it turns out not to be science in any normal sense of the term.  However, I prefer to bring up the need for evidence as the issue.  By the way, you sorely lack evidence for almost all of your attacks against me, for they are generally untrue.

Popper is the reason that "falsifiability" is such an issue in science today.  Peirce mentioned nearly the same thing, but he used several other criteria as well.  

<blockquote>Here’s another straightforward challenge for you, offered with the utmost sincerity. Kuhn claims in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that the fit of data to a theory (“its problem-solving ability”) is often not the main reason for its acceptance or dismissal and cites several examples, including the contest between the Brahe and Copernican astronomical systems,</blockquote>

I don't know all of the particulars, of course, but I can tackle at least this one to some degree.

First off, it wasn't really until later that the Keplerian model largely won out.  Brahe's model, since it did fit the data probably as well as the Copernican model did, was a contender until Kepler fit the data much better with his elliptical orbits.  No doubt the Copernican model had more followers up until then, but one could not really decide between Brahe and Kepler based upon the data alone.

Secondly, there was good reason to prefer the Copernican model, because it actually explained many of the most prominent "epicyclic" phenomena (while not doing away with them), while Brahe's model was descriptive, not explanatory.  Usually when we say that the data need to "fit the model", we really don't mean that merely mapping the data out is what matters, rather that it fits and explains the data.  Ptolemy and Brahe fit the data, but they didn't do much in the way of making explanatory models.  Science makes explanatory models, not just maps of the phenomena from our perspective, hence "fitting the data" is stated in the context of "explanation", not just "fit" as people like Kuhn and Feyerabend suggest.

<blockquote>the oxygen/phlogiston debate, the fact that Copernicus destroyed a time-honored explanation of terrestrial motion without replacing it, and the fact that Newton and Laviosier did the same for an older explanation of gravity and the common properties of metals, respectively. You claim to disagree with his argument and reject his examples. For our benefit, please show how all of Kuhn’s examples are mistaken. </blockquote>

No, I picked one, and the onus is on you to actually make your case, instead of changing the subject away from what I actually wrote (and dishonestly claiming that I didn't address your faulty claims).  I know the Gish Gallop when I see it, and an unfair demand that you haven't even come close to fulfilling yourself, and no, I don't fall for anything no matter how intellectually dishonest it is.

<blockquote>As for your supposition that my delay in responding was due to unwillingness to engage you rather than inability due to time constraints,</blockquote>

As for as your penchant to make up stuff and accuse me of saying it, it is getting very old.

I didn't in the least say that you were unwilling to respond.  Where do you come up with such unwarranted accusations?

What I wrote in response to "Galactic" might be what you're twisting into your little fantasy, but of course what I was saying there was that "Galactic" is you.  I wouldn't be surprised it was, either, though such identifications are almost always necessarily tentative.

<blockquote> you have committed a cardinal sin of the “religious” and, in the popular language of the day, have claimed to know something you don’t know.</blockquote>

Why can't you even keep your attacks straight?  I didn't write what you claimed, and it is not honest for you to say that I did, let alone to try to build conclusions on your false claim.

<blockquote>Hitchens and Harris would be very disappointed in you. </blockquote>

I have the feeling that Hitchens and Harris wouldn't come up with the sorts of untrue attacks that you have.  Not that I particularly care what they think, but I'm amazed at how readily you make false charges against me.

<blockquote>Are we going to try to understand how science really works or mulishly continue to insist that it operates like it does not.</blockquote>

It looks like you're so intent on insisting that science works as it does not that you'll write any manner of untrue things regarding my own contribution.

<blockquote>Unless someone can engage me at a more sophisticated level this is my last post on this site.</blockquote>

Apparently you can't engage me at all.  I went through a number of your claims, and all you did was to make untrue claims about what I had written.  

Why don't you try actually including what I've written in your responses, so that you don't make as many errors and false charges as you did in your recent post?  Frankly, I'm stunned at how many untrue things you could get into a relatively short post.  It must be very embarrassing for you not to be able even to competently restate <b>what I actually wrote</b>, let alone have any ability to address my scientific and philosophical points.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2007,20:07   

Back to archiving:

Quote
<blockquote>Prima Facia evidence for the plot, substance, and need for this movie is amply provided by Glen Davidson’s posts.

Indeed he is the poster boy for the hubris, egomania, and sophistry common to the evo community.</blockquote>

So, the puffed-up ignorant one can't make a coherent argument, and settles for dishonest ad hominems (formal fallacies) instead.  Why is this so much the usual for IDists?  Don't you have anything worthwhile to say at all?

<blockquote>Oh! And if Davidson or other evos chat back please refer to me as the other wireheads in the Fortune 500 who worked for me in my executive capacity did prior to my retirement… Mr. Eaton Sir is adequate.</blockquote>

I'm sure that Eaton-the-dullard will do well enough.  No doubt it's among the more charitable terms that someone so lacking in manners and intelligence has been called.  

As far as the rest of Eaton's pablum, it's splattered all over the web like anything else that requires a strong cleaning solution.  Now, if Eaton ever has anything intelligent to say, like actually answering the substantive posts that I made, rather than showing off his overweening ignorance, the change would do us all good.  Indeed, I'd like to receive one intelligent reply from an IDist, instead of loathsome and hateful fallacies which are the best that Eaton can manage.

I make intelligent comments, the IDists never once address what I write, instead only attacking me out of their envy of anyone they can't challenge.  And they pretend that it is we who are choking off debate, when we're the only ones actually engaging in debate.  It's a poor showing that pompous blowhards like Eaton make.

Glen D
[URL=http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


Another one:

Quote
<blockquote>I am flabbergasted by the stupidity of evolutionists.</blockquote>

I'm sort of amazed, but hardly surprised, that you don't answer a single substantive issue raised by myself or others, but write the usual unthinking diatribe that people who can't think for themselves constantly churn out.  

<blockquote>They deride ID with the most closed and simple minded arguments, I feel sorry for such brainwashed people.</blockquote>

Let's see, not a single thing that you wrote in your entire post said anything that isn't seen all across the web from IDists who can't deal with the issues.  You just try to shut out the issues by dull repetition of the chants you picked up from Dembski and others who avoid actual debate about the issues.

By the way, if you actually felt sorry for anybody, rather than trying to make a less-than-honest attack on them, you'd be trying to reach them instead of trying to smear them with your lack of anything substantive to say.

<blockquote>It’s sad that people who can put a cogent essay together are dumb enough to swallow the “just-so” explanations, the logical and conceptual gymnastics that pass for “proof” of evolution.</blockquote>

"It's sad" that someone can lob bombs at those he despises without in the least being able to back up his charges.

<blockquote>Then on top of that reject ID out of hand with zombie-like slogans; Here’s a hint: Saying “it’s not science” is not a trump card.</blockquote>

Then why don't you engage the actual arguments?  Oh, that's right, you're IDist, and we never get anything of substance out of IDists.  At least I've never seen it.

<blockquote>I doubt evolutionists all go into history class and shout down the professor all period about what they are teaching isn’t science and so it should not be taught in a science class. </blockquote>

I bet anyone with an honest interest in the issues doesn't ignore the massive number of high-level engagements of ID's "arguments" on the net, while making more empty attacks, as you happen to do.

<blockquote>In any case, ID is not a science the same way a doorstop is not a science, apples and oranges; it is an abstract idea, and whether or not it is scientific depends on how one approaches the idea.</blockquote>

Tell us how to do science with ID.  That's what counts.  We have a working theory, or more correctly, a working set of theories.  You want us to give equal billing to something that has never been shown to work, with a theory that happens to guide and integrate biology today.

<blockquote>“I’m not a monkey’s nephew” and “duh, it’s so complicated it must have been designed” are not the pinnacles of pro-ID argument. </blockquote>

I'm afraid that we haven't seen anything higher level than that.  Sure, there's higher-level obfuscations of the basic vacuity of ID, such as Dembski's and Behe's attempts to ram a false dilemma into science--the notion that if evolutionary theory fails to account for life, then ID prevails.  Sorry, that's never been true.  The height of ID never comes close to reaching the standards of science and forensics, which is the requirement for actual evidence of investigable causes producing investigable effects.

<blockquote>The fact of the matter is that evolution *is* just a theory (by that I mean the non-scientific def. of ‘theory’), one chock full of holes.</blockquote>

One chock full of successes, and with fewer fundamental issues in question than theories of gravity have.

<blockquote>Face it, there is no definitive evidence!</blockquote>

Is there definitive evidence for language evolution in non-literate languages?  If so, there is much more evidence for biological evolution, for we have morphological evidence, DNA, fossil evidence, and recognizably different evidence of evolution between eukaryotes and prokaryotes.

<blockquote>Whenever I look at an online debate about evolution, the evolutionist side just puts a link to talkorigins about macroevolution.</blockquote>

I don't think that I ever have, mainly because most of Talkorigins isn't written very accessibly.  But that's beside the point, for unless you can actually answer adequately the evidence presented at Talkorigins, your complaint fails.  What is more important, none of you have begun to do the one thing needed to make ID science, which is to come up with evidence in favor of ID.

<blockquote>“Missing-link” fossils does not disprove ID!</blockquote>

The transitionals have all of the historical baggage expected in non-teleological evolution--and at the evolutionarily-predicted times for such sorts of "poor design" to be found.  Archaeopteryx has teeth and a bony tail, neither of which is helpful for flight.  Those have been known for quite some time, as well as the less well-developed keel than those in modern birds.  What is more new is that a "critical ligamentous structure" making modern birds more efficient fliers has been found to be absent in archaeopteryx ("A critical ligamentous mechanism in the evolution of bird flight"  David B. Baier, Stephen M. Gatesy & Farish A Jenkins Jr.  <b>Nature</b> pp. 307-310 v.445 18 January 2007).

<blockquote>Fossils, whose significance is a matter of debate, which is not a settled matter, even if they did fit into the evolutionary timeline perfectly, STILL would not disprove ID. What if the supposed designer, just started small and then kept tweaking with its creation?</blockquote>

You mean, what if the designer made organisms with exactly the sort of fossil evidence and genetic evidence that is expected from non-teleological evolution?  Well, such a being would be undetectable, for its effects would be indistinguishable from those of MET.  That's why we're not really interested in how carefully you guys tweak your "designer" specifically so that it cannot be falsified by the evidence.  You make "design" a meaningless concept by doing so.

<blockquote>Fossils just show that organisms changed gradually over time, they do not show that they changed only because of natural selection, etc. </blockquote>

It shows that the same "short-sighted" and inheritance-constrained changes that have occurred in the crown groups also exist in the earlier organisms.  Also, nearly all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, as you would expect from unguided evolution.  Exactly why a "designer" would make australopithecines, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalis, and H. floresiensis only for them to go extinct in roughly the same pattern as you'd get from non-teleological evolution remains just one of those many unfathomable ideas of ID.  In fact, because you guys are so intent on denying any sort of criteria that could actually point toward "design", everything in ID remains obscure and unreachable by science.

What I'd like to ask is, why do IDists think that design and non-teleological evolution produce indistinguishable results?  Do they really think that genetic algorithms are used simply to mimic rational design processes?  Do they not understand that the substantially different results found in evolution vs. those found in known design processes are being exploited via genetic algorithms?

It was life that showed us another route than "intelligent design" to discover successful strategies, evolutionary processes utilizing a sort of "natural selection."  Now we have that capability within our repertoire of instrumentalities, and it is utilized precisely where the complexities are too great for our rational abilities.  Which is interesting, because, of course, life also is beyond our rational abilities thus far (I don't think that if Venter is successful that I'll have to say anything different).  Indeed, it is evolution that can deal with complexities beyond those understood by the fairly simple rationalities of the human mind (not true of all aspects of complexity, but important in many thus far, despite our computational enhancement of our rational capabilities).

The huge difference between design and biological evolution is that the former readily yields evidence for rational thinking in its processes in by far the most cases, while biological evolution lacks any evidence for rational planning (that is, while sometimes evolution and intelligence can come to similar "ends", any observaable differentiation leaves life (life that hasn't been manipulated by us, that is) on the non-rational side of the "production process")

<blockquote>It seems like only way to really show evolution is to show with a mathematical model that statistically it is possible for natural selection, etc., to cause an organism to become increasingly complex in the alloted time.</blockquote>

Real science pays attention to the predictions made by a theory, and accepts the theory that agrees best with those explanatory predictions until something better comes along.  One of the problems of ID is that it wishes to change the rules of science (more coherently than traditional creationism does, for the latter's attacks on science are generally piecemeal), which is the truly grave threat to science and society hypothetically posed by ID.

<blockquote>This has NEVER been shown, Mathematical models show quite the opposite, that even if creatures could evolve “naturally” the way they have, it would take orders of magnitude longer for that to happen.</blockquote>

Has language evolution been shown to be possible by computer simulations?  Of course not, it is too complex to be properly modeled at this time, as is biological evolution.  ID models don't count, by the way, since they assume very narrow target areas, much narrower than can be shown from the evidence (the evidence at least hints that they're quite wrong in their assumptions).

<blockquote>Now given that there is no evidence of evolution,</blockquote>

It is not given that there is no evidence of evolution.  You haven't begun to answer the three major predictions I listed for evolution in post #99, by which I definitely meant (and noted) non-teleological evolution.

<blockquote>that does not prove ID, but assuming that physics and the laws of the physical universe, statistics, logic, etc., have not dramatically changed during the “life” of the known universe, this intuitively suggests that a designer is behind the variety and complexity of organisms on earth.</blockquote>

Since you have absolutely no evidence in favor of "design" of organisms, whatever "intuition" you might have about it is insufficient to make ID worthy of consideration.

<blockquote>That is what makes ID worthwhile.</blockquote>

An intuition sans evidence makes ID worthwhile?  That is what is scary about IDists, no evidence and an "intuition" is supposed to be the equal of an abundantly evidenced and useful theory.

<blockquote>For all the picking-on ID strawmen, some of you guys need to pick on evolution a bit.</blockquote>

For all of the claims that you make, it would be nice if you could back up just one of them.  You know, with evidence.

<blockquote>There is a universe of ideas out there between evolution-explains-everything and bible-thumping.</blockquote>

Evolution hardly explains everything (a strawman fallacy on your part).  However, it is the only scientific theory explaining the inherently genealogical-like taxonomies found even prior to acceptance of evolutionary theory, the different modes of evolution between eukaryotes and prokaryotes, and why pterosaur, bat, and bird wings are all adaptations of legs, and not design either from first principles or from previously existing wings.  

<blockquote>The way things are run, evolution is not a science, where is the falsifiability?</blockquote>

In the taxonomical structures, first of all.  And I've mentioned plenty more, though you ignore whatever doesn't comply with your a priori assumptions.

<blockquote>Any evidence that does not fit into evolutionary theory is ignored.</blockquote>

I'd like to see a single statement of yours that can be substantiated, including that one.

<blockquote>Where are the repeatable experiments?</blockquote>

In the journals.  Like most of science, experiments have to extrapolated to areas which are practically or theoretically beyond experimentation, but of course the experiments have been done.

<blockquote>No, showing bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics or that they will evolve into a slightly different species does not prove that evolution is responsible for all of the variety and complexity of life.</blockquote>

I actually made that point at Pharyngula recently.  However, few of us suppose that antibiotic resistance is the whole of the evidence (rather, evolutionary theory ties humans and bacteria together ecologically, where ID would require malaria (<i>Plasmodium falciparum</i>) to have been designed, apparently with the purpose of infecting humans), rather we point to the predictions of evolution which have been tested but not falsified in the testing.  Indeed, I wrote a good deal on this very forum about a number of these issues, but have received nothing other than dull repetitions of ID talking points in reply, along with rather pointed hatred from several of these supposed "Christians".  Well, what's new?  

If you had science, you'd be telling us how ID provides cause and effect explanations of what we see, and how to do science with these required explanations.  Lacking any science, you have a lot of untrue statements about evolution and those of us who care about science.  You completely ignore the arguments and evidence brought forward in order to falsely claim that we have not done so.  And so ID goes, never providing the requisite evidence, always putting out vast array of unsubstantiated tripe.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2007,09:42   

Ben is not a dumb guy, I wonder if this is a pure play for cash. You guys don't think he's actually going to read any of the comments on his "blog" do you?  This is pure street theatre to generate buzz.  

His link for volunteers is pretty funny, funnier is that he's probably getting tons of creotards signing up for active duty.  

Onward Christian soldiers, and don't forget to leave your tithe in the War Chest on your way to the battlefield!

This sucks.  Now I can't stand Ben Stein and I'll never watch him again.

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2007,23:18   

Glen wrote:
Quote
Of course I find it unconvincing.  He's in an analytical tradition that I have never thought much of, nor do I find Popper to be very impressive.


Glen - If I may ask, what is it that you don't find impressive about Popper? (I'm asking out of curiosity, not because I think he's impressive.)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2007,23:24   

Also, he wore a couple of hats (the DaveScot of his day?). Not impressive in *any* discipline, or just in one regard?

--------------
"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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,15:34   

For anyone still interested, Stein will be on O'Reilly Factor tonight (10/22) plugging Expelled.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,16:00   

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 22 2007,15:34)
For anyone still interested, Stein will be on O'Reilly Factor tonight (10/22) plugging Expelled.

Comedy Central and Fox News.

All science so far! ID media machine.

--------------
"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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2007,10:10   

Bill O’Reilly joins the liberal Darwinist media

I assume everyone has read this glorious tidbit at PT by now.

Yes both Bill and Ben portrayed ID as creationism and an attempt to fill the gaps with god.  The DI frowned on this ouf course and pointed out both of them are wrong.

I wonder how Ben will take to being corrected by a bunch of lying creationist zealots.  It's hard to imagine Ben agreeing to partake in the dishonest and sneaky tactices used by the DI.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.  Will Ben take orders from the DI or instead continue to call a spade a spade (creationism for the gaps)?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,08:55   

Oh, oh, oh:
Quote

MOVIE CONTEST
Ever sat in class and had your professor straight up challenge your intelligence for suggesting even the possibility of an intelligent design in the universe?
Tired of being labeled merely for questioning aspects of the Darwinian theory of evolution?? Ever been scoffed at or ridiculed in front of your peers?
Well, here’s your opportunity to tell your story on our Website AND possibly be in the movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”! Tell the world some of the outrageous things your professors say about your questions.
You and your story just might be chosen by our producers to be in the film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”! Let your voice be heard!

Sounds that they're a little desperate for content - four months away from the scheduled release date.

--------------

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,15:12   

It sounds like "Penthouse Letters" for the fundamentalist set, an opportunity to write a bunch of paranoia porn.

Since the whole thing is a work of fiction, I think that they have opened the doors for contributions. I'm sure some of you can come up with better complex persecution tales for those with a well-developed persecution complex.

Of course, you probably can't post the actual submissions here, but you might drop a note here to say if you have an offering in submission.

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

    
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,15:28   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 26 2007,15:12)
It sounds like "Penthouse Letters" for the fundamentalist set, an opportunity to write a bunch of paranoia porn.

Since the whole thing is a work of fiction, I think that they have opened the doors for contributions. I'm sure some of you can come up with better complex persecution tales for those with a well-developed persecution complex.

Of course, you probably can't post the actual submissions here, but you might drop a note here to say if you have an offering in submission.

I think I recall that there was a professor that actually has two doctorates, that was horribly abused by a graduate student recently for daring to speak about Intelligent Design.  And to make it worse, the abuser was a girl, even though the bible says women should stay at home and make babies.

Is this the kind of story that they want might want maybe?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,15:45   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 26 2007,22:28)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 26 2007,15:12)
It sounds like "Penthouse Letters" for the fundamentalist set, an opportunity to write a bunch of paranoia porn.

Since the whole thing is a work of fiction, I think that they have opened the doors for contributions. I'm sure some of you can come up with better complex persecution tales for those with a well-developed persecution complex.

Of course, you probably can't post the actual submissions here, but you might drop a note here to say if you have an offering in submission.

I think I recall that there was a professor that actually has two doctorates, that was horribly abused by a graduate student recently for daring to speak about Intelligent Design.  And to make it worse, the abuser was a girl, even though the bible says women should stay at home and make babies.

Is this the kind of story that they want might want maybe?

Throw in a hot-tub and some Reddy-Wip and that's a winner!

Even better if you could fit Kristine into it as well...

--------------

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,02:11   

In his latest article "Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?" Ben Stein is criticised by Glen Davidson who wrote there seven successive long posts! I've put there
my answer listing antidarwian scientists.

I am not sure there is so strong relation between darwinism and capitalism as Ben Stein claim, but the idea of "natural selection" is something really extraordinary and new. Ancient people living in connection with nature never observed it. But it is strongly supported from armchair intellectulas sitting at Universities in industrialised countries, scientists who wouldn't survive a day in countryard.


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/


John Davison comments there sometimes and his posts are very briskly and good.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,03:54   

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,02:11)
In his latest article "Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?" Ben Stein is criticised by Glen Davidson who wrote there seven successive long posts! I've put there
my answer listing antidarwian scientists.

I am not sure there is so strong relation between darwinism and capitalism as Ben Stein claim, but the idea of "natural selection" is something really extraordinary and new. Ancient people living in connection with nature never observed it. But it is strongly supported from armchair intellectulas sitting at Universities in industrialised countries, scientists who wouldn't survive a day in countryard.


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/


John Davison comments there sometimes and his posts are very briskly and good.

Amazing insight, as usual VMartin.

We hang upon your every word.

Even when you say things like "I am not so sure" I still believe you are 100% correct.

So, if ancient people living in nature never understood selection, how did the wolf get domesticated?

--------------
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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,06:10   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2007,03:54)
So, if ancient people living in nature never understood selection, how did the wolf get domesticated?

Briskly, I imagine. :D

--------------
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

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,10:08   

Very briskly.  Does that mean that tea had some part in the domestication of the wolf?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,11:29   

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 01 2007,10:08)
Very briskly.  Does that mean that tea had some part in the domestication of the wolf?

Yes.  And the "T" stands for Trouble!  It rhymes with D, and that stands for Dembski, so we got Trouble.

Ahhh.  Nothing like an opportunity to get a Broadway Show tune into a post.  And 2 Bonus Points for linking Dembksi and the con-man character in Music Man I think.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,10:14   

Meet Bart Davis.  Wonder if it will get posted.

Quote
I have been a creationist for many years after realizing that the bible was true and that man-made science could not explain the bigger questions, like Why are We Here?  and What are We?  And I realized that the bible gave the best explanations for these questions.  That is all fine and good...

Until I entered a university and enrolled in a biology department.  I was told by professor and TA after professor and TA that my views were stupid and were not accepted by the scientific community.  Although I expect to be rejected by men and be unpopular for carrying the cause of Christ it still stung.  

When I offered to defend my views using the bible, I was told that it does not apply.  These darwinists want to stamp out all dissent and try to discredit the Word of God because they hate the idea that God created them.  The bible tells all about this.  When I told them that their 'evidence' was just rocks and ideas based on things that they could measure then they laughed at me and I lost my composure.

Now I am an engineer and doing very well for myself.  I try to stay out of the debate but in my Sunday School class I have free reign to teach children in the way that they should be brought up, so when they have to face the forces of the world they will be prepared to be ridiculed and hated for standing up for Jesus.


--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,10:27   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 02 2007,10:14)
Meet Bart Davis.  Wonder if it will get posted.

 
Quote
I have been a creationist for many years after realizing that the bible was true and that man-made science could not explain the bigger questions, like Why are We Here?  and What are We?  And I realized that the bible gave the best explanations for these questions.  That is all fine and good...

Until I entered a university and enrolled in a biology department.  I was told by professor and TA after professor and TA that my views were stupid and were not accepted by the scientific community.  Although I expect to be rejected by men and be unpopular for carrying the cause of Christ it still stung.  

When I offered to defend my views using the bible, I was told that it does not apply.  These darwinists want to stamp out all dissent and try to discredit the Word of God because they hate the idea that God created them.  The bible tells all about this.  When I told them that their 'evidence' was just rocks and ideas based on things that they could measure then they laughed at me and I lost my composure.

Now I am an engineer and doing very well for myself.  I try to stay out of the debate but in my Sunday School class I have free reign to teach children in the way that they should be brought up, so when they have to face the forces of the world they will be prepared to be ridiculed and hated for standing up for Jesus.

This is quality tard, nice work.  One suggestion - throw in the term "intelligent design" at least once so the reader sees ID and creationism/bible/god/jeebus/etc are all from the same play book.

My entries are heavy on the bible, creationism and creation science with at least one mention of ID.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2007,16:48   

I wonder if the post that I have attempted to re-post below is being either blocked or smothered (posting it late, when few would read it) by the people at Expelled because javascript is Ruloff, Miller, or Stein.  There's no saying for sure, of course, but javascript obviously hates me for getting in there quickly to fisk Stein's obnoxious nonsense, and since Kevin Miller did respond (rather disastrously, since I picked him apart) to me once, I wonder if they're protecting one of their stupid writers or characters from criticism.  Just saying.

Here's the re-post, since I fear that I might have to be archiving what I write there again:

Quote
Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

November 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Not a new one, but I don’t know why the following comment hasn’t been posted. I don’t mean to continue to treat with people whose only motivation is to attack those they hate with religious bigotry, however I should be allowed to respond to the dishonest quotemines and vapid unsupported accusations of those without any conscience or competence to discuss science. So here’s the re-post:

Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

November 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Javascript quotemines, in the way that only pseudoscientists and rabid fools do:

Garrison Seeber Says:
November 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“only further emphasizes the Neanderthal mentality of your suppressive beliefs”
Validate that claim…
………………
Well, let’s see… this might be difficult but I’ll give it a shot.

Unfortunately, you’re too dumb to know what validation means. It does not mean quotemining. I use harsh words, but I also back them up, while you only tell lies and attack.

Below are validating quotes from our buddy Glen, the self proclaiming intellectual, that clearly exhibit his use of Neanderthal tactics in his attempts to bully others on the blog seeking only to exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of speech.

Sorry, unintelligent one, I was not the one who came in here with nothing but hatred and lies. I made arguments, I backed up, or “validated” (too bad you don’t know what words mean, buffoon), what I wrote. Not so much to those who had nothing related to substance, liek the dishonest Javascript, but that’s because yours were free-form lies.

Follow with me if you will:
……………
GLEN QUOTES:
- As pathetic as your knowledge of science is…

As we’ve shown previously, and as I demonstrated there as well. Try to learn to read above third-grade level.

- you lack intellectual integrity…

Another quotemine. I’d shown where he had not dealt with matters in an intellectually honest fashion. Rather than arguing pointedly with what I’ve written, you just whine and lie, again.

- your knowledge of science is abysmal

As is obvious to anyone who knows science, and has been amply demonstrated in these comments. Just because you ignore every bit of substance that I’ve written to back up my claims does not alleviate you of your responsibility to deal with them with intellectual honesty. Neither does your lack of intellectual honesty alleviate your responsibilities.

- you simply act as if science is as mindless as your sponsors are

And I’m sure that if you had anything intelligent to say, you’d be arguing against what I wrote, instead of quote-mining my supporting evidence out of it, with your typical dishonest tactics.

- this is part of your sleazy tactics.

Another sleazy quotemine from one who doesn’t even know what intellectual integrity means. Indeed, it was a part of his sleazy tactics, as I demonstrated, and which argumentation you ignore as you have from the beginning.

- A rather simplistic analysis…

OK, it was an extremely simplistic analysis. Sorry that I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

- Ben’s pathetic fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

Which fallacy you compound, as you quotemine and attack without paying any attention to the facts and arguments.

- That’s the best you can do, Ben?

Still better than the dishonesty of your attacks, javascript.

- you’re digging your own grave there, Ben.

I know that it’s nothing new, but yes, another dishonest quotemine, as javascript pointedly ignores what I actually wrote, how this fit into my arguments and conclusions.

- So what’s your point?

Here’s how an honest person would have quoted:

So what’s your point? Are we supposed to throw out English science, since it was based in a non-politically correct economic system? Here’s Ben saying that Western culture must (selectively) go, due to its many sins. Ben the PC man. Very good, Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots who fault civilization’s advances just because much of the past evil was retained for so long (and into the present, one might (or might not) argue).

Since my response was to his faulting of “Darwinism” based on the inadequate grounds that it comes from a time of imperialism, I dare say that the honest quote demonstrate my point. Which is why you dishonestly left that out.

- Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots

See the foregoing quote for the context that javascript is not honest enough to include.

- Your understanding of evolution is as deficient as your understanding of history, Stein.

And apparently so is yours, javascript, or you’d deal with the facts and arguments I brought up instead of quote-mining.

- One does not write of “Darwinist means,” unless one is a science illiterate, as Ben is.

That’s right. He’s shown himself to be illiterate in science right there, and by continuing to write of “Darwinism” as if it depended upon the writings of one man.

- It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one…

Were he not ignorant, the issue of abiogenesis would not have come up. And if you weren’t ignorant, you’d recognize that I made an important point. I am not as nice as I was previously, by the way, mostly because Ben has ignored where he has been corrected in the past.

- someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges.

Yes, and why don’t you try to supply evidence for your scurrilous charges, intellectually dishonest javascript?

- IDists simply hate the Enlightenment…

Yes, they attack it at its very foundation, at its requirement for demonstrable evidence. Another issue you can’t deal with, though apparently there are none you can address, java.

- bigoted theists…

A particularly disgusting quotemine from java. I very carefully pointed out that many theists are nothing like the bigoted and dishonest IDists, but he quotemines it as he wishes to misrepresent it.

- More tendentious nonsense.

And of course I justified that remark. You’ve justified none of your attacks.

- Ben has no truthful criticisms to make…

Here’s the context that this extremely dishonest person wishes to be ignored:

More tendentious nonsense. Darwinism and its successors have never ever sought to explain everything. Darwin sought to integrate biology with Newtonian-type science, and largely succeeded. But I guess Ben has no truthful criticisms to make of MET, so he resorts to what IDists always end up using, untrue assertions.

Since I was addressing the fact that “Darwinism” has never once claimed to explain everything, yes, it was tendentious, and I have yet to see Ben provide a truthful criticism of MET. Note how dishonestly javascript edited out the qualifiers I included.

I have to wonder if you’re one of the writers of Expelled, javascript. You’re really so dishonest and bigoted that it’s hard not to believe you could be.

- I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that

This is where that came from:

But it’s difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do.

I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that “Darwinism” presumes to explain everything.

I’d still like to know where such a disingenuous idea came from. From you, javascript?

- evil liars, most likely the sorts of anti-science anti-intellectual persons

More quote-mining, of course, and yes, I demonstrate that you who lie constantly are of that kind.

- Not all of us are as pitiful as you anti-science ranters.

Ben was claiming that we’re “pitiful” and (in essence) that therefore we need to be open to unproven nonsense like ID. But indeed, we who know science know a good deal more about the issues than people like Stein and javascript.

- the usual arrogance of the ignorant

Indeed, it was the usual arrogance of the ignorant, which you continue.

- if you weren’t a slimy little worm, and actually knew something, I’m sure you could have written something intelligent.

And instead of making up for your dishonest attack, you pile on more quoteming dishonesty.

- your anti-intellectual rant ad nauseam

Since you have done nothing but stupidly rant, I rather suspect that this has been well-validated.

……………..

Now maybe it’s just me but that sounds more like a Neanderthal then it does a civilized Intellectual that I think Glen would have us believe that he is.

Why yes it does, and since it is your dishonest quotemining and vicious unsupported attack that compiled it in such a tendentious fashion, it looks like you have shown that you were just projecting.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

There is no reason to either block or smother the above post. Just because it may very well be one of the writers, producers, or main characters whose dishonest claims have been refuted is no excuse to either smother or expel this post.

Am I supposed to stand by while Ruloff, Miller, or Stein (I increasingly suspect one of them or others associated with the movie, since what seems to really bring out the hatred is that I refuted the blog at the top of the comment list) dishonestly quotemines and accuses without evidence or justification? Sure, I’m well past the point where I’m going to be nice when lies are constantly being told about us in a bid to enforce religion on our society, but unlike javascript, I actually make arguments, do not dishonestly quotemine, and I stay away from fallacious attacks on the person.

It will certainly be a sorry day if you protect “one of your own” from a response to his unwarranted and unsupported attack on the person, without the slightest hint of being capable of answering what I actually wrote (hence the quotemining).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7


--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2007,11:27   

It appears that the fascists running the Expelled blog did expel the comments I wrote above.  What a shock, considering how tendentious and dishonest everything they've written has been.

I'm going to assume that javascript is one of the bully boys associated with that movie.  Nothing I wrote there hasn't been written about others at that blog, but apparently when I demonstrate the dishonesty of javascript, it's no longer permitted.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2007,15:09   

I'm starting to seriously doubt the Expelled bunch's commitment to allowing comments to run without censorship, though they did fairly well in the past.  Btw, as others have apparently found, Dawkins' forum sucks too.  Regardless, I'm now archiving the fisking I did of Ben's latest blog (there are a couple of repeats of posts):

(OK, I'll actually put the posts here when I can get through)

I'm finally getting around to putting in what I wanted to archive, though it looks like what they posted is going to stay there for some time.  As for the bit above about Dawkins' forum, I'm not sure that it doesn't suck, but at least they didn't totally wipe out the post that made me say they suck.  They moved it and took their time in telling me about it.  

Anyway, to save these from possible future censoring:

Quote
Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Let’s make this short and sweet. It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory.

Actually, you could make it shorter and sweeter by actually, you know, bringing in evidence. As pathetic as your knowledge of science is, Ben, even you must have some notion that it isn’t “Darwinism” that is being taught today, it is a combination of ideas that have been, and continue to be, tested against the evidence.

I suppose that as long as you lack intellectual integrity, however, you will equate modern evolutionary theory with “Darwinism,” not despite the dishonesty of it, but because of the dishonesty of it. Again, I know that your knowledge of science is abysmal, but you could try to tell the truth, and you could try to deal with a theory that has had many contributions made to it through time and across cultures. However, you don’t, you simply act as if science is as mindless as your sponsors are, beholden to authority rather than to the evidence. It’s much easier, of course, for you to attack strawmen dishonestly set up, than it is to actually deal with biological science, so this is part of your sleazy tactics.

No less a genius than the evil Karl Marx noted that even after capitalism succumbed to Communism, society would still be imbued with the class artifacts and cultural values of the system that preceded it.

Oooh, great authority there. Likely it’s true, but then Marx predicted that religion would fade away as well. Has it?

Much smarter analysts than I have noted that the whole system of Marxism, especially its sharp attacks on capitalists as a class, was motivated by Karl Marx’s envy of the much wealthier industrialist/capitalist members of the Marx family.

A rather simplistic analysis, but it probably played a role in it. So what? Adam Smith wrote in support of his class, and Machiavelli was an apologist for rulers to whom he hoped to suck up. One judges ideas on their merits, not on personalities. Which makes this whole attack on “Darwinism” Ben’s pathetic fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. That’s the best you can do, Ben?

In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air. They come from the era in which they arose and are influenced greatly by the personality and background of the writer.

Already you’re digging your own grave there, Ben. Evolutionary thought comes from across time and culture, and its origin (if we understand Darwin as the origin–there were others) happens to also be the country of Newton and the Enlightenment. Yes, it is understandable that Darwin would integrate biology into causal science in the country that largely gave rise to causal science. That’s highly preferable to the acausal non-science that you’re supporting now, Ben.

To be continued below:

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
continuing from my post above:

(In law, this theory is known as “legal realism”. Judges make up their minds on the basis of their prejudices and then rationalize their decisions by pretending to be bound by prior case law. One might call what happens with ideologies “political realism.” Persons make up their ideologies based on their times and their life situations.)

Yes, funny that, judges care about causation, and you do too in the area of history, Ben. Yet you’re pushing magic as an appropriate alternative to your causal methods in the biological realm, and you have absolutely no basis from which to do this.

Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.

Very selective there, Stein. You know very well that Newton’s was an age of slavery, plunder, colonialism, and religious bigotry. Yet you praise Newton and his science, while you rubbish Darwin’s science by association. That’s not intellectually honest in the least.

What is more, Darwinism as such fits your own political posture rather well, Ben, as you favor the haves over the have-nots.

When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed–i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were.

Sure, and this differs from Newton’s time, how? IOW, do you have a point that doesn’t undercut what you’ve written heretofore?

Anyway, as it happens, the capitalism of Victorian Britain is somewhat analogous to Darwinism (and is not actually very akin to traditional society, as we evolved to be more cooperative than Ben’s politics prescribes), and it may indeed have helped to give the right idea to Darwin. What of that? One has to get ideas from somewhere, the only real issue being the one that Ben avoids, the issue of evidence that so strongly supports evolutionary theory, and does not support the creationistic views that Ben and Ruloff wish to impose on science.

It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism “…outdoor relief for the upper classes?”)

So what’s your point? Are we supposed to throw out English science, since it was based in a non-politically correct economic system? Here’s Ben saying that Western culture must (selectively) go, due to its many sins. Ben the PC man. Very good, Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots who fault civilization’s advances just because much of the past evil was retained for so long (and into the present, one might (or might not) argue).

But it fell to a true Imperialist,

Arguably, Stein is rather more an imperialist than upper-class Darwin was. Darwin didn’t much trouble with politics, he was one of the privileged Brits who dabbled in the sciences because it was very interesting and socially rewarded, not because it yielded any great imperial or capitalist prizes. Indeed, a good deal of science was done that way, while Ben selectively condemns evolutionary science simply because he’s bigoted against it.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
continuing from my post above:

[Darwin was] from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was “owned” (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism.

Colonialism was pursued in part (or at least excused by this concept) to stop the slave trade in Africa. You know, the slave trade, which America persisted in even as America came up with better ideas about government, and which Britain engaged in both at that time and during Newton’s time. Once again I note how tendentious Ben’s rendering of history is, and how really lacking in honesty it is.

More to the point, however, is that “Darwinism” didn’t cause Imperialism (which Ben tacitly allows), nor was most of the propaganda in favor of it after Darwin actually based on evolutionary ideas. God and country were the main pillars upon which imperialism was based, with God supposedly ordaining the white races to impose their rule and (again supposedly) better the world. Learn some history, Ben.

By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out,

Your understanding of evolution is as deficient as your understanding of history, Stein. Modern evolutionary theory is definitely not about that, and even Darwin understood the intra-species and inter-species cooperation in an imperfect sense. After all, he had to deal with the objections involving altruism and mutualism, meaning that while his theory may have been analogous with British imperialism, it also took many exceptions to it. Try to explain that, Ben.

Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature.

It’s rather funny how Ben the Social Darwinist keeps railing against Imperialism, when of course “Darwinism” tended to be used more as a prop for capitalism than for imperialism (mostly people in the UK weren’t focused on the latter, but were on the former). But in his tendentious rendering of history, the attack must be on imperialism, and not on his precious capitalism, though neither one came from “Darwinism” at all (it was used to justify both, but it’s far from what actually produced both of them).

In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.

Really? You mean that Darwin was the main propagandist for the imperialism of religious Britain? Then why is your despicable film portraying evolutionists as being opposed to religion, when by your claims the religionists of Britain were happily using “Darwinism” to support imperialism? Of course they weren’t really, they were operating on religious fictions of the ordination of their Empire, and of the “white man’s burden.” If Darwinism was used as well it hardly matters, because few were really motivated by such an abstract biological concept, while many were motivated by racialism and nationalism.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
continuing from my post above:

Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system that took no account of the realities of the human condition.

Much like Stein’s politics do not.

Human beings do not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes. They like to be in charge of themselves.

Do they now? Then why did intellectuals of the UK’s former colony, the US, take up Darwinism without much fuss? Didn’t they understand it as propaganda in favor of imperialism?

Of course they didn’t, and neither does God-soaked Mexico, which happens to maintain a historical animus against imperialism and colonialism. Why would that be, Ben? Do you think that it might just be that Newtonian physics and “Darwinian” biology just happen not to be imperialistic in and of themselves, nor atheistic in and of themselves?

Imperialism had a short but hideous history–of repression and murder.

And also of ridiculous people who equate science with imperialism, without any true justification for it. I think that we have little reason to expect anything honest in this film, given the appalling dishonesty of its main characters on this blog.

But its day is done.

Well, not according to those who try to impose their views onto science. You know, Islamic fundamentalists, and IDists, the sorts of people who won’t allow science to progress according to its own standards and mutual agreements.

Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology.

Wow, I guess that’s true–if you totally ignore the substantial developments since then, as, of course, Ben does. So is much of Newtonian physics alive (like evolution, significantly added to and superseded in some areas), from an even darker and more brutal time.

And geology from that time and place also serves as the basis for geology today in many aspects.

Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media.

Species aren’t created, they evolve. And yes, we have huge amounts of evidence that species have evolved through Darwinian (and the other processes of evolution) means. One does not write of “Darwinist means,” unless one is a science illiterate, as Ben is.

Behe, btw, accepts evolution by natural selection, with an unevidenced role for the “designer” as one who supplies the right mutations. So Ben is using his ad hominem fallacy against “Darwinism”, while one of his precious IDists largely accepts Darwin’s contribution to evolution, disagreeing sans merit with MET vis-a-vis the source of variation and of new information.

And yes, Ben has failed to answer the three questions I have posed, which is how to explain the Linnaean taxonomic system with its apparent genealogical structure, why the mostly sexual eukaryotes evolve quite differently from asexual prokaryotes (and in the manner predicted by MET), and why it is that vertebrate wings are derived from legs, when no known designer would make wings out of legs. I think it’s safe to conclude that he has no answer, while all of these provide evidence for MET, or what Ben tendentiously labels “Darwinism”.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
continuing from my post above:

Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one, because other processes than evolutionary mechanisms come into play during the origins of life. Darwin even allowed at one time that the Creator may have made life, while Darwin himself was simply explaining the patterns that we see in life, including the speciation of finches on the Galapagos Islands.

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism,

No, those were your buddies, who distorted a scientific concept into excuses for ravaging and despoiling peoples, including their own countrymen.

a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

I wouldn’t suppose that someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges. He blames the science of evolution for the decidedly unscientific and unsupportable beliefs of Hitler. Well, why not violate Godwin’s law, when you yourself can’t support a single one of your statements, Ben?

The true fact of history is that the Enlightenment spawned Darwin’s thought in the birthplace of the Enlightenment, England (Newton, above all exemplifies such Enlightenment). The Enlightenment was anathema in much of Germany, and especially to the faction which took over Germany in the 1930s (the Nazis were also not in favor of Darwin, for the most part). The Enlightenment countries, which unquestionably had many faults, were the ones who had both the science and the decency to defeat the fascists. Ben disparages the Enlightenment types who promote science and decency, and who defeated the rank evil of Hitler.

Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts.

Yes, and they always have. The IDists, of course, are not “questioning Darwinism”, they’re using labels, like Ben does, to suggest that evolutionary theory depends on a man and moment in history, when in fact MET is a cross-cultural, cross-religion phenomenon, accepted by religionists and atheists, and by East and West. IDists simply hate the Enlightenment, tell lies about science being “materialistic”, and try to impose their anti-Enlightenment beliefs upon free societies.

I wonder how long Darwinism’s life span will be.

Until bigoted theists (and, fortunately, many theists are totally unlike Ben and his cohorts) destroy it along with the rest of science. And it’s not “Darwinism” (not in the US–in the UK that term is conflated with MET much more than here), that’s just dishonest propaganda.

Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything,

More tendentious nonsense. Darwinism and its successors have never ever sought to explain everything. Darwin sought to integrate biology with Newtonian-type science, and largely succeeded. But I guess Ben has no truthful criticisms to make of MET, so he resorts to what IDists always end up using, untrue assertions.

[Marxism] is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators.

Yes, see, if you really understood history, you’d know why non-Enlightenment, non-scientific Marxism had to perish of its own contradictions, while evolutionary theory remains indispensible for doing biology.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I’m trying to post this section of my reply again, since it doesn’t show up in the preview.

Continuing from my post above:

Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one, because other processes than evolutionary mechanisms come into play during the origins of life. Darwin even allowed at one time that the Creator may have made life, while Darwin was simply explaining the patterns that we see in life, including the speciation of finches on the Galapagos Islands.

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism,

No, those were your buddies, who distorted a scientific concept into excuses for ravaging and despoiling peoples, including their own countrymen.

a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

I wouldn’t suppose that someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges. He blames the science of evolution for the decidedly unscientific and unsupportable beliefs of Hitler. Why not violate
Godwin’s law, when you yourself can’t support a single one of your statements, Ben?

The true fact of history is that the Enlightenment spawned Darwin’s thought in the birthplace of the Enlightenment, England (Newton, above all exemplifies this). The Enlightenment was anathema to much of Germany, and especially to the faction which took over Germany in the 1930s (the Nazis were also not in favor of Darwin, for the most part). The Enlightenment countries, which had many faults indeed, were the ones who had both the science and the decency to defeat the fascists, and Ben despises the Enlightenment types who
promote science and decency.

Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts.

Yes, and they always have. The IDists, of course, are not “questioning Darwinism” (though they’re attacking it), they’re using labels like Ben does to suggest that evolutionary theory depends on a man and moment in history, when in fact MET is a cross-cultural, cross-religion phenomenon, accepted by religionists and atheists, and by East and West. IDists simply hate the Enlightenment, tell lies about science being “materialistic”, and try to impose their anti-Enlightenment beliefs upon free societies.

I wonder how long Darwinism’s life span will be.

Until bigoted theists (and many theists are totally unlike Ben and his cohorts) destroy it along with the rest of science. And it’s not “Darwinism” (not in the US–in the UK that term is conflated with MET much more than here). That’s just dishonest propaganda.

Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything,

More tendentious nonsense. Darwinism and its successors have never ever sought to explain everything (not even Marxism did, in fact, though it went well beyond reasonable grounds). Darwin sought to integrate biology with Newtonian-type science, and largely succeeded. But I guess Ben has no truthful criticisms to make of MET, so he resorts to what IDists always end up using, untrue assertions.

[Marxism] is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators.

Yes, see, if you really understood history, you’d know why non-Enlightenment, non-scientific Marxism had to perish of its own contradictions, while evolutionary theory remains indispensible for doing biology.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
continuing from my post above:

Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last.

It survived the efforts of Marxists to stamp it out in the Soviet Union. You know why? Because it’s science. If you had the slightest notion of what science is, Stein, you’d cease trying to impose your version of Social Darwinism upon science.

But it’s difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do.

I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that “Darwinism” presumes to explain everything. Or where you got the notion that MET is without much evidence. I’d guess from evil liars, most likely the sorts of anti-science anti-intellectual persons that you claim were “persecuted,” when in fact they’ve merely been held to account for their own tendentious nonsense.

Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based.

That’s why Lysenkoism and ID have never been able to last in science, and why both have attempted (Lysenkoism succeeded) to use government to impose themselves into a science whose rules and methods end up excluding them based on their lack of evidence. Indeed, evolutionary thought has lasted where other ideas have fallen by the wayside, although many specific ideas about evolution have been brought up only to be ultimately rejected by the science (like Haeckel’s ideas were).

And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.

It isn’t a “dominant force”, it is just the primary theory in biology. What is more, it isn’t “Darwinism”, for Darwin’s writings did contain a fair amount of Victorian baggage which needed to be discarded (expelled, something science does to bad ideas), and did not know about many of the details of evolution (like neutral evolutionary concepts), and has been substantially modified in light of the evidence.

Maybe we would have a new theory:

Maybe you need to learn what the present theory is, and even to know what must be in scientific theories, like actual explanations of phenomena–which ID lacks.

We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex.

Not all of us are as pitiful as you anti-science ranters.

And life is more like “imaginably complex,” for we use evolutionary algorithms precisely where our human design processes fail due to complexity, yet where evolutionary processes succeed. Evolution is something like a computational program, one that is massively parallel.

We are still trying to figure it out.

Yes, we are still trying to figure it out, which is why we’re unwilling to give up the only theory that reduces conceptual complexity, evolutionary theory. ID only wants us to abandon the predictive theory, in preference of dealing with everything as if it were only contingency (or where it understands data according to MET, yet denies MET’s causal mechanisms which predict those data).

We need every bit of input we can get.

Actually, we do not. We do not need the input of Ptolemy to understand the complexity of the heavens, we need people who understand science developments to input their knowledge and creativity. That’s why we have standards in science, among other reasons.

Let’s be humble about what we know and what we don’t know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.

I saw absolutely no humility in Stein’s propaganda against “Darwinism”. Only the usual arrogance of the ignorant, as they insist that bad ideas are as deserving of consideration as the ideas which have guided biological research for at least a hundred years.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen Davidson Says:

October 31st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
This blog is good at allowing comments, but bad in making us wait to see if we got through. I’m going to try again to post one section (it should come after my first post), again because I don’t see it on the preview. If it is a repeat, it should be easy to ignore.

Continuing from my first post on this blog thread:

(In law, this theory is known as “legal realism”. Judges make up their minds on the basis of their prejudices and then rationalize their decisions by pretending to be bound by prior case law. One might call what happens with ideologies “political realism.” Persons make up their ideologies based on their times and their life situations.)

Yes, funny that, judges care about causation (well, that’s not actually Ben’s point, but what is his point? That the justice systems doesn’t work, or does it work dispense justice most of the time?), and you do too in the area of history, Ben.

Yet you’re pushing magic as an appropriate alternative to your causal methods in the biological realm, and you have absolutely no basis from which to do this.

Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.

Very selective there, Stein. You know very well that Newton’s was an age of slavery, plunder, colonialism, and religious bigotry. Yet you praise Newton and his science, while you rubbish Darwin’s science by association. That’s not honest in the least.

Anyway, at least capitalize properly. It’d be “Age of Imperialism” if you’re capitalizing “imperialism”, not “age of Imperialism.”

What is more, Darwinism as such fits your own political posture rather well, Ben, as you favor the haves over the have-nots.

When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed–i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were.

Sure, and this differs from Newton’s time, how (I know it does differ, but how does it differ in a better manner?)? IOW, do you have a point that doesn’t undercut what you’ve written heretofore?

Anyway, as it happens, the capitalism of Victorian Britain is somewhat analogous to Darwinism (and is not actually very akin to traditional society, as we evolved to be more cooperative than Ben’s politics prescribes), and it may indeed have helped to give the right idea to Darwin. What of that? One has to get ideas from somewhere, the only real issue being the one that Ben avoids, the issue of evidence that so strongly supports evolutionary theory, and does not support the creationistic views that Ben and Ruloff wish to impose on science.

It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism “…outdoor relief for the upper classes?”)

So what’s your point? Are we supposed to throw out English science, since it was based in a non-politically correct economic system? Here’s Ben saying that Western culture must (selectively) go, due to its many sins. Very good, Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the
nihilists and bigots who fault civilization’s advances just because much of the past evil was retained for so long (and into the present, one might (or might not) argue).

But it fell to a true Imperialist,

Arguably, Stein is rather more an imperialist than upper-class Darwin was. Darwin didn’t much trouble with politics, he was one of the privileged Brits who dabbled in the sciences because it was very interesting and socially rewarded, not because it yielded any great
imperial or capitalist prizes. Indeed, a good deal of science was done that way, while Ben selectively condemns evolutionary science simply because he’s bigoted against it.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
id='postcolor'>

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,12:23   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2007,03:54)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 01 2007,02:11)
In his latest article "Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?" Ben Stein is criticised by Glen Davidson who wrote there seven successive long posts! I've put there
my answer listing antidarwian scientists.

I am not sure there is so strong relation between darwinism and capitalism as Ben Stein claim, but the idea of "natural selection" is something really extraordinary and new. Ancient people living in connection with nature never observed it. But it is strongly supported from armchair intellectulas sitting at Universities in industrialised countries, scientists who wouldn't survive a day in countryard.


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/


John Davison comments there sometimes and his posts are very briskly and good.

Amazing insight, as usual VMartin.

We hang upon your every word.

Even when you say things like "I am not so sure" I still believe you are 100% correct.

So, if ancient people living in nature never understood selection, how did the wolf get domesticated?

So you obviously do not see difference between artificial and natural selection and you suppose it was natural selection that is responsible for domesticating wolfs.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:22   

and the difference is?  

are you still struggling to understand what heredity is?

tell us about the morphic fields marty.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2007,14:11   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 03 2007,15:09)
I'm starting to seriously doubt the Expelled bunch's commitment to allowing comments to run without censorship, though they did fairly well in the past.  Btw, as others have apparently found, Dawkins' forum sucks too.  Regardless, I'm now archiving the fisking I did of Ben's latest blog (there are a couple of repeats of posts):

(OK, I'll actually put the posts here when I can get through)

They are totally censoring what is allowed.  I submitted my hear-rendering saga of the ID-Believing Double PhD publicly riduculed by a girl graduate student last week, and it is STILL not up, although they did send me an email that they received by story.

The email thanked Bill  for his story.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2007,15:58   

I think the last time they added any sob stories was the 30th.

I keep hoping someone will submit some short sob videos we can watch too.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2007,16:14   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,13:58)
I think the last time they added any sob stories was the 30th.

I keep hoping someone will submit some short sob videos we can watch too.

If word got out that someone was soliciting stories of "mistreatment" by the International Science Conspiracy, and offering to put said stories in a movie, every wack-job on the Web would have sent them something this weekend.  

Even among the 16 responses which got through before the Expelled inbox melted down, about a third are from the tinfoil-hat brigade.  The rest are variants of "Darwinists made me fale english" or "they were so mean to me when I tried to preach the word in biology class."

We're not seeing anything at all from advocates of Dembskian, dont-mention-god ID.

<edited - inadvertently submitted before finishing>

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2007,18:11   

I pray to the intelligent designer that they start including the poor me victim stories again.  Several of them are howlers indeed.  Some of the ones I submitted will be very funny if they ever get published.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,14:13   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,16:11)
I pray to the intelligent designer that they start including the poor me victim stories again.  Several of them are howlers indeed.  Some of the ones I submitted will be very funny if they ever get published.

O frabjous day!  More sob stories!

And it looks like many of them aren't exactly what they had in mind:

 
Quote
Like any Raelian I recognize that the human race is the product of the Intelligent Designers who igners who we have been in contact with for decades. Everytime I tried to get the intelligent design promoters (William Dembski) and others at www.uncommondescent.com to at least consider the Intelligent Designer hwas discovered years ago I was ridiculed. They never once asked me for evidence or even considered the evidence. They ended up banning me and ALL my comments from their blog. Science is about discovery and evidence, no just towing the intelligent design party line.

link

 
Quote
Today I was expelled from the Uncommon Descent blog. All I was trying to do was talk about intelligent design in an intelligent way. I'm a Christian and a religion professor. Can you believe the sort of censorship this site is engaging in?

link - goodonyer, ReligionProf!

Plus a visitor  from an alternate reality, where wheels are square, trout are allowed to vote, and:
 
Quote
I was allowed only 30 seconds to speak (I saved a written copy of my speech), but was able to point out that the top scientists in the world have all but thrown out the current theory of evolution. Only lower-level professors still teach it, and they ridicule those who think otherwise.


--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10237
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,14:32   

EF This:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=73

Parody or slimey Sal?

--------------
"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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,15:25   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2007,14:32)
EF This:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=73

Parody or slimey Sal?

Slimey Sal.  The writing style, like Dense O'Leary's, is (and should be) inimitable.

Note the fluffing up of credentials -

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover).
3 degrees in scientific disciplines
Present during an interview by prestigious journal
for a major story

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,15:28   

Ridiculed because of attacking Naturism

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=95

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,15:30   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2007,14:32)
EF This:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=73

Parody or slimey Sal?

Quote
The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.


Well, it's not so far off what he could have written. I bet he believes that's what happened. It's no wonder Sal and his Ilk don't do research - they know the answer before they even start. If he knew the simulations were "false" before any research at the "lab", presumably they are still false for the same reasons now and can be proven so easily by Sal by sharing how he knows. Presuming he indeed said those words.

And anyway, how could Sal resist the glare of the camera, it's in his blood. Shameless self publicist. A chance to be on the big screen? Sal would sell his soul. And the devil would come off the worst there.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,15:43   

Quote
The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.

Conspiracy and delusions of grandeur in a single sentence.  If this isn't Sal, it's a very gifted mimic.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,15:49   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2007,13:28)
Ridiculed because of attacking Naturism

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=95

Quite apart from the vocabulary issues, this one is fall-off-your-chair funny.  Too ridiculous for the Bigfoot loonies...

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,22:00   

Ahem,,,,Uh...

Quote
Expelled For Promoting ID
Added by: Chris, on 2007-11-01 18:15:52
Like any Raelian I recognize that the human race is the product of the Intelligent Designers who igners who we have been in contact with for decades. Everytime I tried to get the intelligent design promoters (William Dembski) and others at www.uncommondescent.com to at least consider the Intelligent Designer hwas discovered years ago I was ridiculed. They never once asked me for evidence or even considered the evidence. They ended up banning me and ALL my comments from their blog. Science is about discovery and evidence, no just towing the intelligent design party line.


Who is this Chris guy?  And why is his typing so shitty?

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,22:02   

Quote
Expelled from Uncommon Descent
Added by: James, on 2007-11-01 20:02:19
Today I was expelled from the Uncommon Descent blog. All I was trying to do was talk about intelligent design in an intelligent way. I'm a Christian and a religion professor. Can you believe the sort of censorship this site is engaging in?

[URL=http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/11/banned-from-uncommon-descent.html [/url]


Read it here

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2007,22:06   

Guys like hereoisreal should tell their story of being banned by intelligent design blog UD because they were open about their belief in God and Christ.

Dave tard censors anything religious at UD.  Why does UD censor faithful, honest christians I ask you?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,07:56   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 08 2007,22:00)
Ahem,,,,Uh...

 
Quote
Expelled For Promoting ID
Added by: Chris, on 2007-11-01 18:15:52
Like any Raelian I recognize that the human race is the product of the Intelligent Designers who igners who we have been in contact with for decades. Everytime I tried to get the intelligent design promoters (William Dembski) and others at www.uncommondescent.com to at least consider the Intelligent Designer hwas discovered years ago I was ridiculed. They never once asked me for evidence or even considered the evidence. They ended up banning me and ALL my comments from their blog. Science is about discovery and evidence, no just towing the intelligent design party line.


Who is this Chris guy?  And why is his typing so shitty?

Chris

Congratulations!  A real live Raelian - impressive!
I'd be more impressed if you wound up with Katie Holmes though.  And of course, posted pictures.

But seriously congrats - at least you made the cut.  The post from "Bill" being abused by a girl grad student didn't make it.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Henry J



Posts: 4080
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,09:19   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 08 2007,21:06)
Guys like hereoisreal should tell their story of being banned by intelligent design blog UD because they were open about their belief in God and Christ.

Dave tard censors anything religious at UD.  Why does UD censor faithful, honest christians I ask you?

"It's not about right.

It's not about wrong.

It's about power."

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,12:29   

Quote
Dear Friend of EXPELLED,

More exciting news regarding Ben Stein and EXPELLED ~ No Intelligence Allowed.
He's on NATIONAL NEWS TODAY.
Please tune in to The Glen Beck Television Program TODAY, Tuesday, November 13th at 3:15pm (EST). Please see details below.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13TH

3:15 – 3:30pm (EST)
Television interview
National
CNN Headline News
“The Glenn Beck TV Show”


Thanks!


--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,12:43   

Y'know I've been thinking about how funny it would be if Stein milked all this press from UD, the DI, and all the other creationists, then pulled a fast one and put out a quality, accurate film.

If it got through to 1% of the people sent by the Tard pushers to view it...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,13:36   

I wonder if Ben plans to watch the Nova special tonight.  I'd love to be a fly on the wall at ben's house if he does.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,16:49   

Three more sob stories.  Including the notorious Forrest Mims - not hired to write a science column for, well, not accepting science.

The second tale of woe is more, um, interesting...
Quote
When I began fighting evolutionism as a public school teacher, a powerful former Board of Education member tried to stir up the community against me. She made false claims to a Jewish Professor whose daughter was in my class. She secretly went to my principal in an attempt to get me fired.

Darwinists=Jewish Conspiracy?  But weren't they Nazis last week?

Sob story #3: Darwinists made me fale skool:
Quote
I remember during my high school biology class, being made to answer questions that had no correct answer. Here's how the question would go: What is the age of the earth? A) 110 million years B) 21 million years C) 2.4 billion years D) 65 billion years

So what would I put for my answer? I would circle the answer they wanted and then write in the margin something like: You think it is this answer, but I do not agree with that. The correct answer is not displayed here.

She's right though - the correct answer is not displayed here.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,18:21   

Speaking of martyrs to the cause, what ever happened to Bryan Leonard, the high school science teacher who testified at the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt while in a Ph.D. program at, I think, Ohio State.  His dissertation defense was held up because his defense committee was improperly constructed (plus they were all creationist sympathizers) and because he failed to get proper approval for using human subjects.

Sounds like a perfect candidate for this movie.  Is he in it?

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,15:05   

It's not terribly interesting, but I thought Stein's prattle on Glenn Beck's program is worth a few quotes and a link:

Quote
STEIN: Well this was for a documentary which as you say is called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." We were studying what our kids were taught about evolution, what they were taught about how life originated.

What we found is that if you question evolution, you have a good chance of losing tenure. You have a good chance of getting fired, losing a grant, you`re out of there.

And yet evolution and Darwinism do not explain an awful lot about life. Darwin said nothing about how life originated and Darwin had no idea how complicated the cell was. Darwin was never able to point to any clear evidence of any species that originated by evolution and there hasn`t been much progress in Darwinism since then. But we found that if you even question the established church of Darwinism, bang, you`re gone.


Uh, yeah Ben, who the hell lost tenure?

Damn, Darwin didn't explain the origin of life?  What did he think he was doing, explaining evolution, or something?

Darwin didn't point to any clear evidence of species appearing by evolution, of course, since the finches look like they were designed by engineers.  Not much progress in "Darwinism," either, or at least no progress in teaching Stein anything.

Quote
BECK: What about first cause or intelligent?

STEIN: Well, first cause is not -- it`s lightning striking a mud puddle. See, this is what the evolutionists say and by the way, they may be right. I`m not a scientist, they could be right. Evolutionists struck a mud puddle and out of that mud puddle came a fully-equipped Boeing 747.

Because a human cell, or plant cell or frog cell has hundreds of thousands of very complicated, moving parts all of which have to work together in exact synchronization with each other to build the cell, repair the cell and reproduce the cell.

Darwin thought it was just Jello inside the cell. No, very complicated. How that happened by lightning striking a mud puddle is a very good question. And if you ask that question, you better start looking for another job or have rich parents or something.


I think Stein's running off of old Frankenstein movies there.  At least the mud puddle differs somewhat, but the lightning bolt is still there.

Bizarre, though, that Darwin thought lightning in a mud puddle made a jello-filled cell.  Is this a new design process for making gelatinous desserts?

Anyway, that's most of what Stein said that he no doubt considers to be substantive about evolution on the Beck show.  But here's the link for anyone wanting context (it's maybe around 2/3 of the way down):

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/13/gb.01.html

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,17:32   

Thanks Glen, I wondered if anyone watched this.  

Someone should send Ben a copy of the Nova program.  Maybe I will.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,16:00   

Another handful of courageous ID researchers silenced by the establishment creationists asked to stop preaching in high school biology classes.

Perhaps we should contact Chris Comer.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,22:05   

Luskin writes:


Quote
“This is a clear First Amendment case,” said Discovery attorney for public policy and legal affairs Casey Luskin


How is Gonzalez a first amendment case?  That's freedom of political speech if I recall correctly.  

Isn't Luskin a Lawyer?  Did he go to Law School?  Did he pass the Bar?

Is Luskin a Total Idiot?

So, the DI is going to have a press conference where they say that Gonzalez's right to free speech (political) was...what.  What was done?

ISU bounced GG because he is a horse's ass.  Check chapter 5 of the ISU Tenure Handbook: Horse's asses may be bounced for cause.

Next.

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,00:12   

Quote
sn't Luskin a Lawyer?  Did he go to Law School?  Did he pass the Bar?

Apparently, yes.
Quote

Is Luskin a Total Idiot?

No, of course not, when you understand he's not interested in truth, but rather fighting the "culture war" in K-12 schools, hoping to blunt or even stop the teaching of science to kids in public schools.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2007,13:30   

Do we see a trend toward productivity, or away from it?

Ethan Rop put together this nice graphic of Guillermo Gonzalez's productivity:



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

    
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,07:50   

John Lynch's Chart is prettier - and more visually compelling.  I say we should take full advantage of the vision that we have evolved.

http://scienceblogs.com/strange....tio.php



--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,07:54   

Maybe that dry spell should be called the "Privileged Planet Minimum".

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

    
J-Dog



Posts: 4366
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,08:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 07 2007,07:54)
Maybe that dry spell should be called the "Privileged Planet Minimum".

HA!  Excellent - Touche!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,07:15   

Iowa State Daily article on emails in Gonzalez case

Quote

Gonzalez said he feels "not everything is on the up and up; not everything is kosher," and he felt pressure from inside the department "even before the petition was circulated in 2005, and all the more so after the petition." Concerning the e-mails, he said he was "surprised about what people were saying behind my back."

"Absolutely, I can say in unequivocal terms, that ID was a factor [for denying tenure]," Gonzalez said. "I guess I was being naive. I thought I was being judged on my full record."


Uh, dude, you put "Privileged Planet" in your tenure dossier. IDC was part of your "full record".

Translation: 'Hey, I've shot myself in the foot! It's all your fault!'

Quote

John R. Clem, senior physicist at Ames Laboratory, wrote in 2005 that he was concerned about the possible creation of a "hostile work environment" by circulating an official statement and wanted also to "withdraw [his] name from any public statement."

Clem wrote that Gonzalez's statements were an "embarrassment" to the department and wished to instill in other members that Gonzalez's statements were just the "highly publicized views of one untenured member" of the faculty.

"I feel that publication of such a statement might become the most important piece of evidence in a successful court case to guarantee tenure to the person whose scientific credibility we should attempt to discredit," Clem wrote. "I think the best policy is just grin and bear it for the next couple of years."

Clem said he feels the e-mails being brought to light by the Discovery Institute are misrepresentations of the full story, as they are "on a fishing expedition to raise publicity for their cause" by "extracting the most negative comments" made by faculty to the press, thus facilitating their case against Iowa State.

"We had a very delicate situation [at the time], and we tried to handle it as delicately as possible," Clem said. "[The Discovery Institute] still came at us with guns blazing. It didn't do any good."

Clem said the decision to deny tenure to Gonzalez was "absolutely not" based on ID.


Prof. Clem, one can't be too surprised that the Discovery Institute went with their primary competency.

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

    
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,10:40   

Upon actually reviewing the emails in question, I don't think they represent a threat to ISU's decision on Gonzalez. Indeed, there are passages that work powerfully against the DI's position.

Examples include Steve Kawaler's prescient remarks:
                         
Quote
11/21/05:

Simply put, next year's tenure review will be very closely scrutinized by the public and the press - and we must do whatever we can to make it a fair process. An unprecedented step such as a statement, signed by members of the department doing the tenure review that the science being done by the candidate is no good, works directly against our need to ensure, and display, a fair tenure review.

11/22/05:

Believe me I understand the frustration batted about here. But we should expect that the DI (or whoever comes to Guillermo's aid) will be subpoenaing our records and anything else they can get (including copies of the e-mails that are being exchanged between all of us.). So, with that in mind, keeping the process as fair as possible should be utmost.

This earlier sympathetic remark is also interesting. From Anne Willson on 2/17/04:
                       
Quote
Yes, I am aware of this [Gonzalez' intention to publish P.P.] and not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past the tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enough to be willing to take the risk.

All of the exchange concerns the dilemma that Gonzalez created for himself, and for his faculty, by being so public with his advocacy of ID at the moment that his tenure review was approaching. Prominent is concern over damage to faculty recruitment that his actions had created, and how to limit that damage (including consideration of a public statement). Gonzalez himself rendered his ID advocacy impossible to ignore; as Wes notes above he referenced P.P. in his tenure dossier, and department faculty also grappled in this exchange with the fact that he made taped public presentations in which he argued that ID should be regarded as sound science, placing his ID advocacy squarely in the domain of their assessment of his quality as a scientist. As indicated above, also prominent among the concerns discussed was the need to preserve a tenure review that was fair to Gonzalez, as well as the desire to avoid creating a work environment that was hostile to him. As above, he was cautioned that it was unwise of him to create those problems at that time, but he went forward anyway.

I'm working on a catchy aphorism that concerns planting stuff that one later harvests, but can't quite get it right.

--------------
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

  
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,11:20   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2007,10:40)
Upon actually reviewing the emails in question, I don't think they represent a threat to ISU's decision on Gonzalez. Indeed, there are passages that work powerfully against the DI's position:

Examples include Steve Kawaler's prescient remarks:
                       
Quote
11/21/05:

Simply put, next year's tenure review will be very closely scrutinized by the public and the press - and we must do whatever we can to make it a fair process. An unprecedented step such as a statement, signed by memores of the department doing the tenure review that the science being done by the candidate is no good, wors directly against our need to ensure, and display, a fair tenure review.

11/22/05:

Believe me I understand the frustration batted about here. But we should expect that the DI (or whoever comes to Guillermo's aid) will be subpoenaing our records and anything else they can get (including copies of the e-mails that are being exchanged between all of us.). So, with that in mind, keeping the process as fair as possible should be utmost.

This earlier sympathetic remark is also interesting. From Anne Willson on 2/17/04:
                     
Quote
Yes, I am aware of this [Gonzalez' intention to publish P.P.] and not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past the tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enough to be willing to take the risk.

All of the exchange concerns the dilemma that Gonzalez created for himself, and for his faculty, by being so public with his advocacy of ID at the moment that his tenure review was approaching. Prominent is concern over damage to faculty recruitment that his actions had created, and how to limit that damage (including consideration of a public statement). Gonzalez himself rendered his ID advocacy impossible to ignore; as Wes notes above he referenced P.P. in his tenure dossier, and department faculty also grappled in this exchange with the fact that he made taped public presentations in which he argued that ID should be regarded as sound science, placing his ID advocacy squarely in the domain of their assessment of his quality as a scientist. As indicated above, also prominent among the concerns discussed was the need to preserve a tenure review that was fair to Gonzalez, as well as the desire to avoid creating a work environment that was hostile to him. As above, he was cautioned that it was unwise of him to create those problems at that time, but he went forward anyway.

I'm working on a catchy aphorism that concerns planting stuff that one later harvests, but can't quite get it right.

Could somebody do a post on this at Panda's Thumb?

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,11:37   

Mike Dunford is working up something. Expect it on Monday.

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

    
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,15:51   

Very interesting. I can't help but wish the pdf was more complete, but the interdepartmental politics make a lot more sense now.

It's also kind of funny how a number of evidently sympathetic faculty, seeing the oncoming train that was the inevitable Gonzalez lawsuit, voiced worries about lawsuits that are being taken as justification for those lawsuits.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,18:15   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2007,14:32)
EF This:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=73

Parody or slimey Sal?

The story is consistent with what Sal wrote in September at UD:
My retreat from the public view….
Of Groups and Labs at Baylor

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,20:01   

"The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover)."

????

Excuse my ignorance, but what computer simulations is he speaking of and how would he propose to overturn them? Also, what research was he doing that's so special he can't do it on DI money, if it was going to change the world? I'd expect the DI to cough up a cool million at least if a few years on MATLAB were enough to assure their victory.

Further: Why am I so stupid that I continually think it's worth subjecting this crap to logical scrutiny?

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,12:12   

Rob Pennock's testimony in KvD included discussion of Avida [The court reporter doesn't know how to spell "Avida"].

 
Quote

[86]Q. Have you done any scientific research on the subject of evolution?

[87]A. Yes. Some of my current research is on testing evolutionary hypotheses making use of evolving computer organisms.

[88]Q. Can you describe in general terms what that research is?

[89]A. Sure. The idea is to make use of a system that essentially is an evolutionary system whereby the Darwinian mechanism is implemented in the computer and using that to form experiments to test evolutionary hypotheses. Essentially one is able to watch evolution happen and in replicable controlled experiments test particular evolutionary hypotheses.

[90]Q. Has this research been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

[91]A. Yes, in Nature.

[92]Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit P-330? Is this the first page of that article in Nature?

[93]A. Yes, that's right.

[94]Q. And Ken Miller plugged Nature repeatedly in his testimony, but I'll give you the chance as well. Is Nature one of the more prestigious scientific journals?

[95]A. Nature, together with Science and PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science are really considered the top three journals within science.

[96]Q. And obviously peer reviewed?

[97]A. Peer reviewed journals, that's right.

[98]Q. You didn't write this article by yourself?

[99]A. This was a collaborative project. My collaborators in this case were two of my colleagues at Michigan State, Richard Lenski, who is an evolutionary biologist. He's most known for his work on experimental evolution using bacteria. He's had lines of bacteria evolving for the last fifteen years that allows one to do experiments to test evolutionary hypotheses in that kind of system.

He got very excited about this new system that allows one to test evolutionary hypotheses in a way where things are even faster. Charles Ofria is another colleague at Michigan State. He's in the department of computer science, and he together with Christoph Adami, the last name there, are the two originators of the platform known at Evita.  Adami is a theoretical physicist. He's most known currently for his work solving a problem that Steven Hawkings was trying to work on regarding black holes, but he works in this area as well. He at the time was at Tech.

[100]Q. At where?

[101]A. At Tech Research Institute out in California.

[102]Q. I'm going to ask you the same question here that I have asked you in our private meetings, which is these are computer organisms.  They're not biological organisms. What can they possibly show about biological evolution?

[103]A. They show us how the Darwinian mechanism works. The key thing about them is that it's a model where you have the laws that Darwin discovered, the mechanism of random variation that's heritable, that then can be naturally selected, can be seen, manipulated, experimented with in just the same way, it works in just the same way that it works in the biological case. These organisms, computer viruses if you will, evolve. And so one can set up experiments to watch them evolve and test hypotheses about how the Darwinian mechanism works.

[104]Q. Now, these organisms, computer organisms, they didn't arise by themselves, correct? There was a programmer involved?

[105]A. Yes. That would have been Charles Ofria particularly, writing we called the Ancestor Program. The Ancestor is simply a self-replicator, an organism that has instructions to allow it to replicate itself, but otherwise is just a series of blank instructions. That's the basic part that, was hand coded.

[106]Q. So with that, you know, fact of a human designer, a programmer, how can this teach us anything about evolution in the natural world?

[107]A. Our investigations are not about the origin of life. Like Darwin we're not really interested in that particular question. We're interested in as Darwin said the origin of species, the origin of complexity, the origin of adaptations, and what we're able to do in this system is examine essentially what Darwin examined. We're not investigating how life began itself. We're investigating how once that happens, things evolve, evolve complex traits.

[108]Q. So just to make sure I understand, this research wouldn't be valuable in any way to coming up with a natural explanation for how the first biological life arose?

[109]A. No. It's not at all aimed at that.

[110]Q. Does the designer, the programmer, play any role in the development of these computer organisms, like their evolution after that?

[111]A. The wonderful thing about this is that we can essentially sit back and watch evolution happen. We'll set up an environment, set up a system, put in place the Ancestor, put in place the original organism, and then within the experimental set-up, depending on what one wants to investigate you'll set it up differently, but essentially at that point we're not going to go in and hand code anything. We're not going to manipulate the code. What happens at the end, if they've evolve some new functional trait, that something that happens by virtue of the Darwinian mechanism. They randomly evolve, they randomly vary, that variation is inherited, and the natural selection then does its work.

[112]Q. What advantages does this computer model have over doing research on the subject of evolution with biological organisms?

[113]A. It has the advantage of speed primarily, and precision. It allows us to do what you really can do with natural organisms.  Lenski's work with E. coli lets one do experimental evolution so one can test hypotheses in that way. It's taken fifteen years, E. coli are pretty fast replicators, but even so, four generations or so a day still is a long time, and your graduate students would never get out and get jobs if you had to wait for that whole process to go through, and what this does is let one watch it happen much more quickly, and then set up very controlled circumstances so that you can really do replications. A controlled experiment is now possible in a way that allows very precise comparison of groups and then statistically significant results.

[114]MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, at this time I'd like to move qualify Dr. Pennock as an expert in the philosophy of science, in the history of science, in intelligent design, the subject of intelligent design, and in his research on the evolution of computer generated organisms.


 
Quote

[193]Q. Are irreducible complexity and specified complexity associated with particular individuals in the intelligent design movement?

[194]A. Irreducible complexity is most associated with Michael Behe.  Specified complexity is most associated with William Dembski. These are interrelated concepts though. Specified complexity is the more general form. Dembski directly though says that irreducible complexity is a type of, a case of specified complexity.

[195]Q. Does your work on computer organisms address these arguments of irreducible complexity and specified complexity?

[196]A. Yes, it does.

[197]Q. Can you just describe for us briefly how it does that?

[198]A. Sure. The claims that are made with regard to these two concepts are as follows. Systems that exhibit or that purportedly exhibit irreducible complexity or specified complexity, actually at this point let me just focus on irreducible complexity, because since it's an example of specified complexity, any conclusion that we can get with regard to irreducible complexity would also deal with specified complexity. So we can just focus on that.

So the claim is any system, Behe's example is a mouse trap, so it doesn't have to be a specifically biological system, just a very general argument, any system that is irreducibly complex, thus to say has interacting parts that are well matched to introduce a function, such that if you remove any of those parts, it breaks, stops functioning, doesn't produce that basic function, is an irreducibly complex system, and such systems the claim is couldn't have been evolved through a Darwinian mechanism.

What our system shows is that's just wrong. We can observe digital organisms evolving by the Darwinian mechanism, starting with an organism that cannot produce some effect, cannot fulfill a function, doesn't have this possibility, and later on evolve to the point where it can, some complex trait that we can then examine. The nice thing about this system is it lets one look at it very precisely, we can look inside and see does it fulfill the definition?

In fact, it does. We can test to see, remove the parts, does it break?  In fact, it does. And we can say here at the end we have an irreducibly complex system, a little organism this can produce this complex function. But the nice thing about the system is that we can look back and see in fact it did evolve. We can watch it happen. So it's a direct refutation of that challenge to evolution.

[199]Q. Is that point addressed, put forward in the Nature paper?

[200]A. It's not. The Nature paper itself is meant just to be a test of a general evolutionary hypothesis, examining how it is that complex features arise. Darwin had specific things to say about that. What we were doing was simply looking into that, testing it in a way. It just turns out that it also applies to this case.


Cross-examination:

 
Quote

[205]Q. I want to ask you a few questions about your work in the computer science area and Evita. You testified that in your opinion that Evita is an artificial life system designed to test evolutionary hypotheses, correct?

[206]A. That's correct.

[207]Q. And that's the scope of your testimony here today. You said the same thing, correct?

[208]A. That's correct.

[209]Q. And you said today and I believe in your opinion that it's designed to instantiate Darwin's law, correct?

[210]A. That's correct. By instantiate, just so that I this kind of explain this sort of philosophical term, the difference here is between a simulation of something and an actual instance of it. That's to say a realization of it. In the Evita system we're not simulating evolution. Evolution is actually happening. It's the very mechanisms of evolution itself as Darwin discovered them. The organisms actually do self replicate. They do randomly vary the code changes. The mutations happen at random. There is competition and actual natural selection. So these are not being simulated. Those processes are actually happening. So that's the sense in which it's an instance of evolution, not just a simulation.

[211]Q. And to make sure I understand, it seems you're saying that the instantiation makes it a more perfect model of Darwinian law of natural selection, is that correct?

[212]A. What I'm saying is it's an actual example of it, that what we have in the system our organisms, Evitians, have the very properties that the Darwinian mechanism discusses. So it's not a simulation of replication. They are actually self replicating. It's not a simulation of a random mutation. That's what's going on with the code. It's not a simulation of natural selection. They do compete and are naturally selected, without intervention, without design.

[213]Q. And Mr. Rothschild asked you and I believe you testified that the program doesn't address the question of origins, but rather the process of Darwin's law, it's working out in the computer program organisms, correct?

[214]A. It doesn't deal with the origins of life. It deals with the evolution of complexity of adaptations. So origins can sometimes be used in both ways. So what's relevant here is it's not about the origin of life. It's about the origin of complex traits.

[215]Q. And I believe you said that the overall purpose of the project is to test how evolution actually works, is that correct?

[216]A. That's right. What we're able to do in the system is put forward an evolutionary hypothesis and then set up a controlled experiment and let the system evolve with replications, as many are as needed, and in some cases you might have fifty different populations replicating in a controlled situation, fifty in an experimental situation, so that you can then watch what happens in each case and observe evolution, the Darwinian process, do its stuff.

[217]Q. Now, if someone looked at a computer program, I think you have said that it was written by a particular individual called the, what did you call it, the genesis program or the --

[218]A. No, the Ancestor.

[219]Q. Ancestor program, forgive me. They would look at that and immediately know that was done by a computer programmer, correct?

[220]A. Not necessarily at all. In fact, one can look at these things and not know which things were coded by a programmer and which things were evolved. We know because we put them in there this was the one that we coded, but if one were to just look at them, you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell at all.

[221]Q. So is it your testimony that if someone happened to cross that computer program, they wouldn't know that someone had designed it?

[222]A. That's right. You would not be able to pick out the ones that were evolved from those that Charles Ofria hand coded as the Ancestor.  As I said, what the Ancestor does is simply replicate it. It's a very basic program. Most of it is just blank code, and as the organisms evolve it can actually turn out that they lose the ability to replicate. Some mutations are harmful.

Many are. Most are, or neutral. It might make no difference. Some mutations can actually make them better replicators, and if it turns out that random mutations replicates better than another organism, that means that in the competition, in the digital environment, those will be naturally selected. So what you'll have over time is the evolution of for example faster replicators. That is they figure out a way to replicate faster than the original programmer programmed in.

Or it could turn out that they'll be worse, and those will then lose out in the competition. So what you see is the evolutionary process, random mutations to the code, being naturally selected for and generation after generation organisms evolving, in this case better replication ability. Or, and this is the other thing that's characteristic about Evita, it can evolve the ability to perform complex logical operations, and in this case again it's not something that was programmed in at all.

The original Ancestor could do none of that, but what one sees at the end are organisms that have evolved these complex abilities. The code has changed. It's acquired an ability that it did not have before. And that's what we're able to see, something we know that was designed at the beginning but couldn't do any of this stuff to something at the end that has evolved so it's quite complex.

The set of instructions has to be executed in a specific order to produce a particular function. That's something we can look at and say how did it do it, and often they're very clever, they evolve things where the programmer would think why, I would never have thought even to do it that way. And that's what allows this to be a nice model for examining how evolution can produce complex functional adaptations.

[223]Q. Sure.

[224]A. If you have it, and the other thing about it is -- sorry, I get excited about this. We can trace, we can keep track of the full evolutionary history. So we have a complete fossil record if you will.  So after we've see that it's evolved something we can look back and look, it's a mutation by random mutation of how that evolved.

[225]Q. Sure, and forgive me if my question was imprecise. I didn't want to cut you off, but my question is a little different than one you've answered at least as I see it, not technical, which is this.  I'm not asking about the difference between the organisms you're looking at. I'm saying if someone came across that computer program, the Ancestor program, wouldn't they believe it was designed?

[226]A. And my answer is that you really can't say that. You might believe it and you'd be wrong. You can't tell the difference between the one that was encoded and one that was evolved later on.

[227]Q. So it's your testimony that someone could believe the computer program was not designed?

[228]A. You're asking a psychological question about what someone could believe, is that right? In that case they could believe all sorts of things, but the question has to do with can you look at them and tell this was one that was designed, and the answer there is no, not necessarily.

[229]Q. Let's use your definition and let's constrict causality to the natural world and I'll ask you the question again. If someone like myself wandered down to Michigan State University and came across your computer system generating this pattern that you have described in great detail which is designed to substantiate Darwinian mechanism, is it your testimony or do you have an opinion concerning whether someone like me would think that was designed or not?

[230]A. Someone might think it was. You might look at it and you might say wow, that looks pretty complicated, how could that have happened.  You might think this is so amazingly functional and interrelated, it's irreducibly complex, it had to have been designed by someone, and you'd be wrong.

[231]Q. So I would be wrong if I inferred that that computer program has been designed by a computer programmer?

[232]A. That's right. You'd be wrong about that. The ones that emerged at the end of the evolutionary process have specific code that lets them do specific adaptive functions, and that was not programmed in.

[233]Q. Would I be wrong if I inferred that the computer program had been created by a supernatural force?

[234]A. If you were to conclude this just as a theological position or as a scientific position?

[235]Q. If I were to conclude it in any way.

[236]A. So again, and this is a nice example to sort of show the difference between thinking about this as a scientist under methodological naturalism versus the intelligent design notion of opening our minds to the possibility, what I have said here is that the organisms at the end weren't designed. We didn't have a hand in doing that. They evolved. Someone who says well, we have to consider the possibility of supernatural interventions might say well, you know, God was in there or some supernatural designer was in there changing the bits inside the computer.

Well, you know, we don't know if that's true, and no scientist can ever know if that's true. That's not a testable proposition. So in that sense we can never rule that out. That's part of what it means to be a methodological naturalist. So we're neutral with regard to that.  Our conclusion that there was no design is one based upon methodological naturalism, namely we're assuming that this is working through ordinary laws, that there aren't any interventions that breaking laws. We know that we didn't do it, and that's what we can say as scientists. If God or some supernatural being is in there fiddling with the gates, the logic gates such that there really was design, we don't have any way of testing that.


I have no idea how they would propose to "overturn" the demonstrable claims Pennock made in KvD with respect to Avida. I think they must be delusional on that point. I guess we'll see whether the EIL improves any on the already-poor track record that the virtual lab has established.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 09 2007,12:13

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,12:40   

Of course, the decision does not cite Avida (or "Evita"), nor does it use "digital", or "computer". Nor do I see a more indirect reference to Pennock's testimony concerning Avida in the decision.

Anybody from the EIL could easily prove me wrong if I am wrong: quote from the KvD decision to establish the point.

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

    
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,10:07   

Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 08 2007,20:01)
Excuse my ignorance, but what computer simulations is he speaking of and how would he propose to overturn them?

They've mentioned Tom Schneider's ev and Devolab's Avida.  They overturn these programs by showing that they contain "active information", which, translated into non-obfuscatory language, means that the evolutionary algorithms involved are more effective than blind search.  Needless to say, scientists everywhere are shocked! shocked! by that revelation.

I've asked Sal twice what exactly the EIL is accomplishing with its framework, and he ignored the question both times.  Dembski claims that the EIL will put Devolab out of business, but I doubt we'll ever see him betting a bottle of Coke, much less single malt scotch, on that claim.

   
Quote
Also, what research was he doing that's so special he can't do it on DI money, if it was going to change the world?


I know your question is rhetorical, but I'll spell out the obvious answer:  Baylor's kibosh on the EIL funding (a whopping $30k for two years) makes for a great persecution story and a handy excuse for the EIL producing nothing of value.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Ben Franklin



Posts: 1
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,13:31   

I was posting on the expelled site, but my posts were considered "pathetic", so I figured that this was the place to come.

Let’s take a closer look at those who wrote in to the Shout Out section on the expelled website claiming to have been “expelled”.

Of the 43 postings (only 42 now, cos’s entry seems to have mysteriously vanished), there are 6 claiming to have been fired, or forced to resign. I think this is relevant, and will be discussed later.

Sixteen posts claim to have been denied something: Tenure (3), tuition/scholarship (2), membership at church (1), participating at a website (5) (note- 80% of those were banned from ID sites), a potential future as an academician (1), a potential future as a football player (1), publication (2) (note- both were later published), and that a library refused a subscription to an unnamed journal (1).

Eleven posts claim to have been not expelled, but mocked.  These are some of my favorites.  Sorry, but anyone who considers Kent Hovind a scientist deserves all the mocking one can muster.

Nine additional posts were from creationists who didn’t claim to have been fired, or denied something, but they just seem pi$$ed off that their creationist claims weren’t taken seriously enough for them, i.e. “my creation club challenged the high school science teachers to a debate and they refused.” And “everytime I talk about Creation Science my teacher makes me feel stupid”.  Is this mocking? OK, it probably is.

One post was just a letter cautioning ID proponents to remain anonymous.
.

Here are some of my thoughts, and I would certainly entertain civil arguments and debate regarding them-

A great part of the problem we face here is - why does “Expelled” and the ID movement in general, while trying to make the case that “’Big Science’ has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom”, not distanced itself from the dumb, old, completely disproved ideas of literal biblical creation and a 6,000 year old earth?   Does anyone think that Michael Behe will abandon all his research because Ken Ham says “You can’t prove anything, YOU WEREN’T THERE!”?

Simply put, that move would alienate way too much of the populist base the ID movement is trying to rouse into social and political action.  Take for example, Don McLeroy, new chairman of the Texas State Board of Education.  As is evidenced by this sermon that he delivered at his church about ID:

http://www.grace-bible.org/downloa....mer.mp3

This man is clearly an inerrant bible literalist, who believes in a 6,000 year old earth, which was created in 6 - 24 hour days, and covered by a global flood, from which Noah, his kin and the animals on the ark were the only survivors, and from whom all animal life on this planet came to exist.  Now, under it’s “big tent” philosophy, the ID movement is OK with having young earth creationists as supporters, and young earth creationists, for some reason that I don’t quite understand, are OK with the ID movement as well.

But will Don McLeroy be satisfied with Texas schools teaching science classes containing information that Michael Behe has publicly stated he adheres to – namely common descent and a 4.5 billion year old earth?  I don’t think so.

I don’t think creationists like McLeroy will be happy until the book of Genesis is substituted for the textbooks currently in use in Texas science classrooms.

So, I don’t think that it’s possible for the ID movement to ever achieve the slightest legitimacy within the scientific or academic communities until it at least separates the science wheat from the creationist chaff, which, I am sure it is loathe to do because, as stated previously, it would alienate too many of its major financial contributors, and its most powerful and politically influential supporters.  

Now, let’s revisit the “expelled”.  The first thing that concerns me is that we are only hearing one side of the story, and in cases like these there are always at least two sides to be heard, although I feel confident in saying, based on pre-release info and interviews that when Expelled is released, the movie will also be decidedly one-sided.    

But, six individuals have posted that they either lost their jobs, or were forced to resign because of intolerance.  Of those, one was a musician for a church, who was asked to leave because he taught a song whose lyrics questioned some church doctrine.  If true, this is certainly intolerant of the church, but clearly, it has been upheld, that some organizations, even when using Federal funds, may discriminate in their hiring decisions.

Another was a Sunday school teacher who claims he was forced to resign because he didn’t want to keep to the church’s “vague” lesson plan on creation.  If true, then, again, intolerant of the church, but certainly within their purview to have taught what they desired to have taught.

The remaining four are Jerald, Ross, Jerry and Christopher.

Jerry claims he was fired because of his anti- Darwinist views at a Spring Arbor University, which is an evangelical Protestant school.  He indicates that he was fired due to his doubts about Darwinism even though the President and Vice President of the school were openly creationist, although he does state in his post that he also experienced antagonism from “dogmatic Darwinists” at the previous University he taught at, Bowing Green State University in Ohio.  Jerry taught psychology, not any field remotely related to evolution.  It seems to me that something is missing from this story.  How pi$$ed off could he have gotten the faculty of the biology department for them to have them call for his ouster?  How does it serve “big science” to have him expelled?

Christopher was a teaching assistant who claims he was “let go for what he held to be true”.  He also states “I also invited others (creationists) to come and speak with me about the issue during my Teaching Assistant time. … not a smart thing to do”.  What is the moral here?  Whatever you believe, when you are paid to do a job, if you don’t do the job, your employment is, as it should be, in jeopardy!

Jerald and Ross both claim to have been fired for their non-Darwinian views.  If their stories are true and complete, it would seem they were treated unfairly.

Where does this leave us?  Is there discrimination in our society?  Undoubtedly,yes.  Is there some discrimination amongst scientists and academicians? Again, yes.  Are some scientists (and bloggers) hard-headed and unwilling to accept new concepts and ideas?  Sure.  But is this the major conspiracy Expelled claims it to be?  Decidedly, NO.  Just as the Discovery Institute’s constant assertion that evolution is a theory in crisis, so too the claim that ID proponents are being silenced is vastly overblown.

What can the ID movement do to gain credibility?  First, state clearly what ID is, and what it is not.  If the scientific heavy hitters of ID (Behe, Dembski, Denton, etc) all feel comfortable with an old earth, (I’m not aware of any of them who don’t) and some of them endorse elements of common descent, and speciation, let that be brought forth.

Second, come up with some valid research that isn’t 20 years outdated (Denton), or completely invalidated (irreducible complexity), and submit it for unbiased peer review.

But, as I contend that the ID movement is first and foremost a political and Dominionist Christian protagonist, the real science will always take a distant back seat.