RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (15) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science, Honest questions from Dembski's students< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,15:34   

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 17 2010,07:45)
Hi Bjray,

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

...

POTW!

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,19:43   

Anywhere Richard Thompson (head of the Thomas More Law Center) goes, weirdness seems to follow. I was reflecting on Jeff Shallit's deposition in the Kitzmiller case, which was taken by Thompson with Stephen Harvey present from Pepper Hamilton. Thompson probably spent more time in the deposition asking about my role in the production of Shallit's rebuttal report than any other single topic. Close behind that would be questions about Jeff's motivation to send email to various IDC cheerleaders. What one sees very little of in it is stuff to do with the technical side of things, such as the exact form of Jeff's critique of Dembski's "design inference".

An amusing thing happened in the deposition, since Jeff was part of the group that the "The Design of Life" manuscript had been provided to under seal. IIRC, Thompson apparently hadn't known or perhaps had not remembered this, and wanted to refer to something in the manuscript as a basis for a question to ask Jeff. Stephen Harvey had to decline once Thompson admitted that he wasn't on the list of people approved by the court to view the manuscript.

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

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,21:48   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,11:29)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,13:17)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,09:14)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,01:16)
 
Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39)
Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version?

"If she were MY daughter..."

What would you do daddy?

If she were MY daughter...

What would you do daddy?

I'd cover that Girl with ...

This is really Bathroom Wall material.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,21:52   

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

Maybe they think of it as one of them there false dichotomies that evolution supporters like to talk about? ;)

Henry

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,21:56   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 17 2010,17:43)
Anywhere Richard Thompson (head of the Thomas More Law Center) goes, weirdness seems to follow. I was reflecting on Jeff Shallit's deposition in the Kitzmiller case, which was taken by Thompson with Stephen Harvey present from Pepper Hamilton. Thompson probably spent more time in the deposition asking about my role in the production of Shallit's rebuttal report than any other single topic. Close behind that would be questions about Jeff's motivation to send email to various IDC cheerleaders. What one sees very little of in it is stuff to do with the technical side of things, such as the exact form of Jeff's critique of Dembski's "design inference".

I was bummed out when Dembski bailed from the Dover trial. I thought he was going to get creamed, and I was looking forward to it.

I did not know that "Why Intelligent Design Fails" would be part of Behe's cross-examination. But, I was confident that Steve Fuller would make an ass of himself IF he was encouraged to talk about "science" and not be challenged about PoMo. The trial was not about Paul Gross, or his hate of anthropologists.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,22:03   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,20:48)
I'd cover that Girl with ...

This is really Bathroom Wall material.

You'd cover her with stuff they make bathroom walls out of? Plaster? Or are you talking tiles, here? :p

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2010,23:12   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 17 2010,20:03)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,20:48)
I'd cover that Girl with ...

This is really Bathroom Wall material.



You'd cover her with stuff they make bathroom walls out of? Plaster? Or are you talking tiles, here? :p

As I recall, the end of the line was "chocolate syrup."

Well, I am in fact re-doing the bathroom.

It must be one of those subliminal whatchumacalits.

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 17 2010,21:15

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

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

   
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,02:16   

Do your job, and do it right
Life's a ball! (ID tonight!)
Do you love it, do you hate it?
There it is, the way GOD made it (WOOOooow)

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,04:42   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,21:56)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 17 2010,17:43)
Anywhere Richard Thompson (head of the Thomas More Law Center) goes, weirdness seems to follow. I was reflecting on Jeff Shallit's deposition in the Kitzmiller case, which was taken by Thompson with Stephen Harvey present from Pepper Hamilton. Thompson probably spent more time in the deposition asking about my role in the production of Shallit's rebuttal report than any other single topic. Close behind that would be questions about Jeff's motivation to send email to various IDC cheerleaders. What one sees very little of in it is stuff to do with the technical side of things, such as the exact form of Jeff's critique of Dembski's "design inference".

I was bummed out when Dembski bailed from the Dover trial. I thought he was going to get creamed, and I was looking forward to it.

I did not know that "Why Intelligent Design Fails" would be part of Behe's cross-examination. But, I was confident that Steve Fuller would make an ass of himself IF he was encouraged to talk about "science" and not be challenged about PoMo. The trial was not about Paul Gross, or his hate of anthropologists.

I was also put out a bit by the timing of Dembski's withdrawal. If they had waited a week, we'd have had his deposition done. One of the things we had asked him to bring along was his documentation of the review process for "The Design Inference" (TDI), since peer-review of that work played such a prominent role in his expert report. (Somewhere along the line, Dembski had responded to critics that if they had questions about the review process, they should contact Brian Skyrms. I did so, and found him pretty completely uncooperative not just in discussing review of TDI itself, but of answering any questions about what constituted the usual book review process for Cambridge University Press.) By bailing right then, Dembski avoided any hostile scrutiny, yet still had the consolation prize of >$20,000 in expert fees that he extracted from TMLC.

So, let's recap: by choosing William Dembski as an expert witness, TMLC got an expert report that they couldn't use without opening the door to letting the plaintiffs put rebuttal expert Jeff Shallit on the stand, one huge mess over which lawyers got to represent both Dembski and the defense (remember FTE tried to add themselves to the list of defendants in the case), a loss of one expert witness they could bring to trial (once past the date for announcing expert witnesses, dropping a witness is subtracting from that total), and a >$20,000 bill to pay for the privilege. Given all that, you could almost believe that Dembski was working for the plaintiffs. Letting us depose him would only have made that case stronger.

If I have anything to say about a future case involving a Dembski-associated book (say, "The Design of Life"), my advice is going to be to bring Dembski aboard as a hostile witness. That way, it won't be among his options to bail at his pleasure.

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

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,05:23   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 18 2010,05:42)
If I have anything to say about a future case involving a Dembski-associated book (say, "The Design of Life"), my advice is going to be to bring Dembski aboard as a hostile witness. That way, it won't be among his options to bail at his pleasure.

This.

I want to see this. Live and in person, and videotaped for posterity, plastered all over YouTube.

Yes, this.

(Hypothetically, how unethical would it be to try and get IDC into my classroom just to spawn a lawsuit to see this? Really really really unethical, or just a little bit unethical? Just wonderin'...)

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,05:58   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 18 2010,10:23)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 18 2010,05:42)
If I have anything to say about a future case involving a Dembski-associated book (say, "The Design of Life"), my advice is going to be to bring Dembski aboard as a hostile witness. That way, it won't be among his options to bail at his pleasure.

This.

I want to see this. Live and in person, and videotaped for posterity, plastered all over YouTube.

Yes, this.

(Hypothetically, how unethical would it be to try and get IDC into my classroom just to spawn a lawsuit to see this? Really really really unethical, or just a little bit unethical? Just wonderin'...)

I'm going to go with intentially hilariously unethicalicious. Don't do it.

That is unless I can fly over, join the class and ask amusing questions about precisely which proteins Jesus tinkered with.

Louis

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,06:06   

Lou,

Unless you start teaching at a public K-12 school, it wouldn't work anyway.

Universities, even public ones, can be a lot more flexible in curriculum without tripping over the establishment clause.

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

    
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,06:35   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,22:48)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,11:29)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,13:17)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 17 2010,09:14)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,01:16)
     
Quote (George @ Mar. 16 2010,17:39)
Does this mean BJray is the Easy Teenage New York version?

"If she were MY daughter..."

What would you do daddy?

If she were MY daughter...

What would you do daddy?

I'd cover that Girl with ...

This is really Bathroom Wall material.

OK, OK.

Time to go home. Madge is on the phone.

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,11:40   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,23:12)

Quote
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 17 2010,20:03)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 17 2010,20:48)
I'd cover that Girl with ...

This is really Bathroom Wall material.



You'd cover her with stuff they make bathroom walls out of? Plaster? Or are you talking tiles, here? :p

As I recall, the end of the line was "chocolate syrup."

Well, I am in fact re-doing the bathroom.

It must be one of those subliminal whatchumacalits.


Sounds like a Freudian Coat of Paint...

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

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

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,12:36   

If student guy is still around you might enjoy watching the NOVA/PBS special Intelligent Design On Trial

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,14:48   

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 17 2010,09:45)
... there’re two lines of thinking – one emphasizes the importance of natural selection/adaptation for evolution the other emphasizes the importance of chance events for evolution. This article is another point in favour of the importance of chance events and, therefore, important for "the big picture", how we think about evolution in general.

Great post. You did right to stress that speciation was known to be a result of chance (at least partially). I'll go further by arguing that both views (chance vs. natural selection) are not opposed. Sure, the chance hypothesis excludes the fact that populations will inevitably and regularly split into species given enough time (for example through constant antagonistic interaction in the Red Queen hypothesis). But what we already knew on speciation argues against that. We know that speciation needs a particular geographical and ecological context, and that the favorable conditions will happen by chance. These rare chance events don't move natural selection out of the picture, quite the contrary actually.
The most prominent examples of ecological speciation by divergent natural selection were the results of some rare events: the end of the last glacial episodes for sticklebacks (and possibly pea aphids), the invasion of the African Great Lakes for cichlids, the colonization of the Galapagos for Darwin finches...

I prefer not to read the UD crowd's take on this.  ???

/Off topic

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,15:12   

It seems to me that there is a missing element in most simple descriptions of evolution, and that would be basic viability.

We speak of variants as if they are minor -- blue eyes instead of brown, bone length a millimeter from the mean (or from the previous maximum).

But there will be many variants that never get born (or in the case of single celled organisms, die immediately).

Sexually reproducing populations take care of this invisibly. Sperm engage in a contest to fertilize eggs, and only one in a hundred million has any chance. Deadly mutations are weeded out before conception.

After conception, there are many natural abortions, embryos that never come close to being born.

So when Behe or Dembski calculate probabilities of favorable mutations, they need to include the true population size in their equations, including the individuals that are discarded before they become visible members of the population.

Do this, and it becomes apparent that populations having less than astronomical numbers can explore the entire space of possible variation. Just as bacteria and such do, with their astronomical numbers.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,16:37   

Yeah, but that's only the mutations affecting the machinery internal to the cell. What about mutations that only affect overall anatomy, but that doesn't affect the insides of individual cells? ;)

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,18:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 18 2010,07:06)
Lou,

Unless you start teaching at a public K-12 school, it wouldn't work anyway.

That's actually my intention, when I'm not thoroughly depressed by the way North Carolina treats its public school teachers.*

Some days though, I think I'd rather just go hide in the jungle and watch the bonobos.

*ETA: I also often question whether I have the patience for putting up with the eternal creationist nonsense that infests our local schools here.

Edited by Lou FCD on Mar. 18 2010,19:20

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,19:35   

Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,19:39   

Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2010,19:35)
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

With the right kind of donation to the DI, I am sure the Dr. Dr. can be forgiving for his students being late with their assignments.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2010,20:04   

Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2010,19:35)
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

That is three in a freakin' row.  First cdanner, then daevans, and now bjray.  WTH, don't these creationists have any cojones?

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

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,01:21   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 18 2010,20:04)
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2010,19:35)
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

That is three in a freakin' row.  First cdanner, then daevans, and now bjray.  WTH, don't these creationists have any cojones?

I'm not the smartest or most articulate of persons, but IMO there seems to be something missing in their education. They seemed prepared to discuss evolution vs. creationism from a socio-political standpoint, but wholly unprepared (and apparently unaware how unprepared) to discuss any science. Perhaps Dr. Dr. D should make some adjustments to the course.  :)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,01:38   

Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2010,19:35)
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

I'll comment... I don't see a problem with our new student friend not getting back immediately. Maybe it is midterms time at SWBTS(?). If we haven't heard back anything in a couple of weeks, that would be cause for concern.

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

    
bjray



Posts: 13
Joined: Mar. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,01:44   

In due time (ie: this weekend). It just so happens that I have a plethora of things to attend to including: class reading/assignments that are due soon (the syllabus you have is only 1 of my classes), the joys of life outside of the classroom, and college basketball of course. But have no fear, I will post again.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,04:00   

Quote (bjray @ Mar. 19 2010,01:44)
In due time (ie: this weekend). It just so happens that I have a plethora of things to attend to including: class reading/assignments that are due soon (the syllabus you have is only 1 of my classes), the joys of life outside of the classroom, and college basketball of course. But have no fear, I will post again.

In the meanwhile, why not ask Dembski for an example of the calculation of CSI? He'll have time to prepare something by the time you can post again and you can let us all know what he said!

In addition, an example of the Explanatory Filter in action would be great.

And if neither are forthcoming, would that not make you wonder how much else in "Intelligent Design Science" is empty bluff? Or will you still praise the good Dr Dr regardless? I realise you might not have explicitly sung his praises so far, but nobody is forcing you to attend his class.

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

  
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,12:41   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 19 2010,04:00)
In addition, an example of the Explanatory Filter in action would be great.

Been there, done that, got the link: God and the Explanatory Filter.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,14:12   

Hi Rossum,

I liked your link.

I don't suppose Dembski or any other big name ID proponent offered a rebuttal to this did they?

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,14:26   

Quote (rossum @ Mar. 19 2010,12:41)

 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 19 2010,04:00)
In addition, an example of the Explanatory Filter in action would be great.

Been there, done that, got the link: God and the Explanatory Filter.

rossum


*chuckles. That's pretty good.

It does bring a question to my mind though. In speaking of information for objects in the world, there's an issue I'm not sure is addressed, or if it is I've not seen an elaboration.

When I read or hear discussions on information associated with objects, I tend to hear or read someone refer to the information being within the structure - usually as in, "X contains some about of information". Is this correct conceptually? In other words, does an object contain information, reflect[/] or [i]project information, or both?

What I'm getting at is (as an example) conceptualizing information and DNA. My inclination is that DNA is information as opposed to DNA being like a hard drive or a book that stores or contains information, but this is by no means my area of expertise so I really have no idea.

Of course, that then takes me to another question. Even if we say that a book contains information, clearly the book itself - that is the structure of cover, pages, binding, etc...is some amount of information as well, yes?

Sorry for the serious question on a Friday. Feel free to drink beers instead.   ;)

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

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2010,14:33   

Of course, information is never actually defined by anyone arguing against evolution.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

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

Pages: (15) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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