avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Cedric,
Yours was probably the most thoughtful and constructive post, therefore, I'll have to put it off to deal with the mayhem, which never seems to stop.
Lenny,
No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand. I have read enough on this topic and talked to college kids about it. Specifically, a phrase to that effect was removed from a Miller textbook. That is, the word unguided was removed, I think.
Hello Louis,
Yes, you lead the pack. No I am not thin-skinned and I rarely get annoyed in real life or on line. You have called me a liar, you have called me loathsome, and a subverter of science. I happen to have a tremendous amount of love for science, and respect.
I am a monist, taoist, panentheistic sufi. Science and God and nature are nondifferent.
People who subvert science are those who try to stop debate and open inquiry. Understand?
Improvius,
I brought up Milton's book because he is not associated with DI. It was you who brought up the quality of his references. To the best of my knowledge, he is a secular source, although he has become rather new age, which doesn't bother me either. But he isn't in any Christian cartel.
Back to Louis,
You just can't lump anyone who disagrees with neoDarwinism into a group whose ideas are no good. Life just isn't that simple. Science would NEVER progress if you and yours got your way!!!
Arden,
Yes, I am interested to know what DS did here. I did read the PT thread, and agree that he should be banned for life for threatening to hack the site, and that his behavior (wording in his post) was hypocritical.
Occam and Stephen, your post on back burner along with Cedric
Wesley,
I'm going thru the list you linked, and some display bad behavior, but some are not that unreasonable. There is some sense in comparing this situation to other political situations that have occurred. There WAS a time when Darwin's new theory was utilized by certain groups to promote eugenics. The theory DOES lend itself to that. It's a sensitive spot and an historical mistake for which modern theorists should not be fried, it's just a part of history. And, equally, religions have used scripture to excuse their bad acts, so it is not unique to NDE.
I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to. I did say that once on UD, and got no comment. At least I didn't get banned!
But some of the comparisons there are not quite what you make out. Johnson (he's a fundie, his kind worry me) did not really compare Gould to Gorbachev, but rather he compared their two situations, which is not the same thing.
Ditto Dembski comparison of Darwinisn and Soviet regime. There IS a hegemony, and it would be a loss/disruption to change it.
Deadman,
People are often attacked by Dave Scot for making unfounded assumptions. I don't approve of his style. But it is one assumption, one comment in one thread. When one of you go over there, you don't suddenly find yourself with your own thread and half the board throwing insults and challenges that are almost impossible to meet, sneering and mocking all the while, telling you to go back to your black sabbath and so forth.
I didn't say Milton's book was essential, I just named it as one of several. Personally, I like Denton's maybe best.
| Quote | | Me, under two different names. Zachriel under...I think three different names, and he is invariably polite. I'm sure others here could list the times they've been banned after attacks...or even better yet, banned without even having their comments appear, so as to give the false impression that UD condones dissent. An even more amusing little trick is to NOT directly ban names and posts, but to have the posts themselves never appear, or claim they were "lost" in the moderation queue. |
Although I find some boards too tolerant of nut cases that can't be reasoned with or who are broken records, generally I despise censorship, and that very thing is why I posted at the uncommonly dense thread. My post got lost in cyberspace, and I couldn't even imagine why, but I was on moderation for criticizing DS for the very treatment you speak of. I understand it is a fast moving blog and they might need tighter control on mayhem than here, but I think the moderation style makes them appear weak.
Yes, I saw Febble post there, but I didn't witness the part that led up to her banning. I have read your link. Obviously she is very intelligent, but I did not agree with her on a couple of points. Frankly, her remarks really deserved an in-depth response.
Here is one thing she said: You guess at random, but when you get a correct answer for one slot, you get to keep it. You replicate what works, in other words. You don’t start from scratch each time.
That is a point of contention. How to keep answers which have no way of being correct until future answers arrive, such as with IC systems.
Also, I am pretty sure that she is twisting Dembski's words to give intelligence a meaning everyone knows he does not intend.
BWE,
| Quote | | I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure. |
Really? I wonder who said this:
Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.
Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken.
Arden,
| Quote | | So we can assume this means that you're incapable of supporting the pro-ID, anti-evolution assertions you make, right? |
I am sure that if guys like Dembski and Behe and many, many others who are far more capable than I cannot do so, in fact have not brought out one good argument for ID, then I also cannot. But, more to the point that you responded to, as a group most of the people here are showing themselves unreasonable and irrational, and unreasonable people can't be reasoned with.
Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:
| Quote | I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).
|
Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute.
|
