Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread started by stevestory


Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 16 2006,11:43

Uncommon Pissant is so ridiculous and moronic that conversations about it break out on Panda's Thumb all the time. The PTers aren't providing a dedicated thread to discuss the Everlasting Trainwreck which is that blog, so this thread's for that. I initiate the thread with a DaveScot link:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


January 16, 2006
ID on 2006 Utah Legislative Agenda

What’s up with the Utah legislature considering whether to teach intelligent design in schools? Haven’t they heard about Dover? :-)
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Legal, Laws — DaveScot @ 9:48 am


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

apparently he isn't familiar with 'Divine Design' Buttars, or he wouldn't be so jolly.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 16 2006,11:50

Jocularity!
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 16 2006,11:53

What I don't understand is the continuing concern with that place. So OK, they delete anything that doesn't support their position, they ban anyone who posts that stuff, and they gaze into their navel. They are the poster child for how they would teach the controversy, illustrate critical thinking, and exercise critical analysis of varying viewpoints, if they were in charge.

But in any of these respects, how are they different from any other creationist site? We surely all understand that the mentality they practice on that blog is a transparent window into how they defend creationism in their own minds. We get it. Now what?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 16 2006,12:17

It's not about getting anything. It's just fun to make fun of them.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 16 2006,12:21

Like for instance, DaveScot's been banning people who mention christianity and god too much, because he's trying to maintain the fiction that ID is separate from religion, but then he's such a dumbass he mentions Chris "Divine Design" Butters approvingly.

That's funny.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 16 2006,13:01

I love that site.  And Dembscott is a loon to be sure.  It's so funny to see how their ideas natually attract all these open creationist who are scolded for admitting the intelligent designer is God.  

It has been said before but when it comes to denying the Lord, uncommon dissent (and the Disco) makes Peter look like a light weight.

And if you inquire if the intelligent designer is god, you get warned.  If you suggest it is a space man you get warned/banned.  if you suggest it is a time traveler you get warned/banned.  Yet Dembski, Behe and the rest of the lunatic fringe anti-science creationist cultists have all said that the intelligent designer may be a space alien/man.  Ask them to discuss that proposition and you get banned.

Clearly Dembscott, UD, and the Disco have shown that trying to be "clever as serpents" has its drawbacks.  I love watching them get cornered by their own theories.  The response is always the same, ridicule the one who asks questions or simply ban them.

Too funny.  They divide intelligent design creationists into two camps, those that think and those that preach.  The thinkers get banned or ridiculed, the preachers tell the thinkers what to think and what not to think.  They let them know right up front what questions they should not ask and what topics they should not discuss.  

They are promoting the existance of an intelligent designer and insisting their theory of an intelligent designer is scientific.  BUT...if you make the mistake of actually contemplating or even discussing what constitutes the/a intelligent designer you'll get banned in a heart beat.  Brilliant!

And although Dembski has earned a pocket full of PhDs (which proves he can pass exams and write papers), personally he strikes me as just another fundamentalist  simpleton armed with a fancy vocabulary.  And academic version of Pat Robertson. Yawn.  I cannot wait to go hear him when he comes to Fort Worth later this year.  Actually I can't wait to raise my hand and ask him questions in front of an audience.

I love that site.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 16 2006,15:19

Now that the execrable DaveScot is banning people left and right from UncalmIndecent, I take it he's left off whining (and misrepresenting) about his own banishment from PT. Yes?
Posted by: Tim on Jan. 17 2006,00:44

Can you provide a linky to the Uncommon descent blog.
I'm fascinated.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 17 2006,01:11

The Panda-monium game is good though and quite humourus.

There is a link on PT main page. Under psuedo science. You might have to press for "extra links" though.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 17 2006,01:50

DaveScot explains some of his moderation behavior:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you delete my comments, DaveScot?

They aren’t being deleted, Blipey. They’re being disapproved in the moderation queue. You are the only one aside from moderators who has seen the last 20 or so. The way WordPress works is it lets only the author of a moderated comment see it until it is either approved or disapproved. If it’s disapproved the author stops seeing it too. When and if you decide to stop trolling for negative attention and become a constructive contributor I’ll start approving them.

Comment by blipey — January 17, 2006 @ 1:52 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Jan. 17 2006,18:13

It gets even better... DaveScot just "accidentally" deleted all of my comments (I was posting as 'woctor').  Notice that he turns comments off so nobody can complain about the censorship:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
January 17, 2006
(Off Topic) Server Glitch
Our server seems to have hiccuped and lost a whole bunch of woctor’s comments. The management apologizes for this unfortunate event.  

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:46 pm
Comments Off

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Jan. 17 2006,18:45

He's even invited John Davison back on the blog.  See this thread:
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/667#comments >

Check out John's first post:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave

Thanks for letting me return to Dr. Dembski’s blog. I apologise for making this comment on my own blog:

It seems things are really falling apart over at “Uncommon Descent” since Dembski turned over the reins to DaveScot. Dembski has had to return in a frantic attempt to restore order. I find it all very amusing. The very title of that blog raises my hackles. Like Groucho Marx -

“I wouldn’t belong to an organization that would have me for a member.”

Of course since I have been banned for life from that forum I am eternally grateful, just as I am for the actions by ARN, EvC, Fringe Sciences, Panda’s Thumb and the several other “groupthink” closed union shops with which the internet abounds.

All alone is the only place to be these days.

I love it so!

Comment by John Davison — January 17, 2006 @ 1:28 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm with Mr. Christopher -- that site is the best!
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 18 2006,03:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
our server hiccuped and lost a whole bunch of woctor’s comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL You're not fooling anyone.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 18 2006,07:19

Those poor, poor souls. In the "Rationalizing Adultery" thread, Karen is lost. Seeing how evolution apparently rationalizes (read "justifies", not "explains") adultery, and since ID is not religious and doesn’t even address ethics or morals, then where do IDists turn for their moral code?

Commenters on that site are stuck on a sinking ship. There is no ID theory to discuss in detail because the emperor's naughty bits might be revealed, and discussing religion is right out. The only thing left is to bash Darwin.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 18 2006,07:32

Nope, it's pretty easy to see that DaveScot took woctor out to the courtyard for the firing squad.

One comforting thing is remembering how the real papa Stalin met his end. Even after he was found dying from a stroke, no one called for medical attention until over a day later. That's friendship for ya.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 18 2006,11:12

Dembscott just gave John Davison his own thread

< A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis - John A. Davison via uncommon dissent >
Posted by: Wonderpants on Jan. 18 2006,11:28

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 18 2006,00:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave

Thanks for letting me return to Dr. Dembski’s blog. I apologise for making this comment on my own blog:

It seems things are really falling apart over at “Uncommon Descent” since Dembski turned over the reins to DaveScot. Dembski has had to return in a frantic attempt to restore order. I find it all very amusing. The very title of that blog raises my hackles. Like Groucho Marx -

“I wouldn’t belong to an organization that would have me for a member.”

Of course since I have been banned for life from that forum I am eternally grateful, just as I am for the actions by ARN, EvC, Fringe Sciences, Panda’s Thumb and the several other “groupthink” closed union shops with which the internet abounds.

All alone is the only place to be these days.

I love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did he ever get Richard Dawkins and Dembski to post on his blog?  :D
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 18 2006,11:42

Nope, go to his blog and read about it.  Basically he invited quite a few people to write an 500 word essay and they all either turned him down (lack of time was the common excuse) or just ignored him.  

He saw this as evidence they have nothing scientific to bring to the table in the first place, otherwise they would have accepted his offer.

I went to his web site at whatever school in VT he teaches.  The man is a loon but I bet he would probably be fun to smoke a fattie with at 3 in the morning and have a bull session.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 18 2006,12:02

JAD hasn't taught since the late 80's.

he has emeritus status with the university of vermont.

i wrote the university and asked whether they endorsed his views, since he is using university resources to post them.

they essentially replied:

"John who?"
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 18 2006,17:17

uh oh, i feel kinda sorry for UD -

As noted earlier, they opened the flood gates for JAD and let him post his entire PEH for comment.

you know, the same PEH that was voted "crankiest" evolutionary theory EVER over on crank.net.

I figure that unless they ban him outright in the next week or so, his unending inanity will drive out the remaining few posters on UD.

perhaps a deliberate tactic on the part of WD40 and DaveSnot?

It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 18 2006,20:59

Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you may be right.

There would apear to be a deliberate effort to drive people away.
Posted by: Tim Hague on Jan. 18 2006,21:48

I have to admit, I haven't read much of Davidson's stuff before.  

It seems bizarre to see his stuff on UD, because a lot of it contradicts the ID position, as well at itself.  Just a quick example:

JAD: "I also have never questioned Intelligent Design. Quite the contrary, I always regarded it as self-evident and a mandatory starting point from which to examine the two great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny which are simply two aspects of the same reproductive continuum."

OK, so 'self-evidently' something is involved in doing design.  

JAD: "Darwinism is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution has and had an exogenous identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been identified and every attempt to simulate it has failed."

This is just bizarre.  JAD is stating that there is an external identifiable cause behind evolution (and thus 'Darwinism' ) , which is the exact opposite of what evolution states.

If he replaced the word Darwinism with ID I might understand and agree with his argument!  My version:  

ID is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution has and had an exogenous identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been identified and as far as I know there have been no attempts to simulate it.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 19 2006,02:18

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 19 2006,02:59)
Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you may be right.

There would apear to be a deliberate effort to drive people away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


intelligent design is a craetion theory in crisis.  It has been booted out of two school districts and newpapers all over the worl are carrying stories indicating intelligent design is about super naturalism and higher powers.  

What we may be seeing is an IDC melt down.  The desperate news releases from the Disco indicte this as well.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 19 2006,05:16

Q: Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

A: No. < http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/684 >
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 19 2006,05:23

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 19 2006,11:16)
Q: Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

A: No. < http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/684 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's funny.  In a discussion with an IDer a couple days ago, the IDer went as far as saying that if we had ID around 30 years ago, we would now know what all the "junk DNA" is used for.  I had a hearty laugh at that one.  Turns out this person had been booted from UD even though he wholly supports ID and kisses Dembski's backside nightly.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Jan. 19 2006,05:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Especially as people have known about functional non protein coding RNAs for about twenty years as far as I'm aware. Im not sure how this has anything to with ID.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 19 2006,08:26

LOL:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one has ever said this blog is open to all critics. Wherever did you get that idea? Dembski said at the beginning it was moderated and he’d allow thoughtful criticism that he hadn’t heard before. He said if he found you boring you’d get the axe and he was making up the rules as he went along. I believe I’m carrying on in the same moderation style as best I can but devoting more time to it than he had available. So instead of swinging the axe ruthlessly in order to save time and maintain order I’m doing more micromanagement in an effort to not cull those who might turn out to be constructive contributors if given more chance and direction. This is resulting in some taking advantage of it - several commenters have been invited to leave only to return using a different name knowing they’ll get another chance that way. It also results in a higher profile for the moderation. In the past you didn’t see how many times Dembski swung the axe because many never got their first comment past him. I tend to let the first comment from a new user pass through unless it’s a gratuitous flame and then if they continue to comment with a chip on their shoulder do something about it then.

The bottom line is this is a moderated blog. If you can’t deal with that, don’t let the door hit you on the tail on your way out.

Comment by DaveScot — January 19, 2006 @ 8:26 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As hyperactively as you thought Dembski and DaveScot were at banning criticism, they're apparently worse.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 19 2006,08:53

Actually, DaveScot is right about one thing.  Dembski did axe some commentors before their first comment.  It happened to me.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 19 2006,09:02

This is, once again, how they "teach the controversy" and "critically evaluate both sides" when they control the forum. It also describes perfectly how they maintain their faith in the face of evidence. Does anyone have any doubts how evolution would be presented in science classes if the creationists could dictate the curriculum? Would we see any controversy at all?
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 19 2006,11:18

Salvador Cordova is now a 'contributor' at UD.  His first post?  "Intelligent Design in the National Football League."
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 19 2006,11:19

Keep in mind those guys do not play by the same set of rules that science plays by.  If you read the sunday school course materials Dembski teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary you'll note things like not letting logic get in the way of Christian truths and other nonsense.

And not long ago when it appeared Dembski and Ken Miller might debate, Dembski said something to the effect of he did not have to stoop to Ken Miller's "pathetic" level of detail regarding his ID theories.  He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.

Logic and reason are the IDists biggest enemies so their assault on those who use logic and reason as a means of understanding and sorting fact from fiction is predictable.  

It is still astonishing to observe though.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 19 2006,16:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is not a recent manifestation. I invoked genetic algorithms as an empirical disproof of Dembski's claims following Dembski's talk at the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference. His response: "The logic is sound and the premises are valid, so the conclusion follows." No empirical test was necessary to Dembski then, and it does not seem that he has changed his mind in the interim.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 19 2006,16:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Salvador Cordova is now a 'contributor' at UD.  His first post?  "Intelligent Design in the National Football League."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



right. remember what i said about deliberate silliness?

I'm sure WD40 thinks that spiralling his blog into the garbage can this way is just too funny.

that way he can claim anything said on UD was more meant as, dare I even say it: Street Theatre.

pretty obvious ploy if you ask me.

WD40 has said some pretty disturbing things that even the DI would want covered up on that site.

this seems a deliberate strategy intended to "trvialize" his own blog.

I'd bet money on it.

WD40's "Street Theatre" always reminds me of the Jon Lovitz skit on Saturday Night Live where he played "Master Thespian".

The parallels work on so many levels.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 20 2006,07:57

check it out

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

blah blah blah

Jack - since I’m banned on Panda’s Thumb from commenting I see no reason why I should allow authors from Panda’s Thumb to comment here. Please make your responses elsewhere. -ds

Comment by Jack Krebs — January 20, 2006 @ 7:06 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, so now it's not even what you say on other discussion boards, it's the fact that you even post on them, which gets you censored.

I've still got last week of January in the Dead Pool of DaveScot's tenure.

btw, I wonder what motivated Jack to jump into that pig pen.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 20 2006,08:36

Seems pretty clear how creationists would use power if they ever got any.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 20 2006,08:42

Last week, any evidence of online ID crimespeak, regardless of where you might commit it,  would get you banned from Demsbki's smile-a-while-a-creationist blog.

And now Dembscott is saying anyone who posts on PT is banned from there?

Good lord man this is so_freaking_funny.   Dembski is the cult leader of a bunch of mindless automatons.  How cool is that?  

Side note, should the Disco go ahead and commit themselves to the specified religion they are in fact promoting and simply call it Christian Scientology?

After all, they are blending Christianity with Science Fiction.  Does this not make them Christian Scientologists?
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 20 2006,08:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seems pretty clear how creationists would use power if they ever got any.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



indeed;

i keep going back to the time that Pat Robertson ran for President...

and got way too many votes for comfort.

I've seen too much for my comfort zone over the last 20 years, that's for sure.
Posted by: Savagemutt on Jan. 20 2006,10:14

Quote (sir_toejam @ Jan. 18 2006,23:17)
you know, the same PEH that was voted "crankiest" evolutionary theory EVER over on crank.net.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just for accuracy's sake, "Crankiest" is just a category on Crank.net. It means JADs site is among the crankiest of antievolution sites.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 20 2006,10:25

:06-->
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2006,22:06)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He sunded quite resentful at the notion of having to actually provide some evidence to support his claims.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is not a recent manifestation. I invoked genetic algorithms as an empirical disproof of Dembski's claims following Dembski's talk at the 1997 "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference. His response: "The logic is sound and the premises are valid, so the conclusion follows." No empirical test was necessary to Dembski then, and it does not seem that he has changed his mind in the interim.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley, to clarify, do you mean Dembski's reply was

[My (as in Dembski)] logic is sound and [my] premises are valid, so [my] conclusion follows

Meaning he basically said "I am right because I say I am right"?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 20 2006,10:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wesley, to clarify, do you mean Dembski's reply was

[My (as in Dembski)] logic is sound and [my] premises are valid, so [my] conclusion follows

Meaning he basically said "I am right because I say I am right"?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry to be unclear, but yes, you've got it.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 20 2006,10:45

Thanks Wesley.  That is nuttier than all get out.  

Pure Dembski for ya.  What a "scientist" he is.
Posted by: FishyFred on Jan. 20 2006,11:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And now Dembscott is saying anyone who posts on PT is banned from there?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think it's only those who are official contributors.

I say Dembski leaves DaveScot in charge until he says something terribly offensive to some group of people. I'd take a wild guess and say that Dembski just doens't care what DaveScot or anyone else says on his blog anymore.

Has anyone seen what John Davison was posting? Oh my GAWD it is amusing. I know he's old and losing his mind, but he is just off the wall batty.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Karl Popper just confused things with all this falsifiable nonsense. Hypotheses are either verifiable or not. I regard Intelligent Design as verified simply because there is no other coneiveable alternative. The elimination of alternatives is a perfectly sound means of scientific inquiry. It has been employed in every aspect of scientific discovery and led to the downfall of the Ether, the Phlogiston and very soon Chance, the cornerstone and the Achilles heel of Darwinian mysticism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/689#comment-21155 >
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 20 2006,12:49

DaveScots Reign of IDiocy may come to a hidden end. Or Dembski might demand he censor in a quieter way. Right now it's looking like the primary purpose of the blog is to publicly ban people from posting there.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 20 2006,13:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Sorry Steve.

If I can’t comment on Panda’s Thumb you can’t comment here. What goes around comes around. -ds

Comment by Steve Reuland — January 20, 2006 @ 1:50 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From the relentless trainwreck known as Uncommon Pissant.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 20 2006,13:19

The day DaveScot decided to ban anyone who'd ever contributed at Panda's Thumb, he banned, in principle, more people in one day than the Panda's Thumb crew has banned in 2 years.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 20 2006,13:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The day DaveScot decided to ban anyone who'd ever contributed at Panda's Thumb
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. That would be a *principle*, and we know he doesn't have much concept of those things. I'm quite sure he'll ban people based on arbitrary, unpredictable case-by-case preference. Kind of like interpreting scripture: If it ain't capricious, it's meaningless.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 20 2006,14:06

I don't know what you're talking about. He did in fact announce that anyone from Panda's Thumb was banned.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 20 2006,14:33

stevestory:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know what you're talking about. He did in fact announce that anyone from Panda's Thumb was banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where? I haven't seen this announcement. I think you are making this up.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 20 2006,15:00

Are you kidding me?
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 20 2006,15:59

stevestory:

No, why would I kid you?

What DaveScot SAID was "You (fill in the blank. Jack Krebs?) have posted on PT, PT banned me, therefore you can't post here."

But this is a rationalization for banning JACK KREBS. Nothing more, nothing less. This most emphatically does NOT apply to anyone who has ever posted on PT, it applies to Jack Krebs, because DaveScot doesn't wish to deal with Jack. Do you seriously think that DaveScot would ban GhostOfPaley, or Larry Farfaroutman, or David Heddle, or ANY of the periodic creationists, just because they post to Panda's Thumb?

You have to realize that DaveScot *ignores* anything that smacks of integrity. His "reasons" for doing ANYTHING are because he bleeping well feels like it at the time, and nothing else. He is ruled by emotion and mood. Tomorrow Jack Krebs may try again, and DaveScot may very well permit this.

And when he's not in the mood, his excuses are completely ad hoc. Every day is a new day to a goose. These people are NOT RATIONAL.
Posted by: FishyFred on Jan. 20 2006,20:47

Oh... Flint: No, you've got it wrong.

He banned Steve Reuland with the same reason, word-for-word. He's removed the posts, but it was something like "As I am not allowed to post at Pandas Thumb, Pandas Thumb contributors are not allowed to post here." With that definition, he's only referring to contributors with administrative powers on the site. Jack Krebs and Steve Reuland, but also Wesley Elsberry, PZ Myers, Ed Brayton, Pim Van Meurs, and everyone else for sure. Not automatically people who comment on the site. Basically, his reasoning of "I'm banned at PT, so you're banned here" only applies to those people. He'll come up with different reasons to ban Pandas Thumb commenters.

In the end, you're technically right. If he likes what a PT contributor is posting, he'll let it stay. He's practicing some sort of swiss cheese fascism. Heck, the guy banned Josh Bozeman. Josh isn't nearly as aggressive as DaveScot, but he's just as dishonest/misled.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 21 2006,02:46

Anyway, back to reality. DaveScot just put a big pile of JAD garbage on UncommonPissant

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/692#more-692 >

Insane Money Quote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it would seem that we still do not have a working theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Love it.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 21 2006,03:23

JAD has managed to curb his temper so far. Has anyone suggestions for some awkward questions that might be asked. there is a chance that someone who can still post there might spot them and oblige.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 21 2006,04:00

You're wasting your breath if you comment over there. They ban more people before breakfast, than most sites do all year.

But if you must, DaveScot's been aggressively maintaining that ID and religion are totally separate, so you might ask something like, "What did Philip Johnson mean when he said:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 21 2006,04:13

man, as bad as DaveScot is, he's going to regret inviting JAD back. Dembski can't be happy with what JAD's writing all over his blog



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent Design advocates would do well to separate themselves more completely from religious fundamentalism. I have managed and others can too.

“The main source of the present-day conflicts between religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”
Albert Einstein

Comment by John Davison — January 21, 2006 @ 6:49 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 21 2006,09:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JAD has managed to curb his temper so far. Has anyone suggestions for some awkward questions that might be asked. there is a chance that someone who can still post there might spot them and oblige.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hmm, I seem to recall having REALLY pissed him off one day in attempting to pursue what happened to him in the 80's that changed his publications from scientific to crank crap.  If you look at his CV, there is a clear schism that happened in 1984 (IIRC), and shortly thereafter he was banned from teaching at UV, and started attempting to publish his crankier stuff.  

Something definetly happened to him then; mild schizophrenia maybe?

in any case, he really freaks when you start asking him about it.  I mean REALLY.

it was in the thread PT created specifically for him, but that was a long time ago.  

If anybody can remember the month, it is likely in the archives somewhere.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 21 2006,09:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
man, as bad as DaveScot is, he's going to regret inviting JAD back. Dembski can't be happy with what JAD's writing all over his blog
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



lol.

ask yourself:

why did WD40 let the axeman (DS) run free on his blog to begin with?

c'mon!

do you REALLY think 'ol WD40 has just lost his mind?

hardly.

he's just having some fun spinning his blog into the trash can, while trivializing it at the same time.

if you make a joke out of months and months of posts that contradict the party line, you have a nice bolt hole to escape some rather sticky questions.

many times, PT commenters and even contributors have refered to UD in order to show how dishonest WD40 is, how many times he has directly contradicted the DI party line, as well as the random drivel he has posted there over the years.

Dembski shut down his blog.... then lo and behold, all of a sudden he comes back and lets the lunatics run it.

It shouldn't take much thought to figure out he wants to spin his entire blog as just so much "Street Theatre".

Every time somebody here on PT points out the ridiculousness of DS or JAD or Slaveador over on UD, WD40 knows he is accomplishing his goal, and is laughing all the way.

Debmski can't be happy with JAD???

exactly the opposite.

prove me wrong.
Posted by: guthrie on Jan. 21 2006,09:43

I was thinking of making some kind of pithy comment about uncommon dissent, but somehow couldnt work up the emotion.  

I like the way Dave Scot is turning into an expert on ID; I think it would be interesting if he could participate in the next court case related to ID, whenever that will be.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 21 2006,10:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it would be interesting if [DaveScot] could participate in the next court case related to ID,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As long as we're scripting our best-case-scenario fantasy, let's cast Casey Luskin as lawyer for ID.
Posted by: FishyFred on Jan. 21 2006,13:17

I actually had a short correspondence with Casey Luskin. I wanted some quotes from him on ID for an assignment. He seems to be a genuinely nice guy who just happens to be caught up in ID. I wish him well... as opposed to DaveScot, who is the only person I have ever corresponded with (on the internet and in real life) whom I would not feel sorry for if he were to happen into a great personal tragedy.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 21 2006,17:10

Yeah, I get the same sense. While DaveScot seems malevolent, and Dembski a wolf fleecing the sheep, Casey just seems like a poor dumb guy who doesn't know any better. When I first started mocking him, he emailed me asking why in the world I thought his Intelligent Design club was religious in nature. Despite the fact that he was a minister, despite the fact you had to be a christian to be an officer in his club, despite every ID advocate being on record at some point saying a variant of "Of course ID is really just christianity in disguise", Casey really didn't seem to understand that it wasn't science. He seemed to really think he was doing science. After all, it sure sounded like science.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 21 2006,17:46

I've noticed a real desire on the part of reasonable people for science to find God (their version). After all, people know that science does really neat stuff and learns a lot, investigates nearly everything, produces useful technology, etc. And they know that God (their version) is perfectly real, clear and present. So WHY can't science find Him?

This makes for an audience very willing and eager to believe a claim that science HAS found God (their version). Combine this with the fact that for the most part, this audience has little clue what science is or how it works. There's a lot of force available in telling people what they dearly wish to hear, who aren't equipped to evaluate these claims.

I suspect Casey feels as most such Believers do, that if ordinary atheistic science can do such wonderful stuff, imagine what full-buckwheat Christian science can do! After all, Christian scientists have TheBigGuy in their hearts, leading them in the right direction and telling them the answers.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 22 2006,05:07

LOL now they're getting mad that people are using the phrase "Unintelligent Design" to refer to things in biology.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/693#comments >
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 22 2006,05:42

Dave Scot booted me fro UD yesterday. On the same thread that Steve Reuland got kicked out.

I had the temerity to point out that his opening article actually asked  Steve R. questions. Therefore it was very ungentlemanly not allowing him to answer.

 :(
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 22 2006,08:31

Hey, Stephen Elliott, turn that :( into a  :) ! Anyone not banned by DaveScot has to be either an @$$#0!e, a moron, or has failed to be noticed.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 22 2006,10:04

Here's the top of Uncommon Pissant at the moment:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
January 22, 2006

On a Level Playing Field - We Win

It has come to my attention that some of our best informed ID supporters don’t believe politics are important to winning and that science education is the key. Now I dearly love science but without politics providing us a level playing field our arguments from math and science are doomed to being censored.
(more…)
Filed under: Education, Legal, Courts, Laws, Constitution — DaveScot @ 1:04 pm
Comments (0)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, that's the problem. IDers have focused too much on science, not enough on PR.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 22 2006,12:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The anti-theist is free to exercise his faith, but the theist is not free to express her intelligent observation.

It is obvious to every fair minded person that if one view is religious, then both are religious; if one view is scientific, then both are scientific.

But now the courts allow only the anti-theistic view; the theistic view is absolutely prohibited by the power and force of the Federal Government….in absolute convolution  of the First Amendment.

Comment by Red Reader — January 22, 2006 @ 3:58 pm

{I added the boldfacing -Steve}

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From Uncommon Pissant, an example of what happens when people use big words to sound all smart-like.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 22 2006,13:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is obvious to every fair minded person that if one view is religious, then both are religious; if one view is scientific, then both are scientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Indeed, I would go further: I see no reason why all views are not equally religious and scientific. It's a corollary of the deep philosophical observation that everything is everything.

But seriously... do these people really think that science and higher education are dominated - nay, tyrannized - by unusually unfair minded people?
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 22 2006,13:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
stevestory wrote:
From Uncommon Pissant, an example of what happens when people use big words to sound all smart-like.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Red Reader regularly makes a fool of himself on UD.  My favorite example is his response to John Davison's "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis".  Apparently the word "Evolutionary" set Red off like Pavlov's bell:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Red Reader wrote:
Just a desperate “big idea” for funding and publicity which necessarily includes enough bogus obfuscation to brand those who oppose or even question it as “unscientific”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After a few other comments were posted, Red realized he was on the "wrong" side of the issue.  He sheepishly retracted his criticism:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Red Reader wrote:If I may, I would like to apologize to Dr. Davison for my ill considered and intemperate remark. It is obvious that Prof. Davison has put a lot of thought into his hypothesis. I hate to say it but it’s true: I engaged my opinion before I put my brain in gear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I love it when ID supporters have to be told what the "correct" position is.  Of course it's even worse when your opponents know your position better than you do.  I once had to tell Josh Bozeman to "stay on your own side of the argument!" when he picked the "wrong" side.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 22 2006,13:32

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2006,16:04)
...
Yeah, that's the problem. IDers have focused too much on science, not enough on PR.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL.
Now, that is funny!
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 22 2006,13:41

Another good Red Reader story.  He criticized me once for not agreeing often enough with ID supporters:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Red Reader wrote:
I see Dave, Josh, Pav (in the this post) continously making good points–logical, fair, reasoned.
But the contrarian never acceeds a single point.
Why is this? The law of averages suggests that between them–Dave, Josh & Pav (not to mention numerous others in different threads)–they would by complete accident make at least one statement in three (more or less) that the contrarian could agree with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apart from the bizarre probabilistic reasoning and the oxymoronic idea of Josh Bozeman making a "logical, fair, reasoned" point, the fact was that I did agree with ID supporters (including DaveScot -- forgive me) when they said something sensible.  I even defended Bill Dembski on a couple of occasions when he was unfairly attacked.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wrote to Red:
Perhaps you can show me the many comments in which you agree with Darwinians, so I’ll have an example to follow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Needless to say, no such examples were forthcoming.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 22 2006,13:51

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 22 2006,19:21)
Of course it's even worse when your opponents know your position better than you do.  I once had to tell Josh Bozeman to "stay on your own side of the argument!" when he picked the "wrong" side.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Josh does get confused easily.

How long did this go on for before you were banned?
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 22 2006,16:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Needless to say, no such examples were forthcoming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I thought just today they were pointing out how they have all now decided that common descent works with ID?

I remember WD40 putting forth this unusual (at the time) statment during his first "debate" with Ruse.
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 22 2006,20:16

In the strangest journalism I have ever seen....DaveScot is now linking to the forum that is discussing the site that DaveScot is linking to the forum from?!?!?

I love DaveScot.  Honestly.

Sorry if some of you dont know me....I havent really posted frequently.  

William Dembski originally banned me....and told everyone on the blog that he had done so.  I almost felt honored.  Then DaveScot decided to try to insult me after I was banned?  That was honestly the lowest I have ever seen anyone sink.  Insulting someone without actually allowing them to reply.

Apparently at some point I was allowed to reregister my screen-name...so I did.  I was then banned for answering...with completely correct information...a question that DaveScot had asked.  I was promptly banned again.

Dave....no one cares that you ban people.  No one cares that you decide to moderate.  People are upset with you, and Bill because you guys seem to do it with only a vague set of guidelines....how boring is it when everyone in your little world agrees with you?
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Jan. 22 2006,23:26

DaveScot is hilarious, especially when he tries to be scary. He hunts around the internet trying to find dirt on people, with nothing else to do, and then bans them. Mr. Christopher and I both got banned for the same reason. (Mine still logs in, but I tried saying a couple things and they were deleted) Mine was this essay:
< Proves my point >
After trackbacks lead him to my post, he then proves my point by un-linking the trackbacks on UD to my blog. His reason given was so that I couldn't plug my blog on - read: HIS - , like I would want the 20 people in the world that DaveScot and Bill Dembski haven't banned from their blog commenting on mine anyway!

I think the point made earlier about Dembski wanting to make his whole blog a joke to cover up his mis-statements and "street theater" may fit the bill. No pun intended.

What I think is interesting is the TIME that DaveScot takes to go online with his modem and download these pages bit by bit to see what people are saying about him. And B.Dembski calls evolution proponents obsessive.

Hello Dave, glad to see you are spending so much time on everyone here. Won't you provide another link directing people to places that don't ban people for making truthful statements about you? The fact is, people on "YOUR" own blog notice how you are the embodiment of a flaming troll, and you can't hide it.

While I was still on the blog, I was trying to understand what some of their positions were on apes->humans. Although DaveScot emailed me to warn me that he could *smell* that I was a troll, the only reason why I wanted to try posting on the blog was to get answers to the question above. They kept repeating that ID was compatible with common descent with apes as well as uncommon descent, that was not what I was asking.

One person did attempt to answer me, he said that he believed that humans and apes did not descend from a common ancestor, I asked him what evidence, since ID is compatible with both scenarios, lead him to that conclusion. No biochemical evidence, just a hand wave at the complexities of humans. I made sure to be polite, and thanked him for responding. So the one response I got was an empty box with no evidence.

Which is precisely what I expected.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,02:25

Some IDer, who himself keeps getting deleted at Uncommon Pissant, is begging DaveScot to stop being such a censor:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Dave, I haven’t seen what they’re saying and don’t intend to, but as someone who’s pretty pro ID, I would appreciate a rethink of your moderation here. Perhaps just leaving it all to someone else would be best. The signal to noise ratio here has changed since you’ve been moderating, and I’m sorta tiring hearing about you all the time and seeing others complain about your moderation, or you telling us they are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I love it.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Jan. 23 2006,02:48

Isn't it a bit odd that UD has banners that link to < This Page >.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The bottom line is that while the math and science in support of guided non-Darwinian evolution is extraordinary, compelling, and interesting to a fault
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No comment, although I'm interested to see if the next edition of Pandas replaces intelligent design with 'guided non-Darwinian evolution'.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone needs to slap these clergy upside the head and tell them they don’t have to compromise their faith in God to accommodate some godless story of evolution foisted upon us by the likes of Richard Dawkins or the National Academy of Atheist Sciences.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought he was banning people for talking about religion?
Posted by: Lord Monar on Jan. 23 2006,02:54

DaveScot is now complaining about being blocked on this site.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it. They make my moderation policy look like a paragon of tolerance in comparison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now...for a guy who is supposed to be a blog moderator (if that is what you call that particular site)...he should know that when you block an IP address, it prevents any connection between the server and the blocked IP.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,03:27

He can say whatever he wants, the fact remains: he has censored more people this week, than Panda's Thumb has in almost 2 years.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,03:41

Since DaveScot's linking here at the moment, here's a brief statement to the ID folk who'll be wandering over:

You're welcome to discuss things here. Panda's Thumb, and After the Bar Closes, are run by scientists who believe in open discussion. As long as you aren't a raging jerk for months on end (which DaveScot was) you won't be warned or banned. Very few people have been banned here--fewer than DaveScot censored last week. I understand it's so bad over there that he's even banning ID supporters who don't agree exactly with him, like Josh Bozeman. We can all agree that since he's been moderating, DaveScot has made the blog about himself and how rigorous he is at purging the site of any alternative ideas. This trainwreck isn't going to last forever, and until it changes, you can discuss things here, just keep it civil.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2006,04:14

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Jan. 23 2006,08:48)
The bottom line is that while the math and science in support of guided non-Darwinian evolution is extraordinary, compelling, and interesting to a fault
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Guided non-Darwinian evolution"?? That is priceless.

So these guys have been forced by evidence to accept evolution, but they'll be damned if they'll concede an inch to that DARWIN bastard!

Maybe 'macro-evolution' is Darwinian, but 'micro-evolution' = 'guided non-Darwinian evolution'.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,04:21

Boy, JAD's really got some reading comprehension problems, in evidence over at UncommonPissant:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

stevestory is now welcoming all the ID people back to PT ….he says. I want a personal guaranteed invitation steve baby, complete with an apology for the hideous way you hypocrites have treated an Emeritus Professor of Biology and his sources, some of the finest minds of two centuries. Put your money where your mouth is. Fat chance.

War, God help me, I love it so!

Comment by John Davison — January 23, 2006 @ 9:07 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What a loon. The informed observer will note that civil ID supporters, like Salvador Cordova and Carol Clouser, have been posting at Panda's Thumb and After the Bar Closes for almost 2 years now, almost without incident. I didn't welcome back those ID supporters, because they never left. A tiny handful of hysterical and rude ID supporters were banned, but only after months of warnings.

Enjoy the reign of DaveScot, JAD, because it's not long for this earth.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don’t care who does the moderating. I’m just grateful not to be banned for a change. So if Dave decides to step down and I hope he won’t, I also hope Bill Dembski is very careful about who replaces him. I am getting sick and tired of being treated like garbage every where I go.

-JAD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2006,04:29

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,10:21)
I don’t care who does the moderating. I’m just grateful not to be banned for a change. So if Dave decides to step down and I hope he won’t, I also hope Bill Dembski is very careful about who replaces him. I am getting sick and tired of being treated like garbage every where I go.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to admit, as distateful as Davison is, that was sort of a poignant statement, not least because he shows absolutlely no comprehension whatsoever of why he engenders this reaction everywhere he goes.

Let this be a cautionary lesson: don't let yourself spend your retirement years like this, an angry charmless crank posting to blogs and alienating everyone.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,07:17

AHAHAHAHA somebody on UncommonPissant, referring to us:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

They’d all do well to follow Flew and finally follow the evidence whereever it leads.

Comment by Ben Z — January 23, 2006 @ 12:07 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is somebody going to tell him that Flew is a deist, not a christian, and that he said he'd been misled by a christian?

If they do, DaveScot will nix the comment.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2006,07:35

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,13:17)
Is somebody going to tell him that Flew is a deist, not a christian, and that he said he'd been misled by a christian?

If they do, DaveScot will nix the comment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do we have any volunteers?  :p
Posted by: Wonderpants on Jan. 23 2006,07:38

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,09:41)
Since DaveScot's linking here at the moment, here's a brief statement to the ID folk who'll be wandering over:

You're welcome to discuss things here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But will Davescot then ban them from posting at UD?  :D

Anyone want to bet how long it'll be before that place consists of DaveScot talking to himself, with even the IDers having been banned?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,07:58

several IDers have been banned over there. He was banning anyone who called ID religious at one point, which means repeating William Dembski's statement that

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent Design is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Would have gotten someone banned from Dembski's blog.

I don't think DaveScot will be in charge for long.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 23 2006,08:35

We should make it perfectly clear -

Anyone from Dembski's uncommodescent creationist blog should note that Dave Scott will ban you from there if you post anything here or on PT that he doesn't like.

And whatever you do stay away from calling Dembski a theologian or pointing out there is no science whatsoever being taught or researched at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Don't discuss the idiotic religious propaganda Dembski teacher there.

And I suggest you avoid mentioning Behe hasn't come up with any new ideas in over 10 years.  Nor has he provided any new evidence for "his" irreducible complexity notion.  And I wouldn't say a word about the fact that Behe published his book on irreducible complexity back in 1996 but there is still not a single peer reviewed scientific paper that supports it.   Yep, 10 years laters and it still lacks any scientific meat.

And I'd avoid talking about Dembski's lack of published peer reviewed scientific articles.  Dave won't like that.  Your best bet it to avoid any suggestion that Behe is a quack and Dembksi is a garden variety Christian Opportunist.  Mr Scott fancies Dembski as a legitimate "theorist/scientist" so let's not shatter his fantasy.

ps.  Dave Scott seems to be whining about his inability to read posts here.  If Mr Scott is jonesing that bad for a ATBC shot in the arm, will someone tell the technically challenged Mr Scott to Google "anonymous proxy"?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 23 2006,08:39

DaveScot must lead a paranoid life.  Why does he care if people at another forum are making fun of him?  I certainly don't care what he thinks of this forum.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 23 2006,08:54

Here's my new theory...

They are trying to be like those exclusive night clubs that keep everyone outside with a velvet rope.  That way, everyone wants to get in because if you do manage to get in and appease the "bouncer" (DS in this case) then you get to say that you are part of the select few.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,09:20

Wow, this is interesting. While a hundred years ago, creationists denied evolution, recently they've had to concede some evolution. Hence the micro/macro distinction. A few of the smarter creationists (not quite a complete oxymoron) have even relented on common descent in the last few years, the evidence being so powerful. Yet they maintain some fiddling was still required, at some point. It looks like DaveScot is actually in that camp:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Red

I think you’re conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and I’ll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself. However, descent with modification over billions of years from a common ancestor doesn’t speak to whether the process was guided or unguided, planned or unplanned. Here there is compelling evidence, focused upon most famously and contemporaneously by Dembski and Behe, that there almost certainly must be planning and guidance required to produce some of the complex patterns we find in the machinery of life. The source of the planning and guidance may well be outside the scope of science and there’s no scientific evidence to lead us in any particular direction. But detecting a design and identifying the source of design are two different things and the former is in no way dependent on the latter.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 12:28 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Most ID Creationists have thrown in on their micro/macro distinction, and so this is going to be yet another source of conflict on Uncommon Pissant.

This is more entertaining than an Hispanic Soap Opera.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2006,09:39

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,15:20)
Wow, this is interesting. While a hundred years ago, creationists denied evolution, recently they've had to concede some evolution. Hence the micro/macro distinction. A few of the smarter creationists (not quite a complete oxymoron) have even relented on common descent in the last few years, the evidence being so powerful. Yet they maintain some fiddling was still required, at some point. It looks like DaveScot is actually in that camp:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, keep in mind that some ID people have accepted common descent, and some ID people have accepted some form of evolution -- but not all of them have gotten the memo. For every one such person who has, there are ten who still say that evolution is ridiculous, common descent is impossible, there's no evidence for transitional fossils, and that speciation has never been observed. As people have pointed out at PT, no IDC idea EVER gets thrown out completely -- once any IDC talking point is launched, it essentially lingers forever in 'folk intelligent design' circles. Whether it's been soundly refuted or even if the DI tells people not to use it anymore, it doesn't matter.

This is one of the most funny things about Intelligent Design -- its complete lack of consensus or standardization of any kind.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Jan. 23 2006,09:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is more entertaining than an Hispanic Soap Opera.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



well, that was the plan, as i keep saying.

However, at least latin soap operas have some sweet looking women in them.

WD40's "inner circle" is really just one big circle jerk.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,10:18

Woo, DaveScot has pissed some people off with his possible acceptance of "macroevolution" and common descent.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Red

I don’t like to be so blunt but if the ID movement doesn’t get its head & tail wired together and accept as settled science that evolution happened, that only the mechanism of random mutation as the sole source of variation is in dispute, then its doomed to the dustbin of history. A million scientists aren’t entirely wrong. They got a lot of the story right. Their only error is foisting a notion that evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. That’s purely a dogmatic concoction driven by an atheistic worldview and in denial of some very compelling evidence to the contrary - namely the patterns in the machinery of life which defy explanation by any plausible unintelligent self-assembly mechanism. Maybe such mechanism will be discovered in the future but for the nonce the benefit of doubt must go to design in any rational, objective analysis.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Bling

Natural selection isn’t even operative in small isolated populations. It’s overwhelmed by genetic drift. To say that speciation is the result of natural selection exhibits shallow knowledge depth in the modern synthesis. Genetic drift is quite capable of speciation. The question is whether there’s any new information required for speciation or is it just a matter of rearranging the deck chairs. It looks to me like most speciation is a mere rearrangement of the deck chairs - a different expression of information that was already there in the genome in question.

In any case, the bottom line remains that no one has observed RM+NS creating any novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan. It’s an huge extrapolation to assign RM+NS massive creative power never once observed in over a century of trying to observe it in nature or reproduce it in a laboratory.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

DaveScot said: >.[sic]

I do not agree at all with that. Where is all that evidence? To believe in common ancestry is to believe in macroevolution. Both are false and without any proof. That’s a strange error ID supporters should not do.

Comment by niwrad — January 23, 2006 @ 3:12 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Jan. 23 2006,10:50

DaveScot has heaped scorn on many (if not most) ID supporters in the past week.  No wonder they're rebelling against him.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From a letter to the Kansas Board of Education from Elie Wiesel and 37 other Nobel laureates:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot wrote regarding the above definition:
As all of us who don’t cling to strawman versions of ID know, the only bone we have to pick with that definition is the unguided, unplanned part. We are of the position that evolution, in part or in whole, was a guided or planned process. (From < http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/689 > )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot again, scolding Red Reader:
I think you’re conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and I’ll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself.  
(From < http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/697 > )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True to form, Dave manages to alienate many (if not most) ID supporters by labeling their skepticism of common descent as laughable, disparaging them for trying to "cling to a strawman version of ID."  Whether he realizes it or not, he also slams ID leaders who reject common descent, including Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson and Stephen Meyer.

Best of all, he manages to contradict himself.  Here is Dave responding to a comment of mine on December 24, 2005:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot wrote:
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?
(From < http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/606 > )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wonderpants asks:
Anyone want to bet how long it'll be before that place consists of DaveScot talking to himself, with even the IDers having been banned?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm expecting him to stage a late night coup and ban the other moderators (including Dembski).  Let's hope the server is under Dembski's physical control so he can hit the reset button.

On the other hand, I'm beginning to think sir_toejam is right that Dembski wants DaveScot to run the blog into the ground so that he can dismiss it as a few months of "street theater."

Keep going, Dave.  You're doing great!
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 23 2006,11:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave manages to alienate many (if not most) ID supporters by labeling their skepticism of common descent as laughable
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention J.A.D.'s recent common descent contribution...

And yet the name of the freakin' blog is UNcommon Descent. Is Dr. "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" Dembski paying attention to what's going on over there? Oh wait, he's back to posting half the articles.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 23 2006,11:18

Dave Scott schooling creationists (and crackpots) on evolution.  Too funny.

Dave claims to be an agnostic but he insists a designers' signature is everywhere.  Hmmm..Since he rejects the God concept he must be from the ID Klingon Camp that proposes a time traveler or space alien done it.  He has yet to clarify whether he leans towards a time traveler or a space alien.

Oh, and uncommon dissent is still hostile to Christian ideas:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...I deleted two comments that appeared to be headed towards a dispute about the historical accuracy of the bible...
Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Jan. 23 2006,11:53

Earlier, stevestory quoted a commenter on UD who suggested that DaveScot give up his role as moderator:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Hey Dave, I haven’t seen what they’re saying and don’t intend to, but as someone who’s pretty pro ID, I would appreciate a rethink of your moderation here. Perhaps just leaving it all to someone else would be best. The signal to noise ratio here has changed since you’ve been moderating, and I’m sorta tiring hearing about you all the time and seeing others complain about your moderation, or you telling us they are.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The commenter's name was 'Shane', and he complained that his post had been deleted the first time around.

Guess what? It's been deleted for a second time.

Complain about DaveScot, no matter how honestly or constructively, and you're out of there.

Like I said, Dave, you're doing great!  Keep at it!
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,12:01

he also just deleted a post by Bling.

LOL. pretty soon (if not already) he'll have deleted more IDers than Panda's Thumb.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 23 2006,12:05

I think Dave is actually working as an intern at Dembski's creationism blog.  If all goes well he will soon he will be a full time editor at Minitrue (aka The Discovery Institute).
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,12:09

The number of views is higher than normal and I'm sure some IDers from Uncommon Pissant are coming over here. So here's an additional message to you guys:

While Dembski banned criticism like crazy, DaveScot has gone nuts, even banning criticism from you christian supporters of ID. I've seen three today. If you like this situation, fine. But if you don't, complain to the guy who owns the blog.

In fact, you might want to navigate one level up and start up a thread on After the Bar Closes to discuss ID. There you can post freely any criticism which comes to mind, as long as you're not persistently rude. You won't have to worry about being frivolously banned.

Oh, and btw, you might be banned at Uncommon Descent and not know it--one thing they do is set the software to hide your comment from everyone but you--that way you don't complain, because you don't know your posts are hidden to others. Just FYI.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 23 2006,12:34

I think DS might have actually banned more Steves in the last month than PT has banned commenters in a year.

A sort of parody of the Steve list.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2006,13:00

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 23 2006,18:01)
pretty soon (if not already) he'll have deleted more IDers than Panda's Thumb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He probably passed that landmark his first day.
Posted by: gregonomic on Jan. 23 2006,13:06

DaveScot has < linked to this thread > to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2006,13:18

:06-->
Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 23 2006,19:06)
DaveScot has < linked to this thread > to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is DaveScot's current whinging:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is this true? Or is this some persecution fantasy?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 23 2006,13:23

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 23 2006,19:18)
Quote (gregonomic @ Jan. 23 2006,19<!--emo&:0)
DaveScot has < linked to this thread > to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is DaveScot's current whinging:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is this true? Or is this some persecution fantasy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This beggars belief!

DS complaining about censorship. ROFL.
How many people has DS banned/Edited/deleted recently?

How often does that happen here?

Surely this is a joke, or a weird strategy to ridicule his own site.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 23 2006,13:36

This may be nothing new to you veteran PTers, but I'm seeing John Davison in action for the first time and I'm finding it quite amusing.  After a detailed description of how to induce "semi-meiotic" reproduction, John declares:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now pay attention FUNDAMENTALISTS EVERYWHERE WHEREVER YOU MAY BE to what I am about to say.
This expermental procedure could offer a rational, scientifically based explanation for both the Immaculate Conception of Mary as well as a potential demonstration of the Virgin Birth of Christ. It has already been done with frogs. Don’t forget who told you so. That does not mean that I necessarily subscribe to either dogma although I may have a death bed conversion. I haven’t decided yet. Now lets get cracking with some real experiments and stop all this empty rhetoric.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll bet the Christians on UD are loving that.  Who invited him back?  Oh, yeah... it was DaveScot.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,13:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Dave,

I appreciate your conviction and I understand how important it is to you.
But I’m with Dr. Dembski on this.

I’ve read Denton and Behe and they are convincing.

In my opinion, the concept of “irreducible complexity” simply nukes in toto the concept of macro-evolution.

For analogy, the design of Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” and its production are complete in one life time. All of Da Vinci’s paintings bear a striking resemblance, but the one painting on the wall of the dining hall of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan was drawn from raw materials right then and there: he didn’t assemble parts of paintings he had gathered from elsewhere.

Micro-evolution, I agree all day long. It’s a fact, no question.
We see it in action on every cattle ranch in Texas. (I’m from Texas.)

Comment by Red Reader — January 23, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dave

What evidence do you use to prove that macroevolution is “settled science”? Can you give me some resources (web sites, papers, books, etc.) which site evidence used in your proofs? In other words, please direct me to resources that would debunk the theory that the human body, for example, wasn’t designed in a day instead of billions of years.

Respectfully,
Saxe

Comment by saxe17 — January 23, 2006 @ 6:24 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL! Now the anti-"macro"evolution nuts on UD are asking DaveScot for evidence which proves his case. Let's see how successful DaveScot at convincing IDers of the facts of common descent and "macro" evolution.
Posted by: FishyFred on Jan. 23 2006,13:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, and btw, you might be banned at Uncommon Descent and not know it--one thing they do is set the software to hide your comment from everyone but you--that way you don't complain, because you don't know your posts are hidden to others. Just FYI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How to tell: If the number of comments displayed at the top of the comments section (i.e. "23 comments") is different than the number of comments you can see, then you've been sent to coventry, the land of "Only you can see your posts."

Arden Chatfield: He probably has been IP banned from this forum because he was such a bad poster and a bad guy, but this happens all the time on forums across the internet. He's making it out to be worse than it is by describing it in a vivid and entertaining prose style :D.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 23 2006,14:03

stevestory wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL! Now the anti-"macro"evolution nuts on UD are asking DaveScot for evidence which proves his case. Let's see how successful DaveScot at convincing IDers of the facts of common descent and "macro" evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I offered Dave some assistance, but my comment was deleted:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey Dave,

You want some help convincing Red Reader and Saxe of the truth of common descent?

You seem a bit beleaguered lately.

Regards,
Keith S.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 23 2006,14:06

I just use the regular Ikonboard facility for an "IP ban". While the implementation could have been coded to simply restrict posting, maybe Springer's report of no access at all to the bulletin board here is correct. In any case, the correct people to talk to about the behavior of the software when a banned IP connects are the Ikonboard programmers at Jarvis Entertainment Group. Of course, ownership transfers have since taken place, and I'm not sure that there is a good suggestion service for the iB software now.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 23 2006,14:06

Quote (FishyFred @ Jan. 23 2006,19:54)
He probably has been IP banned from this forum because he was such a bad poster and a bad guy, but this happens all the time on forums across the internet. He's making it out to be worse than it is by describing it in a vivid and entertaining prose style :D.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he's not all that entertaining...

A pity, I don't relish having him posting here, but it would be nice if he could at least see us all laughing at him.

But hey -- it just occurs to me -- if he posted here, wouldn't he then have to ban himself ? ? ?

The performance art that is UD would then be perfected!
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Jan. 23 2006,14:56

There is quite a lot of dissent amongst ID supporters over at Uncommon Dissent, surprisingly. I think despite all the banning and deleting, with B.Dembski no longer doing the editing, I think it has allowed the contrary opinions amongst ID supporters to come out for all of us to see.

Given DaveScot's waffling on various issues, such as common descent and macroevolution, I would like to offer up that DaveScot really has no position on these things, except that everyone else is somehow wrong. I wouldn't be surprised that after the midnight coop DaveScot starts banning B.Dembski as well. I think DaveScot is starved for attention, obsessive, and does this stuff for emotional reasons, purely. I think he's gone over to the UD blog to try to gain acceptance with someone. Who wants to wager that he has no friends that he's actually met? But now when in control, he's just resumed the vitriol again.

I am very glad that DaveScot has given his position on common descent and macroevolution, it will be nice to see the UD folks grill him. Because then he's going to grill them back, and they will have nothing to stand on themselves. I was trying to figure out their positions, and now that I won't be able to, DaveScot will do it for me!
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 23 2006,15:10

Y'know, I'm still completely confused about how creationism ever took hold within Christianity.  What on earth does a literal interpretation of Genesis have to do with Jesus or with the New Testament?  And, in fact, despite Genesis being the first book of the Pentateuch, it seems that very, very few Jews are either YECs or IDists.

Very strange.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,15:12

If DaveScot is going to try to convince IDers that "macro" evolution and common descent are legitimate, I pity the poor bastard.

After a few days he'll get so frustrated he'll ban everyone.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 23 2006,16:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would like to offer up that DaveScot really has no position on these things, except that everyone else is somehow wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now that it's become the DaveScot-Davison-Dembski three ring circus, I suggest there are two things they all have in common: the everyone else is wrong mindset, and right-wing politics.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 23 2006,16:47

Why do I get the impression that the UD site is not intelligently designed?

Henry
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 23 2006,17:08

Julie, by the way, that is the cutest icon.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 23 2006,17:31

Julie Stahlhut wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Y'know, I'm still completely confused about how creationism ever took hold within Christianity.  What on earth does a literal interpretation of Genesis have to do with Jesus or with the New Testament?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm fascinated by the question, especially since I was raised as a literalist Christian and then had to reason my way out of it in adolescence.  Ocellated (a Christian who accepts evolution) has a post on this topic on his blog.  I added my two cents' worth in a comment.
< http://www.ocellated.com/2006....olution >
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 23 2006,17:51

Pro-ID Shane, who suggested that Dave step aside as moderator, tried posting his comment for a third time after seeing it deleted twice.  This time Dave left it standing but disemvoweled it.

Shane's plea:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
nd pls dn’t dlt ths pst, fr th 3rd tm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 24 2006,00:05

I stopped posting at UC when Dave was put in charge and I won't post there again until he is removed as the big cheese. I support ID but putting Dave Scot in charge of UC was not a very good move. I understand the reason for Dembski doing it. He would like to have a non religious person be a spokesman for ID to counter criticism that ID is religiously based.

But in choosing a person like Dave Scot (who is childish, crude, quick to anger, egotistic, arrogant and confused) Dembski has made a mistake.

For one thing Scot doesn't represent ID in the true sense of the word. He calls himself an agnostic and yet believes in some convoluted form of ID?

You cannot be an agnostic nor an atheist and believe in ID, it's a contradiction. If you don't believe in an intelligent designer then how can you believe in intelligent design?

I feel it is extremely foolish to try and present ID divorced from reference to a God figure as part of the paradigm. The people who do that look like they are trying to con people. There is no need to try and pretend that ID isn't about God. No one believes it anyways, unless you are a confused person like Dave Scot.

Almost all proponents of ID believe that a God built all life. An extremely tiny minority believe in guided evolution. Dave Scot is part of the extremely tiny minority even though he claims to be an agnostic. Confused our poor Dave Scot is. If you believe evolution is guided by an intelligence then how can you possible be an agnostic? What is that intelligence if not a God? And Dembski put that guy in charge of his blog? I know Dembski doesn't believe in what Dave Scot believes in, but if he thinks that by putting out front a non religious face to represent ID will aid in the appreciation of ID, he is sadly mistaken.

People like Dave Scot who claim to believe in guided evolution have to answer a big question. If God or the intelligent whatever could guide evolution to get the desired life forms, then why couldn't God have skipped the billions of years of evolution and just created the life forms without evolution?

Anyways, ID proponents should quit being such pussies when it comes to being upfront with what they believe. ID is about a God paradigm. It's not about anything else.

I believe the ID movement is basically split into two parts. Those people who want to use ID as part of a social/political or personal/profit agenda and are therefore looking for ways to make ID more "palatable" to evolutionists by pretending it's not about God, and those who simply are disgusted with the scientific fraud that is evolutionary theory and who have no social or political or personal agenda in their support of ID.

I belong to the second group. I wish the people in the first group would grow up and quit trying to please everybody all of the time. Stand up and be proud, don't hide behind rhetorical mind games and mental cases like Dave Scot. Your every move is transparent. Be loud and proud, if your agenda was purely scientific then you wouldn't think you have to con people. I am 100% against the agenda of those controlled and paid by the Christian reactionary elements in society.

As long as ID is represented in the public mind with Chrisitan reactionary elements it will be mindlessly fought against on political grounds i.e the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Putting up angry confused confrontational arrogant rude  Dave Scot types as your representative is not going to help.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 24 2006,00:32

LOL this one is funny.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/700#more-700 >

Dave Scot is giving a free lesson for Wesley in how to do science.

Bang goes another irony meter.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 24 2006,00:46

Zardoz,
ID has been very, very good to W. Dembski.

My opinion about the ID movement is low. The reason they do not want to mention religion is that they want ID taught in a science class.

In the meantime, a few of them are making pretty good cash from books and appearances. So much so that I can only assume they are too busy to actually be doing any scientific experiments.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 24 2006,01:32

Well, "DaveScot" does come close to an insight in his rant. I really could not care less about whether someone who has proved themselves worthy of an IP ban has read access to the site. And so while I could, if i had anything besides velleity for this project, have a look at the source and figure out what it is doing, but it simply isn't worth my time. My only concern would be whether the IP ban code is effective. That experiment has been run, and "DaveScot" has confirmed that the result is positive.

I'm puzzled, though, at why I would care what Dell does in their hiring. Last I heard, they didn't have dolphins or whales available for research. Those who are interested can have a look at The Journal of Experimental Biology 204, 3829-3841 (2001), for a report of a project that I contributed computer hardware and software support to.


Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 24 2006,01:39

Hang on if Dave Scot is banned here to the extent that the can't read this forum - how was he able to paste Wesley's explanation into his UP thread?

I love his Tagline - "Fair Warning - comments may be moderated" - I imagine him saying it in a 'Dalek' voice.

A fairer warning would be to list the topics and opinions that will get you 'moderated' - over and above the good manners etc rules that most boards have.

I suppose the list would be too long, and hard for DaveScot to maintain since it seems to be constantly growing.?

Is there a name for this particular pathology?
Posted by: Renier on Jan. 24 2006,02:16

Dave plugs in his robotics modem to get a dynamic IP, so that he can read these posts.

I just got banned from UD too. Never try and point out that science is a method, they don't like it.

It's a pity I cannot comment there. This whole thing with Dave admitting to "COMMON DESCENT" could have been so interesting.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 24 2006,03:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe the ID movement is basically split into two parts. Those people who want to use ID as part of a social/political or personal/profit agenda and are therefore looking for ways to make ID more "palatable" to evolutionists by pretending it's not about God, and those who simply are disgusted with the scientific fraud that is evolutionary theory and who have no social or political or personal agenda in their support of ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds very simple, but by observation it doesn't work that way. ALL anti-evolution people, as far as I can tell, find the fact of evolution (as opposed to the proposed mechanisms by which it works) an intolerable affront to their pride. Kind of like overweight people rejecting gravity as a scientific fraud because the alternative is to admit what they really don't want to.

Among the fact-rejecting crowd, the associated motivations seem fairly spread around, not binomial as Zardoz argues. Some are trying to trick a pro-reality system into teaching superstition in science class because they Believe, and want everyone else to. Others consider this dishonest, and instead want to preach against reality on straight religious grounds. Some wish to attain political power sufficient to use civil authority to *coerce* behavior according to their faith. Others are convinced that simply abandoning rationality will be sufficient to guide behavior. Some seek to discover their god hiding somewhere in reality by searching for places where He screwed up and failed to cover His tracks. Others reject this in favor of seeing the Hand Of God guiding every...well, they all have different levels of granularity on this. A few even seem to believe that predictable, natural processes are themselves guided, while others recognize that if this is true, layering on some Guider is superfluous and clumsy.

Essentially, what Zardoz is preaching here is PURE blindness, and he's offended that people like DaveScot give the impression of peeking every now and then. Peeking is a giveaway of confusion. REAL Believers don't do it.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,03:46

Zardoz said:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For one thing Scot doesn't represent ID in the true sense of the word. He calls himself an agnostic and yet believes in some convoluted form of ID?

You cannot be an agnostic nor an atheist and believe in ID, it's a contradiction. If you don't believe in an intelligent designer then how can you believe in intelligent design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But Zardoz, doesn't Dembski hisself say it's not necessarily god?:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God? Even as a very traditional Christian and an ardent proponent of ID, I would say NOT NECESSARILY. To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature.

For instance, just because I hold to both Christian theism and ID doesn’t mean that God directly designed and implemented the bacterial flagellum by specifically toggling its components. It could well have happened by a process of natural genetic engineering of the sort envisioned by James Shapiro.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,03:53

A ...nice...analogy from DaveScot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Saxe

I read the Worldmag article you linked. It was kind of tedious and off topic until the end. Then there’s a really good point about scientists not being the ones to define what is and isn’t science. It should be philosophers of science doing the defining. That caught me off guard too. Dembski has a PhD in the philosophy of science, interestingly enough. So WTF are scientists doing telling him what is and isn’t science? That’s like foxes telling farmers how to build chicken coops, isn’t it?

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Comment by DaveScot — January 24, 2006 @ 1:57 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Lol.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,03:56

btw, i just went to Uncommon Pissant, and the top 5 posts have 0 comments each. I'm sure it's just because they're new, but for a second I thought, "Has he done it? Has he finally banned everyone?"
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,04:01

Why is DaveScot linking to this editorial from the Daily Herald? It's not helping his case.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
In our view: Confusing religion with science

To listen to some senators in the Utah Legislature, schoolchildren are being indoctrinated in a strange religion. It is called science, and some senators believe they have the antidote.

Senate Bill 96, sponsored by Sen. D. Chris Buttars, passed on Monday and now moves to the House, where it is being sponsored by Rep. Jim Ferrin of Orem. The bill would require science teachers to tell students that there are several theories on the origin of life.

While the bill does not mention "intelligent design," "divine design" or any other euphemism for creationism by name, the implications are clear: A number of legislators want to push religion into the public schools by force of law. Among those voting for the bill were Parley Hellewell, Curtis Bramble, Mark Madsen and John Valentine.

The fig leaf that provides cover for a legislative enactment of religion in Utah is the notion that teachers impose speculative secular views on students and need to be ordered how by the legislature how to teach. Bramble even goes so far as to suggest that the body of scientific ideas concerning the origin of life and the nature of humanity represents a religion of its own, unsupported by fact, and so it's fair to enact law that forces faith-based views into the classroom. In weighing unprovable concepts, why should our children be fed only secular views that are no more valid than faith?

"Sen. Buttars's bill is only asking that teachers not impose their religious beliefs in this theory on him or upon others, especially upon those who rely on these same teachers to tell them the absolute truth," Sen. Allen M. Christensen, R-North Ogden, said during debate. He also dropped this revealing phrase: "It falls to us as legislators to ensure the truth is taught."

While we understand the lure of symbolic legislation in a state largely populated by religious conservatives, we had hoped our senators might have been a little more circumspect. S.B. 96 (see accompanying text), wants to control instruction concerning "origins of life." Oddly, it is laced with the word "theory." Some form of the "theory" appears in virtually every governing sentence of the bill, sometimes more than once.

The trouble is that there is no scientific theory on the origin of life. There is only speculation, which is something else altogether. A theory arises from a set of observable facts that support one another and suggest a possible cause. Speculation, on the other hand, is based on nothing. It is pure conjecture.

We could end the discussion right here and say that S.B. 96 may be nothing but unenforceable nonsense, since the public schools couldn't discuss an actual theory of the origins of life if they wanted to. None seem to exist. The chemical composition of living things is well established, but what makes them come to life remains a mystery.

And yet in S.B. 96 the Senate suggests that there are current scientific theories (note the plural noun) that deserve a full and fair vetting in the course of a science class. Bombarded by multiple theories about the origins of life, children might become confused about "absolute truth," to use Christensen's phrase. So S.B. 96 orders the public schools to "stress that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life ... is correct."

Only Utah's Legislature could come up with such an Aristotelian conundrum. We therefore invite our senators to elaborate on any of the genuine "theories" to which this bill refers. The Herald will provide space on this page for the effort. Please list in detail the scientific observations and measurements that support any, or all, of the theories to which your bill makes reference. We're ready to be enlightened.

Without such guidance, we will continue to be disappointed that our senators passed a bill forcing teachers to combine faith and genuine scientific theory in the public school curriculum.

The dictionary reports that the word "religion" is associated with "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" or "a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." We think the government would be wise to stay out of this. Unfortunately, S.B. 96 nudges God into science class, using code words like "theory," as though one's belief in God were as externally valid as any scientific pursuit. But the proposition that God exists, that he created the universe and gave life to man is not a theory -- it is faith. It may be true, but it is not science. Misapplying scientific words to what amounts to a faith-based argument is ultimately not constructive. It is dishonest.

While many people believe they have empirical evidence for their faith, the standard of measurement is purely personal, not scientific. That is why there is so much disagreement in the world over religion. That is why James Madison argued so eloquently to keep religious doctrines out of secular laws. And that is why a new government in Iraq that is based on religion is likely to fail.

Other language in S.B. 96 is perhaps more troubling than the overt reference to theories about the origins of life. The bill ambiguously directs schools to present alternatives to what it calls "the origins or present state of the human race." Any attempt to find a concrete meaning in this semantic mush is difficult, but we can clearly see the intent -- and the danger. Buttars and his Senate colleagues want to push creationism into the public school curriculum. In truth, this is an attempt to insert a state-endorsed brand of religion into secular life.

Masquerading as a way to balance the curriculum (as though this were really needed in Utah), S.B. 96 enshrines psuedo-science in law. This is wrong. Decisions on curriculum should be left in the hands of professionals charged with oversight of the schools, not seized by a group of part-time politicians who attempt to think deep thoughts once a year.

Mostly, however, we believe all this is a colossal waste of time. Our legislators should spend their limited days on Capitol Hill doing something that will make a real difference to Utah.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 24 2006,05:01

Zardoz, the good news is you can post here and although not many people here are sympathetic to your ideas and cause, there is no expectation of conformity on this site.  Being socially appropriate is a good idea though.

For an example of what is not appropriate look for comments by a user named evopeach.

And I agree that the rampant dishonesty about who the deisigner/creator is that is within the ID crowd is most distateful.  And I believe denying God is still a sin, no?  If that is true you have a trainload of sinners out there promoting the notion that Klingons are responsible for life.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 24 2006,05:18

Looks like those who do not wish to join the ID cult of conformity are now posting in coded language to air their concerns.

I wish you could download a decoder ring.  Doing the old fashioned way is time consuming....

I wonder if some of them will ban together and start meeting in secret?




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shane Was all..
Hy Dv, hvn’t sn wht thy’r syng nd dn’t ntnd t, bt s smn wh’s prtty pr D, wld pprct rthnk f yr mdrtn hr. Prhps jst lvng t ll t smn ls wld b bst. Th sgnl t ns rt hr hs chngd snc y’v bn mdrtng, nd ’m srt trng hrng bt y ll th tm nd sng thrs cmpln bt yr mdrtn, r y tllng s thy r. ’v bn n yr shs bfr, s knw wht’s t lk, trst m. thnk t’s bst y stp rght bck r stp t fr whl nd lt thngs cl dwn.

nd pls dn’t dlt ths pst, fr th 3rd tm.

Comment by Shane — January 23, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Charliecrs on Jan. 24 2006,05:41

Keiths -  wanted to ask ya question b4 you were booted from "UC" what is the main reason (if not more) [evidence / fact / logic ] , that has convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that Evolution is a fact ?. Perhaps is the reason pending ?.

Given [fine print] : Evolutions is a well documented and established fact.
The majority of scientist world wide accept evolution as is, unquestioned solid as rock fact.
Real scientists do not question Darwin.


Is it because you belive or accept / know the following ?


- the overwhelming evidence of the fossil record ?
 overwhelming evidence period - no questions asked ?

- came to realize that the world is round, instead of being flat like to so called uneducated bible      believers thought it was ?

- because the earth / universe is millions  / billions of years old ?
therefor we weren't made in 6 so adios los bible believers ?

-  because we have *evolved*  from the great ape *ape like*  creature ?
and have the well documented, "homo every-things" as proofs ?

- was visited by the ghost of Caption Piccard and Eugenie scott, instead of the traditional ghost of Christmas past ?.

Perhaps you accept Darwin for all of the above statements with a couple exceptions. I for one cant understand it.
----------------------
"You're welcome to discuss things here. Panda's Thumb, and After the Bar Closes, are run by scientists who believe in open discussion"

Huh - a crackpot calling someone else a crackpot. Funny am i missing the irony ?.

Charlie
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 24 2006,05:43

I'm not so sure about the "denying God" accusation. The official ID line, insofar as there is one, is that we can use science to distinguish between something designed and something not designed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can pinpoint the designer. I don't think the argument holds up very well under scrutiny, but it's not completely untenable on its face, and a lot of folks who favor the argument are not motivated to scrutinize it very deeply.

It's important to a lot of Believers that science at least not rule out their concept of God, if not necessarily prove it. And let's face it: the generally scientifically accepted version of evolution does, in fact, rule out certain concepts of God. A subpopulation of ID advocates would be happy enough with a version of science that requires some conscious intelligence without specifying it.

Based on my experience at the local level, most "ID" advocates are really old-fashioned creationists who occupy a spectrum ranging from those who actually want the biblical scenario in the curriculum to those who merely want it not ruled out.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,05:53

Charlie, I've seen a lot of creationists with bad grammar and punctuation and spelling, but I've never seen anyone who put periods after question marks. What's up with that?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 24 2006,05:55

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 24 2006,09:53)
Then there’s a really good point about scientists not being the ones to define what is and isn’t science. It should be philosophers of science doing the defining.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't get better than that line.

Maybe someone should go onto UD and ask how these 'philosophers'' decisions would be enforced? Jail time for scientists who persisted in practicing science without a license?

Amusing how it now seems to be a fad for the Fundies to rebrand themselves as 'philosphers'. Everyone likes philosophers, right?
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 24 2006,05:57

Quote (Renier @ Jan. 24 2006,08:16)
Dave plugs in his robotics modem to get a dynamic IP, so that he can read these posts.

I just got banned from UD too. Never try and point out that science is a method, they don't like it.

It's a pity I cannot comment there. This whole thing with Dave admitting to "COMMON DESCENT" could have been so interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Am I wrong or does a totally anonymous proxy enable someone to bypass an ip ban?

As far as Dave espousing common descent; that has been his view ever since I first came in contact with his views some time ago, it's no secret at UD. In fact he likes to compare his views with those of Michael Behe who has also said something or another in favor of common descent.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 24 2006,06:04

"Fair Warning: Comments Commenters may be moderated obliterated."

:p

By the way, to all the exiles from Uncommon Descent: welcome!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 24 2006,06:07

Quote (Ved @ Jan. 24 2006,12:04)
By the way, to all the exiles from Uncommon Descent: welcome!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the appropriate term is 'refugee'.
Posted by: Charliecrs on Jan. 24 2006,06:10

Lol Steve - but im not a creationist so what more can i say there. I do however like ID- so i thought i could have some fun here. Now please do start giving me the 411 about what i belive in, what color my hair is or what i eat 4 breakfast.

Russel - I can easily argue that Evolution is a seat warmer for uneducated atheist /secularists who think they are some dignified smart people because they can be intelligent while rejecting the notion of a "G-d"... You know the type who argues that 'separation of church & state' is in the constitution. While @ the same-time have a lifetime membership to American united for sep. & church [curiously enough]. Uneducated because if they actually read the constitution they would of withdraw their membership a longtime ago.

Charlie
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 24 2006,06:11

Quote (Flint @ Jan. 24 2006,09:35)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe the ID movement is basically split into two parts. Those people who want to use ID as part of a social/political or personal/profit agenda and are therefore looking for ways to make ID more "palatable" to evolutionists by pretending it's not about God, and those who simply are disgusted with the scientific fraud that is evolutionary theory and who have no social or political or personal agenda in their support of ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds very simple, but by observation it doesn't work that way. ALL anti-evolution people, as far as I can tell, find the fact of evolution (as opposed to the proposed mechanisms by which it works) an intolerable affront to their pride. Kind of like overweight people rejecting gravity as a scientific fraud because the alternative is to admit what they really don't want to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know what you mean by "affront to pride". For myself and my friends who hold the same views as me on evolution we simply find evolutionary theory too implausible, nothing emotional about it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Among the fact-rejecting crowd, the associated motivations seem fairly spread around, not binomial as Zardoz argues. Some are trying to trick a pro-reality system into teaching superstition in science class because they Believe, and want everyone else to. Others consider this dishonest, and instead want to preach against reality on straight religious grounds. Some wish to attain political power sufficient to use civil authority to *coerce* behavior according to their faith. Others are convinced that simply abandoning rationality will be sufficient to guide behavior. Some seek to discover their god hiding somewhere in reality by searching for places where He screwed up and failed to cover His tracks. Others reject this in favor of seeing the Hand Of God guiding every...well, they all have different levels of granularity on this. A few even seem to believe that predictable, natural processes are themselves guided, while others recognize that if this is true, layering on some Guider is superfluous and clumsy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All of those reasons fall under what I wrote i.e political/personal, it was meant to include any type of religious or social or political motivation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Essentially, what Zardoz is preaching here is PURE blindness, and he's offended that people like DaveScot give the impression of peeking every now and then. Peeking is a giveaway of confusion. REAL Believers don't do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What do you mean?
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 24 2006,06:25

RE: "open discussion"


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Huh - a crackpot calling someone else a crackpot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, look! That's just what you've done! And no one erased you! Funny how that works... :p


Arden: 'refugee', check!
Posted by: Charliecrs on Jan. 24 2006,06:30

Just joined to ask Kethis a question that i didnt get to ask b4 he got axed. So will the *real* Kethis please stand up ?

"Hey, look! That's just what you've done! And no one erased you! Funny how that works... :p"

- wonder how long thats going to last though, cux i do have the habbit of mouthing while trying to do it politely lol :) :) :)

Charlie.
Posted by: FishyFred on Jan. 24 2006,06:33

One of the latest posts: < http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/701 >

This must be a joke. IIRC, Jack asked Dembski if he wanted to allow another viewpoint to be presented. Dembski said no thanks. Now DaveScot has the gall to pull this out.
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 24 2006,06:38

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,11<!--emo&:0)
Zardoz, the good news is you can post here and although not many people here are sympathetic to your ideas and cause, there is no expectation of conformity on this site.  Being socially appropriate is a good idea though.

For an example of what is not appropriate look for comments by a user named evopeach.

And I agree that the rampant dishonesty about who the deisigner/creator is that is within the ID crowd is most distateful.  And I believe denying God is still a sin, no?  If that is true you have a trainload of sinners out there promoting the notion that Klingons are responsible for life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This will be an answer to you and stevestory. It's not that they believe that romulans or klingons are responsible, what they are trying to do is alter evolutionists perception of themselves as basing their theories on religious beliefs. In effect what they are trying to do is say " It doesn't matter what the designer is we have proof that there must be some type of designer". I think that is a purely tactical rhetorical method used when evolutionists or fence straddlers ask them to describe the designer. Plus they don't really know much or really anything about the designer in the sense of knowing what or how the universe is controlled by the designer.

In my view "god" is a type of alien. Here is my view of the designer which I have learned from my study of vedanta, physics, and personal experience.

A common belief among physcists is a thing called the Higgs Field. Whether it exists or not no one knows, but it is a popular theory. The Higgs field is supposed to pervade the entire universe. It is supposed to be the cause of giving mass to matter along with the hypothesized Higgs Boson particle. Then there is the Quantum Potential and Bells' Theorem. These three theories are postulating an interconnectedness, a unified reality in our universe.

From my way of looking at things I see the "Designer" as being something similar to Bohm's implicate order. The universe (infinite universe:see plasma cosmology, eric lerner et al) which we can perceive is only showing us what is visible to our eyes and to our technological instruments. But there is more then meets the eye and our instruments. It wasn't long ago that the quantum world was unknown to us as well as other things revealed by modern technology, like cosmic microwaves, space plasma, infrared light etc. As our technology has advanced more things pop into our field of view. They were always there but we didn't know it.

To me the designer is something we exist as a part of. 3 dimensional matter/energy and our consciousness/mind are parts of the explicate order, the designer is the implicate order. The world of matter is the quantum expression from a sub quantum substratum of the material universe. The complete holisitic universe is a unified field of an unknown energy comprising many dimensions of which we are usually (most people) only able to perceive the 3 dimensions of matter, plus mind and consciousness.

That unified field is the designer. Mind and consciousness are part of the unified field. Our mind and consciousness exist as parts of the unified field, the unified field as a whole is a single mind and consciousness. A single universal entity. Essentially, reality as we know it, is a living being. We and everything else in our space time exists within and as a part of a conscious intelligent entity, that entity exists in many more dimensions then the ones we can perceive.

As to where it came from? It is part of the natural development of the infinite space time continuum. At some point in time long long ago the original substance of the space time continuum somehow changed from an inert state into an active state. Consciousness and mind was one of the results of that change. We cannot really understand fully what happened because there are many dimensions at play in what happened (is happening) and we can only relate to a few of them. But to give an idea of what happened try to imagine an infinite ocean of ice. In all directions there was ice on into infinity. Then for some unknown reason there was a chemical reaction which created heat in the ice, the ice started to melt and eventually started to boil and kept on boiling from now until forever.

In a similar way the original state of the infinite space time continuum was an inert potential of some type. Some kind of massive change occured to that inert potential and it morphed into a different state. It developed consciousness/mind and gradually developed it's mind and intellect. After a long time it developed it's intellect to the point of being able to build the 3 dimensional world we see around us. It didn't build it like we build something. We build things that are different from ourselves. It builds things out of itself. Matter and the laws of nature exist because they are part of a conscious intelligent being.

Imagine how a virtual reality works. The programmer and computer build a digital world. Everything in the virtual world can seem like it is real, the chair can seem like a chair, the apple can seem like an apple, but in fact all that we experience in a virtual reality is a combination of pixels designed to look like those things. The virtual apple is really a part of the computer which has been designed to appear like an apple.

Quantum particles, neutrons, protons, electrons, atoms, these are like computer pixels to the designer, the designer is like a programmer and a computer in one. We live in a cosmic living computer. Everything exists as part of a cosmic virtual reality.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 24 2006,06:41

Quoting Russell..



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not so sure about the "denying God" accusation. The official ID line, insofar as there is one, is that we can use science to distinguish between something designed and something not designed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can pinpoint the designer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My point is/was that they are fooling no one with their "it could be space aliens or time travelers" theory.  They keep trying to fool the public so that they can teach their nutty notions in public science class, but no one is buying their Klingons might have dunnit nonsense.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 24 2006,06:42

Zardoz wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as Dave espousing common descent; that has been his view ever since I first came in contact with his views some time ago, it's no secret at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A month ago DaveScot was still claiming to be agnostic on the issue:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/606 >

Of course, you can distinguish the two (unless the Designer is perverse and "plants" the evidence to make common descent appear to be true).
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 24 2006,06:43

Interesting. Although the DI gets all indignant when you say they promote the inclusion of ID in school curricula...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When asked about how biology teachers should teach intelligent design theory, Dembski said teachers should “go as far as you can.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(from FishyFred's link)
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 24 2006,06:54

Zardoz, what you are describing are personal beliefs.  But there is a difference in personal beliefs and what constitutes science.  The issue is the scientific community does not want personal theistsic beliefs being promoted as science.

In over 10 years the intelligent design folks have yet to provide a shred of testable theory or anything scientific.  

And to say "hey look at this evidence of design" is not science.  Besides, the so called evidence they provide is simply wrong.

Furthermore, saying it could be a space alien or time traveler is not scientific either.  It's voodoo.  We have no evidence of a space alien or time travelers, so to suggest these imaginary constructs are responsible for shiny objects we see in biology is nonsense.  

And until they can produce a space alien or time traveler (or God) and demonstrate how they go about creating, their ID theory will remain unscientific.  They might as well say "shiny objects in biology are the reult of wiggly-pigglys" since there is as much evidence for wiggly-pigglyes as there is for Klingons, time travelers and space aliens.

Now there is nothing wrong with theorizing Klingons dunnit, but to suggest that theory is scientific and should be taught in science class is quackery.

And I am sympathetic to the crowd that wants to find God in a petri dish, but if that discovery is ever made it will not likely come from the ID crowd.  So far all the ID "scientists"  are either bad philosophers, lawyers, or blind quacks like M Behe.
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 24 2006,07:16

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,12:54)
Zardoz, what you are describing are personal beliefs.  But there is a difference in personal beliefs and what constitutes science.  The issue is the scientific community does not want personal theistsic beliefs being promoted as science.

In over 10 years the intelligent design folks have yet to provide a shred of testable theory or anything scientific.  

And to say "hey look at this evidence of design" is not science.  Besides, the so called evidence they provide is simply wrong.

Furthermore, saying it could be a space alien or time traveler is not scientific either.  It's voodoo.  We have no evidence of a space alien or time travelers, so to suggest these imaginary constructs are responsible for shiny objects we see in biology is nonsense.  

And until they can produce a space alien or time traveler (or God) and demonstrate how they go about creating, their ID theory will remain unscientific.  They might as well say "shiny objects in biology are the reult of wiggly-pigglys" since there is as much evidence for wiggly-pigglyes as there is for Klingons, time travelers and space aliens.

Now there is nothing wrong with theorizing Klingons dunnit, but to suggest that theory is scientific and should be taught in science class is quackery.

And I am sympathetic to the crowd that wants to find God in a petri dish, but if that discovery is ever made it will not likely come from the ID crowd.  So far all the ID "scientists"  are either bad philosophers, lawyers, or blind quacks like M Behe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?

You mention magical entities as not being a sophisticated enough explanation for life on earth. But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal. Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab? Why is art the rule rather then the exception? Magic? What did Arthur C. Clarke say about magic?
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 24 2006,07:37

Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 24 2006,13:16)
What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?

You mention magical entities as not being a sophisticated enough explanation for life on earth. But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal. Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab? Why is art the rule rather then the exception? Magic? What did Arthur C. Clarke say about magic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.

One another note, you might want to check out the movie "I (heart) Huckabees".
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 24 2006,07:39

Zardoz, I am not saying what you believe is wrong, I am simply saying it is not scientific and therefore does not belong in a science class.

And you and I can agree that much of nature is awe inspiring in its beauty.  There is also a lot of horrifying things in nature as well.  Neither the beauty nor the horror is scientific evidence of a designer.

And evolution does not answer every question.  You are free to offer a more scientific and better explaination than evolution has provided.  But note so far no one in the ID camp has been able to do so.

And I cannot help the fact that so many people reject testable, verifiable evidence when it comes to biology and evolution.  Have you read Behe's testimony?  He is the poster boy for rejecting overwhelming biological evidence.  He is not alone in his pursuit to believe what he wants in spite of the obvious contradictory scientific evidence which suggests he is mistaken.

People have the right to live in a make believe world but teaching make believe in science class is not cool.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,07:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You might find Judge Jones's opinion enlightening about why this is a terrible argument.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent
evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This
argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed
“contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to
support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy
of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support
of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two
model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in
support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find
this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify
creation science two decades ago.
ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments
against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly
complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural,
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 71 of 139

72
mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73
(Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)). However, we believe that arguments against evolution
are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because
scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that
they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. (2:36-37 (Miller)).
As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
(17:45 (Padian)). To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian
provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations
exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have
been identified in the intervening years. It also bears mentioning that as Dr. Miller
stated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not
undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully
understood. (3:102 (Miller)).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or you might find this refutation from TalkOrigins more persuasive:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Claim CA510:
Creation and evolution are the only two models of origins.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 3, 8-10.
Response:

  1. There are many mutually exclusive models of creation. Biblical creationism alone includes geocentrism, young-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, and more. And then there are hundreds of very different varieties of creation from other religions and cultures. Some of the harshest criticism of creation models comes from creationists who believe other models.

  2. Many noncreationist alternatives to Darwinian evolution, or significant parts of it, are possible and have received serious attention in the past. These include, among others,
         * orthogenesis
         * neo-Lamarckianism
         * process structuralism
         * saltationism
     (See Wilkins 1998 below for elaboration.)

  3. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They coexist in models such as theistic evolution.

Links:
Isaak, Mark. 2000. What is creationism? < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html >

Wilkins, John. 1998. So you want to be an anti-Darwinian: Varieties of opposition to Darwinism. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.html >
Further Reading:
Kossy, Donna. 2001. Strange Creations: Aberrant Ideas of Human Origins from Ancient Astronauts to Aquatic Apes. Los Angeles: Feral House.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



by the way, I doubt you have an argument against evolution which is not dealt with at the TalkOrigins list of creationist claims:

< http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 24 2006,07:46

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 24 2006,13:37)
So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also known as the < Argument from ignorance > or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination".
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 24 2006,07:47

Charliecrs wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the overwhelming evidence of the fossil record ?
overwhelming evidence period - no questions asked ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Charlie.  Many questions asked and successfully answered.  And the evidence comes not only from the fossil record, but also from molecular biology, the geographic distribution of species and fossils, vestigial structures, embryology, and more.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
came to realize that the world is round, instead of being flat like to so called uneducated bible believers thought it was ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have the contempt for "bible believers" that you are apparently expecting.  I was raised as a biblical literalist and so I can empathize with those who still accept the Bible as God's word, although I no longer do so.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
because the earth / universe is millions  / billions of years old ? therefor we weren't made in 6 so adios los bible believers ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, the Earth is very old.  This by itself is a necessary but not sufficient condition for evolution to have occurred.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
because we have *evolved*  from the great ape *ape like*  creature ? and have the well documented, "homo every-things" as proofs ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but not just the fossil evidence.  Also genetic similarities, morphological and molecular homologies, and the chromosomal fusion data that has recently come to light.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps you accept Darwin for all of the above statements with a couple exceptions. I for one cant understand it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not Darwin I accept, but evolution.  As for understanding it, you might find it beneficial to learn more about evolution so that you'll know why its proponents find it to be such a compelling explanation for life's diversity.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 24 2006,07:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This "magical" event is not a part of Evolutionary Theory proper. This beginning of life is Abiogenesis, and is separate from all evolution that happened after that event. And it could have been God or aliens or a natural expression of the universe that done it. I actually think you and I would agree that it was a natural expression of the universe, except that I'm not convinced at all of any conscousness having to do with it.

Oh, and thinking of a modern "cell" as the first spontaneous natural replicator is way, way too big and complex.
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 24 2006,08:07

Quote (Charliecrs @ Jan. 24 2006,12:10)
Russel - I can easily argue that Evolution is a seat warmer for uneducated atheist /secularists who think they are some dignified smart people because they can be intelligent while rejecting the notion of a "G-d"... You know the type who argues that 'separation of church & state' is in the constitution. While @ the same-time have a lifetime membership to American united for sep. & church [curiously enough]. Uneducated because if they actually read the constitution they would of withdraw their membership a longtime ago.

Charlie
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know I may be troll baiting here, but I'd like to see you "easily" argue your case here, including the bit about separation of church and state.  If you decide to take this on, good luck, you'll need it.
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 24 2006,08:19

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,13:46)
[quote=GCT,Jan. 24 2006,13:37]So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.
Also known as the < Argument from ignorance > or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's razor. And i don't care if it's taught in public schools or not. It's not like many kids are interested anyways. If any kid was really interested in evolution or ID then they would do their own research. From my experience of public school everything we went through was like a Readers Digest version of education i.e superficial, full of mistakes, and outdated.

< http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm >
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 24 2006,08:27

RE: "plausibility"

As others have pointed out, "plausibility" doesn't count for much in science. It ranks somewhere between "intuition" and "hunch".

But I'd like to point out a few plausibility related items:

(1) Very few people involved in the actual study of biology or allied fields share this sense of implausibility about evolution.

(2) Lots of people find lots of physics "implausible" (relativistic time dilation; light being both particle and wave, etc.) So far, no one has tried to elevate that sense of "implausibility" to the status of "alternative theory".

(3) I find ID implausible: mainly the notion of nonphysical supernatural things affecting physical natural things, and the "infinite regress" problem: who designed the designer?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 24 2006,08:34

Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 24 2006,14:19)
I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's [sic] razor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zardoz, you can call it anything you want, but that does not make it so.

You were given this < Link > that covers pretty much every creationist anti-evolutionist arguement.  You'd be wise to use it.

Oh, and here is what have already been said about Ockham's razor...

Claim CA240:
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That explanation is creation.
Source:
Morris, John D., 1999 (15 Sep., 10:00-11:00 PDT), "Forum", KQED radio.
Response:

Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.

Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,08:53

Over at Uncommon Pissant this guy ftrp11 is making comments which contradict the official line, and he's been doing so for more than 24 hours. Wonder how long until he's bounced.
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 24 2006,09:01

CharlieCRS,

Go read < this well put together explanation > for the compelling evidence for evolution.  And read the whole thing.  Then re-read the part about how science works.  Then skim it again.  Then you can ask your questions about evolution that are worth replying to.

-Dan
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,09:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CharlieCRS,

Go read this well put together explanation for the compelling evidence for evolution.  And read the whole thing.  Then re-read the part about how science works.  Then skim it again.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then when you find an antievolution argument you believe is correct, go < here > and find out why it isn't.
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 24 2006,09:42

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 24 2006,14:27)
RE: "plausibility"

As others have pointed out, "plausibility" doesn't count for much in science. It ranks somewhere between "intuition" and "hunch".

But I'd like to point out a few plausibility related items:

(1) Very few people involved in the actual study of biology or allied fields share this sense of implausibility about evolution.

(2) Lots of people find lots of physics "implausible" (relativistic time dilation; light being both particle and wave, etc.) So far, no one has tried to elevate that sense of "implausibility" to the status of "alternative theory".

(3) I find ID implausible: mainly the notion of nonphysical supernatural things affecting physical natural things, and the "infinite regress" problem: who designed the designer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(! ) argumentum ad populum

(2)Yet we do find an alternate theory to evolution :D

(3)Your mind and intellect are not physical and they affect physical natural things

The problem of infinite regression is easily solved when we notice that whether you posit a God or no-God we come to the same situation vis-a-vis what existed when. If we posit no-God we still have the question of where the universe came from. Whether we examine the big bang theory or the universe with no beginning theories we still have to confront the question of what caused the universe or the stuff in the universe to come into existence.

The big bang theory or the universe with no beginning theories don't try to explain where the substance of the big bang or the universe came from. That hasn't stopped some scientists theorizing about where that stuff came from. Whatever theory they may come up with ultimately they will have to face one of 2 possibilities. A) There is no origin i.e the stuff has always existed in some form or dimension. B) The stuff or some form of it popped into existence at some point.

Choice B must be resisted because it violates logic. If nothing existed then something could never pop into existence because there is nothing which can give something the causal impetus to exist. Nothing cannot produce something. If there is something in existence then there has always been something in existence.

That leaves us us with choice A: There is no origin.

Whether you argue for a God or against a God in both cases logic demands that something has always existed. If you argue against a God you have to concede that all of the stuff we can perceive in the universe has always existed in some form or dimension. The big bang theory states that all of the matter and energy in the universe today existed before the big bang in the condensed whatever (different theories have been promoted as to what that was) which expanded when the big bang occured. The "universe with no beginning" theorists may have put forth some theories as to the cause of matter/energy in the universe but I have never read one.

If you argue for a God then you have to argue that God is either the original susbtance of the universe or a product or transformation of the original substance. A logical argument for the God side for the source of the universe would be that 3 dimensional matter/energy which follows the laws of physics in the universe, began when God built matter/energy using the original substance of the universe in whatever form or dimension was available. By universe I mean the stuff in the universe. Space time is where stuff exists. Since there could never have been a time when something didn't exist in the universe, therefore space time has always existed as well in order to accomodate that stuff.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,09:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
argumentum ad populum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In the abstract world of Platonic Ideals, this is an error, sure. And it doesn't prove, in a philisophically perfect sense, evolution. But it lends a huge amount of weight in the real world. In the real world, there isn't time for each person to debate and analyse every last thing. It is reasonable to use authority in making decisions.

Anyway, you said evolution was implausible to you. That's not a logically sound argument to begin with. So when someone responds that the experts don't feel that way, and you say they're making a logically unsound argument, you hold them to a standard you didn't meet.
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 24 2006,10:06

Evolution explains species as originating from a common ancestor or only a few common ancestors. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 24 2006,10:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(! ) argumentum ad populum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Quite the contrary! First, it's not an argument at all, it's an observation. If you think your own personal "feeling" of implausibility counts for something, I'm inviting you to wonder why people who have devoted a heck of a lot of time, study and research into it don't share that feeling. If, on the other hand, you contend that your own personal feeling of implausibility counts for something because a largish fraction of the (nonspecialist) population shares that feeling, I would call that an argumentum ad populum.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2)Yet we do find an alternate theory to evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What is that theory? (Note: "an unknown entity did an unknown thing at an unknown time" doesn't count as a theory. Nor does "I find evolution implausible, therefore it musta been God".)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(3)Your mind and intellect are not physical and they affect physical natural things
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"Mind" and "intellect", like "metabolism", describe properties of my physical self. They affect physical natural things in the same sense my metabolism does.

I note, though, we are experiencing "thread drift" here. Possibly, if this discussion is worth pursuing at all, it might be best to start a fresh topic.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 24 2006,10:40

the thread is drifting, and I don't enjoy creationist participation particularly, but I am enjoying this thread being more tolerant of ID advocates that Uncommon Pissant is being at the moment. That's just delicious.

Have you noticed that today's Uncommon Pissant threads are not getting much comment action? Banning so many people is having an effect, methinks.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 24 2006,10:54

Zardoz:

I guess what I wrote passed by you. Communication isn't always easy about this stuff.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For myself and my friends who hold the same views as me on evolution we simply find evolutionary theory too implausible, nothing emotional about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I always consider this sort of reply to be hilariously dishonest, though probably more with yourself than with anyone else. Any explanation of any body of evidence doesn't sound implausible in a vacuum, it always sounds implausible compared to something that sounds MORE plausible. That's the only way it can possibly work. For example, you may find the notion of someone flying by flapping his arms implausible, but only by comparison to known information on this subject.

So I guess we need to dig into WHY you find it implausible. Plausibility is a comparative term, and the "compared to what" must be specified. Otherwise, we are reduced to guessing that you find it implausible in comparison to magic, but you're pretending otherwise.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you mean? (about DaveScot peeking)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I mean, he is actually looking (sometimes, not too hard, but still looking) at actual evidence. And evolutionary theory in the context of evidence is not only plausible, it's stone cold obvious. Shame on DaveScot for letting the nose of evidence into the Big Tent.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you say this? The origin of life from nonliving organic molecules is < higly active >, lots of experiments are being done, a great deal is being learned. And while there are highly competitive schools of thought, none of them would dream of suggesting that a living cell happened all at once. We're looking at tens to hundreds of millions of years, with thousands of steps along the way to what we might generously call a protocell today.

Your statement seems to ignore both the processes involved, and the time available. Kind of looking at a modern fighter jet and assuming that it has no aircraft history.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sheesh. And isn't it a marvel that smoke rises from a fire, rather than forming a fist and smacking you upside the head? Wowie zowie! Ooooh. By the way, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Can I have another hit?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Other self-appointed art critics see exactly that. How mundane the world is, they say. How boring and uninteresting and dull. I suppose you'll claim that those who see the world the way you do are commenting on the world, those who see it differently are only commenting on themselves. Convenient, I guess.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 24 2006,11:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Flint was all like,

"Sheesh. And isn't it a marvel that smoke rises from a fire, rather than forming a fist and smacking you upside the head? Wowie zowie! Ooooh. By the way, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Can I have another hit?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Flint, dude you are my hero and pass me that bong, will you?  If you're ever in Texas and want to sit around and contemplate the human hand, give me a ring.  That was too funny

Your whole post was good but that piece was especially fun.
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 24 2006,13:31

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,14:34)
[quote=Zardoz,Jan. 24 2006,14:19]I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's [sic] razor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Zardoz, you can call it anything you want, but that does not make it so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ditto. :D



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 You were given this < Link > that covers pretty much every creationist anti-evolutionist arguement.  You'd be wise to use it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I 've been reading that site for a long time and I disagree with many of the conclusions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh, and here is what have already been said about Ockham's razor...

Claim CA240:
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That explanation is creation.
Source:
Morris, John D., 1999 (15 Sep., 10:00-11:00 PDT), "Forum", KQED radio.
Response:

Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.

Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In my opinion there is an explanation which better suits what we know are the limits of chance to produce a Mango tree from random mutations starting from within a single cell. In my opinion random mutation is evolutions fatal flaw.

Evolution tells us that random mistakes in a genome not only creates incredibly complex synchronized information processing and storing systems, but also the information they utilize, the nanotechnology which can make use of the information, and the end result of a color coordinated artistically brilliant highly complex living entity, like a tiger, or an orchid, or a butterfly, or a sequoia tree, or a Mango, or pretty much everything.

Evolution tells us that all life (except the first) came to exist through random mutations gradually building every part of every species. Every form of life has a blueprint stored within the lifeform which tells the nanotechnology within the cells and organs how to construct the particular body plan. There are numerous types of very complex coded information systems within every living entity along with extremely tiny molecular nanotechnology which reads the code, understands the code, and then constructs extremely complex biological machines.

Can random mutations build these microscopic nanotechnologies, coding systems (coding, reading, understanding the code) and the blueprints which they come with?

I cannot accept that chaotic disorganized mutations can produce the vast diversity and stunning technological complexity of life as we know it. You may argue that random mutation plus natural selection somehow rises above chaos, but I don't buy it. The numerical probability is beyond astronomical that a series of random mutations can design a Lion or a rose bush. Nope, sorry. For me Occam's Razor rules out evolution because life as we know it would require millions of miracles happening on a scale beyond imagining, whereas a designer would only require one miracle.

To say that "creationism" is not an explanation is not true. Creationism or Intelligent Design makes an explanation, you may not think it to be sufficient, but it nevertheless does make a explanation i.e an intelligent entity built all life forms from a plan. That's an explanation. You don't have to accept it, but it is in fact an explanation. Just like if you asked me how did Trump Towers come into existence and I answered "Donald Trump had his people build it". It may not be a detailed explanation, but it is nevertheless an explanation and a true one at that.

It's all about mathematical probabilities. By the process of elimination we arrive at the mathematical probability of an intelligent agent. Random mutations are random, and it is that randomness which is evolution's fatal flaw. Random events may occasionally produce some type of simple non chaotic outcome, but as more random events occur that non chaotic event will turn back into chaos. The more complex something is the less chance it came about by random forces.

A good example is the snowflake. They are produced by a fairly complex process and they are fairly complex designs. But as random natural events act on the snowflake the design doesn't increase in complexity, it breaks down completely e.g the flake melts or compacts.

I know evolutionists like to ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it is simply not plausible that chaos can consistently produce increasing complexity over a long period of time over and over multiplied millions of times. The numbers don't add up. So Occam's Razor points us to the explanation which requires the least amount of inconsistency with known laws of nature and mathematical probabilities. Evolution cannot be the answer. And in the end there is only one other explanation which isn't bogged down by fatal flaws.

We shouldn't be attached to the truth or falsity of any given theory. If something we think is true turns out to have been a mistake, and conversely if what we thought was a mistake then turns out to be true, we should be glad our understanding has been elevated. This isn't a contest. People who feel they have something to gain or lose in the debate need to check their agendas and egos at the door. There is much much more to the world then meets the eye.
Posted by: djmullen on Jan. 24 2006,13:46

Someone: "So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.  Also known as the Argument from ignorance or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination"."

Zardoz: I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's razor.

djmullen: Occam's razor says to choose the simpler of two explanations that cover the observations equally well.  The problem here is that ANY Intelligent Designer, even a lowly human designer, must have a mind and even a lowly human mind is incredibly complex and requires trillions of bits of information to function.

For instance, an Intelligent Designer would have to understand how even something as simple as a one celled organism works before he could design or build one and that would require millions of bits of information or more.  (For instance, it would require approximately as much information as is found in the organisms genome.)

Evolution, on the other hand, is dumb as dirt: get a population of genetically self-reproducing critters.  Mistakes  will inevitably be made copying the genome, which means that some of the offspring will not be exactly like their parent(s).  If one of those offspring is better at making a living than their parent(s), they will tend to increase in numbers at the expense of their parent(s).

Total information required for evolution - a few bits at a time, which are generated through errors in copying the genome.

Total information required for any kind of remotely Intelligent Designer: Trillions.

Which method passes the Occam's razor test?  Evolution!   And the final score is billions to a few against Intelligent Design.

P.S. If anybody doubts that a God or Intelligent Designer's mind requires huge amounts of information to exist and function, ask yourself these questions:

1) Does God know your phone number?  If He does, then his mind contains at least enough information to incode your phone number, area code and country code.  That's about 13 decimal digits or roughly 40+ bits of information, so God (or any Intelligent Designer) has to have at least 40 bits of information in His mind to know your phone number.

2) Does God know EVERYBODY'S cell phone number?  (Never mind all phone numbers.)  About 650 million cell phones were sold last year.  At 40 bits per phone number, that means that God (or the Intelligent Designer) must have at least 40*650 million or 26 GIGABITS of information in His mind just to know the numbers of the new cell phones that were sold last year.  The figures will be much worse for ALL phone numbers, land line and cell.

3) What is Dembski's Upper Probability Bound?  That is how much information can something contain before it's effectively impossible to achieve without a process like evolution?  About 150 bits!

Therefore, by Dembski's own criteria, Gods and Intelligent Designers of any stripe are impossible unless they somehow evolved.  And if you're not a Mormon, you don't believe that Gods or Inteligent Designers evolve.  QED
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 24 2006,13:52

Zardoz:

You come so close, yet you keep bouncing off.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I cannot accept that chaotic disorganized mutations can produce the vast diversity and stunning technological complexity of life as we know it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But of course, what we see wasn't *produced* by "disorganized mutations", any more than it was produced by the atoms and elements of which they're composed. What produces things is a *feedback PROCESS*. The mutations are only part of the raw materials that the process uses.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You may argue that random mutation plus natural selection somehow rises above chaos, but I don't buy it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Selection is a process. Here's an offhand analogy: Imagine that you need to know how to pronounce a word. You consult a dictionary, and in a minute or two find the word and learn the pronunciation. Now I come along and say "Wait a minute. There are 500,000 words in that dictionary. NO WAY you could have found just the one you were looking for in only a minute or two."

You might respond: Aha, I had a process. As it happens, the words are in a special order, and I happen to know that order. And because this process reduces the scope of the task by several orders of magnitude, it was entirely manageable.

To which I respond: You might make the fatuous CLAIM that your method somehow rises above just guessing and faking that you found the word that fast, but I'm not buying it.

And what can you say? Are you going to concede that my ignorance is more plausible than your knowledge, and admit you were faking? If I repeat "Nope, I just don't buy it" enough times, are you going to start doubting how dictionaries work?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The numerical probability is beyond astronomical that a series of random mutations can design a Lion or a rose bush
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because, again, the mutations don't design anything. The process of SELECTION designs things. You ALMOST noticed selection, but just couldn't quite clear that hurdle. The idea of the words in the dictionary being in some knowable order just isn't plausible to you.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nope, sorry. For me Occam's Razor rules out evolution because life as we know it would require millions of miracles happening on a scale beyond imagining, whereas a designer would only require one miracle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope, sorry, For me, the idea that you could find one word out of 500,000 in a minute requires a miracle on a scale beyond imagining. You must have been lying. This whole idea of method and process is something I simply can't accept. MAGIC, now, that's simple. And what makes it simple is that there's no method or process at all. You just SAY it's true and POOF it's true. Things are so much easier when you just get to make them up.
Posted by: djmullen on Jan. 24 2006,13:54

Zardoz: "... if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate."

djmullen: One of the sure signs of a creationist is their insistence that the first living thing was a cell.  Usually they hold up a modern cell, which is the product of about four billion years of evolution, and say something like, "What are the odds of something this complex happening by chance?"

The problem is that nobody but creationists believe that the first living thing was a modern cell.  Most theories today involve either a simple polymer (such as RNA, proteins or something similar) that manages to reproduce itself or a very tiny "cell" containing several chemicals that catalyze each other and thus reproduce.  

Once you have a population of genetic self reproducers, evolution begins automatically when the first copying error is made and it's Katie bar the door as far as complexity and diversity is concerned from then on.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 24 2006,14:00

djmullen:

I already provided a link to an *entire book* about abiogenesis. I like to do that because it helps separate out the flavor of creationist we're talking about. If Zardoz continues to ignore the link, we'll have a certain species identified: those who defend incorrect claims simply by remaining ignorant of the refutations.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 24 2006,14:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just like if you asked me how did Trump Towers come into existence and I answered "Donald Trump had his people build it". It may not be a detailed explanation, but it is nevertheless an explanation and a true one at that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's only an explanation insofar as we already know the mechanisms by which "Donald Trump's people" build things. If I ask you how the rings of Saturn came into existence, and you tell me "Donald Trump had his people make them", you'll pardon my skepticism if I want to know a little bit about the how and when.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 24 2006,17:36

Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.

Cheers!
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Jan. 24 2006,19:42

I've got an interesting curiosity question for the ID folks who have bravely come over here to engage in discussion free of DaveScot's ego:

One of the "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems claimed by Behe to be un-evolvable is the immune system. However, many diseases such as HIV and Malaria, etc etc, very cleverly undermine the supposedly-designed immune system, and fit Behe's definition of irreducible complexity as well. My question is, given that these structures that give rise to disease meet the IC criteria as defined by Behe, what cause would you have to reject the conclusion that they were also designed, like the flagellum?
Then again, you may not reject the conclusion that they were designed, so then my question to you would be, how do you then avoid the inescapable conclusion, therefore, that this designer created these diseases and that it is a wicked entity?

It might help to consider what you would think if you had learned that a foreign dictator had created a biowarfare disease (based upon knowledge of the immune system) that subdued our immune systems and "accidentally" released it into the world. ???
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 25 2006,02:25

I think it was someone in Slate magazine who said that's one of the theological pitfalls of ID--it changes god from sad witness to the Fall of Man™, into an active engineer of evil machines.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 25 2006,02:42

I wondered, recently, exactly how intolerant of criticism they've become over at Bill Dembski's weblog. We've all seen the deletion of comments, the banning of people who step out of line over there. We've seen them ban ID supporters who didn't hew to the party line. Two dozen contributors from Panda's Thumb are banned on Dembski's site, despite the fact that Dembski is not banned from Panda's Thumb. We've been witness to dozens and dozens of bannings merely in the few weeks since DaveScot's been in charge. So I decided to investigate.

I emailed Wesley Elsberry, and asked him how many people were banned. He wrote me back a thorough email about how many were banned from PT and AtBC. Depending on how you count, it's more or less 11. I went to Uncommon Descent, and asked DaveScot, "How many people have you banned/moderated?" As you can imagine, my question was deleted. However, he sent me an email, and that's where we begin:

(btw, the entire series is reproduced in full, with no editing)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Hi Steve,

I don't keep count.   Was I supposed to?

If I did, do I count people like Alan Fox and KeithS once each or do I count
each time they've snuck back with a fake registration which would make it
about 6 times between them instead of 2?

My marching orders, actually a suggestion as I was given free reign to do
what I think best, was to purge the place of trolls.  I'm purging.  Glad
they're all running to you.  I can't think of a better place for them.  In
fact I encourage all trolls to take up residence at Panda's Thumb.  I thank
you for putting out the welcome mat for them.

Cheers,
DaveScot
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
>From: steve story <stevestory@gmail.com>
>To: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com>

Go ahead and purge anyone you disagree with. ID will never be a scientific movement, but inner strife will take out the PR wing too. Purge away. In fact, you need to more rigid. Maybe demand everyone click thru a loyalty oath. Casey Luskin's ID club requires supporters to be christian. Do something like that.

Steve
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Luskin's ID club required (past tense) officers to be Christians.  That
restriction has been removed.

Good reply, dummy.  It's everything I expected from you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
>From: steve story <stevestory@gmail.com>
>To: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com>

They changed the requirement? But won't they be deficient?

If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.

--William Dembski

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Did I say your dumb ass could clutter up my inbox again?  No, I don't think
I did.

<plonk>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Flint on Jan. 25 2006,03:03

I love this particular example of a homonym:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was given free reign
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The *usual* form is "free rein", meaning the horse isn't being reined in, and is allowed to run free (without reins). DaveScot's use implies that he is absolute soverign (reigning), without any restriction - most especially including the restrictions good judgment would impose.

Do you suppose he used this homonym deliberately?
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 25 2006,03:34

Briefly recapping, Zardoz wrote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet we do find an alternate theory to evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


to which I responded:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is that theory? (Note: "an unknown entity did an unknown thing at an unknown time" doesn't count as a theory. Nor does "I find evolution implausible, therefore it musta been God".)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

to which... I'm still waiting.

So that's it? "A lot of my friends and I find evolution "implausible", therefore an intelligence had to be involved"?
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 25 2006,03:40

"marching orders", "free reign", "purges", "fearless leader"...

anyone detect a pattern here?
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 25 2006,05:22

While idly perusing UD, I came across some surprisingly sensible comments by DaveScot on the subject of altruism and revenge, in the context of evolution. But what I couldn't help chuckling over was < this > comment by ds:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An argument might be made that revenge is most highly developed in humans but it’s not anything to brag about.... But I’d reiterate that revenge is no virtue and while it might separate humans from other animals it doesn’t morally elevate us above them. Quite the contrary in fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

in light of this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
blah blah blah
Jack - since I’m banned on Panda’s Thumb from commenting I see no reason why I should allow authors from Panda’s Thumb to comment here. Please make your responses elsewhere. -ds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and this:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry Steve.
If I can’t comment on Panda’s Thumb you can’t comment here. What goes around comes around. -ds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 25 2006,05:48

He can be occasionally rational, but he has a rage problem. See the emailed insults above. You can almost sense him thinking "Oh you evolutionists, you make me So Mad!"
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 25 2006,05:56

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2006,08:42)
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Did I say your dumb ass could clutter up my inbox again?  No, I don't think
I did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So is DaveScot's real name David Springer?
Posted by: Bebbo on Jan. 25 2006,06:04

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 25 2006,11:56)

So is DaveScot's real name David Springer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah. Apparently he used to work for Dell and thinks that is a big deal.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 25 2006,06:21

stevestory wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He [DaveScot] can be occasionally rational, but he has a rage problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Imagine what it must have been like to work with Dave.  He also mentioned once on UD that he has children (poor souls).

Russell wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"marching orders", "free reign", "purges", "fearless leader"...anyone detect a pattern here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave confirms the pattern in this quote from UD:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe in a chain of command and unquestioning loyalty to it. One follows the orders of those higher in the chain and gives orders to those lower in it. Mission objectives are given, rules of engagement are defined, then mission leaders take the initiative to get the job done. Bill offered me the job of blog czar and I accepted. I then received my marching orders and got on with it. Czar is hardly suggestive of democracy or gentle persuasion. If he wanted a czar that’s what he got. If not then I’m the wrong person for this position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: guthrie on Jan. 25 2006,07:34

I wandered in there, and found that Dave scot had put up an article from new scientist, presumably with the purpose of showing that you dont have to be a professional scientist with a degree to do good science.  Unfortunately, it kind of shows that you have to be working in the same universe as "real" scientists to actually do anything useful.  Heres the New scientist wbsite url:
< http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925351.600 >

The first amateur scientist, Forrest Mims, got papers into peer review and says:
"Sometimes there is resistance to publishing my papers, but most of them have been
published. Now I peer-review papers for scientific journals and I’ve peer-reviewed
two-dozen books for scientific publishers. On a number of occasions professional
scientists have taken me aside and asked me how to get published in Nature. Only once or
twice in my career has somebody been rude or resentful that I didn’t go through the
process they did."

Or in other words, certain people to my mind have  a persecution complex.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 25 2006,07:40

.. so he broke the New Scientist's copyright by publishing that article in full I see...

hmmmm.....
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 25 2006,07:46

.. actually it was the 'Dembski' himself that breached the New Scientist's copyright. Naughty boy!
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 25 2006,08:18

LOL at the comments on UD about that article.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/709#comments >

They seem to think that the guys lack of formal training is good advert and example for ID.

Completely ignoring the guy actually did research and that was what got him published in peer-reviewed journals.

Sheesh! Talk about jumping to the wrong conclusion.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 25 2006,08:38

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 25 2006,14:18)
They seem to think that the guys lack of formal training is good advert and example for ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


here's the money quote from the ever-reliable redreader:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mims proves that credentials and tenure are not the MOST important qualities for a scientist.

The most important qualities are love of the truth, tenacity and faith in one’s own understanding.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Almost heart-rending in its pitiful wishful thinking... Especially how much importance he gives to 'faith in one’s own understanding' -- that's right, the best way to be a scientist is to be absolutely convinced that you're already right.

Note that he doesn't mention the importance of actual, like, uh, knowledge anywhere.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 25 2006,09:25

In all your born days, have you ever seen anything more ironic than davescot saying

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Turn the sensitivity to criticism control down a notch, Bombadill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/715#comments >

And get a load of Bombadil's respose!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Oh dear, the pot has just called the kettle black.

Let the good times roll.

Comment by Bombadill — January 25, 2006 @ 2:22 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Jan. 25 2006,09:59

That thread is hilarious.  It looks like ID's "Big Tent" may be too cozy for Bombadill and DaveScot.

For the record, I agree with DaveScot that many people (especially fundamentalist Christians) don't like to hear about the complexity of animals' social interactions, since acknowledging them makes humans seem less special -- less "created in God's image."
Posted by: SomeGuy on Jan. 25 2006,10:11

It might interest the good people of this forum to know that if you go over to Google, click on the "groups" link, and type in the following:

"David Springer" Dell

You will be rewarded with hours of fascinating reading. Just FYI.

Ciao
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 25 2006,10:24

I hate it when Dave Springer, er, Scot says something sensible:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“I’d be skeptical that they would comfort others that are grieving.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



to which Dave replied:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course you would. That’s a given since it doesn’t fit with your theological view that humans are a unique creation. Correct me if I’m wrong of course.

On scientific grounds what reason do you have to doubt Dr. Sheldrick’s assertion that they do indeed comfort others in distress? She’s been observing elephants for 30 years. You’ve been observing them how long? Heck, I’ve had cats and dogs that can sense the emotions of others and offer comfort. Based on that I have no reason at all to suspect elephants aren’t commensurately more capable of it but I’d give Dr. Sheldrick the benefit of the doubt even absent anecdotal experience of my own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't worry, I'm sure he'll quickly scuttle back to his comfort zone being a tyrannical loon.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 25 2006,10:33

Wow, thanks SomeGuy. I found a bunch of funny bits, like

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's common knowledge that homosexuality was reclassified by political
pressure, not because of any breakthroughs in knowledge about its
cause(s).

Why are homophobes so stupid ?  It's genetic, we were born that way.
;-)

Dave "I can't help being a homophobe" Springer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You'll also find comments of his in groups like alt.impeach.clinton and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 25 2006,10:36

Hey SomeGuy,
Great tip. I ended up here.

< http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?....&tab=wg >

Bloody ####! The man is deranged. :0
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 25 2006,11:04

The guy is just *&$ing nuts. In one of his latest comments, he suggests that engineering is so much less ad hoc than science, because engineers like himself stifle their egos when necessary. I'll add quite a few posts above his so you have the necessary context, but read through to get to DaveScot's last comment. Just mind blowing:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Or it may be the cosmological constant is some infinitesimal bit larger than zero which I’m sure has Einstein rolling over in his grave as he thought it was the biggest mistake of his life to stick it into GR only to have it zeroed out by observation. Shrugging this off to a non-zero CC smacks of pencil whipping to me. Oh gee, the equation didn’t work out quite right but if we just pull a constant out of our arse and adjust the value to fit the observations we can keep the theory.

Uh, no. The jury is still out on this one.

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Davescot

in a sense, adding a cosmological constant to einstein’s equations is the most conservative modification one can make. it *is* a modification to GR. Whether MJ can reference a better explanation i am not so sure.

yes, the jury is still out on much of this—i’ll definitely agree on that. physics is hard and we don’;t know all the answers! if we did there wouldn’t be much more physics to do

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

PaV
My point is that systems with random change can and often do generate patterned behavior. Patterned behavior is in not at all an indication of external design other then to say that a designer may have created certain rules for a system where random change can create patterned and ordered behavior. In short no external input is necessary for a chaotic system to create order and great complexity (CSI).

Comment by ftrp11 — January 25, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

i would say there are not really yet any firm theories of (this kind of) multiverse. i’m not sure to which theories you refer?

susskind’s intuition i think is that one will find universes bubbling off from our own, but there’s a lot more work to do yet i think.

there’s not much more i can say—the theories youre talking about need much more work to be well-defined. saying at this stage that these ideas will *never* be testable is premature. we don’t understand them well enough, yet.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

sorry that last comment to david heddle

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

PaV, i’d be interested in your response to #4—I think you’re being quite hasty in dismissing dark matter.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dave Scott,

Regardless of what he meant regarding the galaxy, there is no ToR breakdown. That is simply wrong.

A non-zero CC does not violate GR, it’s a term that, after realizing the universe was expanding, Einstein decided he didn’t need, since he wanted to use it to explain a steady state universe. My guess is, since it now seems to be needed, he’d be delighted at its rehabilitation.

Also, you imply that the CC was pulled out of the air to explain accelerated expansion. In fact, it has been recognized for sometime, prior to the recent observations, that a vacuum energy density looks like a cosmological constant—it was already making a comeback.

Furthermore, the CC contributes to the understanding of not just the accelerated expansion, but also the other big cosmological news: the flatness of the universe. (And also the “age” problem)

Yes the jury is still out. It often stays out for a long time in science.

Comment by David Heddle — January 25, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

physicist

re CC += GR (how’s that for cryptic?) :-)

The only problem with calling that the most conservative thing to do is that the amount of CC you’re adding is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than most QFT’s predict. And therein lies Heddle’s point about support for cosmological ID. The infinitesimally small value is like the mother of all fine tunings.

In engineering when things don’t work out quite like we predict and we do something like this to fix our model it’s called a kludge and it isn’t a complimentary term. Do you use that term in physics? If not you should.

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Davescot

At the level of classical GR there is no preference for a particular value of Lambda

one can only go so far with QFT on curved backgrounds—I agree the naive value of Lambda predicted is incorrect, but there is a lot more to the story of quantum effects and gravity. including quantum effects in gravity is a general a very hard and unsolved issue.

so i wouldn’t say the QFT indication of a large Lambda is a firm `prediction’. it has always been recognised that combining QFT and GR in this way is an ambiguous procedure. so i think kludge is misapplied.

if you want to look for fine tunings, there are lots of other constants in nature which are finely tuned–for example the precise mass ratios of fundamental particles. if you want to explain these numbers by design, you can—but part of the study of physics is seeking to find deeper and simpler underlying reasons for these apparently finely tuned numbers.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

so i would just re-emphasise that at the classical level, if you want to explain cosmological observations of type Ia supernovae, making lambda non-zero is indeed the simplest modification to GR you can make—and fits the observations well.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

David H

I didn’t know science had become the art of salvaging theories with failed predictions by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses like smidgins of constants to equations that hadn’t needed them for the past 75 years.

Excuse me. GR is in fine shape. It just needed a little work is all. The jury I guess has come in. I’m curious, is there anyone on the jury in addition to David Heddle?

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
#

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This mindset of salvaging pet theories with ad hoc kludges to explain failed predictions is what propped Darwin up for so long. I see it’s not just biology that is plagued by this. Us engineers are a different breed I guess. Lives can be lost when we’re wrong so we can’t afford to let our egos get in the way of acknowledging failures.

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 1:12 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 25 2006,11:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lives can be lost when we’re wrong so we can’t afford to let our egos get in the way of acknowledging failures.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL. The irony is breathtaking.
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 25 2006,11:37

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 24 2006,16:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(! ) argumentum ad populum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Quite the contrary! First, it's not an argument at all, it's an observation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A common debating technique is the appeal to popularity. It goes like this:

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true. Therefore statement p is true.

Part of a debate or an "argument" is making "observations" which are meant to convince your opponent or your audience that your argument is superior.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you think your own personal "feeling" of implausibility counts for something, I'm inviting you to wonder why people who have devoted a heck of a lot of time, study and research into it don't share that feeling. If, on the other hand, you contend that your own personal feeling of implausibility counts for something because a largish fraction of the (nonspecialist) population shares that feeling, I would call that an argumentum ad populum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't make an appeal to popularity, the other person did.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(2)Yet we do find an alternate theory to evolution
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What is that theory? (Note: "an unknown entity did an unknown thing at an unknown time" doesn't count as a theory. Nor does "I find evolution implausible, therefore it musta been God".)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That theory is that a known entity ( I know it), did a known thing (build all life), at an unknown time (a long time ago). You may not like that as a theory, but it is a theory. I don't mind if you call it something else.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(3)Your mind and intellect are not physical and they affect physical natural things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mind" and "intellect", like "metabolism", describe properties of my physical self. They affect physical natural things in the same sense my metabolism does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I disagree. What part of the brain contains thought? Is thought part of a cell? If so which part? Which part is consciousness?
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 25 2006,11:46

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,23:36)
Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.

Cheers!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, I'm not emotionally attached to proving my point, I enjoy debate. I know where you guys are coming from, I was born and raised an atheist and an evolutionist. Most ID or creationist people will think that you guys are blind fanatics, I disagree with that assessment. I believe that everyone's thought process has to do with how our memory works. See my article at  http://tinyurl.com/7922f
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 25 2006,11:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A common debating technique is the appeal to popularity. It goes like this:

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true. Therefore tatement p is true.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're of course talking about the Discovery Institute.

Many scientists are now saying they doubt "Darwinism"...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Part of a debate or an "argument" is making "observations" which are meant to convince your opponent or your audience that your argument is superior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Kind of like the Discovery Institute again and all their "observations" of "patterns" in nature, which of course suggests a pattern maker, or an intelligent designer

Zardoz, you're down with it.  The Disovery Institute won't be fooling you anytime soon.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 25 2006,11:57

Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 25 2006,17:46)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,23:36)
Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.

Cheers!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, I'm not emotionally attached to proving my point, I enjoy debate. I know where you guys are coming from, I was born and raised an atheist and an evolutionist. Most ID or creationist people will think that you guys are blind fanatics, I disagree with that assessment. I believe that everyone's thought process has to do with how our memory works. See my article at  http://tinyurl.com/7922f
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not getting emotionally involved in proving your point - you are a wise soul.  I also avoid getting emotionally involved with my own ideas.  This allows me to easily change or modify them in view of new evidence or understanding.  

And you and I must be historical opposites, I was raised a believer and later drop kicked that belief around the age of 30 or so.  No big deal.

I just now read your article.  We should drink beer and chat some time.

Cheers!
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 25 2006,12:48

A common debating technique these days goes like this:

"I construe the point you just made as Fallacy XYZ, and therefore I'm going to just ignore it".

I see an important difference between:

"a lot of people believe p, therefore p must be true", and

"most people who have spent a lot of time studying this field have have come to the opposite conclusion".

But, as I said, it's not an argument, it was just part of pointing out that a "feeling" of "implausibility" does not count for science. Do you disagree with that?
It doesn't give you pause that, the more people study biology, the less they agree with you? Do you chalk that up to "brainwashing"?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't make an appeal to popularity, the other person did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, your only appeal was to your own personal "feeling of implausibility". I assumed that might have been a reference, often asserted by DI types, that in effect "poll after poll shows the man on the street finds evolution implausible".  But if it's just your personal feeling, contradicted by the people that actually study the field, it's even weaker than an argumentum ad populum, isn't it?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That theory is that a known entity ( I know it), did a known thing (build all life), at an unknown time (a long time ago). You may not like that as a theory, but it is a theory. I don't mind if you call it something else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Good; then you won't mind if I call that "Religion". I guess I don't mind if you call a dog a cat, as long as you don't run around making a nuisance of yourself insisting that everyone else, or at least the public schools, recognize that dogs are just as much cats as cats are.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Mind" and "intellect", like "metabolism", describe properties of my physical self. They affect physical natural things in the same sense my metabolism does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I disagree. What part of the brain contains thought? Is thought part of a cell? If so which part? Which part is consciousness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What part of a car contains motion? What evidence leads you to the notion that thought and consciousness exist anywhere without a brain?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 25 2006,13:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Dr. Davison

I was suggesting you may find people more receptive to your ideas if you did not wreath them in pejorative rhetoric. Also an attack on hypothesis X is not a proof for hypothesis Y.

You wrote:

I mean no one has a working hypothesis for the origin of biological diversity that he is willing to present. No one that is except myself.

What about the theory of Intelligent Design as proposed By Behe and Dembski?

Comment by Xavier — January 25, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
#

ID is design detection as of now. It doesn’t say or predict exactly how a designer would choose to do the designing.

Comment by Patrick — January 25, 2006 @ 6:00 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is Patrick confirming there is no theory of Intelligent Design?
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 25 2006,14:47

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2006,08:25)
I think it was someone in Slate magazine who said that's one of the theological pitfalls of ID--it changes god from sad witness to the Fall of Man&#8482;, into an active engineer of evil machines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That only applies if you subscribe to a biblically based religious philosophy, which I don't. Amongst religious philosophers that problem is sometimes called "the problem of evil". It or a variation of it is a common philosophical argument people make against the existence of a God. Variations of it include: If there is a God why isn't everyone good? Why is there apparent mistakes in biological systems? Why do bad things happen to good people? etc.

Some of these questions are based on the idea that a God entity by definition is perfect in every way and can never make any kind of non perfect outcome to any action it may take. The answer to that mistaken philosophy is that a God entity is not going to necessarily be perfect anymore then anyone else will necessarily be perfect. If you were able to create life in a lab and build a suitable environment for it to live, that act doesn't change you into a perfect being in every respect. Just because you have some talent in the scientific field doesn't change you into a being incapable of being non perfect in every way.

Biblical based philosophers cannot deal with the "problem of evil" very well because they do not accept reincarnation. If you ask them to explain why people suffer they are really at a loss to come up with a philosophically sound argument. If you ask them why are some people born into misery and others born into happiness, why are some people born into wealth, beauty, and privilege and others born into unhealthiness, non-beauty, and poverty, they cannot respond satisfactorily. I asked a knowledgable christian (non-catholic) about this question once and he told me it was because of "the sin's of the fathers". I asked what he meant and he told me that people suffer because of the actions of their ancestors. I told him that that seemed to posit a God without much fairness or compassion. Most biblical believers believe that ultimately human suffering is due to the "original sin" of Adam. Depending on who you ask you will get a different take (either a literal or esoteric explanation) of what that means. Although however it is explained it still has the problem of God being either uninvolved and therefore a non-caring, uncompassionate entity, or involved but not fair and equitable in dealing with people.

Catholic theologian Hans Kung has written a book where he makes a comparison between hindu and biblical philosophies on the problem of evil,  and his conclusion was that the hindu philosophy was more philosophically fulfilling.

In hinduism it is taught that people are born into this world (or many other similar earth type worlds) for the purpose of developing a perfected state of consciousness. People are taken on a journey throughout their existence in the world of samsara (birth, death, rebirth) until they reach a stage of enlightenment and perfection. Along the way they will face many challenges which will call for them to make decisions on how to treat others. As they choose they accrue karma, good or bad. It takes many lifetimes to come to the perfectional stage whereupon the person leaves the world of birth, death, and rebirth, and then attains to a life in the perfected world. What that perfected world is like is understood differently by different hindu religions.

"Evil" in this world is taught as being the reaction which people have to previous actions they took in their previous life. The idea taught is that the consciousness of the individual is a very complex thing. There are deep rooted pathologies which can develop and take lifetimes to overcome. The "bad karma" one experiences is meant to create a perfected sense of empathy within the individual. If someone is born into misery, or is suffering due to the actions of others, it is taught that God has arranged for that suffering based solely on the bad karma that person has developed. If I was cruel to someone in my previous life then my next life will be arranged so that I will experience cruelty of the same magnitude in order to develop empathy. So in hinduism it is taught that God arranges what type of birth you have and what you will experience in life based upon what God thinks you need to experience in order to advance on the path towards perfection.

Someone may object and say that the philosophy of karma leads people to think that people deserve whatever bad happens to them, so why should they help or care if God sanctions the suffering of people? If someone is suffering or being abused by another person doesn't karma teach that the person being abused deserves it?

The answer is that there is more to the teaching on karma then that. You will gain bad karma if you allow the suffering of others to go on if you can help to stop it. So it's taught that Dharma, or righteous action, goes hand in hand with Karma, or action/reaction. Yes people are suffering because they caused suffering previously, but if you can stop their suffering when you can, then you have the duty to do that. Otherwise you accrue bad karma.
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 25 2006,15:19

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 25 2006,18:48)

It doesn't give you pause that, the more people study biology, the less they agree with you? Do you chalk that up to "brainwashing"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There are hundreds of scientists, many who are biologists in fields of work related to evolution who reject evolution. So your argument would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't make an appeal to popularity, the other person did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your only appeal was to your own personal "feeling of implausibility". I assumed that might have been a reference, often asserted by DI types, that in effect "poll after poll shows the man on the street finds evolution implausible".  But if it's just your personal feeling, contradicted by the people that actually study the field, it's even weaker than an argumentum ad populum, isn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, I intended no reference. There are many scientists in many fields associated with evolution who reject evolution. Therefore your argument is another hasty generalization and an appeal to popularity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That theory is that a known entity ( I know it), did a known thing (build all life), at an unknown time (a long time ago). You may not like that as a theory, but it is a theory. I don't mind if you call it something else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Good; then you won't mind if I call that "Religion". I guess I don't mind if you call a dog a cat, as long as you don't run around making a nuisance of yourself insisting that everyone else, or at least the public schools, recognize that dogs are just as much cats as cats are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't care if it's taught in schools or not. You can call it a theory with religious implications. The word religion isn't cognate with ID because a religious belief is not necessarily going to have a doctrine or dogma which posits a God or a God who builds life and the cosmos. Good examples are persons like a Ken Miller or a George Coyne. George Coyne has a religious belief but he rejects the belief that his "God" is involved with the direction of what he calls  universal "increasing complexity". He believes that some kind of ineffable God thingee who is all about "love" somehow created the laws of nature and then set off the big bang and then went back to stewing in his own juices, leaving the universe to do whatever would happen without interference from then on.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What evidence leads you to the notion that thought and consciousness exist anywhere without a brain?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is no direct empirical evidence as of yet. But that doesn't mean that it is not true. For instance a few posts ago I gave a link to an article I wrote on memory. From my analysis on memory I can postulate a non physical source of our memory system. The only other evidence I have is direct personal experience.
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 25 2006,15:43

Zardoz:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are hundreds of scientists, many who are biologists in fields of work related to evolution who reject evolution. So your argument would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd be really curious about the basis for this statement. After all, the DI can only find 400 total people willing to sign their statement, very very few of whom are biologists. And the statement they signed, far from rejecting evolution, actually says they are skeptical that natural selection explains all there is about evolution. But minus the (pretty obvious) political intent, nearly ANY biologist would sign such a statement. After all, it's commonly recognized that natural selection is NOT the only mechanism of evolution.

Note please that the statement *admits* evolution; it only expresses skepticism that one single mechanism is the sole mechanism.

Now, here you have "hundreds of scientists, MANY of them biologists" who REJECT evolution. Where'd you get them? The DI would very much love to hear from you!

And if you can NOT produce them, if you are just making this claim out of whole cloth, your argument has no merit.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can call it a theory with religious implications.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only in the vernacular use of "theory" to mean "wild guess, baseless hunch, or mindless preference." It is NOT a theory in the scientific sense of being based on a solid body of evidence, making falsifiable predictions which have been well-tested (and honed as those falsifiable predictions have failed to pan out). In the scientific sense, ID has no theoretical basis whatsoever; it says nothing except "I refuse to accept that a feedback process operating over 4 billion years can produce what we see. I refuse! I refuse! So there!"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no direct empirical evidence as of yet. But that doesn't mean that it is not true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may not wish to lean too heavily on this argument - the Flying Spaghetti Monster may take offense!

It's generally considered rational to presume the absence of anything for which no evidence exists, and that those making positive claims (that something exist) use actual evidence in support, rather than simply saying "you can't prove me wrong."

I eagerly await your source of hundreds of biologists who reject evolution. PLEASE let us know, OK?
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 25 2006,15:46

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 25 2006,17:57)
Not getting emotionally involved in proving your point - you are a wise soul.  I also avoid getting emotionally involved with my own ideas.  This allows me to easily change or modify them in view of new evidence or understanding.  

And you and I must be historical opposites, I was raised a believer and later drop kicked that belief around the age of 30 or so.  No big deal.

I just now read your article.  We should drink beer and chat some time.

Cheers!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was raised without any religion nor any kind of religious exposure. Then when I was 20 I started to practice yoga and also ate some peyote one starry moonlit night on San Diego's mission bay. The yoga philosophy was new and interesting but the peyote opened up my mind to another dimension, whereupon I "met" "God". Peyote has been used for thousands of years by many native american tribes as a religious sacrament. They believe that by eating peyote you can communicate with your "spirit guide". So essentially that was what happened to me, except my "spirit guide" showed me what he/she truly is e.g one with all of nature. I was inspired to dive into the study of yoga philosophy which would enable me years later to once again communicate with "God", although without needing peyote to see the true nature of the hidden reality all around and within us.

Beer sounds good to me :D
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 25 2006,15:49

Flint,
You are cheating. No evidence should be necesary to prove ID. All ID needs is to find 1 hole in evolution. Then evolution is automatically wrong (completely and utterly) and ID totally proved.

Surely you knew that, you scamp. :D
Posted by: Flint on Jan. 25 2006,15:51

Stephen Elliott:

I'd go one step further. All ID needs for absolute proof of God is to ALLEGE one hole in evolution, *provided* enough people can be persuaded to believe it.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Jan. 25 2006,16:16

Flint: Why stop there? All ID has to do is allege that other people have allegedly decided that there could be a hole, if they looked hard enough for it. Can't you see that gOD's existence is herein proven beyond any rational doubt?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 25 2006,17:50

Quote (Inoculated Mind @ Jan. 25 2006,22:16)
Flint: Why stop there? All ID has to do is allege that other people have allegedly decided that there could be a hole, if they looked hard enough for it. Can't you see that gOD's existence is herein proven beyond any rational doubt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll do you one better than that: all ID has to do is to find one 'evolutionist' who is a bad person and an atheist, and the whole theory of evolution is disproven, and ID is proven.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2006,03:30

They certainly believe in grandiose statements, don't they? How about this new Dembski post yesterday:

Further indications that neo-Darwinism is dead

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/718 >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 26 2006,05:11

One of the < comments > (user name aldo30127 ) on Demsbki's blog takes him to task for not quoting the entire paper which apparently actually supports evolution.  Looks like Dembski only read the abstract, or simply quote mined and got busted for it.  

Aren't they accused of that all of the time, misquoting an author/paper/position so they appear to stae the opposite of what the author(s) actually meant?  

Could one of you science types confirm or deny that this is such a case please?  If Dembski is in fact quote mining or misrepresenting the article I think it deserves its own thread.

Speaking of the recently deceased....

< Further Indications That Intelligent Design Creationism Is Dead >

.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 26 2006,05:20

I've read some of Schwartz's stuff before. He has no use for creationists, and I assume that includes those of the ID flavor. But he has a pet theory - totally at odds with all the evidence I'm familiar with - that humans are more closely related to orangutans than to chimps. And rather than abandon that theory, he's adopted the role of iconoclastic questioner of the status quo, and requires that something be seriously wrong with prevailing theory.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2006,05:28

Aldo does indeed point out that nothing in the paper supports ID. DaveScot imagines he's accomplishing something when he then replies:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

aldo

Sound to me like yet another ad hoc modification of the modern synthesis to accomodate the stunning failure of its star mechanism RM+NS. RM+NS is dead and with it the modern synthesis. Its followers are worshipping a corpse in denial of the fact that it is no longer breathing. It’s starting to stink the place up so they better get on with the burial. Perhaps a postmodern synthesis will come along that explain design without intelligent agency. I hate to burst your bubble but a mechanism which merely increases the rate of random mutation above the background rate in response to evironmental stress doesn’t qualify. It’s been known for a long time that toxins cause vastly increased mutation rate. There’s absolutely no evidence that faster random mutations will turn a random process into a creative process. Sorry.

Comment by DaveScot — January 26, 2006 @ 10:14 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To DaveScot, any perturbation of a preexisting theory is an 'ad hoc modification'. Yesterday he accused both physicists and biologists of performing these modifications, and said engineers are above that sort of nonsense.

Since I have a degree in physics, and work in RTP as an engineer, I can hardly stop laughing at that one. What a maroon.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Jan. 26 2006,05:33

I e-mailed Dave Scot to ask what his policy was on editing comments - he thanked me for asking and has posted a thread explaining the position:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/720 >

- where he give links to 'Bill's rules'.

Basically rule number one is:

there is no rule number one...

rule number two is: 'I make the rules up as I go along'

... only now it is DaveScot that is making up the rules as he goes along.

How this can be any kind of forum for meaningful debate escapes me.

But I don't suppose that meaningful debate is what interests them? Whats the point when you know the answer™
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 26 2006,05:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
engineers are above that sort of nonsense
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Riiiiiiight. He even said the engineering term for such a thing is a kludge! And since ID is about design and engineering, we should expect to find kludges in the engineered creatures, but not in any "theory", no! What part of the theory of ID is not a kludge??? Retarded.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 26 2006,05:52

This puppy at UD is worth reading...

< Review of Debating Design >

Well worth reading.  I am amazed Dembski posted it.  And now I plan to buy the book.
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 26 2006,05:57

Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 25 2006,20:47)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2006,08:25)
I think it was someone in Slate magazine who said that's one of the theological pitfalls of ID--it changes god from sad witness to the Fall of Man&#8482;, into an active engineer of evil machines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That only applies if you subscribe to a biblically based religious philosophy, which I don't. Amongst religious philosophers that problem is sometimes called "the problem of evil". It or a variation of it is a common philosophical argument people make against the existence of a God. Variations of it include: If there is a God why isn't everyone good? Why is there apparent mistakes in biological systems? Why do bad things happen to good people? etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...i think your misunderstanding something here.

The problem of evil is much different than the malicious or flawed designer argument.

You said it best yourself, the problem of evil is only a real problem if you believe that God is totally and completely good, and that he would never do anything to hurt us.

Theistic Evolution posits a designer of reality, but also gives us a perfectly acceptable reason why there is bad design and malicious design.  It may have been necessary for the total reality to exist.

ID suggests that the designer can be detected through his design.  This works perfectly well as a philosophy, but when it becomes science it causes problems.  
You cannot have a scientific theory that only works occasionally.  Sure, ID explains well-designed systems rather well, but it readily admits that the same standard cannot be applied to poorly designed systems....
If an algorithm for determining design cannot be established, then all that you are left with is a bit of observation.  It is not a case of necessary evil, it is a case of being incomplete....maybe if the ID supporters can go establish a clear set of rules for determining design, the we will all take them more seriously.  Bad design, however, is not necessary evil....not if the designer could do anything he wanted....necessary implies that the Designer was working inside a strict set of rules....if that is the case...then perhaps you should look into Deistic evolution...#### dirty pantheist(just kidding)

Creationism actually has a much better solution, and it does happen to be the same solution that they use for necessary evil...it just happens
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 26 2006,06:22

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2006,09:30)
They certainly believe in grandiose statements, don't they? How about this new Dembski post yesterday:

Further indications that neo-Darwinism is dead

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/718 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IDC people have long been passionate proponents of the theory of "say it loudly and often enough, and that will make it true".

Not surprising -- that's a basic rule of religious 'debate'.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 26 2006,06:30

Quote (Dean Morrison @ Jan. 26 2006,11:33)
I e-mailed Dave Scot to ask what his policy was on editing comments - he thanked me for asking and has posted a thread explaining the position:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/720 >

- where he give links to 'Bill's rules'.

Basically rule number one is:

there is no rule number one...

rule number two is: 'I make the rules up as I go along'

... only now it is DaveScot that is making up the rules as he goes along.

How this can be any kind of forum for meaningful debate escapes me.

But I don't suppose that meaningful debate is what interests them? Whats the point when you know the answer™
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rule 1: No pooftas
Rule 2: No member of the faculty is to maltreat the abos in any way whatsoever if there's anyone watching.
Rule 3: No pooftas
Rule 4: I don't want to catch anyone not drinking in their room after lights-out.
Rule 5: No Pooftas!
Rule 6: THERE IS NO RULE NUMBER SIX!
Rule 7: no pooftas

Good god, it's even got an entry on wikipedia:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruces_sketch >
Posted by: MikeM on Jan. 26 2006,07:53

Just a quick question...

The posts by "physicist" on Dembski's board yesterday seemed particularly well-informed. I noticed that this user tried to enter a URL, presumably to his or her website, but that Dembski's board blocked this URL.

I would like to visit that website.

If "Physicist" would be so kind as to log on to this board and post that URL, I'd be much obliged.

That's all.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 26 2006,07:59

Quote (MikeM @ Jan. 26 2006,13:53)
Just a quick question...

The posts by "physicist" on Dembski's board yesterday seemed particularly well-informed. I noticed that this user tried to enter a URL, presumably to his or her website, but that Dembski's board blocked this URL.

I would like to visit that website.

If "Physicist" would be so kind as to log on to this board and post that URL, I'd be much obliged.

That's all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might start a new thread here and ask him to respond.  Who knows...
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2006,08:05

Yeah, "Physicist" and "Alon" are unusual specimens amid the mouth-breathers over there. Even DaveScot looks good when he's trying to explain to one of the commenters that no, ID does not exclude 'macro'evolution or speciation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2006,08:25)
I think it was someone in Slate magazine who said that's one of the theological pitfalls of ID--it changes god from sad witness to the Fall of Man&#8482;, into an active engineer of evil machines.

That only applies if you subscribe to a biblically based religious philosophy, which I don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Neither do I. But it is a problem for the christian 99% of ID supporters, is really the point I was concerned with making.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 26 2006,09:16

What's a poofta?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 26 2006,09:34

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 26 2006,15:16)
What's a poofta?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


British/Australian slang for a male homosexual.
More often spelled 'poofter'. ;)
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 26 2006,09:44

Oh. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 26 2006,10:16

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 26 2006,15:44)
Oh. :rolleyes:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite.

(It's a Monty Python skit, BTW. Wasn't sure if that was clear.)
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2006,10:35

Some researchers at EMBL call proteins 'molecular machines' and predictably, DaveScot goes ap35h17 for it:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The entire protein household of yeast: 257 machines that had never been observed

And now for another amazing example of what natural selection can accomplish (or not):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< machines! oh my! >

and 257 of them! maybe there are really 256 and go--uh Intelligent Designer was using an 8-bit machine!
Posted by: Zardoz on Jan. 26 2006,11:28

Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 26 2006,11:57)
.

The problem of evil is much different than the malicious or flawed designer argument.

You said it best yourself, the problem of evil is only a real problem if you believe that God is totally and completely good, and that he would never do anything to hurt us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




No I didn't say that. You may want to go back and read what I did say. I said that the problem of evil is only a problem if you don't believe in reincarnation and karma.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 26 2006,12:35

From the mad Professor


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Thank you DaveScot

PLEASE TAKE NOTE you denizens of “Panda’s Pathetic Pollex,” especially those at Wesley Elsberry’s inner sanctum, “After The Bar Closes,” where the indiscreet elite meet. Read it and weep!

“War, God help me, I love it so!”
General George S. Patton, with Albert Einstein a fellow predestinationist.

Comment by John Davison — January 26, 2006 @ 5:00 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Over an article from him quote-mining  Julian Huxley and others. John, (I know you read this thread) it is evidence that is important, something that your rants lack.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 26 2006,12:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
where the indiscreet elite meet. Read it and weep!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I at least have to give him points for the assonance.
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 26 2006,14:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No I didn't say that. You may want to go back and read what I did say. I said that the problem of evil is only a problem if you don't believe in reincarnation and karma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry to have summarized your statement...but Karma takes God out of the mix...therefore God allows evil to happen because you were evil...actually going off of Hinduism...you allow evil to happen because you are God.

The point is still the same...necessary evil is only a problem for theology if you believe in a God who frequently and constantly interferes and a God who is good.

However...in the flawed designer scenario...the designer does not have to be perfect.  In ID, complexity is contributed to design.  This makes some sense, but it is fundamentally wrong.  Even if the Designer was not perfect, we should still be able to detect intelligent input due to simplicity.  If you are not searching for simplicity, and only complexity in design, then you are not searching for an Intelligent Designer, you are simply searching for a Designer.  This is known as the Unintelligent Designer argument.  Unfortunately an algorith is completely capable of design, and Evolutionary Theory posits an algorithm for design.  Therefore Evolution already has a designer, and flawed design is proof of the stupidity of the designer...in this case the algorithm of evolution.

Dembski recently suggested that ID could be used to detect manmade biological agents from natural biological agents.  If we do begin to develop biological agents from scratch, then the litmus test will be the simplicty of the agent, rather than the complexity.  A "designed" organism will have relatively less genetic instructions.  The hallmark of design is simplicity.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Jan. 26 2006,22:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll do you one better than that: all ID has to do is to find one 'evolutionist' who is a bad person and an atheist, and the whole theory of evolution is disproven, and ID is proven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Arden Chatfield: I think you have boiled it down simple and well, however I think I have the upper hand with this one: All ID needs to do to provide irrefutable brain-burstingly coherent and logical and merely absolute proof (in the Mathematical sense) that a perfect designer created reality and every little molecular machine in it, except the poorly designed ones, is to find a single proponent of evolution who's just not quite Christian enough. (Ken Miller)

On "physicist", You could try searching for some of their earlier posts. When I was done posting there, published my critical essay, and DaveScot removed the links in my posts, the links on my old posts still worked. You could always register just to post an email address for physicist to email. Maybe they might see it before DS

PLEASE TAKE NOTE you denizens of “Panda’s Pathetic Pollex,” especially those at Wesley Elsberry’s inner sanctum, “After The Bar Closes,” Hi Dave.  :p  you know we love that you are reading this on your slow 56k modem. I imagine it takes a good fifteen minutes each time you switch to the modem to come over here and read. I hope you don't read my blog, because I'm going to have some pretty disparaging things up there real soon. Please don't! :)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 26 2006,23:26

Hmmm. I guess I think of the AtBC area as more of an "open meeting" than an inner sanctum. So far, folks have had to behave pretty egregiously to get bounced out of here. An inner sanctum has very stringent requirements for entry. That seems to apply far more appropriately to the UD as enforced by Springer.

I've had a lot of experience in handling moderation issues, dating to the Fidonet NEURAL_NET and EVOUTION echoes back in the days when a 56kbps modem was just a science fiction notion. (My first BBS started off with a Hayes Smartmodem 1200.) Lenny Flank was a participant back then in the EVOLUTION echo. I think in the years that I moderated that, one person was banned and two others got 30 day suspensions of posting access.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 27 2006,01:16

Whilst researching "Leo Berg" & "nomogenesis" (I know. I need a cure for my obsession with JAD) Google bizarrely found me this comment on the joke site,
< Teleological Blog >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comment by John A. Davison — January 11, 2006 @ 4:30 am

Also please do not identify me as an IDist. Most of the Idists that I know want nothing to do with me nor I with them. When their high priest, William Dembski, banned me from his forum he lost a valuable ally and I see no sign that my one time friend DaveScot is about to reinstate me. Egos are terrible things. Dembski has a huge one. So do many others who have identified themselvs with the so called “Intelligent Design Movement.” You are a notable exception. I suspect it has to do with your sincere Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Davison's prescience is uncanny!
Posted by: Tim Hague on Jan. 27 2006,02:49

Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 26 2006,20:13)
The hallmark of design is simplicity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As someone who has designed a lot of software, I have to disagree with that.  

The hallmark of good design is often simplicity, however the only hallmark that really applies for design is - does the designed object actually do what it's designed to do, and do it efficiently enough to be useful.  

The simplest design is not always the best design.  All good designs involve a compromise between the ideal (simplicity) and the pragmatic (reality).
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 27 2006,02:52

There's a lot of gnashing of teeth going on over at Uncommon Descent. Read this line of comments and tell me if they look like a happy bunch:

< censorship, davescot, HIV, etc >
Posted by: Caledonian on Jan. 27 2006,03:08

Lest we forget, check out comment #14 in < this thread >.

ID is neither theory nor hypothesis.  It's therefore not scientific - science only includes conjectures, hypotheses, theories, and laws.  It's not the first, and it can't be the last, and if it's not the middle two... well, it isn't at all.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 27 2006,04:33

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 27 2006,08:52)
There's a lot of gnashing of teeth going on over at Uncommon Descent. Read this line of comments and tell me if they look like a happy bunch:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think people here have a lot more fun than at UD.

Oh, well, except for the fact that the people at UD are all going to heaven...  ;)

I see some previously banned people at UD are back; is DaveSpringer relaxing his policies? Bad publicity and all?
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 27 2006,06:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The hallmark of good design is often simplicity, however the only hallmark that really applies for design is - does the designed object actually do what it's designed to do, and do it efficiently enough to be useful.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The hallmark of intelligent design is simplicity.  Let me give you an example that is software related.

Most modern processors can either have code written for them directly in assembly, or they have software that will convert a higher level code into assembly.  If I gave you two pieces of assembly software, and you took the time to read through the assembly software(which would be annoying), how would you determine which one had been written by software(compliled from a higher level language) and which one had been written by hand?

Normally you would assume that the code that had the most unneccesary steps had been created via software, while the "simpler" code had been written directly.  

Organisms are designed...that is a given.  The question is...were they designed by a process or by an entity.  This is why the problem of the flawed designer is much more serious than the problem of necessary evil.  The more flawed the designing agent is, the less intelligent the agent.  

Evolution already posits a designer....just an unintelligent designer....IDers need to prove the intelligence of their designer.  I am sure everyone here would agree that a "designer" exists(i.e. natural selection)  

All IDers keep doing is trying to prove a designer....they ignore the word intelligence.  Intelligent beings do make mistakes, but they should make considerably less mistakes than an automated process....and if they do make more mistakes than the automated process....they should use the automated process
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 27 2006,06:50

< Attack IDeas - Not the People Who Hold Them > The latest post from the tireless enemy of ad hominem...(wait for it...) DaveScot!

Post here your favorite examples of egregious DaveScot ad hominems.

I'll start with the scurrilous bit of personal info (whether factual or fictitious - I really don't care) - totally unrelated to the whole ID/evo thing - that DS posted about someone he had just banned.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 27 2006,06:52

Puck, you might not agree with us, but I think you'll enjoy the room to breathe here.

Russell: isn't that the same DaveScot who called Mark Perakh an alcoholic liar, or something like that?
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 27 2006,06:55

Stevestory....I do agree with you....why would you think i didnt?
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 27 2006,07:00

I believe I have one of the great "DaveScot is an ass" stories

This occured after Dembski banned me for attacking plans to teach ID in public schools

< Uncommon Descent Post >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 27 2006,07:05

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 27 2006,12:50)
< Attack IDeas - Not the People Who Hold Them > The latest post from the tireless enemy of ad hominem...(wait for it...) DaveScot!

Post here your favorite examples of egregious DaveScot ad hominems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This from the man who just today insinuated that a man who disagreed with him was suffering from AIDS-related dementia?

He seems to want the rest of the world to hold to a set of standards from which he is magically exempted...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 27 2006,07:05

Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 27 2006,13:00)
I believe I have one of the great "DaveScot is an ass" stories

This occured after Dembski banned me for attacking plans to teach ID in public schools

< Uncommon Descent Post >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bad link
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 27 2006,07:18

Russell

you beat me to it. That man Springer is shameless.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 27 2006,07:22

This may be the quote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mark Perakh is a crazy Russian physicist known to say all sorts of crazy things. Russians are notoriously paranoid conspiracy theorists and bald faced liars.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm not sure about the alcoholic part - perhaps you're thinking of when Fearless Leader himself inexplicably called Perakh the < The Boris Yeltsin of Higher Education >. That left a lot of us wondering what it was supposed to mean, but figured it had something to do with Yeltsin's alleged drinking problem.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 27 2006,07:29

RE: PuckSR's bad link:
the http:// is duplicated at the beginning. Fix that, and go to comment #15 on that post.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 27 2006,08:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stevestory....I do agree with you....why would you think i didnt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I haven't read much of your stuff, but I recall seeing you at Uncommon Pissant, so I assumed you were an IDer who didn't quite agree with the orthodoxy over there, and had moved here instead. Mibad.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 27 2006,11:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mea culpa. :-(

Comment by DaveScot — January 27, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This has to be a first!
Posted by: Bebbo on Jan. 27 2006,13:03

Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 27 2006,12:14)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The hallmark of good design is often simplicity, however the only hallmark that really applies for design is - does the designed object actually do what it's designed to do, and do it efficiently enough to be useful.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The hallmark of intelligent design is simplicity.  Let me give you an example that is software related.

Most modern processors can either have code written for them directly in assembly, or they have software that will convert a higher level code into assembly.  If I gave you two pieces of assembly software, and you took the time to read through the assembly software(which would be annoying), how would you determine which one had been written by software(compliled from a higher level language) and which one had been written by hand?

Normally you would assume that the code that had the most unneccesary steps had been created via software, while the "simpler" code had been written directly.  

Organisms are designed...that is a given.  The question is...were they designed by a process or by an entity.  This is why the problem of the flawed designer is much more serious than the problem of necessary evil.  The more flawed the designing agent is, the less intelligent the agent.  

Evolution already posits a designer....just an unintelligent designer....IDers need to prove the intelligence of their designer.  I am sure everyone here would agree that a "designer" exists(i.e. natural selection)  

All IDers keep doing is trying to prove a designer....they ignore the word intelligence.  Intelligent beings do make mistakes, but they should make considerably less mistakes than an automated process....and if they do make more mistakes than the automated process....they should use the automated process
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the hallmark of design is simplicity then how come in my career in software I've come across people who design and program in unnecessarily complex ways?
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 27 2006,13:45

You believe that they use unnecessarly bad design.  You, therefore, are a superior designer.

Therefore do you believe that some second-class God designed our reality, but that their is a superior God who could fix it?

Or are you claiming to be more intelligent than God?

Most unnecessary complexity in design is the result of ignorance.
Posted by: steve_h on Jan. 27 2006,14:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the ones cheering about courts censoring it on establishment clause grounds are downright despicable. These are no scientists but rather people with an anti-religion agenda who won’t let facts get in the way of their agenda.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



DaveScott is right. You really should attack the ideas and not the despicable, fact-resistant, agenda-pushing, fake scientists that hold them
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 27 2006,21:12

Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 27 2006,19:45)
You believe that they use unnecessarly bad design.  You, therefore, are a superior designer.
...
Most unnecessary complexity in design is the result of ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This might just be an urban legend. However I have heard that software programmers get (got?) paid for the length of their programs. So less eficient programming paid better.

Like I say it could just be a rumour, but it would explain a lot of microsoft products.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2006,03:55

Programmers get paid all sorts of different ways. I think the paid-per-line was a thing IBM did for a while. It didn't work well, but coming up with a metric for judging the performance of a programmer is hard. Hey, maybe this is somewhere else Intelligent Design could contribute. They could make a software package that analyses the amount of "CSI" in the code. Then the programmer could be paid based on how much CSI he added.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2006,04:01

Check out comment #1 on this page. It's nice and crazy.

< Uncommon Pissant >
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2006,05:03

Does anyone else find it uncomfortable to read JAD's posts, and watch a guy's descent into senility?


< Not the product of a healthy mind >

And I don't mean that as an insult, I mean literally that something is wrong with his brain.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2006,07:53

Man, talk about your dishonesty. A Harris poll here ( < http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 > ) finds that educated people are far less likely to doubt evolution than uneducated people. 73% of people with High School or less support creationism, 6% support ID, and 17% support evolution. By the time you get to postgrad degrees, evolution support has jumped to 35%, creationism has fallen to 42, and 17% say they support ID. How does DaveScot spin this?

Harris Poll Shows ID Support Rises Fastest With Education

< link >
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut on Jan. 28 2006,08:06

Well, at least that AAAS "Science only in science class ..." banner ad is alive and well -- it popped up while I was reading that thread!

The stuff about IQ scores and ID vs. "Darwinian" belief was truly bizarre.
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 28 2006,09:16

You know...I originally started posting on UD to test something.  In my rather short life experience, I have found that many people hold beliefs without any reason.  I thought that this might be the case with a lot of the Intelligent Design crowd.  When i first learned the "true" definition of ID I was appalled.  I got the impression that most people who supported ID were either creationists who knew what they were doing, or completely ignorant.

Then I met DaveScot.  I dont particularly enjoy DaveScot, but I think we can all agree that he isnt a complete fool.  DaveScot is not a creationist.  Im rather sure of this fact: either DaveScot honestly is not a Creationist, or he ignores the 10 commandments.  He also is not ignorant, he actually understands ID, and still apparently supports ID.

This man has bothered me for quite some time.  Every other person I have ever met holds ID beliefs because of either religion or ignorance....and I dont believe DaveScot honestly  falls into either category. I suggest that people like DaveScot are the reason for ID succeeding at all.

The loch ness monster does not exist...despite the beliefs of many people.  Many, many people ignorantly see the loch ness monster....they are either completely unfamiliar with water or marine life or both.  Many people see the loch ness monster because of some confirmation bias, they believe there to be a monster so they see one.  Most people probably fall under both categories.  A very few people who are familiar with the loch and who have no previous belief in the monster see something they cannot explain and contribute it to the loch ness monster.  If no one else had seen a monster...then these people might easily find a more rational explanation for what they had just seen.  They really cannot be blamed, the are reliable witnesses, but thanks to the support of every other "Nessie" sighting they decide that they saw a "monster".

DaveScot might legitimately believe in ID in all of its glory without any religious context, but he only believes in it because of all of the other supporters who do have religious motives.  They, however, can point to people like him.  They can say "look, he is a smart guy who understands all of this and who has no religious motivation".  It seems to be a cycle of support.  Just like UFOs and the loch ness monster.  Only a few people have any real reason to say anything, but their opinion is jaded because of the thousands of less scrupulous supporters.  The less scrupulous supporters look to the "authentic" believers for their support.  

At least....that's DaveScot in my lil nutshell.  Maybe someday he will become more of a skeptic and seek more rational solutions for his problems, but right now the ID/creationist movement has a guy on their side who they can hold up as a posterboy....despite the fact that he represents only a very, very, very slim minority of ID believers
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 28 2006,11:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Attack Ideas - Not the People Who Hold Them"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Blog entry > posted by DaveScot Jan 27.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“Attack Ideas - Not the People Who Hold Them” is new age BS. But I strongly believe that new age nitwits should listen to their own psychobabble and feel guilty about attacking people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Comment #12 to that entry, by DaveScot Jan. 28
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 28 2006,13:52

PuckSR says of DaveScot:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe someday he will become more of a skeptic and seek more rational solutions for his problems, but right now the ID/creationist movement has a guy on their side who they can hold up as a posterboy....despite the fact that he represents only a very, very, very slim minority of ID believers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave doesn't usually own up to his mistakes, but he does surreptitiously change his opinions in response to countervailing evidence.  Witness his conversion over the last month from agnostic to believer on the common descent issue.  It wouldn't surprise me to see him become a neo-Darwinian as more evidence comes to light.

As for Dave being a "posterboy" for the ID movement, forget about it.  He's not smart enough, and any intelligence he does display is overshadowed by his infantile demeanor.

David Berlinski is ID's real agnostic posterboy.  He's a lot smarter than Dave, has credentials, and is much less obnoxious. He also writes better (if a bit floridly).

What they have in common is a desire to see themselves as principled intellectual loners who have followed the evidence into the wilderness while the scientific establishment remains sheep-like in well-worn pastures.
Posted by: O. Johnson on Jan. 28 2006,14:29

puckSR

SWEET JESUS!

I may just have to unban you from uncommondescent for that last comment.

Mind if I quote it there?
Posted by: cogzoid on Jan. 28 2006,15:27

*Gasp!*

I wonder who Otto might be?  He has the power to un-ban people at Common Stupidity.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 28 2006,15:27

Who is this "O. Johnson" who seems to be claiming to have administrative privileges at UD?
Posted by: O. Johnson on Jan. 28 2006,15:29

Listen up, ladies.

DaveScot has never seriously doubted descent with modification from a common ancestor.  The most he's ever said against it is that common descent is logically indistinguishable from common design.  That's a fact for anyone with a logical bone in their body.  There is no test that can discriminate between common descent in the past and the actions of one or more bearded thundererers in the sky creating lifeforms ex nihilo using a common template.  That said our friend Davey has many times stated that the evidence for common descent is compelling and never once said there's shred of evidence for common design.

That is all.

Class dismissed.
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 28 2006,16:01

When i referred to DaveScot as a posterboy for ID....i didnt mean DaveScot personally...I was referring to people with the same characteristics as DaveScot.....

ID would love to flaunt agnostic, non-ignorant believers


Of course you may quote me....but please try to keep things in context....

Do you know why common descent and common design resemble each other so much?  Because they are the same thing.  The difference is purely theological.  Common design posits a very active theistic God.  Common descent avoids making a comment about God.

It is just a case of atheism/deism  vs theism

I dont really see the scientific implications of a theistic system that is completely undistinguishable from an atheistic/deistic system.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 28 2006,16:29

Looks like Orville Johnson is giving his 56K modem (or his anonymous proxy) a workout.  But he is incorrect about DaveScot's views on common descent.  On December 23, I asked Dave (based on a prior comment of his):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m confused. I thought, based on your front-loaded panspermia idea, that you accepted common descent. Or are you agnostic on the issue?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DaveScot replied:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(From < http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/606 > )

For the record, it's quite easy to distinguish between common descent and common design, unless the designer mimics common descent.

And PuckSR: Nice scam for getting unbanned at Uncommon Dementia.  I hope it works!
Posted by: O. Johnson on Jan. 28 2006,18:06

Is there a woctor in the house?

I know where there isn't one. ;-)
Posted by: O. Johnson on Jan. 28 2006,18:25

I have been keeping pretty close tabs on this guy Davison. He runs a hilarious blog with over 400 posts on it. He doesn't know how to run it right but he is getting out some pretty sensible stuff if you ask me. He keeps tossing out these unanswered challenges and then raises #### when nobody responds to them. I can't say as I blame him. He invited everybody in the evolutionary world to write essays on their version of the mechanisms for evolution. When nobody showed he went ballistic and accused them of all kinds of things. You can't really blame him. You have to remember this guy is no spring chicken either. I think he is 76 or 77 now and still publishing. He writes darn well too if I do say so myself. I don't understand why the Darwinians don't take this guy on and show him to be wrong I really don't. He really has the hots for Dawkins and I understand he invited Dawkins, Ruse, Johnson, and Denton and everybody else all to participate in some kind of a contest or tournament of some sort by sending in essays on their version of evolution. Apparently nobody showed. No wonder the old guy is a little cranky. I would be too to tell you the truth. Why don't you fellows here at Panda's Thumb arrange a debate between Dawkins and Davison? I think it would be hoot but judging from the way this guy is being ignored I doubt if Dawkins or anybody else for that matter would show up. He claims they are afraid of him and Broom, Berg, Goldschmidtt, Schindewolf, Grasse, Bateson and a bunch others. I don't even know who these guys are but he sure thinks the world of them and he's constantly quoting them. Apparently none of them are Darwinians.

By ignoring him you run the risk of possibly ending up with a lot of egg on a lot of faces as I see it. But what do I know? I'm just retired orthopedic surgeon with nothing else to do. Keep in touch.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 28 2006,21:22

Mr Johnson,

Maybe you could answer a few queries.

Could you comment on Dr. Elsberry's remarks:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In looking at Davison's "manifesto", I personally found some reasons for concern about the validity of various points. Since I have long heard similar claims about chromosomal rearrangement and speciation, the claimed novelty of Davison's hypothesis seems more hype than substance. There seems to be a lot of textual interpretation within the work which purports significance in the real world. Quotations seem to be treated much as "proof-texts" are in apologetics. Many of his claims about what "Darwinism" must entail are arguable, and some are simply wrong. I think that in Davison's particular case, he might hold a correct position with regard to speciation events being often due to chromosomal rearrangement without having grounded his other corollaries in much besides his personal prejudices, buttressed with some quotes from others having congruent prejudices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why did he stop publishing in mainstream biology in 1976?

What is David L. Hagen a doctor of?

Many thanks, Otto.
Alan
Posted by: O. Johnson on Jan. 29 2006,00:29

First of all it is Dr. not Mr. Johnson if you don't mind. I've been setting bones for over 40 years now and I have a grown son doing the same thing.

Davison seems to claim that chromosome rearrangements caused all of evolution one way or another. He seems to feel that ordinary mutations have nothing to do with evolution. Actually I think he said somewhere that all they do is cause extinction. That is pretty far out I must admit but what do I know? You guys are the experts. What I can't seem to get through my head is why nobody even recognizes this man. Oh another thing that is really interesting. Davison claims he doesn't exist. I'm not kidding. He says it all the time.

I read his Manifesto a couple of years ago and he dedicated it to a bunch of people, Bateson, Grasse, Berg etc, etc. Now he keeps saying that they don't exist either. I think what he means is that the Darwinians, you guys I suppose, don't recognize him or his friends who all seem to be dead. I can't figure it out myself but I have noticed one thing. He seems to be the only one that ever mentions these people. How come is what I want to know.

He also keeps harping about how he holds some kind of record for having been banned from more forums than anyone else excpt DaveScot and this fellow Scott L. Page, whoever that is. What is really wierd is that he is really proud of having been thrown out of so many different blogs and forums. If you take a look at his blog he even mentions that and uses it as an excuse to have his own place to make comments.

As I see it his main problem is his attitude. He is really a curmudgeon, dumping on just about everybody except his heroes. He reminds me a little of Richard Dawkins. He dumps on everybody else too. That is why I think a debate between these two oddballs would be a sensation. Is there anybody there at your forum that could contact Dawkins to try to set it up? There probably both full of it if the truth were known. A rip roaring back and forth could be very interesting don't you think? I guess Davison would take on just about anybody judging from the way he keeps quoting George S. Patton. You know - War, God help me, I love it so! Whatever else he is, he's no coward that's for sure.

He reminds me a lot of the knight in Monty Python except he has one heck of a lot of pretty solid information that seems to support a lot of his wild claims. Anyhow its great fun to read his blog although it sure has slowed up lately.

I sure hope you don't delete dump as I don't mean it the way it sounds.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 29 2006,01:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He reminds me a lot of the knight in Monty Python except he has one heck of a lot of pretty solid information that seems to support a lot of his wild claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Almost right.

He reminds me a lot of the knight in Monty Python except he has not one jot of pretty solid information that seems to support a lot of his wild claims.

That's better. Unless you would like to cite some we've missed, other than from the list of respectable but dead scientists such as:

George Mivart (English comparative anatomist) died 1 April 1900 was excommunicated by the Catholic church for suggesting separation of science from religion.

Alfred Russel Wallace (English naturalist) died 7 November 1913, suggested Herbert Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest " to Darwin and remained a lifelong supporter of evolution.

William Bateson (English geneticist) died 8 February 1926, brought the work of Gregor Mendel to the attention of a wider audience. "Bateson had a combative, forceful personality, well suited to his self-appointed role of Mendel advocate. However, Bateson was reluctant to believe in the chromosomal theory of inheritance. He was vocally antagonistic to the idea and it wasn't until 1922 after a visit to Thomas Hunt Morgan's fly lab that he publicly accepted chromosomes and their role in heredity." From < http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/ >

Reginald Punnett (English geneticist) died 3 January 1967 (aged 92, retd. 1940) Co-discoverer with Bateson of genetic linkage.

Henry Fairfield Osborn (American paleontologist) died 6 November 1935. From 1891 was associated with the American Museum of Natural History and established one of the foremost collections of fossils. His name has been linked to the idea of "orthogenesis"

Robert Broom (Scottish paleontologist, but spent his working life in South Africa) died 6 April 1951. Had a distinguished career searching for and studying hominid fossils.

Richard B. Goldschschmidt. (German geneticist) died April 1958 (aged 80). Suggested the idea of macro-mutations sometimes referred to as "hopeful monsters".

Otto Schindewolf (German paleontologist) died 10 June 1971 (retd. 1964). Has been associated with Goldschmidt's idea of "hopeful monsters" and saltation.

Pierre Grassé (French zoologist) (1895-1985) Wrote "Evolution of Living Organisms" with many comments expressing scepticism with the theory of evolution.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 29 2006,03:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First of all it is Dr. not Mr. Johnson if you don't mind. I've been setting bones for over 40 years now and I have a grown son doing the same thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I know dozens of ph.D's and M.D.'s and in all my days, I have only known one who requested to be called Dr. She taught at Lake City Community College in Florida, and her doctorate was in Creative Writing.

Either O. Johnson is lying about being a doctor, or he's pretty insecure.
Posted by: O. Johnson on Jan. 29 2006,03:54

KeithS

If common descent cannot be logically distinguished from common design the only position one may take on it is to be agnostic.  One may have a preference for one or the other based on various factors but one cannot completely rule out either.

Feel free to describe a test which can distinguish between common descent in the past and one or more deities in the past creating various organisms ex nihilo working from a common template.

I'm all ears, honey.

Otto
Posted by: O. Johnson on Jan. 29 2006,03:58

There is some other person posting as O. Johnson and I am going to ignore him. I recommend you do the same thing. I don't know what kind of a forum you are running here but you sure don't have much in the way of security. I came here to give you guys some advice about this Davison chap. It looks to me like you aren't interested which suits me fine. Alan Fox seems to have visited Wikipedia or some other stupid source and insists on avoiding the issues with Davison. So does everybody else here as near as I can tell. I am not impressed with the way Panda's Thumb reacts to criticism. Neither is my wife who is a professional biology teacher. If all you are going to do is throw rocks at him, you don't need me. Have a nice day
Posted by: O. Johnson on Jan. 29 2006,04:02

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 29 2006,09:48)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear SteveStory,

"I have only known one who requested to be called Dr."

Now you know two.

Funny how one plus one makes two, innit?

I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you'd just stop making faces and spitting it out.

Kind Regards,
Otto
Posted by: Caledonian on Jan. 29 2006,04:04

Gods-of-the-gaps (or creators-of-the-gaps, or intelligent-designers-of-the-gaps, and so on) can fit any evidence.  There's never any way in which their existence can be distinguished from their non-existence.  It follows that there are no meaningful statements which can be derived from asserting their existence - it makes absolutely no difference.

If you're an educated man, Mr. Davidson, and your wife is a professional biology teacher, perhaps you could explain to us how the Principle of Parsimony applies to the concept of an entity that has no explanatory power.

We'll wait.
Posted by: O. Johnson on Jan. 29 2006,04:33

You sure will wait Mr. Caledonian because I'm out of this place until I see some sign of rational exchange. I don't know who this other bozo is who is impersonating me but this is the most bizarre example of a forum I have ever seen. Any fool can see there are two O. Johnsons posting here. Once you get that straightened out I may have more to add but I doubt it. Bye now.
Posted by: Caledonian on Jan. 29 2006,04:40

Could you direct me to the posts that allegedly came from someone else, Mr. Johnson?  I've examined the profiles from all of the "O. Johnson" posts I can find, and they all show that they came from an account created on Jan. 23 2006, at 16:24 forum time.

This seems to suggest that all of those posts came from a single account.  I would be most interested to examine posts with that name but originated from a different account.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 29 2006,04:43

Don't blow Otto's cover, Caledonian, Stephen Elliot will be disappointed to have missed him.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 29 2006,05:48

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 29 2006,10:43)
Don't blow Otto's cover, Caledonian, Stephen Elliot will be disappointed to have missed him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does Dr. Johnson like apples?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 29 2006,05:52

Quote (O. Johnson @ Jan. 29 2006,09:58)
There is some other person posting as O. Johnson and I am going to ignore him. I recommend you do the same thing. I don't know what kind of a forum you are running here but you sure don't have much in the way of security. I came here to give you guys some advice about this Davison chap. It looks to me like you aren't interested which suits me fine. Alan Fox seems to have visited Wikipedia or some other stupid source and insists on avoiding the issues with Davison. So does everybody else here as near as I can tell. I am not impressed with the way Panda's Thumb reacts to criticism. Neither is my wife who is a professional biology teacher. If all you are going to do is throw rocks at him, you don't need me. Have a nice day
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you like those malted milk balls, John?
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 29 2006,06:20

Im completely lost....is he claiming that somebody hijacked his account?  Or is he claiming that someone is knocking off his account?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 29 2006,06:30

Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 29 2006,12:20)
Im completely lost....is he claiming that somebody hijacked his account?  Or is he claiming that someone is knocking off his account?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Working theory: all of the 'O. Johnson' posts in fact come from John Davison, who clearly has WAY too much time on his hands.

How do you like them golden delicious apples?
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 29 2006,06:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Working theory: all of the 'O. Johnson' posts in fact come from John Davison, who clearly has WAY too much time on his hands.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are also some unmistakable DaveScotisms in the O. Johnson posts.  I think it's both JAD and Dave, and maybe some others from UD.
Posted by: Caledonian on Jan. 29 2006,07:19

Honest, polite criticism is removed wholesale from UD, and the primary posters and administrators from UD come over and pull stunts like this here.

Don't they have any shame?  Don't they have any decency?  Intellectual integrity, even.
Posted by: Moderator on Jan. 29 2006,07:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think it's both JAD and Dave, and maybe some others from UD.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think we have a winner. There seem to be at least two people who have dusted off their modems and are posting via dialup to evade IP banning, since the IP addresses differ from comment to comment and are from at least two different Class A IP address spaces. A password account system is not able to distinguish between two different people who share a password between themselves.

OK, it looks like the trolls want to play whack-a-mole. Send a PM if you'd like to help me out with clearing out the comments as they come up.


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 29 2006,08:19

Please, John: see your doctor first thing Monday morning and have him double your dosage. For all of our sakes.

How do you like them stuffed bell peppers?
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 29 2006,08:35

Quote (Moderator @ Jan. 29 2006,13:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think it's both JAD and Dave, and maybe some others from UD.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think we have a winner. There seem to be at least two people who have dusted off their modems and are posting via dialup to evade IP banning, since the IP addresses differ from comment to comment and are from at least two different Class A IP address spaces. A password account system is not able to distinguish between two different people who share a password between themselves.

OK, it looks like the trolls want to play whack-a-mole. Send a PM if you'd like to help me out with clearing out the comments as they come up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think that all their comments should be removed. I may be fun to destroy their arguments. :)
I agree that it's not easy to make the difference between arguments and insults in their posts.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question Mivart asked was "How can natural selection possibly affect a structure that has not yet appeared?" The answer is it can't because natural selection never had anything to do with evolution any way and neither did sexual reproduction
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the answer is it can't because natural selection doesn't produce new structures, mutations do.

Jeez, this one was easy.  :D
BTW, what is your scientific theory regarding the apparition of new structures?
Posted by: Moderator on Jan. 29 2006,08:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't think that all their comments should be removed. I may be fun to destroy their arguments.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There were reasons that they were banned in the first place that are only reinforced by the latest antics.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 29 2006,08:42

Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 29 2006,14:35)
I don't think that all their comments should be removed. I may be fun to destroy their arguments. :)
I agree that it's not easy to make the difference between arguments and insults in their posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would not call their latest postings 'arguments' so much as attacks of Tourette's syndrome.
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 29 2006,08:46

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 29 2006,14:42)
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 29 2006,14:35)
I don't think that all their comments should be removed. I may be fun to destroy their arguments. :)
I agree that it's not easy to make the difference between arguments and insults in their posts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would not call their latest postings 'arguments' so much as attacks of Tourette's syndrome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just give them a chance. It's not easy the write when you have Tourette's syndrome.
Posted by: Moderator on Jan. 29 2006,08:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just give them a chance.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They had plenty of "chances".

Please return to topical discussion. This matter is closed.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 29 2006,08:56

DaveScot, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, says the following over on Uncommon Pissant: (emphasis in original)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Judge Johnson’s ruling was 139 double spaced pages. Just for a lark, and since it was easy to do with Adobe Acrobat, I searched for the word Pandas and found it was used 74 times in the ruling. That’s more than once per single spaced page. Clearly what was on trial wasn’t the school board. Clearly what was on trial wasn’t the 60-second statement read to the biology class that students could opt out of hearing. Clearly what was  on trial was the book  Of Pandas and People.
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Legal, Courts, Laws — DaveScot @ 10:17 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Poor Dave. If you get the PDF and search for Pandas you indeed find 74 mentions. But if you search for Bonsell, you get 75 mentions. Search for Behe and you get 84 mentions. A search for Board turns up 227 responses. Clearly what was on trial, was the school board.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 29 2006,09:05

"Judge Johnson's ruling"?  Could that be a Freudian slip?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 29 2006,09:30

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 29 2006,15:05)
"Judge Johnson's ruling"?  Could that be a Freudian slip?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well, it depends; does he give 'Judge Johnson's' first name?  :p
Posted by: Caledonian on Jan. 29 2006,10:02

It's not 'Orwell' by any chance, is it?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 29 2006,10:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Judge Johnson's ruling"?  Could that be a Freudian slip?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Good catch!
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 29 2006,12:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You’re right, it was all about the book, it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Behe admitted under oath that in order for ID to be considered “science”, the definition of science had to be REDEFNIED to include supernatural explanations.

Comment by jon nickles — January 29, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jon
Behe admitted no such thing. He said astrology, 600 years ago when astrology and astronomy were the same art, would be science under his definition. If you care to argue he said something more than that feel free to provide a quote from the court transcript. Otherwise put a sock in it. ...[DaveScot]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey Jon, if you're reading this, at the bottom of page 30 of the Dover decision:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a
supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that
the designer is a natural entity.” (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second,
Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules
of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered.
(38:97 (Minnich)). Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s
project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr.
vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005). Turning from defense expert witnesses
to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to
include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Perhaps Dave should be counseled to "put a sock in it".
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 29 2006,13:27

Sorry for feeding the trolls, but common descent vs. "common design" is a frequent source of confusion over at Uncommon Dementia and might be worth addressing here.

"Otto the Orthopedist" wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If common descent cannot be logically distinguished from common design the only position one may take on it is to be agnostic.  One may have a preference for one or the other based on various factors but one cannot completely rule out either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Otto,
If an omnipotent deity of unknown temperament is running amok, you have no way of being logically certain of ANY empirical observation of the outside world (cf. Descartes and the "evil demon").  Does the Sun truly exist, or is a deity fooling us?  Is the Earth 4.5 billion years old, or did the deity just make it look that way?  GW Bush "hisself" might be illusory, but DaveScot voted for him.  Why doesn't Dave claim to be agnostic regarding the President's existence, if logic "requires" it?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Feel free to describe a test which can distinguish between common descent in the past and one or more deities in the past creating various organisms ex nihilo working from a common template.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Construct phylogenetic trees based on multiple morphological and molecular characters.  Common design does not require similarity between the trees.  Common descent demands a high degree of similarity.

The only way to get similar trees with common design is if the designer is mimicking common descent. As Dave and John like to say, write that down.  And pass it on to all of the other Ottos.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm all ears, honey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Otto, dear, talk to your colleagues in plastic surgery.  They can fix that, you know.

Keith S.
Posted by: Russell on Jan. 29 2006,14:09

More of the legal wisdom of DaveScot:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The first prong of the Lemon Test is to ask whether there is a secular motivation. All it takes is one good secular reason. It’s easy to show one good secular reason - the president of the United States recommends that evolution and ID both be taught so that the public understands what the debate is about. That is a secular reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I bet the  Dover defendants' legal team is just kicking itself for not having sought the legal advice of DaveScot.

On a side note, though, if this president can make warrantless wiretaps legal, in direct contradiction of the explicit language of the Constitution and the FISA legislation, perhaps he can make religion secular, and maybe turn water into wine.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 29 2006,15:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I bet the  Dover defendants' legal team is just kicking itself for not having sought the legal advice of DaveScot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed.  And shame on Judge Jones for upholding the Constitution when Dave could have explained his proper role as a puppet of the executive branch.

Dave's response when the Dover ruling was announced:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Judge Jone’s [sic] career just ended. He was appointed by President Bush and just now ruled against the president’s wishes. It’s a good thing he’s got a lifetime appointment because that’s the last appointment he’ll ever get.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/587#comments >

More of Dave's fascistic, chain-of-command thinking.
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 29 2006,16:57

Wow....I was allowed back on UD....for one comment

Immediately DaveScot threatened me.....as you can all see...but then he banned me again for the following comment.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot

Im sorry….but what exactly would make you regret giving me a “third chance”?

I am going to continue to call things as I see them. If making non-offensive editorial statements is going to get me “banned” then is there really a point to letting me back onto the site?

I think that this incident illustrates a very valid point…that ID can lead people to a belief about a designer. The problem is that it doesnt illustrate how ID can lead people to a scientific belief in a designer.

I have, and will always continue to be a deist….but i acknowledge that the line between front-loaded Deism and Theism is so vague that it more a matter of opinion rather than a truly debatable position. The difference between Theistic evolution and Intelligent Design is comparable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now....from my understanding...DaveScot allowed me back onto the site because i stroked his ego and called him the posterboy for ID....apparently he didnt understand that I meant he was the posterboy because everyone else involved in the movement has to hide from sunlight.

He bans me though as soon as he realizes that Im not going to stroke his ego...???

I could understand being banned for a lot of things....but he banned me for commenting on the non-scientific quality of converting a philosopher to ID?
Posted by: Caledonian on Jan. 29 2006,17:21

ID must be scientific, or their program to have it taught in schools alongside evolution would fail.  Since the program cannot be allowed to fail, ID must be scientific.

ID isn't good science.  It's not even good philosophy.  If you point that out, they're going to ban you.

Sorry, PuckSR.
Posted by: PuckSR on Jan. 29 2006,18:01

Actually...i would say the entire argument for a superior entity by design is a fairly sound philosophical argument.

It isnt scientific....and it is very, very, very old....but maybe they will get so bogged down in philosophy that they will discover Humean skepticism...at this point...they will begin to cast as much doubt on their own beliefs as they cast on the beliefs of others.....

Maybe allowing creationists to shoehorn philosophy into the argument will be a good thing in the end.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 30 2006,19:11

Yeah!  There was I thinking that Dave Scot might have run out of people to ban.  But, joy of joys, he then did this:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/744#comments >

I can't see russ being at UD for much longer.

Bob
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 30 2006,20:45

ID's "Big Tent" is shrinking rapidly over at UD, and it looks like the "common designists" are being left out in the rain.
Posted by: Renier on Jan. 30 2006,21:46

Over at

< Uncommon thread >

DaveScot : "That is the perfect scientific description of intelligent evolution."

*snicker* Let's face it, they are backing down. The whole thread above is about how true common descent is. Ironic now, that the site self is a contradiction, since the name is "uncommon descent".

So, all you have to do to get banned over there is disagree with common descent... oh wait, that's the usual ID standpoint. What a bunch of confused clowns.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 30 2006,22:20

Quote (Renier @ Jan. 31 2006,03:46)
....
So, all you have to do to get banned over there is disagree with common descent... oh wait, that's the usual ID standpoint. What a bunch of confused clowns.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. Well, at least they are good for something. They've certainly provided a bit of amusement.

I imagine Dave Scot as the big angry clown, chasing after and trying to rein-in the smaller more affable ones.  All the while tripping over their own clumsy feet amidst much water and custard flinging. :D
Posted by: Renier on Jan. 30 2006,23:06

Stephen, that was cruel. How the #### am I going to get that image out of my mind? Nightmares tonight! :D
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 31 2006,02:51

You HAVE to check out the thread Bob O'H links to above. Man, DaveScot is wailing and gnashing his teeth. He's demanding that people stop talking about religion, he's disputing quotes people are posting from his ID 'betters' such as Jonathan Wells, banning people, etc.

He wants a totally secular ID theory and everyone on board.

Why do we always want, what we can't have?

Oh, it is so delicious to watch an exasperated DaveScot try to argue against the common-descent-denying dolts.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Creation science already lost. Didn’t you get the memo?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and I love this quote from DaveScot about common descent, on the John Lynch thread:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s claims denying the virtually undeniable that gives ID a bad name.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Russell on Jan. 31 2006,04:06

I guess DaveScot is going to have to ban Paul Nelson.

So now the only difference between Dave's position and regular science is that regular science accepts that the input of information needed for evolution, (the "intelligence", if you will) is natural selection.

I predict DaveScot's reign of terror at UD will be over in a matter of days or weeks.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 31 2006,04:50

yeah, he would have to ban Nelson. (For those who haven't seen it, Nelson just smacked DaveScot:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point here, Dave, is intellectual freedom. Many scientists with no obvious religious motivations doubt universal common descent (Darwin’s single Tree of Life, which you consider beyond question). By your lights, they would not be welcome here. Is that really the forum you wish to encourage — one where the monophyly of life on Earth is taken as a given?

If so, Uncommon Descent is badly misnamed, for lots of reasons.

Comment by Paul Nelson — January 31, 2006 @ 8:24 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

)
Posted by: Ved on Jan. 31 2006,04:58

Yes, yes, yes! DaveScot is moderating the wrong blog.

He should be moderating a blog named Common Descent!
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 31 2006,05:32

I don't think Mr Scott is not operating in a vaccuum and not a day goes by where someone over there doesn't say something like "I'm going to tell Bill on you, Dave Scott!".  

I'd pay top dollar to read the email between Mr Scott and Dembski.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 31 2006,05:49

One thing I really find unfathomable about UD is how DaveScot repeatedly abuses and bans everyone there, and yet they always come back, grovelling and begging to be let back in. All these frustrated creationists, all so upset that they're banned from a cheesy garage outfit like UD. Why they all think they need to belong in a club like that, no matter how shabbily they're treated, is beyond me.I guess it's because it's all they have. They're on this Mission From Jesus to Defeat the Wicked Evilutionists, and it's the only 'club' they have. I guess they figure that however much of a tyrannical nutjob DaveSpringer/Scot/Otto is, God wants them to stick with it.

Plus, it is funny how when these people come onto PT and start arguments they always whine about how they're treated, but when they get much worse treatment at UD, they suck it right up.  :p
Posted by: GCT on Jan. 31 2006,07:22

One could (and some have) make the argument that they receive just as shabby a treatment by their religion, yet they keep going back to that.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 31 2006,07:57

Qualiatative, banned at 10:16pm last night, was back by 10 am this morning. Has DaveScot been reined in?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 31 2006,08:16

Dave Springer (DaveScot) apparently doesn't know how the word random is used:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First of all prove it’s random. As far as physics can tell us, at the atomic scale and upwards there is no such thing as random - every effect has a cause and this chain of cause and effect is in principle traceable back to the origin of matter. There is some debate whether quantum events are truly random but the mutations you refer to are chemical changes at the atomic scale and completely deterministic as far as anyone knows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Jan. 31 2006,08:25

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2006,13:57)
Qualiatative, banned at 10:16pm last night, was back by 10 am this morning. Has DaveScot been reined in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've seen several banned people pop up again a day or two later. Maybe there's an implicit policy that banning is only temporary for IDC types -- sort of a disciplinary smack on the wrist to keep them in line. Maybe it's only permanent for us evilutionists.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Jan. 31 2006,08:49

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2006,14:16)
Dave Springer (DaveScot) apparently doesn't know how the word random is used:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


TBH. I don't think that I do either.
Do you have an easy to understand explanation?

I know the coloquial meaning of random, but I suspect that is as relevant as the coloquial meaning of theory.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Jan. 31 2006,14:04

Actually, Stephen, I think the common-usage meaning of random is closer to what we mean in the context of "random mutation" than DaveScot's hyper-scientist definition above. Determinism doesn't really come into it. After all, a coin-flip, an exemplar of "randomness," is perfectly deterministic. However, it's the result of a "butterfly effect"-like series of deterministic causes that is, in practice, unknowable before the event.

In the same way, a mutation is random, with regard to the effect on phenotype. No part of neo-Darwinian theory requires that the causes of the point mutation, or whatever it may be, be "random" in the philosophical sense DS is using, which is better phrased 'non-deterministic." He's employing his stock-in-trade: aggressive obfuscation.
Posted by: tacitus on Jan. 31 2006,17:55

Heh - Bill Dembski just stepped in and slapped DaveScot back down. Methinks Billy boy didn't like the way things were going.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/747 >
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 31 2006,20:12

Quote (tacitus @ Jan. 31 2006,23:55)
Heh - Bill Dembski just stepped in and slapped DaveScot back down. Methinks Billy boy didn't like the way things were going.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/747 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, curiously, DaveScot's thread has disappeared, and he hasn't been heard of since.  But two new moderators have appeared.

I guess we'll work out in a few days whether this is jsut because DaveScot is taking a cold shower.

Who predicted the end of January?

Bob
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 01 2006,00:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who predicted the end of January?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like stevestory is the winner, assuming we don't find the stone rolled away from the tomb in three days.  His prediction was made 21 days ago:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 11:36 PM (e)

If anybody wants to start a dead pool on DaveScot’s administration, I’m in for the last week of January.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....omments >

Congratulations, Steve!
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 01 2006,00:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 01 2006,02:12)
[quote=tacitus,Jan. 31 2006,23:55]Heh - Bill Dembski just stepped in and slapped DaveScot back down. Methinks Billy boy didn't like the way things were going.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/747 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And, curiously, DaveScot's thread has disappeared, and he hasn't been heard of since.
I guess we'll work out in a few days whether this is jsut because DaveScot is taking a cold shower.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He is back, and posting on the thread that is linked.
Not sure if he still has a moderators role though.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 01 2006,00:28

DaveScot is still gunning for the "common designists":


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the end of the day we still the law of nature that life comes from life, an overwhelming number of points of similarity in the genetic code, and the best scientific objections to a single common ancestor (Woese and Doolittle) still saying that all plants, animals, fungi, and protists share a single common ancestor.

What am I missing here? Where is the scientific evidence to refute common descent?

Comment by DaveScot — February 1, 2006 @ 4:09 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Feb. 01 2006,00:51

Looks like we've gotten under Dave's skin:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To the Peanut Gallery at “After The Bar Closes”

I know you clowns are reading this and just wanted to let you know that I deleted my own article at no one’s urging, I’m still moderating the joint like before, and we’re all still friends here united against bozos clinging to the discredited Darwinian dogma of natural selection.

So there.

Comment by DaveScot — February 1, 2006 @ 5:33 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Dave... and it was Harriet Miers' idea to withdraw her nomination, despite the strong protests of President Bush.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 01 2006,02:07

keiths, where'd you see that? I don't see it on the main Uncommon Pissant thread.
Posted by: djmullen on Feb. 01 2006,02:52

This just gets better and better!

Latest post on Uncommon Descent:



Protected: After The Bar Closes
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:  

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 6:48 am



You can't make up stuff like this!
Posted by: Caledonian on Feb. 01 2006,03:23

Stupid question:  what's the meaning of this latest post?  Could DaveScot have password-protected it, or did someone else password-protect it?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the context.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 01 2006,03:56

Oh, DaveScot - since we know you're reading this: you're confusing Russell Doolittle with W. Ford Doolittle. Of course, being intimately familiar with all this literature, and with that 153 IQ of course, you probably knew that and just made a slip of the keyboard.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 01 2006,04:25

Quote (Russell @ Feb. 01 2006,09:56)
Oh, DaveScot - since we know you're reading this: you're confusing Russell Doolittle with W. Ford Doolittle. Of course, being intimately familiar with all this literature, and with that 153 IQ of course, you probably knew that and just made a slip of the keyboard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did he also tell you...? He used to work at Dell.  :p
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 01 2006,04:38

Lol. They're talking now, at Uncommon Pissant, about how so many people there are engineers. Much better suited to understand biology, don't you know. Anyway, had to repeat this funny bit from Sal Cordova:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If biotic reality has a hidden message spread accoss genomes, and IDists are able to essentially reverse engineer the “internet protocol” of biolgy and thus decode lifes hidden messages, it will be a slam dunk victory for ID, and Darwinism will dead forever!

Salvador

Comment by scordova — February 1, 2006 @ 8:22 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 01 2006,04:41

Yes, I agree, a message hidden across the genome would destroy evolution, and also prove there was a creator of some sort.  Now, all we have to do is get them to agree on which language its written in...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 01 2006,04:58

This is so rich it deserves more commentary...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If biotic reality has a hidden message spread accoss genomes, and IDists are able to essentially reverse engineer the “internet protocol” of biolgy and thus decode lifes hidden messages, it will be a slam dunk victory for ID, and Darwinism will dead forever!

Salvador

Comment by scordova — February 1, 2006 @ 8:22 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And if the Klingons land their space ship on the front lawn of the White House and explain how they created the universe "Darwinism" would be dead too.

If God stops giving us the silent treatments and explains (in a "pathetic level of detail") how he went about the Creation "Darwinism" would fall by the wayside.

If the Time Travelers show up at Dr Michael Behe's biology class and give a lesson on IC then "Darwinism" would fall off the map.

If the Space Aliens show up at one of the Christian propaganda classes Theologian William Demsbki teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and demonstrate the finer points of specified complexity "Darwinism" will be a dead horse with a dead rider.

The possibilities are endless.  

No wonder all the "Darwinists" are shaking in their boots.  Clearly "Darwinism" is a theory in crisis.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 01 2006,05:30

Quote (djmullen @ Feb. 01 2006,08:52)
This just gets better and better!

Latest post on Uncommon Descent:



Protected: After The Bar Closes
This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:  

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 6:48 am



You can't make up stuff like this!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That one has now gone. Incredible. I don't think I would be able to believe these antics if I hadn't seen it for myself.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 01 2006,05:47

Yeah, I wonder why we're so important, they have to talk about us secretly.

But it's the IDers, and we all know that hiding parts of their agenda is < essential if they want to succeed >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 01 2006,06:24

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 01 2006,10:58)
If biotic reality has a hidden message spread accoss genomes, and IDists are able to essentially reverse engineer the “internet protocol” of biolgy and thus decode lifes hidden messages, it will be a slam dunk victory for ID, and Darwinism will dead forever!

Salvador
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know it's not really important, but what is 'Mad Sal' even talking about here? Is he fantasizing about finding some secret message in human DNA, a la the Da Vinci code? Some feverish scenario of 'secularist' scientists (it'd have to be them, the IDCers do no actual research) bumping into some repeating code that turns out to be Ancient Hebrew?

What would the messages say?

"The World is only 6,000 years old!"
"Goddidit!"
"The NCSE is the antichrist!"
"Poof!"
"How Come We Still Have Monkeys?"
"Vote Republican!"
"Come Home, Your Mother Ship Needs You!"

He's right, if this happened, Darwinism "will dead" forever...

(Have I missed something, or has Sal totally dropped out of PT since Dover?)
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 01 2006,06:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What would the messages say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Kilroy Was Here?

Or perhaps this:

< The Raelian Movement Presents Message From The Designers >
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 01 2006,06:37

Arden,
You forgot "ET phone home". ;)

Henry

No wait, a better one - "Live long and prosper".
:D
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 01 2006,06:54

Actually....I think you guys are misunderstanding Sal's claim

Sal, from my understanding, is talking about decoding genetics.  In other words, being able to use genetics as a programming language.

His reasoning, which is flawed, is that if genetics contains a "language" of sorts.....then it would be proof of a designer.  

This is just another ID guy who doesnt understand the difference between random and Evolution
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 01 2006,07:09

I can see it now....With that programming language they could finally build their Master Race of Militant Evangelicals who would take up the Mighty Sword of Righteousness against the Evil Evolutionists and The Word would reign for thousands of years!

Or something like that...
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 01 2006,07:09

Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 01 2006,12:54)
Actually....I think you guys are misunderstanding Sal's claim

Sal, from my understanding, is talking about decoding genetics.  In other words, being able to use genetics as a programming language.

His reasoning, which is flawed, is that if genetics contains a "language" of sorts.....then it would be proof of a designer.  

This is just another ID guy who doesnt understand the difference between random and Evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not positive that's all Sal means. Note the following part of his wishlist:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
thus decode lifes hidden messages,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So deep down I think Sal is hoping this 'code' would validate all the things he wants to believe.

He'd better be careful... what if the code is in Sanskrit and says "Praise Krishna! The Universe is 3 Trillion Years Old!"

Or, what if it's in Esperanto, and it says:

Earthlings! You have displeased your extraterrestrial overlords! We shall leave Alpha Centauri immediately, and when we arrive, we shall exterminate your puny planet!

Sal better be careful what can of worms he opens here...
:p
Posted by: lutsko on Feb. 01 2006,07:39

Quote (tacitus @ Jan. 31 2006,23:55)
Heh - Bill Dembski just stepped in and slapped DaveScot back down. Methinks Billy boy didn't like the way things were going.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/747 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amusing as it is, what is really cool about this little drama is that Dembski spills the beans: the problem about ID is that it doesn't predict anything about anything so OF COURSE it has nothing to say about common descent.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 01 2006,08:58

Won't the DNA just say "What is six times nine"?

From which you will be able to work out that God has 13 digits.

Bob
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 01 2006,09:20

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 01 2006,13:09)
[quote=PuckSR,Feb. 01 2006,12:54]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
thus decode lifes hidden messages,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So deep down I think Sal is hoping this 'code' would validate all the things he wants to believe.

He'd better be careful... what if the code is in Sanskrit and says "Praise Krishna! The Universe is 3 Trillion Years Old!"

Or, what if it's in Esperanto, and it says:

Earthlings! You have displeased your extraterrestrial overlords! We shall leave Alpha Centauri immediately, and when we arrive, we shall exterminate your puny planet!

Sal better be careful what can of worms he opens here...
:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've actually written a short story were the human race makes it to the stars only to find themselves alone, until they come across a 4byr old ruin containing a hall of statues, each with an inscription below it.  The final statue they uncover is of an alien holding a DNA strand, and when they run a pattern match on the alien inscription below they find the only match is in a strand of "junk" DNA found in all life on Earth - i.e. the signature of their "maker".

Not terribly original, and the ending needs a lot of work, so I haven't bothered to try to get it published. Needless to say, I'm also not too thrilled at the idea of publishing a story that, even in small way, validates ID!
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 01 2006,10:24

fyi...

davescott moved AFTER THE BAR CLOSES to the sidebar at uncommon dissent along with DAVIDSON papers if you can believe that...some are still password protected

must be top secret stuff there[cough cough]

woo woo!
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 01 2006,10:25

just a reminder:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.

--DaveScot née Dave Springer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: slpage on Feb. 01 2006,10:34

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 01 2006,12:24)

(Have I missed something, or has Sal totally dropped out of PT since Dover?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sal dropped off KCFS also.

He had been doing drive-bys, mostly, but I had been trying to get him to offer some legitimate discussion on his claim that by employing a 10-letter "toy example" (his words) he could show how evolution should be erasing molecular hierarchies over time, and that their exixtence is a big problem.

His respopnses for fluff and topic changes, primarily.  He just didn't seem to get that 'mutating' a 10-letter sequence over 10 'generations' and 'erasing' a hierarchy is not quite the same thing as mutating a few nucleotides per generation in a genome of billions.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 01 2006,10:51

And now Dembski asks why biologists are still coming across "complete surprises" as if that somehow invalidates all we know about evolutionary biology.

Hmm, let me think for, oh, all of ten seconds....

Ah yes, the complete surprises of "hot Jupiters" and finding that the expansion of our Universe is speeding up must completely invalidate all we know about astronomy and cosmology.

Really, the man is a fool to advance this type of argument.
Posted by: Renier on Feb. 01 2006,20:12

Did you guys read that thread on "ID in India"? I actually went and read the link provided. Lost my cool and went home. As I drove home I realised I would be banned ...again...

One just get so tired hearing the same old hogwash over and over and over again.

My conclusion is all the poofters (IDiots) that are writing their pseudo mumbo jumbo science books are just doing it for money and attention. Some kids are like that. They are naughty to receive attention. Even negative attention is attention I suppose, and then of course there is the "god" syndrome of getting disciples.

This whole "hidden genetic message" is just more of their trash. But hey, they would love to teach the children to be and think like them. The whole scientific world is laughing at them, and they are so very proud of it. Disagreeing with science makes them ... uh.... right? Nope, it just makes them clowns. And let's face it. We had some good laughs at all their claims and contortions.
Posted by: Tim Hague on Feb. 01 2006,23:46

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 01 2006,10:38)
Lol. They're talking now, at Uncommon Pissant, about how so many people there are engineers. Much better suited to understand biology, don't you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not all engineers are ignorant of biology... some of us software engineers have degrees in both genetics and design and have no problems whatsoever in spotting the 'breathtaking inanity' of ID ;)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 02 2006,04:31

Quote (Tim Hague @ Feb. 02 2006,05:46)
[quote=stevestory,Feb. 01 2006,10:38]Lol. They're talking now, at Uncommon Pissant, about how so many people there are engineers. Much better suited to understand biology, don't you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not all engineers are ignorant of biology... some of us software engineers have degrees in both genetics and design and have no problems whatsoever in spotting the 'breathtaking inanity' of ID ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the record, back in December at PT, I pointed out how a disproportionate number of ID types have always been engineers, and speculated on what it is about engineering that should make this so. It got a rather, uh, irritated response from some of the non-crackpot engineers who frequent PT.  ??? But, hate to say it, it is a real trend!

Also retired property managers. Lot of them, too.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 02 2006,04:46

and lawyers.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 02 2006,04:58

But is the percentage of engineers (software or otherwise) really higher than the percentage of non-biologists in general?

Henry
Posted by: Flint on Feb. 02 2006,06:11

The key difference here is, engineering doesn't necessarily rub your face in the relevant biological evidence. So it's not only easy, it's typical for a suitably interested creationist to survive even an advanced engineering degree program without slamming into any unavoidable conflicts with his faith. Biology programs tend to weed out creationists, few of whom are able to make the 'Kurt Wise breakthrough'.

Kurt Wise has understood that to maintain his faith, he must internalize the conviction that evidence simply *does not matter*. It is irrelevant. Most creationist engineers, on the contrary, recognize the importance of evidence, and thus the importance of MAKING the evidence fit the conclusions. The evidence MUST support their faith, because their faith is RIGHT. When evidence refutes their faith, see rule 1.

What's interesting is that, at least in my experience, these people are otherwise excellent at recognizing which evidence is relevant, how to draw conclusions from it, and how to reject conclusions the evidence denies. But when their religious faith is involved, it's like a blind spot. Suddenly you're through the looking glass, where conclusions are *not to be questioned* and evidence falls into three categories: it fits, it gets distorted to fit, or it gets denied. A spooky experience.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 02 2006,06:36

In one sense, I have more respect for the Wises of the world than the reinterpreters. They're taking a stand for their religion. When you 'reinterpret' a religion to remove contradictions with scientific evidence, you're submitting to the higher authority of reason, but too chicken to deal with the full consequences.

But that's the subject of another thread.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 02 2006,15:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------




February 2, 2006
(off topic) Comment Policy
I created some new Pages with links in the right column of the blog. Under Comment Policy are Moderation which is the moderation policy statements made by Bill Dembski and continued by his appointed Blog Czar and Put a Sock In It which is a partial list of boring arguments that earn deletion and if repeated an invitation to leave Uncommon Descent. Please be aware of them.

Filed under: Off Topic, Adminstrative — DaveScot @ 7:08 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Any chance that could be translated as....awkward arguments?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 02 2006,15:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



somehow that didn't wind up on the Put a Sock In It list. I think we can safely assume that Dave Springer has been told where he can shove his Common Descent.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 02 2006,16:51

Re "Any chance that could be translated as.... awkward arguments?"

Such as asking what set of observations shows a repeating pattern such that it could actually be explained by a hypothesis of deliberate design of life forms?

Or more concisely - is there a big tent repairman in the house? :)

Henry
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 02 2006,17:36

I am an engineer, and as an engineer I have encountered many of the IDists

Actually...its really simple.  

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are all doing the same thing.  

A mathematician is working with numbers
A physicist is using the numbers with real objects
An engineer is using the physics in real-world applications

They are all wonderful degrees and normally the sign of an intelligent individual.

The problem:  They are not biologists.  As a general rule engineers think that they can do anything....so do math and physics guys.  Their studies were so difficult that they have this mindset that they could have learned and been experts in anything.

They use this superiority complex to bolster themselves into the argument.  You can normally tell the engineer.  Their vocabulary may be weak, but they seem intelligent.  They make old arguments repeatedly...remember...its still new to them...and they are so smart that they came up with it on their own.

So...give an engineer a hug
Engineers need love too
Engineers are not biologists.

I have a friend who is a physicist turned electrical engineer.  He argued for ID, first on the "controversy" side.  Then when i knocked that down...on the "incomplete evidence" argument...once again he lost.  Finally he argued that he simply was smarter than me....which he was, I was just more skeptical.  It ended with a fun conversation about his Christian Fundamentalism....

I have never argued with an IDist who wasnt a Theist
And DaveScot....is a Theist...despite what he says
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 02 2006,19:01

Sorry to double post...but this was hilarious

I just got a post moderated because i actually suggested a way that people would quit bringing up religion in the ID argument.

If Dr. Dembski was to stand up and say, "ID is not about God.  If God exists, he most certainly would not have been the intelligent agent.  He would be far too powerful and far too busy.  The Intelligent Agent is not God, and anyone who believes that the Intelligent Agent in ID theory is God, is lacking in theological and scientific education.  The Intelligent Agent is a naturalistic entity, that is responsible for slowly shaping the life of the Earth."

Of course....I am fairly sure if IDists kept making that statement, ID would lose ALL of its supporters
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 03 2006,04:15

LOL. Now they're framing themselves as Galileo to Judge Jones's Inquisitor.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

February 3, 2006
Judge John E. Jones III as Inquisitor
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/775 >
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 03 2006,04:48

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 03 2006,10:15)
LOL. Now they're framing themselves as Galileo to Judge Jones's Inquisitor.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

February 3, 2006
Judge John E. Jones III as Inquisitor
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/775 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since I'm not going to all the effort of going over there just to get banned, I'll ask this here... If IDers deny that religion has anything to do with is, how is it they came that ID is morally superior to evolution?  I mean, in the referenced post it is claimed that:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinian metaphysics is doing real moral and political mischief in our society
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Supposedly ID doesn't identify a designer, so can they claim moral superiority when they can't know the motivations of an unknown designer?

(Yes, I know, the answer is that with every post Demski further demonstrates that ID for him is all about acknowledging his Judeo-Christian God.)
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 03 2006,05:04

Another psychedelic gem from Red Reader (to be read in your best William Shatner "Beat Poet" voice):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

tinabrewer wrote:
“Can such a question hope to be settled in the realm of science which has unfortunately devolved into the playground of mere materialism?”

There’s an old saying, “Don’t give up just before the miracle happens.”

ID is a sea change; its a big idea.
Big ideas are unstoppable for a reason.
For example, the Copernicun universe was a big idea. It took decades.
Time marches on.

Art is a mirror; the movie is a mirror.
Behind the ridicule blindingly, hysterical horrible fear: fear flapping and flopping and flailing away.

Down deep they know they’ve climbed way, way out on a dead limb of Darwin’s tree.
The hear it cracking.
They’ve invested their lives in a worldview in which they are the greatest of the great, elite of elite, the kings of all, the glorious spear of man’s purposless ascent from the primordal ooze: gods of all knowledge; smarter, wiser, more manly…..(even the women!). —craaaack— huh? what was that? It’s the sound of the natural prunning of the branch.

They could have chosen to follow the truth where it leads, the evidence where it leads, but instead the chose the best seats at the universities and the worship of men just like themselves. —-craaaack—-

“I am the Captain of a mighty armada! Bear Left I command you!”
“I am the watchman in a lighthouse on solid rock. I suggest you bear right.”
—-craaaaack—–

Comment by Red Reader — February 1, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/752#comments >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 03 2006,05:25

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 03 2006,10:15)
LOL. Now they're framing themselves as Galileo to Judge Jones's Inquisitor.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

February 3, 2006
Judge John E. Jones III as Inquisitor
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/775 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the sort of glue that holds evangelicals as agroup together.  A sense of being persecuted and fear (the "Darwinists" are corrupting our youth/country/etc.).

Victimhood is one of the driving forces behind intelligent design as a movement:

No one will publish us...

They forbid us to make one innocent statement to some high school kids in Dover...

Judge Jones is our Inquisitor...

We are vitcims of a Darwin conspiracy to stifle free speech and intellectual inquiry...

The truth is out there....



And the IDiot true believers eat it up...Just more pandering to the Pat Robertson crowd..
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 03 2006,05:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Dr Davison

I think your PEH is nonsense but I agree with part of your comment #80

That is what internet forums are for so each can ignore what everyone else has to say and go right on gratifying his own ego with gay abandon in what can only be described as a kind of hysterical intellectual masturbation.

Comment by Xavier — February 3, 2006 @ 3:11 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Someone else just got banned from Common Descent for this comment.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 03 2006,06:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is what internet forums are for so each can ignore what everyone else has to say and go right on gratifying his own ego with gay abandon in what can only be described as a kind of hysterical intellectual masturbation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Was this Dave Scott talking about Dave Scott?
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 03 2006,07:13

I am always amazed when these religious types compare themselves to Galileo. Do they even know what Galileo discovered, or how? Do they acknowledge who he was being condemned by?

That the IDiots can't see the irony in their comparison just goes to show how IDiotic they really are.
Posted by: Devon on Feb. 03 2006,07:45

Hahaha. Uh oh! Looks like somebody stumbled into ID's "Big Tent" without realizing the unspoken law: "ID doesn't point to a designer (but it's God wink wink nudge nudge)"

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/773#comments >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave T. said:

“Analogies between human design and design by an unknown designer work because, whatever the designer, he must work on the same universe with the same natural laws that we do.”

I agree. As Davescot said, “In every case where we can determine the source of design for a machine it is intelligent agency.” But the statement “In every case where we can determine the source of design for a machine it is humans” is also true. Do you know of any intelligent agency that is not human?
The intelligence of the agency is not what designed the machine. We attribute intelligence to the agency based on the fact that we as humans attribute intelligence to complexity. But intelligence is a description of the agency, it is not the agency.
If intelligent design cannot speak to the agency, then it cannot also speak to descriptions of the agency, which would be calling it intelligent.

Comment by M J — February 3, 2006 @ 10:58 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One more thing (that you may think is ludicrous):

5,000 years from now, humans master not only time travel but have figured out how to hard wire “complexity” into the DNA of less “intelligent” animals. A scientist travels back in time, to 2 millions years ago and messes with the DNA of an ape, thus causing humans to come about.

That may sound pretty far fetched, but in reality, it does not break any known laws. We know (hypothetically) that time travel is possible. We know that with modern break-throughs in nanotechnology that one day it will be possible to change DNA in this manner. And we also know, that every time we see complex machines and determine their origins, that they were created by humans.

I think that that is a pretty elegant hypothesis for why we see “intelligent” design. I don’t believe that speaking about a designer should be left to theology and philosphy when you can have a very natural explanation for it. The only people that want to leave it to “theology and philosophy” are the people who already assume that the “designer” is outside the realm of science. I don’t believe the designer is. As they say, follow the evidence where it leads and the evidence leads to the fact that every time we see a complex machine, it is designed by a human.

Comment by M J — February 3, 2006 @ 11:10 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wonder how quick they will get banned?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 03 2006,09:17

Two points:

I thought the law of time travel states 1 million years is the limit you can go back in time.  

And all this guy is doing is taking Michael "it could be a time traveler" Behe's intelligent design theory to its logical conclusion.  Why in the world would they ban him for echoing what Behe proposes? :-)
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 03 2006,09:31

Because they are so good with logic?
Posted by: Devon on Feb. 03 2006,10:03

Davescot can't keep up with all the stuff he is posting:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4. Wait a minute DS,
Sorry to nitpick, but this is a fine article and you might need to amend the bit about the sun rising in the east being a natural law. It does not hold everywhere in the universe. It need not have been in the east.
There is only one star commonly referred to as “the sun”.

MJ-
Your theory may be within natural law so far as time travel, but there is an obvious problem which is that in this circle you would need to have had a first time that man evolved that didn’t depend upon him having already evolved.
Backwards travel in time is hypothetical nonsense. It warrants no space here. -ds
Comment by avocationist — February 3, 2006 @ 12:58 pm


5.
Avocationist:
“Your theory may be within natural law so far as time travel, but there is an obvious problem which is that in this circle you would need to have had a first time that man evolved that didn’t depend upon him having already evolved.”
Not true. You are basing that assertion on the misconception that time is linear.
< http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/ >
< http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel-phys/ >

Dave,
A supernatural designer is hypothetical nonsense because it breaks natural law. A hypothesis that does not break natural law is not nonsense. It may be wrong, or incorrect, but since you would rather stifle scientific debate that goes against the supernatural designer scenario instead of following the evidence where it leads, I can see why you would say that.
:)
Comment by M J — February 3, 2006 @ 1:56 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That was up there for a couple minutes before Dave deleted it and replaced it with:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
M J has been awarded a time-out for failing to heed my warning to cease and desist with the man designed man nonsense.

Comment by DaveScot — February 3, 2006 @ 2:27 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 03 2006,13:05

DaveScot has been quiet for days, perhaps smarting from the spanking Dembski no doubt gave him in private. Well, he's back, and arguing with everyone, but not in a particularly entertaining way this time.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/778#comments >

get a load of this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Machines Are the Result of Intelligent Agency

In every case where a machine is observed and its origin can be determined it is the result of intelligent agency.

When observations have been repeated billions of times by billions of people like this without a single exception it is a law of nature, not hypothesis and not mere theory. (more…)
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 11:20 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Man, how many ideas can Dave Springer simultaneously misunderstand?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 03 2006,13:10

Odd that you are not allowed to discuss the time traveler theory proposed by Michael Behe there.  

Why do William The Theologians followers hate Dr Behe?
Posted by: Jay Ray on Feb. 03 2006,14:04

One of the most astonishing consequences of the enlightenment, rationality and the scientific method is the notion that man is not necessarily as special as we have been led to believe.  The Copernican "sun centered" hypothesis touted so blithely by RR was heretical for precisely that reason.  

"Look," he was saying, "get over yourselves.  The earth is not at the center of the universe, despite what your Holy book tells you."

Why RR considers that an argument in favor of ID, I hesitate to speculate.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 03 2006,15:58

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/775[/URL][/quote] >
... If IDers deny that religion has anything to do with it, how is it they say that ID is morally superior to evolution?  I mean, in the referenced post it is claimed that:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinian metaphysics is doing real moral and political mischief in our society
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Supposedly ID doesn't identify a designer, so can they claim moral superiority when they can't know the motivations of an unknown designer?
 I mean, in the referenced post it is claimed that:
Quote  
Darwinian metaphysics is doing real moral and political mischief in our society.

Supposedly ID doesn't identify a designer, so can they claim moral superiority when they can't know the motivations of an unknown designer?
[QUOTE]

Goodness I had no idea we were so popular here.
This is actually a good question. I guess the answer is that the design inference is just that and nothing more. People have a real hard time getting that.
So a lot of ID people are motivated morally, philosophically, religously, just as are atheists. For example, you guys think if ID gets a foothold, we'll be having stonings of adulteresses just like they did in Afghanistan. But those opinions about what is good for society (no religion) isn't part of evolutionary theory, is it?

Devon kindly gave two links to show time is nonlinear. I just can't read through all that. I guess I know time is nonlinear, but isn't it linear here? I don't find MJ's idea at all reasonable.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 03 2006,16:26

Avocationist.....I can understand your concern....but you seriously misunderstand

We are concerned about Religion overstepping its boundaries...and getting involved in Politics and Science.

I fear creation science for the same reason that I fear a theocracy.  I can always argue against a scientific idea....if there is an alternative and rational idea.  Just as I can always debate in the political sphere.  The problem is that in religion...there is not much room for debate.  Granted, some religions allow a little bit of leeway.  Fundamentalists, however, always seem to grab the power.

Secular science isnt trying to claim moral superiority...they just fear religious encroachment into the sphere of science.  If you dont believe that this is a very logical position, I invite you to investigate the theocracies of the middle east....then please reply with an explanation of how they maintain a perfectly healthy and strong scientific and political system....despite the involvement of the theocracy.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 03 2006,17:04

Puck, I wasn't so much concerned as trying to give a real answer to the question. I think that ID does the best job of keeping in mind the difference between science and personal motivation. But the personal motivation is there.

Why are we discussing creation science?

I fear theocracy, but I fear any totalitarianism. The past few have not been religious. Well, they were atheistic...

I don't have any disagreement with anything you said, except the implications. You imply that ID is creation science which it isn't, and you speak of fundamentalism, but I don't find ID fundamentalist. You imply that any other conclusion than a materialistic one is a de facto encroachment of religion getting out of bounds.

The whole point of our constitution is to prevent a theocracy. Of course we need to be vigilant, although personally, right now, I worry about a corporate driven totalitarianism.

The problem is, biological systems might be designed by an intelligence. There is the possibility that this is true. If it is true, it will probably be discoverable. Yet you speak of religion overstepping its bounds. Like I said to Anteater to no effect: this is one reality. If that one reality includes God, then that might be discoverable, if not directly then indirectly. You just can't legislate it out of science.
Now, humanity is in a state of semi-ignorance. We used to be in greater ignorance. But if there is a God who set up life forms, and if that is ultimately discoverable by scientific investigation, then we will have a situation in which science and spirituality are not utterly separated.

This is the only possible place we will end up if:
1) There is a God
2) Our knowledge continues to increase

This seems irrefutable but I'm sure you will surprise me.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 03 2006,17:14

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2006,21:58)
This is actually a good question. I guess the answer is that the design inference is just that and nothing more. People have a real hard time getting that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understand that is what IDist would have us believe. I was simply questioning why Bill Dembski persist in quoting friends, people and articles that specifically undermine this assertion?

Perhaps you should have a quiet word with Bill, eh?

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2006,21:58)
So a lot of ID people are motivated morally, philosophically, religously, just as are atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume you meant to say "evolutionists" and not "atheists" since they are hardly synonymous.

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2006,21:58)
For example, you guys think if ID gets a foothold, we'll be having stonings of adulteresses just like they did in Afghanistan. But those opinions about what is good for society (no religion) isn't part of evolutionary theory, is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, of course I don't believe that belief in ID leads to stoning adulterers.

However... I do believe that if ID ever becomes the primary theory taught in our schools, the most likely reason is that the Reconstructionalists or the Dominionists will have somehow managed to take over the government.  In that case the teaching of ID will be the least of our troubles. Fornicators and incorrigible children beware!
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 03 2006,17:25

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 03 2006,21:58)
This is the only possible place we will end up if:
1) There is a God
2) Our knowledge continues to increase

This seems irrefutable but I'm sure you will surprise me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is easily refutable. Again, you are making too many assumptions about the designer (or God, if you will).  

What if the designer/God doesn't want us to "know" him/her?  If God does exist then this is entirely possible and, indeed, is a widespread belief within Christian circles.  Many Christians claim that being able to prove God exists would only devalue their faith.
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 03 2006,19:26

one of the uncommon dissent authors let teh atbc password out...darwinsucks

cute
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 03 2006,22:59

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 04 2006,01:26)
one of the uncommon dissent authors let teh atbc password out...darwinsucks

cute
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does he? A dead guy sucking, we have a miracle.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 04 2006,00:25

What's so disturbing about Darwin's Ucks?

Bob
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Feb. 04 2006,03:40

Haha. They didn't need to let slip the password. That was like, the fifth one I tried. Right after "dembskirules." But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice. I was hoping that they would say some disparaging stuff thinking no one could read it.

No luck on the Author page password thus far... :) I thought combinations that reflected a test of belief like the ATBC page might yield something. Guess they chose one less predictable.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 04 2006,04:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Haha. They didn't need to let slip the password. That was like, the fifth one I tried. Right after "dembskirules." But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice. I was hoping that they would say some disparaging stuff thinking no one could read it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

that's too bad, I rely on these guys for my weekly comedy intake.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 04 2006,07:17

Avocationist-

I completely understand your idea of "proving" God.  I am a rational person, and I do believe that it is possible to prove the existence of God rationally.  The problem is that all current proofs for God are purely philosophical, and not scientific.

If Dr. Dembski proves that there was an Intelligent Agent, that agent would most likely not be God.  Let me see if I can explain this

God---> Absolute Supreme Being
Science--->  Does not deal in absolute certainty
Intelligent Designer--> If an entity, most likely a superior entity, yet not Supreme

So, lets get this totally clear, both sides should agree that the Intelligent Agent is not GOD.  The 'atheists' and the 'theists'.  The Intelligent Agent may be a creation of God....but then again....evolution would be considered a creation of God by the same criteria.

So ID is not an attempt to make a scientific case for God.  ID, at the best, is a rework of some very old philosophy that justifies the existance of God.  If you would like some reading material I would be glad to provide it.

You, however, stumbled upon why 'atheists' want to get ID yanked out of everything.  ID could never honestly suppose that the designer was God, yet many people believe that is what they are suggesting.  Even from a theological standpoint, ID is cheating.

Let me explain the position of almost every person you will ever talk to who is anti-ID.  They are not against your 'idea'.  They most likely take issue with any case of teaching young people bad science.

They dont want biology classes full of the loch ness monster, or Yeti, or anything else that isnt totally verified.  We should not be teaching young people 'fringe science'.  

It is not productive to their very limited time inside of a science classroom.

That being said, I encourage the ID scientists to continue their work.  Many times in the past, something that began as 'fringe' science later became accepted scientific principle.  A great example of this would be "Darwin's Theory of Evolution".  But Darwin never asked grade school teachers to give his lesson plan.  Darwin never demanded a public discourse on his theory.  Darwin and his colleagues continued to collect evidence.  They eventually collected so much evidence for evolution, that creationism was destroyed in the context of science.  I know that you feel that Dr. Dembski and others have already produced the evidence and that we are just putting our fingers in our ears and ignoring them.  The problem is that we are not putting our fingers in our ears.  Many people have obviously read, and critiqued their papers.   If this was a religious thing, ID could just sit back on its previous work and say.."We will wait till you believe us".  This, however, is Science.  All the IDist should be worrying about is producing better evidence.
Posted by: Flint on Feb. 04 2006,10:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All the IDist should be worrying about is producing better evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think this is how it works. There is no evidence indicating ID, and there never will be. And the cdesign proponentsists know this perfectly well.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I encourage the ID scientists to continue their work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you kidding? Their work is entirely political. You don't think any of the DI's $4 million/year budget was spent on *test tubes* do you?
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 04 2006,10:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's fun to watch John and Dave squabble, split up, and then reunite when they realize they have no other friends.  That's happened at least three times since I started watching.

Here's an interesting take on John's penchant for monologues:
< http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html >
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 04 2006,10:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's fun to watch John and Dave squabble, split up, and then reunite when they realize they have no other friends.  That's happened at least three times since I started watching.

Here's an interesting take on John's penchant for monologues:
< http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html >
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 04 2006,10:46

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 04 2006,16:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's fun to watch John and Dave squabble,...
Here's an interesting take on John's penchant for monologues:
< http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That link is funny.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 04 2006,12:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you kidding? Their work is entirely political. You don't think any of the DI's $4 million/year budget was spent on *test tubes* do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I said scientists....your right...i need to clarify...i hope the ID scientists continue their scientific work.

I dont know if they are doing any scientific work or not....but I will always encourage people who are doing scientific work to continue,  no matter how crazy I believe the concept to be.

I honestly believe the best way to stop the whole ID movement is to encourage them.  If ID scientists are constantly dismissed for being frauds....they get to develop a persecution complex....and people go along with that.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 04 2006,14:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hopefully when he realises no one cares he'll get rouund to answering my questions about his hypothesis.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I honestly believe the best way to stop the whole ID movement is to encourage them
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree, maybe we should help by coming up with some research ideas for them, at least that might shut them up for a while. The problem is the great deal of people who think that the design inference and Darwins black box are enough to prove design and disprove evolution, and that no more science can be done until everyone else agrees with them.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Feb. 04 2006,14:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree, maybe we should help by coming up with some research ideas for them, at least that might shut them up for a while.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Minds of geniuses....

I'm working on an essay talking about just that, how they could attempt to do some actual research on design in biology. The fact is, design detection does occur in biology, but they have almost no idea how, why, or where. Maybe we could encourage them to contribute to an actual controversy in biology. I'll let you folks know when its done, might be 2 weeks.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 04 2006,15:39

Tacitus,

OK, I've spent 30 minutes trying to figure out how to enclose in quotes, or even using bold instead. I'll just have to preface my quotes with "You said"

And what's up with not being able to print a four letter word that starts with h and designates and extremely hot place?

When I said ID is the design inference and nothing more, you continue to state that Dembski's professed goal of overthrowing the materialist oppression is somehow disingenuous. But it isn't. Everyone has a worldview. ID itself is rather limited.

You said: I assume you meant to say "evolutionists" and not "atheists" since they are hardly synonymous.

Well, I meant atheists have philosophical motives as well as IDists. Really, tho, it applies to anyone. Now, you say an atheist and an evolutionist are not the same but I disagree. This is my opinion--evolution that teaches random unguided processes is only compatible with atheism, and no form of deistic or theistic belief is compatible with it. I consider Ken Miller a very confused IDist.

You said:  I do believe that if ID ever becomes the primary theory taught in our schools, the most likely reason is that the Reconstructionalists or the Dominionists will have somehow managed to take over the government.

You know, I think ID is true. But if I thought those guys had a chance I'd fight them. But I don't think that's the reason it will be taught. It will be taught when people see it's true. Look, lots of those people are mad at ID because they won't support 6-day creationism. And I'll bet a lot of new age spiritualists will accept ID. How can you paint everyone with the same brush?

You say I have assumed God is discoverable. But I prefaced it with the word 'probably.' I don't think a separate God is a possibility, but that is because I lead a contemplative life. I could be wrong. The idea that God does not want us to know him/her is getting too far into fantasy. Attributing all sorts of petty emotions to the infinite? Yes, I heard one or two Christians express the idea that God does not want to be proved because he wants us to have faith. Frankly, I was shocked. That is a dismal view. It shows that they do not understand what faith is, and it shows that Christianity neither assists nor encourages people to come to know God. But what's worst is that these people believe in an eternal #### scenario, with an egotistical God who sends people there for the absurd reason that they don't know if he's real. Yet he doesn't want to spoil this rigged game by letting us discover his existence for sure? With a guy like that on our side, who needs a devil? I guess it won't be very inspiring in heaven, what with nothing but knowledge of God and no need of faith.
**************************************
Puck,

If God can be "proved" rationally, then that should mean that we can expect or hope that science will find the way to catch up. I am sorry but the following didn't click:

God---> Absolute Supreme Being
Science--->  Does not deal in absolute certainty
Intelligent Designer--> If an entity, most likely a superior entity, yet not Supreme

The parts aren't coming together for me. But I agree the designer could be a less than supreme being. The gnostics thought so, but they thought this world was evil and that the designer was bad, maybe even Satan. I do not agree, being monistic.

You also said that the entity, if created by God, would therefore by default mean that evolution is a creation of God. That is true. Do you agree with that?

You said: So ID is not an attempt to make a scientific case for God.

Not sure what you're saying. Although, they would agree that ID is not a case for God, but for intelligent design. But I think that until we get to God, we will have the regress of who designed the designer.

It doesn't matter if ID is a rework, oldies are goodies, but now there is much fresh data.

Please explain why ID is cheating from a theological standpoint. I didn't quite get that whole line of thought.

Most IDists aren't pushing for the classroom, and Darwin's time moved slower than ours but they pushed soon enough. I do think that you're right ID needs more time to cook, but there's no need for hostility and it gets a bit tired to call it bad science.

When people like Flint say that there is no evidence for ID and that all the ID people know this perfectly well--
I am simply speechless.

Yes, I do think they have enough evidence. And I suppose you may have read and critiqued their papers, although many have not. The problem, then, must lie elsewhere.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 04 2006,17:06

avocationist, I'm not sure it's going to be useful to continue our discussion since we appear to be completely incompatible  worldviews. When I read your comments about ID, evolution, faith, and even Christianity, I can only even begin to find them consistent if I look at them from your highly specific system of beliefs.

Anyway, you misunderstand what I'm saying about Dembski. He, and others, had long argued that ID, in itself, is scientific (i.e. has no bais in religion). Fine. My comment was that Dembski himself keeps undermining that argument by republishing quotes from collegues, friends, and others which directly contradicts that argument.

As for you argument that theistic evolutionists are simply confused IDists, well, that can only be true *if* your own personal idea of what God is, is true. In the broader sense, since evolution does not address "life from non-life" there is plenty of leeway for a Christian to believe in a God who kicked everything off according to a plan and let evolution happen. Who are you to define someone else's faith?

My comment about Dominionists was simple a roundabout way of saying that the only way ID will ever become the norm is through political mandate because it will never be proved through science (and frankly, nobody seems to be wanting to try).
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 04 2006,17:08

Avocationist-

I claimed that ID is cheating from a theological perspective because:

If we both agree that the Intelligent Agent could be the product of God....and not God himself....you believe it is one of God's creations.  Theistic evolutionists believe the exact same thing.  You are cheating from a theological perspective because both scenarios have an equal amount of validity from the theological perspective.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It doesn't matter if ID is a rework, oldies are goodies, but now there is much fresh data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is fresh data...but it is in the exact same category as the previous data.  Therefore it is still subject to the same counter-arguments.  This is still Paley's watchmaker argument.  There is no new perspective....just different examples.

Avocationist...if you could provide me with new data that doesnt fall into the category of the classic watchmaker argument....I would appreciate it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, you say an atheist and an evolutionist are not the same but I disagree. This is my opinion--evolution that teaches random unguided processes is only compatible with atheism, and no form of deistic or theistic belief is compatible with it. I consider Ken Miller a very confused IDist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmmm....this is a serious fallacy.
Do you think a dice game is atheistic?
It is a random event...repeated over and over to eventually arrive at a winner.  Do you favor the idea that God chooses a winner beforehand...and that the dice are just all part of his elaborate plan?

You are arguing that if something does not involve God...then it makes for an atheistic worldview.  Evolution is truly agnostic.  ID, on the other hand, is firmly theistic.  It supposes that either a God exists...or that he created an entity to take care of it for him.  If you remove the term "God" from ID...and suggest that a form of intelligence is responsible for all creation....then you basically just advocated natural selection.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most IDists aren't pushing for the classroom, and Darwin's time moved slower than ours but they pushed soon enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alright...then can you explain to me why no ID organization...or scientists has every advocated NOT teaching ID in school?

Plus, and lets not get confused here...Evolutionary Theory was pushed....many decades later...after it was established scientific principle...and only against BANS on its teaching.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 04 2006,18:21

[quote=tacitus,Feb. 04 2006,23:06][/quote]
Tacitus,

OK, I'm trying the quotes manually--



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
avocationist, I'm not sure it's going to be useful to continue our discussion since we appear to be completely incompatible  worldviews.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



People with differing world views cannot communicate? Are you a Christian? Have I offended you?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I read your comments about ID, evolution, faith, and even Christianity, I can only even begin to find them consistent if I look at them from your highly specific system of beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd like to think that's because I think for myself.  It looks like you're saying I'm inconsistent. How so?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My comment was that Dembski himself keeps undermining that argument by republishing quotes from collegues, friends, and others which directly contradicts that argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You asked how IDists can claim moral superiority when they do not identify a designer or his/her motivations.  But I answered that while ID itself is just a design inference that does not identify a designer, that many or most IDists do believe in God and take the position that materialist philosophy is not good for society.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for your argument that theistic evolutionists are simply confused IDists, well, that can only be true *if* your own personal idea of what God is, is true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Perhaps, but if there is a God, that God is the source of all existence. One might suppose that God, being the source of all existence, is some guy who sat separately and did nothing, and that the evolution of life was no more likely to happen than not. Perhaps he was bemused or surprised. But essentially, this is nonsense. The existence of God, as different from just particles and chemicals, changes everything. One simply cannot speak of life or the universe being an accident. I mean, look, Ken Miller is Catholic. He believes, presumably, in a God who has interefered in this accidental place and even plans to judge people and send most of them to ####. How can a God who took no part in an accidentally evolving humanity judge them as deserving punishment or reward? The notion seems absurd.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the broader sense, since evolution does not address "life from non-life" there is plenty of leeway for a Christian to believe in a God who kicked everything off according to a plan and let evolution happen. Who are you to define someone else's faith?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You say it doesn't address abiogenesis, but so many are pinning their hopes on it. But as to God kicking everything off according to plan, in what way is that not ID?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who are you to define someone else's faith?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What I was defining is evolution as defined by many well-known spokepersons. Such as Ken Millers textbooks, which he has revised but used to say that evolution is a random and unguided process, as well as what someone over at uncommon descent calls the Weisel 38 document.
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 04 2006,18:54

keiths saying you guess password after I tell is like stock trade chatters claim to buy stock after they know it go up so they look good...after-the-fact trader we call...in future if you want be believed give password before everyone else know it

avocationist time to leave here...you too good is what they mean to say in "further discussion not profitable"...not profitable for /them/
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 04 2006,19:00

[quote=PuckSR,Feb. 04 2006,23:08][/quote]
Puck,

Most IDists believe the designer is God. It could be someone else. My understanding of what theistic evolutionists believe is either that God guided the process throughout in various unknown ways, or perhaps they think he was a bit more hands-off, but obviously gave rise to a system capable of evolving life.  But I just am missing who is cheating about what and where. Do you mean ID versus theistic evolution? I do not see a real difference.

You say the new data is in the same category as the old. Pehaps, but we have data that is so much more detailed and compelling than we had even acouple of decades or so ago. You might say, that Paley's watch argument has been strengthened.

I think there's data besides the watchmaker. Do you think the complex specified infomation stuff is more Paley's? I think Meyer made some good points in his paper about the difficulty in creating new body plans and we seem to be on the edge right now of even realizing how little we do know about epigenetic factors in embryo development. I recently read Denton's first book. I was surprised that it isn't out of date and he had some things in there I could perhaps look up. I thought his book was excellent and brought out several cateogories of argument. And he is an agnostic so far as I know. I read Wells book a couple of years ago, specifically because he presented himself as nonreligous or agnostic, but it looks like he kinda lied. I'm perturbed about that.

I tend not to like determinism, but there are certainly good arguments in its favor. I'm not sure the dice are a good example. I suppose that there are physical reasons why each die does exactly what it does. The question is whether our consciousness can make choices and of course thereby alter future events.

But I perceive you find the idea of guided evolution too much like determinism. I don't think it needs to be. If it makes you feel better, I find the idea of a God who subverts the laws of nature to accomplish his ends boring, uninspiring, silly, and illogical. And any other bad thing I can think of.

Of course if something does not involve God that leaves atheism! Or are you arguing for a God who exists somewhere but has nothing to do with the universe!? I tell you man, that's impossible.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you remove the term "God" from ID...and suggest that a form of intelligence is responsible for all creation....then you basically just advocated natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It just won't work. Random mutation isn't capable. Find more mechanisms. That one won't do.

The Discovery Institute does not advocate for ID to be taught in classrooms. They say it isn't mature enough for that. They would like the persecution to stop at least at the university level.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 04 2006,19:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
avocationist time to leave here...you too good is what they mean to say in "further discussion not profitable"...not profitable for /them/
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I'm not welcome at UD any more. Who will talk to me?
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 04 2006,19:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
keiths saying you guess password after I tell is like stock trade chatters claim to buy stock after they know it go up so they look good...after-the-fact trader we call...in future if you want be believed give password before everyone else know it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Phishy, it was Inoculated Mind who guessed the password, not me.  And somehow I suspect his self-esteem will survive your disbelief.

As for guessing the password, come on.  We're talking about DaveScot here.  The password was guaranteed to be something hostile, childish, and anti-Darwinian.  Inoculated Mind just followed the evidence where it led...
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 04 2006,19:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps, but if there is a God, that God is the source of all existence. One might suppose that God, being the source of all existence, is some guy who sat separately and did nothing, and that the evolution of life was no more likely to happen than not. Perhaps he was bemused or surprised. But essentially, this is nonsense. The existence of God, as different from just particles and chemicals, changes everything. One simply cannot speak of life or the universe being an accident. I mean, look, Ken Miller is Catholic. He believes, presumably, in a God who has interefered in this accidental place and even plans to judge people and send most of them to ####. How can a God who took no part in an accidentally evolving humanity judge them as deserving punishment or reward? The notion seems absurd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, I agree with you there, but then I find religious concepts in general to be pretty much unbelievable--I am an unbeliever. I am willing to admit that I do not know why we are here (over and above blind chance and the unguided processes of evolution) but I find the concept of personal God as defined in the Bible (or any other religious text I've come across) to be deeply unsatisfying.

However, the important point is that it doesn't matter what you and I believe. Ken Miller and millions of other Christians quite happily reconcile their faith with evolution.

By the way, you haven't offended me. I was merely suggesting that there was little profit in continuing our discussion since we appear to be so diametrically opposed.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Feb. 04 2006,23:13

phishyphred said:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
saying you guess password after I tell is like stock trade chatters claim to buy stock after they know it go up so they look good...after-the-fact trader we call...in future if you want be believed give password before everyone else know it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Phishy, I figured out the password before DaveScot added those two updates to the page, and John Davison had not yet posted. I didn't read your divulging the password on UD, it was here that I heard that the password had been leaked.

You can take my word as a scientist that I am not lying, I did figure out the password, reasoning that DaveScot set it up, and he has a simplistic, caustic style to him. Unfortunately I didn't mail a self-addressed envelope to myself so that I could prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. If I had told everyone I knew the password before it was leaked, that would have spoiled the spying, now wouldn't it?

Oh well, its not like DaveScot and John Davison haven't ruined their reputations already...
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 05 2006,05:44

keiths sorry for mistake...you look all alike to me

inocu latte mind sure sure you guess password before I say and I buy amazon for $1 and sell for $1000...we are after the fact genius with flawless hindsight!
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 05 2006,05:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the important point is that it doesn't matter what you and I believe. Ken Miller and millions of other Christians quite happily reconcile their faith with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



People quite happily do but why shouldn't I examine their systems for the many logical flaws and inconsistencies, especially when there is so much mischief abroad?

You seem to have a much better handle on where I'm coming from than vice versa. Other than I'm an IDist but you expected that. And I am not politically correct toward human nonsense including my own.

It seems to me Buddhism in its purest forms does not speak of a personal God at all and is highly intellectual and abstract. Very useful. Taoism is similar.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 05 2006,05:55

DaveScot is persuing common descent again. Or maybe not. Or maybe. It gets all confused in the comments. One thing's for sure. No one else on the site is happy with the idea.

< Common Descent or Common Design? >
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 05 2006,06:04

:05-->
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 05 2006,01:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
avocationist time to leave here...you too good is what they mean to say in "further discussion not profitable"...not profitable for /them/
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I'm not welcome at UD any more. Who will talk to me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, I don't think that counts as an official, DaveScot-style banning.  ;)
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 05 2006,06:58

I never said I was banned, but it was clear I had become unwelcome. My posts were being deleted.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 05 2006,07:22

Avocationist

Must just correct you on thinking that evolution is a random process. Whilst mutations are random, natural selection is most definitely not random. Those organisms that survive best in their particular environment are the ones whose genes pass on their "fitness". This non-random selection is where information is increased and where Dembski's talking of random walks fails at undermining evolution.
Posted by: Caledonian on Feb. 05 2006,07:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ken Miller and millions of other Christians quite happily reconcile their faith with evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 And they quite happily compromise their intellectual integrity in the process.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 05 2006,08:02

Dave Springer really should look up Ad Hominem. It does not mean, what he thinks it means.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Red Reader- I know this might be tough for you, since you seem to reside is a Bizarro universe of logic, governed by the equation (zero original peer-reviewed research supporting ID) + (plenty of original peer-reviewed research debunking the irreducible complexity hypothesis) = (overwhelming scientific support for ID). But leaving that larger and oh so boring issue aside, and focusing on the article spawning this thread, my point is quite simple. If you think that the linked article provides scientific evidence for ID, I have every reason to doubt your reading skills and/or your critical thinking ability. At least you still have the ability to laugh at yourself. Enjoy the game today.

This was dj’s final answer. dj and his ad hominem vomitus are no longer with us. May they live happily together elsewhere.

Comment by dj — February 5, 2006 @ 10:30 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 05 2006,08:14

It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.

Only the 6-day people believe in no kind of evolution at all.

Therefore, whether we believe that this entire shebang was frontloaded at the big bang, whether we believe every particle was predetermined at the start, whether we believe that there was relative freedom in how things turn out, whether the front-loader inserted one or several common ancestors, whether we think evolution is ongoing or has in fact finished -- all these are subarguments.

So if Puck is right that evolution is agnostic, or that evolution takes no position upon the genesis of first life or the universe for that matter, then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 05 2006,08:21

Here's a delicious bit from Uncommon Pissant

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, I am more than halfway through “Of Pandas and People” and it is wonderful.

It seems boggling to me that anyone could think that the universe had no intelligent creator. We are fully capable of feeling the holy spirit. Shouldn’t the fact that this is repeatable and testable be included in “Science”?

Comment by Artist in training — February 5, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No religion there.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 05 2006,09:09

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2006,14:02)
Dave Springer really should look up Ad Hominem. It does not mean, what he thinks it means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most people these days seem to think 'ad hominem' means 'said something mean'.

DaveSpringer of all people should be a little more restrained about throwing around that accusation...
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 05 2006,09:20

Yeah, calling an insult an ad hominem is just uneducated people trying to sound smart-like.
Posted by: Flint on Feb. 05 2006,09:33

Although the error can be more subtle than might appear on the surface. Granted that DaveScot being a dunce doesn't directly refute any particular claim he makes. However, the knowledge that someone is a hardcore involuntary creationist DOES influence how his statements might be interpreted in a general sense.

And in DaveScot's world, calling someone an idiot is 'ad hominem' ONLY when DaveScot agrees with the idiot. When DaveScot agrees with the name-caller, then of course the idiot label is an objective fact-based observation.

I wonder how he'd respond to the statement that "you're dumber than manure and you're lucky you look better with your head up your ass, BUT in this particular case you happen to be right"?
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 05 2006,09:40

Avocationist, in response to a suggestion that he had tacitly accepted "natural selection":

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It just won't work. Random mutation isn't capable. Find more mechanisms. That one won't do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's important to keep your terms straight. "natural selection" and "random mutation" are two completely separate things. When you say "random mutation isn't capable": capable of what? Incapable of supplying the raw material for natural selection to act on? What evidence do you rely on, other than your personal incredulity? And when you say "random mutation", are you talking just about point mutations, or are you including chromosomal rearrangements, transpositions, duplications, etc.?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 05 2006,09:40

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 05 2006,14:14)
It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.

Only the 6-day people believe in no kind of evolution at all.

Therefore, whether we believe that this entire shebang was frontloaded at the big bang, whether we believe every particle was predetermined at the start, whether we believe that there was relative freedom in how things turn out, whether the front-loader inserted one or several common ancestors, whether we think evolution is ongoing or has in fact finished -- all these are subarguments.

So if Puck is right that evolution is agnostic, or that evolution takes no position upon the genesis of first life or the universe for that matter, then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution (in the normal biological sense) says nothing about the Universe.

It simply says, that all species on the planet have a common ancester (or words to that effect).

Dogs do not give birth to cats, chimps do not give birth to humans.

A species gives birth to it's own species, but some "children" are slightly different to their "parents".

Some of these differences are selected for. Become bigger differences over time etc.

Geographical seperation of creatures of the same species can accelerate differentiation between offspring of the divided species.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 05 2006,09:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Correct...basically.  ID posits that God is actively involved in the evolutionary process.

Theistic Evolution-God created evolution....therefore God still created you...just in a less direct sense.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This addresses a serious misconception about the use of naturalism in science.  

If i tell you that water has suddenly started flowing out of a rock.....how would you explain it?

Would you attribute it to the same phenomenon that is reported in the bible....or would you attempt to find a natural source for the water?

You would most likely try and find a natural source for the water.

You may not find one...and at that point you may attribute it to a supernatural cause.

Science, however, always attempts to find the natural solution.  They may never find one....and that would validate your belief in a supernatural cause.....but because they learn nothing from a supernatural cause....they will always strive to learn more.

You cannot fault science for taking this approach.  If you do fault science for assuming a naturalistic world...then you are faulting them for being skeptical.
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 05 2006,11:43

open mouth insert foot...(up to knee)

< http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/adhominem.html >

(ad HOM-uh-nem, ad HOM-uh-nuhm) A Latin expression meaning “to the man.” An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 05 2006,12:35

who stuck his foot in his mouth?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 06 2006,04:33

JAD and Dave Springer are fighting over at Uncommon Descent:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/781#comments >
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 06 2006,04:38

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 05 2006,14:14)
It depends on what we mean by evolution. The main argument is between the big idea that this whole universe is material only, so that all aggregations into star systems and life systems are unplanned and unguided verus the possibility that there is a God-like being. Once there is a God, all else below that can never be unplanned and unguided in the same sense.

Only the 6-day people believe in no kind of evolution at all.

Therefore, whether we believe that this entire shebang was frontloaded at the big bang, whether we believe every particle was predetermined at the start, whether we believe that there was relative freedom in how things turn out, whether the front-loader inserted one or several common ancestors, whether we think evolution is ongoing or has in fact finished -- all these are subarguments.

So if Puck is right that evolution is agnostic, or that evolution takes no position upon the genesis of first life or the universe for that matter, then the arguments here between Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent amount to arguments over process and mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What you are describing is the differences between atheism and theism.  But, I thought this was about science, and not religion?  All science, evolution included, is about finding the natural explanation for things using natural methods.  It's called methodological naturalism.  It's an explicit admission that we have no supernatural methods and we have no way to figure out supernatural means or entities.  If you have a way of using a supernatural method or proving the existence of the supernatural, by all means provide it.

Also, if you want to be intellectually honest, you should not limit your criticisms to evolution.  By your definition, all science is atheistic, since no science includes god.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 06 2006,04:49

I ventured over to the ATBC page on UD and found this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a place for me to send messages to the peanut gallery at After The Bar Closes since Wesley banned me there. Plus it just tickles my fancy knowing you ATBC clowns will have to type “darwinsucks” to get to it.

02/01/06 I’m still the blog czar. Whoever bet end of January just lost. As JAD would say “Who is next?”

02/04/06 Wesley Dingleberry discovers and bans unsecure/open proxies. Oh bother! Back to dynamic IPs to get around it.  

Filed under: Education — DaveScot @ 8:50 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How juvenile.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 06 2006,05:20

Uhoh - DS just upset JAD again - and JAD implies that he's quitting:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I love that “case closed” DaveScot. That is a beauty. I’ll give it my careful consideration. I would of course consider an apology. That is the kind of a remark that has no place anywhere in a forum presumably concerned with a phenomenon that has never been observed. Have a nice forum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(However I would be shocked if JAD really has left for good).
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 06 2006,06:31

Quote (GCT @ Feb. 06 2006,10:49)
I ventured over to the ATBC page on UD and found this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a place for me to send messages to the peanut gallery at After The Bar Closes since Wesley banned me there. Plus it just tickles my fancy knowing you ATBC clowns will have to type “darwinsucks” to get to it.

02/01/06 I’m still the blog czar. Whoever bet end of January just lost. As JAD would say “Who is next?”

02/04/06 Wesley Dingleberry discovers and bans unsecure/open proxies. Oh bother! Back to dynamic IPs to get around it.  

Filed under: Education — DaveScot @ 8:50 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How juvenile.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What must it be like to be an IDC freak who takes himself seriously and who realizes that buffoons like this are the best they can do? That this is THE best 'science blog' that IDC has? In the back of their brains, aren't they embarrassed to realize their side can't do any better than this?

And yet they stick with them anyway and keep coming back.

I know, they deserve each other.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 06 2006,06:50

"Cosmo Theorist" Dr. Raj Baldev just made his third appearance on Uncommon Descent, this time posted by a new moderator named Scott:
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/784 >

Don't these guys ever learn from each other's mistakes?
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 06 2006,07:06

The post has been deleted, but I saved the link to the article on "Dr." Raj Baldev:

< http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=854 >

Some choice excerpts:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The Earth is one, the Sun is one, the Moon of the Earth is one, our Solar System is one, the ID behind the entire set up is also one. Only those people can conceive and decipher this truth, who have a particular positive gene in them."

"Please don’t run away from the truth of the Intelligent Design (ID) which is the original and all pervading creating force. It cannot be denied so easily by any needless logic."

"The impression of not supporting the ID openly by you is a dishonest act, this may simply suggest your inferiority complex, which in fact you don’t have. If you have clear faith based on your personal tested experiences that there is some power behind everything, then there should be no shirking from hiding the truth."

"If you stand determined by the right position of the ID, it shall not make you practically inferior than the scientists of any discipline in any sense since faith is an undoubted power of man and not his frailty."

"Don’t lose your moral strength under any scientific argument against ID.  Never think that may fail to prove the existence of Intelligent Design (ID). It is very much there."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 06 2006,09:00

post 784 has been deleted, apparently. anyone got a copy? i can't find one this time.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 06 2006,09:07

Anyone here want to write a script which will surf uncommon descent every few hours and save the pages, so that we still have them after the Orwellians try to shove them down the memory hole?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 06 2006,09:54

LOL. They post, then think, then delete. But never seem to learn from mistakes.

You would think that people who are concerned with societies moral decay would be more honest. Or maybe they are lying about that as well.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 06 2006,09:57

Score! Ed Brayton linked to Andrea Bottaro's copy of the missing post:


< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/upload/2006/02/Raj%20baldev.htm >
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 06 2006,10:01

They get nuttier and nuttier. One day, DaveScot's going to see something he wrote, get pissed, and ban himself.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 06 2006,11:04

Russell,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Avocationist, in response to a suggestion that he had tacitly accepted "natural selection":It just won't work. Random mutation isn't capable. Find more mechanisms. That one won't do.It's important to keep your terms straight. "natural selection" and "random mutation" are two completely separate things. When you say "random mutation isn't capable": capable of what? Incapable of supplying the raw material for natural selection to act on? What evidence do you rely on, other than your personal incredulity? And when you say "random mutation", are you talking just about point mutations, or are you including chromosomal rearrangements, transpositions, duplications, etc.?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are right I wasn't  being clear. Puck said that if we admit that an intelligence that is less than the Supreme created life forms, that I have admitted natural selection. But natural selection is a completely passive form of intelligence. And random mutation is not even a passive form of intelligence. I think both are inadequate to their tasks. Of course things get more interesting as we learn about more mechanisms. Many things that go on during meiosis appear very active and intelligent. I read a little about transpositions, rearrangements, etc., but I had a hard time differentiating what we actually know about them versus the conjecture that has been added. So, I just don't know enough about those other mechanisms, except that they appear to be candidates for ID.

I value my personal incredulity a lot, don't you? I can't imagine doing without it.
*******************
Stephen Elliott,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It simply says, that all species on the planet have a common ancester (or words to that effect).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well later evidence shows this isn't quite true, but I'm not sure how important a point this is.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Geographical seperation of creatures of the same species can accelerate differentiation between offspring of the divided species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it's conjecture that this can lead to new species.
************************
PUCK,

I did answer a previous post which you may not have seen. It's in about the middle of the now page 14.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If i tell you that water has suddenly started flowing out of a rock.....how would you explain it?

Would you attribute it to the same phenomenon that is reported in the bible....or would you attempt to find a natural source for the water?

You would most likely try and find a natural source for the water.

You may not find one...and at that point you may attribute it to a supernatural cause.

Science, however, always attempts to find the natural solution.  They may never find one....and that would validate your belief in a supernatural cause.....but because they learn nothing from a supernatural cause....they will always strive to learn more.

You cannot fault science for taking this approach.  If you do fault science for assuming a naturalistic world...then you are faulting them for being skeptical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My approach is a little different. And this speaks also to the remarks of GCT. Of course there are no supernatural scientific methods and of course I cannot fault science for taking the approach that they use. The thing is I see no need for the word 'natural' because there is so little meaning to the word supernatural.
Let us say I cannot find a natural explanation for the water. Does that mean it was supernatural? Well, it might mean that some other being caused it, or that sometimes human beings (Moses for example) tap into some forces in nature that we had hitherto not known about. Should our dogs regard our actions as supernatural because they cannot fathom how we did them? By this type of definition of supernatural, we have already entered the realm of supernatural beinghood as compared to ourselves millenia ago, or even hundreds of years ago.

The only question about any phenomenon is how did it occur. That it occured by some utterly coherent process is without doubt. The only question for science is whether our tools will come to understand it. I tend to be very optimistic that it will. When the word supernatural is used, in most minds it means magic. I think there is resistance on the part of many scientists to accepting a spiritual reality because they think it means: acceptance of incoherent goings-on in the universe; submitting to an unlikeable God.

I don't care if your fairy godmother waves her wand and a coach and six appear. If she did it, it was within the laws of nature. We must figure out how it was done.

It isn't that I fault science for being skeptical, it's that I fault people for thinking that the alternative to methodical investigation is to assign magic. This is equally so for religionists and atheists. I fault them for thinking that the existence of God is in any way opposed to nature and how nature works. In other words, there's no "either-or"
No one phenomenon is more natural or supernatural than another. Our reality has much depth to it, and we are investigating its depths and parameters. Reality is all of a piece and ultimately there cannot be separations into different realms called natural and supernatural - there can only be ignorance that creates what appear to be gaps.
***************
GCT,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, I thought this was about science, and not religion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, I'm new here and I do not want to be annoying. Problem is the topic comes up all the time. I think its unavoidable because the core of this whole debate is about whether we live in a purely material universe or not. There's no way really to discuss ID or evolution as understood by many of its most famous proponents without taking atheism/theism into account.

My biggest interest is more philosophical, about the nature of reality itself, conscousness, and what human beings are doing with themselves. I see that it is very hard for most people to approach truth objectively because their emotions  color their motives.

To me it appears that there is a blockage in ability to communicate because for many on the 'scientific' side religion is repugnant to them. I find good reasons for that.
In my opinion, Christianity is stuck in the dark ages, and is only beginning to think about moving out. On the other hand, many in the scientific community, reacting to that primitiveness, are in a state of suspended animation in their ability to find more useful ways to think about reality.

Time for the deer to move out of the headlights.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 06 2006,11:15

Can you tell us what a purely material universe is?  

Can you tell us what a universe that is a mixture of material and non-material stuff is?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 06 2006,11:21

Well when one says hey this is so complicated a space alien,  or time traveler, or god mustadoneit aint science and it's bad theory.  

First you find the god/space alient/time tarveler and learn all you can about him/her/it.  THEN you can poke around and make theories about what he/she/it might have done, but the IC or specified nonsense argument is plain dumb.  It's retarded thinking.  At least selling it as science is dumb but I'll admit it makes great 3am bull session material, well when you're philosophizing with a bong in hand that is.

Here is the facts - we don't know anything about any gods, space aliens or time travelers and until we do sitting around asserting one of those fellows contributed something to human biology is dumber than dumb, it's intellectual retardation.

Pardon me for being so un-pc but I am sick to my stomach from listening to the moronic "philosophy" of ID cultists and apologists.

Behe's whining today put me over the top...What a bunch of misguided, misinformed, cry babies.
Posted by: Flint on Feb. 06 2006,11:35

avocationist:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But natural selection is a completely passive form of intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Agreed.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And random mutation is not even a passive form of intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but it is not represented as one. Mutations are the food selection consumes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think both are inadequate to their tasks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

They work together. Food won't contribute to your growth unless you eat it. So the eater is required. But if you have no food, your capability to grow won't be realized. So the food is required. It's a tandem process.

So you're right, neither *by itself* is adequate to the task.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't care if your fairy godmother waves her wand and a coach and six appear. If she did it, it was within the laws of nature. We must figure out how it was done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, exactly so. In practice, 'supernatural' seems to have two meanings. As an explanation, it means "I don't understand how this works, but I can't bring myself to admit ignorance." As a pacifier, it means "anything you want for which there is no evidence (or for which the very real evidence is something you can successfully ignore) is *really true*, because nobody can prove me wrong."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By this type of definition of supernatural, we have already entered the realm of supernatural beinghood as compared to ourselves millenia ago, or even hundreds of years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My reading of scripture is exactly thus. Stuff happened. Nobody understood it. Nobody admitted igorance. Instead, they made up gods and magical forces. They lived in a "demon haunted world" full of spirits and miracles, omens and portents, deep mystical purposes imposed by forces beyond our ken.

To manipulate their environment (and what is more human?) under these conditions, they projected gods as being like super-people, able to leap tall buildings, or at least control weather and confer immortality, all while remaining invisible. But because the gods WERE human, despite all these magical powers, we could manipulate nature by manipulating the gods. And even then, humans were highly skilled at manipulating other humans - through flattery (prayer), bribes (sacrifices), and deals (I'll worship you if you rain on my crops).

Today, this doesn't work anymore. Now we believe we actually need to *understand* stuff. And some of the stuff is pretty complicated. What a headache.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 06 2006,11:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...about transpositions, rearrangements, etc., but ...I just don't know enough about those other mechanisms, except that they appear to be candidates for ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, I guess the more one doesn't know about a given phenomenon, the better a candidate for ID it appears. From my perspective, these all look like pretty random phenomena.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I value my personal incredulity a lot, don't you? I can't imagine doing without it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Indeed. But you can't base a logical argument on it, let alone a scientific theory.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 06 2006,12:54

Avocationist-

I have to congratulate you....I was working my way up to using Hume...and you beat me to it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Puck said that if we admit that an intelligence that is less than the Supreme created life forms, that I have admitted natural selection. But natural selection is a completely passive form of intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You didnt specify, and I dont believe any IDist specifies, the form of Intelligence necessary for ID.  Going back to Paley's watch....watches nowadays could be designed, tested, and manufactured without any human interference.  The computer programs necessary for this would most likely have to be written by a human....but that is just an analog for Theistic Evolution.  The only difference between the watchmaker analogy and evolution is that the watchmaker requires a certain product...Evolution does not require any particular end.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let us say I cannot find a natural explanation for the water. Does that mean it was supernatural? Well, it might mean that some other being caused it, or that sometimes human beings (Moses for example) tap into some forces in nature that we had hitherto not known about. Should our dogs regard our actions as supernatural because they cannot fathom how we did them? By this type of definition of supernatural, we have already entered the realm of supernatural beinghood as compared to ourselves millenia ago, or even hundreds of years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aye, there's the rub....

You got it exactly....We shouldnt regard the unknown as supernatural.  We should continue to seek "natural" explanations of phenomenon.  We know that the world has to be natural.

Now, here is the problem with ID.  
Evolutionary Theory claims things evolve over time.  It suggests the method and the means for evolution.  Scientists constantly strive to refine our understanding of the methods of evolution...i.e. natural selection
Intelligent Design claims that an Intelligent Agent designed life in some form....either directly or ?indirectly?.  It doesnt say anything about how ....it only claims that "something" caused us to evolve.
All of ID theory is based around detecting the "Designer".  In ID the "Designer" is the theory.

Let us go back to the rock in the desert.
If a regular Evolutionary Theory Scientist was there....we would attempt to discover the source of the water..the pathway the water took.  He would ask about the "how".

An IDist would claim that water was flowing from the rock.  He would claim that something caused the water to flow from the rock.  Then he would pronounce that "Something" has caused the water to come out of the rock.  He would then seek to prove that the water could not flow out of the rock suddenly without a catalyst.  He would ask the "who"

The difference is....we all know that "something" caused the water to flow out of the rock.  A catalyst was most likely necessary.  The problem is that the IDist is ignoring "how" the water is flowing out of the rock.  It doesnt further our understanding at all to claim that "something" caused something else.  It furthers our understanding when we try to figure out "how" "something" caused something else.

Who is a  great question for philosophy...and that is why I keep mentioning it.  ID is a wonderful philosophical viewpoint.  It is one that is shared by many rationalists...and includes the Catholic Church.  It is not a very good scientific viewpoint....because it never bothers to ask how?

Science right now believes that Evolution occurs because of natural selection.  If evidence, not sheer probability pointed towards an entity controlling evolution...science would have problem theorizing one.

Let me explain...if we kept finding organisms that were not well-suited to their environment(if polar animals froze to death all of the time)...that would indicate natural selection had flaws.

If we kept finding that organisms were perfectly designed...such as a complete lack of vestigial organs....or more efficient design...we would suggest some interference.  

Right now, however, organisms seem designed...but not horribly well-designed.  You have to remember that natural selection is a design algorithm.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 06 2006,13:44

LOL. Slate magazine:

Galileo and
the Intelligent
Design Wackjobs
Who Love Him


You can bet the Disco Institute's Media/Judge Complaints Department will be whinging about that.

You should read the article, if you haven't, it's good

< Slate ID article >
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 06 2006,16:07

Serious Question....and Im not trying to insult you in the least avocationist.

Avocationist and DaveScot seem to be fairly distant from ID.  They seem to accept most of the science of evolution.  They only take issue with the finer details of mutation and adaptation.  

I would like to know why they support ID as a scientific endeavor.  I fully understand their support for the philosophical side of ID....but why ID(besides the fact that it refutes Evolutionary Theory)?
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 06 2006,17:01

keiths,
Re "Don't these guys ever learn from each other's mistakes?"

Wouldn't they need to start by learning from their own mistakes, first? ;)

Henry
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 06 2006,20:48

Guthrie,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you tell us what a purely material universe is?  

Can you tell us what a universe that is a mixture of material and non-material stuff is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fine questions. A purely material universe means the  universe as understood by the philosophy of materialism; in which matter is understood in its commonest sense as "just stuff" eternally existing and without any needed component of mind or consciousness or God.

As to material and non-material I have wondered this same question. Although the spiritual has been traditionally spoken of as nonmaterial, I am unable to understand how something can exist and not be in any way material and how it can interact with matter. But I do not know physics and I don't even understand the expression "massless particle." Anyway, I strongly consider that what has been called non-material simply means an ultrafine level of materiality and the innermost dimensions. So it could be a smooth continuum. On the other hand, the Existence-Principle (God) must be fundamentally existent and therefore invulnerable, which matter by definition is vulnerable.
***********
Flint,

What I'm saying is I don't believe random mutation can account for much and isn't able to provide enough good raw material for natural selection to work on.

I think it is a bit of a red herring to accuse those who believe in the supernatural of pleading ignorance of a type that would hinder science. Did belief in a divine author stop Newton from discovering laws of planetary motion?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My reading of scripture is exactly thus. Stuff happened. Nobody understood it. Nobody admitted igorance. Instead, they made up gods and magical forces.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, but I do not automatically disbelieve in all miracles. What I'm saying is that people are overawed and come to wrong conclusions about them. For example, I am very sure I have seen ESP in action. I do not call it a miracle or supernatural. I know there is a way it works, we just don't know how yet.
***************************
Russell,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, I guess the more one doesn't know about a given phenomenon, the better a candidate for ID it appears. From my perspective, these all look like pretty random phenomena.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Well then in that case I can't discuss it intelligently at this time. I'll keep it in mind.
******************
Puck,

What argument of Hume's did I present? I'm not very familiar with him.
You speak of distantly designed watches. Haven't you been to Telic Thoughts? Don't you know Mike Gene and others are intersted in front-loading? I know you guys have some unfriendly history with JAD, but he believes in frontloading also, only he doesn't allow for much freedom in what turns up. Denton's last book, Nature's destiny, is all about front-loading and also speaks to your other comment, about not requiring a particular end product. Now, I would tend to prefer that interpretation, but I think Denton does a good job of showing that freedom does operate within quite a few constraints. There are probably laws about what sorts of body plans can actually come forth, with gaps between them. And he also talks a lot about how most features we humans possess would be required for us to have the powers we do. Things like our approximate size, bipedal locomotion, free hands with opposable thumbs, forward looking vision - that's what I remember. Without those, we would not have had the strength to create big enough fires to bring on the iron age and smelt metals, for one example.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An IDist would claim that ...something caused the water to flow from the rock... He would then seek to prove that the water could not flow out of the rock suddenly without a catalyst.  He would ask the "who"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, but don't you see that the important difference has already occurred, whether he can answer the who or not. The IDist knows it took an intent to make water come out of a rock because nature won't do that unaided. And the Darwinist is arguing that it must have come out unaided, because that's what it looks like to him and if he considers an intentional being did it that isn't science.
Again, I think it's a red herring to claim that because we might consider God did it we will stop investigating nature. Nothing will stop the engine of science now except global totalitarianism, fundamentalism or catastrophe.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, here is the problem with ID.  
Evolutionary Theory claims things evolve over time.  It suggests the method and the means for evolution.  Scientists constantly strive to refine our understanding of the methods of evolution...i.e. natural selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So basically, ID finds mutation and selection inadequate, and also does not find evidence for gradualism, in fact on the contrary sees evidence for relatively sudden appearances. It does not look mathematically probable that randomness can produce what Darwinists say it does.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All of ID theory is based around detecting the "Designer".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, it is really based around detecting signs of intelligence as opposed to random processes.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It doesnt further our understanding at all to claim that "something" caused something else.  It furthers our understanding when we try to figure out "how" "something" caused something else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I disagree. If we cannot even come to a strong conclusion that we are dealing with a designed or undesigned phenomenon then our world is more confusing than I'd like to think it is. But while it helps to know that, it is of course only the beginning of inquiry.
Nothing like getting off on the right foot.
You state that ID doesn't bother to ask how. Strictly speaking, ID is a design inference and nothing more. ID is not a full-fledged theory of life. Perhaps it can be, or perhaps it will become a piece of one. ID is simply a different conclusion from the same data, and may help evolution theory go off in some new directions. Because it is a different conclusion based upon the same data, the complaints that it isn't science or doesn't do research are actually empty. All it needs is qualified people who can be involved with/understand current research and come to the design inference.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If evidence, not sheer probability pointed towards an entity controlling evolution...science would have problem theorizing one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I presume you meant to say science would have NO problem theorizing one? If that is the case, I can only say you might be naive. Many scientists precisely find this repugnant. Also, I'm confused - from your posts I am gathering that you accept theistic evolution. And you think there are no visible clues?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me explain...if we kept finding organisms that were not well-suited to their environment(if polar animals froze to death all of the time)...that would indicate natural selection had flaws.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Puck, no one disputes that natural selection is at work. Like the ability to feel pain, life could not exist as we know it without it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we kept finding that organisms were perfectly designed...such as a complete lack of vestigial organs....or more efficient design...we would suggest some interference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't know that I could locate but Dembski and others have made some good arguments against the tendency to decide what a perfect designer would do. Some of these thoughts, in my opinion, come from the same childish tendency to ascribe to a God, even a God one doesn't believe in, magical powers. I have a much more organic conception of how God and nature fit together. I think of it as an ongoing project.

Your final question:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They seem to accept most of the science of evolution.  They only take issue with the finer details of mutation and adaptation.  

I would like to know why they support ID as a scientific endeavor.  I fully understand their support for the philosophical side of ID....but why ID(besides the fact that it refutes Evolutionary Theory)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't know that I do accept most of the science of evolution. I don't think there's much evidence that small changes lead to new species. I thought Meyer's paper was good and brought out how much we don't know about body plans, epigenetic factors in embryonic development and how difficult it is to bring about large changes because many simultaneous steps would be needed in order to not destroy the organism. Parts all work together and would need to be modified together.

I've been interested in this topic for about 7 or 8 years, and yet I never heard the phrase 'intelligent design' until maybe a year ago.  Intelligent design just gives a name to the obvious. I don't think of it as a discrete scientific endeavor, really, but as a working assumption it could lead to better discoveries. Mainly, I find it a problem when people have the working assumption that design is ruled out. That's hubris.
And why would I separate philosophy from science? If I think something is philosophically true (God exists) I would expect to find clues to that in science, in nature, in reality. And if I can't, then the science is yet primitive or my philosophy is wrong.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Feb. 06 2006,20:54

Phishy, I think nothing will satisfy you, and that doesn't matter to me much. Feel free to think what you like.
And thanks for spoiling my spying fun. :(
***
Back to the conversation.
"You got it exactly....We shouldnt regard the unknown as supernatural.  We should continue to seek "natural" explanations of phenomenon.  We know that the world has to be natural."

I had a thought on this the other day. "Supernatural" seems to be the refuge of the untestable and unobservable. I think it follows that if something "supernatural" could interact with matter, then it could be studied, in principle.

For example, lets assume the whole intelligent design thing. But contrary to what they say, you can indeed infer about the nature of the designer from the design. (They really mean we don't talk about it except in churches or during fundraising.)

In order to conclude that the designer was supreme, perfect, or a "master designer" as Dembski would put it, we would need to have artifacts that would be characteristic of the skills of a perfect designer. Granted, a perfect designer could purposely make bad designs, as a master chess player could make bad moves on purpose, but there would be no reason to conlclude that they are masters of their crafts.
But life as it exists is full of examples of really bad design. So many people have trumpted this that I'm sure you can all name 20 examples off the top of your heads. Anyway, these 'designs' would be characteristic of incompetent, wicked, or designers whose budgets ran out too soon.
I contend that if you can call the designer "intelligent" or "One smart cookie" as Behe once said, then you can conclude that it was questionably intelligent, downright inane, or powerful but evil. Or maybe one of each?

I would charge that the fact that IDists say that intelligent design cannot identify the designer is because they know full well that if they did consider the 'designs' in question as evidence of the level of intelligence of this designer, that they will realize that it no longer points towards the god of their religion, which is supposed to be perfect.

As a final note, Behe said in court that the only thing that could be concluded about the designer was that it intended to create the structures in question. As the cross-examining lawyer pointed out, how can you know that without knowing the identity of the designer? The fact is, it could have been a bumbling idiot of a designer, and meant to create a microscopic drill bit... and with a little miscalculation, they created a flagellum. And then an accident in the alien laboratory in the upper atmosphere allows the butt-propellor-equipped cell to escape and wreak havoc. Oops, says the "designer."

Returning to reality...
Posted by: Renier on Feb. 06 2006,21:22

To avocationist :



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And why would I separate philosophy from science? If I think something is philosophically true (God exists) I would expect to find clues to that in science, in nature, in reality. And if I can't, then the science is yet primitive or my philosophy is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First, You cannot state "God exists". It is an assumption, with no evidence to back it up.

Secondly, you say that in reality, you should find clues about the existence of God. In reality my friend, there is none. Not one gram of evidence. Not even a atom, not even a neutrino bit of evidence or any trace of God in nature. You think mainstream science is stupid and just some wacked out conspiricy? Don't be naive. Face your fears.

"And if I can't, then the science is yet primitive or my philosophy is wrong." Science does not deal with the question of God's existance. However, if you really insist on using this measurement, then your philosophy must be floored, since, as I have stated, nothing, NOTHING in science has the need to invoke a god for explanation. There are gaps in science (so what?), and there are lots of people working on filling those gaps, and they are very successful, year after year they close the gaps.

Read this, and stop being ignorant or stiff-necked. If you are sincere in your search, then this might help you. If not, nothing will, not even if your God boomed a thunder voice from the heavens and said "you are wrong". You would then just rebuke the devil. Worship your God in whatever way you see fit, but don't trade him in for an old book or be dishonest about what science is and all the things they have found. Not even your God thinks dishonesty is a good thing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
> Among the many problems with evolution are the questions it is unable to
> answer.

I would be careful with this line of reasoning. It is essentially a "you don't know everything so you don't know anything" position. For example, one could assert

"Among the many problems with the theory of Gravity are the questions it is unable to answer."

If you were to assert that, because the current theory of Gravity is incomplete or inaccurate in some places that Gravity does not exist, then you would be a fool.

</Tongue-in-cheek humor here> And since there are questions that the Theory of Gravity cannot answer, I invite you to show your equal disdain for it by walking off the top of a tall building. After all, by your reasoning, gravity must not exist, right? </End TIC>

But seriously, you have a much worse problem than with the Theory of Evolution. For by your own reasoning which I reproduce exactly for your benefit, your own faith is in jeopardy. For "Among the many problems with Christianity are the questions it is unable to answer."

And a whole list of questions could -- and certainly would -- emerge! The list would be endless, including the exact nature of the kenosis, the conflicts between free will and predestination, etc. There have been wars build on conflicts of theology concerning questions the Bible has no complete answers for.

In fact, the problem of unanswered questions is much more of a difficulty with Christianity than it is with Science. After all, Christianity is a "Revealed Religion". Since the source of that Revelation is supposedly God Himself, then leaving us with essential and important questions unanswered is a potential argument against the reality of your Faith and mine. Certainly, by your reasoning, Christianity should possess all of the answers, right?

Yet we do not. And one of the largest questions challenging the reality of your Faith is how you can remain so decidedly smug in your ignorance and call it knowledge. That is a direct violation of the principles of faith found in the Holy Scriptures, yet you ignore those principles daily in your crusade against Evolution.

Unanswered questions are not a problem with Science. We explain things the best we can with the evidence at hand. When more knowledge or better explanations come into view, they tend to supplement and change our explanations.

Why, a cursory reading of any popular science journal has new discoveries in almost every issue, with a note on how the discovery addresses a particular question or explanation in science. And very often, the assertion is made that if the evidence is confirmed, it will require a change in a certain part of the current theory.

And Science is happy, even eager, to accommodate! After all, the goal of science is to progress from less knowledge to more knowledge, from less understanding to more understanding. We already know that we don't know everything -- unlike certain people who (on religious grounds) think they have all knowledge and wisdom and power and might.

> Here they are, in order of importance:
>
> 1. How can life come from non-life?

You have for the umpteenth time confused abiogenesis with evolution. Let me try to put it as plainly as I possibly can.

"Life from non-life" is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate field, still in its infancy, and will have unanswered questions for many, many years. It is principally a chemical exploration of conditions in the distant past -- and given developments in planetary cosmology recently, I suspect there will have to be some changes in some of their models of the early earth.

"Life from life, with modifications" describes the Theory of Evolution. After all, you are different from your parents, and your parents were different from their parents, ad infinitum. The changes from one generation to the next were subtle. Yet they were there. The ToE describes the changes in the characteristics of populations from one generation to the next.

You are on notice. You have been told the difference between evolution and abiogenesis many times. Now pay attention. We will expect you to know the difference from now on and to use the terminology correctly.

Still, to answer your question a bit more completely, life as we know it follows the laws of chemistry even as non-life follows the laws of chemistry. These laws are rather complex, and while the interactions of elements and molecules are somewhat random, the chemical results are not at all random.

That random interactions can produce terribly complex results can be found in some toxic waste dumps. In certain dumps, chemicals have combined into significantly more complex forms than the chemicals that were originally dumped there. What formed was a product of chemistry. It depended upon the chemicals present (both kind and quantity) and the heat energy available. But the laws of chemistry guaranteed the result.

Now think. You believe that God created man from a clay mold that He breathed life into. How did that breath create our physical systems from undifferentiated clay? That is an unanswered question of Christianity, by the way. But there is life from non-life.

For that matter, from where did God come? Your answer, of course, is that He always existed. And yet, if life must come from somewhere, then so must have He come from somewhere! Your own reasoning, sir -- your own reasoning.

And might not God, from Whom are all things, have been able to write the laws of chemistry in such a way as to guarantee that "life" would emerge? Is not God omnipotent? If He is, then He would have that ability to create such laws.

There is no difficulty between faith in God and the Theory of Evolution, or between faith in God and abiogenesis for that matter.

> 2. How could the Cambrian Explosion happen?

This is a question? The fact is that what we call the "Cambrian Explosion" did happen!

There is a certain geologic strata we call "Precambrian" in which no life remnants are found (or only the least complex). In the Cambrian strata -- which covers about a 50 million period.

And in fact, this is not a single strata or time period itself with undifferentiated mixed-up forms. There are seven different subdivisions of the period! I commend to you this site for study, should you decide to do some:

< http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html >

But the fact is that some of the characteristics of life are reproduction, adaptation, and a struggle to survive. And in the early earth, not every environmental niche had been inhabited. There was plenty to be exploited. And life gravitated to those niches where it could survive, and succeeding generations became better adapted to those niches. After all, the better the organism fits with its environment, the more likely it is to survive and reproduce!

So there were environmental pressures toward fairly rapid evolutionary changes.

And yes, we don't know all the answers. But that doesn't matter. We know many things, and as time and investigation progresses we shall know more.

Does this frighten you? Man, learning on his own without the aid of a holy book? Finding answers to questions in the world around him? Why should it? If God created man with a brain, then is it a sin to use it? I should think not!

> 3. How does evolution disprove ID?

Evolution does not disprove ID. ID is a weasel-word theology for those who contend that we have reached the limits of our knowledge and must confine all the rest of our unanswered questions to the Unknown "God did it" explanation.

In point of fact, Michael Behe has admitted to belief in evolution, including the common ancestry of man and ape! His beef is that God is left out of science (since science cannot investigate the supernatural), and so he wants to redefine science.

His problem, I suspect, is largely like your own. He perceives troubles in the world with "evolutionary philosophy", not realizing that there are many other troubles in the world that have nothing to do with this imaginary construct. His objections to the ToE are not scientific, but theological.

The Dover case amply proved that ID is nothing but a theological attempt to put religion back into the public schools. The goals of the Discovery Institute and others like them are to reform society and government into a more theocratic arrangement, intolerant of non-Christians or Christians who do not agree with them, and imposing their concept of "morality" upon the population.

However, shouldn't the question be, "How does ID disprove Evolution"? It doesn't, of course. And despite objections, evolution still happens.

If God's hand is behind evolution (and I have no problem thinking that it might be so), there is no evidence of it. After all, if God can cause the course of events to happen so that man exercising his "free will" can still do exactly the thing God wants to be done, then God can similarly hide here.

In any case, Science by definition cannot investigate the supernatural. There may be things science can never explain, and it accepts that limitation. But the Kansas school board notwithstanding, Science investigates natural phenomena, natural causes, natural effects. The supernatural is not in view.

> 4. How can a cynodont evolve into a therapsid? A synapsid?

Actually, if you were to do your research, you would find that cynodonts are therapsids. A derived branch of them, to be sure, but still from that line. The therapsids are part of the synapsid group.

So you have it backwards. Not that we are surprised. After all, this question was probably culled from some creationist web site, and maybe you thought maybe the terms would be as confusing to others as they are to you?

The following are a list of websites where you can get more information on this technical question.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid >
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsid >
< http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Synapsida >
< http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Therapsida&contgroup=Synapsida >
< http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/faq/fossils/pdq252.html >
< http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm >

But your real question here is "How can macroevolution happen, where species with certain traits are ancestral to species with different traits?"

The answer, simply, is "descent with modification." The genetic code is flexible. It can change. It has changed! And given time (there has been plenty of it), the changes have accumulated.

> 5. How can evolution disprove the existence of G_d? Of Jesus Christ?

It can't. It doesn't even try. Evolution simply answers questions about how things work. It says nothing about God, neither affirming nor denying Him.

And that is as it should be. For petty man to think he can "prove" the existence of God or "disprove" His existence is ridiculous. He is beyond all such proofs. The only thing that can be disproved is our own limited "God-in-the-box" theology in which we assume our descriptions of God are necessary and sufficient.

> 6. How can Social Darwinism be justified on moral grounds in light of Nazism > and racism?

As you should know (and doubtless do know, but what do you care?), "Social Darwinism" is not an accepted sociological theory any more. It was popular up until the Second World War, but it really had nothing to do with racism or Nazism.

Racism has been around a long time. I have read sermons by prominent pre-Darwin theologians who justified racism and slavery on the basis of the Bible. I have read sermons on social order by pre-Darwin theologians who justified social inequality on the basis of the Bible.

It seems that Social Darwinism and certain Christian doctrines had a lot in common at certain times!

But see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism > for more information.

The fact is that man will reach for what is handy to justify what they are doing. You do the same thing. I am quite convinced that you are aware of the truth in certain areas, but you ignore it because it doesn't fit your theology. And you wind up blaming God for your bad behavior.

"Evolutionists", by the way, do not endorse "Social Darwinism". And just because "Nature" behaves a certain way does not mean that we want it that way. So Scientists work with natural phenomena to frustrate nature! We do that with vaccines, medical treatments, improvements in technology and infrastructure. Life for us does not need to be cruel and brutish. We can rise above our circumstances -- and we attempt to do so.

However, I find it interesting that Fundamentalism is in many ways a repackaging of "Social Darwinism". After all, Fundamentalism is not concerned with addressing inequalities, but with preserving inequalities! It is not concerned with the rights of the masses, but with preserving power with the wealthy or the "right". It believes that the Strong should rule over the Weak.

I beg you to open your eyes. Read. Study. Understand. All of your questions above have been answered many times over. You still ask the same ones! You seem to think that nothing can ever answer your questions, so you refuse to recognize where they have been!

In that way, you are as thoroughly blind to the truth as you imagine your adversaries to be.

Yet there need be no conflict between Faith and Science. And the more I learn about both, the less real conflict I find. I am glad to be a Christian. I am grateful I am no longer a Fundamentalist.

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 07 2006,03:41

You guys should start a new thread for this discussion with Avocadoist. I'd like to keep this one about Uncommon Pissant.

For instance, here's a priceless new gem--they're suggesting antibiotic resistance might not be evolution:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
February 7, 2006
Does Darwinian Evolution Explain Antibiotic Resistance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/787 >

Everybody make sure you see it before they realize it's stupid and delete it!
Posted by: argystokes on Feb. 07 2006,04:46

####, too slow already!  Maybe they realized that intelligently-designed antibiotic resistance wasn't consonant with their theology, erm, science.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 07 2006,04:48

Site down for maintenance. I wonder what changes there'll be when it's back on line?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 07 2006,07:04

right now at Uncommon Pissant, I get

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Index of /

     Name                    Last modified       Size  Description

[DIR] Parent Directory        07-Feb-2006 12:45      -  
[DIR] _private/               04-Jun-2005 19:57      -  
[DIR] archives/               22-Dec-2005 16:53      -  
[DIR] books/                  04-Jun-2005 19:57      -  
[DIR] cgi-bin/                04-Jun-2005 19:57      -  
[DIR] darwinalia/             26-Sep-2005 23:36      -  
[DIR] documentation/          26-Dec-2005 10:50      -  
[DIR] images/                 31-Jan-2006 19:27      -  
[   ] local_42539.xml         07-Feb-2006 10:32     1k  
[   ] random_shirt.php        09-Dec-2005 15:20     1k  
[TXT] robots.txt              20-Apr-2005 07:04     6k  
[   ] tla_ads.php             26-Jan-2006 16:48     2k  
[DIR] videos/                 09-Dec-2005 10:04      -  
[DIR] wp-admin/               07-Feb-2006 13:05      -  
[DIR] wp-content/             04-Jun-2005 19:57      -  
[DIR] wp-images/              01-Aug-2005 15:41      -  
[DIR] wp-includes/            07-Feb-2006 13:07      -  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



the only comedy to be had, right now, is the robots.txt file where they disallow all caching, for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Feb. 07 2006,09:28

Interesting that they do not allow the caching... typical. What I'm wondering is, if they are so very afraid of people realizing how stupid they are, why do they bother with a public forum at all? Why can't they throughly vet (sp?) people, and then let them into a pass-word-protected forum that no one else can read?
-OR-
If they want to have the appearance of an open forum, they could just untick a little box that says that "anyone can comment." Thus, they have to manually add people.

My guess is, they are trying their hardest to obsessivly edit, cover up, and exclude things on their blog so that the casual observer sees an illusion of an open forum. If the visitor don't delve into it, check other people's comments on other blogs (trackback deleting gets in the way of that) then they come away with a false impression of a legitimate free exchange of ideas.

Please vote for the socialist leader of your choice:
1. DembScot
Now please turn in your ballot, thank you for participating in our democracy.*
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 07 2006,10:01

You have GOT to check out this thread.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/787 >

DaveScot found a paper about how bacteria, when stressed out by a harsh environment, will turn off their mutation-repair mechanisms and do other things which promote mutations, in order to rapidly evolve. Somehow he thinks that this is evidence against "random mutation plus natural selection" as an agent of evolution.

check it out before it's deleted.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 07 2006,13:06

He seems to have got confused and thinks that the bacteria magically mutate the correct genes to cause resistance:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bacteria being poisoned don’t wait around for a lucky mutation to solve the problem. They turn on a chemical defense complex that actively seeks a solution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He also thinks that mutation in bacteria is Lamarckism and therefore disproves Darwinism:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a Lamarckian mechanism - inheritance of acquired characters
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Random mutation on the other hand depends on sheer luck for the background mutation rate to hit the right gene in the right way
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So increasing the mutation rate just makes it slightly less 'lucky'. He's also acting like this completely rules out uncontrolled random mutation, and that all bacteria have this mechanism.
Posted by: bfish on Feb. 07 2006,19:34

First ever post, and I don't now how to format it so it looks nice.

You may have missed this exchange, as it was up for no more than an hour. Here is DaveScot responding to Xavier (who can't be long for Uncommon Descent):


14 All mitochondria come from mitochondria

Then why are mitochondria found in all eukaryotes so similar to each other, especially in having some of their own DNA? Chloroplasts also show remarkable similarity across the green plant kingdom. There is convincing evidence for symbiogenesis. Does intelligent design rule out the possibility that mitochondria may have once been free-living bacteria?

Comment by Xavier — February 7, 2006 @ 2:12 pm


15
Unless I’m mistaken mtDNA is a circular molecule (like bacterial DNA) while nuclear DNA is a double helix. It seems the most likely explanation would be that a cell with a nucleus containing double helix DNA incorporated a separate cell with circular DNA. Symbiotic relationships abound. This is just one more example.

Comment by DaveScot — February 7, 2006 @ 2:59 pm


Obviously someone quickly clued in DaveScot that circular DNA also takes the form of a double helix, and he removed this evidence of his deep ignorance of biology.

I don't bring this up to mock DaveScot. We're all ignorant about many things. But to be so ignorant while ridiculing people who devote their lives to studying the field.........

Oy.

Note added 2/9: I was in error about the censorship of the above comments. I checked back into the wrong thread. Doh! This is from the Behe thread. The comments are still there, and DaveScot later admits he was wrong, albeit in a save-face kind of way.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Feb. 07 2006,22:02

Who was it who responded to DaveScot's stuff about the double-helix confusion? I didn't see it.

I don't agree with his statement that it IS lamarckian, but increasing mutation rates (still controversial, BTW, even after its second supporting paper) during times of stress is vaguely neo-lamarckian. However, he is just plain wrong when he says that mutations are totally random. Certain parts of the genome mutate faster than others, and One scientist at UC Davis that I talked to for a story that never got written, (it was fascinating, though) found that the proofreading enzymes Slow down when they get to recombinant hot-spots. Cells seem to be able to encourage and discourage mutations in different areas of their genomes. Adaptation for adapability, I would gather.

Here's another doozie of a thread. This confirms exactly what I thought about Caroline Crocker. The ID folks, ever-interested in PR and not science, is now offering a reward for any teachers that get fired in Wisconsin for teaching Intelligent Design under a new proposed law that would ban it outright. And it seems that one poster, Sax, is being let back in after offering some money to the pot. Maybe we should offer to let DaveScot back in here if he mails the NCSE $100. :))))))

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/790#comments >

Gotta Love Madison, Wisconsin. I want to go there for Grad school... a gem of intellectuality at the same longitude as the country's sand dunes of idiocy.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 07 2006,23:03

So what does the robots.txt file do when it disallows caching?  I dont know enough about internet stuff to know.  (even though I've been online on and off for 10 years)
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 08 2006,03:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, he is just plain wrong when he says that mutations are totally random
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is quite hard to work out on UD sometimes what they mean by random. In the antibiotic resistant post DaveScott uses nonradom to mean that the bacteria knows specificaly which genes it needs to mutate in order to gain antibiotic resistance. In my reply I use random to be the opposite of this, ie despite all the factors that affect mutation in parts of the genome, this does not have much affect on the chance that the correct mutation will be made to confer resistance. I seem to be having the same problem when talking to JAD about his theory, when I say that chromosome rearrangements are random and selectable, perhaps i should say 'mostly-random'.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 08 2006,03:35

Chris, I've seen your posts over there, and I'm sure we all appreciate what you're doing, but DaveScot's just going to ban you. He's really out to lunch on what random means, what 'random mutation' means. He's got this really confused mess where anything that has purpose isn't random, or anything which is initiated by a prior step isn't random, or anything which is deterministic isn't random.

Really, all the 'random' in 'random mutations' means is, nobody's picking to mutate one site instead of another site. It means that the positions of the mutations have certain statistical distributions. It doesn't have anything to do with Dave's big ol philosophical notion of randomness.

But this is what you see when people try to comment way outside their area of expertise. They make intro-level errors, misunderstanding and misapplying basic concepts.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 08 2006,03:51

On a lighter note, get a load of this craziness:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   Natural selection is death, and the last time I checked, death did not have the power to “bring together parts of a system” for any purpose whatsoever.

   Comment by GilDodgen — February 6, 2006 @ 5:09 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Where exactly does one check on that? Is there a government department? Who did he call, last time he checked?

"Hi, it's been six months since I checked, does death still not have the power to bring together parts of a system for a purpose. Oh, good. Thanks." click.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 08 2006,04:02

I know, but everyone else has been banned and i feel left out. The problem is there are several definitions of random and arguments about semantics are not my strong point. Anyway now Salvador Cordova is attacking systems biology which is my area and that makes me mad :angry:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Natural selection is death, and the last time I checked, death did not have the power to “bring together parts of a system” for any purpose whatsoever
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Although i do fear i may be wasting my time.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Feb. 08 2006,05:04

I once spent hours and hours responding to cut-and-paste emails from a YEC. At first, when I declared victory over him, I thought I had just wasted a whole slough of my time. Then I realized that I was getting free training and practice in defeating their arguments.
You won't make any headway there at UD, but you will learn stuff about them and their arguments.
Posted by: argystokes on Feb. 08 2006,09:20

A hilarious "Oh Sh!t" moment from JAD:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/782#comments >

Check out comments 18 and 19 in particular.

I love it so!
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 08 2006,12:08

Dave Scott on < Crop Circles, intelligent design, and pattern detection... >

Holy cow these people are nuts!  Which if you think about it, from an IDiots perscpective, crop circles are a perfect example of "detecting a pattern/design in nature"
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 08 2006,14:01

Quote (argystokes @ Feb. 08 2006,15:20)
A hilarious "Oh Sh!t" moment from JAD:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/782#comments >

Check out comments 18 and 19 in particular.

I love it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ironic since Davison himself has quit the board (at least for now) after becoming fed up of DaveScott's unruly commenting style.

OK, scratch that last comment - he's back already. Guess it got lonely on his own blog nobody ever vists
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Feb. 08 2006,19:12

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/791 >

Dembski Says:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I take this as a clear sign that we are winning. ID proponents can afford to take political action to promote ID. Its critics, on the other hand, look foolish when they have to take political action to quash ID. That’s because of a fundamental inequity in public school science education: Materialistic evolution already holds a de facto monopoly over public school science education. ID proponents resort to political measures only to break up that monopoly (think of ID’s political component as trust-busting). Thus, for materialistic evolution to require legislation to preserve its monopoly will in the end be seen as heavy-handed and self-serving. Accordingly, for academics with stellar reputations like Sober and Numbers to be actively supporting such political interference signifies that they are losing not only the war of ideas but also their position of cultural dominance.

Dover certainly wasn’t ID’s Waterloo. Wisconsin may well be evolution’s Waterloo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



bwa ha ha ha ha!
That was a well-deserved laugh from reading so much at uncommon pissant.  What I find interesting is that Dembski is offering money to any teacher who gets fired by teaching ID in Wisconsin after the bill passes into law, and starts a lawsuit over it. Umm, isn't paying someone to break the law illegal in itself?

ID's political component? ID is nothing but a political component. At least he admits that ID points to the supernatural, contrasting with evolution's materialistic nature in this post.

Since WHEN has materialism been culturally dominant? I must have missed it.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 08 2006,20:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wisconsin may well be evolution’s Waterloo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Denial and harsh reality are fighting it out in Bill Dembki's head.  Looks like denial is winning at the moment.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 09 2006,03:40

If I had a dime for every time Dembski declared that something would be evolution's Waterloo, I would be rich by now.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 09 2006,05:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I find interesting is that Dembski is offering money to any teacher who gets fired by teaching ID in Wisconsin after the bill passes into law, and starts a lawsuit over it. Umm, isn't paying someone to break the law illegal in itself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whether or not its breaking the law, who in their right mind would be encouraged to lose their livelihood over a measley $1000?

In any case, this is simply another empty Kent Hovind publicity stunt. Dembski knows he's unlikely to have to pay out considering the lengthy sequence of events he's stipulating. This is a cowardly act. If he really had the balls, he'd start submitting scientific papers and run the gauntlet of peer review, not hide behind the skirt (or trousers) of some hapless Wisconsin high school teacher.
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 09 2006,05:48

#

The only beautiful liberal women are concentrated in Hollywood and they are mostly dumb as a box of rocks.

Comment by John Davison — February 9, 2006 @ 9:13 am

-I didn't know where to post this but he just insulted my wife! She lives in Oregon.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 09 2006,05:50

Quote (GCT @ Feb. 09 2006,09:40)
If I had a dime for every time Dembski declared that something would be evolution's Waterloo, I would be rich by now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The man is obsessed with anything "Waterloo"  I think he started his Waterloo fetish back when he got sh** canned at Baylor.

Ever since then it is Waterloo this and Waterloo that.  What a weirdo.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 09 2006,07:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only beautiful liberal women are concentrated in Hollywood and they are mostly dumb as a box of rocks.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I wouldn't go that far - plenty of academic women are attractive. And actors tend to be brighter than most; they just don't use it. But it's true that liberalism draws primarily from two groups - twinkies and bitter people. And since attractive people tend to be more outgoing and successful (with no need of political crutches to justify their failure), the Professor has a point.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 09 2006,08:22

Hey, Paley, why don't you post over at UD?  Or do you?  Have you gotten the badge of honor of being banned yet?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 09 2006,09:20

Paley, your nonsense is not welcome on my thread.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Feb. 09 2006,10:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Paley, your nonsense is not welcome on my thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, yeah, let me just answer GCT's question: I've never posted on UD, and never plan to, because I hate their massive censorship. Even the evos should have a right to state their views, and if I ever had a blog, anybody who could avoid Carlin's choice words would be welcome. A debate without free speech is no debate at all, and I appreciate Wes's board policies.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 09 2006,10:28

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 09 2006,13:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only beautiful liberal women are concentrated in Hollywood and they are mostly dumb as a box of rocks.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I wouldn't go that far - plenty of academic women are attractive. And actors tend to be brighter than most; they just don't use it. But it's true that liberalism draws primarily from two groups - twinkies and bitter people. And since attractive people tend to be more outgoing and successful (with no need of political crutches to justify their failure), the Professor has a point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Twinkies and bitter people?  You left out satanists!
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 09 2006,12:15

Every once in a while, the thinkers over at Uncommon Pissant say something that just makes your jaw drop open. Behold!:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Hmmm… a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas. Interesting.

I wonder if it’s feasible to get the selling of evolution in court on antitrust grounds. It seems to me a there’s a legitimate case to be made for economic damage resulting from monopolizing textbook sales.

I can see students, with the support of their parents, boycotting 9th grade biology for the unAmerican, state sanctioned monopolistic practice going on within.

Is it time for a little good old American civil unrest and courtroom theatrics?

Comment by DaveScot — February 9, 2006 @ 3:59 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 09 2006,12:21

Also check out comments by "artist in training" over there. He's so clueless about evolution and ID, he's way off the script:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I posted something like that on Pandas Thumb last week and they just kept parroting the questions: “What is the scientific theory of ID?” “How can it be tested?” “What predictions does it make?”

I replied that it isn’t a “Theory” it is a few specific experiments that demonstrate the existence of a designer. That it couldn’t be tested because how can you test God, that is foolish. And that it doesn’t predict. What would it predict? Who could presume to know the mind of God?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 09 2006,12:32

Scene:

Guthrie and artist in training face each other across a room.  Each has a medieval longsword in hand.  
A bell rings, and they approach each other.

Guthrie strikes straight down towards AIT shoulder from a high guard.  AIT fails miserably to block, because they donat actually know how to use a sword.  With blood fountaning everywhere from severed blood vessels, they collapse to to the floor, saying "But you shouldnt be able to do that..."

You can tell I'm getting a little annoyed with blatant stupidity, cant you?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 09 2006,12:53

don't be annoyed, it's the funniest thing around. think of the comedy we've seen lately. DaveScot announces that you'd have to be a religious nut to oppose Common Descent, only to have DIers show up and tell him off. Commenters arriving every day to talk about Jesus Jesus Jesus. Embarrassing posts they tried to cover up, only to be thwarted by browser cache. DaveScot's circular non-helical DNA. It's just hilarious.
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 09 2006,18:08

I should think you'd enjoy artist's little ramblings. Somebody over there has already accused him of satire.   ;)
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 09 2006,18:18

Here is the thread that inspired artist to make his (or I thought of artist as a her) debut. Look at the replies she got.
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/747#comments >

especially see 11, 26 and 30

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/798#comments >
see comment 15
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 09 2006,19:25

I think this entire situation is hilarious....

I think one day we will learn about this story...but I imagine it goes somewhat like this

Dr. Dembski and an Atheist are sitting around talking about God.  The Atheist asks Bill why he believes in God.  Dembski counters with a traditional "grand design" remark.  The Atheist asks Bill if he can prove it.  Dembski knows that he cannot prove it, and tell the good Atheist that he cannot prove it.  Then Bill thinks about it for a moment.  "The one form of mathematics that is not absolute is statistics.  Math is normally considered a completely objective matter, but with statistics you must introduce subjectivity."  The Atheist asks Dr. Dembski if he can prove his belief statistically.  Dembski says that he can, but that it would be merely a farce.  The Atheist suggests a wager.  If Dr. Dembski can provide a 'proof' of a Grand Designer, and people will actually take him seriously...then the Atheist will buy Bill a bible.  If Dembski cannot convince people of his new 'proof' of a Grand Designer, the Bill has to buy him a pocket watch.

I imagine that the origin of Specified Complexity was thus, but then when Bill Dembski published a book and people actually bought it...he decided that he should continue the farce.

I dont honestly believe that Dr. Dembski believes in his particular idea.  He may not accept evolution, but I think deep down inside he knows that his particular contribution is rubbish.  I dont know if his motivation is Machiavellian or simply spiteful, but I think he knows.  

Any ideas?
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 09 2006,19:56

He has to know. If Dave Scott knows, then Dembski knows. But it's sometimes fun to fight on the losing side. Especially if you make a couple hundred bucks an hour doing it. ???
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 09 2006,23:27

Well, I guess it shows what happens when you take things out of context.  
Meanwhile, over at the PT, in the Tara smith speaks thread, theres a homeopathy bloke holding forth, so far hes managed to avoid the usual cliches (it works on animals, modern medicinei is toxic, etc etc.)  If any of you have medical experience you might like to go over and tear him up, since hes quoting some rheumatology study that apparently shows homeopathy is good.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 10 2006,04:40

For heaven's sake you silly people next time you have the flu go buy some oscillococcinum. It works.

What's with all these arguments from personal incredulity doing here?

Artist is a sweet old grandpa that is brand new. He's working on opening his mind, so he's doing all that can be expected.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 10 2006,04:57

The people at Uncommon Descent are caught in Russell's Dilemma--they can't tell if Artist is a creationist, or a spoof of a creationist.
Posted by: Artist in trainig on Feb. 10 2006,05:46

Darn, I misspelled my name in the sign up. Now i'm in trainig.  :angry:

Thank you avocationist. Not many people call me sweet and you are right, I am a grandPA rather than a GrandMA.

This whole subject is a little new to me. When I went to college (UCBerkeley 1960) This whole darn thing wasn't a problem. I easily reconciled my christian faith with science because I never felt like they really crossed. I used to just explain away the problem with, God started the whole thing (which seems pretty obvious to me) and we are figuring out how it works with science. I wouldn't have cared much but my granddaughter, who is majoring in biology, has become all political over the ID in schools issue and she said some things to me which got me concerned. Go ahead, I say, teach all the science you want, it's a good thing, but don't make a point of saying God did NOT start the ball rolling.

ID seems like a good thing to me because it seems to me like it is allowing for the obvious design in the universe. Now, I don't have a science background it's true. I try to avoid making assumptions about what is and isn't science but if ID is simply allowing for the appearance of design in our universe, I don't see how it could be evil. I also don't see how it is "Crackpot" stuff if they really just want us to allow that God isn't "dead" as Nietche said. I have a hard time believing outside of my religious training I know, but I also know that I have experienced God's love or the Holy Spirit or whatever you want to call it. This experience is real and repeatable. Many people share the experience. Doesn't that qualify as science? Repeatable in different laboritories? Maybe I have to put my fingers in my ears sometimes to move forward just a little but there are some things that are really just too emotionally difficult to confront all at once. At first I thought all the posters here were simply mean spirited people trying to push God out of their lives because they were afraid of the implications but I am beginning to get the feeling that most of you are sincere and probably right in a limited kind of a way. No one here has been as mean sprited as Dave Scott or John Davidson seems to be over at Uncommon Descent. Still, they are the ones defending the idea that God shouldn't be worked out of our lives completely through science and so, in the end, I still have to side with them for the most part.

I know they are saying that it's not about God but it is. It is dangerous for people to live their lives without respect for the world we live in and therefore, respect for God. Science has begun to take a stand against respecting the grand mystery that is God and I think it is difficult to respond intelligently to that challenge because it is so far out in left field if you do have religious training. One good that may come of it is it will strip religion of some of its political baggage (maybe) but the bad is that our children will have nothing to cling to when their lives get truly difficult.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 10 2006,06:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is dangerous for people to live their lives without respect for the world we live in and therefore, respect for God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



People have the right to live dangerously, I have been doing it for decades now and having lived on both sides of the fence I can say I much prefer the danger to the slavery of faith.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
our children will have nothing to cling to when their lives get truly difficult.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Grown ups can get along fine in life without the need for a magic sky pixie.  People deal with the normal ups and downs in life all the time without imaginary big brothers or invisible daddies.  

It's a shame you view human beings as incompetant to face the world standing on their own two feet and thus need something or someone to cling to.

There is NOTHING that could happen to someone in life that they could not deal with on their own without support from imaginary entities.  Human beings are quite capable and resiliant.  Your morbid view of humanity is noted.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 10 2006,06:12

Hi Artist,
I was in a similar position to you a while back. Also siding with ID.

Be carefull there. Some ID suporters and all the main ones, are dishonest.

Have you heard of the "wedge document"?

ID seems set on trying to destroy science. You seriously need to look into the past behaviour of these people before you ally with them.

Some folks on this side are grumpy and scathing. However they have been under atack for over 20 years by people using lies and smears, so it is entirly understandable.

One thing you will notice over here, hardly anyone gets banned. Unless that is, they go really out of their way to do so.

EDIT:
PS. Disagreement is also alowed over here.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 10 2006,06:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This experience is real and repeatable. Many people share the experience. Doesn't that qualify as science?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, it doesn't. You need some tangible property you can measure and report, and let other people see if they get same results.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Repeatable in different labor[a]tories?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How so?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if ID is simply allowing for the appearance of design in our universe, I don't see how it could be evil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But that's not what ID is about. First of all, no one is arguing with the appearance of design, at least in biology. (In what sense does the non-biological universe appear designed?) It's just that evolution explains how that apparent design might have developed, and all the evidence I'm aware of is consistent with that explanation. ID says that apparent design could not have come into being without an "intelligence", but there's no science, no measurements, no mechanism to back it up. They have nothing more than you do: a feeling that  something conscious must have, at some point, somehow done something to effect a preconceived design. They try to dress it up with equations and sciencey language, but that's all it is.

I don't share your idea of God (I don't think I do, anyway). But it strikes me that the IDer's thesis that they can deduce anything outside of nature about the mechanisms by which creation was created is distinctly contrary to the christianity I was brought up in. The IDers say "we can say this is designed because it has the hallmarks of how we would design things. But the bible says "my ways are not your ways" (Isaiah 55:8 or so, if I remember correctly).    



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am beginning to get the feeling that most of you are sincere and probably right in a limited kind of a way
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's all I really aspire to.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Feb. 10 2006,06:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science has begun to take a stand against respecting the grand mystery that is God
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gosh darn that Galileo!
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 10 2006,07:35

Einstein frequently attributed the simplicity of natural laws to God.  He realized the sheer complexity and paradoxical grand simplicity of the Universe...and realized that it was truly a great design.

I share his admiration for our Reality, and I have long used it to justify my belief in a Supreme Being.

This is why I am so totally offended by ID.

If ID was simply a philosophy, then I would endorse it whole-heartedly.  They could still calculate their figures about the rareness of existence, but with philosophy it is left as a conjecture.

The problem with ID is that they suppose that their philosophical assumptions are actually scientific.  Science does not make assumptions, nor does it operate in the vague world of the word "appears".

Also, if we were dealing only with the philosophical ID, then absolutely no conflict would truly exist with current Evolutionary Theory.  The fact that IDist oppose Evolutionary Theory indicates their very clear anti-science motives to me at least.

So, AIT, please realize that most people do not oppose the philosophical idea of an "intelligent Designer".  Most people oppose trying to make a philosophical idea into a scientific theory.

BTW....consider the vast number of people who support the philosophical idea of ID.  These people easily get confused by the difference between believing ID and proving ID.  They are offended when they hear that people are trying to discredit the idea of a "Designed Universe".  The problem, and you need to realize this, is that no one is trying to discredit the IDea.  People are simply trying to explain that the idea is not scientific.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 10 2006,07:44

It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could say that smear tactics have been from the ID side. I have been reading around on the net for many months now, and it appears to me that the false representation and outright nastiness toward ID is far ahead of any tendency to rational argument. I hardly ever see it going in the opposite direction. I read a lot of the links to articles posted in the media. In my own hometown newspaper, someone did a writeup of ID that not only was false, but he insinuated that if ID were to prevail, modern medicine would go out the window and we would rely on faith healers. This is a high level of hysteria and paranoia.

Of course, I have tried to discuss with ID or religious folks a little bit about why they might need to own up to how christianity has caused a certain amount of fear, but no one answers.

Go to the Discovery Institute and read what they have to say about the wedge document. They disown the wedge document and that should be good enough.There are dishonest and fundamentalist people out there aplenty. I don't think the document is actually from those reconstructionist types and some of the points from the wedge DI agrees with. You might want to have a look.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 10 2006,07:59

Avo-

Your missing the point.  

If I call you an idiot...that is a smear...because you have been a very intelligent and thoughtful speaker to this point.

If I call DaveScot a jerk...then I am at least being somewhat honest, even if I am being slightly harsh.  DaveScot has been rather jerkish...even if it is wrong to call him a jerk.

When ID is attacked, it is attacked for good reason.  They may exaggerate the problems.  They might overstate the implications....but they are still alluding to valid points.

When ID attacks...it frequently does so blindly....and without proper provocation.  For example:  You think that their are massive unaddressed flaws with 'Darwinism'...yet you cant tell us what they are...so your claim of these flaws is unwarranted until you can actually list these flaws.

If, however, someone claims that dropping Evolution and replacing it with ID will push medicine into the dark ages...they actually have a reason.  It may be hyperbole, but since many, many modern medical advances are based on the Theory of Evolution...it would not be false to claim that if Evolution was false...then many medical discoveries would be invalidated.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 10 2006,08:05

FYI Artist, here's a list of 400 or so claims Creationists (of the Intelligent Design flavor and other flavors) make regarding evolution, with explanations about why the claims are wrong, and references for further reading, etc.

< http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html >

If you are an educated person, and are not a zealot, hang out and read Panda's Thumb articles for a few weeks or months, and you'll understand what's wrong with ID and its proponents.
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 10 2006,08:28

Artist in training,
what thread were you on when you were shouted down by people Like BWM here?
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 10 2006,08:30

Sorry Richard Dawkins, I meant BWE.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 10 2006,08:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could say that smear tactics have been from the ID side... I hardly ever see it going in the opposite direction
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh, really? So you think the accusations that the majority of scientists are engaged in a massive fraud to try to promote an atheist agenda is a pretty reasonable assessment? Are you familiar with < this > for instance? And you think Davison and DaveScot are pretty even-handed in their characterization of ID-critics?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my own hometown newspaper, someone did a writeup of ID that not only was false, but he insinuated that if ID were to prevail, modern medicine would go out the window and we would rely on faith healers. This is a high level of hysteria and paranoia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Given the effectiveness of your own blinders, I'm not about to take your word for whether the writeup of ID was false. But to point out the antiscientific nature of ID by comparison with faith healers does not strike me as a "smear". Perhaps your dismissing these concerns as hysterical and paranoid is a "smear". I won't pass judgment without reading the piece your criticizing (but not quoting), but I will tell you I honestly worry about the anti-science, anti-intellectual religious right mindset that seems to be inseparable from ID. And a lot of the "ID supporters" I've heard at the local level (as opposed to the slick operation run out of Seattle) would not be disturbed in the least to be accused of crediting faith-healers.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go to the Discovery Institute and read what they have to say about the wedge document. They disown the wedge document and that should be good enough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Go to the Discovery Institute and read what they have to say about the wedge document. They disown the wedge document and that should be good enough.[/quote]First of all,
< they don't disown it > at all. They say "So what?" But, no, taking the Disco Institute's word for anything is not good enough.
Posted by: Artist in trainig on Feb. 10 2006,08:59

"People have the right to live dangerously, I have been doing it for decades now and having lived on both sides of the fence I can say I much prefer the danger to the slavery of faith...,

Grown ups can get along fine in life without the need for a magic sky pixie.  People deal with the normal ups and downs in life all the time without imaginary big brothers or invisible daddies.  

It's a shame you view human beings as incompetant to face the world standing on their own two feet and thus need something or someone to cling to."

Mr. Christopher,

People do have the right to live dangerously. But we also live in a society of which there are rules of conduct and natural support mechanisms (George Bush aside). Faith is one of those support mechanisms and if you take it away, that may be all well and good for you and those who can live without it, but for me and many others who may not be as strong as you when it comes to coping with a harsh reality of meaninglessness and loss, faith is one of the things that helps us be strong in the face of adversity. If you take that part of ourselves away, don't you take away a respect for the very fact of our existence and a source of strength for people who might need it? What was it that allowed Martin Luther King Jr. to stand firm in the face of such daunting obsticles? Ghandi too, relied on faith for strength. Mother Theresa?

For those who choose to stand without God, maybe they have trancended a basic need that I and countless others seem to have. But when I look out at the night sky, I feel good imagining God. I would like to have understanding of God but it isn't necessary. I still feel good imagining God. And what is more important in life than feeling good, truth? What is truth? Something that can be replicated in a lab? Maybe. But truth is also quite slippery and I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume that you hold the truth in your test tube. If the ID sciences search for truth they will get no farther and perhaps not even as far but the scale is vast and we do not have the capacity to move very far.

Einstein was right when he realized the beauty in his equations but they aren't simple. And they aren't descriptive of the whole thing that is existence.

I have been reading Pandas Thumb for a few weeks now and I'm beginning to get an idea of what the problem is with the ID camp. God too is slippery and trying to pin him/her/it down into a high-school textbook is also dangerous. You get what we have in the middle east at the far end of that scale. But to claim that God isn't important is equally dangerous. I think.

Thank you for your comments.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 10 2006,09:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but for me and many others who may not be as strong as you when it comes to coping with a harsh reality of meaninglessness and loss
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do I only ever hear this from the religious camp? I never hear fellow atheists talk about how grim and wretched life is. Where do religious people get this idea that life without god is meaningless and worthless? This erroneous idea goes quite against the evidence that we atheists are not depressed and nihilistic. Perhaps the religious people just don't appreciate the value of evidence.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Feb. 10 2006,09:18

No, I think they believe we're lying. Or on drugs.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 10 2006,09:27

Well, there was that moron recently who claimed that atheists really believed in god, but pretended not to, or something. That's so dumb, I'm not sure the word 'retarded' goes far enough. Can't remember on what blog that guy was being mocked.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 10 2006,09:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Faith is one of those support mechanisms and if you take it away...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Let's just be clear on one thing. Science (and scientists, and that generally covers what the IDists like to call "Darwinists") are not plotting to take away faith. There is no "atheist agenda" behind either the success of evolutionary theory, or the opposition of mainstream science to the anti-science of ID. The scurrilous accusations of many IDers to the contrary (DaveScot, JAD, just about every pronouncement from the Disco Inst) does not speak well of the character of the movement.

At the same time, science should not and cannot be concerned about whether objective reality conflicts with this, that or the other religious perspective. If your god is sufficiently abstract, I guess there's not a problem. But if your god is an entity that created the universe 6000 years ago, and created the first humans with no biological ancestors, etc. then I'm sorry; that just does not appear to be consistent with science. I know the more sophisticated of the IDers make more subtle claims than that, but so far as I can see, there's no substance to their claims.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 10 2006,10:03

Quote (Russell @ Feb. 10 2006,15:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Faith is one of those support mechanisms and if you take it away...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Let's just be clear on one thing. Science (and scientists, and that generally covers what the IDists like to call "Darwinists") are not plotting to take away faith. There is no "atheist agenda" behind either the success of evolutionary theory, or the opposition of mainstream science to the anti-science of ID. The scurrilous accusations of many IDers to the contrary (DaveScot, JAD, just about every pronouncement from the Disco Inst) does not speak well of the character of the movement.

At the same time, science should not and cannot be concerned about whether objective reality conflicts with this, that or the other religious perspective. If your god is sufficiently abstract, I guess there's not a problem. But if your god is an entity that created the universe 6000 years ago, and created the first humans with no biological ancestors, etc. then I'm sorry; that just does not appear to be consistent with science. I know the more sophisticated of the IDers make more subtle claims than that, but so far as I can see, there's no substance to their claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Brian Greene claims something a bit different.

He says that statistically, it is far more probable that the Universe has only just "popped" into existence than it is 16 Billion years old.

Don't get me wrong, he does not go on to claim this is the case.

He does go along with an ancient Universe, otherwise science would be pointless.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 10 2006,10:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Brian Greene claims something a bit different.

He says that statistically, it is far more probable that the Universe has only just "popped" into existence than it is 16 Billion years old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Huh? how can you apply statistics to a single event? Do you have a reference? Greene seems to be mischievously inscrutable here.  

(Also - I doubt if Greene thinks humans were created with no biological ancestors!;)
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 10 2006,10:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But to claim that God isn't important is equally dangerous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Artist In Training, I recognize God is important to many if not most people.  My point it god it irrelevant to science, math, etc. and faith in a god is not needed for a wortwhile life that is free of fear and uncertainty.  

I also recognize most religionists would not agree with that statement but the facts prove otherwise.  Many religionists would choose to have a less meaningful life without a belief in a god but that would be there choice.

God *is* important to those who make him important but a society does not need a god to prosper nor does an individual need a god to be happy and comfortable in their own skin and lead a meaningful life.

There is nothing dangerous about rejecting faith in a god nor does it lead to despair or a life of crime.  And children do not need faith in a god any more than my goldfish do.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 10 2006,10:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example:  You think that their are massive unaddressed flaws with 'Darwinism'...yet you cant tell us what they are...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't had time to do it yet. It's definitely the right way to go.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If, however, someone claims that dropping Evolution and replacing it with ID will push medicine into the dark ages...they actually have a reason.  It may be hyperbole, but since many, many modern medical advances are based on the Theory of Evolution...it would not be false to claim that if Evolution was false...then many medical discoveries would be invalidated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I believe that is a fallacious assumption. Name me one medical advance that would be invalidated, name me one medical discovery that depended upon the arrival of species having come about through gradualism rather than some other mechanism.

Russell,

No one is saying that Darwinists are engaged in massive fraud. What they say is that Darwinian evolution will turn out to be one of the biggest false leads in science. The word fraud might be used, but not personally against anyone or the group. That is absurd.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you familiar with this for instance?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Alright, I'm sitting here reading it and first of all, Wesley called someone named Goode to ask what Dembski meant. In my opinion, Goode was wrong. I don't think Dembski was referring to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but just to a hegemony in science, and I cannot disagree with that. The actions taken against Richard Sternberg, for example, show exactly what Dembski mentions, and while Wesley is right that he was not sent to exile or taken out and shot, we don't have that kind of society. Again, Wesley says Dembski failed to note the unproductive nature of ideologically sanctioned science, but right now it seem it is Wesley who should be thinking about that. No the parallels are not exact - we don't exist in an idea-driven totalitarian regime but it is still a monopoly of ideas to a large extent. Anyway, that's as far as I got.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but I will tell you I honestly worry about the anti-science, anti-intellectual religious right mindset that seems to be inseparable from ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, even Grandad notices that the far end of the fundamentalist spectrum is the situation we have in the middle east. But then, too, let us not forget that it is not only religion which is capable of this - after all, we have the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which were, if anything, worse than living under the Ayatollah of Iran.

Okay, I went back to look at the wedge document, and I misunderstood the first time. Apparently it is theirs. Nonetheless, I don't know what about it you find objectionable. I've read through about half your link.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 10 2006,10:57

Quote (Russell @ Feb. 10 2006,16:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Brian Greene claims something a bit different.

He says that statistically, it is far more probable that the Universe has only just "popped" into existence than it is 16 Billion years old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Huh? how can you apply statistics to a single event? Do you have a reference? Greene seems to be mischievously inscrutable here.  

(Also - I doubt if Greene thinks humans were created with no biological ancestors!;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was going from Brian Greene's popular book "the Fabric of the Cosmos".

He is explaining the Universe from the POV of SLOT. By maths, he says that the Universe is extremely unlikely in it's present form.

Mathematicaly, it is more likely to have just right now, have been created.

He does not press this claim BTW. He goes on to say that if the Universe is as old as science thinks. Then it started out at an incredibly low state of entropy; This is what gives time a direction.

It is all in his popular book, The Fabric of the Cosmos. Definately worth a read.
EDIT:
No, Greene does not propose, "no common ancestors".

EDIT 2:
However, he does claim "no common ancestors" is statisticaly more likely. His disclaimer though is; If the Universe realy had just popped into existence, all our perceived science would be false, so it is better to assume an old Universe and memories to be true.
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 10 2006,11:04

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,16:51)
But then, too, let us not forget that it is not only religion which is capable of this - after all, we have the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which were, if anything, worse than living under the Ayatollah of Iran.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is < Godwin's Law > still observed?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 10 2006,11:10

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,16:51)
Okay, I went back to look at the wedge document, and I misunderstood the first time. Apparently it is theirs. Nonetheless, I don't know what about it you find objectionable. I've read through about half your link.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Wedge doccument is objectionable because they have admitted that the whole movement is based on religion.

They are not doing science, they are lying for religious/political reasons. Then trying to disguise it as science.

Do you know what science is yet Avo? If so, how would it be aplicable to God? You would be removing God's free will.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 10 2006,11:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that is a fallacious assumption. Name me one medical advance that would be invalidated, name me one medical discovery that depended upon the arrival of species having come about through gradualism rather than some other mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First off...gradualism is not part of the current theory of Evolution

Second....I dont know if you are aware....but the mechanism behind all drugs must be rigorously demonstrated.  The FDA will not approve a drug if you cannot explain how it works.  If evolutionary theory was invalidated...then you could kiss your flu vaccine goodbye.  I will allow someone with a slightly better understanding of modern medicine explain the finer points...

some other mechanism....first you have to suggest another mechanism.  Newtonian physics had flaws...but we didnt replace it until a better system existed....
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 10 2006,11:18

Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 10 2006,17:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that is a fallacious assumption. Name me one medical advance that would be invalidated, name me one medical discovery that depended upon the arrival of species having come about through gradualism rather than some other mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First off...gradualism is not part of the current theory of Evolution

Second....I dont know if you are aware....but the mechanism behind all drugs must be rigorously demonstrated.  The FDA will not approve a drug if you cannot explain how it works.  If evolutionary theory was invalidated...then you could kiss your flu vaccine goodbye.  I will allow someone with a slightly better understanding of modern medicine explain the finer points...

some other mechanism....first you have to suggest another mechanism.  Newtonian physics had flaws...but we didnt replace it until a better system existed....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In most practical examples it still hasn't been replaced.

I do believe rocket scientists still use Newtonian physics. Not because it is more correct, but because it is good enough.

Einstein gravity being too complex for negligible extra reliability.

I guess things would change if humans could build rockets that aproached the speed of light.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 10 2006,11:27

What do you mean gradualism is not part of current theory. I just used that word - does it means something I'm not aware of? By gradualism, I mean current Darwinian theory of descent by small, slight modifications.

Yes, let someone explain why evolution theory matters in explaining how a drug works on living tissue.

Do you realize that the first vaccines were invented before evolution theory? Please tell me if all scientists agreed right now that the 6-day creation story is correct, why they could not create a flu vaccine?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 10 2006,11:37

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,17:27)
What do you mean gradualism is not part of current theory. I just used that word - does it means something I'm not aware of? By gradualism, I mean current Darwinian theory of descent by small, slight modifications.

Yes, let someone explain why evolution theory matters in explaining how a drug works on living tissue.

Do you realize that the first vaccines were invented before evolution theory? Please tell me if all scientists agreed right now that the 6-day creation story is correct, why they could not create a flu vaccine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you think would hapen to science, if the explanation was "that is the way it was designed" was acceptable?
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 10 2006,11:46

Well, basically, I just don't think that would happen. I don't think science would be affected. I think people would continue to study and reverse engineer.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 10 2006,11:49

Is it me or is uncommon descent starting to look more and more like a gathering place for a new age christian science fiction cult where everyone and anyone is a "design theorist"?

I predict we'll soon read about "patterns" found in crystals which are obviously a signature of an intelligent designer.  

It's all about "pattern detection".
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 10 2006,11:51

OK, I'll take a stab at this.

The development of drugs for use in treating human diseases almost always requires testing in some sort of "model animal". The choice of model animal is based on such factors as their evolutionary relationship to humans, their reproduction rate, their amenity to being housed and bred in laboratories, and (especially recently) ethical concerns.

Today, the most common model animals are rodents, because they are sufficiently closely to humans that many of their responses to drugs are similar to what they would be in humans, and because they satisfy many of the other requirements which are not satisfied by other animals.

If there was no evolutionary relationship between any of the animals on Earth, then there would be no reason to choose one animal as a model over any other. Why would we not choose cockroaches, since they satisfy all of the requirements far better than mice do?
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Feb. 10 2006,11:59

This seems incoherent, Avocationist.
ID claims to want to revolutionize --and redefine-- science, but, if it becomes accepted, you don't think science would be affected?

"Reverse Engineering" designed organisms can act as a case in point. It seems to me that "scientific" disputes within such a framework will inevitably become theological/ontological discussions, unless the designer is universally believed to be the Christian God. And then you would just have specifically Christian theological debates among what would pass for "scientists."

Imagine it: "Well, I'm trying to reverse engineer this deadly, flesh-eating virus that causes blindness, great pain and death."
"That was designed by satan, so you have to look for the 'devil proteins'."
"No, I think God did it."
"But that's so horrible..."
Cue theological discussion of 'the problem of evil'.

Really, I'm afraid you underestimate the degree to which the ID movement is antiscientific, in every meaning of that word. ID is a showstopper for scientific inquiry.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 10 2006,11:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one is saying that Darwinists are engaged in massive fraud. What they say is that Darwinian evolution will turn out to be one of the biggest false leads in science. The word fraud might be used, but not personally against anyone or the group. That is absurd.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Absurd? From < Dembski's review > of Jonathan Wells's "Icons of Evolution"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[Wells] found that on closer examination the key examples that Darwinists cite to support their theory are themselves either fraudulent, staged, or misrepresented
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In fact, Wells's entire book - for that matter Wells's entire career - consists of exactly the accusations you deny. And tell me I've got Bruce Chapman, founder of the Disco Inst, all wrong < here >. The whole movement is based on the idea that an entrenched orthodoxy is propping up a broken theory in order to promote a supposed atheist, secularist agenda.

Absurd? hardly
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 10 2006,12:14

Russell: congratulations on your latest publication (that's you right - J Virol, Feb 2006?).

Avocationist: how many papers did you say you've published?
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 10 2006,12:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please tell me if all scientists agreed right now that the 6-day creation story is correct, why they could not create a flu vaccine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, now, I can help you with that because vaccine research happens to be my job.

Early vaccines (Jenner's smallpox, Pasteur's rabies...) were based on empirical observations: they worked. But a lot of vaccine candidates don't work, or worse, actually exacerbate the disease they're supposed to prevent. Why they do that is the subject of intense research, involving all the tools of modern biology, to which evolutionary theory is integral. You can't pick up a journal, or go to a meeting, concerning vaccine development where evolution, whether of pathogens or of the immune system, is not explicitly or implicitly central to most of the articles or talks.

(...including mine... thanks, Gregonomic)
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Feb. 10 2006,12:40

Quote (gregonomic @ Feb. 10 2006,18:14)
Russell: congratulations on your latest publication (that's you right - J Virol, Feb 2006?).

Avocationist: how many papers did you say you've published?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While it's good to know that we have a bona fide expert in our ranks, and good that your paper got published, Russell (congrats), I'm a little uncomfortable with the implication that avocationist's contributions here are unwelcome, or not worthwhile, because he is not a professional research scientist.

I, for instance, have no papers to my credit, no higher degrees, just an interest in the issues, a willingness to learn, and a functional BS-detector.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 10 2006,12:42

AND... do you suppose the current concern over avian flu is predicated on the possibility of that nonexistent random mutation converting a barely competent human pathogen into a highly contagious agent, under the influence of the highly controversial natural selection? Or do you think scientists are just waiting to see if the Intelligent Designer is in a capricious mood?
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 10 2006,12:52

Sanctum you slander me! (Not in the way that actually offends me)

When have I ever attacked anyone for their belief in god? Is that your perception of me? Someone who indiscriminately hurls insults?

I have a deep spiritual sense and I totally understand AIT's position. I don't happen to feel the need for god to provide me with anything, let alone faith. Faith seems pretty removed from god for me. It's like having faith in red or something.

Regardless, faith is fine but ID is duplicitous and has the potential to seriously undermine science education and, for that matter, education in general. Religion as in the church is on pretty shaky ground with me because institutions dedicated to god, er, it's like intitutions dedicated to red. Or blue I suppose. The problem is when the institution becomes dedicated to Red, Blue and White that I begin to get worried. The trick is to abstract god away from those who claim to speak for him/her/it (I liked that touch). That's the trick for me anyway. But you do what you want. Just please don't tell people that science is ruining society because at this point, at however many billion people Earth now supports, it's all we've got.
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 10 2006,12:55

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 10 2006,18:40)
...I'm a little uncomfortable with the implication that avocationist's contributions here are unwelcome, or not worthwhile, because he is not a professional research scientist.

I, for instance, have no papers to my credit, no higher degrees, just an interest in the issues, a willingness to learn, and a functional BS-detector.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry C.J., that's not what I meant to imply.

I just find it amusing that Avocationist is so clearly out of his/her league when it comes to talking about the actual science of evolution and yet so adamant that the IDiots are correct, and I couldn't resist taking a little dig.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 10 2006,12:55

Well....i might have been a little harsh to condemn gradualism....but < this > might help a little bit.  Basically, the current argument is that a good deal of evolution is not accounted for by a strict gradualism mechanism.  It might have occured, but evidence points to an alternative in many cases.

Evolution is not just a theory of paleontology....it is a tool most Biology.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Feb. 10 2006,13:02

gregonomic,
It is amusing sometimes, and I know you weren't really strongly implying what I said. But it can cut both ways.

Absurdly, people like Sal Cordova get away with chasing people off of Dembski's trail, because they "don't have the maths" or the like.

In a rhetorical environment, you either have an argument worth listening to, or you don't. I totally know what you mean about people willfully ignoring evidence and not understanding that such a stance pretty much invalidates their claims. But most of us out here in the ether aren't scientists, just concerned, and to whatever degree, (mis)informed, citizens.
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 10 2006,13:16

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 10 2006,19<!--emo&:0)
I totally know what you mean about people willfully ignoring evidence and not understanding that such a stance pretty much invalidates their claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, are you saying that, when someone clearly doesn't have the credentials to support the claims they are making, we shouldn't call them on it? Or that we should do it in a less mocking tone than the one I used?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But most of us out here in the ether aren't scientists, just concerned, and to whatever degree, (mis)informed, citizens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, but when we want to get informed, what do we do? We either do a bit of reading or we consult the "experts", right?

Avocationist seems to be being very selective about the material he/she is willing to read. And, when it comes to digesting information, he/she seems to accept everything an IDiot says at face value whilst instantly rejecting anything a "Darwinist" says. If you don't think he/she deserves to be mocked for that stance, then I respectfully disagree with you.
Posted by: Artist in trainig on Feb. 10 2006,13:57

I'm sorry, I don't remember what thread I was in and I don't remember my user name, Maybe frank or Picasso.

Stevestory:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[QUOTE]
but for me and many others who may not be as strong as you when it comes to coping with a harsh reality of meaninglessness and loss
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do I only ever hear this from the religious camp? I never hear fellow atheists talk about how grim and wretched life is. Where do religious people get this idea that life without god is meaningless and worthless? This erroneous idea goes quite against the evidence that we atheists are not depressed and nihilistic. Perhaps the religious people just don't appreciate the value of evidence.[/QUOTE]
You know, I think you are entirely missing the point.  I said that perhaps some people may be able to trancend that need but that I and many others, perhaps even some secular humanists, seek meaning. Maybe not like a quest for a Holy Grail but we can dedicate our lives or parts of our lives and even risk death for a cause. We seek and find meaning in our world and in at least some of our actions. If you allow faith into your world then you are also allowing meaning in. It's possible that you already have meaning or that you are happy with simply fulfilling your duty to our species' DNA. Good. That's not me.

Maybe faith is misguided. Maybe it is a way that our physiology has devised to get little dopamine boosts Pascal's wager always seemed a little stupid or small-minded to me.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 10 2006,14:15

You're just talking crazy talk. Where do you get off saying I don't have any meaning or support any causes? Why do you presume to tell me what I think or value?
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Feb. 10 2006,14:16

Quote (gregonomic @ Feb. 10 2006,19:16)
So, are you saying that, when someone clearly doesn't have the credentials to support the claims they are making, we shouldn't call them on it? Or that we should do it in a less mocking tone than the one I used?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, certainly we should call them on it.

And to mock or not to mock is a personal choice. I usually save extended sarcasm (the best weapon in my arsenal) for those who are more obnoxious or vitriolic than avo, but again, we all have our tolerance levels.

I guess I was just responding to the "how many papers" bit, because any ol' IDiot engineer or what have you could dismiss me as easily with the same tack.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 10 2006,14:23

I guess I should cancel my ACLU membership. Stop appreciating Miro paintings. Tell my girlfriend I don't love her.

Because according to some guy who doesn't know me, I only care about fulfilling my duty to our species' DNA. Glad that christian guy came along to tell me what I think.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 10 2006,14:23

CJ,


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID claims to want to revolutionize --and redefine-- science,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

They want to take philosophical materialism out of science as a given. Note the word philosophical.

Your scenario was funny, but I just don't think that would happen.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Avocationist: how many papers did you say you've published?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Careful there. If a reasonably intelligent and interested layperson cannot come to an opinion, then like I said yesterday, get this out of high school, get this out of undergrad studies and put it in grad school where it belongs and leave the public out of it.

As for whether I'm ignoring evidence, surely you realize this is one of the biggest complaints of the ID against Darwinists.  Anyway, I just ordered the Mayr book, if that helps. At least, I'm sure I'll never again forget the plural of genus.

Also, last but not least, I have spent a heluva lot of time reading, and while it has mostly been from the anti-darwinian point of view, I have actively sought out actual responses to actual ID claims and that is why I have read the Meyer paper and its critique and the answers to the critique, and the Flagellum papers and the answers to the critique, and the whole fish eyes debate, and a few more I can't remember. I think a book like The Origin of Species Revisited by Bird, while he seems to be a creationist, is one very long list of what appears to be in-context quotes from a huge number of well known and published proponents of the theory of evolution. About half the book is quotes and it is surely the most documented book ever written.

As for Dembski, I listened to his recent talk, (which was not interesting in that it was an intro to ID) but he quotes James Shapiro saying that there are no good Darawinian pathways to compleax biological systems, just wishful speculations. And James Shapiro knows that Dembski uses that quote, and he wrote to Dembski and said, don't you know I support evolution? And Dembski said, I always tell them that.

Russell,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But a lot of vaccine candidates don't work, or worse, actually exacerbate the disease they're supposed to prevent. Why they do that is the subject of intense research, involving all the tools of modern biology, to which evolutionary theory is integral. You can't pick up a journal, or go to a meeting, concerning vaccine development where evolution, whether of pathogens or of the immune system, is not explicitly or implicitly central to most of the articles or talks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Yes, the critters are very complex, all critters are complex and their interactions even more so. But please be more specific as to how it matters in what manner said critters arrived on the scene? Wouldn't everything work the same way even if God designed them all last week down to the last atom?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AND... do you suppose the current concern over avian flu is predicated on the possibility of that nonexistent random mutation converting a barely competent human pathogen into a highly contagious agent, under the influence of the highly controversial natural selection? Or do you think scientists are just waiting to see if the Intelligent Designer is in a capricious mood?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Obviously little critters mutate as ABX resistance shows, and in fact they seem to have some input about it. Nobody in ID or even the creationsists dispute that the flu could mutate to jump species.


Although Wells does site inappropriate usages which are retained for convenience long after they ought to be jettisoned, I still don't think that IDists consider Darwinists to be generally engaging in conscious fraudulency. Certainly, I don't. Go over to UD and check out the Darawin's birthday thread. Someone there has quoted Niles Eldridge condemnating the promotion of the horse series long after it was known to be outdated. And good ole JAD defended Haeckel.
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 10 2006,14:42

gregonomics

"If there was no evolutionary relationship between any of the animals on Earth, then there would be no reason to choose one animal as a model over any other. Why would we not choose cockroaches, since they satisfy all of the requirements far better than mice do?"

say it be proved true God design life...you think rats magically not be rats and people not be people anymore?

relationship now is objective reality...how relationship established in past immaterial to reality today...understand?...no matter what history turn out be true present not change
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 10 2006,15:01

for balance...a$$hole on both side...all quote below same person

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

anyone don't know who say?...hint: bloody famous a$$hole

darwin=faith in no god=contrarian religion

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

design is appearance...random is real

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

why not random is appearance...design is real?

gradual evolution  

"Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation."

finally a bit honest!!!

"The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened."
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 10 2006,15:12

gregonomic

in real world one want to know how much money russel get paid for publishing...credential mean nothing...bill gates almost richest most influential man in world is college dropout...michael dell revolutionize computer manufacturing get $20 billion for trouble he drop out of college too...even nobel winner get money prize...how much that russell piece worth to the market in yankee dollah?

not mean to be mean but appeal to credential is last defense of losing argument
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 10 2006,15:14

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 10 2006,20:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Avocationist: how many papers did you say you've published?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Careful there. If a reasonably intelligent and interested layperson cannot come to an opinion, then like I said yesterday, get this out of high school, get this out of undergrad studies and put it in grad school where it belongs and leave the public out of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A reasonably intelligent and interested layperson - even a ninth grader - can quite easily understand, and even accept (if they haven't already acquired a mental block which prevents them from doing so), the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution, as I hope you'll discover when you read Mayr.

It has been said a thousand times already, but I'll say it again: we should be teaching high-school students accepted scientific theories (or at least the basics of those theories). The point I was trying to make with that comment was that it is invariably non-biologists (like you) who are trying to tell us biologists what is and isn't an accepted theory in biology. The Theory of Evolution is accepted by biologists, whether you like it or not (clearly you don't).

I sincerely hope you get something out of Mayr's book. But given that you've already made up your mind that mutations aren't necessary or sufficient to explain evolution, before you've bothered to learn what mutations even are, I suspect my hope is in vain.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 10 2006,15:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, the critters are very complex, all critters are complex and their interactions even more so. But please be more specific as to how it matters in what manner said critters arrived on the scene? Wouldn't everything work the same way even if God designed them all last week down to the last atom?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Are you intentionally being obtuse? Do you really think our understanding of biology, our ability to use it and predict it, is independent of our understanding of how organisms evolve?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Obviously little critters mutate as ABX resistance shows, and in fact they seem to have some input about it. Nobody in ID or even the creationsists dispute that the flu could mutate to jump species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Excuse me while I bang my head against the wall for a while...
OK, I'm back. You just finished suggesting that the mechanisms by which organisms came to be what they are, are irrelevant to how we understand biology. We "Darwinists" (read: actual working scientists) think that mutation and selection are central to those mechanisms.  IDers seem to think mutation and selection are secondary at best. I'm telling you mutation and selection are all we have to understand how and why influenza changes. If you think there's some other force we need to be aware of, I suggest you contact the World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control forthwith.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think a book like The Origin of Species Revisited by Bird, while he seems to be a creationist, is one very long list of what appears to be in-context quotes from a huge number of well known and published proponents of the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If you're interested in biology or science, why oh why are you  reading what some lawyer has to say about it? There really is no shortage of biology books written by actual biologists.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About half the book is quotes and it is surely the most documented book ever written.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Let me just repeat that for emphasis:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it is surely the most documented book ever written
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think I may resume banging my head against the wall. It seems to be more productive than this exercise in futility.
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 10 2006,15:49

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 10 2006,20:42)
say it be proved true God design life...you think rats magically not be rats and people not be people anymore?

relationship now is objective reality...how relationship established in past immaterial to reality today...understand?...no matter what history turn out be true present not change
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations on issuing the standard creationist response. I'll hold back on my reply until I've worked out whether you're an honest-to-goodness serious creationist, or just a parody there-of.

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 10 2006,21<!--emo&:0)
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

anyone don't know who say?...hint: bloody famous a$$hole
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which part of Dawkins' statement do you disagree with?

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 10 2006,21:12)
in real world one want to know how much money russel get paid for publishing...credential mean nothing...bill gates almost richest most influential man in world is college dropout...michael dell revolutionize computer manufacturing get $20 billion for trouble he drop out of college too...even nobel winner get money prize...how much that russell piece worth to the market in yankee dollah?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You clearly have no idea how little scientists get paid.

By the way. Gates, Dell, etc, actually produced something that was (arguably) useful to actual people. IDiots don't.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
not mean to be mean but appeal to credential is last defense of losing argument
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is it always people with no credentials who say this?
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 10 2006,15:56

truth?

An open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education from Professor Philip S. Skell, Member, National Academy of Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus Penn State University.

May 12, 2005

Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair
Kansas State Board of Education
C/o Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka KS 66612-1182
Fax: (785) 296-7933

Dear Dr. Abrams:

I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writing—as a member of the National Academy of Sciences—to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory.

All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it.

Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well.

Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.

Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution---it provided no support.

As an aside, one might ask what Darwin would have written today if he was aware of the present state of knowledge of cell biology, rather than that of the mid 19th century when it was generally believed the cell was an enclosed blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I draw your attention to what Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, wrote (http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html ).

For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.

In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.

Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.

I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 10 2006,16:00

"Why is it always people with no credentials who say this?"

same reason people with no money always say what you say?
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 10 2006,16:10

"You clearly have no idea how little scientists get paid."

no...i do have idea...that the whole point...scientist in academy are how you say...dime a dozen?...people who can, do...people who can't, teach...academic credential not valuable to people who pay bills...people lie, money is honest
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 10 2006,16:10

< Philip S. Skell >
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 10 2006,16:21

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 10 2006,22:10)
people lie, money is honest
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Riiiight. What about < people who lie for money >?
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 10 2006,16:35

gregonomic

mibad...i think your name for understanding of capitalist system...you know...like follow the money...must be ergonomic not economic...maybe instead of study relation of worker to environment you study relation of worker to paycheck
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 10 2006,16:42

theological question

does God care if i treat atheist with meanness?

hahaha...i on a real roll tonight...next stop comedy central
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 10 2006,17:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

They want to take philosophical materialism out of science as a given. Note the word philosophical.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why, then, is it that they also take out any mention of a need to test ideas against the empirical evidence?
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 10 2006,17:31

ah so...phil skell speak atheist evolutionist heresy he get trashed by Pim Van Meurs?

you compete with me on joke, right?  Pim Van Meurs...hahaha...good one...that little turd is such an embarrassment he isn't even listed as panda thumb contributor even tho he post more article there than anyone else...now what is REAL comeback to NAS scientist Phil Skell Mister Gergonomic?
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 10 2006,18:07

ah so...we have Russell Who??? with credentials???? saying evolution is important to his work on an obscure message board read by no one important against NAS member Phil Skell asking 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong.  Every one said NO.

please...please...who do I believe...Phil Skell in Scientist or this Russell person who posts his important sayings on Uncommon Pissant???

you DO compete with me for joke Mister Gergonomic and I think you WIN with that one!  hahahahahahahahahaha

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

< http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1/ >

by Philip S Skell


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


OPINION
Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today.


The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10


Published   29 August 2005

Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.


Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.[1] "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."


I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.


I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.


In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.


When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins's subsequent paragraph:


"Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them."


In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.



Philip S. Skell  


Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.


Philip S. Skell tvk@psu.edu is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. His research has included work on reactive intermediates in chemistry, free-atom reactions, and reactions of free carbonium ions.


He can be contacted at tvk@psu.edu.


Return to top



References

1.   Wilkins AS: "Evolutionary processes: a special issue,".
BioEssays 2000, 22:1051-2. [Publisher Full Text]
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 10 2006,18:28

<blockquote>Sanctum you slander me! (Not in the way that actually offends me)
</blockquote>
BWE, slander? A little sensitive?
Artist in training mentioned that a week or so ago he was posting at Panda's Thumb and everyone shouted at him.
He left a nice list of homepages of those that he met here, and yours was one of them.
Perhaps you can remember when the two of you were in the same place at the same time. I would like to see what transpired.
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 10 2006,18:35

Ok, so blockquotes don't work here.
Sorry all.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 10 2006,23:38

Quote (Sanctum @ Feb. 11 2006,00:35)
Ok, so blockquotes don't work here.
Sorry all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The brackets are different here, [ instead of <.
Or use the quote button just above where you type the message.
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 10 2006,23:45

Thank you very kindly, Stephen Elliot.
I will give that a try just now.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or use the quote button just above where you type the message.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That looks to be serving.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 11 2006,04:42

our phishy friend wrote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
please...please...who do I believe...Phil Skell in Scientist or this Russell person who posts his important sayings on Uncommon Pissant???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Phred should definitely believe Skell, because clearly he's only interested in opinions that confirm his. But in his budding comedy career, Phred has really got a handle on the irony thing: in one sentence, sneering at "credentials" as the last resort of a losing argument, and in the next, reverently touting Skell's membership in the National Academies of Science.

For anyone seriously interested in the consensus of the most highly honored scientists, I would be the first to direct you to the statements of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academies of Science (the whole body; not just one religious-right chemist opining about biology), and any reputable scientific organization you can think of over the random thoughts of one Russell Who. (Who, incidentally, reserves his more serious observations for the peer-reviewed, professional literature).
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 11 2006,05:55

Hmmm. I remember one where raging bee was on one side raging and budda (sic) on the other side obstinating but I don't remember the religion comment that got it started.

Stevestory, I didn't exactly understand what artist was saying in the last post there but I did catch this part:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's possible that you already have meaning or that you are happy with simply fulfilling your duty to our species' DNA. Good. That's not me.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So in defense, it's a little possible that you took offense where none was intended. However,

Artist, what was that about about Pascal's wager? You must understand that fundementalist religions are the ones behind the push to teach ID in schools.

I think you are saying that people shouldn't be so upset about intelligent design because what better explanation for god do they have? If that is all you are saying when you boil it down, then you should know that it isn't the idea of ID that upsets scientists, it is the attempt to inject bad and unworkable information into public school science curriculum. ID as a philosphical treatise is on pretty much the same footing as any other philosophy and as science it is on the same footing as any other science. THere is a little different burden on science. Hypotheses typically aren't what gets printed in science. You have to do some work first before you get to teach it to public school students. I am not a PhD or any heavy duty expert, but I have discovered that I have the capacity to point out the flaws in Every SIngle scientific argument the IDers come up with. That being the case, I have to conclude that it isn't very scientific.

I left a whole side of me exposed there, let's see how we deal with it. :)
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 11 2006,06:25

Ah, I see, in the light of day, I did overreact. My only excuse is that I was quite drunk at the time. And quite hungover now.

BTW, I suspect fishyfred is a spoof or exaggeration or something. The extremely bad english he uses rings a little fake.
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 11 2006,06:27

< Phred = JAD >
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 11 2006,06:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW, I suspect fishyfred is a spoof or exaggeration or something
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, I suspect you're right. Whatever his act is, it doesn't really merit any attention. I just thought it was a good moment to remind folks of the unanimity of credible organizations on the ID/evo thing. Because even if these creationist alternate realities are brought up here in jest, it's useful practice to remind oneself of the corresponding reality this side of the looking glass.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 11 2006,07:04

Ahhh, if phishy was JAD, that would explain why the stream of consciousness and rambling looks familiar.  It was bugging me all the way down this thread.

So, Phishy, are you JAD or not?  

And if you are, would you like to try and act like the scientist you once were, or would you like to carry on like the small child you now appear to be?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 11 2006,07:27

New quote from WAD:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Once again, an ID perspective seems much closer to reality than the Darwinian (Lamarckian?) just-so stories.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aren't they precious when they pretend their ideas are useful?

Anybody else notice the phrase "an ID perspective" rather than "ID theory"?
Posted by: FishyFred on Feb. 11 2006,09:20

I hope it's Davison (cause it sure as heck isn't me). The guy is a nut. He brings back memories of evopeach, but with brand new keywords like "Darwinian mysticism." COMEDY GOLD!
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 11 2006,09:27

You find Davison amusing? I find his comments empty and pompous. I stopped reading them ages ago, when he was still allowed on PT. Watching the IDers pretend to be neither creationists, nor religiously motivated, watching them delete large threads because they've mucked things up irredeemably, watching engineers talk about how they're revolutionizing biology while botching introductory concepts like the shape of DNA in a plasmid, those things are the hilarious parts of Uncommon Pissant, in my opinion.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 11 2006,11:50

I think John is a one trick pony but looking at his mention of phishyphred on UD I suspect phred is a sock puppet. I think he may have had some help from "psycho" Springer but who knows?
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 11 2006,12:09

russell you must have reading problem...skell asked 70 eminent researchers if darwin theory guided them...70 said no...my choice not pissant russell who? vs. phil skell in scientist it phil skell and 70 eminent researchers against pissant who?...skell go on to say his colleague will not rock darwin boat in public so we can not trust "official" NAS position...so save the drama for your mama...now i ask earlier if phil skell a liar...do you say he a liar?...please give me quote to spread around from russell who? is phil skell a liar?
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 11 2006,12:18

stevestory i google davescot and get 16200 hit...not all right davescot but most are...it look like he say million words on evolution and you only got one mistake to crow about?...i say that pretty good showing for davescot...you ever hear word "perspective"?...better study it more...him one man travelling circus act whipping darwin clown butt...hahaha...circus/clown get it?...i still try to beat gergonomic joke comparing pim to skell
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 11 2006,12:24

"So, Phishy, are you JAD or not?"

not...and if drunk stevestory (that explain a lot) left any bottle unopened i take the fifth on further questions of this nature
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 11 2006,15:31

dude, speed kills!

stop smokin' crack, eh?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 11 2006,16:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
stevestory i google davescot and get 16200 hit...not all right davescot but most are...it look like he say million words on evolution and you only got one mistake to crow about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why do you incorrectly assume I have only one mistake to point to?

DaveScot has deleted dozens of his own comments. Several of the people at Uncommon Pissant have deleted their own comments, and entire threads, when they got embarrassed.

Here's discussion about one of my favorites:

< Dave Springer and the Case of the Missing Post 744 >
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 11 2006,16:13

Pound for pound, Uncommon Pissant might be the funniest website on the internet. Or maybe Answers in Genesis. Hard to say.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 11 2006,16:54

Greg,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A reasonably intelligent and interested layperson - even a ninth grader - can quite easily understand,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, now, that could be the problem right there. I only completed the 8th grade. Never set foot in high school. I just couldn't take it anymore. The main, but not the only reason I hated school was that they prevented me from reading.

Unfortunately and I'm ashamed to admit it, but purely for economic reasons I ruined my pristine state of nonschooling in my 30's and got an AA degree. It even included a few basic courses in cell biology, microbiology and what was probably high school level chemistry. I got straight A's course. If I had had any idea that school could ever become more exciting than solitary confinement, I'd have done what my niece just did - raised literally in a barn without electricity by her hippie parents, she has a totally free ride to Amherst. (Where she will no doubt become a Darwinist.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and even accept (if they haven't already acquired a mental block which prevents them from doing so), the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution, as I hope you'll discover when you read Mayr.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you only assume I have a mental block. Sigh...so few people really know what it means to worship the goddess of truth. One must be willing to chop off one's very limbs and cast them into the flames. At Darwinism I wouldn't even flinch if I thought it were true. And maybe you'll convince me yet!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point I was trying to make with that comment was that it is invariably non-biologists (like you) who are trying to tell us biologists what is and isn't an accepted theory in biology. The Theory of Evolution is accepted by biologists, whether you like it or not (clearly you don't).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If I implied that I don't think it is accepted by biologists, then I apologize. I believe I loved cell biology best of all; nerve conduction is sublime.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I sincerely hope you get something out of Mayr's book. But given that you've already made up your mind that mutations aren't necessary or sufficient to explain evolution, before you've bothered to learn what mutations even are, I suspect my hope is in vain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have to admit that random mutations seem very unlikely to be responsible for much good, but I certainly want to learn more about it. Perhaps if I learn more, I'll understand your mistakes!  :)

Russell,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you intentionally being obtuse? Do you really think our understanding of biology, our ability to use it and predict it, is independent of our understanding of how organisms evolve?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I promise I'm not. I know that you are studying single-celled organisms, and that they do mutate a bit. But in what way is your research affected by descent with modification? Do you know what previous species of bacteria your bacteria evolved from? How would that matter as compared to how your bacteria behave right now?
Your predictions may be based on learning more about how organisms mutate, but I don't see how your research is affected by the grand scheme of evoluton.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You just finished suggesting that the mechanisms by which organisms came to be what they are, are irrelevant to how we understand biology. We "Darwinists" (read: actual working scientists) think that mutation and selection are central to those mechanisms.  IDers seem to think mutation and selection are secondary at best. I'm telling you mutation and selection are all we have to understand how and why influenza changes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I know that you consider mutations the driving force of evolution, and that I don't. As for being all you have, I really think that if it is bacteria you are studying, and their effects upon us, then mutation and selection are all you need.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you're interested in biology or science, why oh why are you  reading what some lawyer has to say about it? There really is no shortage of biology books written by actual biologists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh, but that isn't to learn about biology. His book is kind of an eye-opener. It just gives a window into the thoughts and problems as expressed by category by the many experts in their fields. Really, the book is pretty dry.
And don't think I have forgotten Denton. I'm quite interested in what you said. I'll get back to it on the other thread.
I'm also interested in where you said some vaccines just make it worse. Are those vaccines the public never hears about?

Wesley,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why, then, is it that they also take out any mention of a need to test ideas against the empirical evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Who says that? The conclusion I'm coming to today, while reading The Flagellum Unspun, is that everyone ought to stop pretending that we have a clue. But mostly the Darwinists of course.
Talk about biting off more than one can chew! Talk about a pandora's box! Talk about making a molehill out of a mountain! Oh, Charles, what have you wrought?

Happy Birthday to you
Happy Birthday to you

Happy Birthday dear Darwin
Happy Birthday to You
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 11 2006,18:50

avo, you sound a lot like GOP on one of his crankier days.

and i mean cranky as in whacky, not angry.

you're almost funny.

a clarification for you:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know that you consider mutations the driving force of evolution, and that I don't
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.

not correct.  evolutionary biologists consider mutation one of the primary sources that generate variability, in a population.

It is natural selection (including sexual selection) that is considered to be the primary mechanism that acts on those changes to produce overall change in a phenotype in the population.

I won't even bother to go into the more esoteric arguments involved past that, unless you can even grasp the essentials of the primary arguments first.

since you seem unable or unwilling to, I doubt there will be any need to go further.

btw, don't you have your own thread to expound your nonsense in?
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 11 2006,21:03

Now sexual  selection I have some respect for.

Yes, I'm aware of the role of natural selction.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 12 2006,01:23

then act like it, doofus.

all you have shown so far is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the evidence and theory presented to you.

give me one good reason why any of us should bother conversing with you.
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 12 2006,02:23

stevestory...maybe you not know what ? mean...when i say "you only have one mistake to crow about?" it end in ? and that mean it a question...i only see you mention one mistake and mention several time so i ask question you only got one mistake?...the link you give me is no davescot error of fact...so you only got one davescot error of fact to crow about?...please note question mark means it a question...thank you...feel free to justify your answer with link to davescot error of fact...if you feel this a challenge to your credibility you #### skippy it is
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 12 2006,02:34

avocationist...mabye russell worry that bacteria mutate into metazoan parasite next week so he have to constantly keep in mind the modern synthesis explanation of how random mutation plus natural selection turn bacteria into baboon...i didn't know people interested in how bacteria acquire drug immunity worry about them acquiring bodies and minds too...me learn something new every day!...hahaha...good joke yes?...i still compete with gergonomic for better joke than compare pim van meurs to phillip skell
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 12 2006,02:45

toejam is foul smelling sludge generated by parasitic fungus living between toes...sir_toejam is aptly named...he/she/shim parasitizes commentary with foul smelling writing living between toes of people who write headlines...hahaha...good one yes?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 12 2006,03:30

Most of the biochemists and molecular biologists i work with, would probably agree that darwinian evolution is of little importance to their work, and that they could get on fine without it. They are just happy to clone their genes, assay their proteins, run their gels, and all the other things that they do that I dont entirely understand but am very glad I dont have to do myself.

As i bioinformatician, what I  do is give them the sequences and location of their genes, predicted structures and functions of their proteins, and all the other genomic information that they need to do their experments. The analysis of high-throughout data, be it genome sequncing and gene/protein prediction, or gene expression analysis etc, underpins much of modern biology. This also extends to medical research and drug discovery, one of my jobs is to locate drug targets in mircoorganisms using systems biology, and other people in my lab use molecular modelling to design drug candiates bases on the structures of these targets.

The point of me saying all this is that all of what I do along with most of the rest of the people in my field, does depend on 'how' these things evolved. Ive seen a lot of people on a lot of different threads saying that this doesnt matter, but unless the work of a designer is purposefully created to mimic a non designed system, it really does, designed systems have very different properties from non-designed systems. When we 'borrow' algorithms from computer science and electronic engineering to use on biological data, we have to adapt them to assume the formation of the system, be that a DNA sequence, a protein structure, or a molecular network, was the result of non-guided evolution, otherwise they dont work. I admit that many scientists do not even consider evolution when doing their work, but I have heard many people say that if we assumed it didnt happen, or we assume that organisms are designed, it wouldnt make a difference. Without evolution, modern biological and medical research would slow to a crawl.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 12 2006,05:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Hey folks there is some guy called fishyred or something like that that is raising #### over at “After the Bar Closes.” I think he may be Russian. Its a hoot.

Comment by John Davison — February 11, 2006 @ 3:51 am
#

fishyred? What thread topic over there, Dr. Davison?

Comment by Scott — February 11, 2006 @ 9:03 am
#

The one with far and away the most posts and viewers, the one that deals with this forum of course. There were 561 posts the last I looked. What a compliment!

Comment by John Davison — February 11, 2006 @ 9:25 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The above plus phishpaste's instant dislike of Sir_T confirms for me that he is John Davison.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 12 2006,05:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if you feel this a challenge to your credibility
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If you're challenging my credibility, while defending a guy who has posted under someone else's name, (Scott Page), erases his mistakes, and in the words of one ID supporter "is ruining Dembski's weblog", then go right ahead, no one cares, which is why nobody visits your weblog, JAD.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 12 2006,06:02

LOL. the top thread at Uncommon Pissant, "Jack Krebs Asking About Common Descent", has just been updated by DaveScot. At the bottom he added

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice: Stay on topic. This thread isn’t about whether or not common descent is true but whether or not Intelligent Design Theory takes a position on common descent and about how the association fallacy is being used to conflate IDT with denial of common descent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Any time he mentions common descent, all the little creationists start yelling about how they ain't come from no monkey, and DaveScot gets all pissed off.

It's so great to watch.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 12 2006,11:11

now dave's putting up limited-lifetime comments:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

DaveScot

Is there a particular reason my comments no longer appear here, but remain awaiting moderation seemingly indefinitely?

Of course there is a reason. Any comment I don’t consider constructive, if I see it, gets flushed. This is triply true for articles I write. For some reason that I’m sure I no longer recall you have a red flag by your name so that I see all your comments. I don’t keep a diary of this stuff. If there’s a long enough period of time where I don’t flush any of your comments I remove the red flag to save myself the trouble. Read this quickly because it’s off topic and won’t stick around long. -ds

Comment by Xavier — February 12, 2006 @ 11:52 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 12 2006,13:17

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 12 2006,17:11)
now dave's putting up limited-lifetime comments:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

DaveScot

Is there a particular reason my comments no longer appear here, but remain awaiting moderation seemingly indefinitely?

Of course there is a reason. Any comment I don’t consider constructive, if I see it, gets flushed. This is triply true for articles I write. For some reason that I’m sure I no longer recall you have a red flag by your name so that I see all your comments. I don’t keep a diary of this stuff. If there’s a long enough period of time where I don’t flush any of your comments I remove the red flag to save myself the trouble. Read this quickly because it’s off topic and won’t stick around long. -ds

Comment by Xavier — February 12, 2006 @ 11:52 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL. And which is the side that whinges about free speach? The whole thing beggars belief.

I live in the UK, when I tell people about what is going on here, my main problem is getting them to believe it.

Even when some folks view, they think it is a parody. I am having problems convincing folks in  England that this is not just a Monty Python/Benny Hill style mockery.

A few people know. But for most Brits, they think it is a joke. Hopefully parents will realise soon.
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 12 2006,13:40

stephen elliot you tell me benny hill is not reality tv like judge judy?...next you tell me brits don't really have bad teeth and skin...i not believe...anyhow you better not mock americans as you overdue for germany to beat you into...how you say...whinging?...to america to stop the mean germans from killing you...maybe they not want to bail you out again...you know like three strikes you out

drunk stevestory...i not defending davescot...i making an a$$ of you...not that it much of a challenge...now you link of 2nd davescot mistake or is one all you got?...note question mark still mean it a question dummy
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 12 2006,13:44

by the way...how long you girls let john davidson talk sh!t about you before you hitch up you panties and do something about it?...just curious
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 12 2006,14:07

Actually I'm Sober Steve Story right now, having had only two Yuenglings so far. But their ten buddies in the fridge are fearing for their lives, as well they should be. You're making an a55 out of me, huh? If you say so, JAD.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 12 2006,14:40

Hey Phishy! I've started a whole separate topic just for you, so you can have the spotlight all to yourself, and people that - for whatever bizarre reason - don't want to have every discussion diverted by your, um, valuable contributions don't have to.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 12 2006,17:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The above plus phishpaste's instant dislike of Sir_T confirms for me that he is John Davison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hmmm. that works.  the last time he posted on PT, seems i made him blow a gasket.

I really feel sorry for the guy.  He obviously was a decent scientist at one point in his career, now is simply a cranked-out attention seeker.

some sort of mental schism happened to him in the early 80's, and he's never been the same since.

I once tried to contact UoV to see what his status was with the University.

their response was:

"John who?"

seems they had forgotten all about him years ago.

just as a reminder for those who haven't seen it, JAD's PEH (evolutionary "manifesto") earned him the title of Crankiest in the evolution section over on Crank.net last year:

< http://www.crank.net/evolution.html >

I'd like to think the folks at PT helped him get nominated.   ;)
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 12 2006,22:14

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 12 2006,19:40)
stephen elliot you tell me benny hill is not reality tv like judge judy?...next you tell me brits don't really have bad teeth and skin...i not believe...anyhow you better not mock americans as you overdue for germany to beat you into...how you say...whinging?...to america to stop the mean germans from killing you...maybe they not want to bail you out again...you know like three strikes you out
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D

LOL. Of course I have bad teeth and skin. I am a man, I don't spend time and money trying to be pretty.

Any Americans I am mocking, is not because they are American, but because they are ignorant and want to stay that way.

I see your knowledge of WW2 is as patchy as any other area. Hey-ho, never mind. Next time try harder.

Your commenting style looks to me like a hybrid of DS and JAD. You poor soul.
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 12 2006,23:46

ah so...what up with this?

< http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-79349 >

pim van meurs who do not even say his whole name anymore and go only by initial pvm...who have no entry in panda thumb contributor list...yet who make more headline article on panda thumb than all other put together...doesn't even stack up against russell who? and drunk stevestory...except pim have long long long history of flaming and lying on usenet before he drop off radar screen ten year past

look like whoever got him good scandal material...pim van meur is designated attack dog for all "reputable" scientist who need maintain veneer of propriety since they unlike pim have reputation to protect...all except paul meyer of course he a real loose cannon with big flappy lips...must make handlers at university cringe
Posted by: phishyphred on Feb. 12 2006,23:55

steppy "bad teeth" elliot...how my wwii knowledge spotty?...my dad tailgunner in U.S. B-26 Marauder medium bomber flying out of england in 1944...he fly 25 missions over germany and get lucky he not in 33% of american bomber crew killed keeping the nazis out of your crappy little island...ever see real norton bombsight photos of bomb blowing crap out of germany?...i got stacks of them...plus hundreds pictures of american forces in wwii britain...formation flying over germany...bomb in midair...sky filled with flak...you say america not save you?...i say eat turd and die ungrateful beeatch
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 13 2006,01:08

Ummm and?  My grandfather was on the beaches on D -Day.  He didnt talk about it.  

Perhaps you dont realise that your own canabilisation of someone elses experience makes you look like a small child.  Or someone who has no conception of friendship, morality, and anything else that helps you get by in the world.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 13 2006,02:24

Guthrie, you should realize that if phishy is John Davison, he's not actually responsible for his actions.  It doesn't appear to be simple senility, it looks more like an undiagnosed stroke of some kind.
Posted by: pressmydigitator on Feb. 13 2006,04:46

Fishyfred is sure as #### not John Davison. John Davison is not that polite. He has been insulting the #### out of you folks over here and you are letting him get away with it. It's a  mistake if you ask me.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 13 2006,05:21

PressMyDigitator: Don't confuse "PhishyPhred" with "FishyFred". The former is a bad comedy act combining:
offensive imitations of chinese-english,
ad hominem insinuations about anyone who propounds views at odds with his Role Model &/or Alter Ego, DaveScot, and
a total disregard for the content of those views.

The latter is, so far as I can tell, a sensible person.

Do you really think it's a mistake not to rebut the ravings of an obvious lunatic like JAD? I figure he's his own worst enemy. If there's anyone that can read more than a couple of sentences of his without suspecting serious mental problems, I doubt any amount of rational rebuttal will reach him/her. And what would be the point of trying to trump JAD in the puerile insult competition?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 13 2006,05:37

The recent upswing in UD sock puppet acitivity seems to tell us two things: they really dislike the existence of this forum, and they really, really dislike the ability for people to use a pseudonym here. The strategy of using each login as a disposable platform to blither from appears to be aimed at forcing the adoption of a policy that would restrict accounts to verifiable identities.


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 13 2006,07:16

I support such a system. Or a karma system, like /. has, which also encourages responsible behavior.
Posted by: Artist in trainig on Feb. 13 2006,07:19

Ok. A week of reading books (finished Pandas, read the God Gene, visiting my biologist-in-training relative and reading every post and comment at UD. I appear here now to offer my humble apologies to those I might have slighted, no matter how drunk.

I am and remain a christian, whether that suits you or not. My faith in God has never, to my knowledge, done me harm, and it has done me so much good.

That said, ID is a hoax perpetrated on those of us who look to experts for information by those who see Christians as marks for scams. I don't know where they are doing it but somewhere there has to be money being bilked out of believers.

I give to my church because I know what we do with the money. We pay the guy who marries and buries us and who helps us when we need comfort. We provide a great deal of help to our city's homeless. We help members of our Church who fall on hard times. We, as far as I can remember, only promote Christianity through our public deeds.

This ID nonsense has to be promoted through our government. No one else is that corrupt with as many resources. If this is a nod to the uneducated Christians who follow the "Fundementalist" paths, it is sickening. I am signing off at this point, probably for good (this is not my lifes work) but for God's sake, follow reason, logic and truth and you will not lose God if you already have him.

THere is a value in God that is hard for an atheist (I don't know a better word but I suspect that one is inadequate) to understand. You may feel that it is our way to lie to ourselves but I assure you it is not that simple and for the most part, that is not the case. Truth and evidence must trump dogma and superstition or else we hand the reigns over to those who would use our fear to control us. Sounds a little preachy, I know but, hey, I'm a Christian.

Thought I'd throw this little nugget to you from
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/809 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is, in evolutionary psychology, no account of the emotions beyond the trivial, or of the sentiments,no account of action or intention, no account of the human ability to acquire mathematical or scientific knowledge, no very direct exploration of the mind’s power to act at a distance by investing things with meaning—no account, that is, of any of the features of the mind whose existence prompts a question about its origins. In its great hope as in so many other respects, evolutionary psychology has reposed its confidence on the bet that in time these things will be explained. If that is so, all that we on the outside can say is that time will tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And to that last statement, I would have to concur.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 13 2006,07:28

40-50% of the biologists who believe in evolution are christians, so you certainly don't have to give one up for the other. And if you want more info about why ID is a hoax, I suggest a book like Why Intelligent Design Fails.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 13 2006,07:28

I think DaveScot has adopted John Davison as a surrogate father.  It all fits:  the perennial squabbles and reconciliations between the two of them, the instant invitation for JAD to rejoin UD once Dave was put in charge, Dave's habit of leaping to John's defense whenever he thinks John has been slighted, and this very DaveScottish attempt to rile up the folks over here so that they'll give JAD some attention:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John Davison is not that polite. He has been insulting the #### out of you folks over here and you are letting him get away with it. It's a  mistake if you ask me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the other hand, pressmydigitator could be JAD himself begging for some attention, which would be sadder still.
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 13 2006,07:29

Ait, congratulations on seeing the light - that didn't take long.
Although BWE can recall exactly when and why you started posting at uncommon descent he doesn't recall any encounters with you here at panda's thumb.
Has it come back to you yet where you met those nasty pandas thumbers who shouted you down when you were talking about Einstein?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 13 2006,07:37

What I like about the /. system, I think would work here if it could be implemented--people who have been around long enough to be trustworthy are given small powers of moderation. They can demerit comments for being offensive or garbage or whatever. Individual viewers of the site can select what level of comments to see. If you particularly want to see the worst comments, you can, but everybody else wouldn't have to. At /., they have so many comments that their system has 7 tiers, but here we'd only need two: regular and garbage.

***

I was just alerted to the fact that Uncommon Pissant has an RSS feed. This is the answer to our prayers, because they can't delete that once it's out. So everybody who uses RSS, please set up their site. That way they won't be able to delete a thread on us again.
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 13 2006,07:45

Quote (Artist in trainig @ Feb. 13 2006,13:19)
I don't know where they are doing it but somewhere there has to be money being bilked out of believers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the more blatant sites is Dr. Dino (Hovind).  I mean, just look at it.  It's an online store with the sole purpose of "bilking believers".  Hovind's last press release boasted that he was speaking publicly over 700 times in a single year!  Do you really think he's doing it for free?  And ask Behe how many books he sold and speaking engagements he landed before he wrote his anti-evolution book.  The opportunities are plnetiful.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 13 2006,07:49

speaking of him, I'd almost pay money to watch him teach algebra.

< http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?impulse=3 >
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 13 2006,08:05

####, now you made actually go and look at the site.  Unfortunately I started reading an < article on snake spurs >.  Keeping snakes happens to be one of my hobbies, and I have a keen interest in the subject.  So unfortunately, I read some of the article.  I think doing so actually killed some of my brain cells.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 13 2006,08:17

LOL I can't remember if I was Hovind or Ken Ham who had that hilarious cartoon where a dinosaur, who has an eye on one side of his head, thinks something like "That works real good. I think I'll try real hard to evolve another one!" and he starts straining like unnngggghhhhhh...
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 13 2006,08:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am and remain a christian, whether that suits you or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and why in the world would it not???
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 13 2006,08:32

Once again....

ID(philosophy) != ID(science)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This ID nonsense has to be promoted through our government. No one else is that corrupt with as many resources. If this is a nod to the uneducated Christians who follow the "Fundementalist" paths, it is sickening. I am signing off at this point, probably for good (this is not my lifes work) but for God's sake, follow reason, logic and truth and you will not lose God if you already have him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I actually feel sorry for people like AIT.  He had to waste a great deal of his time learning that ID is a trick.  He had the best of motivations.  He had heard the rumors...and was excited at the oppurtunity of reconciling religion and science.  Now, if only other people could begin to understand the absurdity of ID we could move on to building bridges between religion and science....
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 13 2006,08:35

No, feel happy for him, he learned. Now Salvador Cordova, or DaveScot--feel sad for them.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 13 2006,08:55

Everybody who wants thread #809 over at Uncommon Pissant better go get it now. DaveScot is claiming that obviously Cartesian Dualism is crap, and that the mind is just what the brain does. At some point he'll be clued in to the fact that Overlord Dembski is a Cartesian Dualist. When that happens, the thread might do the disappearing act thread 744 did.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me know when you have some way of measuring mind apart from brain and you can argue with me about it. In the meantime mind/brain duality strikes me as wool gathering so you aren’t going to persuade me of anything no matter how hard you try.

--DaveScot

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: improvius on Feb. 13 2006,09:23

Here's something else for Artist in trainig to read: an < article on Ken Ham >.  According to the article, Ham pulls down a cool $120,000 a year.  Oh yeah, there's money to be made here.  You'll never go broke telling people what they want to hear.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 13 2006,09:36

Re "DaveScot is claiming [...] that the mind is just what the brain does."

What?!?!? But that's just materialism in as many words, isn't it? Aka the arch enemy of I.D.? Did I miss something somewhere?

Henry
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Feb. 13 2006,09:49

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 13 2006,13:49)
speaking of him, I'd almost pay money to watch him teach algebra.

< http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?impulse=3 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve that link just reads item not located.  What was it?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 13 2006,10:04

Instructional videos where he teaches you Algebra. I guess the site does that internal navigation crap where the apparent link will not take someone there.

Oh and yes, Henry, that is materialism. DaveScot is some kind of agnostic, who actually thinks there is a real scientific theory in Dembski's work. He's been fooled by the math, in other words. He made a big stink saying you'd have to be a religious zealot to doubt common descent, perhaps without realizing that he was surrounded by creationists. Similarly, he is going to piss off people by calling dualism crap, but he doesn't know that yet.

Because he doesn't understand that ID is entirely a political movement motivated by religion, he's stepping on religious toes, and it's having consequences. Some ID supporters say he's destroying the blog.

I think it's great comedy. It's like watching the Three Stooges run around the deck of the titanic.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 13 2006,10:28

Quote (Artist in trainig @ Feb. 13 2006,13:19)
Ok. A week of reading books (finished Pandas, read the God Gene, visiting my biologist-in-training relative and reading every post and comment at UD. I appear here now to offer my humble apologies to those I might have slighted, no matter how drunk.

I am and remain a christian, whether that suits you or not. My faith in God has never, to my knowledge, done me harm, and it has done me so much good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*To you very good health sir!*
*Clink*
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 13 2006,10:48

If any of you ever get tired of laughing at the comic relief UD provides, you might want to check out how the "leaders" of the ID movement present their arguments in a more "thoughtful" context:

< http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000152.html >

not saying this isn't just as funny, but it is far more educational.

You will find Dembski, Nelson, and many other familiar names weighing in over there.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 13 2006,10:52

That thread is a classic, Sir TJ.  To me, it points out two key things about the various ID supporters: first, that they are inacapable of appreciating or being swayed by any kind of rational argument; and second, that they can be made to look like blithering idiots without any effort at all.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 13 2006,10:55

stevestory wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't remember if I was Hovind or Ken Ham who had that hilarious cartoon where a dinosaur, who has an eye on one side of his head, thinks something like "That works real good. I think I'll try real hard to evolve another one!" and he starts straining like unnngggghhhhhh...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Steve,
You're thinking of Jim Pinkoski's masterpiece.  PZ Myers posted the cartoon on Pharyngula last June.  Follow this link and scroll down:
< http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/pinkoski_again/P50/ >
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 13 2006,11:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
that they can be made to look like blithering idiots without any effort at all
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



they do just fine in that regard all by themselves, with no help whatsoever!

I still love Dembski's homeresque line:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By your great mass of words and facts you’ve lost the train of the argument
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*snort*
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 13 2006,12:00

LOL keiths, that's so great.
Posted by: WesleyDingleberry on Feb. 13 2006,15:25

Wesley Elsberry...i love ability to use pseudonym here...i think it you who have problem with it...yes?...ud sockpuppet love this forum btw...love knowing pt pay attention to our every utterance...just wish you wouldn't keep trying keep us out of this forum...can i use phishyphred again now or you like this more?
Posted by: Moderator on Feb. 13 2006,17:27

I've put together a little something for folks registering multiple accounts. I hope they like it. Happy Valentine's Day...
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 13 2006,17:30

Avocationist.

Are you watching this (PhishyPhred/pressmydigitator/WesleyDingleberry/JAD/DaveScot/etc)? Do you see what kind of person/people you align yourself with when you promote ID? Does it not make you wonder?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 13 2006,19:05

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 13 2006,05:46)
pim van meurs who do not even say his whole name anymore and go only by initial pvm...who have no entry in panda thumb contributor list...

look like whoever got him good scandal material...pim van meur is designated attack dog for all "reputable" scientist who need maintain veneer of propriety since they unlike pim have reputation to protect...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This would indicate to me that 'phishyphred' is the same troll named 'whoever' currently incoherently harassing Pim over at PT. He acts more straightforwardly like Davison there, and less like someone suffering from some untreated head injury.

If these are the most formidable opponents evolution theory has, I think we're in a pretty good position.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 13 2006,20:07

never underestimate the insane.
Posted by: djmullen on Feb. 13 2006,23:16

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 13 2006,14:55)
Everybody who wants thread #809 over at Uncommon Pissant better go get it now. DaveScot is claiming that obviously Cartesian Dualism is crap, and that the mind is just what the brain does. At some point he'll be clued in to the fact that Overlord Dembski is a Cartesian Dualist. When that happens, the thread might do the disappearing act thread 744 did.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me know when you have some way of measuring mind apart from brain and you can argue with me about it. In the meantime mind/brain duality strikes me as wool gathering so you aren’t going to persuade me of anything no matter how hard you try.

--DaveScot

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Everybody who wants thread #809 over at Uncommon Pissant better go get it now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where are the thread numbers over there?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 14 2006,00:18

Quote (phishyphred @ Feb. 13 2006,05:55)
steppy "bad teeth" elliot...how my wwii knowledge spotty?...my dad tailgunner in U.S. B-26 Marauder medium bomber flying out of england in 1944...he fly 25 missions over germany and get lucky he not in 33% of american bomber crew killed keeping the nazis out of your crappy little island...ever see real norton bombsight photos of bomb blowing crap out of germany?...i got stacks of them...plus hundreds pictures of american forces in wwii britain...formation flying over germany...bomb in midair...sky filled with flak...you say america not save you?...i say eat turd and die ungrateful beeatch
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hehe. You are funny.
Posted by: Caledonian on Feb. 14 2006,02:40

Incredible!  DS completely misses the point of the post -- it's not arguing that mind can be measured apart from brain, it's arguing that Dembski believes otherwise.  DS's response furthers the conflict between himself and Dembski.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 14 2006,04:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where are the thread numbers over there?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Put your mouse on the main link on a thread, and see what it says in the status bar
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 14 2006,04:32

Did anyone notice this comment in thread #809 at UD?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as Davison goes sometimes you have to take the bad with the good. He’s a brilliant experimental biologist with 50 years experience at it. He was Sternberged 20 years ago by the Darwinian priesthood for heresy and has good reason to be hateful about it. What they’ve done and continue to do to him is despicable. You get back what you give out. If nothing else show some respect for your elders and cut them some slack.

Comment by DaveScot — February 13, 2006 @ 10:31 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Was this common knowledge to people here? It's the first I'd heard of it. Explains his fury, I suppose. Although, given his insane ramblings, it doesn't really surprise me that he was "Sternberged".
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 14 2006,04:45

I believe DAvison retired in 2000, as an emeritus professor.  That seems good going for someone allegedly Sternberged in 1986.  Anyone want to ask him for evidence?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 14 2006,05:07

Quote (guthrie @ Feb. 14 2006,10:45)
I believe DAvison retired in 2000, as an emeritus professor.  That seems good going for someone allegedly Sternberged in 1986.  Anyone want to ask him for evidence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe his martyrdom was retroactive. It took 14 years to take effect. Meanwhile he continued to be employed and to write daffy 'manifestos' the whole while. Rather a wimpy martyrdom.

Can someone explain to me what it means to be 'sternberged'?
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 14 2006,05:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He was Sternberged 20 years ago by the Darwinian priesthood for heresy and has good reason to be hateful about it. What they’ve done and continue to do to him is despicable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was this common knowledge to people here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Was what common knowledge? What does it mean to be "Sternberged"? What was done and what continues to be done? I generally don't waste too much time trying to check the veracity of rants involving  Darwinian priesthoods persecuting heretics; it always leads to the same results. But especially if it comes from DaveScot.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 14 2006,05:20

I understand that Sternberg was that journal editor who snuck an ID related paper into the journal just before he retired, and was then roundly condemned for it.  Or did he resign?  Anyway, details will be at the PT.  

This kind of statement is begging for evidence.   You know, like letters from faculty saying " Dear Dr Davison, please stop your research because it contradicts all we know about evolution.", followed by "Since you have not stopped your research, we are sacking you."

I sincerely doubt that any such evidence exists though.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 14 2006,05:33

I'm more or less familiar with the Sternberg story, and am not particularly impressed by his claims to martyrdom, nor by his professed innocence of creationist motives. (Exhibit A: consulting for the Baraminology Research Group; Exhibit B: participating in an ID advocates-only "conference" at Biola - the one from which Wesley was cordially uninvited).

But whatever happened in that case, and whether or not it was unfair, to say that Davison was "Sternberged" is uninformative, just inflammatory. In other words, typical DaveScot.
Posted by: gregonomic on Feb. 14 2006,05:55

I wouldn't put much stock in any claim by DaveScot or JAD either.

I just thought that someone around these parts was asking questions about what happened to JAD ~20 years ago that caused him to drop off the science map. And I thought this might be an explanation.

Of course, submitting wacky papers might have been a symptom, not a cause.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 14 2006,06:44

Are you guys aware that JAD has "featured" papers published on Dembski's International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) website?

< JAD and Dembski, sittin' in a tree... >

Keep in mind according to ISCID " The archive is moderated to assure that articles meet minimum scholarly standards and are relevant to the study of complex systems."  Therefore JAD must meet Dembski's standards.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 14 2006,07:26

I thought this was funny.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/nuclear-evolution-debate/ >

Is anyone from here still allowed to post?

Seems like a pretty empty invitation.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 14 2006,07:35

It sounds a lot like an invitation from Dr. Dino.

It would certainly be humorous if someone posted over there something like this, "Check peer-reviewed journals X, Y, Z, etc. from about the years 1880 - present if you want evidence."
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 14 2006,08:00

Sure, I know DS is uummmmmm, the intellectual equivalent of a schemie, but lurkers and people who are new to this dont know that.  Thats why the whack-attack on creationist/ ID claims is so necessary.
Posted by: improvius on Feb. 14 2006,08:16

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 14 2006,11:07)
[quote=guthrie,Feb. 14 2006,10:45]Can someone explain to me what it means to be 'sternberged'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it means you misplace your keys for about a day or so.
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 14 2006,08:30

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 14 2006,13:26)
I thought this was funny.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/nuclear-evolution-debate/ >

Is anyone from here still allowed to post?

Seems like a pretty empty invitation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, we can't asnwer their question. No one can prove that random mutations + selection is responsible for the rise of the eukaryotes.
For this, we would have to test most of the intermediate forms from prokaryotes to eukaryotes (which disappeared more than a billion years ago), detect wich mutations occured and measure their benefits on fitness (not in the lab since it does not perfectly match natural conditions).
Of course, we do have evidence that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, and natural selection is certainly the factor acting here (since we don't know any other evolution mechanism, except drift), but we can't prove it nor test it, AFAIK.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 14 2006,08:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
February 14, 2006
Nuclear Evolution Debate

This page is for an as-yet-to-be-named person from Panda’s Thumb to present all the evidence, predictions, and repeatable tests that neoDarwinian theory has to support the hypothesis of random mutation + natural selection being the mechanism underlying the evolution of the eukaryote nucleus from a prokaryote ancestor. “Whoever” will then fisk the presentation in an attempt to show that NDE’s claim is entirely vacuous. I don’t expect there will be any volunteers from Panda’s Thumb and that’s okay too because it will show they can’t even begin to make a reasonable argument in support of a neoDarwinian mechanism for this crucial event in the evolution of life.

The challenge was made here.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — Administrator @ 11:50 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The nucleus challenge is just a request to fill a certain gap. Young Earth Creationist Henry Morris, in 1974, said the same thing about the "gap" between vertebrates and invertebrates. The front page of Uncommon Descent is therefore a micromutated creationist argument from 30 years ago.

Furthermore, here are some Creation Science websites where creationists argue that a prokaryote could not have led to an eukaryote:

< http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4341_endosymbiont.asp >
< http://www.creationinfo.com/evcr/6_7_2004.htm >
< http://blogger.xs4all.nl/jcdverha/archive/2004/12/11/17189.aspx >
< http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3105.html >


Answers in Genesis:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did cells acquire organelles such as mitochondria by gobbling up other cells?

(Or, can the endosymbiont theory explain the origin of eukaryotic cells?)

by Dr Don Batten, AiG–Australia

6 July 2000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks, Uncommon Pissants, for helping demonstrate that Intelligent Design = Creationism.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 14 2006,11:24

I note that the 'challenge' posted by "whoever" has now disappeared from the Uncommon Descent front page.

One would have to archive the entire thing every five minutes to keep up with the various attempts to cover up ill-considered, ignorant, or simply idiotic statements made over there.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 14 2006,12:20

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 14 2006,17:24)
I note that the 'challenge' posted by "whoever" has now disappeared from the Uncommon Descent front page.

One would have to archive the entire thing every five minutes to keep up with the various attempts to cover up ill-considered, ignorant, or simply idiotic statements made over there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of these days the Insane Creationist Clown Posse is going to accidently ban themselves.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 14 2006,13:15

no, it's still there. look in the list on the right-hand side
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 14 2006,13:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of these days the Insane Creationist Clown Posse is going to accidently ban themselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Leader: We are the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad!
Suicide squad, attack! (they all stab themselves)

That showed 'em, huh? "
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 14 2006,16:32

Is there any way to make me feel better about my annual ACLU dues, than Doug Moron posting the following at Uncommon Pissant?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ACLU: America’s Intellectual Terrorists
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think there is.


Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 14 2006,16:40

nice mullet.

:p
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 14 2006,18:42

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 14 2006,19:15)
no, it's still there. look in the list on the right-hand side
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, bother!  'twasn't there when I looked.  Perhaps they added it back, in order to avoid embarrassment?  :p
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 14 2006,22:19

####, gotta hate stream of consciousness ramblings from crack addicts.

you do know there are treatment programs for that, right?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 15 2006,00:16

Quote (moderatordingleberry @ Feb. 15 2006,05:02)
ah so...only people with no control over self "gotta hate"...get ahold of self sir_FoulParasiticOoze...take charge of life...grab bull by horns...carpe diem!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are you typing as if English was not your first language? ???
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 15 2006,01:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
nothing in evolution make sense except in light of prescribed evolution from complex stem cell common ancestor...then everything fall neatly in place
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think Davsions had a stroke.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 15 2006,03:36

Actually, I think it's JAD's attempt to be 'funny'.  'though I admit that he needs some serious medical help.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 15 2006,03:39

I seem to see this front loading argument quite often, yet nobody suggests a way to test it.  It just seems to be assumed to be correct.

So JAD, how have you tested your hypothesis?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 15 2006,04:19

DaveScot babbled about Panda's Thumb

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every article there has ZERO trackbacks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Except the ones which don't, of course.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Feb. 15 2006,06:54

So, this 'debate' challenge by whoever, seems to me they're itchin' to give TurboGoalposts v.3:16 a field-test.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 15 2006,07:01

Turbo goalposts!  Very funny!

So are turbo goalposts a software application, or are they powered by a 2 litre turbo engine taken from a car?
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 15 2006,07:53

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 15 2006,12:54)
So, this 'debate' challenge by whoever, seems to me they're itchin' to give TurboGoalposts v.3:16 a field-test.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


v.3:16...priceless.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 15 2006,10:58

Steverstory,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The front page of Uncommon Descent is therefore a micromutated creationist argument from 30 years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nobody should suppose that creation scientists have no good arguments on their side, or that their every argument against evolution theory, (which I believe have been proposed since about 1860 and were not necessarily strongly religious in nature) must be different from ones an IDist might accept.

What matters is, can such questions be answered, and if they have not been answered in 30 years, does that somehow make the question irrelevant?

So no, this does not mean that ID = creationism.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 15 2006,11:39

William the Theologian is now crying about Ohio and calling "evolutionary theory" a racket because scientists continue to work to keep intelligent design creationism from being taught in our public schools.  

< I used to think evolutionary theory was just a bad idea. It’s looking increasingly like a racket. >

Yeah Al Capone is keeping your theology out of public schools, he and Kenneth Lay that is.  It's all about McCarthyism, dude.  Keeping Jesus out of science class.

One thing that can be said about the intelligent designer, he either could care less about what is taught in American public schools or he is impotent to do anything about it.  The current score is thus:

Science - 3
Intelligent design creationism - 0
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 15 2006,11:43

All their arguments are old creationist arguments, occasionally with technical jargon added to make it seem more scientific.

Ken Ham says, "mutations do not add information", and William Dembski tarts it up into "the NFL theorems demonstrate that algorithms cannot produce Complex Specified Information blah blah blah".

Don't be fooled by the fake math.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.

--William Dembski
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sounds like creationism to me.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nobody should suppose that creation scientists have no good arguments on their side
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, I think that's a pretty good supposition. Arguing against evolution was reasonable in 1860, unreasonable by the late 1940s, and a sign of ignorance and/or stubbornness in 2006.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 15 2006,11:52

Steve just because Dembski says God and religion are behind intelligent design (creationism) doesn't mean God and religion are behind intelligent design(creationism).  Take these Dembski comments for example:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." – National Religious Broadcasters, 2000

Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.

"The world is a mirror representing the divine life..." "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - with A., Kushiner, James M., (editors), Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.

"I think the opportunity to deal with students and getting them properly oriented on science and theology and the relation between those is going to be important because science has been such an instrument used by the materialists to undermine the Christian faith and religious belief generally." "This is really an opportunity," Dembski added, "to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ. That's really what is driving me." – Dembski to head seminary's new science & theology center, 2004

"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?  What a nutty idea.  ID is science, science I tell you!  Afterall, I mean, it could be a space alien or time traveler, no?  

And it's frontloaded, baby!
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 15 2006,11:54

ditto on the pricelessness of TurboGoalposts v3:16
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 15 2006,12:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dude, Casey Luskin literally asked me that very question, while his Intelligent Design club required officers to be Christian.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 15 2006,12:14

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 15 2006,18:03)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dude, Casey Luskin literally asked me that very question, while his Intelligent Design club required officers to be Christian.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a bunch of lying turd nuggets.  It is as if they think everyone is as dumb as their own followers and they honestly believe that saying stupid moronic things like "we aint sayin' it is god, it could be a space alien or time traveler" somehow makes IDC scientific and not religious.  How insulting.  

Luskin et al are nothing but con men for Jesus.
Posted by: brauer on Feb. 15 2006,12:29

About that "Apologetics": is there any aspect to the practice that differentiates it from "propaganda"?

(I mean that as a serious question.)
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 15 2006,12:48

Also, IIRC Luskin in a minister of some kind. However, I'm not sure Casey is lying, if you demand people have certain religious beliefs, and then maintain that religion is irrelevant to what you're doing, it strikes me less as lying, and more like some kind of Oliver-Sachs-patient dysfunction like being unable to see things which are blue.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 15 2006,16:56

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 15 2006,07:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
nothing in evolution make sense except in light of prescribed evolution from complex stem cell common ancestor...then everything fall neatly in place
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think Davsions had a stroke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't find who is being quoted here.  Can someone point me to it?  tia
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 16 2006,01:01

It was from a troll named "phishyphred" (JAD or Dave Scott?), whose posts have been deleted. ???
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 16 2006,03:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't find who is being quoted here.  Can someone point me to it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It was someone called 'moderatordingleberry', since he makes reference to prescribed evolution, and Davison has referred to Wesley as dingleberry before (Im not American what does dingleberry even mean?), I assumed it was him. That was before i saw that it was a quote from a DaveScott post on UD, so its probably just some random troll. The quote is in this thread somewhere i think.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 16 2006,04:44

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 16 2006,09:13)
It was someone called 'moderatordingleberry', since he makes reference to prescribed evolution, and Davison has referred to Wesley as dingleberry before (Im not American what does dingleberry even mean?),
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, you don't want to know...   ???
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 16 2006,05:45

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 15 2006,16:58)
Nobody should suppose that creation scientists have no good arguments on their side, or that their every argument against evolution theory, (which I believe have been proposed since about 1860 and were not necessarily strongly religious in nature) must be different from ones an IDist might accept.

What matters is, can such questions be answered, and if they have not been answered in 30 years, does that somehow make the question irrelevant?

So no, this does not mean that ID = creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it does.  If ID uses the same arguments as Creationists, then where is the separation?  All the Creationist arguments were born from the Bible, so I guess we know where ID gets its arguments from now, huh?

Oh, and all those arguments have been answered.  You might want to check out this page:

< http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ >
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 16 2006,11:46

I must be a big player in the creationism/ evolution debate, I'm getting mail from JAD.  He's seen me ask how he tests his hypothesis, and seems to want to take issue with me.  

Now, although it will be quoted out of context, I would like to say that in other historical periods, I would have challenged JAD to a duel.  However, this being today, and what with him being old enough to be my grandfather, and me being a nice quiet peaceful chap, I shall not do that.
Furthermore, unlike the various sock puppets of JAD, and several anti-evolution people, this is my real name.  Blame my great grandmother.  

Instead, behold, we have his PEH.  So far, as far as I can understand, he is saying that no new information is created, rather it is "released" by changes in the genome.  What I dont understand is how then the higher animals evolved, since them doing so seems to involve increasing the size of their genome, does it not?  DAvison seems to agree that evolution happened in the past anyhow.  

Also, he has said before that evolution is finished.  How does he know that?  Have we completely exhausted the potential rearrangements in our genetic code?  That seems unlikely in the least.  Can he suggest the potential number of such re-arrangements?  I doubt it.

The problem also with his idea, is that he suggests no way in which to distinguish between rearrangments that might happen of their own accord, and re-arrangements that have been pre-programmed, or else where the "designer" might have interfered.  

Although it also looks like he is suggesting that it is all happening according to the laws of nature.  Which, ummm, is the whole point.  So maybe he is on our side after all?
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 16 2006,11:58

By the sound of it he is saying that all rearrangements are preprogrammed, based on the fact that particular sites in the genome are more likely to be involved in rearrangements than others. My main problem with frontloading, assuming that it was specifically designed to produce current species, is that the frontloader would have to have complete foreknowledge of all the random mutations and environmental conditions that would occur. Apparently the first bird hatched from the egg of a reptile this way. Also in comparing phylogeny with ontogeny he says that the environment is in no way involved with evolution as it isnt involved with development, and i think developmental biologists would have something to say about that.

Many lower species actually have genomes much larger than ours, but genome size has more to do with cell size and cell division rate than complexity. Plus, as far as Im aware, gene expression play just as much if not more of a role in evolution that chromosome rearragements.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 16 2006,13:45

If you want to have an interminable fight with JAD, consider the following things: 1 I'd rather you didn't clog up this thread with his senile nonsense, and 2 he's supposed to be banned from here anyway.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 16 2006,13:51

enough with JAD and pant-loading, please!

I've seen this drivel interminably from JAD, then Dave Scott (who has become his biggest fan), then Blast from the past.

one does get weary of hearing the same old pant-load over and over again.

this is where JAD's PEH/pant-loading belongs:

< http://www.crank.net/evolution.html >

his "evolutionary manifesto" earned the title Crankiest, as soon as it was posted there.

it's crank, that's all it is, and all it ever will be.

It's an argument as old as genetics itself, has had that much time to gain support, and never has.

Isn't anybody else as tired of hearing it as I?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 16 2006,14:25

Yes. So here's something else to talk about. Just when you think you've seen the most pitiful ID dimbulb, a new one comes along, worse than him:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

We need a college to offer a minor in design theory as a branch of mathematics. Does Dr. D have any opinions on which courses a math PhD student might find useful in assisting the cause?

Comment by jaredl — February 16, 2006 @ 6:25 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 16 2006,14:43

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 16 2006,20:25)
We need a college to offer a minor in design theory as a branch of mathematics. Does Dr. D have any opinions on which courses a math PhD student might find useful in assisting the cause?

Comment by jaredl — February 16, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good god.

So, what, since the whole biology thing didn't work out, is their new strategy to parasitize mathematics, like a remora on a shark?

This guy seems quite unaware that there isn't even enough ID theory to fill a single class in 'design theory', far less a whole minor...
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 16 2006,14:46

hmm,

for starters, how 'bout:

pseudo-statistics 101:  the course where you learn how to take surveys using front-loaded questions, and that correlation DOES equal causation.

Advanced recti-linear algebra:  Learn how to put any idea in a box of your own making!

I'll stop there... let's make a list!
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 16 2006,14:58

"Speaking of dogs, would someone here who is still allowed to post at “After The Bar Closes” please inform those sons of bitches that I am responding to their comments about me at the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis thread on the side bar."
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 16 2006,15:31

ID201--Theory of Imaginary Numbers. And Imaginary Theorems. Groundbreaking, Imaginary Theorems.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 16 2006,16:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Speaking of dogs, would someone here who is still allowed to post at “After The Bar Closes” please inform those sons of bitches that I am responding to their comments about me at the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis thread on the side bar."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ROFLMAO.

poor, poor, John.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 16 2006,19:47

guthrie

"What I dont understand is how then the higher animals evolved, since them doing so seems to involve increasing the size of their genome, does it not?"

No.  See < http://www.genomesize.com >

The size of the genome isn't even loosely correlated to the complexity of the animal.  The largest genomes belong to oddballs like water lillies, frogs, pine trees, and amoeba.  This is called the c-value paradox.  C-value refers to the molecular weight of the DNA in a given genome.

There millions upon millions of uncataloged species alive today and they represent only 0.1% of all the species that ever lived.  We haven't even begun to glimpse the bounds of genomic diversity and probably won't ever be able to as 99.9% of all the genomes that ever existed are irretrievably destroyed beyond any ability to sequence or even weigh them.  The first life on earth could have been what someone (somone who unfortunately seems to be a moderation victim and so I cannot ask directly) called a phylogenetic stem cell.  This just another way of saying life on earth began as a seed, if you will, designed to unfold in a more less planned manner much as a human egg is designed to unfold into a human.

If you ignore the question of where the first cell (or cell comes from) which I might remind you is what neodarwinian evolutionary theory does regarding abiogenesis then one can presume it was any size at all of any arbitrary complexity.   Ontogeny and phylogeny have many striking parallels.  Why refuse to consider that one more parallel is that both ontogeny and phylogeny start from a cell programmed to diversify in a defined sequence of events with the environment serving only as a trigger to initiate the next programmed stage?
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 16 2006,19:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why refuse to consider that one more parallel is that both ontogeny and phylogeny start from a cell programmed to diversify in a defined sequence of events with the environment serving only as a trigger to initiate the next programmed stage?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Brilliant Idea.....wow....so you found the program?

wait....you found evidence of organisms evolving after a trigger, even after being moved to a new enviroment?

hmmm....maybe you found something else....

Look...its a great idea....but your really going to have to give me more to go on that an idea.  I have a great idea.  What if all politicians are robots that were programmed by the Illuminati?  Its just an idea till i find proof....but why dont you go ahead and start telling everyone about my idea....since apparently irrefutable ideas=proof in your world?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 17 2006,03:50

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 16 2006,20:58)
"Speaking of dogs, would someone here who is still allowed to post at “After The Bar Closes” please inform those sons of bitches that I am responding to their comments about me at the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis thread on the side bar."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well this is what he had to say



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hey folks, get over to “After the Bar Closes” and read the last four lengthy posts at the “Uncommon pissant” thread (isn’t that revealing?). They all deal with me and the PEH. They are on the run folks, no question about it. They are now so deranged that they are suggesting that I may be on their side after all. Can you imagine that I could ever be on the side of that homogeneous clonal herd of congenital mystics? Not a chance Esley baby. You are history. Get used to it. Close down Panda’s Thumb right now. I would reprint the whole bizarre episode right here but I am too busy slapping my thigh to a pulp in glorious glee to take the time. It is this old physiologist’s dream come true.

I am sorry God if I ever questioned your presence and of course I did. Forgive me.

Comment by John Davison — February 16, 2006 @ 7:49 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As we say down here in Texas, get help, Davison.  

ps I wonder if the intelligent designer cut him any slack after reading his apology?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 17 2006,03:57

There haven't yet been any replies to

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

We need a college to offer a minor in design theory as a branch of mathematics. Does Dr. D have any opinions on which courses a math PhD student might find useful in assisting the cause?

Comment by jaredl — February 16, 2006 @ 6:25 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

over there ( < http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/826#comments > )

Perhaps nobody can figure out what math courses ID is a part of.
Posted by: Savagemutt on Feb. 17 2006,04:12

Final Exam Question to receive your degree:

"Based on your studies, who or what is the Designer?"

You fail if you give any answer.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 17 2006,04:15

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 17 2006,01:47)
 The first life on earth could have been what someone (somone who unfortunately seems to be a moderation victim and so I cannot ask directly) called a phylogenetic stem cell.  This just another way of saying life on earth began as a seed, if you will, designed to unfold in a more less planned manner much as a human egg is designed to unfold into a human.

If you ignore the question of where the first cell (or cell comes from) which I might remind you is what neodarwinian evolutionary theory does regarding abiogenesis then one can presume it was any size at all of any arbitrary complexity.   Ontogeny and phylogeny have many striking parallels.  Why refuse to consider that one more parallel is that both ontogeny and phylogeny start from a cell programmed to diversify in a defined sequence of events with the environment serving only as a trigger to initiate the next programmed stage?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not loosely correlated?  you mean a single celled beastie has as much DNA as a human?  Well I never.  

Anyway, your hypothesis seems flawed because you cannot actually distingush what you are proposing from actual evolution, can you?

As for the first cell, I wouldnt presume anything about its size, except that since we have abiogenesis as an active research area, it seems extremely unlikely that the first cell was very large.  I would be interested to see your evidence for the cell not being quite small.  


Oh, I think your point about environmental triggers has already been covered, but anyway, you seem to be postulating an omniscient designer who can foresee all future environments.  You have evidence for this designer?

As for JAD being a moderation victim, that immediately reveals you as a rabid ID supporter.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 17 2006,04:48

Hmmm. It seems as if the Davison PEH is making a surprising - and testable - counter-Darwinian prediction.

If a "front-loaded" genetic program was required to exist, and persist, for millions-billions of generations before being implemented, that requires that genetic information survive the randomizing effects of imperfect replication without the purifying crucible of natural selection. Is there any evidence to support this? It seems like the erosion of the identity in unused genetic material (e.g. pseudogenes) argues pretty strongly against it.

Though, I suppose, JAD might argue that ancestor life forms had replicative machinery orders of magnitude more error-free than anything currently living. (I doubt that JAD would want to invoke the really Fundie explanation: that DNA replication was absolutely error free before The Fall.)

With respect to the c-paradox: it's true that there's not much correlation between amount of DNA and "complexity" of organisms - at least among plants and animals. But as far as I'm aware, the paradox largely disappears when you correct for repetitious DNA.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 17 2006,05:24

Re "It seems like the erosion of the identity in unused genetic material (e.g. pseudogenes) argues pretty strongly against it."

That's been pointed out to him, by more than one person, back when he was on PT.

Henry
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 17 2006,05:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s finally clear why ID isn’t welcome among evolutionary biologists: the study of narratives provides no clue to the engineering problems that biological systems pose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/829 >

Ok. Well now. Glad that's been cleared up. Next is the people vs Ralph nader. Bailiff?
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 17 2006,06:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

Forgive my denseness, but why does pointing a gun in my face constitute “terms that I’ll understand”?

Along these lines, I’m growing increasingly concerned about the stuff that gets posted here: this, referring to the ACLU as “terrorists,” or complaining about the rules employed by the Panda’s Thumb webmaster. If they fix the trackbacks to your satisfaction, is that going to advance the cause of ID? Is this the kind of stuff I need to know about if I’m to understand ID? -sb

Comment by SteveB — February 17, 2006 @ 8:41 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/829 >

Well done.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 17 2006,06:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot,
If I don’t get a response from you as to why my comments are being censored, I will be forced to start spreading the word about your actions. This is absolutely inexcusable and hypocritical. I have done nothing to get myself banned!

egbooth

Well let’s run down the list. Pick any one or more of the following: trite, derivative, boring, ignorant, wrong, hysterical, hyperbolic… read the comment moderation policy on the sidebar. I’m under no obligation to provide you with a soapbox. You got a chance to speak your mind. Now take it somewhere else. -ds


Comment by egbooth — February 15, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don’t you put up my original comment that I posted this morning and let your reader’s decide whether I was on a soapbox or not.


I’m an editor. My job is to make people’s words disappear before others see them.



You’re blaming Panda’s Thumb for being censors…how is this any different?


I’m up front about it. A bold-lettered statement above every comment submission box says comments are moderated. Comment moderation policy is in the sidebar on the right.



The least you can do, DS, is tell me why…


I don’t have the time.


Give me a chance. You may find out that we agree on more than you think (e.g., getting Atheism out of science).

You get a chance with every comment. I don’t stop anyone from submitting them. If I don’t think it’s constructive for any reason it gets flushed.

I will however see about putting a link to the moderation policy above the comment submission form so it’s clear what the rules are. -ds



Comment by egbooth — February 16, 2006 @ 105 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The difference, btw, Egbooth, is that 1) in 2 years Panda's Thumb has edited or banned about a dozen people, or roughly the number DaveScot has edited or banned since yesterday afternoon. and 2 We don't delete evidence of our mistakes here, which DaveScot has to do pretty frequently. Look for threads 744 and 817 on Uncommon Descent. They are long gone.
Posted by: steve_h on Feb. 17 2006,06:14

Re: the front loading.  Doesn't that mean that the common ancester of humans and all other apes (which JAD and DS accept) had to be more complex than humans or any ape? - it had to have the information to make all subsequent apes including humans. And the common ancester of all mammals had to be  much more complex than any mammal including humans.

Normally creationists/IDers seem to think that Humans are the most complex of The Designer's creation because of music, philosophy, science etc. etc., and not what you are left with, having discarded most of the information from some ancient single celled ancestor.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 17 2006,06:47

I have to preserve this bit from Uncommon Pissant before it gets deleted.

the post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
February 17, 2006
“If an alien found human engineering on Mars…”

“… Would they be able to detect products of intelligence and deduce that these objects had not evolved from the surrounding materials by chance?”

Look here.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — doug moron @ 10:56 am



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

1 Comment »

  1.

     I’m going through the thought exercise right now.

     If aliens found the mars rover thousands of years from now, they’d be correct in determining that it was put together by an intelligence. They would instantly realize that it didn’t “evolve” from the surroundings because:
     a. there’s no population of these rovers
     b. the rover doesn’t reproduce, therefore it has no way to “evolve”

     This will quickly lead them to detect design. By looking at the rover they will look at the metals used and realize that the metals weren’t of martian origin. Upon looking closely at the pieces, they will see cut marks (from diamond saws, sand paper, etc) showing that tools were used to shape it. Perhaps some of the pieces will have inscriptions on them. (circuit labels, wire gauge labels, etc)
     Perhaps the aliens will then scout out the nearby planets and find that earth has the same compounds used for this rover. They will find other artifacts on earth (assuming we’re extinct) showing the same trademarks found on the rover. By studying the designs of everything they found, they conclude that it has something to do with an extinct intelligence. Let’s assume they’ve never seen a human and all traces of the biological human has vanished from earth, but looking at the designs, they can conclude that we were bipedal, has clasping hands, ranged in height from 3-7 feet. By looking at the range of colors used by humans, they can determine that we only saw a limited spectrum of lightwaves. By looking at our musical instruments, they can determine what our hearing range was, etc.

     All fields of study that detect design (archaeology, SETI, criminal investigators, etc) always use that detection to learn about the motives, tools, processes, origins,of the designs. The study of design and the designers seems to be interconnected in every case I can think of.

     What are your thoughts?

     Comment by Fross — February 17, 2006 @ 11:21 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I bet that comment doesn't last long.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 17 2006,06:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, at least here’s one critic of Darwinism who isn’t a Christian fundamentalist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Im quite confused now, how as this got anything to do with design? I hear the term non-Darwinian evolution all the time, how is it support for Intelligent Design?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“If an alien found human engineering on Mars…”
“… Would they be able to detect products of intelligence and deduce that these objects had not evolved from the surrounding materials by chance?”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe, and maybe this deduction can be transfered in to a mathematical process that can reliably infer design, but i have yet to see any empirical evidence of this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So why is William Paley a has-been?  Sounds like they should hire his modern counterparts, like Michael Behe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I never got the 'design is obvious in nature argument', to me there obviously isnt design in nature, luckily im supported by the evidence.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Doesn't that mean that the common ancester of humans and all other apes (which JAD and DS accept) had to be more complex than humans or any ape?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It depends what is meant by complex. I imagine by Dembskis definition the common ancestor would be more complex, but this is unlikely to correlate with phenotypic complexity. An analysis of metabolism for exapmle suggests that an ancestral eukaryote will have more metabolic genes than a human, but obviously does not make it a more complex organism in the sense most people would understand.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 17 2006,07:17

Ummm apparently mars rovers and pyramids and other manmade goods can be examples of design.

I have a question, that I hope DaveScot answers at some point.

Besides biological organisms....how can Bill's math be applied to any other "designed" artifact?

Avo mentioned pyramids somewhere..a pyramid is not an incredibly complex shape....so how does Bill apply his "complexity of design" algorithm to a pyramid?  They arent perfect, the resemble objects we know are not designed, and yet we can tell that they are designed.  How can Dembski tell that they are designed?  Pyramids dont seem to fit any of his mathematical criteria for design.

Ah well...I was just thinking.......
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 17 2006,07:33

Sorry to double post....but I just read the PEH

Im going to abstain from commenting on the technical aspects of the paper....

If you are proposing a hypothesis....shouldnt you avoid really subjective terminology?  Davidson, even though he could have avoided using words that are clearly subjective, seems to be very proud of the subjectivity of his paper.

The paper should not say:
"I find it difficult to imagine"
The paper should say:
"It is not reasonable to assume"

I really dont think anyone, including IDists, care about the limits of Davidson's imagination...or what he thinks, or about any of the more personal aspects of his perspective.

I applaud his attempt to try and rationalize his belief, but using old research and highly subjective wording are just plain annoying.  :angry:
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 17 2006,07:35

Puck, you are completely correct.  Dembski's filter is useless because the primary two characteristics it requires: complexity and correspondence to a 'mental pattern' (which is all the 'specified part means';) don't actually apply to the large majority of 'human-designed' artifacts.

Consider a billiard ball: low complexity or high complexity?  Specified or non-specified?  Your pyramid example; etc.
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 17 2006,07:41

"It seems to me..."
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 17 2006,08:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The first life on earth could have been what someone (somone who unfortunately seems to be a moderation victim and so I cannot ask directly) called a phylogenetic stem cell.  This just another way of saying life on earth began as a seed, if you will, designed to unfold in a more less planned manner much as a human egg is designed to unfold into a human.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hi, DaveScot.  So backtracking on trackbacks wasn't humiliating enough for you, and now you want to flog your (and JAD's) front-loading ideas here?

By the way, "phylogenetic stem cell" is an improvement over the Nietzschean "uber-cell", but it still leaves something to be desired. Might I suggest "front-loaded orthogenetic precursor", or FLOP?
Posted by: egbooth on Feb. 17 2006,08:33

Thanks, stevestory for exposing the story to this message board. I've been busy the last day or two otherwise I would have posted myself.

In the spirit of the Olympics, I think I am in the running for two medals:

1) quickest ejection from Uncommon Descent after having a comment posted. (registered, commented on 2/14/05 at around 8PM PST, posted on 2/15/05 at 2AM, censored at 2/15/05 at 9AM)

2) most adjectives used by DaveScot to describe my comment (which was censored): 7
trite, derivative, boring, ignorant, wrong, hysterical, hyperbolic

Nothing could make me happier. I merely pointed out that the discussion of guided/unguided by supernatural forces is not a scientific one.

Wow, that does sound hysterical! What a jerk!
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 17 2006,08:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Besides biological organisms....how can Bill's math be applied to any other "designed" artifact?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Once again, PuckSR, you're trying to horn in on one of my imminent Nobel Prizes. I've been asking for the calculations of Mt. Rushmore's "specified complexity".
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 17 2006,08:45

Re "Might I suggest "front-loaded orthogenetic precursor", or FLOP?"

Yeah, people should "flip" over that suggestion. :)
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 17 2006,08:53

After which, I would like to see a calculation of the CSI in the face on Mars, and a comparison of the amount which leads to concluding one is designed, and one not.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Feb. 17 2006,08:56

Quote (Russell @ Feb. 17 2006,14:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Besides biological organisms....how can Bill's math be applied to any other "designed" artifact?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Once again, PuckSR, you're trying to horn in on one of my imminent Nobel Prizes. I've been asking for the calculations of Mt. Rushmore's "specified complexity".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My favorite is take it straight back to ol' Paley himself.
I've asked Sal Cordova: Okay, you come across a pocketwatch laying in the grass. How much CSI is in the watch, how much is in the grass, and how can I perform the calculation for myself?

No answer was forthcoming.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 17 2006,09:03

Well, it'd probably depend on the whether. If it rained, some of the CSI would get washed out of the watch, into the ground, where the grass might soak it up via osmosis.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 17 2006,09:05

I'm not sure if the units of "specified complexity" have ever been named. Someone suggested "Dembskis", (kilodembskis, megadembskis, etc)
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 17 2006,09:48

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 17 2006,01:47)
There millions upon millions of uncataloged species alive today and they represent only 0.1% of all the species that ever lived.  We haven't even begun to glimpse the bounds of genomic diversity and probably won't ever be able to as 99.9% of all the genomes that ever existed are irretrievably destroyed beyond any ability to sequence or even weigh them.  The first life on earth could have been what someone (somone who unfortunately seems to be a moderation victim and so I cannot ask directly) called a phylogenetic stem cell.  This just another way of saying life on earth began as a seed, if you will, designed to unfold in a more less planned manner much as a human egg is designed to unfold into a human.

If you ignore the question of where the first cell (or cell comes from) which I might remind you is what neodarwinian evolutionary theory does regarding abiogenesis then one can presume it was any size at all of any arbitrary complexity.   Ontogeny and phylogeny have many striking parallels.  Why refuse to consider that one more parallel is that both ontogeny and phylogeny start from a cell programmed to diversify in a defined sequence of events with the environment serving only as a trigger to initiate the next programmed stage?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This theory (front loading?) is neither scientific nor productive. It is just a  new parade of IDers who can't deny common descent anymore.

First, it requires a programmer that could be supernatural, which is not falsifiable, or natural (extra-terrestrials, time travelers), which only pushes the problem further.

You are talking about the majority of species that have disappeared. This is correct, but did they disappear because they were programmed to or because they didn't fit their environment anymore? In this case, it would sound like natural selection, doesn't it?

If there is no natural selection, how are the living species so magically adapted to their environment? Did the Great Programmer, when He programmed LUCA with all the required genes for the future, anticipate all the interactions between organisms and their abiotic environment that would occur billions of years later, given that the biosphere was disturbed by several accidental events (asteroids, etc)? Or was He just very lucky? Maybe Bill can calculate His luck in terms of probability here, and compare it to the probability of adaptation by natural selection. ;)

Given that LUCA should have been a huge cell in order to contain the genes required for all the future living beings, why are the oldest fossils only small bacteria than can only contain a small chromosome? Where are LUCA’s huge descendents that are supposed to contain all these genes?

Also, when has such a pre-programmed evolution stopped, because we don't see it acting nowadays? However, we do have some strong evidence of evolution by mutations, genetic drift and/or natural selection. Just check the last week issue of Nature, you can see two striking examples of adaptive sympatric speciation.

And the analogy between ontology and phylogeny is only observable in animals, which represent a tiny branch in the tree of life.

etc, etc...
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 17 2006,10:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not sure if the units of "specified complexity" have ever been named. Someone suggested "Dembskis", (kilodembskis, megadembskis, etc)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have, one time, seen Dembski refer to bits of CSI. I think it was in the paper where Elsberry and Shallit beat him like a rented mule.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 17 2006,10:47

Quote (Russell @ Feb. 17 2006,15:05)
I'm not sure if the units of "specified complexity" have ever been named. Someone suggested "Dembskis", (kilodembskis, megadembskis, etc)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"intellidembskis"?
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 17 2006,10:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This theory (front loading?) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I prefer "pant-loading"

it's far more descriptive of the value of the concept.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 17 2006,11:08

That "Mars" thread at UD is nuttier than all get out.  I wonder if Dembski ever tires of his own followers.
Posted by: incorygible on Feb. 17 2006,11:15

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 17 2006,16:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not sure if the units of "specified complexity" have ever been named. Someone suggested "Dembskis", (kilodembskis, megadembskis, etc)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have, one time, seen Dembski refer to bits of CSI. I think it was in the paper where Elsberry and Shallit beat him like a rented mule.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm...then how 'bout "Dembskits" (or just 'skits -- as in "street theater" -- or "skittles")?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 17 2006,12:20

DaveScot:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point of the argument is about probalistic resources in design detection. If you find complex information in a pattern that can be independently given and cannot reasonably find any means it could have come about through serendipity then you’ve detected design. The alien spacecraft is a grossly simplified case that exhibits all these things in an incontrovertable manner:

1) complex arrangement of matter - obvious
2) independently given pattern - transportation device
3) no accidental means means of assembly - obvious
4) bingo - positive design detection

Now apply to flagellum

1) complex arrangement of matter - obvious (now)
2) independently given patter - propulsion device
3) no accidental means of assembly - controversial but none demonstrated
4) tentative design detection

This is the same way that murders and told apart from accidents in criminal investigations, hidden messages are told apart from noise in cryptanalysis, intellegence told apart from natural radio signals in SETI, and designed artifacts are told apart from accidents of nature in archeology. -ds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Got that, kids:

Designed object has 3 things,
Flagellum has 3 things,
Flagellum is designed object.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term

Abstract:  The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term is discussed and illustrated.
I. We continue our study of the syllogistic fallacies with a second common fallacy.
A. Note, how in the following argument, about the only persons likely to be sympathetic are those who dislike Senator Jones.  (Notice that singular statements are treated as universal affirmative propositions.)
All [Communists] are [believers in heavy taxes].
[Senator Jones] is a [believer in heavy taxes].
[Senator Jones] is a [Communist].


from < http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/middle_fall.html</quote> >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 17 2006,12:38

Its what I like to call the Tony Blair policy generation fallacy:
[Something][must be done]
[This half-assed badly thought out vaguley worded policy invented by a focus group] is [something]
[This half-assed badly thought out vaguley worded policy invented by a focus group] [must be done]

anyway...

Im just having a hard time picking a hole in DaveScotts logic, oh wait hang on...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) no accidental means of assembly - controversial but none demonstrated
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah i think thats the problem, replace that with

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) no accidental means of assembly - empirical data showing that the flagellum and other complex biological systems  could not have evolved from unguided processes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and im sold.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Davidson smiled, somewhat ruefully, and said, “Well, I’m not sure, but I know that standard single-base-pair mutations won’t do it” — meaning, as he later explained to me, the textbook neo-Darwinism every college biology student learns.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think i was about 14 or 15 when i was first taught about evolution in school. Was i taught that it was entirely due to single base pair mutations? Nope. Was i taught about gene duplication, horizontal transfer and co-option? Yes. Did the Ohio critical analysis of evolution lesson come after the one where they teach that its all about single base pair mutations? If so Ive figured a way to solve that problem.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 17 2006,13:22

Sorry. I just can't resist...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Dawkins didn't do the calculation. And I have to ask myself - is it because he has no feel for probability, or is he dishonest?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dawkins didn't reproduce the calculation in his book. Did he do it? I guess I don't know for sure. But you seem to, Avo. How do you know that?

In general, when you find you have to ask yourself the hard questions, do you find that you have to frame them as false dichotomies?

And, in light of our little discussion, how do you answer yourself?
  (A ) Does Dawkins have no feel for probability? or
  (B ) Is he dishonest?

In failing to consider the possibilities C and D:
  (C ) that maybe Dawkins actually did the calculation, and it's consistent with his argument, and
  (D) Creationist apologists might be - well, we don't have to say "dishonest" - let's just say, not exactly "straight-talking guys"

... in failing to consider those possibilities, are you being naive, or - let's just say - not exactly a "straight talking guy"?

And should I regard this horse well and truly dead, or should I return in another post to beat it still more, just to be really sure?
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 17 2006,13:28

Oops. Wrong thread. That was supposed to go to the "Avocreationist" thread.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 17 2006,16:01

Russ, how could he have done the calculation and then said it would happen from time to time and be nothing to write home about?
Posted by: Steverino on Feb. 18 2006,03:28

From Demski:

"If you find complex information in a pattern that can be independently given and cannot reasonably find any means it could have come about through serendipity then you’ve detected design."

What the F>#$%???

Based on what science???

Because we cannot yet explain it, so there???

Do they just make this crap up???...Wait, I know the answer to that.

I'm not a scientist but, I can see the logical flaw in his reasoning.  How does he expect the real world of science to take him seriously???
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 18 2006,05:10

That's the point: the real world of science doesn't take him seriously.  Those who've heard of him at all think he's rather a joke.

It appears to bother him a lot.  I mean, does the admiration of morons really make up for an utter lack of interest in one's work by the scientific community?  Really?
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 18 2006,06:52

wait....Dembski actually said that?

thats hilarious......

Robin Goodfellow said, "If you find horrible reasoning in a person that can be independently given and cannot reasonably find any means it could have come about through intentional misinformation then you’ve detected stupidity."
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 18 2006,08:40

First, read < this really interesting Discover story >, then go have a good laugh at DaveScot's asinine comments about it.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 18 2006,10:26

And get a load of this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#3

I think the general concept is that viruses could potentially have once had a self-catalyzing RNA. Recent work has been able to get an evolving, self-reproducing little RNA monster going just from the catalyst protein and a soup of raw materials. The idea is that if its possible that a virii had a self-catalyzing shape, then it could get going and evolving without any separate catalyst to start with. So, all in all, not quite that weird.

Unless you can provide me a link to support your “RNA monster” claim here it’s your last comment on this blog. -ds

Comment by plunge — February 18, 2006 @ 9:49 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#12

Dave
It’s called Spiegelman’s Monster and has been around for many years. Here is an excerpt from Paul Davies book The Fifth Miracle (1999)describing it.

“The Qb virus doesn’t need anything as complicated as a cell in order to
replicate: a test tube full of suitable chemicals is enough. The
experiment, conducted by Sol Spiegelman of the University of Illinois,
consisted of introducing the viral RNA into a medium containing the RNA’s
own replication enzyme, plus a supply of raw materials and some salts, and
incubating the mixture. When Spiegelman did this, the system obligingly
replicated the strands of naked RNA. Spiegelman then extracted some of the
freshly synthesized RNA, put it in a separate nutrient solution, and let it
multiply. He then decanted some of that RNA into yet another solution, and
so on, in a series of steps. ”
found here: < http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200001/0229.html >

The original experiment was in 1963 but you can find more if you type in Autocatylizing RNA at Pub Med or elsewhere. There is more about Spiegelman here:
< http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p164y1983.pdf >

Cheers

Comment by MacDaddy — February 18, 2006 @ 2:16 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 18 2006,10:56

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 18 2006,14:40)
First, read < this really interesting Discover story >, then go have a good laugh at DaveScot's asinine comments about it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, except for his inane '*yawn', I couldn't find DS's comments. What did he say?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 18 2006,11:18

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 18 2006,11:10)
That's the point: the real world of science doesn't take him seriously.  Those who've heard of him at all think he's rather a joke.

It appears to bother him a lot.  I mean, does the admiration of morons really make up for an utter lack of interest in one's work by the scientific community?  Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Morons buy stupid books and I think that is Demsbki's objective.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Feb. 18 2006,13:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Morons buy stupid books and I think that is Demsbki's objective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The demonstration of this being that in a review of another author's book bumbski just has to plug one of his own.
< http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9808/reviews/dembski.html >
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 18 2006,17:07

It would appear that the folks over at UD are getting a bit peeved that no one wants to take them up on their "nuclear evolution" topic: < No takers >

It must be hard to have such a nice sandbox that no one wants to play in.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 19 2006,05:36

JAD and DS have had another spat!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



February 18, 2006
Nuclear Evolution Debate - No Takers Yet
No takers for the St. Charles side of a nuclear evolution debate. What a surprise!

Not.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — Administrator @ 3:57 pm




1 Comment »
Whoever Administrator is he high jacked DaveScot’s thread and then, without indicating why, summarily deleted a very significant post I had presented on this thread. I expect that post to be restored. If it is not by noon EST this forum will have heard the last from me here but not elsewhere.

No one hijacked any of my threads. I deleted your comment because it was lewd. You’ve been warned over and over that I won’t tolerate lewdness here yet you persist. That’s too bad. I’ve no choice at this point but to exclude you from further participation here. -ds


Comment by John Davison — February 19, 2006 @ 9:26 am


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 19 2006,05:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Good grief, Myers. This is a prime example why biologists aren’t qualified to recognize design. What you think you’re just discovering is something I recognized decades ago. The flagellum for example isn’t the sum of its proteins. While each individual protein is complex in its own right, the assembly instructions are the real specified complexity. Design engineers recognize that immediately and it’s taken you what, 20 years to begin catching on?

Myers gets a clue. Will wonders never cease?
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 5:17 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

LOL. PZ puts up a nice big post about complicated gene networks, and the best DaveScot has is "uh...I could have told you that."

this stuff is too good.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 19 2006,06:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When will morons like Pat Hayes cop to the fact that seeing the Virgin Mary’s face in a sidewalk stain is not the equivalent of seeing design in an interdependent network of subcellular biological nanomachinery so complex it makes the US Space Shuttle and all the supporting infrastructure at Cape Canaveral, right down to every nut, bolt, transister, and bit of software code, look simple in comparison?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This may be true, but parts of these networks are so inefficent and susceptable to error, that a NASA engineer would be immediately fired for designing them. DaveScot really is digging himself a hole by talking about networks and seems to be missing the main point. It is true, that engineers, mathematicians, and sociologists were working with networks long before biologists, so when biologists realised they needed to analyse biological networks they asked for help. I was possible to predict structural properties you would expect of biological networks assuming they had evolved as opposed to had been designed, and the networks indeed had these properties. Its nice to see PZ meyers post on genetic networks, systems biology is finally getting the recognition it deserves, :) . Although in one sense it is right to dismiss circuit boards as a bad analogy, it is interesting to note then when electronic circuits etc. are evolved with genetic algorithms, they exhibit the properties of biological networks. Creationists might see design in the networks, but I spend all day looking at them and I certainly dont, and Ive talked to dozens of engineers who work with them, and they dont either.

[quote]No one hijacked any of my threads. I deleted your comment because it was lewd. You’ve been warned over and over that I won’t tolerate lewdness here yet you persist. That’s too bad. I’ve no choice at this point but to exclude you from further participation here.[quote]

Sure some of Davisons posts were pretty fanatical, but i never would have described him as being lewd, even to people over here, or did i miss something.

ps for a good explination of why biological networks dont look designed see Deanne M. Taylor's posts on < this thread. >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 19 2006,07:26

Dave Scott put a UD track back on the PT article about Dembski embracing the Bible codes.  It will be fascinating to see how they react to Dembski being such a naive, unscientific rube once somone posts that Dembski believes in them.

Also, Philip E Johnson holds a similar view and has put his pro Bible codes in writing as well.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 19 2006,10:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 Comment »

  1.

     About what percentage of ID people believe in Jeffrey Satinover’s Bible Code theory?

     Comment by Karen — February 19, 2006 @ 3:16 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

someone asks on Uncommon Descent. It should be 100%, of course, because Bill Dembski says they are methodologically identical.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 19 2006,12:06

As you could have foretold, my pseudonymous comment to Karen, saying as much, never saw the light of day over there. Essentially, DaveScot had to delete Dembski's own words, in order to preserve his ideas. Which is of course why I posted it in the first place. :-)
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 19 2006,13:44

Could someone post a reference where Phil Johnson endorses the Bible Code nonsense?
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 19 2006,13:54

Re "Essentially, DaveScot had to delete Dembski's own words, in order to preserve his ideas."

ROFL
:D
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 19 2006,14:20

Phil Johnson and the bible code

< http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9811/johnson.html >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 19 2006,15:27

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 19 2006,18:06)
As you could have foretold, my pseudonymous comment to Karen, saying as much, never saw the light of day over there. Essentially, DaveScot had to delete Dembski's own words, in order to preserve his ideas. Which is of course why I posted it in the first place. :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You quoted Dembski in that Mars/bible code thread and Dave Scott deleted it?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 19 2006,15:54

I was a little wrong above. I didn't literally quote him. What I said was :



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
" About what percentage of ID people believe in Jeffrey Satinover’s Bible Code theory?"

It should be nearly 100%, of course, because Bill Dembski says ID and the Bible Code are methodologically identical. Therefore if one is valid, the other must be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As best I can remember. Which is more or less just repeating what Dembski said. And DaveScot prevented those words from being seen, because he refuses to accept the consequences of Dembski's words.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind on Feb. 19 2006,17:38

What I find incredibly fascinating is that DaveScot created a page to debate the origin of the nucleus, and declares that there's no evidence for its natural origin, and within days of declaring this, posts a link to an amazing news story in Discover Magazine that proposes a likely and titillating explanation... That I would have otherwise probably not have read about.

Besides the sad antics of the moderators over there at UD, they are doing me a favor at least, they are picking up on good stories and posting them for us, even though their comments rarely rise above that of a 3rd-grade bully.
:D
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 19 2006,18:38

Inoc. Mind wrote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot ... posts a link to an amazing news story in Discover Magazine
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You're not going to make me go over there and sift through all of DaveScot's verbal vomit to find it, are you?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 19 2006,19:14

He's likely referring to the Discover link I posted about halfway up this page.

I guess that would be, halfway up the previous page.
Posted by: Xavier du Barry on Feb. 19 2006,21:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

For DaveScot

“The Emperor’s New Clothes”

I have only recently become aware of the concept of “Intelligent Design”, and having made some effort since then to fnd out more, I do not think I need to waste any more time on it.

As a parting note I would like to say how apt the above fairy tale is as a metaphor for Intelligent Design”. The emperor is the unholy alliance of Christian fundamentalist religious leaders and right-wing political opportunists. The cheering crowd are the gullible followers, exemplified by many posters here, taken in by the New Clothes, Intelligent Design itself, produced and extolled by the crafty tailor, but vacuous, non-existent. The tailor is represented by William Dembski and other ID exponents who know there is nothing concrete in the concept of ID, but continue cynically to exploit the cheering crowd for financial gain.

Unfortunately, you do not seem to be a major character in the tale, so I need another metaphor for you. You are like a boil on the bottom; undesirable, irritating, unsightly but it will soon burst and fade from memory. Likewise, I predict within a few years Intelligent Design as a concept will only remain as a footnote in history.

Regards
Xavier du Barry

Comment by Xavier — February 20, 2006 @ 2:08 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As I don't expect the above post to see the light of day at Uncommon Descent, and the many references there indicate this would be a good place to file a copy, I have done so.

Many thanks
Xavier du Barry
Posted by: FishyFred on Feb. 20 2006,02:21

Well, here we are again back at cellular "machines."

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/824#comments >

"There are real machines in living cells. Really really complex machines." - DaveScot

FASCINATING!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Myer’s idiotically simple flow charts aren’t applicable to machines. Take a simple power transmission device consisting of two gears and a chain. Gear1—-Chain—-Gear2. It’s irreducible. According to Myers logic we can modify it into a more complex irreducible system by first adding a redundant chain so that we can break the first chain without disabling the device. Unfortunately gears don’t work that way. They’ll only accomodate one chain at a time. The flagellar motor is the same way. You can’t just add a redundant drive shaft so you can monkey around with the original without breaking it. There is no accomodation for adding a redundant drive shaft. Myers example fails when applied to machines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Referring to < this >. It's a good thing that the diagrams aren't actually directed at machines.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 20 2006,02:28

DaveScot needs to learn how to Intelligently Design some apostrophes.
Posted by: FishyFred on Feb. 20 2006,03:18

He needs a sharp whack with a clue-by-four.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 20 2006,03:42

LOL now some dum-dum over there is saying

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One thing that has always irked me is that rarely on this site do we find any critics of ID attempting to challenge the tools/methods of ID directly. For example, one could claim that “CSI isn’t a reliable indicator of intelligence” or “the explanatory filter breaks down under certain conditions” or “ID regularly produces false positives under x conditions” or “Irreducible Complexity can indeed be overcome via a Direct Pathway” and then show why and/or how. Instead, arguments are almost always made against the implications or we’re arguing over the interpretation of various data. Perhaps these challenges are not made because it’s so difficult to make sustainable arguments in this regard but I’d like to at least see people try.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

is he really that ignorant of the literature? Somebody send him Why Intelligent Design Fails, Unintelligent Design, that Ellsberry and Shallit paper, etc etc etc please.
Posted by: incorygible on Feb. 20 2006,04:33

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 20 2006,09:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One thing that has always irked me is that rarely >>>ON THIS SITE<<< do we find any critics of ID attempting to challenge the tools/methods of ID directly..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

is he really that ignorant of the literature? Somebody send him Why Intelligent Design Fails, Unintelligent Design, that Ellsberry and Shallit paper, etc etc etc please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note the get-out-of-learning-free card. Kinda like Dick Cheney opining that no one will be his huntin' buddy, isn't it?
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 20 2006,04:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One thing that has always irked me is that rarely >>>ON THIS SITE<<<[i.e. the Dembski/DaveScot information clearinghouse] do we find any critics of ID attempting to challenge the tools/methods of ID directly..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Ha! I wonder how long such a challenge would last over there before being deep-sixed by the Open Debate czar.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 20 2006,05:14

Yeah, does that guy know that DaveScot deletes virtually any criticism of ID?
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 20 2006,05:15

I found this remark by DS quite amusing, given his recent foray into whomping on anything that smacks of religious connection to ID:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All it tells me is Myers is an anti-religious ass with a lame argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It simply tells me that one couldn't possibly invent such a person as DS.  He's so incredibly precious.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 20 2006,05:20

Does anyone know what Springer's background is (aside from being an ex-jarhead)?  Based on his style, aggressive censorship, and slavish worship of anyone who even appears to be remotely 'scientific' (his comments on John Davison are so implausible as to invite disbelief), I'd say marketing or commercial sales.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 20 2006,05:48

Seems Springer and JAD have had another parting of the ways if < Davison's own blog > is to be believed.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have been banned from any further participation at "Uncommon Descent." It is probably just as well since, as is typical with internet forums, I soon outwear my welcome by presenting views irreconcilable with either of the two major camps, the atheist Darwinian mystics and the closet Christian fundamentalists, neither of which groups were willing to participate in my "Tournament of Evolutionary Hypotheses." I should have known better than to try to communicate with either faction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 20 2006,05:50

Yeah, his schizophrenic relationship with JAD is hilarious. It's like a Crank Soap Opera over there.

Will DaveScot ban Davison forever?
Who will insult common descent?
Will Crandaddy accept The Bible Codes?
Will someone delete an embarrassing thread--but too late?

Tune in next week!
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 20 2006,09:23

Here's JAD's latest blog entry.  He's attempting to burn his last bridge:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have a few comments relative the many places where I have been banned, the most recent of which is William Dembski's "Uncommon Descent" Where David Springer reigns supreme as the self-described BlogCzar. My comments involve dogs past and present. It goes this way:

Thomas Henry Huxley WAS Darwin's Bulldog but only for about six months.

Richard Dawkins unbelievably STILL IS Darwin's Rottweiler nearly 150 years after the publication of Darwin's great opus minimus.

David Springer IS RIGHT NOW William Dembski's very well trained mongrel cur.

There now I feel somewaht better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 20 2006,09:40

Oh, I didn't see that new stuff, because JAD's blog goes in the direction opposite every other blog in the world, with newest posts lower on the page. I shouldn't have expected any less.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 20 2006,09:47

lol JAD says about DaveScot:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Friends we are witnessing the bottom of the barrel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mr. Kettle, please pick up the white courtesy phone...


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 20 2006,10:58

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 20 2006,15:47)
Mr. Kettle, please pick up the white courtesy phone...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Splendid! Do I have your permission to start using that one?  :D
Posted by: hehe on Feb. 20 2006,11:00

Here's DaveScot on Usenet:

< http://tinyurl.com/kewr3 >

Here's a classic:

< http://groups.google.com/group....=source >

"3) Lack of transitory species in the fossil record. We should
see a smooth progression of transitory species but in fact
we don't. We see the immediate emergence of extremely
complex species.

[...]

5) Lastly, there's a resurgence of creationism among scientists everywhere."

Remember the last sentence when DaveFascist will try to claim he is not a creationist but agnostic.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 20 2006,11:41

Ooowee, speaking of burning bridges, Davison just called DaveScot 'Texas White Trash'. Yow.

hey, pass that popcorn down this way...  

:D
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 20 2006,11:42

LOL I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with that, go right ahead.
Posted by: incorygible on Feb. 20 2006,12:03

If you're feeling particularly masochistic...

Given Davison's latest complaints on his blog, wherein he attempts to describe the contents of the post for which he was banned, I think it is actually still accessible.  While the "Nuclear Evolution Debate - No Takers Yet" post contains Davison's complaint and DaveScot's reply (but not the offending post), the "Nuclear Evolution Debate" link on the right side of the main page links to a post with a comment from Davison exactly as he describes.

If so, it appears that the comment was not "lewd" in the general sense, but merely describes Behe and Wells as lacking conviction. I certainly couldn't find anything "lewd" about it, by which I mean nothing beyond the usual JAD sideshow.

So far, it seems even Davison is unaware that his post is still visible...he claims even DaveScot did not see it.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 20 2006,12:36

Re JAD's "David Springer IS RIGHT NOW William Dembski's very well trained mongrel cur."

Well trained? That's not the impression I'm getting from the excerpts quoted around here.

Henry
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 20 2006,12:41

omigod. Davescot, at that google link above:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) there are several proteins in human hemoglobin that must
  cooperate in gas transport.  The proteins differ in types
  A, B, AB, O, rh+ and rh- blood types.  Assuming that humans
  started with a common blood type, and diverged at some
  point into the types common today, how did this happen ?
  A single protein mutation that doesn't kill the host has
  pretty long odds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



JESUS THAT IS STUPID. There's an error in every single sentence.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 20 2006,13:09

Man, that's just so amazingly ill-informed. I almost never get into the details of where creationists went horribly wrong, but I know a bit more about hematology than the average person, so let me point out the basic errors in DaveScot's comments:

1) The blood type proteins do not have anything to do with gas transport, that's hemoglobin.
2) A, B, AB, etc are not proteins within hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is a protein inside RBCs, while the blood type antigens are on the outside.
3) There are a lot more than A, B, AB, O, rh+ and rh-. There's H, Kell, Lutheran, MNS, Duffy, and dozens more.
4) Considering that different monkeys have different blood types, there's no reason to assume all humans had the same type at some point.
5) Nobody with Any experience with proteins would say "A single protein mutation that doesn't kill the host has pretty long odds." about a typical protein. A typical protein has All Kinds of functionally identical substitutions. There are, for instance, subgroups of type A blood type B blood, etc, based on mutations.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 20 2006,13:33

Wow! And Dave (in his incarnation as PhishyPhred) doubted he could be pinned down on more than one or two glaring errors!
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 20 2006,15:11

I've often wondered about Dembski's use of google ads on his site.

anything to make money, i guess.

but still...

this was the ad that greeted me when i glanced over there today:



irony, thy name is UD.

btw, the ad leads to:

CoffeehouseTheology.com

irony, indeed.
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 20 2006,16:43

Stevestory - are you saying that you do not believe that all humans share a common ancestor?
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 20 2006,16:54

no, he's saying that blood type variability arose before H. sapiens evolved.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 20 2006,16:58

Dembski has posted what is purported to be an email exchange between Dennett and Ruse. It's surreal. < Read. >
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 20 2006,17:15

Right. I meant that humans didn't necessarily have the same blood type at some point. Some prehuman ancestor may have.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 20 2006,17:22

and of course as usual, Wd40 makes no relevant point with the posting of this email exchange.

His inability to make relevant points seems to be rapidly diminishing with "age".

at this rate, nobody will remember who he was or what he represented in about a years time.

some might get a chuckle remembering how he let his personal blog literally "go to the dogs", but that's about it.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 20 2006,18:05

Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 20 2006,22:58)
Dembski has posted what is purported to be an email exchange between Dennett and Ruse. It's surreal. < Read. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can anyone translate that thread?  Who are they and what are they talking about?
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 20 2006,18:17

I understand that blood type variability had to have evolved before humans. But if all humans never had a single blood type then all humans could never have been just one human, correct?
Whatever event transpired to make H.sapiens distinct from its non-human ancestor (erectus, perhaps?) must have transpired at least twice. And those first humans, with different blood types, then mated to have human offspring with different blood types.
Do you think that different individuals of a prehuman hominid population gave birth to humans? Or would one such prehuman individual have had more than one human offspring that subsequently mated?

Or, would there perhaps be no such distinction between humans and their predecessors that marked the emergence of the first human because evolution is so gradual?
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 20 2006,18:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or, would there perhaps be no such distinction between humans and their predecessors that marked the emergence of the first human because evolution is so gradual?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



this is closer to being a correct interpretation.  

your first deduction would have to envision the emergence of H. sapiens from a single point mutation.  hardly likely, when you think about it, is it?  not supported by the fossil evidence garnered so far either.

note that your initial argument begins to sound like the "cats from dogs" argument often made by creationists.

while the fossil record for homid evolution is decent, it certainly isn't as complete as some of the transitional fossil records we have that provide clear evidence showing how species diverge from one another.

currently, all the evidence points to hominids evolving in similar fashion to everything else studied.

since the characteristics that distinguish this species from its predecessors didn't all appear at once, it's also likely that blood types were carried along as well as the species diverged.

check the talk origins site if you want to see some cool sets of transitional fossils, or grab some references regarding hominid evolution.
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 20 2006,18:35

Hi Mr. Christopher.
I think I can help. If the emails are real, they appear to start with one to Daniel Dennett from Michael Ruse (you have to read them from bottom up).
He appears to be anticipating the publication in NYT of a previously-discussed less than flattering letter by Dennett and Pinker about him.
Dennett says the letter is not being published, but does mention the less than flattering review of his own book in NYT. He also tells Ruse that his prestige is slipping among evolutionists.
Ruse then adds his own criticism of Dennett's book as well as of Dennett's public personna and the damage that he (along with Dawkins ... both of whom Ruse professes to like) is doing to the science side in the war with creationists. Along the way he stresses that he is not religious and is a hard-line Darwinian - even more so than Dennett and Dawkins.
Dennett decides not to reply as he seems to think that Ruse is just blowing off steam and might later want to retract some of his comments.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 20 2006,18:44

Michael Ruse often goes on the "debate trail" with Dembski, where he presents the "evolution" side of the debate.

In fact, their first televised debate last year (which i still have, if anyone wants it) is the first time I saw Dembski admit the overwhelming evidence in favor of common descent.

basically, Ruse just called him a rube being used by the political right.

I'm getting the impression that this has become mostly a dog and pony show these days, as both participants have learned they can make money "debating" the issue.

hence, Denton's critique of Ruse's behavior, and the distancing of Ruse from the rest of the scientific community.

Dembski has on occasion claimed that he and Ruse are bossom buddies.  Haven't really got a clue about the truth (or relevance, for that matter) of his statements regarding that, but I do notice that he and Ruse are most often paired up on the debate circuit lately.
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 20 2006,18:46

That makes sense to me, STJ.
So it's not really relevant to discuss, as Davesott attempted to do, whether or not all humans ever had a single blood-type as there is no way of identifying what all humans are (historically speaking ...not today necessarily) or when they emerged.
It would also appear then that you do not believe that all humans share any single common ancestor. Would that be correct?


ps. How did you edit your post after it was published? Can we all do that?
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 20 2006,18:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ps. How did you edit your post after it was published? Can we all do that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



there should be an "edit" button on the top banner of your post, towards the right edge.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would also appear then that you do not believe that all humans share any single common ancestor. Would that be correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hmm, i think you are mistaking the definition of "ancestor"

when we speak of it here, we mean a population of related, but distinct (and extinct) species that H. sapiens evolved from.

Not ancestor like your grandma.

is that clearer for you?
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 20 2006,18:51

STJ,
I think you might be right about the Dembski-Ruse relationship.
I think there is a bit of a Cola war dynamic shaping up in this running debate.
Miller and Behe have developed what seems to me to be a bit of a symbiosis as well.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 20 2006,18:53

the difference is that Miller and Behe don't go on tours together, or share private emails with Dembski.

I think comparison along these lines will likely end up being unproductive.
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 20 2006,19:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
when we speak of it here, we mean a population of related, but distinct (and extinct) species that H. sapiens evolved from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you believe that there would have been at any point in history a time where that population would have been a distinct species from a contemporaneous descended H. sapiens population?

ps. thanks for the tip on the edit function. Don't know how I missed it.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 20 2006,19:10

actually, i don't quite understand your question.

if you can rephrase it, suggest you start a new thread to discuss it as this thread ain't mine and is supposed to be for discussion of matters pertaining to the cometragedy that is UD.

cheers
Posted by: Sanctum on Feb. 20 2006,19:13

STJ,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Have a good night.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 20 2006,20:56

Funny how DaveScot excoriates the "Steve List" as being an argument ad populum (or whatever it is) and less than 48 hours later old Sal pops up trumpeting the 500 Evolution Denier List for his side.

Yet not a whimper from DaveScot. Afraid to attack his own side for using the same (supposed) tactics of the opposition? Of course he his. I would not have expected anything less more.
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 20 2006,21:14

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 20 2006,23:15)
Right. I meant that humans didn't necessarily have the same blood type at some point. Some prehuman ancestor may have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... or may not have.
Sanctum, species like Homo sapiens originate from populations, not from a couple of individuals.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 21 2006,00:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The pages herein are a courtesy for my good friend Professor Emeritus of Biology John A. Davison.

Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge of biology with me, John.
Filed under: Education — DaveScot @ 8:31 am



No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< This > seems sadly ironic, now.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 21 2006,03:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge of biology with me, John.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Awww. It's so touching, in a comic sort of way.

So, while there may be no more long walks, hand in hand, along the beach at sunset, at least Dave will always treasure valuable insights, like oxygen-bearing ABO antigens and bacterial genomes that dwarf humans', bursting at the seams with prescribed evolutionary information for yet to be unfolded body plans.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 21 2006,03:35

yeah, I mean, it's essentially this:

creationists: We've got a list!
evolutionists: We've got a Much bigger list!
creationist: Lists are flawed!

I mean how stupid do you have to be?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 21 2006,04:31

Quote (Sanctum @ Feb. 21 2006,00:35)
Hi Mr. Christopher.
I think I can help. If the emails are real, they appear to start with one to Daniel Dennett from Michael Ruse (you have to read them from bottom up).
He appears to be anticipating the publication in NYT of a previously-discussed less than flattering letter by Dennett and Pinker about him.
Dennett says the letter is not being published, but does mention the less than flattering review of his own book in NYT. He also tells Ruse that his prestige is slipping among evolutionists.
Ruse then adds his own criticism of Dennett's book as well as of Dennett's public personna and the damage that he (along with Dawkins ... both of whom Ruse professes to like) is doing to the science side in the war with creationists. Along the way he stresses that he is not religious and is a hard-line Darwinian - even more so than Dennett and Dawkins.
Dennett decides not to reply as he seems to think that Ruse is just blowing off steam and might later want to retract some of his comments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for the insight.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 21 2006,05:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Funny how DaveScot excoriates the "Steve List" as being an argument ad populum (or whatever it is)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dave needs to get his fallacies straight; it's an argumentum ad stevium.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 21 2006,05:50

Re "Miller and Behe have developed what seems to me to be a bit of a symbiosis as well."

But did it evolve, or was it intelligently designed that way? :p
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 21 2006,10:53

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 21 2006,09:35)
yeah, I mean, it's essentially this:

creationists: We've got a list!
evolutionists: We've got a Much bigger list!
creationist: Lists are flawed!

I mean how stupid do you have to be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually it's more like:

creationists: We've got a list!
evolutionists: Lists are dumb. To prove it here's a much bigger list!
creationists: Your list is dumb. Ours is great.
the rest of the world: Whatever.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 21 2006,11:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the rest of the world: Whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hmm, I'm sure you didn't intend to, but you bring up an important point here.

it's the general apathy of the american people that is letting these fundies attempt to rewrite the very definition of science itself.

Maybe now that it has grabbed a bit of media attention, mostly because of the Dover trial, at least some of america seems to be waking up to how serious this issue really is.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 21 2006,12:13

i think you seriously misjudge the agnosticism of the rest of the world.

Think of a religious agnostic.  Most of the religious agnostics I know distance themselves from atheism.  They want to ignore the whole issue of God....but they dont want anyone to dislike them and associate them with evil "Atheists".
Even if their views are most closely related to Atheism.

Same thing with those who are agnostic about evolution.  Their views are more closely associated with Evolutionists, however they dont want to seem "evil" and so when pressed they will lean towards the creationists.  It is the "evil" connotation that should really concern pro-science people. If your agnostic, but you  notice that one side villifies the fu** out of the other side.....you are probably going to want to remain popular, and will side with the "good guys".
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 21 2006,12:31

I think many of those who are agnostic about religion (a) regard themselves as "spiritual" and (b) don't like the idea of fundamentalism or atheism, and may actually fear both of them. Being spiritual allows them the comforts of religious beliefs without the commitment, and avoids awkward questions about the meaning of life that thoughts of atheism tends to bring up.

With evolution agnosticism tends to allow people to fall into the trap of the "teach both sides" strategy. This is particularly effective with liberals who like to see people "play fair" in politics and religion. (Conservatives like it too, but only because in this case it gives them what they want).
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 21 2006,13:08

from the loony bin:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Apologies to DS for posting under what he considered to be an offensive name (holy_chimp) on another thread. I did not intend to cause offense. I was stating an opinion that we are so genetically and cladistically similar to chimpanzees that one of the few things that separates us is the fact that we have appear to have a soul. However, I realise that this may have been offensive and I am sorry.

What exactly is the appearance of a soul and what makes you think a chimp is lacking in that department? Not that I disagree I just want to know how you arrive at these conclusions. As far as I’m concerned there are a lot of humans that have no soul. None whatsoever. Zilch. As cruel and heartless as any animal. Worse, because the human ostensibly has the capacity to know right from wrong. What other animals besides humans get any joy out of causing pain to other creatures? As far as animals resembling people in the soul category elephants might have us beat which I blogged about here. -ds

Comment by Chris_UK — February 21, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Looks like Dave Scott has never observed a cat playing with a mouse or a killer whale playing with a sea lion prior to eating him.

Humans are not the only ones who get a kick out of torturing another animal.  

Does this mean my kitty doesn't have a soul? :-(  Is torture the litmus test for soul detection?



Speaking of souls, remember when Richard Thompson asked Barbara Forrest if she believed in the "everlasting soul" or somesuch nonsense while she was on the stand?  I wish she would have replied with something like "I did not see an "everlasting soul" on the evidence list, did you submit one to the court as evidence?  Could you show me one right now?"



.
Posted by: avocationist on Feb. 21 2006,16:00

Message from John Davison:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now I see someone named jeannot claims that evolution involves populations not individuals. I ask jeannot, whoever that really is, to provide a single example of any kind of evolutionary (genetic) change that can be demonstrated not to have originated in a germinal cell of an individual. Any example will do and he may present that evidence here if he feels up to it. The substitution of populations for the individual was the brainstorm of Mernst Ayr and was proposed because it was impossible to show that any contemporary individual organism was capable of progressive evolutionary change. The proper conclusion was that contemporay species are immutable, something that both Linnaeus and Cuvier knew by instinct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think his blog is called Prescribed Evolution.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Feb. 21 2006,16:42

Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 20 2006,22:54)
no, he's saying that blood type variability arose before H. sapiens evolved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wouldn't that argue against there being a single adam (I've seen the y chromosome proves adam spiel) and/or a single eve (the seven daughters of eve) since there could only have been a max of two blood types in an original adam/eve pairing?  That question is only half serious as I know it is seriously oversimplified.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on Feb. 21 2006,16:59

Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 21 2006,00:32)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or, would there perhaps be no such distinction between humans and their predecessors that marked the emergence of the first human because evolution is so gradual?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



this is closer to being a correct interpretation.  

your first deduction would have to envision the emergence of H. sapiens from a single point mutation.  hardly likely, when you think about it, is it?  not supported by the fossil evidence garnered so far either.

currently, all the evidence points to hominids evolving in similar fashion to everything else studied.

since the characteristics that distinguish this species from its predecessors didn't all appear at once, it's also likely that blood types were carried along as well as the species diverged.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sir ToeJam--when we speak of it here, we mean a population of related, but distinct (and extinct) species that H. sapiens evolved from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK, nevermind.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 21 2006,17:26

I think though, even if you just had two people, if one had alleles for A and O, and the other B and O, you could get kids with A, B, AB, or O.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 21 2006,18:30

Springer was a senior systems engineer in laptop R&D at Dell from 1993-2000 then retired with millions in stock options.  He hasn't been shy about telling the story and it checks out.  Here is a usenet history going back a few years earlier than the other where he's using a Dell email address.

< http://groups.google.com/groups?....afe=off >

The usenet history is mostly in computer gaming and easy enough to follow with a spot check here and there over the years if you're familiar with IBM-PC game evolution (heheh) over the years.  He was predicting, starting in 1995, that Windows 95 would be the death knell for DOS in the PC gaming world and was ridiculed for it.  Turns out he was right.  DOS games died the next year.  Then he began writing a massively multiplayer internet gaming system predicting, again successfully, that Windows 95's streamlined internet connectivity would change the internet from something only computer geeks with a high degree of pain tolerance could get working on a home PC to something that every idiot would have in their home soon.  Prophetic again.  The system he authored used a minimum of client/server architecture just for keeping a map of the ad hoc network up to date and distributed among the clients while maximizing efficiency (and lowering server bandwidth requirements tremendously) by making most of it peer-to-peer.  This architecture wasn't widely embraced until years later when Napster (peer-to-peer file sharing of music files) came along.  Ahead of his time again.  In 1997 he got into a long running flame war over whether DirectX was going to win the day over OpenGL as the 3D gaming interface of the future.  Once again he was ridiculed and once again time proved him right.

Here's his history with the U.S. patent and trademark office:

< http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi....&d=ptxt >

He's written on Dembski's site that he was on the patent committee at Dell, a select group of a dozen top engineers, and reviewed something like 1000 patent abstracts submitted by employees for worthiness.  I bet he was a real sweetheart to deal with.  He seems to have made a career out of being a jerk but in all fairness he's been on the right side of every fight and how many of us have managed to get rich before we got gray hair working as engineers or scientists?
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 21 2006,18:50

SteveStory - Springer wrote that hemoglobin mishmash almost 10 years ago.  10 years is a long time to learn. People are even known to have gone from taking 10th grade biology at 16 years old to having a PhDs in evolutionary biology at 26 years old.  I know, that's not much of a leap but people do that even in real sciences like chemistry and physics.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out the EDIT button.  I hadn't noticed it either.

So that's two mistakes of Springer's you found in ten years.  Good going.  Out of what is easily thousands of posts he's made you found only TWO mistakes?  God made more mistakes than that.
Posted by: hehe on Feb. 21 2006,20:31

> Out of what is easily thousands of posts he's made you found only TWO mistakes?

Hello, Dave. You have made much more mistakes in that post, so please, don't try to lie about it  :D
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 21 2006,21:06

attention UD watchers...

Quite a while back, I saw a debate between WD40 and Michael Ruse where WD stated that the evidence for common descent was overwhelming and undeniable (setting aside for the moment that the idea is to re-interpret the evidence in "light" of ID).

I have since seen WD40 state similar things on UD, and set his "bulldog" DS to chew up any toy that denied the evidence for common descent there.

so... it seemed like a simple bait and switch to me; claim you support the evidence for common descent, but totally make up what the conclusions based on that evidence should be.

However, Pim has raised some conflicting posts by WD40 that raise some doubts about whether or not he actually even supports common descent superficially.

for example, check out WD40's take on Woese:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/676 >

So....

it's time to settle the issue:

Does WD accept the evidence for common descent, and what is his official postion regarding the validity of it?

If so, are we agreed that this is just a simple bait and switch?  or is it something else?

It's actually a bit important to resolve this, and nail down what the actual official position WD40 and the DI will try to take on this, so any input (especially in the form of direct quotes from Dembski or other DI representatives) would be appreciated.

thanks

oh, btw, if anybody wants to see it, i can post a link to download the Dembski/Ruse debate i was referring to.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 21 2006,21:08

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 22 2006,00:30)
He's written on Dembski's site that he was on the patent committee at Dell, a select group of a dozen top engineers, and reviewed something like 1000 patent abstracts submitted by employees for worthiness.  I bet he was a real sweetheart to deal with.  He seems to have made a career out of being a jerk but in all fairness he's been on the right side of every fight and how many of us have managed to get rich before we got gray hair working as engineers or scientists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, that is so funny. I work for a major computer firm and know most of the people on the patent review board in my part of the company.  Dave Springer would fit right in! Explains a lot. And you don't have to be in the top dozen of anything to sit on a patent review board in a company like Dell (except maybe in the very early days when there were only a few engineers to start with). In the company I work for, the guys are bright, sure, but the elite engineers are usually far too busy to have time to sit on these boards and filter through patent submissions. It's important work, but it's not that difficult.

And reviewing 1000 patent submissions is not all that impressive. There are a lot of ideas floating around, but many of them tend to be repeats or are easily knocked down with a cursory glance at the details and/or patent database.

"The right side of every fight" seems a bit strong considering his current involvement with ID. And how many other fights that he doesn't brag about (i.e. the ones he lost) were there?

But for all I know DS may be the world's greatest engineer, but even if that is the case it doesn't make him any less wrong about intelligent design.

BTW: A total of four patents in the computer industry is nothing to brag about. Most of my collegues who have any sort of interest in filing patents have many times more than that.
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 21 2006,21:15

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 21 2006,22:00)
Message from John Davison:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now I see someone named jeannot claims that evolution involves populations not individuals...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is not what I claimed. ???

Anyway, instead of writing here a long answer (I don't have the time to do it and English is not my first language), I'd suggest Mr Davison to read "Evolution" by Ridley, then "Speciation" by Coyn & Orr.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 21 2006,21:23

meh, don't concern yourself with what davison thinks.

It's pointless to concern yourself with the ravings of madmen.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 22 2006,00:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wouldn't that argue against there being a single adam (I've seen the y chromosome proves adam spiel) and/or a single eve (the seven daughters of eve)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There wasnt a single adam, there were many, probably thousands if you just include humans, nd of course evolutionarily speaking there is no clear barrier between species. When you hear genetic Adam or Eve referred to it means 'most recent common ancestor', so before them there are also many people who are the ancestors of all humans. Adam lived between 60-90 thousand years ago and Eve 150000 years ago.

Over at UD it seems that one of the main points of disagreement is we say natural causes is the null hypothesis and they say intelligence is the null hypothesis. Therefore to prove evolution and discount design we have to experimentally evolve the falgellum and a nucleus in the lab with modern bacteria. Of course, being the philosopher that I am, my general response to this would be 'What!?, are you a f****ing moron!?', does anyone have a slightly more eloquent way of putting this other than to point out that this is impossible so therefore a waste of time, because this doesnt seem to work. Neither does pointing out that we can infer the evolution of certain systems from our study of the evolution of others.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 22 2006,03:51

PicoFarad, who might actually be DaveScot, might be JAD, but is at the very least an Uncommon Pissant devotee, claims my criticism of DaveScot's wildly inaccurate description of blood type proteins is unimportant because it was a decade ago, and DS presumably could have learned a great deal in the meantime.

But that of course misses the point, which is that DaveScot is willing to lecture about biology on topics he's completely ignorant about, in service to creationism.

And no, that isn't two errors I found, it was an error per sentence. His description of blood types would be obviously wrong to even a good high school biology student.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 22 2006,04:02

PF also makes a weird case of Argument from Authority above, suggesting that because DaveScot had some success as an engineer, his biological statements, already shown to be trivially wrong, should be given respect. The thing is,  we've seen DaveScot bungle biology, and we've never seen him demonstrate any expertise in the field, so he gets no love.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 22 2006,04:12

Speaking of DaveScot, Dembski's explanation that Intelligent Design and The Bible Codes were identical in methodology got a lot of airtime here and on PT. Did anyone else notice that DaveScot didn't touch that with a ten foot pole?
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 22 2006,05:00

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 22 2006,00:50)
SteveStory - Springer wrote that hemoglobin mishmash almost 10 years ago.  10 years is a long time to learn. People are even known to have gone from taking 10th grade biology at 16 years old to having a PhDs in evolutionary biology at 26 years old.  I know, that's not much of a leap but people do that even in real sciences like chemistry and physics.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out the EDIT button.  I hadn't noticed it either.

So that's two mistakes of Springer's you found in ten years.  Good going.  Out of what is easily thousands of posts he's made you found only TWO mistakes?  God made more mistakes than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PicoFarad, I assume that you are Dave Scott. Wellcome to a board where you can't censor.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 22 2006,05:01

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/847#comments >

Apparently a pig containing a jellyfish gene is not a reliable indicator of design, because of horizontal gene transfer.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 22 2006,05:06

Stevestory, I posted on the PT thread that nobody leapt in to defend Dembski.  Maybe they arent all as stupid as we think they are?
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 22 2006,05:07

Steve, you think PicoFarad is yet another incarnation of DaveScot? Admittedly, his suggestion that DS's biology gaffes are in the single-digit range would be consistent with that. But is DS able to step outside himself long enough to make this observation?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I bet he was a real sweetheart to deal with.  He seems to have made a career out of being a jerk
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


With respect to the ABO faux pas: Sure, maybe that was at the very beginning of his long journey to become a leading expert in modern biology. But unless there is somewhere a record of DS correcting his mistake, and admitting he was spreading uninformed nonsense, and showing some contrition for arrogant overconfidence, I don't grant him a break.

I personally hounded him into admitting his error in spreading as fact an internet typo that had made a bacterial genome larger than a mammal's. Finding the error, of course, was nothing special. But getting him to admit it - that took persistence.
Posted by: lutsko on Feb. 22 2006,05:12

Chris,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, being the philosopher that I am, my general response to this would be 'What!?, are you a f****ing moron!?', does anyone have a slightly more eloquent way of putting this other than to point out that this is impossible so therefore a waste of time, because this doesnt seem to work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are wasting your time, my friend. My experience is that no matter how polite and correct you are in raising your points, the comment will not see the light of day if it risks scoring any points against ID.  Personally, i really don't get  the reason they even allow comments on UD. I guess its just about stroking the egos of the moderators (especially -ds).
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 22 2006,05:41

Russell,
How did you manage this?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I personally hounded him into admitting his error in spreading as fact an internet typo that had made a bacterial genome larger than a mammal's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All I did, was point out how unethical he was and got banned.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 22 2006,05:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I personally hounded him into admitting his error in spreading as fact an internet typo that had made a bacterial genome larger than a mammal's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

Russell, How did you manage this?

Oh, sorry! I didn't mean to imply I did that on UD; as you know, that would be quite impossible. That was on a comment thread on PT.

I've never bothered to register at UD. I've never been tempted to join the circus, either.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 22 2006,10:01

LOL. Some guy named PaV, who is apparently not the sharpest reptile tooth in the mutant chicken's beak, has posted at Uncommon Pissant about the mutant chicken alligator teeth story we're all talking about today. He says,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The difference between genome and phenome can be extravagant. “Front-loading” suggests that there’s a lot to the genome that is not seen in the phenome. This discovery should make for some interesting head-scratching.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — PaV @ 1:39 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 22 2006,11:20

Ok quick question.....

what exactly is a systems engineer?
Im familiar with the job, but Im not familiar with the education.

Did Dave get a degree in another field of engineering?
Do systems engineers take the FE?
Are they true engineers or are they like Industrial Engineers?
or are they like "audio engineers"?

Just curious....since most engineers have at least a general understanding of science.....and I was wondering if DaveScot is a physics whizbang with an argument to pick with biology....or if he never really was required to display a basic scientific knowledge....or perhaps even a mathematical knowledge.

Anyone know?
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 22 2006,12:54

"Systems engineer" is likely a computer network administrator or engineer if you will.  I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and I can assure you folks like me are not taught or trained in any engineering concepts.  Basically if you can put a computer network together and install an operating system or two, poof, you're an engineer!

A couple years ago a few states tried to outlaw folks like me from calling themselves an engineer since we are not true engineers.  Not sure whatever became of that.

Anyhow, I supect that is what the wayward Dave Scott is referring to.

Also, his stupid notion that engineers have some talent for design is nonsense as well.  In his field network architects design and engineers simply assemble.

Dave Scott is a moron.
Posted by: ptman on Feb. 22 2006,13:24

The IDiots are at it again, check out the latest on chicken teeth.  (comment 6 for now) ds is chanelling Davison, aparently he has forgotten any disagreements. And Plunge seems to be back after being banned only a few days ago for talking about monsters.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is evidence of back-loading, not front loading. Teeth are ancestral to chickens (in fact, coincidentially enough, they are quite similar to the teeth alligators, one of a chicken’s closest non-bird modern relations): there’s no evidence that there is some sort of future plan for a toothed chicken that is playing out. Did you miss the part about the mutation that exposes the teeth being fatal, or how the expression pathway was once functional, and is now broken/supressed?

Why is it that atavisms always seem to fit evolutionary history? Why do humans only develop primate atavisms, but never cetacean atavisms, and vice versa? It seems like even designers as clumsy and ill-informed as ourselves can make lateral gene transfers (i.e. growing mouse molars in chickens), but we never see traits jump like that in nature. The pattern instead fits the stricter constraints of evolutionary descent with modification.
Comment by plunge — February 22, 2006 @ 4:17 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, this is evidence of front-loading. Think of the genome as a deck of cards and broader taxonomic groupings as hands that are dealt from the deck. The deck was once large enough in one or more common ancestors to contain all the features that any of its descendents ever had. Macro-evolution then proceeds not as the gradual accumulation of small accidental mutations but rather as the instantaneous shuffle and dealing of a new hand. John Davison (see sidebar) has hypothesized a mechanism he calls semi-meiosis that can deal a new hand in a single generation producing fertile offspring (of both sexes for sexually reproducing organisms) of a species different from the parent. This is in total agreement with the indisputable testimony of the fossil record which reveals not gradual transitions but the sudden appearance of broad new taxonomic orders. The platypus is a wonderful example of how the shuffle and deal works as it represents a different mix of reptilian features than either birds or mammals inherited. -ds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: argystokes on Feb. 22 2006,15:41

Wow, Sal's used the Schrodinger equation to prove the existence of God!  This, of course, has nothing to do with design detection.  I'm sure it's relevant somehow.
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 22 2006,15:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

What is the role of natural selection? Sexual selection? ANy kind of selection? Is speciation the result of “Natural” processes allowed through “front loading”? It seems to me that e=mc2 is front loading. If the designer (I prefer to say God although I know that many of you do not) simply wrote the equations and let it all fly, where does that leave this debate? Where is the controversy? I know that we have something separate and distinct called “spirit”. Are you making the case that spirit is the result of e=mc2, or that God created life distinctly?

I am quite confused by now. It would seem like teeth in a chicken is somewhat off the mark.

Comment by Artist in training — February 22, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
#

It appears that science and religion are indeed on separate playing fields. I may have to examine my specific understanding of the Bible in light of evidence provided by scientific research but I find myself utterly unable to figure out what you are trying to convey.

Comment by Artist in training — February 22, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
#

Is the point that the info pre-existed? Then you get different shuffles and some of that info, previously hidden, comes to the fore?

A loss of info or hidden info and not new information from random mutation?

Or am I missing the point?

Comment by geoffrobinson — February 22, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hoo boy. This is the chickens with teeth thread. Do you think DS will reply?
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 22 2006,15:47

he better be careful;

last month he was flagellating anybody who disagreed with the theory of common descent... now he's treading dangerously close to promoting front-loading instead.

I wonder how he will adapt (read butcher) both explanations to fit the same set of evidence, as I'm sure he will try to do within the next day or so.

schizophrenia or just idiocy?

you decide.

p.s. I can kinda guess what he will do, which will make him one of only two people in the world to do so... and i won't say who the other is but his initials are JAD.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 22 2006,15:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, Sal's used the Schrodinger equation to prove the existence of God!  This, of course, has nothing to do with design detection.  I'm sure it's relevant somehow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Relevance is futile!

You will be assimilated!
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 22 2006,22:32

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 22 2006,06:23)
Over at UD it seems that one of the main points of disagreement is we say natural causes is the null hypothesis and they say intelligence is the null hypothesis. Therefore to prove evolution and discount design we have to experimentally evolve the falgellum and a nucleus in the lab with modern bacteria. Of course, being the philosopher that I am, my general response to this would be 'What!?, are you a f****ing moron!?', does anyone have a slightly more eloquent way of putting this other than to point out that this is impossible so therefore a waste of time, because this doesnt seem to work. Neither does pointing out that we can infer the evolution of certain systems from our study of the evolution of others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"impossible"

Is that a Freudian slip, Chris? :-)

Does NeoDarwian theory predict the impossibility of a flagellum or nucleus evolving in a laboratory culture?

Is there some minimum number of generations that NeoDarwinian theory requires for these features to emerge?  

This is too easy.  

Who is next?
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 22 2006,23:42

WEll, it seems to me that you couldnt replicate the evolution of flagella etc using modern bacteria and claim that you have thereby shown that is how flagella evolved, given the likely and known differences between archeobacteria and modern ones.  

As a related question for the biologists, I assume nobody is saying that chromosome rearrangements dont occur, just that they are not that huge a mechanism in evolution, and that when they do occur, they are frequently fatal?  I just want to rid myself of the last remaining sympathy for what JAD might be trying to say with his front loading hypothesis.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 23 2006,00:31

DavePicoFarad

Just curious, but what is the answer to the suggestion that a systems engineer does not require any formal academic qualification, and do you... sorry, does Dave Springer have any qualifications appropriate to his current calling?
Posted by: Bebbo on Feb. 23 2006,01:22

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 22 2006,00:30)
He's written on Dembski's site that he was on the patent committee at Dell, a select group of a dozen top engineers, and reviewed something like 1000 patent abstracts submitted by employees for worthiness.  I bet he was a real sweetheart to deal with.  He seems to have made a career out of being a jerk but in all fairness he's been on the right side of every fight and how many of us have managed to get rich before we got gray hair working as engineers or scientists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So DaveScot was a good engineer at Dell and made a lot of money. Now he's just a jerk who makes a nuisance of himself on other people's blogs and has become an acolyte to a minor academic and crank who works at a God college. I can think of better ways to spend one's retirement.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 23 2006,01:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does NeoDarwian theory predict the impossibility of a flagellum or nucleus evolving in a laboratory culture?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A: The ancestral organism to E. coli that evolved the flagellum no longer exists. B: The process likely involved horizontal transfer from other unknown organisms. C: Even if it could happen using modern bacteria, it may take thousands or millions of years. So yes, as far as an actual laboratory experment that could be performed in all our lifetimes goes, it is pretty much impossible, and the prediction is meaningless. If your going to try and make witty smackdowns, i suggest reading up on a little biology.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As a related question for the biologists, I assume nobody is saying that chromosome rearrangements dont occur, just that they are not that huge a mechanism in evolution, and that when they do occur, they are frequently fatal?  I just want to rid myself of the last remaining sympathy for what JAD might be trying to say with his front loading hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Chromosome rearrangements do occur, mostly they have no phenotypic affect whatsoever, occasionally they do cause problems, Down's syndrome is an example. It is likely that many of the differences between humans and chimps for example, are caused by chromosome rearrangements, but there is no reason though to suspect that this was not a product of evolution. Just as much if not more of the phenotypic difference is caused by small mutations in promoter sequences and transcription factors, affecting gene expression, I dont see how this is accounted for by frontloading models. Plus whoever 'frontloaded' in the first place would have to have complete foreknowledge of all random mutation and environmental conditions.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 23 2006,05:57

Quote (argystokes @ Feb. 22 2006,21:41)
Wow, Sal's used the Schrodinger equation to prove the existence of God!  This, of course, has nothing to do with design detection.  I'm sure it's relevant somehow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's relevant to ID in Sal's mind.  The amusing part is that he's the very poster-child for the sort of 'religious-nut' ID advocate that Dave Scot keeps trying to keep off of Uncommon Dissent.

For Sal, as for Dembski, this is all about God.  If it's not, then it's not worth doing.

What's more interesting is how UD is becoming a recycling center for arguments that various clueless ID advocates such as Sal and JAD have made before (and been soundly refuted before) on places such as ARN and ISCID.  Of course, ISCID is a ghost town and ARN is a joke these days - perhaps they think that UD is going to get more press?  Or is it a case of UD so desperate for material that they'll take anything?
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 23 2006,06:57

Ok.....so DaveScot is a basic level computer guy....

He isnt an Engineer....he is a guy who calls himself an engineer.  Now, I dont want anyone to take offense to this comment; its just that a Bachelor's in engineering requires a fairly intimate understanding of mathematics and physics.  I now know that Dave lacks both of these skills.

Also, his "engineering" job at Dell made me think that Dave was fairly experienced with design.  I thought maybe he had designed motherboards or some other logic-related stuff...now i understand...he was a code jockey.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is there some minimum number of generations that NeoDarwinian theory requires for these features to emerge?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ummm....yeah......1.....the more appropriate question to your argument would be "is their a maximum?"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does NeoDarwian theory predict the impossibility of a flagellum or nucleus evolving in a laboratory culture?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By far the best quote I have ever read.  Seriously...I hope this is a joke, because that may be the stupidest question I have ever read.  Forgetting the whole Religion/Science debate for a moment....that question doesnt even make sense.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 23 2006,07:19

I studied philosophy for years, so long that when I read stuff like this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can such a liberal perspective be held liberally? The paradox of freedom shows that complete freedom is not viable. Instead, maximal freedom is typically regarded as an optimum. Is such an optimum to be held absolutely?

Comment by William Dembski — February 23, 2006 @ 8:01 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My only response is "shut the f*** up!"

Seriously, I have no stomach for the freshman philosophy language game of meaningless, useless banter.
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 23 2006,07:31

Yep, those comments are gone from the chicken's tooth thread. DS just couldn't handle it I guess.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2006,07:34

which comments were deleted?
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 23 2006,07:41

Quote (BWE @ Feb. 22 2006,21:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

What is the role of natural selection? Sexual selection? ANy kind of selection? Is speciation the result of “Natural” processes allowed through “front loading”? It seems to me that e=mc2 is front loading. If the designer (I prefer to say God although I know that many of you do not) simply wrote the equations and let it all fly, where does that leave this debate? Where is the controversy? I know that we have something separate and distinct called “spirit”. Are you making the case that spirit is the result of e=mc2, or that God created life distinctly?

I am quite confused by now. It would seem like teeth in a chicken is somewhat off the mark.

Comment by Artist in training — February 22, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
#

It appears that science and religion are indeed on separate playing fields. I may have to examine my specific understanding of the Bible in light of evidence provided by scientific research but I find myself utterly unable to figure out what you are trying to convey.

Comment by Artist in training — February 22, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
#

Is the point that the info pre-existed? Then you get different shuffles and some of that info, previously hidden, comes to the fore?

A loss of info or hidden info and not new information from random mutation?

Or am I missing the point?

Comment by geoffrobinson — February 22, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

these

Hoo boy. This is the chickens with teeth thread. Do you think DS will reply?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2006,08:04

is Uncommon Descent offline?

Or did they just go into a deletion frenzy and accidently delete everthing?

update: now it seems to be back up.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 23 2006,08:07

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2006,14:04)
is Uncommon Descent offline?

Or did they just go into a deletion frenzy and accidently delete everthing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems to be working for me.
Posted by: FishyFred on Feb. 23 2006,09:22

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/857 >

Oh your lord... somebody PLEASE kick his ass. He makes me weep for humanity.
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 23 2006,09:31

Quote (FishyFred @ Feb. 23 2006,15:22)
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/857 >

Oh your lord... somebody PLEASE kick his ass. He makes me weep for humanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only way it could have been better is if he had mentioned the impending Waterloo.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 23 2006,09:56

But you have to admit that Dave Springer is an absolute classic: bombastic, ignorant, and flagrantly contradictionary.  (I thought about correcting that.... but's it too funny to cut out.  I meant "contradictory", of course, but the other fit, too.)

You couldn't invent someone so funny.

Consider just a couple of points:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I almost feel sorry for the vocal minority that refuses to allow a school board to insist that students be informed that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and as such should be carefully studied and critically considered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Since any competent science class does this anyway, Davie is saying nothing here.  It's as if he said, "schools should teach things!"  People will simply look at him as if he were bonkie and go on with their business (it must be tough to try to stay on the cutting edge when no one cares).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In so doing they’ve allowed us to frame them as atheist zealots out to censor any interpretation of empirical data that doesn’t conform to an atheist worldview
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But Davie, sweetie, you've just spent months slapping anyone who claimed any 'religious' association with ID.  Now you're admitting that this is an 'atheist vs. theist' argument?

I'm torn here: who is the better advertisement for the Modern Synthesis: Sal "I'm a religious bigot" Cordova or Dave "I'm a religious bigot - I just won't admit it" Springer?

And why if their masters have any brains at all, do they let these kids make the ID movement look like idiots?  Why?  That's what always baffles me.
Posted by: SomeGuy on Feb. 23 2006,09:56

Quote (FishyFred @ Feb. 23 2006,15:22)
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/857 >

Oh your lord... somebody PLEASE kick his ass. He makes me weep for humanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is more of DaveScot's real agenda...he doesn't care for ID persay, it's all just part of the bigger culture war he enjoys fighting in his free time. Like most of the right wing evangelicals out there, it's not necessarily about the issues, it's about winning because they feel they're repressed.

The best way to get under his skin is just to remind him of how many times they have tried and failed to get their agenda across. And how they will keep failing since ultimately ID will be seen for the snake oil it really is. Always remember, DaveScot "hates to lose" and the more we remind him of ID's losses the angrier he's going to get.

And that's the real reason he never brings up Dover - because it pisses him off too much.
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 23 2006,11:03

This does appear to be getting closer to the agenda. Culture War. FU( K him. I bet I could Kick his a$$. I sure would like to. Bastard.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2006,11:54

hehe I would have said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm torn here: who is the better advertisement for the Modern Synthesis: Sal "I"m a relegyous biggot" Cordova or Dave "I'm a religious bigot wait this isn't about religion I'm Banned!" Springer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: FishyFred on Feb. 23 2006,12:06

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/857#comment-25216 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

MattDean: “Not to sound insulting, but have you ever heard of the 14th Amendment?”

Oh, I’ve heard about it. I think it’s time to repeal it. It’s useful is no longer needed to address its intent (stopping Reconstructionist states from discriminating against freed slaves), and has been the source of untold judicial excesses over the last 30-40 years. The way it is currently interpreted, we are very far removed from being a ‘federal republic’, and much more closer to being a simple democratic ’state’ (forget the 50 states; it’s only 1 state–the federal government).

Comment by PaV — February 23, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's sad that Dave would probably take it even further than PaV has.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 23 2006,12:16

rewrite the definition of science to fit your personal beliefs, rewrite the constitution to fit your personal beliefs.

what's the difference.

same mindset.

I wish these folks would just get on with their own personal "rapture" and leave the rest of us out of it.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 23 2006,14:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....As I’ve been saying on blogs for over a year now, the only thing propping up the NeoDarwinian fairy tale today is judicial fiat and that last leg is about to be kicked out from under it. ID will be presented alongside RM+NS and the two will have to compete in the open on a level playing field for the hearts and minds of a new generation. All of us here I think are quite comfortable letting ID and RM+NS compete on a level playing field. That’s because we understand that ID is a strong idea able to compete and win. The NeoDarwinian dogmatists also understand that ID is a strong idea able to compete and win which is why they desperately oppose even mentioning its name to a student. I sometimes wonder if they realize how transparent they are.

Filed under: Education, Legal, Courts, Laws, Constitution — DaveScot @ 2:00 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a tit.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2006,15:18

Don't demean tits by comparing them to DaveScot.

;-)
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 23 2006,16:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID will be presented alongside RM+NS and the two will have to compete in the open on a level playing field for the hearts and minds of a new generation. All of us here I think are quite comfortable letting ID and RM+NS compete on a level playing field.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...projection...

there already exists a level playing field.  It's called peer review and publication.

We've invited them to play, but they'd rather wipe out the playing field and put up condos instead.

level playing field???

is he kidding?

when I can come to his church and teach about evolutionary theory, then I'll think there is a level playing field.

#### no, it's exactly the opposite; the vast majority of the audience in the US is subjected to far more religious arguments than they ever are scientific ones.

If we got a chance to teach evolutionary theory every sunday, to every kid from the age of 5 up, how many IDiots like Dave would there be after 20 years?

ridiculous.

stop playing the martyr, ya bunch of pussies!

The playing field is there; put up or shut up!
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 24 2006,04:36

Some days ago I claimed that contributor PaV on Uncommon Pissant was not playing with a full deck. I present to you evidence of this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don’t you ‘google’ “The Velikovsky Affair” to see what depths the scientific community will descend to protect its materialism. You’ll then see that it’s the “wedge strategy” versus the “sledgehammer strategy”.

Comment by PaV — February 23, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, you read that right, the scientific community is conspiring against ID like they conspired against Velikovsky.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 24 2006,04:40

Not only does ID have nothing to do with religion - it's all about the science - it also has nothing to do with right-wing politics! That's why you have stuff like this:
< (Culture War) The Final Rout of the Left Has Begun >
on a blog all about the "Science" of ID.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 24 2006,04:55

I love that whole thread, it's hilarious. Here's a good part:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientists are a tiny part of the population. They have failed miserably to convince a significant number of people that the NeoDarwinian story is true. The only thing left propping it up is that it enjoys legally enforced exclusivity in public schools. Judicial fiat is the only thing maintaining its exclusivity. If you think it’s so robust why not let it be taught? Surely no one will believe anything else. What are you so afraid of? -ds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dang ol judges, somehow stopping all those ID papers from being published. Somehow.

I also love this brilliant comment from DS:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you don’t like federal laws it’s not so easy moving to another country. Just ask Alex Baldwin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From blood types to movie stars, DaveScot is a master of the details.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 24 2006,05:44

you all have GOT to check out this post "Tolstoy’s Last Letter".

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/858 >

It's so sad, their feeble efforts.
Posted by: incorygible on Feb. 24 2006,05:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someday someone will stand up for the reproduction rights of men.

IOW somewhere a woman will get pregnant and want an abortion. But the man will not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The latest comment on this highly entertaing thread.  Just...wow.  Nevermind that I'm pretty sure, someone(s), somewhere(s) has tried that (several times).  What I want to know is this...

Exactly where does "design detection" (purely scientific, absent any designer, etc.) support the "reproductive rights of men"?  I know the ancient texts tentatively linked to one reported designer have often been used to justify this, but we're not talking about him, are we?  I must have missed the fancy Dembski math showing that bacterial flagellum = irreducible complexity = intelligent design = right-wing culture war = abortion is bad.
Posted by: Steverino on Feb. 24 2006,06:15

From the Unmanly Descent:

From a colleague:] Leo Tolstoy’s last completed letter, dictated from his sick-bed at the Astapovo train station on November 1, 1910 (six days before his death), and addressed to his son Seryozha and daughter Tanya, included a warning that Seryozha should not allow himself to be seduced by Darwinism. Here is the relevant passage:

“The views you have acquired about Darwinism, evolution and the struggle for existence won’t explain to you the meaning of your life and won’t give you guidance in your actions, and a life without an explanation of its meaning and importance, and without the unfailing guidance that stems from it is a pitiful existence.”

—Tolstoy’s Letters: Volume II, 1880-1910, selected, edited, and translated by
R.F. Christian. London: Athlone Press, 1978; No. 607, p. 717.

Is it the job of science to give guidance in your actions???...Is it the job of science to give meaning and importance???

Help me here...I cannot believe the stuff that pant-load posts on his site.

:angry:
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 24 2006,06:35

According to Ed Brayton, Dembski is misrepresenting that excerpt.

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....toy.php >

I know you're all shocked that Dembksi would do something like that.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 24 2006,07:40

I've just checked Cordova's post about the equation that proves the existence of God.  And what does the equation say?  

"Oink".

Bob
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 24 2006,08:46

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 24 2006,13:40)
I've just checked Cordova's post about the equation that proves the existence of God.  And what does the equation say?  

"Oink".

Bob
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh - I noticed that too.  Must have been that pig flying past the window.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 24 2006,08:54

Quote (incorygible @ Feb. 24 2006,11:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someday someone will stand up for the reproduction rights of men.

IOW somewhere a woman will get pregnant and want an abortion. But the man will not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The latest comment on this highly entertaing thread.  Just...wow.  Nevermind that I'm pretty sure, someone(s), somewhere(s) has tried that (several times).  What I want to know is this...

Exactly where does "design detection" (purely scientific, absent any designer, etc.) support the "reproductive rights of men"?  I know the ancient texts tentatively linked to one reported designer have often been used to justify this, but we're not talking about him, are we?  I must have missed the fancy Dembski math showing that bacterial flagellum = irreducible complexity = intelligent design = right-wing culture war = abortion is bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you do know that every sperm is sacred...

But you have it backwards--for Dembski the equation is:

"abortion is bad = right-wing culture war = intelligent design = irreducible complexity = bacterial flagellum"

Now throw in a bit of maths to make it all seem fancy and intellectual-like to the unwashed masses, and there you have it.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 24 2006,09:05

I would like to point out that DaveScot's post on abortion accords with the Wedge Document:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES
...
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:
...
   * Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



from < http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html >
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 24 2006,10:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But you have it backwards--for Dembski the equation is:

"abortion is bad = right-wing culture war = intelligent design = irreducible complexity = bacterial flagellum"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



doubtful.

more like:

money is good => right-wing culture war is good for business => intellgent design is an easy way to sell books => NFL => $

There is NO consistency in Dembski's positions; he's simply trying to make a living off of the rubes, just like the televangelists.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 24 2006,11:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Immanuel Velikovsky
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did they bring this up just so that they will finally have a response to the whole micro-gravity, macro-gravity joke?  Velikovsky thought gravity was wrong too?

Its good to see that the more "hardcore" crazies are supporting ID nowadays.  Now we just need to sit down all of the rational sane people that support ID and hopefully turn them into creationists again.

I liked creationists....they had a really, really, really strong argument.  It was also fairly obvious that they couldnt teach in science classrooms.
Posted by: JonF on Feb. 25 2006,03:23

Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 24 2006,17:54)

 Velikovsky thought gravity was wrong too?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup.  See < COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION >.  Ol' V-man could give any present day creationist a run for his/her money in the utter ignorance category.   The list at the beginning, of things not explained by gravity, is worse than anything AIG's ever done.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 25 2006,05:26

I have already established beyond any reasonable doubt that NO ONE with ANY hypothesis for the MECHANISM of organic change was willing to present his version when I instituted the First Annual Tournament of Evolutionary Hypotheses (FATEH) on my blog - prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/

After 473 posts still NOBODY has surfaced, absolutely no one. There is only one formal conclusion that can be drawn from this experiment. I am the only living soul within the range of cybershot who is willing to stand by what he has published. There is not a living Darwinian who will admit to being a Darwinian. That includes their most famous living hero Sir Richard Dawkins who didn’t even have the common decency to acknowledge my personal invitation. Indeed it was only a pair of antiDarwinians that even bothered to respond, Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells, both of whom were too busy with more important matters to take the time to present a 500 word summary of their convictions, assuming of course that they even had any.

How can such a situation exist? I will now tell you exactly why. It is because I am the only poor misguided soul in the whole world who is convinced he is on the right track with his version of the mechanism of organic change. EVERYBODY else must realize that they either have no hypothesis at all or are so insecure about the one they do have that they refuse to expose themselves to the cold facts revealed by the fossil record and the experimental laboratory.

Now there is nothing new about this bizarre phenomenon. The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) is firmly based on the work of about a half dozen of some of the greatest minds of the past 150 years, not one of whom has been properly acknowledged by the ruling hegemony known as the Darwinian establishment. I, like all of them, simply do not exist. You will find none of us in the works of the Darwinian spokespersons or if you do it will be for some trivial contribution which had nothing to do with the central question which has always been the MECHANISM for organic change. A good example is Sir Richard Dawkins congratulating William Bateson for his work on homeosis or S.J. Gould, after recognizing Otto Schindewolf as the greatest paleontologist of his day following that with the snide comment that all of his evolutionary conclusions were “spectacularly flawed.” Both Bateson and Schindewolf had dismissed the Darwinian model as useless as did Grasse, Broom, Osborn, Petrunkevitch, Berg, Punnett, Goldschmidt and God only knows how many others both before and since. The destruction of the Darwinian fairy tale began with Mivart 12 years after the publication of Darwin’s opus minimus and has continued unabated right to the present. Failure to acknowledge this continuing mayhem has been a scandal unprecedented in the history of science dwarfing both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Experimental Physics.

There is a simple reason we several scientists (I am one no matter what you may hear to the contrary) have been deliberately and cynically ignored. It can be summarized in a single word - fear, fear that if we were allowed to exist that it would destroy the reputations of all those whose pride would not permit them to acknowledge that they had dedicated their entire professional lives to a myth. Don’t you ever question that they don’t know they are through because they do. They have always known it but, like the congenital intellectual cowards that they all are, they are unable to admit as William Bateson, one of the great minds of evolutionary science, was so willing to do:

“that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species nor on evolution in general.”

My contribution and unforgivable sin has simply been to integrate the conclusions of my predecessors into a coherent, rational form which could be presented as an alternative to both the Lamarckian and Darwinian mythologies. I have done so. Where are my published critics? I will answer that question too. They don’t exist either just as they never existed when confronted by those that made my work possible. It is a miracle. Darwinism exists because it has neither supporters nor critics. It is a law unto itself not to be either challenged nor accepted. Like gravity, it just is! I wish I could say I was kidding but I can’t.

Now I challenge the denizens of “Esley Welsberry’s Neighborhood Bar and Grill” to reprint this post in it verbatim entirety on its by far most popular thread, the “Uncommon Pissant” one, the one that has thousands of views, the one that most perfectly demonstrates the collective “groupthink” character of the membership of Panda’s Thumb, the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism. I’ll be looking for it and if it isn’t there I will be asking why.

I love it so!

Comment by John Davison — February 19, 2006 @ 12:20 am
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 25 2006,05:58

You should have just let him stew. But such batshit insanity is amusing to read. Not amusing enough to read the whole tedious thing, though.

Speaking of batshit insanity, did you see that On a Lighter Note post on Uncommon Descent? In it, David Berlinsky equates ID with Copernicus, evolution with Ptolemaic astronomy, and Dembski with Isaac Newton. It is actually a pretty boring read. The creationists may call Richard Dawkins snide, but he doesn't hold a candle to Berlinski.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 25 2006,06:09

I did post the following comment as I know Psycho still reads them before deleting:

"Berlinski is about as good a satirist as you are a biologist, Mr Springer."
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 25 2006,06:26

Does Dembski still read his own blog? If he does, I bet he's pissed that DaveScot allows such an obvious crank like JAD to lower the property values.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 25 2006,07:38

Alan, JAD is banned from this board, and for good reason.  Reposting his tedious diatribes here in full is playing just allows him to circumvent that ban and is simply playing into his hands. (No doubt he will now express delight at getting the above post on his board). Please don't clutter up this board with his crap.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,08:40

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 23 2006,07:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does NeoDarwian theory predict the impossibility of a flagellum or nucleus evolving in a laboratory culture?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A: The ancestral organism to E. coli that evolved the flagellum no longer exists. B: The process likely involved horizontal transfer from other unknown organisms. C: Even if it could happen using modern bacteria, it may take thousands or millions of years. So yes, as far as an actual laboratory experment that could be performed in all our lifetimes goes, it is pretty much impossible, and the prediction is meaningless. If your going to try and make witty smackdowns, i suggest reading up on a little biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What experiment demonstrates the ancestor to e.coli from whence the flagellum evolved no longer exists?  Are you aware that an estimated 90% of the living species on this planet are not catalogued and most of those are single celled organisms?  And are you further aware that relatively few of the 10% (1-2 million) catalogued are well studied?

What experimental evidence shows it likely horizontal gene transfer gave e.coli a flagellum and what does that have to do with how those dozens of interdependent genes evolved in the first place?

It could take thousands and millions of years.  Yes.  It could also take forever plus one day.  It could also happen in the first generation.  The point is that NeoDarwinian theory makes no prediction about how many generations it should take.  A theory that makes no verifiable or falsifiable predictions about macroevolutionary events isn't much of a theory.  It's a just-so story about unpredictable, unrepeatable, unwitnessed events in the distant past.  Why can't you accept that?

This is too easy.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,08:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Quote (SomeGuy @ Feb. 23 2006,15:56)
[quote=FishyFred,Feb. 23 2006,15:22]< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/857 >

Oh your lord... somebody PLEASE kick his ass. He makes me weep for humanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is more of DaveScot's real agenda...he doesn't care for ID persay, it's all just part of the bigger culture war he enjoys fighting in his free time. Like most of the right wing evangelicals out there, it's not necessarily about the issues, it's about winning because they feel they're repressed.

The best way to get under his skin is just to remind him of how many times they have tried and failed to get their agenda across. And how they will keep failing since ultimately ID will be seen for the snake oil it really is. Always remember, DaveScot "hates to lose" and the more we remind him of ID's losses the angrier he's going to get.

And that's the real reason he never brings up Dover - because it pisses him off too much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Failing?

Dover is one small battle in one tiny corner of the country. <yawn> Wake me up when SCOTUS makes a ruling.

Meanwhile:

Conservative executive office - check
Conservative majority in house of representatives - check
Conservative majority in senate - check
Conservative majority in supreme court - replacement of one 86 year-old liberal justice and... checkaroony!

I can happily live with failures like that.  Can you?
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,08:57

Did any of you ever stop to think that the ID/NeoDarwin clash might involve science, religion, and politics all at the same time?

Good grief.  The world isn't black and white.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 25 2006,09:01

PicoIQ153Farad wrote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It could take thousands and millions of years.  Yes.  It could also take forever plus a day.  It could also happen in the first generation.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It  [the evolution of a flagellum or a nucleus] could happen in the first generation? I guess so, if you imagine that a single mutation could account for it. But if, like any literate biologist, you think that things like this are the result of the accumulation of many, many small changes that build on one another through an iterative process of mutation/selection, then no it couldn't happen in the number of generations available for observation in a single human lifetime. I guess I would second Chris's suggestion that you read up on a little biology.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is that NeoDarwinian theory makes no predictions about the things it purports to explain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No? What do you suppose "NeoDarwinian" theory predicted about the relationship of DNA sequence similarity to phylogenetic trees, before any sequences were determined? What did "intelligent design predict?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A theory that makes no verifiable or falsifiable predictions ... It's a just-so story about unpredictable, irrepeatable, unwitnessed events in the distant past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah. Sort of like continental drift.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,09:06

Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 23 2006,22:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID will be presented alongside RM+NS and the two will have to compete in the open on a level playing field for the hearts and minds of a new generation. All of us here I think are quite comfortable letting ID and RM+NS compete on a level playing field.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...projection...

there already exists a level playing field.  It's called peer review and publication.

We've invited them to play, but they'd rather wipe out the playing field and put up condos instead.

level playing field???

is he kidding?

when I can come to his church and teach about evolutionary theory, then I'll think there is a level playing field.

#### no, it's exactly the opposite; the vast majority of the audience in the US is subjected to far more religious arguments than they ever are scientific ones.

If we got a chance to teach evolutionary theory every sunday, to every kid from the age of 5 up, how many IDiots like Dave would there be after 20 years?

ridiculous.

stop playing the martyr, ya bunch of pussies!

The playing field is there; put up or shut up!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Peer review and publication a level playing field?  

The NCSE and Smithsonian conspired to ruin the career of an editor of a peer reviewed journal who dared to allow an ID sympathetic article be published.  How is that a "level" playing field?

Church attendence is voluntary.  High school biology isn't.  False analogy.

If we got a chance to teach ID to every high school kid IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY THEORY OR CRITICISM like NeoDarwinists have been allowed to do for 50 years how many Darwinian dogmatists would there be?

This is too easy.

Next!
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 25 2006,09:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did any of you ever stop to think that the ID/NeoDarwin clash might involve science, religion, and politics all at the same time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah....but it should be just about science.

Just like that "new conservative judge" on the Supreme Court.  His decisions shouldnt be based on politics or personal agenda, but rather on the interpretation of the Constitution.  

Remember how mad the ID/Christian right got when a certain judge sided with the facts instead of with a personal agenda in Pennsylvania?

The one thing that is going to split the whole Religious/Conservative pact is the fact that true conservatives still believe in the law....and Christians dont give a ####.  They want their agenda, and they want it now.  

It is funny Cap, your the one who thinks of this world in a "black and white" manner.  You dont see the obvious differences between politics, religion, and science.

BTW...quit calling yourself picofarad....you have never done anything with a capacitor in your life....except use one without understanding how it works.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 25 2006,09:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we got a chance to teach ID to every high school kid IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY THEORY OR CRITICISM like NeoDarwinists have been allowed to do for 50 years how many Darwinian dogmatists would there be?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm....you know and I know that high school kids will swallow whatever they get fed.  Thats the only reason you want to teach it in high school.  You want those open-minded young people to suck up your horsesh**.

Besides, high school biology classes arent the place for debate, or for detailed theory either.  A high school student doesnt have a complex understanding of evolutionary biology.  We all know thats the only biology class you ever took, and we can all tell how severly lacking you are in your understanding of evolution.

Hey, why dont you push to make HS biology classes more voluntary, that way kids dont have to be exposed to "science", and you can drag them into a religious studies class instead.  

You know, its funny, before Darwin most of the biologists of the world were creationists....yet they abandoned that worldview because of the overwhelming evidence.  The fact that their creationist views were strongly supported by religion and society didnt matter.  They changed based on the evidence.....where is the evidence pico?

Too stupid
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 25 2006,09:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The NCSE and Smithsonian conspired to ruin the career of an editor of a peer reviewed journal who dared to allow an ID sympathetic article be published.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



lies.

you #### well know that what was going on was that he violated the very rules of the journal itself to get that article in there.

THAT was what got the rest of the smithsonian crew up in arms.

oh, and as to "ruined his career"... shall we go into EXACTLY what happened to him, eh?

did they fire him?

no.

did he lose his office?

no.

yup, he sure was "ruined"

phht.

now YOU want to play martyr??

like i said, a bunch of pussies.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Church attendence is voluntary.  High school biology isn't.  False analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



is it now?

do you have kids?  do you take them to church?  did you ask them if they want to go?

pathetic.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,09:26

How many generations should it take, Russell?

How do you know it's more generations than we can possibly observe?

I know you can't answer those questions in a way that doesn't make you look stupid so I'll understand if you dodge them again.

The Five D's of Darwinism:

Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge!

LOL
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 25 2006,09:34

hey, Davey,

this whole argument that your ideas are being repressed is just ridiculous.

Heck, you can publish ridiculous books based on empty-headed drivel any time you want (ask Dembski).


again, all your side has to do is go out and actually DO some friggin science, rather than attempt to publish critiques of already published science.

go out and be productive in the science realm, rather than just sit and masturbate all day long.

...and you'll have a chance.

otherwise, you'll just lose, as you have been, for decades now, over and over and over again.

kinda frustrating, huh?

go shake your fist harder, boy!
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,09:42

PuckSR


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmmm....you know and I know that high school kids will swallow whatever they get fed.  Thats the only reason you want to teach it in high school.  You want those open-minded young people to suck up your horsesh**.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Demonstrably not as a large percentage of adults don't believe the NeoDarwinian horsesh**.  But I'm an advocate of teaching both so what they'll "swallow" is that there is more than one tentative answer.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We all know thats the only biology class you ever took, and we can all tell how severly lacking you are in your understanding of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a wonderful demonstration of the reliability of your knowledge.  Would you care to place a wager on your knowledge?  I win if I can produce college transcripts of completed classes in biological sciences. Note the plural.  Bet me.  I don't need your money but I'd love to take enough of it to cause you pain.

ToeJam - I said NCSE and SI conspired to ruin Sternberg.  I didnt' say they were successful.  Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

This is WAY too easy.

Next!
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 25 2006,09:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ToeJam - I said NCSE and SI conspired to ruin Sternberg.  I didnt' say they were sucessful.  Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...and that's the best you can do to claim martyrdom?

ROFLMAO!

hmm, seems i can recall a certain professor whose career really WAS ruined because of comments he made contrary to IDiots like yourself, just in an EMAIL, let alone a journal article.

shall we go there?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I'm an advocate of teaching both...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



oh, let's do see your lesson plan.  What EXACTLY would you teach for the "other side"?  where is the positive evidence for ID?

oh, that's right, it doesn't exist.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd love to take enough of it to cause you pain...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and that's what your side is all about, right Davey?

got nothing to do with trying to support your ideas through research, like an actual scientist would do.

all you care about is giving the "vice" to anybody who disagrees with you.

again, that's pretty pathetic.

shake your fist harder, boy!
Posted by: dhogaza on Feb. 25 2006,09:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is that NeoDarwinian theory makes no prediction about how many generations it should take.  A theory that makes no verifiable or falsifiable predictions about macroevolutionary events isn't much of a theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's see ... ToE does not predict A, therefore ToE predicts nothing.

Even a second-rate engineer at Dell ought to be able to see how the second clause is not a logical consequence of the first.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 25 2006,09:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How do you know it's more generations than we can possibly observe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

By knowing the approximate rate at which mutations happen, and by having a sense of the number of genes involved.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I know you can't answer those questions in a way that doesn't make you look stupid so I'll understand if you dodge them again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thanks. You have no idea how much your indulgence means to me. By the way, how old are you? 10? 12? Is this your idea of witty repartee?

So, uh... Dave. Speaking of dodging, dipping and diving. I notice that you neglected to address my questions:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you suppose "NeoDarwinian" theory predicted about the relationship of DNA sequence similarity to phylogenetic trees, before any sequences were determined? What did "intelligent design predict?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

, and declined to comment on the validity of continental drift.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,10:01

Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 25 2006,15:44)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ToeJam - I said NCSE and SI conspired to ruin Sternberg.  I didnt' say they were sucessful.  Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...and that's the best you can do to claim martyrdom?

ROFLMAO!

hmm, seems i can recall a certain professor whose career really WAS ruined because of comments he made contrary to IDiots like yourself, just in an EMAIL, let alone a journal article.

shall we go there?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd love to take enough of it to cause you pain...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and that's what your side is all about, right Davey?

got nothing to do with trying to support your ideas through research, like an actual scientist would do.

all you care about is giving the "vice" to anybody who disagrees with you.

again, that's pretty pathetic.

shake your fist harder, boy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I would like to discuss how expressing scientific ideas regarding evolution ruined the career of a college professor.

Oh hold, it.  Mireki's comment had nothing to do with science, did it?  And no one ever found out who it was that slapped his face, did they?

Mirecki

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category ‘mythology.’ ...  <I am> doing my part to upset the religious right ... <signed> Evil Dr. P.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How is that comparable to Stephen Meyers' article  about the Cambrian explosion and how do you know that Evil Dr. P. didn't slap his own big fat face to get some free publicity?

So I guess you don't want to bet on your so-called knowledge that I haven't taken any biology classes beyond high school.  That's the first smart thing I've seen from you.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 25 2006,10:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh hold, it.  Mireki's comment had nothing to do with science, did they?  And no one ever found out who it was that slapped his face, did they?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



right, obfuscate and deflect.

exactly my point, dufous.  Mirecki got nailed for vehement disagreement with something that ISN'T EVEN SCIENCE.

you're losing, Davey, face it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I guess you don't want to bet on your so-called knowledge that I haven't taken any biology classes beyond high school.  That's the first smart thing I've seen from you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



huh?  that wasn't me, but then it doesn't surprise me you would get confused.  It's a particular quality you exhibit so commonly.

it's not what classes you took, Davey, it's what you managed to learn.

and you sure didn't learn much.

oh, and btw, why are you posting as "picofarad" instead of using your handle on UD?

afraid the sychophants over on UD might catch you consorting with us?

oh, and Davey:

keep shaking your fist harder, boy!
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,10:13

Russell

Do you think finding that superficial similarities extend to the genetic level comes as a shock to anyone, NeoDarwinian dogmatist or not?

Nowhere have I argued that descent with modification from a common ancestor isn't the best explanation for the diversity of life.  The relationships that exist between living things is an experimental given.  I have no argument with what's revealed by expermental biology and the indisputable testimony of the fossil record.  The question is how those relationships came to exist.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 25 2006,10:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This [mouthing off on an internet discussion board where there's no quality control, or censorship] is WAY too easy.

Next!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You got that right. If you had any thoughts that actually had any merit, you would probably have published them in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

I suppose the Darwinist Conspiracy silenced you.
Posted by: dhogaza on Feb. 25 2006,10:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you think finding that superficial similarities extend to the genetic level comes as a shock to anyone, NeoDarwinian dogmatist or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It should come as a shock to anyone whose biological knowledge is based on a reading of "Of Pandas and People".  Like you wanted to have happen to students in Dover, PA, Dave ...

As far as the PicoFarad nick goes, perhaps Dave has chosen it because, as Wikipedia states, in the laboratory a picofarad is known as a "puff".  Which pretty much describes how substantial Dave's posts are.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 25 2006,10:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nowhere have I argued that descent with modification from a common ancestor isn't the best explanation for the diversity of life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



..except when you argue for front-loading.

why don't you reconcile that for us there, Davey.

hmm, i think i actually have a bunch of questions for you there, davey boy, now that you deem yourself fit to regail us with your presence:

as to martyrs, ever thought to look to your own?  Dembski is a great case for martyrdom, but I doubt you'll get him to admit it.

why are you posting as picofarad again?

have you ever considered yourself to be suffering from cognitive dissonance?

you exhibit all the classic symptoms of projection and denial.

do you ever wonder why we laugh at you for your behavior on UD?

do you wonder why those you banned for no good reason come HERE to post, even those who had been supporters of Dembski for months?

I have lots more.
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 25 2006,10:32

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 25 2006,16:13)
Nowhere have I argued that descent with modification from a common ancestor isn't the best explanation for the diversity of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... from Dave, moderator at UNcommon descent  :D
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 25 2006,10:44

I don't quite understand, Pico. Since you seem to embrace common descent, do you agree with Neodarwinism?  :0
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 25 2006,10:46

edit
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 25 2006,11:20

please quit calling him an engineer....he isnt an engineer.

I suggested that you didnt have any knowledge of biology....but then again I dont have your college transcript in front of me.  Kudos to you Dave, you took multiple classes in the biology department.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is that NeoDarwinian theory makes no prediction about how many generations it should take.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Even William Dembski would chastise you for making this comment.  This is just plain silly.

If you want to make a comment of this nature, you should say that


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is that NeoDarwinian theory makes no prediction about  the probability of it occuring in a certain number of generations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still wrong, but at least it makes sense

Im sure you have played poker at some time Dave.  If you are playing 5 card draw poker, can you tell me how many hands it will take for you to get a straight flush?  
Of course you cannot tell me....you can tell me the probability of it occuring.  You can tell me the probability of it occuring in a certain time period.  You cannot tell me how many hands it will take.  Why?  Because it involves a "random" factor.  Evolution argues a "random" factor, and therefore cannot predict the number of generations it will take to occur.

Obviously not an Engineer, or the math behind your ridiculous comment would have been obvious to you.

If you dont believe me, email Dembski, and he will tell you the exact same thing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I'm an advocate of teaching both so what they'll "swallow" is that there is more than one tentative answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm...what else do you advocate teaching children?

Maybe we should teach them that Hinduism/Buddhism is much more spiritually fulfilling that Christianity.

Maybe we should teach them in graphic detail about homosexual sex....since it is a valid alternative to heterosexual sex.  

Maybe we should teach children that if there is a God, he must be mean, because he has introduced evil into the world, and has brought a great deal of pain and suffering.

These are all more logical than ID, but what about other fringe science.

Teach them about the electric universe theory
Teach them about planet X on the opposite side of the sun
Teach them about Ghosts and spirits
teach them about alien abductions
heck, teach them about scientology.
teach them about the bermuda triangle

We do not teach kids about these kinds of things in HS science classrooms.  Heck Dave, we dont even teach them about bleeding edge science in HS.  We give them the basics, and they can build on it later.  If you want to "teach the controversy", why not do it at the University level?  There are obviously plenty of professors who believe in ID according to you....oh wait...i forgot....they are being persecuted.  Despite the massive amounts of evidence in favor of ID(that you are keeping hidden like the Mormon golden tablets), they are being persecuted.....just like.....

NO ONE....this is science buddy, the whole point is that if you can give enough evidence, no one can shoot you down.  The problem is that all of your evidence comes from philosophical argument.  ID has no other direct evidence, except for the philosophical ramblings of Dembski and others.  Arguments that he stole from Aquinas and others.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 25 2006,11:28

*sigh*

looks like Davey ran home; he's not logged in any more.

guess we will have to wait for further "insights from beyond".
Posted by: hehe on Feb. 25 2006,11:47

Davey, do you agree that the schools should teach the controversy about Holocaust?
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 25 2006,12:02

hey hey hey....lets keep everything Nazi related out of this conversation


You could ask him if he thinks HS history classes should be required to teach about:
the JFK assassination conspiracy
his brother's assassination conspiracy
the moon landing conspiracy
the "new world order" conspiracy
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 25 2006,12:08

... and, of course, the controversy over whether HIV causes AIDS. We certainly wouldn't want to censor that controversy, would we?
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 25 2006,12:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the scientific theory of intelligent design makes no claims about “god” or a “guiding force.” Instead, it merely proposes that there is good evidence that some features of nature–like the intricate molecular motors within cells and the finely-tuned laws of physics–are best explained as the products of an intelligent cause, not chance and necessity. Whether this intelligent cause identified through the scientific method is (or is not) “god” cannot be answered by the science alone and is therefore outside the scope of the theory of intelligent design.
--Uncommon Descent, John West

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok, so now we have the actual, factual, scientific theory of Intelligent Design.  It apparently "merely proposes that there is good evidence".  This may perhaps be the weakest statement of a "scientific" theory EVER.

It also includes the "finely-tuned laws of physics".  Excuse me, but how do we determine that the laws of physics are "finely-tuned".  Oh wait, thats completely speculative and subjective.

I notice that the "official" theory of ID also allows for the "Intelligent Agent" to use laws of nature.  He "finely-tuned" the laws of physics.  He must have also "finely-tuned" the laws of genetics.  Therefore the Designer designed evolution,  seems logical to me.  Hmm, so I guess the "official" ID theory doesnt conflict with modern biology.

So...Dembski=Pascal.  He is trying to rationalize and mathematically represent what is clearly a philosophical issue.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 25 2006,13:24

Russell wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PicoIQ153Farad wrote:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only way PicoScot has an IQ of 153 is if he got tested before the accident.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 25 2006,13:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only way PicoScot has an IQ of 153 is if he got tested before the accident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Which reminds me: did all those college level biology courses come before or after the authoritative remarks about ABO antigens being parts of hemoglobin and carrying O2? [guffaw]
Posted by: George on Feb. 25 2006,14:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Therefore the Designer designed evolution,  seems logical to me.  Hmm, so I guess the "official" ID theory doesnt conflict with modern biology.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BS explained to me on UD (when I was fool enough to try and engage him in rational debate) that "macroevolution" is evolution of new cell types, tissues & body plans.  Apparently he has no problem with "microevolution", which by his definition encompasses most of the evolutionary change over biological history.  It seems to me he's backed himself into a corner where he only has a bacterial flagellum to shake on behalf of ID.  

And it's a tiny, wee flagellum at that.
Posted by: cogzoid on Feb. 25 2006,14:28

I thought old Dave Springer was banned from posting here (one of the very few I might add).  I guess he doesn't have much respect for other people's moderation policies.  Dave Springer is a class A a$$hole.  He has to hide his fragile opinions on a blog where any dissenters are banned, while circumventing his own ban on this message board.  What a coward.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 25 2006,14:51

According to this post, < http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/861 > , Holt has altered textbooks at the behest of the Discovery Institute.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,19:44

Wow.  What a load of crap spilling out of PuckSR.  I really hit a nerve with that perve.

Just one point - there's no conflict between front-loaded evolution and descent with modification from a common ancestor.  Front-loading merely means the descent occured in a prescribed fashion.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 25 2006,19:46

"PicoFarad":



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The NCSE and Smithsonian conspired to ruin the career of an editor of a peer reviewed journal who dared to allow an ID sympathetic article be published.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Office of Special Counsel (OSC) letter:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Eventually, they determined that they could not terminate you for cause and they were not going to make you a "martyr" by firing you for publishing a paper in ID. They came to the conclusion that you had not violated SI directives and that you could not be denied access for off-duty conduct. This was actually part of the strategy advocated by the NCSE.

(< Source >)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The NCSE, according to the OSC, advised not making a martyr of Sternberg. "PicoFarad" apparently doesn't mind telling whoppers.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,20:00

Quote (jeannot @ Feb. 25 2006,16:44)
I don't quite understand, Pico. Since you seem to embrace common descent, do you agree with Neodarwinism?  :0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

I am not skeptical of descent with modification from a common ancestor.

I am skeptical of the claim that evolution was an unplanned, unguided process.

I am unable to get a consistent answer on whether or not that disagrees with NeoDarwinian theory.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 25 2006,20:06

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2006,01:46)
"PicoFarad":



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The NCSE and Smithsonian conspired to ruin the career of an editor of a peer reviewed journal who dared to allow an ID sympathetic article be published.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Office of Special Counsel (OSC) letter:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Eventually, they determined that they could not terminate you for cause and they were not going to make you a "martyr" by firing you for publishing a paper in ID. They came to the conclusion that you had not violated SI directives and that you could not be denied access for off-duty conduct. This was actually part of the strategy advocated by the NCSE.

(< Source >)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The NCSE, according to the OSC, advised not making a martyr of Sternberg. "PicoFarad" apparently doesn't mind telling whoppers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the same source:

"In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI."

What part of that don't you understand, Wesley?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 25 2006,20:44

"PicoFarad":



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From the same source:

"In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI."

What part of that don't you understand, Wesley?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I understand that statement to be completely unsubstantiated, and in contradiction to the statement I previously quoted. I know that the statement I quoted, that NCSE advised against making a martyr of Sternberg, is correct. So thanks for pointing out that the OSC could not, itself, resist engaging in some whopper-telling of their own, undermined by their own report of NCSE's advice to the SI.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 25 2006,20:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just one point - there's no conflict between front-loaded evolution and descent with modification from a common ancestor.  Front-loading merely means the descent occured in a prescribed fashion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



tada!

I knew you would say that, Davey.  so did Jeannot.  

ah yes, Davison's PEH...you know, the "theory" that was voted the crankiest concept EVER in the evolution section of crank.net?  did you need me to reference that for you?  

Ever wonder what defines "crank", there, Davey?  

We know that your entire understanding of biology these days proceeds from your "discussions" with JAD; it's been quite amusing to watch that little love-hate fest unfold.

but just like we asked JAD when we let him spout his drivel over here for a while, the first question you should have asked was:

Why didn't JAD ever develop an actual testable hypothesis, and proceed to test it?  He had the resources, he was a professor, after all, and he had an OK, if not great, publication record (at least up until 1980 or so).  Anybody worth their salt would have been able to set up some experiments to test their ideas.

was he not as clever as Gould?  or was there something else going on... like it was ridiculous from the start, and there WAS no way to test it?

thanks for yet again, pointing out how you side with the documented crankiest old man out there.

..and after deciding his ideas had merit (??), prompty kicked him off UD (twice no less) for being exactly who he is...

a crank.

you should pay more attention to him, he is a glimpse into your future, after all.   A raving lunatic that even YOU booted out of a den of raving lunatics.

Soon, you will have to ban yourself, I guess.
Posted by: sir_toejam on Feb. 25 2006,21:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"PicoFarad" apparently doesn't mind telling whoppers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



doesn't mind???

he positively enjoys it!

the only question really is why.

what IS Dave's motivation in all this?

he says he wants to support ID, because it's not religious, but it's nothing but thinly veiled religious apologetics.

he bans anybody who disagrees with anything he says from UD without a second thought, but says he needs all the supporters of ID he can get.

he moderates a website called "Uncommon descent", but says he "beleives" in common descent.

other that being terribly confused and simply enjoying confusing the #### out of everybody he comes in contact with with lies, distortions, etc., i really can't figure out what his motivation might be.

did some biologist steal your girlfriend in a past life or something, Dave?
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 25 2006,21:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am skeptical of the claim that evolution was an unplanned, unguided process.

I am unable to get a consistent answer on whether or not that disagrees with NeoDarwinian theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hmmm....let me help you out then

unplanned-it was unplanned in the sense that it is not a causal system.  There is no definite causal process.  It is not a system of A->B->C.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the theological side of the issue.  I know you think the term "unplanned" in some way refers to God, but it doesnt.

unguided->it was unguided in the sense that it was not severly restricted.  The options for the diversification of life were not limited to a very select few.  This is basically saying that there is no "intelligent design".  This term, once again, has absolutely nothing to do with the theology behind creation.

Quit getting the phrase about "unplanned, unguided process" confused with some denial of God.  It is a denial of ID, and it only is used in the terms I described above.  I think it is wonderful that you are fully exploring theological debate Dave, but you really are lacking in your skill.

Sorry, but this little perv thinks your a little ignorant of science, math, and philosophy.  

Im sure that job as an "engineer" taught you a lot, but it obviously didnt expand your knowledge of the physical world.  Your experience with ID hasnt really taught you much about theology....

My God your stupid Mr. Springer.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 25 2006,21:45

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 25 2006,14:52)
Dover is one small battle in one tiny corner of the country. <yawn> Wake me up when SCOTUS makes a ruling.

Meanwhile:

Conservative executive office - check
Conservative majority in house of representatives - check
Conservative majority in senate - check
Conservative majority in supreme court - replacement of one 86 year-old liberal justice and... checkaroony!

I can happily live with failures like that.  Can you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That just about sums up exactly how scientific ID is.

You are boasting about politico/legal afiliations. If ID was science, you would be parading evidence....woops!
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 25 2006,23:20

:00-->
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,02:00)
I am unable to get a consistent answer on whether or not that disagrees with NeoDarwinian theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you should know that answer, Pico. Heck, you master NeoDarwinism thoroughly enough to rule a weblog that teaches its "controversy".

EDIT, thanks PuckSR.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 25 2006,23:46

(Bugger, don't you just hate the time zone difference. A night out and lie-in and I miss Psycho Springer.)

PicoFarad

Our last conversation at UD was curtailed when you snitched on me to Isaac Dembki. I was pointing out to you that there is no plan or blueprint encapsulated in the oocyte genome, and you got rather upset about the phrase "there is no plan".

Dawkins has a good explanation about how embryological development is controlled by DNA in "The Ancestor's Tale", p 426



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Embryonic development is controlled by genes, but there are two very different ways in which this might theoretically happen. The Mouse's Tale introduced them as blueprint and recipe. A builder makes a house by placing bricks in positions specified by a blueprint. A cook makes a cake not by placing crumbs and currants in specified positions but by putting ingredients through specified procedures, such as sieving, stirring, beating and heating.* Textbooks of biology are wrong when they describe DNA as a blueprint. Embryos do nothing remotely like following a blueprint. DNA is not a description, in any language, of what the finished body should look like. Maybe on some other planet living things develop by blueprint embryology, but I find it hard to imagine how it would work. It would have to be a very different kind of life. On this planet, embryos follow recipes. Or, to change to another equally un-blueprint-like analogy, which is in some ways more apt than the recipe: embryos construct themselves by following a sequence of origami folding instructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dawkins goes on to describe the process of embryological development and the rôle of HOX genes in a lucid manner that you may be able to follow. I thoroughly recommend the book to you, if only to enable you to argue your "case"  a little more coherently

PS to JAD, there is a footnote which states:

This favourite analogy was first used by my friend Sir Patrick Bateson, a relative of Sir William, as it happens.

See also p425 for a favourable mention of William Bateson.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 26 2006,00:10

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2006,02:44)
"PicoFarad":



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From the same source:

"In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI."

What part of that don't you understand, Wesley?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I understand that statement to be completely unsubstantiated, and in contradiction to the statement I previously quoted. I know that the statement I quoted, that NCSE advised against making a martyr of Sternberg, is correct. So thanks for pointing out that the OSC could not, itself, resist engaging in some whopper-telling of their own, undermined by their own report of NCSE's advice to the SI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not contradictory.  The statement I quoted describes a conspiracy between SI and NCSE to investigate and discredit Sternberg within the SI i.e. dig up dirt and ruin his reputation among his peers.  The statement you quoted says the conspirators concluded they couldn't fire him outright and even if they could cause such direct harm it would only make a martyr out of him and be counter-productive.  Better to just make him look like a drooling creationist idiot that no one will want to work with or hire in the future and let him keep his job.

But I'm just spit balling here.  According to you the U.S. Federal Office of Special Prosecutor libeled you.  You should probably be very careful of accusing highly placed people of crimes.  In any case, how is a third party like me supposed to know the OSC lied?

You could easily clear your good name by making public all the email betweent NCSE and SI.

Why don't you?  Refusal just makes you look guilty.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 26 2006,00:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The statement you quoted says the conspirators concluded they couldn't fire him
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think the main reason they didn't fire him was they didn't employ him in the first place.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 26 2006,00:26

Fallan Ox

Maybe you and Richard Dawkins need to increase your language skills.

< http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=blueprint >

Main Entry:   formula
Part of Speech:   noun
Definition:   recipe
Synonyms:   blueprint, canon, code, credo, creed, custom, description, direction, equation, form, formulary, maxim, method, modus operandi, precept, prescription, principle, procedure, rite, ritual, rote, rubric, rule, specifications, theorem, way
Source:   Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

This is too easy.

Next!
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 26 2006,00:34

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,06:26)
Fallan Ox

Maybe you and Richard Dawkins need to increase your language skills.

< http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=blueprint >

Main Entry:   formula
Part of Speech:   noun
Definition:   recipe
Synonyms:   blueprint, canon, code, credo, creed, custom, description, direction, equation, form, formulary, maxim, method, modus operandi, precept, prescription, principle, procedure, rite, ritual, rote, rubric, rule, specifications, theorem, way
Source:   Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

This is too easy.

Next!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good grief. Do you seriously believe you are winning an argument?

Astounding!     :D
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 26 2006,00:37

Hmmm...

So how would a housebuilder get on with a recipe book, and a cook with a blueprint. Methinks you are somewhat disingenuous, Psycho. The problem is that science is about finding useful things out, not obfuscating. IDers seem more skilled at twisting the meaning of words than at doing anything useful like producing or testing a hypothesis.

How's the carpal tunnel syndrome, by the way?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 26 2006,01:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My God folks, people are still taking Sir Richard Dawkins seriously. It is not possible. It defies all reason that such a creature could still be given any credibility at all.

In the 1920's there was another charlatan like Dawkins only this one was a devout Lamarckian by the name of Paul Kammerer. He conned the entire world for some time into believing that the environment could alter the color patterns of salamanders and the breeding habits of the Midwife Toad. He was finally exposed as a charlatan largely through the efforts of Bateson and Noble, an American herpetologist. Once exposed do you know what he did? He killed himself. That is exactly what I have predicted will be the fate of Sir Richard as I can see no alternative for him. Egomaniacal unstable ideologues like Richard Dawkins, Paul Kammerer, Josef Goebbels and Adolf Hitler unravel very quickly when they are finally revealed as their self generated empires collapse around them. They have no ethical or moral fiber to sustain them. Actually they never did have any or they never would have placed themselves in such a position in the first place.

Now don't misunderstand me. I do not wish for Dawkins to do himself in. I want him to go right on writing more books, each more deranged than its predecessor, hopefully while tucked away securely in a rubber room somewhere so he can't hurt himself any more than he already has. He is already history and doesn't even realize it. Judging from the mindless ravings of our own precious Falan Ox, neither do the retards over at Elsberry's Berlin bunker.

The whole lot of you congenital, clonal catastrophes are doomed. Get out the machine pistols, the cyanide and the gasoline and be sure to leave instructions to have your surviving cronies do their level best to burn up the evidence that you ever existed. That is going to be the tough part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sorry SteveS I just couldn't resist! :p
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 26 2006,01:34

Fox and Stelliot

Dawkins


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"DNA is commonly referred to in textbooks of molecular biology as the "blueprint" for an organism. I would rather call it a recipe or like a computer program.

The difference between a blueprint and a recipe is that a blueprint is reversable, and a recipe is not. If you have a house and you have lost the blueprint you can reconstruct the blueprint by taking measurements, but if you have got a well prepared dish in a great restaurant you may enjoy the dish and you may dissect it and look at it in every detail but you cannot reconstruct the recipe."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE me for using the terminology commonly found in microbiology texts instead of parroting Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has obviously never seen any blueprints in the real world because if he had he'd know they're littered with notes about how to put things together and in what order to do it.  Just like a recipe.

This is too easy.

Next!
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 26 2006,03:47

Alan:

The quote you couldn't resist - it certainly has JAD written all over it. But where exactly does it come from? Is he back on UD, or are you going through the trash at JAD's own website?

I particularly love JAD going on about "rubber rooms"! The great thing about rubber rooms, I guess, is that they're not glass houses!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 26 2006,03:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE me for using the terminology commonly found in microbiology texts instead of parroting Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has obviously never seen any blueprints in the real world because if he had he'd know they're littered with notes about how to put things together and in what order to do it.  Just like a recipe.

This is too easy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sigh!

The point is there is no one-to-one mapping of genome information. DNA encodes proteins. There is no plan.
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 26 2006,03:52

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,07:34)
This is too easy.

Next!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Next?

hmmm... Why don't you expose your ideas about front-loading?

Is it going to be as "easy" as arguing on terms, which of course, clearly demonstrate the validity of your theory?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 26 2006,04:13

Over on Uncommon Pissant, salvadum points us to an amusing quote from Bill Dembski:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The crucial breakthrough of the intelligent design movement has been to show that this great theological truth–that God acts in the world by dispersing information–also has scientific content.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No religion there.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 26 2006,04:18

Russell

Sorry, should have included a link. You'll find it < here > if you collapse quotes and scroll down to comment 562. I see the good professor has also noticed my omission.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 26 2006,04:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the record, there may have been a decay in the speed of light.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 < Salvador > is a gem.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 26 2006,04:34

It looks like "PicoFarad" is having difficulty with understanding what "completely unsubstantiated" means. It means that there is no evidence for the statement. It is at odds with what the OSC reported elsewhere, despite "PicoFarad"'s imagination in inventing stuff out of whole cloth to make them harmonize.

As for speaking truth about government flacks, I will continue to do that.

I see that "PicoFarad" rejects the part of US jurisprudence that holds that parties are considered innocent until proven guilty. I'm not surprised.
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 26 2006,06:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dawkins has obviously never seen any blueprints in the real world because if he had he'd know they're littered with notes about how to put things together and in what order to do it.  Just like a recipe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmmm....i dont think you have ever seen a blueprint either.  A blueprint is a diagram.  The diagram may contain notes explaining what something is, and may specify specific dimensions.  It does not contain notes about "how to put things together" or "what order to do it".

"This is too easy"
It is so easy, because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 26 2006,07:16

The mighty Culture Warrior DaveScot:

We don't have any research, we don't have a theory, we don't have peer-reviewed scientific literature, we can't agree on whether the earth is 6,000 or 5 billion years old, we can't predict anything, 99.99% of all biologists laugh at us, our supporters are all angry cranks and religious fanatics, we have to pretend to be victims of persecution and martyrdom to hide our lack of accomplishments, but just you wait til we sic the Supreme Court on you, then you'll be sorry you made fun of us!! :p
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 26 2006,10:12

jeannot asks PicoScot:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don't you expose your ideas about front-loading?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can save Davey the trouble.  Here's an exchange we had on UD:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Quoting someone else on the thread):
"In 2005, scientists decoded the genome of the chimpanzee to confirm that the chimp is our closest living relative..."

Excuse me, but to reach that conclusion don’t we have to decode the genome of everything else to make sure nothing else is closer?

“descended from a common ancestor.”

Or a common designer, of course.

Comment by DaveScot — December 23, 2005 @ 2:59 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot writes:
“Or a common designer, of course.”

I’m confused. I thought, based on your front-loaded panspermia idea, that you accepted common descent. Or are you agnostic on the issue?

By the way, I never saw a response to my post about some problems with the idea of front-loaded panspermia. Did you see it?

Comment by keiths — December 23, 2005 @ 2:53 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the comment I was referring to:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DaveScot,

If I understand your front-loaded version of the panspermia hypothesis, you’re suggesting that a “seed” for all of life might have been planted on (or drifted to) Earth, and that all of the genetic information needed for the subsequent development of increasingly complex organisms was already present in the seed, just waiting to be “switched on”.

Is that a fair synopsis?

If so, I see some potential problems with the idea:

1. In the case of the seed drifting randomly to Earth, the designers wouldn’t have known in advance what kind of planet the seed would land on. The adaptations appropriate for one habitable planet wouldn’t necessarily be the same as for another with different atmospheric pressure or composition, different ocean salinity, a different length of day, etc. Front-loading in this case would have to cover all possible target planets.

2. Following up on #1, how would the organisms “know” how to select the appropriate genetic information for the planet they were developing on?

3. How would organisms know when to “switch on” various chunks of genetic information? For example, how would the genes for the human brain remain “off” for billions of years, then suddenly turn on when needed?

4. Unexpressed genetic material is subject to mutation. Selection can’t weed out the mutants, because it can only operate on genes that ARE expressed. Over millions or even billions of years, the unexpressed material would mutate so badly that it would be useless when it was finally switched on.

Comments?

Comment by keiths — December 18, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave's response:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?

(from other thread)

1. In the case of the seed drifting randomly to Earth, the designers wouldn’t have known in advance what kind of planet the seed would land on. The adaptations appropriate for one habitable planet wouldn’t necessarily be the same as for another with different atmospheric pressure or composition, different ocean salinity, a different length of day, etc. Front-loading in this case would have to cover all possible target planets.

Either not random, or multiple seeds, or adaptive seed. There is no limit on the complexity of the first “seed”. It could be quite large, have onboard computer, etc. Call it a seed-ship.

2. Following up on #1, how would the organisms “know” how to select the appropriate genetic information for the planet they were developing on?

Computers constructed at the nanometer scale are tiny & incredibly powerful. Giving computational ability to something as large as a cell is trivial if you have the ability to engineer things one atom at a time. See Drexler’s “Engines of Creation” here: < http://www.foresight.org/EOC/ >

Also, read about this: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraform >

Earth appears to have been terraformed by living organisms. The job of the first cells was to add free oxygen to the atmosphere so that organisms with rapid metabolisms could thrive.

3. How would organisms know when to “switch on” various chunks of genetic information? For example, how would the genes for the human brain remain “off” for billions of years, then suddenly turn on when needed?

See computational capabilities above.

4. Unexpressed genetic material is subject to mutation. Selection can’t weed out the mutants, because it can only operate on genes that ARE expressed. Over millions or even billions of years, the unexpressed material would mutate so badly that it would be useless when it was finally switched on.

Error checking algorithms of sufficient reliability are not only possible they’ve been devised by human engineers in computer science. In a designed cell there’s no reason why that can’t be part of the design. Of all the species on the planet we’ve only discovered about 10% of them. An uber cell, a “library organism”, could be lurking in that other 90%. Moreover, of the 10% we have cataloged we have sequenced the genome of a VERY tiny fraction of those. Saying we’ve scratched the surface on cataloging and understanding all the genomes on all the earth is a vast overstatement. Perhaps an uber-cell is lurking out there. Or perhaps the library has fragmented and is now a distributed database scattered over millions of species.

Comment by DaveScot — December 24, 2005 @ 7:54 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave banned me shortly thereafter, so I never got a chance to respond.

Note that Dave, who likes to criticize the concept of macroevolution because it hasn't been observed in the lab, is proposing the following:

1. An extraterrestrial designer.
2. A "seed-ship" created by the designer.
3. A "nanoscale" computer in the cell.
4. The deliberate terraforming of Earth.
5. An error-correcting mechanism in cells which is different from the one currently known to be operating, and sufficient to protect unexpressed genetic material for billions of years.
6. An uber-cell (aka "library organism").
7. A "distributed database" of genetic information scattered over millions of species.

Not one of these seven chimeras is confirmed by science.  I echo Sir Toejam's question about cognitive dissonance.  Perhaps PicoScot's brain is lacking a consistency detector.

It's also interesting to contrast his professed agnosticism in this thread regarding common descent vs. common design with his recent statement:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PicoFarad, Feb. 25 2006,16:13    

Nowhere have I argued that descent with modification from a common ancestor isn't the best explanation for the diversity of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 26 2006,10:40

Guys, why are you even bothering with PF/DS?  If any of you tries to "debate" him on his board you get unceremoniously dumped in a nanosecond. This guy doesn't deserve the right to participate on this board--he has no interest in the debate, all he wants to do is fire off cheap shots at anyone within range

Time to bring an end to his interloping, then perhaps we can get on with something a little more enlightening.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 26 2006,11:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Time to bring an end to his interloping, then perhaps we can get on with something a little more enlightening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course, Tacitus is right - there's  no point in trying to have a serious "debate" with a headcase like ds. That being said, this thread isn't really about "enlightenment"; it's dedicated to extracting as much entertainment as possible from UD, and davey certainly is a big part of that.

While he likes to pretend that "this is too easy", I suspect he's noticed he doesn't come off too well in exchanges here. So, while I'm sure he'd rather vote Democrat than admit it, I take a certain amount of pleasure from the likelihood his cardiovascular health is damaged with each visit to AtBC.

And even if he's too head-over-heels in love with himself to notice how foolish he comes off, it's kind of fun to rub his nose in the messes he's made, if only for the amusement of fellow AtBCers.

Like the O2-carrying ABO antigen subunits of hemoglobin! You have to admit - that was a hoot and a half.
Posted by: Dean Morrison on Feb. 26 2006,12:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe you and Richard Dawkins need to increase your language skills.

< http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=blueprint >

Main Entry:   formula
Part of Speech:   noun
Definition:   recipe
Synonyms:   blueprint, canon, code, credo, creed, custom, description, direction, equation, form, formulary, maxim, method, modus operandi, precept, prescription, principle, procedure, rite, ritual, rote, rubric, rule, specifications, theorem, way
Source:   Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

This is too easy.

Next!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Compact Oxford English Dictionary


thesaurus

/thsawrss/

 • noun (pl. thesauri /thisawri/ or thesauruses) a book that lists words in groups of synonyms and related concepts.

 — ORIGIN Greek thesauros ‘storehouse, treasure’.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Davey - you obviously don't know the difference between a Thesaurus and a Dictionary ( the key words are 'related concepts' ).

Your inability to distinguish between things is a noticeable trait of course: 'Intelligent Design/Creationism ; Academic Martydom/making a fool of yourself; arse/elbow: being just a few examples.

As you say PicoDavey - too easy.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 26 2006,12:06

He is right in an abstract sense, though. Typing wholly incorrect things and then hitting the Add Reply button is too easy.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 26 2006,12:13

Now let's look at Slaveador Cordova's behavior at Uncommon Descent. He quotes a story about a rise in creationism in the UK. Here's Salvador's quote of the story:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. “The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism,” she said, “and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. …. Many …were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now here's the article as it appeared in the UK Guardian:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. "The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism," she said, "and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole ... it's a bit like the southern states of America." Many of them came from Muslim, Pentecostal or Baptist family backgrounds, she said, and were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Some choice edits Salvador made, eh?
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 26 2006,12:53

Regarding the Guardian story - I was just on the phone to my parents (they live in the UK) and they told me about it and expressed concern that such a thing would be happening.  But I tend to think the concern is overblown.  In the States creationism (incl. ID) has the support of over 50% of the population and so is a tough battle, but the UK has no such constituency.  Sure, there are Muslim and Christian fundamentalists who are willing followers, but they are still very much in the minority (<5% of the population).

Some of the policies of Tony Blair, who is a Christian (probably moreso that Bush, ironically) are not helping--he's in support of providing more public funding to faith-based schools, for example, but I don't think the UK is in danger of becoming a creationist ghetto any time soon.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Feb. 26 2006,13:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5. An error-correcting mechanism in cells which is different from the one currently known to be operating, and sufficient to protect unexpressed genetic material for billions of years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I would actually have some respect for the frontloaders if their theory was that we were all just some big experiment (some, not much). But of course they reveal their true colours when they claim (as they all do) that man is a specific end goal of this process (how else could we be created in gods image?). So once theyve explained number 5, they also have to explain how they anticipated every single environmental change on earth over billions of years, so they knew what environment their creations would have to survive in.
Posted by: tacitus on Feb. 26 2006,16:08

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 26 2006,19:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5. An error-correcting mechanism in cells which is different from the one currently known to be operating, and sufficient to protect unexpressed genetic material for billions of years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I would actually have some respect for the frontloaders if their theory was that we were all just some big experiment (some, not much). But of course they reveal their true colours when they claim (as they all do) that man is a specific end goal of this process (how else could we be created in gods image?). So once theyve explained number 5, they also have to explain how they anticipated every single environmental change on earth over billions of years, so they knew what environment their creations would have to survive in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, perhaps it all went wrong and we should all have really been immortal, never lacking for anything, vegetarians, living in harmony with nature in a beautiful garden somewhere on a fertile plain in the Middle East...

Oh.... er....
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 26 2006,21:29

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 26 2006,10:34)
It looks like "PicoFarad" is having difficulty with understanding what "completely unsubstantiated" means. It means that there is no evidence for the statement. It is at odds with what the OSC reported elsewhere, despite "PicoFarad"'s imagination in inventing stuff out of whole cloth to make them harmonize.

As for speaking truth about government flacks, I will continue to do that.

I see that "PicoFarad" rejects the part of US jurisprudence that holds that parties are considered innocent until proven guilty. I'm not surprised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I asked why you didn't clear this up by publishing the emails between NCSE and SI.

You must have missed my question. ;-)

Well... why don't you publish the emails between NCSI and SI to prove your innocense?
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 26 2006,23:22

Heres the guardian story, for those of us who cant be bothered going to UD:
< http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1714171,00.html >
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 27 2006,03:15

Like the rest of you, I'd heard Henry Morris's name for years. Didn't bother to find out who he was. Then yesterday, Savior Cordova posted here < http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/863#comments >
that Morris was a professor of Engineering.

(smacks forehead)

Of course. What did I think he would have been? A biologist?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 27 2006,04:51

I missed nothing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I see that "PicoFarad" rejects the part of US jurisprudence that holds that parties are considered innocent until proven guilty. I'm not surprised.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Dean Morrison on Feb. 27 2006,06:21

Quote (tacitus @ Feb. 26 2006,18:53)
Regarding the Guardian story - I was just on the phone to my parents (they live in the UK) and they told me about it and expressed concern that such a thing would be happening.  But I tend to think the concern is overblown.  In the States creationism (incl. ID) has the support of over 50% of the population and so is a tough battle, but the UK has no such constituency.  Sure, there are Muslim and Christian fundamentalists who are willing followers, but they are still very much in the minority (<5% of the population).

Some of the policies of Tony Blair, who is a Christian (probably moreso that Bush, ironically) are not helping--he's in support of providing more public funding to faith-based schools, for example, but I don't think the UK is in danger of becoming a creationist ghetto any time soon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Although religious zealots are in a minority in the UK some of us here see no reason for complacency - which is why we've set up a UK forum specifically to discuss the issue.

We don't have constitutional protection against teaching nonsense in State schools - and a handful have been taken over by American-inspired evangelicals - and are teaching YEC ( the Vardy schools).

More info can be found on our Science, Just Science forum:

< http://justscience.1.forumer.com/index.php?act=idx >
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 27 2006,20:41

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2006,10:51)
I missed nothing.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I see that "PicoFarad" rejects the part of US jurisprudence that holds that parties are considered innocent until proven guilty. I'm not surprised.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're in the court of public opinion.  The rules are different.  

The fact visible to an objective observer is it's your word against The Federal Office of Special Counsel.  

The OSC stipulates in writing it has seen the email traffic between NCSE and Smithsonian officials and says in no uncertain words



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our investigation shows that NCSE is a political advocacy organization dedicated to defeating any introduction of ID, creationism or religion into the American education system. In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All you've got is the liar liar pants on fire defense?

How lame.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 27 2006,21:29

Umm, picofarad, what makes you think its ok to introduce creationism, ID and other religious garbage into the public education system?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 27 2006,23:08

I'm happy enough to be opposed by people who think truth is lame.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Eventually, they determined that they could not terminate you for cause and they were not going to make you a "martyr" by firing you for publishing a paper in ID. They came to the conclusion that you had not violated SI directives and that you could not be denied access for off-duty conduct. This was actually part of the strategy advocated by the NCSE.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Spin all you like. I can keep pointing this out easily enough.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 28 2006,00:00

The keyword there is "eventually".

I believe you eventually figured out you couldn't fire the guy and figured out that you didn't want to make a martyr out of him.

The OSC didn't accuse you of firing him.  They accused you of participating in having him "investigated" and "discredited within the SI".  This is not the same as terminating him.

Obvious to the casual observer is that you did exactly what the OSC contends and your refusal to reveal the emails is proof that you're hiding something.

You know you have a black eye over this.  Sternberg has become a verb.  He's already a martyr.  If you could change that you would, but you can't, because you did exactly what the OSC said you did.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Feb. 28 2006,00:11

Quote (guthrie @ Feb. 28 2006,03:29)
Umm, picofarad, what makes you think its ok to introduce creationism, ID and other religious garbage into the public education system?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think it's okay to teach biblical creationism, scientific creationism, or any religion in public school.

I think it's okay to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design if a local school board legitimately in charge of the curriculum vote to teach it.

Whether ID is good science or not makes no difference.  Nothing in the constitution says you can't teach bad science.  A theory that supposes certain patterns in nature cannot be adequately explained without intelligent agency of some sort is not religion.  Religions have scriptures, places of worship, clerics, moral codes, and a whole host of things that ID doesn't have.  It isn't religion.  That's a canard.
Posted by: guthrie on Feb. 28 2006,00:17

Quack Qauck!

Do you mind if I quote mine you?

"Nothing in the constitution says you can't teach bad science."

That will do nicely for starters.

Anyhoo, for the record, I never say that there never will be a scientific theory of ID, I just say that one has yet to be made.  Sure, theres scientific sounding ones, but they have been rebutted, as you know well.  So right now, there is no theory of ID to teach in schools.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 28 2006,00:47

It seems "PicoFarad" has come to the attention of < DaveScot >. I wonder how that happened?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 28 2006,01:07

< Richard Sternberg > gives his personal account of the affair.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 28 2006,01:11

< Daniel Morgan > has a different perspective.
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Feb. 28 2006,02:25

So, puffie, what *IS* the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?
All we have from the DI and its associates is the ID Hoax.
If there's a scientific theory of Intelligent Design, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
But do bear in mind that a scientific theory is a positive thing, it is not a series of charges of inadequacy in some other competing theory.  It must propose explanations, links from what we know to what we are trying to explain.
Let's hear it.

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Feb. 28 2006,02:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think it's okay to teach biblical creationism, scientific creationism, or any religion in public school.

I think it's okay to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design if a local school board legitimately in charge of the curriculum vote to teach it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, for once I'm in sort of in agreement with Dave "posting deceitfully as PicoFarad" Springer.

After all, it's certainly legitimate to teach about religion and/or creationism in a social studies or theology class.

And I'm perfectly happy to see "the scientific theory of intelligent design taught".

What would that be, exactly?  No one has ever presented one.

See, Dave, this is why you've attached your highly vocal, but scientifically illiterate personality to a perpetually losing cause: there is no such 'scientific theory of intelligent design'.

Go ahead - show some actual guts - try to present one.

I can guarantee you'll fail.  But at least you'll be doing something you're good at...
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 28 2006,02:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems "PicoFarad" has come to the attention of DaveScot. I wonder how that happened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

In a bid to retain his title as Most Ironic IDalog, ds pretends not to be PicoFarad in a post accusing someone else of sneakiness.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 28 2006,02:58

LOL I just came over here to mention DaveScot's reference to his alter-ego PicoFarad.Ditto on what Russel said--I'm not even taking my new Ironometer out of the box when DaveScot's around. Notice him also, on Uncommon Pissant, correcting Craig Venter about DNA.

I think he calls himself PicoFarad because when he unleashes all his power, the result is hard to notice.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 28 2006,03:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ventor: “It’s very simple, because every cell in our body has DNA.”

Oops.  

I thought everyone knew that mammalian red blood cells have no DNA…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Right. That's because they're too packed with the ABO subunits of hemoglobin to leave room for DNA!

By the way, dave, speaking of devastatingly embarrassing gaffes that betray a total lack of understanding of the subject matter: you spelled "Venter" wrong.
Posted by: SomeGuy on Feb. 28 2006,03:51

DaveScot/Pico knows he's fighting a losing cause. Dembski knows it too, but he's making too much money off of ID to care. But for Dave  it really must grate on him that, possibly for the first time in his life, he's on the losing side of an argument.

And all the pathetic, childish tantrums he throws on Pissant isn't going to change the fact that:

In California, ID lost
In Ohio, ID lost
In Wisconsin, ID lost
In Utah, ID lost

And in Dover, ID not only lost, but suffered such a complete, crushing defeat that poor DaveScot can't even bring himself to talk about it anymore.

Personally, I can't wait for ID to come to the Supreme Court (if it lasts that long). Judge Jones was so complete and so thorough in his decision, there's really no way to get around it.

Alito and Roberts are conservative, but they are competent, intelligent judges with an excellent knowledge of the law. If the Supreme Court gets an ID case, it's going to be a unanimous decision...a decision DaveScot isn't going to like very much.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 28 2006,03:58

Shirley Knott (nee Eugeste) wrote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If there's a scientific theory of Intelligent Design, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Shirley, haven't you heard: "the Scientific theory of Intelligent Design is that some aspects of life and the universe are best explained by  an unknown entity [which may or may not have been the God of the Bible] having done an unknown thing by unknown means at an unknown time".

Do try to keep up, won't you?
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Feb. 28 2006,04:04

But Russell, dear, that isn't a scientific theory.
Its not a theory at all.
But I'd love to hear someone try to defend the notion that somehow it is both a theory and scientific...

This is too easy.
Next?

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 28 2006,05:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the Supreme Court gets an ID case, it's going to be a unanimous decision...a decision DaveScot isn't going to like very much.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, I don't think so. Thomas and Scalia will vote for creationism. Roberts and Alito might, I haven't seen enough of them.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 28 2006,07:06

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 28 2006,11:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the Supreme Court gets an ID case, it's going to be a unanimous decision...a decision DaveScot isn't going to like very much.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, I don't think so. Thomas and Scalia will vote for creationism. Roberts and Alito might, I haven't seen enough of them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Besides, judges aren't crazy about cavalierly overturning rulings of previous judges, especially if the ruling is recent and especially if the judge can't be painted as some kind of wild-eyed radical liberal. The fundies are trying to paint Jones that way, but no one's buying (no one important, anyway). So I suspect you're right, Scalia/Thomas will be eager to vote in ID purely for their own ideological reasons, but I doubt enough of the rest of the SCOTUS will have any stomach to overturn Dover, especially since Jones's ruling was so incredibly meticulously explained. They might decline to even hear any case about ID.

Also, despite Springer's attempt to wed the issue of abortion to creationism/ID, they're not related. Granted, the fundies all agree on both those issues, but many of the more reality-based conservatives dislike both ID and abortion. So while I'm not terrifically optimistic about the future of reproductive rights in the US, Springer's attempts to piggyback ID onto abortion are bogus.

Incidentally, does anyone here other than me find it REALLY pathetic that Dave Springer and the whole ID crowd basically have nothing to show for several years of banging away, and are now reduced to banking everything on an ideologically based SCOTUS ruling? May I ask how many other scientific schools of thought had to rely on the Supreme Court to rescue them? If ID was so frigging wonderful, wouldn't it have made more progress on its own merits by now?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 28 2006,07:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shirley, haven't you heard: "the Scientific theory of Intelligent Design is that some aspects of life and the universe are best explained by  an unknown entity [which may or may not have been the God of the Bible] having done an unknown thing by unknown means at an unknown time".

Do try to keep up, won't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The argument doesn't change if you replace 'designed' with 'flinkywisty'. It remains as scientific.

Q: What is the theory of Flinkywisty?
A: The theory of Flinkywisty says that living things exhibit Flinkywisty.
Q: What is Flinkywisty?
A: It's kind of like human Flinkywisty. It alters probabilities, perhaps. Or something.
Q: How did the living things wind up with the Flinkywisty?
A: That question is entirely off limits to science. Ask a philosopher.
Q: How do you know a living thing has Flinkywisty?
A: Living things are like paintings, right? Paintings have flinkywisty. I mean, it's obvious.
Q: So life didn't evolve?
A: Of course not! Where would the Flinkywisty have come from?
Q: um...just from natural selection?
A: NO NO NO NO NO. That's just Apparent Flinkywisty.
Q: So nature can put in Flinkywisty?
A: If it does, that was Front-loaded Flinkywisty.
Q: And what does Flinkywisty Theory tell us about the world?
A: It's not my job to deal with pathetic details.
Q: Anything else?
A: Would you like to buy my book?
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Feb. 28 2006,07:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May I ask how many other scientific schools of thought had to rely on the Supreme Court to rescue them? If ID was so frigging wonderful, wouldn't it have made more progress on its own merits by now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For that matter (and it's been said before) how many scientific schools of thought were pushed by proponents into secondary schools before associated research programs and adherents in university departments even existed?

To me, that's the lowest and most despicable thing about these ID creeps, like chatbot Dave Springer. They unabashedly want to push their crap on schoolchildren because they know, deep down, that no rational adult without serious religious hang-ups wants thing one to do with it.

Note to Dave: If it's "too easy" you might want to think about Why? If something is too good to be true, then it probably isn't.

Note to self: chatbots don't 'think'.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 28 2006,07:56

How old does Flinkywisty say the Earth is? :p
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 28 2006,08:06

Flinkywisty takes NO POSITION on the age of the Earth.
Posted by: FishyFred on Feb. 28 2006,08:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Q: What is the theory of Flinkywisty?
A: The theory of Flinkywisty says that living things exhibit Flinkywisty.
Q: What is Flinkywisty?
A: It's kind of like human Flinkywisty. It alters probabilities, perhaps. Or something.
Q: How did the living things wind up with the Flinkywisty?
A: That question is entirely off limits to science. Ask a philosopher.
Q: How do you know a living thing has Flinkywisty?
A: Living things are like paintings, right? Paintings have flinkywisty. I mean, it's obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 28 2006,08:11

Great! Simply mail $30 by check or money order to

Flinkywisty Jesus Newsletter
777 E Christ is Lord Street,
Jesusville, Md 90210

There are only two rules to being in the Flinkywisty club:

1 You can subscribe as long as you're christian.
2 Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this. I'm amazed you could even thing such a thing. Are you a bigot?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 28 2006,08:25

"666 E Christ is Lord Street" might have worked better.  ;)
Posted by: GCT on Feb. 28 2006,08:47

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 28 2006,14:25)
"666 E Christ is Lord Street" might have worked better.  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How dare you blaspheme an idea that is completely and in no way related to religion...at all....
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 28 2006,08:53

I agree! You're an anti-religious jesus hating bigot for disagreeing with our completely secular idea. And you're an atheist.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 28 2006,09:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"the Scientific theory of Intelligent Design is that some aspects of life and the universe are best explained by  an unknown entity [which may or may not have been the God of the Bible] having done an unknown thing by unknown means at an unknown time".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Russell, dear, that isn't a scientific theory.
Its not a theory at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No!? Maybe it's because I was paraphrasing. Here - here's the exact quote from the horses, um, mouth:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(from the DI's CSRC webpage, FAQ) Surely, Shirley, it doesn't get more scientific than that!
Posted by: jeannot on Feb. 28 2006,10:07

What a fascinating theory, Steve.  :)
I think we should have it taught in high schools.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 28 2006,10:08

Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 26 2006,07:34)
Fox and Stelliot

Dawkins


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"DNA is commonly referred to in textbooks of molecular biology as the "blueprint" for an organism. I would rather call it a recipe or like a computer program.

The difference between a blueprint and a recipe is that a blueprint is reversable, and a recipe is not. If you have a house and you have lost the blueprint you can reconstruct the blueprint by taking measurements, but if you have got a well prepared dish in a great restaurant you may enjoy the dish and you may dissect it and look at it in every detail but you cannot reconstruct the recipe."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE me for using the terminology commonly found in microbiology texts instead of parroting Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has obviously never seen any blueprints in the real world because if he had he'd know they're littered with notes about how to put things together and in what order to do it.  Just like a recipe.

This is too easy.

Next!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you seriously believe you are making any good points?

As for this


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’d call Elsberry a snake if it wasn’t for the fact that a snake has a spine.  

This is who we’re dealing with folks - people with no integrity who will happily conspire to destory the reputations and careers of scientists who dare do something as nefarious as let an ID sympathetic article appear in a peer reviewed journal. People who, when caught red-handed using these despicable tactics and confronted with it, call upon The Five D’s of Darwinian Dogmatists - Dodge, Duck, Dive, Dip, and Dodge.  

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 2:30 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You disputing Wesley's integrity is mind-numbing.

Now what did Sternberg do? Oh, that's right...he published an ID friendly article in a peer-reviewed journal, without having it peer-reviewed. You keep right-on defending that.

As for your 5 Ds...who is it that edits a blog and blocks dissenting arguments? Do you know anyone who moderates a blog that regularly posts ridiculous claims only to delete them later?
Posted by: PuckSR on Feb. 28 2006,10:26

I still love the fact that Dave attacks Dawkins for not comprehending what a blueprint is.....

and then gives an example of something that isnt a blueprint.

**Side Note**

I attended a discussion on ID today...it was held in the electrical engineering building of my University.  About 2 questions into the discussion...I learned that the "presenter" was actually a creationist....he told us this.  Then he explained that he has no understanding of ID theory.  Then he explained that ID should be taught in school...despite not personally believing it or understanding it.  Then when it was all over, another student(who was very friendly) thanked me for attending their "bible study".

Now, Im not trying to be mean.....but something is wrong here.  If your advocating something you dont believe...(he was a YEC)....and that you dont understand(he couldnt tell me where ID stood even on the few points that they have a position on)....shouldnt you just shut up?

I dont advocate for the teaching for or against "dark matter"...why?  because I am not nearly informed enough to have an opinion.  If i started a grass-roots advocacy group to have "dark matter theory" taught....both the proponents and the opponents of the theory would tell me to get lost.

Why dont ID proponents tell the creationists to shut the #### up?  They obviously dont understand the "theory of ID", #### they dont even believe in it for the most part.  They are usually undereducated about the topic, and while it is ok to have an uneducated opinion....you should probably keep that to yourself.
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Feb. 28 2006,10:53

Surely you don't buy that load of codswallop, now, do you Russell?
They can say it all they want, but it does not stand up as science.
And that's based on their very own "definition".

But you knew that, didn't you?
Or do you seriously want to argue that their ludicrous little rant counts as either theory or science?

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: George on Feb. 28 2006,11:00

Over on UD they're now claiming that ID is parapsychology.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

...Any study of mind and its relationship to causation is ID...

Comment by johnnyb — February 28, 2006 @ 2:29 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Russell on Feb. 28 2006,11:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Surely you don't buy that load of codswallop, now, do you Russell?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, Shirley Knott.

I guess I should use the little emoticons to indicate tongue-in-cheekiness. But no, I find their attempts to define their theory somewhere between pathetic and hilarious.

At some level, they must be a little sensitive about that. For instance, < here's > an amusing editorial where they're attempting to dispel all the "misconceptions" about ID, but - strangely, while telling us all the things that ID isn't - they never get around to telling us what it is.
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 28 2006,11:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
strangely, while telling us all the things that ID isn't - they never get around to telling us what it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and, if you get a chance, Shirley, I'd be grateful if you'd relay that observation to your encyclopedic relative, Y. Knott.
Posted by: FishyFred on Feb. 28 2006,11:50

Okay, you guys simply must see today's daily dose of moronic ramblings from Davescot: < Link >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does the theory of Natural Selection (the most well tested theory in science) predict about Avian Flu?

Anything at all practical that isn't obvious from simple observations of past flu behavior?

Don't hold your breath. The most well tested theory in science is also the most useless theory in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 28 2006,11:56

ID appears, using classical logic, to be inconsistent in the words of its adherents. George Gilder can say there is no content, while others say it's a positive argument. Some can say the definition of science must be expanded to include ID, others say it's already science. Some say ID does not have to predict the little details, others can say Hoyle used it to do just that. Some say it requires math and engineering know-how, while some say it's obvious.

I agree, these are contradictory states, but you see, that's not a problem--ID is simply a new type of Quantum Science. Just as a particle can be in two mutually exclusive states so long as it's not observed, so can ID. All these contradictions are fine, since as we all know, the theory of ID has never been observed.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 28 2006,12:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does the theory of Natural Selection (the most well tested theory in science) predict about Avian Flu?

Anything at all practical that isn't obvious from simple observations of past flu behavior?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dayum that's stupid. 'past flu behavior' includes of course evolution, so he's saying, "What does evolution say, which isn't obvious from evolution?"
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Feb. 28 2006,12:45

Ah, Russell, dear 'Y', properly Wyoming, Knott is well aware of the nonsense here.
She, however, has a much lower tolerance threshold.
I believe her remark about Dembski was that if she wanted his opinion she'd read his entrails.
I suggest that would be the most intelligent thing anyone's ever gotten out of him...

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Russell on Feb. 28 2006,12:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dayum that's stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't think it can be summed up any more succinctly than that.

But just to belabor the obvious... what does "the theory of natural selection" tell us about the relationship between: (1) the number of human infections with the current strains of H5N1 (which are transmitted efficiently among birds, inefficiently from birds to humans, and not at all from human to human) and (2) the probability of the emergence of a strain that is efficiently transmitted between humans?

What does the "theory of intelligent design" predict about the same question?

Bonus question: who do you want in charge of preventing and, failing that, dealing with the pandemic: "evolutionists" or "intelligent design theorists?
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Feb. 28 2006,13:12

To: The Designer
Re: Bird Flu

Thanks, Big Guy!
Love your work.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Feb. 28 2006,13:18

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 28 2006,19:12)
To: The Designer
Re: Bird Flu

Thanks, Big Guy!
Love your work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, yes, I was about to point out that particular unspoken implication...

The Designer did a bangup job with the Ebola virus, too, ya gotta admit.

Anyone want to go onto UD, ask DaveSpringerScotPicoFarad why bird flu was designed, and instantly get banned? There's a one in three chance he'd give us an amusingly crabby response before he deleted the whole interchange...
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 28 2006,15:46

Re "I dont advocate for the teaching for or against "dark matter"..."

And that one really is a controversy. (Well, unless they resolved it while I wasn't looking... )

Re "while telling us all the things that ID isn't - they never get around to telling us what it is"

Or as others have put it before - "there's no there, there".

Re "Some say ID does not have to predict the little details, others can "

Never mind the little details, what about any details at all... ;)

Henry
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 28 2006,16:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Never mind the little details, what about any details at all... ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Flinkywisty Theory does not have to explain those either. All it proves is that living things are Flinkywisty.

I notice you 'scientists' have utterly failed to explain how RM+NS could explain Flinkywisty.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 28 2006,18:41

Quote (Russell @ Feb. 28 2006,18:53)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dayum that's stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't think it can be summed up any more succinctly than that.

But just to belabor the obvious... what does "the theory of natural selection" tell us about the relationship between: (1) the number of human infections with the current strains of H5N1 (which are transmitted efficiently among birds, inefficiently from birds to humans, and not at all from human to human) and (2) the probability of the emergence of a strain that is efficiently transmitted between humans?

What does the "theory of intelligent design" predict about the same question?

Bonus question: who do you want in charge of preventing and, failing that, dealing with the pandemic: "evolutionists" or "intelligent design theorists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is an exceptional point to be made and explored on different levels.  Your comments that is :-)

You should pose this question to our friends at UD.  If they are at all intellectually honest about their theory they'll answer you.  I have a shiny quarter that says their answer would be something to behold.
Posted by: George on Mar. 01 2006,01:38

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 28 2006,19:18)

The Designer did a bangup job with the Ebola virus, too, ya gotta admit.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I reckon the Ebola virus is a case of bad design.  Its problem is it kills too quickly.  There's not enough time for it to spread to lots of other people before its host dies.  That's why it only flares up occasionally.  I forget what its reservoir is, but the Hanta virus (similarly lethal) only breaks out when its rodent reservoir experiences big population peaks.

This is of course arguing from the point of view that "better" viruses are those than can spread more copies of their DNA/RNA about the place.

Now the common cold virus- that's the pinnacle of evolution.  Sorry.  Design.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 01 2006,03:16

Ever get the feeling that the entire ID movement can be summarized as a few religious zealots looking over at scientists and yelling "You SUCK!"
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 01 2006,05:36

Quote (George @ Mar. 01 2006,07:38)
I reckon the Ebola virus is a case of bad design.  Its problem is it kills too quickly.  There's not enough time for it to spread to lots of other people before its host dies.  That's why it only flares up occasionally.  I forget what its reservoir is, but the Hanta virus (similarly lethal) only breaks out when its rodent reservoir experiences big population peaks.

This is of course arguing from the point of view that "better" viruses are those than can spread more copies of their DNA/RNA about the place.

Now the common cold virus- that's the pinnacle of evolution.  Sorry.  Design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except traditionally, don't ID types get really irritated at the very mention of 'bad design'? Every IDer I've ever seen seems to think it's an 'invalid concept', tho of course without being able to explain why. The reason of course is that it offends their religious sensibilities -- i.e., 'god couldn't design something badly'. Tho of course they can't say that.

However, presented with something pernicious but really well designed, like the cold virus, they're uncomfortable ascribing 'good design' to that either. That makes no sense either, unless you remember that they're ascribing all this to god, and they can't explain why god would design a disease well, yet they can't admit this is their 'logic'. Clearly 'god works in mysterious ways' is at the back of their minds in all this. Or maybe they think things like the cold virus are the work of the Devil. You know, 'if it's good, god did it, if it's bad, the devil did it, if I can't make sense of it at all, ignore it'.

And yet they claim evolution can't explain any of this. Sigh.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 01 2006,06:04

Is Intelligent Design atheistic? Evolution's been accused of being atheistic. Why isn't intelligent design atheistic?
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 01 2006,06:20

Remember last week, when the morons at Uncommon Descent were misinterpreting Tolstoy to be an evolution denier? As if that would matter even if it were true?

behold today!





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

George Bernard Shaw to Henry James about Darwinism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/877
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 01 2006,06:48

Quote (FishyFred @ Feb. 28 2006,17:50)
Okay, you guys simply must see today's daily dose of moronic ramblings from Davescot: < Link >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What does the theory of Natural Selection (the most well tested theory in science) predict about Avian Flu?

Anything at all practical that isn't obvious from simple observations of past flu behavior?

Don't hold your breath. The most well tested theory in science is also the most useless theory in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The theory of evolution (mutations and natural selection) just predicts that the avian flu virus can recombine with the human flu virus and cause a disaster. How about that Dave?  ???
Posted by: Russell on Mar. 01 2006,07:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You should pose this question to our friends at UD. If they are at all intellectually honest about their theory they'll answer you.  I have a shiny quarter that says their answer would be something to behold.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, since we know that at least some of them are following this discussion, I guess I have posed it. That depends, of course, on whether that subset of UD readers that does peek over the fence is willing to engage the question (if that depends on davescot, I doubt it).  Still, I prefer to hold discussions this side of the Looking Glass.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 01 2006,08:36

Irony, thy name is Uncommon Pissant. Said today about Ken Miller's remarks that ID was bad for the future of science in America:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

I find it disturbing that science questions are being waged through PR campaigns. I don’t understand why he needs to be so vehement in his public opposition to ID. ID is a new science and as such, it will gain its credibility with published scientific work. Why is that scary? Isn’t that how all the rest of science works?

Comment by Doug — March 1, 2006 @ 11:51 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Russell on Mar. 01 2006,08:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(some UDer: ) I find it disturbing that science questions are being waged through PR campaigns.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You see what I mean about the Looking Glass.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Mar. 01 2006,09:37

Quote (Russell @ Mar. 01 2006,13:11)
Still, I prefer to hold discussions this side of the Looking Glass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What? Why on Earth would you want to do that?
Do you not like having your comments blocked, edited, ranted-on or deleted?  :D

It is hard to believe the regulars at UD tolerate it.

Surely the UDers who come over here for a read can spot a huge difference in integrity. Although with comments like this


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I find it disturbing that science questions are being waged through PR campaigns. I don’t understand why he needs to be so vehement in his public opposition to ID. ID is a new science and as such, it will gain its credibility with published scientific work. Why is that scary? Isn’t that how all the rest of science works?

Comment by Doug — March 1, 2006 @ 11:51 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe they don't notice.
Posted by: PuckSR on Mar. 01 2006,09:53

You know what I think is interesting.....that they rarely do come over here

We would absolutely love to go over there and crash the party.  We would love to denounce their false claims, and stop all of this silliness.

UD sits there, protected in a lil cocoon of denial, and bask in each other's glory.

Of course, we do the same thing here, we rarely get a dissenter, and we just all agree with each other....

The only difference is that UD is moderated to make it one-sided, while AtBC cant get enough IDists in here to make us happy.

Why do you think that they so rarely venture over here, yet we would love the chance to go over there and engage them?

Nevermind, we all know the answer, I just wanted th piss Dave off.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Mar. 01 2006,09:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, we do the same thing here, we rarely get a dissenter, and we just all agree with each other....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take serious issue with that statement, Puck.
/smart aleck
Posted by: Russell on Mar. 01 2006,10:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You know what I think is interesting.....that they rarely do come over here
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, at least they rarely comment here. But then, I go over there to check out UD whenever I learn here of a particularly ridiculous post, or sometimes just for fun, and I've never left a comment. As I said, I prefer to hold discussions this side of the Looking Glass, where my comments are not subject to the whims of His Royal Absurdity.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 01 2006,10:40

I don't want the IDiots coming over here, Puck. Not on this particular thread. On this thread I just like to repeat, with laughter, things they say over there. I do not want this thread to turn into an Andy H / Carol Clouser style trainwreck. You'll notice my initials are not PvM.

The purpose I had in mind when i started this thread 1000 comments ago, was a place where people who enjoyed laughing at the mind-boggling craziness of the creationists at Uncommon Pissant could tip each other off to zany UP comments, and riff on them. I like having a thread specifically for that. It would be better to argue with creationists on other threads.

Russell, Through The Looking Glass really sums it up. When I read that UP commenter say that the PR campaign that was evolution would not be able to stop the stream of scientific data and papers that was ID, my brain was thrown offline. My mind just went blank, so hard was it sprained.


"Uhh...uhhh......What?"
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 01 2006,11:44

I've added some code that checks incoming IP addresses against multiple realtime blackhole lists. There may be some collateral damage because of this.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 01 2006,12:35

It's really a banner day over at Uncommon Pissant. Here we go:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Anti-ID folks like Ken Miller and Barbara Forrest can make transparently outrageous claims about impending doom, the collapse of science, and conspiracies to establish a theocracy, and make these claims with complete impunity. Why is this?

If those on the other side made analogous claims they would rightly be labeled nutcases.

Comment by GilDodgen — March 1, 2006 @ 2:37 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Okay, Gil, I agree. When ID people accuse scientists of an atheistic conspiracy/cabal, it is right to label them nutcases.  So, how's it feel to have nutcases for co-contributors?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey Ken- you and your ilk are the problem.

Ken do you realize there isn’t any difference between your “God” and no “God” at all?

And finally Ken, thanks for the closing quote by Darwin exposing the theory of evolution as just another Creationist theory. After all if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, there would be no need to posit its subsequent diversity arose via those type of processes.

Or are you just too stupid to realize what you just admitted to?

Comment by Joseph — March 1, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, exactly, Ken Miller is just so stupid. Everybody who meets him says that. And now we know he's an atheist, according to Joseph.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did anyone click on the picture of Ken “I’m-a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution” Miller? Very interesting - look closely at the slide in the background. It is an AiG book cover by Ken Hamm. Now, not to offend any YEC, but look at what Miller is doing - using an argument against YEC - his typical approach (caught red handed in this picture). ID is not YEC in a cheap tuxedo - but rather Ken “I’m-a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution” Miller is trying to fit a cheap tuxedo onto ID.

Ken “I’m-a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution” Miller knows better than this, but he keeps running the same tired arguments up the flagpole.

But, I can’t really argue with him, considering he is “a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution”, I guess I should believe it too.

Comment by ajl — March 1, 2006 @ 3:15 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Okay. So when Dembski said, on Uncommon Pissant (post 863)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May the work of dismantling Darwinian materialism that [Young Earth Creationist Henry] Morris began come to completion soon.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 11:43 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He was also 'caught red-handed' conflating the two? I agree.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since when can evolution define a relationship with a creator it (Darwinism) specifically denies the existence of? Remember, evolution is supposedly an “unplanned, purposeless process” and was invented in the first place to eliminate the need for a creator (and subsequently make atheists feel intellectually satisfied).

Comment by dougmoron — March 1, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Leaving aside the poor writing here, evolution was invented as a psychological balm? Huh. the 150 years of agreement with data is one he11 of a coincidence then.
Posted by: Russell on Mar. 01 2006,13:14

steve you left this one out:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... If science is so open, let’s see the journals start accepting the work done by the ID sciences. It’s part of the ploy, pretend that science is “based solely on merit” then define a system where only your interpretation has merit. The DI lists dozens of scientific papers. Let’s see one in “Nature”.?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Affirmative action for ID papers! What a concept! So until the number of ID papers balances the number of evolution papers, we'll know "Nature" is just part of the ploy. I don't suppose these guys are likely to notice the problems with the < the DI's list >, but I provide the link in case anyone's in the mood for a belly laugh.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 01 2006,13:56

I meant to include that one, it's almost the first thing I saw. "The ID scienceS"? WTF. Those guys are delusional.
Posted by: Russell on Mar. 01 2006,16:00

Did anyone else find it very odd how Dembski introduced that discussion of Ken Miller?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Perhaps Miller & Co. need to cut to the chase and take out a contract on key ID players. As I recall from the three years I lived in Rhode Island (I went to a prep school there), Providence, the city in which Brown University (Miller’s employer) is located, has an effective mob presence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Is he suggesting that Miller finds ID so menacing he might contemplate assassination? Is he just straining to connect Miller with The Mob, however spuriously? Does having gone to prep school in Rhode Island have sufficient cachet it's worth going out of your way to mention?  Is this in some way witty and I just don't get it? Any ideas?
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 01 2006,16:26

Maybe he's trying to make himself look more worldly. In fact, we just imagine a dorkier young Dembski in prep school, imagining himself exposed to the underworld.

Yeah, money and family circumstances might have gotten him into prep school and U Chicago, but it was his talent which got him to Kentucky Bible College.
Posted by: hehe on Mar. 01 2006,22:06

DaveStalin wrote:

"A theory that supposes certain patterns in nature cannot be adequately explained without intelligent agency of some sort is not religion."

Theism is not a religion. But it is a religious idea. Same with ID.
Posted by: Russell on Mar. 02 2006,04:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe he's trying to make himself look more worldly. In fact, we just imagine a dorkier young Dembski in prep school, imagining himself exposed to the underworld.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A little beside the point, but you remind me of a Gary Larson "Far Side" cartoon. It shows a pudgy dorky kid looking up at the night sky. The caption reads "Carl Sagan as a child", and the kid is saying "Look at all those stars... there must be hundreds and hundreds of them!"

I picture Dembski trying to convince his classmates of the existence of Santa Clause based on numerology. (Hey, 12 days of Christmas, 12 reindeer. Coincidence? I don't think so.)
Posted by: GCT on Mar. 02 2006,04:56

BILL_DEMBSKI = 12 letters (include the space)
Assign a value to the letters in the alphabet such that A=1, B=2, etc.
WILLIAM averages to 12 (if you round up.)
INTELLIGENT averages to 12 (again round up.)
DEMBSKI_DESIGN = 14 letters (including the space again) but since the "DE" begins both words, only count each letter once and you get 12 letters.
Posted by: GCT on Mar. 02 2006,07:26

Quote (GCT @ Mar. 02 2006,10:56)
Assign a value to the letters in the alphabet such that A=1, B=2, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Add up the letters in William and you get 79.
7 + 9 = 16.
1 + 6 = 7
7 = # of letters in William.
Add up the letters in Intelligent and you get 127, which is just 12 with 7.

Man, it all makes sense when you look at it like this.
Posted by: steve_h on Mar. 02 2006,07:46

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2006,17:44)
I've added some code that checks incoming IP addresses against multiple realtime blackhole lists. There may be some collateral damage because of this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That explains why I couldn't view this forum from home yesterday. I can read and post from work though. Couldn't you allow read access to banned users? The UDers complain that evolutionists go further in thier attempts at censorship, because P.T bans people outright (omitting, of course, that only a handful of people and thier sock puppets have been so banned)
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 02 2006,08:19

Embarrass any creationist who accuses PT of censorship by telling them that on 1/20/2006, DaveScot banned, from Bill Dembski's weblog, more people than PT (and AtBC combined) has banned in its 2-year history.
Posted by: JMax on Mar. 02 2006,09:10

I had some trouble logging on from home as well...  I dont post much (or at all really) but a read only option would be sweet

J
Posted by: George on Mar. 02 2006,10:38

Quote (Russell @ Mar. 02 2006,10:19)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe he's trying to make himself look more worldly. In fact, we just imagine a dorkier young Dembski in prep school, imagining himself exposed to the underworld.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A little beside the point, but you remind me of a Gary Larson "Far Side" cartoon. It shows a pudgy dorky kid looking up at the night sky. The caption reads "Carl Sagan as a child", and the kid is saying "Look at all those stars... there must be hundreds and hundreds of them!"

I picture Dembski trying to convince his classmates of the existence of Santa Clause based on numerology. (Hey, 12 days of Christmas, 12 reindeer. Coincidence? I don't think so.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm more reminded of the Far Side where the pudgy, dorky kid is pushing really hard at the door to the "Institute for the Gifted" labelled Pull.
Posted by: PicoFarad on Mar. 02 2006,23:13

Quote (PuckSR @ Mar. 01 2006,15:53)
The only difference is that UD is moderated to make it one-sided, while AtBC cant get enough IDists in here to make us happy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't be serious.  I've had to re-register here four times because some moderator removed posting privileges from older registrations.  I had to create a throw-away email address at hotmail to get registration confirmation because dodgeit.com was disallowed on the last go-round.  And finally I can't even read this site, to say nothing of posting comments here, unless I use an anonymous proxy because all my permanent IPs have been banned.

John Davison, who isn't as adept at sidestepping these obstacles, can't post here at all.   The pathetic reflection on this forum is that Davison is actually a biology professor with 50 years experience in teaching and doing research in comparative physiology.  No one is more qualified to smack you people down and he isn't allowed to do it.  That's so illustrative of the actual practices here.  YOU say you can't get enough ID proponents in here and I'm here to tell you the adminstration here does everything it can to keep them out and in most cases it's enough.  The real truth of the matter is that you can't get enough easily discouraged, unknowledegable ID proponents in here and the moderators (I have no idea if there are more than just Wesley) ban the rest.

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, folks.  God knows I'm not opposed to moderated forums but I am opposed to pretending to be open to all dissent while in practice only allowing weak dissent.
Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Mar. 03 2006,01:27

That is very misleading, Dave (Pico) Scot.

Both you and JAD were banned for good reasons. It had nothing to do with the strength of your arguments (and you know it).
Posted by: Aardvark on Mar. 03 2006,01:44

Quote (DaveScot @ Mar. 03 2006,05:13)

You can't be serious.  I've had to re-register here four times because some moderator removed posting privileges from older registrations.  I had to create a throw-away email address at hotmail to get registration confirmation because dodgeit.com was disallowed on the last go-round.  And finally I can't even read this site, to say nothing of posting comments here, unless I use an anonymous proxy because all my permanent IPs have been banned.

John Davison, who isn't as adept at sidestepping these obstacles, can't post here at all.   The pathetic reflection on this forum is that Davison is actually a biology professor with 50 years experience in teaching and doing research in comparative physiology.  No one is more qualified to smack you people down and he isn't allowed to do it.  That's so illustrative of the actual practices here.  YOU say you can't get enough ID proponents in here and I'm here to tell you the adminstration here does everything it can to keep them out and in most cases it's enough.  The real truth of the matter is that you can't get enough easily discouraged, unknowledegable ID proponents in here and the moderators (I have no idea if there are more than just Wesley) ban the rest.

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, folks.  God knows I'm not opposed to moderated forums but I am opposed to pretending to be open to all dissent while in practice only allowing weak dissent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess the means does justify the end then, doesn't it?
Posted by: guthrie on Mar. 03 2006,02:29

So, anyone else agree with me that it looks like picofarad has just admitted to multiple previous identities?  Or does the entity known as picofarad have a longer posting history that I do not know about because I've only been on here a month or two?
Posted by: Faid on Mar. 03 2006,02:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You can't be serious.  I've had to re-register here four times because some moderator removed posting privileges from older registrations.  I had to create a throw-away email address at hotmail to get registration confirmation because dodgeit.com was disallowed on the last go-round.  And finally I can't even read this site, to say nothing of posting comments here, unless I use an anonymous proxy because all my permanent IPs have been banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, if you mean the problems with accessing the forums these last few days, that happened to many of us. It's fixed now.
So, don't worry, it wasn't an evilutionist conspiracy to keep you from posting your overwhelming "too easy- who's next" arguments. They're still inside the woodwork, Dave.
Posted by: GCT on Mar. 03 2006,02:36

Quote (PicoFarad @ Mar. 03 2006,05:13)
You can't be serious.  I've had to re-register here four times because some moderator removed posting privileges from older registrations.  I had to create a throw-away email address at hotmail to get registration confirmation because dodgeit.com was disallowed on the last go-round.  And finally I can't even read this site, to say nothing of posting comments here, unless I use an anonymous proxy because all my permanent IPs have been banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Care to enlighten us on why your permanent IPs have been banned DaveScot?

I seem to recall you making threats to the effect that you would hack PT.  It had nothing to do with your arguments and everything to do with your threats of criminal actions.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter on Mar. 03 2006,02:37

Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 03 2006,08:29)
So, anyone else agree with me that it looks like picofarad has just admitted to multiple previous identities?  Or does the entity known as picofarad have a longer posting history that I do not know about because I've only been on here a month or two?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, PicoFarad is Dave Scott Springer, resident idiot on UD who was banned from here for being a jerk and making threats.

Unforunately, he's not bright enough to realize that admitting to being who he is is simply grounds for being banned again.

Unbelievably dumb behavior.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 03 2006,02:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

John Davison, who isn't as adept at sidestepping these obstacles, can't post here at all.   The pathetic reflection on this forum is that Davison is actually a biology professor with 50 years experience in teaching and doing research in comparative physiology.  No one is more qualified to smack you people down and he isn't allowed to do it.  That's so illustrative of the actual practices here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Last I heard, Davison was once again banned from Dembski's weblog. So you're calling Uncommon Pissant pathetic.

No argument here.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 03 2006,04:23

Hey, Pico, a week or two ago, Davison called you 'Texas White Trash'. Since he's so smart, do you agree with this sentiment? And is he allowed to post at UD again?

If you want to salvage a little bit of dignity, you probably shouldn't fault others for unfairly banning people. Moreover, unlike your website, your messages will still be here in a year.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 03 2006,04:42

The dum-dums are at it again. Sewell and Cordova are back, to once again abuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884#comments >
Posted by: GCT on Mar. 03 2006,04:58

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 03 2006,10:42)
The dum-dums are at it again. Sewell and Cordova are back, to once again abuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884#comments >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Man, I keep forgetting about the 4th law of thermodynamics....
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 03 2006,06:30

I read it as a strong claim that there are no non-sociopathic supporters of ID who can argue their way out of a wet paper bag.

Glad that's settled.

The rules here are pretty easy to meet. They also aren't based on point-of-view. The folks who have managed to get themselves banned have plenty of other outlets for their brand of ... discussion. But it isn't welcome here, and will never be welcome here. The folks who have been banned have proven themselves "excessively annoying", and I see no reason to think that they've recently become any less so.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 03 2006,06:40

And, by popular demand, AE BB is very likely the first Ikonboard installation to permit reading of the site from IP banned addresses. I've put in hacks to apply the IP banning code instead to the registration and posting functions.

Of course, any attempt to utilize the new facility illegitimately will go a long way to convincing me that things need to go back to the traditional Ikonboard out-of-the-box behavior of telling sorehead losers to kiss off.
Posted by: hehe on Mar. 03 2006,06:58

DaveStalin wrote:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
John Davison, who isn't as adept at sidestepping these obstacles, can't post here at all.   The pathetic reflection on this forum is that Davison is actually a biology professor with 50 years experience in teaching and doing research in comparative physiology.  No one is more qualified to smack you people down and he isn't allowed to do it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The truth is, at present he is nothing but a harmless but irritating crank. One needs only to read his blog. Oh, and you're Texas White Trash according to him. Got it? Write that down.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, folks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep. Denial is very real - like Holocaust denial or evolution denial. And pricks like DaveStalin want to put denial into public schools.
Posted by: GCT on Mar. 03 2006,07:38

Quote (hehe @ Mar. 03 2006,12:58)
Yep. Denial is very real - like Holocaust denial or evolution denial. And pricks like DaveStalin want to put denial into public schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe DaveScot's second denial (using Steve Story's theory of second denial) is not Holocaust denial.  In fact, I believe it is the HIV/AIDS link denial.
Posted by: PuckSR on Mar. 03 2006,07:47

hey, DaveScot.....you act like a child...

Now, I know you are at least a somewhat intelligent person.  You may not be an Engineer, you may not be a scientist, but your not an idiot.  Why do you behave so childishly?

When i first met you on UD, you seemed to be a very rational, if somewhat confused, individual.  Lately, you have completely flipped and become a completely irrational and mean-spirited individual.

Is it because you realized that ID was false?  Im sure its not an easy thing to grasp. It takes time to set in, and you have to push yourself through it all.  That must be why you are so cranky lately, it is getting hard to be wrong, and at the same time you do not want to admit that you were wrong.

Its ok Dave, if you admit that you were wrong, I personally will promise no ridicule, and I imagine that most of the other people here will grant you the same gesture.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 03 2006,07:59

Actually, admitting he was wrong, and taken in by frauds, is the one thing that would make us respect him. The embarrassing thing is insisting otherwise.
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 03 2006,08:11

Quote (hehe @ Mar. 03 2006,12:58)
Davison is actually a biology professor with 50 years experience in teaching and doing research in comparative physiology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't alter the fact that his ideas on evolutionary biology suck.  ???
Posted by: PuckSR on Mar. 03 2006,10:13

Wow....the second law of thermodynamics seems to be drastically reinterperted.....

I guess the fact that it is a "law" makes it "absolute".

I actually understand thermodynamics, I have applied the laws of thermodynamics to real work.  

Saying that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the most twisted and insane thing that I have ever heard.  It only makes sense if you completely misunderstand the law, and you completely misapply it afterwards.

I actually listened to a little bit of the "lecture" that is posted on UD.  All i can say is that if Dembski wanted to claim any credibility he would remove that post IMMEDIATELY.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 03 2006,10:27

OMFG. I think I have just seen the dumbest misunderstanding which has taken place on Uncommon Pissant to date. I can hardly believe what I'm reading.

Okay, so Granville Sewell is back with a dumb idea about thermodynamics which is supposed to prove ID. You might remember Mark Perakh on PT a month ago destroying his last great thermo proof of ID. Well, he's got a new one.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
March 3, 2006
Thermodynamics and Intelligent Design

Check out the following online lecture/tutorial by Granville Sewell (Texas A&M) on the connection between thermodynamics and ID: www.math.tamu.edu/~sewell/odes_pdes/thermo.html
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 8:06 am
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It seems to be some kind of confusion of physical entropy and Information Theory entropy or something. The usual suspects are raving about it:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

The article is extremely informative. Sewell points out IDists are on the whole uncomforatable with the old creationist arguments from the 2nd law. I certainly am. Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen used an innovative approach by combining thermal entropy with configurational entropy to make a 2nd law-like argument, but I found it rather inelegant. I think the idea of a 4th law clarifies the issue better….

Sewell makes the point there is an underlying principle to the 2nd law (probability). I do feel comfortable with that. I think (and I could be wrong), that the laws of probability underlie both the 2nd and 4th law. Thus his point (as I see it) is evolution is in violation of principles even more fundamental than the second law.

All in all, a wonderful link!

Salvador

Comment by scordova — March 3, 2006 @ 8:54 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(somebody tell Cordova there already is a 4th law, which basically anyone who knows thermo is aware of)

Well anyway, we all know about this guy over there, ftrp11, because although he's a creationist, he's shown some resistance to the dumber arguments they've made. He shows up and objects to Sewell's dumb idea:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law. Granted that the information in life is more complex and potentially less probable, but the principle is the same. Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the arguments reasoning, should not be there.

I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.

Comment by ftrp11 — March 3, 2006 @ 11:29 am

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Good point. If the hypothesis makes everything in the universe impossible, maybe it's a bad hypothesis, guys. Now, sit down, swallow any liquids you are drinking, lean back, and take in the response someone made to that:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#

ftrp11 wrote:
“According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law.”
–This is an EXCELLENT OBSERVATION and exactly correct.
–That the existence of the material universe is a violation of the 2nd Law is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the logical inference we make from what we have learned from the development of the Big Bang theory–the origens of the material universe cannot have had a material origin.

Bingo, ftrp11!
“Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the argument’s reasoning, should not be there.”

Comment by Red Reader — March 3, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since according to the hypothesis everything is totally impossible, that makes Intelligent Designer more necessary than ever.  

wow. just wow.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 03 2006,10:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...the existence of the material universe is a violation of the 2nd Law...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There has never been a source of humor so deep and inexhaustible as the Intelligent Design / Creationist movement.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 03 2006,10:54

Well, if everything is totally impossible, does that mean I'm not really sitting here reading this thread?

Re "...the existence of the material universe is a violation of the 2nd Law..."

Can anybody be that dumb? The laws of T.D. are about stuff happening inside the universe.

Henry
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 03 2006,11:27

The Uncommon Descent Comedy Train rolls on inexorably:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ftrp11 wrote:

“I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.”

What are those classic failings? The principal and oft-repeated assertion I have seen is the assertion that the second law does not apply to open systems, which is nonsense. I would be interested to hear about specific failings of 2nd law arguments.

Comment by Eric Anderson — March 3, 2006 @ 3:38 pm

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 03 2006,11:48

Wonder if ftrp11 realizes that the formulas for 2nd law are more complicated for open systems, since it then needs terms to accound for incoming and outgoing? That would kind of interfere with "but it can't decrease" arguments.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 03 2006,17:27

Oh, yeah, < thermodynamics disproves evolution >.

Then there's Brooks and Wiley's Evolution As Entropy. Why is it you never see one of the ID stalwarts picking up the arguments in that book and trying to make headway against them?
Posted by: hehe on Mar. 03 2006,21:00

Instead of "2LoT doesn't apply to open systems" it seems one should say "2LoT is redundant in open systems". It may or may not "apply" to them (this is nothing but semantics) but it addresses ONLY closed systems.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 04 2006,04:12

Man. Now other people have shown up and are trying to correct this guy, and it's not working. He's maintaining that the SLoT prevents the amount of 'complex specified information' we see on Earth. This is so great. Read the whole thing.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884#comments >

But if you won't, here's the bestest post:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the crux of the matter: The second law doesn’t say that entropy cannot decrease in particular system, open or closed. Rather the second law indicates that entropy will *tend* toward a maximum, all things being equal, or put another way, unless there is a countervailing influence that checks or reduces the entropy. What we see in life around us is a countervailing influence.

In terms of simple heat, averaged out across the entire space of our supposedly open system, it may be simple enough to inject more heat so that the average goes up in the so-called open system. In terms of order, and what we are really interested in here — complex specified order, however, it makes no difference whether we talk about the Earth being open or closed. You can define the Earth as an open system receiving energy from the Sun, or you can define the Earth-Sun system as closed. You get exactly the same result. The Sun’s energy (or cosmic rays or whatever else one wishes to invoke) hasn’t the slightest capability of producing the kind of results that are of interest here.

The whole “Earth is an open system” is a weak (and rather unsophisticated) attempt to sidestep what is in fact a very interesting question: Why is it that life offers a temporary rebuke to the second law, and whence that capability?

Comment by Eric Anderson — March 3, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

LOL. I wonder what my thermo prof would have thought if I'd written

S=k*ln(omega) + CountervailingInfluence
Posted by: hehe on Mar. 04 2006,05:07

IDiots of all stripes when debunked re: 2LoT, always turn to "information", "mechanism" etc., as if it had anything to do with 2LoT.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 04 2006,05:08

I just watched Sewell's idiotic presentation from the link on Dembski's site. It's 14 minutes of dumbass. Probably not worth your time, though around the 12 minute mark he says some unintentionally funny things about how you don't even have to know any biology to see that evolution is impossible, and in fact he hasn't found any biologists impressed by his argument, though he has found others, like engineers and mathematicians. It's a little painful to listen to, because Sewell's voice is as pretty as Dembski's face.
Posted by: