RupertG
Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
I have been back through TT's list of Guts' postings. Quiet Sunday afternoon here.
The fact that he refuses to point to any of his 'technical blogs' for discussion about how they support ID is that none of them do. There's stuff snipped from elsewhere and a "How about that then!", and plenty of "If this supports x, it's interesting". Rarely is any connection explicitly made, rarely is there anything that can be argued about without asking for more information.
When he does dare to actually make a statement, for example that snake venom evolution is clearly "not standard", and then backs it up with "Huh? Do you have any questions? feel free to ask.", he gets Nick Matzke asking "How is venom evolution far from 'standard'?". Guts' answer: "Read the links."
The thread's still there for anyone who wants to see how it develops, although -- spoiler -- it won't take a path unfamiliar to anyone who's read this far on this one.
Elsewhere, hrun comes a cropper when he asks why convergent evolution is better evidence for front-loading than it is for standard evolutionary biology. Guts having refused to answer the question three times except by saying "It's all answered elsewhere", (hrun gallantly tries to ascertain where and how, thus using up the rest of his lives), he finally deals with the question thusly:"I explained it , twice, in the misconceptions thread, in my first post and linked to an essay about it. You ignored all three attempts. All you're doing is repeating yourself. It doesn't seem like you're actually asking questions, it seems like you're trolling."
To be fair, guts isn't the only one who likes to argue through unexplained co-option where inference is unclear and implications arguable. His use of multiple layers of indirection and wooly definitions, treating those who attempt to clarify his position as idiots and trolls, is also familiar. Although I do think he has a useful innovation in his 'three strikes and you're out' policy; it's rather like the early moves in Minesweeper, but on a board entirely populated by single-mine squares.
Entire academic careers have built on such things (I'm looking at you, po-mo). They never amount to much. They're cancerous growths whose principle purpose is to consume resources, resist attack and grow without care for good or harm done to the rest of the organism. While science has a rather iffy immune system in the short term and on the small scale, it operates very effectively over periods of generations and in the larger context.
Unless it's made illegal.
R
--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams
|
