Tuesday, September 27, 2011

All renovation projects start as teardowns...

From Denyse O'Leary at Uncommon Descent:


The last five years for ID: All renovation projects start as teardowns
September 2, 2011 Posted by O'Leary under Darwinism, Intelligent Design 
In “The last five years: Darwin’s failures are positive sources of information for ID,” I noted
Failures of Darwinism are not merely a negative. They are a positive. The growing number of stress points at which Darwinism fails can, taken together, form a picture, one that points to general laws that govern how high levels of information are produced in life forms. Obviously, as with dpi, the more such points, the clearer the picture. We can’t have too many of them, though eventually, there will be enough to work productively with.
Throwing out assorted Darwinisms is like renovating a shamefully treated century home. The first thing we do is rent a dumpster. Because we must clear away the rubbish to rescue the core value.
One outcome is that 99% of the initial work is, unavoidably, teardown.
In the case of evolution, as Mike Behe realizes, we must compute the edge of natural selection’s ability to create new information: Just beyond that edge – or further – lie the principal sources of new information.
Computing the edge alone involves a number of questions: Is it the same for all life forms? If not, which ones differ and what characteristics might they have in common? Can a general law be derived?
Of course, sidelining the usual, tiresome, untethered “Darwin dunit” accounts would be a plus, but it is certainly not the motive for the project. The motive is to understand what really happened, not to demolish a crumbling elite piety.

Denyse makes an excellent point. The demolition of the Darwinist hoax is by its nature destructive. It is a heavily defended citadel, and we have just landed on the beach, climbed the bluffs, and set up the siege cannon.  The defenders are rattled. Their long term prospects are bleak. They are surrounded by countless countryfolk who know the truth, and Darwinists depend on the people they lie to and scorn for all of their supplies.

This fight has a long way to go. ID has to develop a scientific program to apply its profound insight that design principles permeate nature. It will, in my view, involve a collaboration between engineering science and basic biological science. In my own field of research (cerebral blood flow), engineering principles are opening a fascination new window into understanding how the heart perfuses the brain.

What will the fall of Darwinism be like? My suspicion is that it will be a slow teetering, and a sudden collapse. The collapse probably won't be a unanimous repudiation of Darwinist banality, but a bypass. Science will simply move on around it, with elderly pony-tailed Darwinites isolated as real scientists get on with the fascinating task of understanding life.

The collapse of Darwinism will come, I suspect, in a manner analogous in one respect to the collapse of the Romanian regime of Nicolae Ceausescu. Ceausescu was a communist (atheist) thug who ruled Romania for decades by fear and corruption. He was giving a speech to a huge crowd in Bucharest. He expected acquiescence and silence. A few minutes into the speech, the crowd began to laugh and boo and chant. He was stunned and inarticulate. He was used to deference. Before him was defiance. He fled the capital the next day. He was dead four days later.

Obviously the fall of Darwinism will not be violent. But it may be abrupt. I suspect that there will be scientific meetings, normally sedate affairs, when presenters of Darwinian explanations will be greeted, to their shock, by laughter and scorn.

I was at a pediatric neurosurgical conference 20 years ago in which a surgeon from a foreign country presented a series of cruel operations done on institutionalized children for psychiatric indications. Members of the audience stood up during the presentation, challenged the speaker, and he was not able to finish the presentation. He was fortunate to get out of the room without a physical incident.

Darwinist 'explanations' in biology will collapse, and some of that collapse will be public. Population biology, genetics, taxonomy, so long infested with Darwinist ideology, will of course go on unimpeded, as they are good science.

Before 1950, eugenics was a flourishing science. After 1970, no one was a eugenicist, and no one had ever been a eugenicist. Scientific fraud can vanish surprisingly suddenly. Darwinism itself will fade, even as its claque sings paeans and demands deference, and then it will implode rather suddenly, with a few last guffaws and challenges, and leave not a wrack behind.

74 comments:

  1. Hilarious. O'Leary, the Baghdad Bob of UD, predicts the imminent demise of Darwinism. The equally deluded Egnor happily parrots her wishful thinking, drawing on some silly, and probably almost entirely fabricated, anecdote about an evil furriner on a conference 20 years ago.

    You guys have been saying this for 150 years now, but evolutionary biology is flourishing more than ever.

    What are you smoking? I want some of that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "This fight has a long way to go. ID has to develop a scientific program to apply its profound insight that design principles permeate nature."

    Just a minor detail then, is it?

    Nothing like putting the cart (declarations of victory) before the horse (the science bit) - sadly, this appears to be standard operating procedure for creationists and ID proponents.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Egnor: Denyse makes an excellent point. The demolition of the Darwinist hoax is by its nature destructive. It is a heavily defended citadel, and we have just landed on the beach, climbed the bluffs, and set up the siege cannon. The defenders are rattled. Their long term prospects are bleak. They are surrounded by countless countryfolk who know the truth, and Darwinists depend on the people they lie to and scorn for all of their supplies.

    Hahahahah! Rattled! We're so quaking in our boots!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Round-earthism will soon be dead. Flat-earthers will win the fight.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Michael,

    The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again. You have joined a long line of crackpots predicting the demise of Darwnism. Maybe you should have first checked how their predictions fared over the last 150 years.

    The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

    ReplyDelete
  6. And quoting O'Leary, of all people? For God's sake, this lady once wrote that she wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. She writes about things that she is thoroughly unaware of.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @oleg:

    Genes aren't selfish. They are strings of nucleic acids. Chemicals have no motives.

    Which raises a good question: how can we be selfish and have motives, if we're just chemicals?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Way to miss a point, Mike!

    The selfish gene is a well-known concept in evolutionary biology. It does not refer to a gene that makes humans (or animals) selfish. Which is how Denyse interpreted the term.

    The larger point is that she is hilariously uninformed about science. Her prose is horrific. Why do people even bother to read her? Because UD has no one better qualified?

    ReplyDelete
  9. She is not just ignorant, she is proud of it. That's what we call egnorance, don't we?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Reading Michael's comments is like watching the Black Knight in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. It's marvelous to see Michael attempt to attempt to gloss over facts and elevate fiction to reality.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The term "selfish gene" is usually reserved for genes that increase their frequency at the expense of the organisms that are carriers of the genes. A nice example is the T-complex of the house mouse. Males heterozygous for a "t-allele" and a wildtype (normal) allele transmit the t-allele in typically >90% of their sperm, instead of the usual 50%. This gives the t-allele a huge advantage over the wildtype allele, despite the fact that individuals with 2 copies typically die young or are sterile.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @mregnor
    "Which raises a good question: how can we be selfish and have motives, if we're just chemicals?"

    We can't. Therefore there's a magical man in the sky.

    ReplyDelete
  13. oleg:

    [The selfish gene is a well-known concept in evolutionary biology. It does not refer to a gene that makes humans (or animals) selfish. Which is how Denyse interpreted the term.]

    You miss the point. Denyse understood exactly what it meant by 'selfish gene'. She is echoing Mary Midgley, who devastated Dawkins in a review of the book. Midgley commented on her initial reluctance to criticize Dawkins--"I had not thought it necessary to break a butterfly on a wheel".

    Denyse understands the issue on a level you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Egnor: Genes aren't selfish. They are strings of nucleic acids. Chemicals have no motives.

    Of course genes aren't selfish in the human sense. They have no motives indeed. They are, however, in the business of replicating themselves, and in the process, creating new organisms. Helping an organism to survive and reproduce increases the gene's own chances. That gene-centric view, in a nutshell, is the reason for calling genes "selfish." It's just a colorful technical term.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Egnor: You miss the point. Denyse understood exactly what it meant by 'selfish gene'. She is echoing Mary Midgley, who devastated Dawkins in a review of the book. Midgley commented on her initial reluctance to criticize Dawkins--"I had not thought it necessary to break a butterfly on a wheel".

    Mike, you ascribe to Denyse abilities she does not possess. She is a clueless dolt who would not know science if it bit her in the butt. It makes no sense whatsoever to talk about "identifying the selfish gene." They are all selfish.

    Denyse understands the issue on a level you don't.

    I agree that Denyse and I are on completely different levels. Not even close.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Darwinism will be dead by 2020.

    Then we will really begin to understand how life and its evolution were designed to work.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The collapse probably won't be a unanimous repudiation of Darwinist banality, but a bypass. Science will simply move on around it, with elderly pony-tailed Darwinites isolated as real scientists get on with the fascinating task of understanding life."
    LOL
    Love it, Mike.
    I wonder if this bypassing science will get the enema it needs from the academy when it begins to feel backed up or blocked by such theory?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Derp wrote:
    "Round-earthism will soon be dead. Flat-earthers will win the fight."
    Hate to break it to you, Derp - but the Earth is an irregular sphere. It is mapped in 3 dimensions these days.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ID isn’t a scientific hypothesis; it’s a legal tactic to insinuate creationism into the classroom.

    Conservative Christians have the same aim as fundamentalist Muslims when it comes to fighting the heresies of science. If there is a demolition of Darwinism it will be at the hands of an ignorant religious mob with the modern equivalent of pitchforks and torches.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Oleg
    "I agree that Denyse and I are on completely different levels. Not even close."
    Poor Oleg is being down on himself again, folks. Lets all give him a group hug. Poor little feller.

    @Bach
    LOL
    Who are you then, the king with his coconuts? Oleg MUST be Sir Robin. Perhaps Pépé and Matteo are the French knights?
    I guess I will be have to be the great enchanter - Tim (so far north etc). LOL

    ReplyDelete
  21. KW,
    "Conservative Christians have the same aim as fundamentalist Muslims ...(bla bla)... the hands of an ignorant religious mob with the modern equivalent of pitchforks and torches. "
    You must be really bored to come up with such vivid fantasies, KW. Dr Goebbels would be proud!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh... question: Is UD some disparaging term for NS or ID? If so, could we keep the TERMS constant and inclusive - so we all know WTH is being discussed. Many of us do not bellyfeel newspeak.
    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  23. crusadeREX,

    Here is Denyse O'Leary interviewing Harun Yahya on Uncommon Descent. The only reason he gets air time at UD is that he is antievolution.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Pépé
    "Darwinism will be dead by 2020."

    Sure. And in 2020, you'll be saying "Darwinism will be dead by 2030."

    ReplyDelete
  25. TY, Oleg.
    Appreciate it.
    Demystified.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oleg,
    re the interview: What's the big deal? What is it you think is so wrong about interviewing the Turkish fellow?

    ReplyDelete
  27. InDawkinsWeTrust,
    "And in 2020, you'll be saying "Darwinism will be dead by 2030."
    I know you are, but what am I?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am not saying there is anything wrong with interviewing him. Just saying that he gets interviewed because he is a Darwin doubter. That's the common denominator.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ah okay. Well that is the entire push of the site, no?
    Basically to provide alternative views than the current darling of science? The Muslim view is a very popular one.
    Islam has a wealth of thinking and philosophy that dates back over 1400 years.
    I don't see anything wrong with that view being put forward. I don't agree with the bulk of it, obviously - but it is there. So, let's hear it out!
    I don't see how this reflects on the points put forward by the post's author.
    There is bias? Sure. Admitted bias.
    Honest bias against a theory seen as flawed.
    Is it the tone? I see that as merely reciprocal. Pretentious reductionism waved off with oversimplification. Tit for tat.
    No foundation to lambaste anyone as an idiot or dishonest, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This is just the same tired and worthless refrain that cdesign proponentists have been spouting for the last hundred-plus years. And it isn't any more true now than it was then.

    "Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904.

    "The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time" - George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant's The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922).

    "The world has had enough of evolution. In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism." - Harold W. Clark (1929) Back To Creationism.

    "In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, 1963.

    But this time, this time, they think they are right. Based upon a "theory" that as of yet has no scientific content, and has no actual examples to back it up. (So far, every "irreducibly complex" structure Behe has proposed has been shown, after investigation, not to be, leaving the ID crowd desperate to find anything to support their non-theory). Yeah, sure. I don't think I'll be holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hey atheists, if evolution is real, why did Dawkins recant on his deathbed?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Like Pavlov's dogs, these Darwinists.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hey "Johnny McMormon", why do you feel the need to perpetuate a myth that even Answers in Genesis thinks is bullshit?

    Are you just woefully uneducated on the subject or or is it that lying doesn't matter if you do it for Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Did you hear that the real Michael Egnor died and recanted as well? He died an atheist. The fundies try to hide this devastating news by impersonating poor Egnor on this blog, but the fake Egnor(s?) are so deranged, nobody in their right mind can believe it's really him writing such drivel.

    Spread the news. The memory of the atheist Egnor must not be smeared by the lunatics.

    PS: just ignore it when the fake Egnors try to deny that the real, atheist, Egnor died. What else are they supposed to say?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anon,
    It seems to me you have confused the notion of observable intelligent design with Professor Behe's pro ID concept of irreducible complexity.
    Surely they are connected. Behe's ideas compliment ID quite nicely. The controversial connection, seems to me, that they BOTH contrast with academic orthodoxy / dogma.
    But they do not equate.

    ID is a general observation, a counter position to determinism and nihilism. ID is broad and covers many fields and disciplines. It is open to many schools of thought from agnostic to creationist. ID - as I see it - is more or less a different philosophical approach to origins sciences using the same/current data.

    Irreducible Complexity, on the other hand, is an observation of complexity of function in living beings; a biological observation. It is a basis for one argument against natural selection and random mutation as a source of new genetic information. Further still: Irreducible Complexity (in my own feeble grasp of it) is an attempt to illustrate the obvious INTER-FUNCTION and dependency of life. It is an argument for purpose from function.
    Prof. Behe's work does not stand on ID, or ID on it; rather, they compliment each other.
    These two ideas do not equate.
    One could argue that Behe assumes design and purpose only as much as they could posit the Darwinian position assumes futility and randomness.
    (chaos).
    You see the difference?
    Irreducible Complexity is an answer to a single argument. It is not Prof Behe's fault that monists (like modern materialist / atheists) apply that same easily countered argument to EVERYTHING in the universe.
    You seem to have a metaphysical chip on your shoulder, Anon!
    ID≠IC IC≠ID IC/ID≠Creationism.
    They just do not equate.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Hey atheists, if evolution is real, why did Dawkins recant on his deathbed?"
    McMormon, do you mean Darwin?

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Matteo
    "Like Pavlov's dogs, these Darwinists."
    The drooling or the predictability?
    I suppose both comparisons work to some degree :P

    ReplyDelete
  38. @crusadeREX: Sadly, without irreducible complexity, "intelligent design" simply has nothing at all to stand on. Irreducible complexity is the desperate attempt of cdesign proponentists to come up with something, anything to prop up their entirely baseless idea ("intelligent design" doesn't even have enough content to be called a hypothesis).

    There is no evidence for intelligent design. It isn't science. It doesn't even have a coherent idea of what might lead it to science. It is simply religious creationism dressed in sciency-looking drag in a pathetic attempt to try to wedge faith into science classes.

    The theory of evolution by natural selection isn't going to go away. It wasn't on its last legs in 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000, or now. Creationist apologists have been predicting the demise of "Darwinism" for the last 152 years. None of them have been close to being correct. This is just the latest in a long string of really quite sad attempts to the deny reality of evolution in favor of magical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  39. IC/ID≠Creationism.

    I think the revelations resulting from discovery in the Kitzmiller case pretty much demonstrated that this claim is simply a lie. Intelligent design is just creationism dressed up in an attempt to evade the prohibitions on teaching "creation science" in public schools.

    Where do you think the term "cdesign proponentists" comes from? I'll clue you in: it comes from the bad replacement job that someone did during the editing process of Pandas and People that revealed that this "intelligent design" textbook had started as a creationist textbook, and the only thing of substance that was changed in the text was that references to creationism were replaced by references to intelligent design.

    "Creationist" and "intelligent design" arguments are built upon lies. But I guess lying for Jesus is okay.

    ReplyDelete
  40. But darwinism did died.... you replaced it with neo-darwinism and then with the Modern Synthesis.

    We never changed the major tenants of evolution though. Things change at random, and some changes are good and help cratures survive and some are bad and creatures die and some are neutral and have very little effect on the creature.

    ReplyDelete
  41. ops ... I was writing in more than one place XD and said you replaced instead of we replaced my bad folks.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @InDawkinsWeTrust
    Sure. And in 2020, you'll be saying "Darwinism will be dead by 2030."

    Definitely not. In 2030 Darwinism will be fossilized, and (again) won’t be the missing link!

    PS: your moniker sounds a lot like an expression of faith. Are you a follower of darwinion (the darwin religion)?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Darwinism is a fourre-tout

    PS: you can use Google Translate if French is foreign to you.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Darwinism is a fourre-tout"

    Correct. "Darwinism" is a word used by religious fanatics to mean "science I don't like".

    ReplyDelete
  45. Definitely not. In 2030 Darwinism will be fossilized, and (again) won’t be the missing link!

    In 2030 you'll be just another in a long string of people who incorrectly predicted the imminent demise of the theory of evolution by natural selection. I hope you enjoy disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
  46. As planck would say. We don't convince people of a new theory, the people that believed that theory dies and the new comers get used to the new theory.

    I mean we changed so much Theory of evolution is like the theory dies a bit everyday and something is born in it the next day.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Edward,

    When ID actually comes up with a theory, then we can discuss whether it will replace evolutionary biology as the best explanation for speciation.

    Quantum physics was accepted because it had experimental success behind it, supporting the predictions made by the theory.

    ID has absolutely nothing besides William Paley's if it looked designed then it was designed and Michael Behe's irreducible complexity, which had actually been discussed by Herman Muller, geneticist and Nobel Prize winner in 1946, decades earlier, and considered to be no problem for evolutionary biology.

    There's nothing new or original in ID. A lot of rehashing. Attempting to tear down evolutionary biology is the current strategy because it's the only strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anon,
    "I think the revelations resulting from discovery in the Kitzmiller case pretty much demonstrated that this claim is simply a lie. "
    Typical. You have no response worth note - so you accuse me of lying. more drooling dogs.
    Absolutely typical.

    My points stand.
    ID does not equate to Creationism.
    IC is specific argument against NS & RM.
    The fact you cannot make these distinctions does not have any impact on my honesty, only your observations.But go on, Anon.
    Keep on tilting at windmills.
    Keep on with the Straw Men.
    Keep on crying 'lies'.
    Nobody on this side of the debate will take you remotely seriously while you do so.
    OR you could learn to distinguish between ideas?

    Bach,
    Dream on.
    "There's nothing new or original in ID."
    There is over 100 years of NEW observations and entirely new philosophies at work. In order for what you have asserted to be true, science would have to been static for 100+ years. NO new discoveries that even appeared sympathetic to design. We all know that is not the case.

    @All the GNUS
    What's with all the 2d thinking in this thread?
    Why don't you folks try to make a point you can actually defend?


    Edward,
    Nice to see you back.
    "I mean we changed so much Theory of evolution is like the theory dies a bit everyday and something is born in it the next day."
    Only a real scientific theory can do this. I think we will find Darwinism's measure will be (ironically) found in it's ability to adapt. If it is more dogma than science it may not go so quietly and in such dignified way. If Dr Egnor's described 'bypass' is obstructed too long, it may require an intellectual ENEMA to get the thick, pasty stuff out.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ""Creationist" and "intelligent design" arguments are built upon lies. But I guess lying for Jesus is okay"

    Your whole comment reeks of bigotry and COWARDICE; this line sums it all up.

    Such horrible negativity is usually the reflection of a very bleak existence. I hope things get better for you, Anon.
    I hope they leave you alone, whoever they are. But remember this: Such horrible libel and hatred only brings more in.
    To forgive and be forgiven is a wonderful release.

    I pray you and your kind are forgiven for the gross libel and ignorant fear. I pray all of us are forgiven for permitting the seeds of such Evil thought fertile ground in all our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bach out of everybody here... you were the last I expected to interpret that way XD. I admit I was sort of subjective while writing the post.

    No, I am not referring to ID x Darwinism main tenants.

    Yep, experiments did supported the theory and that was great... but do you really think that weren't people among the physicists who could yet find another explanation to the phenomena we had seem ???? Science is social, that is what Planck meant. It is us humans who give the step forward, not the abstraction in our heads that we often call science. Community... not abstration is the engine of science. I think that is his point and the point of many other people.

    Bach you haven't read anything the people the Intelligent Design movement said. Why don't you and I read some stuff and discuss. Dembski is way more than just looks therefore is. I read a little bit of his work, and that becomes very clear.

    Is it really Bach??? is it really Rehashing ??? careful man, you are making the same mistakes I do every often with stuff I have marginal knowledge about.

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

    @ Crusade

    Hey man ... I mean I am controlling myself really bad not answer almost the entire page XD... it is hard... I answered Bach because he tends to be cool headed most of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dawkins will pray for youSeptember 28, 2011 at 2:48 AM

    @crusadeREX
    "Such horrible libel and hatred only brings more in."

    What horrible libel and hatred? Creationism and intelligent design are built upon lies. This statement is an accurate description of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Edward
    "Science is social, that is what Planck meant. It is us humans who give the step forward, not the abstraction in our heads that we often call science. Community... not abstration is the engine of science. I think that is his point and the point of many other people."
    Very well put.
    PEOPLE make the discoveries, PEOPLE make the changes, PEOPLE do these things - NOT some intellectual 'abstraction'. I find it incredibly surreal that people who find a need to deny super-nature and all things immaterial can be so beholden to an immaterial process, an abstraction. Perhaps because so many credit this 'science' (the abstraction) with the powers of creation and foresight?
    This little connection is what has led me to think at least SOME of the GNU's are actually deist or pantheist and have just not come to terms with their own ideas in this abstract version of 'science', also sometimes referred to as 'nature'.
    Just a thought.

    @bigot with changing nic,
    "Creationism and intelligent design are built upon lies. This statement is an accurate description of reality."
    Your words speak for themselves. You seem to think you have an objective truth in your subjective mind. You read like a post on 'stormfront'.
    Your position is hostile to reason; but more importantly it is hostile to the civilization I live in, and to the people who live here with me. People like my family, friends, and colleagues.
    I am military.
    That makes you the party to 'the enemy.' Not a very brave or serious one, but an 'enemy' just the same. You are no mere adversary. You are to religion and philosophy as the Klan is to Black folks.
    As a Christian I am commanded to love and understand you. I do...At least, I try.
    As an officer, citizen, and father, I must - at the very least - call you out for what you are: A bigot.
    That does not mean you will always be one, or that you will never grow out of this phase...most do.
    I just pray you do before it causes you or someone else real harm or costs you your personal (real world) credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  53. CrusadeRex,

    The only thing new in ID is that it takes anything new that scientists discover, states that it's impossible for that to have evolved, and when a plausible pathway is worked out, moves to something else.

    By the way, have you noted my comment on the 'Smile' thread? I was curious where you got you data stating that most terminations in Canada occur between the 19th and 22nd weeks.

    Edward,

    No thanks, I don't want to read any more ID literature. 'Signature in the Cell' was long and boring, and also abysmal. If Meyer's aim was to discuss the origin of life, 4 chapters and 60 pages wasn't enough, particularly since the RNA world is just one hypothesis, and not even the most current one. His 'Darwin's Dilemma' video was also very poor and illogical (why make a fuss about no Cambrian fossils being discovered by oil drilling in the Pacific Ocean, when no ocean on Earth is more than 200 million years old, owing to tectonic plate movements?). His 'review' article in 'Proceedings' wasn't a competent review.

    Dembski is unreadable and always promising to demonstrate the Explanatory Filter in the next book. He never does.

    CrusadeRex (again)'

    Irreducible complexity wasn't a new idea. Herman Muller discussed it 70 or 80 years ago, and described why it wasn't a problem for evolutionary biology.

    Random mutation + natural selection (not NS & RM as you put it) isn't all that there is to evolutionary biology. You've swallowed Michael's Koolaide, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  54. nothing like claims without backing them up XD.... intimidation for the win... Thank God some atheists are not like you Dawkins dude n_n.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Very well put.
    PEOPLE make the discoveries, PEOPLE make the changes, PEOPLE do these things - NOT some intellectual 'abstraction'. I find it incredibly surreal that people who find a need to deny super-nature and all things immaterial can be so beholden to an immaterial process, an abstraction. Perhaps because so many credit this 'science' (the abstraction) with the powers of creation and foresight?
    This little connection is what has led me to think at least SOME of the GNU's are actually deist or pantheist and have just not come to terms with their own ideas in this abstract version of 'science', also sometimes referred to as 'nature'.
    Just a thought.

    _____________________________________________

    Abstractions are our most "lethal weapons" when understanding ourselves and ourworlds.

    I don't hold against them for idolizing abstractions, hey I do that every so often.

    Buttt.... the scientific commmunity is Science and at the same time they are not Science XD it is hilarious when you think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. No thanks, I don't want to read any more ID literature. 'Signature in the Cell' was long and boring, and also abysmal. If Meyer's aim was to discuss the origin of life, 4 chapters and 60 pages wasn't enough, particularly since the RNA world is just one hypothesis, and not even the most current one. His 'Darwin's Dilemma' video was also very poor and illogical (why make a fuss about no Cambrian fossils being discovered by oil drilling in the Pacific Ocean, when no ocean on Earth is more than 200 million years old, owing to tectonic plate movements?). His 'review' article in 'Proceedings' wasn't a competent review.

    Dembski is unreadable and always promising to demonstrate the Explanatory Filter in the next book. He never does.

    ___________________________________________

    Dembski explanatory's filter, I think it is statistical isn't it ????

    Well what exactly were the bad arguments O_O ????

    * as in .... I haven't read that yet XD. *

    * Although I do have signature in the cell... read a bit, but not into the origin of life chapter. The RNA world is the most hyped I suppose, but anyways n_n. *

    ReplyDelete
  57. Bach (again),
    "Random mutation + natural selection (not NS & RM as you put it) isn't all that there is to evolutionary biology. You've swallowed Michael's Koolaide, I'm afraid."
    I did not suggest that NS & RM are the only aspects of Darwinism. Nor did I suggest his observation was entirely original. Wrong argument.
    Maybe I was not clear enough.
    I simply (countered) suggested that IC is an argument against those mechanisms as origins - not the ENTIRE basis for thousands of years of creationism, or the ENTIRE basis of the ID movement.
    The assertion that ID has nothing new, and is basically creationism wrapped up in IC theory is baseless, childish, reductionist, NONSENSE.
    That is my point.
    Take it or leave it.
    I have not been to the 'smile thread' today, but I will have a look and respond.
    The short answer is we have an OB/GYN on contract at the LFB, teenagers in the family, and newspapers.

    @edward,
    "Buttt.... the scientific commmunity is Science and at the same time they are not Science XD it is hilarious when you think about it."
    Hilarious when harmless. When translated into social programs it becomes surreal and nightmarish.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Typical. You have no response worth note - so you accuse me of lying.

    Given that you lied, it seemed appropriate. Intelligent design is simply creationism dressed up in drag. The Kitzmiller transcripts demonstrate this clearly. But I suppose that actually going and looking at the evidence from that trial would be an anathema to you, since it would require actually looking at evidence.

    So here's the challenge: if intelligent design is not simply creationism dressed up to get past the prohibitions against teaching "creation science" in public schools, explain the manuscript iterations of Of Pandas and People in which the book was transformed from a creationist text to an "intelligent design" text merely by replacing "creationists" with "intelligent design proponents" and leaving all of the other text unchanged?

    I expect you won't. You'll just bleat about how unfair it is that when you got caught lying someone pointed out that you were, in fact, lying.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Well Crusade. I surely disagree with scientists who think of themselves and their peers as the ultimate source of knowledge or the enlightned ones. I mean I have talked to them XD... they are normal people like you and me, and have such a frightening knowledge of their fields... but outside of that, you can easiyl outwit them.

    I guess we humans like to feel ..... or have some sort of a power, even if it is just in a form of an abstraction.

    ReplyDelete
  60. bigot with changing nicSeptember 28, 2011 at 11:00 AM

    @crusadeREX
    "Your position is hostile to reason; but more importantly it is hostile to the civilization I live in, and to the people who live here with me."
    "That makes you the party to 'the enemy.'"
    "You are to religion and philosophy as the Klan is to Black folks."


    You are insane.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The Kitzmiller transcripts demonstrate this clearly.

    Put anon on record: He believes that scientific questions are properly decided by Republican judges.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Matteo: As usual, you miss the point. Creationism isn't science. Intelligent design isn't science. But the point of bringing up Kitzmiller wasn't to show this one way or the other via the court findings.

    The point was to show the evolution of creationism into intelligent design via the documents that were produced at the trial (look up "cdesign proponentiststs" for the full story). And the issue there is the intent of the proponents of creationism and intelligent design - and their efforts to mask the rebranding of creationism using the cloak of "intelligent design" was laid bare. The question is not what is science (even though neither creationism or intelligent design are), but rather the motivations of their proponents.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The question is not what is science (even though neither creationism or intelligent design are), but rather the motivations of their proponents.

    And what, then, am I to conclude about the "science" espoused by those whose primary motive is quite obviously atheism uber alles?

    Oh, that's right. Only theists have motives.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Matteo: Given that the majority of religious people seem to find no problem with the science of the theory of evolution by natural selection, I think your line of reasoning is flawed.

    And of course, your spurious claim does nothing to counter the point that "intelligent design" is simply creationism dressed up in an effort to evade the prohibitions against teaching religious material in public schools.

    ReplyDelete
  65. And of course, your spurious claim does nothing to counter the point that "intelligent design" is simply creationism dressed up in an effort to evade the prohibitions against teaching religious material in public schools.

    Why would I spend any time countering something that doesn't rise to the level of being a point? I've been reading up on Intelligent Design for the last 15 years. You give absolutely no indication that you have even the remotest idea what you are talking about.

    If you have something against anything in the ID works, then argue against it chapter and verse. Show me that you have understood the arguments as they are actually given and show me where they go wrong. In short, show me you have some intellectual integrity.

    Here's a hint: I've never read "Of Panda's and People", so I don't give a rip about that lame-assed little "cdesign proponentiststs" canard you Gnu atheist fools are always bringing up.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Matteo: Given that Behe and Dembski's claims that are central to "intelligent design" have been demolished repeatedly, I think the onus is on you to establish that there is any merit to "intelligent design". You also need to establish that it is something different than rebranded creationism, and as I pointed out before, that's going to be hard to do in a post-Kitzmiller world.

    The fact that you are ignorant concerning and the revelations that came out during the Kitzmiller trial just indicates you have no clue what you are talking about. Perhaps you should read the transcript where you will find out that Behe, the leading light of the "intelligent design" advocates, ended up admitting that he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Dembski was too cowardly to take the stand.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous, you are spouting pure, unadulterated bulls---, which is all I've come to expect from Darwinists. I am well familiar with the Kitzmiller trial, and the idea that Dembski and Behe have been "demolished" by anyone most especially the likes of Ken Miller, Dawkins, or the usual band of sorry atheist "thinkers" is absolutely ludicrous.

    Again, the onus is on you to make specific reference to specific writings, and show where they go wrong. I am completely uninterested in bare fact-free assertions that only indicate that your atheist fellow travelers have done all your thinking for you.

    It is you who made the assertion that ID is merely disguised creationism, and you who need to establish this. I've heard the same asinine crap from you guys for 15 years, and it's getting way past pathetic. Specific reference to specific arguments is what I'm after here. Give me a page number and a quote from an ID work to demonstrate that you have a familiarity with the subject which renders you even remotely qualified to cast judgment on ID. It shouldn't be difficult; undoubtedly--you being an expert and all--you have several ID books within easy reach (I mean you don't spout off about things you haven't actually studied, do you?). And tell me in your own words where the argument fails; links to Talk.Origins don't cut it. You undifferentiated herd of "freethinkers" are far too impressed by that sort of thing.

    Surprise me. It would be most refreshing to come away from a discussion with a Darwinist that doesn't leave me with an even lower opinion of them than I started with. I'd enjoy a calm discussion on the merits, but I've found that your herd is incapable of such a thing.

    Prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @Matteo
    Are you kidding? Intelligent design = creationism = bullshit. It has no place in the 21st century. And "Darwinist" is not a real word.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Typical. Pathetic.

    Your argument is not with me, but with the New Oxford Dictionary, Webster's, and American Heritage.

    You illustrate only that you make your assertions in complete ignorance, even though reference works are easily at hand.

    Again: wretched, pathetic, ineffective.

    You do your herd great honor.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Yeah, whatever. It doesn't change the fact that creationism is bullshit with no relationship to reality.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Again, the onus is on you to make specific reference to specific writings, and show where they go wrong.

    Behe was destroyed in the Kitzmiller trial. He didn't know what the hell he was talking about, and that was shown clearly. He claimed that there was no way for the immune system to have evolved, and then was shown to have never read the piles of scientific literature that was directly on point that demonstrated that yes, the immune system could have evolved. Behe is a clown. And as was clearly shown, an uninformed clown at that.

    Let's go with some irreducible complexity. The flagellum is not irreducibly complex. The immune system is not irreducibly complex. There has never been a structure identified by the "intelligent design" movement that has actually been irreducibly complex. Like all creationist whining, it simply has no evidence to support it.

    Dembski isn't even as good at this as Behe. At least Behe had a half-baked idea. Dembski's "specified complexity" has no content at all.

    Clearly you are unfamiliar with the Kitzmiller trial, based upon your bleating about it. Because if you were, you'd know the direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. There's a reason for the "cdesign proponentists" line. It is because the editing process showed that all it took to change a "creationist" text book into an "intelligent design" textbook" was to replace the words "creaionists" with "design proponents". They are the same thing, just dressed in different clothes. You clowns aren't fooling anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  72. You simply have no idea how to make an argument, do you? Once again you have presented a blizzard of bare assertions that only pile up what you need to substantiate. If you wish to be taken seriously, you will now need to:

    1: Demonstrate from the massive literature dump so theatrically foisted on Behe precisely how they refute any of Behe's specific contentions about the immune system as stated specifically in, say, Darwin's Black Box. You will need to also refer to Behe's defenses of his ideas that came after the trial.

    2: Demonstrate from Behe's own definition of irreducible complexity that the flagellum fails as an example. Also demonstrate that alternative explanations of how the flagellum came into existence have precisely accounted for the many and cogent issues brought up by the IDists.

    3: Demonstrate from Dembski's specific writings that his defense of the idea of specified complexity fails.

    You have failed, and failed utterly to do any of these things. The only thing you have demonstrated is the tendency of Darwinists to go into a state of complete bellowing red-faced apoplexy any time someone questions their ideology.

    The onus is not on me to defend ID. It is you who keep shrieking like a frightened schoolgirl that it equates to creationism. And you who have only succeeded in shrieking louder and louder when it is pointed out that your previous shrieks were completely devoid of substantive content.

    I am not interested in the vomiting forth of the usual collection of internet Darwinist bumper sticker slogans. Is that all you're capable of?

    ReplyDelete
  73. >implying creationism is not a mental disorder

    ReplyDelete