A Response to Berlinski

Problem: Berlinski can point to the April 1 publishing date and accuse the opposition of not having a sense of humour. I suppose in response one might accuse him of not being funny. :)

Berlinski prefers superciliousness to humor, so it would be quite a new approach if he were suddenly trying to be funny (instead of doing it inadvertently).

From WordNet:
invidious -- containing or implying a slight or showing prejudice

Are Dembski's (quoted above) analogies invidious? I don't think they are intended to contain or imply a slight, so much as to reflect on Dembski's experience - as to whether they show prejudice, that depends upon whether the reason he used the analogy was true or not. They certainly aren't as abusive as the language generally used of anybody opposed to evolution on Panda's Thumb. Methinks you protest too much.

Let's see... misspelling a name is a breach of etiquette worthy of being the basis of an op-ed article, but noting that the person whose name was misspelled has compared his critics to the Soviets, Sen. McCarthy, and the Taliban is too trivial to rate a mention. Ok, I think I've got where aCTa is coming from. I think "invidious" is a demure understatement of the reality. Mark Perakh and I covered this territory in detail last year.

aCTa also overlooks the specificity of Berlinski's claim, that the biologists on Panda's Thumb were the parties responsible for misspelling Dembski's name and laughing it up. Berlinski's claim wasn't about the "language generally used" here. As one of the those very specifically accused by Berlinski, am I wrong to protest an out-and-out falsehood printed in the media? I don't think so.

That's an odd definition of 'invidious.' I think it is more generally read to mean 'antagonistic,' or 'hostile,' with a connotation of arbitrariness. In any event, under either your definition or mine, yes, Dembski's rash comparisons of honest scientists to mass murderers and perpetrators of atrocities is invidious.

They certainly aren't as abusive as the language generally used of anybody opposed to evolution on Panda's Thumb. Methinks you protest too much.

— aCTa

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5)

— Jesus

[from ... rappell's absence I can safely infer the evidence I asked for doesn't exist. From that I can safely infer that the ToE is built on faith and not evidence.

—

Let's just cut to the chase: otoh, anti-evolutionists are often good misguided folk, and occasionally frankly and honestly religious who don't care a fig about science and say so. On the other hand, a considerable number of those who "lead the charge" and especially those who continue to do battle no matter how often they've been shown to be ignorant in the areas of biology and evolution, are very often arrogantly ignorant of biology and of the philosophy of science, so that once they're out of their small stock of criticisms they begin to resort to distortions, lies, and attacks on the actual experts in the science they're criticizing.

What's Berlinski supposed to be doing at this point, telling us relevant facts? Does he have any? He remains decidedly opposed to a science that he doesn't understand, but he has nothing credible to say, and so he says nothing other than to make false charges, bring up irrelevant stories, and to hold biologists up to ridicule.

I'm apprehensive like others here that all criticisms of his latest screed will be answered with, "where's your sense of humor?", and, "didn't you notice the date?" But it can't be helped, since Berlinski has run out of "bright ideas" and will opt to go for the dim ones.

But I promise not to call Dimski by the name "Dumbski", or Berdimski by the name "Berdumbski". Of course the foregoing sentence is unclever and meaningless to any honest discussion, but I'm willing to operate on Berlinski's level as long as he can only flail.

OK, I confess, I confess that a weekend of watching Adam Sandler movies led me to intentionally misspell the D-meister's name as D*mbski, which I can't do now, since I vowed to cease and desist.

However, I am outraged that I, a chemist, have been swept up with biologists, of all ilk, who were out in the forest partying while I was slaving away in a laboratory doing serious work. As for Berlinski failing to cite me specifically for my Sandleresque attempt at humor, I guess the planets weren't lined up in my favor. He should know.

A malicious man disguises himself with his lips, but in his heart he harbors deceit. Though his speech is charming, do not believe him, for seven abominations fill his heart. His malice may be concealed by deception, but his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly. (Proverbs 26:24-26)

Berlinski's condemnations certainly are lame.  Which leads to a rather obvious creative misspelling of his name...

I've tightened things up by a judicious cast of messages to the Bathroom Wall.

"The Daily Californian"

that's the UC Berkely campus paper, isn't it? It was over a decade ago since i was a grad student there, but it seems familiar.

cheers

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=18178

oh god. the humanity! I just confirmed it for myself. To see my alumn, the school that when i was there, contributed as much to evolutionary theory as any school in CA, if not the country, publish such drivel. Now i can understand free speech and all, but really! At least publish a rebuttal opinion alongside, or clarify the paper's use of Berlinski's ramblings as purely for some April Fools fun.

*sigh*

well, at least the article is appropriately titled:

"Academic Extinction"

indeed.

R. Appell - You are not the first to be banned for pointing out the 'secret' radicalism of the ID movement. I was banned there several years ago for posting an article documenting Johnson's ties to Ahmanson. The twisted pseudologic of the ARNite was that it was an 'ad hominem' attack.

The truth, it seems, is often offensive to the IDC movement.

The ARN board is a seething pit of anti-intellectualism, populated by arrogant, overconfident anti-science nitwits like Salvador and Warren Bergerson and Bertvan.

I did not affirm in my editorial that at both The Panda's Thumb and Talk Reason William Dembski was described as dumb: I observed merely that at both sites such objurgations were considered "clever beyond measure." This is the perfect truth, as a scan of posted comments might reveal. The fact that these comments were posted on a site self-described as appropriate to a urinal hardly persuades me that my observations were mistaken. May I observe, in addition, that whether William Dembski may have responded to gross intellectual vulgarity by intemperate remarks of his own is hardly relevant to the point at issue. A chaque jour suffit sa peine. I have, in addition, never claimed that criticisms of Dembski's work inevitably fail to rise beyond the level of the causal insult. I have, after all, published my own critique of his work in Commentary. If contributors to The Panda's Thumb or Talk Reason do not wish to be treated as fools, they should take more care not to write like one.

I did not affirm in my editorial that at both The Panda's Thumb and Talk Reason William Dembski was described as dumb: I observed merely that at both sites such objurgations were considered "clever beyond measure." This is the perfect truth, as a scan of posted comments might reveal.

— David Berlinski

Wearing pink tasseled slippers and conical hats covered in polka dots, Darwinian biologists are persuaded that a plot is afoot to make them look silly. At Internet web sites such as The Panda's Thumb or Talk Reason, where various eminences repair to assure one another that all is well, it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin's theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski. The Daily Californian, 2005/04/01

— David Berlinski in the

The fact that these comments were posted on a site self-described as appropriate to a urinal hardly persuades me that my observations were mistaken.

— David Berlinski

May I observe, in addition, that whether William Dembski may have responded to gross intellectual vulgarity by intemperate remarks of his own is hardly relevant to the point at issue. A chaque jour suffit sa peine.

— David Berlinski

Besides inventing infractions by critics, Berlinski's approach to etiquette is one-sided.

— I

I have, in addition, never claimed that criticisms of Dembski's work inevitably fail to rise beyond the level of the causal insult. I have, after all, published my own critique of his work in Commentary. If contributors to The Panda's Thumb or Talk Reason do not wish to be treated as fools, they should take more care not to write like one.

— David Berlinski

Dumbski indeed. Elsewhere, rhetoric is more measured, even if it conveys arguments no more compelling. The Daily Californian, 2005/04/01

— David Berlinski in

My dear dean. Allow me to set you straight. It is precisely the reputable biologists who are under attack. For the first time, they are being asked to defend the thesis that biological design is more apparent rather than real. The effort has left them breathless. They are, of course, not about to surrender their ideological allegiances. Their rhetoric fills the op-ed columns of every liberal newspaper and is conveyed additionally by academic allies whose welfare is contingent on theirs ---analytic philosophers, pop psychologists, and even newspaper columnists eager beyond measure to do anything but attentively study the evidence. The Daily Californian, 2005/04/01

— David Berlinski in

David Berlinski wrote: I did not affirm in my editorial that at both The Panda's Thumb and Talk Reason William Dembski was described as dumb: I observed merely that at both sites such objurgations were considered "clever beyond measure."

If contributors to The Panda's Thumb or Talk Reason do not wish to be treated as fools, they should take more care not to write like one.

Just for the record, Steve: "Berdumbski" is not clever beyond measure.

I just posted a review of Berlinski's mega-specious Wichita Eagle piece from last month here for anyone interested.

Wesley:

neither is Berlinski.

I observed merely that at both sites such objurgations were considered "clever beyond measure." This is the perfect truth, as a scan of posted comments might reveal.

The fact that these comments were posted on a site self-described as appropriate to a urinal hardly persuades me that my observations were mistaken.

May I observe, in addition, that whether William Dembski may have responded to gross intellectual vulgarity by intemperate remarks of his own is hardly relevant to the point at issue.

I have, in addition, never claimed that criticisms of Dembski's work inevitably fail to rise beyond the level of the causal insult. I have, after all, published my own critique of his work in Commentary.

If contributors to The Panda's Thumb or Talk Reason do not wish to be treated as fools, they should take more care not to write like one.

Berlinski seems to still be somewhat upset by collection of essays and letters at Talkreason disseminating his comments in Commentary.

Berlinski's anti-scientific scandal

Has Darwin met his match in Berlinski?

Accusing scientific response to ID to be largely rethorical, he hides ID proponents' inabilities to present any relevant scientific theory of ID. In fact, ID proponents are routinely ignoring scientific criticisms of their work in favor of rethoric, wedging their way into school curricula.

Berlinski's dislike of sites which expose the vacuity of intelligent design, as well as his own comments seems to have led him to drop any efforts to verify his claims. Luckily we have such eminences as Welsey Elsberry, to help set the record straight... Once again...

Just for the record, Steve: "Berdumbski" is not clever beyond measure.

Berlinski (Ph.D. in mathematics, Princeton University) is a lecturer and essayist... a longtime friend of the late Marcel Schützenberger, with whom he collaborated on the mathematical critique of Darwinism. Berlinski is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

objurgations

to denounce harshly:CASTIGATE --(Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

Apparently he has not been well-trained in logic or rhetoric, since his essay and response are an excellent case study for identifying logical fallacies.

— Frank

But of course I read the Panda's Thumb, the more so when so many vexed contributors are taking me to task. Where else could a man of my tastes find so much by way of misspelled indignation on a rainy afternoon in Paris? Having so solemnly insisted that they are as pure as the driven snow -- maybe purer -- the contributors that I have now read confirm the thesis that I have already made. PvM appears to believe that I am upset by the fact that Talk Reason disseminated my Commentary essays on their site. If only they had. It might have improved opinion there remarkably. What Talk Reason did do was, in fact, allow me to answer a number of criticisms. Appropriate? Yes, of course. Meritorious? Hardly. Glenn Davison appear put out that I did not properly answer his letter in Commentary. I'm sorry for it. If he will make his case again, privately if he wishes, I will try to do better. And for the record -- and for all my fans out there -- I do not find it my responsibility to defend ID, or anything else, for that matter, since I do not support ID, or anything else, for that matter.

Water under the bridge to me. Perhaps I'll take up your offer.

Where else could a man of my tastes find so much by way of misspelled indignation on a rainy afternoon in Paris?

Glenn Davison appear put out that I did not properly answer his letter in Commentary

Berlinski's ruminative but shallow history seeks to rescue it from what he sees as the misconceived derision of modern science. The author of A Tour of the Calculus remains coyly agnostic about astrology's validity. .... Readers looking for real intellectual meat behind the author's ostentatious erudition and metaphysical pseudo-profundities will go hungry.

Last year Berlinski posted 14 letters on Talk Reason where he debated Jim Downard. In one of those letters, at the very beginning of the debate, he promised to avoid remarks of personal character and ad hominems, and he kept his word. All those letters can still be seen on Talk Reason. I wonder what could cause Berlinski to suddenly resort to slandering Talk Reason in such a blatant way by falsely accusing that site of using Dembski's name misspelled as Dumbski (which in fact has never happened there). Having been caught in this falsehood, Berlinksi, instead of apologizing, has the gall to insist that he's said the truth. He knows that TR will not take him to a court for calumny, so apparently he feels safe in spitting at the site which politely provided a forum for him in his debate with Downard. Now we hear that contributors to TR are fools, while Berlinski is apparentlly much superior intellectually compared to the authors of TR articles and letters. Elsberry and others on this blog have spent a lot of time and effort to rebut the shameful escapades of Berlinski and each such rebuttal only leads to another insolent invective from that minor writer of insignificant books who for unfathomable reasons is presented as a scientist despite the absence of any evidence that he has ever conducted any scientific work. Dr. Berlinski, don't you have any sense of shame? Throwing mud on those who disagree with you hardly makes you convincing.

I am associated with the DI JUST BECAUSE they tolerate me when no one else will, striking evidence, I should think, that the DI has a more catholic reach than one would imagine. Like any other writer, I receive bad reviews -- some of them with merit. Of what conceivable relevance, I might ask, is this? A final remark. It goes without saying, I hope, that my op-ed piece was without "intellectual meat." An op-ed piece is not an essay. It is a polemical form. The Dean's essay to which I was responding was also entirely devoid of such meat. Have any of you read it? No, I thought not. If anyone has a criticism of substance to make, I would be happy to respond off-line.

...the DI has a more catholic reach than one would imagine.

Dr Berlinski,

The relevance of the review was that it fitted your Op-Ed piece quite well and, therfore, suggests a pattern - one might say a design - to your polemics. I have to admit that I hadn't realized that the point of Op-Ed pieces was to present polemical arguments as devoid of substance as possible rather than to present an opinion with at least some basis in fact.

By misrepresenting the actual situation as to the non existent abuse of Dumbski's name by the principals, both at PT and Talk Orgins, you undermine both your argument and any reputation as an honest advocate which you might have possessed.

You were handed a valuable platform from which to address faculty and students at Berkeley from which to present your point of view. In my opinion you wasted that opportunity.

Elsberry has made criticisms of substance which you have failed to address. And as for the Dean - if his remarks justified a response at all then surely they justified a reasoned and honest one as opposed to a piece littered with straw men, red herrings, ad hominems and the rest. I am sure that your audience at Berkeley wasted no time reading your piece.

Gee whiz, A real published critic of evolution! You guys are so giddy with joy I'm sure most of you have peed your pants. Russell couldn't even wait to show him how clever he was in pointing out the spelling and grammer errors of critics. Must be a real treat for you guys over the "usual trolls" such as myself.

and, embarrasingly, my mispelling of Dembski's name was a genuine slip for which I apologize. I had intended to say "Dembski's name as Dumbski." Then decided not to use "Dumbski" at all but, unfortunately, deleted the wrong version.

Apeman: Once again, that's "grammar".

And don't you owe me the answers to some questions about Darwinist Fundamentalists? Planning to duck those, too?

Apeman,

Not at all. You should read Mark Perakh's excellent book to see the manifold flaws in ID and so called "scholarly" expositions by "real published critics." The drawback to publication is that once one has published something flawed it is almost impossible to restore one's reputation. As for Dr Berlinski, well, he knows very well what he's doing. So it's hardly surprising that people such as yourself should be so easily misled by those with PhDs and, in some cases, multiple PhD's, who delight in deception.

David Berlinski: I do not find it my responsibility to defend ID, or anything else, for that matter, since I do not support ID, or anything else, for that matter. ... I am associated with the DI JUST BECAUSE they tolerate me when no one else will...

Thus the ID movement has become a "big tent," attracting people from a variety of religious backgrounds. CRSC fellow David Berlinski, who has published Commentary articles critical of Darwinism, is Jewish. Christianity Today, May 22, 2000

While I will not deny that there are many Christians involved in the intelligent design movement, there are agnostics within its ranks (David Berlinski and Todd Moody are examples). Response to James O. Goldsborough's "Another attempt to deny evolution"

Thus on purely statistical grounds one would expect most proponents of intelligent design to be Christians. But not all of them. David Berlinski is a notable counterexample. Intelligen Design Coming Clean

You guys are so giddy with joy I'm sure most of you have peed your pants.

—

Bob,

How do you know that 1) I'm not a published critic, 2) I don't have a PhD or PhDs. Most of us biologists don't have the guts to come out of the "closet". But we can admire the martyrs that do. We're to busy publishing and writing grants for real science. We recognize our professional reputation could be ruined, not by the content of what we publish, but for daring to cross the high priesthood of Darwinian Fundamentalists. Anyone's research and statements can be shredded to bits by a critical observer. I have yet to read a perfectly reported publication from a perfectly designed study. Of course you all know this, but your ideology is threatened and so fairness gets thrown out the window.

A real published critic of evolution! .... Must be a real treat for you guys over the "usual trolls" such as myself.

Most of us biologists don't have the guts to come out of the "closet". But we can admire the martyrs that do. We're to busy publishing and writing grants for real science.

A few last remarks before I go. 1) The DI is a think tank, one dealing with a very wide range of issues (regional transportation, and the like). 2) Insofar as I am associated with the DI it is because I support both their desire to give Darwinian theories a kick in the pants AND their general unhappiness with the current climate of scientific opinion. I have been doing that since 1973, long before the DI was founded. 3) Some members of the DI are interested in Christian reconstructionism, others not. I am an obvious example. But do see the list of fellows for other examples. 3) My criticisms of ID are on-line at the DI website. Friends and colleagues there do not agree with what I have said, but they regard it as very wise. 4) An op-ed piece is designed to stake out a position in rhetorically accessible form. It is not designed to provide a complete argument. I have done that in my published essays. I believe that everyone on this list understands this: And if not, they should.

I don't mind at all if anyone draws conclusions from my book, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky, provided, however, that they first read it. A review is, after all, not quite the same thing as the book itself. This is, again, something that I believe everyone on this list understands: And if not, they should.

Apology accepted Bob.

I publish in other areas of science. I consider macroevolution/abiogenesis and ID to be both more philosphical than science pursuits. But if were going to teach one as "science" in the classroom we should teach the other. Its "Fair and Balanced" you know.

Now I owe an apology to Wesley. It will refrain from incontinence cliches. I'm sure you have suffered and for that you have my sympathy. I hope your pouchitis flares are at a minimum.

You guys are so giddy with joy I'm sure most of you have peed your pants.

— Evolving Apeman

I have to say that digs based on incontinence are not "clever beyond measure", either.

— Wesley R. Elsberry

We recognize our professional reputation could be ruined, not by the content of what we publish, but for daring to cross the high priesthood of Darwinian Fundamentalists.

I don't believe science is ever a way to disprove the existence of God. But Darwinian Fundamentalists sure do.

Please cite an example of this. First, of course, you're going to have to identify some Darwinian Fundamentalists. In the course of doing that, I guess you're going to have to define "Darwinian Fundamentalist". Should be interesting.

Read "Darwin on Trial" if you would like a definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism.

Someone asked why I post on this site?

I'm just an evolving Apeman who driven by genetic mutations ("god" gene perhaps) hopes to increase the long-term propogation of his DNA or that of his close relatives (with similar DNA). I'm not sure how posting on this site does this, but I don't need to either its just amoral evolution at work. I'm not sure on what basis Russel can insult my integrity, he simply has different DNA sequencies than myself. As far as environment goes, it was ultimately the DNA sequencies of my ancestors and other chance factors that largely chose my environment.

Now let this lowely genetically inferior but still hoping to evolve Apeman step aside so you can dialogue with his hero Berlinski.

1) The DI is a think tank, one dealing with a very wide range of issues (regional transportation, and the like).

2) Insofar as I am associated with the DI it is because I support both their desire to give Darwinian theories a kick in the pants AND their general unhappiness with the current climate of scientific opinion.

3) Some members of the DI are interested in Christian reconstructionism, others not. I am an obvious example. But do see the list of fellows for other examples.

3)[sic] My criticisms of ID are on-line at the DI website. Friends and colleagues there do not agree with what I have said, but they regard it as very wise.

4) An op-ed piece is designed to stake out a position in rhetorically accessible form. It is not designed to provide a complete argument.

4) An op-ed piece is designed to stake out a position in rhetorically accessible form.

Dr. Berlinski:
I still don't understand why you let prominent ID advocates, with whom you could get in touch in a heartbeat by e-mail or phone, get away with repeatedly and publicly claiming that you are a supporter of ID, when you say in no uncertain terms you are not, and in fact are a critic of. It would seem they either regard your criticisms of ID as "soft", or irrelevant, or they are purposefully ignoring them to exploit your name and agnostic/Jewish status for their own P.R. goals. Of course, willfully misrepresenting a colleague's views to one's benefit is as serious a breach as misrepresenting the evidence. You clearly do not hold punches to publicly attack purported misrepresentations by "darwinists", why are you so shy with DI fellows?

An op-ed piece is designed to stake out a position in rhetorically accessible form. It is not designed to provide a complete argument. I have done that in my published essays. I believe that everyone on this list understands this: And if not, they should.

— David Berlinski

Berlinski's slanderous assault upon TalkReason for which TR has not provided any conceivable reason reflects his mettle of a foul-mouthed and mean-spirited character rather than a serious scientist he pretends to be.

When Berlinski first wrote a letter to TR, we replied that we'd happily post his letters provided he'd avoid remarks of personal character. He assured us that he would restrain himself and keep his coresponence strictly businesslike. Indeed, he did so and we were posting all of his letters for as long as he was submitting them. Now, PT has a policy different from TR - here comments are not screened and Berlinski has shown his real face, taking the liberty of insulting his opponents and reciprocating TR's hospitality with slander, mendaciously attributing to us misspelling Dembski's name as Dumbski, which we never did.

Anyone who is familiar with Talk Reason can easily verify that we do not resort there to rude epithets or contemptuous dismissal of our opponents' views without discussing in detail their arguments, even when they are patently wrong and/or ignorant. There have been many occasions when letters of our supporters were rejected and not posted because their authors used rude expressions. We never call our opponents "fools" or any such pejorative terms. We never try to make fun of our opponents by deliberately misspelling their names. We never make fun of our opponents' medical conditions or any personal frailties. We do not attribute to our opponents anything they have not said or written. Our opponents often do so, as Mr. Berlinski's example vividly shows.

Regarding Mr. Berlinski's supposed justification of why he is affiliated with DI, it is preposterous: obviously DI "tolerates" him because he is a staunch anti-Darwinian and that is in tune with their claimed goals. His minor disagreements with ID in general and with Dembski and Friends in particular, are almost invisible compared with his rave acclaims of Dembski's and Behe's books. On the other hand, TR has tolerated his diatribes despite his disagreement with the views of the TR team. Of course, unlike DI, TR does not offer fellowships, or grants, and pays no travel expenses.

When Berlinski calls the contributors to TR fools, a question naturally arising is "But who is the judge?"

My criticisms of ID are on-line at the DI website

ya know i don't often see his name mentioned, but even back when i was an undergrad at UCSB (20 years back), John Endler had done great studies experimentally demonstrating selction in the field.

I recently ran across a pbs online "game" made for students based on his early work.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/guppy/low_bandwidth.html

this is just an fyi, as i all too often see the "selction takes thousands of years" argument, which it doesn't. it entirely depends on the degree of mutation, the relative selective pressures, and the generation times involved.

cheers

btw, it looks like Endler moved to James Cook University. sad to see him leave UCSB. I personally thought the man to be a genius, and that's no attempt at flattery.

here is a list of his publications, which i think any here would find to be excellent pieces of work:

http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/tbiol/zoology/staff/endler.htm

cheers

Maybe Berlinski will be kind enough to provide a link, or otherwise guide your search for corroboration of his claims. He seems very accommodating, wouldn't you say?

Search on "Berlinski" on the DI Search page. There are lots there.

RBH

Well, I guess you guys showed Berlinski. Why don't we just replaced the definition in the dictionary for dishonesty with "anti-evolution" and be done with it?

Whether Dembski was called Dumbski in particular is irrelevent. The "modus operandus" of critics of ID has been to discredit their academic credentials and claim they are "dumb". I understood his point, but we maybe only we "dumb" folk can understand each other.

Whether Dembski was called Dumbski in particular is irrelevent.

Search on "Berlinski" on the DI Search page. There are lots there.

EA: The "modus operandus" of critics of ID has been to discredit their academic credentials and claim they are "dumb". I understood his point, but we maybe only we "dumb" folk can understand each other.

From a review of Why Intelligent Design Fails: In Why Intelligent Design Fails, a team of scientists call on their expertise in physics, biology, computer science, and archaeology to examine intelligent design. They take design claims at face value, without attempting to rule out the hypothesis of a designed universe just because of its supernatural overtones. They consistently find grandiose claims with no scientific merit. The questions intelligent-design advocates raise have largely already been answered, or else mainstream scientists have been making excellent progress on them with a Darwinian, naturalistic approach. After an overview of intelligent design and its intellectual context, Why Intelligent Design Fails moves on to biological claims concerning common descent, and the arguments of Michael Behe. Contributors show how the notion of "irreducible complexity" does not challenge Darwinian evolution, explaining how mainstream science comfortably accounts for examples of biochemistry, bacterial flagella, and bird wings.

From EA's ramblings: The "modus operandus" of critics of ID has been to discredit their academic credentials and claim they are "dumb".

When ID advocates stop saying things like "The tree of life is upside down!" people like me will stop calling them dumb.

Which of course, several prominent IDers aren't really dumb. They have just figured out how to part fools from their money.

steve,

Unless you are truly willing to put everything on the table including metaphysical assumptions, you will never understand why intelligent honest people support ID. You will either resort to calling them dumb despite their credentials or dishonest. People choose academics pursuits for the intellectual stimulation rather than money. I'm sure smart guys like Dembski could find less painful and easier ways to make money that don't involve as much hostility and persecution.

Naturalism can explain anything except perhaps the origin of the universe. For example, we know have the postulated "god" gene to explain the opposition to evolution by honest, intelligent people. Altruism can easily be explained by evolutionary theory. So if you want to play that game, at least be an intellectually honest amoral nihilist with no basis for assigning moral terms such as honesty.

Or consider the possibility that assuming a naturalistic explaination for unobserved, unreproducible processes only reaffirmed your assumptions.

Unless you are truly willing to put everything on the table including metaphysical assumptions, you will never understand why intelligent honest people support ID

"unless you can back it up somehow, which I doubt"

have no doubt in your mind. it literally is impossible to have scientific evidence to support ID, by definition, it is untestable using the scientific method. How on earth could they back it up?

If god him/her self came down and said: I did this! It still would make evolutionary theory no less usefull, nor ID any more usefull as predictive theory.

"You will either resort to calling them dumb despite their credentials or dishonest"

we call them so simply because of the basic failure to recognize the difference between science and philosophy. at some point, you get weary of trying to teach such basic distinctions to folks that already should know better, like yourself.

"Altruism can easily be explained by evolutionary theory"

well, it wasn't easy, that's for sure, and it exists very rarely. In most cases, what appears to be 'altruism' is in fact, just kinship.

would you like references to read that will fill you in on the history of kin selection and the study of altruism?

Off the top of my head, i can only recall one demonstrable case of altruism; the sharing of blood by vampire bats. even that has some significant detractors.

I've followed Berlinski's comments with great interest. I'm surprised by the failure to acknowledge a simple and relatively minor gaffe. If you can't even bring yourself to come clean with the little, piddling stuff...

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

RE: comparisons, invidious and otherwise. This exchange is worthy of notice, I think, in the context both of invidious comparisons and of Berlinski's unsavory friends at DI.

Kevin Padian and Alan Gishlick wrote a really great (IMHO) review of J. Wells's "Icons of Evolution" in which the author's casually abusive relationship with honesty and factuality is compared with that of the Matt Damon character in "The Talented Mr. Ripley". Rather than responding to the substantive content of that review, Wells accuses his reviewers of implying he's a sociopath and a murderer. This would be an excellent case study for one of those "can you spot 10 fallacies in this picture?" puzzles.

Read about it here.

I don't know if, between Jacques Brel records and sips of absinthe, David Berlinski has had a chance to check back in. But if he should, I'd like to invite him to consider using PT to broadcast his profundities. If I'm right, the Discovery Institute does not, in fact, advertise his criticisms of their pet project; perhaps they're less ecumenical than he supposed. And, by his logic, here at PT we think "Darwimpian" is clever beyond measure. (We and, of course, TalkReason and anyone else he'd like to embrace with his casual libel). Just think how wowed we'll be by his urbane bon mots! Of course, we can't pay him, but it's not about the money, is it?

Russell,

David said "causal insult", so surely it would be "causal libel" by parallel construction, right?

A simple question for Mr Berlinski:

*ahem*

What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method.

Thanks.

Another simple question for Mr Berlinski;

As an associate of the Discovery Institute's Center for the (Renewal of) Science and Culture, do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the Center's primary funder, Howard Ahmanson?

What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method.

But I promise not to call Dimski by the name “Dumbski”, or Berdimski by the name “Berdumbski”.

— Glen Davidson

What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method.

Didn't you see where Berlinski disowns "intelligent design theory": I do not support ID, or anything else, for that matter

"lethally allergic to answering direct questions"

snakes are immune to their own venom.

Comment #24391 Posted by Russell on April 12, 2005 07:52 AM (e) (s) ... A member of a venerable profession. Perhaps the oldest in the world.

— Russell

lol.

He is a prostitute?

well, i guess you're right, russel, it doesn't fall under the "clever beyond measure category". (just to be official about it)

:)

Re "snakes are immune to their own venom."

Are they? It seems likely, but I wouldn't assume it to be an absolute necessity.

Henry

Aren't lot of snake venoms only effective in bloodstream? When properly applied, they never enter the snake's mouth. So while the immunity would be useful (for example in cases when the snake has bleeding wound in his mouth), I wouldn't say it's required.

Reminds me of an old joke. Two snakes are slithering through the grass and one asks: "Are we poisonous snakes?" The other replies: "Don't know. Why you're asking?" "I've bit my tongue."

overanalytical bastards!

It's just an expression, gees. need me to explain in it more analytical terms?

:)

p.s.

here:

http://www.smuggled.com/snaven2.htm

I resemble that remark!

Aren't lot of snake venoms only effective in bloodstream? When properly applied, they never enter the snake's mouth. So while the immunity would be useful (for example in cases when the snake has bleeding wound in his mouth), I wouldn't say it's required.

Hey Lenny,

ever met Harry Greene in the MVZ over at Berkeley?

just thought with your interest in snakes and evolution, he would be a natural acquaintance.

cheers

ack! I guess i'm dating myself; he's over at cornell now.

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/greene/greene.html

Hey Lenny, ever met Harry Greene in the MVZ over at Berkeley? just thought with your interest in snakes and evolution, he would be a natural acquaintance. cheers

I can't imagine a large trade in that species. where did you manage to find one?

any interesting behavioral notes? I've never even heard of one in captivitiy before.

Did you or Socha publish anything on the species?

cheers

I can't imagine a large trade in that species. where did you manage to find one? any interesting behavioral notes? I've never even heard of one in captivitiy before. Did you or Socha publish anything on the species?

"As for behavior, they're very fast, very nervous, very apt to bite."

hmm, kinda what I would have expected. gotta be fast and nervous to get the nerve to jump from tree to tree, I'd wager.

BTW, I finished the first draft of the ngo proposal. I posted it on the google group, and you should have recieved an email copy from there.

anxiously awaiting input.

cheers