Back to the Quote Mines

My post took a few minutes to write up.

Poor Dembski, he's trying so incredibly hard to loose what credibility he has left without even realising he already lost it a long time ago. It's like one of those angry monkies at the zoo that constantly throws its feces at people to get attention.

"My post took a few minutes to write up."

Shows, too.

If I did what Dembski did for my thesis committee, I'd be kicked out of the graduate program so hard, my ass would still be bouncing (after 20 years).

Frankly, I'm astounded Dembski has the gall to complain about this. He's being sloppy and dishonest, and he's rightly being called on it.

Straighten up and face the music. Or show what kind of witness you REALLY are.

As a relative novice here, I'm wondering if someone could explain the "clock hypothesis" in relation to molecular dating. I have a rough understanding off how this dating occurs, but don't understand what these reseachers were correcting... is it an assumption that rates of mutation are constant? How does criticism of this affect other predictions of date of divergence for exampple. I thought moleculalr clocks were pretty good estimates. Obviously i'm in way over my head here, but would really like to understand the limitationsa on moleculalr dating. Thanks.

Bill will fool nobody excepting his own factotums with such a poorly written analysis. ID is long past the stage of debate. After a lot of sound and fury ID debates are all but settled with every assertion of the "movement" refuted many times over. The only reason the ID/Cists aren't hammering away at the table is the fear of having more knowledge emerge in the public domain; rendering their own statements absurd.

Dumbski writes "...... My post took a few minutes to write up. Evolutionists wrote detailed responses many times its length on places like the Pandasthumb to justify that the problem with the Cambrian explosion was not really a problem. Look: if it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be discussing it."

Indeed, Dumbski is upset that the *evolutionists* actually know how to conduct proper research, which includes examining the primary soruces. Doing actual research, examining sources, documenting claims etc. is indeed time consumming. Dumbski is a lazy ass who won't bother spending the time to conduct a proper report, so he chastizes those who do.

THanks Dumbski, for further illustrating my earlier claim regarding your research skills.

You're a slob with research.

WHo died and left you a Ph.D. ?

"Dumbski writes"

note:

not clever beyond measure.

there, now that we have that out of the way...

Gary,

Do you regard Peter Ward's position -- that the Ediacaran organisms were ancestral to the Cambrian taxa -- as correct?

My post took a few minutes to write up.

— William Dumbski

"Dumbski writes" note: not clever beyond measure. there, now that we have that out of the way . . .

— Sir_Toejam

Look: if it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be discussing it.

— William Dumbski

Do you regard Peter Ward's position --- that the Ediacaran organisms were ancestral to the Cambrian taxa --- as correct?

@malkuth.

you seem to have a small problem recognizing sarcasm when you see it.

I know, I have the same problem.

I think we should stop acting like Berlinski is extorting us. It's true---and quite obvious---that calling him 'Dumbski' is not clever beyond measure, but because this is quite obvious, there's no need to point it out everytime someone calls him Dumbski. Berlinski isn't some kind of authority figure whom we have to please. Hell, I may as well call Dembski 'Dumbski' just to spite Berlinski.

Er.. yes, apparently I do. Forget what I said.

William Dumbski wrote: Look: if it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be discussing it.

I think that it is totally irrelevant what I think about the Ediacaran.

Hi, Paul. Last time you dropped in, I askred you to tell me pleaswe what is the scientific theory of ID and how can we test it using the scientific method. You, uh, never answered. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, and not an actual attempt to run away from a question that IDers would rather not answer. So I will ask again.

And again and again and again and again. As many times as I need to, every time you show up here, until you answer.

*ahem*

What is the scientific theory of ID, and whow do we test it using the scientific method?

Something else I'm also curious about --- do you repudicate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson? If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?

Ya know, I really oughtta start proofreading before I hit that "post" button . . . .

I cann spel, I jstu cannt tipe.

Ditto Flank's question, Paul.

You can attempt to resuscitate Dembski's career until your lungs implode but what we really would like to know is:

What is the scientific theory of ID, and whow do we test it using the scientific method?

do you repudicate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson? If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?

gary asked:

"Will you come right out and say so publicly?"

answer, based on Paul's last post:

Nope.

Repudicate should be a word.

I realize it is just so very natural to switch that "e" in Dembski for a "u" in Dumbski given that he is going so far out of his way to earn the moniker but the morality-challenged creationists and credibility challenged ID types have thrown this back in the faces of the PT authors before even though these references come from public comments.

Perhaps we should refrain from altering peoples surnames to more accurately reflect their character since they are generally not the only ones using the name. There could be a long tradition of intellectual Dembskis out there of whom the current example is only a random variant who is completely maladapted to academia.

Repudicate should be a word.

— GWW

I don't disagree with the conventional wisdom expressed here but what does it accomplish other than venting some frustration and making us all quite smug? We forget that the DI isn't really interested in scientific debate at all. Their published works, like Meyer's hopeless monster, Dembski's various theorems and monographs, Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", Wells' "Icons" and Johnson's assorted publications are not written for biologists. They are written for politicians and ID's lay followers. They don't seek or expect approval from professional biologists.

Look at their full court press in the Kansas farce. They're marshalling a horde of "academics' all putative experts in "intelligent design science" to testify. They're playing to their audience of true believers who will read their testimony in the Kansas papers and hear/see their pithiest "truths" on the evening news (and I'm confident the broadcasters will pick just the quotes the DI wants). They've got a forum which gives them the official imprimatur they crave. We should recognize that we have to address the same public, not necessarily the true believers---who will never change---but the great mass of the public that doesn't understand either evolution or science and who doesn't really care about evolution or ID, and those folks comprise probably more than half the population.

I agree that every public pronouncement of Dembski and his ilk must be countered, but this is politics, not science, where the real audience, who need to buy evolution and science, is the fence sitters.

"Repudicate should be a word."

according to the American Anglican Council, it is:

from:

http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=777&c=21

"2. We repudicate the actions of General Convention that have rejected biblical truth concerning human sexuality, thereby grieving the Holy Spirit and bringing the Episcopal Church under God's judgment."

there ya go. what more authority do you want to be able to use the word?

;)

So, does Ward answer Dembski or not? If I say, "X is a problem," and you reply, "No, Prof. Smith showed that Y answers the X problem," then it matters whether Prof. Smith is right (or not) about Y.

The seemingly sudden appearance of skeletonized life has been one of the most perplexing puzzles of the fossil record.

" what does it accomplish other than venting some frustration and making us all quite smug?"

works for me.

just kidding.

really tho, you kinda HAVE to laugh at the things these folks try to pull, or you end up pulling your own hair out. anybody who spends any time on PT becomes very clear on the fact that those who spend time here know the issues of which you speak.

As far as i have seen, anyone who comes here and asks a legitimate question, gets a legitimate answer right quick.

those that come here to post deceit and drivel, get the raspberry.

Nelson writes:

"Really? In your original post last year, you cite Peter Ward's position (that the Ediacaran fauna were ancestral to the Cambrian taxa) as answering Dembski --- and thus that the Cambrian Explosion is no longer a problem.

So, does Ward answer Dembski or not?"

Ward answered that D*mbski misrepresented his position.

Nelson also writes: "If I say, "X is a problem," and you reply, "No, Prof. Smith showed that Y answers the X problem," then it matters whether Prof. Smith is right (or not) about Y."

The question before us is whether or not D*mbski represented Ward's position correctly, not whether Ward is necessarily correct. If D*mbski felt Ward was wrong, he is free to criticize Ward's views and offer evidence contradicting Ward's point of view. He is not free, however, to misrepresent Ward's POV, no matter how incorrect it may be.

As somebody else wrote, this kind of misrepresentation can get a grad student in hot water. Among professional scientists, it would damage their credibility. But rather than apologize, and present a criticism of Ward's position, D*mbski taunts his critics that they spent much more time on this than he did. Perhaps misdirection is one of D*mbski's weapons of mass disinformation.

Nelson writes: "Are the Ediacaran organisms ancestral to the Cambrian taxa?"

Beats the hell out of me.

Did the designer decide the Ediacaran fauna weren't good enough, scrap them and then start over a few million years later?

Or do you have an actual scientific theory for the Cambrian explosion which is not a dressed up attempt to argue *ignorance* is evidence?

a political catchphrase whose worth is diminishing in direct proportion to its liabilities.

If you lose your patience, you'll lose the argument, regardless of how much science is on your side. You'll never convince Dembski or make him admit defeat; the battle is for the minds of everyone else.

I sincerely believe that to Dembski, that fact that he is lying about Ward's intent really IS an irrelvant detail. The fact that he won't admit it when his face is shoved in it is NOT an irrelevant detail. Lying about what some 'evolutionist' said is perfectly fair game to Dembski's intended audience. Admitting he lied would destroy the very credibility he lies to achieve. Creationists live in a looking-glass world where lies are truth if the intent is correct, and the truth is lies if the correct intent is not ratified.

So far, this only seems to be working on 45% of the American public, but a majority isn't that far off, once the educational system falls...ur, into line.

one of the ways of conducting that battle is to continually point out how deceitful and disingenuous these folks are.

the folks that follow them should be aware of the methods they use, don't you think?

Nelson, "Really? In your original post last year, you cite Peter Ward's position (that the Ediacaran fauna were ancestral to the Cambrian taxa) as answering Dembski --- and thus that the Cambrian Explosion is no longer a problem.

I hope somebody looks at Michael's question in #28194, as I wondered about that too. I thought species in different phyla wouldn't be expected to necessarily have similar mutation rates, so offhand I'd expect a rather large margin of error when using the molecular clock to date divergence of phyla.

Henry

"Until almost 1950 the absence of metazoan fossils older than Cambrian age continued to puzzle evolutionists and earth historians alike. Other than the remains of single-celled creatures and the matlike stromatolites, it did indeed look as if larger creatures had arisen with a swiftness that made a mockery of Darwin's theory of evolution. This notion was finally put to rest, however, by the discovery of the Ediacarian and Vendian fossil faunas of the latest Precambrian age. (Pp 35)"

In other words, we learn that science has known for well over 50 years that the supposed "sudden" appearance of Cambrian fossils was invalid, and Dembski has quoted this 12 year-old book in a basically dishonest manner. Ward goes on to explain that the pre-Cambrian fossil assemblage is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory [...]

Do you regard Peter Ward's position --- that the Ediacaran organisms were ancestral to the Cambrian taxa --- as correct?

I think that it is totally irrelevant what I think about the Ediacaran. The topic is did William Dembski honestly represent what Ward thought, and clearly intended in his writing? That answer is categorically No.

Really? In your original post last year, you cite Peter Ward's position (that the Ediacaran fauna were ancestral to the Cambrian taxa) as answering Dembski --- and thus that the Cambrian Explosion is no longer a problem.

Congradulations Paul, you've entirely missed the point.

It's not that Jones cites Smith's description of the puzzle, it is that Jones cites Smith as AGREEING with him that Smith's PERSONAL opinion also agrees with Jones'. In other words, Jones is claiming that Smith thinks the same thing that he does and deliberately cherry picks a quote to prove so. Brown comes along and demonstrates that Smith actually feels that the puzzle is no longer a problem, and that Jones' description that Smith's personal opinion on the puzzle is nothing like Jones'.

Jones then rants and raves that Brown is trying to point out something entirely different, because Jones realises that he's just shot himself in the foot and been exposed.

Paul then comes along, asks a meaningless question, gets ignored for asking a meaningless question, and then reasserts his question with an analogy that demonstrates he hasn't understood the argument to begin with.

Fun this isn't it?

So answer the damn question posed by the thread, Paul!

It seems clear to the rest of us that Dembski DID misrepresent Ward's view on the issue. Whether Gary agrees with Ward or not is irrelevant.

the question posed to you was:

Do you agree?

it's a simple yes or no.

to answer that question, shouldn't you be posting cites from what Dembski pooted, rather than Gary?

You are in the thread about Dembski, not Hurd. or have you already forgotten that?

and you wonder why we accuse you folks of deflecting the issues.

The molecular clock is just an observation from the data. There is no established idea of why it holds for many divergent taxa. The fact is that the same clock doesn't hold for many different taxa. The shorter the time interval the higher the variance. If you want to invoke a molecular clock estimate you have to be able to determine if a given rate holds for the lineage in question. You can't just assume that if you've calculated the rate in one lineage that it will hold in another.

Probably the best way to get some idea of why researchers might think that a molecular clock applies is to look at some real data like the cytochrome c protein data that the creationists are always using. Even with a protein this short you see a clock like behavior in the number of substitutions observed. All the mammals will have about the same number of substitution differences relative to some bird. Birds and mammals will have a similar number of substitutions relative to frogs. All land vertebrates will have a similar number of substitutions relative to some fish. This is due to the fact that the lineages have all been evolving for the same length of time since their shared common ancestor and they have all pretty much accumlated a similar number of amino acid substitutions along each lineage. The number of substitutions along each lineage is not identical compared to some outgroup species, but they are close to each other. You would expect some scatter due to just random chance, but in the same data set you will see some lineages that have a noticably (you might say statistically significantly) higher or lower number of substitutions than expected. A lineage like nematodes can be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude different in the rate of mitochondrial DNA evolution. Obviously the lineages with more than expected number of substitutions would be on a different clock than all the lineages with a similar number of substitutions.

Molecular clocks are only ballpark estimates.

Whether Gary agrees with Ward or not is irrelevant.

WHY DOES ID PLAY ITS HAND SO BADLY?

One interesting thing I have noticed about intelligent design is that the more public proponents, i.e Johnson, Dembski and Well's are the least gifted scholars of the bunch. Meanwhile figures like Alvin , Yockey ( Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life.) And d'Abrera and that guy who headed a Moscow world conference on biology. ( and thats coming from someone who is opposed to ID) Are barely noticed for their work in ID.

Take Alvin, one of the foremost living epistemologists, rare or non existent would be the professional philosopher who is not familiar with his work. Yet the ID people don't play up his sympathies with their movement. Or take Yockey, in "Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of life. He supports ID! What's worse for us rationalists the book is actually fairly well written and makes a significant contribution to the study of the intersections of information theory and biology. Furthermore I am almost one hundred percent certain that the book was peer reviewed. Yet when discussions of ID supporting peer reviewed literature come up his name is not mentioned. To quote a scientist "why is this so?"

If the ID movement played on these scholars more they might even get some kind of grudging respect from the scientific and philosophical establishment. Yet they stick to figure heads less then able for the enormous goal they are trying to achieve, over turning one of the best corroborated theories in science. Dembski is renowned for his intellectual dishonesty, Johnson only qualifies as a lawyer and Behe, though a fairly solid scholar, has a very limited publication record.

Consider a parallel situation: 1. Smith describes a long-standing mathematical puzzle and says he has solved it. 2. Jones cites Smith's description of the puzzle, but not his solution, because the solution doesn't work. 3. Brown scolds Jones: "Hey, Smith solved that puzzle! You can't cite his description of the puzzle, as if it were still unsolved." 4. When asked if he thinks Smith actually solved the puzzle, however, Brown says he takes no position about that.

Anyway thats just my thoughts, maybe the poor people over at the DI need to find a new representitive after the debacle that Dembski has proven to be, with quote mining and all that.

The fossil record bore out his [Darwin's] conviction that the trilobites and brachiopods appeared only after a long period of evolution of ancestral forms.

well, according to Nelson, Dembski is just fine. all we need to do is simply restate the conclusions of all of the people he misquotes to a more compatible viewpoint, and then he won't be misrepresenting them any more! voila! just like magic.

very standard practice among IDers... don't play by the rules, change 'em!

Paul keeps attempting to change the subject:

" I'd like to know what you think is true. Is it the case that "ancestral [fossil] forms" exist for the Cambrian taxa?"

before anyone thinks there hasn't been a lot of work in this area, please read this, AND check out the primary literature on the subject (if you have time):

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

go figure, this little review article doesn't even reference Ward.

Paul is simply trying to bait folks.

intellectual Dembskis

Alienward wrote, quoting Peter Ward: The fossil record bore out his [Darwin's] conviction that the trilobites and brachiopods appeared only after a long period of evolution of ancestral forms. Is this true? I'm not asking you if Peter Ward thinks it's so. I'd like to know what you think is true. Is it the case that "ancestral [fossil] forms" exist for the Cambrian taxa?

Posted by Timothy Scriven on May 5, 2005 12:26 AM (e) (s) Anyway thats just my thoughts, maybe the poor people over at the DI need to find a new representitive after the debacle that Dembski has proven to be, with quote mining and all that.

Consider a parallel situation: 1. Smith describes a long-standing mathematical puzzle and says he has solved it. 2. Jones cites Smith's description of the puzzle, but not his solution, because the solution doesn't work. 3. Brown scolds Jones: "Hey, Smith solved that puzzle! You can't cite his description of the puzzle, as if it were still unsolved." 4. When asked if he thinks Smith actually solved the puzzle, however, Brown says he takes no position about that.

— Paul Nelson

Pretty convincing indicator that the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory, wouldn't you say? Note that this is not a misquote: I indicate clearly that Ward does not support ID and there's sufficient unedited material here to make clear that he really is saying that the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory. (source)

— Dembski

You'd think, therefore, that the evolutionary community might be grateful to evolution critics for drawing their attention to this problem, treating it as an incentive to get the lead out and figure out just what happened during the Cambrian.

you know, it's hilarious. I see on Dembski's blog how Evolving Apeman and Dave Scott, banned from here after literally MONTHS of ridiculous trollish posting (geez, ask ANYONE here), have run to Dembski's blog with tears in their eyes. They are even complaining about the caging of JAD.

waaaaaah.

if anyone noticed over on the bathroom wall, JAD has been labeled the "crankiest" evolutionary crank over on crank.com:

http://www.crank.net/evolution.html

so now we see the true nature of Dembski sycophants.

baby trolls.

Dembski, however, shows absolutely no signs whatsoever of being interested in a candid and open exchange of ideas.

Of course not. He's only interested in being Mr. Dembski. Like John Malkovich says about himself in Being John Malkovich: "Hello Ladies and Gentleman, I'm John Malkovich."

Thanks Mike Dunford (comment 28309). A clearly thought out and thorough response to Paul Nelson. I look forward to his reply.

Nelson writes:"Gary accused Bill Dembski of misquoting Peter Ward, because Bill didn't cite Ward's long 1992 discussion claiming that the Cambrian Explosion was no longer a problem for evolutionary theory. But Bill didn't misquote Ward. Rather, he cited Ward's description of an apparent anomaly, the abrupt appearance of the Cambrian taxa. Bill then added, in the very next sentence, that Ward was "not a creationist."

Bawahaha.

You know what this reminds me of? It reminds of the way creationists like to quote Darwin writing in OOS as saying something as complex as the eye could not have evolved. Of course as probably all of us know, Darwin proceeded to give an explanation of how something as complex as an eye could have evolved in the very next paragraph. There's no point in this case, in saying afterward, oh by the way Darwin is an evolutionist..

Setting up the *problem* is a rather typical rhetorical device. In fact that probably trivializes it, setting up the problem is an indispensable part of a good scientific paper. In science papers, people usually first describe in detail the problem or anomaly that is to be discussed before an explanation/solution is then given.

One can probably butcher half the scientific papers ever published in the manner D*mbski does. And "Oh by the way, he's a chemist" doesn't assuage the intellectual hijinx of the perpetrator.

Nelson, if you seriously think no wrongs were committed, then I can only conclude that you are morally incompetent. I can see why the DI dropped "Renewal of Culture"...

If Dembski had added, after his quote of Peter Ward, that Peter Ward spends the next dozen pages in giving a resolution, which to Dembski is unconvincing, of the Cambrian puzzle, that would have been more honest.

But you see how that undermines the import of Dembski's note. Dembski was trying to present Peter Ward as a non-IDer who has a problem with evolution. Instead, it turns out that he has a resolution to the Cambrian explosion puzzle, which is unconvincing to IDers. But then evolution is unconvincing to IDers, and that is nothing new.

In any case, I really think IDers should pay some attention to the history of science. No scientific explanation is complete or final. Newton's theory of gravity was spectacularly successful in describing the motions of the bodies in our solar system, and yet many scientists felt queasy with the mysterious action at a distance of gravity. Models were proposed which reproduce the inverse square law without action at a distance. Ultimately, around 1910-15, Einstein answered all these questions - there is no actiona at a distance - and also showed that Newton's theory was only an approximation that works well, when the bodies involved are moving slowly compared to the speed of light. Modern research may end up showing that Einstein's theory itself is an approximation to a more complete theory of gravity.

There are at least two points to note:

1. The time span over which science operates to eliminate unsatisfactory aspects of its
description of nature should be measured in centuries.

Nitpicking with evolution is not going to convince scientist.

2. Successful theories explain why the supplanted theories seemed plausible. Einstein's
theory of gravity includes Newtonian gravity as a limiting case.

Similarly, if IDers have a better theory, that theory would explain why nature presents
an appearance of evolution.

As to the scientists, I'd remind them that the enormous prestige of Sir Isaac Newton and
his undoubted and unparallelled genius and his accomplishments in science nevertheless
did not convince anyone in his more theologically-minded era, to adopt his theology.
I don't think IDers have a millionth of Newton's firepower. No need to get worked up about
them.

Did Bill Dembski misrepresent Peter Ward? No.

You know what this reminds me of? It reminds of the way creationists like to quote Darwin writing in OOS as saying something as complex as the eye could not have evolved.

But then evolution is unconvincing to IDers

In a nutshell, Ward writes "A total ignoramus might think the Cambrian represents a puzzle for evolutionary theory, but even a cursory examination of the literature shows this position is baseless."

From this, Dembski extracts "The Cambrian represents a puzzle for evolutionary theory", omits the rest of the sentence, and represents this as a valid statement of Ward's position. This extraction is in turn used to build the argument that even evolutionists recognize this serious problem, so it must be fatal after all just like ID proponents claim.

Now Nelson comes along and says there is nothing he can see the slightest bit dishonest about this extraction or the interpretation placed on it, because the issue isn't whether Dembski is misrepresenting Ward, but rather whether Ward is correct! And how about Dembski's excuse that the omitted material is "irrelevant detail"? Nelson is silent.

Once again, when conclusions are foregone and unquestionable, anything in support of them is defined as correct (including lies) and anyone telling those lies is not to be questioned. If Paul Nelson could genuinely see that Dembski is lying, he could not be a creationist.

Scientists cited in this book, unless otherwise indicated, are not proponents of, and their quoted statements are not intended as endorsements of, either the theory of abrupt appearance or the theory of creation.

The greater the difference between two thought styles, the more inhibited will be the communication of ideas. ... The principles of an alien collective are, if noticed at all, felt to be arbitrary and their possible legitimacy as begging the question. The alien way of thought seems like mysticism. The questions it rejects will often be regarded as the most important ones, its explanations as proving nothing or missing the point, its problems as often unimportant or meaningless trivialities.

To my mind, the relevant issue is whether Ward is right.

Lenny, I'm on record as saying there is currently no well-articulated theory of biological design.

To my mind, the relevant issue is whether Ward is right.

— Paul A. Nelson

Disclaimers are not adequate. Consider the commonly misrepresented quote of Darwin on the evolution of the eye. The effect of a disclaimer would be to give the impression that Darwin believed in evolution despite the absurdity. In reality Darwin's view was that it was not absurd at all and he pointed to evidence to support his view.

To my mind the real issue here is not whether Ward was right, or even Dembski's initial misrepresentation. It is Dembski's reaction to having his misrepresentation exposed.

Should Bill have added a sentence saying something like “Nevertheless, Peter Ward thinks that he has a solution to the problem of the Cambrian Explosion”? Maybe. Would that have made a difference to how Bill is treated here? Almost certainly not.

To my mind, the relevant issue is whether Ward is right.

About Howard Ahmanson. Can you document for me, with evidence, which of his currently-held views I should repudiate?

Did Bill Dembski misrepresent Peter Ward? No.

If anyone is interested, Dembski will be speaking on Tuesday, May 24th at Seattle Pacific University starting at 7:30 PM in Demaray Hall 150.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NWCreationNews/message/482

I'm sure he would be more than happy to revisit his uproariously hilarious misquotes in front of a large audience.

-Evil(tm) Evolutionist

Lenny, I'm on record as saying there is currently no well-articulated theory of biological design.

About Howard Ahmanson. Can you document for me, with evidence, which of his currently-held views I should repudiate?

If anyone is interested, Dembski will be speaking on Tuesday, May 24th at Seattle Pacific University starting at 7:30 PM in Demaray Hall 150. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NWCreationNews/message/482 . . . I'm sure he would be more than happy to revisit his uproariously hilarious misquotes in front of a large audience.

Since there IS NO SUCH THING AS "INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY", why doesn't the ID movement chan ge its name to something more accurate, like "The Anti-Evolution Movement" or "The New Creationist Movement".

Paul Nelson Said: Lenny, I'm on record as saying there is currently no well-articulated theory of biological design.

Damn autocomplete.

I prefer "The Mysterious Aliens Did It" Movement.

There is no theory of biological design.

"no well-articulated theory" is intentionally evasive.

You might want to cool it with the caps. Capitalizing whole words really doesn't improve writing.

Capitalizing whole words really doesn't improve writing.

Timothy Scriven,
Re "If the ID movement played on these scholars more they might even get some kind of grudging respect from the scientific and philosophical establishment."

My guess is that their most vocal representatives are self appointed.

Henry

Should Bill have added a sentence saying something like "Nevertheless, Peter Ward thinks that he has a solution to the problem of the Cambrian Explosion"? Maybe. Would that have made a difference to how Bill is treated here? Almost certainly not.

To my mind, the relevant issue is whether Ward is right. The formulation of a problem and its correct solution, while related, are nonetheless logically and evidentially separate matters. But it's clear that we're going to have to disagree about this. And there I'll take my leave.

Has their ever been a conference along the lines of "counter creationist tatics"? It's difficult, I've tried debating a few creationist friends and from my experience I can see how hard it must be to convince an entire country that Darwinian evolution is a better hypothesis then ID or biblical creationism. On one hand ID advocates are master data manipulators, its easy to turn to any page in a scientific textbook that ID advocates could use for their position, and its impossible to explain the complexities of biochemical explanations to a audience in a hour long debate. So the natural impulse seems to be to criticise the sociology and philosophy of ID, but then we look like intolerant bigots who won't even give ID a fair scientific hearing.

Take Dembski for example, this forum is devoted to pointing out his numerous academic dishonesties ( its amazing he even managed to get his six- count em six, degrees from proper universities.) Would it be wise while debating him to bring up, just in passing, his quote mining etc? Or would that be "against the man" It's getting urgent. Rationalists need to get their tactics together. At the beginning of this year their were 13 idea centres, now, only halfway through there are 20. At this rate the number of universities with a IDEA club will double in this year alone, and the rate will probably be even faster next year.

Considering this I propose that some interested academics get together and have a counter creationist seminar. Indeed they could even set up their own peer reviewed journal to counter ISCID, which examine not just the arguments against ID but the how ( and the why ) of debating them.

We have to take the threat seriously. Not the threat that the ID "hypothesis" will turn out to be correct but the threat that a significant number of Christian biologists might accept it as true instead of one of the more liberal accounts of god's actions in the biosphere such as Kenneth Millers. Think about it, Christian biology undergraduates join IDEA movements, people meeting in groups to reinforce each others beliefs have a tendency to maintain those beliefs. We could see a significant portion of 2025's postgraduates believing in ID, their might even be research fellowships for this sort of thing. This could do incalculable damage to such emerging fields of Darwinian medicine and cognitive science ( though some might count that as a emerged field I suppose)

We shouldn't just look at this as the battle for a few outback schools, it's a battle for the very future of the enlightenment. In the papacy that may be remembered as the ID papacy we need to create our battle plans. Some topics that could be covered in a forum would be, counter creationist rhetoric, how to simplify scientific facts without lying, and constitutional law and creationism. It could be ran as a counter to the conference Dembski is planning to hold on the one hundred fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the origin of species ( 2009). A counter creationist anthology could also be produced to commerate the origins' anniversary.

"So the natural impulse seems to be to criticise the sociology and philosophy of ID, but then we look like intolerant bigots who won't even give ID a fair scientific hearing"

ahhh, you now see the problem the dems have when bill frist stands up in the middle of a house lrgislative hearing and announces that the dems are "anti-faith"

why do you think the right wing has glomed onto the evangelical bandwagon? think they really have any more "christianity" to them than the dems? nope, they just play the religion card first and louder, and how do you attack that position here in the US?

if you are a democrat and knock bill frist, the religious right will say you are anti-faith, if you don't knock bill frist, he asks why you are standing in his way.

damned if you do, damned if you don't

this problem will not go away until one of two things happen:

people STOP thinking religion belongs in politics, or

politicians STOP taking advantage of religion for their own aims.

creationism is just the tip of the iceberg.

About Howard Ahmanson. Can you document for me, with evidence, which of his currently-held views I should repudiate?

To my mind, the relevant issue is whether Ward is right.

Yah. "Consider the following admission by Peter Ward" - Bill Dembski

So then what was Peter Ward admitting? And Dembski wrote that after having been reminded about what Peter Ward was really talking about. Obviously Dembski was pulling a fast one, and probably taunting his critics too. Get real.

the conference Dembski is planning to hold on the one hundred fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the origin of species ( 2009).

Lenny, please stop comaparing annelids to IDers. It's insulting to the annelids.

they told me to tell you so.

Lenny, please stop comaparing annelids to IDers. It's insulting to the annelids. they told me to tell you so.

steve,
Re "Damn autocomplete."
LOL

Somebody or other,
Re "There is no theory of biological design."
Unless one counts the effects of natural selection as designs. Personally, I think excluding them from things meant by "design" is a somewhat artificial restriction on the meaning of the word. But maybe that's just me? Oh well.

Henry

"What would you suggest a comparison to instead? Something spineless, slimy, blind and parasitical . . . ."

hmm, no... keep going... lower...

"Consider the following admission by Peter Ward" - Bill Dembski

warning, the following should be considered extremely insensitive. Don't continue if you have a sensitive dispostion.

I would add "intestinal" before the parasitical part, and think it a good area to select from.

How about Giardia?

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040301/1161.html

"G. lamblia is a pear-shaped, flagellated protozoan (Figure 2) that causes a wide variety of gastrointestinal complaints. "

this fits; creationists often give me ulcers.

"Giardia is arguably the most common parasite infection of humans worldwide, and the second most common in the United States after pinworm.8,9 Between 1992 and 1997, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that more than 2.5 million cases of giardiasis occur annually."

this fits; creationists are also arguably the most common parasite infecting rational thought worldwide.

"Because giardiasis is spread by fecal-oral contamination, the prevalence is higher in populations with poor sanitation, close contact, and oral-anal sexual practices."

this fits; creationists usually only speak from the position of having their head up their own *ss, or someone else's.

"The disease is commonly water-borne because Giardia is resistant to the chlorine levels in normal tap water and survives well in cold mountain streams."

this fits; no matter how much bleach we use to try to wash the taint of their lies away, it just keeps coming back. Moreover, if we consider ignorance to be a lack of knowledge, creationism seems to survive quite well under extreme oligotrophic conditions.

so my conclusion based purely on correlation, is that the two are equivalent.

Lenny said: "Indeed, as its supporters admit, "intelligent design" is ALREADY dead. They've already backpedalled from any "alternative scientific theory", and have been forced to retreat to whining about some vague undefined and unspecified "controversy" that they want to teach instead. "

On the bathroom wall I just posted an old article by William Saletan which talks about this. His opinion is that ID is creationism going out with a whimper instead of a bang: they've jettisoned all the religion and YEC nonsense they can, and they're left with nothing.

OK

When the more appropriate comment is linked from the Bathroom Wall, it is time to move on.

Thanks to all of you for your cogent remarks, and special thanks to William Dembski without whom we could not have had so much fun.