(paraphrased) Nice to know that ID is in the business of filling the gaps, seems that Ben Stein does realize that ID is just a variant of God of the Gaps. However, like so many other ID proponents, Ben has been misled to believe that ID adds new knowledge to the theory. It doesn't. Did he not get Bill's memo? Did Ben not get a copy of the Wedge document?ID is an effort to fill in the gaps, and is a sincere effort to add new knowledge to the theory.
— Ben Stein
Since ID proponents argue, without much merit, that they are being censored, I invite them to explain on this thread to us what knowledge ID has added to science. Ideally, this would be knowledge which would not have been added to science were it not for Intelligent Design's "revolutionary approach" which involved avoiding to deal in 'pathetic levels of detail'. Read more at PharyngulaAs for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”
— Bill Dembski
34 Comments
tacitus · 23 October 2007
They showed an extended "Expelled" trailer at the Values Voters Summit last Friday where Ben Stein also spoke live.
Click here for the link to the C-SPAN video.
The lengthy clip starts at 27:22 and Stein speaks afterwards (and yes, it's bad).
George · 23 October 2007
So god is diminished by every new discovery and eventually into the limit of nothingness. Of course, as Dembski points out, there are two more gaps for god to fill with every new discovery of science, the bad news is the gaps, and thus god, are becoming ever less interesting.
What a sad concept to cling to. St Augustine warned these folks not be so foolish many years ago.
Sr. Piltdown · 23 October 2007
St. Augustine also warned of the sin of taking part in premarital sex after taking the liberty of doing some research of his own. It's probably best not to put too much merit in the words of any one person.
Mike from Ottawa · 23 October 2007
George wasn't putting too much value on Augustine's words, but pointing out that a prominent co-religionist of theirs, who IDers thus should know about, had warned them in the past so there's no excuse for the IDers now. I mean, if the little known pagan Roman philosopher Lurcio had said it, it wouldn't be so embarrassing.
And since when do we fans of science look down on someone for doing actual research before pronouncing on a matter? In that too, Augustine departed from the IDers.
Ben Major · 23 October 2007
ID proponent Michael Behe has done a great job of promoting science with his latest book - Edge of Evolution. Panda Thumb contributor Abbie really didn't know much science and tried to play in Behe's league. Dr. Behe gave her a good lesson about science on his blog at Amazon ... something of a gentle spanking. Guys like Ken Miller and Dawkins are going to avoid making further comments on Behe because they get trumped by him every time they take a swing at ID.
The latest to get drubbed by Behe is Paul Gross. Behe has answered lesser known Darwinists like Kwok and Abbie but the real deal will be when the NCSE pulls out all the stops, quits hiding and tries to take on Behe with evidence of their beliefs.
Science is about measuring things. Behe's EoE takes that idea and runs with it. When you try to measure evidence for evolution and you take guessing off the table then there is nothing but faith going for ToE -- (belief in the unseen for which there is no evidence).
Panda's Thumb people can perform a useful function ... try to induce the likes of Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne (or even PZ) to take on Behe and defeat him. behe just placed a major thumping on the head of Sean Carroll on pyrimethamine in a back and forth at Science -- for the full story see: http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2
So the natural next step is for Sean to run and hide from Mehe while claiming victory. Miller doesn't even try.
Your key guys are in hiding and Behe prevails in an open discussion. Ben Stein merely makes the case how much prejudice there is against people who know more than Darwinists. O'Reilly made the point that Darwinists can't explain origins. So only the most prejudiced and nonthinkers in our society remain closed minded and believe blindly in evolution.
Behe has shown there is insufficient evidence for anyone to believe in Darwinism but Darwinists are people of faith and hate other faiths. That's what the Panda's Thumb really exposes. Folks here have hatred of beliefs not in line for anything other than blind faith in evolution.
O'Reilly correctly pointed out that no one knows what created life and Darwin and derivative thoughts from his can't explain the existence of life we see about us.
The correct position is that we don't know but that position can't be talked about in schools where the faith in Darwin may not be challenged. Darwinism is a state sponsored religion. Behe has shown Darwinism is faith and not science. The high priests of Darwinism are ducking Behe for fear of losing their flocks.
George · 23 October 2007
It is funny how the ID/creationist crowd seems to always get confused about evolution. Evolution does not directly theorize on the origin of life, rather the origin of species from common descent.
Although, it is very intersting how the study of evolution is pointing the way back to the formation of life as well. There is a very intersting paper by Wolf and Koonin on the origin of the translation system pointing to a primitive version of the Darwin-Eigen cycle.
Pete Dunkelberg · 23 October 2007
Pv or PZ, is a word left out here?
"Ideally, this would be knowledge which would not have been added to science were it not for Intelligent Design’s “revolutionary approach” which involved avoiding to deal in ‘pathetic levels of detail’."
Pete Dunkelberg · 23 October 2007
"Syntax Error:"
Don't give me that. I didn't use any html or other special symbols.
PvM · 23 October 2007
Pete Dunkelberg · 23 October 2007
"Syntax Error:"
was a word left out here
"Ideally, this would be knowledge which would not have been added to science were it not for Intelligent Design’s “revolutionary approach” which involved avoiding ??? to deal in ‘pathetic levels of detail’."
Albatrossity · 23 October 2007
Raging Bee · 23 October 2007
St. Augustine also warned of the sin of taking part in premarital sex after taking the liberty of doing some research of his own. It’s probably best not to put too much merit in the words of any one person.
Well, he's still more reliable than all those sexophobes who DIDN'T do any research before they opened their mouths. And either way, this is irrelevant to the obvious rightness and good sense of his comments on belief vs. science.
Raging Bee · 23 October 2007
...nothing but faith going for ToE – (belief in the unseen for which there is no evidence).
Ben, this statement is so shamelessly dishonest (even most creationists admit there's evidence for evolution) that nothing else you say can ever be trusted. Go back to bed and stop pretending to be an adult -- you just can't do it.
Raging Bee · 23 October 2007
One more thing, Ben: how do you explain Behe's total collapse at the Dover trial?
Reed A. Cartwright · 23 October 2007
raven · 23 October 2007
Dale Husband · 23 October 2007
Ben Major proves that anyone can say anything, no matter how blatantly false, as long as you have access to the internet and need not fear being held accountable for your ludicrious words.
PvM · 23 October 2007
hoary puccoon · 23 October 2007
Ben Major,
If Behe is so fabulous at drubbing his critics, why is the comments section at Amazon disabled? It isn't as if he has a monumental pile of peer-reviewed papers coming out that are taking up his time.
Behe would have plenty of time to answer all his critics-- if he would admit it whenever they make a valid point. Then he could change his research accordingly and actually accomplish something.
That's how real scientists make progress. But that might shake up your prejudices, so you don't like to see that, do you?
PvM · 23 October 2007
mgarelick · 23 October 2007
Bob Couch · 23 October 2007
You folks here at Panda's Thumb missed picking up on good idea that Ben Major presented to you. What would be really interesting would be to see a guy with the stature of a Ken Miller engage Behe in an extended discussion of design at Behe's very own blog. Behe drubbed Sean Carroll on pyrimethamine in Science but then who is Sean Carroll compared to Ken Miller? Behe couldn't resist responding to Ken Miller so it is Miller who needs to be encouraged to quit hiding behind the judicial robes of Judge Jones from the Dover case and take on Behe on his (Behe's) home turf, his blog.
Behe can go around beating up on the Abbies and Sean Carrolls of the world and so what? Ken Miller was the expert witness for Darwin at the Dover trial so Miller is candidate numero uno to defeat Behe. Pitting Behe vs Miller at Behe's own blog would be like Rodan and Godzilla duking it out over Tokyo with all the Panda's Thumb/NCSE population and creationists in panic running around on the streets trying not to become collateral damage.
A suitable substitute for Ken Miller might be David Ussery (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/evolut.html#refs
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave) -- but this would have to be submitted to a vote of by Darwinists or perhaps just Darwinists with credentials recognized by other Darwinists. In other words a qualified set of Darwin experts would have to agree that it is ok to swap out Ussery for Ken Miller.
Note that David Ussery has been totally mute on Edge of Evolution. Ussery can't explain the origin of information content in DNA so maybe that explains his silence. Ussery published a peer-reviewed article refuting Behe's Darwin's Black Box but he has been curiously silent on Edge of Evolution. My guess is that Ussery knows Behe, by measuring what Dariwn's idea can do and not do, now totally has the upper hand and is in extended hiding. Since Behe now measures evolution, Ussery's guesses and speculation about cilia become meaningless. Adios David, he has taken his single shot in support of Darwin and appears to have run away for good.
If Ussery declines the challenge then another suitable big hitter in the world of Darwinism could be substituted but everyone on Darwin's team of note would have to agree that this person is as good as there is in explaining Darwin has a place in science.
Thus when or if Behe disposes of your champion (it is possible, that is what science is all about) then you all will have to agree that Behe is correct and Darwin was just an oddity holdover from primitive science of the 19th century. Failues like the Speckled Moth, Piltdown Man and Haeckel's forgeries, don't dampen enthusiasm for Darwin or get his advocates to admit that he was all wet. By the dated thinking of the periodd (following the thinking of Malthus) England would be dark by now and Darwin came to his ideas by following the ideas of Malthus.
No dodging on this one, if Behe disposes of your best champion then admit as adults that you are wrong and have been wrong all along. If you can never admit that you are wrong then Darwin can't be falsified and thus is not a pet of science. So you guys have a vwey visible role to play, just keeping on like you keep on.
The current traffic at Behe's blog from Darwin's supporters is virtually 100% noise and we all know about stochastic processes and what they are capable of. What we need is a top guy from the Darwin team to either beat Behe or get beaten.
Ben Major added value and moved the ball down the field, now let's see if Darwin's champoins will remain in hiding or see if a top one of them will meet him in a face off on science. Mano-a-mano. Best science wins.
My bet is this --> Ken Miller and David Ussery will remain in hiding and lesser lights (like the Sean Carrolls and Abbies) run out and take an occassional shot at Behe (at his blog or elsewhere) and claim victory and not understand when they have been bested when he chooses to answer them.
Failure of Miller or Ussery to take up this challenge is evidence that Darwinism is fake and science driven by evidence.
Prediction Ussery and Miller will remain in hiding and not engage Behe at his blog.
Panda's Thunb experts can gauge how long they *Ussery and Miller)can remain in hiding before Behe is granted the victory by default. The team here at Panda's Thumb should make the call on when Behe gets the walkover victory.
It took Behe several months to engage Abbie and dismiss the points that she raised. And Darwin's advocates have chided him for taking so long to redress her errors.
So to be fair ... how about we call Behe the victor over Darwin if Ken Miller or David Ussery fail to engage Behe at his blog in say 3 months. That is plenty of time for either one of them to defeat Behe since most of you guys here at Panda's Thumb say Behe has nothing going for his arguments.
Such a failure to appear by Miller and/or Ussery will be evidence so strong against Darwin that it could be considered proof that Darwin's ideas are 100% bogus, they don't explain life ... it will say that Darwin gave all you materialists a head fake and can't stand scrutiny.
Here's Ken's contact information:
Kenneth R. Miller
Professor of Biology
Box G-L211
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912
Office: Sidney Frank Hall 211
Laboratory: Biomedical Center 273
Telephone: 401-863-3410
e-mail: Kenneth_Miller@Brown.edu
One of you should forward this and tell him that Behe stands ready to dispense with Darwin in a fair discussion.
Ussery's email is: dave@cbs.dtu.dk.
Two of Darwin's leading champions have now been officially challenged to defend Darwin and make a case that his ideas should be part of science and taught in high school biology classes. My money is on the proposition that neither one of them have to nerve or belief in their own ideas to be able to stand up to Michael Behe. Many here would take the challenge but you have nothing to lose when behe bests your ideas in support of Darwin (and the ideas that flowed from his notions).
Ben Major got the ball rolling. Don't you guys fumble the ball and come back with complaints or criticisms of me. Keep focused. Keep your eye on the ball. If Ussery, Campbell won't engage Behe at his blog then it is game over. Behe wins, science wins and kids win. The big loser will be people with faith in materialism, but that argument was a loser from the gitgo.
Bob
PvM · 23 October 2007
Bob Couch, either post under your original name "Ben Major" or accept a move to the bathroom wall.
Simon Heffer · 24 October 2007
which involved avoiding having to deal in ‘pathetic levels of detail’.
or perhapswhich involved avoiding dealing in ‘pathetic levels of detail’.
Mr Picky (first post - be gentle)JonB · 24 October 2007
>You used angle brackets, which are html symbols.
>The proper way to use such symbols is via html entities: ‘<’ and ‘>’.
Do you guys need a hand with your perl?
Get tainting turned on - it looks like you're waiting for an injection attack.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 24 October 2007
Acleron · 24 October 2007
If god was an intelligent designer, why did he make creationist/IDers?
Rob · 24 October 2007
"ID proponent Michael Behe has done a great job of promoting science with his latest book - Edge of Evolution. Panda Thumb contributor Abbie really didn’t know much science and tried to play in Behe’s league. Dr. Behe gave her a good lesson about science on his blog at Amazon … something of a gentle spanking. Guys like Ken Miller and Dawkins are going to avoid making further comments on Behe because they get trumped by him every time they take a swing at ID."
Meanwhile, back in the real world, what actually happened was that Behe himself (not directly because as far as I know he didn't join the debate unless it was under another username, but in response to the comments he had posted), as well as various people defending him got absolutely schooled. One guy had to actually explain the basic definitions of words such as design to one of the pro ID guys as he seemed to have no grasp on what they meant.
I was as impressed with their patience as much as their scientific arguments - I would have put a chair through my computer screen in frustration if I'd been arguing with morons like that.
mark · 24 October 2007
Stanton · 24 October 2007
Henry J · 24 October 2007
Richard · 25 October 2007
Hey! There is nothing funny about the platypus! It's a beautiful animal! (I'm Aussie, by the way)
Bill Doby · 15 April 2008
I will pray for you All.
Rick R · 15 April 2008
Thanks Bill. Pray for anyone you want.
Just remember to think for yourself.