If you really think I'm cute when I'm pissed, I'm about to get DROP DEAD GORGEOUS.
Stay tuned, this is gonna take a while...
Dream a little dream of Me.
If I may: don't worry about it so much; blow your steam if you must, but leave the unapologetically ignorant to their own.
Hopefully, it serves as a little insight into ID--not its claims, but its mode of operation.
Who might the "unapologetically ignorant" be, blipey?
and describe ID's mode of operation, please.
Do what you have to do, but make sure after you're done you have a good laugh. You only join the ranks of many other people who have asked questions too tough to answer. Being banned when asking tough questions is just another reason why so many people can't buy into ID.
Besides it looks like DaveScot has been relinquished of his command there as well.
Scott, if you can't figure out who blipey is talking about that should be a clue.
Well, let's start with Dr. Behe. On the stand at Kitzmiller, he was shown a veritible landslide of papers refuting various of his IC arguments. Did he say that he had read, critiqued, and refuted these papers?
No, he said he hadn't had the time (desire?) to read them, but that they were irrelevant anyway. How would he know? He hadn't read them.
See any of Dembski's uses of the NFL Theorems. It seems every time he receives criticism, he goes and plugs holes. He does not work his theory from an experimental, investigative stand, but from a reactionary stand.
As for most of the other contributers / bloggers, they argue almost entirely from ignorance--I can't believe scientists are right so ID must be. See any Uncommon Descent thread.
ID mode of operation is to politically pressure public schools into a position in which they start to overthrow materialism. See the wedge document from the Discovery Institute. They do no legitimate science by hammering out their theories in the workplace. The immediately want to intrtoduce half-baked ideas into school curriculum, thereby indoctrinating a new disciples.
Yes, yes; I know they "officially" gave up this policy. I can tell by the number of press releases telling me this. It does not, however, change their core wishes.
Well, it looks like Katrina was just a light rain shower...
Catagory 6 Hurricane Jane just landed.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ummm Dave, if Behe's idea is a hypothesis, how is it everyone elses job to refute it? Itsnt it his job to prove it?
So, how exactly has he done that?
Come on, YOU KNOW I CAN'T LINK TO ANY UD THREADS...you banned me, remember?
That's just funny. Asking for something you know I can't provide--not because it doesn't exist, but because you made it impossible for me to access it. Nice.
But, while you're busy being just a commentor, look at all those previous comments by Sal, JAD, thordaddy...that used to be on UD. Oh, wait...they're probably erased aren't they? Well, if they were there, you might notice a lot of religious argument, argument from personal incredulity, etc. Just because you don't want them to be there, doesn't mean they never existed. I'm sure someone else would be glad to link you to several UD threads of this nature...BR? Guthrie?
I have been studying the issue of Irreducible Complexity for some time now and have yet to see a paper that comes even close to refuting Behe's hypothesis.
Great. When you post your credentials and supporting experimentation and argument (which is not a rehash of Behe's, but your own complimentary work), I will listen to you. Otherwise, your statement above is merely another argument from personal incredulity.
Besides, that really wasn't the point, was it? You said sight an example of willful ignorance. Behe was ignorant had no knowledge of) of the work, but felt qualified to comment on it. That is exactly what you asked for. Whether or not his or the refuting papers have any merit was really not the issue, was it? Try to keep on track.
Are you familiar with Dembski's NFL Theorems?
Are you aware that Dembski didn't create the theorems? Are you aware that the authors, themselves, written about how he misapplies them?
As for the claim regarding experimentation, the nature of said theorems is ultimately to distinguish design from unguided mechanisms. It is inherently reactionary.
Dembski's reformulation of his concept of the NFL theorems is the thing that is reactionary and shouldn't be. Try to keep the direct and indirect objects clear. He should be formulating his "theory" from testable models and hypotheses, but instead is waiting for critics to tell him what is wrong and then he fixes that part of and goes back to waiting for them to tell him how to make it better.
Come on, Dave, let me back into the viewing club...I'll point out all those things you want me to.
I need to repost this comment, the link wasn't tagged with html, which screws up my home page. It was originally just before guthrie's comment.
"veritible landslide of papers refuting various of his IC arguments".
I have been studying the issue of Irreducible Complexity for some time now and have yet to see a paper that comes even close to refuting Behe's hypothesis. What you have is a series of wishful speculations regarding the co-option canard, etc... Just-So tales about how "maybe this happened and then...". In many cases, these Just-So tales are presented as though they are testable & repeatable fact. This is not the case. IC machinery remains an enigma for those married to the notion that blind, unguided mechanisms can produce specified information and machinery.
"See any of Dembski's uses of the NFL Theorems. It seems every time he receives criticism, he goes and plugs holes. He does not work his theory from an experimental, investigative stand, but from a reactionary stand."
Are you familiar with Dembski's NFL Theorems? Every criticism I've read sets up Straw Men versions of the arguments and then proceeds to conveniently knock them down. The relevant math is always missed, or misunderstood. As for the claim regarding experimentation, the nature of said theorems is ultimately to distinguish design from unguided mechanisms. It is inherently reactionary. Don't compare apples to oranges.
"As for most of the other contributers / bloggers, they argue almost entirely from ignorance--I can't believe scientists are right so ID must be. See any Uncommon Descent thread."
Balderdash. Produce one example of an argument from incredulity presented at UD. It was the well reasoned, data-supported rebuttals of Darwinian mythology which drew me to ID in the first place. I'm a skeptical guy, blipey.
Your last paragraph doesn't really merit a response as it's simply ad hominem rhetoric that i've come to know and loathe from ID critics. The position of ID proponents has been and remains to be that public schools teach Darwinian Evolution as it is: A theory with many gaping holes which need to be addressed. And I thought everyone knew the real position of ID proponents regarding the "Wedge" document. Don't tell me you are conflating ol' Phil Johnson's views with the overall body of ID proponents! This might help you:
Discovery Link here
Certainly not, ol' Phil Johnson is a fine upstanding man.
That certainly explains the actions of the ID Network in Kansas, the ID Board in Dover, the ID board in Ohio, the ID case in California, the.... I think you get the picture.
Isn't it a little disingenuous to say that there are not ID peddlers trying to get this stuff in the schools?
Scott isn't me, Blipey.
My name is D-A-V-E-S-C-O-T
You are replying to S-C-O-T-T
And you wonder why you were banned.
Here's a link for you blipey.
Ann Coulter’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” — and my role in it
Robert Savillo, an unknown in the evo-ID wars, has entered the fray with an attack against Ann Coulter’s treatment of evolution in her new book Godless (go here for Savillo’s screed). Savillo takes me to task for letting Ann’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” pass editorial scrutiny:
Ann Coulter’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory”
Media Matters for America
. . . According to the weblog of William Dembski, a supporter of intelligent design, all of the above-mentioned falsehoods, misinformation, and distortions can be attributed to his “generous tutoring.”
The evidence reveals that Coulter’s two chapters on the theory of evolution display her own ignorance toward the subject while providing an avenue to make ad hominem attacks against scientists, progressives, and Democrats.
. . .
According to right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, “flatulent raccoon theory” is as valid as Darwinian evolution. On Page 214 of her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she states:
“Throw in enough words like imagine, perhaps, and might have — and you’ve got yourself a scientific theory! How about this: Imagine a giant raccoon passed gas and perhaps the resulting gas might have created the vast variety of life we see on Earth. And if you don’t accept the giant raccoon flatulence theory for the origin of life, you must be a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes the Earth is flat. That’s basically how the argument for evolution goes” [emphasis in original].
. . .
The jacket of Coulter’s book states that Coulter writes from a “keen appreciation for genuine science.” Inside, she credits a cadre of supporters of intelligent design:
“I couldn’t have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski, all of whom are fabulous at translating complex ideas, unlike liberal arts types, who constantly force me to the dictionary to relearn the meaning of quotidian.” . . .
The problem with Ann’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” is, of course, Where did the raccoon come from? To be an adequate theory of life, we need to couple the “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” with a “Spontaneous Large-Cute-Furry Mammal Theory,” which explains how primordial matter spontaneously generates humungous raccoons whose gas attacks ultimately generate us. Provided the “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” is coupled with this more basic theory, we have an adequate comparison with conventional evolutionary theory. If I were to advise Ann again, I would have stressed the inclusion of such a complementary theory. We can thank Robert Savillo for highlighting this difficulty.
I know Scott won't admit that this is an argument from incredulity, but there it is...
Good enough, Dave; I was thrown by your very similar posting styles. You may notice that I did not address my 1st reply to you. After Guthrie (no, I'm not throwing you under the bus for my error) addressed you as the author of a previous "scott" point, I thought it made good sense.
Now, that doesn't really clear up the problem of:
Are there any criteria that would disqualify a person from being able to make this decision?
You can find the relevant discussion and appropriately addressed comments here.
If I must repeat this point again, I will. I do not wonder why I was banned. I am fully aware of both. I agree that the IP ban was for cause and said as much. I'm still waiting for you reply to the linked question. I know why I was banned, I just want you to be a man and state it.
Feel free to continue this debate, but please continue to keep it civil. You have all done me proud, I'm amazed at how well this bunch has behaved given the passions that tend to flair on this subject.
Kisses to you all,
ooops. My mistake. Can Scott come back and back up his assertions?
Oratory is now open to everyone. PLEASE don't make me moderate it. Also, be kind enough to sign your orations.
Click the top or bottom banner to return home.