About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 2:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I want to make an observation here about "trollcraft" & related matters.

First, it should be obvious enough to anyone with a brain that Intelligent Design is bollocks. Doesn't mean that it is obvious to everyone with a brain, or that no one with a brain will ever sign up to it. Lots of people with brains do. So, like it or lump it, we're going to have these arguments. As I said to Adam last night, in one form or another, this superstition has been around for a long time. Dismissing it as "trollcraft" is not going to make it go away.

But a simple expedient could easily have preempted the cluttering of the SOLO board with irritating Intelligent Design threads these last few days. That is, ignoring anyone who posts pseudonymously. Such a person is by definition a coward, & a coward is about the lowest apology for a human being that one can be. So why dignify such an entity by engaging him? "Grammarian" is clearly an accomplished sophist, but we've had a few of those: Next Level, Arbuthnot Gorgonzola (or whoever) & the like. Right now there's an I. N Rand on the loose. For all I know they might all be one & the same. Whatever, he is/they are cowardly & unworthy of engagement. So DON'T ENGAGE THEM.

You might ask, why not just ban pseudonyms? Because there's nothing to stop "Grammarian" coming back as John Smith, & how would we know that's not his real name? So we leave it to SOLOists' better judgement as to whether to engage pseudonymous posters or not. For me, my rule is hard & fast. DON'T!!

Linz
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo
on 8/20, 2:58am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 4:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith.
 
Correct!
 
Creationism and ID are not sciences, but attempted negations of science motivated by fear of losing faith in God.


Post 2

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is one of the two links that Jody Allen Gomez gave under the thread "Intelligent Design: What Does It Accomplish?", post #158.  Thank you for the links, Jody.

Here is another webpage with links to several articles about the people/topics The Grammarian is fond of. Included are some about William Dembski, Behe's notion of "irreducible complexity" and the bacterial flagellum.
http://www.talkdesign.org/articles.html

Now I turn to the subject of Lindsay's post. He has a simple guideline he chooses to follow. That's fine, but as individualists we can each form our own guidelines. I might even follow his if I have little or no interest in the subject matter. However, if I do have an interest and the alleged troll presents some intriguing arguments in a civil way, I will read more and maybe even engage him or her. Doing so affords opportunities for gain.

Firstly, one can add to one's knowledge. In The Grammarian's case he/she presented some ideas I hadn't heard before on a topic I don't know a lot about -- evolutionary biology. Merely trying to understand an alleged troll's claims may prompt further research on the topic. Further, I might learn a lot more trying to come up with arguments against his or her claims, such as by reading the articles at the links mentioned above.

Secondly, whatever positions I personally hold, I want to know the best arguments against them. Such arguments may offer the opportunity to strengthen my own position. Analogously, a person playing chess, baseball, or whatever has more to gain competing against high caliber competition than low caliber competition.

Thirdly, there is little to gain by reading stuff you already know and agree with or "preaching to the choir".

Maybe Lindsay will try to "tar and feather" me for saying this. If he does, I may follow his (or Adam's) advice and ignore him. :-)

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 8/20, 6:44am)


Post 3

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 10:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The proponents in this debate appear to be unevenly matched.

 

Jonathan Wells received two Ph.D.'s, one in molecular and cell biology from the University of California, Berkeley, and one in religious studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and has taught biology at California State University, Hayward. Wells is also the author of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong (Regnery Publishing, 2000).

 

 

William A. Dembski, who holds Ph.D.'s in mathematics and philosophy, is an associate research professor at Baylor University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute in Seattle. His books include The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998) and No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence (Rowman and Littlefield, 2001). http://www.designinference.com/

 

Michael J. Behe, who received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978, is a professor of biological sciences at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University. His current research involves the roles of design and natural selection in building protein structure. His book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution is available in paperback (Touchstone Books, 1998).
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html

 

 

Eugenie C. Scott holds a Ph.D. in physical anthropology. In 1987, after teaching physical anthropology at the university level for fifteen years, she became executive director of the National Center for Science Education.(???) She is currently also the president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

 

Barbara Forrest is an associate professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University. She received her Ph.D. from Tulane University. Her recent scholarly publications include "The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution," Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Dec. 2000.

 

Robert T. Pennock is an associate professor of science and technology studies and associate professor of philosophy in Michigan State University's Lyman Briggs School and department of philosophy. He is the author of Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (MIT Press, 1999) and editor of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives (MIT Press, 2001).

 

Kenneth R. Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University. His research work on cell membrane structure and function has been reported in such journals as Nature, Cell, and the Journal of Cell Biology. Miller is co-author of several widely used high school and college biology textbooks, and in 1999 he published Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (Cliff Street Books).

 

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

 

Linz, here is the answer to the question you asked on another page.

 

 

ID does not have anything to do with God, unless you insist it does.

 

 

Evolution does this, evolution does that, it creates, it splices, it dices, it deletes your term paper. 

 

A couple of quotes from one of the against, Miller:

 

The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system.

 

Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems -- they see evolution.

 

What is this evolution that ‘duplicates, retargets, and modifies?  What is the thing called evolution seen by ‘working researchers’?   It is not enough to name it, like you would a pet.  It must be identified!  What is it composed of?  Where is it located? Does it exist elsewhere in the universe, or only on Earth?  Why does it do what it does? How does it do what it does? 

 

Are it's actions purposeful or random?  Some claim it makes mistakes. Is that assessment anthropomorphic, is evolution akin to some drooling village idiot?  I guess not, because most people agree that it appears to be intelligent.  Does that make it a God?  I can’t see why it would, anymore than making chicken soup would make me a God.  

 

The only thing we seem to know about this process is that it designs stuff and is smart, and that is all we have cared to know for 150 years.  I think it is time to know more. If this debate achieves that goal, I will be a happier man.

 

 


Post 4

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 2:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Davison wrote:
The proponents in this debate appear to be unevenly matched.
So who is outmatched? And why?


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 2:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sounds like another of Mr. Davison's attempts at petty ad hominem attacks.  A habit he can't seem to break away from.

 - Jason


Post 6

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Davison, evolution is a process found in reality. I identified evolution here.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think I've addressed this before, but I'm tired of people trying to skirt around what they really believe.  I.D. proponents are continuously saying things such as "this doesn't necessarily imply god", or as Robert said "Does that make it a God?  I can’t see why it would, anymore than making chicken soup would make me a God."  I've asked this of others and have been ignored, so I'll ask it of you Robert-What do you believe your intelligent designer is?  Do you believe in god?

Also, something else I have been unable to get a strait-forward answer to is the question:  Why do the implications you throw out regarding life on earth all of a sudden disappear with this uber designer you have drudged up?  How Mr. Davidson do you avoid an infinite regression?  Surely your crafty people-maker would have had to have been made by something, and that something that exibits even more complexity made by something, and that something........Get my drift Robert?  If so then answer for it.



Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The only thing we seem to know about this process is that it designs stuff and is smart"
 
You are batting .500 with that statement, better than most major league batters!
 
But now I understand why you dont care about the crap education our students are getting in science.
 
Robert, we know plenty about this process. Read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (or any book by Richard Dawkins) to get a fuller understanding. The statements you are making about evolution are frankly laughable and way off the mark. Understainding is a week of pleasurable book reading away,


Post 9

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

evolution is a process found in reality
Everything is.  Let's see there is condensation, evaporation, fermentation, the list is endless but unlike these simple natural processes; we do not actually know what evolution is or does.  To talk about atoms forming molecules and molecules combining to form something more complex is fine when discussing inorganic chemistry, but how do you get from inorganic to organic?

(Edited by Robert Davison on 8/21, 4:00pm)


Post 10

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody,

I get it.  I do not believe in God in the sense I think you mean.  I am certainly not a Christian and believe altruism is disgusting.  I do believe that we live in a benevolent universe which through the use of reason affords us great opportunities, although I don't know why it is benevolent.  Existentialists view the universe as malevolent, why? 

Who knows what this creator is?   Man can not take inanimate matter and create life, it's been tried again and again and failed.   Did the big bang create both inorganic and organic matter, in which case I guess life on earth would have been caused by pan-spermia.  Was there a big bang?   Hannes Alfen does not think so.

I will not turn the tables on you about endless chains of creation and ask you what caused the big bang, and who caused the causer of the the big bang.   We'll just agree that one day nothing exploded and the universe was the result.  No wait, one day, er, at some point in time (not wait no universe no time) uh...  

(Edited by Robert Davison on 8/21, 4:02pm)


Post 11

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

I find Dawkins personally reprehensible.  Give me another title.


Post 12

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlon,

Look at the bolded segments in the bios.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 4:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Davison:
Merlon,
Look at the bolded segments in the bios.

It's Merlin.

I suggest you read:
http://www.talkdesign.org/people/mperakh/perakh_ddq.pdf
If you still believe that academic credentials are all that matter, then please reflect on the fact that Ayn Rand had only a bachelor's degree in history.

I suggest you read the material linked by Jody Allen Gomez:
http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/niall/complexi.htm
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
Shanks & Joplin pulverize Behe. Miller (a theist) pulverizes Behe. Pennock pulverizes Dembski.
You may not agree, but that means nil to me.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 8/21, 6:50pm)


Post 14

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Davison wrote:

Dean,


evolution is a process found in reality
Everything is.  Let's see there is condensation, evaporation, fermentation, the list is endless but unlike these simple natural processes; we do not actually know what evolution is or does.  To talk about atoms forming molecules and molecules combining to form something more complex is fine when discussing inorganic chemistry, but how do you get from inorganic to organic?

You see the intellectual bigotry involved in Dean's position?  Because evolution is found in reality, apparently only evolution can be used to explain reality; no other explanations -- even those we have obvious experience with, such as intelligence -- are allowed.  No one has ever denied that random variation exists, and that Natural Selection (however you want to define it) "culls" certain gene frequencies out of the population, at least temporarily.  ID and other anti-NDT persons simply affirm, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) that there's never been a new body plan, phylum, or species observed to come into existence by that particular process.  Darwinian evolution is great for explaining how we get one variety of dog from another variety of dog; or one kind of rose from an earlier kind of rose.  It fails at explaining the origin of life, origin of species, and appearances of new species with no predecessors at all.  The fossil record is evidence against Darwinism, not in favor of it.  Darwinists finally recognize this.  Their strategy is always to theorize about those areas of the fossil record that really are geologically broken and incomplete for various reasons (such as the fossil record for man), and to ignore the unbroken fossil record of marine life as clearly seen in the Cambrian Explosion, in which 50 or more different new body plans suddenly appear with no intermediates and no predecessors.  They simply appear.  It's fun to make up theories about missing links and the fossils such a thing would leave -- gee, if only the hominid record were complete.  Shucks; too bad it ain't.  It's the lack of evidence that permits the endless "Just So" stories in the guise of science to continue getting peer reviewed, published, and printed.  Obviously, there's nothing to disprove them; and the thing that could disprove them, they don't want to talk about.

Most Darwinists should take a refresher course on Pasteur, who refuted the theory of spontaneous generation of life and proposed a principle of "biogenesis":  Life only comes from other life.

So called "abiogenesis" -- living from non-living -- is a non-starter.  It was from contemplating the insurmountable problems associated with abiogenesis that Sir Francis Crick claimed (tongue in cheek?) that space aliens came to earth, invented terrestrial life, and went back to their summer homes.  It was from contemplating the insurmountable problems associated with abiogenesis that Sir Antony Flew (long time advocate of philosophical atheism) suddenly turned around in the frosty winter years of his life, stuck his tongue out at his colleagues, and said "I've changed my mind.  Life was initially created by means of intelligence; had to be.  The rest, I'll grant, may have developed as per Darwinist scenarios; but not the creation of life."


Post 15

Monday, August 22, 2005 - 10:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

I understand that degrees can be irrelevant, but they are not always irrelevant or we should tear down our universities. Is that what you are implying?

As to link 2--I live 20 miles from ETSU, so I know what that's worth.
RE: link 3--That is the article that got us into this discussion in the first place.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 8/22, 10:40am)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.